Politics in America

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
irrelevant, the point of the legislation is that the present system was being brought down whodey, why cant you see that?

The present (now past) system was being brought down by too much government involvement (Medicare, and Medicaid).

Originally posted by finnegan
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/06/heres-a-map-of-the-countries-that-provide-universal-health-care-americas-still-not-on-it/259153/

You need to see the map by using this link as I cannot reproduce it here for you. Otherwise the following information might possibly help inform this debate.

[quote]As excited as American liberals a ...[text shortened]... he USA is in good company with Belarus and the Balkans. Well done and God bless (help) America.

I'm pretty sure you can find more left wing publications to sing the praises of partly socialized health care. That doesn't constitute any part of the debate.

Originally posted by finnegan
To be honest, Robbie, I think you are making an error that is still very common and that is to project onto Obama qualities that he does not in fact possess. He was selected as the Democratic candidate because he was acceptable to the power brokers and the money brokers who control the process. He was acceptable because he was the LEAST progressive and the ...[text shortened]... or three any hopes for an intelligent and affordable system of universal health care in the US.

" Obamacare may well set back by yet another decade or three any hopes for an intelligent and affordable system of universal health care in the US."

Hopefully longer than that. Its purpose was to fail, and for a leftist in the future to ride to the rescue with a total government solution. We can only hope voting Americans see through this charade.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

The fact that Obama isn't as left wing as some might like, doesn't make his less than a radical.

Originally posted by JS357
So if everyone was allowed to opt out of the ACA and this was shown to be a threat to the public health, then you would support the government mandate?

PS: What healthcare system do you belong to now?

Not everyone would opt out, there are at least 6 true believers on this board. If they're true to their principles and beliefs they would stick with it and prove by reason and example their superior wisdom and the superiority of that system. But instead they must resort to force, that is the proof of their wisdom and reason.


The public doesn't have 'health', individuals do. This collectivist term is the basis for sacrificing individuals to the so called greater good. Alright when your're the one doing the sacrificing, too bad if you're the one being sacrificed on a waiting list.

But give it a go;

I would like to choose my own healthcare how does that threaten you.

Originally posted by Wajoma
Not everyone would opt out, there are at least 6 true believers on this board. If they're true to their principles and beliefs they would stick with it and prove by reason and example their superior wisdom and the superiority of that system. But instead they must resort to force, that is the proof of their wisdom and reason.


The public doesn't have 'he ...[text shortened]...

But give it a go;

I would like to choose my own healthcare how does that threaten you.

Some of your choices could cost other taxpayers money. What have you chosen? Are you ducking this question?

Originally posted by normbenign
The present (now past) system was being brought down by too much government involvement (Medicare, and Medicaid).

I bet you weren't crying about government intervention when you were a recipient of its help Norm.

Originally posted by JS357
Some of your choices could cost other taxpayers money. What have you chosen? Are you ducking this question?

Wajoma apparently believes that implementing a libertarian government doesn't require force.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I bet you weren't crying about government intervention when you were a recipient of its help Norm.

I am currently a recipient of its "help". That makes me all the more recognize the shortcomings of the system.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Wajoma apparently believes that implementing a libertarian government doesn't require force.

Any and all government involves the use of force. I don't believe Wajoma is proposing anarchy, but minimalist government where most decisions are made by individuals rather than groups seeking advantage over other groups.

Originally posted by bill718
House Republicans were suprised this week, and no doubt a bit steamed to learn that Obamacare is working. Millions of people who had no healthcare coverage, now do (and growing), the vast majority of people who've signed up are paying their premiums on time, and the new law has not led to a government takeover of the healthcare industry. The affordable care ...[text shortened]... http://theweek.com/article/index/261245/obamacare-is-working--and-the-gop-is-shifting-its-attack

Whut we have here...is...failure...to communicate.

It's working? 39 unilateral rewrites to a bill, delays to a bill by executive fiat, specifically designed to disguise how bad this bill is and thus shield Democrats from electoral consequences?

It's working. You're a freaking schmuck, you know that, you Marxist, cock-loving shill?

Originally posted by JS357
Some of your choices could cost other taxpayers money. What have you chosen? Are you ducking this question?

This was the question:

So if everyone was allowed to opt out of the ACA and this was shown to be a threat to the public health, then you would support the government mandate?

State mandated healthcare is essentially an insurance scheme, albeit a compulsory one (Correct?) So if I opt for different insurance you need to clarify how that is a threat to your health, since you are a member of the public, (correct?)

This is like saying if I opt for different car insurance that's a threat to the mechanical well-being of your car.

Originally posted by Wajoma
This was the question:

[b]So if everyone was allowed to opt out of the ACA and this was shown to be a threat to the public health, then you would support the government mandate?

State mandated healthcare is essentially an insurance scheme, albeit a compulsory one (Correct?) So if I opt for different insurance you need to clarify how that is a threa ...[text shortened]... g if I opt for different car insurance that's a threat to the mechanical well-being of your car.[/b]

The question was how you pay for your health care. How do you opt for it? Tell us that and then we can talk about how it might be a threat.

Originally posted by JS357
The question was how you pay for your health care. How do you opt for it? Tell us that and then we can talk about how it might be a threat.

I might opt for other insurance.

Originally posted by normbenign
Any and all government involves the use of force. I don't believe Wajoma is proposing anarchy, but minimalist government where most decisions are made by individuals rather than groups seeking advantage over other groups.

It's hard to figure out what Wajoma is proposing because of his consistent refusal to elaborate on any of his proposals. When he is making a consistent argument, he is arguing for anarchy while denying that he is. When he is not making a consistent argument, it's hard to establish what he is doing rather than flailing about randomly. On the one hand, he is proposing to legalize selling arsenic as baby food, on the other he has claimed that people should not be allowed to harm others without their explicit consent, putting extreme limits on industry that would cripple any modern society.