Opposing Obamacare = racism?

Ericsson1228d

Experimental Member
Joined
May 22, 2005
Posts
579
Media
0
Likes
2
Points
236
Location
MI, USA
Gender
Male
Obama's approval rating continues to decline. People are catching on and they are upset. People who live in Democracies do not like Socialist ideas.

Also, to contrast with a previous poster, I do not feel that the number one problem in America is GREED. I counter that that number one problem in America is LAZINESS and people who want expect the government to support them in every way.

BTW, does anyone else feel amused (okay, smug) to see the democratic party self-destruct as they all turn on each other? I mean, the perpetual victims are victimizing each other! They probably are loving this additional degree of being "victimized" by their own party. I love it!
 

thirdlegmeat

Sexy Member
Joined
May 17, 2004
Posts
524
Media
0
Likes
75
Points
248
Age
34
Location
Los Angeles
"They are spreading fear and they're trying to see that the first president who looks like me -- fails."

Is that all she has... the race card???!!!

No sweetcheeks, it's a bad idea. We don't care if comes from the green dude named The Great Gazoo. And sweetheart, even if it does go in, we don't want it RUSHED in a couple weeks. If one doesn't like nationalized healthcare, you are a racist ... got it.

I know there are some redneck racists and blah blah blah, but libtards, your own constituents are just as bad. Calling out racism for the sake of it, is just as bad as being a racist. In fact, the original definition of racism is thinking/acting/judging with prejudicial regard to race.


And politicians calling out a media member (regardless of affiliation) is a sign of patheticsm. They should be above it, and that includes Republican McCotter calling out Olbermann, and this bimbo calling out Limbaugh.

You're absolutely right. It can't be that there is legitimate opposition to nationalized healthcare--especially in a historically free and independent nation. Oh no... that's not it. It's those evil, white, racist Southerners. Sure...

If you can't win the argument with logic, win it through emotion. Oh...and for the record, over 20% of African Americans now regret voting for Premier Obama. Are they racist??? :cool:
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Obama's approval rating continues to decline. People are catching on and they are upset. People who live in Democracies do not like Socialist ideas.

That is SO not the point, no matter how many times you try to say the word. Stop feeding into the rhetoric.

Also, to contrast with a previous poster

Don't worry... you can call me out on this. I don't bite unless provoked.

I do not feel that the number one problem in America is GREED. I counter that that number one problem in America is LAZINESS and people who want expect the government to support them in every way.

The same cries of laziness also goes to those who don't think for themselves either. You know the type... the ones that actually believe the rhetoric about the American Dream, Welfare Moms, about how the poor does nothing but ask for handouts, and how everyone from the Middle Class on down who struggles with healthcare costs just need to "work harder"? Why limit the term "lazy" to those who are just down on their luck and cannot get a job, during an economy where the Unemployment Rate is close to 10%? You know, if you want a TRUE analysis of "lazy" that doesn't leave any stone unturned and isn't just politically biased to one side?

In the end, it's all GREED anyhow. Because who benefits from your "lazy" talk? The same corporate enterprises that paid all the money to generate that message for you. They spend BILLIONS of dollars in advertising and merchandising just for you to fall into that mindset. And guess who is gonna have to pay for it all in the end? Not Ms. Welfare Queen, as long as she's entitled to her benefits. Not the Unemployed unless you think they're somehow not entitled to their Unemployment Check after working for so many years. Not the ones who can't afford Healthcare or food. But I'll give you a hint... just look in a mirror. :rolleyes:

BTW, does anyone else feel amused (okay, smug) to see the democratic party self-destruct as they all turn on each other? I mean, the perpetual victims are victimizing each other! They probably are loving this additional degree of being "victimized" by their own party. I love it!

And that's the biggest problem of them all.
The opposition has been too busy playing "party politics" instead of trying to find a solution to the problems we're facing. They screamed the rhetoric about how everyone believed Obama was some kind of messiah... how he was going to wave some magic wand and correct all the problems of the world. Instead of trying to work together, their main concern was to see Obama fail. Who knows if that will actually happen. But if it does and our nation is worse off than we were at the start, what do YOU think the next person is going to be able to do? But let's not think about that for now, right? Let's not worry about the future... you just want to win and somehow you sense the light at the end of the tunnel. How shameful. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

Industrialsize

Mythical Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Posts
22,254
Media
213
Likes
32,170
Points
618
Location
Kathmandu (Bagmati Province, Nepal)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
You're absolutely right. It can't be that there is legitimate opposition to nationalized healthcare--especially in a historically free and independent nation. Oh no... that's not it. It's those evil, white, racist Southerners. Sure...

If you can't win the argument with logic, win it through emotion. Oh...and for the record, over 20% of African Americans now regret voting for Premier Obama. Are they racist??? :cool:
Care to show where you found this Poll????
 

Florida Boy

Sexy Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Posts
1,328
Media
0
Likes
82
Points
518
Location
Florida (United States)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
"If you can't win the argument with logic, win it through emotion. Oh...and for the record, over 20% of African Americans now regret voting for Premier Obama. Are they racist??? "

One thing you can count or your ilk in almost any discussion: "The truth be damned." If the help you support your views the words are perfectly ok to use. The only requirement is that they, for the most part, form a sentence. Please site the poll on that 20%.
 

Ericsson1228d

Experimental Member
Joined
May 22, 2005
Posts
579
Media
0
Likes
2
Points
236
Location
MI, USA
Gender
Male
Please detail his 'socialist ideas' then correlate them to the definition of socialism....please.

Okay, Let's define socialism. Socialism refers to theories of economic organization advocating state, worker or public ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with an egalitarian method of compensation. [Here is where Obama wants the STATE (federal govt) to own and allocate healthcare - through his 'public option.']

Socialists advocate the creation of a society that allows for the widespread application of modern technology to rationalize economic activity by eliminating the anarchy in production of capitalism. The part in bold references Obama's 'redistribution of wealth' ideas, which he has states on camera, so don't lie and tell me that I am making that up or 'reading into it. He used that exact term. Also, if the state runs health care, it will have to be RATIONED, because everyone cannot have unlimited access to doctors, etc, because health care is not an unlimited commodity.

When the government owns it, and decides how much each person can get, regardless of "how much they contribute," then it is SOCIALISM.

How about this for a new idea. When you pay your taxes, you are given a "Priority Number" based on how much taxes you pay. The more you pay, you get a premium on your health care service. Therefore, if I pay 37K a year in taxes, I don't have to wait to see my doctor for a sore throat, but someone who pays ZERO in taxes or who is on the GOVERNMENT DOLE can wait, because they have not contributed at all. I think that is a great system, that way the people who PAY the majority of taxes in this country don't feel FUCKED when they have to pay for a system that they will likely never use because they can afford health care insurance on their own, no matter what the cost.

Also, with socialized medicine, the middle class gets screwed over. Here's why.

1. Middle class family making 40K a year. Can use government public option, but will have to wait for days and days to see a doctor, and heaven forbid if they get sick. Why do they have to wait? The resource is limited. So, they scrimp and save and buy private insurance to bypass the second-rate health care. They suffer because they pay for both systems, because they want access to good health care in a timely fashion.

2. The Rich people. They could care less, they will continue to have their personal doctors and ironclad insurance plans, and are happy to pay for them, as they afford them with ease.

3. The lower/welfare class. They are rejoicing because they get another benefit for free, and easier access to health care. They pay nothing.


So, in this scenario, who gets screwed? Yes, the middle class, who ends up paying for their own, and for all of the lower class as well.

If you don't think this would happen, and that the middle class would just use the public option, then public schools would not exist. Parents of the middle class scrimp and save to send their kids to private schools, because in many areas the public schools are atrocious. Sure, they are free, but these parents care about their kid's education. The same thing will happen with healthcare.
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
How about this for a new idea. When you pay your taxes, you are given a "Priority Number" based on how much taxes you pay. The more you pay, you get a premium on your health care service. Therefore, if I pay 37K a year in taxes, I don't have to wait to see my doctor for a sore throat, but someone who pays ZERO in taxes or who is on the GOVERNMENT DOLE can wait, because they have not contributed at all. I think that is a great system, that way the people who PAY the majority of taxes in this country don't feel FUCKED when they have to pay for a system that they will likely never use because they can afford health care insurance on their own, no matter what the cost.

As if the people described in your scenario would even be found in the same clinic. :rolleyes:
Seriously... if someone is paying $37K in taxes every year, they would be grossing close to $150K a year. Here's a calculator if you don't believe me. 2009 federal tax rate schedules

Not only would this person have their own insurance (through their employment or their own funds due to self employment), but they would make sure that they wouldn't subject themselves to the same, low budget neighborhood clinic that the poor person with no income would have to go to. I make a working class wage and go to a neighborhood clinic. No "upper class" or "rich" people would even dream of going there.

You seem to forget that the people who pay more taxes, make more money as well. Are you honestly suggesting that we make a system that gives priority service to those who make the most money? Think about that LONG AND HARD about that... because if that does happen, don't you think you're going to be on the short end of the stick as well? That is, unless you want to make the claim that you make six figures or more and won't have to worry about it.

And to fan the flames a bit more... I get health coverage from my day job which takes care of the basic necessities. My hubby of 5+ years who actually DOES make six figures and pays for his own health insurance through his own self employment would rather be on MY PLAN because it would cost him less per year to cover his necessities. I should be able to add him to my coverage if I upgraded to a Family Plan and I'm paying for it, however we can't do that because the insurance company doesn't acknowledge same sex unions. And they say we don't need Healthcare Reform... :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

Ericsson1228d

Experimental Member
Joined
May 22, 2005
Posts
579
Media
0
Likes
2
Points
236
Location
MI, USA
Gender
Male
As if the people described in your scenario would even be found in the same clinic. :rolleyes:
Seriously... if someone is paying $37K in taxes every year, they would be grossing close to $150K a year. Here's a calculator if you don't believe me. 2009 federal tax rate schedules

Unfortunately, I am painfully aware of the tax tables.

And, by the time the government is done taxing into oblivion, making 100K a year is a far cry from "rich" especially when supporting a family. I know it is new concept to some, but people in this country actually do go to work to support themselves and their loved ones.

Doesn't it bother you that people who value "an honest day's work" are ridiculed by others in society who are, in fact, supported by those who work? Makes me sick.
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Unfortunately, I am painfully aware of the tax tables.

OK, then. I'll take your word at it.

And, by the time the government is done taxing into oblivion, making 100K a year is a far cry from "rich" especially when supporting a family.

And this is coming from someone who knows the tax tables? Maybe your tables are not the same ones regular Americans use? For many, the average a family makes for this country isn't even 50% of your projected figure, with state median income (even at average) not making it in the six figures for ANY state.

ESTIMATED STATE MEDIAN INCOME, BY FAMILY SIZE AND BY STATE FOR FY <b style="color:black;background-color:#ff9999">2009</b>
Income - Median Family Income in the Past 12 Months by Family Size

I'm sure if you gave these families $100K a year they would think you were a messiah.

I know it is new concept to some, but people in this country actually do go to work to support themselves and their loved ones.

You like to say that a lot... makes a "great" campaign slogan, doesn't it? An AWESOME argument when you want to belittle or downplay people who may be struggling in this country. Too bad it also tells us that you really don't have a clue what's going on with most people in America. Learn to separate the reality from the rhetoric.

Doesn't it bother you that people who value "an honest day's work" are ridiculed by others in society who are, in fact, supported by those who work? Makes me sick.

The problem is, you don't know what people are doing to make their incomes. I make a working class to lower middle class wage, however, I'd be damned if anyone here tells me that I'm not working hard. I have a full time day job, own my own business and freelance. But I'm sure if I didn't say that, showed you a dollar figure and told you what I was trying to obtain, you would say the same exact thing... "work harder".

See how "rhetoric" doesn't solve a thing? Again, try to look past that next time. Oh, and just to add more fuel to the fire... Here's a map that shows where welfare money has been going from July 2007 through June 2008. Because I'm sure you'd like to know where most of the "Welfare Queens" are coming from... :biggrin1:
http://images.publicradio.org/content/2008/08/07/20080807_welfaremap_33.JPG
 

Ericsson1228d

Experimental Member
Joined
May 22, 2005
Posts
579
Media
0
Likes
2
Points
236
Location
MI, USA
Gender
Male

Ericsson1228d

Experimental Member
Joined
May 22, 2005
Posts
579
Media
0
Likes
2
Points
236
Location
MI, USA
Gender
Male
Maybe your tables are not the same ones regular Americans use? For many, the average a family makes for this country isn't even 50% of your projected figure, with state median income (even at average) not making it in the six figures for ANY state.

ESTIMATED STATE MEDIAN INCOME, BY FAMILY SIZE AND BY STATE FOR FY <b style="color:black;background-color:#ff9999">2009</b>
Income - Median Family Income in the Past 12 Months by Family Size

I'm sure if you gave these families $100K a year they would think you were a messiah.

I never said 100K was "middle class" or "working class," I just wrote that 100K a year does not equal 'rich', i.e. multiple houses, many cars, etc, that many people equate with 'rich'

You like to say that a lot... makes a "great" campaign slogan, doesn't it? An AWESOME argument when you want to belittle or downplay people who may be struggling in this country. Too bad it also tells us that you really don't have a clue what's going on with most people in America. Learn to separate the reality from the rhetoric.

No, I agree with you. Let people have a public option if they actually are working, at any job. If the democrats would say 'you have to actually pay taxes to use this health system' I would be for it.

The problem is, you don't know what people are doing to make their incomes. I make a working class to lower middle class wage, however, I'd be damned if anyone here tells me that I'm not working hard. I have a full time day job, own my own business and freelance. But I'm sure if I didn't say that, showed you a dollar figure and told you what I was trying to obtain, you would say the same exact thing... "work harder".

No, I wouldn't say that. You see, I would only say that if you said ' here is what I am trying to obtain, and I can't do it, so I want the government and the rest of the taxpayers to give it to me. Anyone who works hard is deserving of respect. My problem is those who choose not to work, and don't give me the liberal rhetoric that everyone on welfare is trying, or willing, to work. Many are, but many more have been in the system for generations.


See how "rhetoric" doesn't solve a thing? Again, try to look past that next time.

Ever notice how "rhetoric" becomes synonymous with 'the truth liberals don't like to hear' ? I think the cry of "rhetoric" and "partisanship" are getting right up there with "racist." Something dismissive to throw out when an argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
 
D

deleted15807

Guest
[Here is where Obama wants the STATE (federal govt) to own and allocate healthcare - through his 'public option.']

Myth. You really haven't provided a strong link between the public option and government ownership. The government would have no ownership stake in any industry.

Right now Wall Street owns healthcare. Why should they own it? Why should they allocate it? Their only goal is returning value to the shareholders. Providing insurance is just the avenue to providing wealth to it's owners. Their goal is making the shareholder happy not the policyholder.

Americans would be free to chose a private option. What's so scary about having that choice?


Majority Of Americans Believe 'Myths' About Health Care Reform, National Survey Finds
 

Ericsson1228d

Experimental Member
Joined
May 22, 2005
Posts
579
Media
0
Likes
2
Points
236
Location
MI, USA
Gender
Male
Myth. You really haven't provided a strong link between the public option and government ownership. The government would have no ownership stake in any industry.

You probably also believe the Government has no ownership stake in GM.
Americans would be free to chose a private option. What's so scary about having that choice?


Because the Government Choice would be cheaper for employers, and thus a great 'business decision' to dump their workers into the shitty healthcare plan. So, basically, the Government gives employers an "easy out" to dump good (but expensive) plans. And one question, when is the last time you saw a government agency run as well as a private company? Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were the first banks to fail.

Bottom line, you get what you pay for. My health care costs me (and my employer's portion) a pretty penny, but when I can get in for a 2K MRI the same day and have results in 24 hours, it is well worth the piece of mind to know I am getting THE BEST treatment that money can buy. When it comes to our health, don't we all want THE BEST treatment, or do we want the "most economical and sufficient" treatment. Look at the nightmares of the UK health system. See socialized medicine in action!
 

Ericsson1228d

Experimental Member
Joined
May 22, 2005
Posts
579
Media
0
Likes
2
Points
236
Location
MI, USA
Gender
Male
Myth. You really haven't provided a strong link between the public option and government ownership. The government would have no ownership stake in any industry.




Do you honestly believe that the government would have no stake? Have you heard of Medicare? You have obviously been blinded by your rabid devotion to the New Emperor Obama
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
No, I agree with you. Let people have a public option if they actually are working, at any job. If the democrats would say 'you have to actually pay taxes to use this health system' I would be for it.

It still doesn't make any sense. Taxes aren't only collected on April 15th. You pay them even when you buy something from a convenient store. Yes, even the homeless guy off the street who begs for change. If he then takes that money and goes to McDonalds to buy a hamburger or even to a liquor store to buy a beer or a pack of cigarettes, he also pays tax on that as well. It's not as if the homeless are somehow exempt from paying taxes altogether. Even their pennies contribute.

So really... who ISN'T paying tax in America?

No, I wouldn't say that. You see, I would only say that if you said ' here is what I am trying to obtain, and I can't do it, so I want the government and the rest of the taxpayers to give it to me.

So if by chance an emergency fell upon my lap making me unable to work for a year and I somehow asked for an extension on Unemployment benefits (which usually run out after 6 months), to be placed on Welfare (until I am able to work again), or for help with medical assistance (since I wouldn't be able to afford it anyhow even with UI benefits), you would then assume that I was just a burden to the system? Even though you knew my work history beforehand?

This is another reason why the "work harder" rhetoric never makes any sense. Because in order for you to truly believe that these particular people are "lazy" or just want the Government to take care of them, you either would have to ignore or not even be curious as to how they got into that situation to need government assistance begin with. And to do that and just assume that the majority are "lazy" is discriminatory in nature. Either way, you can't win.

Anyone who works hard is deserving of respect. My problem is those who choose not to work, and don't give me the liberal rhetoric that everyone on welfare is trying, or willing, to work. Many are, but many more have been in the system for generations

I never said "everyone". However, it's more than you think.
I grew up in a poor neighborhood. Most of my family still lives there and they struggle day after day. VERY FEW people voluntarily choose to stay on Welfare for the rest of their lives. If real opportunity presented itself, one where they actually had a chance to take it and better themselves, these people would go for it. However, take away any glimmer of self worth, pride and individualism from these people, constantly reminding them that they're worthless and won't amount to anything because they need a handout, then you inadvertently create a culture that loses the drive & the motivation to better themselves. And where do these demonizing voices come from? From people just like yourself. Maybe you don't realize it. To you it could be just a bunch of words. But believe me it DOES make an impact.

Ever notice how "rhetoric" becomes synonymous with 'the truth liberals don't like to hear' ?

I'm being nice here... I could call you or anyone who constantly says it to be a bunch of liars, but I think that wouldn't be the kindest way to get my point across. And believe me... you don't know the full truth so don't act as if you do.

I think the cry of "rhetoric" and "partisanship" are getting right up there with "racist." Something dismissive to throw out when an argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

I STRONGLY disagree here.
You're the second person trying to downplay the word "racist" here. Trust me, you don't want to do that. That never has, nor will it ever be a "political buzzword" that can be tossed aside or ignored especially to those who experience it up to this day. While I agree that some things that have been called "racist" has nothing to do with it, don't just assume that it's just a word that the left uses. Many people on the right use it too, even if they put the word "reverse" in front of it and it doesn't lose any of its initial impact. Unless you can walk the shoes of the people who are really harmed the most from racism, then there's no way you can understand how it affects them.
 
Last edited:

Ericsson1228d

Experimental Member
Joined
May 22, 2005
Posts
579
Media
0
Likes
2
Points
236
Location
MI, USA
Gender
Male
I STRONGLY disagree here.
You're the second person trying to downplay the word "racist" here. Trust me, you don't want to do that. That never has, nor will it ever be a "political buzzword" that can be tossed aside or ignored especially to those who experience it up to this day. While I agree that some things that have been called "racist" has nothing to do with it, don't just assume that it's just a word that the left uses. Many people on the right use it too, even if they put the word "reverse" in front of it and it doesn't lose any of its initial impact. Unless you can walk the shoes of the people who are really harmed the most from racism, then there's no way you can understand how it affects them.

Sorry, but racism is becoming a political buzzwords, and the black politicians are the ones doing it. Look at the recent news headlines, even as mentioned in this thread (I.e. people against Obama because he looks like me, Rangel and the Governor of NY saying he is being attacked because he is black and Obama will be the next victim of racism, as he is. So, lecture the members of your own party. Also, I think it is pretty audacious that you dismiss 'reverse' racism. Look at Black on white vs. white on black crime. Guess what? No comparison. Who is attacking who?