LGP Political Discussion Thread

[doublem]

It's not that they are against government run health care, it's the reasons they are against it, death panels, illegals will get coverage, private insurances will go out of business, socialism, which aren't based on facts or evidence, if people have problems with government run health care that's fine, but a lot of what I have been hearing is nonsense. And the public OPTION isn't a government take over, it is simple an option.

[bh]

Fun fact: Canada and Great Britain, two country's whose health-care systems people love to bash, both have higher life-expectancy rates than the U.S.

Anyone interested in an analysis of life expectancy and infant mortality numbers please read this.
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA547Com ... ealth.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I realize that this is from a conservative think tank but a lot of the points made seem solid and I think it adds to our debate here. I've often questioned the methods used across differing countries.

Life expectancy is a poor statistic for determining the efficacy of a health care system because it fails the first criterion of assuming interaction with the health care system. For example, open any newspaper and, chances are, there are stories about people who die "in their sleep," in a car accident or of some medical ailment before an ambulance ever arrives. If an individual dies with no interaction with the health care system, then his death tells us little about the quality of a health care system. Yet all such deaths are computed into the life expectancy statistic.

[Bob McKenzie]

It's not that they are against government run health care, it's the reasons they are against it, death panels, illegals will get coverage, private insurances will go out of business, socialism, which aren't based on facts or evidence, if people have problems with government run health care that's fine, but a lot of what I have been hearing is nonsense. And the public OPTION isn't a government take over, it is simple an option.

Why do you have so much faith that the government can run an efficient, successful health care system (not even getting into the how are we going to pay for it question)?

[bh]

It's not that they are against government run health care, it's the reasons they are against it, death panels, illegals will get coverage, private insurances will go out of business, socialism, which aren't based on facts or evidence, if people have problems with government run health care that's fine, but a lot of what I have been hearing is nonsense. And the public OPTION isn't a government take over, it is simple an option.

Can I ask what you think is the best course of action? What would you do with health care if you had the power? I'm just curious.

[Tico Rick]

It's not that they are against government run health care, it's the reasons they are against it, death panels, illegals will get coverage, private insurances will go out of business, socialism, which aren't based on facts or evidence, if people have problems with government run health care that's fine, but a lot of what I have been hearing is nonsense. And the public OPTION isn't a government take over, it is simple an option.

Why do you have so much faith that the government can run an efficient, successful health care system (not even getting into the how are we going to pay for it question)?

Because the government has successfully run two (Medicare and Medicaid) for the past 44 years?

[doublem]

It's not that they are against government run health care, it's the reasons they are against it, death panels, illegals will get coverage, private insurances will go out of business, socialism, which aren't based on facts or evidence, if people have problems with government run health care that's fine, but a lot of what I have been hearing is nonsense. And the public OPTION isn't a government take over, it is simple an option.

Why do you have so much faith that the government can run an efficient, successful health care system (not even getting into the how are we going to pay for it question)?

Well the question is, the American government or governments in generals? Clearly there are problems with all systems, but I don't know why it is assumed that government will always screw things up, S.S., Medicare, are all government plans, sure they have problems, but are largely effective. The rest of the world as figured it out , why can't we? I support a single payer, which will never get any where close to passing in this country. I have my doubts that this country can by anything efficient at this point, and that isn't just government, how many private companies have went up recently? I really see no other options, should we let private insurances bring down costs?

And this is another issue, people are going to have to pay higher taxes, we have just faced on of the worst rescission in modern history, and there people saying that we need to cut taxes, cutting taxes is only a short term solution, has been shown by the Reagan to Bush years. No one likes it, and we need to get rid of the absurd taxes, but health care to is pretty important, maybe instead of looking at taxes as a burden, we should look at it as a duty as a citizen.

[doublem]

It's not that they are against government run health care, it's the reasons they are against it, death panels, illegals will get coverage, private insurances will go out of business, socialism, which aren't based on facts or evidence, if people have problems with government run health care that's fine, but a lot of what I have been hearing is nonsense. And the public OPTION isn't a government take over, it is simple an option.

Can I ask what you think is the best course of action? What would you do with health care if you had the power? I'm just curious.

I would do a single payer, that everyone pays into, but is not socialized like the V.A. or the British system. Private companies would still exist becasue doctors may work in private practices or for public or private hospitals. It is pointless because it will never happen politicians are too weak to bring it up, and a lot of the American people would think we would be turning into the U.S.S.R.

[pittsoccer33]

Enough of with bipartisan stuff, there is becoming two parties in this country, one group that lives in a fact based reality, and the other that lives in a feelings-gut based world,

Yep you're right, and its the fringe left that has become unhinged and lost their sense of reality.

Life is not fair. Thats probably one of the most important things I learned early in life, when my parents couldnt afford Air Jordans for me but seemigly all the kids living in public housing had them, but I digress.

Which ideology is it that believes in, and whats to change, the following things:

-its unfair that oil companies make too much profit when gas costs are rising and theyre raping the environment
-its unfair that ceos make so much money and fly around on corporate jets
-its unfair some people cant find jobs, or are not qualified for them
-its unfair that big fast food is making a fortune causing obesity and diabetes
-its unfair that some people didnt read their mortgage contracts and signed things they should not have
-its unfair to fail a student who just isnt as smart. effort should count as much if not more than result.
-its unfair some people dont have jobs with health insurance, probably because of the fat cats at the top
-its unfair these murderers and terrorists at Gitmo are being detained for trying to kill Americans
-its unfair to keep score in childrens sports

All of this is true and I have little problem with any of it. When you begin to oppose it is when you start to walk down the path to collectivism.

[pittsoccer33]

Fun fact: Canada and Great Britain, two country's whose health-care systems people love to bash, both have higher life-expectancy rates than the U.S.

They also have higher death rates from cancer.

[pittsoccer33]

The difference is one is proposing a health care bill and the other undid half the bill of rights.

Which of your rights have been violated and how?

How many terror attacks on American cities have there been since 9/11?

[pittsoccer33]

Because the government has successfully run two (Medicare and Medicaid) for the past 44 years?

Both are going broke and will not be sustainable going forward. http://seniorjournal.com/NEWS/Medicare/ ... Report.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Beyond that, medicare will not reimburse doctors their full fee for services rendered. As a result more and more doctors do not even want to treat these people and lose money on the deal.

[doublem]

The difference is one is proposing a health care bill and the other undid half the bill of rights.

Which of your rights have been violated and how?

How many terror attacks on American cities have there been since 9/11?

So? Are you going to give up your rights for some alleged safety, that no one could protect you from in the first place.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warran ... ontroversy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hack job to the 4th Amendment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib ... oner_abuse" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo ... ntion_camp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
There goes 5,6 , 7, and 8.

[pittsoccer33]

So? Are you going to give up your rights for some alleged safety, that no one could protect you from in the first place.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warran ... ontroversy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hack job to the 4th Amendment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib ... oner_abuse" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo ... ntion_camp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
There goes 5,6 , 7, and 8.

And how many of these people were/are american citizens? Our constitutional rights only apply to citizens.

And the geneva convention only applies to soliders of a given nation, not of a religion.

[doublem]

No, they don't, the constitution and bill of rights are universal documents applied to all people. America does not torture, it does not hold people in camps for years without trail, those are universal rights, they are pointless if they only apply to people lucky enough to be born on our soil. Plus, they wiretapped American citizens.

[doublem]

So? Are you going to give up your rights for some alleged safety, that no one could protect you from in the first place.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warran ... ontroversy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hack job to the 4th Amendment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib ... oner_abuse" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo ... ntion_camp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
There goes 5,6 , 7, and 8.

And how many of these people were/are american citizens? Our constitutional rights only apply to citizens.

And the geneva convention only applies to soliders of a given nation, not of a religion.

What does that mean? They are members of a nation, the religion Islam is not the problem, the actions of those individuals are. We aren't fighting a war on Islam, there are 1 billion Muslims in the world.Then it would be okay to do the same to "Christians"that bomb abortion clinicians?

[doublem]

Enough of with bipartisan stuff, there is becoming two parties in this country, one group that lives in a fact based reality, and the other that lives in a feelings-gut based world,

Yep you're right, and its the fringe left that has become unhinged and lost their sense of reality.

Life is not fair. Thats probably one of the most important things I learned early in life, when my parents couldnt afford Air Jordans for me but seemigly all the kids living in public housing had them, but I digress.

Which ideology is it that believes in, and whats to change, the following things:

-its unfair that oil companies make too much profit when gas costs are rising and theyre raping the environment
-its unfair that ceos make so much money and fly around on corporate jets
-its unfair some people cant find jobs, or are not qualified for them
-its unfair that big fast food is making a fortune causing obesity and diabetes
-its unfair that some people didnt read their mortgage contracts and signed things they should not have
-its unfair to fail a student who just isnt as smart. effort should count as much if not more than result.
-its unfair some people dont have jobs with health insurance, probably because of the fat cats at the top
-its unfair these murderers and terrorists at Gitmo are being detained for trying to kill Americans
-its unfair to keep score in childrens sports

All of this is true and I have little problem with any of it. When you begin to oppose it is when you start to walk down the path to collectivism.

Opposing corporatism and having inequalities grow between the rich and the poor lead to collectivism? Hmmm. It seems to me that you believe in some sort of fatalism? If people just accepted that they were treated unfair, to stay down and respect the powerful and people in authority, we for one wouldn't have been a nation, some people believe it is possible to change the life they were born into and make a better world for all people, not just the rich and powerful.

[JoseCuervo]

Fun fact: Canada and Great Britain, two country's whose health-care systems people love to bash, both have higher life-expectancy rates than the U.S.

FYI: This has a lot more to do with lifestyles than healthcare. Who are the fattest and most unhealthy people around? Easy, US.

I take care of myself, eat well, and exercise. I also know that I need to watch what I eat because of cholesterol problems in my family. I do this so I don't have to pay for it later. I don't like having to take care of someone who didn't take care of themselves. Thousands are on the track to type 2 diabetes. Can they prevent it? Yes. Do they? no. I drink a lot. If I need a liver transplant later, do you feel that you are responsible to pay for it? I would hope not; that's my fault. There are a lot of unpreventable problems that can occur, but one of the main problems is that a lot of things that are preventable are not being prevented.

[cs6687]

No, they don't, the constitution and bill of rights are universal documents applied to all people. America does not torture, it does not hold people in camps for years without trail, those are universal rights, they are pointless if they only apply to people lucky enough to be born on our soil. Plus, they wiretapped American citizens.

First sentence of the Constitution: We the People of the United States.

[JoseCuervo]

No, they don't, the constitution and bill of rights are universal documents applied to all people. America does not torture, it does not hold people in camps for years without trail, those are universal rights, they are pointless if they only apply to people lucky enough to be born on our soil. Plus, they wiretapped American citizens.

First sentence of the Constitution: We the People of the United States.

i think he meant the decleration of independance: "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

[doublem]

No, they don't, the constitution and bill of rights are universal documents applied to all people. America does not torture, it does not hold people in camps for years without trail, those are universal rights, they are pointless if they only apply to people lucky enough to be born on our soil. Plus, they wiretapped American citizens.

First sentence of the Constitution: We the People of the United States.

And, do you think the founders wanted those rights infringed just becasue people weren't lucky enough to be born in our country.

[doublem]

No, they don't, the constitution and bill of rights are universal documents applied to all people. America does not torture, it does not hold people in camps for years without trail, those are universal rights, they are pointless if they only apply to people lucky enough to be born on our soil. Plus, they wiretapped American citizens.

First sentence of the Constitution: We the People of the United States.

i think he meant the decleration of independance: "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

I meant that the bill of rights were intended for all people.

[JoseCuervo]

No, they don't, the constitution and bill of rights are universal documents applied to all people. America does not torture, it does not hold people in camps for years without trail, those are universal rights, they are pointless if they only apply to people lucky enough to be born on our soil. Plus, they wiretapped American citizens.

First sentence of the Constitution: We the People of the United States.

And, do you think the founders wanted those rights infringed just becasue people weren't lucky enough to be born in our country.

if we did, we wouldn't have expanded past the Mississippi and killed the natives

[JoseCuervo]

First sentence of the Constitution: We the People of the United States.

i think he meant the decleration of independance: "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

I meant that the bill of rights were intended for all people.

that's not true at all though

[doublem]

So you think it is right to torture people, leave them in Gitmo for months or years becasue they aren't citizens?

[JoseCuervo]

So you think it is right to torture people, leave them in Gitmo for months or years becasue they aren't citizens?

no, but the founders of america don't make the rules for the entire world. Just the country they founded. People in england can't have fire-arms. That violates our bill of rights not theirs.