You didn't mention that much of the race baiting came from the losing Clinton campaign as a last ditch effort at the nomination by securing the "white vote."
This included the contention that we weren't ready for a black pres., the fictional "whitey" tape, circulating pictures of Obama in a turban. etc.
You don't want the single payer health care systems they have in other countries.
If you need or want a medication, unlike in the US, it has to be approved by a cost control panel, in the UK called NICE. So you could be in the situation where your doc say it would be best to take x but the bureaucrats tell you "no". If you are unisured or have limited insurance there are programs, through drug companies, for getting something that's expensive.
I come from Canada so it is rather interesting to see kind of reaction to the prospect of government run health care. Our system isn't perfect but I think is better than what the states currently has.
The US still has a richer system. If you get something serious you will have a better chance of recovery. I would take the WHO ranking with a grain of salt. If you get cancer in the US you have a better chance of survival. You have it better in the UK or Canada if you're a crack baby.
There are a lot of nut cases out there but they are on both sides, liberal and conservative. Liberals just complain about it more. The vast majority of the american people dotn want to have to depend on the government. This is a power grab nothing more.
You know, maybe I do confuse Marxism and Socialism. I've heard different definitions for them at different times but none of them make me care enough to really learn the distinctions.
What I know is that the government just took a little more control of our lives. I know the government has legitimate authority and the need to exercise it, but this is a step over the line. We're nowhere near the point where gun mobs seem reasonable, but I want my freedom back.
So yes, the birthers are wrong and nutty (anyone who STILL holds to this belief, despite the evidence), I just wanted to show that their ideas DID come from somewhere. partial evidence or evidence misinterpreted or misapplied, a little truth leading to a lot of lies... the hallmark of most conspiracy theories
and the idea that Obama was an "Arab" (and another reason some people thought he was a Muslim) was his middle name which they associate with King Hussein of Jordan and Saddam Hussein from hearing those names in the media and associating them with the middle east and Islam. the fact that he was photographed wearing "foreign" clothes and gaffed and said "my muslim faith" in an interview (which he corrected to "my christian faith") only fueled their speculation
the idea that B.O. was born in Indonesia probably comes from the fact that his mother divorced his Kenyan father and remarried to an Indonesian (and people got confused).
so while I'm sure the "fears" people had were surely based on inherent mistrust and bias, the whole "birther" thing took a little bit of truth and twisted it, took leaps in logic and created a message that was incorrect. since it's been debunked, it remains a conspiracy theory.
I'm not a birther, but I just wanted to add that the reason people leapt to the conclusion that he was from somewhere so specific as Kenya is not because "black people come from Kenya" it's because his FATHER was born there (not that same city though). His father was also a lapsed Muslim, hence the leap in logic that Barack was too.
I forgot, prior to the health care plan, as far as I can tell, Obama's abortion policy basically rolled back to how it was in the Clinton years (reversing the mexico city policy, removing restrictions on embryonic stem cell use, and I could be wrong about this last one... rejecting the partial birth abortion ban). so if anything, that would have made Clinton more "hitler-esque" than obama if you want to go that route. the warmongering is no different than bush
the hitler claims I think come from the belief that he was going to expand access to abortion (based on the health care plan, which remains to be seen, though this alone wouldn't make him hitler-like) and the whole "death panels" rumor. otherwise he's no more like hitler than any other US president in recent history
The penalty for not paying the fine has been reduced to nothing. There's is nothing to worry about if you don't buy insurance. Someone realized it was stupid.
Another problem you should mention is when the Obama supporters scream racism for *any* criticism of the Obama administration, policies, ideals, philosophy, etc.
Just out of curiosity, why can't you be a Marxist and a Socialist at the same time?
I had thought that Marxism was the ideology from which the government style (or at least principle) of Socialism was devised. Ergo, it could be said that socialist states (those which actually follow Marxist principles - this, of course, ruled out Stalin's Russia) are practicing Marxism.
I'm probably wrong on this, and am intrigued to hear your take on Marxism and Socialism. Let me know what you think.
It really depends on how broad your definition of socialism is.
If your definition of socialism is a government that funds social programms through taxes, and regulates industry then the US is already a socialist country.
A true socialist system does not allow the goverment to own the means of production; a marxist system starts from that policy.
It may be that I over stated that point in the video, as I wouldn't begrudge anyone reffering to Marxist-Leninist socialism as opposed to democratic socialism; my problem really is that people tend to think that, so long as there's "socialism" in the name, the two are the same.
for god sake; I've answered that question three times in as broad and specific a language as I can possibly utter, i'm not going to answer it again. just scroll down.
first, I spend 500 words trying to explain my answer as best I can; i wouldn't call that "talking around the question" unless no facts are relevant and all you're looking for are one word answers, in which case you're just building a straw man.
Second; I didn't know that youtube was positing them out of order and that really pisses me off.
Third, I try NOT to be brief; specificity is a lost art, and I try to be as specific as possible (con't)
He's a little taller, I weigh a bit more, I'm better looking, I tell funnier jokes, and I'm much more fun to be around, but we are indeed identical twins; no joke.
@standinstann well, free health care is kind of a mixed bag up here. while we are covered for a bunch of stuff, quality of the health care itself isn't nearly as good as down there. a lot of really wealthy canadians go down to the states and pay to see doctors there
well, like the man said; for those of you who think that this is going to be armageddon; six month from now, you can walk outside and look around, and we'll see.
If it had been the case that individuals were mandated to pay TAXES in order to support a system that wouldn't work unless everybody was on it; I would agree with you, but I don't think it's nieve to point out that neither the government nor the health care system is being supported by the money that might be collected through fines.
I'm starting to find your rhetoric dismissive, and I didn't at first; let me just say for the record, I might be wrong, but I don't think what I've said above becaus I want to; I think it because I've given the issue some thought.
You keep accusing me of not answering the question after I answer it thoroughly.
To your first question I already answered no, they dont care if people who can afford health insurance and dont buy it dont pay the fine. What I just said is not dancing around the issue, its as direct an answer to your question as I can possibly give and Ive given the same answer three times.
and to your follow up question If no, how could you believe that? I gave you a detailed answer.
fines would in fact not effect anywhere close to "millions" of people, why that is is the bill is relevant, and the fact that I'm not giving you the answers that serve your point doesn't mean that I'm "just talking around the issue"
to your first question; that's the awkward part of this stupid portion of the bill; and the reason that the penalty for not paying the fine has gone down to nothing. The answer is, because you have to make it a law.
To your second point: the number of people who can afford health insurance but don't buy it are not in the millions; the number of people who want it but can't afford it are.
There wouldn't be enough people fined to fund a bake sale, let alone a social program. (con't)
To your third point; I can believe they don't because this wasn't their first choice, teir first choice was a public option, and when that was denied, their aim was to produce a bill that would mirror its effect, not fine a few stragalers who didn't buy from the private market;
To your final point; if the supreme court rules that this is constitutional, then it's the law weather we like it or not. (con't)
I am not in the habbit of folowing only the laws that I agree with. (if that were the case i wouldn't wear a helmet when riding a bike, I woudn't fund state exicutions, etc.
That's assuming that its ruled constitutional, which remains to be seen.
You think that if you didn't pay the fine, the government wouldn't do anything? Are you really saying that? You're saying that if the whole of the country just said "nah"... and no one got healthcare, and no one paid the fine... they wouldn't do ANYTHING?
Are you REALLY saying that?
They'd do nothing?
Please. Tell me... in so many words ( I really want to see you say this)... tell me "If millions of people didn't cooperate, the government wouldn't do anything about it."
The reason that the mandates exist is so that the federal government can be required by law to pay for the health care of those who cant afford it; I dont think theyre interested in the people who can afford it but dont want it; like I said theyre not getting the money they pay in premiums anyway, the health insurance companies are. The mandates are in place in lue of a tax.
Well, that was shot down, and so the only way to guarantee a subsidy to people who couldnt afford health insurance was to mandate it so that the government would be legaly bound to provide it to the poor IE: you cant force a person with no money to buy something, therefore you have to pay for it be cause he has to have it by law. (cont)
And so, because the mandates were instituted in order to force the federal government to buy health insurance for people who couldnt afford it (essentially), no; I dont think theyre going to be going to middle class peoples houses and heranging them for not giving money to a health insurance company like they would a tax evader who is denying them revenue. I dont think they have any interest in doing that, and I dont think that that is what the mandates are for. (con't)
That having been said; Ill meet you half way and say that its possible; it depends on two things; First; the desire of the government to enforce a system that does nothing for it, and two; weather or not such a mandate is constitutional.
1: Auto-insurance is handled on a state by state basis (and states have a much more broad powers than the federal government), and you aren't required to have it, because you aren't required to drive.
2: What are you imagining would happen to someone if they didn't pay the fine? The government would just admit defeat, and go home? What do you think they WOULD do? Honestly. If not arrest. What?
to the first point; it's true that they're different things; you have a chice as to weather or not you drive; you don't have a choice as to weather or not you need health care.
To the second point; the answer is, nothing; the idea of the individual mandate is that it's in lue of taxes; they don't care if people who can afford it are on it, it's no skin off their nose, they don't get the money anyway, they care if the people who can't afford it are on it. (con't)
At that point a little public OPTION would really hit the spot; and we might as well impose a tax and make it like social security like they should have done in the first place.
If it's true that you will be fined for not buying the gov't health care, I'd like to know 2 things:
1. Who is issuing the fine?
2. What if I don't pay it?
I hate it when people compare it to car insurance, saying that car insurance is required or you'll get a fine. This health care thing seems different. I can decide not to drive and avoid buying car insurance, but (from the looks of it) I CANNOT AVOID BUYING HEALTH INSURANCE. Thats bs. If I don't want it, I should have to buy it, right?
"...I hope that a court would find that it is not within the power of government to require us to buy certain things; if this were a tax I could understand it, but if there is an actual penalty for not buying insurence, then I hope that its either fixed through reconsileation or batted down in the courts."
So my comment earlier was a half joke, i suppose. I thought it was kind of funny.
sorry, YouTube has made it difficult to read comments/responses in order, etc.
anyway, he kept saying that if you don't buy the govt health care, you will be fined/imprisoned. And you'd been denying it, or otherwise shooting him down. then you said this:
I want to know something, Stan, and I want to know it REEEALLY bad: Given that government is a conglomeration of fallible human beings elected by a direct referendum, and with corporations -also a conglomeration of fallible human beings- being elected by a more democratic means (meaning the consumers' dollar) which is more alive and subject to the whims of a free market's forum than some 2, 4, or 8 year term career that some politicians may concern themselves with, which one is morally superior?
False dichotomy if I ever heard one. Your whole discussion makes it sound (whether you want it to sound this way or not) the ONLY two sides of this debate are "reasonable" people like you who just want the government to take care of you, and raving racist gun nuts.
So much for being at the mercy of the insurance industry, now we're at the mercy of the one entity that truly doesn't listed to us; the government. I defy you to claim they do.
@groupthinker1984 And thats forgetting that we are at the mercy of the insurance industry in the first place because of rampant acts of abusive government. I.E. runaway litigation which drives up doctor's liability insurance, laws requiring the hospital to take patients who can't pay (and allowing them to pay very little back) all while not enforcing our borders so that many of those running up the bill are filing in from across the border
@groupthinker1984 And all of this ignores the economic realities. At a time when unemployment is just under 10% weve boldly decided to add a mandatory expense for the people who can't afford it, while making it more expensive for employers to hire employees. Brilliant!
But its okay right? Because we have a right to health care and heaping helpings of it whether or not we want it or can afford it.
if it wereen't for the fact that this will help small buisinesses, and save people money in the long run I would agree with you. And what's more, the people who can't afford it will be subsidised, and the small buisinesses who already offer it will pay less for it, which will save them money.
@standinstann For what its worth. I know you know better than that. I know we don't see eye to eye on government's role in our lives, but I know you see the shades of grey and I know the perception created in your video is an unintended byproduct of your frustration. Whats more, I can sympathize with your frustration. There were 3 outcomes possible 1) All the way 2) Half ass and 3)Nothing. We got the worst of the three. I prefer 3, but would take 1 over 2. I'm no fan of the Golden Mean.
Part of the problem was, i started out talking about the social/racial climate of the country, and then tacked on my views on the HC bill, maybe I should have broken it up into two vlawgs.
You're reminding me a bit of Glenn Beck. A couple of people go crazy, and all of a sudden this translates to global apocalypse. An exaggeration of course, few people are as crazed as Glenn Beck, but it's a simple case of vocal minority. You only hear about these people because of how crazy they are. Normal, sane people don't make the news.
I hope you're right, and what's more, I don't see an apocalypse coming up, I'm just depressed that there is this much hysteria over a damn health care reform bill.
Think about it. Millions of Americans will refuse to buy a HC product they do not wish to buy. (how odd that socialism CAN be forced, yet capitalism...not so much) Sure, we'll take it to court, and break the FLOODGATE of Constitutional defiance to bear on this unjust legislation.
And when the IRS takes it out of our accounts, and out of our tax returns, we will find that there's no more reason to keep paying taxes. The tax revolution will begin.
in a true socialist system government would never control the means of production. I don't think that that sentence would make for a very interresting video. lol
He he! People of the Weimar Republic couldn't have had as much foresight as we have today! Discount claims all you want, but don't confuse paranoia with vigilance!
"Can't even pass a damn healthcare system without people shouting the 'n-word' and other racial & homophobic slurs"
Uh, excuse me? Source? You taking the verbal allegations at FACE VALUE, Stan? And THEN trying to attach these allegations to the ENTIRE movement?
you misunderstood me: I was talking about the social climate of the country in general; I wasn't accusing any particular group of doing this, I was saying only that... well that we can't even pass a damn health care bill in this country without somebody shouting the N word.
It's amazing to me that no one is actually addressing what I'm saying. You're either rewording what I said, and addressing that... or leaving out key portions of my questions, and answering the softball portions.
If this bill really isn't so bad... address what I'm saying.
i've been trying; I don't know what it was that I failed to address.
The bill is good on the whole, and portions of it are bad, individual mandates being one of them, and a lack of a public option being another.
there has never been passed a bill that is perfect or without contraversy, and I am not prepared to say that the WHOLE bill be done away with because of those two things.
If that doesn't address what you're saying then maybe i'm not understanding your question.
If a person can't afford to pay, then the government will pay for it for them, through a subsidy;
that belies the other two questions. Nobody is going to be arrested for not being able to pay for health insurence; and so they will not resist arrest, and and the non arrest will not escelate.
To humor you, as I see where you're going with this, I will say that if a person were required to buy health insurence UNDER PAIN OF ARREST, and couldn't affor it, he would be arrested, and if he resisted arrest he may be killed in the process,
"Tyrrany is a ruling class forcing unjust laws upon people who have no recourse against that ruling class, and no say in the process of passing those laws. "
This bill is the ruling class forcing unjust mandates upon the people who have no recourse against that ruling class, and no say in the process of passing those laws.
Simply because it might, or might not get shot down in the surpreme court, doesn't make it any less fitting of YOUR definition.
The ruling class is us; we elected these people, and they're doing exactly what they said they were going to do.
Individual mandates are no more or less unjust than taxes, weather or not their constitutional is another matter, but just because we don't like something doesn't make it unjust,
The government requires us to pay for all kinds of things; the only difference is that it normally does so through our taxes.
"The ruling class is us; we elected these people, and they're doing exactly what they said they were going to do."
Even the Democrats didn't want to pass this bill, because the people don't want it. Obama pressed it forward using political pressures. That's NOT a republic.
"just because we don't like something doesn't make it unjust, "
Yet forcing people to buy a product clearly is.
"The government requires us to pay for all kinds of things"
To your first point, are you telling me that politicians plaied politics in order to get votes for a bill??? Why that's, that's what ALWAYS happens! that happened with the bush tax cuts, the civil rights act, and every other bill that's ever come before congress.
your secon point is a fair one; it's true that the government has never required us to buy a product, with the possible exception of auto insurence (con't)
The issue here (and the argument that will be made) is: the conditions under which you are required by the government to buy auto insurence is that you drive a car, the conditions under which you are required by the government to buy a bycicle helmet is that you ride a bycicle;
the conditions under which you are required to buy health insurence is that you might get sick and need medical care. (con't)
Now, it may sound like I'm defending the individual mandate more than I actually support it, I don't support it in my heart of hearts, and I don't think that you should either, I'm just holding you back a little from the magnitude of your opposition, and the implications that you see as a result of this, which I think is an over reaction.
Lastly, my point is that there are conditions under which the government requires us to buy things from the private market; this is unique in that health insurence is a need.
Seriously? A broken window and a cut gas line? And you're worried about people going out to spill blood and start a revolution?
I have to say that what you see proves how biased the general media is. We see constant barrages showing us these few obnoxious idiots that side with conservative views, but not the ones that do the same for liberals, NOR EVEN report that these people were plants to deliberately slander conservatives.
I mean I will admit that those acts of vandalism are pretty extreme, but they lack context. How often do people make threats or commit such crimes against congress members? We don't know, because our left-sided media only tells us what makes the conservatives look bad.
And you are so worried about people going to violence that you feel compelled to make this video? This only proves how the media refuses to put things into a truly unbiased point of view.
Coming from Canada, despite all the problems our system causes us, I hope that people in USA get a proper system too. When I look at my long waits at the hospital, and my constant moaning of the population over the system, I can't help but feel happy that I only get that, and not a 50,000$ bill for an operation (fictive) that would leave me financially crippled for life.
How is it a good first step? THe bill requires and FORCES everyone to pay for healthcare insurance, regardless of whether they would like to pay or not. It would not allow people to see out other payment options. Not only that , working class people and the middle class will heavily fined if they failed to pay for healthcare; I am not afraid to say that this healthcare bill along with the survillence bill created by john mccain is the antithesis of freedom and i don't care if I'm called a racist
First off, I'll repeet what I said "with the exception of the individual mandates i think it's a good first step"
Second; the penalty for not paying the fine has been reduced to zero, and the whole issue will likely be taken out of the bill through reconsileation.
forcing people to buy a product is wrong, and probably outside the government's scope of power, even considering the commerce clause of the constitution, that's for a court to decide.
Tyrrany is a ruling class forcing unjust laws upon people who have no recourse against that ruling class, and no say in the process of passing those laws.
That is not the case when it comes to this bill, individual mandates or no.
I never excused you of calling me a racist... i think you seem pretty openminded, ,even though you lean a little bit to the left; But their are people in the media , such as maher, olbermann, and matthews , that labels anyone that opposes obama's healthcare bill a racist.
I have not heard anything about the fine being reduced to zero. In the bill, my understanding of it is that if you make over 30000 and don't buy healthcare insurance, you will be fined
that may be, i'm not all together clear on exactly what they wanted the fine to be; the fine still exists, but my understanding as I'm talking to you is that the penalty for not paying the fine is zero.
I may be wrong about that, but that's my understanding at this point (con't)
If i am wrong about that, then I hope that a court would find that it is not within the power of government to require us to buy certain things; if this were a tax I could understand it, but if there is an actual penalty for not buying insurence, then I hope that its either fixed through reconsileation or batted down in the courts.
@standinstann LOL and after saying that, I think you owe a little bit of an apology to mr. hossrex. (in a way, you just sided with him on his biggest issue.)
Actually the individual mandate is in reality a tax upon all citizens, one that you are exempt from if you have health insurance, can demonstrate why you need to be exempt (yes really!) within reason, are above the 150% of poverty or whatever medicaid is at now, etc, etc (really there's quite a few exceptions)
The fact that it is a TAX, and not a law saying "you must have health insurance" is what sidesteps any constitutional issues - the federal government can impose taxes.
I don't mind the Government competing with Private Industry as an alternative for people who can't afford regular health care as long as those people make an effort to get into a position to afford regular health care like with unemployment benefits.
I don't like how we are going to be forced to have Health Insurance whether we want it or not, I think that's wrong. We should have the right to say No, no matter how stupid the reason is. But, I'm a Libertarian and that's how I think.
you know, from an outside(of the USA) perspective, the Idea that the US should have been made two different country's after the civil war doesn't sound so bad in retrospect..
I mean from the (outside) looks of it, it already seems to be two completely different and incompatible cultures being there
Yup. One culture that thinks the government should keep its nose out of peoples business, and another culture that thinks the government should be a part of everyone's life, except their own.
It amazes me which half of that statement is supported by the "intellectuals".
I think that one culture thinks that government is responsible for securing our rights, and must ACT in order to do that; and the other side thinks that government best secures them by leaving us to our own devices.
i think yours is a mischaractarization of the two sides.
Stann I agree with about 80% of your article. In fact the only thing i disagree with is the idea that the healthcare bill is a good thing. I WANT REFORM and a better managed healthcare system however giving to the same people who have given us the joys of the IRS is not my idea of progress. I still am horrified by the poo throwing monkeys that constitute the opposition. I invite you to listen to my commentary (which will have several more posting on it this week)
I will do, and I apreceate that; I'm not all that thrilled about some of the details either, but there has to be a first step; hopefully these problems will be fixed.
Well argued Stan. But cheer up! The bill passed! Healthcare for millions! Obama has actually got a shot at getting reelected!
As a Canadian, let me tell you that helathcare is going to be worth all the crap the tea partyers etc. are going to say. As the great Calvin and Hobbes taught us, "If you can't win by reason, go for volume" That seems to be the mantra of these people. I hope and pray no one gets hurt as you do, but I think this group has far less real power than is exhibited.
I believe what you mean to say is, " how the Canadian *media* is representing", in which case, it is simply reporting the fact that a bill was passed. It's my own opinion that this bill is important to Obama's possible reelection, as healthcare was one of his campaign promises, and if the bill had failed it would have been a humiliating defeat, and come election time he wouldn't be able to answer the question "What good has your presidency done?" truthfully and effectively.
As for your statement: "This is the least popular thing any president has done in my lifetime" I honestly have don't know if that's true or not, partly becuase I don't know how old you are, but mostly because the popularity of this bill seems to be dependent on which media network you pay the most attention to. (However, I find it hard to believe that this bill is less popular than the current war in Iraq and Afghanistan)
I'm not touching the racial stuff, it's crap that I've really only seen on tabloids and such and is only given attention as a means to smear the Republican Party who largely have nothing to do with it.
I know there are people who say that stuff, but I say your making it out to be more of a problem than it is. I say just ignore those idiots, just leave them to rot; there's only a few of them.
Is it really worth taking them seriously when they clearly have no effect on America as a whole.
I do think that the GOP is invested in making people angry and outraged; and I think that that is irrisponsible because it isn't their base that they're inciting to fear and anger, it's a mob of frightened angry, dangerous people.
@stan: "I do think that the GOP is invested in making people angry and outraged; and I think that that is irrisponsible because it isn't their base that they're inciting to fear and anger, it's a mob of frightened angry, dangerous people."
The Democrats didn't have any problem doing it while they were the watchdog party.
That's been an important part of our system for 200 years.
Now, you have to be fair; the Democrats did the same thing during the Bush years.
Which is why I'll never vote for either one of those parties. All the Republicans and Democrats do is spread fear and anger about each other; just in different ways and for different reasons.
I will always vote third party, we need a third voice in congress; sure it'll be harder and take longer to get things done, but at least that means they'll have no choice but to try to work together.
fairly decent video though I disagree that the lawmakers were acting disinterestedly for the good of the country.
I also think the problem lies largely with the health care industry, as well as the health insurance industry (insurance does inflate health care costs, but it also reflects it when insurance premiums rise.)
Stan, you're right, it's depressing. Never heard you this upset in one of these videos before.
Personally, I just "wait and see" nowadays, ever since the PATRIOT Act failed to bring about the enslavement or imprisonment of a large fraction of Americans and nuclear strikes against everyone who's ever emailed Saddam.
We see things happen, we think we know what they mean, we forget we aren't capable of seeing the future.
People disgust me, but then, I wanted Very Bad Things to happen to Bush.
I couldn't agree more about the patriot act and it's lack of causing millions of liberals and intellectuals to be hearded into death camps; it's bad mind you, but there was certainly a hysteria attached to it as well (con't)
@standinstann I remember saying many times re: the PATRIOT Act, "there's only a handful of things in this law that I'd take issue with, if we had a government that I trust, but we never have had that."
But, I can say this from personal experience: If this country has an empowered gestapo, or any kind of empowered, violent, anti-democracy or anti-sedition agency at work... it's the laziest gestapo I've ever seen.
Nothing bad is going to happen to people who refuse this coverage, mandate or no.
I laughed out loud when i read about the lazy gestapo that you pointed out.
You know, I had EXACTLY the same reaction to the patriot act, and maybe i should re-evaluate that behavior.
It occurs to me that an administration that endeavors to transform us into a totalitarian dictatorship is using the wrong country to do it; Bush couldn't do it, and didn't intend to; he was wrong, but he can't do the impossible (con't)
@standinstann re: Bush's failing to do the impossible... I'm certainly not complaining in Bush's specific case, but does this point out the fact that Americans are near-impossible to unify?
@standinstann Me too. A better interpretation, much more hopeful and arguably more likely, is that we're just so diverse in our opinions that even our knee-jerk reactions serve as a kind of cultural immune system to any flavor of totalitarianism, even including the eerie, candy-coated, shiny-wrappered subtle kind that I fear most.
though I agree with you on the part that I do not want a bloody revolution or that the health bill should incite one, I do think our country needs a reform on the polliticle proccess or coungress is corrupt and our media is corrpted, we need more diversity and the ppl need education when it comes to voting, ppl need to know that the field between all partys are = and they will never know that untill more indepents are in office
It's too bad that the politicians couldn't create a true system of universal health care like we have in Canada. Obviously something like that wouldn't get off the ground, so I can see why they didn't try for it, but if they could have done it, it would have avoided the need to force people to buy insurance.
@Wheremybitchez If anything, it would have been illogical to lay the foundations for a universal open set of institutions (granted I know little about the Canadian system). I always thought it more logical that the US should set up a system akin to that of Germany: those who can afford to get a tailored insurance while everyone else automatically gets the government insurance provided by the local state.
The Canadian system provides for doctor's visits and hospital stays. Optional insurance companies (That we, ourselves, pay for) cover many prescriptions, dental, eyes, better accommodations in hospital, etc.
I'd say that there's a baseline and then stuff on top of it, but there are enough fiddly bits that saying that doesn't quite work. More like two entities, one provided, one paid for.
canadas head of state is a black women dose that count. wait damb we didn't elect her. well we still beat you to the first women elected to power HA.
the8lbfish 1 year ago
@NewIslamConvert Yeah, a lot of people corrected/educated me about that.
standinstann 1 year ago
You didn't mention that much of the race baiting came from the losing Clinton campaign as a last ditch effort at the nomination by securing the "white vote."
This included the contention that we weren't ready for a black pres., the fictional "whitey" tape, circulating pictures of Obama in a turban. etc.
charlesvan13 1 year ago
You don't want the single payer health care systems they have in other countries.
If you need or want a medication, unlike in the US, it has to be approved by a cost control panel, in the UK called NICE. So you could be in the situation where your doc say it would be best to take x but the bureaucrats tell you "no". If you are unisured or have limited insurance there are programs, through drug companies, for getting something that's expensive.
charlesvan13 1 year ago
I come from Canada so it is rather interesting to see kind of reaction to the prospect of government run health care. Our system isn't perfect but I think is better than what the states currently has.
hattrickk15 1 year ago
@hattrickk15
Exactly. Our (Canada's) health care is 30th in the world as compared to America's that ranks 38th.
Ironically France has the worlds best health care. You can Google "health care rankings WHO".
The trouble is Americans are ignorant. (not all of them, but a great many).
They don't know the difference between health care reform (what they just got),
Single Payer health care (what Canada has).
and Socialized medicine (what France has).
17R3W 1 year ago
Comment removed
charlesvan13 1 year ago
Comment removed
charlesvan13 1 year ago
Comment removed
charlesvan13 1 year ago
@17R3W
The US still has a richer system. If you get something serious you will have a better chance of recovery. I would take the WHO ranking with a grain of salt. If you get cancer in the US you have a better chance of survival. You have it better in the UK or Canada if you're a crack baby.
charlesvan13 1 year ago
Comment removed
charlesvan13 1 year ago
I have 2 problems. You are using too many double negitaves, and Muslims pray 5 times a day not 3.
QshesshoumaruQ 1 year ago
There are a lot of nut cases out there but they are on both sides, liberal and conservative. Liberals just complain about it more. The vast majority of the american people dotn want to have to depend on the government. This is a power grab nothing more.
koeller76 1 year ago
You know, maybe I do confuse Marxism and Socialism. I've heard different definitions for them at different times but none of them make me care enough to really learn the distinctions.
What I know is that the government just took a little more control of our lives. I know the government has legitimate authority and the need to exercise it, but this is a step over the line. We're nowhere near the point where gun mobs seem reasonable, but I want my freedom back.
groupthinker1984 1 year ago
I think if 'Voice of Reason' was a profession you'd be a very rich man.
Well said.
sirdidymus62 1 year ago
I wouldn't worry too much about those people Stan. Everyone needs a hobby and most people don't get homicidal over there hobbies.
ChewbacaTW 1 year ago
So yes, the birthers are wrong and nutty (anyone who STILL holds to this belief, despite the evidence), I just wanted to show that their ideas DID come from somewhere. partial evidence or evidence misinterpreted or misapplied, a little truth leading to a lot of lies... the hallmark of most conspiracy theories
XSC3 1 year ago
and the idea that Obama was an "Arab" (and another reason some people thought he was a Muslim) was his middle name which they associate with King Hussein of Jordan and Saddam Hussein from hearing those names in the media and associating them with the middle east and Islam. the fact that he was photographed wearing "foreign" clothes and gaffed and said "my muslim faith" in an interview (which he corrected to "my christian faith") only fueled their speculation
XSC3 1 year ago
the idea that B.O. was born in Indonesia probably comes from the fact that his mother divorced his Kenyan father and remarried to an Indonesian (and people got confused).
so while I'm sure the "fears" people had were surely based on inherent mistrust and bias, the whole "birther" thing took a little bit of truth and twisted it, took leaps in logic and created a message that was incorrect. since it's been debunked, it remains a conspiracy theory.
XSC3 1 year ago
I'm not a birther, but I just wanted to add that the reason people leapt to the conclusion that he was from somewhere so specific as Kenya is not because "black people come from Kenya" it's because his FATHER was born there (not that same city though). His father was also a lapsed Muslim, hence the leap in logic that Barack was too.
XSC3 1 year ago
I forgot, prior to the health care plan, as far as I can tell, Obama's abortion policy basically rolled back to how it was in the Clinton years (reversing the mexico city policy, removing restrictions on embryonic stem cell use, and I could be wrong about this last one... rejecting the partial birth abortion ban). so if anything, that would have made Clinton more "hitler-esque" than obama if you want to go that route. the warmongering is no different than bush
XSC3 1 year ago
the hitler claims I think come from the belief that he was going to expand access to abortion (based on the health care plan, which remains to be seen, though this alone wouldn't make him hitler-like) and the whole "death panels" rumor. otherwise he's no more like hitler than any other US president in recent history
XSC3 1 year ago
Muslim's are supposed to pray 5 times a day (not just 3). just fyi
XSC3 1 year ago
I was hoping a THIS IS SPARTA at 5:29 :(
adr58 1 year ago
The penalty for not paying the fine has been reduced to nothing. There's is nothing to worry about if you don't buy insurance. Someone realized it was stupid.
mjmanning123 1 year ago
Another problem you should mention is when the Obama supporters scream racism for *any* criticism of the Obama administration, policies, ideals, philosophy, etc.
sorienor 1 year ago
Just out of curiosity, why can't you be a Marxist and a Socialist at the same time?
I had thought that Marxism was the ideology from which the government style (or at least principle) of Socialism was devised. Ergo, it could be said that socialist states (those which actually follow Marxist principles - this, of course, ruled out Stalin's Russia) are practicing Marxism.
I'm probably wrong on this, and am intrigued to hear your take on Marxism and Socialism. Let me know what you think.
Cheers!
QUANTUMJOKER 1 year ago
@QUANTUMJOKER
It really depends on how broad your definition of socialism is.
If your definition of socialism is a government that funds social programms through taxes, and regulates industry then the US is already a socialist country.
A true socialist system does not allow the goverment to own the means of production; a marxist system starts from that policy.
standinstann 1 year ago
It may be that I over stated that point in the video, as I wouldn't begrudge anyone reffering to Marxist-Leninist socialism as opposed to democratic socialism; my problem really is that people tend to think that, so long as there's "socialism" in the name, the two are the same.
standinstann 1 year ago
@standinstann socialism is really just a measure of degree.
MyDormantSoul 1 year ago
* i might have said that a true socialist system woudn't allow government to *control* the means of production. Regulate, yes; control, no.
standinstann 1 year ago
Stan, do you read a particular newspaper?Which? Do you have a favorite political website(s)?
Gundo420hunley 1 year ago
@Gundo420hunley
I usually just read my local paper, and as for web sites, no, not really. I go to msnbc and watch some of the talk shows, but that's just for fun.
standinstann 1 year ago
Then why levy the fines?
hossrex 1 year ago
@hossrex
for god sake; I've answered that question three times in as broad and specific a language as I can possibly utter, i'm not going to answer it again. just scroll down.
standinstann 1 year ago
@standinstann
No. You spend 500 words per post talking around each issue, and then insist you answered the question.
Every simple question I ask, gets 5 replies, each posted out of order because youtube can't properly manage comments.
Remember my friend, brevity is the soul of wit.
Completely unrelated... are you and Matthew really twins?
hossrex 1 year ago
@hossrex
first, I spend 500 words trying to explain my answer as best I can; i wouldn't call that "talking around the question" unless no facts are relevant and all you're looking for are one word answers, in which case you're just building a straw man.
Second; I didn't know that youtube was positing them out of order and that really pisses me off.
Third, I try NOT to be brief; specificity is a lost art, and I try to be as specific as possible (con't)
standinstann 1 year ago
To your final question, we are indeed.
He's a little taller, I weigh a bit more, I'm better looking, I tell funnier jokes, and I'm much more fun to be around, but we are indeed identical twins; no joke.
standinstann 1 year ago
hehe. we've had free health care in Canada for ages
paulthegreat103 1 year ago
@paulthegreat103
I think there's something to be said for the fact that other countries aren't trying to achieve OUR health care system...
*whispers* (because it sucks)
standinstann 1 year ago
@standinstann well, free health care is kind of a mixed bag up here. while we are covered for a bunch of stuff, quality of the health care itself isn't nearly as good as down there. a lot of really wealthy canadians go down to the states and pay to see doctors there
paulthegreat103 1 year ago
You naivety is disturbing.
hossrex 1 year ago
@hossrex
well, like the man said; for those of you who think that this is going to be armageddon; six month from now, you can walk outside and look around, and we'll see.
standinstann 1 year ago
@standinstann
I'm not talking about the ramifications of the healthcare bill. I frankly think that will be fine.
I'm talking about your belief that the government would be fine with people purposefully neglecting to pay a fine.
Put that statement in ANY OTHER context.
Would you still agree with it?
If not... why here? The answer is simple. Because you WANT it to be true here.
Hence.
Naive.
hossrex 1 year ago
@hossrex
If it had been the case that individuals were mandated to pay TAXES in order to support a system that wouldn't work unless everybody was on it; I would agree with you, but I don't think it's nieve to point out that neither the government nor the health care system is being supported by the money that might be collected through fines.
(con't)
standinstann 1 year ago
I'm starting to find your rhetoric dismissive, and I didn't at first; let me just say for the record, I might be wrong, but I don't think what I've said above becaus I want to; I think it because I've given the issue some thought.
standinstann 1 year ago
(btw the government doesn't beat down your door and arrest you for unpaied parking tickets, in that context, the indeed don't care.)
standinstann 1 year ago
gigerone 1 year ago
@gigerone
holy cow! WTF is all that????? :O
standinstann 1 year ago
Okay. So you're determined to just talk around the issue.
One last time, and then I'll leave you in peace.
Does the government care if people pay the fine?
I'm not looking for "but why wouldn't they", or "but that part of the bill was there because", or "it isn't millions of people."
You're talking around the issue, and it's tiresome.
IF millions of people refused to pay the fine.
What would happen?
If your answer is nothing... on what are you basing that?
hossrex 1 year ago
@hossrex
You keep accusing me of not answering the question after I answer it thoroughly.
To your first question I already answered no, they dont care if people who can afford health insurance and dont buy it dont pay the fine. What I just said is not dancing around the issue, its as direct an answer to your question as I can possibly give and Ive given the same answer three times.
and to your follow up question If no, how could you believe that? I gave you a detailed answer.
standinstann 1 year ago
you can't ask me what I'm basing that on when I already told you what I'm basing that on to which you accused me of not answering the question.
standinstann 1 year ago
fines would in fact not effect anywhere close to "millions" of people, why that is is the bill is relevant, and the fact that I'm not giving you the answers that serve your point doesn't mean that I'm "just talking around the issue"
standinstann 1 year ago
@hossrex The penalty for paying the fine is nothing. You don't have to pay it.
mjmanning123 1 year ago
@stan: "I dont think theyre interested in the people who can afford it but dont want it"
Then why the fine in the first place? If those people don't matter, why include a provision for them?
You said a WHOLE lot, and you STILL didn't address what I said.
You hemmed. You hawed.
Yes or no.
Do they care if millions of people don't pay the fine?
If they don't... how on Earth could you believe that?
If they do... what would they do if you didn't pay, and refused to be arrested?
hossrex 1 year ago
@hossrex
to your first question; that's the awkward part of this stupid portion of the bill; and the reason that the penalty for not paying the fine has gone down to nothing. The answer is, because you have to make it a law.
(con't)
standinstann 1 year ago
To your second point: the number of people who can afford health insurance but don't buy it are not in the millions; the number of people who want it but can't afford it are.
There wouldn't be enough people fined to fund a bake sale, let alone a social program. (con't)
standinstann 1 year ago
To your third point; I can believe they don't because this wasn't their first choice, teir first choice was a public option, and when that was denied, their aim was to produce a bill that would mirror its effect, not fine a few stragalers who didn't buy from the private market;
To your final point; if the supreme court rules that this is constitutional, then it's the law weather we like it or not. (con't)
standinstann 1 year ago
I am not in the habbit of folowing only the laws that I agree with. (if that were the case i wouldn't wear a helmet when riding a bike, I woudn't fund state exicutions, etc.
That's assuming that its ruled constitutional, which remains to be seen.
standinstann 1 year ago
oh, and I would shoot ducks, AT ALL TIMES! (lol, they wake me up in the morning when I'm trying to sleep in)
standinstann 1 year ago
You think that if you didn't pay the fine, the government wouldn't do anything? Are you really saying that? You're saying that if the whole of the country just said "nah"... and no one got healthcare, and no one paid the fine... they wouldn't do ANYTHING?
Are you REALLY saying that?
They'd do nothing?
Please. Tell me... in so many words ( I really want to see you say this)... tell me "If millions of people didn't cooperate, the government wouldn't do anything about it."
Please.
hossrex 1 year ago
Comment removed
zscalekitty 1 year ago
@hossrex
The reason that the mandates exist is so that the federal government can be required by law to pay for the health care of those who cant afford it; I dont think theyre interested in the people who can afford it but dont want it; like I said theyre not getting the money they pay in premiums anyway, the health insurance companies are. The mandates are in place in lue of a tax.
(con't)
standinstann 1 year ago
Well, that was shot down, and so the only way to guarantee a subsidy to people who couldnt afford health insurance was to mandate it so that the government would be legaly bound to provide it to the poor IE: you cant force a person with no money to buy something, therefore you have to pay for it be cause he has to have it by law. (cont)
standinstann 1 year ago
And so, because the mandates were instituted in order to force the federal government to buy health insurance for people who couldnt afford it (essentially), no; I dont think theyre going to be going to middle class peoples houses and heranging them for not giving money to a health insurance company like they would a tax evader who is denying them revenue. I dont think they have any interest in doing that, and I dont think that that is what the mandates are for. (con't)
standinstann 1 year ago
That having been said; Ill meet you half way and say that its possible; it depends on two things; First; the desire of the government to enforce a system that does nothing for it, and two; weather or not such a mandate is constitutional.
standinstann 1 year ago
*the public option was shut down
standinstann 1 year ago
1: Auto-insurance is handled on a state by state basis (and states have a much more broad powers than the federal government), and you aren't required to have it, because you aren't required to drive.
2: What are you imagining would happen to someone if they didn't pay the fine? The government would just admit defeat, and go home? What do you think they WOULD do? Honestly. If not arrest. What?
hossrex 1 year ago
to the first point; it's true that they're different things; you have a chice as to weather or not you drive; you don't have a choice as to weather or not you need health care.
To the second point; the answer is, nothing; the idea of the individual mandate is that it's in lue of taxes; they don't care if people who can afford it are on it, it's no skin off their nose, they don't get the money anyway, they care if the people who can't afford it are on it. (con't)
standinstann 1 year ago
But to be fair, let's consider the possibility that you'l have to pay the fine, and if you don't you go to jail; that would be terrably unjust.
standinstann 1 year ago
At that point a little public OPTION would really hit the spot; and we might as well impose a tax and make it like social security like they should have done in the first place.
standinstann 1 year ago
If it's true that you will be fined for not buying the gov't health care, I'd like to know 2 things:
1. Who is issuing the fine?
2. What if I don't pay it?
I hate it when people compare it to car insurance, saying that car insurance is required or you'll get a fine. This health care thing seems different. I can decide not to drive and avoid buying car insurance, but (from the looks of it) I CANNOT AVOID BUYING HEALTH INSURANCE. Thats bs. If I don't want it, I should have to buy it, right?
AlexSmithMusic 1 year ago
"...I hope that a court would find that it is not within the power of government to require us to buy certain things; if this were a tax I could understand it, but if there is an actual penalty for not buying insurence, then I hope that its either fixed through reconsileation or batted down in the courts."
So my comment earlier was a half joke, i suppose. I thought it was kind of funny.
AlexSmithMusic 1 year ago
sorry, YouTube has made it difficult to read comments/responses in order, etc.
anyway, he kept saying that if you don't buy the govt health care, you will be fined/imprisoned. And you'd been denying it, or otherwise shooting him down. then you said this:
AlexSmithMusic 1 year ago
@AlexSmithMusic
that's right; he kept saying that, and eventually I gave him the benefit of the doubt and considered the possibility that that may happen.
standinstann 1 year ago
I want to know something, Stan, and I want to know it REEEALLY bad: Given that government is a conglomeration of fallible human beings elected by a direct referendum, and with corporations -also a conglomeration of fallible human beings- being elected by a more democratic means (meaning the consumers' dollar) which is more alive and subject to the whims of a free market's forum than some 2, 4, or 8 year term career that some politicians may concern themselves with, which one is morally superior?
QuartuvLarry 1 year ago
@QuartuvLarry
It depends on which one is behaving more justly; both are capable of doing so, or of behaving unjustly.
standinstann 1 year ago
President Obama can't be the Antichrist. He's not Jewish. 8)
acr08807 1 year ago 2
False dichotomy if I ever heard one. Your whole discussion makes it sound (whether you want it to sound this way or not) the ONLY two sides of this debate are "reasonable" people like you who just want the government to take care of you, and raving racist gun nuts.
So much for being at the mercy of the insurance industry, now we're at the mercy of the one entity that truly doesn't listed to us; the government. I defy you to claim they do.
groupthinker1984 1 year ago
@groupthinker1984 And thats forgetting that we are at the mercy of the insurance industry in the first place because of rampant acts of abusive government. I.E. runaway litigation which drives up doctor's liability insurance, laws requiring the hospital to take patients who can't pay (and allowing them to pay very little back) all while not enforcing our borders so that many of those running up the bill are filing in from across the border
groupthinker1984 1 year ago
@groupthinker1984 And all of this ignores the economic realities. At a time when unemployment is just under 10% weve boldly decided to add a mandatory expense for the people who can't afford it, while making it more expensive for employers to hire employees. Brilliant!
But its okay right? Because we have a right to health care and heaping helpings of it whether or not we want it or can afford it.
groupthinker1984 1 year ago
@groupthinker1984
if it wereen't for the fact that this will help small buisinesses, and save people money in the long run I would agree with you. And what's more, the people who can't afford it will be subsidised, and the small buisinesses who already offer it will pay less for it, which will save them money.
standinstann 1 year ago
@standinstann Okay, so we can add it to our gigantic deficits then. Either way, someone's paying and that someone can't afford it.
groupthinker1984 1 year ago
@groupthinker1984
not my intention, but I can see how it sounded that way.
standinstann 1 year ago
@standinstann For what its worth. I know you know better than that. I know we don't see eye to eye on government's role in our lives, but I know you see the shades of grey and I know the perception created in your video is an unintended byproduct of your frustration. Whats more, I can sympathize with your frustration. There were 3 outcomes possible 1) All the way 2) Half ass and 3)Nothing. We got the worst of the three. I prefer 3, but would take 1 over 2. I'm no fan of the Golden Mean.
groupthinker1984 1 year ago
@groupthinker1984
Part of the problem was, i started out talking about the social/racial climate of the country, and then tacked on my views on the HC bill, maybe I should have broken it up into two vlawgs.
standinstann 1 year ago
You're reminding me a bit of Glenn Beck. A couple of people go crazy, and all of a sudden this translates to global apocalypse. An exaggeration of course, few people are as crazed as Glenn Beck, but it's a simple case of vocal minority. You only hear about these people because of how crazy they are. Normal, sane people don't make the news.
Sines314 1 year ago
Comment removed
zscalekitty 1 year ago
@Sines314
I hope you're right, and what's more, I don't see an apocalypse coming up, I'm just depressed that there is this much hysteria over a damn health care reform bill.
standinstann 1 year ago
Think about it. Millions of Americans will refuse to buy a HC product they do not wish to buy. (how odd that socialism CAN be forced, yet capitalism...not so much) Sure, we'll take it to court, and break the FLOODGATE of Constitutional defiance to bear on this unjust legislation.
And when the IRS takes it out of our accounts, and out of our tax returns, we will find that there's no more reason to keep paying taxes. The tax revolution will begin.
This isn't a threat, just the natural course.
QuartuvLarry 1 year ago
I think you need to make a short video that explains why someone cannot be both a Marxist and a Socialist.
Please post one straight away.
marscaleb 1 year ago
@marscaleb
in a true socialist system government would never control the means of production. I don't think that that sentence would make for a very interresting video. lol
standinstann 1 year ago
He he! People of the Weimar Republic couldn't have had as much foresight as we have today! Discount claims all you want, but don't confuse paranoia with vigilance!
"Can't even pass a damn healthcare system without people shouting the 'n-word' and other racial & homophobic slurs"
Uh, excuse me? Source? You taking the verbal allegations at FACE VALUE, Stan? And THEN trying to attach these allegations to the ENTIRE movement?
Where's your objectivity?
I have a video for you to see. I'll send it.
QuartuvLarry 1 year ago
@QuartuvLarry
you misunderstood me: I was talking about the social climate of the country in general; I wasn't accusing any particular group of doing this, I was saying only that... well that we can't even pass a damn health care bill in this country without somebody shouting the N word.
standinstann 1 year ago
It's amazing to me that no one is actually addressing what I'm saying. You're either rewording what I said, and addressing that... or leaving out key portions of my questions, and answering the softball portions.
If this bill really isn't so bad... address what I'm saying.
hossrex 1 year ago
@hossrex
i've been trying; I don't know what it was that I failed to address.
The bill is good on the whole, and portions of it are bad, individual mandates being one of them, and a lack of a public option being another.
there has never been passed a bill that is perfect or without contraversy, and I am not prepared to say that the WHOLE bill be done away with because of those two things.
If that doesn't address what you're saying then maybe i'm not understanding your question.
standinstann 1 year ago
@standinstann
What happens when a person who can afford the fine doesn't pay?
What happens when the person who doesn't pay resists arrest?
What happens when the resisted arrest escalates, because the person refuses to submit?
I've asked that half a dozen times, and you've talked around it, ignored it, or poo-poo'd it without explaining why each time.
Be intellectually honest WITH YOURSELF.
What would happen Stan?
What would happen if a person who refused to buy a product did that?
What?
hossrex 1 year ago
@hossrex
i've answered that twice and I will again;
If a person can't afford to pay, then the government will pay for it for them, through a subsidy;
that belies the other two questions. Nobody is going to be arrested for not being able to pay for health insurence; and so they will not resist arrest, and and the non arrest will not escelate.
(con't)
standinstann 1 year ago
To humor you, as I see where you're going with this, I will say that if a person were required to buy health insurence UNDER PAIN OF ARREST, and couldn't affor it, he would be arrested, and if he resisted arrest he may be killed in the process,
fortunatly that isn't the case.
standinstann 1 year ago
@stan
"Tyrrany is a ruling class forcing unjust laws upon people who have no recourse against that ruling class, and no say in the process of passing those laws. "
This bill is the ruling class forcing unjust mandates upon the people who have no recourse against that ruling class, and no say in the process of passing those laws.
Simply because it might, or might not get shot down in the surpreme court, doesn't make it any less fitting of YOUR definition.
hossrex 1 year ago
@hossrex
The ruling class is us; we elected these people, and they're doing exactly what they said they were going to do.
Individual mandates are no more or less unjust than taxes, weather or not their constitutional is another matter, but just because we don't like something doesn't make it unjust,
The government requires us to pay for all kinds of things; the only difference is that it normally does so through our taxes.
standinstann 1 year ago
@standinstann
"The ruling class is us; we elected these people, and they're doing exactly what they said they were going to do."
Even the Democrats didn't want to pass this bill, because the people don't want it. Obama pressed it forward using political pressures. That's NOT a republic.
"just because we don't like something doesn't make it unjust, "
Yet forcing people to buy a product clearly is.
"The government requires us to pay for all kinds of things"
Not from the private sector.
hossrex 1 year ago
@hossrex
To your first point, are you telling me that politicians plaied politics in order to get votes for a bill??? Why that's, that's what ALWAYS happens! that happened with the bush tax cuts, the civil rights act, and every other bill that's ever come before congress.
your secon point is a fair one; it's true that the government has never required us to buy a product, with the possible exception of auto insurence (con't)
standinstann 1 year ago
The issue here (and the argument that will be made) is: the conditions under which you are required by the government to buy auto insurence is that you drive a car, the conditions under which you are required by the government to buy a bycicle helmet is that you ride a bycicle;
the conditions under which you are required to buy health insurence is that you might get sick and need medical care. (con't)
standinstann 1 year ago
Now, it may sound like I'm defending the individual mandate more than I actually support it, I don't support it in my heart of hearts, and I don't think that you should either, I'm just holding you back a little from the magnitude of your opposition, and the implications that you see as a result of this, which I think is an over reaction.
standinstann 1 year ago
Lastly, my point is that there are conditions under which the government requires us to buy things from the private market; this is unique in that health insurence is a need.
standinstann 1 year ago
obama = 5,22,21,12 E,V,I,L WHATS THAT SPELL
EVIL OH I MISS CALULATED
OBAMA IS EVUL? WHAT DOES THAT MEAN THE WORLD WILL END AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!
grandtheftauto5555 1 year ago
@grandtheftauto5555
OH... MY... GOOOOOOOOOOOD!
standinstann 1 year ago
Seriously? A broken window and a cut gas line? And you're worried about people going out to spill blood and start a revolution?
I have to say that what you see proves how biased the general media is. We see constant barrages showing us these few obnoxious idiots that side with conservative views, but not the ones that do the same for liberals, NOR EVEN report that these people were plants to deliberately slander conservatives.
marscaleb 1 year ago
I mean I will admit that those acts of vandalism are pretty extreme, but they lack context. How often do people make threats or commit such crimes against congress members? We don't know, because our left-sided media only tells us what makes the conservatives look bad.
And you are so worried about people going to violence that you feel compelled to make this video? This only proves how the media refuses to put things into a truly unbiased point of view.
marscaleb 1 year ago
the people you mentioned are just a very, very vocal minority.
BatOtaku13 1 year ago
@BatOtaku13
I hope against hope, with every fiber of my being that you're right.
standinstann 1 year ago
Coming from Canada, despite all the problems our system causes us, I hope that people in USA get a proper system too. When I look at my long waits at the hospital, and my constant moaning of the population over the system, I can't help but feel happy that I only get that, and not a 50,000$ bill for an operation (fictive) that would leave me financially crippled for life.
Very good Vvvvvvlog, Stan!
boosterfire 1 year ago
How is it a good first step? THe bill requires and FORCES everyone to pay for healthcare insurance, regardless of whether they would like to pay or not. It would not allow people to see out other payment options. Not only that , working class people and the middle class will heavily fined if they failed to pay for healthcare; I am not afraid to say that this healthcare bill along with the survillence bill created by john mccain is the antithesis of freedom and i don't care if I'm called a racist
Pentazoid111 1 year ago
@Pentazoid111
First off, I'll repeet what I said "with the exception of the individual mandates i think it's a good first step"
Second; the penalty for not paying the fine has been reduced to zero, and the whole issue will likely be taken out of the bill through reconsileation.
Third: I never called you a racist.
standinstann 1 year ago
@stan
So other than being tyrannical, and dictatorial... it's a good bill.
Alright then.
hossrex 1 year ago
@hossrex
If you had ever been to, seen, or experienced life under actual tyrany, you would never have said that.
It's not tyrannical and dictatorial just because it irritates you.
standinstann 1 year ago
Oh, and lastly, it's so tyranical and dictatorial that it's going before the courts for review, and will likely be ruled unconstitutional.
ALL TREMBLE BEFORE THE TYRANNICAL DEMOCRATIC PROCESS!
standinstann 1 year ago
Simply because it's shot down by another branch of the government, doesn't mean it isn't tyrannical.
hossrex 1 year ago
You're the one talking about "small steps".
Forcing people to buy a product IS TYRANNICAL.
Please. Dispute that.
hossrex 1 year ago
@hossrex
forcing people to buy a product is wrong, and probably outside the government's scope of power, even considering the commerce clause of the constitution, that's for a court to decide.
Tyrrany is a ruling class forcing unjust laws upon people who have no recourse against that ruling class, and no say in the process of passing those laws.
That is not the case when it comes to this bill, individual mandates or no.
standinstann 1 year ago
@standinstann
I never excused you of calling me a racist... i think you seem pretty openminded, ,even though you lean a little bit to the left; But their are people in the media , such as maher, olbermann, and matthews , that labels anyone that opposes obama's healthcare bill a racist.
I have not heard anything about the fine being reduced to zero. In the bill, my understanding of it is that if you make over 30000 and don't buy healthcare insurance, you will be fined
Pentazoid111 1 year ago
@Pentazoid111
okay, I see what you're saying.
that may be, i'm not all together clear on exactly what they wanted the fine to be; the fine still exists, but my understanding as I'm talking to you is that the penalty for not paying the fine is zero.
I may be wrong about that, but that's my understanding at this point (con't)
standinstann 1 year ago
If i am wrong about that, then I hope that a court would find that it is not within the power of government to require us to buy certain things; if this were a tax I could understand it, but if there is an actual penalty for not buying insurence, then I hope that its either fixed through reconsileation or batted down in the courts.
standinstann 1 year ago
@standinstann LOL and after saying that, I think you owe a little bit of an apology to mr. hossrex. (in a way, you just sided with him on his biggest issue.)
AlexSmithMusic 1 year ago
@AlexSmithMusic
what was it that I said?
standinstann 1 year ago
Actually the individual mandate is in reality a tax upon all citizens, one that you are exempt from if you have health insurance, can demonstrate why you need to be exempt (yes really!) within reason, are above the 150% of poverty or whatever medicaid is at now, etc, etc (really there's quite a few exceptions)
The fact that it is a TAX, and not a law saying "you must have health insurance" is what sidesteps any constitutional issues - the federal government can impose taxes.
override367 1 year ago
I don't mind the Government competing with Private Industry as an alternative for people who can't afford regular health care as long as those people make an effort to get into a position to afford regular health care like with unemployment benefits.
I don't like how we are going to be forced to have Health Insurance whether we want it or not, I think that's wrong. We should have the right to say No, no matter how stupid the reason is. But, I'm a Libertarian and that's how I think.
cetrix1 1 year ago
you know, from an outside(of the USA) perspective, the Idea that the US should have been made two different country's after the civil war doesn't sound so bad in retrospect..
I mean from the (outside) looks of it, it already seems to be two completely different and incompatible cultures being there
DeHerg 1 year ago
@DeHerg
Yup. One culture that thinks the government should keep its nose out of peoples business, and another culture that thinks the government should be a part of everyone's life, except their own.
It amazes me which half of that statement is supported by the "intellectuals".
hossrex 1 year ago
@hossrex
I think that one culture thinks that government is responsible for securing our rights, and must ACT in order to do that; and the other side thinks that government best secures them by leaving us to our own devices.
i think yours is a mischaractarization of the two sides.
standinstann 1 year ago 2
Stann I agree with about 80% of your article. In fact the only thing i disagree with is the idea that the healthcare bill is a good thing. I WANT REFORM and a better managed healthcare system however giving to the same people who have given us the joys of the IRS is not my idea of progress. I still am horrified by the poo throwing monkeys that constitute the opposition. I invite you to listen to my commentary (which will have several more posting on it this week)
TheEG4BT 1 year ago
@TheEG4BT
I will do, and I apreceate that; I'm not all that thrilled about some of the details either, but there has to be a first step; hopefully these problems will be fixed.
Time will tell.
standinstann 1 year ago
Well argued Stan. But cheer up! The bill passed! Healthcare for millions! Obama has actually got a shot at getting reelected!
As a Canadian, let me tell you that helathcare is going to be worth all the crap the tea partyers etc. are going to say. As the great Calvin and Hobbes taught us, "If you can't win by reason, go for volume" That seems to be the mantra of these people. I hope and pray no one gets hurt as you do, but I think this group has far less real power than is exhibited.
GravityWell34 1 year ago 3
@gravitywell34: "Obama has actually got a shot at getting reelected!
That you'd say that, makes me wonder how the Canadian government is representing this situation.
This is the least popular thing any president has done in my life time.
hossrex 1 year ago
@hossrex
I believe what you mean to say is, " how the Canadian *media* is representing", in which case, it is simply reporting the fact that a bill was passed. It's my own opinion that this bill is important to Obama's possible reelection, as healthcare was one of his campaign promises, and if the bill had failed it would have been a humiliating defeat, and come election time he wouldn't be able to answer the question "What good has your presidency done?" truthfully and effectively.
GravityWell34 1 year ago
@hossrex
As for your statement: "This is the least popular thing any president has done in my lifetime" I honestly have don't know if that's true or not, partly becuase I don't know how old you are, but mostly because the popularity of this bill seems to be dependent on which media network you pay the most attention to. (However, I find it hard to believe that this bill is less popular than the current war in Iraq and Afghanistan)
GravityWell34 1 year ago
@GravityWell34
How old are YOU?
We went into both Iraq, and especially Afghanistan with OVERWHELMING support, from both sides of the aisle.
It wasn't until things started going poorly that half of congress pretended they always had a problem with it.
hossrex 1 year ago
@hossrex
true enough, my mistake.
GravityWell34 1 year ago
I'm not touching the racial stuff, it's crap that I've really only seen on tabloids and such and is only given attention as a means to smear the Republican Party who largely have nothing to do with it.
I know there are people who say that stuff, but I say your making it out to be more of a problem than it is. I say just ignore those idiots, just leave them to rot; there's only a few of them.
Is it really worth taking them seriously when they clearly have no effect on America as a whole.
cetrix1 1 year ago
@cetrix1
If I thought that it was republicans who were shouting the racial crap I would have been about 50% more shocked than I am.
No, this is not the work of the republican party; this is the work of an angry mob ignorant of anything other than the fact that they're mad.
My omission of the republican party in my video was intentional; I don't think they do this (generally speaking) (con't)
standinstann 1 year ago
I do think that the GOP is invested in making people angry and outraged; and I think that that is irrisponsible because it isn't their base that they're inciting to fear and anger, it's a mob of frightened angry, dangerous people.
standinstann 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@stan: "I do think that the GOP is invested in making people angry and outraged; and I think that that is irrisponsible because it isn't their base that they're inciting to fear and anger, it's a mob of frightened angry, dangerous people."
The Democrats didn't have any problem doing it while they were the watchdog party.
That's been an important part of our system for 200 years.
hossrex 1 year ago
@standinstann
Now, you have to be fair; the Democrats did the same thing during the Bush years.
Which is why I'll never vote for either one of those parties. All the Republicans and Democrats do is spread fear and anger about each other; just in different ways and for different reasons.
I will always vote third party, we need a third voice in congress; sure it'll be harder and take longer to get things done, but at least that means they'll have no choice but to try to work together.
cetrix1 1 year ago
@cetrix1
Not to this extent, but they did in fact do similer things.
point taken, and I wish that we would stop being so hysterical; left or right.
standinstann 1 year ago
fairly decent video though I disagree that the lawmakers were acting disinterestedly for the good of the country.
I also think the problem lies largely with the health care industry, as well as the health insurance industry (insurance does inflate health care costs, but it also reflects it when insurance premiums rise.)
Other than that I almost whole heartedly agree.
insidetrip101 1 year ago
Stan, you're right, it's depressing. Never heard you this upset in one of these videos before.
Personally, I just "wait and see" nowadays, ever since the PATRIOT Act failed to bring about the enslavement or imprisonment of a large fraction of Americans and nuclear strikes against everyone who's ever emailed Saddam.
We see things happen, we think we know what they mean, we forget we aren't capable of seeing the future.
People disgust me, but then, I wanted Very Bad Things to happen to Bush.
typeNtardis 1 year ago
@typeNtardis
I couldn't agree more about the patriot act and it's lack of causing millions of liberals and intellectuals to be hearded into death camps; it's bad mind you, but there was certainly a hysteria attached to it as well (con't)
standinstann 1 year ago
I thought a lot about that when I was preparing to make this video.
standinstann 1 year ago
@standinstann I remember saying many times re: the PATRIOT Act, "there's only a handful of things in this law that I'd take issue with, if we had a government that I trust, but we never have had that."
But, I can say this from personal experience: If this country has an empowered gestapo, or any kind of empowered, violent, anti-democracy or anti-sedition agency at work... it's the laziest gestapo I've ever seen.
Nothing bad is going to happen to people who refuse this coverage, mandate or no.
typeNtardis 1 year ago
@typeNtardis
I laughed out loud when i read about the lazy gestapo that you pointed out.
You know, I had EXACTLY the same reaction to the patriot act, and maybe i should re-evaluate that behavior.
It occurs to me that an administration that endeavors to transform us into a totalitarian dictatorship is using the wrong country to do it; Bush couldn't do it, and didn't intend to; he was wrong, but he can't do the impossible (con't)
standinstann 1 year ago
And if Obama wants to do it, he'd better hurry up, he's only got three to seven years to do it.
lol
standinstann 1 year ago
@standinstann re: Bush's failing to do the impossible... I'm certainly not complaining in Bush's specific case, but does this point out the fact that Americans are near-impossible to unify?
typeNtardis 1 year ago
@typeNtardis
That's a good question. I hope it doesn't mean that.
standinstann 1 year ago
@standinstann Me too. A better interpretation, much more hopeful and arguably more likely, is that we're just so diverse in our opinions that even our knee-jerk reactions serve as a kind of cultural immune system to any flavor of totalitarianism, even including the eerie, candy-coated, shiny-wrappered subtle kind that I fear most.
typeNtardis 1 year ago
Obama is a long-legged mack daddy!
NorvenLeverone 1 year ago
White supremacists and nationalists are the scum of the human race.
LeonSKennedy828 1 year ago
STAN!!!!!!!! THINK!!!!!!! WHY DID OBAMA WIN HMMMM LETS THINK
FULL BLACK VOTE CHECK
FULL MINORITY CHECK
FULL DEMOCRATE CHECK
FULL GAY VOTE (BECAUSE OF sarah palin)
WHAT DID john mccain HAVE
the full red neck vote
the ful repulican vote
i think it's clear obama wouldnt of become president if he wasnt black
boshthestanbeed 1 year ago
though I agree with you on the part that I do not want a bloody revolution or that the health bill should incite one, I do think our country needs a reform on the polliticle proccess or coungress is corrupt and our media is corrpted, we need more diversity and the ppl need education when it comes to voting, ppl need to know that the field between all partys are = and they will never know that untill more indepents are in office
toadenk 1 year ago
Well said Stan. You and I think alike. :)
IommiFan85 1 year ago
It's too bad that the politicians couldn't create a true system of universal health care like we have in Canada. Obviously something like that wouldn't get off the ground, so I can see why they didn't try for it, but if they could have done it, it would have avoided the need to force people to buy insurance.
Wheremybitchez 1 year ago
@Wheremybitchez If anything, it would have been illogical to lay the foundations for a universal open set of institutions (granted I know little about the Canadian system). I always thought it more logical that the US should set up a system akin to that of Germany: those who can afford to get a tailored insurance while everyone else automatically gets the government insurance provided by the local state.
Redrally 1 year ago
@Redrally
The Canadian system provides for doctor's visits and hospital stays. Optional insurance companies (That we, ourselves, pay for) cover many prescriptions, dental, eyes, better accommodations in hospital, etc.
I'd say that there's a baseline and then stuff on top of it, but there are enough fiddly bits that saying that doesn't quite work. More like two entities, one provided, one paid for.
bgryphon 1 year ago
Comment removed
zscalekitty 1 year ago