Forums | MacLife

resedit wrote:

There is also the question of why it is that so many people are so smurfing scared of "socialism" when other western nations that are far more socialist than the USA have robust democracies, healthier people and higher standards of living.

We are not those other countries and the standard of living is not necessarily attributed to the "more socialism".

It's also not uncommon for the wealthy in those countries to come to America for certain medical procedures, and I suspect our standard of living here is brought down somewhat by large influx on illegal immigrants who frequently live in squalor.

Wow...just...wow.

resedit wrote:

Why?

You'd rather give up individual rights and freedoms?

care to be more specific?

bedstuy wrote:

Odd, I thought we'd been told on this board how the country was turning against the Socialist Muslim Usurper.  Guess those wacko teabaggers on my TeeVee kinda backfired.

A premature celebration for the GOP

Republicans in Washington can barely contain their glee at the turn of President Obama's political fortunes in the first nine months of the year but a new Washington Post/ABC News poll suggests the GOP still faces serious perception problems in the eyes of the American public.

Less than one in five voters (19 percent) expressed confidence in Republicans' ability to make the right decisions for America's future while a whopping 79 percent lacked that confidence.

Among independent voters, who went heavily for Obama in 2008 and congressional Democrats in 2006, the numbers for Republicans on the confidence questions were even more worse. Just 17 percent of independents expressed confidence in Republicans' ability to make the right decision while 83 percent said they did not have that confidence.

(While Obama's numbers on the confidence question weren't amazing -- 49 percent confident/50 percent not confident -- they were far stronger than those for Republicans.)

On the generic ballot question, 51 percent of the sample said they would cast a vote for a Democratic candidate in their congressional district next fall while just 39 percent said they would opt for a GOP candidate. (As late as this summer, Republicans had seemingly narrowed the wide generic ballot lead Democrats enjoyed for much of the last two election cycles.)

And, perhaps most troubling for GOP hopes is the fact that just 20 percent of the Post sample identified themselves as Republicans, the lowest that number has been in Post polling since 1983. (No, that is not a typo.)

These numbers, coming roughly one year before the 2010 midterm elections, show that any celebration on the GOP's behalf is premature as the party has yet to convince most voters that it can be a viable alternative to Democratic control in Washington today.

Ya, this comes as no surprise.
Over the summer the Reps were able to chop away at the Dems positives some, lowering their approval ratings. But by being as over the top bat smurf crazy about every little thing the Republicans made themselves look a bit like a pack of lunatics.
The end result of the summer madness was just a general lowering of peoples confidence in politicians in general.

Pariah wrote:

resedit wrote:

Why?

You'd rather give up individual rights and freedoms?

care to be more specific?

The right to decide whether or not I want to but health insurance, for one.
The right to buy a bottle of sugared soda w/o paying a sin tax, for another.

Last edited by resedit (2009-10-20 6:28 pm)

resedit wrote:

Pariah wrote:

resedit wrote:

Why?

You'd rather give up individual rights and freedoms?

care to be more specific?

The right to decide whether or not I want to but health insurance, for one.
The right to buy a bottle of sugared soda w/o paying a sin tax, for another.

Actually, those aren't examples of individual rights and freedoms. Mandated insurance has been a reality for years.... also applying the concept to health insurance is the only new part.

And you are not being taxed without representation.

Any better examples?

Jokotai wrote:

user wrote:

Actually, those aren't examples of individual rights and freedoms. Mandated insurance has been a reality for years.... also applying the concept to health insurance is the only new part.

Yes, there is mandated insurance for people who wish to have a government-issued license to drive vehicles on government roads.  The government is free to say that people must have car insurance if they want to drive.  However, the government is not free to tell us to carry medical insurance if we want to live.

Got a link where the government says that?

I don't want to say that I'm not for changing the healthcare system.  I am.  But, I fear that it isn't being changed for the better.  We're exchanging one group of problems for a different one.

Point taken, but the distrust still remains.  A person who has no money would be required by law to inform the government of that fact, and then that person would be eligible to be forced once more to trust the government to decide what's best for them for their healthcare.

I'm nervous about this precedent, and I think it will only make things harder on already impoverished people who are victims of the economic downturn when they have to pay a fee because they didn't mail a piece of paper on time.

I thought soda was cheaper than water, hence the poor drinking so much of it?

.tsooJ

Americans without health insurance cost society money when they use emergency care.

radarman wrote:

Alien wrote:

I thought soda was cheaper than water, hence the poor drinking so much of it?

.tsooJ

I wouldn't be surprised. Sodas are just drinks. Bottled water is a "lifestyle choice" - and thus, costs more.

We had a thread on this. Another poster and I came up with figures showing that jugs of water or faucet filters are very, very cheap.

sturner wrote:

Jokotai wrote:

Point taken, but the distrust still remains.  A person who has no money would be required by law to inform the government of that fact, and then that person would be eligible to be forced once more to trust the government to decide what's best for them for their healthcare.

I'm nervous about this precedent, and I think it will only make things harder on already impoverished people who are victims of the economic downturn when they have to pay a fee because they didn't mail a piece of paper on time.

And this is different from the law requiring ERs to accept all patients, even if they can't pay?

Yes, it is.
The government has no business keeping a database of us and even less business fining us if paperwork isn't done on time.

resedit wrote:

sturner wrote:

Jokotai wrote:

Point taken, but the distrust still remains.  A person who has no money would be required by law to inform the government of that fact, and then that person would be eligible to be forced once more to trust the government to decide what's best for them for their healthcare.

I'm nervous about this precedent, and I think it will only make things harder on already impoverished people who are victims of the economic downturn when they have to pay a fee because they didn't mail a piece of paper on time.

And this is different from the law requiring ERs to accept all patients, even if they can't pay?

Yes, it is.
The government has no business keeping a database of us and even less business fining us if paperwork isn't done on time.

Baby boy, that ship sailed decades ago.