The Rise of the Police State and the Absence of Mass Opposition???

apple0154 said:
He said he was against ObamaCare but for expanding Medicaid. Considering Medicaid was not expanded ObamaCare is the next best thing.

I don't recall specifics except to say I had the impression he usually agrees with the folks who are against social programs or expanded government. We are currently attempting to clear this up.
Click to expand...
but is it still your contention that those who don't believe in social programs are untruthful? or were you simply referring to a misunderstanding of yurts positions and posts?
 
apple0154 said:
People who don't believe in social programs are not going to be concerned if the government is not diligent about them. I think that should be obvious.
Click to expand...
not being diligent about administering social programs is not misconduct, just negligence. I'm referring to police abuses and brutalities as misconduct.
 
Yurt said:
you're no fun apple.

but you know what...i believe you would help someone in need.
Click to expand...

Thank-you.

as would i. and as i have. your post earlier was about absolutes, i don't think it is about absolutes. the democrat message alone is not perfect, neither is the gop message, neither is any independent message i've seen. i'm thankful we have a mix of liberal and conservative ideas in this country. and that those ideas are not radical.

that is what pissed me off about obama and his h/c bill. he made it about him and his pride. imagine if he made it about expanding an already existing program, to include all ages. clean the program up. streamline it etc. no...it had to be a "new" bill. would the pubs have gone for it? most likely not. but, it would have been a much easier sell to the american people. obama fucked up big time on this. can you imagine selling the american people on simply expanding medicare, putting in a clause about prior conditions....much easier sell than spending years trying to convince people of an entire new system.
Click to expand...

As you correctly noted, "would the pubs have gone for it? most likely not."

That was the crux of the problem. Health care has been discussed for generations. It started in 1912. One hundred years ago. Here is a time line.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/07/19/us/politics/20090717_HEALTH_TIMELINE.html

What tends to be overlooked is it's difficult to discuss the details of a comprehensive health policy when one side doesn't believe such a policy should even exist. That's why Obama told the Repubs not to come with the same tired, worn out ideas. No policy resembling a comprehensive one would have passed with Repub approval. It would have been destined to fail or have accomplished nothing. In the end Obama knew he was going it alone so why not go for broke, as the old saying goes. (That phrase should generate a lot of wise-ass remarks from our Repub friends.)

Simply put it was time to make a move and let the chips fall where they may. If nothing else can be said about ObamaCare it has moved the discussion from whether there should be a comprehensive plan to how to implement one. It's referred to as the Overton Window. (The Overton window is a political theory that describes as a narrow "window" the range ideas that the public will respond to as acceptable........At any given moment, the “window” includes a range of policies considered to be politically acceptable in the current climate of public opinion, which a politician can recommend without being considered too “extreme” or outside the mainstream to gain or keep public office.) It took 100 years to get there.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
not being diligent about administering social programs is not misconduct, just negligence. I'm referring to police abuses and brutalities as misconduct.
Click to expand...

You wrote,
so you're now implying that those select groups and individuals who don't believe the federal government should have social programs are apathetic? therefore the government doesn't do it's job?
Click to expand...

I didn't see any mention concerning police abuses and brutalities in your post.
 
apple0154 said:
Thank-you.



As you correctly noted, "would the pubs have gone for it? most likely not."

That was the crux of the problem. Health care has been discussed for generations. It started in 1912. One hundred years ago. Here is a time line.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/07/19/us/politics/20090717_HEALTH_TIMELINE.html

What tends to be overlooked is it's difficult to discuss the details of a comprehensive health policy when one side doesn't believe such a policy should even exist. That's why Obama told the Repubs not to come with the same tired, worn out ideas. No policy resembling a comprehensive one would have passed with Repub approval. It would have been destined to fail or have accomplished nothing. In the end Obama knew he was going it alone so why not go for broke, as the old saying goes. (That phrase should generate a lot of wise-ass remarks from our Repub friends.)

Simply put it was time to make a move and let the chips fall where they may. If nothing else can be said about ObamaCare it has moved the discussion from whether there should be a comprehensive plan to how to implement one. It's referred to as the Overton Window. (The Overton window is a political theory that describes as a narrow "window" the range ideas that the public will respond to as acceptable........At any given moment, the “window” includes a range of policies considered to be politically acceptable in the current climate of public opinion, which a politician can recommend without being considered too “extreme” or outside the mainstream to gain or keep public office.) It took 100 years to get there.
Click to expand...

imo...it would have been easier for obama to sell the idea of an expanded medicaid program - already in existence - than to spend years selling a new program. he had both houses for his first year. expanded medicaid would have been much simpler than convincing people of a new untried program.

use what exists and make it better before creating an entire new entity of government when people are skeptical of more agencies.
 
j-mac said:
When you help one sub set of people at the expense of the others, yes. But you are dodging the question apple....
Click to expand...

Ahh, but social policies remove sub-sets. Everyone is entitled to receive help. As for dodging the question I assume the question is,
(Msg 28) So if you consider Obamacare to be social engineering, then explain how it is that is even remotely what the founders of this nation envisioned?”
Click to expand...

I don’t consider ObamaCare to be social engineering. No one is obliged to utilize ObamaCare. If one is ill and they don’t want help, that’s OK. They will not be coerced.

As to what the Founders envisioned they made that clear in the Preamble. “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” and courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of, the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve. (dic.com)

A more perfect union. Tranquility. General welfare. Blessings of Liberty. Simply put they wanted a better way of life for the people. To be opposed to a policy that will undoubtedly extend the life of many people….how can anyone say the Founders would be opposed to that? It doesn’t make sense to want to offer the people a better way of life while not caring if they lived or died.
 
apple0154 said:
Ahh, but social policies remove sub-sets. Everyone is entitled to receive help. As for dodging the question I assume the question is,

I don’t consider ObamaCare to be social engineering. No one is obliged to utilize ObamaCare. If one is ill and they don’t want help, that’s OK. They will not be coerced.

As to what the Founders envisioned they made that clear in the Preamble. “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” and courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of, the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve. (dic.com)

A more perfect union. Tranquility. General welfare. Blessings of Liberty. Simply put they wanted a better way of life for the people. To be opposed to a policy that will undoubtedly extend the life of many people….how can anyone say the Founders would be opposed to that? It doesn’t make sense to want to offer the people a better way of life while not caring if they lived or died.
Click to expand...

so a "tax" is not coercion?
 
apple0154 said:
Ahh, but social policies remove sub-sets. Everyone is entitled to receive help. As for dodging the question I assume the question is,

I don’t consider ObamaCare to be social engineering. No one is obliged to utilize ObamaCare. If one is ill and they don’t want help, that’s OK. They will not be coerced.

As to what the Founders envisioned they made that clear in the Preamble. “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” and courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of, the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve. (dic.com)

A more perfect union. Tranquility. General welfare. Blessings of Liberty. Simply put they wanted a better way of life for the people. To be opposed to a policy that will undoubtedly extend the life of many people….how can anyone say the Founders would be opposed to that? It doesn’t make sense to want to offer the people a better way of life while not caring if they lived or died.
Click to expand...


Is Socialism a "Blessing of Liberty?"
 
Yurt said:
imo...it would have been easier for obama to sell the idea of an expanded medicaid program - already in existence - than to spend years selling a new program. he had both houses for his first year. expanded medicaid would have been much simpler than convincing people of a new untried program.

use what exists and make it better before creating an entire new entity of government when people are skeptical of more agencies.
Click to expand...

Do you really believe Medicaid would have been expanded to include 25 year olds? While it may have included many more people covering whatever cost was necessary I'm sure it would demand the injured drain their savings before kicking in. Most likely bankruptcies or severe financial loss would still occur as it would probably be operated on strict entitlement rules.

As for another program if ObamaCare is a step towards a one payer system then Medicaid and Medicare won't be necessary. One medical program for all.
 
Yurt said:
so a "tax" is not coercion?
Click to expand...

One is entitled to contribute but not conduct themselves in a certain fashion.

When I think of social engineering I think of laws such as DWI or anti-smoking. People are compelled to conduct themselves in a certain fashion.
 
apple0154;1047550]Do you really believe Medicaid would have been expanded to include 25 year olds? While it may have included many more people covering whatever cost was necessary I'm sure it would demand the injured drain their savings before kicking in. Most likely bankruptcies or severe financial loss would still occur as it would probably be operated on strict entitlement rules.
Click to expand...

my belief is not the issue. obama getting a NEW medical payer system in place was a much greater faith at the time. funny how you denigrate the state health insurance, while in the same breath, worshiping obamacare. obamacare is nothing more than an expansion of federal funds to provide medical care to those who can't pay for it. tell me.............how would obamacare treat them any different than medicaid?

As for another program if ObamaCare is a step towards a one payer system then Medicaid and Medicare won't be necessary. One medical program for all.
Click to expand...

please tell me you know the difference between the two.....on payer system will not work in this country. period. don't want it, don't it. expand h/c for the poor, raise a little taxes on the rich if need be, preferably not, and you will still have a better system here in the US than in canada. trust me. i have personal relations in canada.
 
j-mac said:
Is Socialism a "Blessing of Liberty?"
Click to expand...

Absolutely not! However, certain social programs definitely are.

It appears many people do not fully understand Socialism. It's much, much more than social programs. It encompasses where one works to who owns what and everything in between.
 
Yurt said:
my belief is not the issue. obama getting a NEW medical payer system in place was a much greater faith at the time. funny how you denigrate the state health insurance, while in the same breath, worshiping obamacare. obamacare is nothing more than an expansion of federal funds to provide medical care to those who can't pay for it. tell me.............how would obamacare treat them any different than medicaid?
Click to expand...

If you looked at ObamaCare as the first step towards a one payer system you'd understand the necessity. A one payer system eliminates any criteria/qualification to be met by the patient. Age, income, co-pays....everyone is entitled.

please tell me you know the difference between the two.....on payer system will not work in this country. period. don't want it, don't it. expand h/c for the poor, raise a little taxes on the rich if need be, preferably not, and you will still have a better system here in the US than in canada. trust me. i have personal relations in canada.
Click to expand...

Yurt, there is not one prominent politician in any country with government medical campaigning on dismantling it. There is not one country with government medical where the citizens are protesting/requesting a return to a "pay or suffer" system. Not ONE country. Doesn't that tell you something?

On that note I need my beauty sleep. Have a super evening.
 
apple0154 said:
One is entitled to contribute but not conduct themselves in a certain fashion.

When I think of social engineering I think of laws such as DWI or anti-smoking. People are compelled to conduct themselves in a certain fashion.
Click to expand...
at the expense of personal freedom and liberty, no doubt. i wish you could see how unamerican that is.
 
apple0154;1047567]If you looked at ObamaCare as the first step towards a one payer system you'd understand the necessity. A one payer system eliminates any criteria/qualification to be met by the patient. Age, income, co-pays....everyone is entitled.
Click to expand...

if you paid attention to my idea that medicaid should be expanded to all ages, you would realize there would be no need for a one payer system.

Yurt, there is not one prominent politician in any country with government medical campaigning on dismantling it. There is not one country with government medical where the citizens are protesting/requesting a return to a "pay or suffer" system. Not ONE country. Doesn't that tell you something?

On that note I need my beauty sleep. Have a super evening.
Click to expand...

apple...enjoy your sleep, if you are as beautiful as your cat avi....you don't need much. and yes, i know you are a dude and i'm totally cool with saying that. is that another social theory you had wrong about me?

that said....think about expanding medicaid instead of a new system in this country.
 
Why cant people see that America is no longer free. THere are camras everywhere.Their building a big razorwire fence around the nation.Every where you want to go you have to show your papers. We have a national Nazi style secret police in the office of homeland secrity.You cant go a city block without seeing a cop.We have the largest prison population in the world.They are forming registation lists about lots of differnt things.
Not to mention that theyalmost strip you naked at the Airport. And the consentration camps are being built as I type this. Come on America,see what should be obviose to anyone!!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top