PharmacistReb

7+ Year Member
Sep 25, 2009
228
68
171
Tennessee
Status
Pharmacist
I've noticed that most of the people here are hugely center-left and pro-ObamaCare. I'm kind of surprised. Considering the mass unpopularity of the bill and the unpopularity of the President in general, it's unusual to see health care professionals so enamored with a piece of entitlement legislation. Especially with Walgreen's in a state like Washington saying they will take no more new Medicaid patients as of April 16 due to low reimbursement.

The fact that the CBO has come out and said premiums will increase by as much as $2100... and that the bill is NOT deficit neutral if you take into account the planned "doc fix" that Pelosi has in store... and if you take into account that states will have billions in unfunded mandates that are being challenged... and the fact that we didn't do one thing to actually reduce the cost of healthcare SERVICES in this country...

Am I the only one out there that wants to see reform that creates competition and decrease costs among health care providers/services?
 
Feb 12, 2010
50
0
0
Status
Pre-Pharmacy
1) You say HCR Bill is unpopular, yet the individual components are popular. No bill is perfect, most of the things that are in there are common sense and right.

2) You say President Obama is unpopular, yet he is more popular than the Republicans, Democrats, Congress etc. Comparing popularity ratings from previous presidents, he is not really considered unpopular. What level of popularity do you think he needs to be considered unpopular?

3) CBO stated premiums will DECREASE because people will get more benefits but people may choose to buy more and better insurance thus INCREASING insurance premium on the whole. I do not necessarily agree on their interpretations but their conclusion was more nuanced than "premiums will increase."

4) "doc fix" was a fake memo. A Republican ploy.

5) "Am I the only one out there that wants to see reform that creates competition and decrease costs among health care providers/services?" Of course we all are, except we don't just get our ideas from Republican talking points. In the HCR that just passed there are billions of dollars that are going to preventative care, that alone will save us billions of dollars and is good for the health field.
 

WVUPharm2007

imagine sisyphus happy
15+ Year Member
Jun 23, 2003
13,640
3,460
381
35
Born: Parkersburg, WV | Now: Montgomery TWP, PA
Status
Pharmacist
I've noticed that most of the people here are hugely center-left and pro-ObamaCare. I'm kind of surprised.
I hate all ideologies. Ideologies take away a man's obligation to think for himself. Though I guess just saying you are a liberal or conservative makes voting and politics a lot easier.

That's the real problem, but everyone that cares is an ideologue...so nothing gets fixed.

That and everyone is too fat and unhealthy. Fix that and all of this goes away.

We get what we deserve. Really, this bill will give the insurance and pharma companies a heyday in time. It's a fascist bill, not a socialist one. Lazy, useless legislation for lazy, unhealthy people.
 
Last edited:

type b pharmD

10+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
Feb 24, 2009
2,130
204
181
Status
Pharmacist
Competition in the healthcare market has already shown us .. it is a complete failure. Administrative costs being duplicated across 20 companies? WASTE!

Hmm the nurses and doctors support this bill. So why shouldnt we? I would find it odd that you are surprised that legislation that will bring 30 million new customers into our pharmacies would be popular on a healthcare forum. That probably represents thousands of pharmacist jobs.


Most people here are left leaning because we are all either doctoral educated (or soon to be).. and people with high levels of education tend to be liberal. We also went into a profession whose goal is to help people maintain their health. It is a "helping" profession, so it makes sense that people here would support "social" legislation.

It's my belief that this bill is just a smokescreen for nationalized socialized medicine. I cant see any other result, 10-15 years from now when insurance companies have raised rates 500% and the government cant afford ****.. We'll have no other choice but nationalized care and rationing. We already tried privatized healthcare controlling the rationing.. didnt work.

And yes, I will be willing to pay more taxes when the time comes.
 

PharmacistReb

7+ Year Member
Sep 25, 2009
228
68
171
Tennessee
Status
Pharmacist
1) You say HCR Bill is unpopular, yet the individual components are popular. No bill is perfect, most of the things that are in there are common sense and right.

2) You say President Obama is unpopular, yet he is more popular than the Republicans, Democrats, Congress etc. Comparing popularity ratings from previous presidents, he is not really considered unpopular. What level of popularity do you think he needs to be considered unpopular?

3) CBO stated premiums will DECREASE because people will get more benefits but people may choose to buy more and better insurance thus INCREASING insurance premium on the whole. I do not necessarily agree on their interpretations but their conclusion was more nuanced than "premiums will increase."

4) "doc fix" was a fake memo. A Republican ploy.

5) "Am I the only one out there that wants to see reform that creates competition and decrease costs among health care providers/services?" Of course we all are, except we don't just get our ideas from Republican talking points. In the HCR that just passed there are billions of dollars that are going to preventative care, that alone will save us billions of dollars and is good for the health field.
Your arguments are specious.

First of all, doc fix was no "Republican ploy". Doc-fix is real and it's imminent. This is why the AMA endorsed the bill. I will come back and eat crow if they do not vote on it this year.

Obama is unpopular. Congress is unpopular because they have been there for three and a half years. Obama has been President for a year and a half. Yes, Washington (Republicans and Democrats) is unpopular as a whole because they are doing a poor job.

Insurance mandates included in this bill: Previously, insurance companies had to set a minimum of 65% of their funds for claims and 35% went to administrative costs and emergency claims reserve. This bill has increased the claims minimum to 85% and the administrative/emergency reserve maximum is now 15%. How does an entity stay in business with this model? Pelosi came out recently and said that any insurance company that increases premiums will not be able to involve themselves with the government exchanges? I say this, not as a Republican or Democrat (I voted for a our Democrat Tennessee governor), but our health insurers in the private sector are not sustainable with this new bill.

No, this bill is not perfect and it's not close. "Individual components are popular"... it's a 2600 page bill... the only components of which you speak are eliminating pre-exisiting conditions and few more entitlements. Of course the entitlements sound popular. But how popular are the unfunded mandates on the states which will results in nationwide tax hikes? How popular are the increased costs to corporations which will inevitably lead to job loss and the elimination of retirement benefits? How popular is it that premiums will increase because companies have no idea knowing when a patient will buy into the system after he or she gets sick... not to mention the new mandates that I discussed above.

And in regard to your comments about preventive care... who is going to insure themselves and use these billions for preventive care when they can simply go uninsured and pay a very small fee to be uninsured? There is no more risk involved in becoming sick and being uninsured. People are not going to utilize these preventive care measures jwithin their plans because they don't have to have insurance.
 

PharmacistReb

7+ Year Member
Sep 25, 2009
228
68
171
Tennessee
Status
Pharmacist
Competition in the healthcare market has already shown us .. it is a complete failure. Administrative costs being duplicated across 20 companies? WASTE!

Hmm the nurses and doctors support this bill. So why shouldnt we? I would find it odd that you are surprised that legislation that will bring 30 million new customers into our pharmacies would be popular on a healthcare forum. That probably represents thousands of pharmacist jobs.


Most people here are left leaning because we are all either doctoral educated (or soon to be).. and people with high levels of education tend to be liberal. We also went into a profession whose goal is to help people maintain their health. It is a "helping" profession, so it makes sense that people here would support "social" legislation.
I'm all for "helping" people as long as EVERYONE is helped. I don't think we are helping our nation progress economically, healthfully, or otherwise by increasing tax on the middle class by way of unfunded mandates on our states. I voted for a Democrat governor, a man of social justice, and he urged our Tennessee representatives and Senators to vote against this legislation because our state cannot endure the heavy load of cost of ObamaCare. He even talked about the need for insurance for many uninsured in the state... but that it was not a sustainable system for our state. The only way to cover such costs for the additional entitlements and Medicaid coverage is to directly tax the citizens of the state through creation of income tax in some states and hikes on sales tax, property tax, etc.

There are about 15 million people in this country that really need health insurance (a large part of the 32 million are Medicaid eligible and have never signed up). We could have used a fraction of the stimulus package to fund the 15 million that absolutely need it. We have an entitlement program that we cannot pay for. We are just growing our endless tab that China is financing.
 

type b pharmD

10+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
Feb 24, 2009
2,130
204
181
Status
Pharmacist
I'm all for "helping" people as long as EVERYONE is helped. I don't think we are helping our nation progress economically, healthfully, or otherwise by increasing tax on the middle class by way of unfunded mandates on our states. I voted for a Democrat governor, a man of social justice, and he urged our Tennessee representatives and Senators to vote against this legislation because our state cannot endure the heavy load of cost of ObamaCare. He even talked about the need for insurance for many uninsured in the state... but that it was not a sustainable system for our state. The only way to cover such costs for the additional entitlements and Medicaid coverage is to directly tax the citizens of the state through creation of income tax in some states and hikes on sales tax, property tax, etc.

There are about 15 million people in this country that really need health insurance (a large part of the 32 million are Medicaid eligible and have never signed up). We could have used a fraction of the stimulus package to fund the 15 million that absolutely need it. We have an entitlement program that we cannot pay for. We are just growing our endless tab that China is financing.
I agree the bill is going to basically fail. I dont know if it was built to fail or not. But at this point, the government basically has locked its hands into healthcare so that it will be involved when the inevitable crash comes.

Could it have been better? Sure. Would that delay or prevent the healthcare crash? Unlikely.

If the bill had NOT been passed, healthcare still would have imploded within the next 20 years.

Taxes? They need to go up anyway. I am a proponent of many large tax increases. I believe they will be the eventual only way to become fiscally sustainable.
 

PharmacistReb

7+ Year Member
Sep 25, 2009
228
68
171
Tennessee
Status
Pharmacist
I agree the bill is going to basically fail. I dont know if it was built to fail or not. But at this point, the government basically has locked its hands into healthcare so that it will be involved when the inevitable crash comes.

Could it have been better? Sure. Would that delay or prevent the healthcare crash? Unlikely.

If the bill had NOT been passed, healthcare still would have imploded within the next 20 years.

Taxes? They need to go up anyway. I am a proponent of many large tax increases. I believe they will be the eventual only way to become fiscally sustainable.
Ahh yes... the answer to all of our problems... taxes. Economically stability lies deep within taxing everyone and everyone. It's increase pharmaceutical innovation, surgical innovation, DME innovation, health facility innovation, and enhances entrepreneurial risk... FAIL
 

WVUPharm2007

imagine sisyphus happy
15+ Year Member
Jun 23, 2003
13,640
3,460
381
35
Born: Parkersburg, WV | Now: Montgomery TWP, PA
Status
Pharmacist
Ahh yes... the answer to all of our problems... taxes. Economically stability lies deep within taxing everyone and everyone.
Sometimes it does. Especially in situations where one must avoid plutocracy.

I know that it goes against conservative ideology, but you already know my opinion about ideologies.
 
Feb 12, 2010
50
0
0
Status
Pre-Pharmacy
-"doc fix" memo is a fake because Republicans couldn't say where they got it from when challenged. I don't have any inside knowledge, but it sure looks like a ploy.

-You keep stating that Obama is unpopular. That's not what the facts say, he is still "relatively" popular.

-Yeah, how in the world is a health insurance industry who posted record profits in the billions and just raised premiums 30-69% going to stay in business? Oh the humanity!! People are going to be without Christmas yachts this year.

-Why do people keep bringing up how big the bill is? What, too many words?

-Talk about specious. Your entire domino effect theory is just conjecture. Healthcare reform leads to collapse of the country and society?

-I'm not 100% supporting the HCR bill and I think many changes need to be made so that it is a viable long acting remedy to our health care system. Although I'm a big supporter of free markets, it is clear that it hasn't worked for us in terms of health care.
 

PharmacistReb

7+ Year Member
Sep 25, 2009
228
68
171
Tennessee
Status
Pharmacist
I hate all ideologies. Ideologies take away a man's obligation to think for himself. Though I guess just saying you are a liberal or conservative makes voting and politics a lot easier.

That's the real problem, but everyone that cares is an ideologue...so nothing gets fixed.

That and everyone is too fat and unhealthy. Fix that and all of this goes away.

We get what we deserve. Really, this bill will give the insurance and pharma companies a heyday in time. It's a fascist bill, not a socialist one. Lazy, useless legislation for lazy, unhealthy people.
Ideology is a problem only when people are not basing their political stances within their only value system.

My family all voted for a Democrat governor. Yet, we all voted AGAINST Barack Obama. We are not straight line party hacks but I typically align with free market ideas. Liberals always say that's "letting the inmates run the asylum"... but then so is giving government sole responsibility (i.e. Our health care, our car companies, our banks, our mailing system, so forth and so on). I am more "right" than "left" but I am no anarchist. I believe some government is good. Government is not all bad. But what we're seeing today from Obama is rooted in "social"ist agenda AND as you say.. fascism. He definitely has scratched the backs of his private sector pals that filled his coffers all while trying to achieve his dream of "social justice" for all.

We need more people taking a Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan approach to our problems. Barack Obama is lighting a match to generations of wealth that has yet to be created.
 

PharmacistReb

7+ Year Member
Sep 25, 2009
228
68
171
Tennessee
Status
Pharmacist
Sometimes it does. Especially in situations where one must avoid plutocracy.

I know that it goes against conservative ideology, but you already know my opinion about ideologies.
By saying this, you must have an ideology. By voicing any kind of opinion, you are staking yourself to one ideology or another.

And as I said in my above post, some government is good. I do not deny that. And do not believe in plutocracy. But as Clinton and Reagan proved, you don't need through the roof taxes to create peace and prosperity.
 

type b pharmD

10+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
Feb 24, 2009
2,130
204
181
Status
Pharmacist
By saying this, you must have an ideology. By voicing any kind of opinion, you are staking yourself to one ideology or another.

And as I said in my above post, some government is good. I do not deny that. And do not believe in plutocracy. But as Clinton and Reagan proved, you don't need through the roof taxes to create peace and prosperity.
You're saying an opinion is the same as an ideology. I think WVU is trying to say an ideology is a broad SET of beliefs , that people often mistakenly believe have to all go together.

I dont think an opinion is the same as an ideology

Clinton's prosperty was fake. He was just riding the bubble that greenspan created, and in fact, you will find many economists who argue that he should NOT have lowered taxes.
 
Feb 12, 2010
50
0
0
Status
Pre-Pharmacy
"We need more people taking a Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan approach to our problems. Barack Obama is lighting a match to generations of wealth that has yet to be created."

Again, you make no sense. Clinton and Reagan are almost opposites. This healthcare reform bill was more or less Clinton's dream. Also since you hate taxes so much, under Reagan top marginal tax rate was 50%, let's compare that to about 40% under Clinton and Obama.

Socialism and Fascism are also on the opposite ends of the spectrum. You cannot be both, and if you think someone is both, you're either not a reasonable person or don't understand the definitions.
 

PharmacistReb

7+ Year Member
Sep 25, 2009
228
68
171
Tennessee
Status
Pharmacist
-"doc fix" memo is a fake because Republicans couldn't say where they got it from when challenged. I don't have any inside knowledge, but it sure looks like a ploy.

-You keep stating that Obama is unpopular. That's not what the facts say, he is still "relatively" popular.

-Yeah, how in the world is a health insurance industry who posted record profits in the billions and just raised premiums 30-69% going to stay in business? Oh the humanity!! People are going to be without Christmas yachts this year.

-Why do people keep bringing up how big the bill is? What, too many words?

-Talk about specious. Your entire domino effect theory is just conjecture. Healthcare reform leads to collapse of the country and society?

-I'm not 100% supporting the HCR bill and I think many changes need to be made so that it is a viable long acting remedy to our health care system. Although I'm a big supporter of free markets, it is clear that it hasn't worked for us in terms of health care.
You addressed nothing I said. You need to do some more research because you're just typing words.

The doc fix IS NOT IN THE BILL. It will be a separate bill to be placed on the floor of the House at some point this year. I have no idea where you are getting off by saying it's a "ploy". That makes absolutely no sense.

And are there some bad apples in the insurance company? Yes! A resounding yes! But thousands of people work for these companies. CEO's aside, 15% for administrative cost/emergency reserve will not sustain an insurance companies or it's entry and mid-level workers. Lets not forget that when you slash 20% of what an insurance company makes, it hurts EVERYONE.

And you are going to talk about fat cat CEO's on yachts? How about some of our thugs in Washington? Pelosi orders a new fleet of planes on our dime and chocks them full of fine liquor and does it on OUR DIME... yet she is more capable of making better decisions for those evil CEOs... you must realize how silly this sounds.

We're going to let the CEO types in Washington make decisions for the CEOs in the private sector? And you're ok with that? I'd like to rein in both forms of CEO, both public and private sector types. Washington is much fatter and indulgent on power and spending. Your thoughts on these power hungry, term-limitless fat cats?
 

Jetninjin

10+ Year Member
Oct 4, 2008
189
3
0
Status
Re. this bill and socialized medicine (heck, "entitlements" in general), I think it will lead to economic and security problems - not just in the US, but worldwide.

We subsidize the rest of the world in many ways. We pay their way militarily (which is why our army is so big ... we're defending not only ourselves but a ton of other countries in NATO, who can then afford to pay for things like universal care with the savings), and we pay their way on healthcare (we develop disproportionally more drugs and technologies). In addition, their price controls on health costs are made up for by overcharging us (say Merck sells a $10 pill in Canada, but the Canadian price is $3 due to price controls. When an American buys the same pill, we pay $17 -- $10 plus the $7 the Canadian didn't pay. The American then bitches about greedy pharma instead of greedy Canadians).

Here's my hypothesis: when we inevitably move to more socialized medicine, our budget is going to be hugely squeezed. This will mean cuts in non-entitlement spending such as our military that supports other countries. Those countries will be screwed. Other reforms like price controls will stifle availability and innovation (since nobody will be paying the actual cost of development, the developments won't happen). I believe the combination of these two as well as other cofactors like quickly changing demographics here and abroad will lead to some rather unpleasant social unrest.
 

Marcus X

10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
May 12, 2008
164
6
101
Status
Resident [Any Field]
"We need more people taking a Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan approach to our problems. Barack Obama is lighting a match to generations of wealth that has yet to be created."

Again, you make no sense. Clinton and Reagan are almost opposites. This healthcare reform bill was more or less Clinton's dream. Also since you hate taxes so much, under Reagan top marginal tax rate was 50%, let's compare that to about 40% under Clinton and Obama.
Let's also not forget that Reagan bought peace and prosperity by spending money he didn't have and quadrupling the debt. I hate "tax and spend" just as much as the next guy, but I hate "don't tax and spend just as much" a whole lot more.
 

PharmacistReb

7+ Year Member
Sep 25, 2009
228
68
171
Tennessee
Status
Pharmacist
"We need more people taking a Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan approach to our problems. Barack Obama is lighting a match to generations of wealth that has yet to be created."

Again, you make no sense. Clinton and Reagan are almost opposites. This healthcare reform bill was more or less Clinton's dream. Also since you hate taxes so much, under Reagan top marginal tax rate was 50%, let's compare that to about 40% under Clinton and Obama.
Clinton attempted health care before Republicans took back the Congress in '94 and then made attempts to lower government spending. See Newt Gingrich's Contract with America and the passage of welfare reform that was signed by Bill Clinton. Bill said several times in the mid 90's that we have to reduce the size of government and he did exactly that from 1995-2001.

You need to do some research. Seriously, you are reaching for straws.
 

PharmacistReb

7+ Year Member
Sep 25, 2009
228
68
171
Tennessee
Status
Pharmacist
Let's also not forget that Reagan bought peace and prosperity by spending money he didn't have and quadrupling the debt. I hate "tax and spend" just as much as the next guy, but I hate "don't tax and spend just as much" a whole lot more.
Don't quote me, but I'm fairly certain that Reagan doubled government revenue compared to Carter.

And yes he did increase debt. And we destroyed the Soviet economy. I think it was a nice pay off.

All I can say with confidence is that I hope no one from this board ever governs from the White House...
 

PharmacistReb

7+ Year Member
Sep 25, 2009
228
68
171
Tennessee
Status
Pharmacist
Re. this bill and socialized medicine (heck, "entitlements" in general), I think it will lead to economic and security problems - not just in the US, but worldwide.

We subsidize the rest of the world in many ways. We pay their way militarily (which is why our army is so big ... we're defending not only ourselves but a ton of other countries in NATO, who can then afford to pay for things like universal care with the savings), and we pay their way on healthcare (we develop disproportionally more drugs and technologies). In addition, their price controls on health costs are made up for by overcharging us (say Merck sells a $10 pill in Canada, but the Canadian price is $3 due to price controls. When an American buys the same pill, we pay $17 -- $10 plus the $7 the Canadian didn't pay. The American then bitches about greedy pharma instead of greedy Canadians).

Here's my hypothesis: when we inevitably move to more socialized medicine, our budget is going to be hugely squeezed. This will mean cuts in non-entitlement spending such as our military that supports other countries. Those countries will be screwed. Other reforms like price controls will stifle availability and innovation (since nobody will be paying the actual cost of development, the developments won't happen). I believe the combination of these two as well as other cofactors like quickly changing demographics here and abroad will lead to some rather unpleasant social unrest.
Iran will likely have nukes within a decade. Russia is becoming increasingly loyal to Iran, as is China. North Korea could get their hands on nukes that could hit our friends in Japan... I like national security and economical freedoms more so than I like freebies from our elected bureaucrats... but I digress... I'm clearly in the minority
 

Marcus X

10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
May 12, 2008
164
6
101
Status
Resident [Any Field]
Don't quote me, but I'm fairly certain that Reagan doubled government revenue compared to Carter.

And yes he did increase debt. And we destroyed the Soviet economy. I think it was a nice pay off.

All I can say with confidence is that I hope no one from this board ever governs from the White House...
So we can borrow wholesale and spend money we don't have to destroy the "evil" Soviets, but we can't borrow any money to help our own people? Those seem like interesting priorities. Who cares if everything is a mess back home, as long as we beat the other guy, right? Victory at any cost?
 

Jetninjin

10+ Year Member
Oct 4, 2008
189
3
0
Status
Iran will likely have nukes within a decade. Russia is becoming increasingly loyal to Iran, as is China. North Korea could get their hands on nukes that could hit our friends in Japan... I like national security and economical freedoms more so than I like freebies from our elected bureaucrats... but I digress... I'm clearly in the minority

Oh I'm with you, 100%.

And don't forget about Venezuela.

I believe we are headed for very unstable times. Freebie programs are like large Napoleonic military endeavors -- they always sound very good on paper, but they are unsustainable and quite vexing when done on a large scale. I believe we are already well on that trajectory, which is why frankly the healthcare bill doesn't bother me all that much. I think we are headed for rough global waters either way, and now it will just happen sooner rather than later. Blah, I'd rather deal with it in ~5-10 years than have my kids deal with it in ~20-30 years.
 
Feb 12, 2010
50
0
0
Status
Pre-Pharmacy
I'm fully aware that "doc fix" is not in the bill. I first heard of it when the Republicans were using this alleged memo to scare people just like you. Every newspaper since then has verified that it's a fake.

How the hell do you know how much insurance companies need to make to be profitable? In one breath you rant about government control, in another about how government is in cahoots with them. Again, you make no logical sense.

How is Pelosi a thug for ordering planes? You want to privatize the Air Force?

I'm not for anyone. Whether they are CEOs, politicians, the Pope etc.
 

WVUPharm2007

imagine sisyphus happy
15+ Year Member
Jun 23, 2003
13,640
3,460
381
35
Born: Parkersburg, WV | Now: Montgomery TWP, PA
Status
Pharmacist
We need more people taking a Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan approach to our problems. Barack Obama is lighting a match to generations of wealth that has yet to be created.
Reagan was the most fascist president of the late 20th century. His presidency was nothing but a gift to corporatists. He destroyed the strong middle class and is pretty much responsible for the lack of dynamism in our economy today.

For the love of god, no more Reagans...
 

bananaface

Pharmacy Supernerd
Moderator Emeritus
Lifetime Donor
10+ Year Member
Apr 24, 2004
41,977
160
481
gone to seed
Status
Pharmacist
WA is one of just 3 states with ridiculously low Medicaid reimbursements. In the other states, Medicaid reimbursement is pretty generous and often gives pharmacies back more than private insurers. So, don't use WA Medicaid as an example of how all government run plans underpay. It's not the norm.

If you want an example of low government reimbursement for pharmacies, take the low hanging fruit - Medicare D.
 

Pharmavixen

foxy pharmacist
10+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
Jan 20, 2008
1,043
14
151
Canada
Status
Pharmacist
Reagan was the most fascist president of the late 20th century.
:thumbup:

And he liked to get chummy with other fascists. Here's the Ronald Reagan I remember:

Mr. Rumsfeld didn’t go to Baghdad in 1983 to tour the museum. Then a private citizen, he had been dispatched as an emissary by the Reagan administration, which sought to align itself with Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war. Saddam was already a notorious thug. Well before Mr. Rumsfeld’s trip, Amnesty International had reported the dictator’s use of torture — “beating, burning, sexual abuse and the infliction of electric shocks” — on hundreds of political prisoners. Dozens more had been summarily executed or had “disappeared.” American intelligence agencies knew that Saddam had used chemical weapons to gas both Iraqi Kurds and Iranians.

According to declassified State Department memos detailing Mr. Rumsfeld’s Baghdad meetings, the American visitor never raised the subject of these crimes with his host. (Mr. Rumsfeld has since claimed otherwise, but that is not supported by the documents, which can be viewed online at George Washington University’s National Security Archive.) Within a year of his visit, the American mission was accomplished: Iraq and the United States resumed diplomatic relations for the first time since Iraq had severed them in 1967 in protest of American backing of Israel in the Six-Day War.
Under Reagan, the US sold weapons to Saddam.

Some SDNers like to quote Reagan in their signatures. Here's one I remember, that for some reason I never see on SDN:
Approximately 80% of our air pollution stems from hydrocarbons released by vegetation, so let's not go overboard in setting and enforcing tough emission standards from man-made sources.
 

renetto

Removed
Dec 30, 2009
234
1
0
Status
Pharmacy Student
Considering the mass unpopularity of the bill and the unpopularity of the President in general, it's unusual to see health care professionals so enamored with a piece of entitlement legislation.
Speak for yourself, rookie. The last time I checked the previous president who had lower approval ratings than Obama was elected TWICE.
 

ffpickle

Thread Killer
10+ Year Member
May 7, 2008
915
0
0
Status
u really think these teabaggers know how to use the internet?
 
Feb 12, 2010
50
0
0
Status
Pre-Pharmacy
Clinton attempted health care before Republicans took back the Congress in '94 and then made attempts to lower government spending. See Newt Gingrich's Contract with America and the passage of welfare reform that was signed by Bill Clinton. Bill said several times in the mid 90's that we have to reduce the size of government and he did exactly that from 1995-2001.

You need to do some research. Seriously, you are reaching for straws.

Well edumacate me, oh Wise One.
You said Obama should act like Clinton and Reagan.
I said Clinton and Reagon were almost opposites:
Clinton -> reduced government
-> wanted healthcare reform (socialist!)
Reagan -> expanded government
-> was really, really friendly to corporations (fascist!)
Yet you also hate Obama because he is socialist and fascist.
Please enlighten me PharmacistReb, because I seem to keep "grabbing those straws", "being specious", and "addressing nothing you've said".
 
Last edited:
Aug 3, 2009
41
0
0
Status
Pharmacy Student
"We need more people taking a Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan approach to our problems. Barack Obama is lighting a match to generations of wealth that has yet to be created." ~PharmReb

Again, you make no sense. Clinton and Reagan are almost opposites. This healthcare reform bill was more or less Clinton's dream. Also since you hate taxes so much, under Reagan top marginal tax rate was 50%, let's compare that to about 40% under Clinton and Obama.

Socialism and Fascism are also on the opposite ends of the spectrum. You cannot be both, and if you think someone is both, you're either not a reasonable person or don't understand the definitions.
PharmWEEBEL,
I'm still waiting on you to respond to the part about Reagan's tax rates versus Obama's. Reagan's dividend's/capital gains tax rate was 28/20, Obama's is 20/20. (Currently, they are 15/15 thanks to gWb)
Income tax rates are substantially lower under Obama than under Reagan as stated above, and all the way across the board, not just on the top bracket.
For once.... ANSWER THE QUESTION. Don't divert with some diatribe about socialism, or pat yourself on the back for voting for a southern democrat (which is the more conservative than most republicans outside the south). Actually answer how you think that Obama is a socialist and that we need more people like Clinton and Reagan in the white house yet Reagan advocated higher taxes than both Clinton and Obama, and a greater progression than either as well.
Don't worry, this is a static forum, so we can wait while you search fauxnews.com for an answer or a clever retort, but all you'll find are diversion tactics. See, nobody wants to talk facts, just ideology and team sports. The truth is: a blind following of a particular party or ideology will end up making you look like a fool like you do in this forum. You have betrayed facts in favor of talking points and an obsession with your hatred of Barack Obama. You've also outed yourself as a big-military "police the world" hawk who is willing to mortgage everything in this country for the biggest toys and for being the winner of the international penis measuring contest. Yet, when the issue is attempting to save the lives of millions of american citizens, you are in favor of turning your back. You claim that a low fine is not a deterrent to remaining uninsured as though these millions of people are just in love with their poverty-stricken life that leaves them unable to afford health insurance and that they will piss on the idea of someone paying for it for them. Yeah, that makes sense. There ARE people out there who work very hard who still don't have enough money to buy insurance for them and their family. This bill does some stupid things, but the main goal was to make sure that those people are able to be proactive about the health of their family. It accomplishes that goal.
 
Sep 3, 2009
58
0
0
Status
Pharmacy Student
type b pharmD said:
Competition in the healthcare market has already shown us .. it is a complete failure. Administrative costs being duplicated across 20 companies? WASTE!

Hmm the nurses and doctors support this bill. So why shouldnt we? I would find it odd that you are surprised that legislation that will bring 30 million new customers into our pharmacies would be popular on a healthcare forum. That probably represents thousands of pharmacist jobs.


Most people here are left leaning because we are all either doctoral educated (or soon to be).. and people with high levels of education tend to be liberal. We also went into a profession whose goal is to help people maintain their health. It is a "helping" profession, so it makes sense that people here would support "social" legislation.

It's my belief that this bill is just a smokescreen for nationalized socialized medicine. I cant see any other result, 10-15 years from now when insurance companies have raised rates 500% and the government cant afford ****.. We'll have no other choice but nationalized care and rationing. We already tried privatized healthcare controlling the rationing.. didnt work.

And yes, I will be willing to pay more taxes when the time comes.
Most people on here are more to the left because they have spent the majority of their lives listening to leftwing professors who came of age in the 60's. When these people get jobs and have to pay taxes and raise families they will adjust their thinking. Another thing to consider is that this is a pattern that happens with every generation. Students and young people are usually more liberal than their grown up selves. That said I'm not sure you could characterize health reform as either left or right. A [email protected]$& quite possibly, but not "socialist."
 
Feb 12, 2010
50
0
0
Status
Pre-Pharmacy
Most people on here are more to the left because they have spent the majority of their lives listening to leftwing professors who came of age in the 60's. When these people get jobs and have to pay taxes and raise families they will adjust their thinking. Another thing to consider is that this is a pattern that happens with every generation. Students and young people are usually more liberal than their grown up selves. That said I'm not sure you could characterize health reform as either left or right. A [email protected]$& quite possibly, but not "socialist."
I agree with you. I'm an independent and I support the Democrats attempt to fix healthcare by default because the Republicans are throwing a hissy fit(death panels, socialism, fascism, US has the BEST healthcare in the world, no working with Democrats under any circumstances). If and when the Republicans grow up and get their act together and present viable ideas, I would support them in a heart beat.
 
Aug 3, 2009
41
0
0
Status
Pharmacy Student
Most people on here are more to the left because they have spent the majority of their lives listening to leftwing professors who came of age in the 60's. When these people get jobs and have to pay taxes and raise families they will adjust their thinking. Another thing to consider is that this is a pattern that happens with every generation. Students and young people are usually more liberal than their grown up selves. That said I'm not sure you could characterize health reform as either left or right. A [email protected]$& quite possibly, but not "socialist."
Higher intelligence positively correlates to liberalism. It probably has to do with the humility that comes with a greater understanding of how the world works. That's probably the same reason that atheism is also positively correlated with higher intelligence.
Every monumental achievement I can think of was considered progressive at one time. I can't think of any bright shining moments in history that are owed to conservatism, but I can think of some pretty disgusting ones.
 

Marcus X

10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
May 12, 2008
164
6
101
Status
Resident [Any Field]
Most people on here are more to the left because they have spent the majority of their lives listening to leftwing professors who came of age in the 60's. When these people get jobs and have to pay taxes and raise families they will adjust their thinking. Another thing to consider is that this is a pattern that happens with every generation. Students and young people are usually more liberal than their grown up selves. That said I'm not sure you could characterize health reform as either left or right. A [email protected]$& quite possibly, but not "socialist."
Well damn. I must have missed the growin' up lesson all those years I was working a full-time job and a part-time job, paying taxes, and supporting myself. How unfortunate for me.
 

type b pharmD

10+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
Feb 24, 2009
2,130
204
181
Status
Pharmacist
Well damn. I must have missed the growin' up lesson all those years I was working a full-time job and a part-time job, paying taxes, and supporting myself. How unfortunate for me.
Yeah really. In the thread about money, they were all claiming i had no credibility when talking about "money" because im not a pharmacist yet.. never mind working for minimum wage i guess or working all through school
 

Marcus X

10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
May 12, 2008
164
6
101
Status
Resident [Any Field]
I think you have problem with reading comprehension, because UArk2014 was sort of putting down liberals a little, NOT attacking conservatives like yourself.

Uh... err... I guess it's a good thing I didn't quote him then, isn't it?
 
Last edited:
Sep 3, 2009
58
0
0
Status
Pharmacy Student
UArk2014 said:
Higher intelligence positively correlates to liberalism. It probably has to do with the humility that comes with a greater understanding of how the world works. That's probably the same reason that atheism is also positively correlated with higher intelligence.
Every monumental achievement I can think of was considered progressive at one time. I can't think of any bright shining moments in history that are owed to conservatism, but I can think of some pretty disgusting ones.
Hit up your history book for some "bright shining" moments of liberal thinking: eugenics, Communism, the German National Socialists movement (aka Nazism), the French Revolution = allot of people dead because of bright ideas. "Humility" doesn't exactly characterize liberal movements, if you know what I mean. To the contrary, liberals are usually the ones that think they know more than the rest of the population, which they think gives them the right to socially engineer the rest of the population like a bunch of guinea pigs. By its very nature conservatism isn't about about radical change, its about preserving the cultural and social values that keep society functioning, which follows you won't find allot of "bright movements" attached to the word. Some of these values are jacked up and should be changed, so society needs both progressives and conservatives to balance eachother out IMO. One exception to all this I would argue is abolition, which was a movement motivated by religious values. Education has recently been correlated with leftism for the obvious reason: the tenured professor lineup is packed with the students from the sixties. This has not always been the case, and before that it was actually the other way around. As far as "intelligence" I've never heard that: do post the paper, Id be eager to read it.
 

Marcus X

10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
May 12, 2008
164
6
101
Status
Resident [Any Field]
Hit up your history book for some "bright shining" moments of liberal thinking: eugenics, Communism, the German National Socialists movement (aka Nazism), the French Revolution = allot of people dead because of bright ideas. "Humility" doesn't exactly characterize liberal movements, if you know what I mean. To the contrary, liberals are usually the ones that think they know more than the rest of the population, which they think gives them the right to socially engineer the rest of the population like a bunch of guinea pigs. By its very nature conservatism isn't about about radical change, its about preserving the cultural and social values that keep society functioning, which follows you won't find allot of "bright movements" attached to the word. Some of these values are jacked up and should be changed, so society needs both progressives and conservatives to balance eachother out IMO. One exception to all this I would argue is abolition, which was a movement motivated by religious values. Education has recently been correlated with leftism for the obvious reason: the tenured professor lineup is packed with the students from the sixties. This has not always been the case, and before that it was actually the other way around. As far as "intelligence" I've never heard that: do post the paper, Id be eager to read it.
http://www.asanet.org/press/20100223/Evolution_and_Intelligence.cfm
 
Feb 12, 2010
50
0
0
Status
Pre-Pharmacy
I actually consider liberal/conservative or right/left to be both sides of the same coin. Both are needed in a vibrant society and both have their cycles of popularity. Liberals tend to skew younger only because I think new ideas are often easier to propagate among the young.
 

Marcus X

10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
May 12, 2008
164
6
101
Status
Resident [Any Field]
Hit up your history book for some "bright shining" moments of liberal thinking: eugenics, Communism, the German National Socialists movement (aka Nazism), the French Revolution = allot of people dead because of bright ideas. "Humility" doesn't exactly characterize liberal movements, if you know what I mean. To the contrary, liberals are usually the ones that think they know more than the rest of the population, which they think gives them the right to socially engineer the rest of the population like a bunch of guinea pigs. By its very nature conservatism isn't about about radical change, its about preserving the cultural and social values that keep society functioning, which follows you won't find allot of "bright movements" attached to the word. Some of these values are jacked up and should be changed, so society needs both progressives and conservatives to balance eachother out IMO. One exception to all this I would argue is abolition, which was a movement motivated by religious values. Education has recently been correlated with leftism for the obvious reason: the tenured professor lineup is packed with the students from the sixties. This has not always been the case, and before that it was actually the other way around. As far as "intelligence" I've never heard that: do post the paper, Id be eager to read it.
Also, you'll be hard-pressed to associate liberalism with either eugenics or the Nazi party of Germany. Maybe you should brush up on your history and stop associating everything "bad" with "liberal". It makes you look like a blithering fool.
 
Sep 3, 2009
58
0
0
Status
Pharmacy Student
PolarBearFire said:
I actually consider liberal/conservative or right/left to be both sides of the same coin. Both are needed in a vibrant society and both have their cycles of popularity. Liberals tend to skew younger only because I think new ideas are often easier to propagate among the young.
thumbsup!
 
Sep 3, 2009
58
0
0
Status
Pharmacy Student
Marcus X said:
Also, you'll be hard-pressed to associate liberalism with either eugenics or the Nazi party of Germany. Maybe you should brush up on your history and stop associating everything "bad" with "liberal". It makes you look like a blithering fool.
ouch! I didn't realize I looked like a 'blithering fool.' These are 'examples' of when liberals go overboard. I didn't say all liberal movements are 'bad.' I would agree the association with Nazism is debatable, probably not the best to make my point. But eugenics is spott on. But seriously, don't resort to ad hominum attacks. Lets keep some civility around here though we may not agree.
 

Marcus X

10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
May 12, 2008
164
6
101
Status
Resident [Any Field]
ouch! I didn't realize I looked like a 'blithering fool.' These are 'examples' of when liberals go overboard. I didn't say all liberal movements are 'bad.' I would agree the association with Nazism is debatable, probably not the best to make my point. But eugenics is spott on. But seriously, don't resort to ad hominum attacks. Lets keep some civility around here though we may not agree.
That was hardly an ad hominem. I wasn't saying your argument is poor because you're a fool; I was saying you're a fool because your argument sucks and lacks all connection to reality. Let's see...

eu·gen·ics   [yoo-jen-iks] Show IPA
–noun(used with a singular verb)
the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, esp. by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics).

Okay. Sounds good so far.

lib·er·al·ism   [lib-er-uh-liz-uhm, lib-ruh-] Show IPA
–noun
1.
the quality or state of being liberal, as in behavior or attitude.
2.
a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties.
3.
(sometimes initial capital letter) the principles and practices of a liberal party in politics.
4.
a movement in modern Protestantism that emphasizes freedom from tradition and authority, the adjustment of religious beliefs to scientific conceptions, and the development of spiritual capacities.

Please explain how "a political or social philosophy advocating freedom of the individual... and government guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties" leads to "discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits". Guaranteeing individual rights and liberties is directly opposed to attempting to limit or direct the reproductive efforts of the populace.
 
Last edited:

Old Timer

10+ Year Member
May 16, 2007
4,068
1,113
281
Status
Pharmacist
I have watched this brew and it's been for sh**s & giggles. It is amazing how people tend to read with one eye open, often looking only at the phrases that interest them or back up what they believe.

Fact's and beliefs are not the same thing. You don't believe in evolution. It's either true or it's not true. Belief in God is belief. It can't be proved. I'm not arguing for or against God, I'm just saying you can't prove it scientifically.

Now that we have that out of the way. Let's get down to some brass tacks.

Ronald Reagan: Raised taxes four times. He cut loopholes and deductions that resulted in tax increases. He raised the Gas tax. The deficit tripled from the time he became President until he left office. He increased the payroll tax for Social Security. He passed the largest tax increase in history and if you factor in inflation in real dollars or as a percentage of GDP it was larger than Clinton's tax increase. These are factual statements. Reagan was a pragmatist. Campaigning for governor in 1966, Reagan promised that his feet were "in concrete" against imposing the onerous withholding scheme on Californians, in which their state taxes were paid with each paycheck, instead of once a year. Once elected, he broke that pledge, quipping, "The sound you hear is the concrete cracking around my feet."

Cutting Taxes v Government Spending: This is the greatest canard of the far right. There have been three major tax decreases in the USA in modern times. The Kennedy tax cuts, the Reagan tax cuts and the Bush Tax cuts. Every single time they were accompanied by massive government spending. Kennedy's tax cuts were parallel to the massive government spending on the Vietnam war and the Great Society. Reagan's tax cuts were parallel to massive defense spending and whatever spending he had to give congress to get his tax cuts passed. Bush's tax cuts were accompanied by massive spending on two wars and Medicare Part D as well as other increases in domestic spending. In other words this is like we had three cases of economic bacterial infection and each time we used two antibiotics Penicillin (tax cuts) and Sulfonamides (government spending) and now we spout with certainty that Penicillin (tax cuts) cured our economic infections. So we have NEVER cut taxes without a parallel increase in government spending let alone doing it at the same time we cut government spending.

Monetary Policy Does Not exist: All of these discussions completely ignore the role of monetary policy in the economy. In fact if you look clearly the Clinton period of economic growth and the Reagan period shared one thing in common. The relative fall in long term interest rates that occurred. In fact the main reason Obama had to spend his way out of the recession is that rates were very low and there really was no place for long term interest rates to go.

You ignore the effect of Opec on the economy in the late 70's and early 80's. Like transfersing so much of our wealth to Opec had no effect on the economy, only good tax cuts and bad government spending.


So, in other words there is no sure fire way to predict what will happen in an economy of our size. There are too many factors that control the economy. You need to use all of the tools at your disposal and use them at the appropriate time.
 
Feb 12, 2010
50
0
0
Status
Pre-Pharmacy
So, in other words there is no sure fire way to predict what will happen in an economy of our size. There are too many factors that control the economy. You need to use all of the tools at your disposal and use them at the appropriate time.
I couldn't agree more, the more I books I read about all the messed up things all politicians have done throughout history the more amused I am at all the current hyperbolic talk. I laugh especially hard at all the people who claim to know what will happen in the future. America is resilient, folks, Obama is not going to destroy the country. Like any President he will have good and bad decisions. We should all be critical but also do our part in fighting for tangible things we believe in.
 
Aug 3, 2009
41
0
0
Status
Pharmacy Student
Hit up your history book for some "bright shining" moments of liberal thinking: eugenics, Communism, the German National Socialists movement (aka Nazism), the French Revolution = allot of people dead because of bright ideas. "Humility" doesn't exactly characterize liberal movements, if you know what I mean. To the contrary, liberals are usually the ones that think they know more than the rest of the population, which they think gives them the right to socially engineer the rest of the population like a bunch of guinea pigs. By its very nature conservatism isn't about about radical change, its about preserving the cultural and social values that keep society functioning, which follows you won't find allot of "bright movements" attached to the word. Some of these values are jacked up and should be changed, so society needs both progressives and conservatives to balance eachother out IMO. One exception to all this I would argue is abolition, which was a movement motivated by religious values. Education has recently been correlated with leftism for the obvious reason: the tenured professor lineup is packed with the students from the sixties. This has not always been the case, and before that it was actually the other way around. As far as "intelligence" I've never heard that: do post the paper, Id be eager to read it.
I'll forego the debunking of the claims Marcus has already covered. And thanks, Marcus, for posting the paper. I'm surprised, if not somewhat incredulous, that you haven't heard of that, Mariachi. This is not the first time I've heard someone pawn off youthful liberal leanings on a liberal-dominated academia. I've yet to encounter any evidence to support this claim. I can only make guesses as to the actual reasons for the overwhelming dominance of liberal thought among the young. One would be that young people have had fewer experiences with the small segment of the impoverished population that take advantage of social programs to simply procreate ad infinitum and maintain unemployment. These 'cadillac driving welfare recipients' have dominated conservative lore for at least as long as I've been alive, and oddly enough, the "first-hand" accounts all sound familiar. The truth is that social programs are exploited by some. Any program, government or otherwise, that attempts to assist those in need will be exploited by an unscrupulous few. To demean all of the recipients or to characterize the entire program as failure simply because of the fraud of a few is hasty and a convenient red herring with which to oppose the programs in their entirety. Much like when you hear someone refuse to give up their pocket change to a beggar because, "he'll only buy booze with it," charity often requires an optimistic and humane view of the recipient. The truth is that we ALL rely on the government to maintain our quality of life. The degrees vary, and we often take for granted some of the positive impacts government has on our lives, but none of us are an island.
The unjaded, wide-eyed idealism of youth probably assists in delaying the onset of "look what I accomplished.... and I didn't need ANY help to get it!" mentality. Like I said, liberalism can be attributed to a humility about how reliant we actually are on each other. Government is simply the physical construct of our reliance. Liberalism, as Marcus' definition clearly states, makes no claim about the "right size" of government.
The father of capitalism, Adam Smith, would have been vilified by today's tea party. He routinely opined about the need for government intervention to slow the inevitable tyranny of those capable of amassing huge sums of wealth. The third world is full of countries with no real government. Our income inequality resembles theirs much more than it does other developed nations. This is a product of a flaw, not a symptom of our dominant economy. Young liberals see this imbalance for what it is rather than be mislead into thinking it's a necessary benefit to drive innovation.
Lastly, it's extremely condescending to assume that young people sit in a classroom and instantly take on the political views of their professors. First of all, it is not a sanctioned practice for professors to attempt to politically indoctrinate their students. Secondly, have you ever considered that the higher intelligence of college bound young people predisposed them to liberalism in the first place? Chicken or the egg, I know.... but at least there is data to support the latter.
Nonetheless, it is true that rampant extremes of either ideological bent are not sustainable. Which way you pull probably depends on how you see your glass. Half full, or half empty. Young people have too long left to live to become jaded and cynical (and conservative) this early!!!
By the way, I was raised a southern, christian republican. I maintained a successful career for almost a decade before returning to academia to pursue pharmacy. So, my n=1 sample flips your age=conservatism claim on it's head. (and yes, I began to lean liberal long before I encountered any of those 'propagandist professors')
 
Sep 3, 2009
58
0
0
Status
Pharmacy Student
That was hardly an ad hominem. I wasn't saying your argument is poor because you're a fool; I was saying you're a fool because your argument sucks and lacks all connection to reality. Let's see...

eu·gen·ics   [yoo-jen-iks] Show IPA
–noun(used with a singular verb)
the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, esp. by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics).

Okay. Sounds good so far.

lib·er·al·ism   [lib-er-uh-liz-uhm, lib-ruh-] Show IPA
–noun
1.
the quality or state of being liberal, as in behavior or attitude.
2.
a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties.
3.
(sometimes initial capital letter) the principles and practices of a liberal party in politics.
4.
a movement in modern Protestantism that emphasizes freedom from tradition and authority, the adjustment of religious beliefs to scientific conceptions, and the development of spiritual capacities.

Please explain how "a political or social philosophy advocating freedom of the individual... and government guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties" leads to "discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits". Guaranteeing individual rights and liberties is directly opposed to attempting to limit or direct the reproductive efforts of the populace.
Maybe you should use that dictionary of yours to look up the definition of 'ad-hominum' before you call somebody a fool. Clever distinction (I'm laughing, really!) but nicely demonstrates the air of arrogance (READ=LACK OF HUMILITY) characteristic of left wingers. The fact that eugenics was a liberal (READ=PROGRESSIVE) movement is grounded in history not your dictionary. It was a movement based on Darwinian thinking that sought to engineer society using forced sterilization and other immoral techniques. Its leading proponents were the intellectual Liberals/progressives of their time. Thats a fact, take it to the bank.

Now there is some general confusion of definitions with you and a subsequent poster. Let's make sure we are talking about the same thing. I use the terms liberal interchangeably with progressive. I would argue this is a better use. In most every democratic country on this planet you will find a conservative and progressive party. This is the ideological split between those who advocate change and those who maintain tradition. I would argue this is the more accurate distinction. "a political or social philosophy advocating freedom of the individual..." could just as easily be a teaparty member as a democrat. Remember, there's a whole neocon side to the GOP that sometimes sounds allot like the NAACP. Anyways, this whole political ideology stuff is one big cluster&*#$ I would rather not get into, especially on a forum devoted to pharmacy, which makes me sad I ever ventured into this.

I will try to take a look at that study of yours when I get time. I know Sociology to be a very "scientific" field which is why whenever I see an officially published paper with fancy statistics and "controls" I take it as the gospel truth. It really doesn't matter that the field is dominated by che guevara worshippers, I'm sure they're impartial when it comes to studying the intelligence of anybody who disagrees with their politics. [This tirade was brought to you by the word Sarcasm, definition not provided]

As far as my original point: Liberal movements of the past have been just as wrong as they have been right. You can find innumerable examples in history when progressives jacked up society real good. The USSR was a whole society dedicated to a liberal cause and that worked out great for everybody, didn't it? And you can find plenty of examples when conservatives have perpetuated messed up systems.

Put blame where it belongs and don't be such a F&^%% sold-out ideologue
 

Marcus X

10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
May 12, 2008
164
6
101
Status
Resident [Any Field]
Maybe you should use that dictionary of yours to look up the definition of 'ad-hominum' before you call somebody a fool. Clever distinction (I'm laughing, really!) but nicely demonstrates the air of arrogance (READ=LACK OF HUMILITY) characteristic of left wingers. The fact that eugenics was a liberal (READ=PROGRESSIVE) movement is grounded in history not your dictionary. It was a movement based on Darwinian thinking that sought to engineer society using forced sterilization and other immoral techniques. Its leading proponents were the intellectual Liberals/progressives of their time. Thats a fact, take it to the bank.

Now there is some general confusion of definitions with you and a subsequent poster. Let's make sure we are talking about the same thing. I use the terms liberal interchangeably with progressive. I would argue this is a better use. In most every democratic country on this planet you will find a conservative and progressive party. This is the ideological split between those who advocate change and those who maintain tradition. I would argue this is the more accurate distinction. "a political or social philosophy advocating freedom of the individual..." could just as easily be a teaparty member as a democrat. Remember, there's a whole neocon side to the GOP that sometimes sounds allot like the NAACP. Anyways, this whole political ideology stuff is one big cluster&*#$ I would rather not get into, especially on a forum devoted to pharmacy, which makes me sad I ever ventured into this.

I will try to take a look at that study of yours when I get time. I know Sociology to be a very "scientific" field which is why whenever I see an officially published paper with fancy statistics and "controls" I take it as the gospel truth. It really doesn't matter that the field is dominated by che guevara worshippers, I'm sure they're impartial when it comes to studying the intelligence of anybody who disagrees with their politics. [This tirade was brought to you by the word Sarcasm, definition not provided]

As far as my original point: Liberal movements of the past have been just as wrong as they have been right. You can find innumerable examples in history when progressives jacked up society real good. The USSR was a whole society dedicated to a liberal cause and that worked out great for everybody, didn't it? And you can find plenty of examples when conservatives have perpetuated messed up systems.

Put blame where it belongs and don't be such a F&^%% sold-out ideologue
If it's lack of humility you want, lack of humility you shall receive. It's obvious to me that you clearly lack an understanding of what the informal fallacy of "ad hominem" means. Thankfully, I've been to school, paid attention, and even taken Latin (which is why I can actually spell "ad hominem"). Allow me to enlighten you. To wit:

"An ad hominem argument has the basic form:
Person 1 makes claim X
There is something objectionable about Person 1
Therefore claim X is false"

If you'll go back up and read my original post, you'll see that my argument did not, in fact, take that form. Allow me to break it down for you:
Mariachi claimed that liberalism gave rise to the Nazi party of Germany
This claim is patently false, given what we know of the Nazi party
Therefore, Mariachi looks like a blithering fool.

You see, in a fallacious ad hominem argument, your being a fool would be one of the premises invalidating your argument. In this case, however, it's the conclusion.

See the difference there? it's really subtle.

I'll happily agree that the "study" in question is of little use, as the differences in IQ were only about 6 - 10 points between the two groups, which, while statistically significant, are hardly of any practical significance. I provided a link to it as I was familiar with it and it had been requested.

Furthermore, eugenics as a "science" sprang out of a misguided interpretation of natural selection, was espoused and supported by both prominent liberals and conservatives, and has been soundly rejected by the scientific, liberal, and conservative communities in most every civilized country on Earth. Again, the idea that eugenics is a liberal idea is, at best, extremely tenuous. That is, unless you consider everything produced by science to be "progressive" and "liberal", which would reinforce the belief of many here that you're a mindless conservative bot running blindly from anything that might upset the precious status quo, engaging in an ever growing string of argumenta ad antiquitatem. Watch out for that accusative case there; it's tricky.
 
Sep 3, 2009
58
0
0
Status
Pharmacy Student
I'll forego the debunking of the claims Marcus has already covered. And thanks, Marcus, for posting the paper. I'm surprised, if not somewhat incredulous, that you haven't heard of that, Mariachi. This is not the first time I've heard someone pawn off youthful liberal leanings on a liberal-dominated academia. I've yet to encounter any evidence to support this claim. I can only make guesses as to the actual reasons for the overwhelming dominance of liberal thought among the young. One would be that young people have had fewer experiences with the small segment of the impoverished population that take advantage of social programs to simply procreate ad infinitum and maintain unemployment. These 'cadillac driving welfare recipients' have dominated conservative lore for at least as long as I've been alive, and oddly enough, the "first-hand" accounts all sound familiar. The truth is that social programs are exploited by some. Any program, government or otherwise, that attempts to assist those in need will be exploited by an unscrupulous few. To demean all of the recipients or to characterize the entire program as failure simply because of the fraud of a few is hasty and a convenient red herring with which to oppose the programs in their entirety. Much like when you hear someone refuse to give up their pocket change to a beggar because, "he'll only buy booze with it," charity often requires an optimistic and humane view of the recipient. The truth is that we ALL rely on the government to maintain our quality of life. The degrees vary, and we often take for granted some of the positive impacts government has on our lives, but none of us are an island.
The unjaded, wide-eyed idealism of youth probably assists in delaying the onset of "look what I accomplished.... and I didn't need ANY help to get it!" mentality. Like I said, liberalism can be attributed to a humility about how reliant we actually are on each other. Government is simply the physical construct of our reliance. Liberalism, as Marcus' definition clearly states, makes no claim about the "right size" of government.
The father of capitalism, Adam Smith, would have been vilified by today's tea party. He routinely opined about the need for government intervention to slow the inevitable tyranny of those capable of amassing huge sums of wealth. The third world is full of countries with no real government. Our income inequality resembles theirs much more than it does other developed nations. This is a product of a flaw, not a symptom of our dominant economy. Young liberals see this imbalance for what it is rather than be mislead into thinking it's a necessary benefit to drive innovation.
Lastly, it's extremely condescending to assume that young people sit in a classroom and instantly take on the political views of their professors. First of all, it is not a sanctioned practice for professors to attempt to politically indoctrinate their students. Secondly, have you ever considered that the higher intelligence of college bound young people predisposed them to liberalism in the first place? Chicken or the egg, I know.... but at least there is data to support the latter.
Nonetheless, it is true that rampant extremes of either ideological bent are not sustainable. Which way you pull probably depends on how you see your glass. Half full, or half empty. Young people have too long left to live to become jaded and cynical (and conservative) this early!!!
By the way, I was raised a southern, christian republican. I maintained a successful career for almost a decade before returning to academia to pursue pharmacy. So, my n=1 sample flips your age=conservatism claim on it's head. (and yes, I began to lean liberal long before I encountered any of those 'propagandist professors')
"This is not the first time I've heard someone pawn off youthful liberal leanings on a liberal-dominated academia"

UArk, your all over the place and I'm not sure where to start or how to respond. Some of what you say I agree with. Some of what you say makes ME incredulous. Do you really believe that people that disagree with your politics are not as intelligent as you? I will say this, doesn't it follow that a population of students who have left leaning teachers all their life will tend to lean more to the left? And certainly you will concede that on balance most professors are left leaning? And unless you live in a parallel universe, older people are typically more conservative than younger people. I don't care what damn 'sociologic' study you dig up. For the love of anything sane, sociology was founded by Karl Mark! I don't mean to disparage the left-leaning viewpoint in this thread, really; I am making an observation about a population not any individual.

With that I hope to leave this thread alone. peace!