Opposing Obamacare = racism?

[B_24065]

If that was true, then we would have passed a measure already.



Perhaps. You do make a point there.



No. His opposition is private health insurance companies and the people they've bought out.



Bullshit... they're also part of the problem just as much as the Democrats because many of them have been "bought out" too.



Again, we agree on something. Wow.
But at least an offer and an effort for bipartisanship was made. That way, if Health Care Reform goes through without any Republican support nobody can claim that Obama didn't try.



The only ones self destructing are the opposition. Because the more they talk, the more you see just how out of touch they are with the rest of the world. They're the ones predicting doom less than a year into the new administration's actions. That's a bigger sign of inexperience to me.



That would mean that people are liking him more if his disapproval rate is falling. You may want to try this one again. "rolleyes:

I actually do not blame Obama primarily for the lack of bi-partisanship. I think the blame for that falls squarely on congressional democrats, who as it has been widely reported, have completely shut out the Republicans from the get. However, i do think this reflects badly on Obama for not taking charge of the situation from the beginning and "leading" this reform effort.

His opposition is much more that private insurance companies. Millions of americans do not want govt run healthcare. period. I am in favor of healthcare reform. I want to see those who cannot afford health care under the current system to have access to good healthcare. I do. But not if it means creating a govt program.

And...the more the opposition talks, the more the opposition grows amoung independents and conservative democrats. They may seem more out of touch to you, but you dont matter because you've already made up your mind before the debate started.

LOL...46% APPROVAL and falling.

 

[Pitbull]

When having a serious discussion
if someone brings up race to make a point then the proper response should be to point it out and try to resume the discussion based on substantive points.

Example:
The Obama health care program is anti-white.

Response: I don't believe that. Lets discuss the cost, the role of insurance companies, insuring those not insured and maintaining the quality of health care and ability of people to chose their plans and doctors.


It does seem that the race card is being played frequently and proactively without justification and is brought up when race is not mentioned.
(And for many issues - not just health care)

Example:
The Obama health care program is too expensive.

Response: You just don't like Obama's skin color you racist.

(Waiting to be called racist for this post)

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Nobody called them greedy because they actively pursued taking the government's hands off of our wallets by initiating tax cuts.

One that would allowed the rich to get richer, while the ones that needed the help get virtually nothing. If you look beyond the words "tax cut" and see who benefitted from it the most, it does spell out "greed".

So, those who let us keep our hard-earned money are not greedy, they are mindful of how to stimulate the economy.

Nice spin, but I'm not buying it.
It's not whether or not those who are wealthy can keep their money. It's whether or not their need to make money becomes so great that it involves destroying the lives of smaller people around them to get it. We all know that the actions of the Private Health Insurance sector have done nothing to stimulate the economy for the common, everyday person.

Ask yourself this question: With Obama in power, and a democratic congress, and all of this pending expensive legislation, are people more or less likely to spend their money?

They're going to spend money regardless because of everyday survival and necessity. Food, gas, shelter, health care... if these prices continue to climb, it's not as if anyone is going to stop eating, stop paying rent or stop heating them. That's an irrelevant question.

Look at the economy. We are less likely, because we are afraid of being taxed into oblivion.

I don't think so. I doubt many people would have a problem paying taxes if they went towards issues and concerns that they cared about and it provided real results. Which is why you see several people on this very board praise the efforts necessary for the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars while ignoring the efforts necessary for Health Care and vice versa.

Everything has a cost and it's not going to fund itself.

We are all trying to save for the upcoming rainy days of government takeovers, and therefore the economy is hurting, because nobody is spending.

Let's get real. Nobody is trying to save us from a Government takeover because in a way they already control everything. The reason why very few people are spending money is because most of them can't afford it to begin with. No matter how you word it, the underlying factor to all of this is the concept of greed and I will not feed or even pander to it.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

I actually do not blame Obama primarily for the lack of bi-partisanship. I think the blame for that falls squarely on congressional democrats, who as it has been widely reported, have completely shut out the Republicans from the get. However, i do think this reflects badly on Obama for not taking charge of the situation from the beginning and "leading" this reform effort.

To some degree, yes.

His opposition is much more that private insurance companies. Millions of americans do not want govt run healthcare. period.

And millions more do. Again, the issue is why? Are the opposition truly informed on their decisions and are voicing concern because of it? Or are they just trumpeting beaten-to-death rhetoric?

I am in favor of healthcare reform. I want to see those who cannot afford health care under the current system to have access to good healthcare. I do. But not if it means creating a govt program.

The only option then becomes a private program, one that will fall in the same trap of every other major corporation with their obsessive need to make profit becoming more important than the quality of care it provides. We don't need that happening either.

And...the more the opposition talks, the more the opposition grows amoung independents and conservative democrats. They may seem more out of touch to you, but you dont matter because you've already made up your mind before the debate started.

To be honest, I sincerely doubt that anyone is truly "undecided" in this matter. The bottom line is money and whether or not this new program will affect your own personal pocketbook. That doesn't take months to figure out. The more and more people sit on the fence on this issue, the more it appears that some are just waiting for the right time to cash in their chips. This isn't a difficult decision to make.

LOL...46% APPROVAL and falling.

Some people will never be satisfied and Obama's approval rating can't stay in the stratosphere forever. There's always going to be highs and lows. This number doesn't phase me in the least. So what good does the laugher make when nobody is feeling the joke?

 

[Ericsson1228d]

One that would allowed the rich to get richer, while the ones that needed the help get virtually nothing. If you look beyond the words "tax cut" and see who benefitted from it the most, it does spell out "greed".



Nice spin, but I'm not buying it.
It's not whether or not those who are wealthy can keep their money. It's whether or not their need to make money becomes so great that it involves destroying the lives of smaller people around them to get it. We all know that the actions of the Private Health Insurance sector have done nothing to stimulate the economy for the common, everyday person.

**** It's called the American dream. Work hard and you can succeed. Not everyone can be a CEO or a Surgeon. Those surgeons need roads to drive on and people to fix their Benzs.


They're going to spend money regardless because of everyday survival and necessity. Food, gas, shelter, health care... if these prices continue to climb, it's not as if anyone is going to stop eating, stop paying rent or stop heating them. That's an irrelevant question.

*****Not, it is not an "irrelevant question," but kudos on your attempt to avoid the issue. The real question is discretionary spending. For many people, the "necessities" are less than 1/2 of their income. Now, they are keeping money in the bank instead of spending it. If some female CEO decides to cut back, she can fire her maid, sell one of her cars, and perhaps only spend 10k per month on clothes instead of 20k, and put the rest in the bank or investments. Now, who suffers? The Economy does. The maid does. The clothier does. Some call it trickle down, but how else are the lower classes or the uneducated to make a living? Oh yes! The Government will give them money! Cue the Welfare Queens!

I don't think so. I doubt many people would have a problem paying taxes if they went towards issues and concerns that they cared about and it provided real results. Which is why you see several people on this very board praise the efforts necessary for the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars while ignoring the efforts necessary for Health Care and vice versa.

Everything has a cost and it's not going to fund itself.

*****I agree with that. Everything has a cost. What is wrong with everyone being told this? Let's tell the welfare queens about this mystical concept that things cost money. Housing costs money, food costs money, healthcare costs money. People on welfare who expect their government checks are like 4 year old children. They want things. They want people to buy them things, but they don't seem to realize that things have a cost, and the way to pay for them is by WORKING.

Let's get real. Nobody is trying to save us from a Government takeover because in a way they already control everything. The reason why very few people are spending money is because most of them can't afford it to begin with. No matter how you word it, the underlying factor to all of this is the concept of greed and I will not feed or even pander to it.

*****We are trying to prevent a FURTHER takeover. Government is WAY TOO BIG as it is.


****s indicate Ericsson's Responses. He's the one you are either cheering or calling a racist.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

t's called the American dream. Work hard and you can succeed. Not everyone can be a CEO or a Surgeon. Those surgeons need roads to drive on and people to fix their Benzs.

The 'American Dream' is nothing more than a rhetorical statement used to paint some kind of ideal image of society. Simply saying "work hard and you can succeed" doesn't cut it, because many people do just that and they're still struggling.

Not, it is not an "irrelevant question," but kudos on your attempt to avoid the issue. The real question is discretionary spending. For many people, the "necessities" are less than 1/2 of their income. Now, they are keeping money in the bank instead of spending it. If some female CEO decides to cut back, she can fire her maid, sell one of her cars, and perhaps only spend 10k per month on clothes instead of 20k, and put the rest in the bank or investments. Now, who suffers? The Economy does. The maid does. The clothier does. Some call it trickle down, but how else are the lower classes or the uneducated to make a living? Oh yes! The Government will give them money! Cue the Welfare Queens!

First off, I didn't dodge the question. I told you exactly what was on my mind. Trying to act as if the government is somehow committing a huge crime by taxing the rich more is disingenuous. There’s no need to point out percentages, such as a person’s “necessities” being less than one half of their income, when there are millions of people who work hard, barely make more than a working or lower middle class wage and still see the majority of their money go towards maintaining their home (or paying rent), keeping food in their stomach, the phone, light, water, medical & heating bills paid. Unless you’ve walked the shoes or are willing to fully understand and work with those who really do struggle in our society, you can’t realistically tell them how much they will need in order to live comfortably. Hell, most of the “rich” can’t even determine that for themselves and they're the ones with all the dinero.

And BTW, trumpeting rhetoric like “Cue The Welfare Queens” just further discredits your argument. As if poor people seek out to be on government assistance forever while using the money to buy Cadillacs. Let’s keep the focus where it belongs, OK?

I agree with that. Everything has a cost. What is wrong with everyone being told this? Let's tell the welfare queens about this mystical concept that things cost money. Housing costs money, food costs money, healthcare costs money. People on welfare who expect their government checks are like 4 year old children. They want things. They want people to buy them things, but they don't seem to realize that things have a cost, and the way to pay for them is by WORKING.

That’s twice with the Welfare Queens. I guess you really have sipped the rich man’s Kool-Aid. How disappointing.

We can say the same thing about the wealthy “wanting” everything. They’re the ones whining and complaining about tax cuts, all the while spending money to excess. Even with the current tax system in place, they still live better than anyone on this board and more than 90% of our nation. You’d be fooling yourself if you think that everyone who is currently making money did it by “working hard”. Most people inherit or marry into wealth. Many play the stock market and gamble their ways into it. Many CEOs wheel, deal & steal it. Is that what you’re referring to when you say “working”?

Nobody disagrees about things having a cost… but the cost for everyday necessity continues to go up while wages for the working and middle class doesn’t keep up.

We are trying to prevent a FURTHER takeover. Government is WAY TOO BIG as it is.

You can stop the propaganda… Private Health Insurance Companies are only out to pad their own pockets here. They don't want to lose profits. And they're doing whatever they can to persuade the American people that the failing systems that is currently milking them for every penny is perfectly fine. Government run health care will not prevent any private entity from doing their business. When it boils down to it, the ones with the money are afraid of the competition. They know that many struggling Americans will abandon them and go to a Public Option if an affordable option was presented.

He's the one you are either cheering or calling a racist.

What's funnier is that Obama's opposition has thrown the word around more than people like me and trust me when I say that I know the difference. Don’t try to lowbrow or downplay the allegation to spin it into some kind of pointless political drivel. I have no reason to call you a racist… yet. Let’s try to keep it that way because GREED, which is the real issue here, has no color bias.

 

[Ericsson1228d]

I would stop debating and shut my mouth if just one person could show me in the constitution where were are guaranteed: 1) income 2) health care 3) housing.

I can't seem to find it anywhere, yet people are clamoring that these things need to be supplied by the government.

hmmm

 

[B_VinylBoy]

I would stop debating and shut my mouth if just one person could show me in the constitution where were are guaranteed: 1) income 2) health care 3) housing.

I can't seem to find it anywhere, yet people are clamoring that these things need to be supplied by the government.

hmmm

Another cop-out.
Hiding behind the Constitution is like religious zealots hiding behind the Bible... it does not help anyone to come up with any solutions to today's problems. But it is a great way to build a shield of self-imposed morality to deflect the issues. Did a Welfare Queen teach you that one?

 

[seterwind]

YouTube - A Part of Our Heritage - Myrnam Hospital (Free Health Care)

Don't know if this means anything to Americans, but this is a little tid bit (and if you watch the others more about) Canada, and how it came to be, including it's health care.

 

[Pitbull]

I would stop debating and shut my mouth if just one person could show me in the constitution where were are guaranteed: 1) income 2) health care 3) housing.

I can't seem to find it anywhere, yet people are clamoring that these things need to be supplied by the government.

hmmm

Another cop-out.
Hiding behind the Constitution is like religious zealots hiding behind the Bible... it does not help anyone to come up with any solutions to today's problems. But it is a great way to build a shield of self-imposed morality to deflect the issues. Did a Welfare Queen teach you that one?

So the Constitution is now an irrelevant religious document?
Lets just ignore it and do whatever we (i.e. you - because my opinions and rights don't count) want to.

I do believe that in 1788 when the constitution was ratified people still needed to eat, got sick, needed a place to live and needed an income to buy things. Difference is that they were not expecting someone else to give them these things.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

So the Constitution is now an irrelevant religious document?

Re-read the comment. Nowhere was I comparing the two documents. I was making a comparison of the types of people who hide behind documents such as the Bible and the Constitution in order to defend their twisted beliefs.

Lets just ignore it and do whatever we (i.e. you - because my opinions and rights don't count) want to.

There are plenty of things in law and government that we follow that are not mentioned in the Constitution. The right to privacy is one of them. No taxation without representation is another. Also the separation of church and state. But they are understood and acted upon accordingly.

Things That Are Not In the U.S. Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

I do believe that in 1788 when the constitution was ratified people still needed to eat, got sick, needed a place to live and needed an income to buy things. Difference is that they were not expecting someone else to give them these things.

And they weren't expecting women to have a right to vote either. Your point?

 

[Pendlum]

Were there insurance companies and HMOs when the constitution was ratified? I don't think procedures were as expensive then as they are today. There was no brain surgery or life support. No expensive medications with fancy names. So if I lived backed then, I wouldn't expect it to be provided to me because my survival rate has a lot to do with luck with a dash of "medical" knowledge.

But yeah, Constitution >>>>>>>>>>>>> Bible every time.

 

[Ericsson1228d]

And they weren't expecting women to have a right to vote either. Your point?[/QUOTE]


Thats what amendments and the legislative process are for. The constitution was *amended* to give women the right to vote.

I'm still looking for the welfare and healthcare amendment.

BTW, I asked a Canadian friend of mine about the health care system. He said that "for little things, colds, flu, checkups, vaccinations, stitches, prescriptions, it is fantastic, but if you are really sick: cancer, etc, you go to the USA if you want to live." Again this is one man's opinion, but he has experienced both worlds.

YEs, I suppose I am buying into Obama's "Canadian Boogey Man" argument, but there is some truth behind it. I still want to see Barack get on TV and say "Boogity Boogity Boogity" while trying to scare us. That would be worth watching.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Thats what amendments and the legislative process are for. The constitution was *amended* to give women the right to vote.

If you want to get technical, the amendment states that you can't deny someone of legal age (18+) the right to vote based on race or gender. We all know this, but that's not the argument that Pitbull was presenting. He's falling into the same "Founding Father" rhetoric which assumes everything that they wrote the first time was perfect the way it is and doesn't need changing. And if that's the case, then why have we needed to provide several amendments to it?

I'm still looking for the welfare and healthcare amendment.

You don't need one in order for it to happen. Like I stated before, many things in our government have been passed or done without the need to amend the constitution.

BTW, I asked a Canadian friend of mine about the health care system. He said that "for little things, colds, flu, checkups, vaccinations, stitches, prescriptions, it is fantastic, but if you are really sick: cancer, etc, you go to the USA if you want to live." Again this is one man's opinion, but he has experienced both worlds.

Perhaps I can request Midlifebear to come in and speak from his own experiences with health care in different countries? I'm sure if we talk to many different people, we'll get different results that can further sway one's decision if you want to remain objective. Just saying that you know someone doesn't cut it, unless you want to suggest that your friend represents and entire country of 33,212,696 people.

YEs, I suppose I am buying into Obama's "Canadian Boogey Man" argument, but there is some truth behind it. I still want to see Barack get on TV and say "Boogity Boogity Boogity" while trying to scare us. That would be worth watching.

I'm sure you think you're being witty and sarcastic with this comment, but really it makes your argument look infantile. Besides, don't we have private health care & pharmaceutical companies doing a good job at paying off political & news pundits to do all the scaring in this case?

YouTube - FOX NEWS ADMITS~FEMA CAMPS!!! with GLENN BECK!!!
YouTube - FOX News: Militia are New World Order & FEMA Death Camp Nuts
YouTube - Conservative Media's Culture Of Death: Zombie Smears In The Health Care Debate

Seriously... that's something Obama doesn't have to do. You guys got that covered.

 

[Pitbull]

And they weren't expecting women to have a right to vote either. Your point?

Thats what amendments and the legislative process are for. The constitution was *amended* to give women the right to vote.

Took the words out of my mouth.

We all know this, but that's not the argument that Pitbull was presenting. He's falling into the same "Founding Father" rhetoric which assumes everything that they wrote the first time was perfect the way it is and doesn't need changing. And if that's the case, then why have we needed to provide several amendments to it?

Putting words into my mouth.


Wouldn't it be much easier for you if I were actually the idiot you try to make me out to be.
Then your stupid arguments might seem to make sense.

I would never make the argument that the constitution was perfect and wouldn't need changing. As you just pointed out, it contains a built in mechanism for change - not really the thing that would be in a perfect document not needing change.

But because there is a mechanism for change, and since the constitution is the supreme document of the law of the land, it is only right to follow the procedure outlined for major changes and not trying to circumvent them or ignoring them.

There are parts of the constitution you may not like but they just can't be ignored like they aren't there.
Even if some of today's problems are not the same as the problems of 1788.

 

[jexeter87]

Your Constitution was only ever amended in line with prevailing (public) sentiment. Once it was decided immoral for women not to be able to vote on the basis of their gender alone, it was put into the Constitution that they are allowed to vote. You're getting confused with the direction of cause and effect, gentlemen. Only once there's significant support for public provision of healthcare will it ever exist, and only then will it be a candidate for inclusion in the Constitution.

 

[Ericsson1228d]

This is probably best left to an "agree to disagree" sentiment. This is the wonderful thing about this country, that we can have open debates about the issues of the day.

I don't think there is a single "right" answer for the challenges that face this country. I for one would be terrified if the government suddenly said "welfare ends tomorrow," we would have bedlam and our society would take significant steps backward. I guess I just have to believe that there is a better way.

I'm also (perhaps not surprisingly) a fan of Antonin Scalia, who I feel is probably the finest constitutional scholar around and we are lucky to have him on the bench. He is an originalist, which establishes that the constitution has a knowable meaning at the time it was written - in other words, unlike the Bible, for argument, it does not require "interpretation." Again, this is just my opinion, and others are certainly free to disagree (and frequently do).

I am enjoying this stimulating debate.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Pitbull: Keep in mind, dear... this time you were the one to insult first.
Unlike you, I didn't need someone to type out or explain what an amendment was. As much as you want to think that Ericsson1228d's response actually helps your argument makes you even more ignorant than you appear to be. Again, here is your statement:

I do believe that in 1788 when the constitution was ratified people still needed to eat, got sick, needed a place to live and needed an income to buy things. Difference is that they were not expecting someone else to give them these things.

Back in 1788 when the Founding Fathers made the Constitution there was no amendment allowing women to vote. Plus, you made absolutely no reference to additional changes made to the Constitution. Therefore it is easy for anyone to assume that you were referencing to the document at the particular date you mentioned. Perhaps if you were more interested in debating this civilly you would have figured this out. Apparently not. You can type 10,000 ASCII characters per post on this board. Maybe you should stop trying to get cute with your posts and make sure to be as thorough as possible? If you know how...

Secondly, you make no reference to things that aren't in the Constitution that we as American citizens still honor and follow, many of which are also enforced by law. The link I provided previously further illustrates that. Many of which I know you hold onto yourself as important. So really, does there need to be an amendment made to the Constitution in order to grant Health Care to Americans as a right? The answer is no.

Of course, telling this to you doesn't matter because you'd rather hide behind the Constitution whenever you're presented with a question you can't answer or just want to further illustrate just how belligerent, stubborn and purposely ignorant you are to the issues at hand. So please, if you're not going to debate this properly I suggest you place me on ignore (or at least try to ignore me). And trust me dear... you wouldn't be privileged enough to have me put anything in your mouth, never mind an objective argument.

 

[Pitbull]

Therefore it is easy for anyone to assume that you were referencing to the document at the particular date you mentioned.

Easy to assume, but incorrect.
On what basis do you make that assumption except that by trying to ascribe something to me that I never said strengthens your argument?

So really, does there need to be an amendment made to the Constitution in order to grant Health Care to Americans as a right? The answer is no.

The Bill of Rights in The Constitution all enumerated what people were allowed to do as free people or what the government was or was not allowed to do.
The problem with health care as a "right" is that it does not bear any resemblance to what a right is as used when writing Constitution.
It does not grant or protect any freedom.
It grants goods and services.
It forces others to provide those goods and services under terms set by the government.
So if health care is a right and you are on some government plan, then the pharmacy must give you your medication under terms and prices dictated by the government.
So if the government is dictating, we are becoming a dictatorship and much less of a free nation.

What Obama and the Democrats are trying to do (and Republicans are cooperating - make no mistake - it is just the degree that is different) with the government involvement in health care is detrimental to both the health and freedom of its citizens.

Health care is not a right.

Of course, telling this to you doesn't matter because you'd rather hide behind the Constitution whenever you're presented with a question you can't answer or just want to further illustrate just how belligerent, stubborn and purposely ignorant you are to the issues at hand.
(I detect insults)

Referring to The Constitution is not hiding behind it.

So please, if you're not going to debate this properly I suggest you place me on ignore (or at least try to ignore me).

I do not need to put you on ignore.
I do ignore most of what you write and with good reason.

The problem with me debating properly is my debate opponent.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

You seem to be missing the point, Pitbull... as usual.
Once again, you're saying that Health Care isn't a "right" according to the Constitution, therefore it should not be pushed by our Government as one. But as I already stated before, there are many things not listed in our Constitution that we do hold as rights up to this day even without Amendments. I already listed the right to privacy, No taxation without representation and the separation of church and state as three of them. And I can also include "Innocent Until Proven Guilty". Did you even decide to click on the link I provided before? Probably not... which is why you totally ignored and/or disregarded the opposing argument to begin with.

Your need to shove the Constitution in my face as a means to defend your beliefs is futile, although I can understand how you may want to hide behind it since it does hold such strong symbolism for our country. Like I said before, it's a perfect shield for avoiding or deflecting the real issue which is based more on GREED than anything else. The problem with the rest of your argument is that somehow you think this is going to force private entities to undergo treatment under terms set by the government and there's no proof to this assessment. The government plan will be completely separate from privately owned companies, so private entities wouldn't have to change their policies if they don't have to. And please... as long as we have millions of people who are on Medicare & Medicaid, two government ran health services with Nationwide approval ratings at 76% and 71%, to even suggest that government involvement in health care would be harmful to people is just bullshit.

And yes... you were right to detect insults in my follow up response because this time you were the one to do it first. If I recall, I never addressed you nor beckoned for your response. You were the one who quoted me and then try to refer to my argument as stupid based on your own preconceived notions of what I know. And for what.. because I don't agree with your assessment on a rhetorical question that has no right or wrong answer to begin with? Pick your battles wisely, Pitbull...