Page 50 of 71 FirstFirst ... 40454647484950515253545560 ... LastLast
Results 981 to 1,000 of 1405
  1. #981  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Perhaps you are unaware that Government is currently involved in Defining marriage and those who support gay marriage want to delve further into that--if you support that, then you support government involvement in a Religious institution.

    My position is that Religions define this for themselves and the government has no right to interfere. But Statists don't understand this.
    I don't disagree with that. I think that all marriages should be defined by the government as civil unions, and let people get married by their religious traditions entirely separate from that.

    the Federal Government should have no say about Prayer in schools, or intelligent Design or anything else, because they shouldn't be involved in Education at all. But you don't adhere to that principle--you simply wish for YOUR views to be pushed on school children. That is an unprincipled and biased position.
    Actually, I don't. Did I ever state that I wanted any of my views "pushed on children"? The one exception is that I stated that science should be taught as science, and religion should not infringe upon that. Intelligent Design isn't science, and shouldn't be taught as an "alternative theory".

    Can you point to any time when I "pushed my views on children"? Or are you just assuming that, because I don't agree with you, that I must be "pushing the liberal, freedom-hating, anti-American, baby-killing agenda"?

    Pro-Abortion advocates want government to give one party in a three-life interaction to have the power to end one of those lives. I respect the rights of all three lives. Much more to this whole issue.
    Agree with pro-life or pro-choice, it is currently a legal medical procedure, and should be treated as such.

    I on the other hand maintain a principled view that Government's role is not to involve itself in individuals lives.
    So you agree that the government should give the exact same marriage / civil union status to both gay and straight couples, based upon not involving themselves in individuals' lives, yes? You'd be okay with civil unions for all?
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  2. #982  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    All this philosophy about healthcare while nearly 1/6th of America is uninsured and can't even afford to see a doctor.

    The discussion here seems kind of silly and self-serving in comparison.

    My bet is you all have the luxury of having insurance.
    Hooray. A reminder about the topic. And I'll bet you're exactly right. Not only that, but nobody in their family has been driven destitute by having an appendectory. Or died outright because they couldn't afford the medications they needed to survive. Frankly, they are more interested in their libertarian agenda and misrepresenting the truth than they are the lives of people who are dying. Which is why their opinions about "big government" and "massive government failures" are laughable.
  3. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #983  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    All this philosophy about healthcare while nearly 1/6th of America is uninsured and can't even afford to see a doctor.

    The discussion here seems kind of silly and self-serving in comparison.

    My bet is you all have the luxury of having insurance.
    All of these supposedly compassionate arguments make me laugh, given that we spend BILLIONS--300 Billion on Medicaid alone to pay for the poor, and STILL the government fails to provide adequate care. Have any of you EVER considered that they are wasting money already? No, of course not--you just want to keep handing more money to them, repeating the same idiotic mistakes and pretending that somehow this time it will be different.

    If we concentrated on those who CAN'T (not the same as choose not to) get Medical insurance, we could likely cover them (very well) with the money we already spend.

    What is "silly" is agreeing to keep handing money to morons who can't handle what they've got. If you want to talk about self-serving, how about looking at the ones who have failed--the Government dependency movement.

    But you care, so any degree of waste, and idiocy can be justified.

    KAM
  4. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #984  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Hooray. A reminder about the topic. And I'll bet you're exactly right. Not only that, but nobody in their family has been driven destitute by having an appendectory. Or died outright because they couldn't afford the medications they needed to survive. Frankly, they are more interested in their libertarian agenda and misrepresenting the truth than they are the lives of people who are dying. Which is why their opinions about "big government" and "massive government failures" are laughable.
    Opinions...oh right you mean DECADES of failure, lies and waste.

    I'm not sure why you insist on denying these facts.

    Libertarian agenda...yes, that crazy idea that values LIBERTY.

    Big government failure is laughable? Really? Then if they've done such a fine job, why is there a need for reform? Why is government CURRENTLY FAILING to provide adequate medical care, despite taking BILLIONS in taxpayer dollars to do that? Why?

    I've heard a lot of talk about "data"--ok, you are the medical expert. Where is that 300 Billion (which breaks down to about $6000 per person--using the bloated 50 million number) going?

    Its all going to a wildly efficient and totally effective government run health system for the poor right? Tell me how effective this SUCCESSFUL government program is, and why we need to reform such successes.

    KAM
  5. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #985  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    I don't disagree with that. I think that all marriages should be defined by the government as civil unions, and let people get married by their religious traditions entirely separate from that.
    Now THAT is agreement.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Actually, I don't. Did I ever state that I wanted any of my views "pushed on children"? The one exception is that I stated that science should be taught as science, and religion should not infringe upon that. Intelligent Design isn't science, and shouldn't be taught as an "alternative theory".
    Schools do push views on children, and are often highly political.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Can you point to any time when I "pushed my views on children"? Or are you just assuming that, because I don't agree with you, that I must be "pushing the liberal, freedom-hating, anti-American, baby-killing agenda"?
    No, I cannot say that you are directly guilty of any of those things, and I'm sorry if I implied that you specifically did any of that. Rather, it seems that you support a system where that occurs. If you don't I'd happily exclude you from those comments specifically.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Agree with pro-life or pro-choice, it is currently a legal medical procedure, and should be treated as such.
    Yes, it is legal, and that law currently gives zero rights to the father or the developing child, defining all "rights" with the mother and the mother alone. Excepting the case of sexual assault, the mother and father make choices leading to this situation directly, and that carries with it responsibility in my view. Unfortunately, the male is able to effectively walk away, leaving that mother with a burden, but of course, the father is legally liable if the mother does not abort the child. All responsibility no rights for the father, and the child is afforded no rights at all--including not to have their existence ended.
    I haven't advocated violating any laws. I'm not actually one that focuses on the legal issues, because I don't think that's the best way to reduce abortions to the maximum extend possible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    So you agree that the government should give the exact same marriage / civil union status to both gay and straight couples, based upon not involving themselves in individuals' lives, yes? You'd be okay with civil unions for all?
    Civil Unions, yes. I believe I stated this (to you as I recall) some time back...perhaps in another thread. The Government is not supposed to have uneven rules for LEGAL arrangements. In my view, the government is required to equally oversee (allow) legal arrangements between two parties. There should be no such thing as "legal marriage"--a "legal" arrangement is a civil union--regardless of the sexual orientation of the participants.

    As you will find, if you bother to ask--my views follow a consistent set of principles, not merely wants, and when they do--I acknowledge that and do not expect government to enforce my whim.

    KAM
    Last edited by KAM1138; 11/12/2009 at 12:50 PM.
  6. #986  
    See, KAM - we agree on many things!

    We'd probably even find more to agree on, if you'd stop assuming that I "support a system that [pushes views on children]", or imply that I want the government to "support my whims".

    Not everyone who disagrees with you is the enemy, or is lacking in a consistent set of principles.....they just may not be the same as yours.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  7. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #987  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    See, KAM - we agree on many things!

    We'd probably even find more to agree on, if you'd stop assuming that I "support a system that [pushes views on children]", or imply that I want the government to "support my whims".

    Not everyone who disagrees with you is the enemy, or is lacking in a consistent set of principles.....they just may not be the same as yours.
    Well, I've no doubt that I can agree with most people on many things.

    I am making every attempt to not target specific people with my statements, but rather am attempting to respond to what you say. If at any time I attribute something to you that is not correct, I would be happy to retract that and apologize. I greatly dislike people putting words in my mouth.

    In regards to supporting a government system. Well, you can tell me what you do or do not support. Our current public school system (and this is nothing new) pushes all sorts of social views on children. If you disagree with that practice, then great.

    I hardly treat those who disagree with me as an enemy, and with one exception (no longer an issue apparently) I think I've had generally constructive conversations with most people here--including those who strongly disagree with more core principles.

    As far as consistency...well, I am talking about mine, which of course I fully understand. Whether someone else is consistent in their views and can explain that varies I'm sure. I mention this to separate my views from those of people who merely want what they want.
    I do not see government as a vehicle to push my preferences, and do not accept others attempting to use it in that way either. Obviously there are some common things that government does enforce (no murder, theft, etc), and is a natural part of living in a society, but those things are very broad.

    KAM
    Last edited by KAM1138; 11/12/2009 at 01:29 PM. Reason: clarification
  8.    #988  
    Maybe, if Government didn't get involved in Religious issues this wouldn't be a problem. Gay marriage? Government shouldn't be involved. Have Civil Unions-gay or straight-just a legal issue. If you want to get "Married" that is a church issue.

    Abortion? Euthanasia? Again, the government shouldn't be involved. (Unless it is determined to be killing, and then, that's a different story)
  9. #989  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    In regards to supporting a government system. Well, you can tell me what you do or do not support. Our current public school system (and this is nothing new) pushes all sorts of social views on children. If you disagree with that practice, then great.
    Other than generally teaching tolerance, what "social views" do our schools promote? Since virtually every school district has policies against promoting political agendas, what are you basing this on? Do you have any actual evidence of this?
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  10. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #990  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Other than generally teaching tolerance, what "social views" do our schools promote? Since virtually every school district has policies against promoting political agendas, what are you basing this on? Do you have any actual evidence of this?
    I find it hard to believe that schools are NOT promoting political agendas. Environmental issues for example are highly political (should not be), and that is big in schools as I understand it. I happen to be friends with a significant percentage of teachers (in terms of total friends), and so I hear about these issues a lot.

    It has been a while since I've been in school, but many of my teachers regularly displayed their bias which bled into their teaching. At University level it is even worse in my experience, and while my field didn't get into that too much, it certainly existed. I've witnessed ridicule of students--a form of intimidation for example.

    I claim that Universities are more often than not left-leaning, and openly promote leftist ideals. From what I hear (anecdotal) resisting this sometimes results in retribution from these supposed scholars. I never had TOO much of a problem with that, although I did have a public argument with one particular professor (not my professor however) over a matter of public policy.

    Let me ask you--teachers in public schools are public employees. How likely do you think it is that these teachers therefore favor the system which is their means of support? The NEA is a very left-leaning organization for example. Do you believe that this does not translate to the classroom?

    "Tolerance" in my experience is often (not always) code for advocacy.

    KAM
  11. #991  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Hooray. A reminder about the topic. And I'll bet you're exactly right. Not only that, but nobody in their family has been driven destitute by having an appendectory. Or died outright because they couldn't afford the medications they needed to survive. Frankly, they are more interested in their libertarian agenda and misrepresenting the truth than they are the lives of people who are dying. Which is why their opinions about "big government" and "massive government failures" are laughable.
    Yawn....again....we can take care of the people who can't get healthcare, we can take care of the people who can't afford healthcare....thus stopping all the deaths and the bankruptcies....without having to take everyone who has insurance along with the aforementioned folks and putting them on a federally sponsored government plan thus sending the country further into debt. Seriously, we can.

    That is my point....and has been my point since I regretably found this Forum, LOL. Why people believe that you throw everything out to get the currently uninsured insured, and those that can't afford it covered, is beyond me. The answer to that usually is because "it is all too expensive". Well, if we get everyone covered (including the goof heads that feel they don't need it) so that we don't have a drain on hospitals, get rid of medicare fraud and abuse (if that is even possible), work on some Tort Reform so that doctors don't feel like they will get sued if they don't send you for unnecessary tests (thus again draining the system), the over all costs will likely go down. But noooooooooooooooooo.....we must become Europe because, well Europe is such a great place to live? Why this fascination with government being involved in every aspect of our life? Good grief.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  12. #992  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Yawn....again....we can take care of the people who can't get healthcare, we can take care of the people who can't afford healthcare....thus stopping all the deaths and the bankruptcies....without having to take everyone who has insurance along with the aforementioned folks and putting them on a federally sponsored government plan thus sending the country further into debt. Seriously, we can.
    Regardless of my own opinion, show me any bill that is being considered that puts everyone in the country on a federally sposored government plan. If you were offered one, would you take it? I may want a single payer system, but I'm not going to get it. And why? Because some people are concerned about it, and that's fine. And in spite of the fact that I think a private-based insurance system will fail because they are unable to control costs, I'm perfectly willing to see if it will work. As I have noted, the Europe you are so worried about has a number of health systems that are primarily based in private insurers. But you just seem to be caught up in the rightwing paranoia about people trying to sneak you into socialism. Not everybody is out to screw you; some actually want to help people. In short: there is no plan before congress that is anything like what you are talking about....so stop making things up.
  13. #993  
    Quote Originally Posted by Technologic 2 View Post
    Maybe, if Government didn't get involved in Religious issues this wouldn't be a problem. Gay marriage? Government shouldn't be involved. Have Civil Unions-gay or straight-just a legal issue. If you want to get "Married" that is a church issue.

    Abortion? Euthanasia? Again, the government shouldn't be involved. (Unless it is determined to be killing, and then, that's a different story)
    Excellent. So you favor a woman's right to choose, as well as euthanasia. And gay marriage? When a civil union provides the same resources as marriage in the eyes of the government, I bet most people would be fine with that.
  14. #994  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Opinions...oh right you mean DECADES of failure, lies and waste.

    I'm not sure why you insist on denying these facts.

    Libertarian agenda...yes, that crazy idea that values LIBERTY.

    Big government failure is laughable? Really? Then if they've done such a fine job, why is there a need for reform? Why is government CURRENTLY FAILING to provide adequate medical care, despite taking BILLIONS in taxpayer dollars to do that? Why?

    I've heard a lot of talk about "data"--ok, you are the medical expert. Where is that 300 Billion (which breaks down to about $6000 per person--using the bloated 50 million number) going?

    Its all going to a wildly efficient and totally effective government run health system for the poor right? Tell me how effective this SUCCESSFUL government program is, and why we need to reform such successes.

    KAM
    Do you really want to know why? I'm not sure you will like the answer. Aren't you one of those that thinks that these issues should be handled by the states? The states are the primary cause of the problems with Medicaid....while Medicare, which is entirely a federal program, is much more successful.

    EL PASO - The El Paso County Hospital District has sued Texas Health and Human Services Commissioner Albert Hawkins, claiming inequities in the way the agency distributes federal Medicaid money have created a health-care crisis in El Paso County.

    ''We've tried to work with the Legislature, and we've tried to work with [state health officials], all to no avail,'' El Paso County Attorney Jose Rodriguez said.

    Rodriguez, who is representing the district and others in the lawsuit, filed Friday in U.S. District Court in El Paso. It contends that El Paso Medicaid recipients aren't getting the same quality care as most other recipients in the state.

    Monday, a spokeswoman for Hawkins and the commission said lawyers hadn't reviewed the lawsuit yet. ''We would like to reserve our comments until we have had a chance to look at it,'' Kristie Zamrazil said.

    Rodriguez said the problem is that Texas receives many of its federal Medicaid dollars because of poverty along
    Texas link

    Medicaid is partially paid for, administered, and managed by each state....not by the federal government. Means tests vary by state. It is a failure not because it is centrally run....but because it is NOT centrally run.

    And I still haven't seen your list of abject and horrible governmental failures. If you mean the health care system (non-system), you sure can't blame the government for that. So where are all these horrible failures? Let's have the list.
  15. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #995  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    In short: there is no plan before congress that is anything like what you are talking about....so stop making things up.
    Except that many of the same people who are pushing hard for this have stated both that they want a single payer system, and have stated that this is a step on the road towards it.



    This sort of incremental process is typical of the left. They proudly state how this has been something they've been pushing for Decades.

    So, how about you be honest about it. This is another step on a demonstrable progression towards more and more government involvement in our lives. You might welcome that, but I do not, and you are fooling yourself if you think that this is about "choice."

    YOU might be honest about what you want, but politicians are seldom honest, so don't try and sell this idea that this is the final step. The Public "option" is the first step. Once the non-competition public option (that has no limits, no constraints and rules they make up for themselves) succeeds in driving out private insurers, they will say "Oh don't worry--you can have the government plan."

    These statists are so confident that they aren't even bother hiding their lies. They say one thing to one audience and then something else to the next, but in the information age, it is hard to hide. Of course, this would be scandalous if we had a media who was interested in being a watchdog.

    KAM
  16. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #996  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Do you really want to know why? I'm not sure you will like the answer. Aren't you one of those that thinks that these issues should be handled by the states? The states are the primary cause of the problems with Medicaid....while Medicare, which is entirely a federal program, is much more successful.
    No, what I said was that Constitutionally the States COULD take this upon themselves. I think I've been quite clear what my preferred solutions are. If you've forgotten, they are largely based in returning the choices to the consumer instead of continuing down the indirect payer path which I believe is the ultimate cause of these inflated prices.

    However, medicaid is a Federal AND State program. State government can suck and fail really badly as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    And I still haven't seen your list of abject and horrible governmental failures. If you mean the health care system (non-system), you sure can't blame the government for that. So where are all these horrible failures? Let's have the list.
    I have mentioned these many times. Medicare, medicaid and Social security--three massive government systems are all headed for insolvency with massive unfunded liabilities. In other words, they are not economically viable. We pretend that they are, but they are not. We've been robbing Peter to pay Paul (oh no--a Religious reference) and that is catching up with us. These programs projected costs turned out to be wildly inaccurate. I've heard reports that Medicare is 9 times as costly as promised. In other words, you cannot trust the numbers they are claiming for these new plans either, because they simply lie or are so incompetent that they do not take possibilities into account.

    The VA is apparently failing veterans as well.

    Further--as I stated above, a tag-team of idiocy--the Insurance industry and government have together given us this skyrocketing price problem BECAUSE they've cut off almost every natural free market price controlling mechanism. Oddly enough, we just got new insurance (or will very soon) and they emphasized how important it is to "shop around." Yes, welcome to the party morons.

    You want another one that's failing? Try the stimulus package that has not delivered anything except a few temporary government jobs (meaning the money runs out, so do the jobs) and those claims are apparently falsified in many cases. Of course this is no surprise to anyone who spent any time looking at it, and realized that there were very few stimulative elements, and instead was simply another round of political payoffs and spending sprees.

    You've stated that the Prescription Drug benefit passed a few years ago is a failure (although I think that is notably under the projected budget).

    How about the War on Drugs, the War on Poverty?

    How many failures do you need? Now, does this mean that they've done NOTHING? No. I'm sure they have some effect, and even beneficial effects. Will a medicare recipient say they are glad they have it? Of course--to them it is "Free healthcare" but that ignores ALL the other negative effects, and of course...that the longer you go, the less viable it is.

    These government programs are never subjected to a cost-benefit analysis. Could I spend a Billion dollars and do SOME measure of good? Obviously--almost anyone could, but the question is whether spending that billion inefficiently (which is what happens, regularly) is preventing it from otherwise being spent in a way that is more beneficial.

    Its a bit like the Preventative care question. That was (briefly) touted as a great fix...until someone looked at the numbers and realized that the cost-benefit analysis didn't turn out so well. It may give someone some benefit, but it isn't efficient and therefore, sub-optimal.

    These Government programs fail, except when viewed through the government lens--meaning they never need to keep a budget, never have to be economically sound and never have to follow the rules that the private sector and individuals need to. THEN you get the illusion of success, but that's just a lie waiting to come crashing down.

    That's why you who rally behind yet another government boondoggle bother me so much. You are literally doing more harm than good, all because you can't be bothered to worry about things like sustainability or even viability, let alone issues like personal choice, limited government, liberty, etc. If you'd at least consider the economics which cannot be separated from the results (healthcare), I'd be elated.

    That's not what I'm seeing at all. I'm seeing a bunch of ideologically driven politicians who couldn't solve a problem to save their lives, pushing what benefits them, and damn reality and reasoning.

    KAM
    Last edited by KAM1138; 11/12/2009 at 03:38 PM.
  17. #997  
    What about a discution with more valid arguments and less laughts? Its dificult to you to prove you're right without this?

    You are very unquiet about the spending on health for the poor, perhaps you should press you're party friends to stop spending on stupid wars...

    My friends, I have less to say. Where I live no one is ignorant and egoist enough to even think that someone should be denied to health because of his money. Everyone has right to free education, justice and health. Rich or poor you have the right to free public health it doesnt care if you're homeless or a baron.

    I know this is confusing to you, but no one is left to die because of the lack of insurance.

    This is Social Democracy, this is human valors, this is being Human.
    Last edited by glorifiedg; 11/12/2009 at 08:45 PM.
  18. #998  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    ITYM 'stigma', although the stigmata guy was somewhat socialist.
    No, stigmata is in latin... thats why its in italic. duh
  19. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #999  
    Quote Originally Posted by glorifiedg View Post
    What about a discution with more valid arguments and less laughts? Its dificult to you to prove you're right without this?

    You are very unquiet about the spending on health for the poor, perhaps you should press you're party friends to stop spending on stupid wars...

    My friends, I have less to say. Where I live no one is ignorant and egoist enough to even think that someone should be denied to health because of his money. Everyone has right to free education, justice and health. Rich or poor you have the right to free public health and a homeless or a baron.

    I know this is confusing to you, but no one is left to die because of the lack of insurance.

    This is Social Democracy, this is human valors, this is being Human.
    You are welcome to your Social Democracy. I prefer a different system--one that is outlined in our Constitution.

    Perhaps you are not aware--we already have an extensive welfare system to provide medical care to the poor and the elderly. One of the problem with that is that we are not spending the huge amounts of money we already pay wisely. Meaning, that instead of providing care to those who need it--it is wasted.

    KAM
  20. #1000  
    Quote Originally Posted by glorifiedg View Post
    No, stigmata is in latin... thats why its in italic. duh
    Funny. I could have sworn it was a Greek word. Regardless, the plural form generally has a different connotation. Just pointing it out. Although I do like your 'italic' joke.
    ‎"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...

Posting Permissions