|
Brad about:
I must just not get it...what individual freedoms do you want back? smoking? texting while driving? I just see what the huff huff is all about.... who's is forcing? nobody is forcing anything. you are using the proverbial "they". What he is saying isn't a knock on individual freedom. its a reflection of who america has become in the last 3 decades. More and more people feel like rather than trust someone like a doctor that has spent their life studying a subject, they can just go to the internet and treat themselves. Don't trust the school system, teach your own kids....thats your choice yes, but its not always entirely logical.
Thews about:
What if the intruder had a gun? Bat doesn't do much for you then. There are two words that can snap me sober from black-out drunk - police (or cops) and gun. I wouldn't go trying to drunkenly hug someone if they said they had a gun. I'd try to leave. I also lock my doors when I go to bed to thwart wandering drunks.
Thews about:
Obviously, we will never fully privitize all sectors of the economy. I am OK with that, however, I think there has been a trend towards more gov't involvement in many aspects that once were more privitized. I don't care for that trend, I would like to see more privitization. I am aware most of my principled beliefs do not offer a sound solution for 100% of problems but I have yet to hear a response to a gov't program that has a modicum of efficiency, better service or less waste than a private company, until I hear of one I will side w/ the private sector. Further, Brad, I would always prefered to be skull-f'd by a private entity than the gov't. 99% of the time I've had a choice in the matter if I'm getting f'd by a private entity. I'm always getting f'd by the gov't despite my vote. I have a hard time understanding why no one else here feels that the gov't does more harm than good to them. Maybe I'm just a stickler curmudgeon.
derek about:
well, just like i would never say government should run everything i think it is irrational to think that governement should be involved in nothing. there are somethings that should not be done for maximum profit - either because they benefit the nation as a whole or because they provide for the disadvantaged. and there are somethings that big business/banks just prove they can't manage because greed takes over and they take advantage of their power. principles are great, but it's blindness to insist that it's black and white - business is good/government is bad. or the other way around.
brad about:
So getting skull f'd by corporations is ok? abuse is abuse, period. Please call a square, a square. The student loan program was terribly corrupt but that's ok because its was private? You really dont understand what was happening...The government is going to offer cheap loans to allow our citizens to afford college. Its no different than buying a saving bond. What was happening was the private banks were making money hands over fist, and the consumer was getting less and less. How was this better? Greed again got in the way again. How is that ok?
Thews about:
A good legitimate question. I would argue the private sector's efficiency and customer service is radically better than the gov't's. It has to be, otherwise the gov't would provide everything and people would rave about their service and efficiency. I trust the private sector because there is built-in checks and balances in a free market system. You don't go to one bank and get a loan, you compare a handful of offers and go with the best for you. Companies offer goods and services for a price, if company x is constantly fisting costumers, they won't be in business very long. When the gov't takes over services or a sector of the economy not only does the private sector lose jobs but the gov't grows (sometimes offering gov't positions so I'll note the potential for a net zero job loss) and when the gov't grows it's hard to stop, because it means they have to 1 be more efficient and as a result 2 fire people from gov't positions. Dollars work better in the private sector where profit is the motivator, what is the motivation for success in the public sector? Doing a great job? The posibility for corruption is much more rampant and the recourse to fix a problem is tied to a 4 yr election cycle. Thoughts???
derek about:
"Why do you blindly trust the gov't to fix everything when their track record for efficiency, let alone handling fraud and abuse is terrible." Thews, why do you blindly trust banks and major corporations who's primary directive is to make as much money off of consumers as possible? It's not like their history is radically better...
Thews about:
My rant anger obfuscates my intents. Sorry. This board is not good for me or my PR. It's like smack, though. Copy/ paste bullet points from word/outlook.
brad about:
oh and state to state with regulation is in the Senate Bill.
brad about:
bub about:
I don't hear people saying "no reform", just "not this version of reform". I couldn't disagree with "no reform" more vehemently.
brad about:
Frankly it is the other half of bill that I am most in favor of. The part directed at stopping insurance company abuses. Anyone against reform doesn't understand how vulnerable they are. There seems to be much less opposition to this part. There is no doubt in my mind that had Alicia lost her job early last year our family would have been fucked. My boss doesn't offer reasonable health. She would never have been able to find care in the open market. We were pregnant. Leah ended up needing huge amounts of care. I still worry thinking about what it would have meant. I guess a cobra would have helped, but that would eventually have gone away. We haven't done anything risky, and don't live beyond our means. We had some bad luck with health problems and it had the chance of ruining us (still does). Something is fundamentally broken in that equation and that is why I am so in favor of reform.
brad about:
That should say ENDORSE... sorry, takes a lot of the bite out of the post. stupid spelling.
Thews about:
"I said awhile ago on here that I'd be fine w/ our current healthcare model if we eliminate medicare/medicaid/all gov't coverage and refused care to all w/o private insurance." Wes, if you're OK with that sign me the fuck up. My only caveat is if you have no insurance and pay out of pocket, you're still allowed treatment.
Thews about:
Cutting benefits pisses people off. That's why I don't like extend new ones. Whether that be free healthcare or free pills or free rascal scooter for fat fucks who can't walk. Once you open the treasury doors to anyone it's impossible to get the to leave. "The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance." -Cicero, never more true.
derek about:
when it comes to healthcare, the cost of healthcare has gone from 5% of toatl spending 40 years ago to 17% percent now and is projected to be 20% before long without any reform. how is not doing anything stopping this trend?
Thews about:
Putting 1/6 of the US economy (healthcare) under government control is Leftist and Socialist. I can't be convinced otherwise that it isn't because it's the definition of the word. It's taking a giant chunk of the economy out of the private sector and nationalizing it. I want less government in my life, not more.
Thews about:
Wes, you put bills up for a vote and they're hard left, what do you think the right is going to do?? Maybe the Dems need to work better to incorporate ideas that will garnish support from the right. I don't understand how that's stonewalling. Maybe they're shitty leftist policies. Bill Clinton became a centrist (he had to to get stuff done) after the midterms in '94. Obama got a small taste of dissatisfaction via the gubernatorial elections in NJ and VA and the MA senate election, he's decided to double down on everything that brought about those results. I have a really hard time buying he's a centrist given his uber-liberal Senate voting record, you know, that one term as a jr. Senator. Centrists don't pander to their leftist base w/ taxpayer $$ buyouts. A centrist would say "Holy shit, we have a bill that is not getting enough support from MY OWN PARTY maybe we should rework this to include more support from whoever, conservative Dems, Independants, Repubs." Not oh well, we'll buy the requisite support for this w/ tax dollars. That's not centrist, that's downright prickish.
Thews about:
I can't watch that clip, but I'll offer my 2 cents on the dems' situation. They are fucked. They will either have nothing done by midterms which is essentially wasted time with nothing to show for it. When they really should been focusing on jobs and the economy for a year plus. Or they will ram rod this through (which I think is more likely to happen) using reconciliation and we may never see a dem elected for years. The Dems alone could not write a bill they could all agree on w/ majorities in both house & senate. (And yet somehow the repubs are obstructionist.) That says something. Something along the lines of "This is a shit rotten bill." There are plenty of people out there that think the status quo is better than this bill, typically more than 50% of the polling pool. Big Government bureacracy is not the solution to all of our ills. So I will witness a critical turning point for the Democratic party, let's see how they handle it, but I'm not holding my breath for anything truely good for the country to come out of this, mostly just fanning the flames of partisanship. Funny I thought Obama ran as a transparent, centrist touting all kinds of bi-partisanship. Sham much??
derek about:
perhaps this will stir up some conversation. it is a youtube video - sorry to those that can't watch video at work.
derek about:
anybody see the q&a between BO and the house republicans? comments?
Thews about:
By contrast, Bush showed a lot of backbone too, look where that got him. He didn't have too many supporters at the end of his term. As far as the supreme court ruling, I have a hard time believing money and influence are going anywhere, so I guess let's not limit anyones speech running up to an election. I though this was interesting:
brad about:
I would agree that he seemed defiant at times. but i looked at that with some sigh of relief. I believe in the goals of a lot of what he wants to do so i am going to see into this what i want..... leadership requires taking risks and standing up for what you believe. I think he has been to soft this first year. And I think you will be surprised that that stance will resonate with the center of america. People will rally behind someone with a backbone.
i thought the supreme court hand slap was ok, because what they just did was terrible. We need less money and influence in washington. Not more. by the way i was greeted to a political ad for the US senate this morning on tv and it pissed me off. only 9 more months to ago. yeah!
andy about:
poop
brad about:
listen i am not saying we should all live in blocked state housing and work in factories...but a failure to recognize that we are better when we work together towards a common good is naive. fundamental things that improve the lives of everyone. that doesn't limit creative thinking and entrepreneurship. it just recognizes that that when you live as a society, you live with its good and its bad players.
|
