Hillarycare

[oldanforgotten]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120234937353949449.html?mod=opinion_main_review_ and_outlooks

Not sure about anyone else, but I would rather have the option to buy my own insurance for $1500 a year if I wanted it, with 3-4k coming from the government, than being forced to buy it for 3k, with the other 3-4 coming from government.

Option to buy cheaper AND subsidized insurance > Forced to buy more expensive but subsidized insurance.
________
New mexico medical marijuana dispensaries (http://newmexico.dispensaries.org/)

[Methais]

What a dumb cunt.

[Gan]

My favorite parts...



Yet if Mrs. Clinton's plan is better because it has a mandate, how does it work in the real world, where some people still won't be able to afford insurance, or would decline to acquire it? At a recent debate, the Illinois Senator drove the point home, asking Mrs. Clinton, "You can mandate it but there will still be people who can't afford it. And if they can't afford it, what are you going to fine them? Are you going to garnish their wages?" And in an interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos on Sunday, Mrs. Clinton conceded that "we will have an enforcement mechanism" that might include "you know, going after people's wages."

Mitt Romney's mandate program in Massachusetts is already expected to reach $1.35 billion in annual costs by 2011, up from $158 million today. And that's with only half of the previously uninsured currently enrolled; no less than 20% didn't qualify for subsidies and were granted exemptions because the costs were too much of a hardship.

The logic of Mr. Obama's approach is that policy makers should target those who are priced out of coverage. The Census Bureau says 38% of the uninsured earned more than $50,000 in 2006, 19% above $75,000. They aren't a major public policy problem -- except that a big reason they lack coverage is because it is more expensive than it needs to be thanks to government market interference. And 29% earn under $25,000, which means they probably qualify for existing subsidy programs like Medicaid or Schip but haven't enrolled.

[oldanforgotten]

My favorite parts...

OMGOMGOMG I got Gan to agree with Obama on something!
________
AMC AND JEEP TRANSMISSIONS SPECIFICATIONS (http://www.dodge-wiki.com/wiki/AMC_and_Jeep_transmissions)

[Gan]

Its scary how much I like Obama on *certain* issues. If I could just see him be less liberal on foreign policy and the economy he'd be my guy to vote for.

Once we see the final matchup I'll get a chance to lay out the platform of both sides and see which one matches most to my issues by priority.

If its Obama, it will take some study to see what's feasable and what's simply not got a chance to happen.

If its Hillary, it will be a very easy decision. Since my two favorite candidates were Guiliani and anyone going up against Hillary.

[oldanforgotten]

Its scary how much I like Obama on *certain* issues. If I could just see him be less liberal on foreign policy and the economy he'd be my guy to vote for.

Once we see the final matchup I'll get a chance to lay out the platform of both sides and see which one matches most to my issues by priority.

If its Obama, it will take some study to see what's feasable and what's simply not got a chance to happen.

If its Hillary, it will be a very easy decision. Since my two favorite candidates were Guiliani and anyone going up against Hillary.

I can see that. I very much like Obama's stances on healthcare, and to an extent, I like his dealings with foreign policy. I prefer his approach of open communication, even with enemies, than playing the current ?I?m not talking to you? game that most people learn at the tender age of 4 that we are currently using. I like that he was vocal in opposing the war from the beginning. I dislike his plan on pulling out troops in phases on a timeline, a place where I agree far more with McCain/Romney, because there is evidence that the surge has lowered casualties, and while war weariness is an issue, whatever keeps them safe has to take precedence over withdrawal.

Economically, I don?t agree with repealing the Bush tax cuts in entirety. I think the tax cuts should remain in place for the middle class, and phase back to the old rate for the top earners. Furthermore, the tax brackets themselves should be inflationary. They haven?t changed in decades, and 250,000 now is nowhere near the same money as it was in 1950. Instead, phasing in of a new tax bracket for 1 million and up with a higher number would be the more prudent way to go. Eliminating loopholes is another big one, and getting rid of the estate taxes, or increasing the limits to prevent family businesses from being wiped out would also help.

More importantly, I like his message, and the fact that he has the gift of being an inspirational speaker. In this day and age, that may be the greatest strength a president can have.
________
Glass pipe (http://glasspipes.net/)

[Some Rogue]

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a64/lrenzo2/130-126Big-Brother-is-Watching-You-.jpg

[Ilvane]

Saw this great article, then lost the darned source, but at least you can read it, or not.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Both plans require that private insurers offer policies to everyone, regardless of medical history. Both also allow people to buy into government-offered insurance instead.

And both plans seek to make insurance affordable to lower-income Americans. The Clinton plan is, however, more explicit about affordability, promising to limit insurance costs as a percentage of family income. And it also includes more funds for subsidies.

But the big difference is mandates: the Clinton plan requires that everyone have insurance; the Obama plan doesn't.

Mr. Obama claims that people will buy insurance if it becomes affordable. Unfortunately, the evidence says otherwise.

After all, we already have programs that make health insurance free or very cheap to many low-income Americans, without requiring that they sign up. And many of those eligible fail, for whatever reason, to enroll.

An Obama-type plan would also face the problem of healthy people who decide to take their chances or don't sign up until they develop medical problems, thereby raising premiums for everyone else. Mr. Obama, contradicting his earlier assertions that affordability is the only bar to coverage, is now talking about penalizing those who delay signing up -- but it's not clear how this would work.

So the Obama plan would leave more people uninsured than the Clinton plan. How big is the difference?

To answer this question you need to make a detailed analysis of health care decisions. That's what Jonathan Gruber of M.I.T., one of America's leading health care economists, does in a new paper.

Mr. Gruber finds that a plan without mandates, broadly resembling the Obama plan, would cover 23 million of those currently uninsured, at a taxpayer cost of $102 billion per year. An otherwise identical plan with mandates would cover 45 million of the uninsured -- essentially everyone -- at a taxpayer cost of $124 billion. Over all, the Obama-type plan would cost $4,400 per newly insured person, the Clinton-type plan only $2,700.

That doesn't look like a trivial difference to me. One plan achieves more or less universal coverage; the other, although it costs more than 80 percent as much, covers only about half of those currently uninsured.

As with any economic analysis, Mr. Gruber's results are only as good as his model. But they're consistent with the results of other analyses, such as a 2003 study, commissioned by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, that compared health reform plans and found that mandates made a big difference both to success in covering the uninsured and to cost-effectiveness.

And that's why many health care experts like Mr. Gruber strongly support mandates.

Now, some might argue that none of this matters, because the legislation presidents actually manage to get enacted often bears little resemblance to their campaign proposals. And there is, indeed, no guarantee that Mrs. Clinton would, if elected, be able to pass anything like her current health care plan.

But while it's easy to see how the Clinton plan could end up being eviscerated, it's hard to see how the hole in the Obama plan can be repaired. Why? Because Mr. Obama's campaigning on the health care issue has sabotaged his own prospects.

You see, the Obama campaign has demonized the idea of mandates -- most recently in a scare-tactics mailer sent to voters that bears a striking resemblance to the "Harry and Louise" ads run by the insurance lobby in 1993, ads that helped undermine our last chance at getting universal health care.

If Mr. Obama gets to the White House and tries to achieve universal coverage, he'll find that it can't be done without mandates -- but if he tries to institute mandates, the enemies of reform will use his own words against him.

If you combine the economic analysis with these political realities, here's what I think it says: If Mrs. Clinton gets the Democratic nomination, there is some chance -- nobody knows how big -- that we'll get universal health care in the next administration. If Mr. Obama gets the nomination, it just won't happen.

[CrystalTears]

You're still missing the part where people are forced to pay for insurance, which is what turns them off to the plan.

[Bobmuhthol]

I like to call it a New York Times editorial.

http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/opinion/04krugman.html&OQ=_rQ3D1&OP=6fb5cba8Q2FQ25lgxQ25YmcItmmQ23Q5EQ25Q5EQ5BQ5BVQ 25Q5BQ5EQ25Q5BQ24Q25mkQ7D.Q7Dm.Q25Q5BQ24Q7Bt0Q5D(Q 5C.z!Q23(w

[Ilvane]

CT, it explains how she makes it affordable for everyone..by making it a percentage of income. Not everyone likes buying car insurance either, but it's a mandate here in MA or you don't drive. It's protection.

That wasn't where I saw it, but thanks Bob.

I'm looking for the actual report from Jonathan Gruber.

Looks like Old's was from a WSJ opinion piece..

I'll link the study as soon I locate it.

Angela

[CrystalTears]

I honestly don't care how much it is. I don't like to be told what to spend my money on, and I'm sure others don't either.

[oldanforgotten]

Saw this great editorial article from a newspaper that has already endorsed Mrs Clinton.

Ok, 102 billion for 22 million vs 124 billion for 45 million people? Ok, where do these numbers come from?

Interesting enough, Angela, you left the part out where it stated that Mr Gruber is Hillary's personal campaign health care advisor."]

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/11/clinton_vs_obama_on_health_car.html

NEXT!
________
Vermont medical marijuana dispensary (http://vermont.dispensaries.org/)

[Warriorbird]

I don't like to be told what to spend my money on, and I'm sure others don't either.

Right. I'd love to be able to cut out paying for abstinence education and the Iraq War.

[oldanforgotten]

Bullshit part 2:

From the washington post article:

"The only place in the U.S. that has attempted a mandate is Massachusetts, and we do not know if it is going to work here," said David Blumenthal, a professor of health policy at Harvard university and an adviser to the Obama campaign. "A mandate is not a slam-dunk solution. The key question is whether there is the political will to enforce the mandate once it goes into effect."

Blumenthal concedes that the Obama plan will not cover all the uninsured, at least to begin with. But he claims that Obama will do a better job than Clinton in reducing the cost of health care premiums. He says that Obama might consider a mandate at a later stage, if his present plan does not achieve its goal of universal coverage.

Gee go figure, A paid clinton staffer makes up a number about who's plan is cheaper per individual, and the Obama campaign has a guy doing the same.

Interestingly enough, since the Clinton staffer claims that insuring an extra 22 million people would only cost an additional 20%, maybe they ought to look as Massachusetts, where the cost per individual is INCREASING as they reach more people.
________
Bn125 (http://www.cyclechaos.com/wiki/Kawasaki_BN125)

[Ilvane]

From his MIT bio:

Dr. Jonathan Gruber is a Professor of Economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he has taught since 1992. He is also the Director of the Program on Children at the National Bureau of Economic Research, where he is a Research Associate. He is a co-editor of the Journal of Public Economics, and an Associate Editor of the Journal of Health Economics.


Dr. Gruber received his B.S. in Economics from MIT, and his Ph.D. in Economics from Harvard. He has received an Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Research Fellowship, a FIRST award from the National Institute on Aging, and the Kenneth Arrow Award for the Best Paper in Health Economics in 1994. He was also one of 15 scientists nationwide to receive the Presidential Faculty Fellow Award from the National Science Foundation in 1995. During the 1997-1998 academic year, Dr. Gruber was on leave as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy at the Treasury Department. Dr. Gruber was elected to the Institute of Medicine in 2005, and in 2006 he received the American Society of Health Economists Inaugural Medal for the best health economist in the nation aged 40 and under. In 2006 he was appointed to the board of the Massachusetts Insurance Connector, the main implementing body for the state’s ambitious health care reform effort, and was named the 19th most powerful person in health care in the United States by Modern Healthcare Magazine.

Dr. Gruber's research focuses on the areas of public finance and health economics. He has published more than 100 research articles, has edited four research volumes, and is the author of Public Finance and Public Policy, a leading undergraduate text.

[Warriorbird]

And? Bias is easy to achieve. I'm far too cynical to believe that with the lobbying power of the insurance and pharm industries... that any "universal health care" will ever be anything but a sellout.

[oldanforgotten]

From his MIT bio:

Dr. Jonathan Gruber is a Professor of Economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he has taught since 1992. He is also the Director of the Program on Children at the National Bureau of Economic Research, where he is a Research Associate. He is a co-editor of the Journal of Public Economics, and an Associate Editor of the Journal of Health Economics.


Dr. Gruber received his B.S. in Economics from MIT, and his Ph.D. in Economics from Harvard. He has received an Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Research Fellowship, a FIRST award from the National Institute on Aging, and the Kenneth Arrow Award for the Best Paper in Health Economics in 1994. He was also one of 15 scientists nationwide to receive the Presidential Faculty Fellow Award from the National Science Foundation in 1995. During the 1997-1998 academic year, Dr. Gruber was on leave as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy at the Treasury Department. Dr. Gruber was elected to the Institute of Medicine in 2005, and in 2006 he received the American Society of Health Economists Inaugural Medal for the best health economist in the nation aged 40 and under. In 2006 he was appointed to the board of the Massachusetts Insurance Connector, the main implementing body for the state?s ambitious health care reform effort, and was named the 19th most powerful person in health care in the United States by Modern Healthcare Magazine.

Dr. Gruber's research focuses on the areas of public finance and health economics. He has published more than 100 research articles, has edited four research volumes, and is the author of Public Finance and Public Policy, a leading undergraduate text.

And David Blumenthal is a professor of health policy at Harvard. Here's his bio too, because I'm sure googling a bio will make the argument make more sense....

David Blumenthal, MD, MPP

Director, Institute for Health Policy
Physician, Massachusetts General Hospital
Samuel O. Thier Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School
Professor of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School

From 1987-1991, Dr. Blumenthal served as Senior Vice President at Boston?s Brigham and Women?s Hospital, a 720-bed Harvard teaching hospital. From 1981 to 1987 he was Executive Director of the Center for Health Policy and Management and Lecturer on Public Policy at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. During the late 1970s, Blumenthal was a professional staff member on Senator Edward Kennedy?s Senate Subcommittee on Health and Scientific Research.

He is a member of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, a National Associate of the National Academy of Sciences, and serves on several editorial boards, including the American Journal of Medicine, Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, and the Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine. He is also a National Correspondent for The New England Journal of Medicine. He serves on advisory committees to the National Academy of Sciences, the Institute of Medicine, the National Academy of Social Insurance, the Open Society Institute and other foundations.

Blumenthal was the founding chairman of AcademyHealth (formerly the Academy for Health Services Research and Health Policy), the national organization of health services researchers. He is also Director of the Harvard University Interfaculty Program for Health Systems Improvement. From 1995 to 2002 Dr. Blumenthal served as Executive Director for The Commonwealth Fund Task Force on Academic Health Centers. He has served as a trustee of the University of Chicago Health System and currently serves as a trustee of the University of Pennsylvania Health System (Penn Medicine).

His research interests include the future of academic health centers, quality management in health care, the determinants of physician behavior, access to health services, and the extent and consequences of academic-industrial relationships in the health sciences.
________
Dodge Ram (Disambiguation) History (http://www.dodge-wiki.com/wiki/Dodge_Ram_(disambiguation))

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Someone post my Bio. I have degrees in Chemistry and Zoology!

[Ilvane]

You could argue anyone has bias, really. To say that he doesn't know anything about health care and how it works, when has a history in working on studies and developing plans..it stupid.

:shrug:

Whatever, having a discussion about this is basically just an invitation for an argument with anyone on this forum. Some people just like to argue..I can't see doing anymore of this debating in circles that doesn't get anywhere.

They don't listen, so why should I?

[Bobmuhthol]

<<You could argue anyone has bias, really.>>

......................................

<<And David Blumenthal is a professor of health policy at Harvard. Here's his bio too, because I'm sure googling a bio will make the argument make more sense....>>

LMAO

[oldanforgotten]

Wait, while I'm at it, since we're googling random people and using their quotes as valid scientific research even though they work as advisors to the campaign...

http://www.myspace.com/obamagirl

A reputed media street team operative supporting Barack Obama was quoted as saying that Obama was "cooler" than Hillary.
________
MICHIGAN MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARY (http://michigan.dispensaries.org/)

[Warriorbird]

Nobody said the man knows nothing about healthcare. Now... the idea that he's motivated to make Hillary's plan look better?

That's easy to say.

See? Just did it.

[Bobmuhthol]

Wait, while I'm at it, since we're googling random people and using their quotes as valid scientific research even though they work as advisors to the campaign...

http://www.myspace.com/obamagirl

A reputed media street team operative supporting Barack Obama was quoted as saying that Obama was "cooler" than Hillary.

Awesome.

[Ilvane]

I didn't google his bio, it was easy enough to find on MIT's website.

You guys are silly.

[radamanthys]

:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

[oldanforgotten]

You could argue anyone has bias, really. To say that he doesn't know anything about health care and how it works, when has a history in working on studies and developing plans..it stupid.

:shrug:

Whatever, having a discussion about this is basically just an invitation for an argument with anyone on this forum. Some people just like to argue..I can't see doing anymore of this debating in circles that doesn't get anywhere.

They don't listen, so why should I?

Blumenthal has more years of study and belongs to more organizations and has in fact, spent more time in his life doing studies on the matter as well, and has just just as impeccable if not more impeccable a resume, because he actually has worked in the health care industry on BOTH sides. Clinton's guy threw out some numbers with absolutely no corroborative evidence. Obama's guy said his plan would be cheaper with no corroborative evidence. The only example that exists in massachusetts, over limited time, has shown that marginal individual cost goes UP on a per individual basis, especially regarding costs of enforcing the legislation and recovery of unpaid premiums cost. In fact, I've been pulling a Tsa'ah here and googling left and right, and there is absolutely not a single source showing additional benefits of economies of scale within the industry when the number in group passes 5,000, let alone 23 million.

yet another example of only reading one side of the story. GG
________
Anxiety advice (http://www.health-forums.org/anxiety/)

[CrystalTears]

CT, it explains how she makes it affordable for everyone..by making it a percentage of income.
What percentage, oh Ms. Numbers queen?


Not everyone likes buying car insurance either, but it's a mandate here in MA or you don't drive. It's protection. If you don't have a car, you don't have to buy insurance. It's protection for everyone else against you.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<It's protection for everyone else against you.>>

^ My insurance covers anything I break, anyone I kill, and any injuries I sustain... but my own car insurance does not insure my car.

[oldanforgotten]

What percentage, oh Ms. Numbers queen?

If you don't have a car, you don't have to buy insurance. It's protection for everyone else against you.

By law you must carry only liability insurance, which is protection for other people, not yourself.

Bad analogy FTW!

As for the percentage of salary approach, that's interesting, because at a fundraiser in NJ she claimed it was a fixed "affordable" cost.

Her campaign has detailed NOTHING about any attempts to lower the cost of health insurance in the country.

The only numbers here are the ones provided by a NYT editorial from her personal campaign advisor. I'm sure if you ask McCain's personal health care campaign advisor, he'd be happy to illustrate how his plan is cheaper too, and he may even throw out some numbers based on a personal study as well.
________
Toyota iq history (http://www.toyota-wiki.com/wiki/Toyota_iQ)

[radamanthys]

I maintain that there's something fundamentally wrong with anyone who votes for her, knowing who/what she is. I've this deed for a bridge to sell...

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Percentage of income would suck. Why would a person who makes say, 500k a year, have to pay (lets say 1%) 5K, vs. someone who makes 50k paying 500 bucks? Rich people get sicker?

If that's correct I already fucking hate it. What is with the entitlement to my fucking money people?

[Tsa`ah]

And David Blumenthal is a professor of health policy at Harvard. Here's his bio too, because I'm sure googling a bio will make the argument make more sense....

The google argument is pretty lame to begin with. Search engines exist for a reason. I'm sure everyone knows every detail about Gruber without looking it up somewhere, let alone who the hell he was.

The point is that there are so many "back ground" cast members in politics and I'm willing to bet someone could start name dropping and not a single person on this forum would have a clue who they were talking about.

[Parkbandit]

The google argument is pretty lame to begin with. Search engines exist for a reason. I'm sure everyone knows every detail about Gruber without looking it up somewhere, let alone who the hell he was.

The point is that there are so many "back ground" cast members in politics and I'm willing to bet someone could start name dropping and not a single person on this forum would have a clue who they were talking about.

:rofl:

OMG, the google argument IS pretty lame.. but it's all you got.

God.. it's like you try and think of ways to look like a bigger hypocrite. There's no way someone could do this on accident.

[Parkbandit]

If that's correct I already fucking hate it. What is with the entitlement to my fucking money people?


Stop being such a greedy bastard. Spread the wealth comrade.. it's the liberal way!

[Bobmuhthol]

<<God.. it's like you try and think of ways to look like a bigger hypocrite. There's no way someone could do this on accident.>>

He didn't say anything that would make him a hypocrite.

[Tsa`ah]

:rofl:

OMG, the google argument IS pretty lame.. but it's all you got.

God.. it's like you try and think of ways to look like a bigger hypocrite. There's no way someone could do this on accident.

Awww .... love sick puppie need some attention? Is his widdew heart all broken because he's not getting the attention he demands?

You crack me up. Were I to make a sudden stop I'm sure I'd feel you in my nostrils.

[Misun]

Ah, yes, I would just love to be forced to buy health insurance instead of food, heat or even housing for myself and my children. That's the greatest plan ever. ::roll eyes::

[Clove]

Ah, yes, I would just love to be forced to buy health insurance instead of food, heat or even housing for myself and my children. That's the greatest plan ever. ::roll eyes::

Well at least you'll have access to care for your frostbite/exposure and malnurishment.

[Arkans]

To think that anybody would be "forced" into buying insurance and then have their family starve is a ridiculous notion.

- Arkans

[oldanforgotten]

Actually it's not.

She's said plain and simple within a debate that for those people who still cannot afford it, there would exist a penalty system that would garnish wages and apply fines for people who could not pay. Fine or garnish wages from someone who's not exactly doing well for themselves in the first place, and food generally is the first thing to go.
________
Hotbox Vaporizer (http://www.vaporshop.com/hotbox-vaporizer.html)

[CrystalTears]

That's practically an oxymoron (of course I'm considering the source) of punishing people and garnishing wages when she keeps reiterating that it would be affordable for everyone. What's the point of stating that and then punishing people because it isn't? That's just mental.

[Arkans]

The point is to have an affordable insurance plan available to all. For instance, in Massachusetts, you either get healthcare or you suffer a tax penalty, but I'll be damned if MassHealth or CompHealth is unaffordable.

Granted, I'd rather have the PPO insurance I have now, but it's a lot better of an alternative to what the uninsured had before.

- Arkans

[Bobmuhthol]

IIRC, in MA the "penalty" is that if you don't pay for your health insurance you forfeit your tax return, but that's only if you're expected to pay for it in the first place.

[Arkans]

It's not even the entire tax return that you forfeit.

- Arkans

[oldanforgotten]

The point is to have an affordable insurance plan available to all. For instance, in Massachusetts, you either get healthcare or you suffer a tax penalty, but I'll be damned if MassHealth or CompHealth is unaffordable.

Granted, I'd rather have the PPO insurance I have now, but it's a lot better of an alternative to what the uninsured had before.

- Arkans

Yes, and have you seen the finances of subsidizing it? from a little over 200 million today to an 1.58 billion in 2011, for coverage of twice as many people (400,000 vs 200,000). 7 times as much to cover twice as many people. Do you know why? Because a big chunk of that budget will be administrative costs and job costs of all the people who are going to have to go around enforcing it, regulating it, and also investigating claims on behalf of it.

Oddly enough, Hillary's campaign advisor, the brilliant economist that he is, has discovered that at the magic number of 22 million people, some special new magic economy of scale happens that actually drives costs down so much, that even with adding enforcement costs, administrative costs, and regulating authority costs for doubling the amount of people, and enforcing it instead of leaving it voluntary, that the cost will only go up 20%. For proof of why he's right, just google his bio.
________
MAZDA KABURA HISTORY (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/Mazda_Kabura)

[Bobmuhthol]

Oddly enough, Hillary's campaign advisor, the brilliant economist that he is, has discovered that at the magic number of 22 million people, some special new magic economy of scale happens that actually drives costs down so much, that even with adding enforcement costs, administrative costs, and regulating authority costs for doubling the amount of people, and enforcing it instead of leaving it voluntary, that the cost will only go up 20%. For proof of why he's right, just google his bio.

These statements in this thread make my day.

[Alfster]

Sadly it's probably over her head

[Arkans]

Nobody said that afford healthcare wouldn't be expensive, but I believe it's well worth the cost. Preventative treatment and long term health should be the focus, but everyone should have access to beyond that as well.

Want the best and the fastest treatment? Go pony up money for that better health insurance, that option should be there, but being the only industrialized nation in the world without a working affordable healthcare system is just odd.

- Arkans

[oldanforgotten]

Nobody said that afford healthcare wouldn't be expensive, but I believe it's well worth the cost. Preventative treatment and long term health should be the focus, but everyone should have access to beyond that as well.

Want the best and the fastest treatment? Go pony up money for that better health insurance, that option should be there, but being the only industrialized nation in the world without a working affordable healthcare system is just odd.

- Arkans

NOBODY is arguing that affordable healthcare is not a top priority in this country. The debate here is whether or not healthcare needs to be a mandate, and how it would be paid for, it is a question of option as well. Both plans provide universal coverage for everyone under 18, students under 25, and seniors. The difference is whether or not choice should be part of the issue for the in between, and what the system of penalization should be otherwise.
________
Daihatsu Copen History (http://www.toyota-wiki.com/wiki/Daihatsu_Copen)

[oldanforgotten]

These statements in this thread make my day.

I really wish she used at least some factor of logic or at least maintained some level of objectivity, but unfortunately, when they don't, the only thing you can do is just ridicule them for being stupid.
________
Washington Medical Marijuana Dispensary (http://washington.dispensaries.org/)

[Gan]

Its all about choice.

That ideal is applicable across many topics and issues.

Its all about choice, and the freedom to have the ability to choose.

[Misun]

To think that anybody would be "forced" into buying insurance and then have their family starve is a ridiculous notion.

Nobody said that afford healthcare wouldn't be expensive, but I believe it's well worth the cost. Preventative treatment and long term health should be the focus, but everyone should have access to beyond that as well.

Want the best and the fastest treatment? Go pony up money for that better health insurance, that option should be there, but being the only industrialized nation in the world without a working affordable healthcare system is just odd.

- Arkans


Hmm, let's see...I worked 40+ hours a week. After paying housing, electric, heat, phone, car insurance and gas, food and basic necessities for myself and just one child at the time, I had about 50 dollars left over each month. Where do I fit in health care premiums and copays that could cost about 300 a month for the two of us? It would come out of the food budget which was about 200 a month. And of course there would be no help from the government there because my income would be too high to receive any assistance. Oh...did I mention the daycare cost of 400 a month? And this is with my son being in school all day. Do the math. It wouldn't work to be forced, fined or garnished to provide something that you don't require on a daily basis and just hope and pray nothing dire happens that you would require a doctor. Until you've actually lived it, don't offer your opinion thinking that everyone's situation is the same. It's not. The peace of mind that would come from having health insurance would be great but I would rather be able to feed my kids first.

Why do you think there are so many people who don't work and are on welfare/government services? If you work and don't even make much money you're damned. They have figured out it's better to not work and have no income because then these services like public health care are available to you. Once you start working, even making minimum wage, you are cut off from that and can't even afford the insurance your work offers. I think this is what really needs to be addressed, is what to do for the working class who can't afford just basic health insurance? It's a backward system. Your damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[Misun]

I just realized that I don't want to discuss this, it's too heated of a subject for me considering I currently do not have health insurance, my kids do because they come first. But anyway, I don't want to get into it because we all live different lives. I just think the idea of fining or garnishing someone for not having health insurance is awful.

[Alfster]

Don't breed until you can afford it!

[Misun]

Don't breed until you can afford it!

Oh funny, of course there would be a statement like this. Let's see....I was able to afford it at the time because there were two incomes? Husband? So don't even go there. Things change and happen, even to the best of us. Life is unpredictable so even with the best intentions you can be caught in a whirlwind as well and have your life turned upside down. Don't even judge.

[Bobmuhthol]

This is probably a stupid question, but...

What the fuck are you doing playing GemStone if you don't have money for insurance?

[oldanforgotten]

I just realized that I don't want to discuss this, it's too heated of a subject for me considering I currently do not have health insurance, my kids do because they come first. But anyway, I don't want to get into it because we all live different lives. I just think the idea of fining or garnishing someone for not having health insurance is awful.

I'm sure Hillary knows all about these types of situations. She was actually a member of the middle class that truly can appreciate the struggle because she too struggled... oh wait. No she didn't.

She campaigned last night in Seattle as a Washington outsider.. wtf?

She said in her stump speech that democrats as a whole have a responsibility to have universal health care, and that as long as it's affordable, it must be a mandate.
________
FERRARI 456 (http://www.ferrari-wiki.com/wiki/Ferrari_456)

[CrystalTears]

I'm tired of hearing "affordable". I want numbers, damnit.

[Arkans]

One set of numbers won't work. You need a system that looks into a person's finances and expenses and then works accordingly.

- Arkans

[Gan]

The mandate idea is going to sink her ship. If the Democrats are lucky - they will be unblinded enough to nominate Obama. Which will be bad news for McCain.

If Hillary manages to pull the wool and the Dem nomination, this mandate will be the biggest target of the McCain campaign. And the deadliest for Hillary's campaign.

[Gan]

One set of numbers won't work. You need a system that looks into a person's finances and expenses and then works accordingly.

- Arkans

HOW SCARY IS THAT!!!

[Arkans]

Our finances, expenses, and funds aren't exactly private now.

- Arkans

[Gan]

Our finances, expenses, and funds aren't exactly private now.

- Arkans

Maybe not for you...

The less hands I have in my finances, the better.

The idea that someone is to judge how much I pay based on what I make is barely tolerable with a federal income tax system. And now you want to make a national healthcare authority to do the same for healthcare taxes? Or are you just looking to expand the IRS even more?

Thats like getting a speeding ticket in Germany and having them assess the fine based on your income. WOWOWOWOWOW no thanks.

[CrystalTears]

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that it's going to be individualized to see what you can and can't afford.


Under her plan, she said, health care "will be affordable for everyone" because she would limit premium payments "to a low percent of your income."
Which is complete bullshit to me because it would cause the people in the higher income brackets to be paying a shitload of insurance premiums and not have a choice in the matter.

I'd love to know how low that percentage is.

[Gan]

ZOMG! Hillary is a closet constructionalist!

All of her campaign issues are 'majestically vague'.

[Arkans]

Greatly live and benefit from this economy then expect to pay for it. Barely get by and that's fine, no reason to get raped by other costs.

- Arkans

PS: I actually agree with Germany's ticket policy

[Gan]

PS: I actually agree with Germany's ticket policy

Its a great deterrent not to speed, thats for sure. A bit heavy handed if you ask me (understated).

[oldanforgotten]

Our finances, expenses, and funds aren't exactly private now.

- Arkans

And you realize each individual person?s finances are different and their situations are different?

Person A and Person B both make the same amount of money, have the same number of kids, have the exact same mortgage payment and debts, live in similar areas, and still have completely different financial situations depending on a whole host of other factors. So now, we can either have a whole committee of tens of thousands of new government employees to analyze these situations on a person by person basis, at a taxpayer expense probably equally expensive to the cost of the healthcare itself, or we create lots of entertainingly funny, arbitrary numbers that Mr Gruber can make up and justify based on his googled bio, which becomes easily affordable for some, affordable for others, not so affordable for the next batch, and takes food off the table for the last batch. Meanwhile, we can hire a brand new IRS for the health care collection system, all at additional taxpayer expense, and finally, to top it off, we?re going to use subsidies to provide the remainder of the cost, but do absolutely fucking nothing to control the cost of health care in the first place.

The implementation of socialized healthcare cannot work right away. A realist understands this. Most of us know it. You have to approach it in steps, over time, and the first step is establishing price points so it becomes more affordable, not licking the anus chops of the lawyers of America by refusing caps on lawsuits, and cashing HMO personal checks so the government has to fund it all with money it might get now, but won?t have in the future as costs continue to spiral out of control.
________
PERUVIAN COOKING (http://www.cooking-chef.com/peruvian/)

[Gan]

Greatly live and benefit from this economy then expect to pay for it. Barely get by and that's fine, no reason to get raped by other costs.

So if you work hard and are successful, you get penalized for it by paying higher social benefit costs in addition to higher taxes?

Doesnt sound very rewarding if you ask me.

Sounds like the easier road is just to sit back and let someone else do all the work.

What happens when everyone decides to take the path of least resistance?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I'm sure Hillary knows all about these types of situations. She was actually a member of the middle class that truly can appreciate the struggle because she too struggled... oh wait. No she didn't.

She campaigned last night in Seattle as a Washington outsider.. wtf?

She said in her stump speech that democrats as a whole have a responsibility to have universal health care, and that as long as it's affordable, it must be a mandate.

I wonder, that $5M she loaned her campaign, does she get interest on it? What a fucking scam.

[oldanforgotten]

So if you work hard and are successful, you get penalized for it by paying higher social benefit costs in addition to higher taxes?

Doesnt sound very rewarding if you ask me.

Sounds like the easier road is just to sit back and let someone else do all the work.

What happens when everyone decides to take the path of least resistance?

Then we all act like Stanley and Ilvane
________
Chrysler royal specifications (http://www.dodge-wiki.com/wiki/Chrysler_Royal)

[Arkans]

Yet you still have vastly more wealth than the person that takes the path of least resistance.

Then again this takes the people that bust their ass everyday and still don't have much to show out of the picture too.

Also the fact that people are generally born into a socioeconomic backround and stay there. Meaning, rags to riches stories are exceedingly rare.

- Arkans

[oldanforgotten]

I wonder, that $5M she loaned her campaign, does she get interest on it? What a fucking scam.

Eh, she made a big enough mistake by doing it. Now people want to see their tax returns again, so we can all see how they champion Ilvane and the rest of the working middle class by making 3-4 million a year in speeches, writing off vacations as tax writeoffs, and shifting money around so they can talk about raising taxes on the wealthy, but paying very little in taxes themselves.
________
Chrysler Cirrus (http://www.dodge-wiki.com/wiki/Chrysler_Cirrus)

[CrystalTears]

So basically I'm supposed to pay more health insurance just because I can "afford" to, even though it's going to be more than what I'm paying now and probably not as good service.

You people are smoking something nice and are mean and not sharing.

[oldanforgotten]

Yet you still have vastly more wealth than the person that takes the path of least resistance.

Then again this takes the people that bust their ass everyday and still don't have much to show out of the picture too.

Also the fact that people are generally born into a socioeconomic backround and stay there. Meaning, rags to riches stories are exceedingly rare.

- Arkans

rags to riches, sure, its rare. Rags to middle class rare? I'd check your numbers again on that one.

And you still miss the entire point of the concept. Obama is talking about fighting the health care industry to lower costs as a whole, and in addition provide subsidies for people who cannot afford it otherwise.

Are you sincerely telling me that if you were in a situation where you had near zero disposable income every month that you would be in favor of a more expensive, but affordable mandated insurance as opposed to a cheaper, but optionary one where you could make the choice?
________
Juggalos (http://juggalos.org/)

[TheEschaton]

The plain and simple fact is that it is insanely inhumane to be thinking of the money in your pocket (tax cuts, whatever) and placing that before the health of your fellow citizens. That's a fucked up priority, son.

[Misun]

This is probably a stupid question, but...

What the fuck are you doing playing GemStone if you don't have money for insurance?

Gemstone doesn't cost $250 a month, well, maybe for Tsin, but not for me.

[Alfster]

After paying housing, electric, heat, phone, car insurance and gas, food and basic necessities for myself and just one child at the time, I had about 50 dollars left over each month.


Gemstone doesn't cost $250 a month, well, maybe for Tsin, but not for me.


No, but it is a good chunk of the $50 bucks you had left...unless you consider gemstone a "basic necessity".




Oh funny, of course there would be a statement like this. Let's see....I was able to afford it at the time because there were two incomes? Husband? So don't even go there.

Child support FTW then

[Gan]

Yet you still have vastly more wealth than the person that takes the path of least resistance.
You're equating wealth to utility. There's a huge difference. I know plenty of middle-class people who are happy just like they are. No stress simple job, moderate income, moderate living standards, and they have no desire to change it. These are the people who do not wish to keep up with the Joneses and where you wont see cars in the driveway that collectively are worth/cost more than the house they live in.


Then again this takes the people that bust their ass everyday and still don't have much to show out of the picture too.
How are you going to define those who are diggin themselves out of a financial hole (debt) for reasons other than those who are in debt up to their eyes because of careless spending?

Are you going to tell me that you want to implement this mandate and ability to pay system based on a case by case basis? Do you realize how HUGE a system you'll have to have for that? How can you reasonably support that with the current idea that its going to overall be cost prohibitive?


Also the fact that people are generally born into a socioeconomic backround and stay there. Meaning, rags to riches stories are exceedingly rare.
I bet you support the estate tax, inheritance tax, death tax too.

Its not fair that children should inherit the fruits of their forefather's labor which gives them a step up on those who have to start at the bottom of the ladder.

[Misun]

No, but it is a good chunk of the $50 bucks you had left...unless you consider gemstone a "basic necessity".





Child support FTW then

First off, that was years ago. Not the issue now.

Second off....Child support? What is that? :rofl:

[Gan]

The plain and simple fact is that it is insanely inhumane to be thinking of the money in your pocket (tax cuts, whatever) and placing that before the health of your fellow citizens. That's a fucked up priority, son.

No, its me thinking of supporting those who I am directly responsible for before I concern myself with the wellfare of my neighbor, especially when my neighbor is very capable of being his own man and being responsible for his own family's wellbeing.

Its easy for you to talk about not caring about money when you've never had to 'work' for it. I'm glad you were supported by your parents through school, the peace corps, and now law school. I'm glad they gave you a fat stock portfolio to manage (I guess you call that work btw - LOL).

But for some of us, we're still trying to make it up that ladder, so our focus is on the singular (family) and not the collective. The collective SHOULD be responsible enough to be singularly responsible for their primary wellfare as well. And by each individual focusing on their singular, they benefit society as a whole (invisible hand anyone?).

And who the fuck are you calling SON?
:lol:

[Misun]

And who the fuck are you calling SON?
:lol:

heh, that made me laugh.

[Latrinsorm]

All of her campaign issues are 'majestically vague'.No it's Obama who never spells anything out and Hilary has all the clear and detailed plans. GOD. Don't you read Ilvane's posts?
But for some of us, we're still trying to make it up that ladder, so our focus is on the singular (family) and not the collective. The collective SHOULD be responsible enough to be singularly responsible for their primary wellfare as well. And by each individual focusing on their singular, they benefit society as a whole (invisible hand anyone?).Except we live in the real world, where hard work doesn't always equal advancement. Sometimes people work hard for 50 years and die exactly where they started - not due to careless spending but to the whims of fate. The most efficient use of resources is never the most humane, and if we wanted a robot government we'd have it already, we've got plenty of computers.

[Clove]

So basically I'm supposed to pay more health insurance just because I can "afford" to, even though it's going to be more than what I'm paying now and probably not as good service.

You people are smoking something nice and are mean and not sharing.

Shuddap. You're lucky she isn't suggesting you pay 10 dollars for a loaf of bread- to subsidize the food costs for those who have to use a greater percentage of their income for necessities.

[CrystalTears]

The plain and simple fact is that it is insanely inhumane to be thinking of the money in your pocket (tax cuts, whatever) and placing that before the health of your fellow citizens. That's a fucked up priority, son.
Because I want my money to pay for me and mine. When push comes to shove and something happens in my life that is going to cost me, who is going to help me pay for that? You? The poor guy who is getting help collectively from my community and not giving anything in return other than gas from his lawn chair? Fuck that.

[TheEschaton]

No, its me thinking of supporting those who I am directly responsible for before I concern myself with the wellfare of my neighbor, especially when my neighbor is very capable of being his own man and being responsible for his own family's wellbeing.

Its easy for you to talk about not caring about money when you've never had to 'work' for it. I'm glad you were supported by your parents through school, the peace corps, and now law school. I'm glad they gave you a fat stock portfolio to manage (I guess you call that work btw - LOL).

But for some of us, we're still trying to make it up that ladder, so our focus is on the singular (family) and not the collective. The collective SHOULD be responsible enough to be singularly responsible for their primary wellfare as well. And by each individual focusing on their singular, they benefit society as a whole (invisible hand anyone?).

And who the fuck are you calling SON?
:lol:

A) Son at the end of that statement is just general, like "Man, that's fucked up, son!"

B) All moral philosophies say we have duties and responsibilities to each other, and that if you have an overabundance of goods, and your neighbor has nothing, YOU ARE OBLIGATED TO HELP HIM.

C) If you want to live lives against every major strand of morality ever, that's your perogative. Free choice, and all that.

-TheE-

[Misun]

B) All moral philosophies say we have duties and responsibilities to each other, and that if you have an overabundance of goods, and your neighbor has nothing, YOU ARE OBLIGATED TO HELP HIM.

-TheE-

...

I must have missed reading that part in the manual handed out when I was born.

[TheEschaton]

Then you just haven't been listening.

[CrystalTears]

So I guess you'll be doing a lot of pro bono work as a lawyer FOR THE GREATER GOOD!

[Alfster]

ROFL

[Misun]

Then you just haven't been listening.

Oh, I've been listening, and living....unfortunately not everyone subscribes to this 'philosophy'. Not saying that I don't, I do. Even with what little I may have, I have helped my neighbor (not literally MY neighbor because he has a bigger truck than I do) but....I do help out where I can, when I can. I'm just saying that the majority of Americans do not, if they did, we wouldn't be having this issue.

Maybe you can run your 'philosophy' past Tsin, see what he thinks of it.

[oldanforgotten]

So I guess you'll be doing a lot of pro bono work as a lawyer FOR THE GREATER GOOD!

He'll be busy suing the doctors for spilling coffee on the patient for 75 million dollars, then clamoring about how affordable healthcare is needed by all, and that everyone else should pay for it.

Now it is clear that the reason he won't support Obama over Hillary on healthcare is because the last thing he wants is a cap on lawsuits and regulations that will hurt his pocket. How ironic.
________
GROW MEDICAL MARIJUANA (http://growingmedicalmarijuana.org)

[Daniel]

No, its me thinking of supporting those who I am directly responsible for before I concern myself with the wellfare of my neighbor, especially when my neighbor is very capable of being his own man and being responsible for his own family's wellbeing.

Its easy for you to talk about not caring about money when you've never had to 'work' for it. I'm glad you were supported by your parents through school, the peace corps, and now law school. I'm glad they gave you a fat stock portfolio to manage (I guess you call that work btw - LOL).

But for some of us, we're still trying to make it up that ladder, so our focus is on the singular (family) and not the collective. The collective SHOULD be responsible enough to be singularly responsible for their primary wellfare as well. And by each individual focusing on their singular, they benefit society as a whole (invisible hand anyone?).

And who the fuck are you calling SON?
:lol:


That's funny. I've probably climbed far more up that ladder than you have, and I still manage to not want to screw other people who have to do so themselves.

[Gan]

A) Son at the end of that statement is just general, like "Man, that's fucked up, son!"

B) All moral philosophies say we have duties and responsibilities to each other, and that if you have an overabundance of goods, and your neighbor has nothing, YOU ARE OBLIGATED TO HELP HIM.

C) If you want to live lives against every major strand of morality ever, that's your perogative. Free choice, and all that.

-TheE-

Do you realize how fucked up that sounds?

B) I am obligated by what authority? The same authority that says I shouldnt fart loudly in church? I am obligated to take care of those I am responsible for - my wife and my child, and to pay the taxes required of me, and to obey the laws of the land. The very laws and taxes I vote to support. I am NOT obligated to have the same views as you, to have the same morals as you, and to have the same philosophies as you. I am NOT you. (thank God).

C) Thats exactly why all philosophies are simply philosophies and not laws. FREE CHOICE. I have the freedom to choose to help my neighbor in as much as he has the freedom of choice to help me. I CHOOSE to focus my efforts on myself and my family first and then - if there are resources left - to choose when, where, and how much I allocate to society. Its ironically funny that you espouse many freedoms except when it comes to religious philosophy and social/moral behavior. How can you sustain such levels of contradiction inside? I suppose ignorance is bliss. :shrug:

[Gan]

That's funny. I've probably climbed far more up that ladder than you have, and I still manage to not want to screw other people who have to do so themselves.

Right, because you're a poor black man from the slums of Chicago.

If you actually knew something about me then I might consider that worthy of a real response...

And...
LOL @ your attempt to compare socio-economic status with someone else over the internet.

[Misun]

B) All moral philosophies say we have duties and responsibilities to each other, and that if you have an overabundance of goods, and your neighbor has nothing, YOU ARE OBLIGATED TO HELP HIM.


-TheE-

heh, I just realized something....

I need to move next door to you. ;)

[CrystalTears]

Heh, we're all going, and we're going to put pamphlets on his neighbors' doors. "TheE is morally obligated to help you, so tell him what you need!"

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

A) Son at the end of that statement is just general, like "Man, that's fucked up, son!"

B) All moral philosophies say we have duties and responsibilities to each other, and that if you have an overabundance of goods, and your neighbor has nothing, YOU ARE OBLIGATED TO HELP HIM.

C) If you want to live lives against every major strand of morality ever, that's your perogative. Free choice, and all that.

-TheE-

So, have you given away your inheritance, because there are people worse off than you and you have an overabundance. Or do you just mention the moral philosophies, but not subscribe to it?

[Daniel]

[I]
LOL @ your attempt to compare socio-economic status with someone else over the internet.

Isn't that exactly what you just did?

Oh right...

[Parkbandit]

A) Son at the end of that statement is just general, like "Man, that's fucked up, son!"

B) All moral philosophies say we have duties and responsibilities to each other, and that if you have an overabundance of goods, and your neighbor has nothing, YOU ARE OBLIGATED TO HELP HIM.

C) If you want to live lives against every major strand of morality ever, that's your perogative. Free choice, and all that.

-TheE-


I'm pretty sure you have more money than many people on these forums... When do you want them to start sending you their addresses so you can send them money? Or could it be.. that the rhetoric you are spewing is just bullshit as usual?

[Misun]

I'm pretty sure you have more money than many people on these forums... When do you want them to start sending you their addresses so you can send them money? Or could it be.. that the rhetoric you are spewing is just bullshit as usual?

I'm making my list of things I need right now!

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I think he's just saying that everyone ELSE is obligated, but not him.

[Parkbandit]

That's funny. I've probably climbed far more up that ladder than you have, and I still manage to not want to screw other people who have to do so themselves.


:rofl:

How is Gan 'screwing' other people? By not giving them handouts?

I'm relatively sure.. that Gan gives more to charity than you have or will.. either through actual contributions or through taxes.

And I KNOW I have.

[Clove]

Public Utility- n.
1) A private business organization, subject to governmental regulation, that provides an essential commodity or service, such as water, electricity, transportation, or communication, to the public.

Public Utility
A for-profit company that, because of the nature of its business, has characteristics of a natural monopoly. For instance, an electric company will have a natural monopoly over the sale of electric power in a given area, since having a single supplier of electricity for that area is the most efficient method of producing and distributing electricity. Because no free market or competition exists for the services or goods sold by public utilities, they are subject to government regulation of the price they may charge and the means by which they may distribute their goods. The concept of natural monopoly is currently being challenged, and deregulation of utilities, permitting competition, now seems a likely possibility in the near future.

--

This is the direction I believe health insurance should go. A privately held, government regulated public utility.

Pros:

Privately run for profit for best efficiency
Lower costs by guaranteeing the largest risk pool
Government regulated to control price and ensure service quality

Cons:

Loss of choice

Challenges:

If the government regulates the price (therefore the profit potential) why should any company be interested in having the charter? Because while their profit isn't limitless A PROFIT is pretty certain. A good ROI exists.

If an insurance company has a national or regional monopoly and therefore no competition, what prevents them from giving the public crappy service? The threat of government regulators giving their charter given to another company.

[Parkbandit]

I think he's just saying that everyone ELSE is obligated, but not him.


He went to the Al Gore School of Philosophy.

[Misun]

He went to the Al Gore School of Philosophy.

At least Al Gore is trying to clean up the environment so we don't have so many health issues that would require us to have health insurance. ::nods::

[oldanforgotten]

So, have you given away your inheritance, because there are people worse off than you and you have an overabundance. Or do you just mention the moral philosophies, but not subscribe to it?

I?d say that?s probably a fairly reasonable statement, at least in part. Hillary rails against suspending the inheritance tax, then goes out, gets a tax lawyer for her family, and stops reporting her finances publicly. No wonder TheE follows her so closely. It takes hypocrisy to attract more of it.

The best leaders motivate people, and they don?t spend their time confronting ?issues?. They have plenty of people in their employment doing just that for them. The best leaders also get their teams to strive to be better themselves and work for it, rather than injecting resolutions upon them. It?s the very heart of the reason that I support Obama, even though I DON?T agree with everything he says.
________
Suzuki mr wagon (http://www.suzuki-tech.com/wiki/Suzuki_MR_Wagon)

[TheEschaton]

Are we going to do the same thing we did a couple years ago with Spun and Tamral? Really? You guys are just making straw men arguments with no substance, since you have no idea what I do with my income. You just naturally assume I just sit on my money and use it for my own good, which, if you knew me, you would know is absolutely ludicrous.

Furthermore, I don't plan on bringing class action suits, nor work for a corporate law firm. My entire career is geared towards being "pro bono" in that I plan on working for the gov't my whole career. Last summer, I worked for the Manhattan DA's office, this summer I'm working in the U.S. Attorney's Office here in Boston. In the anti-corruption unit. Not a firm.

I stand by my philosophy, and unfortunately for y'all, no matter how much you say it ain't so, it is.

-TheE-

[Misun]

I stand by my philosophy, and unfortunately for y'all, no matter how much you say it ain't so, it is.

-TheE-

Great! Then can I get your address so I can send you my list? Or does that just apply to YOUR neighbor, which if that's the case, he may not need much as he is probably in the same income level as you.

[TheEschaton]

I'm sure you can ask Tamral or SpunGirl for my address. :)

[Celephais]

Speaking of...
If we do a newenglandpccon will you buy my drinks? I like the idea of you being morally obligated to get me hammered.

[Clove]

Speaking of...
If we do a newenglandpccon will you buy my drinks? I like the idea of you being morally obligated to get me hammered.

I agree. The E buys. It is our moral obligation to ensure E doesn't have an immoral excess of cash.

[TheEschaton]

LOL, yeah, I'll buy. :)

[Clove]

LOL, yeah, I'll buy. :)

Good. We only have your spiritual well-being in mind.

[Celephais]

I agree. The E buys. It is our moral obligation to ensure E doesn't have an immoral excess of cash.
Sure... come up with whatever justification you can, I just wanna get wasted on someone elses tab... for humanity...

[Misun]

LOL, yeah, I'll buy. :)

I guess I'll have to start drinking to see any of the benefits of -TheE-'s moral obligation in the works. :D

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Clove
I agree. The E buys. It is our moral obligation to ensure E doesn't have an immoral excess of cash.

It's my moral obligation to make sure that Bills fans aren't buying drinks for Patriot fans.. even if it means you'll need to use your health care.

[TheEschaton]

Hmmm, that is an interesting moral dilemma that I did not consider.

[Gan]

Isn't that exactly what you just did?

Oh right...

No.

Reading comprehension FTL.

[Clove]

It's my moral obligation to make sure that Bills fans aren't buying drinks for Patriot fans.. even if it means you'll need to use your health care.

I can't think of a better way to tax Bills fans for their folly. And I can't bring myself fear the reprisals of a Dutchboy.

:P

[Sean]

Ever been beaten with a wooden clog ... which candidates preventative health care plan will address your need for a metal plate to withstand the fury?!

[Gan]

Are we going to do the same thing we did a couple years ago with Spun and Tamral? Really? You guys are just making straw men arguments with no substance, since you have no idea what I do with my income. You just naturally assume I just sit on my money and use it for my own good, which, if you knew me, you would know is absolutely ludicrous.

Furthermore, I don't plan on bringing class action suits, nor work for a corporate law firm. My entire career is geared towards being "pro bono" in that I plan on working for the gov't my whole career. Last summer, I worked for the Manhattan DA's office, this summer I'm working in the U.S. Attorney's Office here in Boston. In the anti-corruption unit. Not a firm.

I stand by my philosophy, and unfortunately for y'all, no matter how much you say it ain't so, it is.

-TheE-

Here's where you're missing the point TheE.

Through your own admissions and through other endeavers (the donation issue way back when) we all know (those of us who've been here for a while at least) that you've got money. The fact that you've got money compared to others IS NOT the issue.

Whats being pointed out, at least by me, is that your affluence has influenced how you view disposable income, social services and their funding (through taxes), and the idea of the freedom to engage in charitable giving (through religious means or otherwise) should not be so free but mandated. Then you wrap it all up neatly in religious based philosophical arguments that sound really neat but are completely incompatable with a non-socialist society.

The fact that you have never struggled to support yourself financially - by your own admission - (since you dont have a wife/child yet) gives you a different perspective on your allocation of disposable income to mandated social programs that focus on others instead of leaving it within that family that earns it as a means of increasing their utility.

Thats the point I'm trying to make.

You have a great perspective for a society where all the participants are affluent single people with no children. Thats as far as it travels.

[Celephais]

Ever been beaten with a wooden clog ... which candidates preventative health care plan will address your need for a metal plate to withstand the fury?!
Hah, did you see that recent(?) episode of the simpsons where Milhouse thinks his dutch parents die and his "cool" danish uncle comes to visit?

[Clove]

Ever been beaten with a wooden clog ... which candidates preventative health care plan will address your need for a metal plate to withstand the fury?!

I assumed you'd be nancing around your tulip field and too stoned to bother me with clogs.

[CrystalTears]

I assumed you'd be nancing around your tulip field and too stoned to bother me with clogs.
:lol:

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Clove
I assumed you'd be nancing around your tulip field and too stoned to bother me with clogs.

I live in New Jersey.. how many tulip fields and windmills do you think exist here?

[TheEschaton]

We grew up immigrants, Gan, my father came to this country with $40 by himself, and lived in the Y while he attended grad school, saving enough money to bring my mother, my sister, and myself to the States. We lived in a duplex infested with rats til I was 10, lived in an 80k house til I was 15, at which point my father suddenly took off career wise. Yet oddly enough, he seems to have a much more similar viewpoint to me, on say, the moral obligations of the well-off to the not-well-off, than he is to you, despite being a "businessman" with "family" and "obligations".

I plan on starting from 0 after law school. And I'm pretty sure my views won't change because I make less money.

-TheE-

[Gan]

Public Utility- n.
1) A private business organization, subject to governmental regulation, that provides an essential commodity or service, such as water, electricity, transportation, or communication, to the public.

Public Utility
A for-profit company that, because of the nature of its business, has characteristics of a natural monopoly. For instance, an electric company will have a natural monopoly over the sale of electric power in a given area, since having a single supplier of electricity for that area is the most efficient method of producing and distributing electricity. Because no free market or competition exists for the services or goods sold by public utilities, they are subject to government regulation of the price they may charge and the means by which they may distribute their goods. The concept of natural monopoly is currently being challenged, and deregulation of utilities, permitting competition, now seems a likely possibility in the near future.

--

This is the direction I believe health insurance should go. A privately held, government regulated public utility.

Pros:

Privately run for profit for best efficiency
Lower costs by guaranteeing the largest risk pool
Government regulated to control price and ensure service quality

Cons:

Loss of choice

Challenges:

If the government regulates the price (therefore the profit potential) why should any company be interested in having the charter? Because while their profit isn't limitless A PROFIT is pretty certain. A good ROI exists.

If an insurance company has a national or regional monopoly and therefore no competition, what prevents them from giving the public crappy service? The threat of government regulators giving their charter given to another company.

I like everything but the bolded, specifically about the government controlling price. I think regulation could be used to force larger coverage pools, and based on that availability let the market set the price. That would be the most efficient method. Price fixing/controlling is pretty risky and usually equates to higher costs in the long run.

[Celephais]

I plan on starting from 0 after law school.
Yeesh... being at "0" out of any school, let alone law school, is pretty damn good.

[Gan]

We grew up immigrants, Gan, my father came to this country with $40 by himself, and lived in the Y while he attended grad school, saving enough money to bring my mother, my sister, and myself to the States. We lived in a duplex infested with rats til I was 10, lived in an 80k house til I was 15, at which point my father suddenly took off career wise. Yet oddly enough, he seems to have a much more similar viewpoint to me, on say, the moral obligations of the well-off to the not-well-off, than he is to you, despite being a "businessman" with "family" and "obligations".

I plan on starting from 0 after law school. And I'm pretty sure my views won't change because I make less money.

-TheE-

Starting from 0 with no debt. ;) Huge difference if you ask me.

Starting from 0 with no portfolio too?

[oldanforgotten]

We grew up immigrants, Gan, my father came to this country with $40 by himself, and lived in the Y while he attended grad school, saving enough money to bring my mother, my sister, and myself to the States. We lived in a duplex infested with rats til I was 10, lived in an 80k house til I was 15, at which point my father suddenly took off career wise. Yet oddly enough, he seems to have a much more similar viewpoint to me, on say, the moral obligations of the well-off to the not-well-off, than he is to you, despite being a "businessman" with "family" and "obligations".

I plan on starting from 0 after law school. And I'm pretty sure my views won't change because I make less money.

-TheE-


Starting with 0 after law school is a pretty nice thing. In fact, that?d put you extremely well off. Starting with 200k worth of loans after law school or med school would probably give you a more accurate picture of the reality. Given your perspective, I agree with Gan entirely, in that you don?t have any perspective whatsoever on the struggles of the working family. Neither do I, and I?ve never hidden it, and it?s not necessarily a bad thing. My working life ?struggles? consisted of work struggles, not financial ones, while I did the 80 hour weeks that is typical of hungry starting analysts on Wall Street.

The problem arises when a person without perspective attempts to forcefeed those are living the reality as to what they need, and mandates it. It is our responsibility as a society to provide people with the opportunity to get whatever they need. People should have every opportunity to take advantage of provided benefits of society, and at the same time, should have every freedom to turn them down.

Here?s the real problem. You, like many people, have a lot of idealistic principles. Here comes a person who is not covered in corruption, does not have a Whitewater on his head, has had a true middle class upbringing and life, earned his way into school, and has been a public servant for almost 10 years now with little ill effect on his ideals from his time in politics. He supports the same position you?ve always been with on the Iraq War. His vision of health care and campaign finance reform is right on line with reducing corruption in Washington, and he is one of the few people left in Senate, unlike Hillary, who doesn?t have billions in pork barrel projects and other earmarks that get attached to every bill so she can personally appease her corporate interest fundraisers.

And instead you vote for the other candidate, because she has more experience, and she?s more ?reliable?, because he still needs more time under his belt to get used to the corruption? It?d be one thing entirely if you were voting for her because her views align more with yours, but that?s not the case. You?ve basically fallen faceplant flat in the propaganda that he?s too new to get anything done. Before I just say shame on you, perhaps you would like to know that in the last 4 years, they have both gotten precisely the same number of bills passed in the Senate, two. They have both co-sponsored similar numbers of bills, and this despite her getting more favorable committee seats due to her name.

You?re basically in tacit admission that you?re fucking the ugly girl because the other one was just too hot for you and you didn?t know if she?d like you.
________
Cb77 (http://www.cyclechaos.com/wiki/Honda_CB77)

[TheEschaton]

Heh, I was also tied to her campaign a good year ago, before the hot girl even decided she was going to take this prom queen thing seriously. :P

And yes, 0 out of law school is nice, but unfortunately, I'm not going to go 200k in debt just to prove a point. ;) Not to mention I understand how lucky I am, which is why I'm going with the 55k a year job as opposed to a job at Dechert, where you get a170k to start, and a Christmas bonus which matches your salary if you meet your billables (not that I could get a job at Dechert, but you get the point).

-TheE-

[Gan]

Heh, I was also tied to her campaign a good year ago, before the hot girl even decided she was going to take this prom queen thing seriously. :P

And yes, 0 out of law school is nice, but unfortunately, I'm not going to go 200k in debt just to prove a point. ;) Not to mention I understand how lucky I am, which is why I'm going with the 55k a year job as opposed to a job at Dechert, where you get a170k to start, and a Christmas bonus which matches your salary if you meet your billables (not that I could get a job at Dechert, but you get the point).

-TheE-

Yes, we get the point. Better than you realize. We just wish you would.

[Misun]

Heh, I was also tied to her campaign a good year ago, before the hot girl even decided she was going to take this prom queen thing seriously. :P

And yes, 0 out of law school is nice, but unfortunately, I'm not going to go 200k in debt just to prove a point. ;) Not to mention I understand how lucky I am, which is why I'm going with the 55k a year job as opposed to a job at Dechert, where you get a170k to start, and a Christmas bonus which matches your salary if you meet your billables (not that I could get a job at Dechert, but you get the point).

-TheE-

55k a year? Your single right? With no debt? Not bad at all...I still want to be your neighbor.

[TheEschaton]

55k in Manhattan. The job usually pays more like 30k but they've had to adjust for living in NYC.

[Misun]

55k in Manhattan. The job usually pays more like 30k but they've had to adjust for living in NYC.

And?

[Daniel]

:rofl:

How is Gan 'screwing' other people? By not giving them handouts?

I'm relatively sure.. that Gan gives more to charity than you have or will.. either through actual contributions or through taxes.

And I KNOW I have.

Just as I'm sure I've done more for society than you have.

[Daniel]

No.

Reading comprehension FTL.

Obviously you didn' try and compare socio economic status when you told TheE that he didn't know what its like to work.

Sure thing buddy.

[Daniel]

Here's where you're missing the point TheE.

Through your own admissions and through other endeavers (the donation issue way back when) we all know (those of us who've been here for a while at least) that you've got money. The fact that you've got money compared to others IS NOT the issue.

Whats being pointed out, at least by me, is that your affluence has influenced how you view disposable income, social services and their funding (through taxes), and the idea of the freedom to engage in charitable giving (through religious means or otherwise) should not be so free but mandated. Then you wrap it all up neatly in religious based philosophical arguments that sound really neat but are completely incompatable with a non-socialist society.

The fact that you have never struggled to support yourself financially - by your own admission - (since you dont have a wife/child yet) gives you a different perspective on your allocation of disposable income to mandated social programs that focus on others instead of leaving it within that family that earns it as a means of increasing their utility.

Thats the point I'm trying to make.

You have a great perspective for a society where all the participants are affluent single people with no children. Thats as far as it travels.


Sure thing. Just ignore my post.

This has absolutely nothing to do with being "Affluent" and everything to do with you being a pretenious douche bag.

[Gan]

Obviously you didn' try and compare socio economic status when you told TheE that he didn't know what its like to work.

Sure thing buddy.


Sure thing. Just ignore my post.

This has absolutely nothing to do with being "Affluent" and everything to do with you being a pretenious douche bag.

Stellar contribution.

I guess if reason fails, you can always resort to name calling.

I ignored your post because it lacked anything remotely resembling logical thought and thus deserving a response.

Please quote and highlight where you think I am COMPARING my socio-economic status with TheE's.

Here's a clue. I'm not COMPAIRING as you initially accused. I'm actually demonstrating, through previous admissions by TheE and his alleged financial status, that he appears not to have the same perspective of members of society who have not had the benefit of having living on their own paycheck to paycheck, in debt, having huge expensese of child rearing, mortgage, etc., combined with the additional debt of paying for their college education. AND based on that lack of perspective has ideals and social expectations that are NOT in sync with a majority of Americans.

Nowhere in this thread have I compared my social status with TheE's. Unlike several of your posts which already have posited the comparison of giving more socially than another (PB) and having had a tougher childhood (directed to me).

NEWSFLASH DANIEL: Its not all about you. I will rejoice the day when you can actually contribute to a conversation without interjecting how bad you've had it, how big your dick is, how black you are, how much of a rockstar you are for having been in the army, and how smart and educated you are. Do us all a favor and GET THE FUCK OVER YOURSELF. We realize that if you dont toot your own horn, nobody else will toot it for you. And even though I consider you a fairly smart individual - I thought you would have figured out by now the concept that those who bark the loudest have the most to hide or compensate for.

I seriously hope you come back half wasted from killing off braincells and fire off some really entertaining responses. I would look forward to laughing at you some more. Its been kind of dull since you wigged out in the thread where you melted down with the photoshop.


:clap:

[Clove]

I like everything but the bolded, specifically about the government controlling price. I think regulation could be used to force larger coverage pools, and based on that availability let the market set the price. That would be the most efficient method. Price fixing/controlling is pretty risky and usually equates to higher costs in the long run.

Naw, you set a margin cap so the chartered company is guaranteed an ROI but not an unlimited one. This removes the temptation to push the price as far as the market will bear.

You have to put regulation on the pricing or the company that commands the market will push the price as far as it will go to maximize their profits, which we're already seeing (and exactly what we don't want)

Today health insurance companies are already approaching monopoly status in some markets with some providers commanding 30% or more of their region. Since their goal is to make as much profit as possible they use their leverage to dictate to doctors and hospitals, to slow and dispute benefit payouts and in general make the service as expensive as their customers will tolerate while doing everything in their power to minimize their costs even at the consumer's expense. What we're seeing now in some places is the worst facets of unregulated monopolies.

(http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid=%7BD2334AAB-0321-432E-B5AE-695FDBCF258B%7D&siteId=aolpf&dist=special)

My feeling is that we harness the power of a monopoly and channel it to the public interest.

[Clove]

I live in New Jersey.. how many tulip fields and windmills do you think exist here?

Well it is the Garden State.

[Daniel]

. Do us all a favor and GET THE FUCK OVER YOURSELF.




:clap:

Awwww. Someone is Jealous


As for the rest of your tirade...You don't represent the vast majority of America, and you definitely don't represent the subset of this country that has had to *struggle* to make it by. I have no doubt that you have worked hard and put in your dues to be where you are at, but don't act like you've had it so rough shodden in comparison to TheE and that's why you think the way you think.

You think the way you think because of the way you are as a person. Simple as that.

[Daniel]

Also. I have a very large penis. You are more than welcome to photoshop it as you see fit.

[Clove]

Also. I have a very large penis. You are more than welcome to photoshop it as you see fit.

Unfortunately, you still look like Erkle.

[Gan]

Awwww. Someone is Jealous
LOL, In your dreams maybe.



As for the rest of your tirade...You don't represent the vast majority of America, and you definitely don't represent the subset of this country that has had to *struggle* to make it by. I have no doubt that you have worked hard and put in your dues to be where you are at, but don't act like you've had it so rough shodden in comparison to TheE and that's why you think the way you think.

You think the way you think because of the way you are as a person. Simple as that.

Your failure to see, yet again, that its not a comparison, is sadly no suprise. It wasnt a comparison with your first trolling post, and it still isnt.

And to think that your life experiences do not shape the way you think in any way is stupidly laughable. But then again, I wouldnt expect you to understand nature v. nuture.

And for the penis remark: remember what I said about barking loudest to compensate for the lack thereof. ;)

And you should really stop asking guys to see pictures of your penis over the internet. Its bad form.

[Kyra231]

Child support FTW then

Totally STUPID answer there, not like all people who owe cs PAY the cs, check out the 'owed' for just where you live & stfu.

~K.

[Alfster]

Totally STUPID answer there, not like all people who owe cs PAY the cs, check out the 'owed' for just where you live & stfu.

~K.

no

[Daniel]

Your failure to see, yet again, that its not a comparison, is sadly no suprise. It wasnt a comparison with your first trolling post, and it still isnt.

And to think that your life experiences do not shape the way you think in any way is stupidly laughable. But then again, I wouldnt expect you to understand nature v. nuture.



What you fail to realize is that your experiences and what you have taken out of them are not representative of all people who have had the same experiences. You are a republican, and have republican values. There are people just like TheE who feel the same way (George Bush anyone?) that you do.

Whereas there are people who have worked just as hard, if not infinitely harder to get just as much, if not infinitely more than you do and feel exactly the opposite (Warren Buffet anyone?).

In fact, you will find that the *vast* majority of people who represent the democratic party historically have been those working joes that you now claim to represent.

So please, STFU.

Oh, and I still have a big penis. It doens't really change with how hard I bark, or how hard you wish. Sorry.

[Clove]

What you fail to realize is that your experiences and what you have taken out of them are not representative of all people who have had the same experiences...

No shit? Doesn't really speak to the statement that IF E had different experiences his values or opinions might (and probably would) change. How about you quit playing devil's advocate, stop stating the obvious, and STFU yourself?

[Gan]

What you fail to realize is that your experiences and what you have taken out of them are not representative of all people who have had the same experiences. You are a republican, and have republican values. There are people just like TheE who feel the same way (George Bush anyone?) that you do.

Whereas there are people who have worked just as hard, if not infinitely harder to get just as much, if not infinitely more than you do and feel exactly the opposite (Warren Buffet anyone?).

In fact, you will find that the *vast* majority of people who represent the democratic party historically have been those working joes that you now claim to represent.

So please, STFU.

Oh, and I still have a big penis. It doens't really change with how hard I bark, or how hard you wish. Sorry.

Which has nothing to do with your original claim, which was founded on what you wrongly perceived of my post to TheE.

You seriously need help.

[Daniel]

Which has nothing to do with your original claim, which was founded on what you wrongly perceived of my post to TheE.

You seriously need help.


It didn't? Gee and funny thing is I thought pointing out that you didn't have the monopoly on hard work and that someone (namely myself) who had similar if not more experiences thought differently was pointing out the same thing.

I guess, that's a good way to deflect the fact that you just got called out for your bullshit and have no good response to what has been said.

Well played my friend. I know it's been a rough week for you, as it's no every day that people have to admit to themselves that they aren't as important as they think they are on the internet.

Clove:

Why are you talking to me?

I'm still waiting on you to make a post trying to equate producing fabricated rifles during a period of nation wide industrial expansion to producing military vehicles, high tech equipment and personal services.

You've denied me another opportunity to laugh at the R team for several days now and I really don't appreciate it.

[Clove]

Clove:

Why are you talking to me?


My mom was a Special Education Teacher. I guess the exposure gave me a soft-spot for retards.



I'm still waiting on you to make a post trying to equate producing fabricated rifles during a period of nation wide industrial expansion to producing military vehicles, high tech equipment and personal services.

You've denied me another opportunity to laugh at the R team for several days now and I really don't appreciate it.

Only that industry is more than capable of expanding to meet military demands. We have two fucking nuclear submarine manufacturing facilities... think you can find a tighter niche industry than that?

The article was about ITT fleet management. I can hook you up with about six fleet management companies right off the cuff (and those are just the ones my corp works with). The "entry barriers" you're talking about are the Pentagon's contract management, nothing more.

[Gan]

It didn't? Gee and funny thing is I thought pointing out that you didn't have the monopoly on hard work and that someone (namely myself) who had similar if not more experiences thought differently was pointing out the same thing.
LOL, you still dont get that its not a comparison.


I guess, that's a good way to deflect the fact that you just got called out for your bullshit and have no good response to what has been said.
Just because you dont understand the conversation at hand doesnt mean its bullshit. And you certainly arent calling anyone out. LOL @ you thinking you are.


Well played my friend. I know it's been a rough week for you, as it's no every day that people have to admit to themselves that they aren't as important as they think they are on the internet.
Actually its been a great week for you. My little photoshop of you and your resultant meltdown was pure enjoyment. And you might consider a reality check on who thinks they are more important over the internet. Since you seeem to be the one doing or TRYING to do all the comparisons.


Clove:

Why are you talking to me?

I'm still waiting on you to make a post trying to equate producing fabricated rifles during a period of nation wide industrial expansion to producing military vehicles, high tech equipment and personal services.

You've denied me another opportunity to laugh at the R team for several days now and I really don't appreciate it.

D TEAM UNITE! YOUR HEAD CHEERLEADER IS CALLING, HIS ATTEMPTED RESCUE OF THEe IS FAILING.

:lol:

[Daniel]

My mom was a Special Education Teacher. I guess the exposure gave me a soft-spot for retards.



Only that industry is more than capable of expanding to meet military demands. We have two fucking nuclear submarine manufacturing facilities... think you can find a tighter niche industry than that?

The article was about ITT fleet management. I can hook you up with about six fleet management companies right off the cuff (and those are just the ones my corp works with). The "entry barriers" you're talking about are the Pentagon's contract management, nothing more.

Lol ok.

[Gan]

Lol ok.

Excellent rebuttal.

[Daniel]

D TEAM UNITE! YOUR HEAD CHEERLEADER IS CALLING, HIS ATTEMPTED RESCUE OF THEe IS FAILING.

:lol:

Are you Schitzo?

[Gan]

Are you Schitzo?

Another excellent rebuttal.

[Daniel]

Excellent rebuttal.

Thanks I thought his non response from the week prior was pretty spectacular myself. I guess it's hard to say that the problem is not in the lack of producing, when there are posts from the article on the same page that say otherwise.

[Daniel]

Another excellent rebuttal.

<meltdown>

[Latrinsorm]

I am obligated by what authority?That's the thing that separates morality or ethics from a contract or covenant: there is no authority figure, there is no "you must". It's impossible to make an "I should" without simultaneously making an "I can do otherwise". An ethical obligation is not a physical obligation (e.g., you are obliged to increase the entropy of the universe).
Thats exactly why all philosophies are simply philosophies and not laws. FREE CHOICE.There are actually quite a few philosophical tenets enshrined in laws in the United States. Some of them even have overtly religious names, for instance "Good Samaritan" laws.

In a broader sense, the philosophy of "hurting people is in general wrong" is fundamentally a part of our legal system. A person who freely chooses to believe that hurting other people is actually ok does not remove himself or herself from American jurisdiction.

[Gan]

That's the thing that separates morality or ethics from a contract or covenant: there is no authority figure, there is no "you must". It's impossible to make an "I should" without simultaneously making an "I can do otherwise". An ethical obligation is not a physical obligation (e.g., you are obliged to increase the entropy of the universe).There are actually quite a few philosophical tenets enshrined in laws in the United States. Some of them even have overtly religious names, for instance "Good Samaritan" laws.

In a broader sense, the philosophy of "hurting people is in general wrong" is fundamentally a part of our legal system. A person who freely chooses to believe that hurting other people is actually ok does not remove himself or herself from American jurisdiction.

In as much the same as someone who believes that a person has an inherent right to have all healthcare provided for them - especially without cost (taxes excluded) does not guarantee that ideal as material and therefore required in American society.

[Latrinsorm]

The point I was trying to make was there's nothing that says we couldn't decide that the "free health care for all" was just as fundamental to our country and legal system as the philosophical concepts of "don't hurt people" or "capitalism". That it isn't now is irrelevant to whether it could be - philosophy (especially philosophy held only by a minority elite) has been a part of the American system since July 4th, 1776.

[Gan]

The point I was trying to make was there's nothing that says we couldn't decide that the "free health care for all" was just as fundamental to our country and legal system as the philosophical concepts of "don't hurt people" or "capitalism". That it isn't now is irrelevant to whether it could be - philosophy (especially philosophy held only by a minority elite) has been a part of the American system since July 4th, 1776.

I think philosophical ideals that were introduced in 1776 were a lot easier to gain acceptance then than if they were to be introduced now.

[Warriorbird]

Yeah. People cared about other people back then.

[Gan]

I was thinking more along the lines of less educated, less informed, less able to communicate... the people that is.

:shrug:

[TheEschaton]

Ah yes, somehow education makes us care less about each other.

[Keller]

Ah yes, somehow education makes us care less about each other.

You forgot the italics, noob.

[TheEschaton]

srsly, I need to lrn2PC.

[Gan]

Would you say that more education tends to move people away from religion?

[oldanforgotten]

Wow, I expected Obama to carry the 3 states last night, but that was an outright annihilation. 20+ points in La, more than 2 to 1 in Washington and Nebraska. And most pre-polls have 15-20 point margins in Md and Va too.....

Looks like Hillarycare may be a moot point unless she can stop the momentum.
________
Move (http://www.toyota-wiki.com/wiki/Daihatsu_Move)

[Gan]

Party at Ilvane's house!

[Latrinsorm]

Would you say that more education tends to move people away from religion?I'm not sure it's remotely possible to account for all the variables involved there (adolescence, moving away from home, starting a family, etc.). I would guess that around college age there is a dip in religious (using the term in as strict a sense as I think you intend it) percentages, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to find the situation reversing itself as age increased.
I think philosophical ideals that were introduced in 1776 were a lot easier to gain acceptance then than if they were to be introduced now.That is worth pointing out (and amusing in a macabre sort of way), but if we ought to do something it shouldn't matter how easy or difficult it is to slip by everyone else.

[Gan]

I'm not sure it's remotely possible to account for all the variables involved there (adolescence, moving away from home, starting a family, etc.). I would guess that around college age there is a dip in religious (using the term in as strict a sense as I think you intend it) percentages, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to find the situation reversing itself as age increased.
I'm looking more at the education level of the society, as a result of the education level increase of individuals within, which tends to explain more of what was once inexplicable except for through the acts of God - which lended itself towards being religious founded in beliefs as a means of enlightenment instead of science and education - as it tends to be now. (Unless you're watching the news about a tornado ripping through a trailer park - where God reportedly punishes and saves in the same gesture)




That is worth pointing out (and amusing in a macabre sort of way), but if we ought to do something it shouldn't matter how easy or difficult it is to slip by everyone else.
Agreed, just saying that the adoption of philosophical ideals within the framework of laws governing a country were much easier in a less populated, less communicated, brand new country as compared to attempting to do it now.

I'm also curious as to why the ideal of available healthcare by all, if it has been espoused by historical figures (religous or otherwise), was suspiciously left out of any of the founding framework of our government.

Thought provoking.

[TheEschaton]

Because healthcare was provided by local doctors and family practitioners? And our Founding Fathers, prescient as they were, couldn't of imagined the landscape of politics and society today?

(P.S. I only argued that it was enshrined in the UN Declaration of Human Rights, not our Declaration, and that it not only didn't run counter to our founding documents, but embodied the philosophy of our founding documents).

[Keller]

Additionally, healthcare was quite a bit different then than it is now. Did they even have any accredited body to regulate "doctors"?

[Gan]

Because healthcare was provided by local doctors and family practitioners? And our Founding Fathers, prescient as they were, couldn't of imagined the landscape of politics and society today?
majestic vagueness... - if it [socialized medicine] was even remotely considered during the continental congress then it would have been included or at least a record of it mentioned in some form, debate, paper, historical record, etc. The fact that it is not present [or given any evidence in any form or concept] when other time honored issues/philosophies were and included leads me to conclude that it [socialized medicine] was NOT a popular philosophy at the time - or a philosophical idea at all (outside the Church - which needs to be sourced).

Especially when the history of medicine dates "houses of life" in Egypt as early as the 1st Dynasty where customers paid 'physicians' to be treated.

The concept of payment for treatment has been around long before it became a Christian ideal or since the establishment of our 13 colonies and then the founding of the USA. In fact, througout Europe in the 17th and 18th century it was considered normal that the first sources for healthcare were relatives, then local 'sick houses' when the condition worsened beyond the ability of the family. Sick houses employed surgeons as well as physicians - and they were considered occupations which accepted a form of payment in return for their services. One cant possibly argue that with this 'philosophy' of medicine already being practiced in Europe - and with the fact that our founding fathers were from Europe and heavily influenced by European society (laws, etc.) that if healthcare were socialized and not a pay-for service and if it had significant weight among society - then it would have been included somewhere.

If the idea that healthcare was intended to be free to humankind, then it would have been something that would have at least been debated over during the forming of the Constitution. So stop using the idea that its a philosophical tenant that was regarded at the time but mysteriously NOT included in any debate, paper, or idea included in our constitution.

Therefore stop using your claim of philosophical basis as justification for the need of socialized medicine now. Its not a mandate from any authority nor is it required by a 'civilized' society for that society to be considered 'civilized'.



(P.S. I only argued that it was enshrined in the UN Declaration of Human Rights, not our Declaration, and that it not only didn't run counter to our founding documents, but embodied the philosophy of our founding documents).
I seem to recall a post of yours stating that because it was in the UN Declaration of Human Rights, and because the US was a member of the UN, then the practice of making healthcare available to all should be part of the US framework for healthcare. Benefit by proxy, if you will. And yet in the UN Declaration of Human Rights I dont believe it ever outlined the distinction between access to healthcare (which we already have in some form or another) or free access to all healthcare - which is what this thread "Hillarycare" is all about.

Clarify the bolded part?

[Gan]

Additionally, healthcare was quite a bit different then than it is now. Did they even have any accredited body to regulate "doctors"?

The earliest I can find with European significance is the Medical and Chirurgical Society of London est. 1773.

and...

The Sick and Hurt Board and the health of seamen c. 1700-1806

and...

The Royal College in London est. ~1600

[TheEschaton]

LOL, of course, people paid for health care, but the whole "universal" aspect of socialized health care would have been far out of anyone's minds, because there was no concept of governmental control of health care, because health care was an entirely local issue.

And Hillary's health care isn't free, I don't think anyone claimed it was. The whole point of it is that it is universal, and all of socialized medicine debates talk about how it is UNIVERSAL. Not free. The UN document demands universal access to health care to be provided by member states if necessary.

-TheE-

[oldanforgotten]

Well, another day, another lost state in Maine, and she's officially replaced her campaign manager. If she gets blown out in Virginia, Maryland, and DC, I think that'll be all she needs to hear, because rumor is her massive lead in Texas has already shrunk to 10 points in Texas, and she's losing momentum by the day.
________
Easy Vape Review (http://vaporizer.org/reviews/easy-vape)

[TheEschaton]

yeah, if she's blown out in Potomac, I know she's done. I'm already pretty sure she's done right now. Hillarycare = irrelevant.

[Warriorbird]

I wish. She may win solely based on superdelegates.

[Parkbandit]

I wish. She may win solely based on superdelegates.


Can you say hypocrisy if that is what it comes to? I actually hope it does come down to the super delegates deciding who the nominee is. It will show a bright light on the shady side politics. Maybe we can get some real reform.. instead of that McCain-Feingold abortion.

[Clove]

Can you say hypocrisy if that is what it comes to? I actually hope it does come down to the super delegates deciding who the nominee is. It will show a bright light on the shady side politics. Maybe we can get some real reform.. instead of that McCain-Feingold abortion.

"Democracy" in action.

[TheEschaton]

There's still like 700 superdelegates uncommitted, and I would like to think they'd go to Obama if they realized the shit had hit the fan on the Hillary side.

[Gan]

What you fail to realize is that your experiences and what you have taken out of them are not representative of all people who have had the same experiences. You are a republican, and have republican values. There are people just like TheE who feel the same way (George Bush anyone?) that you do.
I support gay marriage.
I support abortion.

I'm a Republican. Check.


Whereas there are people who have worked just as hard, if not infinitely harder to get just as much, if not infinitely more than you do and feel exactly the opposite (Warren Buffet anyone?).
No arguments there. I'm not unique by any means with regards as to how I have lived.


In fact, you will find that the *vast* majority of people who represent the democratic party historically have been those working joes that you now claim to represent.
As if everyone can just simply be classified as Democrat or Republican. I represent a dual income with child middle class income family. Nothing more, nothing less.


So please, STFU.
You first. :)


Oh, and I still have a big penis. It doens't really change with how hard I bark, or how hard you wish. Sorry.
Overcompensation. Learn it, live it, love it. They say recognizing your denial is the first step to recovery. :lol:

[Gan]

There's still like 700 superdelegates uncommitted, and I would like to think they'd go to Obama if they realized the shit had hit the fan on the Hillary side.

Hillary is now banking on the same strategy that Guiliani banked on with Florida.

Obama will take the nomination.

Which means a delimma for me because I like Obama. I just dont know if I like all of his issues.

[Gan]

Who's editing the fuck out of the thread?

I'm seeing massive posts missing.

*Nvmnd.

Cross argument, different thread.

[Warriorbird]

Ilvane?

[Daniel]

Who's editing the fuck out of the thread?

I'm seeing massive posts missing.

*Nvmnd.

Cross argument, different thread.


Working too hard buddy.

Take a break.

[Gan]

Multi-tasking

FTL