Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 0/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Open letter to conservatives
Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 3 of 122 (551854)
03-24-2010 4:47 PM


These types of articles tend to backfire since you can find Democrats who are guilty of the same behavior. It is more an argument of degree than kind.
What the Republicans really need to be held accountable for is their refusal to govern. Yelling "No" at the top of your lungs is not governance. Even worse, it appears that Republicans are now going to run their campaigns based on what they DIDN'T do. They will actually be bragging to their constituents about laws that they didn't vote for, and that's it.
This observation was driven home by Mitch McConnell (Senate minority leader) in an interview he did yesterday on CNN. He was asked about incumbent Republicans that were facing tough primary challenges, specifically about a congressman from Utah. Paraphrasing, McConnell stated that this congressman was a "solid conservative, and he is opposed to all of the same bills that his primary opponents are opposed to." That's it. Nothing about what this incumbent was FOR, only about what he was against.
How long can a political party stay relevant when their only response to "What are you for?" is "not that"?

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 29 of 122 (566012)
06-22-2010 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Artemis Entreri
06-21-2010 12:21 PM


Re: Know what a NeoCon is?
. . . less government intrusion . . .
Intrusion into what, specifically?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Artemis Entreri, posted 06-21-2010 12:21 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Artemis Entreri, posted 06-22-2010 1:47 PM Taq has replied
 Message 32 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-22-2010 1:49 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


(1)
Message 35 of 122 (566032)
06-22-2010 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Artemis Entreri
06-22-2010 1:47 PM


Re: Know what a NeoCon is?
everything
So you should be able to sell snake oil as a cure all without FDA intrusion? Should you be able to not pay taxes . . . just because? Surely you see some role for government in the way that people interact, do you not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Artemis Entreri, posted 06-22-2010 1:47 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


(1)
Message 37 of 122 (566034)
06-22-2010 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Hyroglyphx
06-22-2010 1:49 PM


Re: Know what a NeoCon is?
The sovereignty of your life and the economic market.
Are you for completely unregulated markets and against law enforcement? Could you give examples of where the government has gone too far?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-22-2010 1:49 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-22-2010 3:00 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


(1)
Message 38 of 122 (566035)
06-22-2010 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Blue Jay
06-22-2010 2:22 PM


Re: Know what a NeoCon is?
Would linking to specific examples of the above really change the fact that I’m attaching the incident to the group?
It's libel. You liberals shouldn't libel.
If you can show that those things really happened then it isn't libel.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Blue Jay, posted 06-22-2010 2:22 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Blue Jay, posted 06-23-2010 1:51 AM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


(1)
Message 42 of 122 (566050)
06-22-2010 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Hyroglyphx
06-22-2010 3:00 PM


Re: Know what a NeoCon is?
If you had to broadly define the role of government in one, simple sentence, I think it would be "to protect it's citizens."
I agree, but I think we disagree on how to protect citizens or what they need protection from. For example, Social Security was seen as a way to protect our elderly from poverty and death when they were no longer able to work. Medicare the same.
One trend I have noticed is that those who lean to the right tend to trust corporations more than government and the opposite for those who lean to the left. Progressives see government as a way of doing something positive that we can not do individually or through a for-profit system. This also seems to be anathema to conservative thought.
The Patriot Act, Income tax, the New Deal, the Death Tax, the Soda tax, etc.
Edit to add: Social Security
If you want to get rid of taxation that would require a rewrite of the Constitution since it gives congress the power to tax. However, I do agree that the Patriot Act goes way too far. There was nothing wrong with the laws before it which concerned probable cause and rules for wire tapping.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-22-2010 3:00 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Artemis Entreri, posted 06-22-2010 5:59 PM Taq has replied
 Message 50 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-23-2010 9:14 AM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 45 of 122 (566087)
06-22-2010 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Artemis Entreri
06-22-2010 5:59 PM


Re: Know what a NeoCon is?
really? The last progressive elected to any major office was probably the Bull Moose himself, and that was 100 years ago. He was one of the best republicans ever. I think you have the progressives confused with someone else. Progressive Party - Wikipedia(United_States,_1912)
From your own source:
"The party was funded by publisher Frank A. Munsey and its executive secretary George W. Perkins, a leading financier. The platform called for women's suffrage, recall of judicial decisions, easier amendment of the U.S. Constitution, social welfare legislation for women and children, workers' compensation, limited injunctions in strikes, farm relief, revision of banking to assure an elastic currency, required health insurance in industry, new inheritance taxes and income taxes, improvement of inland waterways, limitation of naval armaments and strict limits "on all campaign contributions and expenditures"."
Hmf. Required health insurance in industry, new taxes, improvement of infrastructure, social welfare . . . all of the things that modern conservatives are against. Was Teddy Roosevelt for these things? If so, would you still consider him one of the best Republicans ever?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Artemis Entreri, posted 06-22-2010 5:59 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 68 of 122 (566228)
06-23-2010 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Hyroglyphx
06-23-2010 9:14 AM


Re: Know what a NeoCon is?
[Social Security's] catastrophic failure is why you or I will most likely never see a dime of what we're supposedly entitled to. It's going bankrupt, which is the inevitable result of all socialist systems of this magnitude.
Are you saying that you are against any social program like SS or do you think SS was poorly implemented?
When it comes to fiscal policies, I lean to the right. Rest assured, however, that I don't trust corporations. I trust a competitive market that drives down costs, raises innovation, which ensures I get the best product for less.
Then why do we pay more for health care per capita than people who live in countries with nationalized health care? Why do you trust corporations to run our health care industry? Or is this a case of the lesser of two evils?
Corporatism, which typify neo-conservative thought, is a protection of private business at the expense of the citizen. For instance, the corporate bail-outs, which both neo-conservatives and progressives wanted, is a prime example of corporatism.
I agree with the sentiment, but in this most recent case I don't think there was a choice. If the banking system failed we would have seen the next Great Depression.
Government is necessary, which means taxation is necessary. However, the amount of wasteful and unnecessary programs that exist, along with the ineptitude of the IRS simply highlights why we have a 13 trillion dollar debt.
Ok, thanks for the clarification.
It's just more and more encroachment in to your personal life.
Maybe it is just me, but it seems to me that both sides of the aisle see no problem with encroaching into other people's lives as long as it isn't them. The majority of conservatives are pro-life. They want to get between you and your doctor, a very very private matter. Conservatives want to tell you what you can grow in your backyard, who you can marry, and how you die. It baffles me why someone would want to be aligned with conservatives in congress when they have such a long list of personal liberties that they either actively deny the populace or are trying to deny. "Promoting family values" means nothing more than denying people rights that make conservatives uncomfortable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-23-2010 9:14 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-24-2010 11:17 AM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 77 of 122 (566350)
06-24-2010 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Artemis Entreri
06-24-2010 10:25 AM


Re: mostly for CS, Qni, and DR.A
In 1912 things were much different that they are 98 years later. Health insurance in industry is due to the fact that there were none, or not much of anything. There was no standard work week, no child labor laws, anyone could be worked all day every day for pennies on the dollar with no thought of the welfare of the laborers. I find it very dishonest for you to try and use 1912 instances and apply them to issues today, well dishonest or ignorant, but I doubt you are ignorant.
Health care was a much smaller percentage of GDP then compared to now. 1 million people a year were not going bankrupt due to medical bills in 1912. I would say that we need required health insurance in industry now more than we did in 1912. Also, are you saying that taxes were just fine in 1912 but not now? Awfully strange of you to say. Social welfare was fine for 1912, but bad now?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Artemis Entreri, posted 06-24-2010 10:25 AM Artemis Entreri has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 83 of 122 (566380)
06-24-2010 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Hyroglyphx
06-24-2010 11:17 AM


Re: Know what a NeoCon is?
No, some social programs are necessary, but social security is not one of them.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one. IMHO, you can't turn the elderly away from shelters and hospitals on moral grounds. We will pay for their care anyway, so why not create an equitable program that we all pay into?
Because the United States does not ration care.
Yes, we do. We ration care based on wealth. Tens of thousands of people die each year of treatable diseases. They can not get access to health care because they can not afford health insurance. In countries with nationalized health care everyone has equal access to the same care regardless of financial standing.
You are absolutely right, which is why I'm a libertarian. I don't agree with how conservatives assert their will on the lives of free people, living in what is supposed to be a free society. The level of their imposition is disturbing, to say the least. I find it sad that conservatives complain that progressives want the government to control the lives of everyone, but then turn around and try to get legislature passed that controls everyone's personal lives.
You need to stop being reasonable and start disagreeing with me again.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-24-2010 11:17 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 89 of 122 (566437)
06-24-2010 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Granny Magda
06-24-2010 3:43 PM


Re: Know what a NeoCon is?
You get treated as often or as extensively as the doctors deem necessary. Some treatments are not offered though - many drugs, for example, are very expensive but only offer marginal benefits. There is no good argument for making taxpayers fund those treatments.
This is similar to the private health insurance system in the US. Health insurance companies will not pay for expensive treatments that do not offer better results than the standard of care. The added problem, however, is that many of these decisions are based on profit instead of the well being of the patient. What an insurance company will or will not pay for is often based on greed, not sound medical judgement. This is the system that conservatives continue to support, a system of health care rationing based on corporate profit and not patient care. A government run system is at least accountable to an elected government and not stock holders.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Granny Magda, posted 06-24-2010 3:43 PM Granny Magda has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 93 of 122 (566561)
06-25-2010 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Hyroglyphx
06-25-2010 10:20 AM


Re: Know what a NeoCon is?
The United States government pays more taxes in to medicine than any other nation on earth, without having gone to a national healthcare system.
Pretty pathetic, wouldn't you agree? See where "free markets" for health care has gotten us? The quote above is one of the best arguments for nationalizing our health care. It is the only way that costs will be brought down.
Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security are blights on the economy, and continually prove disasterous.
How much more would it cost to house and care for retired senior citizens if the entire program was privatized? A lot more, wouldn't it? Medicare and Medicaid are the only two programs that have kept prices down. If it weren't for these two programs health care prices would be even higher and be even more of a blight on our economy. And what would we do with senior citizens who have no income? Throw them out on the streets?
There is no question that the current system is broken in America, and that something needs to be done. Instead of socializing medicine and instead of bankrupting companies through employer-paid insurance, would a Medical Savings Account be the most equitable and efficient means of health care for everyone?
That doesn't get to the root of the problem: the bloated cost of health care. Also, those who make very little will not have enough in their savings accounts, not to mention college students who may have not worked a day in their lives. We need a single payer system, if not a full nationalization of the health care system.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-25-2010 10:20 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-25-2010 11:25 AM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 97 of 122 (566569)
06-25-2010 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Hyroglyphx
06-25-2010 11:25 AM


Re: Know what a NeoCon is?
The only way a government-run medical program can reduce cost is to reduce care.
That's false. For example, the VA system (a government run hospital) provides the same care at 20% less cost. Hospitals are very ineffecient, and right now there is no incentive to become more effecient. Also, having the best tech doesn't mean anything if it has to be rationed according to wealth.
No, less. Competition forces companies to produce the highest quality for less. If they don't, they won't survive.
Then why is it so expensive? Private companies are competing for government contracts and the costs are through the roof.
Medicare and Medicaid are nearly bankrupt. This simply highlights why and how a nationalized healthcare won't work. It can't, it's simple economics.
1 million americans are forced into bankruptcy each year due to medical bills. People actually have to choose between life and bankrupting their family. The problem here is the health care system, not nationalization or government programs.
Like all people, it's your responsibility to be responsible.
So what do we do with the people who are not responsible, or lose their life savings through no fault of their own (such as having to pay medical bills after the insurance companies deny them coverage)? Just let them die in the streets?
I mean, if you don't pay your mortgage, should you get to live in the house because you need housing? No. If you don't work for food, should you eat on the basis that you need food to survive? No. That's not how it works in the cold and unforgiving wild, so why would the opposite be true now?
We are a moral people, are we not? Conservatives claim that we are a christian nation, so shouldn't we be helping the least fortunate in our society as Jesus commanded? Or should we turn our backs on the very people who built this nation in the last century?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-25-2010 11:25 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-25-2010 1:10 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 98 of 122 (566570)
06-25-2010 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Hyroglyphx
06-25-2010 11:36 AM


Re: Know what a NeoCon is?
But to answer Taq's question, the majority of US taxes ARE spent on health care now. So I hardly see why throwing more money in to a pit of uselessness would be advantageous at all.
Health care is useless? We have to pay for it one way or another, through insurance companies, out of pocket, or through taxes. Insurance companies are driven by profit, not patient health. Insurance companies ration care based on their bottom line, not what is best for the patient. If you want to talk about a pit of usefulness just look no further than the multi-million dollar salaries that insurance company CEO's make.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-25-2010 11:36 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-25-2010 1:28 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 107 of 122 (566602)
06-25-2010 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Hyroglyphx
06-25-2010 1:28 PM


Re: Know what a NeoCon is?
The entire world is incentive driven, including the government. Insurance companies and the government have vested interests in making you well, so that you'll stop bleeding them dry.
False. Insurance companies are financially rewarded for denying health care to as many of their customers as possible. In fact, some former members of the board responsible for decisions on denying coverage have admitted to receiving bonuses based on the number of denials they produce.
Why the government would be any different from an insurance company is beyond me.
Because the government is not driven by profit and is accountable to elected officials, neither of which is in place in insurance companies. Insurance companies are driven by profit and are accountable to stock holders who expect a profit.
Now, you say insurance companies ration care. They can only ration what they are contractually obligated to ration. They can't just say, "We won't cover you for having cancer," it has been established that you were never covered for cancer, otherwise they face a losing lawsuit.
Or if you already have cancer they can deny you coverage. They write the contracts so that they can opt out if you contract an expensive illness. They cap the lifetime amount they can have to pay out. They limit the number of procedures you can get. They limit you to a list of specific doctors. They limit which medications you can get. They ration, ration, ration, all in the name of profit. If you are against health care rationing then how can you defend the current private health insurance system?
And really, to me, corporatism is simply an extension of the government-mentality -- I'm so powerful, I do what I want.
The difference in my eyes is that at least with elected officials the people have a lot more say. It's not perfect, don't get me wrong, but at least there is some connection between the people and the government where there is no such connection between the populace and the corporation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-25-2010 1:28 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024