Labels are bound to be distorted by perception or use. A Progressive Party would be fine insofar they remain progressive and don't allow for fringe socialist into their organization.
america needs a 3rd party - but it's pretty hard to find room for in a 2 party system. Your system has crippled development and application of ideas in America - and that's a problem.
@selvmordspilot I would even say that the U.S. needs even more parties, covering all ideologies.
But the population of cowboyland is sadly so uncouncious that they do not really care about politics or ideologies... They just vote for the guy with the funniest hat.
J415D, damascis, EXCELLENT debate (hesitate to call it that because it didn't really feel like one, mean that in a good way)
Excellent points on both sides though and I appreciated the intelligence and maturity. Something I rarely find on the internet.
BRAVO!
Personally, I lean a bit more towards damascis's side of the discussion but do agree with much of J415D's comments and thought she asked GREAT questions.
I am apprehensive about mandates too but after I read about it I understand the idea is to spread the risk among a larger population to create lower premiums. The more people involved the better the rates.
But it doesn't create lower premiums. By the addition of those with preexisting conditions and other such "uninsurables" you raise the costs to the point that any savings by numbers are negated by the needs of those numbers.
As far as the costs being covered by "government waste reduction" that's laughable at best, and an outright lie in most estimations. Our government, and indeed government in general can no more remove waste than I can personally fly to the moon. If you believe that Obama can, then I would remind you that ALL the health care changes would take effect in 2013... a year after the next election of which you're not guarenteed that he'll even be in office at that time.
But don't you agree that these mandates themselves put the consumer at a disadvantage by forcing you to buy, therefore allowing all companies to raise their price since everyone must have insurance instead of opting out? And if the response is, "then use the gov't option plan" then that too does the same thing as you're being REQUIRED to use insurance that you may not feel you need, taking away the very choice that is defined even by the idiots in congress as what lowers prices?
Allowing access to affordable, quality health care to all the citizens of our nation is nothing remotely even related to slavery. Where is the compassion for fellow man? Why is it that you or I cannot work hard at our jobs, pay our taxes and get access to quality, affordable health care as a result? There are people who can't afford to pay out of pocket, can't pay a Cobra, are unemployed, would you just have those people burdening the emergency rooms? what are your ideas on health care?
My idea of health care is an agreement entered into by the patient and the doctor. My compassion for my fellow man goes to all mankind, not just the sick. It goes to the doctors, it goes to the nurses. It goes to the people who agree with me and don't agree with me. My point is simple. I do not have a human right to tell another human how to live so long as they are not infringing on my life. The point is double edged though for they don't have that right either.
And as far as taxes go, I'd find it a much better system if at the end of the year, I get a nice form to fill out that states where I want my taxes applied. That way, the gov't systems that I want in place get my support, those that I don't agree with don't. You multiply this by the taxes paid by the whole country and you'd finally see the true will of the people.
It seems that the democrat's version of family values would be that if it doesn't conform to what they believe in then they'll pass a rule where it does! And yes, the Republicans do the same but haven't you already covered how the party of family values means THEIR family values?
You point out the polarization that's happened in America, but that comes from both sides trying to force their views on each other.
Live your life your way, I'll live it mine. I don't push mine, so don't push yours
I still have yet to see where health care is a human right and it is my biggest contention with progressives.
A human right is a thing that occurs naturally. We are all born with it, and it is not given by anything other than our natural state of being. Therefor it can only be taken away, not given (as you're born with it). A right also cannot take a right from another.
Mandated health care cannot be a right as it forces one person's service for another's use.
Health care is a moral issue. Comprehensive, quality, care must be made available and affordable for all. I will pay more taxes so you or I or any other American can get care because we're in this together. Human rights have been taken away from people for ages. How about the right to education for women? African Americans? The right to vote? In the life, liberty, and property-wouldn't health care be the "life" component? How can you pursue happiness when you are to poor to get care so you live?
Then you agree that human rights can only be taken away; not given?
So your solution is to take the right of a medical provider; infringe upon it and require them to provide medical treatment (time from their life span) for compensation that THEY don't get to decide? That is nothing more than a complex form of slavery.
We improve the health care system by getting the gov't out of it. We improve it by removing the large corporations from the equasion as we all know they're about money, and not health care.
In truth J415D, you and I do agree about the corporate health care issue, our disagreement is in whether or not the gov't can do a better job, or if it's even their job to do it at all.
You say government is responsible for taking care of us, I say the government is responsible for getting out of our way.
The entire intellectual community in the worlds' most developed nations just laughed at you.
Actually, living in a social democrat system, you don't have to go to the hospital if you are ill. It's just that if you WANT to live, the state will Provide you with the help You have the right to have In Order To Live A Decent Life.
Jesus tittyfucking christ... Some cowboys are just BEYOND retardation.
The entire intellectual community in the worlds' most developed nations just laughed at you.
Actually, living in a social democrat system, you don't have to go to the hospital if you are ill. It's just that if you WANT to live, the state will Provide you with the help You have the right to have In Order To Live A Decent Life.
Jesus tittyfucking christ... Some cowboys are just BEYOND retardation.
@damascis how about you use words in the manor in which they are meant slavery is some one working for nothing or below standard wages he/she is owned or in a controlled environment with no freedom. how does that relate to some one making 100+k a year living where they want and when they want and having freedom?
And while it's very altruistic for you to state you'll pay more taxes; realize this isn't about what you'll do. It's about what others are forced to do. This unto itself is a human right violation for those that do not wish to partake in the system you would have set up. It cannot be a human right when it takes from one group to give to another. It may be moral by your definition (I'll not argue someone's morals as they're individual to the person) but it is not a human right.
Yep, cooler heads prevail. I'm all for a third party and I wish we would get it in place. Nicely done video. My head hasn't been so cool lately so it's time for me to take a break from all this political crap.
Great video. If you blur the lines of Democrats and Republicans you start to see the commonalities. There doesn't necessarily have to be a great divide, it's about your perspective.
nobody asked you for your opinion either way. shut up scragg
dashosalt27 7 months ago
@SuperSoylent Anarcho-Capitalist? check it out and see if it fits with your thoughts.
Sottef 1 year ago
Labels are bound to be distorted by perception or use. A Progressive Party would be fine insofar they remain progressive and don't allow for fringe socialist into their organization.
lookit87 1 year ago
america needs a 3rd party - but it's pretty hard to find room for in a 2 party system. Your system has crippled development and application of ideas in America - and that's a problem.
selvmordspilot 1 year ago
@selvmordspilot I would even say that the U.S. needs even more parties, covering all ideologies.
But the population of cowboyland is sadly so uncouncious that they do not really care about politics or ideologies... They just vote for the guy with the funniest hat.
Sottef 1 year ago
J415D, damascis, EXCELLENT debate (hesitate to call it that because it didn't really feel like one, mean that in a good way)
Excellent points on both sides though and I appreciated the intelligence and maturity. Something I rarely find on the internet.
BRAVO!
Personally, I lean a bit more towards damascis's side of the discussion but do agree with much of J415D's comments and thought she asked GREAT questions.
gmjones2001 2 years ago
Good points of view. Looking forward to more videos from you.......and your eyes....those lovely eyes!! :)
OriMeissa 2 years ago
damascis must really like you J415D as him/her spent lots of time responding to you video
I enjoy your videos J415D keep them coming.
LorraineGC 2 years ago
I am apprehensive about mandates too but after I read about it I understand the idea is to spread the risk among a larger population to create lower premiums. The more people involved the better the rates.
J415D 2 years ago
But it doesn't create lower premiums. By the addition of those with preexisting conditions and other such "uninsurables" you raise the costs to the point that any savings by numbers are negated by the needs of those numbers.
damascis 2 years ago
As far as the costs being covered by "government waste reduction" that's laughable at best, and an outright lie in most estimations. Our government, and indeed government in general can no more remove waste than I can personally fly to the moon. If you believe that Obama can, then I would remind you that ALL the health care changes would take effect in 2013... a year after the next election of which you're not guarenteed that he'll even be in office at that time.
damascis 2 years ago
But don't you agree that these mandates themselves put the consumer at a disadvantage by forcing you to buy, therefore allowing all companies to raise their price since everyone must have insurance instead of opting out? And if the response is, "then use the gov't option plan" then that too does the same thing as you're being REQUIRED to use insurance that you may not feel you need, taking away the very choice that is defined even by the idiots in congress as what lowers prices?
damascis 2 years ago
Allowing access to affordable, quality health care to all the citizens of our nation is nothing remotely even related to slavery. Where is the compassion for fellow man? Why is it that you or I cannot work hard at our jobs, pay our taxes and get access to quality, affordable health care as a result? There are people who can't afford to pay out of pocket, can't pay a Cobra, are unemployed, would you just have those people burdening the emergency rooms? what are your ideas on health care?
J415D 2 years ago
My idea of health care is an agreement entered into by the patient and the doctor. My compassion for my fellow man goes to all mankind, not just the sick. It goes to the doctors, it goes to the nurses. It goes to the people who agree with me and don't agree with me. My point is simple. I do not have a human right to tell another human how to live so long as they are not infringing on my life. The point is double edged though for they don't have that right either.
damascis 2 years ago
And as far as taxes go, I'd find it a much better system if at the end of the year, I get a nice form to fill out that states where I want my taxes applied. That way, the gov't systems that I want in place get my support, those that I don't agree with don't. You multiply this by the taxes paid by the whole country and you'd finally see the true will of the people.
damascis 2 years ago
It seems that the democrat's version of family values would be that if it doesn't conform to what they believe in then they'll pass a rule where it does! And yes, the Republicans do the same but haven't you already covered how the party of family values means THEIR family values?
You point out the polarization that's happened in America, but that comes from both sides trying to force their views on each other.
Live your life your way, I'll live it mine. I don't push mine, so don't push yours
damascis 2 years ago
I still have yet to see where health care is a human right and it is my biggest contention with progressives.
A human right is a thing that occurs naturally. We are all born with it, and it is not given by anything other than our natural state of being. Therefor it can only be taken away, not given (as you're born with it). A right also cannot take a right from another.
Mandated health care cannot be a right as it forces one person's service for another's use.
damascis 2 years ago
Health care is a moral issue. Comprehensive, quality, care must be made available and affordable for all. I will pay more taxes so you or I or any other American can get care because we're in this together. Human rights have been taken away from people for ages. How about the right to education for women? African Americans? The right to vote? In the life, liberty, and property-wouldn't health care be the "life" component? How can you pursue happiness when you are to poor to get care so you live?
J415D 2 years ago
Then you agree that human rights can only be taken away; not given?
So your solution is to take the right of a medical provider; infringe upon it and require them to provide medical treatment (time from their life span) for compensation that THEY don't get to decide? That is nothing more than a complex form of slavery.
damascis 2 years ago
How do we improve the health care system?
J415D 2 years ago
We improve the health care system by getting the gov't out of it. We improve it by removing the large corporations from the equasion as we all know they're about money, and not health care.
In truth J415D, you and I do agree about the corporate health care issue, our disagreement is in whether or not the gov't can do a better job, or if it's even their job to do it at all.
You say government is responsible for taking care of us, I say the government is responsible for getting out of our way.
damascis 2 years ago
@damascis .... WHAT? This post gave me cancer xD
The entire intellectual community in the worlds' most developed nations just laughed at you.
Actually, living in a social democrat system, you don't have to go to the hospital if you are ill. It's just that if you WANT to live, the state will Provide you with the help You have the right to have In Order To Live A Decent Life.
Jesus tittyfucking christ... Some cowboys are just BEYOND retardation.
Sottef 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@damascis .... WHAT? That post gave me cancer xD
The entire intellectual community in the worlds' most developed nations just laughed at you.
Actually, living in a social democrat system, you don't have to go to the hospital if you are ill. It's just that if you WANT to live, the state will Provide you with the help You have the right to have In Order To Live A Decent Life.
Jesus tittyfucking christ... Some cowboys are just BEYOND retardation.
Sottef 1 year ago
@damascis how about you use words in the manor in which they are meant slavery is some one working for nothing or below standard wages he/she is owned or in a controlled environment with no freedom. how does that relate to some one making 100+k a year living where they want and when they want and having freedom?
cloudvszell 1 year ago
And while it's very altruistic for you to state you'll pay more taxes; realize this isn't about what you'll do. It's about what others are forced to do. This unto itself is a human right violation for those that do not wish to partake in the system you would have set up. It cannot be a human right when it takes from one group to give to another. It may be moral by your definition (I'll not argue someone's morals as they're individual to the person) but it is not a human right.
damascis 2 years ago
Yep, cooler heads prevail. I'm all for a third party and I wish we would get it in place. Nicely done video. My head hasn't been so cool lately so it's time for me to take a break from all this political crap.
medicatedsaint 2 years ago 2
Great video. If you blur the lines of Democrats and Republicans you start to see the commonalities. There doesn't necessarily have to be a great divide, it's about your perspective.
peter4redstar 2 years ago 2