|
hooskins 07-09-2012, 11:51 PM That's what the left thinks.
Unchecked private enterprise took this country to shit during the turn of the 20th century and its well on its way again.
Giantone 07-10-2012, 03:55 AM Unchecked private enterprise took this country to shit during the turn of the 20th century and its well on its way again.
...one thing that help back then and I know I'll get crap for this was Unions,funny how the decline of Unions has brought private enterprise back into the crapper.
firstdown 07-10-2012, 10:13 AM It's weird that people have this absolutist thinking when it comes to government. It's scary and, frankly, destructive.
We don't throw out capitalism when corporations fail or turn out to be corrupt and inefficient. The same should be true of government. No program or agency is without flaw or room for improvement.
I'm not against goverment I just think we are heading down a road of everyone expecting goverment to solve their problems. It does not work and we see what its leading to across the Atlantic. You say its scary and destructive but I feel what your wanting the goverment to do for you and others is scary and destructive. Why does the left always come up with these plans to fix something they say is broken and force everyone into their programs. If they were so great why force people into them?
mlmpetert 07-10-2012, 10:54 AM 12th – I always enjoy reading your political posts. Out of all the liberals here i feel like your posts and arguments are normally always based in logic with forward fiscal thinking, and most pleasantly of all, without that traditional liberal condescending tone. Im not saying that this isnt also true with other liberal posters here but some come across as just walking out of a Zeitgeist premiere ready to inflict their views on others….
So with that said would you mind commenting on what you don’t like about Obamacare and the supreme court’s ruling.
Obviously you are in favor of the bill, and im guessing its primarily because of the supposed cost savings of having an entire nation with health insurance. But do you like the expanding nanny state, social justice or redistribution of wealth sides of it? Do you think its good or bad that congress can force us to buy anything by taxing us if we don’t? Do you think giving free health insurance to those who cant afford, an expansion of medicade, is a good idea? Is forcing others to pay for those who cant afford it good only if it means preventive costs are lower in the long run for those footing the bill?
I guess im trying to figure out if youre pro-Obamacare for cost reasons ahead of social reasons or vice versa. Or what simple things would make the bill better in your eyes?
firstdown 07-10-2012, 11:05 AM 12th – I always enjoy reading your political posts. Out of all the liberals here i feel like your posts and arguments are normally always based in logic with forward fiscal thinking, and most pleasantly of all, without that traditional liberal condescending tone. Im not saying that this isnt also true with other liberal posters here but some come across as just walking out of a Zeitgeist premiere ready to inflict their views on others….
So with that said would you mind commenting on what you don’t like about Obamacare and the supreme court’s ruling.
Obviously you are in favor of the bill, and im guessing its primarily because of the supposed cost savings of having an entire nation with health insurance. But do you like the expanding nanny state, social justice or redistribution of wealth sides of it? Do you think its good or bad that congress can force us to buy anything by taxing us if we don’t? Do you think giving free health insurance to those who cant afford, an expansion of medicade, is a good idea? Is forcing others to pay for those who cant afford it good only if it means preventive costs are lower in the long run for those footing the bill?
I guess im trying to figure out if youre pro-Obamacare for cost reasons ahead of social reasons or vice versa. Or what simple things would make the bill better in your eyes?
12th I also agree with this 100%.
NC_Skins 07-10-2012, 11:32 AM Those links really don't support your own positions very much:
"Swamped by other factors". Not very comforting. Especially since we all know out premiums are indeed going up, for all the "concessions" made by the health care industry to cover more people.
Not sure how they don't support my position when I didn't state a position. I stated that Fox News was exaggerating and distorting, which they were. They make it to seem that this tax is going to end jobs, stifle innovation, and make health care costs go up that much more. The stuff I posted (one being from somebody within the industry) says otherwise. Also, I really doubt companies are cutting back on R&D right now in response to any taxes. Many companies use stuff like this as a scapegoat so they can be cheap and make more money.
(articles on how employers use situations like these as a excuse)
Using the economy as an excuse to shortchange employees | Raoul Pop (http://raoulpop.com/2009/01/06/using-the-economy-as-an-excuse-to-shortchange-employees/)
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/15/fashion/15benefit.html?pagewanted=all
It's a cop out.
NC_Skins 07-10-2012, 12:06 PM In a perfect world, we would have a small government that had minimum regulations and restrictions on its people and its economy.
The sad reality of it, is that you have to hold people's hand in order to get them to do the right thing. Don't believe me, take away all laws and see what happens. It always is a double edge sword, but sometimes it is a necessary one.
Remove regulations from banks and corporations. They'll end up collapsing the economy and providing workers with unsafe conditions and petty pay.
Remove EPA regulations and the environment will be destroyed by corporations and businesses trying to make a buck.
Now, I would rather our government not be involved, but it's been proven time and time and time and TIME again that businesses (and people) have to be regulated.
The thing that kills me with most conservatives is that what do they actually think is going to happen when you deregulate? They are allowed to run wild, and that's exactly what they'll do. Why? Because their primary focus is to make as much as money as possible, even if that means using unethical means to do it.
Do we really want to go back to these days? I know the rich elites do.
http://images.businessweek.com/ss/06/08/personalbest_timeline/image/jaygould.jpg
firstdown 07-10-2012, 12:46 PM Not sure how they don't support my position when I didn't state a position. I stated that Fox News was exaggerating and distorting, which they were. They make it to seem that this tax is going to end jobs, stifle innovation, and make health care costs go up that much more. The stuff I posted (one being from somebody within the industry) says otherwise. Also, I really doubt companies are cutting back on R&D right now in response to any taxes. Many companies use stuff like this as a scapegoat so they can be cheap and make more money.
(articles on how employers use situations like these as a excuse)
Using the economy as an excuse to shortchange employees | Raoul Pop (http://raoulpop.com/2009/01/06/using-the-economy-as-an-excuse-to-shortchange-employees/)
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/15/fashion/15benefit.html?pagewanted=all
It's a cop out.
I love your links. The first one had an unnamed first example. The 2nd used Adobe saying it laid off employees and was not loosing business but the link showed their stock had gone from $40 some dollars to $20 some (that raking in the profits). The second uses a nanny who was not doing her job as an example. LMAO
12thMan 07-10-2012, 01:54 PM @mlmpetert,
This is a really good way to frame the discussion. Good questions. Some I've considered but mostly on the pro-side. Before I delve into my answer(s), I just want to correct one or two things you said and then take a step back to help understand "Obamacare" from a slightly different angle.
It's not a bill. It's the law of the land and has been for two years. I know you know that, but it makes a difference in terms of how we discuss and/or debate the law. Once we peel back the term "Obamacare" for a second and call it by it's proper name, The Patient's Bill of Rights/Affordable Care Act, that too makes a huge difference. Most people hear "Obamacare" and immediately certain images, right or wrong, pop into their heads. For the sake of our discussion, Obamacare is fine. Just wanted to point that out.
Secondly, this law doesn't cover ALL Americans. It covers approximately 30 million (revised number per CBO). That's it. No undocumented immigrants and no one gets free medical care. No free rides. Period. That said, all Americans insurance plans aren't directly affected by this law. So most of what we're debating isn't what falls under the Patient Bill of Rights Act portion, because if we go point by point, the vast majority of people here -- left and right -- would agree with most of those rights. What we're debating is the individual mandate. Correct? The idea that those who *don't* have insurance should. Okay, that sounds pretty libertarian to me. Pull your own weight, pal. Is that an expansion of the social safety net. Sure. But it's also an economic imperative. Too much of the nations debt, too much of our GDP is driven by healthcare costs. It's ludicrous to say you're a fiscal hawk and want to do absolutely nothing about our broken healthcare system. It doesn't make moral sense or fiscal sense.
And to that end, I absolutely agree with the court's decision. Whether it falls under the Commerce Clause or the Congress' taxing authority is besides the point in my opinion. It's the law of the land. It was the right thing to do. Republicans believed so in the 90s, Democrats got it passed in the 2000s. This wasn't a unique idea. This wasn't some new radical Obama agenda. Both parties have embraced the idea of universal healthcare at one time or another. The political will power just wasn't there in the past. This time is was and the Supreme Court validated the law passed by the other two branches of government. So you have ALL three branches on the same page regarding a Republican concept.
In terms of Nanny State and redistribution of wealth. I touched on this earlier. There are no giveaways under this law. You can't give me one example, under this law, of "free health insurance". In fact, you appear to contradicting yourself. You say Congress is forcing people to buy insurance, then you turnaround and call it free and wealth distribution. Which is it? There are some tax credits for lower income families who decide to purchase insurance. That's hardly Nanny state. I've yet to see a definitive argument that explains how this is redistribution of wealth. I'm open ears if you want to take a stab it.
The Supreme Court limited the Medicaid provision of the law, basically giving the states ability to deny funding or opt out. In some cases I don't think it's a wise move, but I can live with states making decisions based on the needs of the people and not politics. My biggest concern is how do we address cost containment. I've neither read nor heard anything that says with certainty that costs will come down dramatically because of the law. It's an imperfect law with room for improvement. Just like Social Security and other social programs that passed in their original form. It will be a lot better in the coming years.
NC_Skins 07-10-2012, 03:22 PM I love your links. The first one had an unnamed first example. The 2nd used Adobe saying it laid off employees and was not loosing business but the link showed their stock had gone from $40 some dollars to $20 some (that raking in the profits). The second uses a nanny who was not doing her job as an example. LMAO
Yes. They showed where Adobe reported record revenues and still laid off people.
Adobe registered fourth-quarter revenue of $915.3 million, up $4.1 million from Q4 2007 and up $23.9 million from last quarter. Net revenue was $245.9 million, working out to 46 cents / share. Annual revenues were also record-breaking -- $3.580 billion, for 13% year-over-year growth. That's in line with the company's targets at the start of the year.
It's not hard to figure this out. It's called PR. Why would a company take the negative PR hit on slashing jobs when they can just point at the economy and use that as an excuse? The point of the links was to show that instead of companies (small, big, etc) coming out and taking the negative PR hit, they just used the shitty economy as their excuse to lay off people(or fire nannies) even if the bad economy didn't affect them in any way. Politicians then piggy back off of the companies excuses to blame whoever is in office at the time for such job loss even though it had nothing to do with them.
Also, you do realize you can be highly productive and your stock still plummet right? You do realize that in 2008, the stock market and Wall Street took a huge dump? You remember, your good ole buddy GWB right? Those years!
|