Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

[LynahFan]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

This is exactly why Obamacare is untenable; to make it work you have to force people by law to buy in, which is clearly illegal and unethical. I personally know someone who refuses any and all medical treatment, and will soon die that way. Why should he pay your doctor bills?

Because every human life must be saved at any and all costs, or we are a cruel and unjust society!

Oh, no - wait. That's the Republicans, arguing against abortion.

I'm so confused.

 

[Bakunin]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

This is exactly why Obamacare is untenable; to make it work you have to force people by law to buy in, which is clearly illegal and unethical. I personally know someone who refuses any and all medical treatment, and will soon die that way. Why should he pay your doctor bills?

I could argue that whether or not the law was passed, we would be paying the bills of the uninsured one way or another. Hospitals having to eat the cost of treating the indigent pass those on to the paying customers. While I don't agree with the law and its cost, I can certainly see what it is trying to accomplish (cover the bulk of the uninsured so that they seek treatment earlier when it's likely cheaper as opposed to waiting until things turn serious and then heading to the nearest ER).

 

[unofan]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

This is exactly why Obamacare is untenable; to make it work you have to force people by law to buy in, which is clearly illegal and unethical. I personally know someone who refuses any and all medical treatment, and will soon die that way. Why should he pay your doctor bills?

Because if he's injured and unconscious following a car wreck or other suddent trauma, he will be treated at taxpayer expense in an E.R. regardless of his personal wishes or beliefs (assuming he couldn't/wouldn't foot the bill himself). Again, society doesn't allow for a true gamble; it doesn't let people die simply because they chose not to have insurance.

To compare this to the wall street bailout, we've already socialized the losses (everyone gets treatment at an ER regardless of ability to pay). We can either try to privitize the losses (let people die; good luck with that), or we can socialize the gains (single payer or otherwise forced insurance).

And frankly, if the religious right has their way, even if he personally chose to forego treatment they would make doctors treat him anyway (see the Terry Schiavo fiasco).

 

[geezer]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

OK, I don't actually know this person. I just heard a rumor that he might hypothetically exist.

 

[pirate]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

It seems odd that Obamacare is being challenged by conservatives on grounds of freedom of choice, and defended by liberals in defense of enforcing their false ethic that everyone must uphold the doctor bill pyramid scheme.
I guess freedom of choice should only apply if it's the "correct" choice to kill small people?

whoa, from 10,000 feet up I'm good with whatever they decide, but if they start killing midgets, I'm not in agreement at all. Randy Newman was only kidding.

 

[MinnFan]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

I could argue that whether or not the law was passed, we would be paying the bills of the uninsured one way or another. Hospitals having to eat the cost of treating the indigent pass those on to the paying customers. While I don't agree with the law and its cost, I can certainly see what it is trying to accomplish (cover the bulk of the uninsured so that they seek treatment earlier when it's likely cheaper as opposed to waiting until things turn serious and then heading to the nearest ER).

I can see what its trying to accomplish too, but that really shouldn't matter. It also shouldn't matter if everyone in the country agreed with the bill and wanted it passed. We are a nation of laws. If something isn't expressly written in the Constitution the Federal gov't can't do it. If enough people want something they can ammend the Constitution thus allowing the Feds to take action (i.e. Prohibition).

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

OK, I don't actually know this person. I just heard a rumor that he might hypothetically exist.

I'm that guy. I pay state and local taxes in Virginia that go toward education. WT F? I have no kids. I wasn't educated here. Screw the school systems.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Not to burst your bubble, but the founding fathers were the intellectual elite (i.e., rich white landowners) of their day.

They didn't think much of the common man, either. They wanted the traditional freedoms of English common law, which meant the freedom to ride to the hounds through your backyard over your chickens and possibly your children.

We read today's political conceits into the language of the Founders all the time. They were intellectuals (well, Jefferson, Adams and Madison were -- Washington was sort of Terry Bradshaw but dude was 6-3 in 1776, that's like Manute Bol now) in the English empiricist liberal tradition of Locke. They probably thought Hume was taking things too far. They were not really "revolutionaries" and they certainly weren't egalitarians -- that came much later with Jackson and the Democratic social-political revolution of the 19th century.

TPers who want to look for their type of proto-proles in history need look no further than Tom Paine and his French Revolutionary buddies. But they can't do that because it didn't end well and, you know, TEH SOCIALISM!!!!11!

It's always interesting to watch salt of the earth types who also try to reconcile with the Founders. They are completely self-contradictory intellectual positions, so the smoke pours of their ears pretty quickly.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Well that just goes hand in hand with the myths we are taught when we are kids. You hear bs enough it starts to be ingrained as truth.

 

[Craig P.]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

"...saying the tax cut extension is only temporary and that the deal adds to the nation's deficit."

Cognitive dissonance FTW?

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

UNOfan - the founders couldn't have been liberals since they were racist slave owners - i.e. they were the abusive multinationals employing low wage illegals in their day.

Pretty big generalization. Notably Jefferson and Washington were slave holders. Jefferson said he would free slaves if he could...but was concerned about 'self preservation'. Washington eventually did free his slaves.

The founding fathers were intellectual elites...and they along with a huge percent of the country, were radicals. Monarchy was the realm of conservatives...but no the country was not to be ruled by the landed aristocracy. In fact, the FF designed and instituted one of the most progressive forms of government the world had ever seen...through their representatives, the masses would actually rule. It indeed is the political equivalent of socialism.

 

[joecct]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Pretty big generalization. Notably Jefferson and Washington were slave holders. Jefferson said he would free slaves if he could...but was concerned about 'self preservation'. Washington eventually did free his slaves.

The founding fathers were intellectual elites...and they along with a huge percent of the country, were radicals. Monarchy was the realm of conservatives...but no the country was not to be ruled by the landed aristocracy. In fact, the FF designed and instituted one of the most progressive forms of government the world had ever seen...through their representatives, the masses would actually rule. It indeed is the political equivalent of socialism.

Indeed, the Preamble to the Constitution begins with "We the People" in nice big bold letters.

Not "We the Constitution Convention"
Not "We the state legislatures"
Not "We the Congress"
Not "We the courts"
Not "We the executive"

But we the people who are in charge. We formed the more perfect union. We establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our descendents.

We have abgrogated our responsibility to an elected elite at all levels of government that are beholden to special interests, corporations, demagogues, lobbyists, etc. and not the people who sent them there.

Maybe that's why the Tea Party touched a nerve.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Indeed, the Preamble to the Constitution begins with "We the People" in nice big bold letters.

And guess which People they meant?

"All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are the rich and the well-born; the other the mass of the people ... turbulent and changing, they seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore to the first class a distinct, permanent share in the Government. Nothing but a permanent body can check the imprudence of democracy." -- Alexander Hamilton

The Magna Carta has also been re-imagined by later generations as a democratic instrument when in reality it was aristocrats putting the king in his place. That's exactly what the Declaration and Constitution did as well.

A genuine "originalist" would be a bizarre, out-of-touch elitist by our sensibilities. It has been the work of progressives and liberals, against economic elites and political conservatives, that has broadened the franchise. And now the people who benefited appeal to the Founders as their intellectual forefathers? Bizarre.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

We have abgrogated our responsibility to an elected elite at all levels of government that are beholden to special interests, corporations, demagogues, lobbyists, etc. and not the people who sent them there.

Maybe that's why the Tea Party touched a nerve.

Ya...perhaps the 'beholden to special interests' part of this deal is driven by the fact that...although we have separation of church and state, we do not have separation of capitalism and state.

The unfortunate part that just like Christianity...the Tea Party uses its own fig leaf of limiting govt to cover its own social conservative agendas, which indeed means that the Tea Party is steeped in its own special interests.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

the Tea Party uses its own fig leaf of limiting govt to cover its own social conservative agendas, which indeed means that the Tea Party is steeped in its own special interests.

"Fig leaf" implies it was a scam from the start. To the extent that gas-bags like Beck used it to goose their ratings it was, but it could have gone another way -- it may have been politically likely that it would be co-opted by the GOP, but it wasn't logically inevitable.

In principle, the TP's main message is limited government -- in that it is an ordinary "strict constructionist" movement, with some of that folksy flavor that plays so well in Dubuque. As an alt-history exercise, it could have appealed to people as diverse as Lew Rockwell (tinfoil hat libertarian), Grover Norquist (anti-tax opportunist), Lou Dobbs (anti-immigration, anti-iron-triangle populist), Andrew Sullivan (Catholic gay small-L libertarian), and anybody who wants the feds outta their business (weed freaks, DADT opponents, free traders, pacifists, anti-WTO protestors).

In practice, the people who are coming to be taken as the voice of the TP are appealing to only the first two of those constituencies, at best, and there's a strong admixture of garden variety apologists for the Republican Party (people like Palin) who are using it as a tool to turn anger into money. This leads to certain congitively dissonant issues -- the Republican establishment's economic interests are, for instance, the exact opposite of the TP's hypothetical "Joe Six Pack."

The TP can either reinforce the coherence of its message and fracture its current membership (but pick up straight-line libertarians and even some anti-authoritarian liberals), or it can reinforce its current membership's social conservatism at the cost of intellectual incoherence. The sincere and honest way would probably reduce them to the status of the Paulites or the large L Libertarian Party, so they are gravitating the other way. By 2012, they'll be indistinguishable from the GOP -- just a fake "niche" brand marketed by Budweiser to compete with the microbrews.

This sort of happened to the Right To Life movement in the 80's and 90's. They were more focused and so (1) less likely to compromise, but also (2) less attractive to a major "buyer." The GOP used them somewhat like the TP to raise money and anger. But the RTL could never be truly co-opted -- they were the real deal. One unintended consequence may have been that the GOP remained so wobbly that it didn't have the strength to escape capture by the Neocons. Sometimes it's good for the big fish to eat the little fish -- much less risk of a Beer Hall Putsch like '00.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Nice...now lets get this done.

Senate votes to take up START pact
December 15, 2010 5:22 p.m. EST

(CNN) -- The Senate voted Wednesday to begin debate on ratifying a new nuclear arms treaty with Russia, a top presidential priority that conservative Republicans were trying to block in the current lame-duck session of Congress.

Immediately after the 66-32 vote to take up the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, known as New START, Senate leaders announced that the formal debate on the issue would begin Thursday, avoiding an expected request by conservative Republicans for the entire treaty to be read out loud.

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky agreed with the debate schedule announced in the chamber by Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, noting that the treaty is supported by some leading Republicans, including Richard Lugar of Indiana, the ranking GOP member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

 

[Tundra]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

The founding fathers were intellectual elites...and they along with a huge percent of the country, were radicals. Monarchy was the realm of conservatives...but no the country was not to be ruled by the landed aristocracy. In fact, the FF designed and instituted one of the most progressive forms of government the world had ever seen...through their representatives, the masses would actually rule. It indeed is the political equivalent of socialism.

I thought it was set-up similar to the Roman Republic/Empire. Basically you had to be landowner to vote?, run for office and serve in the military in Rome. Eventually property requirement was dropped to serve in the military.

I'm not sure who ruined our country poor, minority, or women.
http://www.infoplease.com/timelines/voting.html

When the Constitution was written, only white male property owners (about 10 to 16 percent of the nation's population) had the vote. Over the past two centuries, though, the term "government by the people" has become a reality. During the early 1800s, states gradually dropped property requirements for voting.

1810 Last religious prerequisite for voting is eliminated.

1850 Property ownership and tax requirements eliminated by 1850. Almost all adult white males could vote.

1855 Connecticut adopts the nation's first literacy test for voting. Massachusetts follows suit in 1857. The tests were implemented to discriminate against Irish-Catholic immigrants.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

I thought it was set-up similar to the Roman Republic/Empire. Basically you had to be landowner to vote?, run for office and serve in the military in Rome. Eventually property requirement was dropped to serve in the military.

I'm not sure who ruined our country poor, minority, or women.
http://www.infoplease.com/timelines/voting.html

Except for the early days where Rome tried to pattern itself after Athens...it was pretty much a dicatatorship. 'Citizens' usually just gained in spoils not power to determine policy.

The US governmental approach to having a president put in office by the people was a revolutionary approach to governing for its time. I don't think that King George III of England, Louis XVI of France or Czar Nickolas of Russia would disagree.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

I'm not sure who ruined our country poor, minority, or women.
http://www.infoplease.com/timelines/voting.html

You are forgetting the gays and those dirty Muslins.

I'm kidding, of course. We all know it was people who speak Spanish.

 

[Tundra]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

You are forgetting the gays and those dirty Muslins.

I'm kidding, of course. We all know it was people who speak Spanish.

Lmao