WashingtonTimes: Voight: Is Obama creating a civil war in America?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

In regards to libertarianism: (I know I'm a couple pages late)

I think the biggest problem I have - and maybe others have - is that its basically a categorical imperative view of the country. The DOMA is a good example. Some suggestd that Ron Paul is actually for equal rights to marriage in that he believes that the federal government should have no role in defining marriage. I do somewhat agree with that. The problem is that we end up with a patently unfair system.

Now, libertarians embrace the idea of maintaining your principle of government out. That's the categorical imperative they live by, or theorize by. A lot of people have a problem with that because it leads to, not only what some would call unfair results, but it would lead to unfair results based on what some libertarians hold high. In other words, by example, Paul's vote (which I only learned about in this thread) is in contrast to his own higher aspirations of what is fair.

As a philosophy major, I have to say that the categorical imperative philosophy of Kant, which the true libertarian view reminds me of, was wholly lacking to me, personally. I do respect those of you that stick to it, but I think the results are uninspiring, both in theory and in practice.

[Burgold]

Is It?...Or are they simply hooked on the benefits like a crack whore?

Both may be true. Certainly doesn't disspell the notion that the crackwhore doesn't want their government fix. Whether it's good for them or not is a whole 'nother issue.

[sacase]

The thing that worries me is some right wing nut doing something stupid and starting up terrorism fears all over again. Our rights will be further eroded at that point.

If it comes down to it, we do have an army that's been fighting armed insurgent guerrillas from places a lot more rough than anything in the US

of course, it won't come to that for a few hundred years

You do of course realize that the Military is predominately conservative.

[Burgold]

You do of course realize that the Military is predominately conservative.

Depends. Sometimes they dig raining liberal distruction on their enemy. On the other hand, they prefer taking conservative losses.

[81artmonk]

What "facts"? You don't bring any facts to the table. Here are two simple facts:

1. A majority of Americans want health care reform, and many of those who support health reform want a public option.

2. The Democrats won the Presidential election with a candidate who ran a campaign with health reform as part of his platform.

If that is the case than explain why polls show people not in favor of this bill which is all about the public option?

That is true, however this isn't reform but a take over.

Yes, you are ignoring it while presenting no facts as a counter-point, except for some talking point which has little basis in reality.

And what exactly have you rolled out as facts :doh:

Want facts. This will cost the USA more money and not save us any. facts from the CBO themselves.

You will not be able to keep your own healthcare plan. fact, it's in the bill. When the money runs out, you will be denied coverage based on how much the govt wants to pay for you.

Well, gee whiz, you sure didn't have an issue when Republicans were passing "whatever" law. And if anyone has provide an ignorant answer, it is you.

Americans want health care reform.

I couldn't agree more and this isn't it.

I love how "democracy" becomes irrelevant once "democracy" is actually demonstrated. Over and over again, I hear people claiming that H.R. 3200 "is the greatest threat to our democracy, every!" Of course, the problem being is that Obama and Congressional Democrats were elected by democratic means. Apparently, democracy means little to folks such as yourself when it is exercised and you don't like the result of it.

"This is the greatest threat ever to the democracy! To MY democracy"

People wanted real change not this. to prove it, here are some facts.

49% of amercans disapprove of Obamas handling of the healthcare policy.

36% would advise thier congressman to vote AGAINST a healthcare bill as opposed to 35% who would say to go ahead.

52% want cost control over coverage for all.

A lot of Americans want this bill, in either its current form or some modification of it. And I know plenty of people oppose the bill, but usually for bogus reasons.

The problem is that your side of the aisle has resorted to lies, chicanry, misinformation, and any other cheap tactic just to oppose reform. No wonder some of the other Americans oppose it when they think Grandma will be "euthanized."

a majority of the facts are little known since little to none of the reps have read it and really know what's in it. However alot of the people who have, are speaking out and being called liars, when it's really Obama and congress who are lying to us.

If they aren't lying to us, than why hasn't Obama come out and told us specifics about the bill. He spends hours talking at townhalls yet says nothing that will clear up misconceptions about the bill.

And when he does try to clear up things, they are in opposition to what the bill says.

"Mythical unicorns"? A "F" grade response.

This is another rubbishy response. Here is what I said: "Rubbish. Right-wingers do not represent the millions of Americans who want this to go through. You're taking the position of the anti-reforms, who want to retain the status quo, to represent the rest of us."

And what is your response? To IGNORE THE PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT THE BILL by mentioning some poll. And I will repeat what I said, since you have comprehension issues: Right-wingers do not represent the millions of Americans who want this to go through.

This bill ISN'T a "socialistic" bill, and you really need to educate yourself on this topic, because, right now, you sound like a right-wing talking point machine.

Not socialistic. How is taking money in taxes from the rich.....that's laughable (250,000 a year) yeah right. And using that to pay for people who can't afford healthcare not socialistic. He is using what he calls the rich to pay for the poor to get what he wants passed. If that isn't even social-esque I don't know what is

LMAO, and you sound like left-wing talking point machine. Get over yourself.

Oh but I forgot, you can speak without any facts and believe you're right while whatever I say is wrong while you say I don't have any facts yet you provide none yourself.....laughable.

What's funny here is that I merely voiced my opinion. It was you who got fired up and opposed me by your usual tactics. Calling me out. If you don't like my opinion, than don't repsond. It's really easy.

I am not here to convince anyone I am right or that my opinion is right. I don't care. However it appears that you and others get really pissed if someone doens't fall in line with your opinion and you resort to the usual left-wing talking points. If you can't take the heat stay out the kitchen :koolaid:

[Larry]

You will not be able to keep your own healthcare plan. fact, it's in the bill.

Prove it.

Here, I'll help you out. Here's a link to the bill that somebody else who was re-posting bogus claims generously provided.

[81artmonk]

Prove it.

I don't need to prove it, go read it for yourself.

[Larry]

I don't need to prove it, go read it for yourself.

You do if you want to post facts, instead of spewing BS.

You made the claim. Back it up.

[twa]

Prove it.

Here, I'll help you out. Here's a link to the bill that somebody else who was re-posting bogus claims generously provided.

What constitutes proof for you?

A lawyers opinion?..a Dr?...A Senator?

Or you want language in the bill that says exactly 'You will not be able to keep your own healthcare plan'?

I can give ya 3 out of 4 that state you cannot unless it meets the exchange guidelines (after 5 yrs).

[Larry]

What constitutes proof for you?

A lawyers opinion?..a Dr?...A Senator?

Or you want language in the bill that says exactly 'You will not be able to keep your own healthcare plan'?

I can give ya 3 out of 4 that state you cannot unless it meets the exchange guidelines (after 5 yrs).

The actual language of the bill.

I've seen big steaming piles of "opinion" from people who are outright lying. (And who claim that "it's all in there, it's a fact".)

The claim was that this is a fact. Not "well, there's one person, somewhere, who says that sometime down the road, there's a chance that it might result in . . . "

Now, if somebody wants to try to educate me, and show me that "this clause, right here, references this other language over here, and the combination of these two things will result in having the effect of . . ", I'll try to follow along.

I'm not going to try to claim that nothing other than the exact word for word statement he made will do. I'm perfectly aware that Congressmen are slippery suckers, and have decades of experience in hiding what they're actually trying to do.

If they can explain to me how to get from the actual language of the bill, to this evil claim they're making, then that's proof.

An unsupported opinion is not.

[twa]

If you are really interested I'll give it a shot tonight.

But the basic problem is we do not know what standards the Exchange panel will set....Ergo we do not know which plans will be OK'd until well after the bill is passed.(though high ded plans seem clearly gone,as well as those that do not cover wellness care)

A rather common theme in House bill 3200...too much is to be determined later.

[Larry]

BTW, if you want to claim that you've got a feeling that any government health insurance program, once implemented, will become the de facto health care option for virtually the entire country, within 25 years, simply by default, then I'll agree with you.

Far as I know, there's no clause in Medicare that outlaws private insurance for people over 65. But the government has pretty much taken over that market, without ever explicitly prohibiting competition.

My gut feeling is that eventually, a government option is going to take over 90% of the market. Just like it will eventually become a Constitutional Right. That's why they call them "entitlements".

But to claim that it's a fact, that it's in the bill, is just an outright lie.

[Larry]

If you are really interested I'll give it a shot tonight.

But the basic problem is we do not know what standards the Exchange panel will set....Ergo we do not know which plans will be OK'd until well after the bill is passed.(though high ded plans seem clearly gone,as well as those that do not cover wellness care)

A rather common theme in House bill 3200...too much is to be determined later.

But the Exchange is completely irrelevant to the claim.

The claim is:

You will not be able to keep your own healthcare plan. fact, it's in the bill.

The exchange is a mechanism whereby people will be able to buy new coverage. I've read the actual language in the actual bill which specifies that all existing plans will be permitted to continue.

(Somebody posted that language, as part of an attempt to claim that it said the exact opposite of what it actually said.)

Frankly, it's kind of ironic. All of the knowledge I have concerning the actual bill, I gained as a result of some GOP talking point saying "Look at this language, right here. It says [so and so]", and providing me a link to the section of the bill which says they're lying.

[twa]

Yes all existing plans will continue...until you change jobs (employer provided)or the policy lapses or is canceled.

At which time you will only have a exchange approved one to choose from.

Those with unapproved plans will be automatically enrolled in the base public plan...with fines???:whoknows:

Curious how many businesses will drop coverages in favor of the public plan?

Wide differences of opinion there in projections.

Curious how they will handle high ded plans w/HSA's...automatic enrolled?:whoknows:

How are they gonna fund it?:whoknows:

[Larry]

Yes all existing plans will continue...until you change jobs (employer provided)or the policy lapses or is canceled.

And this bill changes that how?

[mock outrage]This bill will eliminate your right to keep your existing employer-paid health care after you change jobs or the policy gets canceled!!![/mock outrage]

[Kilmer17]

Why would any small business continue to provide health insurance?

[Destino]

Why would any small business continue to provide health insurance?

why would this discussion cause a civil war?

[techboy]

If it comes down to it, we do have an army that's been fighting armed insurgent guerrillas from places a lot more rough than anything in the US

Not that this has anything to do with anything, anymore, but the civil war he was discussing was between gun control advocates and gun rights supporters, not necessarily with the U.S. military. That's it stopped him in his tracks when I asked him who he thought would win.

Heck, he was upset with the government's lack of action on gun control to an extent that satisfied him (see laws based on Britain or Japan), so if anything, the military might well be acting against those deadly gun control advocates.

[twa]

And this bill changes that how?

[mock outrage]This bill will eliminate your right to keep your existing employer-paid health care after you change jobs or the policy gets canceled!!![/mock outrage]

Your choice at that time will be only exchange approved plans.

Which they kindly do not determine till later:chair:

Do you believe it right to force someone into coverage they do not wish?

What about the fines for those that do not voluntarily(automatic enrollment) get approved coverage?

Let a expert explain

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/html/pa642/pa642index.html

page 3 addresses how many will be forced out of present plans

(the CBO est is possibly 15 million)

A Lewin group study says even more

http://www.lewin.com/content/publications/LewinCostandCoverageImpactsofPublicPlan-Alternative%20DesignOptions.pdf

[ACW]

CATO FTW!

:yes:

[Larry]

Do you believe it right to force someone into coverage they do not wish?

1) Last I checked, I am required to carry auto insurance.

2) And last I checked, right now the uninsured or underinsured have a government-paid safety net.

But for a more general answer.

Yeah, I have a problem with mandatory insurance. (Just like I have with, say, seatbelt or motorcycle helmet laws.)

OTOH, I observe that a lot of society doesn't have a problem with such laws, because of the taxpayer safety net. (And yeah, I agree. That safety net can be used to justify a lot of abuses. Should we allow mandatory liposuction of the overweight, because the taxpayers might get stuck with a medical bill if they have a heart attack?)

[twa]

1) Last I checked, I am required to carry auto insurance.

Never knew breathing carried a liability...till now;)

Perhaps we should address the costs incurred instead of the govt subsidizing others liability ins?

heres a funny for ya;)

http://biglizards.net/blog/

Let's see if we can follow the logic here. According to AP

One of the most widely accepted arguments against a government medical plan for the middle class is that it would quash competition -- just what private insurers seem to be doing themselves in many parts of the U.S.

Several studies show that in lots of places, one or two companies dominate the market. Critics say monopolistic conditions drive up premiums paid by employers and individuals.

For Democrats, the answer is a public plan that would compete with private insurers.

Translation for those unschooled in libspeak:

1. Competition is good for health care.

2. Some insurance companies are so big, they're almost like governments.

3. They can dominate small insurance markets.

4. Ergo, we should introduce an actual government "competitor" to undercut those big insurers.

5. That way, we can drive them out of business... which will create much more competition in the insurance market!

Okay. I'm not sure how that scenario is supposed to unfold, but it must be something like this: When the government "option" drives Blue Cross, Aetna, and Wellpoint out of business, then smaller insurers can gobble up that suddenly available market share -- because naturally, the underpricing tactics of Obama Insurance Inc. that drove the big insurers into insolvency and bankruptcy would never, ever do the same to smaller, poorly funded insurers.

[Larry]

Oh, I've already said that I suspect that, whatever form a government insurance program initially takes, the voters will likely then begin turning it into a right, and it will drive most everybody out of the market. If for no other reason than because that's what Medicare did.

(Although, Medicare had a big advantage that Obamacare won't have, at least initially. It's "free".)

Counter-argument, though.

Republican reasoning:

Big Corporations are always vastly superior to anything the government can do. In fact, every single thing the government does, sucks. The in the entire history of the world, no government has ever done a single thing that didn't suck.

And if the government enters the health insurance business, no private corporation will possibly be able to deliver a plan that provides the same coverage for less money. All of them will go bankrupt if they even attempt to compete.

[Larry]

Why would any small business continue to provide health insurance?

For the exact same reasons they do it now? :whoknows:

[techboy]

Oh, I've already said that I suspect that, whatever form a government insurance program initially takes, the voters will likely then begin turning it into a right, and it will drive most everybody out of the market. If for no other reason than because that's what Medicare did.

(Although, Medicare had a big advantage that Obamacare won't have, at least initially. It's "free".)

The reason private insurance won't be able to compete is that the public option will always be able to operate at a loss, with the shortfall being made up by the taxpayer, something a public corporation can't do (at least, until recently for those too big to fail ).

I know President Obama says it'll be revenue neutral, but I don't and can't believe that, because the whole point of using the government to do these things is to fund it with tax money.

Otherwise, a non-profit should be able to do the same thing, and leave the government out of it.