I'm not trying to start an argument here but to me this describes the liberal mindset that I am most at odds with. The idea that 'there are no rules and if there are there is no need for me to follow them because they are uneccessary or don't apply to me.' Several of the ideas born of liberalism I do agree with, but if in life we don't learn to play by the rules most of us aren't going to be successful. That is why many find themselves in trouble with the law and/or in prison. And no Jarod, I'm not picking on you for your spelling here. I wouldn't propose that the spelling police come and incarcerate you.The point is that you could substitute almost any word in for "TO SPELL" in the quote and you have how so many on the left (and maybe even the right, I really don't know) feel about all of life. I get discouraged when people don't want to follow "rules" simply because they don't like them. All that being said, I am certainly not against working to change the rules that you don't like....just conform to what are there while you work for change. This rant has nothing really to do with spelling, just spouted what hit me with the quote.
NO you are not forced to buy it, you have a choice.
That's akin to the choice between paying my taxes and going to jail.
I hear ya man. My brother just recovered from Cancer would not be able to get health insurance were it not for the affordable care act. My mother just broke her hip last week and had hip replacement surgery. If the GOP had it's way we'd be footing the bill for that instead of medicare.
Well it's because of people who don't carry health insurance who get sick or injured and have no coverage are a major factor in why my health insurance premiums have sky rocketed in the lat 10 years. If mandating coverage means I can get superior coverage at lower prices and be better able to protect my family then I'm all for that. It's the same argument with auto insurance. It's the knuckle heads who drive with out it who cause the rest of us to pay higher rates. That's why most states require auto coverage.That would be my choice wouldn't it? I mean, I'm allowed to fail for every other short sighted thing I do in life, why can't this be one of them?
If the GOP had its way your mother would likely have died.
Absolutely. The Affordable Care Act is just a beginning. It sets a precedent. This is just a beginning and as the reforms become implemented and people notice the benefits they will become more and more popular. The preception right now is that something is being taken away from people and they are being forced to do something else. That perception will change.As more and more people realize the benefits of ObamaCare their perception will change and they'll understand the lies the Repubs have spread.
As a Canadian with government medical I experienced first-hand the benefits of single payer/universal coverage. Fifteen years ago I had a car accident. First, I was transported to a local hospital. After my brother was notified of the accident and came to the hospital he realized there was a better hospital about 20 miles away. He insisted I be transferred.
I was transferred to the hospital of his choice (I was unconscious). There it was discovered I had a fractured spine, six broken ribs, shoulder, arm, jaw and sinuses. Ten days after admission I required electrical wires through my chest to keep my heart going. I also required a tracheotomy.
After six weeks in hospital, including three weeks in intensive care, I was transferred to a convalescent hospital for rehab. Six weeks later I walked out of the rehab. After a total of three months my out-of-pocket cost was $0.00
As for people who say government medical results in a lack of doctor choice I'll include the following note. When I was in rehab I requested more pain medication. After having a lively debate with the nurses the doctor in charge of the hospital came to see me. I was told not to confront the nurses as it was she who made the decision not to increase my pain meds. Then she abruptly left the room. Needless to say action had to be taken.
I phoned Medi-car which showed up the next day to transport me to the hospital where the operations took place. I saw the surgeon and he prescribed more pain meds. Upon returning to Rehab I handed in my prescription from the surgeon and returned to my room.
Shortly thereafter the doctor in charge of Rehab paid me a visit. The conversation went something like this.
Doctor: Patients are not supposed to call Medi-vac. The service is expensive. I'm the one who makes that decision? Am I not a good enough doctor for you?
Me: I went to see the surgeon because you refused to increase my pain medication and considering the surgeon did increase it the answer to your question should be obvious.
That ended the conversation and she left the room.
I had enough of their games with the pain medication distribution. It started out I would receive a pill at 7:30 am and it would take full effect by 9:00 am when my physio would start. Mostly from the bending of my arms but combined with other excercises, the pain from the broken ribs and the operation placing titanium rods in my back, the physio was excruciating.
Each morning the nurse would come by later and later. When I would ask other nurses where the meds were they would offer excuses such as the nurse with the drug cart was on break or they couldn't find the key or some other bogus excuse. The morning they came by at 8:30 and I refused to go for physio at 9:00 was the day I called Medi-car.
The point being government medical does not tell anyone what doctor to see, what hopsital to go to or any of the other lies and nonsense spread by opponents of government medical. Having friends in the US it's good to see the US system is finally changing. More changes are scheduled in the coming years and Obama deserves kudos for pushing it through and bringing the people along, albeit, many kicking and screaming due to the lies and distortions propagated by the greedy.
NO you are not forced to buy it, you have a choice.
Interesting post. If I may borrow some of your words "I'm not trying to start an argument here but to me your post describes the Conservative mindset that I am most at odds with." The people who get into the position to change the rules or those who have been successful following the rules don't want the rules changed. Why would they?
Whether it's human nature or a result of upbringing/conditioning virtually everyone who is successful feels they did more than others. They sacrificed. They worked harder. Of course, the truth is luck and circumstance played the major role. Proper connections surpass any hard work or sacrifice. Whether it's people who go into politics knowing someone or getting a promotion because of connections to the boss or becoming a TV personality (announcer, newscaster, etc) physical appearance and connections play a much greater roll than work and sacrifice.
Look how long it took to put an end to Vietnam. If rules/laws had been followed God knows how long it would have dragged on for. In the end the people had to say, "Hell no, we won't go!" At the time such actions were virtually unheard of. A call to "war" and the people say, "no!" The customary response, worldwide, was when government tells one to fight and they say, "No", they were summarily shot.
Then there's the laws against marajuana. (Excerpt) Shortly before marijuana was banned by The Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, new technologies were developed that made hemp a potential competitor with the newly-founded synthetic fiber and plastics industries. Hemp's potential for producing paper also posed a threat to the timber industry.....Evidence suggests that commercial interests having much to lose from hemp competition helped propagate reefer madness hysteria, and used their influence to lobby for Marijuana Prohibition.
After Alcohol Prohibition ended in 1933, funding for the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (now the Drug Enforcement Administration) was reduced. The FBN's own director, Harry J. Anslinger, then became a leading advocate of Marijuana Prohibition. The FBN's own director, Harry J. Anslinger, then became a leading advocate of Marijuana Prohibition. In 1937 Anslinger testified before Congress in favor of Marijuana Prohibition by saying: "Marijuana is the most violence causing drug in the history of mankind." (End)
http://www.thc-ministry.net/untoldstory/hemp_5.html
Unless tearing open a bag of snacks is considered being violent I'm not sure where violence fits in.(Just for the record I do not partake.)
If there's one thing history has taught us it's not the peaceful, orderly changing of laws that allowed progress. In fact, it's the opposite. From the supposed sacrilege espoused by astronomers to violent revolutions the Conservative (those disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc.) have continually stood in the way. Fortunately, for US citizens and the free world, in general, Obama is the closest "Liberal" I've seen in my lifetime. For those who condemn him for changes he didn't make we have to remember he has to deal with the "establishment" as well.
I'm betting his second term will be most productive.
In the US, alcohol prohibition was the product of a liberal movement. The 1930s were also a very liberal decade.
The 1930s comment pretty much stands for itself without the need to cite it, for those of us who live in the US and studied some history.
I generally use the wiki article for Progressive Era and amendments, because people are shocked to know that the Prohibition Amendment is part of the "Progressive Amendments."
You can thank Samantha Barbas, Ph.D., JD, for my course covering the Progressives in US History. According to her, the progressives were natural allies of prohibition because of their view of society and law - American society could be improved, and cleaned up, by passing legislation. This seems like a fairly obvious tactic to us today, but at the time it was pretty new thinking. Obviously, we are all familiar with the Temperence Movement which you alluded to, and its support of prohibition. Apparently Barbas finished up her law degree at Stanford and now hangs out over at SUNY in Buffalo. http://law.buffalo.edu/Faculty_And_Staff/default.asp?filename=Barbas_Samantha
1930s... hmm. Liberal president, 70+ liberal senators in the US Senate, similar ratio in the US House, and a plan to pack the US Supreme Court with likeminded justices. You're right, Legion Fag, the 1930s was not a liberal decade.
Not only that but wtf did that have to do with Apples point? I mean hell, the US Constitution was the result of a liberal movement. Universal sufferage was the result of a liberal movement. Child labor laws were a liberal movement. Hell most political movement that benefit the peoples lives are a result of liberal movements.....which brings me back full circle. WTF was his point?Let's see...because Franklin Roosevelt spanked Herbert Hoover after that Republican cut taxes and spent money wildly to deal with a Depression (deja vu?) and people you regard as "liberal" served on the USSC and in Congress, the 30's were a "liberal decade"?
With theories like that, no wonder you're loafing around Lewis-McChord on the taxpayer's tit.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/herberthoover