Affordable Health Care is passed.

[Beriallord]

I actually agree with all that, minus the -snip- part. Part of the problem is if you force them too much, they will simply close their doors. And it would put private insurance companies out of business. They need to find a happy median with regulations, that won't just let them do whatever they want, but also not encourage them to go out of business.

So you're saying OBAMACARE is too soft on the insurance companies, but my idea is too hard? Would you agree to something right in the middle between the two?

 

No I'm saying Obamacare was catering to the Insurance companies from the very beginning, and for the left leaning people that voted for Obama, you guys got fleeced. And yeah, they can do a lot of things like removing regulations that are put in place that make the insurance market non competitive. But in case nobody else figured it out, big business and corporation run this country, no matter who is the figure head in charge.

 

I also find it incredibly strange that Judge Roberts, who was defined as a strict constructionist found constitutional basis for this law. Its all speculation, but I'm guessing he was either paid off, or threatened.

Edited July 3, 2012 by Beriallord

[Aurielius]

I actually agree with all that, minus the -snip- part. Part of the problem is if you force them too much, they will simply close their doors. And it would put private insurance companies out of business. They need to find a happy median with regulations, that won't just let them do whatever they want, but also not encourage them to go out of business.

So you're saying OBAMACARE is too soft on the insurance companies, but my idea is too hard? Would you agree to something right in the middle between the two?

 

No I'm saying Obamacare was catering to the Insurance companies from the very beginning, and for the left leaning people that voted for Obama, you guys got fleeced. And yeah, they can do a lot of things like removing regulations that are put in place that make the insurance market non competitive. But in case nobody else figured it out, big business and corporation run this country, no matter who is the figure head in charge.

 

I also find it incredibly strange that Judge Roberts, who was defined as a strict constructionist found constitutional basis for this law. Its all speculation, but I'm guessing he was either paid off, or threatened.

How about just plain intimidated? I have to admit I was just plain stunned by his role reversal..never saw that coming. Though I was amused by how ten minutes before the ruling was announced he was being demonized by the left wing media and ten minutes after he was the hero of constitutional law.

[eodx9000]

As a UK resident, I've never understood why one of the most developed countries in the world never had a general healthcare system in place long ago. Here's a FACT to chew over: the NHS(National Health Service) is Britains biggest employer, by far See Here. With more people seeking care means more staff will be needed. Which means NEW jobs. Surely that can only be a good thing.

 

Yeah, sure. Job security is always a good thing, like airplane security and having a cam on every corner of a street. Britain should know more than anyone though, right? Thanks but no thanks.

 

I've never understood this term. "The Weak" It seems to be a generic image of a victim that one side or the other throws out to justify their partisan agendas. Both the left and the right use this term, but I've never seen any of them step up to a single person and identify them as the weak individual that needs their help. Possibly, because the person would, most likely hit them if they did.

 

I don't think anybody is weak, but there are those that are in a situation of vulnerability that requires the assistance of others. What they don't need is to become dependent on that help. particularly because the assistance given needs to be replaced so that future needs can be met. This is why, I think that government programs have their purpose, but should not be used to provide a lifestyle for people.

 

 

Pretty much this, really. The idea of "the weak" is a tool used to invoke emotion and as such, should be ignored.

 

Maybe I am wording myself wrong.

 

Taxation is taking money from someone by force to help towards the greater good of society. Large governments have required taxation to run. It is the same concept.

 

If you do not wish to contribute to society and help people not as fortunate as you, you should be forced to do so in some way. Sure, it messes a bit with the freedom of someone who is rich. But a homeless man or someone just making it by is still not going to be as free as the person being forced to contribute.

 

Yes, we all know government needs violence to run. Too bad though, the people you want to tax, are also the people wanting the same higher taxes while dodging them altogether.

 

No one is forcing Warren Buffet or Bill Gates into not doing anything, yet they complain about not being forced enough. ;/

 

US conservatives have brought us back to the '80s on gay rights and back to the '50s on contraception. Is was inevitable they'd bring us back to the Bronze Age on taxation.

 

While neocons have done their fair share of damage, "progressives" have done even more while under the total mantra of being "progressive" instead. Hmm.

[marharth]

As a UK resident, I've never understood why one of the most developed countries in the world never had a general healthcare system in place long ago. Here's a FACT to chew over: the NHS(National Health Service) is Britains biggest employer, by far See Here. With more people seeking care means more staff will be needed. Which means NEW jobs. Surely that can only be a good thing.

 

Yeah, sure. Job security is always a good thing, like airplane security and having a cam on every corner of a street. Britain should know more than anyone though, right? Thanks but no thanks.

 

I've never understood this term. "The Weak" It seems to be a generic image of a victim that one side or the other throws out to justify their partisan agendas. Both the left and the right use this term, but I've never seen any of them step up to a single person and identify them as the weak individual that needs their help. Possibly, because the person would, most likely hit them if they did.

 

I don't think anybody is weak, but there are those that are in a situation of vulnerability that requires the assistance of others. What they don't need is to become dependent on that help. particularly because the assistance given needs to be replaced so that future needs can be met. This is why, I think that government programs have their purpose, but should not be used to provide a lifestyle for people.

 

 

Pretty much this, really. The idea of "the weak" is a tool used to invoke emotion and as such, should be ignored.

 

Maybe I am wording myself wrong.

 

Taxation is taking money from someone by force to help towards the greater good of society. Large governments have required taxation to run. It is the same concept.

 

If you do not wish to contribute to society and help people not as fortunate as you, you should be forced to do so in some way. Sure, it messes a bit with the freedom of someone who is rich. But a homeless man or someone just making it by is still not going to be as free as the person being forced to contribute.

 

Yes, we all know government needs violence to run. Too bad though, the people you want to tax, are also the people wanting the same higher taxes while dodging them altogether.

 

No one is forcing Warren Buffet or Bill Gates into not doing anything, yet they complain about not being forced enough. ;/

 

US conservatives have brought us back to the '80s on gay rights and back to the '50s on contraception. Is was inevitable they'd bring us back to the Bronze Age on taxation.

 

While neocons have done their fair share of damage, "progressives" have done even more while under the total mantra of being "progressive" instead. Hmm.

The weak isn't the best term to use, true. I don't know what you mean with the rest of your post.

Edited July 4, 2012 by marharth

[Marxist ßastard]

The idea of "the weak" is a tool used to invoke emotion and as such, should be ignored.

BEEP BOOP

[HeyYou]

As a UK resident, I've never understood why one of the most developed countries in the world never had a general healthcare system in place long ago. Here's a FACT to chew over: the NHS(National Health Service) is Britains biggest employer, by far See Here. With more people seeking care means more staff will be needed. Which means NEW jobs. Surely that can only be a good thing.

 

Yeah, sure. Job security is always a good thing, like airplane security and having a cam on every corner of a street. Britain should know more than anyone though, right? Thanks but no thanks.

 

I've never understood this term. "The Weak" It seems to be a generic image of a victim that one side or the other throws out to justify their partisan agendas. Both the left and the right use this term, but I've never seen any of them step up to a single person and identify them as the weak individual that needs their help. Possibly, because the person would, most likely hit them if they did.

 

I don't think anybody is weak, but there are those that are in a situation of vulnerability that requires the assistance of others. What they don't need is to become dependent on that help. particularly because the assistance given needs to be replaced so that future needs can be met. This is why, I think that government programs have their purpose, but should not be used to provide a lifestyle for people.

 

 

Pretty much this, really. The idea of "the weak" is a tool used to invoke emotion and as such, should be ignored.

 

Maybe I am wording myself wrong.

 

Taxation is taking money from someone by force to help towards the greater good of society. Large governments have required taxation to run. It is the same concept.

 

If you do not wish to contribute to society and help people not as fortunate as you, you should be forced to do so in some way. Sure, it messes a bit with the freedom of someone who is rich. But a homeless man or someone just making it by is still not going to be as free as the person being forced to contribute.

 

Yes, we all know government needs violence to run. Too bad though, the people you want to tax, are also the people wanting the same higher taxes while dodging them altogether.

 

No one is forcing Warren Buffet or Bill Gates into not doing anything, yet they complain about not being forced enough. ;/

 

US conservatives have brought us back to the '80s on gay rights and back to the '50s on contraception. Is was inevitable they'd bring us back to the Bronze Age on taxation.

 

While neocons have done their fair share of damage, "progressives" have done even more while under the total mantra of being "progressive" instead. Hmm.

 

Got some examples for that last statement?

[Beriallord]

How about just plain intimidated? I have to admit I was just plain stunned by his role reversal..never saw that coming. Though I was amused by how ten minutes before the ruling was announced he was being demonized by the left wing media and ten minutes after he was the hero of constitutional law.

 

I find it hard to believe he was intimidated by just political rhetoric. If that is true, and he was then he is not fit to be a Supreme Court Justice.

 

I remember when Bush appointed him, and he stood his ground in the Senate against against the Liberal critics. He came off as someone who had a very strict interpretation of the Constitution, and had a professional manner about him. Came off as a very intelligent man who was calm, cool and collected. The complete opposite composure of someone you would think would cave in to political rhetoric.

 

I don't need to wear a tinfoil hat to put that together.

Edited July 4, 2012 by Beriallord

[eodx9000]

Got some examples for that last statement?

 

"Progressives" have forced people to comply with the corporate statehood.

"Progressives" have forced people to associate with people they prefer not to.

"Progressives" have declared needless amounts of wars, just like neocons.

"Progressives" have forced people to pay for corporate welfare.

 

I shouldn't really need to be any more direct.

 

How about just plain intimidated? I have to admit I was just plain stunned by his role reversal..never saw that coming. Though I was amused by how ten minutes before the ruling was announced he was being demonized by the left wing media and ten minutes after he was the hero of constitutional law.

 

I find it hard to believe he was intimidated by just political rhetoric. If that is true, and he was then he is not fit to be a Supreme Court Justice.

 

I remember when Bush appointed him, and he stood his ground in the Senate against against the Liberal critics. He came off as someone who had a very strict interpretation of the Constitution, and had a professional manner about him. Came off as a very intelligent man who was calm, cool and collected. The complete opposite composure of someone you would think would cave in to political rhetoric.

 

I don't need to wear a tinfoil hat to put that together.

 

Like I said earlier, he did rule it was unconstitutional as far as the Commerce clause goes, and specifically mentioned it was only constitutional as a tax. The only problem with his ruling is it requires a smart populace to actually act on it.

[marharth]

"Progressives" have forced people to comply with the corporate statehood.

"Progressives" have forced people to associate with people they prefer not to.

"Progressives" have declared needless amounts of wars, just like neocons.

"Progressives" have forced people to pay for corporate welfare.

 

I shouldn't really need to be any more direct.

Can you give specific examples?

[eodx9000]

"Progressives" have forced people to comply with the corporate statehood."Progressives" have forced people to associate with people they prefer not to."Progressives" have declared needless amounts of wars, just like neocons."Progressives" have forced people to pay for corporate welfare. I shouldn't really need to be any more direct.

Can you give specific examples?

 

New Deal

Great Society

Section-8 Housing

Affordable Healthcare Act (the quintessential definition of corporatocratic legislation)

"Civil Rights" / "Equal Opportunity"

War on Drugs (supported by progressives with the same neocon mantra, in fact)

World War II (FDR illegally declared war on by using interventionist measures prior to invasion at Pearl Harbor)

Bosnia

Vietnam (supported by LBJ)

Iran & the Middle East (both sides are undoubtedly guilty of stirring up wars in the middle east just so their oil pals can get money)

Guantanamo Bay (4 years later, no closure)

 

Intellectual Property

P.A.T.R.I.O.T. A.C.T.

P.A.T.R.I.O.T. A.C.T. 2

N.D.A.A.

A.C.T.A.

C.I.S.P.A.

S.O.P.A.

P.I.P.A.

(Whether started by, most are continued to this day by "progressives" that claim to be for progress when instead are actually for good old dictatorships.)

 

Edited July 5, 2012 by eodx9000