Obama Healthcare

[Govinda]

That's all well and good, Sasquatch, but if hospitals provide financing programmes then how do people end up being bankrupt by their healthcare? Even if it's just a few. I don't think anyone was suggesting that American doctors defy their Oath on financial grounds, but what about after-care? The non-life threatening stuff after the car crash which, if treated, can make your life so much more comfortable? Also, since you're using specific anecdotes (like the guy who removed his own teeth) what about the story of the young girl who went into hospital with a fever in America? The doctors at the first hospital wouldn't treat her; they insisted she be moved because of her insurance. Hours later, after being moved around, she died. This story can be seen in Michael Moore's 'Sicko', and it's not Moore, it's the mother of the girl talking. How can that happen?

And yes, I remember the scenario a few years ago with the English and their dentists. Basically, there were no dentists, and the few that were around had too many patients. These days there are plenty of dentists who started training when they saw the gap. I don't get why someone would pull their own teeth out though, most people just went to A&E if things got too bad. Luckily, since Scotland was devolved by then, we didn't face a fraction of the same problems.

I'd expect hospitals in, say, New York City to have a couple of MRI machines each, just like the ones in major cities here do. Aberdeen Royal Infirmary has two of them. The whole of the Highlands has one MRI machine, because the population is roughly similar. If your Canadian lives in a quiet province, it'd make sense to only have as many as you need.

The Japanese are quickly becoming the most technologically advanced nation in the world, and that includes healthcare. Theirs is single-payer, for the most part. R&D is still very active here in the UK too; A major breakthrough in our knowledge of Alzheimer's, found by Cardiff University only a few days ago. I could easily go and find more. Over 85% of universities in the UK have research departments rated at 'internationally distinguished', five-star level by the RAE (Research Assessment Europe), an independent academic survey. The universities in cities mostly have medical research centres based in city hospitals; while Dundee's university may be shit, it's the best place to learn medicine in Scotland, simply because the Ninewells hospital is massive and drowning in investment funding from charities, business, and even the government. A lot of good comes out of Ninewells which, considering it's in Dundee, is an achievement.

There are armies of volunteers here as well, and charities that look after you while you recover/if you are housebound. The government runs similar programs, and helps to fund the charities. Marie Curie and MacMillan nurses, Maggie's Cancer Centres, various hospice charities, the Great Ormond Street centres...they're all very healthy, even with our single-payer system.

The NHS is not without its problems; but stop acting like your system is flawless, Sasquatch. For every NHS horror story, it's easy to match it with an American healthcare horror story. And as for Fox News, well...didn't Glenn Beck call Obama a racist not too long ago? And say he wanted to poison Nancy Pelosi's wine? Beck was reporting while doing this, on Obama's Road to Socialism. Maybe Beck's a caricature, maybe the rest aren't as bad...but jeezo.

Also, where the hell did you get the idea that America 'gives away' its technology? Its refusal to do so is helping further bankrupt developing nations. Ever heard of TRIPs? Trade Related aspects of Intellectual Property, part of the 1994 Round of the ITO (International Trade Organisation, then the General Treaty on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)). Basically, TRIPs states that any ITO country wishing to produce technology created by another ITO country will have to ask to do that, and then, if allowed, do it at the price set by the original country. It should be pointed out that the ITO runs on consensus; nothing can be agreed unless everyone signs, every single country. There's a lot of developing nations in the ITO (who probably shouldn't be, it's all TRIPs and NPT's and....another day, another day) who only agreed to sign the treaty with TRIPs in it because of concessions made to them regarding agriculture.

So if America makes a new AIDS drug and Honduras wants to produce a cheaper, generic version, they cannot. To do so would be illegal, and Honduras would be subject to sanctions. The company that created the drug in America can charge whatever price they damn well please. So, they charge through the roof. Eventually someone will create a similar product in India or China, and the price will drop from $100 per pack to 50 cents per pack. They're just as bad with machinery. Thus, TRIPs keeps new American techonology away from the rest of the world. Western countries can afford to buy from America, but the rest of the world can't. (TRIPs is bad for America too, since we can charge whatever the **** we like on new things, but they make far more from it than they lose; plus they can pretty much buy anything anyway).

[Zargabaath]

Health care is not a right. Nobody has the right to a service; the only right a person has is the right to life. Life is a process of self-sustaining, self-generated action; the right to life is the freedom to engage in self-generated and self-sustaining action – to take all actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment, and the enjoyment of their own life (such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness). The right to life means that a person has the right to support their life by their own work and the person cannot be deprived of their life for the benefit of another person nor of any number of other people. The notion that someone has the right to forcibly receive service from someone else is in nature not a right. Nobody has the right to initiate force against another human being; there is no right to violate the rights of others, yet so many of you think that people do. Health care is a service, it is not something given to humanity by nature, it is the product of people who have worked hard to acquire the skills needed to be sufficient in their trade in which they intend to make a living from. Many of you here believe that is totally within your rights to force people to either give you a free service or for other people to pay for your expenses. The only person responsible for their expenses is themselves, not others- people are not the caretakers of other people, they are not chattel as many of you want them to be. You do not respect their right to life at all, you would wish them a life a slavery paying for those who leach off of them. Those who support universal health care support the enslavement of humanity; that some people have more rights than others, that some people’s rights are not as important as others. Nobody’s rights can be violated, that is the nature of inalienable rights – semi-inalienable rights are contradictory in nature but many would wish it a reality.

Loaf, just because your hospital bills are high does not warrant the need for universal health care, if you want the real reason why health care is so high, look at the government that regulates it forcing prices sky high. It is not my or any other persons problem that you cannot afford a service, and health care is a service. Why should others be burden by your or any other person’s expenses? This is now more general not just aimed at Loaf- I love how all these people who support universal health care say that they are selfless, yet it is they who wish that other people pay for their expenses, for their livelihood, it is all about sustaining them, you ignore people’s rights to live their own life and want them to be forced to cater to you- that is more selfish than what the detractors desire. That type of selfish, is the brute that does not care about other people and takes whatever they want, not what I call for. If someone can afford health care then they can get, I will not stop them no matter what they are. You guys hide behind selflessness but are truly the brute who does not respect people treating them as sacrificial animals.

What has the government done that makes health care, health insurance costs so high? In the U.S you cannot buy health insurance from a different state, this constricts the market. Remember the recent “scandal” in New Jersey about them selling organs “illegally”? They were supplying the demand for that product at a much cheaper cost because the regulations on them are so strict it forces the prices and the surgeries so high. Now you will probably say, “Oh Zargabaath, the organs may not be suitable, they can be dangerous for them and die.” And I reply that they knew what they were buying, they knew the risks, it is the government that has caused the price to skyrocket, if the regulations from the government were abolished then prices would go down as more organs could be used, supply would go up to meet demand dropping prices all around. One more thing, if they didn’t get that organ “illegally”, then they would have suffered and died anyways because of the regulations set by governments. If all the regulations from on health care/health by the government were to be taken away, costs would come down. Everyone still may not be able to afford health care but then I say don't force people to provide service and pay for it, instead why not become a doctor and treat those who can't? Of course you would never do that because you can't be bothered, it is much better just to enslave others.

What many of you can’t seem to realize is that everything that government does costs exponentially more than what is first predicted, government cannot accurately predict costs because the program always expands and there is no competition against government- leading to massive debt. Government has its citizens to pay for their programs; government does not operate like a business that must make money to stay afloat. A business relies on the voluntary action of the consumer to buy their product, a government can just increase taxes.
Che, nobody has the right to force someone to give them a service. If you are sick and don’t want to pay then cure yourself, if you are dumb, educate yourself, otherwise pay for the service. Now it does not mean it must only be with money; my aunt was a chiropractor who accepted other forms of payments for those who did not have the money.

There is more opportunity in America than anywhere else. Where else can so many people from poor/bad backgrounds become professional athletes making millions, or actors, doctors, lawyers, it requires hard work but it can be done without help! Anyone read “Gifted Hands” it’s about a black man becoming a very great doctor through hard work. My aunt went through college in Colorado working three jobs. I mention the state of Colorado because my aunt lived in New York and she had no car or money for a plane ticket, so my grandparents drove her out of New York and she biked the rest of the way! A young woman bicycling to Colorado from Pennsylvania or New Jersey, sleeping in graveyards at night when the weather permitted and she somehow survived the trek. Now what you people are so upset about is that the difficulty of each person’s life is different and you find that unfair, which just shows that you are either envious or jealous or both. It is not somebody’s problem that they had an easier time than somebody else. Do not criminalize them for it! Just as you criminalize people who make too much money. Isn’t the goal of a company and person to make as much as possible? But once they cross a certain gross revenue they become “evil”. This behavior is irrational and shows how you don’t want people to succeed, to live their life, but that they must never get ahead of you- and who is the selfish one? Who wishes to hold people back? Who demonizes people or companies because they make a million dollars, it is so arbitrary it is pathetic. Tell me, when do they become evil? Is it at $250,000? Is that when you curse their name and say they oppress their employees and are corrupt.

Let’s take a look at some other U.S government run programs. Medicaid and Medicare are broken and their costs have risen more than what was expected. Amtrak, which is heavily subsidized by the government is broken as well and broke, and finally the post office which is 6 billion dollars in debt. And what does the great Obama say about those worrying about a government health care takeover? Look at UPS and FedEx, they’re doing fine against the USPS, that the USPS is the one in trouble. What?! Did anybody get that? Obama is saying that the government health care system could turn out to be like the USPS, but it would be trillions of dollars in debt and we would spend trillions more trying to fix it because government is not the answer. It is the problem. All these programs that are not working properly and are going bankrupt and we want to establish a bigger program? The stupidity of some people never ceases to amaze me.

The function of a government is to protect the rights of the people, by stopping those who would or have used force against people. It is not the job of the government to provide a home, car, job, health care, food, etc to people, that is not a person’s right or the function of government. The opposite suggests that some people can be forced to provide a service for others, which is in itself breaking the rights of people making the action illegal. Socialism may not be a bad word in Europe but I would never trust a European to guide the world, or look to for advice ( there are a few exceptions, but they are in the vast minority). We do know what a communist and what a socialist is, but the actions of people like you try to hide it so it can be filtered in and we won’t realize until it is too late the dagger sticking in our back.

America was founded on individualism and selfishness for people to achieve, through hard work their goals, to live their own life. It is only the your messed up sense that in order to succeed, someone must be stepped on. That is what is going on in Europe, except instead of the poor being stepped on by the nobility or rich as it was back in the day, it is the opposite. Europeans feel entitled to service without paying for it or for others paying for it- that is more selfish than letting people live their own lives, succeeding or failing at their own hands.

There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism- by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide. Both violate the rights of humans by ignoring the right to property. The right to property is the right of use and disposal.

Just as man can’t exist without his body, so no rights can exist without the right to translate one’s rights into reality- to think, to work, and to keep the results- which means: the right of property. The modern mystics of muscle who offer you the fraudulent alternative of “human rights” versus “property rights”, as if one could exist without the other, are making a last, grotesque attempt to revive the doctrine of soul versus body. Only a ghost can exist without material property; only a slave can work with no right to the product of their effort. The doctrine that “human rights” are superior to “property rights” simply means that some human beings have the right to make property out of others; since the competent have nothing to gain from the incompetent, it means the right of the incompetent to own their betters and to use them as productive cattle. Whoever regards this as human and right, has no right to the title of “human”. The source of property rights is the law of causality. All property and all forms of wealth are produced by man’s mind and labor. As you cannot have effects without causes, so you cannot have wealth without its source: without intelligence. You cannot force intelligence to work: those who’re able to think, will not work under compulsion; those who will, won’t produce much more than the price of the whip needed to keep them enslaved. You cannot obtain the products of a mind except on the owner’s terms, by trade and by volitional consent. Any other policy of people towards people’s property is the policy of criminals, no matter what their numbers. Criminals are savages who play it short-range and starve when their prey runs out- just as you’re starving today, you who believed that crime could be “practical” if your government decreed that robbery was legal and resistance to robbery illegal. – Ayn Rand.

What really sucks is that even though the U.S is going downhill, there is no other country as great as the U.S. Let me add that the only reason why Europe still has some form have power is because of U.S liberals/democrats; they want to emulate and feel that Europe is “hip”. In reality, Europe has no power; ever since WWII Europe has lost all of its former glory. Now most Europeans are spoiled who feel they are entitled to everything and they must not do any hard work. This is the place where if anyone gets fired they start marching in the streets destroying property. This is the place where they hate on America because they know we are better deep down, yet if they ever got in trouble militarily they would feel entitled that America should come and save them. If someone like Hitler started a war on Europe, it would be way easier than the beginning of WWII, Europeans would give up in a matter of seconds, saying that something the West did to the country was the reason for their behavior, most blame would go to America as a new avenue to hate on the U.S. Getting back to it, so Europe would feel that the U.S. must help them because they are entitled to it, which if it was my way I would let you rot, but we would help because we are better than you who won’t lift a finger nowadays. Afterwards you may cheer us, for the third time, but eventually your hatred for us will rise and Europeans will shout that we committed war crimes and protest that our people should be held accountable, that the U.S should pay for the restoration of Europe and should pay the aggressor money as well because it was our fault for starting the war. But it is still not yet done, feeling that you guys have done something so wonderful in fighting the good fight, you would demand of your government that they pass a bill forcing all companies to give their employees 6 months of paid vacation because you work so hard, especially during the war and you feel entitled. Because, how many is it 2 months or one month is not enough. Then after twenty years you will be back in full swing hating on America, and becoming more lazier till there is nobody to pay for your socialist programs and you full into utter chaos, hopefully showing the world, yet again that communism/socialism does not work.

What we stand for is to respect each person’s right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. There is no right to a guarantee of some product or service, only the right to pursue it and if you accomplish your goal to keep your reward. We don’t support slavery, unlike you guys. We respect humanity.

[Sasquatch]

That's all well and good, Sasquatch, but if hospitals provide financing programmes then how do people end up being bankrupt by their healthcare?

How exactly is it the hospital's job to protect people financially? If I want to be irresponsible with my money and not have enough to pay for health insurance, that's MY fault, and it's MY obligation to live with it -- nobody else's.

And why do people claim to go bankrupt because of their medical bills? Could be a few reasons. They could not have researched, and thus not know about, the myriad financing plans. They could have insisted on paying their entire medical bill instead of forming any financing plan at all. Or -- and this is by far the most likely -- they could just be irresponsible with their money, and no matter how much they pay on their medical bills, they blame their medical bills for causing them to not have any money.

I don't think anyone was suggesting that American doctors defy their Oath on financial grounds, but what about after-care? The non-life threatening stuff after the car crash which, if treated, can make your life so much more comfortable?

... so you're not suggesting that doctors break their Hippocratic Oath because patients can't pay, but you believe that patients can't get care for non-life-threatening issues without paying for it? Pick one.

I say again: NO medical care can be refused on financial grounds.

Also, since you're using specific anecdotes (like the guy who removed his own teeth) what about the story of the young girl who went into hospital with a fever in America? The doctors at the first hospital wouldn't treat her; they insisted she be moved because of her insurance. Hours later, after being moved around, she died. This story can be seen in Michael Moore's 'Sicko', and it's not Moore, it's the mother of the girl talking. How can that happen?

First, since Moore has been proven dishonest multiple times, and he has been proven to have dishonest people in his movies multiple times, I wouldn't trust anything he supports. Second, "the guy who removed his own teeth" wasn't a short anecdote, it's something that has happened more than once -- at least three times I'm aware of, and from what I've seen, at least six percent of NHS patients have resorted to self-treatment. Third, I highly doubt that any little girl died because hospitals refused to treat her because her parents couldn't afford it -- if anything like that happened, the doctors that refused to treat her and the Chiefs of every hospital wing and every hospital that refused to treat her would be out of a job by the next week. Heads would roll. Do you have any articles on this little girl, or anything?

I'd expect hospitals in, say, New York City to have a couple of MRI machines each, just like the ones in major cities here do. Aberdeen Royal Infirmary has two of them. The whole of the Highlands has one MRI machine, because the population is roughly similar. If your Canadian lives in a quiet province, it'd make sense to only have as many as you need.

It would make sense to have as many as you need -- unfortunately, Canada doesn't have as many as it needs, which is why thousands of people every year cross the border and get an MRI in one of the northern states of the U.S. Three for one province is not enough.

The Japanese are quickly becoming the most technologically advanced nation in the world, and that includes healthcare. Theirs is single-payer, for the most part. R&D is still very active here in the UK too; A major breakthrough in our knowledge of Alzheimer's, found by Cardiff University only a few days ago. I could easily go and find more.

Of course every country, even those with socialized medicine, still has R&D that develops new drugs or new procedures. But not to the extent of the United States.

Over 85% of universities in the UK have research departments rated at 'internationally distinguished', five-star level by the RAE (Research Assessment Europe), an independent academic survey.

I'd like to see more about that, but searching "research assessment Europe" gave me three links, all non-related. You have any cites?

There are armies of volunteers here as well, and charities that look after you while you recover/if you are housebound. The government runs similar programs, and helps to fund the charities. Marie Curie and MacMillan nurses, Maggie's Cancer Centres, various hospice charities, the Great Ormond Street centres...they're all very healthy, even with our single-payer system.

This proves that people give to charity and that charity helps people who need it. Why go further and force people to support others, when most willingly give to charity anyway, and the charity works?

The NHS is not without its problems; but stop acting like your system is flawless, Sasquatch.

When did I say that the American healthcare system was without problems?

For every NHS horror story, it's easy to match it with an American healthcare horror story.

Alright, find a survey that says that more than 1/20th of Americans rely on themselves for medical treatment.

And as for Fox News, well...didn't Glenn Beck call Obama a racist not too long ago? And say he wanted to poison Nancy Pelosi's wine?

I didn't hear anything about poisoning Nancy Pelosi, but Obama is indeed a racist. Not only does he belong to one of the most racist churches in the country (or did, at least, until he realized how poorly it reflected on him), not only does he claim one of the most racist preachers in the country as his spiritual mentor (again, at least he did, until he started separating himself from the people that got his political career well off at the state level), he also has repeatedly said things that generalize whites. Like claiming that his grandmother is a "typical white person" because she was racist.

And again ... it's Beck.

Beck was reporting while doing this, on Obama's Road to Socialism. Maybe Beck's a caricature, maybe the rest aren't as bad...but jeezo.

Glenn Beck is not a reporter. He is a commentator. Even if he reports his own stories and does his own research, Glenn Beck is not a news reporter for Fox News. So I ask again -- please provide some sort of credible evidence of any type of bias in Fox News reporting, or admit that you simply accuse it of bias because it's not to the extreme left.

Also, where the hell did you get the idea that America 'gives away' its technology?

I got it from America giving away its technology. It's pretty easy to make that connection.

Its refusal to do so is helping further bankrupt developing nations.

Wait, hahahahahah ... you think America is developing all this technology and medicine, and you think it's hoarding it all or charging outrageous prices for it, and you think that a developing nation's inability to get something for free makes it bankrupt?

I suppose I'm a horrible, horrible person, then. Because I don't spend the money I make to buy food and hand it out to every homeless person I can find, not only am I not helping them, I'm making them more homeless!

Basically, TRIPs states that any ITO country wishing to produce technology created by another ITO country will have to ask to do that, and then, if allowed, do it at the price set by the original country.

So if my country spends its money to produce something, and your country wants it, you can't just force me to give it to you for free? How unjust!

It should be pointed out that the ITO runs on consensus; nothing can be agreed unless everyone signs, every single country. There's a lot of developing nations in the ITO ... who only agreed to sign the treaty with TRIPs in it because of concessions made to them regarding agriculture.

So they joined because they could get something for free, or on the backs of the other nations that had joined -- and now there's a problem because they can't get everything for free?

So if America makes a new AIDS drug and Honduras wants to produce a cheaper, generic version, they cannot. To do so would be illegal, and Honduras would be subject to sanctions. The company that created the drug in America can charge whatever price they damn well please. So, they charge through the roof.

Yes, they charge extreme prices, so nobody can afford to buy it. That's great for profit. They could discover it for themselves, they could wait, or they could go without. Nobody force them to buy the new AIDS drug, and if they choose to buy it, they have nobody to blame but themselves for being short on money.

Thus, TRIPs keeps new American techonology away from the rest of the world.

So you're saying that the only way a country can buy something from America is through TRIPs, and that America always charges exorbitant amount of money for them, and that there's absolutely no way for countries to form a pack to combine funding for the purchase, and that there's absolutely no way to get the same product at a lesser price from another vendor?

American health care isn't expensive because it's the best, it's expensive because there's people getting rich off of it.

There are people who get rich off of anything. If it's worth paying for, somebody will provide it. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

The idea that American healthcare is expensive because the leaders of insurance companies, doctors, etc. are somehow overcharging so they can crap on solid - gold toilets and wipe their ass with hundred-dollar-bills is extremely ignorant.

Why do you think that high-ranking government employees and anybody elected into a federal office gets free health care for the rest of their lives? It's because they're rich, and the rich are the ones that get cutbacks from payments, plus the fact that they're getting richer from overly expensive health care.

You need to learn something about American politics, kid Government officials do not receive healthcare from private insurers, they receive a form of government healthcare -- a form much, much more expensive than anything offered to the public, and with much, much better care. This is why it's always funny to see a politician who supports Obama's healthcare plan stumble whenever they're confronted with a perfectly logical question -- if you support it for the public, would you support having your Congressional health care plan changed to fall under the same standards? (I'll give you a hint: The answer is always, in one way, shape, or form, a resounding "hell no".)

If health care providers actually did what you're accusing them of and gave free care to rich people, that would be one thing. But you're claiming something that is incredibly false. Try again.

(Besides, wouldn't it be damn stupid to not charge the rich people, but charge the poor more? Try to figure out how that would make any sense at all, and get back to me.)

Nobody gives a damn if you work hard for your money anymore, because all anybody wants to do is screw over the working class in order to widen the gap between middle and upper class.

Yes, of course -- everybody who saves money, everybody who goes to college, everybody who works two jobs, they all just want to screw other people over. It has nothing to do with having money, it's all about making sure that nobody else has as much as you do.

The rich want more money and the middle class want cutbacks that are only available to the rich.

Please tell me, what "cutbacks" are "only available to the rich"? You failed miserably trying to point out one so-called "cutback" not long ago, I would find it highly entertaining to see what other "cutbacks" you claim the rich get.

It's the same thing with cancer and AIDS treatment. There damn well is a cure by now. They've been "looking" for a cure for long enough.

Of course there's a cure for AIDS and Cancer -- and Bush was behind 9/11, the '93 WTC attack was done by the FBI, the moon landing was faked, aliens landed at Roswell, LBJ had Kennedy assassinated, contrails from planes are actually filled with biological agents, Elvis Presley is still alive, carburetors exist that give your car five hundred miles to the gallon, the war in Iraq is all about oil, the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy really does exist, the government assassinated Tupac Shakur, Jews are trying to control the world, Courtney Love killed Kurt Kerbang (sorry, "Cobain"), Paul McCartney has just been a look-alike since '66, O.J. really didn't do it ... anything else?

Socialized health care in America is an impossibility, mainly because the boys up top are too money hungry to even begin to give a damn about the lives of the people.

Or because the boys at the bottom want good quality healthcare. That's got a lot to do with it, too -- as shown by the fact that the majority of the population doesn't support Obama's healthcare plan.

America was built on pure capitalism. I understand that. But it makes it so that it's a pretty selfish world over there. To say the least.

Ah, that's what I love about liberals -- the hypocrisy. If I want to keep the money I work for, I'm selfish. But if I want the money YOU work for, I'm "needy" or "less fortunate".

Do you really believe that? Saying that everyone can become a millionaire is both naive and kind of a paradox. If you love your capitalism, and know something about it, you know that not nearly everyone can get rich.

Nobody said that everyone can become a millionaire. What was said was that everybody has the chance to get health care. Capitalist economies will never have to worry about everyone trying to get rich, because there will always be people who, instead of working hard for their money, will rely on others and demand that those who do work hard for their money are forced to give it to them instead of keeping it.

You see the people who don't have health care and can't pay for it as 'just a minority'. I can do exactly the same with people who's costs would be a little higher.

The difference is that the people who don't have healthcare are a minority, whereas the people whose costs would be higher aren't. So he would be correct, and you wouldn't.

Why would the quality go down? It would still be the same doctors. It would just be paid for in another way.

It wouldn't be paid for as much. They wouldn't get the same equipment, they wouldn't get the same training, and they wouldn't have nearly the same work ethic.

I'll give you a situation, and I'd like you to answer a question for me. You and I are both just graduating high school. You want more -- I don't. I go out and get a minimum-wage unskilled labor job. You go to college. You have a better work ethic than I do. Since you don't have the money to pay for college, you get a full-time job while you're in school, like millions upon millions of people have before. In five years, I move up another couple dollars an hour, not because of my work ethic but because I've been there for a while -- you finish college, having worked a full-time job that paid all of your bills and some of your college off. You get a good job that pays a decent salary -- say, twice as much as I would make in a year working the unskilled labor job that I have. In another five years, your supervisors and managers have recognized your superior work ethic -- you stay late after work and come in early or work on weekends, you try to take night classes to give you more education in your field, etc. -- and you get promoted. If I'm still at the same job, I'm making twelve or fifteen dollars an hour, because I only work what I have to, and I only work as hard as I have to work, and I only got the education that I had to. Your work ethic has helped you get an education, a better job, and a higher position within that job.

Now: if you were going to make the same amount of money I would, why would you have a better work ethic?

I guess the quality of health care in non-American countries is all crap, right?

Not all, of course not. Canada and Britain, yes -- at least in comparison.

I don't see where this statement comes from.

We'd be forced to pay the medical bills of people who don't take care of themselves. Under this type of program, I could eat right, exercise daily, get plenty of sleep, and work a low-stress job; or I could smoke three packs of cigarettes a day, drink like a fish, and eat enough fast food to make me 300 pounds. Either way, I wouldn't pay any more for medical care, but of course my medical care would cost much more if I did the latter.

The issue is not what the definition of 'fair' is. But rather in what way a government should take care of her civilians.

The problem with that idea is that our government isn't some omnipotent being -- it bends to the whim of the people. The citizens don't answer to the government, the government answers to the civilians. The government does not have ANY obligation to "take care of her citizens" other than protecting them from outside forces. The CITIZENS have the obligation to protect THEMSELVES.

And I really don't get why all those people are so paranoid about the government taking over their lifes. There is absolutely no reason to suspect such a thing.

Because it's not like the government is controlling what we learn at school or what kind of health care we get, taking over some of our largest businesses, using taxpayer money to buy out private corporations ... Wait, no, that's not right.

Bill O'Reilly may not be news reporter, but it's still on Fox News Channel, isn't it? I thought you were better than someone not seeing through the quality of Fox News.

I do see the quality of Fox News -- but honestly, I can't say that I thought you were better than someone who shouts "bias" at whatever you disagree with without looking at the facts or the logic.

Yes, O'Reilly is on Fox News Channel. So? Kieth Olbermann is on MSNBC, and he's more liberal than O'Reilly is Republican. That doesn't automatically mean that everything MSNBC reports has a liberal bias, of course not -- MSNBC's liberal bias would exist whether Olbermann was there or not.

I take a look at some broadcasts, and they're a joke.

So you don't like them. Good for you. Prove that they are biased in their news reporting, or admit that you made false accusations against them and drop it.

The other day, they were critisising Obama for visiting children in schools. They said he was recruiting democrats, and just might have been brainwashing them about the new healthcare reform.

Who? Not reporters -- commentators. And it's not the President's job to be a parent to America's children -- I'm sure the time he spent doing that could have been better spent doing something else, like his job.

Another example would be the following: Rapper Jay-Z was celebrating about something Obama had done. At a particular party, he was rapping away, shouting words like 'nigga', 'motherfucker', the whole thing. The reporters at Fox were discussing and asking so-called experts why Obama didn't say anything about it. They just couldn't believe it... Why the hell would he?

Again -- WHO? Commentators. People who get paid to give their opinions.

And if I was Obama, I would have said something about it. The lack of a liberal outrage shows a clear double-standard -- that people who support Obama can be disrespectful and improper, even enough to use the word nigget, but people who support Republicans or conservatives are attacked for everything they do.

Also, there was this woman last week who was debating in favour of the conservatives. She said to her opponent 'yeah but you probably have medicare'. The guy was like 'No, cause I'm not over 65...'. I mean, she doesn't even know what medicare is, and she's going to explain how socialised healthcare is from the devil? Sad.

You don't have to be 65 or over to receive Medicare. Maybe she assumed that he received them without being 65, or maybe she assumed that he was 65 or older. Those were ignorant assumptions that she made -- followed by the two you made. First you assumed that she doesn't know what Medicare is (for which you have absolutely no evidence), then you assumed that she must not know much about Obama's healthcare plan (for which you have no evidence).

That's just 3 small examples from the last two weeks alone.

And not one of those three would reflect bias in the news reporting of Fox News Channel. Try again.

Then there's Glenn Beck. Granted, he's not a News reporter, but he makes me laugh every time nontheless. When I watch him talk, I'm not sure whether I should be sad about the fact that some Americans actually eat that shit he sells, or just laugh away.

And because you don't like what he says, you automatically discount it as false. No need to listen to people you don't like, right? I mean, if you don't like what they have to say, there's no possible way that it could have any truth to it!

For example, he connects some communist activist that Obama met when he was 8 years old. That MUST mean Obama is Stalin.

Did he keep up with this communist activist? Did the communist activist help launch his political career, like the domestic terrorist David Ayers did? (Yes, that was yet another political ally and personal friend that Obama abandoned once he realized it'd be bad for his reputation.) Did the communist activist get Obama into socialist/communist groups like Democratic Socialists of America?

Don't say THIS doesn't make you laugh:
YouTube - Glenn Beck Does Not Know How To Spell "Oligarchy"
(Don't pay attention to the spelling mistake. I'm not talking about that.)

The bullshit about the spelling mistake -- his missing one letter, then acknowledging it and continuing it but not correcting it -- and the dumbasses who posted comments on it did indeed make me laugh. As far as the video itself, no, it was prettymuch accurate -- a little too extreme for me, but not that much.

But the worst (/best?) things I've seen him say, were comparisons between Obama and Hitler. (Yeah, the German guy.) He showed some advertisements from Nazi-Germany, constantly saying 'Does this sound familiar to you?', playing the crowd at home.

Because Nazi Germany bought into focusing on the man and the symbol instead of the policies. I don't care for anybody pulling out the Nazi card, but that doesn't mean he wasn't accurate.

I can't believe a guy like that still has a show on tv. Even if it is on Fox... There's a reason why most major sponsors during Beck's show have asked Fox for another time to show their commercials.

Any credible evidence for that claim? I'd like to see it.

False. Medicaid failed to pay my dad's hospitalization bills, and my credit was hit and plummeted as a result. A mistake to charge the wrong member of my family, but a credit rating was still hit for not paying. It took over a year to get it settled with Medicaid and another year to get the negative hits off my credit report.

My brother's credit is total shit for going through cancer treatments for the past few years and getting hospital bills tacked onto his credit rating, even though a lot were covered by different organizations, the bills he had to pay he couldn't afford, and his credit now suffers as a result.

If he paid nothing at all, yes. (Like I said, five bucks a month will do.) If he didn't pay his insurance, yes. (That's not the hospital, it's completely separate.) But the claim that hospitals will refuse treatment for people without insurance or money, or that medical bills will affect one's credit score, is completely false, even with your anecdotal evidence.

But you say that your dad was hospitalized, and that your brother went through years of cancer treatments? Did they have insurance at the time? Or did the hospitals refuse to treat them because they didn't think they'd get their money?

The United States already spends a larger fraction of its GDP on healthcare than any country in the world ...

I already explained this.

... but it's health indicators (such as child mortality and life span) are lower

than those in many other countries of comparable income.

First, child mortality: the United States takes numbers differently than some other countries, considering a live birth to be a child, whereas some others wait a couple weeks or month before they would consider it a child fatality. So if a baby is born and lives for ten minutes, it's considered a child death in America, whereas the same situation would be considered

As for life span -- America has millions upon millions of people who risk their lives to come to America and do whatever it takes to hide from the people who would send them back to their home country. America has many, many people do not get medical treatment in time to cure their situation because they've only learned the lie that people without insurance cannot get treatment. America has people that come from other countries for medical care, when it's too late to cure them. America has a thousand factors in why the life span might be lower. Trying to say that life span reflects directly and only upon the healthcare system is like trying to say that the reason so many people get into car accidents is because the roads are bad.

Before someone tells me to shut up because I'm not an American, I'm getting this from a book written by Joseph Stiglitz, professor of economics, business, and international and public affairs at Columbia University, and co-recipient of the Nobel Prize in Economic Science in 2001.

And because you quote from a book, you know everything about the situation?

[Govinda]

I refer to my earlier post about this being irreconcilable. Points, for Sasquatch:

Got RAE's name wrong for the millionth time. It's actually Research Assessment Exercise. There's one involving Europe which has a very close acronym, though.

Also, you backtracked yourself on the point of America giving away its technology. You backed me up.

Where's this survey that says 1/20th of the UK self-treat? I've never even heard of it. And I live here.

I take it you hate CNN?

I guess we just have to accept that Americans and Europeans are different. We think it is patriotic to take care of one another and better our society, because we like our countries. Know how you can tell? We don't use it as a point. We don't feel the need to say it. It's taken as granted that we are proud to be what we are. We don't need rhetoric, and it's kind of sad that you guys seem to. Repeating how much you love America isn't going to help it. Americans think it is patriotic to try to improve the country by only taking care of themselves and theirs. Good luck with that.

[Sasquatch]

Got RAE's name wrong for the millionth time. It's actually Research Assessment Exercise. There's one involving Europe which has a very close acronym, though.

Your claim was that "Over 85% of universities in the UK have research departments rated at 'internationally distinguished', five-star level by the RAE."

The RAE 2008 website itself goes against you on multiple aspects: First, there is no five-star rating. There's only 1-4. Second, there is no "internationally distinguished" rating. Third, the RAE is not "independent", as you claimed, it is commissioned by the UK government.

What you might have been referring to is that it found that 87% of UK universities were ranked at "quality that it recognized internationally" -- or that 84% of UK research projects "were judged to contain at least 5% of world-leading quality research".

I'm not exactly sure what you were getting at with that anyway, considering that not every university or research project was judged ... but still, those that were were of international quality of some sort, so that must be good. I'm not sure what they would consider "international quality" in Europe, since the U.S. has states that are bigger than some European countries (so "international" in Europe would be "interstate" in America), but kudos. They've definitely got something to be proud of.

Also, you backtracked yourself on the point of America giving away its technology. You backed me up.

I didn't back you up, I didn't even address the idea that America overcharges, or charges at all. The only thing I mentioned was one sarcastic comment suggesting than overcharging is bad for profit.

Where's this survey that says 1/20th of the UK self-treat? I've never even heard of it. And I live here.

[ur=http://www.euronews.net/2007/10/15/nhs-failings-pushing-britons-to-pull-their-own-teeth/]It's not much, but at least it mentions it.[/url] I don't know where I'd find the actual survey, but at least you can see that I'm not pulling it out of my ass. (1/20th is 5% -- the truth is that 6%, close to 1/17th about, reported resorting to treating themselves.)

Have you honestly never heard of people treating themselves because the NHS isn't competent enough?

I take it you hate CNN?

Meh, not really hate. I'll use it for news if I have to. They're not as biased as MSNBC or CBS, but they're still not neutral.

I guess we just have to accept that Americans and Europeans are different. We think it is patriotic to take care of one another and better our society, because we like our countries. ... Americans think it is patriotic to try to improve the country by only taking care of themselves and theirs. Good luck with that.

If you want to go with a "different strokes for different folks" approach, I'm all for it. Some Americans take the view that bettering themselves so that they don't have to rely on others makes their country better. Apparently, some Europeans take the view that forcing everybody to help each other makes the country better. America values individual liberty more than they value the collective good, and Europe values the collective good over individual liberty. To each their own.

Again, you are generalising. If I were to criticise republicans remotely as arrogantly as you do, you would freak out.

Not if it was true. A common liberal/Democratic argument is that people are "greedy" for wanting to keep the money they make without sharing it -- but those that don't have money, for whatever reason, are "less fortunate" and we should all give them money.

What? Health insurance has nothing to do with the way doctors and nurses are being trained, nor with what equipment hospitals would buy.

There was no reference to health insurance -- that was talking about medical costs. Medical costs include the costs of training and employing medical personnel, purchasing and upkeep of medical equipment and facilities, etc. etc. etc.

If anything, they would have more money, since more operations etc. would be actually paid for.

Not if the operations are paid a fraction of what they're worth.

I'm not sure what the question here is.

... The last line of that, clearly distinguished from the rest of the paragraph, was, "Now: if you were going to make the same amount of money I would, why would you have a better work ethic?" Do you not know what the question is?

And you're not doing that right now? You're saying all the people ho have the same health insurance are taking care of themselves as well as you do?

People in worse health -- those who don't take care of themselves -- pay more for their insurance. Just like people who get into more car accidents pay more for their car insurance.

I understand what you're saying. And I think this is one of those US vs. The World situations where an idea doesn't seem to fit a certain society due to it's history and cultural differences. I respect that, but I think it's a shame.

Do you respect it or do you think it's a shame?

That is how ALL politicians in the US work... I don't see the relevance of this issue.

Please, Belgian, tell me more about politics in the United States. Are you trying to say that all politicians in the United States want to expand the power and control of the federal government?

... I think it is only healthy to remain objective about matters like politics. I just can't seriously watch Fox News, due to those minor discrepancies, but mostly the dramatic tone and the twists they give some news stories.

So you think it's good to remain objective, but don't like Fox News -- not because it's actually biased, but because they emphasize issues -- in another country, with another culture, four thousand miles away -- that you don't think should be emphasized?

But you have to admit that a LOT of not-so-smart people get fired up just by watching Fox News and the shows on the Fox News Channel, nodding at everything.

And nothing is to say that those "not-so-smart people" wouldn't get "fired up" at anything else, or that other networks don't have the same issue.

But I must say that the 'liberal' media, bisaed or not, tend to reconsider their own ideas from time to time, more than most conservative media do. That's healthy, in my opinion.

That's also your opinion as a whole, that the more liberal media supposedly reconsiders their ow ideas. Now wait, are you talking about actual reconsideration, or are you talking about being sued for defamation or making stories up, like Dan Rather? Hell, of course they're going to be forced to reconsider their own ideas, when they get called out for making shit up to badmouth Republicans and have to stop saying it.

If I were to use this argument against a president you had voted for, you wouldn't agree. Be honest. The president is more than the guy who decides important things.

Bush Sr. and Reagan both did it as well, and if I had been old enough at the time, I would have disagreed with it both times. It's not the President's job to parent America's children, and frankly, I don't want any politician talking to my kids.

There is no double standard here.

There was absolutely no outrage in the liberal media or by Obama about the impropriety and disrespect. Of course there was a double-standard.

I was just explaining how Fox News used that rapper as another argument to prove how bad a president Obama can be.

While it wouldn't reflect on his Presidency, it would indeed reflect on Obama. But then, he's already proven that he has absolutely no problem accepting support for less-than-honorable people -- racists, terrorists, etc. -- so why would he have a problem with this?

Are you among the people that believe Obama should show his birth certificate?

Do I think that the President of the United States should prove his eligibility before taking office? Of course.

I'm not talking about the content. I'm talking about how ridiculous his methods are to make his points. He circles the first letter of a few big words, and they form the word Oligarchy. How is that using logic?

Like you wouldn't piss on anyone else who tried to make a point by circling words and letters? Come on...

He wasn't making a point by doing that, he was illustrating his point.

No, it's expensive because purging all the hard earned dollars from the middle class is how the good ol' boys operate. That's how they've always operated, and that's how they always will operate.

Except for the fact that people with more money pay much more taxes, you might have a point. Instead, you insist on perpetuating the bullshit lie that conservatives, Republicans, and capitalists only get rich off the backs of others.

If you make one dollar, I make ten dollars, and Joe Schmoe over there makes a hundred dollars, there are multiple ways to tax all three of us. What COULD happen -- and what I support -- is a flat tax, where everybody pays the same percentage. You would pay ten cents, I would pay one dollar, and Joe Schmoe would pay ten dollars -- all in relation to how much we make. The extreme version (socialism) would be to make everybody equal, taking $63 from Joe, giving $27 of it to me and $36 to you, ensuring that we all have the same $37 dollars. What happens in America -- and what's been happening for decades, and is getting worse -- is similar to this. Joe gets about 45%-55% of his income forcibly taken from him, and it is redistributed to you and me and everybody else that doesn't make as much money as Joe. You not only don't have to pay taxes, you actually GET money from the government. And the same with me -- the middle class.

And thus, as I said, the idea that people in the middle class pay more taxes than people in the upper class is a complete falsity. (That's a nicer way to say that it's a steaming pile of bullshit.)

Where do you think they get the money to pay for that?

It's the federal government. It's tax money.

They increase taxes on the middle class.

And increase taxes on the upper class to a much greater proportion. I wonder why you keep ignoring that fact ...

So now, not only do I have to pay full price for my own health care, now I have to chip in for good ol' boys who can damn well afford to pay for it themselves. This is why socialized health care isn't going to work. The middle class can't afford to pay for every American's health care.

Yes and no. Of course the middle class couldn't afford to pay for every American's healthcare -- but under the proposed system, they wouldn't. Under our current tax system, it would be the upper class, not the middle class, that foots the bill.

Well, it is free. You don't see them paying for it, do you?

No, I see us paying for it. Which means it's not free, it's paid for, just not by them.

That's why the world is in such of an awry state. Everybody wants to be rich, and they don't give a damn about anybody except for number one.

Hell no. Why should I give a damn about the kid beside me who doesn't care enough to put in as much work as I do? Why should I be forced to give up some of my money because he hasn't tried to be as successful as I have?

Think way back to the Bush administration. Remember yet? He gave tax cuts to the wealthy and hiked up taxes for the middle class.

You're leaving out the fact that the "wealthy" have always -- and still under Bush -- paid proportionally much, much more than the middle class.

When you're down and out and have very very little money, you tend to remember these things.

Only if you believe your money comes from the government and not yourself.

Nothing much has changed since then. People thought Obama was going to be a different kind of politician, but everybody seemed to forget that he's half white.

Is there something wrong with him being half white?

Uh, yeah. You really suck at arguing. First off, in an argument, you don't blatantly insult the intelligence of the person you're arguing against.

I didn't blatantly insult you, I pointed out some other misguided, ignorant, completely stupid conspiracy theories, like the idea that cures for AIDS and cancer exist but are being kept secret because treatments make more money. If you take stupid, ignorant conspiracy theories to be an insult, stop buying into them.

That means one thing; that you have a weak case.

You've presented less facts than I have and have had to be corrected on more occasions than I have. And you've got the arrogance to claim that I have a weak case because I pointed out how stupid your belief in cures for cancer and AIDS is?

It's not about good quality health care.

I hope not, because they're not going to get it.

It's merely about the security of having health care.

Just because somebody's poor does not mean that they can't get health care. Everybody in America has health care, period. Anybody and everybody who needs medical attention -- hell, they don't even have to be a United States citizen -- will receive medical attention, regardless of whether or not they can pay for it.

People seem to not understand this health care system that President Obama has been proposing. It won't eliminate private health care insurers, it will merely give a minimalist for anybody who can't afford to pay for health care.

Nah, it won't eliminate private health insurance -- it'll just drive them out of business by ensuring that only the rich can afford private health care, since everybody (who makes money) will be taxed more whether they use the lower-quality public health care or not.

Getting the money to put the plan into action is a huge problem, though, because the middle class will be dirt poor if the good ol' boys try to hike up taxes even further.

Except for the fact that the rich are footing more of the bill, and the middle class is already having money redistributed to them, despite their underachievement in life.

Apparently you missed the point, kid. Medicaid (or some form of his insurance, I'm not even positive anymore since it was so long ago) was supposed to take care of my father's bills ...

Medicaid is public health insurance for low-income people. Might want to learn a little about your little anecdote before you try to use it to prove a point. Might also want to not tell stories about how incompetent public health insurance is while you're advocating for public health insurance. Whoops.

Did I mention we were sending money, and they were still calling demanding more? That throws your "five bucks a month" comment right out the window. I know, from multiple, personal experiences, you're full of shit on this.

You can offer up all the anecdotal evidence you want, and that still won't make your bullshit any more credible. I've got family that had medical care without insurance, and none of them ever had a problem with it. The hospital knows that it's the responsibility of the insurance agency (if there is one) to pay, not the patient, and wouldn't harass the patient for money they know they won't get out of them. That's just plain common sense.

I've got more personal experience than you, here. I know ten -- no, HUNDRED -- medical lawyers, and all of them agree with me! So I must be right, because even though I don't have any credible evidence to back me up on something that seems implausible to logic and common sense, I make unverifiable claims that I personally have more experience in this subject than you do.

[RagnaToad]

Not if it was true. A common liberal/Democratic argument is that people are "greedy" for wanting to keep the money they make without sharing it -- but those that don't have money, for whatever reason, are "less fortunate" and we should all give them money.

Not entirely true. The money that would have to be sacrifised would make a huge difference in the long run. Or do you think once the public option or something of the like is set in motion, it will reamin the same for ever? (Although that isn't that unlikely, seeing how a lot of Americans are against any change really.)

Not if the operations are paid a fraction of what they're worth.

I don't see why they would.

"Now: if you were going to make the same amount of money I would, why would you have a better work ethic?"

The money you earn is not necessarily representative for your work ethic. But our economy isn't based on work ethic, it's based on money.

Do you respect it or do you think it's a shame?

Like I said, both. I'll rephrase it: I respect that there's a difference, but I think it's a shame that some things aren't being done like in Europe. And don't think I want to change the USA into Europe. Not at all. I like American culture. You have the best guitars, a lot of great motorcycle brands and your cars are high quality (if only they would have started investing in greener cars when Asia started to do that...).

Please, Belgian, tell me more about politics in the United States. Are you trying to say that all politicians in the United States want to expand the power and control of the federal government?

That's not what I meant.
Please, American, are you trying to tell me that the corporations in America have no influence whatsoever on what happens in Congress etc?

And nothing is to say that those "not-so-smart people" wouldn't get "fired up" at anything else, or that other networks don't have the same issue.

Very true.

Hell, of course they're going to be forced to reconsider their own ideas, when they get called out for making shit up to badmouth Republicans and have to stop saying it.

That's not really what I was going for.
I'll give you an example: If you're familiar with a radio show called The Young Turks, you know they are (or at least some of them) liberals. When they are talking about yet another crazy idea or drama from the conservative side (not necessarily politicans though) they naturally talk about how it is not uncommon for conservatives to pull things like that. But they are always careful with their statements. They try not to generalise. They make sure they remain objective about it. They don't try to get their crowd at home worked up. They criticise democrats for not having balls and they criticise republicans for the techniques they use.
It would be wrong for me to think that because of this little show, all more liberal media are totally objective, just like it would be wrong for me to think that there is no conservative channel that can be objective.

It's really a different world though. In the USA, the news channels aren't really neutral. Why would they, right? But over here, news people would get shot down if they were biased in any way. It's really a cultural difference. But don't you feel the need for neutral news sometimes? I understand that one would enjoy watching Fox News if he was a conservative himself, but doesn't it feel right to gain more perspective? (And I'm not trying to accuse you of not having perspective here.)

Bush Sr. and Reagan both did it as well, and if I had been old enough at the time, I would have disagreed with it both times.

I'm glad to hear that, although I would expect someone to criticise Bush for many other reasons.

There was absolutely no outrage in the liberal media or by Obama about the impropriety and disrespect. Of course there was a double-standard.

That's not a double standard. That's two parties having taken a different approach.

Do I think that the President of the United States should prove his eligibility before taking office? Of course.

Seriously? Why should he do something that no president before him has done? If he starts obeying a few 'birthers', soon he's going to be obliged to answer to every lunatic who is frustrated about him being in office. You conveniently ignored me quoting you about how the president has better things to do.

He wasn't making a point by doing that, he was illustrating his point.

Then where was his point being made? Ok, he has a tv show. He can say whatever he wants without any explanation. But that just doesn't do it for me. If I want to hear a conservative approach, Glenn Beck would be the last person to listen to. He looks crazy.

I respect people like John McCain though. Like most Europeans, I didn't want him to win at all, but I was sorry for him that he had chosen Sarah Palin as running mate.

That was a smart move, until she opened her mouth. Too bad.

[Sasquatch]

Not entirely true. The money that would have to be sacrifised would make a huge difference in the long run. Or do you think once the public option or something of the like is set in motion, it will reamin the same for ever? (Although that isn't that unlikely, seeing how a lot of Americans are against any change really.)

I'm not sure what you're getting at a with this, but remember, the liberals in America have been trying to villainize "the rich" for decades.

I don't see why they would.

Because it's government funding.

The money you earn is not necessarily representative for your work ethic. But our economy isn't based on work ethic, it's based on money.

It's not necessarily representative of your work ethic at the time -- it IS representative of your work ethic throughout life, including in school.

That's not what I meant.
Please, American, are you trying to tell me that the corporations in America have no influence whatsoever on what happens in Congress etc?

That's not what I said. Why don't you clarify what you were trying to say instead of trying to figure out what I said, when I didn't say anything.

That's not really what I was going for.
I'll give you an example: If you're familiar with a radio show called The Young Turks, you know they are (or at least some of them) liberals. When they are talking about yet another crazy idea or drama from the conservative side (not necessarily politicans though) they naturally talk about how it is not uncommon for conservatives to pull things like that. But they are always careful with their statements. They try not to generalise. They make sure they remain objective about it. They don't try to get their crowd at home worked up. They criticise democrats for not having balls and they criticise republicans for the techniques they use.

So a liberal talk radio show, in your opinion, is objective ... and?

It would be wrong for me to think that because of this little show, all more liberal media are totally objective, just like it would be wrong for me to think that there is no conservative channel that can be objective.

If you're trying to say that this one show is not at all representative of all liberal media, why bring it up? Your point was that you think liberal media checks their stories more than Fox News, was it not?

It's really a different world though. In the USA, the news channels aren't really neutral. Why would they, right? But over here, news people would get shot down if they were biased in any way.

It all depends on their market. If liberals watch liberal media, they probably either wouldn't even realize the existence of bias (which is the usual case) or wouldn't care about it.

It's really a cultural difference. But don't you feel the need for neutral news sometimes? I understand that one would enjoy watching Fox News if he was a conservative himself, but doesn't it feel right to gain more perspective?

You've yet to prove that Fox News isn't neutral in their reporting. I can understand if your question might be about neutral commentary, but it wasn't, it was about news.

I'm glad to hear that, although I would expect someone to criticise Bush for many other reasons.

Well, it was Bush Sr. -- Bush 41, George Herbert Walker Bush, the one in office from 89-93. He wasn't too bad. Of course, I had quite a few problems with Bush Jr., Bush 43, George Walker Bush, whichever you want to call him -- the one that recently got out of office. I just waited until he actually did something wrong before I pinned it on him, which is why I had to defend him against all the morons and their accusations.

That's not a double standard. That's two parties having taken a different approach.

A different approach because of who did it. Not because of who's looking at it -- that would be a different standard held by a different group -- but because of who did it, which would be a different standard applied by the same group. It's kind of like how liberals had no problem with Jeremiah Wright's connection with Obama, but you bet your ass that they would have had a fit if somebody lik Fred Phelps had a relationship with a Republican.

Seriously? Why should he do something that no president before him has done? If he starts obeying a few 'birthers', soon he's going to be obliged to answer to every lunatic who is frustrated about him being in office.

If they have a case, yes. The Constitution is more important than the President. And do you believe that no President before him has ever proved their country of birth? Of course they have. It's only a big deal with Obama because he hasn't. Hell, McCain even had to do it.

You conveniently ignored me quoting you about how the president has better things to do.

Because upholding the Constitution IS the job of the President -- and proving his Constitutional eligibility falls within those lines.

I respect people like John McCain though. Like most Europeans, I didn't want him to win at all, but I was sorry for him that he had chosen Sarah Palin as running mate.

That was a smart move, until she opened her mouth. Too bad.

Sarah Palin wasn't nearly as bad as the media made her out to be. If she didn't have to focus on the ruthless attacks, insults, and character defamation by most of America's media, she would have had more time to concentrate on the campaign. Most of the bad opinions people have about her are based on ignorance.

Plus, I'd totally do her.

Do you seriously believe this? Do you really think that the reason people are poor is because they don't try hard enough?

In America, you bet your ass.

I'm going to be you for a second ...

You can try. But lemme tell you, a lot of people try to be me, and it usually doesn't work out too well for them. God luck, though.

... "You're so ignorant, kid".

When have I ever said that?

Sure, I don't deny that hard work breeds success, but I don't deny that money = opportunity = more money. I.e., if you're already poor, it is harder to get money to create opportunity to make more money.

It might be harder, but by no means does that make it less possible.

A good example is private schools.

Oh, goody. You're talking about the quality of a private service over that of a public service, in a thread where you're backing a public service over a private service. This should be interesting.

Imagine two people, say you and me. Lets assume that your family is already wealthier than mine, and you can afford a flash private school, while I'm forced to attend some shit public school.

Those shitty public services! Damn, it's too bad everybody can't get into the private services because the public services are shit!

Now, lets assume we work as hard as each other. If you're anything like I am, you'd have to work your ass off, but lets assume you can. With the same amount of effort exerted, you will still have better access to resources, better quality teachers, faster computers, more recent text books, etc. They're generalisations, but I'm sure their fair. You're are much more likely to come out of high schools better equipped for the world, be it university, or something else, than I am, as I (most likely) did not receive as good as an education as you, even though we worked just as hard.

It's a good thing that high school doesn't "equip" you for anything. Now, if you tried to say that I could afford to get into an Ivy League school and you had to attend a local community college or something, that would have worked better for your little story -- and even in that case, you could work your way up. It would take a little longer for you to be making as much money as I was, but you certainly wouldn't be poor. As long as you made good decisions and tried, you wouldn't be poor.

Now, the reason wealthier people should give up some of their wealth is also quite a simple concept. Say you have a pie for dinner, and your parent decides that because you've worked harder than your sibling that day, you should receive more pie. Sounds fair in principle, right? Well, I'm forced to agree thus far. But what if you receive so much pie that your sibling is still a little hungry, and you're quite full. Would it make sense to give some of your pie to your sibling, as they're hungry, and you're full?

If my little brother didn't get some of his pie taken away because he was a lazy little bastard all day, maybe. My little brother had the exact same opportunity as I did to earn more pie and he didn't -- I could give him some of mine, or I could keep it in the fridge and save it.

But giving him some of mine would be charity. Voluntarily giving your money away to causes you deem worthy, that's charity. Having your money stolen from you, by force if necessary, to be redistributed as the federal government sees fit, that's not charity.

Applied to something such as healthcare, rich people can afford healthcare (mostly), while poorer people have more difficulty in this regard. But we all require healthcare, so why not give a bit of your excess to someone else, because you both have an equal need to the same care, but they do not have the same means with which to access it?

First, you're not talking about "giving", you're talking about having it taken from you by force. There's a difference between a man on the street asking for change and a mugger, you know.

Second, I'm more inclined to ask why people don't have the money for their healthcare. What did they do with the opportunities that they had?

And third, while you may consider it a "need", in America, it is not a "right". Sure, a lot of people "need" a car -- that doesn't mean that I should have my money taken from me to provide for those who don't provide for themselves.

Oh, if/when you quote me, stop breaking it apart into sentences. Most people write with complete paragraphs in mind, and to pick it apart is to to take it out of context and misrepresent what they have said. It's inaccurate and annoying.

If I have specific things to say in reply to each sentence, I'll quote just that sentence. It's not inaccurate, and I don't care if it's annoying.

Re. the RAE - 'five star' was me saying that it got the top rating available. I haven't looked at their website for months, whoops. Got recognised and distinguished mixed up, oops. The reason I mentioned it was to show that medical research continues even with socialised healthcare. Doesn't matter what I say though, because you're just going to say that America's is better.

Of course medical research continues. Nobody said otherwise. The fact remains, however, that profit is the driving force of invention. Most things aren't invented because somebody thinks, "hey, this could help people" -- they're invented because somebody thinks, "hey, people will buy this and I'll get money for it!"

Do you need more "anecdotal" evidence to prove to you that medical billing DOES go after your credit rating?

While most of your cites are anecdotal evidence, you did have some credible evidence to prove me wrong on that subject. From my experience, I had always been told that medical bills do not affect credit ratings, and from a few friends and family that have had medical troubles, that has been the trend.

So point conceded, I was wrong. Medical bills can affect credit rating. Thank you.

The fact remains, however, that they shouldn't need to -- even apart from the many insurance providers, there are federal, state, and even per-hospital funding and financing programs. And, of course, that inability to pay will not prevent somebody from receiving medical treatment.

You have a point. The wealthy do pay more taxes, however, they're also the ones who have gotten high-distributed tax cuts.

Because they pay more friggin' taxes! How difficult is that to understand? The people who PAY more GET more back.

Next time your local mall has a 10% off deal, go buy a candy bar, then bitch that you didn't get as much back as somebody who spent a hundred dollars. See how long it takes until they start laughing at you.

I'm not saying that the middle class hasn't gotten tax cuts. I'm saying that the wealthy have gotten larger tax cuts.

Because the more money people make, the more is taken in taxes. This is a very simple concept here.

And I'm not saying that conservatives and capitalists are the only ones who get rich off of other people's money. All politicians and big business do.

Bullshit. Most people get rich off their own work. You can try to make "the rich" look evil all you want, but that doesn't mean that they don't deserve to be were they are.

That sounds like a wonderful plan. I'd love to get money from the government. I don't, however.

You don't get an EITC? You don't get any tax credits? If you don't, it would be because you make too much money already -- which means that you're one of the ones paying for the tax credits of others. Somehow, though, I doubt this.

I keep ignoring that little fact because of all the tax breaks given to the upper class. Yes they pay more in taxes, but their tax breaks in relation to our tax breaks are much greater, which makes no sense, considering that they can actually afford to pay taxes.

Ah, good ol' wealth envy. You know why it makes sense that people who pay more taxes get more money back? BECAUSE THEY PAY MORE TAXES.

Alright, I'm not sure how well these little stories work, because you haven't seemed to be understanding them so far, but I'll try another one. Let's say that you make more money than I do ... let's say you make $100k a year, and let's say I make $50k. Now, under the current tax system, you would be taxed around $40k -- that would be around 40% -- but I would be taxed maybe $10k, around 20%. Now, if we got a tax cut by one percent, you would still pay 99% of that $40,000 that you pay, while I would still pay 99% of that $10,000 that I pay. I would still pay $9,900, which means that I would save one hundred dollars, right? You following me, camera guy? You, however, would pay $39,600, which means you'd save four hundred dollars.

But how can that be? You only make twice as much money as I, how could you get four times as much money back from a tax cut? It's not fair! Eeeeeeeeevil rich!

Yeah, I heard that, too. I, however, don't agree with it. Everybody who's proposing that bill is upper class and money hungry, which is the exact reason why the bill is never going to see the light of day.

Of course, everybody who supports the bill is upper class ... except for, of course, the majority of people who support the bill, who are lower class.

That's a very ignorant statement. My grandfather was a house painter. He owned his own business and worked until he retired in 1969. My dad was a delivery man for various baking companies for thirty years, and then retired, and got into construction. Both were very hard working, yet didn't make much money.

There are three ways to make more money -- work harder, work longer, and work smarter. Either work a more demanding job, work more hours, or get an education. It's pretty simple. I've seen family members work two jobs because they couldn't get enough hours with the one. My father went from being a garbageman to an over-the-road truck driver (can't get much more than that for hours), and eventually settled into an office and used whatever time he had to advance his education so that he could move up the ranks. And that's exactly what happened.

Yes, but they're the ones who got the larger tax cuts.

Because they pay more taxes. *sigh*

I have to say, that makes absolutely no sense at all.

If you're middle-class, you only blame Bush for you not being rich if you think it's the government's responsibility, and not your own, to make sure you have money.

You know what, nevermind, don't worry about it.

People thought he was going to be a different kind of president because he's black. The point is, he's just another good ol' boy. There's nothing wrong with being half white, but if you're a white male politician, you have that stereotype.

YOU have that stereotype against him. I don't give a damn what color he is -- I'm not the one saying, "well he's such-and-such color, so this is to be expected."

You're still insulting my intelligence, you realize that, right?

I'm doing no such thing. Do you feel that your intelligence has been insulted because I mentioned a few other conspiracy theories, like the one you believe?

AIDS and cancer treatments are a business, as I've said before. There's a cure for them, but it's kept secret for two reasons. One, people make big bucks off of treatment, and two, population control.

Population control too, now? Wow. What's next -- did the American government invent AIDS as a way of controlling the black and gay populations? Just like they did with crack, right?

Well, I'm kind of ignoring the fact that you corrected me on a few things, because I've taken the time to correct your corrections, thus I correct you.

Except that your "corrections" are, well, incorrect. Apology accepted.

And if you blatantly insult the intelligence of the person you're arguing your case against, then you do have a weak cause, hence the reason why you resort to insults.

First, I didn't say anything about your intelligence, the only comments I made were regarding the foolish belief that there's a giant conspiracy to control the population and make more money by not curing some diseases that we know how to cure. I would be insulted by the mere insinuation that I believe that bullshit.

Also, your assumptions are getting you nowhere. If I WAS insulting you -- which I'm not -- it may very well be simply because I like insulting people. Ad hominem consists of insults instead of arguments, not insults along with arguments.

That's not true. My brother doesn't have health care.

Yes, he does. He may not have insurance, but that doesn't mean he can't get care.

He can't get it due to the way he lost his job. He was going to be laid off, he found out about it, and just no-showed.

So your brother just decided to stop showing up for work, and you're trying to bitch that he doesn't have healthcare, even though he does?

You know all those "good decisions" people make to get rich that I was talking about? Skipping out on a job isn't one of them.

Sure, he can get medical treatment, but he'll have to pay for it out the ass, which he doesn't have the money for.

So he doesn't have healthcare (you said), but he can get healthcare (you said)?

His car would probably get repossessed, but that's about all they could do to him.

OR he could be responsible and competent, set up a payment plan, search for outside financial help, sell his car if he needed to, etc. Oh, and stay at a damn job.

If it drives them out of business, then people will be paying into the socialized health care in order to receive better treatment, instead of to private insurers, making the socialized health care better, and eliminating the need for private health care.

The problem with your little idea is that socialized healthcare will receive funding anyway, and provide a lower quality of service anyway. It wouldn't be a situation of "the more you use it, the better it gets" -- it has a certain budget of money that is allocated to it, whether it succeeds or fails. That's one of the reasons why government shouldn't meddle in private business -- the government is the only one that can run at a deficit.

That's not true. My family hasn't received a cent.

If they're lower-middle-class, they have.

And just for the record, being middle class doesn't mean you're underachieving.

Of course not. Financial success isn't all life is about. Just don't bitch about not having enough money when it's your own damn fault.

[Zargabaath]

[Q] RagnaToad – Do you really believe that? Saying that everyone can become a millionaire is both naïve and kind of a paradox. If you love your capitalism, and know something about it, you know that not nearly everyone can get rich [/Q]

1) He wasn’t talking about, in what you quoted of his, about people getting rich but about getting healthcare, but I guess you correlate that you must be rich to get healthcare; sorry to tell you but my dad and mom – my family is not rich and they have health care. As do other people I know who are not rich.

2) Locke4God did not say that everyone can become a millionaire. In capitalism everyone has the opportunity to become a millionaire and if they do achieve that status it will not be taken away from them by people who are envious. At the same time if they so happen to squander their money and are no longer millionaires becoming “poor” they will have to defend for themselves. That is capitalism, allowing people to pursue their goals without interference from the government or other people, achieving or failing at their own expense. I know everyone can’t become rich in capitalism or in any other system, however socialism and communism say “if everybody can’t become a millionaire then we will equal it out and bring those who are millionaires down (i.e. social engineering)”. I found it funny that you say “Saying that everyone can become a millionaire is both naïve and kind of a paradox”, you realize this, yet you have negative feelings toward those who do, seeing that they have cheated others for it.

[Q] RagnaToad - You see the people who don’t have health care and can’t pay for it as ‘just a minority’. I can do exactly the same with people who’s costs would be a little higher.[/Q]

True, you can do that, but with yours it is philosophically different than what he is saying. Health care is a service and services have been paid for since they were created, first with the barter system and then with currency – trading value with value. What you advocate is that the service should be traded for value with no value or someone else’s value in return. A person pays for their own expenses; they cannot take someone else’s money to pay for the service that they received. That is called robbery or enslavement, which I’m sure you don’t advocate in other forms and is ultimately, beside what you say, violating the rights of the person victimized. It is irrelevant how much money they make whether or not they are a victim, robbed, or enslaved – it is a crime nonetheless; a crime is a crime no exceptions.

[Q] Locke4God - Is it fair that my taxes would go up to pay for my pot addicted neighbor who has never tried to improve her life. [/Q]

It is not right! Forget fair; fairness is what socialists use to validate their views. What is right and does not violate the rights of humans is what you should use. It is not right that you should pay to improve her life, but never limit your examples to just drug addicts or people who live a bad lifestyle, for it is not limited to just them. It does not matter if they are or are not drug addicts whether or not you or anyone else should pay for someone else it is still wrong. I’m sure you know this I’m just making sure.

[Q] RagnaToad - The issue is not what the definition of ‘fair’ is. But rather in what way a government should take care of her civilians. And I really don’t get why all those people are so paranoid about the government taking over their lifes. [/Q]

And a government should treat all her civilians equally, giving help or to hinder anyone. Groups or a society does not have any rights as they are not entities. Only individuals have rights; individuals comprising a group have rights, but they do not get special rights for being in a group. And a government favoring some groups over others is not the proper function of a government as it violates some people’s rights – it does not matter how small the number affected are it is still wrong.

Those people know that government is not the answer but is the problem. They are afraid of the government becoming a communist dictatorship that would control their lives because in order for it to come to pass, the shift towards it must happen at some point and they believe it is happening now. Democrats complained about Bush creating too much power for the executive branch, yet Obama has 32 czars, more than any president before him and more than the previous four combined (I’m sure on how many combined but it is pretty close to four). All these czars do not have to answer to Congress, they are the ones making the policy for the country. Talk about increasing the power of the executive branch, but do democrats complain now? No, because they want a bigger government with loads of power for their own agenda.

[Q] RagnaToad - Bill O’Reilly may not be news reporter, but it’s still on Fox News Channel, isn’t it?[/Q]

What about it? People are free, for the time being, to watch whatever news network they want be it: ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, Fox, or whatever else they may get. Now if you have been paying attention, Fox News ratings are going up for Glenn Beck, O’Reilly, Hannity, and On The Record; their numbers are so high, they have more viewers than CNN and MSNBC combined at their respective slots. At the same time that more people are watching Fox lately, CNN and MSNBC are losing viewers! Now when Fox was first created they got the conservative audience from the get go so the people switching to Fox now are more independents and liberals even; the market (the audience) is saying that what Fox is doing is way better than CNN, MSNBC, CBS, etc. If Fox was reporting “shit” all the time, their numbers would reflect such manners, and people would go to other networks. But it is not Fox that is bad, but the other networks most noticeably NBC and MSNBC; CBS, ABC definitely are liberal while CNN is more left-of-center. MSNBC is there to defend Obama from any criticism, why? Because GE is their parent company and GE stands to make huge amounts of money from Obama’s policy. And Obama was supposed to bring ‘change’ to Washington; he is just the same as every other politician and brought only a democratic change.

[Q] Sean- It took over a year to get it settled with Medicaid and another year to get the negative hits off my credit report. My brother’s credit is total shit for going through cancer treatments… the bills he had to pay he couldn’t afford, and his credit now suffers as a result. [/Q]

It’s very simple why you had such a hard time with Medicaid; we call that red-tape, an inefficient, broken government program that is going bankrupt. Not that you would have problems with a private insurer, but the consumer has a lot of power that they have forgotten about and or too lazy to use it, so they opt for simple way, for government to step in causing more problems.

It is unfortunate that you brother got cancer, my friend is recovering from pelvic cancer (she’s 21), be that as it may, just because his bills have swamped him and his credit suffer does not mean that other people should help pay for your brother.

1) They did not get cancer, they did not receive treatment, they did not get those services, and do not need to pay for what they did not get.

2) They did not cause the cancer therefore have no responsibility towards the treatment and payment of his bills.

3) People are not slaves.

[Q] Alpha Weapon -This outcome is explained in part by the relatively high inequality in the US. Poverty and poor health are closely related, as low income leads to poor health and poor health leads to low income. Health care costs have been rising faster than the cost of living in general [/Q]

Poorness does not give people special privileges or rights. There is no law or right that all people must be equal, the only equality humans have is that they have the opportunity to succeed or fail as they desire. Sometimes it takes more work to succeed than others but that is not an injustice that should be equalized by hurting other people. Health care is a service that is heavily regulated by the government which is why prices are so high. We can’t get health insurance from a different state, limiting options (low supply + high demand = high costs). If all the regulations were abolished prices would come down, but some people don’t see that; blind to all the regulations that government has set in place skyrocketing prices, they demand more intervention that will eventually lead to the extinction of the private sector with the government and all of its red-tape to the health of its citizenry.

[Q] Govinda - I guess we just have to accept that Americans and Europeans are different. We think it is patriotic to take care of one another and better our society, because we like our countries… Americans think it is patriotic to try to improve the country by only taking care of themselves and theirs. [/Q]

A society is meaningless, it is not an entity, just a group of people sharing common traits. What someone does is their accomplishment not the race, sex, country; people place too much importance on nationalism or patriotism as it’s called in America. That is one of the reasons WW I started, leading to France and Britain appeasing Hitler, giving countries up for the ‘idea’ of peace that lead to WW II and more casualties than WW I and the end result is Europe is now more of an appeaser than before; they failed to learn their lesson. The American way took from Adam Smith, who said what is best for the individual would lead to the betterment of the country (something along those lines). America believed that people were free to pursue their own happiness but that is being forgotten because of jealousy and envy.

[Q] RagnaToad - Again, you are generalizing. If I were to criticize republicans remotely as arrogantly as you do, you would freak out. [/Q]

While it may be a generalization of what democrats see it as, but in truth taking someone else’s money for your own ends is more selfish than keeping what you earned. Taking someone else’s profit is the brutish image of selfish that you people see when people want to keep what they earned, the latter being rationally selfish. You want irrational selfishness, where anybody can use anyone for their own goals, they can take whatever they want because they need it and are entitled.

[Q] RagnaToad - And you’re not doing that right now? You’re saying all the people who have the same health insurance are taking care of themselves as well as you do? [/Q]

This is true, and a main reason why I don’t like the idea of health insurance; I don’t think there needs to be a middle-man in health care. You may say there needs to be, but that is because of regulations and health insurance. Health insurance increases costs because there is more money to be gained by the heath care provider. I say if everyone went off of health insurance, letting it die, prices would come down because no one could afford the prices by themselves, hospitals would get no money, they would be unable to stay open, keep staff, and pay for equipment. Now there are two ways it could go: 1) they increase prices so that when the rich want health care it really hurts their wallet, which I say the rich won’t be too keen on that and would want prices dropped and those not rich would not have health care or 2) Prices drop dramatically making it available to more people and now people don’t waste money on health insurance which they may never balance out. Of course, at first when prices are still where they are, people would be hurting but it would re-establish that consumers do have loads of power, lower health care costs, save people money, and not violate anyone’s rights all at the same time.

[Q] RagnaToad - But I must say that the ‘liberal’ media, biased or not, tend to reconsider their own ideas from time to time, more than most conservative media do. [/Q]

In America most major media companies are way liberal and don’t reconsider their ideas, they allow all the loons, radicals, and pinheads on the air and don’t challenge them at all. And as Sasquatch said the only time the reconsider is when they got caught putting their cookie in the cookie jar.

[Q] RagnaToad - If I were to use this argument against a president you had voted for, you wouldn’t agree. Be honest. The president is more than the guy who decides important things. [/Q]

Wrong, it is not the president’s job or the government’s job to be our parents; they are there to protect our rights from internal threats (police) and external threats (military). The president is supposed to carry out the law, veto, decide policy, but is not our baby-sitter or our ‘god’.

[Q] RagnaToad - I’m not talking about the content. I’m talking about how ridiculous his methods are to make his points. [/Q]

Beck does make it more ‘entertaining’ than just the usual way; of course he could be doing it because people understand better through visual mediums than auditory. *gasp* Or he could be doing it for the ‘slow’ people who have a hard time getting the picture. Either way he has found a niche, as his numbers are higher there than at CNN Headline News and they are growing.

[Q] Clint Eastwood - That’s why the world is in such an awry state. Everybody wants to be rich, and they don’t give a damn about anybody except for number one. [/Q]

Read up on Ayn Rand and rational selfishness and you can see that there is another way to do things, than the brutish image that is always conjured and that in order to succeed you don’t need to trample on other people.

[Q] Clint Eastwood - People thought Obama was going to be a different kind of politician, but everybody seemed to forget that he’s half white. [/Q]

First not all white politicians are bad, there are many that are. White politicians are evil is not an absolute or true. But I did like the other meaning by people forgetting that he’s half white, as they say he is the first ‘black president’, he’s the first half black- half white president.

What evidence do you have besides you arbitrarily saying that they have these cures? Sasquatch mocked you more than insult you, but how he did it shows the foolishness of your view making you look dumb. It gets the ‘victim’ angry that they just got shown and makes them more irrational unless by some miracle they see the light.

[Q] Clint Eastwood - I mean for Christ sake, inmates get free medical treatment. [/Q]

I’m ok with them not getting health care, but we do believe have that amendment saying no cruel or unusual punishment, we got to keep them alive. But if you want that repealed to exclude medical treatment I’m don’t have a problem.

[Q] Che - Also stop quoting shit from Fox “news”. The less we talk about them, the more we can forget about them [/Q]

The market suggests that Fox news is doing a way better job than CNN, NBC, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, etc as their numbers are way better and are increasing. So it seems they won’t be going away as long as the market finds the good, and remember they already got their core republican audience when the first aired so now they are getting new members (independents and liberals).

[Q] Sean - Did I mention we were sending money, and they were still calling demanding more? That throws your “five bucks a month” comment right out the window. I know, from multiple, personal experiences, you’re full of shit on this. [/Q]

Those who you own money to, want their money back, and if they are smart as some are they will negotiate a more manageable rate because they want their money back. Your experience does not make an absolute on the subject, it just puts your experience in the matter as negatives.

[Q] RagnaToad - Not entirely true. The money that would be have to be sacrificed would make a huge difference in the long run. [/Q]

Possibly, but it is only the earner’s decision to spend not someone else’s to steal. It is not up to a group or another person to sacrifice someone else, that is not respecting people or their rights. The ends never justify the means; if a goal can’t be done through volitional means from everyone that would be involved, the goal must be accomplished a different way. Inalienable rights can never be infringed or tossed to the side at any time.

[Q] Alpha Weapon - Do you seriously believe this? Do you really think that the reason people are poor is because they don’t try hard enough? [/Q]

In some cases this is the truth, for others no. But, you forget this, there is no guarantee to success only the opportunity to succeed and if you do, you keep your rewards/profits. There is no right to success, only the right to take action towards your goals. Some people have to work harder than others to get where the other person is. There is no right to bring down others for an equal footing or to prop up others through compulsory labor or means (i.e. slavery).

[Q] Alpha Weapon Say you have a pie for dinner, and your parent decides that because… [/Q]

There are a few things that you don’t understand about that premise.

1) You would keep the pie for another time to eat or save your money for a trip, health costs, etc.

2) A sibling and a stranger are two totally different things. People should have a hierarchy of values that places parts of your life in order of importance hopefully it would be done rationally as well. A sibling usually is higher up, by a lot, than a stranger is unless there was some falling out. So it would be rational to give your sibling some pie that you gave unless he was truly undeserving of it. A stranger should have very little value, for they can be seen as a potential trade partner and a good person until proven otherwise.

A stranger that requires your money for health care because they can’t afford it, that gets in the way of paying for your child’s braces is wrong. People have the right to keep the product of their effort and not have it taken it away by those who did not put the effort in.



As for taxes and the rich getting a bigger tax break – the rich are the ones who create the most jobs (except for the government which is on a huge hiring blaze). The more money they have the more they can create new jobs and keep their business afloat. I don’t like tax breaks as they don’t get rid of the problem. I’m in favor of getting rid of a lot of taxes for everyone, EVERYONE, I say. That would mean that government would have less revenue, meaning they could not afford to be as huge as it is, forcing it back to its proper size and function.

[Clint]

Because they pay more friggin' taxes! How difficult is that to understand? The people who PAY more GET more back.

Right. I'm saying that that system doesn't make sense. They can afford to pay higher taxes, so why are they getting such large cutbacks? When their cutbacks are as big as they are, who do you think picks up the tab? They split it up and raise taxes on the middle class.

Bullshit. Most people get rich off their own work. You can try to make "the rich" look evil all you want, but that doesn't mean that they don't deserve to be were they are.

I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with being rich. What I have a problem with are these politicians and big business associates who get rich by purging money from other people. Yes, they get rich off of their work, but their work includes purging money, which makes them a disgrace.

You don't get an EITC? You don't get any tax credits? If you don't, it would be because you make too much money already -- which means that you're one of the ones paying for the tax credits of others. Somehow, though, I doubt this.

The only thing in the mail I've gotten recently was an overly priced hospital bill that my health insurance only paid 80% on, leaving me with a pretty large debt to fill. Any money that I may be getting from the government is going to filling this ridiculous hole. Apparently I'm not getting enough.

Ah, good ol' wealth envy. You know why it makes sense that people who pay more taxes get more money back? BECAUSE THEY PAY MORE TAXES.

And they get cutbacks because since they pay more taxes because they have more money. This proves exactly what I was saying about widening the gap between rich and poor.

Of course, everybody who supports the bill is upper class ... except for, of course, the majority of people who support the bill, who are lower class.

You're saying the boys in the senate are lower class? I'm not talking about citizens, I'm talking about politicians.

There are three ways to make more money -- work harder, work longer, and work smarter.

My father and grandfather worked very hard, every single day, until they retired. My father had to be in at work at 1 in the morning. He got up at 11 at night and got there early, and then worked until four in the afternoon six days a week. He never called in sick once, and he was never late. My grandfather was the same way. I find it very disrespectful that just because my family is middle class, that that automatically gives you the right to assume that my family isn't hard working.

If you're middle-class, you only blame Bush for you not being rich if you think it's the government's responsibility, and not your own, to make sure you have money.

I don't give a shit if I'm rich or not. That's not what life is about. I do, however, get stressed out if I have literally a negative amount of money in the bank. All the problems that my family began having with finances began when Bush was in office, so of course I blame him. He was in charge. He was supposed to take care of us. Who the **** else am I supposed to blame? I didn't do anything wrong. I'm a victim of the economy.

I'm doing no such thing. Do you feel that your intelligence has been insulted because I mentioned a few other conspiracy theories, like the one you believe?

Again, you insist on insulting my intelligence. I'm not an idiot. I gave my own personal opinion, and you combated that with petty insults.

Population control too, now? Wow. What's next -- did the American government invent AIDS as a way of controlling the black and gay populations? Just like they did with crack, right?

It is population control. You're not thinking things through. It costs more to die than it does to live. By allowing sick people to die, the states make more money.

Except that your "corrections" are, well, incorrect. Apology accepted.

That's just your opinion. You may be an egomaniac and believe that you're always right, but that doesn't mean you are.

First, I didn't say anything about your intelligence, the only comments I made were regarding the foolish belief that there's a giant conspiracy to control the population and make more money by not curing some diseases that we know how to cure. I would be insulted by the mere insinuation that I believe that bullshit.

You did insult my intelligence, because if you didn't, then I wouldn't feel like you were insulting my intelligence. Duh.

Ad hominem consists of insults instead of arguments, not insults along with arguments.

So you're a troll then. Hmm, good to know. I already didn't take you seriously.

So your brother just decided to stop showing up for work, and you're trying to bitch that he doesn't have healthcare, even though he does?

Like I said, he already knew he was getting laid off. He couldn't afford to waste the gas money going to work to get fired. He figured he'd just get fired at home.

Oh, and stay at a damn job.

It wasn't his decision to leave his job.

If they're lower-middle-class, they have.

We aren't lower middle class. However, we have very little money, considering that we own two houses. It wouldn't be a problem, but my grandparents live in the second house. We can't just kick them out on the street. We have moral values, after all, and one of those moral values is protecting the family.

Just don't bitch about not having enough money when it's your own damn fault.

It's not my fault. I'm not the one who ****ed up the economy. Why do you think I keep blaming Washington? It's their fault. Not mine. And for you to blame me for my financial failures is very arrogant. I've been applying for jobs every day for the past ten months. I've been doing what I have to do to get a job, and yet I haven't gotten a single call back. Not one phone call, not one interview. I'm not at fault for any of that.

[Alpha]

Hell no. Why should I give a damn about the kid beside me who doesn't care enough to put in as much work as I do? Why should I be forced to give up some of my money because he hasn't tried to be as successful as I have?

Do you seriously believe this? Do you really think that the reason people are poor is because they don't try hard enough? I'm going to be you for a second: "You're so ignorant, kid". Sure, I don't deny that hard work breeds success, but I don't deny that money = opportunity = more money. I.e., if you're already poor, it is harder to get money to create opportunity to make more money.

A good example is private schools. Imagine two people, say you and me. Lets assume that your family is already wealthier than mine, and you can afford a flash private school, while I'm forced to attend some shit public school. Now, lets assume we work as hard as each other. If you're anything like I am, you'd have to work your ass off, but lets assume you can. With the same amount of effort exerted, you will still have better access to resources, better quality teachers, faster computers, more recent text books, etc. They're generalisations, but I'm sure their fair. You're are much more likely to come out of high schools better equipped for the world, be it university, or something else, than I am, as I (most likely) did not receive as good as an education as you, even though we worked just as hard.

Now, the reason wealthier people should give up some of their wealth is also quite a simple concept. Say you have a pie for dinner, and your parent decides that because you've worked harder than your sibling that day, you should receive more pie. Sounds fair in principle, right? Well, I'm forced to agree thus far. But what if you receive so much pie that your sibling is still a little hungry, and you're quite full. Would it make sense to give some of your pie to your sibling, as they're hungry, and you're full? Applied to something such as healthcare, rich people can afford healthcare (mostly), while poorer people have more difficulty in this regard. But we all require healthcare, so why not give a bit of your excess to someone else, because you both have an equal need to the same care, but they do not have the same means with which to access it?

Oh, if/when you quote me, stop breaking it apart into sentences. Most people write with complete paragraphs in mind, and to pick it apart is to to take it out of context and misrepresent what they have said. It's inaccurate and annoying.

[Clint]

Except for the fact that people with more money pay much more taxes, you might have a point. Instead, you insist on perpetuating the bullshit lie that conservatives, Republicans, and capitalists only get rich off the backs of others.

You have a point. The wealthy do pay more taxes, however, they're also the ones who have gotten high-distributed tax cuts. I'm not saying that the middle class hasn't gotten tax cuts. I'm saying that the wealthy have gotten larger tax cuts. And I'm not saying that conservatives and capitalists are the only ones who get rich off of other people's money. All politicians and big business do.

You not only don't have to pay taxes, you actually GET money from the government. And the same with me -- the middle class.

That sounds like a wonderful plan. I'd love to get money from the government. I don't, however.

And increase taxes on the upper class to a much greater proportion. I wonder why you keep ignoring that fact ...

I keep ignoring that little fact because of all the tax breaks given to the upper class. Yes they pay more in taxes, but their tax breaks in relation to our tax breaks are much greater, which makes no sense, considering that they can actually afford to pay taxes.

Under our current tax system, it would be the upper class, not the middle class, that foots the bill.

Yeah, I heard that, too. I, however, don't agree with it. Everybody who's proposing that bill is upper class and money hungry, which is the exact reason why the bill is never going to see the light of day.

No, I see us paying for it. Which means it's not free, it's paid for, just not by them.

It's free to them.

Hell no. Why should I give a damn about the kid beside me who doesn't care enough to put in as much work as I do? Why should I be forced to give up some of my money because he hasn't tried to be as successful as I have?

That's a very ignorant statement. My grandfather was a house painter. He owned his own business and worked until he retired in 1969. My dad was a delivery man for various baking companies for thirty years, and then retired, and got into construction. Both were very hard working, yet didn't make much money.

You're leaving out the fact that the "wealthy" have always -- and still under Bush -- paid proportionally much, much more than the middle class.

Yes, but they're the ones who got the larger tax cuts.

Only if you believe your money comes from the government and not yourself.

I have to say, that makes absolutely no sense at all.

Is there something wrong with him being half white?

People thought he was going to be a different kind of president because he's black. The point is, he's just another good ol' boy. There's nothing wrong with being half white, but if you're a white male politician, you have that stereotype.

I didn't blatantly insult you, I pointed out some other misguided, ignorant, completely stupid conspiracy theories, like the idea that cures for AIDS and cancer exist but are being kept secret because treatments make more money. If you take stupid, ignorant conspiracy theories to be an insult, stop buying into them.

You're still insulting my intelligence, you realize that, right? AIDS and cancer treatments are a business, as I've said before. There's a cure for them, but it's kept secret for two reasons. One, people make big bucks off of treatment, and two, population control.

You've presented less facts than I have and have had to be corrected on more occasions than I have. And you've got the arrogance to claim that I have a weak case because I pointed out how stupid your belief in cures for cancer and AIDS is?

Well, I'm kind of ignoring the fact that you corrected me on a few things, because I've taken the time to correct your corrections, thus I correct you. You're welcome. And if you blatantly insult the intelligence of the person you're arguing your case against, then you do have a weak cause, hence the reason why you resort to insults.

Everybody in America has health care, period.

That's not true. My brother doesn't have health care. He can't get it due to the way he lost his job. He was going to be laid off, he found out about it, and just no-showed. Sure, he can get medical treatment, but he'll have to pay for it out the ass, which he doesn't have the money for. His car would probably get repossessed, but that's about all they could do to him.

Nah, it won't eliminate private health insurance -- it'll just drive them out of business by ensuring that only the rich can afford private health care, since everybody (who makes money) will be taxed more whether they use the lower-quality public health care or not.

If it drives them out of business, then people will be paying into the socialized health care in order to receive better treatment, instead of to private insurers, making the socialized health care better, and eliminating the need for private health care.

Except for the fact that the rich are footing more of the bill, and the middle class is already having money redistributed to them, despite their underachievement in life.

That's not true. My family hasn't received a cent. And just for the record, being middle class doesn't mean you're underachieving. If your only goal in life is to get rich, and if you think that the only way to achieve satisfaction is to have money, then you have a really sad life.

[RagnaToad]

Ah, that's what I love about liberals -- the hypocrisy. If I want to keep the money I work for, I'm selfish. But if I want the money YOU work for, I'm "needy" or "less fortunate".

Again, you are generalising. If I were to criticise republicans remotely as arrogantly as you do, you would freak out.

It wouldn't be paid for as much. They wouldn't get the same equipment, they wouldn't get the same training, and they wouldn't have nearly the same work ethic.

What? Health insurance has nothing to do with the way doctors and nurses are being trained, nor with what equipment hospitals would buy. If anything, they would have more money, since more operations etc. would be actually paid for.

I'll give you a situation, and I'd like you to answer a question for me. You and I are both just graduating high school. You want more -- I don't. I go out and get a minimum-wage unskilled labor job. You go to college. You have a better work ethic than I do. Since you don't have the money to pay for college, you get a full-time job while you're in school, like millions upon millions of people have before. In five years, I move up another couple dollars an hour, not because of my work ethic but because I've been there for a while -- you finish college, having worked a full-time job that paid all of your bills and some of your college off. You get a good job that pays a decent salary -- say, twice as much as I would make in a year working the unskilled labor job that I have. In another five years, your supervisors and managers have recognized your superior work ethic -- you stay late after work and come in early or work on weekends, you try to take night classes to give you more education in your field, etc. -- and you get promoted. If I'm still at the same job, I'm making twelve or fifteen dollars an hour, because I only work what I have to, and I only work as hard as I have to work, and I only got the education that I had to. Your work ethic has helped you get an education, a better job, and a higher position within that job.

Now: if you were going to make the same amount of money I would, why would you have a better work ethic?

I'm not sure what the question here is.

Not all, of course not. Canada and Britain, yes -- at least in comparison.

I have no idea about the Canadian health care, but you may be right about the British health care system. Over here in Belgium we have one of the most efficiently working health insurance systems in the world AND the best health care possible. I'm not trying to be patriottic. It really is one of my country's main assets. We have lots of flaws (like shortage of prisons etc.), like any country.

We'd be forced to pay the medical bills of people who don't take care of themselves.

And you're not doing that right now? You're saying all the people ho have the same health insurance are taking care of themselves as well as you do?

The problem with that idea is that our government isn't some omnipotent being -- it bends to the whim of the people. The citizens don't answer to the government, the government answers to the civilians. The government does not have ANY obligation to "take care of her citizens" other than protecting them from outside forces. The CITIZENS have the obligation to protect THEMSELVES.

I understand what you're saying. And I think this is one of those US vs. The World situations where an idea doesn't seem to fit a certain society due to it's history and cultural differences. I respect that, but I think it's a shame.

Because it's not like the government is controlling what we learn at school or what kind of health care we get, taking over some of our largest businesses, using taxpayer money to buy out private corporations ... Wait, no, that's not right.

That is how ALL politicians in the US work... I don't see the relevance of this issue.

I do see the quality of Fox News -- but honestly, I can't say that I thought you were better than someone who shouts "bias" at whatever you disagree with without looking at the facts or the logic.

I didn't say they were biased. And I never said I criticised them for making points that I don't agree with. If they were to praise Obama for things he never did, I would be annoyed in the same way.

Yes, O'Reilly is on Fox News Channel. So? Kieth Olbermann is on MSNBC, and he's more liberal than O'Reilly is Republican. That doesn't automatically mean that everything MSNBC reports has a liberal bias, of course not -- MSNBC's liberal bias would exist whether Olbermann was there or not.

Whether MSNBC is liberally biased or not is not the issue. And frankly, I don't know if it's true what you're saying or not.
But you can have your opinions all you want, I think it is only healthy to remain objective about matters like politics. I just can't seriously watch Fox News, due to those minor discrepancies, but mostly the dramatic tone and the twists they give some news stories. Maybe it's a matter of taste? But you have to admit that a LOT of not-so-smart people get fired up just by watching Fox News and the shows on the Fox News Channel, nodding at everything. Whether they are conservatives or liberals doesn't really matter. Being biased is not an attractive feature to me. But I must say that the 'liberal' media, bisaed or not, tend to reconsider their own ideas from time to time, more than most conservative media do. That's healthy, in my opinion.

And it's not the President's job to be a parent to America's children -- I'm sure the time he spent doing that could have been better spent doing something else, like his job.

If I were to use this argument against a president you had voted for, you wouldn't agree. Be honest. The president is more than the guy who decides important things.

And if I was Obama, I would have said something about it. The lack of a liberal outrage shows a clear double-standard -- that people who support Obama can be disrespectful and improper, even enough to use the word nigget, but people who support Republicans or conservatives are attacked for everything they do.

There is no double standard here. I was just explaining how Fox News used that rapper as another argument to prove how bad a president Obama can be. Are you among the people that believe Obama should show his birth certificate?

I'm going to quote you:
"I'm sure the time he spent doing that could have been better spent doing something else, like his job."

You don't have to be 65 or over to receive Medicare.

Ummm.
YES YOU DO.
(Or meet some other 'special criteria'.)

And because you don't like what he says, you automatically discount it as false. No need to listen to people you don't like, right? I mean, if you don't like what they have to say, there's no possible way that it could have any truth to it!

I'm not talking about the content. I'm talking about how ridiculous his methods are to make his points. He circles the first letter of a few big words, and they form the word Oligarchy. How is that using logic?

Like you wouldn't piss on anyone else who tried to make a point by circling words and letters? Come on...

And I'll try to find a source about those sponsors. I even read WHAT sponsors wanted to be moved to another hour, but I can't remember, as they were (obviously) American sponsors, and I wasn't familiar with them. You can believe me, if my word is worth anything to you.

[Clint]

The idea that American healthcare is expensive because the leaders of insurance companies, doctors, etc. are somehow overcharging so they can crap on solid - gold toilets and wipe their ass with hundred-dollar-bills is extremely ignorant.

No, it's expensive because purging all the hard earned dollars from the middle class is how the good ol' boys operate. That's how they've always operated, and that's how they always will operate.

Government officials do not receive healthcare from private insurers, they receive a form of government healthcare -- a form much, much more expensive than anything offered to the public, and with much, much better care.

Where do you think they get the money to pay for that? They increase taxes on the middle class. So now, not only do I have to pay full price for my own health care, now I have to chip in for good ol' boys who can damn well afford to pay for it themselves. This is why socialized health care isn't going to work. The middle class can't afford to pay for every American's health care.

If health care providers actually did what you're accusing them of and gave free care to rich people, that would be one thing. But you're claiming something that is incredibly false. Try again.

Well, it is free. You don't see them paying for it, do you? We're paying for it. They're not.

Yes, of course -- everybody who saves money, everybody who goes to college, everybody who works two jobs, they all just want to screw other people over. It has nothing to do with having money, it's all about making sure that nobody else has as much as you do.

That's why the world is in such of an awry state. Everybody wants to be rich, and they don't give a damn about anybody except for number one.

Please tell me, what "cutbacks" are "only available to the rich"? You failed miserably trying to point out one so-called "cutback" not long ago, I would find it highly entertaining to see what other "cutbacks" you claim the rich get.

Think way back to the Bush administration. Remember yet? He gave tax cuts to the wealthy and hiked up taxes for the middle class. When you're down and out and have very very little money, you tend to remember these things. Nothing much has changed since then. People thought Obama was going to be a different kind of politician, but everybody seemed to forget that he's half white.

Of course there's a cure for AIDS and Cancer -- and Bush was behind 9/11, the '93 WTC attack was done by the FBI, the moon landing was faked, aliens landed at Roswell, LBJ had Kennedy assassinated, contrails from planes are actually filled with biological agents, Elvis Presley is still alive, carburetors exist that give your car five hundred miles to the gallon, the war in Iraq is all about oil, the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy really does exist, the government assassinated Tupac Shakur, Jews are trying to control the world, Courtney Love killed Kurt Kerbang (sorry, "Cobain"), Paul McCartney has just been a look-alike since '66, O.J. really didn't do it ... anything else?

Uh, yeah. You really suck at arguing. First off, in an argument, you don't blatantly insult the intelligence of the person you're arguing against. That means one thing; that you have a weak case. Now I made my point and made my opinion from a political standpoint. Care to try again?

Or because the boys at the bottom want good quality healthcare. That's got a lot to do with it, too -- as shown by the fact that the majority of the population doesn't support Obama's healthcare plan.

It's not about good quality health care. It's merely about the security of having health care. I mean, for Christ sake, inmates get free medical treatment. If people who break the law are allowed health care, then there should be a minimalist for everybody.

People seem to not understand this health care system that President Obama has been proposing. It won't eliminate private health care insurers, it will merely give a minimalist for anybody who can't afford to pay for health care. Getting the money to put the plan into action is a huge problem, though, because the middle class will be dirt poor if the good ol' boys try to hike up taxes even further.