One Political PlazaSM - Home of politics
Home | Political Digest | Active Topics | Search | Login | Register | Help
Posts for: straightUp
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 257 next>>
Jan 17, 2017 01:26:01   #
lindajoy wrote:
Your suggestion valid, yet does not conform to progressives in moving this country away from freedom and fully entrenched into socialism..

Don't lie Linda - it's not becoming. ;)

lindajoy wrote:

Government needs our tax dollars to cover their over spending debts

No they don't. WE ask the government for services and WE pay for them so that WE don't HAVE to borrow... That's how you stay out of debt. Just ask the "tax-and-spend" Democrats... they're the only one's that can seem to do it.

lindajoy wrote:

or replace money they stole from certain programs....SS and Medicare are not entitlement programs they are from our money, not theirs...

Hmm, in practice there's not much difference... SS is essentially a trust fund and is excluded from the budget because the people don't fund it... their employers do. But the entitlement programs ARE funded by the people AND they're in the budget. My point is... either way, the money is in the hands of the government and at no point does it ever belong to them. Whether it's a trust fund, an insurance account or a treasury it comes down to the same basic condition.

lindajoy wrote:

The ACA or BO CARE was never intended to be self sustaining or good for the people, it was intended to make us dependants of government, loosing our choice, right of freedom from government and a way to further control us...

What *is* that? It's like some kind of cheesy sci-fi from the 50's.
It shouldn't be so difficult to criticize the mistakes, and miscalculations that were made when setting up the ACA that you need to resort to that... corny shit.

lindajoy wrote:

They forgot where there is no society there is no country...We were never asked about this forced coverage we were told, not even our Congress was given a chance to read the 2000 pages of garbage...Politics at their worst!!

Ugh. It was debated and developed for years before passing... The media covered it, the government disclosed it in plain view the whole time. You had as much chance as any citizen to write to your representative, to sign petitions... shit, I've signed tons of petitions. "YES on healthcare reform!" Kaiser-Permanente published a blow by blow account of the process, with each change in the draft analyzed for consumers. YOU apparently weren't paying attention. That bill was bounced around from House to Senate to House to Senate and the bit about the Congress not having a chance to read 2000 pages is an exaggeration of a very typical scenario where the final draft of a bill is delivered in the 11th hour.

lindajoy wrote:

Now Insurance is a right~~ a right of what???

The right to be a healthy American. :)

lindajoy wrote:

Now we spread the wealth and pay for everyone to have insurance...And it is the worst ruling the SCOTUS ever put through...

How is that the worst ruling? Are you kidding me? First of all, we were already spreading the wealth anyway... You never paid more for an insurance in one year than you claimed in that same year? Where do you think that money went? It covered someone else, that's where it went. And if you don't know what I'm talking about then YOU are the person that MY premiums were covering all these years. Secondly, there are a number of good reasons for suggesting we all get health care coverage ranging from better living standards to better defense against biological warfare.

lindajoy wrote:

Having continued to rule against it, repeal is all that is viable..

The courts never ruled against it. All they could do was chip away a few provisions, but the framing was solid... and TOTALLY constitutional.

lindajoy wrote:

What do we do with everyone once it is repealed?? All those people left uninsured?? It isn't our fault this mess was forced on everyone...Repeal but do keep no denials for Pre-existing or I also read where Trump suggested allow purchase of Insurance across state lines, look into developing a Federally funded program for pre'existing and or pool for the uninsured so they do remain insured...Does that mean Medicaid??

It means socialism... Dang. You just suggested something that's more socialist than the ACA. The ACA is almost entirely funded through insurance premiums on an open market... You KNOW that "federally funded" means taxes, right? And pool..? Pool what? the lice from the heads of the uninsured? If you're going to cover the uninsured then you're going to have to get money from somewhere else, 'cause THEY ain't gonna have any... so who's going to pay? More taxes, Hmm?

lindajoy wrote:

Too much to do and we need him office to get it resolved...

Who? Forrest Trump?
...Like a box of chocolates... you never know what you're gonna get. Don't be disappointed if he doesn't turn out to be everything you had hoped for... I'll be right here with a box of tissues for you.
 
Jan 16, 2017 23:59:59   #
Louie27 wrote:
The reason for that is the Democrats want it their way and only their way. They will not vote for anything the Republicans are in favor of doing. I suppose that no Democrat lies? We have seen the fallacy of that statement for the about the last 50 years.

Seriously, it still boggles my mind that people can still say things like that and not feel like a total douche. Each of your four sentences is a carbon copy of what the Democrats have been saying about the Republicans for the past 4 years. Monkey see, monkey do?
Jan 16, 2017 23:48:13   #
Louie27 wrote:
Transparent like the Obama administration?

Transparent administrations don't happen. It's the Legislative Branch for crying out loud.

Louie27 wrote:

Everything the government mandates comes at a price to the American people.

So does freedom.

Louie27 wrote:

Who drove that with the ACA? The media of course.

Are you sure you understood what the media was actually saying?
Jan 16, 2017 10:09:28   #
JFlorio wrote:
Hey Arch. You wouldn't know socialism if it bit you in the face? If SU says it, it must be so.


Just because you haven't been able to disprove anything I've said so far, doesn't automatically make me right all the time. ;)

As for Archie, well, he's the one calling me a socialist like it's some kind of insult. Mindless accusations involving socialism seem to be quite popular among the retards on the right. I've seen at least five such posts right here on this thread. Either, they think it's insulting or they really don't know what socialism is. For the record, I do not identify as a socialist. I think there are some things socialism is good for and other things capitalism is better for. I don't get religious about economic systems.
Jan 16, 2017 10:00:15   #
JimMe wrote:
To state "... Republican sponsored policies are responsible for almost every problem Republican voters bitch about and yet politicians always find a way (usually by lying) to blame it on Democrats..." proves you're lying long and hard...

There hasn't been a GOP HealthCare Policy in effect since 2007 when the Democrats took over Congress... The blame is put on the Democrats because for the past decade it's been the Democrats HealthCare Policies that are the only ones in effect...
To state "... Republican sponsored policies ... (show quote)

I wasn't referring to healthcare.... I said "Republican sponsored policies are responsible for almost every problem Republican voters bitch about" ...in case you haven't noticed, they bitch about a LOT more than just healthcare. And the complaint about the ACA (which is largely a set of ideas borrowed from Republicans) is almost entirely based on false premises, even among those who are at least smart enough to know the ACA is not socialism.
Jan 16, 2017 09:52:02   #
archie bunker wrote:
I think you should be in the Venezuelan government. That's what you seem to want for us, and we don't want it. Sorry my friend, but I don't buy your socialist bullshit no matter how much you sugar coat it.

Archie, you wouldn't know what socialism is if it bit you in the face.
 
Jan 15, 2017 17:42:29   #
archie bunker wrote:
Damn you're a smart bastard aren't you? Why aren't you our president? I mean, shit!! You know everything, are an expert on everything. Why aren't YOU running the show? Really! I mean REALLY!! You are so fking smart, why don't you just fix it for all of us?
Jeez what a narcissistic fool you are!!

LOL... might be time for your pills archie.
Jan 15, 2017 17:38:15   #
Louie27 wrote:
The federal government has never been good with the peoples money. Anything they touch costs much more than what can be provided by the private sector.

There are plenty of cases where that's true... mostly in cases of corruption involving the private sector, such as the rampant corruption of the military-industrial complex where we can find $7,000 hammers. But for the most part, government tends to be more transparent than the private sector which means the government is more exposed to public scrutiny and that's why it's errors are more prevalent the media which gives people the impression that it's more corrupt, when in reality corruption is far more rampant in the private sector but we just don't see it because unlike the government a private firm is "none of our fucking business".
Jan 15, 2017 17:25:33   #
Louie27 wrote:

The Democratic party is the party of ignorance. The Republicans have plans for health care but need to incorporate needs of the people from all of the plans to have a complete plan. They have had a number of plans but with Obama in office they knew there was no chance for Obama to vote for any other plan than, that of the Democratic party, which installed the ACA, which has not been good for many Americans.
img src="http://static.onepoliticalplaza.com/imag... (show quote)

aw... is this a party thing? You're rubber, I'm glue is that it?

1. There is no party of ignorance, but there is a culture of ignorance and the Republican party uses that to their advantage.
2. The Republicans have had plans for decades... A lot of the ACA is based on ideas borrowed from the likes of Romney and Gingrich. The problem is the Republicans can't come up with anything that doesn't cut into profits of the insurance industry. It seems that the industry is set on squeezing the people and they want the government to stop interfering. So, despite the fact that the moral side of the Republican Party has actually tried to come up with a solution, the business side of the Republican Party won't pass it. The Democrats have already sworn they will support any solution the Republicans come up with that will actually help the people. As it stands right now... the Republicans got nothing.
Jan 15, 2017 17:12:58   #
CounterRevolutionary wrote:
I think you are missing a historical point here. "Preexisting conditions" coverage was written out of health insurance policies through government regulations under the 1945 McCarran-Fergusson Act when insurance companies were re-classed as a "for profit industry," placing them under the Interstate Commerce Clause.

It's a bit misleading to say coverage of preexisting conditions were written out "though" government regulation. The 1945 McCarran-Fergusson Act is a law AGAINST federal regulation and it was the resulting *absence of regulation* that allowed *insurance companies* to write out the preexisting conditions.

CounterRevolutionary wrote:

Once this McCarran-Fergusson Act is overturned, we will have access to all 1700 health insurance companies across all state borders, where "non-profit" health insurance industries can emerge with fair prices for the chronically ill.

The McCarran-Fergusson Act itself is a bit soft. There is an exception where federal laws can override state laws if the federal law itself is limited to the "business of insurance". So to override the impact the McCarran-Fergusson Act has on the insurance industry is a matter of fine-tuning the federal law. Overturning the law won't really make any difference at all.

I'm curious about how you think free access to insurance across state lines will induce the emergence of non-profit solutions. I agree with you that non-profit solutions are the best way (or at least the more likely way) to provide affordable coverage. Are you saying that McCarran-Fergusson has to be overturned so that non-profit insurance companies like Kaiser-Permanente in California can provide more affordable coverage to customers in states that don't have non-profits?

If so, I like the idea...

CounterRevolutionary wrote:

You cannot be so naïve to think the Public Option will be more just and affordable. Under government management, it will be cheaper to kill us than cure us. It will not only cost us more financially, it will cost us our lives.

Government is your problem, not the solution!


Eh... not so with you on that one... I like that you're looking for alternatives and that you can see the non-profit advantage, but I don't understand the revulsion toward a government-operated option - after all, the government *is* non-profit. From a business perspective, the government operates as a non-profit organization. All of a sudden you get so inclusive, talking about "us" as if we all have the same needs... It's already cheaper for the existing insurance companies to kill a lot of their customers than to fix them... The providers aren't a factor in that realty the patients are... Some patients simply cost a lot of money to keep alive. This is why profit-driven insurance companies want to exclude preexisting conditions (which are usually chronic) ...because they represent those equations where it would be more cost effective for them if the patient died. The customers that profit margins favor are the young healthy customers that pay in more than they draw out... Whether the provider is public or private makes no difference to this variation, but as a non-profit organization is does have that advantage...

Also, contrary to what many people think, private companies that answer to wealthy hedge funds are not always as efficient as a government that answers to poor citizens. The public option the Democrats pushed for in 2016 was based on Medicare, which has a 5% overhead on cost. The average for the insurance industry is 20%.
Jan 15, 2017 16:18:56   #
Barry Jackson wrote:
If politics were removed from the equation and the provision of health care were treated as a business like any other, where competition is the consumer's best friend, costs would plummet. Politicians got in on the act because they realized that they could exploit the issue for political gain: Once the government controls your health care, it controls YOU. It has never been about controlling costs; it has always been about controlling the people.

We always go back to the innocence of that classroom model don't we? "Competition is good". It's a great way to introduce economics to school kids, because in a theoretical model, competition *IS* good and it forms the basis for how we want capitalism to work. But it's a little naive for grown adults to keep saying that about a real system in the real world. The real world tends to complicate things beyond what we would expect a kid to understand. Even Adam Smith, the god-father of capitalism who coined the term "Invisible Hand" made it a point to call it a theory and suggested that in practice it might not work the same way.

I was going to get into a comprehensive response to explain how a market based on covering losses makes the free market inherently more expensive, but you might not have time for long-winded liberals. So I'm just going to say that any comprehensive response will reveal the logic behind the inarguable fact that the ACA has indeed slowed the rate of escalating prices for health coverage to a rate not seen since 1965.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/healthcostreport_final_noembargo_v2.pdf

Of course I'd be more than happy to explain how this happens... if you like... 'just let me know.
 
Jan 15, 2017 11:41:07   #
kenjay wrote:
Sounds great if you just switch the parties around. The democrats haven't had a leader since JFK.

With the Democrats it's not so obvious. They tend to nominate experienced politicians with law degrees which is appropriate for leading a law-based government. It's clearly the Republicans that look for businessmen, Hollywood actors and hockey moms to try to make that popular connection which leaves actual government leadership in question.

JFK was the last Democratic president before the Southern conservatives left the party. I'm pretty familiar with the conservative tendency to see him as the last good Democrat. I suspect that has a LOT more to do with partisan loyalty than unbiased assessment. As for me, I'm still waiting for evidence to suggest Obama is anything other than a true leader.
Jan 15, 2017 11:40:27   #
archie bunker wrote:
Smug, smarmy, self righteous prick. That is you.

Ya know... being misinformed is one thing but a lot of these people vote and their votes destroy lives. That makes them a real problem for a lot of Americans. But I've been misinformed from time to time as well, so I try to be respectful as I suggest alternatives to ignorance. But some of these people refuse to consider the alternatives and some of them carry nasty attitudes on top of their insisted ignorance. As far as I am concerned, that makes them fair game for anyone like me to make fools of. My intention is to make nasty ignorance less attractive to others, so there's a point. I'm sure I *do* come off as smug and smarmy to anyone who is offended by this and if you want to make that a personal problem that's your prerogative.

I would suggest a better course of action... prove me wrong. Trust me, that would make you feel a lot better than just posting self-defeating gripes about my "smugness".

;)
Jan 14, 2017 16:44:34   #
badbob85037 wrote:
It shouldn't be replaced it should be ended by the court cause no matter how you read it no where in the Constitution does it say government controls our health.

There's nothing in the ACA that say government controls our health either so your point is moot.

badbob85037 wrote:

The Constitution give the federal government only 30 things to do,

Let me ask you a question... If the Constitution only gives the government 30 things to do, why do we have thousands of federal laws on the books and why do we elect 435 people to make even more each year? Where in those 30 things listed in the Constitution do you see anything about protecting people from murder or rape? Where do you see anything ANYWHERE in the Constitution that protect children from sexual exploitation?

There's one huge problem with the half-baked argument that you are blindly subscribing to... it ignores the fact that one of the powers granted to federal government by the U.S.Constitution is the power to make laws. The ONLY limits to what these laws can be are found in the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments of which none of them pose ANY restriction regarding health care.

It's a simple-minded trick for simple-minded people to suggest that if something isn't explicitly stated in the Constitution it means the government can't make laws about it. Don't be that simple-minded fool. Learn what the Constitution means.

badbob85037 wrote:

When over 20 million cross your border if that isn't an invasion then what is.

When an uninvited army of soldiers, tanks and helicopters cross our border you'll know what an invasion is.

There are indeed a number of provisions in the Constitution that empower the government to provide for our common defense but there is nothing in those provisions that identify immigrants as a threat just because you don't like them.

badbob85037 wrote:

When obama was saying the border is safer than it's ever been here in Arizona 40 miles south of the largest nuclear plant in the country is land controlled by Mexican drug cartels not even our law enforcement will enter.

I guess your law enforcement is a bunch of wussies then. Not sure what you want the government to do about that. Should we write a new law that says AZ law enforcement should stop being scared of Mexicans?

badbob85037 wrote:

I'm beginning to think the Constitution isn't worth the paper it's printed on. Since 9/11 our Bill of Rights is all but null and void to protect us from the terrorist boogie man. Any politician that supports or votes for a bill that goes against the Constitution shall be removed, dragged if necessary and will receive justice from a group of citizens

I agree that some of our constitutional rights have been compromised by post-9/11 policies, but that doesn't mean the Constitution itself is compromised... it means policies are in violation. That means that if you aren't happy about these violations the LAST thing you want to do is attack the one thing that MAKES them violations. I've been a critic of these post-9/11 policies since 9/11 happened and I can tell you that most of them have been intentionally hidden from public view or otherwise "justified" through the use of fear mongering. The existence of these policies is not a sign of a weak constitution... it's a sign of a weak people.

badbob85037 wrote:

If the government want to do something for me it should be to leave me alone.

...until someone robs you, rapes your wife, takes your child, murders your friend, damages your property, forces you to work in unsafe conditions for unfair wages, pollutes your water supply or any of the hundreds of things people like you cry to the government about.

badbob85037 wrote:

I don't need their health care

Good, 'cause they don't have any.

badbob85037 wrote:

or them to protect me from some boogie man terrorist. Even if there were terrorist these chumps will do their dirty work on citizens that have been disarmed in California and New York and since these citizens allow some tyrant to convince them to give up their right to protect them self no great loss.

Try breaking into my California home and getting a .45 caliber slug in your gut. Let's see if that educates you about California's gun laws.

badbob85037 wrote:

Every disarmed Libtard they kill is one less vote giving power to a government that only abuses that power.

First of all, terrorists don't target individuals, they target crowds. Secondly most terrorist attacks on record have been in places where guns are prevalent, proving that armed citizens are almost entirely ineffective against terrorism. I am an advocate of the 2nd amendment but I'm not stupid. Guns are a much more effective means of protection in a controlled environment like your home than they are against random attacks in public places. Finally, it's not the liberals that continue to give power to an abusive government. I remember when Bush signed the PATRIOT Act, probably the most significant attack on our rights since Wilson... There was a LOT of opposition from liberals and none from conservatives.

badbob85037 wrote:

This last weekend I was going through some papers and found 9 traffic tickets from speed cameras of the state and a couple from cities in the Phoenix area. I never went to court and never paid a dime on any cause I know my rights but how many billions a year do these cameras steal from ones not knowing their rights?

I've been snagged a couple of times when I was living in NJ by the same sort of thing. I read that some of the cities there were trying to remove the "robocops" because their courts can't handle the volume of citations but they couldn't because it would breech the contracts they signed with the private companies that installed them. I don't know exactly what you think you're "rights" are with regard to speeding but you can't get a citation without breaking a law and after nine of them, I would think a smart person would learn to slow down.
Jan 14, 2017 14:52:29   #
PeterS wrote:
I think you are being naive if you think people are going to be that introspective. Take the case of Coal Miners who have special exemptions due to Black Lung and are going to lose them when Obamacare ends. I doubt they are going to sit there and say--well, if I had chosen to be a bank president instead of a coal miner I wouldn't find myself in this predicament. People tend to be small minded when it comes to their health and well being especially when it impacts their families too. As for what is governments responsibility--I don't think insuring the well being of it's citizens outside the scope of government. If a plague were to strike this country we would certainly expect government to act but we are suppose to expect government to do nothing when healthcare is pushed further and further out of reach for the average citizen? What mistaken life choice was made when the company you work for drops your health insurance?

The best way to see who's right is to repeal Obamacare, don't replace it, and see how the votes run in 2018. Apparently you don't think Republicans will be hurt. I'm with Donald on this one and think such a move will cause republicans to be swept from office...
I think you are being naive if you think people ar... (show quote)

Interesting idea. Sort of like giving them enough rope to hang themselves. I know people who are going to suffer when/if the ACA is repealed so it's hard to accept this. I'm also familiar enough with the Culture of Ignorance to know that many America idiots are incapable of learning from mistakes. Even if millions of people wind up dying from a lack of healthcare, the few that prefer it that way will always have a scapegoat to offer these incapable people. They will say it's the fault of the Marxists, or the Muslims or, whatever... it really doesn't matter, the point is to maintain ignorance. So you're idea fails to present any advantage as far as persuasion goes, but I do agree with you on a technical standpoint... Repealing the ACA without replacement would be the most effective way to understand the impact.

As far as sweeping the Republicans from office... I refer to my second point... Republican sponsored policies are responsible for almost every problem Republican voters bitch about and yet politicians always find a way (usually by lying) to blame it on Democrats. It's a game played by politicians and they have always been able to count on vast numbers of emotional and illiterate voters to keep it going.

Trump will certainly be a laughing stock for liberal-minded comedians on late night television and more importantly, his election is already spurring massive counter-movements on the ground, but Republican strategy has long relegated the office of the president to a fixture in a house of smoke and mirrors, while actual power emanates from those hidden in the shadows. Nixon was probably the last Republican president to act as a true leader. Reagan was nominated because of his popularity but he didn't lead as much as he followed. In a sense he became a mere spokesman for the agenda that others behind him controlled. GW Bush sticks out because unlike Reagan, he didn't even have the capacity to *act* like a leader. Of course, in his defense, the ulterior motives of the Republican agenda did become much harder to conceal. When you look at the nominations since then, such as Sarah Palin for vice president you can see how the qualifications have more to do with public relations than the capacity to lead. The point I'm making here is that Trump, whether or not he's what the GOP really wanted, is about to be controlled by his party. His own appointees are already promising the party to keep him on a leash so the ability for Trump to "drain the swamp" is doubtful at most.

Repealing the ACA has always been a Republican objective and they have been prompting the Culture of Ignorance into opposition since before it even became a law. Trump's opposition to the ACA is part of his banking on this Culture of Ignorance to get elected. The party will use that to their advantage of course, but if the ACA is indeed repealed, it will be the result of Republican manipulation that Trump himself will have little to do with. People will suffer of course, but once again the Culture of Ignorance will find themselves blaming anything but the repeal for the pains they endure and they will probably vote for more Republican abuse in 2018.

I expect the Republicans will loose ground in 2018 and you're right, repealing the ACA will almost guarantee that, but that's because it will motivate the apathetic half of the moderate citizens that didn't vote in 2016. The Republicans won't be wiped out... ignorance might even give them more votes than they got in 2016, but that 54% that didn't vote in 2016? Yeah, THEY will be the ones to make the change.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 257 next>>
          
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2016 IDF International Technologies, Inc.