Get off DHC for a minute, the debate’s on TV!

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

Postby Brydog » Wed Oct 08, 2008 10:06 pm

seastreet wrote:
Brydog wrote:I worship no one but myself redline.
With what you said, It sounds to me like you think its in the bag already for Obama.

Cute picture of "That one" redline. Keep em' coming..... :lol:

You and C-street must get your smear pics at the same Right Wingnut page,....


Obviously, someone fell asleep on the shortbus again. I've seen two pecans laying on the ground that have more intelligence and wit than your usual drivel.

When you are ready to have a logical conversation instead of your usual blathering drivel, let me know.


I have no desire to have any kind of conversation with you seastreet. For the reason, refer to Spinnerman's signature.

BTW, Is "Drivel" another newly acquired word in your vocabulary ???
“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer God than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
~Stephen Roberts
User avatar
Brydog
Banned
 
Posts: 4941
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2005 1:00 pm
Location: Lake Isabella Michigan, Houghton Lake Michigan


Postby jaysweet3 » Thu Oct 09, 2008 7:56 am

dudejcb wrote:
jaysweet3 wrote:Man Obama sounds just like a socialist.

do you know that Republicans were the original "progressives?" It's quite a leap from being populist or progressive (promoting fairness for those with little power or influence) to being a socialist where everyone gets screwed except the party elite.

Try reading some books not written by political hacks.


Maybe you should re-read Marx and for the first time read the Constitution of the United States and tell me which one Obama's policies resemble.
User avatar
jaysweet3
hunter
 
Posts: 8174
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 8:42 am
Location: N. Illinois

Postby Pacific Fisher » Thu Oct 09, 2008 8:55 am

Maybe McCain will do better in the Town Hall format debate.
Oh wait, that was the Town Hall debate. :rofl:

And to think the poor booger wanted to have ten of those with Obama.
Pacific Fisher
hunter
 
Posts: 454
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 9:36 am
Location: Gualala, CA

Postby SpinnerMan » Thu Oct 09, 2008 9:20 am

You must have never watched town halls. The questions were all chosen by the moderator. There were reasons that Obama didn't want to have weekly town halls (no moderator choosing questions) and the only "town hall" was a sham, which is what was the only thing Obama would have agreed to.

Obama didn't want 10 town halls because he was and still is scared. He cannot answer questions on abortion and guns because his campaign would crash and burn because to be to the left of Obama on abortion you have to actually support infanticide and to be to the left of Obama on guns you have to call for a nationwide ban. Then there are questions on Ayers, Wright, etc. There are all kinds of questions Obama cannot answer and the press will only ask delicately so he can tap dance around them.

All hail the perfect Obama :bow:

You do know this is America and we are supposed to hate all of our politicians because they all suck. We just have to pick one that sucks less. This Obama worships is really scaring the hell out of me.

My wife and I went to a Seal concert. It was my first personal witness of Obama worship. He made comments like "this is where it all began" People in the crowd would scream out "Obama" It was scary to see people so fanatical about a politician. When I left, I told the other guy that went with us, "I see how Hitler came to power" I am serious about this. There is a significant fraction of people that are worshipping this guy. He's just an f'ing politician. Good or bad, the worship thing should at least cause a hint of concern.

If you don't know who Seal is, I didn't.
http://www.harrahs.com/EventsDetail.do?detailName=100508-seal-detail&displayCode=&locationCode=UHA&eventTitle=SEAL&searchDate=10-05-2008&categoryName=ALL_CATEGORIES&subcategoryName=ALL_SUBCATEGORIES&startDay=01&startMonthYear=10-2008&endDay=07&endMonthYear=10-2008
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16029
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Postby GroundSwatter » Thu Oct 09, 2008 9:21 am

dudejcb wrote: do you know that Republicans were the original "progressives?" It's quite a leap from being populist or progressive (promoting fairness for those with little power or influence) to being a socialist where everyone gets screwed except the party elite.


dude, you are correct that intially the republicans were the "liberals" and the dem's were the "conservatives." As we all know Lincoln was a Republican and he did some radical things for his time, such as freeing slaves, etc. Nothing wrong with it, just stating that was a radical movement for the era.

I currently think the party names are more fitting with the arrangement we have now as it does appear that Rep's, although they are not totally for small government, want to leave more power to the states and dem's want a larger federal government.

I agree with spinner in the fact that at least with rep's they're going to keep the government smaller than the dem's would.

As for you comment on socialism, there are a lot of different concepts of socialism, such as democratic socialism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism

Some definitions of democratic socialism simply refers to all forms of socialism that follow an electoral, reformist or evolutionary path to socialism, rather than a revolutionary one.


I know we all seem to think of Russia when we think of socialism, but much of Europe has been heavily influenced by democratic socialism, i.e. all the European Labor Unions, Health Care Systems, etc.

Sweden, although not totally democratic socialist, still kind of acts like it since they tax their people around 40%-60% (I think it used to be closer to 80%) of their salaries and provide them with health care, education, etc. So everyone there has a decent quality of life, but you all have the same stuff, unless you use whats left of your salary to buy nicer things. Also, I believe most of the businesses are government owned. It is democratic in a way that they do elect officials.

In these definitions, I don't think of socialism as evil, but anytime you put more power into the hands of your Federal Government, their is more temptation for corruption and more temptation to strip citizens rights away to remain in power, hence why I prefer small government.

So saying that we'll become a socialist country if we vote for Obama is a stretch, but the things he speaks about, the regulations he wants to implement, the government programs the current dem's have supported time and time again look to be moving in that direction.

Do you think the guy that makes $20,000 a year should get the same health care as the guy that makes $200,000 a year? If you think everyone has a right to health care, that is a socialist concept.

Some of this I'm working on memory, so if there are any fallacies, please correct me.
It's a fact that 70 percent of the people who purchase heavier tackle do so with the categorical I just lost a huge snook! Einstein Hairdo.The other 30 percent have either Tarpon Fever or are sporting a hand cramped into a claw from a deepwater grouper.
User avatar
GroundSwatter
hunter
 
Posts: 3641
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 3:22 pm
Location: GTMO from NE Texas

Postby Pacific Fisher » Thu Oct 09, 2008 9:25 am

Obama certainly does not look like the "scared" candidate to me.
Pacific Fisher
hunter
 
Posts: 454
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 9:36 am
Location: Gualala, CA

Postby dudejcb » Thu Oct 09, 2008 10:53 am

Okay you two. If you wnat to continue this game... Look at the thread on Palin Pallin' with terrorists and explain her Country of Alaska.

No, I don't think Obama's a socialist any more than I am. I think he believes that some social issues should be addressed. The opposite I suppose would be the anarchist libertarian view, where anything goes. Oh wait, that McCain's proposed medical plan.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5245
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Postby jaysweet3 » Thu Oct 09, 2008 12:19 pm

Yeah, making someone responsible for supplying their own health care sounds pretty crazy. I don't know if we (the American People), can handle the responsibility. Instead, of me buying my own healthcare, which I already do, I will buy mine and other peoples, who choose not to buy it. That sounds about right.
User avatar
jaysweet3
hunter
 
Posts: 8174
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 8:42 am
Location: N. Illinois

Postby dudejcb » Thu Oct 09, 2008 12:27 pm

uhh, jaysweet,

you already are paying for other's healthcare... IN THE MOST EXPENSIVE MANNER POSSIBLE! That's the point.

Please try to keep up.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5245
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Postby jaysweet3 » Thu Oct 09, 2008 12:38 pm

Oh God...do you not see the value of people having to actually take care of themselves?
User avatar
jaysweet3
hunter
 
Posts: 8174
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 8:42 am
Location: N. Illinois

Postby dudejcb » Thu Oct 09, 2008 12:41 pm

yes I see the value of people taking care of themselves. I also recognize that many simply have not, will not and don't... (could I say that another way to help you understand?) and the way we deal with the cost of them showing up in the ER now for a sniffle or sore throat...where a regular doctor appointment would do for far less, costs the rest of us more than it needs to.

My point is to reduce the impact of society's slugs on the rest of us.
Besides that, MCain's plan will cost you more just on its own merits. The idea of people buying their own insurance isn't bad, it just doesn't solve the situation as it exists in reality. And mcain's plan will make it worse.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5245
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Postby SpinnerMan » Thu Oct 09, 2008 1:02 pm

A high deductible policy is not that expensive. Even with my wife's preexisting condition, we were able to move all over the country and still afford health insurance while I was a graduate student.

Health insurance is expensive primarily because you have to pay for things you would never pay for if you had a choice, you are paying for the crazy lawsuits, and the very low deductables.

Why should we allow people to walk into the ER and walk away from their bills? What other areas of life should people be allowed to walk in get something the want or need and walk away from the bills? Isn't food more important than health care? Should they be able to walk into the grocery story and get food even if they can't pay? This is an insane notion.

They should have to treat the people, but if they don't have proper identification, they don't get to walk back out the door. They need to be stuck with the bill. It's up to them if they want to buy insurance or risk everything they own.

As I said before, a high deductible policy that covers major expenses is NOT that expensive. We maintained insurance for me and my wife while we had combined income of less than $20k/yr while I was in graduate school. She even had a preexisting condition that increased the premiums substantially.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16029
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Postby dudejcb » Thu Oct 09, 2008 1:11 pm

Spinnr I tend to agree with you. But reality is reality. And the point is how do we deal with the situation as we find it.

Face it. Hospitals, by law, must treat anyone who shows up needing treatment. That is not likely to change, so how do we deal with it in a way that hurts those of us who pay our bills in the most minimal way possible.

BTW: That AIG shindig is another example of why publicly administered health care might cost less. Take the profit and poor business practices out of the health care value chain, and then worry about how to keep a close eye on the public administrators so theri beaurocracy doesn't blow it.

And before anyone says it: all corporations have theri bureaucracies and their dead wood to deal with. We hear about government problems becsue there is oversight potential, whereas in the private sector there isvery little potential.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5245
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Postby SpinnerMan » Thu Oct 09, 2008 1:30 pm

The change I am implying is very simple. You can still go get emergency care, but you must show proper identification and you are obligated to pay the bills. How will anyone get hurt by this proposal? Other than doing something stupid like letting themselves die to avoid paying the bills?

AIG shows why you don't want to put all of your eggs in one basket. AIG is mismanaged and it goes belly up as it should. The government system will be mismanaged by the Professional Liars and it will not go belly up because it will have a monopoly that can demand that the customers pay whatever they want them to pay. Monopolies are bad whether they are the government or the private sector creations of government regulation.

We need competition and the freedom to move from one to the other without penalty if we are already covered by the same plan. That way the consumer can move to the plan with the smallest bureaucracy and least deadwood because it will be the low cost provider.

The government needs to set the standards so there is uniformity, sufficient assests, minimize scams, provide a dispute resolution system (no denying covered benefits and no slandering companies into paying uncovered expenses), flexibility in plans (bare bones to luxury plans), etc.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16029
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Postby jaysweet3 » Fri Oct 10, 2008 7:21 am

This mommy and daddy will take care of me, way of thinking is what got us in this situation. Time to turn this way of thinking around. McCain's proposed method of insuring everyone is a good start.
User avatar
jaysweet3
hunter
 
Posts: 8174
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 8:42 am
Location: N. Illinois

Postby dudejcb » Fri Oct 10, 2008 8:51 am

I agree. Do you really think the situation will change becasue McCain want to make those who pay, pay differently. that a non-sequitor... the logic doesn't follow.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5245
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Postby SpinnerMan » Fri Oct 10, 2008 4:41 pm

Not sure what you are saying.

We need to break the link between employment and health care. There are far too many people tied to a job solely because they cannot affort to quit. This is a step in that direction.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16029
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Postby dudejcb » Fri Oct 10, 2008 4:52 pm

I think we're having some cross-talk between you, me and jaysweet that creating some confusion. And reading my last post with all the typos, how would anyone know what I was getting at.

I agree (Spinner) and think breakign the bond between emplyers and emplyee healthcare would be a good thing... if done my way ( :yes: ) (so gay)

But what I was attempting to say to Jaysweet was... thoe of us who pay will wind up paying for free loaders and tose who cannot afford it no matter what happens. That's just the way I think it will allways be even though we don't like it.

so by eliminating the non-value-adding parts of the system we have now (ie, insurance execs, their shareholders, their marketing and ad guys, and the TV stations they pay for advertisements) the money saved can go toward care givers, and whatever MINIMAL administration is necessary.

If this were done through universal taxpayer paid healthcare--repugngnt though ti may be--it would unburden American Businesses (to the extent that they may choose to offer enhanced coverage) and they would be more profitable and competitive... in theory.

I know. I'm a dreamer and the path is fraught with potential pitfalls. But I think we've fully developed all the expensive pitfalls possible in our current system, so starting fresh might give us a chance for improvement, at least for a while.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5245
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Previous

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: boney fingers, Google Adsense [Bot] and 3 guests