I believe everyone in this thread agrees that there should be some changes to help make insurance availible to everyone. The difference lies in how to arrive at that point and to what degree. The left has said that the right is intolerant, partisan and has no ideas. Yet the partisanship came from the left as they were the only ones to vote for the bill and Obama came up with the child like line "John, I won the election" The right believes in self resposibility and smaller government. This is being mislabeled as intolerance. Ideas of tort reform, looking for waste and mismanagement in Medicare and Medicaid and selling insurance across state lines were proposed by the right. These ideas should have been tried before enacting this unconstitutional bill that will just be another dollar sucking, bloated government program.

 

And all of those, except maybe Tort Reform are in the Bill. So what you want is to get what the MINORITY party wants ONLY, and you have to leave out what the MAJORITY party wants. In other words it would have been bi-partisan if the Republicans and gotten exactly what they wanted and nothing else was in the bill. The bill is bi-partisan and incorporates Republican ideas, it just has some democrat ideas as well - republicans were just not going to compromise. IT IS REALLY THAT SIMPLE

Communism didn't take over the world because their socialistic societies collapse on themselves.

 

Like China?

Like China?

 

 

To be fair Soviet Communism and Chinese Communism are/were dramatically different animals especially given the inherent societal differences and the means with which they were implemented. Either way the human rights records of both governments were not particularly good. As such it proves a poor example of the "failure of communism" for the conservative right and is not up to the humanistic ideals by the liberal left. That said China's economy didn't start to really boom until they began to allow more capitalistic ideals to pervade their economy. Socially they are still repressed but economically they are far more free than they used to be.

 

Thus I deem it a wash. :banana:

To be fair Soviet Communism and Chinese Communism are/were dramatically different animals especially given the inherent societal differences and the means with which they were implemented. Either way the human rights records of both governments were not particularly good. As such it proves a poor example of the "failure of communism" for the conservative right and is not up to the humanistic ideals by the liberal left.

 

Thus I deem it a wash. :banana:

 

I was not arguing the strength and weaknesses of communism, and certainly would not associate Leninism with it, the ideal of a centralized government was anti-Marxism.

 

However, to suggest that China is falling in on itself is silly. However, I do remember capitalist Rome collapsing under the weigth of its supply side trickle down economics.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(pure hyperbole, I am a world history teacher by trade and know the fundamentals of the collapse of Rome, but it was much more fun to say it this way.)

And all of those, except maybe Tort Reform are in the Bill. So what you want is to get what the MINORITY party wants ONLY, and you have to leave out what the MAJORITY party wants. In other words it would have been bi-partisan if the Republicans and gotten exactly what they wanted and nothing else was in the bill. The bill is bi-partisan and incorporates Republican ideas, it just has some democrat ideas as well - republicans were just not going to compromise. IT IS REALLY THAT SIMPLE

 

 

You are more one sided in regards to what BHO and the democrats want than anyone on BGP. That is SIMPLE to see. The fundamental differences in the bill are grossly outweighed on the liberal side. That also should be SIMPLE to see if you have an impartial bone in your body.

I was not arguing the strength and weaknesses of communism, and certainly would not associate Leninism with it, the ideal of a centralized government was anti-Marxism.

 

However, to suggest that China is falling in on itself is silly. However, I do remember capitalist Rome collapsing under the weigth of its supply side trickle down economics.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(pure hyperbole, I am a world history teacher by trade and know the fundamentals of the collapse of Rome, but it was much more fun to say it this way.)

 

 

I am glad to see you added the caveat at the end, my background is in history as well and I was going to call you on that. :lol:

I was not arguing the strength and weaknesses of communism, and certainly would not associate Leninism with it, the ideal of a centralized government was anti-Marxism.

 

However, to suggest that China is falling in on itself is silly. However, I do remember capitalist Rome collapsing under the weigth of its supply side trickle down economics.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(pure hyperbole, I am a world history teacher by trade and know the fundamentals of the collapse of Rome, but it was much more fun to say it this way.)

 

I am glad to see you added the caveat at the end, my background is in history as well and I was going to call you on that. :lol:

 

 

Y'all better stop, or I'm going to introduce that God smote Rome for it's pagan ways.

Y'all better stop, or I'm going to introduce that God smote Rome for it's pagan ways.

 

 

Hey it's the closest we'll ever come to agreeing about anything, let it be. :lol:

You are more one sided in regards to what BHO and the democrats want than anyone on BGP. That is SIMPLE to see. The fundamental differences in the bill are grossly outweighed on the liberal side. That also should be SIMPLE to see if you have an impartial bone in your body.

 

I see it, but the representatives in the house and senate are grossly outweighed on the liberal side because of the election, so should not the legislation that is passed be weighed about the same?

I have some provisional reservations about certain aspects of the bill as well, but I don't find it unconstitutional at all.

 

How is this any more unconstitutional than social aid programs already in place? If the rallying cry is going to be the uncostitutionality of the legislation, then I suggest they take on the whole kit and kaboodle, because this isn't the worst of all the programs we have in place.

 

Are people REQUIRED to sign up for the other programs?

 

After reading further I see other's have already pointed this aspect out.

But the government already pays for indigent care as it is. I think a very basic level of healthcare--just enough to get by, within reason--should be a right of all Americans.

 

Wow! :eek:

 

Yeah, I guess it would be better to just let people die, if they don't happen to be as strong or fortunate as you or me. Sounds like something Ebenezer Scrooge would come up with.

BF, no one got turned away from healthcare before this stupid bill. They may not have had insurance, but they received health care if needed.

I know it sounds like I'm all over the place on this debate; but that is partly because I really don't understand what's in those 2,000 pages. It's also because I'm in the weird position of possibly benefiting from some of the things that are in the bill, while at the same time, being hurt as a taxpayer.

So I feel split down the middle on this. On one hand, I think we have to take care of people who genuinely can't help themselves. I have known many people in that position--I was one of those people. On the other hand, I don't believe in forcing people to give up their earnings for those who don't want to (but, who can) work for it.

 

Honestly, I would rather have seen tort reform and interstate competition before trying this radical change in course. I know something has to be done, and I give the Dems credit for at least trying something; but I think they have gone overboard with it. Even the president himself admitted that this wasn't very good, but that he had staked his presidency on it, so they were going to have to see it through.

 

Since I'm totally conflicted, confused and confounded by all this, I'm going to sit on the sidelines from here, read the thread, and try to figure this out.

 

:isurrender:

Like China?

Do you want this country to be like China?

The people of China are extremely poor, or at least that's what our texts from my last polysci/economics class said.

Do you want this country to be like China?

 

yeah, that is exactly what I was advocating.:thumb:

 

Just pointing out the absurdity of a previous post.