wah wah red chicklet + politics thread

[craigsub]

To your points 1 and 2: I don't know how to respond to such an absurd 'alternate future'. I won't deign it with a response.

To point 3: Most six foot people that are 225 are clinically obese (a BMI over 30). I think you will be required as an individual to purchase (out of pocket) supplemental insurance. Just like having a lead foot, you may have to pay higher insurance premiums because of points on your license.

To point 4: Who said there would be no profit motive for pharma? I think more people with access to health care would be a good thing for big pharma. I love how you now have PSA about teens using prescription drugs. Remember, pharma lobbied congress to be able to advertise all those solutions in a little pill. There is a direct correlation to illicit use of prescription by teens to advertising.

To point 5: Is that a real world example? How about if you make over 200K it's 30%, if you make over $500K it's 80%. Just because you propose a scheme doesn't mean that it has anything to do with what is really going on.

To point 6: I am surprised at your stance on this. I should have the same rights of Doctrine of First Sale' to duplicate a DVD as I do with CD or a Cassette.

After I purchase something I should be able to do with as I please with in Doctrine of First Sale and Fair Use. Anyways some one made the assertion that our liberties aren't affected by big business. Unfortunately for them a readily available example was on hand.

I asked questions, I did not make points. There is a difference.

1. My brother-in-law is an ER surgeon. He is dead set against any national health care program, and has stated he would retire should we go to that system. I have several doctors who are friends, and they have all said the same thing - nationalize it, and they will retire.

If you don't think that's a legit concern, you are entitled to your opinion. Unlike you, I won't call your stance "absurd".

2. As for worrying about my son, and you calling a question about this "absurd", that speaks volumes about you. The federal government will have to have limits regarding what resources will be available to people for the "free" health care. We don't know what will happen to people who want to work outside the "free" system, but there is a good chance it would not be permitted under a government program.

3. You think there should be an extra charge for obese people to be involved in National Health Care. What about obese people with no means to pay ?

What about other risky behavior ... such as smoking ? drinking ?

4. If health care is nationalized, it will be the government setting the prices the pharm companies can charge. Companies will naturally be concerned about making enough to cover R&D costs. Personally, I loathe the pharm industry ads where they tell one to "ask your doctor about fixeetra", but that had nothing to do with my question.

5. I did not propose a scheme, I used an example merely to put some numbers into the question. The question stands: Does putting more money into the economy create jobs ?

6. My stance ? I asked a question.

 

[rnatalli]

My brother-in-law is an ER surgeon. He is dead set against any national health care program, and has stated he would retire should we go to that system. I have several doctors who are friends, and they have all said the same thing - nationalize it, and they will retire.

If you don't think that's a legit concern, you are entitled to your opinion. Unlike you, I won't call your stance "absurd".

I have to ask why. I only see two possibilities. Either he like so many doctors are in it for the money, or he doesn't want to deal with the government. Both lead me to the same conclusion. He has no business being a doctor. Being a doctor is about helping and curing people. However, if his reason is because he feels the government will tell him how to do his job, I can appreciate this. The argument that the industry will lose all the "good" people doesn't hold as so many in this world do so much for reasons other than money and comfort. Teachers are a good example among many.

 

[Davemcc]

Of course they presented a populist agenda and called themselves "socialists" as this was how to win elections at that time. However, presenting and doing are different things.

These are the things that Hitler campaigned on during his election. Not surprisingly, these are also the programs that he implemented in Germany during the 1930's, along with such other socialist programs as his People's Car and KdF. The fact of the matter is that he acted, de jure and de facto, as a socialist during his term of government. Anyway, on to the party program:

9. All citizens of the State shall be equal as regards rights and duties.

10. The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically. The activities of the individual may not clash with the interests of the whole, but must proceed within the frame of the community and be for the general good.

Therefore we demand:

11. That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.

12. Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in life and property, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as a crime against the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits whether in assets or material.

13. We demand the nationalization of businesses which have been organized into cartels.

14. We demand that all the profits from wholesale trade shall be shared out.

15. We demand extensive development of provision for old age.

16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle-class, the immediate communalization of department stores which will be rented cheaply to small businessmen, and that preference shall be given to small businessmen for provision of supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.

17. We demand a land reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to confiscate from the owners without compensation any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.

Any or all of these items are policies that socialists would be happy to have enacted today. And this is exactly how Germany was governed during Hitler's tenure.

If you continue to insist that Hitler was somehow "right wing", perhaps you could post some specific policies that you consider "right wing" that would make your case. I see you saying that he was right wing, to all evidence to the contrary, yet I see nothing in the form of content or specifics to back this claim. What did he do, specifically, that makes you consider him right wing.

 

[Davemcc]

No you don't have liberty from Big Business. When was the last time you could make a legal backup/copy of a DVD that you owned?

I can do that legally every day of the week. For that matter, I can legal download audio content on shareware. Canada has quite different intellectual property laws.

 

[Davemcc]

To your points 1 and 2: I don't know how to respond to such an absurd 'alternate future'. I won't deign it with a response.

This is not an "alternate future" to some of us, although it is absurd. Canada already has public health care and doctor's are, for all intents and purposes, public servants. Doctors here do, in fact, have a salary cap [or had, as the case may be]. The end result is that very, very many of Canada's doctors and medical school graduates left the country to practice in the United States. This is not a little exodus, but rather presents a serious policy issue for the politicians who hope to retain doctors while at the same time limiting their salary.

Take Canada's lesson to heart. Public health care, especially if implemented with salary caps, very well may lead to the exodus of America's finest doctors to more favorable, meaning profitable, jurisdictions.

 

[craigsub]

I have to ask why. I only see two possibilities. Either he like so many doctors are in it for the money, or he doesn't want to deal with the government. Both lead me to the same conclusion. He has no business being a doctor. Being a doctor is about helping and curing people. However, if his reason is because he feels the government will tell him how to do his job, I can appreciate this. The argument that the industry will lose all the "good" people doesn't hold as so many in this world do so much for reasons other than money and comfort. Teachers are a good example among many.

He does not want the government telling him what he can make. He does not want the government telling him what kind of care he needs to give to people. At least with private insurance, one can leave to find a better carrier if one is not being served to one's satisfaction.

At our dealerships, we shop for insurance carriers every year. I am not too fond of the idea of giving up that ability so that I can deal with a government worker for my health care.

Here is a link to an October, 2006 article about what Canada had to do.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061004/ont_doctors_061004?s_name=&no_ads=

Here are the opening 2 paragraphs ...

TORONTO -- The Ontario government allowed the number of doctors earning more than $476,000 annually to jump 56 per cent last year -- some averaging salaries upwards of $718,000 -- in order to ease the pressure of a shortage of physicians, Health Minister George Smitherman said Wednesday.


The salary cap was lifted because 1.2 million Ontario residents don't have a doctor, and the province wanted to encourage existing doctors to see more patients, Smitherman said.

It took Canada quite a few years of national health care to realize that limiting doctor's pay was not helping patients.

 

[rnatalli]

If you continue to insist that Hitler was somehow "right wing", perhaps you could post some specific policies that you consider "right wing" that would make your case. I see you saying that he was right wing, to all evidence to the contrary, yet I see nothing in the form of content or specifics to back this claim. What did he do, specifically, that makes you consider him right wing.

I suggest you look up Weber, Paxton, Griffin, and Payne. There are several others, but I can't recall them off the top-of-my-head. This is not as simple as you're making it.

 

[Davemcc]

This is not as simple as you're making it.

So I guess those 20th Century European history classes on my way to my history degree were wasted. I really don't feel like digging back into my textbooks nor do I feel like interweb researching. If you have something to say, just say it. No reason for a long diatribe. A couple of lines will do fine.

 

[Adam]

My understanding of and thoughts on politics are pretty simple and can be summed up with the following: ummmmm.

That's why I'm so happy that others are passionate and get educated on these topics. The discussions keep us moving forward, IMO (even though I tend to only skim over them, given my thought process described above).

 

[highfigh]

1) I think the tax cut amounts to something like $13/week. I honestly don't see that helping the middle-class. The lower-class maybe, but $52/month won't make a difference to the majority IMO. We can agree to disagree.

3) I can't argue with you here. There is a lot waste in government. Doesn't matter who's in charge.

4) I personally always prefer to meet things head on. I say lets do it all and bear the pain. I suppose it wouldn't hurt to spread things over time. However, from a political perspective, it's likely Obama won't be able to pass additional programs later when his popularity falls and it will so he's pushing everything now.

I do agree that illegals are a problem and burden on the healthcare system. Ideally, not having so many illegals would solve this problem. Of course there are those who abuse a system, but I would think most people don't enjoy spending time at doctor's offices and hospitals. I know I do. A good system of checks a balances should be implemented.
------------

As for people who abuse the welfare system, I think my dad has a pretty good idea. Welfare sends a babysitter out to watch the children people couldn't afford to have and sends the parent(s) to work. Doesn't have to be a real job, picking up trash on the street, cleaning parks, etc... Deduct a portion of their check for childcare or simply withhold it. It's better than giving them check after check for nothing. Of course, I agree some truly need help and they should get it.

I'd rather the welfare recipients be required to get their GED, at the minimum. That would immediately make them better candidates for better jobs/any job. Now, all the education in the world won't make them act like law abiding, civilized people, with a bit of motivation but I have to think that once they get the GED, their opinion of themselves will improve.

No school, no welfare. Make it easier for them to take classes and as you say- help by providing help with the kids. I'm all for having clean streets and parks.

 

[Midcow2]

Wow thank you very much and our wonderful government officials

"I just had to do it" nice unsigned red chicklet ...I love it you just don't get it do you

Okay .. Now back to the discussion. Let's see welfare recipinets should obtain GEDs, what a noble thought and exactly what would a GED show that they were prompted and primed with the test qustions. You think they would budget thier money any better or even care ? Getting a GEd won't help and youmight be suprised that many people of welfare have a GED or better!

I know this post is old and has been posted before, but have you really looked into the qualitiy and integrity of our government officials .. I mean besides the fact that they are chameleons .. just look back at the staunch supports of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. First get rid of Barnie "fife" Frank and Chris Doss (nevermind Chris will be go next election). .. side point when do Barney Frank's speech impediment lessons begin ?

Our government representatives are so wonderful. It is about time we go away from a misrepresentiative govenment.

Our government : ENJOY again ...especailly for you anonymous negative liberals.

36 have been accused of spousal abuse

7 have been arrested for fraud

19 have been accused of writing bad checks

117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses

3 have done time for assault

71 repeat 71
cannot get a credit card due to bad credit

14 have been arrested on drug-related charges

8 have been arrested for shoplifting
21 currently are defendants in lawsuits,
and
84 have been arrested for drunk driving
in the last year



It's the 435 members of the
United States Congress

The same group of Idiots that crank out
hundreds of new laws each year
designed to keep the rest of us in line.


later,

MidCow2

 

[highfigh]

"I just had to do it" nice unsigned red chicklet ...I love it you just don't get it do you

Okay .. Now back to the discussion. Let's see welfare recipinets should obtain GEDs, what a noble thought and exactly what would a GED show that they were prompted and primed with the test qustions. You think they would budget thier money any better or even care ? Getting a GEd won't help and youmight be suprised that many people of welfare have a GED or better!

I know this post is old and has been posted before, but have you really looked into the qualitiy and integrity of our government officials .. I mean besides the fact that they are chameleons .. just look back at the staunch supports of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. First get rid of Barnie "fife" Frank and Chris Doss (nevermind Chris will be go next election). .. side point when do Barney Frank's speech impediment lessons begin ?

Our government representatives are so wonderful. It is about time we go away from a misrepresentiative govenment.

The same group of Idiots that crank out
hundreds of new laws each year
designed to keep the rest of us in line. [/COLOR]

later,

MidCow2

Who said anything about priming them with the answers. If they don't pass, they either don't get, or they get less. The problem with the system as it stands is they don't have any kind of carrot in front of them, except for the one that pays them more if they pound out more kids. If you had paid attention to my posts, you would have seen that I'm tired of people getting a free pass in life. I want them to make a freakin' effort, not slide through life on someone elses' dime. I also said education doesn't guarantee any chance that the people would be decent people but they'd at least have more skills than they did.

Also, that list you posted is at least ten years old and most of the people involved are gone, replaced by a different set of criminals. Judging by recent nominees for some of the offices, I'd say tax evasion is a popular hobby.

Government is very big on "Don't do as I do, do as I say", which I've always had a huge problem with.

 

[mike c]

seriously midcow. drop the red chicklet thing. don't make me tell people why i'm especially irritated by your obsession with chicklets.

oh, i changed the thread title.

two top of the line pet peeves in one thread ... it was irresistible.

"give me some sugar, baby" + "trying to convince the other side they're wrong = politics"

 

[Adam]

"give me some sugar"

I believe that it's actually, "give me some sugar, baby."

 

[mike c]

my bad. totally out of context without ... "baby"

 

[majorloser]

It's a good thing the Mike, Matt and I don't get bored very often. Otherwise we could band together and go on a red chicklet rampage.

Mods unite. "Viva La Revolucion"


(LOL - VA321)

 

[Adam]

Mods unite. "Viva La Revolucion"

Indeed.

I thought that the revolution would be people uniting against you guys. After all, your the "power" around here!

[There's no way for us to win that war, though. You've got the ultimate nuke on your moderator panel.]

 

[jinjuku]

I asked questions, I did not make points. There is a difference.

1. My brother-in-law is an ER surgeon. He is dead set against any national health care program, and has stated he would retire should we go to that system. I have several doctors who are friends, and they have all said the same thing - nationalize it, and they will retire.

And there are plenty who won't. I know docs that have gotten out of medicine because the insurance premium is too high and coverage too little. See it's easy to find examples on both sides of the fence and then point fingers.

If you don't think that's a legit concern, you are entitled to your opinion. Unlike you, I won't call your stance "absurd".

Fair enough. I just don't see your version as a likely outcome.

2. As for worrying about my son, and you calling a question about this "absurd", that speaks volumes about you. The federal government will have to have limits regarding what resources will be available to people for the "free" health care. We don't know what will happen to people who want to work outside the "free" system, but there is a good chance it would not be permitted under a government program.

Cmon' buying test strips 'illegal'? Sorry but I see that as incredulous (and doubtful).

3. You think there should be an extra charge for obese people to be involved in National Health Care. What about obese people with no means to pay ?

What about other risky behavior ... such as smoking ? drinking ?

You see the price on a pack of cigarettes recently? There are actually studies done about the poor obese. One of the problems is semi-convenient access to healthy foods. Examples are 10-20 fast food joints with in 3-5 miles but a grocery store is 15-20 or more. All I am saying is things are out of whack, and out of control for a lot of people.

4. If health care is nationalized, it will be the government setting the prices the pharm companies can charge. Companies will naturally be concerned about making enough to cover R&D costs. Personally, I loathe the pharm industry ads where they tell one to "ask your doctor about fixeetra", but that had nothing to do with my question.

I guess we will see. I used advertising as another example of where big industry spent plenty money on politicians to get their way. Now you and I have to pay for:

1. PSA commercials dealing with (especially) teen recreational use of pharma. Which this spike is directly related to TV ads.

2. Increased cost of treatment programs for said people

3. All so pharma could advertise and make even more money.

I guess I will see it the way I want to see it. I don't see how it can really be debated.

5. I did not propose a scheme, I used an example merely to put some numbers into the question. The question stands: Does putting more money into the economy create jobs ?

Presumably it should. Especially if it is not fiat money.

6. My stance ? I asked a question.

No you made a statement about being able to play DVD's as much as you wanted. The easy to read implication: You shouldn't have the want to duplicate it or back it up.

DVD is just a medium. I am buying the movie. If media came on perforated toilet paper, I would still expect the right to transcode it for MY convenience.

Again the question was asked about how big business has affected my liberties. For over 30+ years you have been able to lawfully transcode from magnetic tape mediums or CD, you are not allowed to for DVD's. All thanks to Hollywood renting some senators.

 

[craigsub]

Jinjuko, the last time national health care was proposed in this country, the proposal included wording that made going outside the government mandated program illegal.

Whether you like it or not, that makes it a legitimate question to ask.

In regards to the DVD issue, yes, I said you could use the DVD you purchased as many times as you wished.

The question was a simple one, but please let me elaborate. A company goes through a lot of expense to put a movie on to a DVD.

This is done for the purpose of making a profit.

If people are allowed to make copies, each copy will dilute the company's ability to make a profit.

If a company cannot make a profit on a product, the desire for the company to make a product will decrease, and eventually end.

In this case, the question was:

If making copies of DVDs was made legal ...

Why would any company bother with all the expense of putting out the DVD ?

 

[highfigh]

You see the price on a pack of cigarettes recently? There are actually studies done about the poor obese. One of the problems is semi-convenient access to healthy foods. Examples are 10-20 fast food joints with in 3-5 miles but a grocery store is 15-20 or more. All I am saying is things are out of whack, and out of control for a lot of people.

Again the question was asked about how big business has affected my liberties. For over 30+ years you have been able to lawfully transcode from magnetic tape mediums or CD, you are not allowed to for DVD's. All thanks to Hollywood renting some senators.

One problem with healthy food is that it costs more to eat well than to eat fast. For $2, someone can go to McD's or some other place and get two burgers and for even less, two good sized burritos at Taco Bell. That will fill a gullet pretty well. It's not healthy food but it does the job. If someone wants to make two burgers, it will definitely cost more and take more time.

As far as the price of cigarettes, I don't give a rat's *** and if it makes one person stop smoking, it's a good thing. Cigarettes killed both of my parents and I have no use for anyone who complains about the price of suicide.

In this country, fast and cheap has taken the place of quality, in all aspects of life. People will settle for less if it's cheaper and then if it breaks, they'll replace it. I have a major problem with that mentality.

As far as the legal copying of magnetic media- the only time that has ever been considered legal is when the copier makes it for their own use, never for copies to be given away or sold. We all know people who have made copies for others and when this happens, it's not only the record company or movie studio who suffers, the writer loses their share.