"Obama Care" versus wishful thinking

Bullets

Forum Knucklehead
1,600
222
63
Most people don't feel like they need it until they do, do you follow me? And then it's too late because they have "pre-existing conditions". (Something the reform will ban insurance companies from doing.)

I'm a careful driver, I shouldn't be forced to buy auto insurance, right? I shouldn't be penalized for not wearing a seatbelt, right?

Oh i follow you, and if you choose not to carry insurance and something happens and now you want insurance, you should have to pay a high rate then someone who has held insurance since a younger age...or you know that you are risking a possible uninsurable condition and you accept the consequences of not carrying.

What state do you live in? Im not aware of a state that requires a resident to purchase auto insurance


I agree you shouldnt be penalized for not wearing your seatbelt

The Western European countries provide universal health care for less than the US spends on health care.

The model is obvious. The benefits are obvious. Some people simply hate Europe and thus hate this idea of providing for people.

I dont hate Europe, i found Germany, Austria, and the UK countries to be extremely pleasant places when i visited. However they have their own issues.

The idea of providing medical coverage for everyone has nothing to do with my feeling about our brothers across the Atlantic

Or if you live in the US and cannot afford insurance to begin with, you get none of the above. You just suffer...

So...life isnt fair and it isnt the governments job to make it fair. All men are created equal, what you do from there is your buisness
 

Pavehawk

Forum Lieutenant
139
0
16
What state do you live in? Im not aware of a state that requires a resident to purchase auto insurance

No, all states do not require car insurance but they do require financial responsibility to operate a vehicle on the roadway. While not all states require drivers to buy Liability insurance to show financial responsibility, 49 states (plus the District of Columbia) do. New Hampshire is the only state that does not have compulsory auto insurance liability laws, as of June 2010.

All 50 states have different requirements when it comes to auto insurance and the minimum insurance requirements. Almost every state requires you to have Bodily Injury Liability insurance and every state has financial responsibility laws that require you be able to have sufficient assets to pay for any liability you cause in an incident.
 

akflightmedic

Forum Deputy Chief
3,891
2,564
113
So...life isnt fair and it isnt the governments job to make it fair. All men are created equal, what you do from there is your buisness

And you took this out of context as it was written directly in response to a prior statement of someone else...nice try.
 

Bullets

Forum Knucklehead
1,600
222
63
And you took this out of context as it was written directly in response to a prior statement of someone else...nice try.

Ok, sorry

akflightmedic said:
Or if you live in the US and cannot afford insurance to begin with, you get none of the above. You just suffer...
...and then die
 

bstone

Forum Deputy Chief
2,066
1
0
If a person chooses not to have insurance they are taking a risk, but this risk doesn't end with them. It is extended to the EMTs who care for them in an emergency, to the ER staff that saves their life and stabilizes them, to the ICU and surgical staff that operates and cares for them, to the rehab center that fixes them up. None of them will ever be paid if a person does not have insurance and isn't fortunate enough to be independently wealthy. Who will end up paying for this care? We do, in the form of our taxes and higher insurance premiums.

I am entirely in favor of forcing people to have insurance. We did it here in MA and it works beautifully.
 

homingmissile

Forum Crew Member
38
0
0
I agree you shouldnt be penalized for not wearing your seatbelt

I think you missed my sarcasm with the not wearing a seatbelt thing...
SPOILER: It saves lives.

None of them will ever be paid if a person does not have insurance and isn't fortunate enough to be independently wealthy. Who will end up paying for this care? We do, in the form of our taxes and higher insurance premiums.

I am entirely in favor of forcing people to have insurance. We did it here in MA and it works beautifully.

Yes. Exactly. We're already paying a price, it's just not as visible as what we have coming, and that's where the problem lies.

Earlier in this thread someone said that the hospitals just "write off" the expenses that aren't paid, putting me in mind of that one Seinfeld episode. I don't think that person knows what "writing off" an expense means. It doesn't magically disappear.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Shishkabob

Forum Chief
8,264
32
48
You already have the more expensive option! You're paying more for a system that doesn't cover your entire population, and is very expensive for many of the people it does cover, and costs more than countries like Germany or Sweden pay for theirs.
And THAT is why many of us don't want the government run option. The government has already proven throughout the decades that it sucks at being efficient. Why give them more money to suck with, and less options for us to decide on?


That's what we value in the US. Decisions. OUR own decisions. Not relying on someone elses.


I can't understand that way of thinking. Obviously you're entitled to your personal beliefs, but I just don't get it.
And I don't understand your way of thinking when you're uneducated and unexperienced on the ways of the US as you admitted yourself, yet here you are.

We give money to the government so that we have roads, often in places we'll never go. We pay to have a public school system, even if we don't have kids, or choose to send our children to private schools. We pay for armed forces, even if we don't necessarily agree with our nation's foreign policy. We pay into welfare programs that we hope we'll never have to use. Or to bail out big business after an economic crisis.

We accept all these things, but healthcare is where we draw a line?
And it's because you don't live in the US, you don't understand it. Not everyone supports being taxed out the wazoo to pay a crap load of money for all those government run things, and MANY of us advocate for a smaller government.


The line isn't drawn at healthcare, that's just where the current battle is.
 

systemet

Forum Asst. Chief
882
12
18
And THAT is why many of us don't want the government run option. The government has already proven throughout the decades that it sucks at being efficient. Why give them more money to suck with, and less options for us to decide on?

But your system is already more expensive than any other country's publicly funded system! You've chosen the more expensive option. Every other industrialised country (bar, maybe South Africa, which to my understanding doesn't really have universal health care), manages to run a public health system at a lower cost.

How is your current system more efficient?

That's what we value in the US. Decisions. OUR own decisions. Not relying on someone elses.

Really? 6 billion people on the planet, and 300 million of them are in the US. Do you truly believe that autonomy and self-reliance are virtues restricted to the USA?

Do you think that French people, or the English, or Canadians, or New Zealanders are running around just waiting for someone to tell them what to do?

And I don't understand your way of thinking when you're uneducated and unexperienced on the ways of the US as you admitted yourself, yet here you are.

Like I said earlier man, if this discussion is restricted to people living in the US, and I'm not welcome here, I'll cease to be involved. That's OK. I certainly don't claim to be a polsci or economics major, or have a vast understanding of American society. I'm not posting on this thread just to irritate people.

My experience with the US is confined to the few Americans I personally know, who are largely as nice a group of people as people from anywhere else in the world I've met, and about 11 days spent driving through the country, mostly spent in Arizona, which was beautiful. People were very kind to me, and I came to the conclusion that American television is extremely bad advertising for your country, and that while I still don't agree with many of the things your government does, the average American is a pretty decent person.

But I am a relatively intelligent person, and have lived in a few countries, and traveled a little. I think I probably have something to contribute here, and I'm not on some sort of eurocommie "TrashtheUSA" rant. I just have a different perspective shaped by my personal experiences.


And it's because you don't live in the US, you don't understand it.

Granted, maybe. Perhaps it is necessary to live in the US to understand the mentality there. But this is pretty close to an ad hominem, you know, attacking a person, instead of the argument that they present.

I could present a similar argument that you might not be able to understand the benefits of a publicly funded universal health care system if you've never lived in one. But I don't believe that. I chose to believe that you're probably a reasonably intelligent person who's capable of considering things that are outside of your direct experience. Besides, it would just be intellectually lazy.

Not everyone supports being taxed out the wazoo to pay a crap load of money for all those government run things, and MANY of us advocate for a smaller government.

I understand that a lot of people in the US want reduced taxation, and reduced government spending, and want many services to be provided by private enterprise. I'm just not sure that restricting access to something as important as healthcare to those that can pay is that great an idea. Especially when almost every other industrialised nation on the planet has answered this question in a different way, and most of them report better numbers.

I also don't understand why people in the US feel that they're overtaxed? You guys pay one of the lowest rates of taxation of the major industrial nations, and perhaps the lowest. Isn't it possible that maybe the reason you haven't got decent government funded services been that you've never paid to fund these programs properly?

And is the money being saved by having lower taxation being used by individual families to meet their basic needs (and I accept that for a percentage of people in extreme poverty, it may be), or is it just being used to buy a bigger car, or more consumer goods?

The line isn't drawn at healthcare, that's just where the current battle is.

Are you sure? Because I haven't heard the same outrage about military spending, or even something that should have been as controversial as subsidising private banks.
 

Shishkabob

Forum Chief
8,264
32
48
But your system is already more expensive than any other country's publicly funded system! You've chosen the more expensive option. Every other industrialised country (bar, maybe South Africa, which to my understanding doesn't really have universal health care), manages to run a public health system at a lower cost.

How is your current system more efficient?

Never said it was. Infact, I said it wasn't, and considering the US government is the single biggest spender in healthcare... what does that tell you? That the federal government is NOT efficient at healthcare.


So again, I ask, why would we want to give them MORE money to waste on inefficiency?


Really? 6 billion people on the planet, and 300 million of them are in the US. Do you truly believe that autonomy and self-reliance are virtues restricted to the USA?

Restricted? No, not at all. But I WOULD argue that, the US being the 3rd most populous country in the world, that individual rights and choices and the fighting for them, ARE more bound in to our history and ingrained in our individual persona than any other country.

Do you think that French people... are running around?

Yes, yes I do :)

Like I said earlier man, if this discussion is restricted to people living in the US, and I'm not welcome here, I'll cease to be involved.
Never said you weren't allowed, but you yourself admitted your knowledge on the typical American mindset is lacking.




I could present a similar argument that you might not be able to understand the benefits of a publicly funded universal health care system if you've never lived in one. But I don't believe that. I chose to believe that you're probably a reasonably intelligent person who's capable of considering things that are outside of your direct experience. Besides, it would just be intellectually lazy.

You're arguing something totally different from I. You're arguing the abolishment of private healthcare for a public healthcare.

I'm arguing against a federally run and funded healthcare that is unconstitutional. Unlike the typical European and their founding documents, the Constitution IS one of our biggest focal points in the US.



I'm not, at my deepest point, against publicly provided healthcare. I AM against the federal government doing it.



I also don't understand why people in the US feel that they're overtaxed? You guys pay one of the lowest rates of taxation of the major industrial nations, and perhaps the lowest. Isn't it possible that maybe the reason you haven't got decent government funded services been that you've never paid to fund these programs properly?

Nope, not at all. Overtaxed because programs we don't want funded are being funded, funded inefficiently, and as such, more taxes are taken to fund the unwanted programs. Perpetual cycle.


The reason why they aren't being funded properly is too many hands in the pot. Too many programs begging for money.


And is the money being saved by having lower taxation being used by individual families to meet their basic needs (and I accept that for a percentage of people in extreme poverty, it may be), or is it just being used to buy a bigger car, or more consumer goods?

Greece ring a bell? Yeah, they're handling finances so well, and as such, have dragged the rest of Europe with them dangerously close to another meltdown, which in turn will bring down the rest of the world.

I'm against people in poverty having a sport scar then begging for food stamps and government assistance. That needs to be fixed.


However, myself, being a person who pays more than my fair share of taxes, having no debt, saving money, paying my expenses on my own, working and contributing to society... I and only I get to choose where the rest of my money goes. No one is subsidizing my life. Same cannot be said for many.





Are you sure? Because I haven't heard the same outrage about military spending, or even something that should have been as controversial as subsidising private banks.

Yes, I am sure. Because you don't live in the US to partake in such debates. The bank bailout debate was not only a daily occurrence back 4 years ago, but still happens to this day. Guess what? I refuse to bank with any company that took part in the bailout.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

systemet

Forum Asst. Chief
882
12
18
Never said it was. Infact, I said it wasn't, and considering the US government is the single biggest spender in healthcare... what does that tell you? That the federal government is NOT efficient at healthcare.

I would argue that this means that a private health care sytem is inherently inefficient, as evidenced by the much lower costs in all other countries using public health care systems.

I'd also argue that health care in the US is far poorer on a population level. See: infant mortality rate, for example.


So again, I ask, why would we want to give them MORE money to waste on inefficiency?

I guess my counterpoint would be, why defend the status quo, and continue a system that's wasteful, inefficient and performs poorly, if you're concerned about fiscal responsibility?

Restricted? No, not at all. But I WOULD argue that, the US being the 3rd most populous country in the world, that individual rights and choices and the fighting for them, ARE more bound in to our history and ingrained in our individual persona than any other country.

Your argument is "The US is populous, therefore individualism and fighting for personal liberty is more engrained in the popular culture than in other less populous countries?".

Are you suggesting that countries with a larger population are ultimately more individualistic? Because China would seem to be a glaring exception to that idea. Why would you think that population size and tendency towards invidualism would be linked?


Never said you weren't allowed, but you yourself admitted your knowledge on the typical American mindset is lacking.

Sure. But my point, I guess, is that I don't think I need to have lived in the US, to have an opinion about the relative merits of public versus private healthcare, any more than you have to have lived in a country with a public system to have a valid opinion about the same question.

I would suggest that both our arguments should stand or fall on the basis of the logic and reasoning they contain, rather than where the two of us happen to have lived.

If your point is that, through living in the states, you feel you have a better idea on what the average American believes, I'll happily concede that point. I don't think I was ever arguing it.

If you have some insights into why people don't want a cheaper public delivery system similar to that of virtually any other industrial nation, I'd love to hear it. But I can't buy simplistic jingoistic explanations like "American's love freedom more than anywhere else in the world", because I don't believe that's true.

You're arguing something totally different from I. You're arguing the abolishment of private healthcare for a public healthcare.

I would suggest that this is the superior model, based on how it performs in other countries.

I'm arguing against a federally run and funded healthcare that is unconstitutional. Unlike the typical European and their founding documents, the Constitution IS one of our biggest focal points in the US.

My understanding, simplistic though it may be, is that the constitution is a living, breathing document, that is ammended and reinterpreted and changes over time with society. There were times when segregation was considered acceptable, or the denial of universal suffrage.

It seems like whether proposed changes are constitutional is being hotly debated in the supreme court right now. I'm not sure that I understand enough about constitutional law or the US constitution in particular to make an intelligent argument about whether or not the proposed legislation is constitutional.


I'm not, at my deepest point, against publicly provided healthcare. I AM against the federal government doing it.

Would you be happier if each individual state provided a universal system? Just wondering.


Nope, not at all. Overtaxed because programs we don't want funded are being funded, funded inefficiently, and as such, more taxes are taken to fund the unwanted programs. Perpetual cycle.

But you understand that the rate of taxation in the US is very low in comparison to other countries, right? I'm not making that up, there's a factual basis to it.

If your argument is "Sure, but that's irrelevant, what's important is that we don't want to pay the level of taxation we currently do", then I can't argue against that.

Which programs do you feel are being funded inefficiently and why?

The reason why they aren't being funded properly is too many hands in the pot. Too many programs begging for money.

But to continue the pot analogy, if you used a bigger pot, do you think that more of these programs would be working functionally?

It's just something I've noticed, that living in some places with higher tax rates, people are more satisfied with the programs offered, and they seem to work better. If you starve a program of funding, it gets to a point where it can't fulfill its role any more. Have you considered that this might be happening here?

Isn't there a particular problem when you take a function that's normally federally run, and "outsource" it to a large mass of private companies? If you compare the cost expenditure in the US and elsewhere, it seems that you're able to provide good care for the very wealthy, but not for a lot of people with lower incomes. You also have a problem where people with previous medical problems either pay very high rates, or can't receive insurance if there's a lapse in their coverage.

These problems don't exist in a public system. In a public system, if you're sick, you get treatment allocated. No one would say, "Well, sorry, you're a minimum wage worker, and you haven't paid into a corporate insurance scheme, we're going to have to bankrupt you to do this surgery". This seems like a much more efficient use of resources --- instead of focusing on a wealthy elite, and very providing a second tier of care for people with middle incomes, and no care for lower income folks, it just gets spread around evenly.

Greece ring a bell? Yeah, they're handling finances so well, and as such, have dragged the rest of Europe with them dangerously close to another meltdown, which in turn will bring down the rest of the world.

I'm not going to argue that the Greeks aren't in a lot of trouble. They are. They've had a lot of corruption, they're overleveraged, and their economy has tanked. And now the rest of the EU is forcing them into much-needed austerity measures to try and preserve the Euro. And these are further crushing any hope of economic recovery. Obviously there's a lot of concern about whether other countries are going to end up needing economic support, because while the Eurozone can bail out Greece, it's not going to be able to provide the same support to a large country like Italy.

But that's not an issue that's caused by health spending, or the prevalence of public health systems in Europe. That's what happens when you have a common currency, and individual member states can't deflate a regional currency to make their exports more competitive, and allow them to better manage their debts. It's also a problem that stems from a comparatively weak and risky country like Greece receiving a near-endless supply of money at lower interest rates because the risk of it's default was judged (incorrectly) as minimal for a long period of time based on the strength of the other Eurozone member states's economies.

A collapse of the Eurozone would be a disaster, but just because the Greek economy has imploded, I don't think it should be assumed that other Eurozone member states such as France or Germany are particularly weak.
I'm against people in poverty having a sport scar then begging for food stamps and government assistance. That needs to be fixed.

While a Eurozone collapse would be catastropic for everyone, the healthcare costs in Europe are much lower than in the US. That's not the specific problem here. Not to mention there's other European states that aren't part of the Eurozone, e.g. Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, that are doing very well.

I think you can also look at the strength of the Canadian economy right now. There's another country, very similar to the US, with universal health care that seems to be surviving the current crises very well.


However, myself, being a person who pays more than my fair share of taxes, having no debt, saving money, paying my expenses on my own, working and contributing to society... I and only I get to choose where the rest of my money goes. No one is subsidizing my life. Same cannot be said for many.

Yes, I am sure. Because you don't live in the US to partake in such debates. The bank bailout debate was not only a daily occurrence back 4 years ago, but still happens to this day. Guess what? I refuse to bank with any company that took part in the bailout.

I respect your consistency.

This is going off on a complete tangent, but as someone who's fairly socialist, and obviously comes from a different philosophy than you, I'm still really concerned about that. I have some good friends in the UK, and I've watched their government pay out huge amounts of corporate welfare, and then turn around, institute massive tuition hikes, cut all sorts of social programs, restructure the healthcare system again, devalue the crap out of their currency, and even consider privatising the road system to pay for it. It seems like many on the right aren't as angry when common resources are directed towards finance or military projects. The average person there has got a lot poorer, has to deal with rising costs, and is receiving a lot less social services, and yet the banking industry seems to be turning a healthy profit again.
 

akflightmedic

Forum Deputy Chief
3,891
2,564
113
I am only interjecting to say "well done, your logic and reasoning is sound and your knowledge of American policies is far superior to the average American"...

I have spent the better part of the past decade traveling overseas and I am often amazed at how well any random taxi driver of Pakistani or Indian decent can discuss American policies and understand them and debate them better than any high school student or average American whose path I cross in my daily life in the States. (Amazed and depressed)
 

Veneficus

Forum Chief
7,301
16
0
I have spent the better part of the past decade traveling overseas and I am often amazed at how well any random taxi driver of Pakistani or Indian decent can discuss American policies and understand them and debate them better than any high school student or average American whose path I cross in my daily life in the States. (Amazed and depressed)

That is because America is the only nation I have visited that doesn't value education as a culture and from being physically and informationally isolated from the rest of the world doesn't understand how things happening elsewhere affect them.

Case in point, the common American in the US didn't know or care when the taliban became the dominant military and subsequently political ruling force in Afghanistan. Nobody cared they were financially supporting and physically harboring terrorist organizations until somebody flew a couple of jets into a couple of buildings.

Even when they were demanding military response, they did not know what that would mean or how it would affect the economy.

Even in Iraq they were more concerned with "getting Saddam" and "winning" then they were about the implications of doing that.

Nobody cared how the cheap crap at Wal Mart was made until kids started getting lead and heavy metal poisoning.

The world, just like medicine, exists in a complex interaction. Single, seemingly simple topics, are not isolated to themselves.

When rallying against government inefficency and demanding slashing government spending, a lot of Ohio public service employees including teachers, firefighters, ems providers, and police officers discovered the hard way that meant them.
 

systemet

Forum Asst. Chief
882
12
18
Sorry, I screwed up the quote tags on my last post, and it looks like I said these things, that were originally said by Linuss. My apologies.

I'm against people in poverty having a sport scar then begging for food stamps and government assistance.

However, myself, being a person who pays more than my fair share of taxes, having no debt, saving money, paying my expenses on my own, working and contributing to society... I and only I get to choose where the rest of my money goes. No one is subsidizing my life. Same cannot be said for many.
 

bstone

Forum Deputy Chief
2,066
1
0
and if i want to risk my life thats my prerogative

No it's not. If you get injured then you will likely receive the care that I detailed above. If you want to go into a very secluded area and off yourself then you have that right, but you don't have the right to be reckless and then endanger others (both physically and financially).
 
OP
OP
mycrofft

mycrofft

Still crazy but elsewhere
11,322
48
48
"In the US if you have this; you go to your doctor, see eye specialist in 1-2 days at worse, have CT same day, have surgery in a few days; all before you lose your job or have to have narcotics: but you have to pay for part of it."

Not in the real world. If you don't have insurance, or your insurance runs out, you get sent home and ignored. If you have insurance but your job has to let you go and you then lose the insurance, many companies will fight the global coverage which should continuie care until that illness/injury is made right. With their money and lawyers, who's going to win, you or them?
-----
Ad hominem attacks don't mean the other commentors are wrong, it means you are short of your own replies. Take a minute and come up with a reasoned one, calling people names and implying they are stupid (especially when their reply has merit) is a waste of bandwidth.

Risk taking with health care resulting in taxpayers and other tax payers taking up the slack: ok. Sign a waiver like organ donation certificates. "If I crash my motorcycle without my helmet and wind up a vegetable, drop me at home and do not require my family to spend itself broke taking care of me the relatively short time until I die. In fact, I forbid them to treat me. And if I go rappelling in Yosemite and fall into a remote canyon and lie there calling for help with my cell phone, instead of risking rsecurers and spending tax dollars, tell me 'Too bad'. This I demand so I don't have to pay for universal health coverage".
 
OP
OP
mycrofft

mycrofft

Still crazy but elsewhere
11,322
48
48
hoggle.jpg



Hoggle: Oh don't act so smart. You don't even know what an oubliette is.
Sarah: Do you?
Hoggle: Yes. It's a place you put people... to forget about 'em!
 

bstone

Forum Deputy Chief
2,066
1
0
In the US if you get too sick to work then you lose your insurance. I know many folks who that has happened to.
 

Shishkabob

Forum Chief
8,264
32
48
I would argue that this means that a private health care sytem is inherently inefficient, as evidenced by the much lower costs in all other countries using public health care systems.

Forced maximum rates = / = more efficient.

Medicare/Medicaid/Medi-cal, w/e, force maximums that they will pay, on the equilivant of $400 for Medicare and $100 for Medicaid for an ambulance.

Just becuase they won't pay what's due, doesn't mean they are efficient. I'd argue that's a racket. I can't go in to a grocery store, pay $10 and walk out with $200 worth of food.



I guess my counterpoint would be, why defend the status quo, and continue a system that's wasteful, inefficient and performs poorly, if you're concerned about fiscal responsibility?
I'm not defending status quo, but you're defending a wasteful, inefficient and poorly performing style...

I never once said the current way is the correct or best way, however you are saying that current welfare programs we have set up are?

Are you suggesting that countries with a larger population are ultimately more individualistic? Because China would seem to be a glaring exception to that idea. Why would you think that population size and tendency towards invidualism would be linked?

Never argued size mattered at all, just a poor way to phrase numbers.

AM arguing, however, that US history is based in individual rights more so than any other country.




I would suggest that this is the superior model, based on how it performs in other countries.
Slowly and not contributing to the enhancement and advancement of medicine to the same extent as US medicine and US research?


Would you be happier if each individual state provided a universal system? Just wondering.
That is now and has always been my view, as per the Constitution, it is a states right. If a state decides they want to give insurance to all occupants, that is their prerogative.

My view is it is not the federal governments right or responsibility.

But you understand that the rate of taxation in the US is very low in comparison to other countries, right? I'm not making that up, there's a factual basis to it.

Point? Just because someone gets punched in the face more than me, doesn't mean I don't want to be hit less myself.

Which programs do you feel are being funded inefficiently and why?

Funded efficiently vs run inefficiently and as such, need no more funding till the issues are fixed.

Just to name the biggest 4, Medicare, Social Security, general Welfare, and Congress.

But to continue the pot analogy, if you used a bigger pot, do you think that more of these programs would be working functionally?
Nope, that's just throwing money at the problem as opposed to fixing the problem.
 

homingmissile

Forum Crew Member
38
0
0
That's what we value in the US. Decisions. OUR own decisions. Not relying on someone elses.

Oh? Seems to me like having two entrenched political parties directly contradicts that statement. Option A with all its choices or Option B. Just ask the average American what he feels about voting for a third party. It's considered "throwing away your vote". You think that's the attitude of a people that value making their own decisions?

And I don't understand your way of thinking when you're uneducated and unexperienced on the ways of the US as you admitted yourself, yet here you are. And it's because you don't live in the US, you don't understand it.

systemet is too polite. That was ad hominem. But hey, I'm American-born and I live in the U.S. so maybe you'll admit that I might be qualified to speak on these mysterious ways of the U.S.? Hmm? Maybe? Well, systemet had some salient points. Or maybe you want to come at me and say I'm too young to know what I'm talking about? Or maybe you'll just dispense with the pretense and call me uneducated and inexperienced, too.

The line isn't drawn at healthcare, that's just where the current battle is.

You know why it can be said the line is drawn at healthcare? Because the people who supported big business and military spending turned around said this was going too far. The marked change in attitude from that faction is the reason people say a line has been drawn.


Unlike the typical European and their founding documents, the Constitution IS one of our biggest focal points in the US.

You know what's written in the Constitution? Separation of church and state. I seem to recall a big hooplah going up when a statue of the 10 Commandments was removed from a courthouse in Florida. I seem to recall a certain Christian phrase being implanted into the Pledge of Allegiance. I seem to recall a certain anti-gay presidential hopeful saying he would let his personal religious beliefs guide his policy-making.

Why is it that some people have such a penchant for pointing to specific parts of ancient documents written long ago, in a different time and different era, and saying, "See! That's why I'm right." but ignoring other parts when it suits them?

I'm against people in poverty having a sports car then begging for food stamps and government assistance. That needs to be fixed.

I think the mandate to buy some form of healthcare insurance, much like the requirement to have some form of auto liability insurance, will do something to curb that.

systemet said:
I would suggest that both our arguments should stand or fall on the basis of the logic and reasoning they contain, rather than where the two of us happen to have lived.

This is the essence of intellectual debate.

If your point is that, through living in the states, you feel you have a better idea on what the average American believes, I'll happily concede that point.

He doesn't. Unless he'd like to say that I'm not an "average American".


I think you can also look at the strength of the Canadian economy right now. There's another country, very similar to the US, with universal health care that seems to be surviving the current crises very well.

And guess what? The Americans have a mild contempt for our northern neighbors. NOT me personally, but as a person born and living in America, I can tell you that sentiment exists here. You won't hear it in PC circles but it's there.
 
Top