vernon

the house controls the purse and they say no funds now the pres and his thug reid says their way or the hiway so leave it down

scottyb

[quote=straightUp]It's not hard to get. After all, we are all subject to the same rules. What's hard is agreeing on how to fix it. I think you might be surprised at how many of those other "progs" actually agree with you on a more general level. But the differences in how to fix the problems often lead to frustration and the sense that the other person isn't "getting" it.

Ask ANY of the liberals here if they think our government is spending too much money. I bet you they will say yes. Ask ANY liberal here if they think the government is too oppressive. I bet they will say yes. Ask ANY liberal here if they think the country is going downhill... I bet they will say yes. Ask any liberal here if they are sick, sick, Sick of it all... I bet they will s. This "liberal" is.

Here's to common ground...

:thumbup:[/quot

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

scottyb

I thank you and straight up for helping me develop my opinions on this. Quote= First, I'd like to both thank and complement you on a well-written post free of invectives. It seems it's becoming rare on this forum to be able to discuss issues rationally and I appreciate the chance to do so.

Also, I want to express my sympathies to you on the loss of your Dad and uncle. Further, if Parkinsons is hereditary as I believe it is, I sincerely hope you do not contract it. I don't know if there are tests available to let you know, and even if there are I'm not sure I'd want to know if I were in your position.

Now, to the issues. The infant mortality example I gave is admittedly responsible for a small fraction of one statistic, but it was just an example. From everything believable that I've read, if one compares apples-to-apples, counting stats the same way for our outcomes as they are counted in the countries we're comparing against, then our healthcare system comes out at or near the top in virtually all categories. I didn't see your listing, but it doesn't matter (to me) because you stated in this post that it was compiled by the WHO, which is an ultra-partisan left-wing propaganda machine of the UN. You seem intelligent enough to realize that they have both a bias and an agenda.

As for tort reform. Frivolous lawsuits are responsible for the cost of malpractice insurance that I already mentioned, plus the added cost of defensive medicine, plus the liability insurance for all equipment, drugs, and infrastructure associated with the healthcare industry. I don't know if anybody actually knows the total percentage of healthcare costs that lawsuits are responsible for, but I'd bet it's at least 50%. Lawsuits are also the one issue where the govt has a valid role. Therefore, any sweeping legislation that is supposed to be about reducing costs and making healthcare more affordable and available must address this issue. To ignore it, as the ACA did, is nothing short of criminal. Remember, Rebubs begged the Dems to include it, but the Dems staunchly refused. There is only one possible reason for that - money (and lots of it) from the trial lawyers lobby. So, Dem politicians get rich and the middle class pays.

I didn't hear what ol' Noam had to say, but I disagree about the parties moving right unless he means that the Dems used to be against big govt and now they're for it. However, there has been no shift in the parties to the extent that you could move from a Reagan Repub to an Obama supporter. That, my friend, indicates a major shift in you. Reagan promoted small govt and a foreign policy based on superiority. Obama promotes big govt and a foreign policy based on friendship and apology. They are polar opposites.

I do agree with what you say about 'identity politics'. That is why I don't consider myself to be either conservative or liberal. On many issues I agree with the conservatives but on others I'm further left than most liberals. Mostly I believe in freedom, and I am well aware that freedom and socialism are mutually exclusive. Govt is the only entity that has the legal and moral authority to take your life and/or freedom. That is, IMO, as it should be but it also makes govt a necessary EVIL. That's why I think govt should be as small as possible and limited in scope to only that which is absolutely necessary.

Being a self-described liberal, do you believe that free healthcare is a basic human right? If so, why?

Again, thanks for a civil response to my post and I look forward to continuing this conversation.[/quote]

scottyb

quote=straightUp]Me too. :)[/quote]

Bravo!!! I'm on board officially. Don't know why its not showing that entire post of yours here. O well you and voice of reason know what you wrote and it sold me to your POV

scottyb

Brilliant!!! I'm with you. You guys gotta stop it I haven't gotten this much real intelligent information since I joined in to this site. Actually I may take a break and go read people calling each other libitard and teabagger while let it sink in. Thanks voice and straight. a

scottyb

Brilliant!!! I'm with you. You guys gotta stop it I haven't gotten this much real intelligent information since I joined in to this site. Actually I may take a break and go read people calling each other libitard and teabagger while let it sink in. Thanks voice and straight. a

straightUp Loc: California

Well, I *did* say earlier that the system in the UK isn't perfect, but I DO prefer it. My experience there was strictly from a patient perspective so I don't have the same insight that I do here, but some things seem obvious, for instance how drugs are prescribed by UK doctors according to their medical assessment. The fact that name-brands are absent from their system supports this idea. In contrast, the experience I've had behind the scenes in the US system confirm, with very little question, that doctors are persuaded and in some cases ordered to prescribe drugs according to market motives.


Seriously? My dad worked on the Viking project. He was a stress and dynamics engineer. I was a kid then but I got a chance to visit the Jet Propulsion Lab. I followed the Voyager project like a religion. I agree with you... it's an amazing feat. By the time it flew by the outer planets I was a communications technician (microwave and satellite) and I was able to really appreciate how they took a tiny onboard computer and a super slow radio link and managed to reprogram the craft to do entirely new things. BTW, I had a picture of that plaque your referring too, wonder if I still do. Seriously, my hat is OFF.


Yeah... I don't know about that. I think it's more like having several ER doctors, one specializing in fingers and another specializing in cardiovascular.


Well, that's an interesting conspiracy theory. By that I don't mean it's not true... just not very convincing (to me). Of course, this may have to do with our different perspectives on where these parties are and if they've moved. If you're perspective is right and the Democratic Party is basically in the same place it's been for the last 30 years, then your suspicion would make more sense because they WERE pushing for a single payer system. But if my perspective is right and the Democratic Party HAS moved to the right, then it's much less likely AND it would explain why there are no more Democrats overtly pushing for single payer.


No, no... saying there are no "unalienable" or "natural" rights most certainly does NOT suggest that anyone SHOULD be anything. In fact this position encourages the view that no one has a "right" to enslave another, which is quite the opposite to what you are saying.

Also, my "long" explanation certainly does NOT boil down to what I said about "inalienable rights". That preface was only to provide contrast against which I explained what I call socially constructed rights. Just because a "right" is defined by mortal law doesn't mean I don't agree with it and I am willing to put my life on the line to protect these socially constructed rights.


What difference does it make if we disagree on whether a basic human right is "unalienable" as long as we both support it? This is like the "taste great - less filling" argument - just frickin order the beer.


*sigh* - I already explained how "otherwise" does NOT advocate slavery. What matters is if you as a person, endorse a human right or not. Personally, I don't think it matters so much that it comes from mortals or God. I'm something of an existentialist so I don't require Holy endorsement. I can fight to the death for a human right just the same.

In fact, to date I have written upwards of 50 letters to world leaders across the globe to encourage them to release their political prisoners as part of the Amnesty International campaigns BECAUSE I believe in the human rights described in the Declaration of Human Rights, the only such document that extends the notion of basic human rights to more than one nation. I know... it a UN document, but seriously, who the hell cares? It's a GOOD document and for many people outside the developed world it's the ONLY such declaration of human rights they have.


I agree with your description of conservatives but I don't agree with your description of liberals. Surprised? ;)

Your point here is very closely related to what I was saying in my earlier post where I said left-wing thinking is motivated by inclusion and right-wing thinking is motivated by exclusion. The exclusion ingrained in your "right-leaning" assessment is the sense that some people are worthy of assistance and others are not. Liberals won't disagree, but it's not what they define their politics on. Conservatives do. Not only do conservatives want to actively exclude those who are not worthy but they want to decide for themselves who these people are which is why charity is a more comfortable option for them as you have rightly indicated.

Liberals on the other hand, being more left-leaning, prefer to define their politics on the "inclusive" process of entitlement. There *is* no exclusion and that drives conservatives nuts, especially if their support for the entitlement is mandated. I *do* get this and on first glance it certainly does seem that the conservative approach is leaner and more fair. I'm almost convincing myself now... just kidding LOL.

Here's why I like the entitlement process better. It didn't happen over night but after some personal experience with those less fortunate I started to realize that people run into trouble for all kinds of reasons, some of them not so obvious, some of them so complicated that you really have to think about it to realize their predicament. I started to realize that I'm not such a good judge of whether or not someone is worthy of assistance and to be frank, I don't have the time to improve that situation and what's more - I really don't think I'm an exception to the rule. Now, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Once I started to think about it I started to realize many more advantages, such as the fact that among other things entitlement is more predictable AND reliable than charity. Administrators can plan ahead with entitlement because they know what to expect and this allows for better management of resources (not arguing that the government is a shining example of management - just saying the framework allows for it) Not the case with charity - and by the way, charity is not always corruption-free either nor is charity much better than me at judging worthiness. There are plenty of worthless do-nothings standing in the church soup-lines too.

To be clear, I hold charity as an act in very high regard, higher than entitlement in fact because of it's voluntary nature, but as a system - if we are indeed insisting on a basic right - entitlement is the only option we can rely on. This doesn't mean we can't have charity as a supplemental system and to it's credit the government DOES make charity a tax write-off so in a sense, you DO have a choice - sort of.

So, MY answer to your definition of "liberal", is that liberals endorse an inclusive entitlement system as a basic right for all citizens. In our minds this elevates our sense of worth as a society of generosity and compassion. The lack of... I'm just going to say it... "righteous" judgment as a basis for exclusion, which by contrast I find revolting, is the cause of endless frustration for conservatives, which naturally focuses on those worthless "leeches" and the money that they are forced to give to them.

One more thing... in contrast to the idea that liberals are somehow targeting conservatives as "tax victims" (as if conservatives are the only ones with jobs) in actuality, we would like nothing better than to release conservatives from the obligation. Trust me sharing a system with an angry mob of conservatives isn't always fun. But the problem is when conservatives suddenly find themselves in need, guess who's applying for government assistance? (and don't tell me this doesn't happen - I know conservatives personally who are collecting right now). I have often thought it would be real nice if we could come up with some kind of dual system, where people can opt-out of the entitlement system if they want to. But it just doesn't seem practical.


Oh, c'mon... You don't think conservative politicians do the same thing? That's the way politics in any democracy works. You fight for the advantages of (or project the illusion of advantage to) your constituents and those "advantages" are ALWAYS paid through the forceful taxation of everyone inside and outside the constituency. The conservatives are just a little more underhanded about it because they tend to use "off-line" spending. Do you think the liberals who aren't fooled by that are happy about being forced to pay down debts incurred by conservative politicians that used the loans to project national power while campaigning on the low-tax platform? ...the two-step guarantee of a conservative vote?

Can't say we are.

straightUp Loc: California

“All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.”
— U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 7, clause 1

I think your interpretation is off base. The rule is that all bills for *funding* originates in the House but you're talking about *defunding*. The fact of the matter is that funding for Obamacare has already been included in the ACA, which did in fact originate in the House and has since been passed into law. . Now the House is changing it's mind.

As for the government, the largest employer in the nation, you seem to be a little on the callous side. Do you really think it's worth cutting off hundreds of thousands of families from their income is worth the ideological slap-fight that the House Republicans are insisting on?

straightUp Loc: California

Are you failing to understand that the military is a part of the government and that I am responding to general remark about the government being inept?


Actually, you don't know that. They don't exactly televise their glitches on Fox News. The NSA doesn't provide logon screens for 300 million+ users either. And... I happen to know that many systems in the Department of Defense, including one that I worked on "evolved" over periods of time that far exceed 3.5 years.

straightUp Loc: California

Bravo!!! I'm on board officially. Don't know why its not showing that entire post of yours here. O well you and voice of reason know what you wrote and it sold me to your POV[/quote]

scottyb - it's nice to be appreciated. Thank you. I've enjoyed my discussion with voice of reason too...

AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State

Actually, Vernon and I were specifically commenting on the ineptness of the system engineers at HHS.

I happen to know they can and do build systems in less then three years which could, if needed, be user friendly for 300 million users. Question, just because there are 300 million people, why is it your presumption all would use the system? Perhaps they would have been better advised to plan on only a percentage of the population at the opening of the exchanges.

By the by, as a microcosm, many Federal employees are greatly enjoying this in my area, ie. golf daily for three, fall yard work accomplished without giving up a weekend, leaving early for family visit, attic cleaned and reorganized, new car shopping during the week, small exterior painting jobs completed, and acts of civil disobedience as about four or five went to the Lincoln Memorial.

straightUp Loc: California

Well, it's possible - I don't know much about that project, but it's typical for the government to contract that type of work out to private companies. I would say there is a good chance the "HHS system engineers" aren't actually government employees, which seems contrary to the premise for vernons comment.


Yes, "they" do, sometimes successfully. Many variables it's not like flipping burgers, which I am sure you know.


Actually, I was stressing a point about NSA systems not being available for large public user communities. Typically, systems are designed for a specific threshold of concurrent users at a fraction of the total user community. Your suggestion does make sense, but what is also typical of these projects is that they are what I call "promise driven". In this case, the entire country was told it will be ready by a certain date. Feedback from technical teams are not always well received by management either. The o-rings on NASA's Challenger is a good example of management moving ahead despite warnings from engineers so they can meet date.

In all 3.5 years is plenty of time to build a system but it's not just one system. They had to coordinate with adjacent systems in 50 states and the process of setting up the project alone, budget, project teams, contracts etc... can take a year on its own.


There's a sense that this isn't going to last long and it probably won't, but there's still a rough road ahead. Basically, our government doesn't have the money to pay it's bills and so far, every solution from the House is a temporary fix. So a possible government shutdown could become a reoccurring crises. I'm a little concerned that this kind of leveraging tactic the House is pulling is going to set a precedent, which I think is one of the strongest reasons that Obama and the Senate need to stand their ground. Even if I opposed the ACA, I think my feelings on this particular matter would be the same.

butai Loc: US

It amazes me how rational people can say irrational things. The shutdown is 100% the GOP's fault. There is absolutely no evidence otherwise. The comment above is not factual it is emotional, and there lies the problem. This Republican Party for those of you who are too young to remember reminds me of the Democratic Party of the 70s which was run by the radicals of the Left who were doing the same kind of craziness that these extremists on the Right are doing today. Whatever your politics, I believe strongly that this country is best run by pragmatists and not by ideologues. I immigrated in 1974 from a country that was run by ideologues where nothing could get done and I am sad to report that the US today reminds me of the politics in that country. In my view, we have the government we deserve after all people are voting for these politicians.

Voice of Reason Loc: Earth

LOL :)

Thanks. I'm enjoying my discussions with StraightUp. It's always good to hear opposing points of view and evaluate them to either modify or strengthen your own. Life is a constant growth and learning process.

Voice of Reason Loc: Earth

By now you should have realized that I'm a free-market supporter, but IMHO some of the major drug companies are purely evil. I won't go into the reasons here, but I think they'd be less powerful and less able to spread their 'evilness' without political help.



Thanks, small world, huh? I spent the summer of '77 in Florida supporting the Voyager launches. Good times. But that was a long time ago before my hair turned gray...then fell out. :(



You probably won't agree with this, but from my perspective the Dems are much less tolerant of dissention within their party than the Repubs. (In fact, lately, the Repubs are becoming infamous for infighting). It seems, especially under Obama, that lockstep agreement among all Dems is required.

Also, I've heard reports that several Dems, including Obama, have stated that ACA is just the first step towards single-payer.



My apologies, I obviously misunderstood.



DAMN - and you were doing so well... :)



The problem with charitable entitlements is that they encourage the behavior that causes the need for them. It's a self-perpetuating cycle. For example, when you tell young girls they shouldn't get pregnant, but if they do you'll provide full support for her and the baby, and all future children, for a lifetime then you should expect that many will take you up on that offer. You get what you pay for.

I'll agree that private charities are not perfect either, but at least they're generally more hands-on and provide counseling. That is completely lacking in govt programs.



I agree with that interpretation of liberal thinking completely. It allows liberals to feel good about themselves while keeping a distance from the 'undesirables'.

However, I will point out that giving away other peoples' money is neither generous or compassionate. It is theft.



How can you say it's revolting for conservatives to be frustrated about the fact that a single mother of two can enjoy the same lifestyle as her working counterpart earning $72K without lifting a finger to help herself or her children? Especially when many of those paying to support her are forced to maintain a lower lifestyle?

I think part of the reason for your attitude is that you are among the higher income earners. I remember reading in some posting from you that you're in the top 10%. That tells me that although you pay a fair share of your earnings to income taxes, you still have plenty left to do pretty much whatever you want. You don't really need or miss what's taken. Try putting yourself in the position of, say, a family of 4 earning $55K. They may have enough after taxes to cover necessities, but not as many luxuries as the welfare recipients they're supporting. That's just wrong.



Somehow I get the idea that a great many libs reading that would be screaming, "What? Wait a minute..." :)

Yes, I know conservatives get on welfare as well. Most financial advisors recommend you maintain a savings equal to 3 months income as a 'rainy day' fund. Maybe if taxes were lowered as a result of cutting welfare benefits more people would be able to do that and wouldn't require govt assistance so often.



I'm honestly not sure what you're talking about here? Do you mean 'pork' projects? If so, I'm against them too, but I don't think they're as bad as entitlements. At least with a pork project you're paying people to work.

What do you think of the idea of requiring some sort of work for able-bodied welfare recipients?