Countdown until Obama is gone

[Minor Axis]

The first two will likely happen no matter who was in office, and the last is a travesty we've already discussed.

One persons travesty is another person's visit to the doctor...

 

[Accountable]

One persons travesty is another person's visit to the doctor...

Short-term relief for long-term pain is not a wise decision; it's the decision of addicts and spoiled children.

 

[Minor Axis]

Short-term relief for long-term pain is not a wise decision; it's the decision of addicts and spoiled children.

Yes spoiled child, decent medical is a privilege. You did not work hard enough in life, so you'll have to go without proper medical care or just plan on spending your evenings in the emergency room waiting to be seen.

 

[Accountable]

Yes spoiled child, decent medical is a privilege. You did not work hard enough in life, so you'll have to go without proper medical care or just plan on spending your evenings in the emergency room waiting to be seen.

There it is. Twist it to fit your comfort zone so you don't have to get out of it.

 

[Minor Axis]

There it is. Twist it to fit your comfort zone so you don't have to get out of it.

Yes, straight talker Accountable. I've always said whatever system we use must be sustainable. Your solution is that the "undeserving" go without. I understand your feelings on the matter. Who says the current system is sustainable? Maybe we can stand aside and see how high medical costs go and how large the "undeserving" category gets.

 

[itsmeJonB]

I predict 4 more years

If Bush can get re-elected, any idiot can

 

[darkangel]

I predict 4 more years

If Bush can get re-elected, any idiot can

:homo:exactly! and it will be a good thing!

 

[Accountable]

Yes, straight talker Accountable. I've always said whatever system we use must be sustainable. Your solution is that the "undeserving" go without.

No, it's not, but that doesn't stop you from saying it is.

I understand your feelings on the matter.

No, I don't believe you do, seeings how you repeatedly misrepresent what I post.

Who says the current system is sustainable?

I don't know. I'm trying to think of someone that has, but no names come to mind.

Maybe we can stand aside and see how high medical costs go and how large the "undeserving" category gets.

I spose we could, but that would be as stupid and damaging as your solution.

 

[Minor Axis]

No, it's not, but that doesn't stop you from saying it is.No, I don't believe you do, seeings how you repeatedly misrepresent what I post.I don't know. I'm trying to think of someone that has, but no names come to mind.I spose we could, but that would be as stupid and damaging as your solution.

I've not misrepresented anything you've said. You are against the path we are currently on with health care. You have a libertarian view of most government related things which means don't let the government handle it. What exactly are you proposing for a health care system in this country? Is health care a privilege destined only to those who deserve it? If not, what? What changes in general terms would you like to see? I know it's not socialized medicine. What system are you proposing in general terms that is affordable and will cover more people than are currently covered? Most of your proposals are let the market take care of itself. Hence my comment "stand aside". Clearly that is not working and you called it stupid. So where does that leave the discussion?

Maybe we should talk about this in the health care thread? No matter.

 

[Alien Allen]

JFK the liberal icon would be puking at what his party morphed into and would have either gone independent or republican

IMO

 

[Francis]

It amazes me that with so many great people in all our countries that so few ever step forward.

Why is it that we always feel like we elect idiots after they are in office and not before ?

Does taking office give them a lobotomy ?

 

[Accountable]

I've not misrepresented anything you've said.

I would imagine I would be a better judge of that than you. Apparently you disagree.

You are against the path we are currently on with health care. You have a libertarian view of most government related things which means don't let the government handle it.

I don't want the federal government to do anything not specifically delegated to it by the Constitution. If we want the federal gov't to take over healthcare, or the insurance industry, or private banks, or the auto industry, we have a process in place to allow that. Why is no one calling for an amendment to delegate the administration of Government Motors to Washington?

What exactly are you proposing for a health care system in this country? Is health care a privilege destined only to those who deserve it? If not, what? What changes in general terms would you like to see? I know it's not socialized medicine. What system are you proposing in general terms that is affordable and will cover more people than are currently covered?

I can't tell which of these questions are rhetorical and which aren't, so I'll reply thusly (is "thusly" a word?): "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
Yes, I know you hate it, but there it is. If the citizens of each state decide that they want their governments to take over their healthcare issues, they have every right to do so. If the citizens of the USA decide that they want their federal government to take over healthcare issues, they have every right to do so. There are procedures in place for either solution, if "solution" is the right word. The federal option would require a US constitutional amendment. The state option would not.

Most of your proposals are let the market take care of itself. Hence my comment "stand aside". Clearly that is not working and you called it stupid. So where does that leave the discussion?

Maybe we should talk about this in the health care thread? No matter.

You say "that is not working" but that is not what we're doing, so how the hell would you know it doesn't work??

 

[Minor Axis]

You say "that is not working" but that is not what we're doing, so how the hell would you know it doesn't work??

My statement is that it is not working is based the fact that health care costs in a for-profit industry have been sky rocketing for the last 30 years. Unless a new course is set prices will continue to go up or coverage will drop, there is no way around it.

Allow me to summarize, as long as the Federal govt is not handling health care you'll be satisfied. Is there any reason why you believe the issue would be better handled on the state level? Federal control mostly means that you'd have one centralized authority setting the rules based on input from the States. No I don't have a problem with that. If I can put my trust in the State government, I can put it in the Federal government. Dealing with government bureaucracy is about the same whether it's the IRS or the local DMV.

Philosophically besides you think the Constitution specifies who should handle health care, why do you consider it better if it is handled on the state level? I'm waiting for you to make a "competition between the states" argument as a good thing better than the Federal government? Maybe not. For all practical purposes there is no state competition unless it comes to undercutting one another to attract industry. I don't see this applying for health care.

 

[Accountable]

My statement is that it is not working is based the fact that health care costs in a for-profit industry have been sky rocketing for the last 30 years.

That's not what you said at all and not what I responded to.
You said

Maybe we can stand aside and see how high medical costs go

and

Hence my comment "stand aside". Clearly that is not working

clearly implying that we are standing aside now. We are not.

[presumptuous statement deleted]Is there any reason why you believe the issue would be better handled on the state level?

No.

[opinion and presumptuous statement deleted]
why do you consider it better if it is handled on the state level? I'm waiting for you to make a "competition between the states" argument as a good thing better than the Federal government? Maybe not. For all practical purposes there is no state competition unless it comes to undercutting one another to attract industry. I don't see this applying for health care.

You haven't read it, or at least it hasn't sunken in, the last few times I've posted it, so I'll do it again. Benchmarking, comparing techniques between parties, be they individuals, markets, departments, or state governments, is a proven way to promote innovation and continual improvement. A single centralized agency has no benchmarking, so improvement is slow or nonexistent.

This in no way implies that I think any government solution is "the" solution, only that decentralization is better for innovation and improvement than centralization.

 

[edgray]

I don't think it matters who's in charge, the corruption inherent in the system will still be there, along with the monetary farce, the military-industrial complex etc etc.

Honestly, how much has Obama affected your life? I'm sure no different that any of the other candidates who ran... I suppose except maybe RP...

 

[Accountable]

I don't think it matters who's in charge, the corruption inherent in the system will still be there, along with the monetary farce, the military-industrial complex etc etc.

Honestly, how much has Obama affected your life? I'm sure no different that any of the other candidates who ran... I suppose except maybe RP...

I typed out this little gem in a different forum today:

The Party is bought and paid for. It has two franchises so that nobody can accuse it of monopoly. It uses it's power and influence to block any challengers from getting a foothold in our political market. It can do this because it's employees write the legislation. While they do have a retail market, the American voter, their real bread and butter is in wholesale, dealing with large corporations. They give the dollars The Party needs to operate their retail operations, in exchange for favorable legislation. The party uses this money for advertising blitzes that smaller parties and even rich individuals can't hope to compete against.

The Republican franchise of The Party have usurped the TEA Party brand. It's not the idealistic micro it was a few months ago. It a subsidiary now.

What you quaintly refer to as "throwing their asses out at the ballot box" is no more than returning a defective part to the retailer and picking up another one - from the same retailer. Hopefully this one will work, eh? Ever thought about bypassing Home Depot and shopping at Earl's hardware? Nah, nobody shops there; HD has everything you need.

Simply voting for another establishment politician (employee of The Party) because you believe he might be different from the last employee of The Party seems a bit foolish to me. The very fact that they are willing to associate themselves with The Party should logically mark them for suspicion.

There are other parties other than The Party. There are other people willing to do the job that don't fit The Party's mold. Until The Party perceives a genuine threat to it's retail operations, meaning something outside the two franchises, they will continue business as usual.

 

[darkangel]

Accountable, are you sure that you're a History teacher? The only way I can really believe that is if you teach 3rd grade History or younger. Your take on things seem to be a little off. Are you stressing because school started back up? It's just that your posts for the past couple of weeks have been utter nonsense. Or is it that you want to take a vacation to Spain and visit ed?

 

[Accountable]

Accountable, are you sure that you're a History teacher? The only way I can really believe that is if you teach 3rd grade History or younger. Your take on things seem to be a little off. Are you stressing because school started back up? It's just that your posts for the past couple of weeks have been utter nonsense. Or is it that you want to take a vacation to Spain and visit ed?

I assure you I am being utterly consistent with my principles. Third grade?!? Surely you're joking! Explain yourself, woman.

 

[Alien Allen]

Accountable, are you sure that you're a History teacher? The only way I can really believe that is if you teach 3rd grade History or younger. Your take on things seem to be a little off. Are you stressing because school started back up? It's just that your posts for the past couple of weeks have been utter nonsense. Or is it that you want to take a vacation to Spain and visit ed?

Ah so if you don't agree with the message then you disparage the messenger eh??

You wanna disrespect me I can take it and I deserve it.

Accountable has been nothing but decent IMO and did not deserve this from you.

And if you take some of his comments made elsewhere regarding problems with kids you would probably find he has more wisdom about dealing with kids than most.

I guess Acc some people have a different vision of what the constitution is about.

 

[darkangel]

I assure you I am being utterly consistent with my principles. Third grade?!? Surely you're joking! Explain yourself, woman.

Yes you're being consistently inconsistent. A few weeks back your posts were more logical and you were the type to agree to disagree but now you have a ripping peoples heads off post style. I just thought that with school starting you might be under a lot of added pressure and stress that has made you well what is the word I'm looking for? Ummm a disappointment....

For example...You never answer questions.

Like when Francis showed you that you were wrong about his pointing out the fact about Countries all being different in Government.. You never answered back and just rambled on.. You never answer Minor straight with an answer but rather skirt the answer and say, It's in the Constitution, but never say what in the constitution or explain why the Constitution would be the law.

And Health Care....

If that is the case, as an example on health care, why is the law on health care still standing....Why is it that only Accountable, can see it's unconstitutional but the rest of the country and Superior Count has not put a stop to it... Why is Medicare /Medicaid still alive after all these years ?

And lastly....

When Francis tries to explain how much he knows about the US you treat him like a Stupid Little Canadian...

You asked the question and I'm just giving you an outsiders view...