Lefty

Fine, I'll rephrase so as not to offend your sensitivities to the talking box. "Social security would be fat and happy with no problem at all, if the government hadn't tapped every cent of it." Now, where did I hear that? Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Translation: this government program would be great if it weren't for the government. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

No kidding. I don't even need tbrown to come charging in here throwing around denunciations of Wright to know that Obama's whacko ex-pastor doesn't speak for liberals. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Considering he's a neo-national socialist, I'm surprised at the lack of posts from the left wingers denouncing him. You can pretty much assume the right wing folks already abhor his actions. EDIT: Besides, von Brunn is quoted as hating "neocons". Hardly a right-wing sentiment, especially considering so many conservative posters on this forum have been called "neocon" at some point or another. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Is that parasitic profit component just as galling to you with other businesses? Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

A truly excellent article from Commentary Magazine.

Guilty as charged. As billvon pointed out, conservatives have their own methods of saving people from themselves. I'm not a big fan of either the conservative or liberal flavor of such a practice. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

To our everlasting shame. Those practices in themselves don't reflect any sort of modern conservative/liberal ideology, however, and to get in an argument as to which side championed the solution of what issue would derail this thread completely. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Disagree. Using Speakers Corner as a sampling group (go ahead, laugh), I'd say health care in some sense or another is on a lot of minds, one way or the other. If you can come up with a more scientific poll, I'm all ears. No problem...just being honest. Of course, as an actual taxpayer, I'd prefer to look at it as good a good system that I've already paid for versus a crappy system that I've already paid for. In the end, I don't view health care as I right, so we're just going to argue in circles here. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

I would say the U.S. started out fairly libertarian (insert rant about libertarian poll placement here), in that government was small, people were generally self-reliant, and the government stuck to its narrow, specified tasks. It is my theory that any republic is going to inevitably shift toward the liberal side of the spectrum as its people become soft, fat, and lazy. "Liberal" meaning a larger government making more intrusions into our daily lives. Specifically in the case of the U.S., our populace has become obsessed with the technology and comforts our civilization affords us. As such, we become disconnected from our self-reliant roots and defer a large part of our independence to a government who will take a lot of the scariness out of life. I'd say that is a fair estimation. To my charge, people might say "No. That's wrong and I don't like your face". I'd respond by speaking ill of their mothers, and so on. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Hah, you want me to refute a statistic you just made up? I'll pass. I only used skydiving because I didn't think you could relate to the wine bottle ass crowd. My point stands, regardless of how many people you know, simply because nationalized health care removes the price tag consequence of their stupidity. My insurance of course. Your argument really speaks well for the efficiency and wisdom of nationalized health care, if those are my options. Thanks for making it. If I really needed it, I would have long ago. I'm only waiting for the VA because it's free, they owe it to me, and it's rarely a bad thing to have another check-up. It's just interesting to see how long it takes. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

See, that's a troubling aspect. This program takes a big deterrent out of risky/stupid activities. Now, instead of "Man, maybe I shouldn't jump out of this plane because my deductible is pretty big and I don't have the money to pay for a serious injury and I can't miss work, etc" it's "Screw it. I'm covered. Wheeee! *break*". Seriously, tell me that wouldn't happen. I'd get to pay for all the idiots to do their idiotic things. >Just the type of health care system I want...one that doesn't care. Come on, now. Let's say the program goes live. You end up in the emergency room with, to use your example, a broken pelvis and you can choose between your own insurance with a deductible or insurance you've already paid for anyway with your taxes. Which are you going to pick? I'd pick the one I already paid for and leave the private insurance for procedures with long waiting lists. As I mentioned, six months and counting for a dental screening by the VA...a fine example of socialized medicine. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Of course no politician is going to come out and say they are only making such-and-such decision to get reelected. Isn't it funny how all the presidential pardons come when they're leaving office? At that point they don't care. A nationalized health care system would be the poster child of vote-buying schemes. After all, who do you think is going to pay for this? The small number of rich people who get demonized by the very people squeezing them for money? Or, the huge number of people leeching off the system? It's one vote per person, so which group would a politician give "free" stuff to? These are career politicians we're talking about...really the only kind that exist nowadays. You think insurance companies have an agenda to make money while cheating you somehow (and that might be true in your experience). However, these politicians have a business and a trade that must be seen to...staying in office. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

That has nothing to do with my question. My question was, does it count as "health care"? Is wine bottle ass removal the type of thing you feel is in the spirit of this glorious crusade? Just the type of health care system I want...one that doesn't care. Sure, send him to that fancy place. Spend more of my money to find out that maybe he was just an idiot. Not sure where that one came from. Only until I become president. Then the program gets ended. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Fixed. Politicians make political decisions. That's what this whole thing is about. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

So you want to tax something thats already been taxed? Double secret taxation. The liberal's wet dream. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Have we, out of all these threads, ever gotten a definition of what "health care" is? If some idiot goes and sticks a wine bottle up his ass, does the removal of said bottle count as health care? Why or why not? Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

If the previous government had been competent, this government wouldn't have had to handle any of those things. Obama's government didn't create the longest recession since the 1930s. So you think another Bush won't come along sooner or later and mess things up again? Administrations change. Incompetent ones leave, woefully inexperienced ones come in, maybe a good one next, then incompetent, etc. Big difference between the last Bush and the next will be that the next one will have control of your health care. Isn't that a nice thought? Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

I'm betting on their hope (insert doe-eyed emoticon here) sustaining through his term. He's still got his American Idol-style celebrity status that got him elected and that won't diminish regardless of what he does or doesn't do. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Just wait until everyone has to wait six months (and counting) for a something as simple as a dental exam like I have to do with the VA. I've even been in the highest priority group due to my deployment. Hooray for hope and change. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

I thought you said you live in the USA... Were there some cancelled US elections that I didn't see in the news? Nope. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

I thought you said you live in the USA... Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

I must admit I had no idea what this thread would be about when I clicked on it. The title had me both confused and interested. Well done, sir. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

His image as some gifted orator and statesmen is mostly smoke and mirrors, but at least he didn't use the exact same wording twice, didn't hem or haw, and didn't use the wrong words with these particular quotes. I'd say he's making some progress. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin

Someone set up us the bomb! Anyway, about the article, maybe nationalized healthcare won't be so bad after all with all the softies we have waddling around in the States. Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin