Solved

Are you Democratic, Republican, or Other?

Posted on 2013-10-25
67
17 Views
Last Modified: 2014-03-18
Continuing my attempt at reviving these forums :)

It always amazes me how passionate people can be about their political alignment. My other half of 5 years asked me on our first date what my political alignment was and later told me I had answered the question "right". There is a continuing war going on today in our government between these 2 parties (with other smaller sub sets mixed in), and it seems it's such an important trait to each person, so I ask all of you, which side of the aisle do you stand on, and why?

Keep in mind there is NO correct answer here. Please be respectful of others opinions and keep the flaming to a small wicker candle :)
0
Comment
Question by:Big Monty
  • 22
  • 13
  • 13
  • +4
67 Comments
 
LVL 17

Accepted Solution

by:
Anthony Russo earned 13 total points
ID: 39600226
I am Independent.

To me that means I vote and decide on issues with an open mind and based on the merits of the individual and the issue itself.

I tend to fall more on the liberal side with social issues in many cases, but not all. I am also fiscally conscious so there are lots of times I find that the left is being foolhardy in their goals and am backing the more conservative principle on a particular issue.

I'll be honest, with the latest happenings in government, the GOP and their infestation of tea party people makes it hard to stay calling myself an Independent when so much of what they do turns my stomach.
0
 
LVL 32

Author Comment

by:Big Monty
ID: 39600240
>>>>> I'll be honest, with the latest happenings in government, the GOP and their infestation of tea party people makes it hard to stay calling myself an Independent when so much of what they do turns my stomach.

would you then consider changing your political party beliefs then leaning more in one direction that the other?
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
ID: 39600318
Not at all. I voted for Bush in both his runs because he was a better choice for the job than the guy he was running against. I also support voter ID laws and some other conservative/republican ideas.

I prefer to stick to using my mind and intelligence rather than just be a parrot of the talking points that my 'side' chooses. I think most things in life come down to a good balance, and being Independent allows that. The problem with politics today is that it is played on the extremes.

No side is right all the time.
0
 

Expert Comment

by:patriotpacer
ID: 39614679
the GOP and their infestation of tea party


Translation:
the GOP and their infestation of Constitutionalist
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
ID: 39614937
>>Translation:
>>the GOP and their infestation of Constitutionalist

The infestation of anything to an extreme is not beneficial. The extreme stance these Constitutionalists take is damaging to the GOP being able to win elections they need to be able to accomplish any of their goals.
0
 

Expert Comment

by:patriotpacer
ID: 39614953
The extreme stance these Constitutionalists take...

For example?
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
ID: 39615007
Well most recently, the idea that ObamaCare has to be defunded so lets shut down the government for it, which had no direct connection.

Not just the shutting down of the government for the delay of ObamaCare or the altering, which the normals started to push for, but the hardcore extreme Tea Partiers wanting full defunding and running ads on TV to stick to it demanding full defunding. (this I saw a day or two before the government re-opened).

That's extreme. That's ineffective. That's a waste of space in the government and the common person doesn't know about the fringe or Tea Party barely if at all. They just group it all with the GOP. That's damaging to the GOP and their message or trying to win elections.
0
 

Expert Comment

by:patriotpacer
ID: 39615049
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
ID: 39615115
OK, where should we begin? How about the first one:

>>Government shutdown update: Senate rejects House plan — again

Democrats beat back attempt after attempt to gut President Barack Obama’s signature health care law.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/government-shutdown-2013-update-senate-house-bill-97551.html#ixzz2jKbTxejM

A clean CR would have got through with no problem. Republicans wouldn't submit one so they were the ones that shut the government. If I refuse to let you enter my house with a bomb in your hands then don't blame me for you freezing outside in the cold when you are the one refusing to put down the bomb.

------------------------

-70 percent of American voters support delay
-Thousands of Californians are discovering what Obamacare will cost them — and many don't like what they see.

Fine. It however was the law that passed all 3 branches of government and was going to go into effect whether they shut the government or not. If shutting the government would have stopped the law at all from going into effect then the plan would be logical. Since there was zero connection it was totally illogical as a method to accomplish what they wanted.

Since they cannot win enough elections to vote their way to overturning the law, they tried to defund it in a hostage scenario way. That's extreme and it hurt the entire GOP because they never had a goal as to how it would work.

------------------------------

-Forbes: White House Predicted in 2010 That 93 Million Would Lose Their Health Plans Under ObamaCare
-Michelle Obama’s Princeton classmate is executive at company that built Obamacare website

Once again. Win elections! Change the law the democratic way. OR at least in a way that had a chance of possibly winning or being effective. It was a stupid stunt that could not accomplish their goals.

------------------------------

While it is easy to parrot your party's talking points about how bad the law is, can you please explain how this was supposed to actually do anything to help. What was the expected end goal that had any chance of happening? I'm not going to argue the merits of the law, but just the merits of how asinine the Tea Party's handling of the situation was.
0
 

Expert Comment

by:patriotpacer
ID: 39615260
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
ID: 39615505
How did anything that happened help the GOP win elections?

How does that link at all support your argument, or in any way show the GOP will win elections?
0
 

Expert Comment

by:patriotpacer
ID: 39615538
How does that link at all support your argument
ROMNEY WARNS: Obama Voters Are 'Dependent Upon Government


How did anything that happened help the GOP win elections?
Poll: Obama approval at all-time low
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
ID: 39616612
Thank you for proving my point about the problem with party lines. Rather than lay out any of your own thoughts on the discussion you link to sites that parrot your party's talking points. I know what the Conservatives think. What do YOU think?

And Obama's approval rating is at a low due to the ObamaCare website, not the government shutdown which is what we were discussing. Or that I was discussing while you were linking to your party's talking points.
0
 
LVL 1

Expert Comment

by:sbdt8631
ID: 39617352
Hi carsRST
0
 

Expert Comment

by:patriotpacer
ID: 39617380
Hey, sbdt.

About time someone noticed.

Anthony- you doing well?  

Missed you guys.  Where the hell is beetos?
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
ID: 39617483
I should have guessed but the cars I know is not the kind to drop blank links without plenty of commentary on them. :)

Doing well here. Glad to see some life in this forum again. And yes someone track down Beetos!
0
 

Expert Comment

by:patriotpacer
ID: 39618663
Doing well here.
Glad to hear it!


And yes someone track down Beetos!
Beetos?
0
 

Expert Comment

by:patriotpacer
ID: 39624992
Which lie is worse?

Clinton:
I did not have sexual relations with that woman

Obama:  
if you like your health-care plan, you will be able to keep your health-care plan, period.
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
ID: 39625059
Obviously the second one. I couldn't care less about the first.

BTW no argument here that he told a BS lie to get his bill passed.
0
 
LVL 2

Assisted Solution

by:bergertime
bergertime earned 13 total points
ID: 39625107
CarsRST.  I could tell it was you because you backed up what you claim without using late night comedy/bully shows.  I guess I would call myself anti-Dem.  Does that make me independent or Repub?  Dems only get elected by robbing the middle class and paying off the poor and giving the rich a pass.  Fine you want roads, I don't mind paying taxes for that, you want schools, fine again.  But taking money from my by the threat of imprisonment to give to someone who doesn't want to work or have made bad decisions is wrong.  You want to feed them, fine open soup kitchens for all, I may not eat there, but at least I have the option, like the roads.  We have people here at work that have refused raises because it would hurt there free money.  Geez!!  I'm at the cross roads with my kids at this point, should I raise them to feel entitled or independent.
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
ID: 39625138
Good to see you bergertime.

The image of Democrats that you paint is pretty grim. While those people exist, they are hardly the norm. Just as the cold-hearted, gun toting, racist, homo-phopic Republican is hardly the norm, but does exist.
0
 

Expert Comment

by:patriotpacer
ID: 39625310
Does that make me independent or Repub?
Independent these days.  Ted Cruz is crucified by both Democrats and Republicans for wanting nothing more than to uphold the Constitution.  


But taking money from my by the threat of imprisonment to give to someone who doesn't want to work or have made bad decisions is wrong.  
At least it's enforced by the IRS - I'd worry if it were by an organization that abused its power.


should I raise them to feel entitled or independent.
Someone has to pay for Obamaphones.




Just as the cold-hearted,..
-Kathleen Sebelius Won't Intervene In Transplant Case Of 10-Year-Old Girl
-Forbes: White House Predicted in 2010 That 93 Million Would Lose Their Health Plans Under ObamaCare
-9.5 Million People Have Left the Workforce Under Obama


...racist...
-New Black Panthers case taps into deep racial divisions at [Obama's] Justice Dept
-Obama: Typical White Person Comment
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
ID: 39625330
>>Just as the cold-hearted,..
>>...racist...

My point was most repubs are not those things.
0
 

Expert Comment

by:patriotpacer
ID: 39625454
My point was most repubs are not those things.

I know.  :)
0
 
LVL 32

Author Comment

by:Big Monty
ID: 39625484
we're getting waaaaaaaaaaaay off topic here, can we please stick to the original question and all get along? :)
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
ID: 39625538
>>we're getting waaaaaaaaaaaay off topic here, can we please stick to the original question and all get along? :)

Pretty much status quo in this zone is to go way off topic on every thread...but we always get along.   :)

I am still Independent but it seems in this zone I usually am debating on the side of more liberal policies and ideals. I definitely do not class myself as a liberal though as there are many parts of that idealogy I think are just flat out wrong, such as voter ID and hiking up the minimum wage.

It seems Independents are a dying breed though in political discussions.
0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:bergertime
ID: 39645282
It seems everyone claims to be independent or middle of the road, but very few are.  Even the OP in the other thread about the shutdown claims to be more in the center but states:

"Will people finally have had enough and vote out more republicans? or will democrats be seen as being not willing to negotiate and be ousted?"

Gives me the impression he blames repubs more for the shutdown.  I'm not repub, I'm independent.  But I'm anti-Dem more than anything so does this make me a repub?   While I agree that paying taxes locally for strong infrastructure is in everyones best interest.  I would never vote for someone that believes it's ok to take money me from and then put that money in someone elses's pocket in order to buy their vote.  We have how many illegals here and how many people on welfare?  Give the people on welfare the jobs of the illegals, no jobs for illegals, they go back home.  Problem is the people on welfare don't want the jobs.  Why would they? We have single moms here where I work who refuse raises because it will impact their hand-outs.  And dems think this is a good thing.  

Someone needs to let beetos know OWS is over, their all waiting on the obamacare website so they can get their free healthcare.
0
 
LVL 32

Author Comment

by:Big Monty
ID: 39645354
I'm pretty middle of the road, but I tend to lean left on some issues more than to the right. As for who's to blame for the shut down, it's both sides, although the common theme when I talk to others about it is that Republicans are more to blame, they should have never held the country hostage in order to get something they wanted. I agree with that sentiment (it's childish at best, dangerous at the worse), but it's not the only reason why the shutdown occurred.

I'm all for helping out others, if they truly needed, including people who are here illegally. But that's they key point, if they truly need it. It's almost impossible to say who needs what, due to the fact that so many people take advantage of the system. So in theory, giving handouts to people who can benefit, IMHO, is a good thing for society, but in practice, it almost never turns out that way.
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
ID: 39645435
I love how all the people think that kicking out the illegal immigrants will just leave these jobs waiting for the Americans to do. Do you have any idea how tedious a job it is working in agriculture? If it wasn't for the illegal immigrants doing it for slave wages, it wouldn't get done except for massive wages by Americans. Then you wind up paying $20 for a watermelon and wonder why you can't afford food anymore.

The whole e-verify thing in the new immigration reform is a pipe dream. The VA still does everything on paper and people think that all these farms are going to e-verify their worked and that is going to be enforced in any way? Farms going out of biz due to fines will go over real well.
0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:bergertime
ID: 39645482
I agree with you. I'd give the shirt off my back to help a neighbor.  It's the same thing with the internet, it's so large users are anonymous and feel they can do or say whatever.  With a large federal program, you're not stealing from your neighbor, but from the gov't.  Why not, no one cares.  I want everyone to have the best healthcare available, I really do.  I want everyone to have clean water and healthy food.  A good education.  These are all really important things, but the idea of "We just need a federal program for that", just wont work.  

As far as blame goes on the shutdown, it lies directly with Obama,  he passed this crap ACA and he has refused to even consider peoples objections to it.  Now because the Repubs flinched, people are losing their insurance, rates are going up and don't even get me started on a 600 million dollar website they had three years to implement.  

Let me guess, you also think the states that refuse federal dollars and haven't expanded Medicaid are just doing because they are raciest or they hate poor people.  No it's because of the financial burdon on the state after the first 3 years.  

Let me ask you this.  One of the pieces most people are happy about is the fact Insurance companies are locked at 20% profit.  People I know are like "Fuck the insurance companies, that's right now you can only make 20%."  Feels good right?  Well now in whose best interest is it to keep cost low?  The person getting the care?  Me?  Hell no, I couldn't care less, I'm not paying.  The insurance company?  Hell no.  The more they pay out, the more they make....driving cost up.  So now the feds have to put in cost controls....what does that do?

Just think how much we could all save if we had ObamaFood.  Take profit out of food and every meal would be a banquet.  

But it sure does feel good doesn't it.
0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:bergertime
ID: 39645517
"If it wasn't for the illegal immigrants doing it for slave wages, it wouldn't get done except for massive wages by Americans. Then you wind up paying $20 for a watermelon and wonder why you can't afford food anymore"

No kidding, right.  So using minimum wage, we have priced workers out of the work force.  So we as a country are so smart.  We pay people not to work in the form of welfare, foodstamps, blah blah blah and then we have millons of illegals come in which we also bitch about, then we go to Walmart which we also bitch about, to buy the watermelon which is full of chemicals which, yes you guessed it, we bitch about.

And it's not slave wages, it's wages the market will bear.  Don't want to pick watermelons, then pick tomatos, or learn a trade.....or well vote dem.  :(
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
ID: 39645658
There a question or something in that rant?

It is just a more complex issue than kick out the illegals and let the americans do the work and everything will be ok.
0
 
LVL 27

Assisted Solution

by:tliotta
tliotta earned 12 total points
ID: 39646415
I am both and more. I want it all. I suppose I have to be "Independent".

For many issues, I agree with one major party's stated position. Yet, at the same time, I do not support that party's specific candidate.

Most often, it seems that I agree with Republican "ideals" while rarely believing in (or even liking) the Republican candidates. The Democratic candidates often seem the better choice. Third-party candidates rarely seem to be as palatable as either major candidate though there are isolated acceptable cases.

In federal elections, the preferred choice can sometimes be an incumbent due to the power structures of Congress. As the resident of a State, it can benefit me simply to have my Representative or a Senator move up in committee positions, and it hasn't always been because I agree with a Party position.

But to get back O(ff)T:

Census Bureau: Welfare Recipients Outnumber Full-Time Year-Round Workers

No need for me to repeat the underlying link; it's up above. The linked article, though, is an example of how facts are badly misrepresented. Right off, the referenced Census Bureau (CB) figures do not show that "Welfare Recipients Outnumber Full-Time Year-Round Workers". By looking through the referenced tables, it's clear that the numbers do not support the more outrageous claims in the article.

There is one point in the article, i.e., in paragraph 4, where a far more accurate truth is given. However, that item is effectively ignored by the rest of the article. From the CB table:

(...The figures for means-tested programs include anyone
residing in a household in which one or more people received benefits from the program.)


IOW, if a household has two full-time working adults with four children, and one elderly person who receives Medicaid also living in the household, the article assumes that there are seven "Welfare Recipients" who should be counted. The figures resulting from such counting then would support a claim of two workers being compared to seven "Welfare Recipients".

Similarly, if two working parents have a son who is recently out of military service, living in the household and using veterans education benefits, the count would be two to three, i.e., two workers vs. three "Welfare Recipients".

So, the first serious problem is that many full-time employed persons are counted both ways. They might receive no real benefit at all, yet they're counted as being "Welfare Recipients" simply because of a relationship. That inflates the number of "Welfare Recipients" by an unknown number. (The CB tables include additional links to some actual source documents. Some of the methods of sampling and extrapolation for the CB figures are mentioned in the original documents, but that doesn't help in determining where the article got its figures which seem to be nowhere in the CB figures.)

There are other problems, but the point is that there are 'extreme' views presented in various areas. The above article is an example. (It was the first one I checked from this thread.) The articles that present the views are taken by many to be valid and meaningful. Source references appear seldom to be checked by those who read the articles. They simply accept them as being true.

For this thread (getting back O(n)T), it makes it hard for someone to decide if they are really D, R, I or anything. One might generally believe in 'R' principles yet be swayed by specious data that influences opinions. If some false assertion is believed to be true and it outrages the sensibilities, how do you know what you really are?

Tom
0
Enabling OSINT in Activity Based Intelligence

Activity based intelligence (ABI) requires access to all available sources of data. Recorded Future allows analysts to observe structured data on the open, deep, and dark web.

 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
ID: 39646841
Great analysis Tom of a click-bait headline and party line talking point that gets spewed over and over. i still proudly call my self Independent which to me means that I can read an article with the analytic outlook from either side the way you just demonstrated (and much better than I would have in this article) and then make a decision based on information, rather than party influence.
0
 
LVL 27

Assisted Solution

by:BigRat
BigRat earned 12 total points
ID: 39659290
I wonder if foreigners are allowed to contribute?

I suppose I would be Republican, but I'm fed up of all the crap which the so-called right wing has churned out these last thirty years. It started when I lived in Britian with Thatcher, who set about ruining British manufacturing industry, and her ideas on money control was passed onto Reagan, whose "Reaganomics" were legendary. At least living in Germany where the conservatives understood what made their ecomony tick was tolerable. But then they got a socialist government which started on the welfare trip. Of couse they were to an extent copying the British Blair government, who wanted to make social security a better value for money, but they didn't understand the real needs of the people who were receiving it. Recently UK governments attacks on the welfare system know no bounds of stupidity - wanting to reduce winter fuel allowances for pensioners living abroad (costs 12 million) whereas allowing the energy companies in the UK to raise prices by well more than the inflation rate (affecting millions of pensioners in the UK).

I'll leave the Tea Party out of it, since they're just rabid about Obama, who is about as effective as Francoise Holland of France, where I now live, and look at the traditional Republican party, who, like the French conservatives don't know where they are going.

I deplore modern conservatives who believe that making money is more important than making things, who don't understand the ecomony, who want pittance charity to replace welfare, and who continue to believe that health care is a simple matter of money instead of a matter of eating less and exercise.
0
 
LVL 32

Author Comment

by:Big Monty
ID: 39659349
@tom

Most often, it seems that I agree with Republican "ideals" while rarely believing in (or even liking) the Republican candidates

this is an interesting statement, as I've heard it from a bunch of other people I've talked to about this subject. For you personally, why do you think this is the case?
0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:bergertime
ID: 39659576
I think it's the case because conservatives are more honest.  They don't offer a free lunch to people.  Healthcare bill is a perfect example.  Obama promised no one would lose insurance when in 2010 in the congressional hearing he acknowledged that millions would lose their insurance, he said most people would get a raise at work due to falling healthcare prices, he promised better coverage,  he promised better access....all these are things people want to hear.  

For me personally, I don't need to personally like them.  It's like buying a car for me, I prefer a knowledgeable salesman that I don't personally like.  Not hate but just mostly indifferent to.  That way I don't get suckered in.  Kinda like all these people on the Obamacare.  Here's what gets me, a lot of people don't even like Obamacare, yet they like Obama so they will stand up for Obamacare.  Geez, give me a break.  

Give me a president I don't feel have an emotional response to that gives me solid legislation as opposed to one that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy but all his legislation is based on lies.  If I needed that I would go to church.  But I guess most people need to follow something.

I was wondering what happened to you Bigrat.  I always value your opinion.
0
 
LVL 27

Expert Comment

by:BigRat
ID: 39659636
I was wondering what happened to you Bigrat

We moved. We now live in Brittany, France, after my husbands retirement, but we still have a lot to sort out, so I won't be online much this year.

but all his legislation is based on lies

I coundn't disagree more. His legislation is based on the idea that more contributions would create an excess which would reduce the individual contribtion amount. Given all things staying equal, that would have worked. But considering the fuss the Tea-Party made about the forced contributions being "un-American", everybody in the business just took an extra cut. And why not? There are a lot of silly little laws which stop real competition, and even if they were removed I doubt whether anything will change. Health care costs as a percentage of GDP have risen from 13% to 17% in the last ten years and Obamacare has nothing whatsoever to do with that.

You need to look at what has changed in your country. Get out some series, liek 77 Sunset Strip, and look at the ordinary people on the streets and comapre them with those of to today. In the fifties heath care was not an issue - the system worked. But today the obesity rate in the US is alarmingly high, and that causes "illnesses" which cost a great deal of money to deal with. These "civilisation" diseases cost a fortune. With smoking, you get lung cancer and you're dead in six months - cost minimal. But heart disease : ACE Hemmers, then beta-blockers of various sorts over years and years. The concommitant diabetes - again tablets, hospital vists. Overweight causes back problems, kidney problems, lung problems, each needing expensive care and over years and years with any end.
0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:bergertime
ID: 39659687
"Given all things staying equal, that would have worked. But considering the fuss the Tea-Party made about the forced contributions being "un-American", everybody in the business just took an extra cut."

Huh, now your blaming the teaparty for Obamacare failing, so now blaming Bush is out and now the teaparty.  Riddle me this Bigrat.  What private sector product are you forced to buy every year under threat by the Gov't?  No it's not 'forced contributions' but being forced to buy a private sector product that I don't need.  I don't need mammogram insurance, but I now have to buy it.  Geez, come on, tell me you wouldn't be pissed if you had to buy prostate insurance from the private sector every year.  How do you think my wifes stepmom feels?  She lost both breasts to cancer and now thanks to Obamacare  has to buy mammogram insurance every year.  

Tell me this, with obamacare now limiting insurance companies to making 20%, in who's best interest is it to keep cost down.  Keep in mind everyone is required to buy their product.
0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:bergertime
ID: 39659713
"but all his legislation is based on lies


I coundn't disagree more"

You can keep your insurance, period.  That's what he said many times, but in 2010 he said millions would lose it.  He said the average policy would drop by $2500.  Hasn't happened.  Better coverage? I now get mammogram coverage.  Better? Not, but costs more. Yea for me.  Better access?  Actually I guess that's true as millions have lost their coverage.  Nothing the teaparty has done has changed the Obamacare law.  Remember Obama himself said he would rather have a gov't shutdown that negoatate.
0
 
LVL 27

Expert Comment

by:BigRat
ID: 39659786
Huh, now your blaming the teaparty for Obamacare failing,

I think you should stop "reacting" and try to start to understand the actual situation. Since health care in the US is run by private institutions "forced contributions" are obviously "forced buying" of insurance policies which one might not even need, Here in Europe we are forced to contribute a percentage of our income each month for health care irrespective of whether we need it or not.

And every couple of years the percentage rate of contributions goes up, or the coverage is less, often both, and that usually after a "reform" which is going to make things better.

Why do you believe that it is only you that is singled out?

Universal health care in the US -- which you don't have -- is going to cost one dollar in five. Whereas universal coverage in Europe costs one dollar in ten. Reason? System.

My objection to the Tea-Party and a host of other idiots is that they lambast Obama for trying to make an unworkable system work rather than proposing an alternative for the American people. After all why shouldn't the US citizen enjoy health care as in Germany or France at an afforable price?
0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:bergertime
ID: 39659923
I understand the situation.  I know I used to be able to buy a policy that fit my needs from  private insurance.  Now I have to buy a policy that may not fit my needs.  Hey, I've said before many times in these threads, I would be fine with a system like France's.  Guess what?  Here in the US I have to pay taxes "forced contributions" to build roads I may never travel on, I'm fine with that.  But don't pass a law that requires that I buy a car from GM every three years.  Everyone needs a care pretty much right, it would put people back to work right....think of all the good...  Actually I guess most dems would be for that law, maybe it's not a good example.

It's not only me being singled out, but as I'm probably the most ordinary, average guy there is, I'm sure I'm not alone in my complaints.

"Universal health care in the US -- which you don't have "

I see this all the time, and yes we do.  No one can refused health care in the US.  We may not have free universal health care, but we do have universal healthcare.

"Whereas universal coverage in Europe costs one dollar in ten. Reason? System."
Wow, way too simplistic, if you really believe that I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.  I see obesity as a factor.  Our guns laws and violence as a factor, I see our malpractice as a factor...but you just see the system.  Wow.

You watch too much Colbert.  Again, that's  like arguing at least Bush did something on Iraq, doesn't matter if it was the wrong thing, at least he did something.  He didn't just kick the can down the road like Clinton.  It's still bad legislation.  Last I check, the teabaggers made a ton of suggestion, of which Obama ignored all of them.

"After all why shouldn't the US citizen enjoy health care as in Germany or France at an afforable price?"

Funny I was just thinking the same thing.  As crappy as our current system is and we have people...what was it 50,000 people dying everyday because they don't have health insurance.  Now that serveral million people got canceled Obama and the Dems are coming out and saying, but the 90% of Americans who get insurance from work or current gov't programs are completely happy with their current plans.  Wow, what a flip flop, from how bad it was to how good it is.  If it's not clear, I'm middle America and I have a great plan at a very fair price.  Sure I think we could tweak the system some, but Obamacare is a complete overreach that will harm millions of Americans, and benefit fewer.  Maybe that's why I don't like it.
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
ID: 39659972
>>No one can refused health care in the US.

That's not accurate. Nobody is refused emergency health care in the US. If you go to the Emergency Room they will treat you.  If you are not in an emergency situation though, you aren't going to get healthcare unless you have insurance, or you pay up front.
0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:bergertime
ID: 39660018
"That's not accurate. Nobody is refused emergency health care in the US. If you go to the Emergency Room they will treat you.  If you are not in an emergency situation though, you aren't going to get healthcare unless you have insurance, or you pay up front"

Where do you people come from?

Here is a list of free places.  The ones in my area are very good.  Cost is.....yep you guessed it.  Free.  Or how about gov't run ones here.

Am I missing something here?  People can buy catastrophic coverage and use free clinics and receive very good care at a good price.  The main problem I see is where there is a pre-existing condition who don't get coverage via the workplace.
0
 
LVL 27

Expert Comment

by:BigRat
ID: 39660075
Wow, way too simplistic

No, not at all. You have a system and it doesn't work. You can try to fiddle with it, the way Obama has done, by increasing the number of contributors, reducing the amount of coverage. But essentially the system is at fault.

Take your "factors". Admitted obesity in America is more prevalent than in Europe, but Belgium and Germany are not far behind. Gun laws and violence? There's no indication that that is a major cost to the system. Malpractice insurance also. The problem is simply that too many people want to use a system which is underfunded.

Why is it underfunded? Because it is a "for-profit" system. The idea of limiting profits to 20% (wow - I wish we had such a system in our firm), means simply that the companies will find other ways to funnel the money around.

The fuss everybody makes about Obamacare hides the real problem. That's always the case.

In the last ten years the system has taken on 5% more GPD, in fact it has grown my roughly a half - from 13% to 17% and there seems no way of stopping it. It's like a cancer and fiddling won't work. I think that Obamacare is irrelevant. The system is going to reach 20% of GDP and I see no way of stopping it. Least of all from the Tea-Party side.
0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:bergertime
ID: 39660151
I mostly agree.  :)

But doesn't France, Germany have for profit insurance?

"The idea of limiting profits to 20% (wow - I wish we had such a system in our firm),"

We have a customer that cost plus 25.  They have the highest cost of any of our customers.  Better to make 25% on 1,000, than 500.

"No, not at all. You have a system and it doesn't work."
For who does it not work?  Does our military also not work?  We spend far more than....well everyone else and how many soldiers have died?  We should just revamp our whole military.  I know, apples to oranges, but my point is, for me, as an average person in the US, my healthcare does work, and it works very well.  Sure we can scape the whole thing and get a new system that may or may not work, and even now we have Obama and the dems how over 90% of americans are happy with their current healthcare.  Sounds like it's working for someone.

And just so we can agree, I looked up obesity rates in the US, Germany and Belgium.  30.6, 12.9, 11.7.  Looks more than far behind to me.
0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:bergertime
ID: 39660166
Anthony,

sorry my link was missing, here it is. free healthcare
0
 
LVL 27

Expert Comment

by:BigRat
ID: 39660200
>>But doesn't France, Germany have for profit insurance?

Yes, but the sector is very small. The older you get the more you pay in Germany and you can't get out of the insurance back into the normal system. In France you can end up effectrvely paying twice!

>>For who does it not work?

In the sense that it is far too expensive. The military probably suffers from the same problem!
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
ID: 39660216
Those places are great that they do provide health services, but they are only general services they provide. There is no specialty work done in those clinics. If you need X-rays or Lab work you have to pay for those out of pocket at full cost. Without health coverage that isn't happening for a lot of people. Even those clinics work on a sliding income scale. That helps the low income population well since they work out free most of the time but the middle class is still paying what they got left to them for services.

It's better than a doctor's visit but it's hardly the answer for a lot of people.
0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:bergertime
ID: 39660267
Anthony, hold up, I think your assuming things here.  Where I live the local clinic gives referrals to x-rays and mri's and even colonoscopy.  These are free, wait time is longer and you get jumbled in a pool so who knows which DR you'll see, but the mri clinic on my side of town mixes all the free ones in on Wednesday.  But I agree, if your middle class you get screwed again.  

But in France don't most people still carry some type of private insurance?  It's not an either or right.
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
ID: 39660309
Here in Ohio you get a referral to get a test done but the cost of the test is on you. It's not free. That's usually where care stops for a lot of people. Go to the doctor and get as much done as possible before you have to get referred for a test and then deal with the rest.

This of course never fixes the problem and just addresses symptoms as they crop up so stays a never ending cycle. If they had coverage and could get the test done for a reasonable cost more near a few hundred rather than a few thousand, they would actually get their problem fixed.
0
 
LVL 27

Expert Comment

by:BigRat
ID: 39660340
But in France don't most people still carry some type of private insurance?

Yes, but it is a top up, since the "tax" based system covers 70% of the costs. You can pick and choose what you want. A full vcover is around 80 Euros a month.
0
 

Expert Comment

by:patriotpacer
ID: 39679455
Never thought this day would come but I believe Iran more than I believe the Obama administration.  Both are habitual liars.


Iran: White House Lying About Details of Nuke Deal
Iranian officials say that the White House is misleading the public about the details of an interim nuclear agreement reached over the weekend in Geneva.
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
ID: 39679563
Nice Non-Troversy your right-wing blog is trying to start up.

Iran is saying they are getting to still able to continue to enrich their uranium as long as it is with peaceful intent and parameters. The White House they are freezing uranium enrichment with the potential to create nuclear weapons.

They are both saying the same thing with different words to make it sound like their side got the better end of the deal.

Need something to read that matters? Try this:

If I owned a company and have religious conflict with surgery, do I have the right to withhold insurance coverage from my employees?

I'd love to get the feedback from you guys on it.
0
 
LVL 27

Expert Comment

by:BigRat
ID: 39680782
Iran could earn another $4.2 billion in oil revenue under the deal

from the link.

I just love this type of statement. First in the subjunctive and second designed to impress. Iran's *current* GDP (forced down by sanctions) is $514 billion, so in fact the 4 billion is a drop in the ocean.
0
 

Expert Comment

by:patriotpacer
ID: 39680850
from the link.
Nice Non-Troversy your right-wing blog is trying to start up.
THEN:  As the previous appeasement of Hitler had shown, the governments of both France and Britain were set on avoiding war at any cost.

NOW: As the appeasement of Iran had shown, the governments of both US and France were set on avoiding war at any cost.

THEN:  The Invasion of Poland, also known as the September Campaign or 1939 Defensive War

NOW: ????
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
ID: 39680884
>>NOW: As the appeasement of Iran had shown, the governments of both US and France were set on avoiding war at any cost.

So you just want us to go to war with Iran? What appeasement? Nothing changed but some sanctions lightened and the enrichment of uranium was slowed. I know you want it totally stopped but they weren't going to go for that. The alternative is a war which seems your goal.

I know conservatives freak out about Iran and their uranium and building a nuclear weapon. Honestly I don't follow it closely enough to know how to comment on the situation so I'll just leave it at that.

I'm not dead set against war when it is justified. I personally thought Syria needed a good slap in the face recently, but this doesn't seem enough to get us tangled in another war, but perhaps it is and I'm not knowledgeable enough of the situation.
0
 
LVL 27

Expert Comment

by:BigRat
ID: 39681075
As the previous appeasement of Hitler had shown, the governments of both France and Britain were set on avoiding war at any cost.

Not true, since Great Britain did declare war against Germany.
The demands from Hitler had some justification since the territories involved were previously part of Germany.

The sole argument about Iran having nuclear weapons (which the USA, Britain, France, China, Russia, Pakistan and India have) is the threat against Israel (who probably has a weapon in any case). Other than the rhetoric against Israel (where they are not alone in that) they have threatened nobody, invaded nobody, sanctioned nobody. In fact since the battle of DimDim in 1609 the Persians (Iranians) have attacked nobody. Since then they have lost territory to the Russians on many accounts.

In fact considering their natural adversaries : Russia, Pakistan/India and the arabs in the form of Saudia Arabia (backed by the nuclear US and wanting Paktistani nuclear cover) it is hardly surprising that they want the same weapondry. If the US needs it against China and Russia, why not Persia?
0
 

Expert Comment

by:patriotpacer
ID: 39685332
So you just want us to go to war with Iran?
Jimmy Carter = Weak = Iran Hostage Crisis
Reagan = Strong = Release of Hostages on the Day he takes office

NYTs: On Jan. 20, 1981, Iran released 52 Americans who had been held hostage for 444 days, minutes after the presidency had passed from Jimmy Carter to Ronald Reagan.


they have threatened nobody, invaded nobody, sanctioned nobody.
Iran leader predicts destruction of Israel
0
 
LVL 27

Expert Comment

by:BigRat
ID: 39685410
On Jan. 20, 1981, Iran released 52 Americans

Wow, can you twist history! It was the Algerians with Carter who negociated the release. So long as Carter was in office no release - after all it was his military who cocked up the rescue attempt. You could have inauguated a pig and the Irians would have released the hostages.

I remember an Air Force friend stationed at NATO HQ saying "look, we have to elected a movie actor to get our people back! What sort of country is that?"


Iran leader predicts destruction of Israel

Wow, is that real news!!! Jan 26 in 2010!

and besides what crap, "predicts destruction of Israel"! He actually said "Zionist regime" which is NOT the same thing. There are a lot of Israelis who also want to see the end of Zionism.
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
ID: 39685891
>>Reagan = Strong = Release of Hostages on the Day he takes office

Don't act like the Iranians released the hostages because Reagan came in like John Wayne and they were so scared of his strength they just released them. You know that isn't how it happened.

>>Iran leader predicts destruction of Israel

I am corrected. Obviously they have been threatening Israel since the beginning of time so I was wrong there.
0
 
LVL 27

Expert Comment

by:tliotta
ID: 39729009
@T_B_D:

Apologies for taking so long. As important as politics can be, I don't get enough time to do as much as I should here.

this is an interesting statement, as I've heard it from a bunch of other people I've talked to about this subject. For you personally, why do you think this is the case?
(Re why IMO Republican ideals often don't transfer to Republican candidates...)

I don't know why. What I often see are candidates who propound Republican Party platform elements that do not have Republican ideals at their foundations. Those platform elements usually seem to arise from an opposition to Democratic proposals rather than from ideals. Even when they're not just 'opposition' elements, the candidates often seem to believe more in those elements than the Party ideals. The candidates seem to identify with a too narrow basis for Party membership.

I'll choose a simple example: the "flag burning" Constitutional amendment, which died in the Senate by one vote in June 2006. With a Republican Senate majority of 55 to 44 (and one Independent), you should expect it to fail by at least ten votes, yet only three Republicans voted 'Nay'. (Two-thirds majority required.) The Senate had a Republican Senate President and Republican Senate President pro tem, and the House had a Republican Speaker. You'd think that the proposed legislation wouldn't even get to a vote, much less get so close to passage.

A couple fundamental Republican ideals are the right of free speech and individual rights and justice, contrasted with liberal tendencies towards community/social responsibility. Yet the criminalization of such offensive behavior as being insulting to the nation raises the status of "The State" above "the individual". To me, it's way too close to a basic definition of fascism. And it even strongly contradicts the Republican ideals of personal property. If it's my flag, "The State" has no right to force me not to do as I wish with it. (I'm just pretty sure I'm not likely to burn it in protest any time soon. I believe in what it stands for.)

Another example: family values vs. gay marriage. A fundamental Republican principle is based in innate individual natures and values. Yet, the contrast between those two issues clearly indicates that all of us must conform to some particular set of behaviors and values. Our personal lives should be dictated by "The State". There is no allowance for deviation from the approved norm even when it's long been shown that the deviation can have a major genetic component. We might as well make anything but blue eyes and blond hair unacceptable.

Gay marriage allows wider participation in and acceptance of actual "family values". Rejection of gay marriage reinforces social instability by ensuring another guaranteed segment of society will be ostracized and disenfranchised. The members of the segment will forever be dissatisfied. This in itself counters the Republican 'social stability' ideal that is a conservative hallmark.

There are plenty of other specific items. Those two are examples of ones that Republican candidates can get practically fanatic over.

Now, none of that means that Democratic or other candidates never do the same. But their legislative stances tend to be closer to Party ideals. (That's "closer to"; not exactly match. And "tend to", not follow absolutely.)

I don't support every Democratic candidate. For example, I had regularly voted for our Republican State Representative from this district. I voted against her in this recent election, because she resigned her seat to campaign for the seat in a newly formed district. The basic purpose appeared to be simply to attempt to claim a new district for the Party, assuming that her previous position would also be claimed by a Republican. She was attempting to trade on her name recognition rather than be a true representative of the district. She's now out of the State Legislature, and the old district has a junior Representative. Dumb move by the Party. (The Republican Party has been too focused on gaining seats across the country and has almost lost sight of the purpose of representation.)

Well, I could probably go on for a long time. This just about kills my alloted time for the week in this topic area. I hope I answered your question.

Tom
0
 
LVL 32

Author Comment

by:Big Monty
ID: 39740525
Thanks for the well thought out response Tom, I'm finding more and more folks that I talk to about this lean in that direction as well. Even my other (better) half, she seems to take Liberal views just because it goes along the party line, which aggravates the hell out of me, even though I'm more liberal that conservative...

This has been a very interesting discussion (at least, I found it interesting :) ). I'll leave it open another day or so and close it out if no one else has anything else to add.

Cheers
Josh
0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:bergertime
ID: 39740772
Tom,

I disagree with you.  Now while I think flag burning is wrong, I would agree there shouldn't be a law for it.  Here's my problem with gay marriage and my solution.  marriage for the most part has been defined between 1 man and 1 woman.  When you start changing that, where do you stop.  

My solution?  and this will drive lib bonkers!!  Allow churches to do as they please on marriage, but take marriage out of the state or feds.  Want to have a civil union between a man and a woman?  Fine between 2 men?  Fine.  Between all the guys at the YMCA?  Fine.  But you want to get married?  That's up to you and your church.
0
 
LVL 32

Author Comment

by:Big Monty
ID: 39740779
I'm ok with that solution, assuming that "Civil Unions" get all of the legal perks that "marriage" does...

For most people, gay people who marry want one thing: to have their partnership recognized by the state and receive all of the legal benefits that the term "marriage" gets. I don't think the actual label is that big of a deal, it's what the label entitles them in a legal sense is what they're after.
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
ID: 39740809
In addition, those married in a church would have to go through all the same process that someone has to go through with the state to get all the legal benefits. The church process is to be separate and hold no legal benefits by the state.
0
 
LVL 27

Expert Comment

by:tliotta
ID: 39741443
...but take marriage out of the state or feds.  ...  Between all the guys at the YMCA?  Fine.

Now, that's where I personally disagree. Governmental agencies cannot be taken out of it, and more than two partners is an example of why not.

The fundamental purpose of marriage has been legal rather than spiritual, and it's because of inheritance that that's been true. Church aspects weren't involved until societies evolved such religious organizations. Even in recent centuries, the management of inherited properties and responsibilities has been the fundamental social purpose of marriage; and it's simply been that churches have been one common venue for performing the ceremonies, not for administering any "right of marriage".

The legal implications of inheritance become infeasible when multiple additional partners become involved.

That's especially true as deaths, dissolutions, remarriages, etc., are considered.

A younger person marries older. A second younger marries in, and the older dies some time after. Is the "marriage" still in existence? A new partner is added. What happens to the original marriage responsibilities? The original younger partner now dies. What are the legal obligations of the "marriage" then? If offspring have come out of the "marriage", who has rights? Just how long could a "marriage" last? What if partner A has impossible differences what partner C, but not partners B and D?

There are so many permutations that it's hard to think of them all. The necessary legal framework is and always has been the foundation.

Beyond inheritance, there is responsibility for well-being and upbringing of offspring. There is joint responsibility for obligations of spouses. Almost every aspect of marriage is legal, and the legal jurisdiction has always been the critical controlling aspect. Churches generally do nothing but perform ceremonies.

Now, we do agree that no church should be forced to perform a ceremony that conflicts with the beliefs of the church. A church's responsibility is spiritual. It provides the public notice that the union is sanctioned spiritually. Even during times when and in places where some churches held 'legal' power over marriages, driving motivations were generally either political or economic.

But where it stops is where the legal feasibility stops, and that's with two consenting adults at a time. For now, anyway. If someone ever demonstrates feasibility beyond that, I suppose it could be reconsidered. I'm pretty sure we'll need a new system of justice first.

Tom
0

Featured Post

Top 6 Sources for Identifying Threat Actor TTPs

Understanding your enemy is essential. These six sources will help you identify the most popular threat actor tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs).

Join & Write a Comment

Learn more about the importance of email disclaimers with our top 10 email disclaimer DOs and DON’Ts.
Get an idea of what you should include in an email disclaimer with these Top 5 email disclaimer tips.
It is a freely distributed piece of software for such tasks as photo retouching, image composition and image authoring. It works on many operating systems, in many languages.
Here's a very brief overview of the methods PRTG Network Monitor (https://www.paessler.com/prtg) offers for monitoring bandwidth, to help you decide which methods you´d like to investigate in more detail.  The methods are covered in more detail in o…

744 members asked questions and received personalized solutions in the past 7 days.

Join the community of 500,000 technology professionals and ask your questions.

Join & Ask a Question

Need Help in Real-Time?

Connect with top rated Experts

15 Experts available now in Live!

Get 1:1 Help Now