The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Are we a Police State yet? (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5 [Next]
Jeff J.
View Profile
Special user
Connecticut
787 Posts

Profile of Jeff J.
Define "morals".
Steve_Mollett
View Profile
Inner circle
Eh, so I've made
3010 Posts

Profile of Steve_Mollett
Define "potrezebie."
Author of: GARROTE ESCAPES
The absurd is the essential concept and the first truth.
- Albert Camus
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1192 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On 2012-07-12 22:42, Old Scratch Johnson wrote:
Define "morals".


For the purposes of this discussion, I'd say "pertaining to principles of right and wrong." The position that we "should" help our fellow person with his/her healthcare needs is a moral belief. Requiring us to do so under threat of legal financial sanctions is an imposition of that moral belief.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
Jeff J.
View Profile
Special user
Connecticut
787 Posts

Profile of Jeff J.
Quote:
On 2012-07-12 22:55, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-07-12 22:42, Old Scratch Johnson wrote:
Define "morals".


For the purposes of this discussion, I'd say "pertaining to principles of right and wrong." The position that we "should" help our fellow person with his/her healthcare needs is a moral belief. Requiring us to do so under threat of legal financial sanctions is an imposition of that moral belief.


I agree with your definition in this case. We can both be correct in our opinion as to healthcare vs. a religious law such as stem cell research. I'll just ask you this. At the end of the day, would you rather pay a couple bucks so someone in need can get medical help, or be told you can't shop or do business on a certain day because some politicians decided it was a holy day?
rockwall
View Profile
Special user
763 Posts

Profile of rockwall
Quote:
On 2012-07-12 20:46, mastermindreader wrote:
Of course it is based on other factors. Many other factors. I just find it ironic that those who once happily espoused the notion of personal responsibility as a rationale for a mandate, suddenly hated the idea when Obama accepted it in an attempted bi-partisan compromise to what he originally wanted.


Don't confuse the fact that 'some' Republicans happily espoused the notion that 'all' Republicans loved the idea.
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
That's true. Just as there are many Democrats who weren't thrilled with the idea either but merely saw it as a compromise and somewhat less that what they wanted.

That said, though, I still think its pretty revealing how so many Republicans did an about face on the idea the moment Obama adopted it. It wasn't the idea they were opposed to, it was simply that they had already decided not to endorse ANY plan he came up with.
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2012-07-13 00:16, Old Scratch Johnson wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-07-12 22:55, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-07-12 22:42, Old Scratch Johnson wrote:
Define "morals".


For the purposes of this discussion, I'd say "pertaining to principles of right and wrong." The position that we "should" help our fellow person with his/her healthcare needs is a moral belief. Requiring us to do so under threat of legal financial sanctions is an imposition of that moral belief.


I agree with your definition in this case. We can both be correct in our opinion as to healthcare vs. a religious law such as stem cell research. I'll just ask you this. At the end of the day, would you rather pay a couple bucks so someone in need can get medical help, or be told you can't shop or do business on a certain day because some politicians decided it was a holy day?


Besides being a false dichotomy . . .
It's the fact they you're being FORCED to pay for someone else. Most people certainly don't mind helping, they just don't like being forced to, nor being punished, or threatened, for nor helping.
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
Hi Bob,

If Obamacare is such a great thing, why does the legislation specifically exempt Members of Congress from it?
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
People who already have health insurance aren't effected by it. The ACA actually gives a lot of other folks the opportunity to get the same coverage enjoyed by members of Congress.
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
The logic that being forced to buy insurance is paying for someone elses care doesn't really hold up. You are actually paying for the care you yourself will eventually need. The side benefit is that early participation enlarges the pool and brings the costs down.

The same argument you are making can be, and has been, made against Social Security. (I don't want it so why should I pay for it?)
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1192 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Beginning in 2014, members of Congress will be *more* constrained by the ACA than the rest of us.

As for the logic that you're paying for someone else's care not holding up, it's written directly into the bill.

I agree that people who already have insurance aren't directly affected, but I would add that they may be indirectly affected if they have that insurance through an employer who discontinues the plan they're on and would not do so but for the ACA. It remains to be seen how this will shake out; the number of employers expected to discontinue plans is a small number, but it's not zero.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
rockwall
View Profile
Special user
763 Posts

Profile of rockwall
Quote:
On 2012-07-13 01:25, mastermindreader wrote:
That's true. Just as there are many Democrats who weren't thrilled with the idea either but merely saw it as a compromise and somewhat less that what they wanted.

That said, though, I still think its pretty revealing how so many Republicans did an about face on the idea the moment Obama adopted it. It wasn't the idea they were opposed to, it was simply that they had already decided not to endorse ANY plan he came up with.


I find it pretty revealing that you think that many Republicans would have supported Nationalized health care if only someone else had been President. If only John McCain had been elected, health care would have been passed by a large bi-partisan group! Sure.
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
Your right about the logic. What I meant to say was that being forced to buy insurance is not solely for the purpose of paying for other people. It is also to eventually cover your own needs. As I noted, it is wide participation that brings the costs down for everyone.
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5019 Posts

Profile of landmark
Quote:
On 2012-07-12 15:10, rockwall wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-07-11 23:47, landmark wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-07-11 22:38, gdw wrote:
Is this a more recent view, or are you just letting out what you've always felt?

If you're asking me, I've long considered myself a radical; the difference is that as I get older, I feel it is less likely that things will get any better. Or, perhaps that things will have to get a whole lot worse for a long time before they will get any better, and even then there's no guarantee. As to voting, I was probably a little more enthusiastic when I was younger, but except for two times--my first and my last--I've always voted third party under the reasoning that it was important to declare opposition to the two party one party system. But really, no one cares, and it doesn't make a difference either way.

Debbie Downer, over and out.


So you're saying you 'didn't' vote Obama in '08? I must admit, that surprises me. I assumed you thought him the great savior like so many progressives did and were only later disalusioned. As to 'things will have to get a whole lot worse before they will get any better', that's exactly how I felt back in '08 and why I was OK with Obama getting elected. I knew the result would be that things would get a whole lot worse. I just didn't realize they'd get 'this' bad. Or that so many people would be so blind to how bad it continues to get.

I voted for the present office holder without any illusions. Well almost no illusions. Despite his campaign rhetoric, it was clear from his Congressional record that he was a hack bought and sold. If there was any doubt at all, he gave himself away during the campaign by voting to retroactively immunize telephone companies from prosecution for invasion of privacy, after he said he would not vote that way.

Anyway, so why did I vote for him, given my record for the 36 years before that? Because, and only because, I was so terrified that if the previous office holder's party won again, the record of his crimes would go into some dark hole, and the evildoers would never be punished. Surely his successor from the opposing party would find it in his self-interest at least to hold his predecessor accountable.

So I held my nose and voted.

And Lucy pulled the football away from Charlie Brown again.

Foolish me.
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1192 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On 2012-07-13 22:00, landmark wrote:
I voted for the present office holder without any illusions. Well almost no illusions. Despite his campaign rhetoric, it was clear from his Congressional record that he was a hack bought and sold. If there was any doubt at all, he gave himself away during the campaign by voting to retroactively immunize telephone companies from prosecution for invasion of privacy, after he said he would not vote that way.


If Chance or Al call you a racist Tea Partier conservative for making such critical comments about our president, and as a result, Coke Zero comes out my nose and ruins my laptop, I'm taking the New York bar exam just so I can sue you.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5019 Posts

Profile of landmark
As Zimmerman said (no, the other one) when you ain't got nothing you got nothing to lose.
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
Quote:
On 2012-07-13 12:34, rockwall wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-07-13 01:25, mastermindreader wrote:
That's true. Just as there are many Democrats who weren't thrilled with the idea either but merely saw it as a compromise and somewhat less that what they wanted.

That said, though, I still think its pretty revealing how so many Republicans did an about face on the idea the moment Obama adopted it. It wasn't the idea they were opposed to, it was simply that they had already decided not to endorse ANY plan he came up with.


I find it pretty revealing that you think that many Republicans would have supported Nationalized health care if only someone else had been President. If only John McCain had been elected, health care would have been passed by a large bi-partisan group! Sure.


I find it pretty revealing that both the Obama's ACA and Romneycare were both, in fact, largely based on the plan set forth by that darling of the left Smile - Richard Nixon:

Quote:
Mitt Romney has pledged to repeal President Obama's universal health care law if he is elected president. Critics find his position rather strange, arguing that the plan he helped develop when he was governor of Massachusetts is quite similar in design to the Obama plan. Romney disputes his critics, saying there are important and fundamental differences between the plans. Who is correct?

In actuality, both plans draw extensively from legislation offered by President Nixon in January 1974. In a book just published, "Power, Politics, and Universal Health Care," David Shactman and I explain how Romney and Obama used the same approach as Nixon to lower the number of uninsured.

All three built their system on private, employer-sponsored insurance in which all but the smallest employers had to provide insurance to their workers or pay a penalty. All utilized Medicare to insure the elderly and an expanded Medicaid-type program to insure the poor. All provided subsidies to low-income individuals and small employers. The Romney and Obama plans created state-based private insurance exchanges to make insurance more accessible and affordable to small business and individuals.


http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/25/opinion/al......dex.html

We should also remember that Republican Theodore Roosevelt was the FIRST president to push for national health care way back in 1912. I guess those modern Republicans who are proud that Teddy was one of their own didn't know that he was obviously a Socialist.
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1192 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Somehow, I just don't see Nancy Pelosi gushing over "Nixoncare,"
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
Pop Haydn
View Profile
Inner circle
Los Angeles
3527 Posts

Profile of Pop Haydn
I think the genius "Rope a Dope" strategy that Obama adopted was to push through the Republican's own plan, even though to most of us Democrats it was anathema. We wanted, and have always wanted, a universal coverage single-payer plan.

He could never have gotten a single payer plan through. By turning to Nixon's idea, which had been added to and enlarged by conservative Republican think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, he was able to push through a workable compromise.

The Republicans didn't treat it as a compromise. They attacked it as if it were from Satan himself. They vilified it and the President. They could never now support anything like it.

But this is a death pill for the Republicans.

Now the Republicans have no alternative to offer.

They have to run against their own plan, and have no decent alternative to put in its place. That is why this election is going to be fun to watch. It isn't just Romney running against his own wonderful accomplishment, it is the whole Republican Party running against their own best alternative to single-payer universal coverage.
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
I still believe, though, that we will eventually end up with single payer. The ACA was definitely a compromise but it was also a step in the right direction.
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Are we a Police State yet? (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.17 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL