SDN Ideology

[Marcus X]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

For the love of anything sane, sociology was founded by Karl Mark!

You spelled "Émile Durkheim" wrong, not to mention "Karl Marx".

 

[Mariachi]

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.

Ya, I got that jack*&*, which is why I said "clever." Why don't you reread that part again, its in English not Latin so should be even clearer. As far as keeping the spirit of refraining from 'ad hominem' attacks, it seems you can spell it but can't follow it.

"Extremely tenuous" is an understatement. Why don't you go and do some research and look up where the leaders of the movement identified themselves. No crap, every political stripe renounced it after the fact. The point is that at the time it was a 'progressive' movement. It's a lesson in humility for today's eager progressives that want to re-engineer society.

Good night!

 

[Mariachi]

You spelled "Émile Durkheim" wrong, not to mention "Karl Marx".

LOL Again with the spelling! I'm sorry, let me practice: Karl Marx, Karl Marx, Karl Marx, Karl Marx, Karl Marx, Karl Marx, Karl Marx, Karl Marx, Karl Marx, Karl Marx, Karl Marx, Karl Marx, Karl Marx, Karl Marx, Karl Marx, Karl Marx, Karl Marx, Karl Marx, Karl Marx, Karl Marx

OK I think I got it now: Karl Marx, Ad Hominem, anything else?

 

[Marcus X]

Ya, I got that jack*&*, which is why I said "clever." Why don't you reread that part again, its in English not Latin so should be even clearer. As far as keeping the spirit of refraining from 'ad hominem' attacks, it seems you can spell it but can't follow it.

"Extremely tenuous" is an understatement. Why don't you go and do some research and look up where the leaders of the movement identified themselves. No crap, every political stripe renounced it after the fact. The point is that at the time it was a 'progressive' movement. It's a lesson in humility for today's eager progressives that want to re-engineer society.

Good night!

No, you don't got it. An insult does not, in and of itself, constitute an argumentum ad hominem; it's merely an insult. Only when an insult is used as the basis for invalidating an argument does it become an ad hominem. In simpler terms: insult != ad hominem. I promise, if you work at it, you'll get it. Until then, let me provide you with a rule my mother gave me as a wee child: "Don't use words you don't understand".

An understatement? I'm assuming you meant "overstatement", or you don't know what "tenuous" means.

"It's a lesson in humility for today's eager progressives that want to re-engineer society." If anything it's more a lesson about science run amok than about a particular political or philosophical ideology; most of the early proponents were scientists, many of whom worked for or with the Nazis (whom we've already established weren't liberal in any sense of the word). There's your "all of science is progressive and therefore evil" spiel again. Furthermore, simply because an idea is espoused by some people who also espouse liberal ideas does not make it a liberal idea as well. If Barack Obama suddenly said he supported privatizing The Fed, that wouldn't suddenly make it a liberal idea.

 

[apteryx]

You know Internet arguments have "jumped the shark" when people start arguing over spelling errors which have nothing to do with the topic at hand, but nevertheless provide some sort of perceived "edge" over the other guy in trying to make him look dumb.

Then again, I guess that is a typical political move. Carry on with the useless drivel! Internet arguments are important! You will DEFINITELY change the other guy's opinion! It might work even better if you write in extremely large font. My words are more important because they are HUUUUUGE!

 

[297point1]

Speak for yourself, rookie. The last time I checked the previous president who had lower approval ratings than Obama was elected TWICE.

Bush only won one election...Al Gore won in 2000.

As they say, it's not over until your brother stops counting the votes.

 

[Marcus X]

You know Internet arguments have "jumped the shark" when people start arguing over spelling errors which have nothing to do with the topic at hand, but nevertheless provide some sort of perceived "edge" over the other guy in trying to make him look dumb.

Then again, I guess that is a typical political move. Carry on with the useless drivel! Internet arguments are important! You will DEFINITELY change the other guy's opinion! It might work even better if you write in extremely large font. My words are more important because they are HUUUUUGE!

Oh yeah, I stopped arguing a while ago. Now I'm just playing. It is, after all, only the internet.

 

[renetto]

Bush only won one election...Al Gore won in 2000.

As they say, it's not over until your brother stops counting the votes.

I'm not sure if you realize this but we live in a constitutional republic where the president is elected via the electoral college. This isn't mob rule so just because Al Gore won the popular vote doesn't mean a damn thing.

Bush won fair and square.

 

[Argentium]

Bush only won one election...Al Gore won in 2000.

As they say, it's not over until your brother stops counting the votes.

There's no need to be bitter. And how about the novel idea of cutting spending instead of raising taxes?

 

[Old Timer]

There's no need to be bitter. And how about the novel idea of cutting spending instead of raising taxes?

Tell me what you would cut and would these cuts have any impact on the economy? Be honest now....

 

[Argentium]

Tell me what you would cut and would these cuts have any impact on the economy? Be honest now....

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/18/government.improper.payments/index.html

 

[297point1]

Bush won fair and square.

Are you kidding me? There were so many shenanigans going on in Florida in 2000...

And before you pin me as a kool-aid drinking dittohead, I have a hard time believing that John Kennedy won the 1960 election on the up and up- too many dead people voting in Illinois for my comfort.

 

[PharmacistReb]

Argentinum,

Old Timer would rather have 80% of his check go to the government to pay for everyone's education, health care, and housing. It's better when the government makes decisions for the American electorate. You must take note to how successful Medicare, Medicaid, the post office, and Social Security are. It's clear, only those in Washington are aware of our well-being. We'd be much better off by having elected bureaucrats make our decisions. Listen to Old Timer, he knows much more than us. Liberals are smarter, better managers of our money, and will keep us safe against international enemies should they attack.

 

[Old Timer]

Argentinum,

Old Timer would rather have 80% of his check go to the government to pay for everyone's education, health care, and housing. It's better when the government makes decisions for the American electorate. You must take not to how successful Medicare, Medicaid, the post office, and Social Security is. It's clear, only those in Washington are aware of our well-being. We'd be much better off by having elected bureaucrats make our decisions. Listen to Old Timer, he knows much more than us. Liberals are smarter, better managers of our money, and will keep us safe against international enemies should they attack.

I did not say any of those things. I merely tried to point out that economy is more complicated than you portray. Spending bad, taxes good. If it was that simple, people would not get PhD's in the field. You make assumptions about what philosophy I hold without knowing anything about me. I did not make any assumptions about you in any way. I merely pointed out facts that lay to waste the present right wing mentality (note not conservative) that pervades a certain part of the electorate. On many issues I am very conservative. I have read the Federalist Papers and I understand the philosophy of individual liberty that is the basis for our society.

So don't put words in my mouth. You have no idea what I think or what political philosophy I have. We are trying to have an economic discussion. So man up and supply me with some facts that are contrary to what I pointed out. I don't mind the give and take. I listen to people who disagree with me on the far left and on the far right. It's boring to be around people who believe the same thing as you all of the time.

So I wait your response to my challenge. Show me where anything I said was not true.

 

[PharmacistReb]

UArk2014... in your infinite wisdom. It's clear that everything you say is rooted in fact... or rooted in rhetoric/fiction. How long have you been in college/grad school/academia? It's apparent that the professor hippies with their gray beards teaching in some asbestos-riddled Philosophy department over in Arkansas has gotten through to you with their propaganda-laden nonsense. I do not know many professionals in my part of the country that are liberals with the exception of the liberal academia types... the ones with the white beards wearing Harley Davidson shirts to class talking about the good ol' days of Jimmy Carter and how they smoked more weed at Woodstock than they have at any point in their lives. Most of the liberal voters in my part of the country are those without jobs or those in academia... period. Seldom do I meet a white collar liberal that is not a professor or teacher. I pulled this from the Politico:

"White college graduates, 35 percent of voters, broke for McCain 51 to 47 percent, marking roughly a 3-point gain for Obama compared to Gore’s 44 percent showing."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15297.html

 

[owlegrad]

Argentinum,

Old Timer would rather have 80% of his check go to the government to pay for everyone's education, health care, and housing. It's better when the government makes decisions for the American electorate. You must take note to how successful Medicare, Medicaid, the post office, and Social Security are. It's clear, only those in Washington are aware of our well-being. We'd be much better off by having elected bureaucrats make our decisions. Listen to Old Timer, he knows much more than us. Liberals are smarter, better managers of our money, and will keep us safe against international enemies should they attack.

What's wrong with the post office?

As for Medicare and Social Security, I am too young to know first hand what life for the elderly was like before them, but I can't imagine that life for the elderly was better before Medicare and Social Security.

 

[PharmacistReb]

What's wrong with the post office?

As for Medicare and Social Security, I am too young to know first hand what life for the elderly was like before them, but I can't imagine that life for the elderly was better before Medicare and Social Security.

I can't imagine what it was like either. I hope those elderly figure out how to do it like they did in the golden days because both Medicare and Social Security are set to bankrupt. Part of it has to do with excessive spending from both sides of the aisle, Bush included. And guess what? We're spending more now than during the Bush years.

And the post office is also broke. Obama has even decided to shut down business of the Post Office on Saturdays and raise rates... and even admitted that UPS and FedEx are run way more efficiently

 

[PharmacistReb]

UArk2014... Here is some more info about the "super conservative" Mike Huckabee that I promised for you. Again... it's obvious that you are more rooted in a MSNBC headline or whatever the Daily Kos may have in a blog.

http://www.wpaag.org/Huckabee - Conservative Hope - grassroots movement.htm

 

[PharmacistReb]

I did not say any of those things. I merely tried to point out that economy is more complicated than you portray. Spending bad, taxes good. If it was that simple, people would not get PhD's in the field. You make assumptions about what philosophy I hold without knowing anything about me. I did not make any assumptions about you in any way. I merely pointed out facts that lay to waste the present right wing mentality (note not conservative) that pervades a certain part of the electorate. On many issues I am very conservative. I have read the Federalist Papers and I understand the philosophy of individual liberty that is the basis for our society.

So don't put words in my mouth. You have no idea what I think or what political philosophy I have. We are trying to have an economic discussion. So man up and supply me with some facts that are contrary to what I pointed out. I don't mind the give and take. I listen to people who disagree with me on the far left and on the far right. It's boring to be around people who believe the same thing as you all of the time.

So I wait your response to my challenge. Show me where anything I said was not true.

Old Timer, I do not know what you're challenging me with. You rip George Bush and Ronald Reagan in one post and then you say you are conservative in some areas. If you are not a straight party line hack, then you are like me and choose candidates based on fiscal responsibility and a value system that reflects yours. I have yet to see your criticism of Barack Obama so my assumption is that you think he is running our country more efficiently than Reagan or Bush (you criticized both quite harshly).

It'd be easier if you broke it down and made clear what your thoughts are on record spending from Obama. I was not a fan of Bush spending money. I'll be the first to criticize Bush. Obama spent 25% more than FDR on the GDP in his first year as President.. The CBO says our debt will be 90% of the GDP by 2020.. I don't like the way the country is headed. And it's apparent with the facts from 2008, contrary to what UofArk is lying about, that college educated people did not vote for this.

You can challenge me on something after I hear your opinion on this administration. Which as of yet, I've seen nothing substantial.

 

[Old Timer]

I can't imagine what it was like either. I hope those elderly figure out how to do it like they did in the golden days because both Medicare and Social Security are set to bankrupt.

Social Security is easy to fix. We will fix it the same way we fixed in the 80's when Reagan was President. We will raise payroll taxes a little, we will raise the retirement age a little and we will either cut benefits or adjust the COLA formula to reduce increases in payments slightly. This will probably get us most of the way through the baby boom retirement.

Medicare is more problematic because as a society we want more medical care than we can afford and we refuse to have a civil discussion about limits.

Part of it has to do with excessive spending from both sides of the aisle, Bush included. And guess what? We're spending more now than during the Bush years.

Of course we are spending more. We were just about in a depression. Since interest rates were just about at zero, the only tool available to the government was fiscal policy. Monetary policy and its effects that helped both Reagan and Clinton were not available to President Obama and the Fed. Since states and cities cannot deficit spend they would have laid off policemen, fireman, teachers, sanitation workers and continued the downward spiral. The stimulus was able to prevent a depression and the economy is starting to recover. The only answer you have is tax cuts good, spending bad with no basis to believe in same as I pointed out earlier. Maybe you can elect a right wing Congress and a right wing President and give it a shot. Until then, all you have is conjecture.

And the post office is also broke. Obama has even decided to shut down business of the Post Office on Saturdays and raise rates... and even admitted that UPS and FedEx are run way more efficiently

The Post Office is broke because people are mailing less things. E-mail has supplanted snail mail as a method of communication. It has nothing to do with how efficient the USPS is, it has to do with supply and demand. Also FedEx and UPS can be more efficient because they charge different rates for different people and the USPS does not. Also it costs about $20.00 for an overnight letter via UPS or FedEx and for the most part the USPS is 42 cents. Also the USPS delivers to the sticks, boonies, whatever for the same price and UPS and FedEx have a surcharge. So your analogy is week at best and disingenuous at worst.

Reb:

I personally think you are a smart guy. Listen to what I am telling you. You are the mirror image of the left you despise so much. Think about it. You are just spouting crap you heard from others w/o the least bit of critical thought.

 

[Old Timer]

Old Timer, I do not know what you're challenging me with. You rip George Bush and Ronald Reagan in one post and then you say you are conservative in some areas. If you are not a straight party line hack, then you are like me and choose candidates based on fiscal responsibility and a value system that reflects yours. I have yet to see your criticism of Barack Obama so my assumption is that you think he is running our country more efficiently than Reagan or Bush (you criticized both quite harshly).

It'd be easier if you broke it down and made clear what your thoughts are on record spending from Obama. I was not a fan of Bush spending money. I'll be the first to criticize Bush. Obama spent 25% more than FDR on the GDP in his first year as President.. The CBO says our debt will be 90% of the GDP by 2020.. I don't like the way the country is headed. And it's apparent with the facts from 2008, contrary to what UofArk is lying about, that college educated people did not vote for this.

You can challenge me on something after I hear your opinion on this administration. Which as of yet, I've seen nothing substantial.

Now I know you are either brain washed, not thinking clearly or failed reading comprehension. I did not Rip anyone. I pointed out that there is conventional wisdom that Ronald Reagan was a right wing ideologue that only cut taxes, stood up for America and never retreated, never negotiated with the "bad guys" out to destroy us. Reagan was a pragmatist who would change his policy when confronted with a new reality even if it did not match his ideology. I think that makes someone smart. He raised taxes to hold the deficit in check, pulled (cut and run) troops out of Lebanon, traded arms for hostages with Iran. If Obama did any of these things he would be shot.

I also pointed out there is a fallacy in the C.W. that tax cuts will stimulate the economy irrespective of government spending. As I pointed out that is not true.

I am trying to show you there is a fallacy in your thinking. The mirror image of the fallacy on the left. You allow beliefs instead of facts to guide your thinking and that leads to serious problems.

 

[PharmacistReb]

Now I know you are either brain washed, not thinking clearly or failed reading comprehension. I did not Rip anyone. I pointed out that there is conventional wisdom that Ronald Reagan was a right wing ideologue that only cut taxes, stood up for America and never retreated, never negotiated with the "bad guys" out to destroy us. Reagan was a pragmatist who would change his policy when confronted with a new reality even if it did not match his ideology. I think that makes someone smart. He raised taxes to hold the deficit in check, pulled (cut and run) troops out of Lebanon, traded arms for hostages with Iran. If Obama did any of these things he would be shot.

I also pointed out there is a fallacy in the C.W. that tax cuts will stimulate the economy irrespective of government spending. As I pointed out that is not true.

I am trying to show you there is a fallacy in your thinking. The mirror image of the fallacy on the left. You allow beliefs instead of facts to guide your thinking and that leads to serious problems.

Old Timer, I am very self educated when it comes to politics. I would not be a mirror image of the far left that I so brazenly criticize if I say things like I voted for a Democrat governor (who implemented TennCare mind you -- similar to ObamaCare) and that I thought Bill Clinton was an effective President. You are now resorting to saying things like "brain washed" and "failed reading comprehension" to defend yourself.

Look, I know Reagan spent and I know he never balanced a budget. Am I aware of this? Absolutely. Did Reagan raise some taxes? Yes. But it was also a time of prosperity and fiscal responsibility in comparison to Obamanomics. You can compare one aspect of Obama's tax policy to Reagan, such as UofArk2014, but we all know Reagan did not spend as fas as Obama. It was a time of job creation, 20 million in both the 80's and 90's.

And another thing, Old Timer. You talk about how cities and states cannot deficit spend. You are correct... well aware. So after the stimulus package, why did Obama continue to spend? If it was such a success in saving us from depression, why didn't he focus solely on rebounding the economy? Tell me, my next challenge to you: Why would you burden the states (Entities that cannot deficit spend) with unfunded mandates?? If we were just a year ago on the brink of depression, why in the living hell would you burden the states with unfunded mandates? Governors of both the Democrat and Republican variety have said that we are going to face serious economic crises down the road or be forced to cut programs and state jobs because of the inability to fund these mandates. Why did Obama try to jam through Cap and Trade, which is a hindrance to production in the private sector. And now we are hearing amnesty. What happens to those 15-20 million that may potentially become legal citizens of our country... are they added to the 32 million that will become insured? Imagine the massive debt we are piling on our states; meanwhile you talk about how the stimulus saved us from depression. And another thing, why have we not spent most of the stimulus yet? If 800 billion dollars was such a worthy cause, why have we only spent a fraction of it? If depression was imminent and he saved us from it, why then did we need to allocate 800 billion?

I've met people like you. People that claim to be "conservative" in some aspects and that agree with some conservative principles. There is no way you can address everything I just said with any kind of rationale because it is impossible. People like you who try to label people as such when you are as politically opinionated and divisive as any other person within this discussion. You are a political "triangulator" when everyone realizes your true stance.

But with that being said, I'll wait for your response to everything I have laid out.

 

[PolarBearFire]

Old Timer, I am very self educated when it comes to politics. I would not be a mirror image of the far left that I so brazenly criticize if I say things like I voted for a Democrat governor (who implemented TennCare mind you -- similar to ObamaCare) and that I thought Bill Clinton was an effective President. You are now resorting to saying things like "brain washed" and "failed reading comprehension" to defend yourself.

Look, I know Reagan spent and I know he never balanced a budget. Am I aware of this? Absolutely. Did Reagan raise some taxes? Yes. But it was also a time of prosperity and fiscal responsibility in comparison to Obamanomics. You can compare one aspect of Obama's tax policy to Reagan, such as UofArk2014, but we all know Reagan did not spend as fas as Obama. It was a time of job creation, 20 million in both the 80's and 90's.

And another thing, Old Timer. You talk about how cities and states cannot deficit spend. You are correct... well aware. So after the stimulus package, why did Obama continue to spend? If it was such a success in saving us from depression, why didn't he focus solely on rebounding the economy? Tell me, my next challenge to you: Why would you burden the states (Entities that cannot deficit spend) with unfunded mandates?? If we were just a year ago on the brink of depression, why in the living hell would you burden the states with unfunded mandates? Governors of both the Democrat and Republican variety have said that we are going to face serious economic crises down the road or be forced to cut programs and state jobs because of the inability to fund these mandates. Why did Obama try to jam through Cap and Trade, which is a hindrance to production in the private sector. And now we are hearing amnesty. What happens to those 15-20 million that may potentially become legal citizens of our country... are they added to the 32 million that will become insured? Imagine the massive debt we are piling on our states; meanwhile you talk about how the stimulus saved us from depression. And another thing, why have we not spent most of the stimulus yet? If 800 billion dollars was such a worthy cause, why have we only spent a fraction of it? If depression was imminent and he saved us from it, why then did we need to allocate 800 billion?

I've met people like you. People that claim to be "conservative" in some aspects and that agree with some conservative principles. There is no way you can address everything I just said with any kind of rationale because it is impossible. People like you who try to label people as such when you are as politically opinionated and divisive as any other person within this discussion. You are a political "triangulator" when everyone realizes your true stance.

But with that being said, I'll wait for your response to everything I have laid out.

Mister PharmacistReb, again you do not make sense. You're so proud of voting for a Democrat governor who supported Tenncare, which according to you is similar to Obamacare(this is debatable). Yet you rail at all the people on this forum that support Obamacare. There's absolutely nothing that Obama can do that will satisfy you. The truth is Obama is a centrist. Even Obamacare is modeled more closely to previous Republican proposals than conservatives will care to admit.

 

[Old Timer]

Old Timer, I am very self educated when it comes to politics. I would not be a mirror image of the far left that I so brazenly criticize if I say things like I voted for a Democrat governor (who implemented TennCare mind you -- similar to ObamaCare) and that I thought Bill Clinton was an effective President. You are now resorting to saying things like "brain washed" and "failed reading comprehension" to defend yourself.



Look, I know Reagan spent and I know he never balanced a budget. Am I aware of this? Absolutely. Did Reagan raise some taxes? Yes. But it was also a time of prosperity and fiscal responsibility in comparison to Obamanomics. You can compare one aspect of Obama's tax policy to Reagan, such as UofArk2014, but we all know Reagan did not spend as fas as Obama. It was a time of job creation, 20 million in both the 80's and 90's.

And another thing, Old Timer. You talk about how cities and states cannot deficit spend. You are correct... well aware. So after the stimulus package, why did Obama continue to spend? If it was such a success in saving us from depression, why didn't he focus solely on rebounding the economy? Tell me, my next challenge to you: Why would you burden the states (Entities that cannot deficit spend) with unfunded mandates?? If we were just a year ago on the brink of depression, why in the living hell would you burden the states with unfunded mandates? Governors of both the Democrat and Republican variety have said that we are going to face serious economic crises down the road or be forced to cut programs and state jobs because of the inability to fund these mandates. Why did Obama try to jam through Cap and Trade, which is a hindrance to production in the private sector. And now we are hearing amnesty. What happens to those 15-20 million that may potentially become legal citizens of our country... are they added to the 32 million that will become insured? Imagine the massive debt we are piling on our states; meanwhile you talk about how the stimulus saved us from depression. And another thing, why have we not spent most of the stimulus yet? If 800 billion dollars was such a worthy cause, why have we only spent a fraction of it? If depression was imminent and he saved us from it, why then did we need to allocate 800 billion?

I've met people like you. People that claim to be "conservative" in some aspects and that agree with some conservative principles. There is no way you can address everything I just said with any kind of rationale because it is impossible. People like you who try to label people as such when you are as politically opinionated and divisive as any other person within this discussion. You are a political "triangulator" when everyone realizes your true stance.

But with that being said, I'll wait for your response to everything I have laid out.

I don't care who you voted for. I don't know. I only know what you espouse here and again you are just woefully ignorant of the facts.

1) When Reagan became President it was not a time of prosperity. In fact for almost 3 years it was a total mess. He raised taxes because the deficit was out of control due to his tax cuts. The job creation was almost all due to falling interest rates and little to do with who was President or what his monetary polices were. In fact Government spending and debt all increased when Reagan was President and that kind of takes the sails right out of your argument. Does that mean Reagan spent our way to prosperity?

2) Obama has only proposed one budget so I don't see where your imaginary spending is coming from.

3) Reagan allowed amnesty for illegal aliens.

I'll stop there because you have refused to address the challenge I gave you. Please point out where any of the factual statements I made in my original post in this thread are false. If not what's the point. You can never talk a believer out of his beliefs. You drank the Kool-Aid and the disease is spread.

 

[PharmacistReb]

I don't care who you voted for. I don't know. I only know what you espouse here and again you are just woefully ignorant of the facts.

1) When Reagan became President it was not a time of prosperity. In fact for almost 3 years it was a total mess. He raised taxes because the deficit was out of control due to his tax cuts. The job creation was almost all due to falling interest rates and little to do with who was President or what his monetary polices were. In fact Government spending and debt all increased when Reagan was President and that kind of takes the sails right out of your argument. Does that mean Reagan spent our way to prosperity?

2) Obama has only proposed one budget so I don't see where your imaginary spending is coming from.

3) Reagan allowed amnesty for illegal aliens.

I'll stop there because you have refused to address the challenge I gave you. Please point out where any of the factual statements I made in my original post in this thread are false. If not what's the point. You can never talk a believer out of his beliefs. You drank the Kool-Aid and the disease is spread.

I agree with you on all three points. Now I'll wait for your response to everything I have put forth.

I know people like you. Your mother/father/guardian was either a FDR or Truman Democrat or you were. You are an old school school Democrat and you will never ever change regardless of the politics. You are definitely more knowledgeable than these other clowns (i.e. Polar) who make no attempt to address anything I've said. And you are probably way more moderate even though you will tirelessly defend Obama. You don't want Democrats to again be associated with a failed President like that of Jimmy Carter and you don't want Democrats to be associated with radical ideologues like Obama. However, for the good of the party and because of your pride, you have to defend this man the best way you know how.

I've said what I said about Reagan. The truth of the matter is that you have your opinion and I have mine. Now that we've both gotten that out of the way, I'd like you to break down everything I've said in my previous post and what your thoughts are on the Obama agenda and the current health care legislation.

 

[PharmacistReb]

Mister PharmacistReb, again you do not make sense. You're so proud of voting for a Democrat governor who supported Tenncare, which according to you is similar to Obamacare(this is debatable). Yet you rail at all the people on this forum that support Obamacare. There's absolutely nothing that Obama can do that will satisfy you. The truth is Obama is a centrist. Even Obamacare is modeled more closely to previous Republican proposals than conservatives will care to admit.

Polar, you need to try to wrap your mind around the points I'm making. I voted for a Democrat governor who was fiscally sound. We did, in fact, have a health care system similar to ObamaCare. It failed horribly. Everyone in my home state recognizes it. This is why our Governor sent personal letters to Congressman and Senators from our state asking them to vote against the bill because it would kill jobs in Tennessee and cause the people of the state to carry the burden of higher taxes in the future because of the unfunded mandates.

There is bipartisan OPPOSITION to this health care bill. There may be small pieces of it that are touted as popular but the bureaucracy, mandates, and burden that it places on the American people are not popular. You may even bit hit by it down the road when you have a job and pay taxes and receive benefits. When you're not paying student loans and actually begin working 12 hours shifts and you get away from the professors who are part of unions that helped fill Obama's coffers, then you will understand. Get away from the social justice for a second and see the debt that China is holding and that Obama is growing.

 

[PharmacistReb]

I don't care who you voted for. I don't know. I only know what you espouse here and again you are just woefully ignorant of the facts.

1) When Reagan became President it was not a time of prosperity. In fact for almost 3 years it was a total mess. He raised taxes because the deficit was out of control due to his tax cuts. The job creation was almost all due to falling interest rates and little to do with who was President or what his monetary polices were. In fact Government spending and debt all increased when Reagan was President and that kind of takes the sails right out of your argument. Does that mean Reagan spent our way to prosperity?

2) Obama has only proposed one budget so I don't see where your imaginary spending is coming from.

3) Reagan allowed amnesty for illegal aliens.

I'll stop there because you have refused to address the challenge I gave you. Please point out where any of the factual statements I made in my original post in this thread are false. If not what's the point. You can never talk a believer out of his beliefs. You drank the Kool-Aid and the disease is spread.

By the way, if this is your depiction of Reagan, then he must be your hero. There were 20 million jobs which you say were created by random chance and prosperity was due to the growing of the government.

If this is true, then Obama and Reagan are brothers and both are your heroes. It's good to know we're on the road back to prosperity. Government growth and amnesty and increasing debt... Obama must be Reagan's twin.

 

[Argentium]

OldTimer, you did not address the fact that I did propose a way to cut spending by a tune of 100b without drastically (if at all) dampening the economy and without tampering with entitlements either!

There are lots of ways you can trim the federal budget; there is no reason why we should increase taxes and increase spending as well. It is time that we pay down a little bit of our 13 trillion dollar deficit. I think that the $200,000,000,000 interest we pay on our debt could be used in better ways. Education, infrastructure, research are all possibilities.

All this without even getting into the nitty-gritty politics of cutting entitlements. Which need to happen, by the way.

 

[Marcus X]

What's wrong with the post office?

Yeah, poor USPS. They don't even receive taxes. They've been pseudo-independent since the 80s, but everyone picks on them.

 

[Sparda29]

 

[Sugadarlin]

LMAO!!! My sentiments exactly!

 

[diastole]

UArk2014... in your infinite wisdom. It's clear that everything you say is rooted in fact... or rooted in rhetoric/fiction. How long have you been in college/grad school/academia? It's apparent that the professor hippies with their gray beards teaching in some asbestos-riddled Philosophy department over in Arkansas has gotten through to you with their propaganda-laden nonsense. I do not know many professionals in my part of the country that are liberals with the exception of the liberal academia types... the ones with the white beards wearing Harley Davidson shirts to class talking about the good ol' days of Jimmy Carter and how they smoked more weed at Woodstock than they have at any point in their lives. Most of the liberal voters in my part of the country are those without jobs or those in academia... period. Seldom do I meet a white collar liberal that is not a professor or teacher. I pulled this from the Politico:

"White college graduates, 35 percent of voters, broke for McCain 51 to 47 percent, marking roughly a 3-point gain for Obama compared to Gore’s 44 percent showing."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15297.html

This is a very curious stat you are citing. You did notice that this figure is for just white college graduates, right? Are you not counting non-white college graduates as being college grads? According to the exit polls that I found, 44% of the voters in the 2008 elections had college degrees and Obama won that vote 53 to 45. You also claimed that college educated people did not vote for the way that this country is headed but it appears that they did if by that statement, you meant that they did not vote for Obama. Do you have other exit polls that say that McCain won the college grad vote because I'd be curious to see them?

http://observationalism.com/2008/11/09/selected-exit-poll-comparisons-2000-2004-2008/

 

[Old Timer]

I agree with you on all three points. Now I'll wait for your response to everything I have put forth.

I know people like you. Your mother/father/guardian was either a FDR or Truman Democrat or you were. You are an old school school Democrat and you will never ever change regardless of the politics. You are definitely more knowledgeable than these other clowns (i.e. Polar) who make no attempt to address anything I've said. And you are probably way more moderate even though you will tirelessly defend Obama. You don't want Democrats to again be associated with a failed President like that of Jimmy Carter and you don't want Democrats to be associated with radical ideologues like Obama. However, for the good of the party and because of your pride, you have to defend this man the best way you know how.

I've said what I said about Reagan. The truth of the matter is that you have your opinion and I have mine. Now that we've both gotten that out of the way, I'd like you to break down everything I've said in my previous post and what your thoughts are on the Obama agenda and the current health care legislation.

I don't tirelessly defend President Obama. Sit back this is going to take a while.

Health Care: There is no sane person who believes our present health care system is sustainable. We spend a greater percentage of GDP on health care than any other nation. Which I would be ok with if we had the best outcomes. We don't. I don't say our outcomes suck, I just say our outcomes are not worth what we spend on them.

Now that we are in agreement that the present health care system is making our corporations less competitive, our deficit unsustainable, and health care more affordable, it is clear our system has to change. The major problem with our system is the consumer and the payer are not the same person so the consumer has no skin in the game to reduce costs.

So how do we go about this:

Single Payer Health Care: Abolish all insurance and the government pays for all health care with taxes. I don't necessarily like this model myself. It does work in Canada as attested to by Pharmvixen, a Canadian member of SDN who is a pharmacist as well as a person covered by the Canadian Health Care system.

Free Market Approach: Each individual has a Health Savings Account which is contributed by the employer or the patient or the government tax free. The Citizen is required to purchase a catastrophic policy that covers everything after a given amount to be determined. Let's say $30,0000.00. The working poor would have the contribution made by the government and the very poor would have welfare as it presently exists. The insurance companies would disappear and plenty of people would be out of work. The drug companies would hate it because nobody would by the drugs that cost $12,000 per month. This would directly effect health care decisions as the patient will be paying for the treatment with their own money. This is a free market system and I would personally prefer it. This way everyone is covered.
​

Illegal Immigration: Everyone who has skin that is not red is an immigrant. We need to make it possible for people to come here legally. We need to do that first. Once we control our borders,than we can discuss what to do with the people who are here illegally. If you think you are sending people back to Mexico, think again. Let's say of the 12 million illegals (there may be more), 10 million are Mexican. If we put them on buses we would need 160,000 buses to send everybody back. That's going to look good on CNN. So be realistic like Reagan, and realize these folks are not going anywhere.

Cap and Trade: Well this is really dicey. I'm not sure what the effect would be. It would clearly raise the cost of energy, but that is not a bad thing, the cost of energy is way too low in the USA. The unknown is what Americans would do when confronted with this reality. Right now the Chinless are leading the world in green energy technology. Oil will run out sometime, the question is when it does, will we be prepared? Is this good, letting China control the future of energy. There are many who believe we should do cap and trade and we would innovate our way to be the global leader in these technologies. It would be like controlling oil in the 20th century. It's where the money is. I'm not sufficiently well versed to know what the best course of action is at the present time.

President Obama: It's rally early to tell. I don't think this is what he wanted to do. I think he really had no choice. As I pointed out earlier, the Fed had already shot it's load so the only lever to pull was direct government stimulation. There really was no other choice. The Insurance bill is fine for what it is, insurance reform. It rally does not do enough to address the cost structure, it gives to much to the insurance industry, and it does not address tort reform. But it does get almost everyone covered and that makes it easier to apportion cost across the system. He really hasn't done anything else. As for foreign policy, he is dancing the dance as best he can with the situation we are in. He is being pragmatic. He is way aggressive in pursuing Al-Aqueda in Pakistan than Bush was.

You want more.....

 

[WVUPharm2007]

You know Internet arguments have "jumped the shark" when people start arguing over spelling errors which have nothing to do with the topic at hand, but nevertheless provide some sort of perceived "edge" over the other guy in trying to make him look dumb.

Then again, I guess that is a typical political move. Carry on with the useless drivel! Internet arguments are important! You will DEFINITELY change the other guy's opinion! It might work even better if you write in extremely large font. My words are more important because they are HUUUUUGE!

Great idea.


Pitt sucks.

That does a great job of pointing out the important details.

 

[PolarBearFire]

Polar, you need to try to wrap your mind around the points I'm making. I voted for a Democrat governor who was fiscally sound. We did, in fact, have a health care system similar to ObamaCare. It failed horribly. Everyone in my home state recognizes it. This is why our Governor sent personal letters to Congressman and Senators from our state asking them to vote against the bill because it would kill jobs in Tennessee and cause the people of the state to carry the burden of higher taxes in the future because of the unfunded mandates.

There is bipartisan OPPOSITION to this health care bill. There may be small pieces of it that are touted as popular but the bureaucracy, mandates, and burden that it places on the American people are not popular. You may even bit hit by it down the road when you have a job and pay taxes and receive benefits. When you're not paying student loans and actually begin working 12 hours shifts and you get away from the professors who are part of unions that helped fill Obama's coffers, then you will understand. Get away from the social justice for a second and see the debt that China is holding and that Obama is growing.

I don't really believe that Obama is contributing to the problem of unfunded mandates, otherwise all the States would be up in arms. In any case, so what if there are unfunded mandates? What is Obama going to do? Take over? The truth is like in any budget the States will just choose to fund the important projects and forgo the less important ones. Which is not that different from my state cutting services because they couldn't keep their hands off the credit card.

You also assume too much, friend. I'm very likely older than you are and have worked for my bread longer than you have. I need no lesson in life from you. You have no idea who I am or where I come from.

 

[UArk2014]

UArk2014... in your infinite wisdom. It's clear that everything you say is rooted in fact... or rooted in rhetoric/fiction. How long have you been in college/grad school/academia? It's apparent that the professor hippies with their gray beards teaching in some asbestos-riddled Philosophy department over in Arkansas has gotten through to you with their propaganda-laden nonsense. I do not know many professionals in my part of the country that are liberals with the exception of the liberal academia types... the ones with the white beards wearing Harley Davidson shirts to class talking about the good ol' days of Jimmy Carter and how they smoked more weed at Woodstock than they have at any point in their lives. Most of the liberal voters in my part of the country are those without jobs or those in academia... period. Seldom do I meet a white collar liberal that is not a professor or teacher. I pulled this from the Politico:

"White college graduates, 35 percent of voters, broke for McCain 51 to 47 percent, marking roughly a 3-point gain for Obama compared to Gore’s 44 percent showing."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15297.html

I'm not sure what argument you are making.... Malachi proposed that the reason young people slant liberal is that they are indoctrinated by 60's hippy professors. I gave an admittedly rambling diatribe on why I believe young people slant liberal. Now you present an exit poll sampling suggesting that Malachi is wrong? or did you....? All you really did was out your actual reason for harboring such hatred for the president. Truth is, no one in this thread mentioned a specific argument about what "white college voters" thought. We were discussing why young people in general are more liberal than conservative. Interesting that you would bring it up.... interesting.

I'll go ahead and do you one better:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/106381/obama-education-gap-extends-general-election.aspx
Sorry... gallup didn't have any whites only polls... I guess my data is meaningless to you.

And if you read my post, you'd have seen where I said that I slanted liberal (and atheist) long before I went back to school. I've only taken science classes and I know where ZERO of those professor's stand politically. I've never been in the philosophy department so I don't know their politics either, nor am I familiar with how they dress or what they smoke.
I am going to talk to someone about that asbestos problem though... that stuff is dangerous. Even us dumb Arkansans know that.

 

[owlegrad]

And if you read my post, you'd have seen where I said that I slanted liberal (and atheist) long before I went back to school. I've only taken science classes and I know where ZERO of those professor's stand politically. I've never been in the philosophy department so I don't know their politics either, nor am I familiar with how they dress or what they smoke.

I laughed when I read this. Out of all the professors I have ever had (maybe 40?) I could only tell you for sure where 2 of them stood politically. One was a history professor (liberal), the other was in pharmacy school (conservative). I am sure it is different for every student, but this idea that most college professors are liberals who are doing everything they can to convert their students is funny to me. I have never had a professor try to "convert" me. I think this sounds funny. "OK class today we are going to talk about synthesizing esters, why Obama is a great president and how liberals are smarted than conservative. Turn to page..."

 

[rxlea]

I laughed when I read this. Out of all the professors I have ever had (maybe 40?) I could only tell you for sure where 2 of them stood politically. One was a history professor (liberal), the other was in pharmacy school (conservative). I am sure it is different for every student, but this idea that most college professors are liberals who are doing everything they can to convert their students is funny to me. I have never had a professor try to "convert" me. I think this sounds funny. "OK class today we are going to talk about synthesizing esters, why Obama is a great president and how liberals are smarted than conservative. Turn to page..."

I am not sure if the "indoctrination of our youth" accusation that conservatives make is true or not, but in my experience, I have only had about two professors that incorporated their political and religious beliefs into the classroom. One was in a sociology class and another was in a humanities class. It is best to just let it go in one ear and out the other.

 

[Pharmavixen]

Claims of "indoctrination" are made whenever students get exposed to ideas not held by their parents or the folks making the claims of "indoctrination."

If they agree with the ideas, it's patriotism. If they don't agree, it's indoctrination.

 

[PharmacistReb]

I don't tirelessly defend President Obama. Sit back this is going to take a while.

Health Care: There is no sane person who believes our present health care system is sustainable. We spend a greater percentage of GDP on health care than any other nation. Which I would be ok with if we had the best outcomes. We don't. I don't say our outcomes suck, I just say our outcomes are not worth what we spend on them.

Now that we are in agreement that the present health care system is making our corporations less competitive, our deficit unsustainable, and health care more affordable, it is clear our system has to change. The major problem with our system is the consumer and the payer are not the same person so the consumer has no skin in the game to reduce costs.

So how do we go about this:

Single Payer Health Care: Abolish all insurance and the government pays for all health care with taxes. I don't necessarily like this model myself. It does work in Canada as attested to by Pharmvixen, a Canadian member of SDN who is a pharmacist as well as a person covered by the Canadian Health Care system.

Free Market Approach: Each individual has a Health Savings Account which is contributed by the employer or the patient or the government tax free. The Citizen is required to purchase a catastrophic policy that covers everything after a given amount to be determined. Let's say $30,0000.00. The working poor would have the contribution made by the government and the very poor would have welfare as it presently exists. The insurance companies would disappear and plenty of people would be out of work. The drug companies would hate it because nobody would by the drugs that cost $12,000 per month. This would directly effect health care decisions as the patient will be paying for the treatment with their own money. This is a free market system and I would personally prefer it. This way everyone is covered.
​

Illegal Immigration: Everyone who has skin that is not red is an immigrant. We need to make it possible for people to come here legally. We need to do that first. Once we control our borders,than we can discuss what to do with the people who are here illegally. If you think you are sending people back to Mexico, think again. Let's say of the 12 million illegals (there may be more), 10 million are Mexican. If we put them on buses we would need 160,000 buses to send everybody back. That's going to look good on CNN. So be realistic like Reagan, and realize these folks are not going anywhere.

Cap and Trade: Well this is really dicey. I'm not sure what the effect would be. It would clearly raise the cost of energy, but that is not a bad thing, the cost of energy is way too low in the USA. The unknown is what Americans would do when confronted with this reality. Right now the Chinless are leading the world in green energy technology. Oil will run out sometime, the question is when it does, will we be prepared? Is this good, letting China control the future of energy. There are many who believe we should do cap and trade and we would innovate our way to be the global leader in these technologies. It would be like controlling oil in the 20th century. It's where the money is. I'm not sufficiently well versed to know what the best course of action is at the present time.

President Obama: It's rally early to tell. I don't think this is what he wanted to do. I think he really had no choice. As I pointed out earlier, the Fed had already shot it's load so the only lever to pull was direct government stimulation. There really was no other choice. The Insurance bill is fine for what it is, insurance reform. It rally does not do enough to address the cost structure, it gives to much to the insurance industry, and it does not address tort reform. But it does get almost everyone covered and that makes it easier to apportion cost across the system. He really hasn't done anything else. As for foreign policy, he is dancing the dance as best he can with the situation we are in. He is being pragmatic. He is way aggressive in pursuing Al-Aqueda in Pakistan than Bush was.

You want more.....

I wish I could respond to you in person so I could shake your hand and then tell you that you are one of the few sane, non-acquiescent people on this board. Although it's obvious you are center-left, I can respect your opinion and ability to actually see things in more depth than just the surface appearance.

The underlying issue in this bill is that we still have insurance companies allowing patients to do absolutely ZERO shopping around for the most affordable cost. Thus... there was no cost reduction. There is no competition creation and instead a giant entitlement. Patients will go to a physician for a check up or the pharmacy and if it's not directly affecting them at that point and time, they couldn't care less about the cost.

Common ground is a good thing

 

[PharmacistReb]

It feels good to have a civil discussion without having someone, such as UArk2014, accusing me of going to get my info from "Faux News" or that I harbor "hatred" for the President.

Breath of fresh air.

 

[UArk2014]

Claims of "indoctrination" are made whenever students get exposed to ideas not held by their parents or the folks making the claims of "indoctrination."

If they agree with the ideas, it's patriotism. If they don't agree, it's indoctrination.

Bingo.

Patriotism, as it is purveyed today, is the very definition of indoctrination and dogmatic group think.

 

[PharmacistReb]

Bingo.

Patriotism, as it is purveyed today, is the very definition of indoctrination and dogmatic group think.

UArk, maybe you should kind of take a look at this statement and then look at your own political stance.

I thought Bush was quite feckless in his second term. I though his dad was feckless as President. I blame Republicans for part of the financial problem. Nixon was a liar... Reagan was not perfect... the Republican party has it's share of problems and I will be the first to admit it.

If anything, I've yet to see any criticism on this board from some of you left leaners in regard to Obama. I will admit Bush' faults and so don't try painting me as someone that thinks criticism is "indoctrination".

But I am apparently more self aware within the world of academia that most professors are liberals. I see it every day, even in pharmacy school. Sometimes the message is subtle and sometimes it's blatantly obvious. It's nothing new. Most liberals are even willing to admit that academia has a leftward slant. To act as if post-secondary education is not filled with left wingers just says that you are either extremely naive or that you are in utter denial.

 

[PharmacistReb]

Old Timer came closest by admitting that ObamaCare was a type of health insurance reform... but it didn't do one thing to actually cut the costs of the services and products that are and have been escalating out of control.

Obviously, the problem with the health care system is the costs of the services. It doesn't make a lot of sense to set forth massive entitlements and then still be left shrugging as to how we are going to lower the actual costs of the services. We insure 32 million more people, we put a strain on corporations like ATT Verizon Caterpillar and others with excessive costs, and then we create new insurance regulations... and the cost of a mammogram or an MRI or a physical is left the exact same...

There is no logic to it. It was an entitlement. And we are on pace to have our debt being at 90% of the GDP by 2020.

You can be a liberal or a Democrat and have your opinions but there is no way to make logical the types of measures that were created in this bill.

 

[MountainPharmD]

I bet if everyone paid thier fair share of taxes we would have enough money to really reform healthcare. Most of the people complaining the loudest are people who don't pay taxes in the first place.

From MSN.com "Half of U.S. pays no federal income tax Credits for low- and middle-income families exempt many" By Stephen Ohlemacher

About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability. That's according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research organization.

The result is a tax system that exempts almost half the country from paying for programs that benefit everyone, including national defense, public safety, infrastructure and education. It is a system in which the top 10 percent of earners — households making an average of $366,400 in 2006 — paid about 73 percent of the income taxes collected by the federal government.

 

[Old Timer]

I bet if everyone paid thier fair share of taxes we would have enough money to really reform healthcare. Most of the people complaining the loudest are people who don't pay taxes in the first place.

From MSN.com "Half of U.S. pays no federal income tax Credits for low- and middle-income families exempt many" By Stephen Ohlemacher

Not quite true. They still pay the payroll tax for Social Security & Medicare. I wouldn't mind if they raised the income limit. Don't get me wrong, I personally like that little boost in late September/early October when I hit the max, but if it helps some poor fireman who is making $40K per year with 2 kids save on some taxes, I'll deal.

 

[Old Timer]

Old Timer came closest by admitting that ObamaCare was a type of health insurance reform... but it didn't do one thing to actually cut the costs of the services and products that are and have been escalating out of control.

A couple of inaccuracies here. First, I didn't say or admit it was Health Insurance reform, I came right out and said it. Second you can't on the one hand complain that government should but out and then on the other hand complain the bill didn;t do anything to hold down costs.

Obviously, the problem with the health care system is the costs of the services. It doesn't make a lot of sense to set forth massive entitlements and then still be left shrugging as to how we are going to lower the actual costs of the services. We insure 32 million more people, we put a strain on corporations like ATT Verizon Caterpillar and others with excessive costs, and then we create new insurance regulations... and the cost of a mammogram or an MRI or a physical is left the exact same...

Your statement here seems to support full government run insurance so business can dump all of the costs on the taxpayer😕. The thing the bill will do is stop the portion of the increase in premiums that is due to umreimbursed care by the uninsured. Hospitals eat a great deal of money each year and that will stop under this plan. What we don't know is how much extra utilization will the system get once these people get insurance. Will there be enough primary care up front to reduce the morbidity and lost productivity on the back end when you have major events like M.I.'s, C.V.A.'s, complications due to diabetes? We don't have the answers. This could bend the cost curve down. There are pilot programs that will study how to bring the cost curve down. They wanted to put some of that in the bill, but the R's (righties) played the ration card and so they had to settle for experiments. The people that are added to the rolls will have no effect on the companies you sight. The charges taken, are required by post Enron accounting rules and have no bearing on the health of the company or their expected profits. They have to book these costs this year even though there is no guarantee they will have to pay them later. It's not like they are paying anything extra now. This is all accounting mumbo jumbo. When they passed Medicare Part D, they give a huge give away to the business. They got a tax credit for people on Medicare for up to 28% of their premiums. For a policy of $1,000.00 per month, they got a $280.00 tax credit for a net cost of $720.00 per month. However when they file their taxes they got to deduct the full $1,000.00 as a business expense. That's the kind of deal I want. The feds obviously closed that loophole. If you pay your doctor $1,000.00 for services and get a check from your insurance for $280.00, try writing off the whole thing. Does tax fraud sound like what you and I would be charged with.

There is no logic to it. It was an entitlement. And we are on pace to have our debt being at 90% of the GDP by 2020.

Our debt will not be at 90% of GDP by 2020. The economy is starting to grow now and once it grows, the tax receipts and GDP will grow with it. We have stopped shedding jobs and are adding them. We had net job growth last month and that excludes temporary census workers. I'm not saying all is well and dance a jig, but things have turned from falling like a rock to slumped on the floor to the economy has picked itself up and started moving again. We'll be fine. Don't be so doom and gloom.

It's not an entitlement. Not by any definition. This isn't any more of an entitlement than the home mortgage interest deduction or any one of the myriad of tax credits that presently exist.

 

[UArk2014]

I bet if everyone paid thier fair share of taxes we would have enough money to really reform healthcare. Most of the people complaining the loudest are people who don't pay taxes in the first place.

From MSN.com "Half of U.S. pays no federal income tax Credits for low- and middle-income families exempt many" By Stephen Ohlemacher

well... since you brought it up:

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/04/06/exxon-zero-taxes/

I hate to link a website with such an obvious political bent, but this one paints the picture better than the other articles and doesn't focus on Exxon's flat out lie that 'they will have to pay income taxes when it's all said and done, but won't say how much...'

And considering that the top 20% of income earners control 93% of the financial wealth, I'd say a 73% share of the tax burden is a bargain.

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

I'm not trying to turn this thread into class warfare, but let's not forget that one man = one vote, not: one tax dollar paid = one vote. And when it comes to basic human rights, the amount of tax you pay should have NOTHING to do with it.

 

[UArk2014]

Old Timer came closest by admitting that ObamaCare was a type of health insurance reform... but it didn't do one thing to actually cut the costs of the services and products that are and have been escalating out of control.

Obviously, the problem with the health care system is the costs of the services. It doesn't make a lot of sense to set forth massive entitlements and then still be left shrugging as to how we are going to lower the actual costs of the services. We insure 32 million more people, we put a strain on corporations like ATT Verizon Caterpillar and others with excessive costs, and then we create new insurance regulations... and the cost of a mammogram or an MRI or a physical is left the exact same...

There is no logic to it. It was an entitlement. And we are on pace to have our debt being at 90% of the GDP by 2020.

You can be a liberal or a Democrat and have your opinions but there is no way to make logical the types of measures that were created in this bill.

Objection, your honor... vague and unsubstantiated

I'm interested to hear your ideas for lowering costs. Seriously.
I'll go ahead and get you started with the one we agree on:
Malpractice reform. There's 1% of costs.... now the rest?

The lack of "skin in the game" is most certainly the problem, and the bill does little to directly alleviate it. What are you suggesting?

A cash model? That's all roses until your $20,000 HSA isn't enough to cover your $150,000 chemo bill.

"Shop insurance across state lines"... ok... but they are all the same companies, and they'll simply locate themselves in the state with the fewest regulations that limit their ability to gouge consumers. You think Blue Cross of Alabama is going to get in a price war with Blue Cross of Tennessee?

Doctors and hospitals do not set costs. Insurance companies set repayment schedules and doctors and hospitals (and pharmacies) abide or die. So, we're back to square one... you want to do something about cost? Look no further than the insurance industry.

Pharmaceutical costs?
http://motherjones.com/politics/2004/09/truth-about-drug-companies

 

[WVUPharm2007]

People in the media are starting to use to word Plutocracy again. That pleases me. It's one of my favorite words. From The Nation: