What's the freakin' Repub alternative?

[B_Nick4444]

Wait. Did you just say Obama is a CAPITALIST? Yeah, you did.

Funny... you keep calling him a socialist elsewhere... like here, for example.

Which is it? Is he a corporate capitalist or a sleazy socialist? I don't see how he can be both simultaneously.

I have always said Obama is a globalist (I've even seen him described by other commentators as a trilateral-globalist) (BTW, I've said other things, as well about him, which we shant go into here :biggrin1

the policies he is attempting to implement, though welfare socialist, are in furtherance of his globalist agenda

they are, as I have said elsewhere, Bismarckian responses to the social discontent and economic distortions his policies are engendering

one of the biggest socialist programs in the American economy is the Social Security Administration, and the other programs implemented by one of the architects of the emerging corporate fascist State, Franklin Roosevelt. He always felt wounded by the charge that he had become a traitor to his class and capitalism, as the real intent of that program was to quell the social unrest of the pink decade that threatened to uproot capitalism's support in the country among the masses suffering from that economic dislocation

please note, the threshold age set for participation in Social Security was sixty-five years of age, an age few people of that era ever reached; so, from that outset, that program was never intended to work -- it was merely a stratagem to quell social unrest

likewise, the Obama tactic of having health care reform was left to the Congress, where the end result, predictably and ineluctably, would have been to favor the largest, wealthiest insurers, not the insured

that is also something I said months ago

 

[Wyldgusechaz]

Of course, us "neo rads" would LOVE to have an intelligent discussion, but apparently folks like you are incapable of such a thing. I'd like to see where you're getting your numbers from, and how you arrived at a $900 per month figure. I'd also love to see that $900 put against some other numbers- like the cost of maintaining the status quo. I'm a little confused. Let's assume for the moment that you really do pay $1100 a month in premiums. Let's also assume your $900 figure is accurate. $1100-$900=-$200. You would in fact be paying $200 less a month out of pocket. Call me stupid, but isn't that a good thing? And $1100 out of pocket, and you're happy about that? I have a job for the local county government and I work my ass off for the taxpayers. In effect, I pay about $60 a month out of my paycheck for benefits. I realize that these generous benefits are because I work for the government, but I also realize that I could be earning a lot more doing what I do if I worked for private company. Of course, I'd have to pay a lot more, probably somewhere in the neighborhood of $300-$500 per month I'd guess. Why the hell are you paying such an outrageous premium?

An outrageous premium? Who says? If Medicare cost $900/month per individual, my plan is about that expensive. It covers 2 additional dependents.

Medical care in America costs somewhere between $5000 to $10000 per person/year. I have already proved it, that Medicare costs $10000 per retiree. Factor in better health for younger people but you still need to pony up $5000 or so a year. Somehow you think magically rich people are going to foot the tab for YOU. They aren't. You will pay it in the form of lower wages as you do now and how it is done in Europe or you will pay it in higher premiums but you will pay it. No one can change that. Obama is a bold faced liar when he says he will find ways to cut costs. He KNOWS it, he just wants to create another entitlement program to cement liberal majorities for the lazy bums who voted him into office. And yes America is infested with lazy bums. Mostly male too.

I ranted against corporate welfare. I would not have bailed out AIG, GM, or Citibank. That was wrong. I said ti from Day one. TARP was a huge error. Cash for Clunkers was another big error. It cost the tax payer $24000 per auto. New Cars, Used Cars, Car Reviews and Pricing - Edmunds.com if you do not believe me. His Consumer act killed small american toy makers. The guy is a worthless community organizer who has done nothing but hurt America.

And he accomplished nothing, not a thing. He is the least effective President since Jimmy Carter.

 

[joyboytoy79]

I have always said Obama is a globalist (I've even seen him described by other commentators as a trilateral-globalist) (BTW, I've said other things, as well about him, which we shant go into here :biggrin1

the policies he is attempting to implement, though welfare socialist, are in furtherance of his globalist agenda

they are, as I have said elsewhere, Bismarckian responses to the social discontent and economic distortions his policies are engendering

one of the biggest socialist programs in the American economy is the Social Security Administration, and the other programs implemented by one of the architects of the emerging corporate fascist State, Franklin Roosevelt. He always felt wounded by the charge that he had become a traitor to his class and capitalism, as the real intent of that program was to quell the social unrest of the pink decade that threatened to uproot capitalism's support in the country among the masses suffering from that economic dislocation

please note, the threshold age set for participation in Social Security was sixty-five years of age, an age few people of that era ever reached; so, from that outset, that program was never intended to work -- it was merely a stratagem to quell social unrest

likewise, the Obama tactic of having health care reform was left to the Congress, where the end result, predictably and ineluctably, would have been to favor the largest, wealthiest insurers, not the insured

that is also something I said months ago

Yeah, all i see you doing is stringing together as many political swear words as possible. What I'm wondering is, if capitalism is bad, and socialism is bad, and communism is bad... what exactly is the system you think would work to solve the problems you see us so clearly headed toward?

I mean, you make a convincing argument that every economic policy known to man is bad. What's your solution? Pony up. It's your turn.

 

[Trinity]

The only perfect solution will be the Kingdom of God.

The best is what we have now. Capitalism with social programs to keep capitalism in check and to maintain our communities and social foundations.

 

[invisibleman]

Well I am very thankful for you correcting me where I didnt feel like putting my ' and , ... Because now I'm sure the rest of LPSG can read and understand what I wrote now.

You're welcome. Conservatives, you cannot suspend one's disbelief with missing appropriate punctuation marks, miscapitalization and all. BTW if your going to spend the time correcting somebody, you should correct it all.

Hey, don't rely on me for your corrections all the time.




What part of, I understand that there are people who can't find jobs right now do you not understand SHERLOCK? Where in my post did I claim that America was so fruitful we should all have jobs?

Why not re-read your post and ask yourself WHY I would think that you believed America was so fruitful?

But your way of thinking is raise taxes on corporate and working America so spending stops, production and new projects are cut, jobs are shipped overseas, business move overseas.

My way of thinking? You know me like that?! Honestly, I actually think that maybe Americans need a break from getting taxed, period. People. The businesses. (All income tax brackets.) I also think that single folk at a certain age be given tax breaks and not be punished or coerced into getting married in order to get tax benefits. All need saving incentives and initiatives. If people and businesses are allowed to save what they make and earn...then they will have more to spend money within our communities.

Dems keep talking about the GOP holding the healthcare bill back but who controls congress? Obviously there arent enough Democrats convinced that this bogus plan is worth shoving through.

Who needs the WEATHER CHANNEL when we have AL GORE telling us everything we need to know?

Oh, you beyotches are still sore over AL GORE getting the Nobel Peace prize?! You mean George W. Bush should've gotten one for getting a "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"?

We will all wait for your grammar corrections.
I was only helping you out. A Liberal helping a Conservative out with the necessary details...there is nothing wrong with that. If you are gonna fabricate, it should be grammatically sound. Otherwise, you end up looking like you are reading FLOWERS FOR ALGERNON or THE COLOR PURPLE.

the freakin' Repub alternative...

Fabrication...

Rebelling against English grammar...

Mindreading...

Hating on Al Gore's Nobel Peace prize...

 

[B_Nick4444]

Yeah, all i see you doing is stringing together as many political swear words as possible. What I'm wondering is, if capitalism is bad, and socialism is bad, and communism is bad... what exactly is the system you think would work to solve the problems you see us so clearly headed toward?

I mean, you make a convincing argument that every economic policy known to man is bad. What's your solution? Pony up. It's your turn.

we tend not to think in such overly simplistic terms

the question, as always is what are you trying to achieve? what is the effect, intended, or unintended?

what becomes of the human condition? what is the impact on the real world?

discourse would take a massive amount of verbiage, massive amounts of time, which, of course, I do not have, and I question the possibility of such discourse to any meaningful extent on a forum that is one step up from subway graffiti (no slight towards LPSG or other internet bulletin boards intended), given that a large part of the undertaking would involve the elucidation of the conceptual predicate (as an example, contrary to what I read as an implication in your post, because one supports "capitalism", one does not necessarily have to embrace globalism)

as Adam Smith pointed out, capitalism will always result in the impoverishment of some; as Karl Marx pointed out:
"... the total ‘estrangement’ and ‘devaluation’ of human reality represented in capitalist society – as a science which treats man as ‘something unessential’ (p. 130) whose whole existence is determined by the ‘separation of labour, capital and land’, and by an inhuman division of labour, by competition, by private property, etc. (p. 106). This kind of political economy scientifically sanctions the perversion of the historical-social world of man into an alien world of money and commodities; a world which confronts him as a hostile power and in which the greater part of humanity ceases to be anything more than ‘abstract’ workers (torn away from the reality of human existence), separated from the object of their work and forced to sell themselves as a commodity. ..."

Frankfurt School: The Foundation of Historical Materialism by Herbert Marcuse 1932

had the conceptual apparatus been available to Marx, he might well have included the impact to the natural world, as well

as well, Emerson recognized and commented on the destructive impact concentrations of wealth had on democracy

however, acknowledging some problems inherent with capitalism does not render socialism as the answer

that I may reluctantly accept capitalism does not mean that I will in any way, shape, or form accept globalism

but to answer your question, as I have stated before, probably the human condition is at its best, in a small-scale society, at the subsistence level, where the consequences of human action are most readily apparent to the actor, and the impact to the real world is minimal

see, for example, Jamec C. Scott, The Moral Economy of the Peasant: http://books.google.com/books?id=-dYIP7nnDR4C&dq=scott,+the+moral+economy+of+the+peasant&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=9fg3S9X8H82Xtgek4OD_CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBUQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=&f=false

 

[TomCat84]

An outrageous premium? Who says? If Medicare cost $900/month per individual, my plan is about that expensive. It covers 2 additional dependents.

Medical care in America costs somewhere between $5000 to $10000 per person/year. I have already proved it, that Medicare costs $10000 per retiree. Factor in better health for younger people but you still need to pony up $5000 or so a year. Somehow you think magically rich people are going to foot the tab for YOU. They aren't. You will pay it in the form of lower wages as you do now and how it is done in Europe or you will pay it in higher premiums but you will pay it. No one can change that. Obama is a bold faced liar when he says he will find ways to cut costs. He KNOWS it, he just wants to create another entitlement program to cement liberal majorities for the lazy bums who voted him into office. And yes America is infested with lazy bums. Mostly male too.

I ranted against corporate welfare. I would not have bailed out AIG, GM, or Citibank. That was wrong. I said ti from Day one. TARP was a huge error. Cash for Clunkers was another big error. It cost the tax payer $24000 per auto. New Cars, Used Cars, Car Reviews and Pricing - Edmunds.com if you do not believe me. His Consumer act killed small american toy makers. The guy is a worthless community organizer who has done nothing but hurt America.

And he accomplished nothing, not a thing. He is the least effective President since Jimmy Carter.

Dont get me wrong, Im about ready to vote Green....but I missed the part where you proved Medicare costs $10K a person, or for ANY of your numbers. Keep in mind Medicare is for those who are 65 and older and have more health problems anyway. I'll ignore the part where you called Obama voters azy bums and chalk that up to enthusiasm.

 

[B_spiker067]

And yet the Democrats don't know how the world really works and so can't come up with REAL solutions.

 

[D_Sir Fitzwilly Wankheimer III]

well what ever it is the dems admit if it does become law it will look more like the reps plan than the dems plan. no public option for you!

 

[B_spiker067]

well what ever it is the dems admit if it does become law it will look more like the reps plan than the dems plan. no public option for you!

I don't want a public option.

I want completely tax free Health Savings Acccounts for standard medical care backed up by CATASTROPHIC health insurance.

I want people universally to go shopping for standard health care in order to bring costs within reason.

I want the U.S consumer to stop subsisidizing the health care of other industrialized nations.

I want regulation that manages risk (i.e. audio recording doctors visits and video recording procedures) in order to lower litigation costs.

I want a government that works to increase the supply of heath care and not work to ration perceived limited resources.

I could go on for hundreds of lines with real health care reform ideas.

 

[D_Sir Fitzwilly Wankheimer III]

All Republicans can do is say no.

<rant>
WTF are Republicans going to do about people with pre-existing conditions looking for insurance? Ans: Not a damn thing. Or work on some ridiculous idea that tort reform is the problem. Hint: It isn't. Insurance is as a mafia protection racket. Insurance salesmen suck, not lawyers.

And the only thing liberals can do is professional supplication (i.e. mug people for a living).

I'm sick of liberals(20%) and Republicans(20%), sick of the mother fuckers all.
</rant>

why the hell would an insurance company want to sell you insurance if have a prexisting condtion? they're going to pay through the nose. that's your problem, not theirs and sure as hell not mine. life ain't fair get used to it.

 

[faceking]

nationalize insurance companies...............

Laughable. Then it becomes the same Ponzi scheme that Social Security is. Kinda like how FDR blathered on and on about 1 percent for the first few years, ithen he raised in '40, '43, '46 and '49, when it reached 3 percent.

I've yet to hear from a liberal that believes Barrah's claim that a gov't program (not to mention of this scale) will actually reduce the deficit. Whatever that magic is that is "transparent" gov't does behind close doors shoulda been applied to programs that aren't working (nee Social Security).

 

[faceking]

why the hell would an insurance company want to sell you insurance if have a prexisting condtion? they're going to pay through the nose. that's your problem, not theirs and sure as hell not mine. life ain't fair get used to it.

No... it's the liberal utopia that we all have the right. Insurance companies are going to sock it to the rest of us. Look out. Last I checked, Aetna et al were about 3-4% profit margin, and not Google....

It wasn't so long ago (a small handful of decades), when we paid cash for most medical services.... if you didn't have the cash, you paid off the debt. Insurance was for severe instances... not to be hop'd up on psycho meds.

 

[Wyldgusechaz]

Dont get me wrong, Im about ready to vote Green....but I missed the part where you proved Medicare costs $10K a person, or for ANY of your numbers. Keep in mind Medicare is for those who are 65 and older and have more health problems anyway. I'll ignore the part where you called Obama voters azy bums and chalk that up to enthusiasm.

Here ya go:

The President&#39;s Modest Medicare Budget Proposal

>>>The cost of Medicare is set to explode. Under current law, Medicare spending is projected to jump from $395 billion in FY 2007 to $504.4 billion in FY 2011 and to total roughly $2 trillion over that same period.[1]

In his FY 2007 budget proposal, President George W. Bush outlines Medicare savings of just $36 billion over five years, and $105 billion over ten years. This reduction in spending growth is achieved mostly through administrative and regulatory changes in the way payments are made to medical providers, particularly hospitals, nursing homes, and home health agencies. As the editors of The Washington Post observed, these are very limited changes. Nonetheless, say The Post’s editors, “…President Bush deserves credit for at least proposing to take modest steps to restrain Medicare’s growth…” [2]<<<


There 46 million medicare retirees. $504 billion divided by 46 million= a bit more than $10000 per retiree. Thats the math I keep focusing on but you neo rads refuse to see.

If the government cannot control Medicare now, how in heaven's name will they control it for a public option? Give me any semblance of a theory on why they can't rein in expenses now so if they expand it, magically it will find cost savings?

That is inherently foolish. We have a public option now and its dismal at cutting costs. Not dismal, totally ineffective. I could understand it if we could point to a governement program that really took over a private enterprise and increased efficiencies but there is no example at all. Not one.

If I were a young person now I would be thinking of assasinating Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, at least in my mind. Young people rarely get sick so their need for healthcare is small. But the entire burden of a public option will fall on today's young adults and children. Just like SSI does now.

Why sign up for that? I bet most people here on this site did not use even $20000 worth of health care from ages 18-40. That would be $90 worth of Dr visits every month for 20 straight years. I know they did not. I bet most here had maybe $300 worth of health care per year. Some years for extended periods, most young people did not go to any health care provider.

This whole healthcare fiasco is a shakedown by the aged and middle aged against today's youth. Mafia brass knuckles lead by the POTUS.

 

[TomCat84]

And yet the Democrats don't know how the world really works and so can't come up with REAL solutions.

Touche, sir

 

[TomCat84]

If I were a young person now I would be thinking of assasinating Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, at least in my mind.

I was going to address the points in your response, but you lost ALL credibility with that little tidbit.

 

[Wyldgusechaz]

I was going to address the points in your response, but you lost ALL credibility with that little tidbit.

Why? I mean the young person today is being bullied by his elected officials. I myself would be furious that my future is being stolen. Do I recommend violence, no. However would I roll over and just take it? Young people should be mad as hell.

I guess you would. Just take that it. If not suggest a way to fight back.

 

[TomCat84]

Why? I mean the young person today is being bullied by his elected officials. I myself would be furious that my future is being stolen. Do I recommend violence, no. However would I roll over and just take it? Young people should be mad as hell.

I guess you would. Just take that it. If not suggest a way to fight back.

No, seriously dude- it would just be better if you pressed the power button on your computer. To even jokingly suggest assassinating political leaders in this country, given the history of assassinations in the United States, is the sign of serious stupidity. Why should I even bother debating the points with you?

 

[B_Nick4444]

:werd::yup::werd::yup: :werd::yup: :werd::yup:

And yet the Democrats don't know how the world really works and so can't come up with REAL solutions.

 

[B_spiker067]

why the hell would an insurance company want to sell you insurance if have a prexisting condtion? they're going to pay through the nose. that's your problem, not theirs and sure as hell not mine. life ain't fair get used to it.

I'll propose how it should work and take liberties with the numbers and omit details ad infinitum.

Say 7 in 100 uninsured people have a pre-existing condition. Regulation should exist that for every 100 new insurance clients the insurance industry must take 5 people with pre-existing conditions. Now that means insurance companies will go out looking for the 5 least sick of the 7 people with pre-existing conditions. They will offer them insurance at a lower rate because insurance companies are in essence "shopping" for the least burdensome clients.

Then taxes from the insurance industry should go straight to medicaid to cover the remaining 2 in 100 needing health insurance coverage.

I'll ignore the 'life isn't fair' line for the most part but mention that the health insurance industry has by its nature raised the prices on health care costs by insulating people from true costs and being used for non-catastrophic care, which takes away from the natural market forces keeping prices down which is what made things 'unfair'.