From the "what exactly is your concept of limited government" department:
A Monday press release from faith-based advocacy group Morality in Media celebrates the Republican Party’s platform as now targeting all forms of pornography, not just illegal child pornography. This has been a cause among the Christian conservative right for some time now.
MIM says the platform’s “new language replaces previous platform wording, which only opposed child pornography.” According to the press release, the GOP’s new wording will explicitly state that “current laws on all forms of pornography and obscenity need to be vigorously enforced.”
“Distribution of obscene or hardcore pornography on the Internet is a violation of current federal law,” explained MIM’s President Patrick A. Trueman. “Yet, most children in America have free access to obscene pornography as soon as they learn how to use a computer. The average age of first exposure to obscene Internet pornography is now eleven.”
Trueman also suggested that under this wording, the federal government should police “obscenity,” not only in the distribution of hardcore porn on the Internet, but also on hotel or motel TVs, cable or satellite television, and in retail shops.
This anti-porn sentiment among some Republicans is nothing new. Earlier this year, several GOP presidential candidates — presumptive nominee Mitt Romney and failed candidates Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich — pledged a strict crackdown on all forms of pornography.
The Daily Caller notes that in 1992, the GOP’s party platform called for “allowing victims of pornography to seek damages from those who make or sell it” and declared that “the time has come for a national crusade against pornography.”
It shouldn’t be difficult to guess who was largely responsible for this new wording: Family Research Council president Tony Perkins. MIM thanks him saying: “We are most grateful to Tony Perkins… who led the effort to get the tough new language into the platform. Without enforcement of federal obscenity laws, pornographers have had a green light to target our children and families.”
If anything, this continues the GOP’s reluctance to adopt Republican Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels‘ social issues “truce.” Last week’s news that the platform continues the no-exceptions position on abortion and that the party is unwilling to consider even “civil unions” in their gay marriage platform shows that the party is still unwilling to revive the party’s “big tent” status and incorporate all facets of the right — including libertarians, social moderates, and Ron Paul fans who all don’t see these social “crusades” as an integral part of limited government.
In fact, many see these socially conservative positions as the antithesis of limited government
Mannahnin wrote: They don't want the real Libertarians. Just the fake Tea Party ones.
That is my main beef with the Tea Party folks that I know. They scream "less government telling people what to do!" but when I asked them about gay marriage, war on drugs, pornography, building a mosque, abortion, etc they just get angry and walk away.
I just want them to be truthful and say "Less government telling me what to do while telling everybody I don't agree with what to do!"
Theocracy is quite a strong word. That's worth questioning.
wiki wrote:Theocracy is a form of government in which official policy is governed by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as (or claim to be) divinely guided, or is pursuant to the doctrine of a particular religion or religious group.
Do the people involved in establishing these political policies claim to be divinely guided, or are their governance decisions pursuant to the doctrine of a particular religion?
I was just trying to embrace the hyperbole that we love so much in the OT and to channel some of the love from the "Taliban are forcing their religion on people through laws" thread.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mannahnin wrote: Theocracy is quite a strong word. That's worth questioning.
wiki wrote:Theocracy is a form of government in which official policy is governed by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as (or claim to be) divinely guided, or is pursuant to the doctrine of a particular religion or religious group.
Do the people involved in establishing these political policies claim to be divinely guided, or are their governance decisions pursuant to the doctrine of a particular religion?
Well, they are the family research council. So probably yes .
It seems that whatever an individual "pet issue" is these days, the more vehemently opposed they are to it.
I say this not directed towards the right or left, but everyone equally...
It seems that you cannot merely be "not cool" with smoking, porn, drugs, immigration, seat belt wearing, profanity in public, drinking alcohol, etc. but if you are personally only mildly against it, you either need to be full on for it, or stark raving mad against it.
It's rather upsetting that there really seems to be no middle ground for anyone anywhere anymore.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: It seems that you cannot merely be "not cool" with smoking, porn, drugs, immigration, seat belt wearing, profanity in public, drinking alcohol, etc. but if you are personally only mildly against it, you either need to be full on for it, or stark raving mad against it.
It's rather upsetting that there really seems to be no middle ground for anyone anywhere anymore.
I (perhaps optimistically) think that most people really are more in the middle on a lot of these issues. But extremism gets ratings and gets people excited. Excited people get news coverage and go to the polls.
Mannahnin wrote: They don't want the real Libertarians. Just the fake Tea Party ones.
That is my main beef with the Tea Party folks that I know. They scream "less government telling people what to do!" but when I asked them about gay marriage, war on drugs, pornography, building a mosque, abortion, etc they just get angry and walk away.
I just want them to be truthful and say "Less government telling me what to do while telling everybody I don't agree with what to do!"
My main beef with them is that they have no idea what they want. They just. Ore for anyone that claims to agree with them. If more Dems would chuckle, smile and claim to be Tea Party the movement would have to clarify itself and it's distinctly anti Lbertarian views would be exposed
Mannahnin wrote:Theocracy is quite a strong word. That's worth questioning.
wiki wrote:Theocracy is a form of government in which official policy is governed by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as (or claim to be) divinely guided, or is pursuant to the doctrine of a particular religion or religious group.
Do the people involved in establishing these political policies claim to be divinely guided, or are their governance decisions pursuant to the doctrine of a particular religion?
There isn't any danger of the us becoming a theocracy, nor is the GOP a theocracy because it has added a plank in its platform to oppose pornography. It's not like the Republicans went on TV and said Goe revealed it to them. This is an article about a religious organization cheering the GOP for championing a cause they agree with. Dianne Fienstein and Amy Klobuchar support enforcing or strengthening porn laws too; are THEY theocrats?
But "Religious Lobby like GOP anti-porn plank" just isn't as catchy.
It's not just the religious lobby cheering them on, though. It's the religious lobby actively changing the party's plank, to better suit their religious beliefs.
There are also (from what I can see) an increasing number of candidates pandering to this lobby by claiming that god told them to run, and that their decisions are based on god's will.
Obviously the US isn't becoming a theocracy. Some degree of religious motivation has always been involved in our legislation. We've always had a lot of religious people, and many of them have the evangelistic streak.
But one definition (the first couple of sentences of the wiki article) is the one I quoted above. Which does seem to match this behavior as a form of theocracy.
Mannahnin wrote: They don't want the real Libertarians. Just the fake Tea Party ones.
That is my main beef with the Tea Party folks that I know. They scream "less government telling people what to do!" but when I asked them about gay marriage, war on drugs, pornography, building a mosque, abortion, etc they just get angry and walk away.
I just want them to be truthful and say "Less government telling me what to do while telling everybody I don't agree with what to do!"
Whatever happens in Texas....stays in Texas Frazz......
People people be calm. Once the Frazzled enlightenment occurs, all will have their place in the Realm of the Great Wiener Dog. Peace will be for all, every believer will have their own sofa, pillow, and favorite ball. All will drink their fill from the communal waterbowl. And steak! Every night!*
*Not cats though. I'm afraid its going to be your ass.
The Family Research Council and that lying gak stain Tony Perkins are just awful, awful people. Honestly, this is one of the least odious things I've ever read about their activities.
They're basically what happens when a person wants to feel that they're good person, but realises actually doing is really hard work. So instead they just tell lies about everyone else, which lets them and their followers getting the feeling of being good by just believing everyone else is much, much worse than them.
Anyone notice that, while people argue over gay rights, pro life/choice and theological opinions in government, their seems less focus on important issues in government?
I wouldn't be surprised with what the media is like today.
We don't like the constitution's first amendment. Please remove it.
Sincerely;
~Every God-botherer in America since 1791
PS: You owe us for that whole Roth test ordeal.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr Nobody wrote:Anyone notice that, while people argue over gay rights, pro life/choice and theological opinions in government, their seems less focus on important issues in government?
So you don't consider basic civil rights being withheld from a significant percentage of the American population to be an important issue?
Please, enlighten me: what do you consider an important issue?
We don't like the constitution's first amendment. Please remove it.
Sincerely;
~Every God-botherer in America since 1791
PS: You owe us for that whole Roth test ordeal.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr Nobody wrote:Anyone notice that, while people argue over gay rights, pro life/choice and theological opinions in government, their seems less focus on important issues in government?
So you don't consider basic civil rights being withheld from a significant percentage of the American population to be an important issue?
Please, enlighten me: what do you consider an important issue?
Unemployment rates, rising debt, crime, social care systems, divide between rich and poor, climate change, fuel prices, wars over seas, decreased life span, toxic food, obesity rates etc.
If a miracle happened tomorrow and these moral issues of were solved, how much healthier and safer would the country as a whole be?
I'm not saying theological issues should be ignored but there are matters of function which must be addressed as well.
In the renaissance, rulers would argue about things like how long a woman's sleeves should be to avoid dealing with larger issues, are we repeating this.
Mr Nobody wrote:Anyone notice that, while people argue over gay rights, pro life/choice and theological opinions in government, their seems less focus on important issues in government?
So you don't consider basic civil rights being withheld from a significant percentage of the American population to be an important issue?
Please, enlighten me: what do you consider an important issue?
Unemployment rates, rising debt, crime, social care systems, divide between rich and poor, climate change, fuel prices, wars over seas, decreased life span, toxic food, obesity rates etc.
If a miracle happened tomorrow and these moral issues of were solved, how much healthier and safer would the country as a whole be?
I'm not saying theological issues should be ignored but there are matters of function which must be addressed as well.
In the renaissance, rulers would argue about things like how long a woman's sleeves should be to avoid dealing with larger issues, are we repeating this.
Okay, I see where you're coming from. Now I want you to pretend it's 1963 and you're trying to frame that argument in the context of African-Americans being denied equal rights.
Whatever happens in Texas....stays in Texas Frazz......
People people be calm. Once the Frazzled enlightenment occurs, all will have their place in the Realm of the Great Wiener Dog. Peace will be for all, every believer will have their own sofa, pillow, and favorite ball. All will drink their fill from the communal waterbowl. And steak! Every night!*
*Not cats though. I'm afraid its going to be your ass.
Message approved.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BlapBlapBlap wrote: Wait, who is a 'victim' of Pornography? Seriously? It's designed to give people pleasure, not to harm or hurt them.
The porn industry needs tighter regulation, it can be a very nasty ugly business and there are victims, exploited artists for a start.
Because the 'other Hollywood' is still mostly underground there is a lot of abuse going on.
Not that that is the main reason why zealots want a ban.
Right, they want a ban because they want to enforce their own religious sect's beliefs on everyone else.
Mr Nobody wrote: Anyone notice that, while people argue over gay rights, pro life/choice and theological opinions in government, their seems less focus on important issues in government?
I wouldn't be surprised with what the media is like today.
I think the first two ARE important issues in government, as they concern directly the civil liberties of minorities within the country.
If you mean debt, debt in the US is far, FAR less of an issue than in other countries, as the US government has a reputation of stability that, despite the best efforts of the Republcian party and the worst incompetence of the Democratic party, our government has yet to manage to destroy.
Melissia wrote: Right, they want a ban because they want to enforce their own religious sect's beliefs on everyone else.
Mr Nobody wrote: Anyone notice that, while people argue over gay rights, pro life/choice and theological opinions in government, their seems less focus on important issues in government?
I wouldn't be surprised with what the media is like today.
I think the first two ARE important issues in government, as they concern directly the civil liberties of minorities within the country.
If you mean debt, debt in the US is far, FAR less of an issue than in other countries, as the US government has a reputation of stability that, despite the best efforts of the Republcian party and the worst incompetence of the Democratic party, our government has yet to manage to destroy.
Its all a sidestep. Obama can't run on the economy, or healthcare, or well pretty much anything he's done. So we get the war on women/sudden switch on gay rights/BAIN!!!!/how about those Mormons you know their really racists right?/Evil Richers!/here special interest group have some benies.
BlapBlapBlap wrote: Wait, who is a 'victim' of Pornography? Seriously? It's designed to give people pleasure, not to harm or hurt them.
Surely your name should be Fapfapfap?
Say BlapBlapBlap out loud and it will suddenly seem to be rather appropriate.
In response to BlapBlapBlap's query, yes there are victims of pornography, particularly the actresses. No small amount of women who enter the industry do so because of abuse in their childhoods. Some do it because they can't break into real acting and become stuck in the industry.
Mr Nobody wrote:Anyone notice that, while people argue over gay rights, pro life/choice and theological opinions in government, their seems less focus on important issues in government?
So you don't consider basic civil rights being withheld from a significant percentage of the American population to be an important issue?
Please, enlighten me: what do you consider an important issue?
Unemployment rates, rising debt, crime, social care systems, divide between rich and poor, climate change, fuel prices, wars over seas, decreased life span, toxic food, obesity rates etc.
If a miracle happened tomorrow and these moral issues of were solved, how much healthier and safer would the country as a whole be?
I'm not saying theological issues should be ignored but there are matters of function which must be addressed as well.
In the renaissance, rulers would argue about things like how long a woman's sleeves should be to avoid dealing with larger issues, are we repeating this.
Okay, I see where you're coming from. Now I want you to pretend it's 1963 and you're trying to frame that argument in the context of African-Americans being denied equal rights.
African Americans had been slaves for near a century. even after they had their freedom, they weren't even allowed to exist in the same space as white Americans. They were denied the right to be equal in anything.
Though, I do see your point, it is unfair to belittle one group's discrimination because of another issue.
In response to BlapBlapBlap's query, yes there are victims of pornography, particularly the actresses. No small amount of women who enter the industry do so because of abuse in their childhoods. Some do it because they can't break into real acting and become stuck in the industry.
Victims of being paid for sex. My heart fair bleeds. The same way I'm supposed to think professional athletes that go bankrupt are victims of professional sports. In other words: no. In your happy care bear world you might think these girls don't have a choice, but back here in reality getting fethed for money is a hell of a lot easier and lucrative than working at burger king, where all those poor unabused kids earn their minimum wage because daddy loved them too much to let them get into stripping and porn.
Because the 'other Hollywood' is still mostly underground there is a lot of abuse going on.
Twenty to thirty years ago that was true, but in the last two decades as profits and exposure have increased, the lion's share of US produced pornography is reasonably well regulated (primarily by trade organizations); with issues of exploitation largely being confined to the methods used in other artistic industries (basically unfair contracts). Honestly, the US porn industry is perhaps more above board than other relatively recent forms of media production, such as Youtube networks and freelance web journalism.
Of course, porn produced outside the US is still a major source of revenue for many domestic websites, and is nowhere as tightly controlled in many places.
Melissia wrote: Right, they want a ban because they want to enforce their own religious sect's beliefs on everyone else.
Mr Nobody wrote: Anyone notice that, while people argue over gay rights, pro life/choice and theological opinions in government, their seems less focus on important issues in government?
I wouldn't be surprised with what the media is like today.
I think the first two ARE important issues in government, as they concern directly the civil liberties of minorities within the country.
If you mean debt, debt in the US is far, FAR less of an issue than in other countries, as the US government has a reputation of stability that, despite the best efforts of the Republcian party and the worst incompetence of the Democratic party, our government has yet to manage to destroy.
Its all a sidestep. Obama can't run on the economy, or healthcare, or well pretty much anything he's done. So we get the war on women/sudden switch on gay rights/BAIN!!!!/how about those Mormons you know their really racists right?/Evil Richers!/here special interest group have some benies.
Can't run on anything huh?
sebster wrote:
BlapBlapBlap wrote: Wait, who is a 'victim' of Pornography? Seriously? It's designed to give people pleasure, not to harm or hurt them.
The billions of sperm that lie discarded in tissues in the wastebaskets of teengage boy's bedrooms tell you that porn is far from a victimless crime.
Think of the sperm!
Mass infanticide is happening every day!
Men all over the world have the blood of billions on their hands(literally)!
I know it's not fashionable to say it, but I think internet pornography does have a negative effect on the attitudes of young people towards sex, and it's something I wouldn't mind seeing regulated a little more than it is.
High School isn't what it was, and the discussions, knowledge and attitudes of many of the kids there would really turn your hair white.
Da Boss wrote: I know it's not fashionable to say it, but I think internet pornography does have a negative effect on the attitudes of young people towards sex, and it's something I wouldn't mind seeing regulated a little more than it is.
High School isn't what it was, and the discussions, knowledge and attitudes of many of the kids there would really turn your hair white.
Well that's really the parents fault, because if they're in high school, then they shouldn't have access to porn. Those parents who allow the kids to see porn are breaking already existing laws.
Da Boss wrote: I think internet pornography does have a negative effect on the attitudes of young people towards sex
The research really doesn't support this. For example, many of the more recent meta-analyses have found no supportive evidence of a link between sexual assault and pornography, and indeed, many of the older studies were found to have a lot of confirmation bias.
A far, FAR bigger effect is in parenting. Poor parenting, or even actively misogynistic and/or abusive parenting, has a far stronger correlation.
Da Boss wrote: I know it's not fashionable to say it, but I think internet pornography does have a negative effect on the attitudes of young people towards sex, and it's something I wouldn't mind seeing regulated a little more than it is.
High School isn't what it was, and the discussions, knowledge and attitudes of many of the kids there would really turn your hair white.
Do you have any idea of the sheer quantity of hardcore porn that was widely available in my school in the early 90's? IIRC it was even illegal (or at least not fully legal) then. Bootlegged and much copied German and US films from the 70's were very popular, they were dreadful but I can still remember bits from some of them.
Teenagers will always be interested in porn and there really isn't much that you can do to block them from it so really there isn't much point in trying. They do need to be made aware of the differences between reality and porn though.
I graduated high school in 1990. I knew better then to hide my Hustler and Playboy magazine under the matress...only had those two...they were hiding in my stack of Boy's Life (Boy Scout magazines)
Da Boss wrote: I know it's not fashionable to say it, but I think internet pornography does have a negative effect on the attitudes of young people towards sex, and it's something I wouldn't mind seeing regulated a little more than it is.
High School isn't what it was, and the discussions, knowledge and attitudes of many of the kids there would really turn your hair white.
Do you have any idea of the sheer quantity of hardcore porn that was widely available in my school in the early 90's? IIRC it was even illegal (or at least not fully legal) then. Bootlegged and much copied German and US films from the 70's were very popular, they were dreadful but I can still remember bits from some of them.
Teenagers will always be interested in porn and there really isn't much that you can do to block them from it so really there isn't much point in trying. They do need to be made aware of the differences between reality and porn though.
I'm not sure it's even a bad thing for teens, a lot of them aren't used to having that intense of sexual urges so having a way of venting it is probably more positive than anything.
Jihadin wrote: I graduated high school in 1990. I knew better then to hide my Hustler and Playboy magazine under the matress...only had those two...they were hiding in my stack of Boy's Life (Boy Scout magazines)
I used to steal my dads and trade them in school. Nothing was ever said in case my mum found out
Melissa: I'm extremely suspicious of most research done in these fields, the stats are just too wobbly to base anything on.
I would say that sexual assault numbers probably wouldn't be effected, and believe it, but I was talking about attitudes, rather than the crimes. I think attitudes are still important.
Palindrome: I dunno man. I was in school in the nineties too, and I'm telling you flat, it's different now. It's substantially different, and kids as young as 11 are very "knowledgeable" and have seen things regularly that would have been practically unheard of for my friends or I at that age. I'm not talking about a smutty magazine or something- I'm talking about violent, degrading, abusive and physically damaging sex scenes. It's definitely my opinion that the industry is skewing towards the "extreme" end.
I'm not a prude. I understand that there's nothing wrong, in most cases, with rough sex or many of the SM practices that people get up to. I think the porn industry is something else entirely though, and I can only say that my experience is that the boys who watch a lot of it and are extremely into it have distressing behaviours when it comes to women, and are quite vocal in expressing their "views". And they don't give a crap if their teacher hears them.
I mean, maybe I should have reported it. I've reported some stuff, when I thought it was very serious, and it gets shrugged off. I've often wondered what would happen if I called a parent to tell them that their son was talking loudly about carrying out abusive sex acts on women. It's a battle I didn't fight (god knows I had enough of them to be fighting), mostly because I couldn't wrap my head around the situation.
If you'd asked me three years ago, I wouldn't have thought any of this, but my experiences have made me a bit more worried about the whole thing.
Mind you, if someone is an adult, I think the chances of porn having a behaviour altering effect that wasn't already there is pretty low. I mean, once you mature, you're generally pretty set in your attitudes and behaviour patterns. Similarly, I see porn addiction as more of a problem with the individual than the pornography- addictive personality types will find something to use as a crutch, whether it's dope, drink or porn.
It's still pretty bad though. Free access to videos of women being bound, gagged, slapped, gangbanged, etc, aren't something that really need to be accessible to teenagers.
Jihadin wrote:I graduated high school in 1990. I knew better then to hide my Hustler and Playboy magazine under the matress...only had those two...they were hiding in my stack of Boy's Life (Boy Scout magazines)
If the subject matter of hentai wasn't so fethed up, I would see it as less harmful. At least nobody is actually hurt, infected or given chronic injuries by cartoons.
Its all a sidestep. Obama can't run on the economy, or healthcare, or well pretty much anything he's done.
Of course he can run on the economy and healthcare, his approval numbers with respect to both a near enough to 50% for either be perfectly viable given a well constructed campaign. Then he can also run on DADT, the draw down in Iraq, getting Bin Laden, general foreign policy, and a host other things he's done.
Saying that he can' base his platform on achievements from his Presidency is just nonsense that isn't reflected by the available data.
Its all a sidestep. Obama can't run on the economy, or healthcare, or well pretty much anything he's done.
Of course he can run on the economy and healthcare, his approval numbers with respect to both a near enough to 50% for either be perfectly viable given a well constructed campaign. Then he can also run on DADT, the draw down in Iraq, getting Bin Laden, general foreign policy, and a host other things he's done.
Saying that he can' base his platform on achievements from his Presidency is just nonsense that isn't reflected by the available data.
of he could run on them, he would be. He's not, so he can't.
High School isn't what it was, and the discussions, knowledge and attitudes of many of the kids there would really turn your hair white.
Well, unless you've gone to high school in the last 10 years. Hell, I remember plenty of kids losing their virginity in Junior High, and this was in the mid to late 90's before the internet (let alone internet porn) really became mainstream. I would actually say that the majority of the popular girls in my school district had performed some kind of sex act by the age of 13-14 (For boys it tended to happen in the 15-16 range, usually with the aforementioned 13-14 year old girls.) and this was in a relatively affluent, conservative suburb.
of he could run on them, he would be. He's not, so he can't.
As usual you're more concerned with what you want to be true, than what actually is true. Obama has made numerous statements regarding his healthcare plan, and how he believes it will extend coverage to more Americans while also reducing the overall cost of healthcare, and the deficit. He's also released a formal jobs plan, that he has addressed directly in several stump speeches over the last year*.
I mean, this and this are from his campaign website.
Jihadin wrote: Perception I'm getting he's not really running with the economy. Just a lot of Mit bashing.
By that definition, neither side is really running on anything other than bashing the other side.
Yeah, both campaigns have been heavily focused on framing their candidates by comparing them to the opposition, which was largely inevitable given how the past 3 years have been.
Thats not what his advertisements are running. Thats not what all his lacking are talking. lets get real. Its all distraction all the time from Team Obama.
Frazzled wrote: Thats not what his advertisements are running. Thats not what all his lacking are talking. lets get real. Its all distraction all the time from Team Obama.
Is that so?
Again, you're more concerned with what you want to be true, than what actually is true.
Frazzled wrote: Thats not what his advertisements are running. Thats not what all his lacking are talking. lets get real. Its all distraction all the time from Team Obama.
High School isn't what it was, and the discussions, knowledge and attitudes of many of the kids there would really turn your hair white.
Well, unless you've gone to high school in the last 10 years. Hell, I remember plenty of kids losing their virginity in Junior High, and this was in the mid to late 90's before the internet (let alone internet porn) really became mainstream. I would actually say that the majority of the popular girls in my school district had performed some kind of sex act by the age of 13-14 (For boys it tended to happen in the 15-16 range, usually with the aforementioned 13-14 year old girls.) and this was in a relatively affluent, conservative suburb.
Much the same with me. Some of the stuff that my peers got up to would have probably made it to the front page of the Sun.
dogma wrote: Of course he can run on the economy and healthcare, his approval numbers with respect to both a near enough to 50% for either be perfectly viable given a well constructed campaign. Then he can also run on DADT, the draw down in Iraq, getting Bin Laden, general foreign policy, and a host other things he's done.
Saying that he can' base his platform on achievements from his Presidency is just nonsense that isn't reflected by the available data.
Yeah, I'm getting the impression Fraz assumes he can't run on those things because they're things that Fraz either disapproves of, or doesn't give Obama credit for. What Fraz doesn't realise from there is that his opinion of Obama doesn't matter, because he's never going to vote for Obama or anyone like him. What actually matters is how those things are viewed by the 50 to 60% of people who are likely to vote for a Democratic candidate.
Honestly, I get the impression politics would make a lot more sense to Fraz the second he realised he's a Republican that doesn't like to call himself that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: of he could run on them, he would be. He's not, so he can't.
Or, more to the point, he could run on them, but won't as long as the Republicans keep throwing up softballs on abortion and other easy win issues for Democrats.
Obama is the incumbent, and he is leading in the polls, and the political geography favours him. This means Romney has to have the discipline within his campaign and his party to stick to issues where he can draw even with Obama. When they keep throwing up other issues, it only makes sense for Obama to play up those issues.
Melissia wrote: I don't, I rather disliked what Clinton did in his Presidency....
He feels your pain.
Good:
-welfare reform
-don't ask don't tell, the first step to where we are now.
-keeping a thumb on Hussein
-actual budgets/worked with the republicans to move us towards no deficit. NO DEFICIT.
Bad:
-Didn't really go after Bin laden
-Kosova war
-started our way towards the mortgage crisis.
Amaya wrote: Please tell me all about the diversity in Canada.
Rather than write a treatise, I'll just tell you to start here.
If you want, I can also point out just how "homogeneous" France, the UK, Spain, and other European nations are. Honestly, the only one of significance that really fits your argument is Germany.
America is 72.4% White, 27.6% nonwhite.
If you separate Latinos/Hispanics from that group (only European American Hispanics) you have 63.7% white and 36.3% nonwhite.
Let's put it this way since we're going to make outrageous claims about Canada. The black population of the US alone is 38.9 million to Canada's 34.9 million total. The total nonwhite population is the US (excluding European American Hispanics) is 85.1 million.
The nonwhite population of the United States is higher than the total population of every European nation (excluding Russia).
Edit: Really Dogma? The UK is 92% white. They're even whiter than Germany...
Wait, are you really trying to reduce questions of diversity to matters of race?
Amaya wrote: Of course you would resort to attempts at misdirection when you are so woefully incorrect.
I'm asking a simple question, "Are you attempting to reduce diversity to race?", that is directly pertinent to what you stated. That isn't misdirection, its asking for clarification.
Regardless, I'll go ahead and assume that you are. To begin, race is not the same as ethnicity even though that's how people in the US tend to see it. As such, counting up all the Hispanic and Black people living in the US isn't going to give you a good picture of US diversity, but if you want to go with that I will too; because it actually paints a picture of the US that is not especially diverse relative to any particular nation. The reality is that while the US has a large degree of diversity in terms of ethnic minorities, it has a relatively small degree of diversity in terms of actual ethnicity. The vast majority of Black people in America, for example, are ethnically American, at least to the extent that an American ethnicity exists. Hispanics are a different case, drawing from several ethnic backgrounds, and being in large part dominated by relatively recent immigrants as well as ethnic Spaniards.
Further, I'll address your second point regarding sheer demographic size. Quite simply, it doesn't matter that much when considering diversity in terms of culture. Its an important variable in politics due to circumstantial considerations (especially when paired with a large geographic size), but that's distinct from the type of diversity you're referring to.
The ethnic minorities in France are estimated to be under 10% of the total population by the way.
Ethnic minority is a term that relates to race, which is distinct from ethnicity. If you look at ethnicity ~20-25% of France's population is non-French, which is roughly equivalent to the proportion of Americans that are non-American.
Amaya wrote:Please tell me all about the diversity in Canada.
Sure. But first, I'd really appreciate you explaining to me exactly how race factors into things here. I am honestly confused by this. Then, I need to you explain to me exactly which policies you're referring to, that you don't believe will work in a multicultural nation. And finally, after that, I want you to phone up your high school social studies teacher, and tell him/her that s/he failed you.
Anyway, here you go:
Visible minorities in Canada: about 16% of the total population, but estimated to be closer to 18% due to the likelihood of minorities being less likely to participate in federal census reporting.
Religions in Canada: Christian = about 75% Other = about 7.5% No affiliation = about 17.5%
Languages in Canada: Well, we have two official languages for a reason.
Canada's attitude towards diversity: unfortunately, the federal government endorses a "mosaic" approach to multiculturalism. I personally think a "melting pot" mentality is far superior, as it doesn't lead to segregation and ghettoization like the "mosaic" approach. However, both are preferable alternatives to the assimilation approach that the US endorses, as the former two do not facilitate a culture of fear and "othering".
EDIT: And if you want to add in proper, non-race-based diversity, then you are in for a shock on this one... Canada is arguably the most diverse country on the planet, and our immigration rate far exceeds our bith rate.
Amaya wrote:Racial groups typically tend to have many ethnic groups within them, correct?
I'm not willing to answer that question due to the sweeping generalizations it would require me to make.
The simple answer is yes. It's not a sweeping generalization to say every race has more than one ethnic group. It's a universally true statement.
I have literally no idea what led up to that moment, but your refusal to answer is silly.
Hrm. Think I misread it. Moving on, then:
Yes. Biologically there are three primary racial groups: Caucasoid, Mongoloid & Negroid. They break down into multiple ethnic subgroups, and those ethnic subgroups break down yet further into cultural subgroups; and there is lateral overlap. Yes, the US is a diverse place. The same can be said for Canada. After all, Canada is a larger country, and therefore it is only reasonable to recognize that two people from the same racial group, divided by a large geographic expanse, would represent cultural diversity. I will maintain that a cowboy from Texas and a cab driver from New York will be just as diverse from one another as will a cowboy from Alberta and a jackass from Quebec (see what I did there?). I've never once claimed that the US is not a diverse nation, but I will not passively allow you to claim that somehow the US is more diverse than Canada.
Setting all that aside, I'm still waiting to hear you list some of these yet-unnamed policies that simply don't work in the US due to its diversity, yet manage to in Canada (which you erroneously believe to be homogenous, prompting my comment that you should track down your social studies teacher and tell him/her of that failure).
Its not at all like your pretending that different Europeans didn't migrate to various parts of America and leave a cultural imprint on that area to this day.
In some respects Americans are substantially more culturally homogenous, in that we share a hugely overlapping percentage of our culture, government systems (including on the local level, with a few exceptions like the parishes in LA), popular culture and history with one another. If a Welshman moves to France, he has to learn a whole lot more to adapt and get a job than I would if I were to move to Chicago, or even Texas.
That depends on how you define Europe.k Since Europe and Asia are connected by land, many people have di8fferent definitinos of where one ends and the other begins.
Well, okay, in surface area they're quite close. Going with the wiki numbers, Europe 3.9mm square miles, US 3.8mm. Though what, close to 20% of that is Alaska, and it's not like Alaska is in the middle of the country, so realistically it's not much of a factor in this discussion.
Population wise Europe is more than twice as big, at 739mm to the US 314 million.
It's still going to be a lot easier for me to adapt culturally to life in Florida, Ohio, or Utah than it is for a Greek to live in Sweden, or vice versa. Realistically speaking, if we're talking about ethnic/cultural sub-groups within European countries, they're much more likely to have significant differences from the larger population than they do in the US. Because a person of Irish or German or Kenyan ethnic identity living in France or Greece or Italy is much more likely to have actually come from another country and grown up with a different language and system of laws and government. In the US, being Japanese or Irish or French or Swedish or Mexican in background usually means your grandparents or further back immigrated. You're more likely to have grown up in the American culture.
dogma wrote: I'm asking a simple question, "Are you attempting to reduce diversity to race?", that is directly pertinent to what you stated. That isn't misdirection, its asking for clarification.
Regardless, I'll go ahead and assume that you are. To begin, race is not the same as ethnicity even though that's how people in the US tend to see it. As such, counting up all the Hispanic and Black people living in the US isn't going to give you a good picture of US diversity
Welcome to New Hampshire! Did you know we're one of the most diverse states in the Union? We're 30% Franco-American!
Mannahnin wrote: Well, okay, in surface area they're quite close. Going with the wiki numbers, Europe 3.9mm square miles, US 3.8mm. Though what, close to 20% of that is Alaska, and it's not like Alaska is in the middle of the country, so realistically it's not much of a factor in this discussion.
Population wise Europe is more than twice as big, at 739mm to the US 314 million.
It's still going to be a lot easier for me to adapt culturally to life in Florida, Ohio, or Utah than it is for a Greek to live in Sweden, or vice versa. Realistically speaking, if we're talking about ethnic/cultural sub-groups within European countries, they're much more likely to have significant differences from the larger population than they do in the US. Because a person of Irish or German or Kenyan ethnic identity living in France or Greece or Italy is much more likely to have actually come from another country and grown up with a different language and system of laws and government. In the US, being Japanese or Irish or French or Swedish or Mexican in background usually means your grandparents or further back immigrated. You're more likely to have grown up in the American culture.
Europe as a whole is more heterogeneous than the US. The US is more heterogenous than individual European nations.
No large nation has universal health care coverage. Claiming that policies that work in a nation with 50 million people would work in a nation six times that size and spread across a land mass the size of a continent is asinine.
The US right now is spending more on health care in all regards than any other nation. There isn't enough revenue to justify spending more.
Amaya wrote: Claiming that policies that work in a nation with 50 million people would work in a nation six times that size and spread across a land mass the size of a continent is asinine.
The US right now is spending more on health care in all regards than any other nation. There isn't enough revenue to justify spending more.
The thing is though, and this is wildly off topic but you started it with your crazy out of place post, is that the NHS spends half of what the US healthcare system does per patient and yet has at least as good a standard of care. This suggests to me that there is a lot of inefficiency/profiteering in the US system. Ironic really given that private companies are supposed to be so much more efficient than public services.
The size of the country doesn't really matter, everyone pays tax after all.
Europe as a whole is more heterogeneous than the US. The US is more heterogenous than individual European nations.
The UK for example has 4 different nations, all with their own language (and there are also half a dozen or more regional languages/very strong dialects), 3 of which have some kind of devolved parliment and with the exception of Northern Ireland were all sovereign nations at some point. In addition all 4 have centuries of national history, the Kingdom of Scotland for example was founded 1200 year ago(ish). On top of this approximately 10% of the UK population are immigrants. Europe as a whole is massively more diverse than the US.
Yeah the US is clearly more diverse than individual European nations. It is more heterogenous than some nations, Ireland for example, but your broad generalisation doesn't stick.
AustonT wrote:I miss Bill too, am genuinely surprised he did that ad for Obama.
Just remember that he's the guy responsible for repealing the greatest safeguard against the current economic crisis.
You can't win them all. He has defended signif the GLBA into law by saying it softened the financial crisis. To be fair it's not like he championed the bill and rammed it through the houses, it was the GOP doing all the pushing. Then it passed both houses overwhelmingly. To veto it would have simply meant it went back and got passed without him and he would have looked weak. You can't really lay blame on Slick Willy for that one.
I'm sorry I got to the part where "everyone pays tax" and started laughing. Once I regained control I got to the blah blah about Europe which indicated you didn't read or comprehend my post.
"Europe as a whole is massively more diverse than the US.". Hmm...pretty sure I already said that. Meanwhile lets pretend the UK is as diverse as the United States.
Amaya wrote: I'm sorry I got to the part where "everyone pays tax" and started laughing. Once I regained control I got to the blah blah about Europe which indicated you didn't read or comprehend my post.
Oh really? Well that was a constructive and incisive post on your part. Incidentally why are you ranting about universal healthcare in a thread about pornography?
Amaya wrote: I like how in America's case whites get lumped into one big group while in the case of European nations, Irish, Welsh, Polish, and so on all get to be defined as their own ethnic groups.
Probably because most of those Irish, Welsh, and Polish people are actually from Ireland, Whales, and Poland as opposed to being several generations removed from Irish, Welsh, and Polish immigrants.
Part of the problem with comparing the US and Europe in terms of diversity is that the way people in US view ethnicity is very different from the way its viewed in Europe. Europeans don't talk about being "Polish" if their family has been in Germany for 3 generations and they don't speak Polish, whereas in the US its quite common for people to claim that they're Polish because they once ate pirogi and have a Polish last name. As an example, I'm of Polish descent, but I'm not Polish. I have nothing at all in common with Polish people outside of having a Polish last name, and having eaten Polish food, and I'm only two (Well, 2.5, grandfather was born in Poland but grew up here.) generations removed.
This is made all the worse by the way the US generally studies its demographics, which based primarily on race (ethnic minorities), as opposed to actual ethnicity.
Its not at all like your pretending that different Europeans didn't migrate to various parts of America and leave a cultural imprint on that area to this day.
No more than generations of German and Spanish immigration left an imprint on France, but we still call the vast majority of those people "French".
Mannahnin wrote: If a Welshman moves to France, he has to learn a whole lot more to adapt and get a job than I would if I were to move to Chicago, or even Texas.
I have to disagree there mate.
I mean, I know the Welsh live in caves and don't have running water.., but your doing them a disservice there.
From the first instance when I landed in the US, and started having a craic with all my American cousins, I have never felt it to have been significantly different to require any "adaptation" and I have lived and worked all over, I always felt welcome and at home, and comfortable. I suppose Virginia was the most backwater in comparison with LA and NY and whatnot, but I really think that it is far to similar to the UK to require a real effort to adapt... there is no huge noticeable difference in our cultures, languages and lifestyles.
In a nutshell, the number one issue is being away from family and friends, I dare say if my Californian missus moved to Virginia she would find it about as difficult as I would. She fit into living in Yorkshire with no issues whatever as well.
Have you ever been to the UK incidentally? You seem to think its a largely different culture, and aside from less traffic, gakker weather and smaller portions on your "not the same size as a fething dumptruck wheel" plates, it really isn't.
Mannahnin wrote: If a Welshman moves to France, he has to learn a whole lot more to adapt and get a job than I would if I were to move to Chicago, or even Texas.
I have to disagree there mate.
I mean, I know the Welsh live in caves and don't have running water.., but your doing them a disservice there.
Caves? CAVES!!!!
Here, we have the Ozarks... which is riddled with awesome caves (and treasure!).
From the first instance when I landed in the US, and started having a craic with all my American cousins, I have never felt it to have been significantly different to require any "adaptation" and I have lived and worked all over, I always felt welcome and at home, and comfortable. I suppose Virginia was the most backwater in comparison with LA and NY and whatnot, but I really think that it is far to similar to the UK to require a real effort to adapt... there is no huge noticeable difference in our cultures, languages and lifestyles.
In a nutshell, the number one issue is being away from family and friends, I dare say if my Californian missus moved to Virginia she would find it about as difficult as I would. She fit into living in Yorkshire with no issues whatever as well.
Have you ever been to the UK incidentally?
I haven't, but would really love to visit. My mum works there and just loves it.
You seem to think its a largely different culture, and aside from less traffic, gakker weather and smaller portions on your "not the same size as a fething dumptruck wheel" plates, it really isn't.
azazel the cat wrote: I think Clinton actually came really close to capturing Bin Laden.
And you left out a positive: his attempt to institute health care
'
Azazel started it.
Spoiler:
Sorry Azazel, most people would like to actually see a doctor within 4 weeks. How's the queue in Quebec eh?
There is no que. If you have an emergency, then you show up at the ER and the triage nurse will do her job, and place you in a queue based on the nature of your injury. If you want to go see a general practitioner, then you either go to a walk-in clinic (which could be anywhere from no wait to several hours day, depending on the time and location) or else you go see your family doctor, which is typically by appointment, but YMMV.
The only time there is any sort of significant queue before getting treatment is if you show up to the ER on Saturday night with a skinned knee, when everyone else is broken and bleeding.
I can already guess this all started because you've read a single piece of anecdotal evidence, probably from a questionable source.
And you still haven't explained how a universal health care policy will fail to work in a heterogenous country.
Amaya wrote: It is relevant because the US does not have the revenue to pay for universal healthcare because too much money is spent on other crap and not enough Americans are paying into the system.
Wait, we spend more per person than any other country in the world, but we don't have the money for universal healthcare because we don't pay enough?
Amaya wrote: It is relevant because the US does not have the revenue to pay for universal healthcare because too much money is spent on other crap and not enough Americans are paying into the system.
Well... okay, I see that now.
It's just some will argue that the if we'd overhaul our entire HealthCare, and be like Canada or Britian, our cost would go down. There's merit to that argument.
However, I'd argue that to do so, there will be multitudes of costs... more taxes for one. Research/Development wouldn't be as aggressive (since you've now removed the "for-profit" incentives)... among others.
What it really boils down to is that, I don't believe that the majority of Americans are willing to pay for the "cost" (whatever it may be) to transation to a single-payor system.
whembly wrote: (since you've now removed the "for-profit" incentives)
Not so. Drugs and equipment will still need to be paid for and are supplied and developed (mostly) by the private sector while the NHS is one of the world leaders in medical research.
whembly wrote: (since you've now removed the "for-profit" incentives)
Not so. Drugs and equipment will still need to be paid for and are supplied and developed (mostly) by the private sector while the NHS is one of the world leaders in medical research.
I stand corrected... I was really talking about the impact here in the US.
BTW.. isn't there a British Company that's kicking arse in the medical field? Merck? Glaxo-somthing...?
Kovnik Obama wrote: What the hell happened to my nice porn thread about porn.
RIP you porn thread.
I'll try and help get if back on track.
So, would Universal HealthCare pay for Viagra for male porn stars to help get them off welfare and back to work?
Let's see if that gets us back to talking about porn bans.
Lol not here, the cons would have brought it up for sure. You might be able to declare the purchases on your tax return as work related expenses, but with the salary I imagine pornstars do, I doubt they get a large refund.
I guess not having your 'health' be a 'product' you pay for must be SOCIALISM, huh whembly?
Socialism isn't really the right word...
More, like "Statism".
The US healthcare system is a hybrid.
I really need to stop un-hiding your posts.
I don't think I can actually interact with you without getting angry.
The health of US citizens continuing to be a for-profit system for insurance and hospitals is a fething travesty, but I'm glad you think its fine. 'Hopefully' you'll never be sick and be without insurance/turned away for insurance, however, I'm sure you will be able to bootstraps it if that is the case.
Covered as in "paid for by"? No, that would be the employer. If the actors had to buy them, then they could keep the receipts and claim then on their Taxes as legitimate business expenses.
Covered as in "responsible for the proper use of"? That again would be the employer;however, both the Insurance Company and OSHA would have a say if they weren't being used correctly.
Covered as in "paid for by"? No, that would be the employer. If the actors had to buy them, then they could keep the receipts and claim then on their Taxes as legitimate business expenses.
Covered as in "responsible for the proper use of"? That again would be the employer;however, both the Insurance Company and OSHA would have a say if they weren't being used correctly.
Condoms and covered in the same sentence could set somebody up for all kinds of puns...
I guess not having your 'health' be a 'product' you pay for must be SOCIALISM, huh whembly?
Socialism isn't really the right word...
More, like "Statism".
The US healthcare system is a hybrid.
I really need to stop un-hiding your posts.
I know... I'm endearing...
I don't think I can actually interact with you without getting angry.
What specifically do I upset you with? Maybe I'm misunderstood...
The health of US citizens continuing to be a for-profit system for insurance and hospitals is a fething travesty, but I'm glad you think its fine. 'Hopefully' you'll never be sick and be without insurance/turned away for insurance, I'm sure you will be able to bootstraps it from there.
Never said it was perfect... just defending it a bit when everyone tries to knock it down to 3rd world status.
It's the nature of the beast... deal.with.it.
Can it be better? Sure...
Did I want Congress/State to do something? Sure...
Do I like the ACA, otherwise known as Obmamcare? Feth no! That was done to be a "one-size-fits-all"... that THATS the travestry.
So, I'll say it here. If we want Universal HealthCare (aka single payor), then we need to go full balls out Canadian style.
If not...
*Trying* to go halfway is making things worse.
@d-usa: I think most private health care plans covers contraceptives/pills/whathaveyou (it's cheaper to NOT pay for babies ya know).
edit: for what its worth... I did get sick w/o insurance (when I was in college) and went to a clinic funded by local charity.
Amaya wrote:I don't know why we spend so much, probably inefficiency or more expensive procedures, but we do not have universal health care coverage now and achieving that would require spending even more.
Because the for-profit system is designed to create a profit. This answer is obvious when you stop thinking of capitalism as a religious doctrine.
KO I guess you need to see some new faces at the bordello you walk by? A for effort
The girls coming out of that place are perfect 10s, to be honest.
Which means there's even less chance that I could afford their attention
I hate to admit it, but there are exactly two things everyone in Canada agrees on:
1. We like our healthcare
2. Montreal generally has the prettiest girls.
Kovnik Obama wrote: but with the salary I imagine pornstars do, I doubt they get a large refund.
Apparently male porn stars don't get paid very much, women get much more.
I guess they can't strike for better conditions either, what with the amount of people willing to scab...
Isn't there like a 6month moratorium on the porn industry in LA right now?
Why should dude porn stars get paid at all I say. For the amount I want to see and hear from them they are lucky they get fed at the shoot.
I hate to admit it, but there are exactly two things everyone in Canada agrees on:
1. We like our healthcare
2. Montreal generally has the prettiest girls.
I don't know about that, there's a lot of hotties in BC I find.
azazel the cat wrote: What can I say? not a lotta love for Quebec over here on the coast.
NB? Oh feth if I care then. The Anglo Society ruined our opinion of that place. I spent years in Alberta preaching about Quebec sovereignty without meeting the type of hatred (or even the slightest degree of animosity) that those morons display.
Also, we're going toward a new referendum, apparently.
I hate to admit it, but there are exactly two things everyone in Canada agrees on: 1. We like our healthcare 2. Montreal generally has the prettiest girls.
Like I've said before, I live right next to Mont-Royal. On a weekend night, I feel I should pay every girl I walk by.
Amaya wrote: I don't know why we spend so much, probably inefficiency or more expensive procedures, but we do not have universal health care coverage now and achieving that would require spending even more.
You don't know anything about the topic, so holding a firm opinion and expounding as if you do know something is silly.
Amaya wrote:I like how in America's case whites get lumped into one big group while in the case of European nations, Irish, Welsh, Polish, and so on all get to be defined as their own ethnic groups.
I was explaining you why a Frenchman in Sweden, despite being white, is actually from a real, materially different cultural group. He generally came from a different country, where they speak another language, have a different system of government, a totally different history, often different religious traditions, and largely unrelated popular culture. As opposed to a Franco-American in NH, who grew up here, speaks the language, has never known any other system of government, etc. Your misconceptions about American societal heterogeneity by comparison to Europe are substantial. You are a young guy who's probably never traveled and only read minimally, online, about the subject. You haven't studied it and have no personal experience of it from which to draw an informed comparison. Please stop repeating secondhand falsehoods.
Mannahnin wrote: It's still going to be a lot easier for me to adapt culturally to life in Florida, Ohio, or Utah than it is for a Greek to live in Sweden, or vice versa. Realistically speaking, if we're talking about ethnic/cultural sub-groups within European countries, they're much more likely to have significant differences from the larger population than they do in the US. Because a person of Irish or German or Kenyan ethnic identity living in France or Greece or Italy is much more likely to have actually come from another country and grown up with a different language and system of laws and government. In the US, being Japanese or Irish or French or Swedish or Mexican in background usually means your grandparents or further back immigrated. You're more likely to have grown up in the American culture.
Europe as a whole is more heterogeneous than the US. The US is more heterogenous than individual European nations.
No large nation has universal health care coverage. Claiming that policies that work in a nation with 50 million people would work in a nation six times that size and spread across a land mass the size of a continent is asinine.
No, what's asinine is repeating that excuse as if it meant anything. Healthcare doesn't give a damn how big the US is. You need to find an actual reason why size or heterogeneity (about which you are mistaken) would be an obstacle to implementing a Canada-style healthcare system. Since you don't have one, your argument isn't even an argument. It's just an unsupported false assertion.
Amaya wrote:The US right now is spending more on health care in all regards than any other nation. There isn't enough revenue to justify spending more.
You have that backwards, friend. Every other civilized Western nation spends less per capita, and almost all of them have a better overall standard of care. Our system is fundamentally broken, and is one of the biggest drags on our economy.
Whembly wrote:Do I like the ACA, otherwise known as Obmamcare? Feth no! That was done to be a "one-size-fits-all"... that THATS the travestry.
Can you explain any parts of Obamacare that you personally disagree with or oppose, or how they don't make things better?
Mannahnin wrote: If a Welshman moves to France, he has to learn a whole lot more to adapt and get a job than I would if I were to move to Chicago, or even Texas.
I have to disagree there mate.
I mean, I know the Welsh live in caves and don't have running water.., but your doing them a disservice there.
From the first instance when I landed in the US, and started having a craic with all my American cousins, I have never felt it to have been significantly different to require any "adaptation" and I have lived and worked all over,...
Matty, please read up above where you quoted me. I said FRANCE. A Welshman moving to France would have more trouble adapting (unless maybe he spoke fluent French and had spent a lot of time there already) would have more adapting to do than I would in Chicago or Texas.
Your first question indicates that you have not read anything about the debate, and literally know nothing about the ACA. it's disrepectful and insulting of you to expect us to tell you basic things, like what the Supreme Court ruled just recently about the ACA, and why it is Constitutional.
I mean, I don't expect you to read the actual ruling, but maybe one article summarizing it? Even just one?
Amaya wrote: 1. Why is forcing people to have health insurance legal?
2. Where is the money supposed to come from to support government funded healthcare?
1. According to the supreme court, it falls under the federal gov right to tax. (otherwise toss it in with the elastic clause
2.current tax rates are enough to cover it
Amaya wrote: Yes, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of it. That doesn't mean everyone thinks that it is right or justifiable. Public support for ACA has never been over 50%. This is a case of legislation being passed that the majority of America does not want.
Which has absolutely nothing at all to do with the question of "why is it legal".
Amaya wrote: Yes, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of it. That doesn't mean everyone thinks that it is right or justifiable. Public support for ACA has never been over 50%. This is a case of legislation being passed that the majority of America does not want.
Which has absolutely nothing at all to do with the question of "why is it legal".
It is legal only because it was shoved down our throats. I do not consider that to be legal. I consider that to be an abuse of power.
It is legal because it was passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives, then it was signed by the President of the United States. It was then challenged in court and declared constitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States.
Here is a video to help explain it:
Or we can go with the Republican version: I don't like the law, therefore it is illegal.
Amaya wrote: Yes, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of it. That doesn't mean everyone thinks that it is right or justifiable. Public support for ACA has never been over 50%. This is a case of legislation being passed that the majority of America does not want.
the majority didn't support integration in the time of brown v. board of education either. The court does not and should not base decisions on current public emotions to do so would violate their purpose
1. Why is forcing people to have health insurance legal?
2. Where is the money supposed to come from to support government funded healthcare?
One doesn't apply to me because I'm covered. VA for known injuries and Blue Cross and Shield covers the rest. I'm always been insured.
Two. I'm not sure where I got the funds be coming from SS. Something tickling the back of my mind on that.
The big question on many people’s minds is where will the money come from to fund the deficit reduction and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the PPACA will cost $940 billion over the next 10 years. Even with the high cost of the PPACA, the CBO approximates that there will be a $143 billion reduction in the federal deficit over the next 10 years (2010-2019) and a $1.2 trillion reduction in the federal deficit in the 10 years following (2020-2029).
The PPACA and deficit reduction will be funded through new taxes, fees, and penalties on individuals, businesses, and the health care industry. This alert will touch upon the biggest changes individuals, businesses, and the health care industry will experience in the next few years.
Impact on Individuals
Individual tax payers will contribute to the PPACA funding through an additional Medicare tax imposed on wages and investment income, penalties for failure to maintain health care coverage, a higher threshold for itemized medical expense deductions, a tax on indoor tanning, and an additional tax on distributions from health and medical savings accounts.
The first tax on individuals will take effect in July of this year on indoor tanning services. For services provided on or after July 1, 2010, there will be a 10 percent excise tax imposed on each individual for whom “indoor tanning services” are performed.
Beginning in 2011, over-the-counter (OTC) medicines will only be reimbursed under a health care flexible spending account (FSA), health reimbursement arrangement (HRA), health savings account (HSA), or medical savings account (MSA) if they are prescribed by a physician. This means that OTC medications purchased without a prescription cannot be reimbursed from these accounts. Additionally, distributions from HSAs and MSAs not used for qualified medical expenses will be subject to a penalty tax of 20 percent of the distribution, an increase from the original 10 percent. Beginning in 2013, contributions to HSAs and FSAs will be limited to an annual amount of $2,500.
Higher-income individuals will have to pay an additional Medicare tax on their wages and on net investment income starting in 2013. The Medicare payroll tax will increase by 0.9 percent from 1.45 percent to 2.35 percent, on wages over $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples filing jointly. There will also be an additional 0.9 percent Medicare tax on net investment income, increasing the tax from 2.9 percent to 3.8 percent, for net investment income in excess of $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples filing jointly. Net investment income includes interest, dividends, rents, royalties, gain from disposing of property, and income earned from a trade or business as a passive activity. Both self-employed individuals and estates and trusts will be liable for the tax. However, distributions from qualified retirement plans will be exempt from paying the additional tax.
Also in 2013, the threshold for itemized medical expense deductions will increase from 7.5 percent to 10 percent of adjusted gross income. However, individuals who are 65 and older will still be able to claim the itemized medical expense tax deduction at 7.5 percent through 2016.
Finally, beginning in 2014, individuals will be required to obtain minimum essential health care coverage for themselves and their dependents. Individuals who do not obtain coverage for themselves or their dependents will be required to pay a penalty for each month they fail to have coverage (“pay or play”). The penalty is the lesser of (1) the sum of the monthly penalties for the tax year or (2) the amount of the national average premium for qualified health plans. The monthly penalties will be the greater of the flat dollar amount (which cannot exceed 300 percent of the applicable dollar amount) or a percentage of income. The penalties by year will be allocated as follows:
• 2014: $95 or 1 percent of income;
• 2015: $325 or 2 percent of income;
• 2016 and beyond: $695 or 2.5 percent of income.
The penalty for dependents under the age of 18 will be one-half of the adult penalty. The penalty will not be imposed on certain individuals such as those who are members of certain religious organizations that share medical expenses, individuals who are incarcerated, or individuals who are not citizens or legal residents. Additionally, there will be exemptions for individuals who cannot afford coverage, Native Americans, and individuals who have suffered hardships. The penalty will be included in a taxpayer’s income tax return for the tax year in which the penalty occurred.
Impact on the Health Care Industry
The health care industry will be a large source of the PPACA’s funding through fees on health insurance providers and pharmaceutical manufacturers and importers, excise taxes on medical devices and high cost employer sponsored health coverage, and a limitation on remuneration paid by health insurance providers.
Beginning this year, the deduction for employee remuneration paid by health insurance providers will be limited. The amount health insurance providers will be able deduct in applicable employee remuneration will decrease from $1 million to $500,000. The limit will apply to all officers, employees, directors, and other workers or services providers performing services for or on behalf of a health insurance provider.
A prescription drug industry user fee will be implemented in 2011 on brand name prescription drug manufacturers. The non-deductible fee will be allocated across the prescription drug industry according to market share with reductions for companies with annual sales of less than $4 million. The industry fees by year will be allocated as follows:
• 2011: $2.5 billion;
• 2012-2013: $2.8 billion;
• 2014-2016: $3 billion;
• 2017: $4 billion;
• 2018: $4.1 billion;
• 2019 and beyond: $2.8 billion.
Beginning in 2013, the medical device industry will face a new tax. Any manufacturer, producer, or importer of medical devices will be required to pay a 2.3 percent excise tax on the sales price of a medical device.
Beginning in 2014, health insurance providers will be required to pay an annual non-deductible fee according to market share based on premiums collected. The fee will not apply to companies whose net premiums are $25 million or less. For those companies whose net premiums are between $25 million and $50 million, 50 percent of their premiums will be taken into account in determining their fee. For companies with net premiums of $50 million or more, 100 percent of their premiums will be taken into account in determining their portion of the fee. The health insurance fees by year will be allocated as follows:
• 2014: $8 billion;
• 2015-2016: $11.3 billion;
• 2017: $13.9 billion;
• 2018: $14.3 billion;
• 2019: $14.3 billion plus the rate of premium growth.
Finally, beginning in 2018, healthcare providers will be charged a tax on high cost employer sponsored health coverage, also know as “Cadillac” health care plans. A 40 percent excise tax will be imposed on health care plans that cost more then $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for families. The threshold for the tax will be adjusted for age, gender, and high risk professions. The tax will be paid by insurance companies, which may choose to pass along the tax to their customers in the form of higher premiums.
While there are several significant new fees and taxes on the health care industry, the industry will benefit from the influx of 32 million people who will now be insured as a result of the PPACA
I know the one Romney did was aimed at the 8% in his state. Not sure how many waivers are going to be giving out on ACA. Thats the choke point on this is the waivers.
The government's role is to serve the people not to further their own political agendas.
The reason we have a representative democracy is because government is a full-time job, which most people are not qualified to have any significant say over.
And then of course there's the question regarding which people the government is supposed to serve.
Along with another 160 million Americans apparently.
That's by design. You're not supposed to have much of a say because instead of studying a policy issue you base your opinions on emotional reactions and second-hand information derived from news sources.
It is legal only because it was shoved down our throats. I do not consider that to be legal. I consider that to be an abuse of power.
Shocking though it may be, you don't get much of a say in what is, and isn't, legal.
Along with another 160 million Americans apparently.
Well, I have explained to you how all three branches of the government made the law and declared it legal. I even posted a video that is used to explain to grade school children how the law is made and why it is legal.
Now, maybe there is a copy of the Constitution that states that Congress shall make no law that Amaya or a majority of people don't agree with. But I haven't seen that.
So you can repeat it all you want, but "we don't like it" has never been a deciding factor of deciding if a law is illegal.
Amaya wrote: The correct answer would be the majority. The actual answer is apparently themselves first, their voting base second, everyone else can suck on it.
No, the gov exists to serve the people, not the will of the people. The founders recognized that the public was subject to fleeting passions and demagoguery and so to entrust national or state decisions in the people would lead to a tyranny of a majority. Our federal system along with the checks and balances in the individual levels of gov work to minimize the effects of passions, factions and tyranny.
Amaya wrote: The correct answer would be the majority.
False.
John Adams defined a republic as "a government of laws, and not of men." Constitutional republics attempt to weaken the threat of majoritarianism and protect dissenting individuals and minority groups from the "tyranny of the majority" by placing checks on the power of the majority of the population.The power of the majority of the people is limited to electing representatives who legislate within the limits of an overarching constitutional law that a simple majority cannot modify.
The actual answer is apparently themselves first
The ACA surely lined their pockets, and nobody got voted out of office because of it. Surely they served themselves greatly by passing it.
their voting base second,
Isn't that the very definition of a representative democracy? We vote for people to represent us?
everyone else can suck on it.
That is the concept of political parties to begin with.
Amaya wrote: The correct answer would be the majority. The actual answer is apparently themselves first, their voting base second, everyone else can suck on it.
That's actually wrong on a number of levels.
First, Senators and Representatives are responsible only to their constituents. If they're serving the interests of other without the ultimate goal of deriving some advantage for their voting base, then they're not doing their jobs. Theoretically the President is responsible to the entire nation, but since discerning the interests of 300 million people, the majority of whom are ignorant of what they're talking about, its a bit more complicated than simply going with whatever 51% of the country wants.
Second, you can't expect anyone to avoid serving their own interests. The only reason democracy works at all is because politicians and people have a natural incentive to please their constituents in order to be reelected.
Third, why should 51% of the electorate get to dictate national policy? If 51% of the people in the US want to amend the Constitution so that all people in the remaining 49% forfeit their property rights, should that be permitted?
This is the most beautifully elitist thing I have seen posted on Dakkadakka.
Don't blame me, blame the Founders for designing the US government this way. You can also look into their writings, plenty of them have to do with the negative effects of populism.
But regardless, if someone told you that you shouldn't have any say over how to rebuild an engine because you were ignorant of how to rebuild an engine, would you consider that elitist? Because its basically the same thing.
Amaya wrote: The correct answer would be the majority.
False.
John Adams defined a republic as "a government of laws, and not of men." Constitutional republics attempt to weaken the threat of majoritarianism and protect dissenting individuals and minority groups from the "tyranny of the majority" by placing checks on the power of the majority of the population.The power of the majority of the people is limited to electing representatives who legislate within the limits of an overarching constitutional law that a simple majority cannot modify.
The actual answer is apparently themselves first
The ACA surely lined their pockets, and nobody got voted out of office because of it. Surely they served themselves greatly by passing it.
their voting base second,
Isn't that the very definition of a representative democracy? We vote for people to represent us?
everyone else can suck on it.
That is the concept of political parties to begin with.
Most of that was good, but a democratic support for ACA never went over 56% and independent support was also in the low 50s. IIRC the actual votes in Congress did not reflect that.
And if you read about the concept behind a republic, then you would realize that the percentage of people supporting it doesn't really matter. It was passed, signed, and stamped approved by the Supreme Court. The system worked, long life the system.
Mannahnin wrote: If a Welshman moves to France, he has to learn a whole lot more to adapt and get a job than I would if I were to move to Chicago, or even Texas.
I have to disagree there mate.
I mean, I know the Welsh live in caves and don't have running water.., but your doing them a disservice there.
From the first instance when I landed in the US, and started having a craic with all my American cousins, I have never felt it to have been significantly different to require any "adaptation" and I have lived and worked all over, I always felt welcome and at home, and comfortable. I suppose Virginia was the most backwater in comparison with LA and NY and whatnot, but I really think that it is far to similar to the UK to require a real effort to adapt... there is no huge noticeable difference in our cultures, languages and lifestyles.
In a nutshell, the number one issue is being away from family and friends, I dare say if my Californian missus moved to Virginia she would find it about as difficult as I would. She fit into living in Yorkshire with no issues whatever as well.
Have you ever been to the UK incidentally? You seem to think its a largely different culture, and aside from less traffic, gakker weather and smaller portions on your "not the same size as a fething dumptruck wheel" plates, it really isn't.
Wait, Virginia's backwater? Which part did you visit? Western? If so, sure, that's a little backwaterish. Northern Virginia, Richmond, Hampton Roads...not exactly Deliverance country.
2/3 majority vote needed to amend the Constitution. Such a bill would never pass.
Sure it would. You're arguing that the government should do whatever the majority of people in the nation wants. This means that every member of Congress should be responsive to the demands of that 51% majority, and that the President should follow suit.
But, if you want, let's say its 66%. The number really doesn't matter, as its just a case of majority, which is anything 51% and above.
This is the most beautifully elitist thing I have seen posted on Dakkadakka.
Don't blame me, blame the Founders for designing the US government this way. You can also look into their writings, plenty of them have to do with the negative effects of populism.
It's also quite hard to have a direct or participative democracy with 340+ million people. Hell, I've been to a few general assembly lately, and even with 700+ it becomes a clusterfeth.
You can informally amend the constitution with out the 2/3 vote, the supreme court and congress both have the ability to change the interpretation of the constitution. As they should, many of the founders would be surprised that we still use the original constitution, there was a sizable portion that felt that a new constitution should be drafted every 50 years if not every generation.
Amaya wrote: Sucks for them, why do I have to buy health insurance though?
I really don't care if the government does or does not provide/fund health care, but making people buy health insurance who do not want it is bull.
You have to buy it because it is the law, remember the video?
So was having a law that made hospitals save your life,even if you didn't have health insurance or money to pay them, even though they didn't want to bull as well?
Amaya wrote: Sucks for them, why do I have to buy health insurance though?
I really don't care if the government does or does not provide/fund health care, but making people buy health insurance who do not want it is bull.
You have to buy it because it is the law, remember the video?
So was having a law that made hospitals save your life,even if you didn't have health insurance or money to pay them, even though they didn't want to bull as well?
We all have to die sometime.
Let's just assume that you have health insurance now, and you go to the emergency room only to find out that this hospital isn't in your network. You think they should be legally able to kick you out the door to die if they don't want to treat you?
Its allowed but its a tax. So technically it passed under false pretense. Shuma actually made me relook at this awhile back and I decided....its not my issue because I'm already covered.
Amaya wrote: Well, I would appreciate it if they made it quicker.
And that is why we don't let a majority of people make laws.
I'm pretty sure my specific opinions toward death and life are in a very extreme minority.
According to the people that keep on making noise, the opinion that "if you can't afford it, then you should not get healthcare" is fairly popular though.
If you have a 2/3rd majority, legally it should pass.
Of Congress, but not necessarily the population. That's why the question is interesting. If the majority of people want to do something that is ridiculous or terrible, should Congress abide their wishes?
It's also quite hard to have a direct or participative democracy with 340+ million people. Hell, I've been to a few general assembly lately, and even with 700+ it becomes a clusterfeth.
True enough. Another good comparison is the instability of the US House relative to the US Senate.
Of Congress, but not necessarily the population. That's why the question is interesting. If the majority of people want to do something that is ridiculous or terrible, should Congress abide their wishes?
No. The government has the responsability to protect the people from all threats, including from themselves. If the claim is legitimate, the people will use means of peaceful civil disobedience. If it's illegitimate and stems from fascists asswipes, then they will resort to violence and be put down.
It's why I wish we still had a provincial senate. The student strike would have been resolved before it caused 5 months of public demonstrations and institutionnal paralysis.
azazel the cat wrote: What can I say? not a lotta love for Quebec over here on the coast.
NB? Oh feth if I care then. The Anglo Society ruined our opinion of that place. I spent years in Alberta preaching about Quebec sovereignty without meeting the type of hatred (or even the slightest degree of animosity) that those morons display.
Also, we're going toward a new referendum, apparently.
I don't know about that, there's a lot of hotties in BC I find.
Surrey girls are easy, but not as hot.
Women in BC are really hot, but they dress like white trash that's just given up. I don't know how anyone could ever bring themselves to go out in public wearing sweat pants and Uggs, yet that's like a uniform out here.
Surrey is an irritating place.
Amaya wrote:Sucks for them, why do I have to buy health insurance though?
I really don't care if the government does or does not provide/fund health care, but making people buy health insurance who do not want it is bull.
You're right. That is a stupid system. That's why I keep saying y'all would be better off if your government would just pay for your health care. Kinda like a single-payer system. Now, if only there was another country nearby with a system like that...
A great example for this is a fire-tax vs. a subscription fire service.
Everybody could be forced to buy fire insurance (the tax) or they could choose to purchase fire insurance (the subscription model).
There have been plenty of cases where a owner didn't buy a subscription only to find their house on fire. The fire department shows up to make sure the neighbors house doesn't catch on fire, because neighbor paid his subscription.
But owner cries to the fire department to take his money now, because it is unfair that his house burns down, he meant to buy the subscription but didn't read the 3 notices. The news and community crucify the department because they are heartless bastards and should have put the house out anyway.
The Fire Department then tries to pass a fire tax instead of being a subscription department. But taxes are evil, and homeowners shouldn't be forced to buy fire insurance if they didn't want to which is basically what the fire tax is going to be. Next year another house burns down that didn't buy a subscription and the fire department doesn't put it out. The cycle repeats every few years.
The moral of the story is this:
People don't want to pay money for something they don't need right now, but they want it when they need it even though they shouldn't have been forced to pay for it to begin with. Forcing people to pay for what they are going to need at some point makes you a socialist.
I'd vote for that. But they would tell me a story on how I'm made of bronze and he's made of gold, and that's why I don't get a vote.
Right, I give up, I know the made of bronze/made of gold is a reference to something I've seen somewhere, but I cannot for the life of me work out what that is, can you please tell me?
d-usa wrote:A great example for this is a fire-tax vs. a subscription fire service.
Everybody could be forced to buy fire insurance (the tax) or they could choose to purchase fire insurance (the subscription model).
There have been plenty of cases where a owner didn't buy a subscription only to find their house on fire. The fire department shows up to make sure the neighbors house doesn't catch on fire, because neighbor paid his subscription.
But owner cries to the fire department to take his money now, because it is unfair that his house burns down, he meant to buy the subscription but didn't read the 3 notices. The news and community crucify the department because they are heartless bastards and should have put the house out anyway.
The Fire Department then tries to pass a fire tax instead of being a subscription department. But taxes are evil, and homeowners shouldn't be forced to buy fire insurance if they didn't want to which is basically what the fire tax is going to be. Next year another house burns down that didn't buy a subscription and the fire department doesn't put it out. The cycle repeats every few years.
The moral of the story is this:
People don't want to pay money for something they don't need right now, but they want it when they need it even though they shouldn't have been forced to pay for it to begin with. Forcing people to pay for what they are going to need at some point makes you a socialist.
I don't see anything wrong with being a socialist. I'm not a fan of communists, but socialism is pretty great.
Amaya wrote:Sucks for them, why do I have to buy health insurance though?
I really don't care if the government does or does not provide/fund health care, but making people buy health insurance who do not want it is bull.
You're right. That is a stupid system. That's why I keep saying y'all would be better off if your government would just pay for your health care. Kinda like a single-payer system. Now, if only there was another country nearby with a system like that...
Canada does have a better system (other than the queues). Hell, aside from the cold Canada is probably a better country all around. Having a relatively small homogeneous population is, IMO, a good thing. I wish America really was a melting pot...
Again: there are no significant queues. You still haven't cited a reputable source for your claim, despite my request. And Canada's population is absolutely no more homogeneous than the USA's; and the size doesn't affect health care systems because the systems are based on rates.
d-usa wrote:A great example for this is a fire-tax vs. a subscription fire service.
Everybody could be forced to buy fire insurance (the tax) or they could choose to purchase fire insurance (the subscription model).
There have been plenty of cases where a owner didn't buy a subscription only to find their house on fire. The fire department shows up to make sure the neighbors house doesn't catch on fire, because neighbor paid his subscription.
But owner cries to the fire department to take his money now, because it is unfair that his house burns down, he meant to buy the subscription but didn't read the 3 notices. The news and community crucify the department because they are heartless bastards and should have put the house out anyway.
The Fire Department then tries to pass a fire tax instead of being a subscription department. But taxes are evil, and homeowners shouldn't be forced to buy fire insurance if they didn't want to which is basically what the fire tax is going to be. Next year another house burns down that didn't buy a subscription and the fire department doesn't put it out. The cycle repeats every few years.
The moral of the story is this:
People don't want to pay money for something they don't need right now, but they want it when they need it even though they shouldn't have been forced to pay for it to begin with. Forcing people to pay for what they are going to need at some point makes you a socialist.
I don't see anything wrong with being a socialist. I'm not a fan of communists, but socialism is pretty great.
I am just using socialism as the dirty word that many people think it is as well as the word that most people don't really know what it is supposed to mean.
I personally am a fan of a Government that is a healthy mix of socialism and capitalism.
I don't see anything wrong with being a socialist. I'm not a fan of communists, but socialism is pretty great.
I am just using socialism as the dirty word that many people think it is as well as the word that most people don't really know what it is supposed to mean.
I personally am a fan of a Government that is a healthy mix of socialism and capitalism.
Indeed. I've always been in favour of a capitalist system, heavily regulated by the federal government. Economics isn't my strongest suit, but I think that's the Keynesian system?
EDIT: Of course, with all social services being provided by the government and paid for through taxation.
I don't see anything wrong with being a socialist. I'm not a fan of communists, but socialism is pretty great.
I am just using socialism as the dirty word that many people think it is as well as the word that most people don't really know what it is supposed to mean.
I personally am a fan of a Government that is a healthy mix of socialism and capitalism.
Indeed. I've always been in favour of a capitalist system, heavily regulated by the federal government. Economics isn't my strongest suit, but I think that's the Keynesian system?
EDIT: Of course, with all social services being provided by the government and paid for through taxation.
Not sure if there is a fancy name for it. I just think that capitalism works great for most things, but stuff that our life depends on shouldn't be decided based on if we can afford it or not.
I'd vote for that. But they would tell me a story on how I'm made of bronze and he's made of gold, and that's why I don't get a vote.
Right, I give up, I know the made of bronze/made of gold is a reference to something I've seen somewhere, but I cannot for the life of me work out what that is, can you please tell me?
Plato's Republic, book I or II, not too sure. It was the myth the philosopher kings were supposed to feed their population from birth in order to get them to accept both familial communism and the caste system. ''You were born from the Earth, and not from a women, so you shall share all women and all women shall share all men and children. Those born of Gold will lead, those born of Silver will fight and those born of Bronze will toil'' or some crap like that.
Edit ; Crap I was far off : Book V. The Noble Lie, it's called.
Amaya wrote: raised from birth to know that is their duty not their right ?
I think in practice the separation between the two becomes quite hazy. If you're told from birth that something is your duty, and yours alone, than you start acting as if it's your right, IMHO.
Amaya wrote: Have you bothered to look at the polling data for it?
Yes. According to Gallup, the same percentage of people agreed with the Supreme Court's decision to uphold most of the ACA than who disagreed with it-- 46% for, 46% against, and 8% no opinion.
Amaya wrote: Yes, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of it. That doesn't mean everyone thinks that it is right or justifiable. Public support for ACA has never been over 50%. This is a case of legislation being passed that the majority of America does not want.
That's only because A) almost no one takes the time to read and understand the damn thing, and B) Nearly half of America has politically aligned itself with a party and with news sources which deliberately take advantage of that ignorance to pretend that they would do some undefined and unspecified better thing, which will never materialize.
Whenever people are polled about any individual provision of the ACA, like keeping dependent kids on their parent's plan to 26, or requiring insurance companies to spend 80% or more of premiums on care for patients, there is overwhelming support. When they get asked about the bill as a whole they say they object, because they want something "better"; like Romney just promised the American people a few minutes ago on my TV. But this is a false argument, because Romney is not offering anything better, nor is his party. Republican ideas used as the basis of the ACA, particularly Romney's own program in Massachusetts, and Republican legislators were given a year to contribute ideas to make the law better, and they chose not to do so. The truth is that they have no interest in reforming healthcare, because they personally have plenty of money and no problem accessing care, and the poor and middle class people who are hurt by our system fall into two groups: Folks who vote Democrat, and folks who have been tricked into voting against their own interest, to help millionaires get richer.
It is legal only because it was shoved down our throats. I do not consider that to be legal. I consider that to be an abuse of power.
"Shoved down our throats" is propaganda that you have been fed. It was passed by our elected representatives, and signed by the President, in full accordance with the law. One of the central founding precepts of the ACA was that it was to be a bipartisan project, They started with a REPUBLICAN-originated plan, and spent A YEAR attempting to compromise to get Republicans to support and contribute to the project. The Republican party publicly stated that making Barack Obama fail was their highest priority, and they engaged in a deliberate and calculated plan of delay, obstruction, obfuscation and deception, attempting to prevent necessary reforms from passing for their personal political gain, and for the benefit of their corporate contributors in the health insurance industry.
Part of the reason we, the American people, elected Barack Obama and a Democratic majority to the House and Senate in 2008 was to finally make some progress on reforming healthcare, which IS an emergency in our country, despite half of our politicians lying and pretending it isn't, to people too ignorant to know better.
You have this issue exactly backwards, and are either trolling us all badly, or missing a fundamental understanding of US Civics and government, the kind we're all supposed to learn in grade school.
We don't live in a Democracy. And Throne on Earth am I glad we don't. We live in a Representative based government. In general, Representative based governments scale up far better than pure democracies.
We don't live in a Democracy. And Throne on Earth am I glad we don't. We live in a Representative based government. In general, Representative based governments scale up far better than pure democracies.
Yes you do. A representative democracy is still a democracy. There are many kinds of democracy, direct, participative, representative being the big ones. 'Democracy' only means 'rule of the people', and only refer to the ability of the people to have a say in the decisions that affect them.
You are the most incredibly angry person on these forums.
She has a pretty solid reason to be angrier than -what, 85%? of the people on these forums. Rights specific to her, and not to you, are under attack by a group of people that appear to hate her for biological reasons, and thus she gets to read about people here agreeing with that group, and people siding with that group due to discounting her rights as being a serious issue.
Are you seriously that desperate to avoid talking about the subject matter that you'd rather talk about me?
Because if so, I'm gonna go over there and play guild wars 2 some more. I'm a boring person, I'd rather talk about anything other than me.
Kovnik Obama wrote: Yes you do. A representative democracy is still a democracy. There are many kinds of democracy, direct, participative, representative being the big ones. 'Democracy' only means 'rule of the people', and only refer to the ability of the people to have a say in the decisions that affect them.
Amaya wrote:There is somebody out there who hates you for no good reason at all! Probably quite a few of them at that. Getting bent out of shape about is a pointless waste of energy.
But I don't constantly hear about people trying to legislate away my personal rights.
EDIT: Nor trying to justify it by claiming it's God's will or fake science.
Amaya wrote: Why are you putting Republican in all caps?
Because you parroted an absurd propaganda line used by Republican politicians who blatantly misrepresent what happened. To believe that you have to be missing a lot of basic facts, about events which happened just a couple of years ago, and were widely covered in the news.
The fact of the matter is that the Dems and Obama ran (in part) on healthcare reform. Obama specifically championed it across the country, and beat McCain in debates while saying we needed to reform healthcare, and he wanted us all to have a public option. The Dems abandoned the public option part early, in a wholehearted and concentrated effort at bipartisan compromise and getting the Republicans on board. Or at least SOME Republicans.
Their efforts were completely rebuffed, and Republican backers instead engaged in a wholesale campaign of lying about the process and the content of the reform. Ignorant citizens were stirred into a panic with lies about "death panels" and similar nonsense. People were scared into yelling at their representatives at town hall meetings. It was disgusting. Most Republican politicians, backers, and semi-news sources (Fox), have continued to engage in this campaign of deception for their own political gain, at the expense of the American people. Who need and deserve to have the first-class healthcare system they are paying for already.
Whembly wrote:Do I like the ACA, otherwise known as Obmamcare? Feth no! That was done to be a "one-size-fits-all"... that THATS the travestry.
Can you explain any parts of Obamacare that you personally disagree with or oppose, or how they don't make things better?
I'm exhausted... but, I'll threw a few tidbits here:
#1 According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the federal government has the power to force you to buy private goods and services. Now that this door has been opened, what else will we be forced to buy in the future? GM (Government Moters)??
#2 Obamacare is another step away from individual liberty and another step toward a "nanny state" where the government dominates our lives from the cradle to the grave.
#3 it'sNOT universal healthcare... it's a half-arsed attempt. If we were honestly serious about it, we should go to a single-payor system like Canada or NHS. The ACA act sits on top of the existing system, making it even more complex (for better or worst).
#4 Not ONE Republican voted for it... the Democrats owns this now.
#5 Over $700 billion dollars diverted from Medicare to fund the ACA. So... consequently, Medicare will change (if it still exists) and those seniors would have to participate in the exchanges managed by ACA. Obama said "If you like your plan you can keep your Plan. If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor." (a politician not keeping his promise)... if nothing change... the CBO itself said they'll have to get a new Plan/Doctor and there's no tell whether it's better than Medicare.
#6 Businesses would stop providing their own healthcare coverage in favor of just paying the tax/penalty because it would be cheaper. Thus, leaving the workers no choice to enroll in the exchange. (potentially driving private insurer out of business)
#7 Forcing religious organization to cover contraceptions and abortion services. This is bad...
#8 IPAB will be tasked with and given the authority to oversee ACA and Medicare to reduce costs to the government by, among other things, limiting reimbursements to doctors. Which on surface, doesn't look bad... but here's the gooey part:
Any recommendations by the IPAB automatically become law. The only way around this unprecedented amount of power for Washington bureaucrats is an act of Congress, with a three-fifths supermajority in the Senate. In other words, the unelected IPAB, appointed by the president, essentially becomes its own shadow legislative branch.
#9 The tax is just a mess... with over 20 new taxes levied. Here's an example:
if you sell a house or other asset (like stocks) you will be taxed an ADDITIONAL 3.8% on the proceeds, over and above any capital gains taxes. So, if you bought a home when young, paid off the mortgage over 30 years and now your home is worth $100,000 more than what you paid, you will have to pay (currently) $15,000 in cap gains PLUS another $3,800 in taxes. And anyone - especially the elderly - who sells off stocks and bonds to supplement their income will lose an additional 3.8% of their net gains, over and above cap gains taxes.
#10 With all the problems with current entitlements... we added another big one in form of ACA? Something gotta give...
Amaya wrote: I don't appreciate you insinuating that I am a Republican simply because I disagree with you.
I never did. The Republican party and their backers and corporate contributors are primary political beneficiaries of their campaign, but they're not the only supporters.
Amaya wrote: Other than that I appreciate your informative posts. I still disagree with it and do not think the Supreme Court's ruling that it can be justified as a tax is correct or right.
Thanks. You can hold that opinion, but it is legally correct and lawful per the legislative process and the law of the land. Speaking as (like d-usa) a person with some years of professional experience in the health care and insurance industries, health care reform is desperately needed and the ACA is the first progress we've seen in literally decades.
whembly wrote: #1 According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the federal government has the power to force you to buy private goods and services. Now that this door has been opened, what else will we be forced to buy in the future? GM (Government Moters)??
By that same token, you could say that the protection of your police department, fire department, and military are goods and services which you are forced to pay for. Taxpayers and people who have insurance (including you and me) already pay for care for irresponsible people who choose not to get insurance. Emergency Room care must be provided to anyone in need, and hospitals write off care all the time, the cost of which goes to increased costs of services for everyone else, and to tax breaks which we subsidize. This kind of emergency care is also the most expensive care there is. If we actually give people real coverage, or require them to buy it, then they are far more likely to actually USE that coverage to get preventive care and otherwise catch problems BEFORE they become emergencies and require emergency care. This will save American taxpayers and insurance-premium payers a great deal of money.
whembly wrote: #2 Obamacare is another step away from individual liberty and another step toward a "nanny state" where the government dominates our lives from the cradle to the grave.
Ask your Canadian neighbors if their government does this. It's a make-believe boogeyman. Individual liberty should include not having to go bankrupt because you get cancer or another serious illness or injury at a young age and can't afford care/don't have insurance. It's dumb. It results in lots of people going broke. It hurts our communities and our economy, and the rest of us wind up paying for it anyway.
whembly wrote: #3 it'sNOT universal healthcare... it's a half-arsed attempt. If we were honestly serious about it, we should go to a single-payor system like Canada or NHS. The ACA act sits on top of the existing system, making it even more complex (for better or worst).
I agree that single-payer would be better. What we've got is the compromise version, because the Democrats aren't actually socialists, and not even enough of them would vote for a proper single-payer system, much less any Republicans. Again, this was specifically supposed to be a compromise plan which could get bipartisan support. The Republicans chose to instead...
A) Pretend there was nothing wrong with our current system, and claim it's the best in the world.
B) Refuse to cooperate or go along even with ideas which originated from them.
C) Prioritize making Obama fail over advancing any healthcare reform, which their consituents (us) have been needing for at least twenty years.
whembly wrote: #4 Not ONE Republican voted for it... the Democrats owns this now.
The Republicans chose not to vote for it for their own political gain, despite a year of Dems bending over backwards to create and compromise a plan they thought and hoped could be a bipartisan accomplishment and achievement for the benefit of the American people. Remember Obama wanted a public option; they tossed that out immediately in the interest of courting Republican support.
whembly wrote: #5 Over $700 billion dollars diverted from Medicare to fund the ACA. So... consequently, Medicare will change (if it still exists) and those seniors would have to participate in the exchanges managed by ACA.
This is not accurate, but it'll take a while to get you the facts on it. Let me get back to you.
whembly wrote: # Obama said "If you like your plan you can keep your Plan. If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor." (a politician not keeping his promise)...
No one has had to change their plan or their doctor.
whembly wrote: #7 Forcing religious organization to cover contraceptions and abortion services. This is bad...
Worse than forcing pacifists to pay taxes which go to wars? I don't see anything bad about it whatsoever. Religious PEOPLE have the right not to use contraceptions or have abortions if their religion forbids them. Religious organizations do not have the right to make religious and moral decisions FOR their employees, about what kind of health care the EMPLOYEES are allowed to use. The Republicans have the religious freedom argument backwards on this one. The employee has the right to decide if they use contraception. In the general interests of the American people, we are better off as a society (it keeps people healthier and saves money on healthcare and government services) if everyone has easy access to contraception.
Amaya wrote:There is somebody out there who hates you for no good reason at all! Probably quite a few of them at that. Getting bent out of shape about is a pointless waste of energy.
But I don't constantly hear about people trying to legislate away my personal rights.
EDIT: Nor trying to justify it by claiming it's God's will or fake science.
She is fully capable of tuning it out. Even then, nothing justifies anger randomly expelled in all directions.
Especially at those who are Pro Feminist. That's just silliness.
Now, I want you to imagine that you hang out somewhere everyday, and everyday you hear people talking in circles about how you shouldn't be allowed to have all the rights that you currently do, for reasons that make no sense. How long would it take until your civility and patience runs out?
whembly wrote:#5 Over $700 billion dollars diverted from Medicare to fund the ACA. So... consequently, Medicare will change (if it still exists) and those seniors would have to participate in the exchanges managed by ACA.
Okay, first...
Kevin Drum, Mother Jones wrote:Money that's paid into the Medicare system — which comes mainly from payroll taxes, premiums, and general revenue* — goes into Medicare's two trust funds. Money that's paid out to doctors and hospitals comes out of the trust funds. So there are only two ways you could "rob" money from the trust funds: you could reduce taxes going in or you could increase money being paid out. Obamacare does neither of these things. In fact, it reduces reimbursement rates to hospitals, which means that it improves the financial health of the trust funds because less money is flowing out. In particular, after Obamacare was signed into law in 2010, the Medicare trustees estimated** that it had extended the life of the HI trust fund by 12 years.
The $716 billion figure refers to a reduction in how much money CBO projects Medicare to spend over the period 2013-2022. About a third of the cuts come from reduced reimbursements to hospitals. About a third comes from reducing overpayments to insurance companies for Medicare Advantage plans, which are private competitors to standard Medicare. The remaining third comes from cuts in reimbursements to various other healthcare providers.
Amaya wrote: Words are wind. The Pro Feminist (or at least anti misogynist) force in the US is too large for any constraints against females to actually be passed.
You mean like additional restrictions on abortions, or new laws and funding restrictions which force clinics to close and limit the options available to women in many states, particularly in rural areas? Might want to do some reading.
And how on Earth did coverage for contraception become a subject of debate this year? It's insane. It's fundamental good public health policy, it saves money in healthcare and social services costs, it reduces the spread of disease... It's just nuts.
I'd vote for that. But they would tell me a story on how I'm made of bronze and he's made of gold, and that's why I don't get a vote.
Right, I give up, I know the made of bronze/made of gold is a reference to something I've seen somewhere, but I cannot for the life of me work out what that is, can you please tell me?
Plato's Republic, book I or II, not too sure. It was the myth the philosopher kings were supposed to feed their population from birth in order to get them to accept both familial communism and the caste system. ''You were born from the Earth, and not from a women, so you shall share all women and all women shall share all men and children. Those born of Gold will lead, those born of Silver will fight and those born of Bronze will toil'' or some crap like that.
Edit ; Crap I was far off : Book V. The Noble Lie, it's called.
Thanks, humorously I'm reading The Republic at the moment, but it's been going so slowly that I must have forgotten about that story.
“It doesn’t matter what you meant. What matters is what youconveyed.”
The president’s comment implies that business owners are ignorant of all the benefits they get from government. And it makes Obama’s supporters look unaware of all that government gets out of businesses and how political decisions affect entrepreneurs. Ask a business owner if they feel like they get more out of the government than they give. Sure, it helps that the city paves the road that was there for 20 years before they opened their business, and maybe they are grateful for that new traffic light. They understand that the local police protect their livelihoods. On the other hand, do politicians not appreciate that business owners match every dollar their employees contribute to Social Security and Medicare? Do politicians not understand when they are patting themselves on the back for raising minimum wage that somewhere, some shop owner is reaching for the ulcer medication while he weighs whether to raise prices, cut back employee hours, or rethink his hours of operation?
So republicans hate women, they think most rapes are not real and the women asked for it, and if she got pregnant she probably enjoyed the rape.
Might not be what they said, but it is what they "conveyed".
Just like they conveyed during their entire convention that government had zero role in the success of anybody and if you are poor you are just dumb and lazy.
d-usa wrote: So republicans hate women, they think most rapes are not real and the women asked for it, and if she got pregnant she probably enjoyed the rape.
Might not be what they said, but it is what they "conveyed".
Just like they conveyed during their entire convention that government had zero role in the success of anybody and if you are poor you are just dumb and lazy.
d-usa wrote: So republicans hate women, they think most rapes are not real and the women asked for it, and if she got pregnant she probably enjoyed the rape.
Might not be what they said, but it is what they "conveyed".
Just like they conveyed during their entire convention that government had zero role in the success of anybody and if you are poor you are just dumb and lazy.
Right... ya see?
Except it really has nothing to do with what Obama "conveyed".
It had everything to do with what people want to hear.
People want Obama to be a big communist anti-business bad guy, so they will interpret anything he says to reinforce what they want him to be.
d-usa wrote: So republicans hate women, they think most rapes are not real and the women asked for it, and if she got pregnant she probably enjoyed the rape.
Might not be what they said, but it is what they "conveyed".
Just like they conveyed during their entire convention that government had zero role in the success of anybody and if you are poor you are just dumb and lazy.
Right... ya see?
Except it really has nothing to do with what Obama "conveyed".
It had everything to do with what people want to hear.
People want Obama to be a big communist anti-business bad guy, so they will interpret anything he says to reinforce what they want him to be.
Right. Everyone does it. That's the sport known was "American Politics".
If I have to listen to people excuse asshatery an willful ignorance and lying one more time with an "it's okay, it's just politics" I will have to go to the shooting range to let off some steam.
d-usa wrote: If I have to listen to people excuse asshatery an willful ignorance and lying one more time with an "it's okay, it's just politics" I will have to go to the shooting range to let off some steam.
Porn is a lucrative large industry in the U.S. with too much popular use (aka 100%). Ideological gak like this is used in election season to mobilize your grassroots but leaders always moderate themselves when they deal with the realities of politics.
Constitutional Republic and Representative Democracy are not mutually exclusive. A Constitutional Republic does not have to be a democracy of any sort.
I find it hard to believe that anyone who is both extremely intelligent (particularly in the hard sciences) and extremely hard working would remain poor, but such a person would isn't exactly average.
I find it hard to believe that anyone who is both extremely intelligent (particularly in the hard sciences) and extremely hard working would remain poor, but such a person would isn't exactly average.
#7 Forcing religious organization to cover contraceptions and abortion services. This is bad...
Freedom of religion is not equivalent with the freedom to impose religion. Your right to decide for you what is appropriate does not extend to the right to decide for others what is appropriate.
If we won't accept religious tests as a condition for employment, why would we allow religious doctrines to influence terms of employment?
#7 Forcing religious organization to cover contraceptions and abortion services. This is bad...
Freedom of religion is not equivalent with the freedom to impose religion. Your right to decide for you what is appropriate does not extend to the right to decide for others what is appropriate.
If we won't accept religious tests as a condition for employment, why would we allow religious doctrines to influence terms of employment?
Say what?
Are you saying that a Catholic institution should be forced to cover it?
I find it hard to believe that anyone who is both extremely intelligent (particularly in the hard sciences) and extremely hard working would remain poor, but such a person would isn't exactly average.
I find it hard to believe Blossom has a PhD in Neuroscience, stranger things.
“It doesn’t matter what you meant. What matters is what youconveyed.”
The president’s comment implies that business owners are ignorant of all the benefits they get from government. And it makes Obama’s supporters look unaware of all that government gets out of businesses and how political decisions affect entrepreneurs. Ask a business owner if they feel like they get more out of the government than they give. Sure, it helps that the city paves the road that was there for 20 years before they opened their business, and maybe they are grateful for that new traffic light. They understand that the local police protect their livelihoods. On the other hand, do politicians not appreciate that business owners match every dollar their employees contribute to Social Security and Medicare? Do politicians not understand when they are patting themselves on the back for raising minimum wage that somewhere, some shop owner is reaching for the ulcer medication while he weighs whether to raise prices, cut back employee hours, or rethink his hours of operation?
If you run a business and you profit margins are so thin that paying your employees another $0.25 an hour will put a strain on your business, then your business is failing.
"I need people to work for me for free" = you have failed as a business owner, were destined to do so from the start, and I am unsympathetic.
I find it hard to believe that anyone who is both extremely intelligent (particularly in the hard sciences) and extremely hard working would remain poor, but such a person would isn't exactly average.
I find it hard to believe Blossom has a PhD in Neuroscience, stranger things.
Winnie Cooper from the Wonder Years has a PhD in Mathematics.
.
Back in the day the mentaly impaired were considered "touch" by God.......
Whatever happens in Texas....stays in Texas Frazz......
