Minnesota Twins News & Rumors Forum
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 117

Thread: Government Shutdown and the Affordable Care Act

  1. #81
    Please ban me! All-Star stringer bell's Avatar
    Posts
    3,466
    Like
    186
    Liked 483 Times in 317 Posts
    Blog Entries
    32
    Thanks, TDers! This was a far better discussion than I read anywhere else. You all demonstrated more knowledge and more civility than I have witnessed in any other threads regarding the ACA/Government Shutdown. I probably am closest to Brock in this matter, in that I see the ACA (Obamacare) as cumbersome, confusing and somewhat ineffective, but I think that the far Right is way out-of-bounds in their vitriol and the extremes they have resorted to in order to short circuit the Affordable Care Act. I, too, hope they are punished for their disrespect.

  2. #82
    Twins Moderator All-Star diehardtwinsfan's Avatar
    Posts
    4,213
    Like
    367
    Liked 743 Times in 460 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by glunn View Post
    I still don't understand how people can call themselves Christians when they choose to ignore what Christ said that they should do. I understand what you are saying about Jesus viewing this as a personal decision, but I am finding it difficult not to conclude that many of these people are insincere about their religion.

    I think I understand your point about having no right to healthcare but am wondering if you really believe that someone whose life may be in danger should be turned away from an emergency room if he or she has no ability to pay. Would you make an exception for someone who will die without immediate treatment?

    Finally, imagine a country where some of us are Christians and those who are not Christians agree that helping the poor is a good idea. Why not use government to get this done? Would you really like to eliminate Social Security and go back to having old people living on the street? Would you really eliminate Medicare and let old people die from curable illnesses? I am still unclear how you could explain to St. Peter that you did these things knowing that they would hurt so many people.
    First, I'll reiterate, there's no command from Jesus to support universal heathcare. Your premise is flawed from the start. My biggest complaint as a Christian, and a teacher, is people who use the Scriptures to back whatever viewpoint that they want to espouse, regardless of what the writers were attempting to say. This is a real good example. The Bible doesn't weigh in on it.

    Now to answer your question, this is not your decision or my decision, it's a hospital's decision. And since you ask the question, what would Jesus do, what do you think he'd say to them? You've asked what he would say to me, but he speaks to multiple audiences does he not? Another point I'd make is that for the longest time, this was never an issue. People who couldn't afford to pay got put on payment plans and what not. Insurance was cheap because it covered things like catastrophic items and not every day visits. The system is setup in such a way now that it encourages this.

    I think my biggest problem with your argument here is that it can so easily be reworded to make you look just as extreme. That multi billion dollar hospital isn't having problems paying their bills, and the doctors that work there are millionaires many times over, yet you and I are now being taxed so that their profit margin isn't squeezed. And then of course there's a few more pragmatic questions. What of that guy who needs immediate treatment because he chose to abuse his freedoms. Why should I take care of him? There is a huge slippery slope here and I'm not sure people have thought through all of the ramifications. When the government starts footing the bill, how long do you think it will be until they start telling you what you can and cannot eat, how much you should exercise, etc.?

    I don't have a problem with Christians and non-Christians helping the poor. I have a problem with the government compelling people to do it, and I have a problem with the naiveté that goes with it to think that they can somehow make this more stable than the free market system. They cannot. Look at Social Security and Medicare. They are perfect examples. Both programs are great ideas on the surface, but your politicians took the money from these trust funds and spent it. Then, to mask it, they game with the inflation numbers (a problem they also created), entitlement benefits, etc. so that a person living on social security and medicare are still broke. And now these same people are in the hands of your great government to care for them, and that doesn't work well either. I have little memories of my one grandfather who died in a VA hospital due to gross negligence. My wife's father served his country in Vietnam and sustained a brain injury the prevented him from ever being able to support a family. They convinced him while he was in the hospital to sign away his benefits and he finally got them back about 10 years ago. The government will not take care of you.

    The government isn't your savior. And eliminating medicare won't suddenly mean that old people will be dying all over from curable illnesses. What it will do is force the price of the cure to drop, and given the current environment, pharmaceuticals and hospitals have zero incentive to lower prices as they have little competition. A real good example of this is a non-life threatening procedure. Lasik isn't covered by insurance. When it came out, it was insanely expensive, and because it wasn't insured, the price dropped to the point where it became fairly affordable. That's how supply and demand works, and in so doing, it makes charity a lot easier. The market will dictate what the price is actually worth, and when you artificially subsidize it, it doesn't seek to lower the price... It never does. It always makes things more expensive, which leads to more subsidies.

  3. #83
    Twins Moderator All-Star diehardtwinsfan's Avatar
    Posts
    4,213
    Like
    367
    Liked 743 Times in 460 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Frozented9 View Post
    Flashback: Private Sector Not GSEs Triggered Crisis | The Big Picture

    The housing crisis wasn't caused by the government.
    It most certainly did. It was the federal reserve who enabled our Government's debt binge by lowering interest rates to create a debt bubble in the economy in the first place. It was the government that chose to repeal the glass steagle act that created the TBTFs in the first place. Yes, the private sector jumped in there too, but pretending that it was one without the other is absurd. None of this happens if the gov leaves glass-steagle in tact and kept rates where they belonged... none of it.

  4. #84
    Head Moderator MVP glunn's Avatar
    Posts
    5,007
    Like
    4,309
    Liked 697 Times in 366 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Riverbrian View Post
    Anger at Ted Cruz?

    To me that's like getting angry at Charlie McCarthy or Bubba J for his actions. It's political contributors like the Koch Brothers who are controlling the strings and that is the sad state of our political machine.

    It's going to get worse until we can get the money out of politics with some comprehensive campaign finance reform. Until then... The Koch Brothers and the like are calling the play. Ted Cruz is just a face who needs money to get re-elected.

    We the people have the strength in numbers but there is no strength in numbers when the numbers are distracted and informed by 10 word answers and catch phrases.

    Statesmanship is gone and it will not return. The executive and legislative branch is a cesspool and I'm pretty sure the judicial branch is probably infested as well. Nearly 7 Billion dollars was spent on federal elections. The Majority of the 7 billion dollars was for the purpose of influence. 7 billion dollars that they could have been spent or invested elsewhere.

    I don't care if people have a conservative view on things or if people have a liberal view on things. I think things are supposed to be that way.

    The only thing I care about is the answer to this question:

    1. Why are corporations or wealthy individuals contributing large sums of money to political campaigns. Why Indeed?

    These guys are not in the habit of giving away money and getting nothing in return. They invested nearly 7 Billion dollars for something.

    The answer to that question leads to the answer of how you fix this. I don't have the strength to be passionate about any party or anything political until Campaign Finance is truly reformed and that includes the closing of all loopholes and the new loopholes that spring up.

    Until that happens... I'm on the sideline and a boat floating on the tide...

    It's up to me to become wealthy enough to influence things for myself. Until then... There ain't much I can do but cast a vote for the person who has the best chance of getting elected and is also closest to supporting what is important to me. I just can't find one that wants to cut off their funding and give the other guy a chance at beating them.

    Hang on... It's only gonna get worse!!! Shutdowns... Political Games of Chicken... Oh Yeah... There are more to come.
    Because of the Supreme Court's rulings about campaign finance reform, it is going to take a constitutional amendment or some changes in the court to reduce the influence of billionaires and corporations. A constitutional amendment would require a huge grassroots movement, because most politicians nowadays don't seem to want to cut the flow of cash and perks. And a change in the court that favors this could take decades.

    Did you see 60 Minutes last night? They did a segment about how politicians can legally use campaign funds to take luxury vacations and pay family members to work on their campaigns. I think that this system as a whole comes pretty close to outright bribery in cases where the politician plans to use a lot of the money to line his or her own pockets.

  5. #85
    Head Moderator MVP glunn's Avatar
    Posts
    5,007
    Like
    4,309
    Liked 697 Times in 366 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by PseudoSABR View Post
    I think you're probably right, RB, but there MAY be another path through the dollars-to-democratic-power stranglehold. (Though this take is totally rose-colored). We can already see it happening to some extent (with the public reaction to the Shutdown), but if a significant voting majority grows so disenchanted by ideological politicians and that same significant majority remains totally cynical of political advertising, that that majority might begin doing their own independent research (thank god for the internet!) and form their own opinions on the actual issues.

    With each generation of voters/consumers, the capacity of which media and technology can manipulate that generation decreases. Throwing money on somehow creating an echo chamber won't work as the populace gets more and more cynical of echo chambers altogether. That combined with the traditional (dated) core beliefs of the extreme right, shrink their ideological appeal twofold.

    The connection between right wing politics and Christian ritualism can't be ignored; so much rightwing polictical headway is made from the preacher's bully pulpit. However, I do take some solace, that at least in Catholicism, the new pope seems to be moving towards the center (if not being outright progressive). Now, I don't believe any one priest changes their tune because of a new pope, but I do think it will allow for more progressive priests to gain sway within the church and even for progressives to have a calling to the church, which in turn, might affect their partitioners rejection of an ideology that works against their own interst.
    I am hoping that you are correct about an independent movement evolving to make the world a better place.

    I also am encouraged by this new pope. It seems to me that of all the popes during my lifetime, this one comes closest to saying things that Jesus would say if he were around today. It seems to me that Jesus was trying to teach people about love, empathy and generosity, not hate, prejudice and saving taxes.

  6. #86
    Head Moderator MVP glunn's Avatar
    Posts
    5,007
    Like
    4,309
    Liked 697 Times in 366 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by stringer bell View Post
    Thanks, TDers! This was a far better discussion than I read anywhere else. You all demonstrated more knowledge and more civility than I have witnessed in any other threads regarding the ACA/Government Shutdown.
    If only we moderators had the power to enforce the TD rules in Congress, there would be a lot less gridlock and a lot more respectful discussion. Yes, we might have to issue some bans, but it would be worth it.

  7. #87
    Head Moderator MVP glunn's Avatar
    Posts
    5,007
    Like
    4,309
    Liked 697 Times in 366 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by diehardtwinsfan View Post
    First, I'll reiterate, there's no command from Jesus to support universal heathcare. Your premise is flawed from the start. My biggest complaint as a Christian, and a teacher, is people who use the Scriptures to back whatever viewpoint that they want to espouse, regardless of what the writers were attempting to say. This is a real good example. The Bible doesn't weigh in on it.

    Now to answer your question, this is not your decision or my decision, it's a hospital's decision. And since you ask the question, what would Jesus do, what do you think he'd say to them? You've asked what he would say to me, but he speaks to multiple audiences does he not? Another point I'd make is that for the longest time, this was never an issue. People who couldn't afford to pay got put on payment plans and what not. Insurance was cheap because it covered things like catastrophic items and not every day visits. The system is setup in such a way now that it encourages this.

    I think my biggest problem with your argument here is that it can so easily be reworded to make you look just as extreme. That multi billion dollar hospital isn't having problems paying their bills, and the doctors that work there are millionaires many times over, yet you and I are now being taxed so that their profit margin isn't squeezed. And then of course there's a few more pragmatic questions. What of that guy who needs immediate treatment because he chose to abuse his freedoms. Why should I take care of him? There is a huge slippery slope here and I'm not sure people have thought through all of the ramifications. When the government starts footing the bill, how long do you think it will be until they start telling you what you can and cannot eat, how much you should exercise, etc.?

    I don't have a problem with Christians and non-Christians helping the poor. I have a problem with the government compelling people to do it, and I have a problem with the naiveté that goes with it to think that they can somehow make this more stable than the free market system. They cannot. Look at Social Security and Medicare. They are perfect examples. Both programs are great ideas on the surface, but your politicians took the money from these trust funds and spent it. Then, to mask it, they game with the inflation numbers (a problem they also created), entitlement benefits, etc. so that a person living on social security and medicare are still broke. And now these same people are in the hands of your great government to care for them, and that doesn't work well either. I have little memories of my one grandfather who died in a VA hospital due to gross negligence. My wife's father served his country in Vietnam and sustained a brain injury the prevented him from ever being able to support a family. They convinced him while he was in the hospital to sign away his benefits and he finally got them back about 10 years ago. The government will not take care of you.

    The government isn't your savior. And eliminating medicare won't suddenly mean that old people will be dying all over from curable illnesses. What it will do is force the price of the cure to drop, and given the current environment, pharmaceuticals and hospitals have zero incentive to lower prices as they have little competition. A real good example of this is a non-life threatening procedure. Lasik isn't covered by insurance. When it came out, it was insanely expensive, and because it wasn't insured, the price dropped to the point where it became fairly affordable. That's how supply and demand works, and in so doing, it makes charity a lot easier. The market will dictate what the price is actually worth, and when you artificially subsidize it, it doesn't seek to lower the price... It never does. It always makes things more expensive, which leads to more subsidies.
    I agree with a lot of what you are saying. I don't think that the government is good at running hospitals and I am sorry for your family's experiences with the VA. On the other hand, I look at the Israeli system and like the idea of spending about 50% of what we spend now, and getting better results. I would also note that prior to the ACA, some bozo who abused his freedom by not buying insurance then drunkenly wrecked his car would get emergency room treatment anywhere in the U.S., and those of us who had insurance ended up paying for that. I cannot imagine us going to a system where emergency rooms require proof of ability to pay, and I see the ACA as affirming a conservative principle that people should pay their own way when they can afford to do so, i.e. less freeloading. I don't mind being required to buy car insurance and am glad that if some maniac hits me in L.A. traffic, he will probably have some insurance.

    It also seems to me that maybe we can agree that capitalism can provide the optimum solution. Under the ACA, insurance companies can compete, as in Massachusetts and Israel. In contrast, Medicare has no competition, but gets better rates than insurance companies because of its size and bargaining power. Maybe if Medicare could become a public option for everyone and users could instead opt for private insurance, this would create an even more robust market. I think that ot would also help if hospitals were required to post their billing rates, success rates and other relevant data so that consumers could make more informed choices. Competition is a powerful tool to reduce costs.

    Here is the part where I need help -- the passages in the New Testament where the rich guy asks Jesus how to get to heaven and Jesus tells him to sell all of his possessions and give the money to the poor. Then Jesus says that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter heaven.

    Maybe I am dense, but it seems to me that Jesus was saying that helping poor people is pretty important. I think that means that letting poor children die from cancer and other curable ailments would be a lot worse sin than the sins that the Republicans seem obsessed with, such as premarital sex, abortion, same-sex marriage, drug addiction and welfare fraud. I would be grateful if you would explain to me (in as much detail as you are willing to provide) why this does not mean that we should be doing whatever we can to at least provide health care to all children whose parents cannot afford it on their own. It's not as though this is not working in lots of other countries (some better than others). What are we going to say to St. Peter if he asks us about this?

    My solution is straightforward -- get rid of all of the poor people -- every last one. Give them an opportunity to be productive and reduce benefits to exactly the poverty level for those who refuse to work. Reward those who work hard -- a family where both parents are working full time (or more) should make enough to be comfortable. It seems to me that if we can create a system where almost everyone works, then the extra productivity would benefit everyone and St. Peter would smile when we tell him how we got rid of poverty so that we could all go to heaven (or at least most of us, excluding, of course, Yankees and White Sox fans). Maybe I need to go see a priest or a minister, but I just don't understand how we can get out of helping poor people, especially children, until there are no more people (or at least children) who are poor.

  8. #88
    Senior Member All-Star
    Posts
    2,270
    Like
    32
    Liked 120 Times in 78 Posts
    I have problems with the 2 main rallying points against the ACA.

    The first: the tax on medical devices is always brought up. I think that by adding 30-40M people onto insurance the additional sales will pay for these taxes several times over.

    the second: Mandated healthcare: There seems to be an outcry against mandating that individuals have insurance. I can understand this but at the same time individuals are terrible at their financial planning. As a whole young people won't see a positive return on their coverage but that is the wrong way to look at it. I don't buy collision auto insurance when I buy a new car just because the insurance company requires it and I expect to profit in the long run. I buy it because I cannot afford to total a 20+K new car. The same is true with health insurance. Young people shouldn't need to visit the doctor that often but bad stuff happens. How many young people can afford a 250K operation/treatment following a severe injury? And the gov't is giving people an opt out that is not horribly expensive unless you are really rich.

    I'm just not buying the main rallying points by the republicans on this one. I naturally align myself with conservatives and don't like big social programs (this is huge) but the republicans are fighting a losing battle on this one and they are going to look silly in hindsight.

    FWIW - I currently have national health insurance in Taiwan. It's not perfect but it is the correct direction to go.

  9. #89
    Senior Member Big-Leaguer biggentleben's Avatar
    Posts
    926
    Like
    40
    Liked 66 Times in 47 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by glunn View Post
    I am hoping that you are correct about an independent movement evolving to make the world a better place.

    I also am encouraged by this new pope. It seems to me that of all the popes during my lifetime, this one comes closest to saying things that Jesus would say if he were around today. It seems to me that Jesus was trying to teach people about love, empathy and generosity, not hate, prejudice and saving taxes.
    Pope John Paul II was making a lot of moves in that way as well in his final years. He was incredibly saddened by the cover-up of the cardinals with sex scandals but had little power at that time to affect change, he had discussed the idea of allowing married deacons full powers of communion of any other priest, and he was making some bold comments about financial living as a Christian years before the global financial turn.
    Staff Writer for Tomahawktake.com, come check it out!

  10. #90
    Twins Moderator All-Star diehardtwinsfan's Avatar
    Posts
    4,213
    Like
    367
    Liked 743 Times in 460 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by glunn View Post
    Because of the Supreme Court's rulings about campaign finance reform, it is going to take a constitutional amendment or some changes in the court to reduce the influence of billionaires and corporations. A constitutional amendment would require a huge grassroots movement, because most politicians nowadays don't seem to want to cut the flow of cash and perks. And a change in the court that favors this could take decades.

    Did you see 60 Minutes last night? They did a segment about how politicians can legally use campaign funds to take luxury vacations and pay family members to work on their campaigns. I think that this system as a whole comes pretty close to outright bribery in cases where the politician plans to use a lot of the money to line his or her own pockets.
    Politicians won't touch this with a 10 foot poll. They should though. Personally, I don't have a problem with corporations giving money. I have a problem with the fact that they can give so much more than you or I. Call them a "person" and cap them at $2500 like the rest of us. Ban all pacs. Problem solved.

  11. #91
    Twins Moderator All-Star diehardtwinsfan's Avatar
    Posts
    4,213
    Like
    367
    Liked 743 Times in 460 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by glunn View Post
    I agree with a lot of what you are saying. I don't think that the government is good at running hospitals and I am sorry for your family's experiences with the VA. On the other hand, I look at the Israeli system and like the idea of spending about 50% of what we spend now, and getting better results. I would also note that prior to the ACA, some bozo who abused his freedom by not buying insurance then drunkenly wrecked his car would get emergency room treatment anywhere in the U.S., and those of us who had insurance ended up paying for that. I cannot imagine us going to a system where emergency rooms require proof of ability to pay, and I see the ACA as affirming a conservative principle that people should pay their own way when they can afford to do so, i.e. less freeloading. I don't mind being required to buy car insurance and am glad that if some maniac hits me in L.A. traffic, he will probably have some insurance.
    Freeloading is largely the result of a broken system in the first place. It's broken because the system has been rigged in such a way to eliminate competition, and forcing everyone to buy insurance (and not allowing them to get cheaper major medical policies) doesn't fix those issues.

    If you want to lower medical prices, switch to a cash only system and eliminate insurance altogether. Then you will see just how "unaffordable" this really is. ACA isn't going to fix these problems, it's only going to make it worse. It will do nothing but provide a nice subsidy to the medical and pharma industries who are already doing quite well. The real losers are small businesses and self employed people.

    Quote Originally Posted by glunn View Post
    It also seems to me that maybe we can agree that capitalism can provide the optimum solution. Under the ACA, insurance companies can compete, as in Massachusetts and Israel. In contrast, Medicare has no competition, but gets better rates than insurance companies because of its size and bargaining power. Maybe if Medicare could become a public option for everyone and users could instead opt for private insurance, this would create an even more robust market. I think that ot would also help if hospitals were required to post their billing rates, success rates and other relevant data so that consumers could make more informed choices. Competition is a powerful tool to reduce costs.
    Both Medicare and SS should have been available as public options, but these "safety nets" are nothing more than Ponzi schemes, and that was the intent from day 1. These are bankrupt because the government took the money in these trust funds and replaced it with government debt. This is going to accelerate the debt problems this country already has because as more people retire these IOUs have to be converted to cash to pay them.

    Quote Originally Posted by glunn View Post
    Here is the part where I need help -- the passages in the New Testament where the rich guy asks Jesus how to get to heaven and Jesus tells him to sell all of his possessions and give the money to the poor. Then Jesus says that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter heaven.

    Maybe I am dense, but it seems to me that Jesus was saying that helping poor people is pretty important. I think that means that letting poor children die from cancer and other curable ailments would be a lot worse sin than the sins that the Republicans seem obsessed with, such as premarital sex, abortion, same-sex marriage, drug addiction and welfare fraud. I would be grateful if you would explain to me (in as much detail as you are willing to provide) why this does not mean that we should be doing whatever we can to at least provide health care to all children whose parents cannot afford it on their own. It's not as though this is not working in lots of other countries (some better than others). What are we going to say to St. Peter if he asks us about this?
    I never said that Jesus said not to help the poor. It is you who is reading more into this than what is there. I'm arguing against 2 things:

    1. Whether or not the government is an effective tool for this. I'm not just arguing against its ability to fix this either. I'm arguing that the government is the primary cause for things being the way they are and the "fixes" are nothing more than bandaids to allow them to perpetuate the broken system, in large part because it's in the financial best interests of their backers to continue it. This system won't get fixed until there's a return to a true free market with no central bank. Fix this, and there's a lot less poor. Fix this, and helping what poor that remain will be a lot easier to do.

    2. I'm also arguing against your conclusion of these passages means that a Christian must support universal healthcare. That's a huge reach. If you are concerned about poor children and cancer, see point number 1, as dealing with the root cause will be far more beneficial than ACA. Your last plea here is where I think the big disconnect lies. I'd argue that point 1 will do far more to accomplish what you desire than any kind of government intervention in the current system. You mentioned it works in other places, but you also forget that most of these other places that can afford it also don't maintain a standing army that essentially rules the globe. Do you think Israel could afford their healthcare if the US wasn't sending them billions of dollars a year? What about Europe?

    Also, minor, ok major, theological note here, but the fate of the believer was sealed by Christ in his sacrifice on the cross. My assurance of salvation has absolutely nothing to do with where I stand on this issue. Peter won't be standing at the gates giving me a quiz about ACA and helping the poor. Believers will be admitted because they were justified by Christ and sanctified by the Spirit.


    Quote Originally Posted by glunn View Post
    My solution is straightforward -- get rid of all of the poor people -- every last one. Give them an opportunity to be productive and reduce benefits to exactly the poverty level for those who refuse to work. Reward those who work hard -- a family where both parents are working full time (or more) should make enough to be comfortable. It seems to me that if we can create a system where almost everyone works, then the extra productivity would benefit everyone and St. Peter would smile when we tell him how we got rid of poverty so that we could all go to heaven (or at least most of us, excluding, of course, Yankees and White Sox fans). Maybe I need to go see a priest or a minister, but I just don't understand how we can get out of helping poor people, especially children, until there are no more people (or at least children) who are poor.
    Again, I'd love a system like what you describe. ACA is a step in the wrong direction. My challenge to you is to take a hard look at this nation's history, particularly in regards to a central bank. There was far more to the American Revolution than taxation without representation. You want to eliminate poverty, you will need to start there.

  12. #92
    Senior Member MVP
    Posts
    5,620
    Like
    1,117
    Liked 533 Times in 353 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by diehardtwinsfan View Post
    It most certainly did. It was the federal reserve who enabled our Government's debt binge by lowering interest rates to create a debt bubble in the economy in the first place. It was the government that chose to repeal the glass steagle act that created the TBTFs in the first place. Yes, the private sector jumped in there too, but pretending that it was one without the other is absurd. None of this happens if the gov leaves glass-steagle in tact and kept rates where they belonged... none of it.
    The government removing regulation is somehow the government causing problmes? Isn't that actually evidence that more government oversight was needed, not less?
    Lighten up Francis....

  13. #93
    Twins News Team All-Star TheLeviathan's Avatar
    Posts
    4,670
    Like
    155
    Liked 609 Times in 340 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by mike wants wins View Post
    The government removing regulation is somehow the government causing problmes? Isn't that actually evidence that more government oversight was needed, not less?
    Cmon. Why this black and white stuff? Not all regulation is bad and not all of it is good. This is such a flimsy talking point and it completely ignores what was said in order to smash a silly scarecrow.

    There are clowns in politics that believe all regulation is bad, but no one has said that here.

  14. #94
    Senior Member MVP
    Posts
    5,620
    Like
    1,117
    Liked 533 Times in 353 Posts
    Actually the post I responded to stated it was the governments fault because they removed regulation.......I would argue that it is de facto evidence that it was caused by the private sector.* in the absence of regulation! the private sector did things they were not previously allowed to do that at least partially contributed to the problem. How is that a government cause, and not clearly a private sector cause?

    *no idea if I used de facto right! but I liked typing it.
    Lighten up Francis....

  15. #95
    Twins News Team All-Star TheLeviathan's Avatar
    Posts
    4,670
    Like
    155
    Liked 609 Times in 340 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by mike wants wins View Post
    Actually the post I responded to stated it was the governments fault because they removed regulation.......I would argue that it is de facto evidence that it was caused by the private sector.* in the absence of regulation! the private sector did things they were not previously allowed to do that at least partially contributed to the problem. How is that a government cause, and not clearly a private sector cause?

    *no idea if I used de facto right! but I liked typing it.
    The private sector couldn't have done what they did if not for government action. There is accountability on both sides of it. And it's not as if the government did it out of a sound policy, they did it to win votes and short-sighted objectives.

  16. #96
    Twins Moderator MVP Riverbrian's Avatar
    Posts
    8,671
    Like
    4,726
    Liked 2,201 Times in 1,242 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by glunn View Post
    Because of the Supreme Court's rulings about campaign finance reform, it is going to take a constitutional amendment or some changes in the court to reduce the influence of billionaires and corporations. A constitutional amendment would require a huge grassroots movement, because most politicians nowadays don't seem to want to cut the flow of cash and perks. And a change in the court that favors this could take decades.

    Did you see 60 Minutes last night? They did a segment about how politicians can legally use campaign funds to take luxury vacations and pay family members to work on their campaigns. I think that this system as a whole comes pretty close to outright bribery in cases where the politician plans to use a lot of the money to line his or her own pockets.
    I didn't see 60 Minutes but nothing surprises me when it comes to Politicians. The sad part is that I can hardly blame them. They need money to get elected. The Vacations and Nepotism that you mention is just a small part of it all.

    Money Influences... Money Corrupts... If you happen to throw one of them out for being dirty... The New guy comes in dirty. Meet the New Boss... Same as the Old Boss.

    I Won't Get Fooled Again.
    A Skeleton walks into a bar and says... "Give me a beer... And a mop".

  17. #97
    Senior Member All-Star Bark's Lounge's Avatar
    Posts
    1,620
    Like
    304
    Liked 488 Times in 188 Posts
    Blog Entries
    34
    Nothing is certain in the world in which we live. I would consider my wife and myself, middle class - probably on the lower end. At times we give a little charity towards Cancer foundations, but most of our charity is focused towards my sister and her children.

    The society we live in is reaching a critical mass. I do recognize that there is a good amount of people who actually put a great effort in to helping the poor, destitute, and unfortunate of this country, but I think that self obsession and greed is winning the day.

    For the most part, we have lost our way in the wilderness of modern times. We are too advanced of a species to let greed and self obsession consume us and to let our fellow man suffer the consequence of not being in the winner's circle.

    Universal health care for one and all!

    I grew up in the ghetto and for the majority of the systems in place for the children of these areas, there is no way out, young people need positive guidance, not beaten down parents or drug addict parents... for the most part, these kids follow what they know, and they learn it well, becoming very problematic pieces of our society. These kids need a chance to survive in a safe environment and a chance to survive on terms that are optimistic.

    I hope that someday soon the Republicans, Democrats, and special interest parties are extinct and we can have a government that truly has the peoples' best interest in mind.

    I am not sure what the right solution is, but as Americans we need to take care of our own and give them a fighting chance to be healthy and productive... right?

    Right now, we are doing a **** Job.
    "I suddenly remembered my Charlemagne. 'Let my armies be the rocks and the trees and the birds in the sky'."
    Henry Jones, Sr.

  18. #98
    Twins News Team All-Star TheLeviathan's Avatar
    Posts
    4,670
    Like
    155
    Liked 609 Times in 340 Posts
    I'm never comfortable with the notion that we're "at a critical mass" or that "modern times" have hurt our ability to help our fellow man.

    We've been doing that for a long time. If anything, we're helping our fellow man far more now than we ever have in human history. It's hyperbole that detracts from the good reasons to institute universal health care.

    Where the greed truly lies is in the political class. If there is a point of critical mass, it's because the balancing act of achieving their own power is slowly eroding the foundations of a stable economy/society. We're seeing those issues become more and more severe each time we have to pay the piper on one of those short-sighted, power grabbing moments. And it's both sides doing it.

  19. #99
    Senior Member MVP
    Posts
    5,620
    Like
    1,117
    Liked 533 Times in 353 Posts
    The government removing regulation, giving freedom to coroporations, is not the government doing something that makes the companies act one way or the other. The people that run those companies made those choices. I really don't understand your stance at all.

    On topic of the ACA......and this is my opinion as a person, not an employee of UHG.....

    I think health care is not like potato chips. You don't get to choose if you are sick or not, and the basic premises of capitalism fall apart in this area. Therefore, while I am generally a capitalist, I think universal healthcare is the most efficient and effective way to do HC. That is clear from the outcomes achieved around the world. We have decades of experimentation around the world, and the nations with universal healthcare produce better outcomes with less resources. This isn't really even debatable. The facts are there for everyone to see.
    Lighten up Francis....

  20. #100
    Senior Member All-Star Ultima Ratio's Avatar
    Posts
    1,742
    Like
    58
    Liked 105 Times in 51 Posts
    I know the ACA doesn't include dental, but does it include eye care? If not, why not include both dental and eye care? You're going to need it at some time after all and it's probably even the moral (perhaps Christian) thing to do -- perhaps even the constitutional thing to do if your reading of the general welfare clause is such that welfare means the government/tax payers must pay for and provide any service that could possibly be categorized under the broad umbrella of "welfare."

    1. How many programs, how much money, how big a bureaucracy will it take in order to fulfill this constitutional promise?

    2. When will we know when we've achieved it?
    Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains.

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
©2014 TwinsCentric, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Interested in advertising with Twins Daily? Click here.