Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
They have perfected the self-perpetuating system. Outsiders and true populists are marginalized, ridiculed and shunned with the compliant press as their running dog lackeys..
Through the slimeball politician’s tool of class warfare, they pit us against each other, while singing kumbeya and acting as if they’re the healers of society’s shortcomings.
Edited on Jul 30, 2009 07:10
On the subject of our political system, it seems that no good comes from having one political party control both the executive and legislative branches. We’ve seen it before under Carter, Clinton, Bush II, and now Obama. It just never works out well. They always feel they have a mandate to do stupid things, resulting in being tossed out on their asses in the mid-term elections.
2010 will be no different; I’m predicting a slaughter. Will the Republicans have learned from their last go-round? Doubtful; but it will put the brakes on Obama’s megalomania for two more years until he too is sent packing. Unless of course he tries to pull a Chavez/Zelaya constitutional end run; then it will be pitchforks and torch time.
So, I guess we have something in common: a complete distrust of the political class, eh?
Odd thing about polls, Ed. When they support a position you agree with, they’re good as gospel. But when they don’t, they’re obviously “biased”.
Simple fact is: Americans from both sides of the aisle are waking up to the devilish details the self-serving bum pols have inserted into this bill, and they don’t like it. For example: How could well-intentioned law makers allow language to be inserted into a bill that gives preferential treatment to citizens based on racial guidelines (YES)and not expect to be called out on it?
While I believe that the majority of us would like to see an improvement in our health care delivery system, this pig-in-a-poke sure isn’t it.
All the proof I need to be against it is that the political class has allowed only one group to be exempted from participating in this plan: themselves. Q.E.D.
Edited on Jul 30, 2009 06:10
Sprite; I respect your opinion as a ‘persona apasionada’, but your arguments, when placed in a historical context, don’t quite hold up. First there were tribes and clans slaughtering each other for dibs on the available spoils, then mankind invented royalty to resolve their woes (how’d that work out?) only creating newer versions of the old woes. Then along came the industrial revolution, where the efforts of one man (or woman, heh) could be multiplied into wealth through innovation; capitalism: deriving income through the prudent use of assets.
At every step along this evolution of society, someone has been the windshield while others were the bugs. Capitalism is the just the latest step in that journey, but has done more to improve the lot of mankind than anything ever tried. If fact, the world has never been a more comfortable place for so many at once.
I await your detailed vision as to how society could be improved for a larger-yet segment of the world’s population; one in where equality in comfort and quality of life is achieved. No platitudes please; a plan of specifics. A serious discussion among “personas apasionada”.
“Business should be more than just about money. It should be about creating a healthy life environment for citizens.”
Allow me to offer a more concise version of this statement. “Business should be more than just about money. It should be about creating a healthy life environment for the business owner, the employees, the clients, the suppliers and the investors thereof.”
When the rest of the sniveling world wants to lay it all on the line, total commitment, with no guarantee of success other than what is possible with a good idea, hard work, focus and commitment; then I’ll listen to others’ opinions as to where my crumbs shall be spread.
My quaint and possibly archaic notion that the best I can do in life is to be successful, thereby improving the lot of those that made it possible is a hard lump to swallow for those who’ve obviously never been there.
Ed: Not knowing you, I can only surmise from your snarky comments that you’re from that segment of society that feels that “taxes are what we pay for the comfort of civilization”, or more simply put, to keep the less civilized among us from rising up against the ruling class. Fair enough.
But taken to your extreme, there seems to be no limits on what is acceptably taken. Problem is, a successful society has to provide an atmosphere of opportunity for the high earners to fill your coffers. To simultaneously drain the treasury and create a horrid environment for business activity just doesn’t add up no matter what your lofty goals are. Unless of course the destruction of the capitalist system IS your goal. Then what do you replace it with? Angel farts and fairy dust?
“There are not nearly as many ambitious individuals as you think…and that is a good thing.”
I agree that there are not nearly as many ambitious people, but only in the context of “as there once were”. Self-reliance is the inevitable victim of the nanny-state mentality. The fly-in-the-ointment of your argument is that by discouraging ambition and achievement, you reduce the pool of higher income achievers. There are the same folks that are expected to fund this brave new system. Remembering Aesop: “The goose that lays the golden eggs”; the beauty of fables is that they demonstrate larger truths.
Let me add one more bullet point to my new, improved plan for U.S. Healthcare:
7.) Everyone should pay income taxes, regardless of income. The notion that the overhead of a country as large and diverse as the U.S. can be paid for by less than 1/2 of it’s population is ludicrous. Adding to that, anteing up for the healthcare of 20-30 million illegal immigrants is a bank-buster, as the CBO has been trying to get across to Obama for a month now. (crickets chirping)
Edited on Jul 27, 2009 13:31
Perhaps there is something intrinsic in the American psyche that rejects the idea that the ever expanding management of our daily lives by the federal government is a good thing. The current dissatisfaction with what is being proposed is evidence of that. Republicans and Democrats alike can agree that the system needs improvement, but not merely for the sake of change. Real improvement: good for the citizens, good for the doctors, good for the hospitals.
Cuba, Canada, Costa Rica have been mentioned in this thread as models of how socialized healthcare can benefit society; in some ways undoubtedly true. What is not mentioned is when compared to the US, the lack of true opportunity for everyone in those lands to arise above your station based upon an idea and a lot of hard work, to achieve a level of comfort and income so that you may provide for yourselves and families. Without that opportunity, waiting for a handout from the government seems like the best available option.
To wake up each morning knowing that you’re self-sufficient and able to direct your own affairs without interference is a goal that we should all aspire to. That, my friends, is what true freedom is all about.
My personal picture of how the healthcare system could be improved in the US is as follows:
1.) Significant and meaningful tort reform. Get the lawyers out of medicine.
2.) A comprehensive and transparent peer-review procedure for all medical professionals. Eliminate the bad actors.
3.) Create a national insurance group of all American Citizens
4.) Create a national pool of insurance carriers that would bid on and compete for their slice of that national group’s coverage
5.) Make insurance coverage available to that national group on an a-la-carte basis, each being able to choose what level of coverage desired
6.) Have the entire program be administered for the insurers by Visa / Mastercard through banks; every American having a Health Savings Account.Cut the overhead, streamline the management, keep Obama and his thugs out of my Doctor-Patient relationship. Have I missed anything?
Edited on Jul 27, 2009 09:19
I note with irony that this monstrosity of a bill being offered is the brainchild of the leftist, socialist democrats under Pelosi/Reid with their airtight majorities, who’ve rejected any significant input from their evil republican counterparts while simultaneously decrying the lack of Republican ideas.
It does nothing to improve the lot for the shrinking segment of our society being called upon to foot this bill. Nothing about this proposed overhaul is an improvement on the status quo for me, a small-time capitalist with 5 employees.
The ultimate goal, as described to me by a democrat organizer I know, is to cut out the “for-profit fat” in the system. This forgets why we exist in this American society: wake up, get up, show up on time, produce something of value, get paid $ as the fruit of our labors, live a good life and get up tomorrow and do it all over again. If you’re lucky and thrifty, build up some savings. We can’t all be government employees; hell it’s 1 in 7 now!
Health care freedom as we now know it would be destroyed in the name of making everyone equally miserable. But hey, that’s what socialism is all about!
Sprite: I don’t particularly care for the status quo, and you’re right in saying that the final outcome will probably be a tortured bastardized version of what we already have available to us.
What’s galling to me, is that they have yet to identify the core issues,but identify and vilify straw man villains and proceed without a national discussion to find solutions. Instead, these out-of-touch pampered poofs with their gold-plated, taxpayer subsidized lives huddle behind closed doors like the cockroaches they are. The result of their initial deliberations resulted in the 50 point list by GRB that is the subject of this thread. I’m supposed to like this?
What I really don’t care for is the underlying thought that if the Obamacare comes to pass, health care will be FREE! Just like how Obama was going to pay for my car and groceries. These people are living in a world of ‘magical thinking’, in which if you repeat a lie often enough, all your dreams will come true! The truth is, as the system now works, we ‘rich’ (and I use that term loosely) pay for our own insurance also pay for the care of the uninsured. So tell me: in the new plan, what’s the difference?
Edited on Jul 25, 2009 08:26
According to our fearless leader, whitey is the root cause of all evil in the entire world. “Darkey” are the oppressed masses, yearning to be free if only Mr. Obama can figure out a politically savvy way to justify transferring wealth from the rich to the poor (filtered through the pocket linings of the US Government).
Spare me the faux outrage of your tender sensibilities here; just calling a spade a spade.
GRB: It appears that you have done what seems beneath the requirements of elected office in the US Congress: actually read the bill! Even our Most Exalted One, the Emperor Obammy, has admitted that he “is unfamiliar” with much of the Healthcare Reform Act. A casual run-through of your list shows what we’ve been saying about this putz since he appeared on the scene: It’s all about control, not quality; it’s about redistribution of wealth: not necessarily from rich to poor, but rather from whitey to darkey as a form of backdoor reparations.
The reason they are rushing this through is to avoid the details from seeing the light of day. As opposition to this cluster*!#%!! builds, and the facts get out, they get more shrill and accusatory of those that would “question” their wisdom, much like their reaction to “questioning” their patriotism.
Thank you for exposing this; I’ll be sure to pass it around.
Scott, I fear that Shamus Cooke gives Obammy way to much credit. It is counter-intuitive to assume he has time to be enmeshed in Central American political problems, as he is up to his arse trying to upend every societal norm here in the U.S.; his deer-in-the-headlights response to world events as they unfold indicates that he is in waaaaaaaay over his head and pay grade, despite his alleged brilliance. But what was the world (as well as the American electorate) to expect from a putz that has never held a leadership position, and whose entire career has been spent milking the teat of the public’s cow, avoiding taking any position based upon deeply held beliefs other than political expediency? The fact that he immediately came out swinging in favor of Zaleya, in concert with Chavez, Castro, the U.N., O.A.S. and other tin-pot populists reveals people’s greatest fears have been exposed as true. This is one naked emperor.
Edited on Jul 01, 2009 16:51
Edited on Jul 01, 2009 16:52
