If the government's healthcare insurance is so good...

[Satya]

Excuse me? If Ben believes there is such a principle, it would not be in his interest to sway the opinion of peers? One would have to feel very strongly about a concept to call it a principle.

By the way, I enjoyed the fact that you can't possibly debate against the most important piece of this entire argument. Your attempt to pave over any attempt to bring up capitalist concepts was pathetic. It's basically an admission to defeat.

How is it an admission of defeat when I haven't even stated my position yet? I'm merely inquiring on the nature of the debate and the knowledge of the participants towards the topic in question. And for that matter, how does how strongly one feels something is "principle" factor into whether or not its a valid argument? If my only argument is that socialism is bad then I can dismiss any form of government involvement despite any reasonable or valid argument that could be made based upon evidence. The same could be said if I suggest that capitalism is bad.

 

[Satya]

You could address the OP as well; I would like to hear your answer.

Congressional health care is among the best in the country. There is little incentive to change. Hillary Clinton ran on the platform that she would set up the health care system so that every citizen could have the same options that members of Congress have, but Obama ultimately won and the system he is proposing is a bipartisan compromise.

I also have a problem with it being called universal health care since, in countries that have it, coverage is not universal. I think there is a great disparity between what the public thinks that it is getting and what will actually be delivered. Besides, healthcare is already given to those without insurance in emergency situation. It seems a question of wanting more and better coverage at the expense of someone else who can pay for it. I also think there will be a significant reduction in the quality of care provided to individuals under a government healthcare plan.

You make an interesting number of assumptions here. First, you argue that there is a disparity between what the public gets and what it thinks it gets. What do you think the public is expecting? Where in the plan do you think it falls short of those expectations? Once again, actually having knowledge of the plan would provide you with some stronger arguing points. Second, you seem to think the only reason that the health care system is being changed is because people feel they aren't getting care in emergency situations. That seems to utterly disregard many of the arguments raised by the other side such as astronomically raising insurance premiums, the bankruptcies of those who do have insurance upon accidents, the denial of insurance to those with prior health conditions, the transfer of patients from private to government hospitals for treatment, etc. Third, you are making the assumption that some groups are using the government to impose their interests on others. Don't the insurance companies already do that through their multibillion dollar lobbying and endorsement? Why should insurance companies be able to protect their interest through the use of the government but private citizens should not be able to do so? Fourth, you make the outright assumption that the quality of health care declines upon the implementation of these changes. In what ways would it decline and for who? What examples of such can you provide? Assumptions are wonderful things, but you don't make an argument based solely upon them.

There is also the issue of rationed healthcare. Take a look:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/07242009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/deadly_doctors_180941.htm

Rationed health care only applies to those who could not afford the health care otherwise. In other words, the very same people you argue in one breath who are currently "leeching" off the system are the very same people you are defending should be able to "leech" off the system if things are changed. Where is the sense in that? For that matter, anyone else who wanted additional protection could simply supplement treatment with private insurance.

Finally, I have a problem with the entire thing being rushed. Decisions that will impact the American public need enough time to be properly discussed, debated, and thought over. I'm also quite shocked that AARP is screwing their membership over because they will benefit from this bill financially.

Given what happened in 1993 where the proposed health care changes were stalled to the point that nothing happened, can you blame the current rush? Insurance companies are investing an incredible amount of their resources to maintain the status quo and to stall things just as they did back in the 90s so that nothing does happen. Also, how can these things be discussed when people are only interested in making assumptions and promoting their ideology rather than actually discussing the pragmatics of the plan or proposing valid alternatives? What is stopping Republicans from creating an alternative plan, backed by evidence, that would be superior to the one currently being proposed by Obama?

 

[Azure_Knight]

I have no idea where you guys came up with the "hybrid economy" issue. That is not even a concept that I have ever heard it doesn't even exist outside the US?

Also, by saying all countries that have it have not universal coverage is just pure bollocks. Nobody that I have ever known got denied treatment of any kind.

Just because no one that you personally know has been denied treatment doesn't mean that treatment has ever been denied to any individual in a universal plan.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-613.pdf

A great article that shows how a universal health care plan has it's own problems to deal with.

It's quite typical of those who never really left the US to just simply buy everything that they're told.

There is no such thing as hybrid economy, most of these countries are capitalist democracies.

They just happen to respect their people.

When it comes to human lives and wellbeing, profit and competition shouldn't be main issues.

Profit and competition are central to capitalism. Other countries have used the democratic process to reach the conclusion that they need universal healthcare; this does not equate universal healthcare as a hallmark of democracy, but as a result of a process.

How is it that they are respecting their people?

That article is pure speculation, I'm sure you can realize that.

The article in question is an op-ed piece, but it references some very interesting comments and ideas of Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel. You have not addressed the issues brought up in the article surrounding Dr. Emanuel's opinions and attitudes on healthcare. You have tried to dismiss it though, despite the fact that it references credible sources.

also the idea that all countries with public healthcare work the same is insane, of course some are better than others and there are differences

You are absolutely correct.

Congressional health care is among the best in the country. There is little incentive to change. Hillary Clinton ran on the platform that she would set up the health care system so that every citizen could have the same options that members of Congress have, but Obama ultimately won and the system he is proposing is a bipartisan compromise.

There is some incentive. If the healthcare that the government is offering to the average American is so good, then why shouldn't they change it? The answer is that it is an inferior product compared to the current congressional health care model. If congressional members want to build public confidence in their plan, perhaps they could be a case study of sorts (change their current plan to the proposed plan). It also sets up an interesting contrast: one set of care for congressional officials and another for everyone else on the proposed HC plan. And bipartisan compromise or not, it is being pushed far too quickly and strongly for a significant number of Americans' tastes.

You make an interesting number of assumptions here. First, you argue that there is a disparity between what the public gets and what it thinks it gets. What do you think the public is expecting?

I think the public is expecting honest discussion about healthcare and related issues. After watching those town hall meetings with congressional representatives, it is obvious that they aren't receiving even that basic courtesy. If officials really want Americans to understand and participate in a healthcare reform that will affect THEM (and NOT congressional officials), then perhaps they need to sit down and address the concerns being brought up. I currently do not see that happening.

Where in the plan do you think it falls short of those expectations? Once again, actually having knowledge of the plan would provide you with some stronger arguing points.

Perhaps they should make the plan available (free of charge) with online access. It's hard to argue the finer points of something if it is not available (and if it is available that the general public is aware of it), and if congressional officials haven't even read it in its entirety yet.

Second, you seem to think the only reason that the health care system is being changed is because people feel they aren't getting care in emergency situations. That seems to utterly disregard many of the arguments raised by the other side such as astronomically raising insurance premiums, the bankruptcies of those who do have insurance upon accidents, the denial of insurance to those with prior health conditions, the transfer of patients from private to government hospitals for treatment, etc.

The CATO study shows that other UHC plans are also fighting with many of these same issues. Simply changing plans won't make the issues go away. As far as denial of insurance to those with pre-existing conditions goes... insurance is a business. Customers who are already sick are not as profitable as those who aren't. It is a harsh reality of the insurance industry that I also do not agree with. But this is a capitalistic market. If someone has ideas for a profitable insurance company for those with pre-existing conditions, they are free to go ahead with it.

Third, you are making the assumption that some groups are using the government to impose their interests on others. Don't the insurance companies already do that through their multibillion dollar lobbying and endorsement? Why should insurance companies be able to protect their interest through the use of the government but private citizens should not be able to do so?

Lobbying is what it is. But in the case of AARP, selling out their customers to make financial gains from this proposed bill is bullshit. I despise it as much as anyone else. To be fair though, private citizens are able to protect their interests through government. Citizens are free to elect those whom they feel will best represent them in government.

Fourth, you make the outright assumption that the quality of health care declines upon the implementation of these changes. In what ways would it decline and for who? What examples of such can you provide? Assumptions are wonderful things, but you don't make an argument based solely upon them.

Cancer is the bane of a universal healthcare plan. The United States has the best cancer treatment in the world. With regards to quality of care, I only need to point out the disparity of care that would exist if this bill is passed: one standard for congressional members, and another for everyone else on UHC. In other words, superior care for a minority and inferior care for a majority. I don't see much 'change'.

Rationed health care only applies to those who could not afford the health care otherwise. In other words, the very same people you argue in one breath who are currently "leeching" off the system are the very same people you are defending should be able to "leech" off the system if things are changed. Where is the sense in that? For that matter, anyone else who wanted additional protection could simply supplement treatment with private insurance.

What I'm saying is that rationed healthcare with a lesser quality of care is what is being offered as Universal Health Care to Americans. For the 15% that are uninsured, that may be viewed as better than what is currently available to them. But the price tag and oversight that come with it makes the whole thing a difficult pill to swallow for those that would be paying for it.

Given what happened in 1993 where the proposed health care changes were stalled to the point that nothing happened, can you blame the current rush? Insurance companies are investing an incredible amount of their resources to maintain the status quo and to stall things just as they did back in the 90s so that nothing does happen. Also, how can these things be discussed when people are only interested in making assumptions and promoting their ideology rather than actually discussing the pragmatics of the plan or proposing valid alternatives? What is stopping Republicans from creating an alternative plan, backed by evidence, that would be superior to the one currently being proposed by Obama?

I blame the current rush on a political plan to be able to credit the current president with implementing universal healthcare. That rush is what will not allow for proper exploration of what is being proposed and fact checking.

Also, how can these things be discussed when people are only interested in making assumptions and promoting their ideology rather than actually discussing the pragmatics of the plan or proposing valid alternatives?
aren't you making assumptions about the public itself?

As for alternate plans by Republicans... why has this turned into a party issue? Even if Republicans came up with an alternative plan, it would require support from enough congressional members to pass. Given the statements that were made earlier by Democrats, it doesn't seem like there is much chance for positive bipartisan relations on the issue of universal healthcare reform. So in a sense: voting and being able to pass legislation is killing alternatives (and a lack of bipartisan cooperation from the democrat majority). I find it somewhat ironic that even with a majority in congress and a proposed healthcare plan, Democrats continue to shift blame onto Republicans for encountered difficulties. I have also yet to see pragmatic discussion of the plan between Democratic officials and the public. If anything, Democrats are being warned by members of their own party to not hold gatherings to discuss issues with constituents. Why would a public official refuse to hold public meetings to discuss healthcare with constituents? It makes one wonder who these individuals are working for (since they aren't even meeting with the people that placed them in their current job in the first place).

Also, how can these things be discussed when people are only interested in making assumptions and promoting their ideology rather than actually discussing the pragmatics of the plan or proposing valid alternatives?

I have yet to see any figures or studies being brought up on your side Satya. If you have any that would give more support to your position, I would gladly consider them. As of right now, I am simply defending my positions while you have yet to propose your own. You have chosen so far to only attack assumptions; perhaps you would be so kind as to respond to the views of Dr. Emanuel, governmental oversight under the new proposed bill, the CATO study, and other points as well (I found it regrettable that I saw no discussion of the first three in your response).

 

[Phyllotaxis]

How is it an admission of defeat when I haven't even stated my position yet? I'm merely inquiring on the nature of the debate and the knowledge of the participants towards the topic in question. And for that matter, how does how strongly one feels something is "principle" factor into whether or not its a valid argument? If my only argument is that socialism is bad then I can dismiss any form of government involvement despite any reasonable or valid argument that could be made based upon evidence. The same could be said if I suggest that capitalism is bad.

Capitalism is not infallible, if you feel capitalism is bad and detrimental to the health care system then lay it out for us instead of trying to take a shortcut around one of the key issues of the entire debate. It's like debating abortion and telling people, "Please don't bring morality into the equation because I'm tired of hearing about it."

 

[Satya]

Capitalism is not infallible, if you feel capitalism is bad and detrimental to the health care system then lay it out for us instead of trying to take a shortcut around one of the key issues of the entire debate. It's like debating abortion and telling people, "Please don't bring morality into the equation because I'm tired of hearing about it."

You are assuming my position is against capitalism. It is not.

I see no more sense in discussing morality in regards to abortion than discussing ideology in regards to health care. It simply becomes an argument of value judgment versus value judgment rather than a discussion of solutions and alternatives. For example, if the problems that lead women to have abortions are addressed as opposed to the issue of life versus choice, then abortions can be greatly reduced, perhaps to the point that they even become unnecessary and the whole life versus choice debate becomes irrelevant. Arguments of ideology and morality are pointless endeavors as both sides will inevitably strengthen their position since they are based on values. If you wish for a discussion to have merit it should focus on examination of policy so as to maximize its effectiveness rather than simply blindly criticizing it from principle.

If you wish to demonstrate the superiority of your ideology, then simply provide practical alternative options based on your ideology for the current health care problems and explain how those options would be better suited than what has been proposed by Obama's administration. Of course, to do so, you would actually need some knowledge of the plan that has been proposed and evidence to support that your alternatives could actually be put into use.

 

[Faye]

I have no idea where you guys came up with the "hybrid economy" issue. That is not even a concept that I have ever heard it doesn't even exist outside the US?

A pure capitalist democratic republic would have no government provided services or almost no government provided services. Choosing, through the system to implement services is considered socialist. Therefore, other countries have hybrid economies containing both capitalism and socialism as popularly defined. The U.S. does too but only to a lesser extent. The key issue though is the democratic process. The more democratic, the more likely a country is to have things such as universal health care. The U.S. though is far more plutocratic than democratic.

Also, by saying all countries that have it have not universal coverage is just pure bollocks. Nobody that I have ever known got denied treatment of any kind.

The goal of health care opponents is to scare the middle class into thinking that they'll get denied health care if they accept the current plan. Of course, many of these people aren't very well off themselves, and, believe it or not, 85% of Americans believe they are middle class. I could talk about class consciousness here, but that moves into Marxist territory.

It's quite typical of those who never really left the US to just simply buy everything that they're told.

FoxNews, fair and unbiased. With FoxNews, you get both sides of the issue.

There is no such thing as hybrid economy, most of these countries are capitalist democracies.

With hybrid economies. Democracy leads to a hybrid economy.

They just happen to respect their people.

Really? I bet its more like they actually do work for their people sometimes instead of working for the army of professional lobbyists hired by special interest groups. That is how congress works here in the U.S. There are masses of PACs (political action committees) that representatives are dependent on financially (among other things) to get elected.

When it comes to human lives and wellbeing, profit and competition shouldn't be main issues.

But they are the main issues here in the U.S. If you don't have good health insurance, you are basically doomed if you get really sick. People wont give a damn if you are thrown out onto the streets because you couldn't afford to pay your medical bills. There are cases of private hospitals, particularly religious ones, who taken in the lower socio-economic strata and then charge them massive amounts of money for services, which they are soulless in trying to attain. By soulless, I mean fear tactics.

Even if the issue isn't a case like that, medical related costs are still very expensive.

And the government really doesn't care about people. Some people in government do, but the typical politician is soulless and narcissistic. The government is largely run by businessmen.

 

[Satya]

There is some incentive. If the healthcare that the government is offering to the average American is so good, then why shouldn't they change it? The answer is that it is an inferior product compared to the current congressional health care model. If congressional members want to build public confidence in their plan, perhaps they could be a case study of sorts (change their current plan to the proposed plan). It also sets up an interesting contrast: one set of care for congressional officials and another for everyone else on the proposed HC plan. And bipartisan compromise or not, it is being pushed far too quickly and strongly for a significant number of Americans' tastes.

The same argument could be made for why Congressmen don't enlist their own children into the army to fight a war. Frankly the argument is modern sophistry as it is based on an emotional appeal in which to cast doubt on the proposed plan. The plan that is proposed for the average American may not be superior to the current Congressional plan. However, it is a bipartisan plan, which means the only reason it wouldn't be is because Obama compromised to make it what it is. Even if it is not on par with the Congressional plan does not mean that the plan is not better than what we currently have.

I think the public is expecting honest discussion about healthcare and related issues. After watching those town hall meetings with congressional representatives, it is obvious that they aren't receiving even that basic courtesy. If officials really want Americans to understand and participate in a healthcare reform that will affect THEM (and NOT congressional officials), then perhaps they need to sit down and address the concerns being brought up. I currently do not see that happening.

It is the citizen's responsibility to know what is being proposed and what it entails. The proposed legistlatoin is available to read and there are those out there who are interpreting it for the general public. It is not the representative's duty to tell citizens what they are doing, it is the citizen's duty to tell the representative what they should be doing. If you truly care about the issue of health care then educate yourself about it, otherwise the representatives will see you as just another uneducated constituent shooting from the hip via your personal ideology.

Perhaps they should make the plan available (free of charge) with online access. It's hard to argue the finer points of something if it is not available (and if it is available that the general public is aware of it), and if congressional officials haven't even read it in its entirety yet.

Wow! You seriously don't even know how to look up legislation? All proposed legislation is free and available on the internet! It is required to be by law!

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text

The CATO study shows that other UHC plans are also fighting with many of these same issues. Simply changing plans won't make the issues go away. As far as denial of insurance to those with pre-existing conditions goes... insurance is a business. Customers who are already sick are not as profitable as those who aren't. It is a harsh reality of the insurance industry that I also do not agree with. But this is a capitalistic market. If someone has ideas for a profitable insurance company for those with pre-existing conditions, they are free to go ahead with it.

The "harsh" reality of the insurance industry and the "capitalistic" market means nothing in a Constitutional Republic. People elected representatives who will vote to provide every American with affordable health care. Perhaps you are comfortable with allowing 40 million people to be uninsured and nearly 80 million more to have inadequate insurance, but the voters were not and so here we are. The position you are in is to propose a way to provide affordable health care to every American that is still profitable. If you can propose a plan superior to what Obama's administration has proposed then have at it. Otherwise you are simply criticizing the results of the last election.

Lobbying is what it is. But in the case of AARP, selling out their customers to make financial gains from this proposed bill is bullshit. I despise it as much as anyone else. To be fair though, private citizens are able to protect their interests through government. Citizens are free to elect those whom they feel will best represent them in government.

Read above.

Cancer is the bane of a universal healthcare plan. The United States has the best cancer treatment in the world. With regards to quality of care, I only need to point out the disparity of care that would exist if this bill is passed: one standard for congressional members, and another for everyone else on UHC. In other words, superior care for a minority and inferior care for a majority. I don't see much 'change'.

Actually France has the best cancer care in the world as rated by the World Health Organization.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6660665.stm

America has some of the best research and development of cancer treatments. Is that what you meant?

If it is, I would like to know exactly how Obama's plan is going to reduce the research and development budgets of the pharmaceutical industries considering they are already government subsidized.

What I'm saying is that rationed healthcare with a lesser quality of care is what is being offered as Universal Health Care to Americans. For the 15% that are uninsured, that may be viewed as better than what is currently available to them. But the price tag and oversight that come with it makes the whole thing a difficult pill to swallow for those that would be paying for it.

You have avoided the question that I asked previously. What is the pricetag and how do you know it won't cost more to do nothing than to make these changes now? Also, what price do you put on human suffering? How do you know that the human suffering that will result after these changes will not be significantly less than the suffering that is experienced now?

I blame the current rush on a political plan to be able to credit the current president with implementing universal healthcare. That rush is what will not allow for proper exploration of what is being proposed and fact checking.

I just gave you a copy of the bill. Not only can you fact check it, but you can look up others who have fact checked it and see for yourself what proposed changes could spell problems.

As for alternate plans by Republicans... why has this turned into a party issue? Even if Republicans came up with an alternative plan, it would require support from enough congressional members to pass. Given the statements that were made earlier by Democrats, it doesn't seem like there is much chance for positive bipartisan relations on the issue of universal healthcare reform. So in a sense: voting and being able to pass legislation is killing alternatives (and a lack of bipartisan cooperation from the democrat majority). I find it somewhat ironic that even with a majority in congress and a proposed healthcare plan, Democrats continue to shift blame onto Republicans for encountered difficulties. I have also yet to see pragmatic discussion of the plan between Democratic officials and the public. If anything, Democrats are being warned by members of their own party to not hold gatherings to discuss issues with constituents. Why would a public official refuse to hold public meetings to discuss healthcare with constituents? It makes one wonder who these individuals are working for (since they aren't even meeting with the people that placed them in their current job in the first place).

This is a partly line issue. Democrats have a super majority and do not need Republicans in order to pass this legislation. If Republicans want a chance to overthrow this legislation then they need to propose attractive alternatives. Also, I would like to see the evidence you have of Democrats being warned not to speak to their constituents. I've heard of no such thing, but I'm sure you have a link on hand that you can provide to clarify it for me.

Before you do, you might want to read this story which pretty much proposes the exact opposite situation that you are suggesting.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090811/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_health_care_overhaul

No offense, but are you sure you aren't being a tool right now?

I have yet to see any figures or studies being brought up on your side Satya. If you have any that would give more support to your position, I would gladly consider them. As of right now, I am simply defending my positions while you have yet to propose your own. You have chosen so far to only attack assumptions; perhaps you would be so kind as to respond to the views of Dr. Emanuel, governmental oversight under the new proposed bill, the CATO study, and other points as well (I found it regrettable that I saw no discussion of the first three in your response).

My current position for the sake of this thread is complete compliance to Obama's proposed plan. In reality I can see a few things about it that I would do differently, but I'm curious whether anyone in this thread actually has any practical knowledge of the proposed legislation or if it is all just a simply ideological debate that is destined to go nowhere.

For my argument I propose that the current American health care system is too expensive and provides substandard care to up to milllions of Americans as is evident that 40 million Americans are uninsured and double that are underinsured. As Obama's platform included health care reform as his leading policy, and the American public elected him and a majority of his party, it is clear that the public wishes for reform. Therefore, it falls upon the responsibility of citizens to propose reform which will make health care affordable for every American citizen while also keeping it profitable. This article discusses some options which are available.

http://socialissues.wiseto.com/Articles/FO3020630056/

 

[mallory knox]

So basically the only capitalist country in the world is the US? That, of course, according to US definitions?

All I'm saying is that we don't even have the definition of hybrid economy, the rest of the world doesn't even consider that. Either countries are capitalist democracies or socialist dictatorships.

I'm saying you made that shit up and it's only considered a concept in your territory.

Probably to say "hey all the other economies are hybrid, we're the closest thing to capitalism and democracy and freedom as you can get, the others are all contaminated with bits of socialism"? LOL.

So when you get denied healthcare you are ILL and HAPPY because you're FREE in a democratic country that is not contaminated with the virus of socialist things - like - saving human lives.

And when I said profit shouldn't be the issue when it comes to human lives, you know what I meant.

 

[Satya]

So basically the only capitalist country in the world is the US? That, of course, according to US definitions?

All I'm saying is that we don't even have the definition of hybrid economy, the rest of the world doesn't even consider that. Either countries are capitalist democracies or socialist dictatorships.

I'm saying you made that shit up and it's only considered a concept in your territory.

Probably to say "hey all the other economies are hybrid, we're the closest thing to capitalism and democracy and freedom as you can get, the others are all contaminated with bits of socialism"? LOL.

And when I said profit shouldn't be the issue when it comes to human lives, you know what I meant.

I have no idea what a "hybrid economy" is. Are you folks talking about mixed economies?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_economy

 

[BenW]

So basically the only capitalist country in the world is the US? That, of course, according to US definitions?

I don't think anyone here has necessarily claimed that the US is a capitalist country.
I believe the US was founded upon these ideals, but I don't really believe that we have been a capitalist country since the founding of the federal reserve (1907), and CERTAINLY not since after the New Deal (1933).

All I'm saying is that we don't even have the definition of hybrid economy, the rest of the world doesn't even consider that.

Maybe you don't, but as much as you seem to think so, you are not the ambassador for the rest of the world outside of the US.

Germany, for example, has literally defined themselves as a "social market economy"!

Either countries are capitalist democracies or socialist dictatorships.

False dichotomy.

I'm saying you made that shit up and it's only considered a concept in your territory.

An interesting conclusion to come to, given that the modern definition of capitalism essentially came to existence in Europe before America was even founded, and most of the early theorizers were British (David Ricardo is the most well known).

Probably to say "hey all the other economies are hybrid, we're the closest thing to capitalism and democracy and freedom as you can get, the others are all contaminated with bits of socialism"? LOL.

The US itself is probably the country closest to capitalism, in a lot of ways.
It is also "contaminated with bits of socialism" itself, and this is not a recent development.

So when you get denied healthcare you are ILL and HAPPY because you're FREE in a democratic country that is not contaminated with the virus of socialist things - like - saving human lives.

I'd die of an illness before I stole somebody else's rightfully earned money to pay for it.

 

[mallory knox]

Wait. I meant "hybrid economy" and "socialized healthcare" are terms you only hear in America. How do I know that? I have lived in a few different countries. Nobody uses those terms.

What do you mean STEAL someone money to pay for what?

SORRY?

 

[mallory knox]

let

 

[Arg]

Meh, I just want pot legalized. Then I'll be a happy camper. I know, I know keep dreaming...

 

[Faye]

Dammit my reply didn't go through. It timed out.

 

[BenW]

Wait. I meant "hybrid economy" and "socialized healthcare" are terms you only hear in America. How do I know that? I have lived in a few different countries. Nobody uses those terms.

You also said that the term hybrid/mixed economy doesn't exist outside of the US, which is what I was replying to.

What do you mean STEAL someone money to pay for what?

SORRY?

The stolen money alluded to in that example was taxpayer money.

let

 

[BenW]

Meh, I just want pot legalized. Then I'll be a happy camper. I know, I know keep dreaming...

Obama is getting cold feet on the issue, but there is still a good chance it will happen, soon.
The Obama administration did tell the DEA that they cannot bother state-run medical marijuana operations anymore, which is a baby step in the right direction.

 

[Azure_Knight]

No offense, but are you sure you aren't being a tool right now?

Please explain what you mean by this comment.

I will respond to your arguments when I am able to.

 

[Satya]

Please explain what you mean by this comment.

I will respond to your arguments when I am able to.

A tool is somebody who is being used and is unaware of it. In this case it could be the meme of your particular ideology or simply regurgitation of the media. Given that you seem unaware of how to research legislation for yourself and make arguments based on emotional appeals and assumptions rather than facts of the policy in question, it would seem to me that you are a product of rhetoric rather than thoughts you have developed yourself through critical analysis of the policy in question.

In fact, consider these stories and how evident your prior comments seem to play into the scare tactics that have been used by protesters...

http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/story/1637682.html
http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/health_care_town_halls/2009/08/11/246258.html

...and your comments...

I have also yet to see pragmatic discussion of the plan between Democratic officials and the public. If anything, Democrats are being warned by members of their own party to not hold gatherings to discuss issues with constituents. Why would a public official refuse to hold public meetings to discuss healthcare with constituents? It makes one wonder who these individuals are working for (since they aren't even meeting with the people that placed them in their current job in the first place).

Can you blame me for wondering if you have the ability to know when you are being used to push an agenda? Particularly when this is what actually happens...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090811/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_protests

Who is it who really doesn't want to have a discussion about health care? Considering that you choose to use rhetoric rather than actually discuss the policy in question, I have serious doubts that you do.

 

[mallory knox]

Why do you have to think everything is about you?

"I oppose taxation" - what are you? A millionaire?

because apart from that, no one can afford to take care of their own security and building their own roads, and making their own schools.

Money is mine mine mine? It's that individualism that will lead to the country's ruin.

 

[Satya]

Capitalism is the dominent, most used form of economic system there is in the world today. Currently, over 80% of countries use capitalism, a free market, laize-faire economy.

I don't know what site you got that from, but no country has a free market economy. A free market is a theoretical concept derived from economics. For a country to have a genuine free market, it would have to have little to no government involvement within its market. For that matter, only some third world countries could be said to have a laissez faire market (correct spelling), and only for limited periods of time. As far as capitalism is concerned, with the exception of North Korea, Cuba, Laos, and Vietnam, every country utilizes capitalism. Whle China is ruled by a Communist Party, it has free enterprise and even some districts which have some of the freest markets in the world.