An Open Letter To All USCHO Crackpots and Knuckledraggers - by Rover

[Rover]

Re: An Open Letter To All USCHO Crackpots and Knuckledraggers - by Rover

no. no. no. this is to be used in the Global Warming debate, not the health care debate.

The problem with Lynah resurrecting the tobacco company argument (that they're doing the country a favor by killing people off early) is that it doesn't pass the common sense test. If people are living longer, healthier lives, either by not smoking or by getting regular care, when end of life comes, the treatments are different. If you live until 95, chances are doctors are going to recommend against surgery given your age. If you're 50 and in poor health, the notion that you could live another 30 years if properly treated is a far different and costly consideration.

There's also the hard to guage but real question of productivity. Is it better to have sickly people unwell for decades before an early death or healthy ones who live longer and stay productive?

[Rover]

Re: An Open Letter To All USCHO Crackpots and Knuckledraggers - by Rover

Here's what's happened. My quarrel is with those who really believe that Obama is simply is pushing this bill for the greater good, he's not a socialist, etc.

To take a page from Obama..."I don't pay attention to the daily gyrations of the stock market" "this isn't about how this gets done"

etc.

Will I argue with Lesp? No. I'm not a doctor and to be honest there are some fixes in the bill that are necessary, fixing the "donut hole" problem.

HOWEVER. my disagreement with single-payer, Obama's spending spree, his disdain for free-speech, his lack of having actual debate on ANYTHING, his bat**** determination to remake this country in Che Guevara's image...that's what I care about most...

how's that for an OBAMA-like non response

Where did that individual mandate requirement come from?!?!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health...ring_insurance

[busterman62]

Re: An Open Letter To All USCHO Crackpots and Knuckledraggers - by Rover

Something I've covered repeatedly but will reiterate for your sake. The strain on medical providers is a very real concern and one of the best points brought up. Its very interesting that the right chose to focus on death panels and other such nonsense instead of this legitimate concern. My answer is as follows:

1) While this concern is real, I don't think continuing to deny 32M people insurance is the answer.

2) When confronted with a known issue and some time to work it out, occasionally industries respond. Y2K being a classic example of what can be accomplished in a small amount of time.

3) I'm hopeful innovation such as the medical clinics set up in CVS for example will allow more people to get routine treatment easier.

To your credit Rover, you have at least acknowledged this problem in the past. Far more so than what the the clowns in DC have. Unfortunately, your "fix" is about the same as theirs, "just get it done and let's hope it works out" The Mass. experience with a similar plan, at least in the short term, suggests that access will remain a problem and costs will increase. (I've always loved the description that insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results) No one with any sense would argue that reform isn't needed, but why should we implement a similar plan nationally prior to working out the bugs and preparing for it? Simple answer.....Politics>>>>>Principles.

[Rover]

Re: An Open Letter To All USCHO Crackpots and Knuckledraggers - by Rover

To your credit Rover, you have at least acknowledged this problem in the past. Far more so than what the the clowns in DC have. Unfortunately, your "fix" is about the same as theirs, "just get it done and let's hope it works out" The Mass. experience with a similar plan, at least in the short term, suggests that access will remain a problem and costs will increase. (I've always loved the description that insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results) No one with any sense would argue that reform isn't needed, but why should we implement a similar plan nationally prior to working out the bugs and preparing for it? Simple answer.....Politics>>>>>Principles.

I see it more as you can't solve every single issue with this legislation. That's what the doubters want to pro-reformers to address. As I've also said a lot, its not a Constitutional amendment. I can be adjusted as needed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
More Tea party idiocy:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/us...er=rss&emc=rss

[solovsfett]

Re: An Open Letter To All USCHO Crackpots and Knuckledraggers - by Rover

Where did that individual mandate requirement come from?!?!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health...ring_insurance

I understand Mitt Romney was behind the idea in Mass (which hasn't turned out nearly as well as he'd like to have people believe) and earlier Nixon was. I'm not, and those 2 guys don't represent the best in conservative economic though imo.

What would Bill Buckley or Reagan do? that would be more along the avenue I'd be seeking

also - if Romney runs for president and runs against the bill he's a hypocrit of the highest order.

[leswp1]

Re: An Open Letter To All USCHO Crackpots and Knuckledraggers - by Rover

I understand Mitt Romney was behind the idea in Mass (which hasn't turned out nearly as well as he'd like to have people believe) and earlier Nixon was. I'm not, and those 2 guys don't represent the best in conservative economic though imo.

What would Bill Buckley or Reagan do? that would be more along the avenue I'd be seeking

also - if Romney runs for president and runs against the bill he's a hypocrit of the highest order.

He doesn't need to do that to be a hypocrite. He already is one. He ran on a very liberal platform in Mass and was a completely different person on the national scene when he was a prez candidate. He also passed a bunch of legislation right before he left that was meant to look good but any close evaluation would show it was short-sighted/destined to utterly fail (and did so) so he could say he did something. We are still digging out from under all that mess.

[solovsfett]

Re: An Open Letter To All USCHO Crackpots and Knuckledraggers - by Rover

Your argument reminds me of when I was in college in the 80s. I would -- as a fiscal conservative -- say I was glad people were looking at Welfare reform. The rebuttal I almost always got was that Reagan was a Fascist. (I know, you don't get a lot of nuance from 19-yr-olds; I'm not holding up a bunch of people I used to know as proof of one side or the other.)

But when I pressed them with what I thought were obvious flaws in the way the whole system was run, usually I'd also get a concession from them that there were indeed big problems. So you could sum up their position as, "Yes, there are in fact major problems, and they probably should be fixed -- or at least attempted to be fixed; but it's all part of Reagan's plan to turn us into a heartless evil country. You can't tell me he's not really a Fascist." etc etc etc

I'm glad you took the time to respond, but your argument now sounds as strange to me as the same version (from the other side) sounded 25 years ago.

fair enough.

I understand there are problems, I just don't like the rapid encroachment upon our liberties that Obama is bringing us. I know the boil the frog in water argument has been made and I feel if we let Obama get away with this we'll be cooked just like that.

I look at the Canadian response to Ann Coulter as just the beginning of where free-speech will be going under Obama.

I'm more concerned with his socialist ideas and ramming them down the country's collective throat, then with *some* of the fixes that Lesp brought up. I have a friend who's a doctor (anesthesiologist working for aurora) who's on the opposite side of the fence on this. he doesn't like the pay structure, amongst a whole host of other issues that I'm sure he'll write in here about at some point

If you want examples from me, though you may feel they're too general -

Obama - "the constitution is a charter of negative liberties, it doesn't tell you what the government can do for you, what the government should do" from wbez-npr 2001
in same interview he talks about the Warren court and how it was not radical, and how the ideas of social justice and redistributive powers were never taken up...
I don't have that link anymore but I'll look it up...

I just don't believe the government or any body should be taking up "redistributive powers" that's antithetical to what the founders gave us

If you look at the roundtable with republicans - the way he shut down mccain with his narcissistic and sophmoric response of "campaign's over john"
Like I said - Obama cannot tolerate dissent. Statists cannot tolerate dissent, because in their heads they're 100% right for the greater good.

I don't like Obama's intolerence to free speech. I don't like how unprofessional (to put it that way) he is when he just takes off on teapartiers, joe the plumber, sean hannity, whatever. President's should never be stooping to that level of discourse. I've never seen a president rip the people like this guy does

I personally have disdain for Saul Alinsky. I would suspect some people on this board have read rules for radicals either for edification purposes or because they're in agreement with that thought.

It's *very* clear to me that Obama is lifting whole sections of that book and putting them into practice now.

anyway .02

gotta go prep the paint thinner for tonight's game

[Terrierbyassociation]

Re: An Open Letter To All USCHO Crackpots and Knuckledraggers - by Rover

My only issue with "what the founders would want" is can we really say what they would want if they were exposed to today's world?

[leswp1]

Re: An Open Letter To All USCHO Crackpots and Knuckledraggers - by Rover

My only issue with "what the founders would want" is can we really say what they would want if they were exposed to today's world?

The possibilities are endless about what they would say. You could start with them being described as having worked to start a Christian nation when most of them were Theists

I have a hard time when anyone starts saying this isn't what the founders would have wanted. The Founders lived in a different time, a different world, with an entirely different set of problems. There was a lot less complexity, a much clearer social order and class system and intelligent discourse was revered as kind of a sport.

I imagine the whole healthcare thing would just baffle them. In that age you treated with herbal concotions that were frequently applied/given with prayers or incantations (yep, you read that right), had no aseptic technique, no evidence based medicine and if someone lived or died (the latter was more likely) then it was an act of God or unexplainable event. How anyone can even guess what they would think is beyond me.

As to the other changes in government I am not an expert but I imagine they would be disgusted at our absolute lack of ability to debate or discuss anything in a civil manner using (horror of horrors) facts and intelligent argument. I know that things got heated back then but I am pretty sure most of them learned the art of compromise which we seem incapable of. They also seemed more motivated to solve problems and think past the next year when they made plans. They weren't obsessed with getting elected which may have made doing the right thing a bit more plausible

[Patman]

Re: An Open Letter To All USCHO Crackpots and Knuckledraggers - by Rover

My only issue with "what the founders would want" is can we really say what they would want if they were exposed to today's world?

my only issue with this is that they proscribed a set of individual liberties which are written into our constitution... by and large these elements have not been repealed by law. This seems to be the idea around nullifying the constitution slowly because "they would have done differently in our world" means that "we should do differently now"... its a clear walk from one to the other... its the justification to disregard their thoughts and opinions especially as they reflect themselves in our constitution.

This... this is the ideology Barack Obama walks in. The constitution doesn't matter because they aren't walking in our shoes and we are as smart as they are... heck... we are smarter than we are. This is where the liberal view on the constitution comes from and this is why they need it to be as malleable as humanly possible.

Is it wrong that with this thought of the founders on hand then the modern application of the same constitution is immoral because they wouldn't have thought this way in modern times?

The question here is about fundamental freedoms... don't argue to me that the "founders would think differently" assuming that those they would represent would invariably take on modern liberal and progressive views. Argue why the ideas of freedom that they promoted are wrong.

Bottom line is that you feel that we owe each other certain responsibilities for whatever reason... the rest drives immediately from that. The one thing I will say... the founders conception of freedom and liberty holds no matter the size of society. The progressive's conception of freedom and liberty fails when society becomes so small that there exists no people or skill to give them their "freedoms". There is no health care if society isn't large enough to have adequate doctors. There is no right to food if there are no crops and means to distribute food resources. Freedom and liberty shouldn't depend upon the needs of others... they stand out as absolutes for else they would not be rights.

----

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/he...-NHS-cuts.html

ah... the joys of single payer.

[Rimbaud]

Re: An Open Letter To All USCHO Crackpots and Knuckledraggers - by Rover

My only issue with "what the founders would want" is can we really say what they would want if they were exposed to today's world?

They'd be locked in a room watching porn all day and not get anything done....so I'm not sure they'd really say anything much.

[Terrierbyassociation]

Re: An Open Letter To All USCHO Crackpots and Knuckledraggers - by Rover

They'd be locked in a room watching porn all day and not get anything done....so I'm not sure they'd really say anything much.

What are you talking about? Thomas Jefferson would be all over the African American ladies. In public!

[St. Clown]

Re: An Open Letter To All USCHO Crackpots and Knuckledraggers - by Rover

My only issue with "what the founders would want" is can we really say what they would want if they were exposed to today's world?

There's plenty of material out there to read to see what positions they took on the issues of the day, from personal correspondence to the Federalist Papers to the open debates pre- and post-revolution. These men didn't argue about how much government should do for the populace, they argued how severely government should be restricted from interfering in the day-to-day lives of its constituents.

[gounhwildcats]

Re: An Open Letter To All USCHO Crackpots and Knuckledraggers - by Rover

All the years of hearing Americans call Canada the 51st state, and now America is rapidly becoming the 11th province. Really pretty sad.

[Priceless]

Re: An Open Letter To All USCHO Crackpots and Knuckledraggers - by Rover

My only issue with "what the founders would want" is can we really say what they would want if they were exposed to today's world?

They'd wonder where all their slaves went, why there are metal dragons in the sky and what this weird series of tubes is all about.