Page 25 of 71 FirstFirst ... 15202122232425262728293035 ... LastLast
Results 481 to 500 of 1405
  1.    #481  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    If you're that unfamiliar with the fundamental concept, and its growing effects today, pointing to legislation signed into law is purely academic. David Gergen, a notably respectable conservative, agrees.

    David Gergen on Republican Wealth Redistribution:
    You have proved you don't know what you are talking about. I'm waiting to hear what legislation Reagan supported that Redistributed Wealth.
  2. #482  
    Quote Originally Posted by Technologic 2 View Post
    You have proved you don't know what you are talking about. I'm waiting to hear what legislation Reagan supported that Redistributed Wealth.
    You could very well argue the earned income tax credit... as well as other things... but what the heck... let me see what you do with that one first....
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  3. #483  
    Quote Originally Posted by Technologic 2 View Post
    FREEDOM of choice does not make you fascist, Redistribution of Wealth DOES make you a Marxist....but, what's wrong with that...weren't the framers all Marxist?
    And you think that people who get government-based insurance should be required to meet your criteria for "healthy living" otherwise they won't get any insurance? Is that your definition of "freedom of choice"? And let's hear what you will require of all Medicare recipients. Try getting back OT here; we're talking about health care. If you want to blather on about how Democrats are Marxists, fine, but it doesn't have anything to do with providing health care. Are Germans all Marxists? Italians? They both have universal health care through private insurers, with a public option. And guess what? They don't require people to meet some absurd definition of "healthy living" developed by blatherers on the web.
  4. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #484  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    And you think that people who get government-based insurance should be required to meet your criteria for "healthy living" otherwise they won't get any insurance? Is that your definition of "freedom of choice"? And let's hear what you will require of all Medicare recipients. Try getting back OT here; we're talking about health care. If you want to blather on about how Democrats are Marxists, fine, but it doesn't have anything to do with providing health care. Are Germans all Marxists? Italians? They both have universal health care through private insurers, with a public option. And guess what? They don't require people to meet some absurd definition of "healthy living" developed by blatherers on the web.
    Why does the left take such an issue when someone points out that they're ideals are centered in Marxism? It's just a fact.

    And yes, it directly relates to health care. The single payer system that's being proposed is a perfect example of a system designed to bring us that much closer to a marxist state.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  5. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #485  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    Yours is a dog-with-fleas false argument. (And you know it)
    We get it. You've stated over and over again the same mantra. It's not "written down" in the bill that it's a single payer proposal. We all know where it leads, though, if we're not careful, and single payer IS the stated goal of your fearless leader, so buck up.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  6. #486  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    We get it. You've stated over and over again the same mantra. It's not "written down" in the bill that it's a single payer proposal. We all know where it leads, though, if we're not careful, and single payer IS the stated goal of your fearless leader, so buck up.
    Oh no. It's the dreaded domino effect. We will all be drinking vodka and eating potato soup if we get ANY health care bill that has a public option. Your "when will you stop beating your wife" arguments are specious and tiresome. I have no problem with Marxism; it's just that providing cost-effective health care for all is not Marxism, any more than providing education for all is Marxism. What it is is a collective understanding that the population's health is worth something other than insurance company profits. Don't you get tired of trying to paint the majority party of the US as being communists. That didn't work in the 50's and it's not working now.
  7. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #487  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    It's not written down? But, you just said "The single payer system that's being proposed ...". So where is this invisible proposal that only those controlled by fear can see?



    Good thing you're not judged by a single failure of your own. Could be a slippery slope. But, thanks for the clarity that you must have your own fearless leader separate from those elected to office.
    So you deny Obama's clearly stated desire for a single payer system?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  8. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #488  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Oh no. It's the dreaded domino effect. We will all be drinking vodka and eating potato soup if we get ANY health care bill that has a public option. Your "when will you stop beating your wife" arguments are specious and tiresome. I have no problem with Marxism; it's just that providing cost-effective health care for all is not Marxism, any more than providing education for all is Marxism. What it is is a collective understanding that the population's health is worth something other than insurance company profits.
    I guess to really answer this question you'd have to define how you get to "cost-effective health care for all". Do you agree that through the current proposals this would be done by subsidizing health care insurance for a certain segment of the population? If yes, where do those subsidies come from? If no, how will cost-effective health care for all be obtained?
    Last edited by groovy; 10/19/2009 at 12:14 PM.
  9. #489  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    I guess to really answer this question you'd have to define how you get to "cost-effective health care for all". Do you agree that through the current proposals this would be done by subsidizing health care insurance for a certain segment of the population? If yes, where do those subsidies come from? If no, how will cost-effective health care for all be obtained?
    See, it's simple for me. I don't care how we get it. If we can get it through private means, fine. "It", in and of itself, is my goal.

    The reality as I see it is that I don't think it can be done through private means, especially if you include the "cost-effective" part. If we could have done that, it would already be done. If insurance companies could be profitable by increasing their covered lives, regardless of things like pre-existing conditions and employment status, just about everyone would have insurance. But they can't. Individuals can't even buy decent plans if they want to without spending a fortune.

    So yes, if private companies are included in the plan, there will be subsidization. And that will be with your tax money, which may or may not be actually more than you are already paying for an inefficient system. Yes, we can save a lot with fraud control and even with an improved health communication system, but probably not enough. Much tighter controls are needed and that costs insurance companies money. The real question is how willing are you to allow Humana to be paid with your tax money to provide inefficient overly expensive care?
  10. #490  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    So you deny Obama's clearly stated desire for a single payer system?
    From today. As noted, he is not demanding a public option. I agree with him. That's because both of us know that in the long run, there will be a public option because insurance companies will not be able to control costs. But for now, what his "stated desire" was in the past is not conflicting with his desire to have people insured.

    House Democrats are insisting that there be a public option in competition with the private insurance industry to drive down the cost of coverage. In the Senate, Republicans and some Democrats oppose the measure, meaning inclusion of the public option would foreclose winning the 60 votes needed to advance a bill.

    Senior adviser Valerie Jarrett said Obama believes the public plan is still the “best possible choice,’’ but she said he’s not demanding it.

    White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, who is deeply involved with Democrats in trying to merge the various committee proposals, also appeared to set aside the public option.

    “It’s not the defining piece of health care. It’s whether we achieve both cost control, coverage, as well as the choice,’’ Emanuel said.
    Obama not demanding a public option
  11.    #491  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    I have no problem with Marxism
    At least you admit it. Karl Marx would be proud to have you as a comrade.
  12.    #492  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    The theory of trickle-down (formerly known as Voodoo Economics to economic conservatives)
    The term "Voodoo Economics" came from George HW Bush when campaigning against Reagan in the primaries. Bush is HARDLY an economic conservative!

    proved to be virtually vaporware for the masses
    Actually, it did work. It pulled us out of a period of High Inflation and High Unemployment (I guess you are too young to remember the misery index). It also led to the largest peacetime expansion of the economy in history! You really need to read up on the Reagan Era!

    cheezy tax rebate check, anyone?
    As an "old geezer" (still can't avoid the name calling, can you) I also remember the PROMISED "Carter Rebate" He announced they would be giving everyone a rebate. Well, so many people went out and spent this money before they even received it (I know, their fault). Well that stimulated the economy so Carter said we don't need the rebate now.

    landmark shifts of tax burden such as the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, or its counterpart in 1986.
    What part of tax cuts do you not like? Oh, that's right, you believe in tax the rich give it to the poor. Although I don't remember Karl Marx personally, I believe his quote was "From Each according to his ability; to each, according to his need" Wasn't that in our Bill of Rights" or was it in the Constitution?
  13.    #493  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    And you think that people who get government-based insurance should be required to meet your criteria for "healthy living" otherwise they won't get any insurance? Is that your definition of "freedom of choice"?
    Read my post again. I don't believe the government should have such control. It was a tongue-in-cheek argument relating the desire so many have for the government to take care of their needs. Like a parent who takes care of their children, the parent also tries to steer their children to a particular behavior.
  14. #494  
    A chop clip but im getting the hint single payer is his goal with those surrounding him working on making it reality
  15. #495  
    Quote Originally Posted by slingbox View Post
    A chop clip but im getting the hint single payer is his goal with those surrounding him working on making it reality
    I'm sorry....was there something wrong with anything that was said in that clip? I agree with every statement. You don't. So what? They said that in maybe 20 years there would be a single payor system. That is correct. Assuming I am here in ten years (and I'm sure I'm older than the duck), I will be willing to bet there will be a single payor system. There's no other way to afford health care as things go forward. But on the other hand, I don't care if I'm wrong....as long as people aren't dying from lack of insurance. Oh....and please don't expect me to feel upset if the health insurance industry goes away. That is hardly a negative.
  16.    #496  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    Tax cuts that give to one hand while setting me up (my children and grandchildren, etc) for huge balloon payments down the line is not conservative. It's self-destructive economic policy.
    Wow, and this wild spending the last 2 administrations are responsible for doesn't bother you? How is it ever going to get repaid?

    Teddy Roosevelt was a Marxist?
    Now, as an "old geezer" I was quite young back then, but...

    Are you talking about when he said: "All for each, and each for all, is a good motto" ...he went on to say...: but only on condition that each works with might and main to so maintain himself as not to be a burden to others"

    He did believe in what we call "Social Justice" which is also a part of Marxism.
  17. #497  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    I'm sorry....was there something wrong with anything that was said in that clip? I agree with every statement. You don't. So what? They said that in maybe 20 years there would be a single payor system. That is correct. Assuming I am here in ten years (and I'm sure I'm older than the duck), I will be willing to bet there will be a single payor system. There's no other way to afford health care as things go forward. But on the other hand, I don't care if I'm wrong....as long as people aren't dying from lack of insurance. Oh....and please don't expect me to feel upset if the health insurance industry goes away. That is hardly a negative.
    I don't expect you to feel upset ,you believe government can do it better then privet sector..thats ok with me.
    Government can also run , All insurance companys,Car company's ,Electric company's ,Water companys ,News media ,Sports ,TV-entertainment ,Cell phone providers & manufactures ,banks etc better then privet sector...after all privet sector prices will sky rocket in the future.
    Governments have proven over & over again their capable...im sure you would agree.


    To bad I wont be able to see it in 20 years ,....old age wont allow
    hmm I could move to China to get that great feel
    Last edited by slingbox; 10/19/2009 at 06:44 PM.
  18. #498  
    Quote Originally Posted by Technologic 2 View Post
    Wow, and this wild spending the last 2 administrations are responsible for doesn't bother you? How is it ever going to get repaid?



    Now, as an "old geezer" I was quite young back then, but...

    Are you talking about when he said: "All for each, and each for all, is a good motto" ...he went on to say...: but only on condition that each works with might and main to so maintain himself as not to be a burden to others"

    He did believe in what we call "Social Justice" which is also a part of Marxism.
    Those republican Marxists...bad bunch. For some reason, however, right wingers seem to think that Marx favored hard workers supporting those that were lazy. Not really. In fact, Roosevelt's precise expansion mirrors Marx's philosophy exactly. But I don't favor Marxism as an approach to government. I favor democracy. And just like Michael Moore, I favor democracy over capitalism if push comes to shove.

    And to think that a republican favored social justice....disgraceful! But that's kind of what health care for the underserved is about. Isn't it? Do you find something repulsive about social justice? Human rights and equality....horrible constructs.
  19. #499  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    [...] But I don't favor Marxism as an approach to government.
    ?? Please define the characteristics of a Marxist approach to government.
    I favor democracy.
    ?? Please define 'democracy' and how it is mutually exclusive from 'marxism'.
    And just like Michael Moore, I favor democracy over capitalism if push comes to shove. [...]
    ?? Please define 'capitalism' and how it is mutually exclusive from 'democracy'.

    For extra points, is the United States actually a democracy, and why?
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  20. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #500  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    TIn fact, Roosevelt's precise expansion mirrors Marx's philosophy exactly.
    I'd be curious to see, but I don't think you can draw many parallels between Roosevelt's policies and Marxist ideology. In fact, TR had mostly very bad things to say about Socialism, Marxism and a welfare state. He did support a graduated income tax and an estate tax on very large estates, for sure. But I think the error in your argument is in labeling these things as Marxist and in assuming that if TR or other grealy admired Republican leaders did something, Conservatives of today could see no error in it.

Posting Permissions