Watching the Republican debate...

[Minor Axis]

Your argument is based on a false dichotomy... you've assumed that privatization will result in a for profit replacement. You've completely dismissed the concept of a non-profit or not for profit replacement.

It's not false until it's proven right or wrong. I'm really trying to imagine is you and Acc seriously proposing volunteer organizations to take the place of the Federal government. Lol.

BTW, I heard Romney at a town meeting tell a Tea Party type that Social Security is not a ponzi scheme. Wow, that woke me up. I realize a lot of you are much younger than I, but I can give you a pretty good comparison of how the U.S. economy has changed since the 1950-60s. When I was a kid in the 60s, my Dad worked as an accountant for the FAA. I don't remember what GS rating he had but he made about $12k per year. And on this salary, he was able to purchase a 2000 square foot house for $15k and support a family of 5. This was more the norm. It was relatively easy to live a good life in the U.S.A. For all intents and purposes, all jobs were domestic. Tax rates were MUCH higher for high income earners. Jobs were abundant. After WWII, Middle Class exploded and thrived. Since then, inflation has taken an enormous bite out of wage earners. You can also argue in the 60's households did not have that many gadgets as compared today. We had a phone, a black and white tv, a radio, and a record player. Although I can't blame today's gadget mania on the worsening economic conditions. It is just an interesting observation.

My guess is the most conservatively myopic would say that things are better today for those who apply themselves. I would say it is decidedly worse. So what should we point the finger at?

I point at greed and the evaporation of social morals, maximizing profits while exporting what used to be good paying domestic jobs. Simplistic? Maybe, but give a better more realistic explanation in its stead.

 

[Alien Allen]

I point at greed and the evaporation or social morals, maximizing profits while exporting what used to be good paying domestic jobs. Simplistic? Maybe, but give a better more realistic explanation in its stead.

on that we would agree. There are a lot of reasons for that. IMO

The I, Me, Mine generation of the 60's is what resulted from what they spawned. Those people have not passed on much in the way of self responsibility to their children and grandchildren.

 

[Accountable]

Just curious, as a teacher, would you support the complete privatization of education?

As a citizen, I support as much privatization as possible while still making education available to all students. As a teacher, I support the best possible education for our kids.

 

[Accountable]

It's not false until it's proven right or wrong. I'm really trying to imagine is you and Acc seriously proposing volunteer organizations to take the place of the Federal government. Lol.

BTW, I heard Romney at a town meeting tell a Tea Party type that Social Security is not a ponzi scheme. Wow, that woke me up. I realize a lot of you are much younger than I, but I can give you a pretty good comparison of how the U.S. economy has changed since the 1950-60s. When I was a kid in the 60s, my Dad worked as an accountant for the FAA. I don't remember what GS rating he had but he made about $12k per year. And on this salary, he was able to purchase a 2000 square foot house for $15k and support a family of 5. This was more the norm. It was relatively easy to live a good life in the U.S.A. For all intents and purposes, all jobs were domestic. Tax rates were MUCH higher for high income earners. Jobs were abundant.

And money was based on precious metals.

 

[Minor Axis]

on that we would agree. There are a lot of reasons for that. IMO

So there is a little room for agreement...

The I, Me, Mine generation of the 60's is what resulted from what they spawned. Those people have not passed on much in the way of self responsibility to their children and grandchildren.

Sounds nice but the generation of the 60's were children in the 60s. Not that we will agree on the causes, but maybe you mean they received what was conceived from the generations of the 20-40s, who helped win the war and save the world, who were running the show in the 60s.

You know I love Bill Maher. I'm sure you do too. Regarding the GOPper debate, he ripped into Ron Paul's statement in response to a Wolf Blitzer debate question about the young guy who has never been sick so passes on health insurance, but then falls into a coma. Should he be left to die? Paul said, he (the coma victim) should do what ever he wants. Yea, but he is in a COMA, and can no longer make a choice, lol. If Paul had been manly enough, instead of sputtering he would have laid his cards on the table and just have said, he passed on insurance so if there is no family who wants to pay, the hospital should euthanize him... And you know the Tea Party group would have cheered madly. :nod:

 

[retro]

Yea, but he is in a COMA, and can no longer make a choice, lol.

Have you ever heard of a living will? Pretty simple concept. That way the guy can make his own decision.

 

[Minor Axis]

Have you ever heard of a living will? Pretty simple concept. That way the guy can make his own decision.

In the scenario as presented, the guy was young and healthy. If he has not taken the time to get insurance, there is a good chance he won't have a living will either, then what? Would you be one of those cheering for euthanasia?

 

[retro]

In the scenario as presented, the guy was young and healthy. If he has not taken the time to get insurance, there is a good chance he won't have a living will either, then what? Would you be one of those cheering for euthanasia?

Your premise is flawed at its very core... I haven't stated one way or another what my opinion is. Yet you're trying to imply that I believe he should be euthanized in that situation, simply by how you chose to frame your question. I also have a question... have you ever see such a situation play out? I have to assume that Medicaid would step in at that point, and you've completely ignored the fact that this young man more than likely has a family to make those decisions if he cannot.

If he doesn't have a family, nor a living will or health insurance... it would stand to reason that his inaction made his decision for him. We also have to consider whether this is a coma where he had brain waves, or if it was a persistent vegetative state.

 

[Minor Axis]

Your premise is flawed at its very core... I haven't stated one way or another what my opinion is. Yet you're trying to imply that I believe he should be euthanized in that situation, simply by how you chose to frame your question. I also have a question... have you ever see such a situation play out? I have to assume that Medicaid would step in at that point, and you've completely ignored the fact that this young man more than likely has a family to make those decisions if he cannot.

If he doesn't have a family, nor a living will or health insurance... it would stand to reason that his inaction made his decision for him. We also have to consider whether this is a coma where he had brain waves, or if it was a persistent vegetative state.

What premise?? You were being non-committal. Come on, I simply asked you a question soliciting your view.

Let's start over. So the guy is in a coma, he has brain waves, and no insurance, under the framework of this discussion as presented in the Republican debate, what is to be done with him and most importantly who is to pay for it?? Ron Paul could not bring himself to say it...

 

[retro]

The scenario is half-assed and leading, that's my point.

 

[Alien Allen]

What premise?? You were being non-committal. Come on, I simply asked you a question soliciting your view.

Let's start over. So the guy is in a coma, he has brain waves, and no insurance, under the framework of this discussion as presented in the Republican debate, what is to be done with him and most importantly who is to pay for it?? Ron Paul could not bring himself to say it...

I would drop him off in Canada and let them deal with it

 

[Minor Axis]

The scenario is half-assed and leading, that's my point.

There is nothing half-assed about the scenario. It's a plausible realistic situation You just can't bring yourself to say it either. The guy has no insurance and is in the hospital. There are no private funds for this person. What obligation does the hospital have? If there is no obligation, what does the hospital do with him?

I would drop him off in Canada and let them deal with it

You should pass that on to the Perry campaign.

 

[Tim]

I can't believe you are actually looking for a real answer out of any of these republicans. Of course they would let him die. Saving him would mean infringing on their liberty while letting him die is the American way.

 

[retro]

I can't believe you are actually looking for a real answer out of any of these republicans. Of course they would let him die. Saving him would mean infringing on their liberty while letting him die is the American way.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm certainly not a Republican. That being said, spewing rhetoric and leading questions is the Democrat way, isn't it Tim and MA? Well I mean, I wouldn't know... but seeing as how you're both card carrying members and all.......

 

[Minor Axis]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm certainly not a Republican. That being said, spewing rhetoric and leading questions is the Democrat way, isn't it Tim and MA? Well I mean, I wouldn't know... but seeing as how you're both card carrying members and all.......

Here is the point, when Republicans and their shitty policies are criticized in this forum, more likely than not, the knee-jerk tag team of Retro-Accountable-Alien will jump in to defend them while loudly proclaiming they are not Republicans.

 

[Tim]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm certainly not a Republican. That being said, spewing rhetoric and leading questions is the Democrat way, isn't it Tim and MA? Well I mean, I wouldn't know... but seeing as how you're both card carrying members and all.......

WTH are you talking about? You are republican to the core. The ONLY reason you won't say you are is because the republican party has been high jacked by a bunch of idiots that are bought and paid for by self serving billionaires.

And as far as spewing rhetoric with this question... bullshit. It's a very legitimate question. If you are against safety nets for those without insurance, then it's very logical to then ask you how you would handle someone that falls gravely ill that doesn't have insurance. Because if the laws in the US were ever changed to how you would like to see it, then we will run into these problems on a daily basis. So what would happen to someone that doesn't have insurance and they fall into a coma? How does it play out in your world if thing were how you would want them.

and don't worry, I won't hold my breath waiting for an answer. Because you guys are great at advocating for your twisted view of freedom but are always unwilling to answer questions about how it will play out in real life with real people.

 

[retro]

Here is the point, when Republicans and their shitty policies are criticized in this forum, more likely than not, the knee-jerk tag team of Retro-Accountable-Alien will jump in to defend them while loudly proclaiming they are not Republicans.

and when Democrats and their shitty policies are criticized in this forum, more likely than not, the knee-jerk tag team of MA-Tim-Johnnyboy will jump in to defend them while loudly proclaiming they are not Democrats.

See, I can do it too... except that when I say it, it's actually the truth.

 

[Panacea]

It's cute how there's three of you each

 

[retro]

WTH are you talking about? You are republican to the core. The ONLY reason you won't say you are is because the republican party has been high jacked by a bunch of idiots that are bought and paid for by self serving billionaires.

And as far as spewing rhetoric with this question... bullshit. It's a very legitimate question. If you are against safety nets for those without insurance, then it's very logical to then ask you how you would handle someone that falls gravely ill that doesn't have insurance. Because if the laws in the US were ever changed to how you would like to see it, then we will run into these problems on a daily basis. So what would happen to someone that doesn't have insurance and they fall into a coma? How does it play out in your world if thing were how you would want them.

and don't worry, I won't hold my breath waiting for an answer. Because you guys are great at advocating for your twisted view of freedom but are always unwilling to answer questions about how it will play out in real life with real people.

I'll agree with you that I'm a Republican to the core just as soon as you admit that you're a card carrying member of the Democrat party. I disagree with nearly all of the crap that the Republicans throw out there. If I were a Republican, I would've been a Goldwater Republican, which is effectively what the Libertarian Party of today is. I'm not entirely certain how I can be, "Republican to the core" while being anti-big government, for non-interventionism, pro-choice, anti-death penalty, etc., etc., etc. The only Republican that I pretty much fully agree with is Ron Paul, who should be leading the Libertarian Party, and not trying to reform the GOP into something respectable.

By the way, as far as the question goes... I have no problem with state-level Medicaid, which would provide your safety net. It also answers the question that was raised... it's still full of bullshit rhetoric and leading as all hell, but I gave you guys your answer. It's funny how I never got an answer on whether or not we were talking about a Terri Schiavoesque persistent vegetative state or a coma where the doctors had hope of the individual coming out of it. I also maintain that people need to exhibit personal responsibility if they want to be treated medically in the fashion that they wish... particularly if you choose not to have insurance. I have insurance, and I still have a living will dictating how I would like things handled if I were to end up in a PVS. It's not something that I would like to think about possibly happening, but it's important to me that my family and friends know what I want in that situation. I have also stated to both of my parents and both of my close friends what I would like to happen, so that in case there is any question from the living will, those four people are well aware of my wishes as well. It's something that takes almost no time or money at all, but is extremely important as far as I'm concerned. Of course, you Democrats aren't so fond of concepts such as personal responsibility, and would prefer that the government take care of everyone; so perhaps it's something that you might not really understand.

I see nothing twisted in my views, and any sane and rational person wouldn't either. Medicaid should be back on the state level, which would handle any situation like has been described.

 

[Alien Allen]

The closer money stays to home the better chances of it being spent more wisely and with less corruption and waste in my opinion. Not saying states or cities are perfect but it is assbackwards to send money to the feds and then have it get redistributed back to the states.