While I'm not 100% sure about those quotes (it's what google produced...) it changes nothing. Your argument is invalid! Giving up the freedom of choosing health care for forced health care (i.e. security) is insane. Plus, this is not the role of government; the federal govt needs to stay out of our lives!
Giving up the freedom to choose to not have healthcare (a DUMB choice) in order to have the freedom to choose among different plans once you get sick is what I am talking about and something that you are apparently unable or unwilling to understand.
What you are unwilling to understand are simple facts: 1) Govt has no business in our lives making these decisions (whether you think they are smart decisions or not. 2) Obama care isn't going to give health care to everyone but FORCE them to buy health care, or else! 3) Not everyone who has pre-conditions will get good and/or cheap care due to this plan.
I know you are gullible and want to believe that Obama care will only help people but it's time to wake up from your silly delusions.
Do you always try to pass off your opinion as fact? The point of making people get healthcare is EXACTLY and PRECISELY to get rid of any and all clauses denying coverage of preexisting conditions.
But THAT point is fallacious! If you bothered to read and research the FACTS, you would notice that Obama LIED about people getting coverage with pre-conditions! And before you dismiss my facts as "mere opinion" you might want to bring evidence to the table. I've seen what you consider evidence to be, from your other vids where you quote *1* outdated source and think you'd got something to offer.
The bills in congress ban certain types of behavior regarding pre-existing conditions, but it is not strong enough to prevent all types of discrimination, and I am sure they will figure out how to exploit loopholes. That is why a PUBLIC OPTION is such a vital part of this bill.
And that's the point! You finally got it! The LOOPHOLES are so vast and numerous that the govt will find multiple reasons to deny people coverage (with little oversight from us they can get away with it) AND still fine and penalize us for not having health care. The public option won't stop any of this. The only way to stop the corruption is to get rid of the whole fucking thing!
You don't like to think before you post. Corporations are pretty fucking open with their operations and their spending due to taxes and investigations in the market (thanks to the noisy govt). And while the govt has no right to privacy, that doesn't stop them from BEING private: IRS, CIA, and the non-govt org Federal Reserve which is just NOW going to be audited!
Face the facts! Corporations and Govt are businesses, only that there is no oversight when it comes to loopholes exploited by govt!
Most uneducated seem to think going Marxist is best too until the people actually live under the iron fist of governmental force...this is why our schools bastardize history.
yeah, only a fine for those who refuse to participate is being considered, no jail. but yeah, if they evade their taxes then they could go to jail. if you ever have time, the neatest most detailed widget i've come across concerning reform can be found if you google "kaiser side-by-side comparison" the kaiser family foundation (kff) has it.
The patriot act wasn't about freedom. It was about security, or shall we say the cover story was about security. I think Franklin's advice definitely applies in this case. Government should not be empowered to go after individuals unless they can show rational cause for doing so. Government should deal with society as a whole. All men are equal under the law. Government should be transparent, not individuals. Individuals should have a right to privacy, not government.
But it doesn't apply to healthcare? I thought that was the same argument in favor of socialized medicine. People need to be "secure" in their ability to receive care.
"Individuals should have a right to privacy, not government."
You think there will be privacy/transparency when the GOVERNMENT runs the show?!
The government is supposed to be transparent. If it is not, ask where all the conservatives were when Bush was in office making sure he kept more and more from public view. You elect people determined to prove the government is a failure. Big SURPRISE!
Nice try j0hn, but I don't fall for the "where were you when Bush blah blah blah" trick. Politicians are scum no matter what party. The founding fathers envisioned a LIMITED GOVERNMENT. That means not using tax dollars on vague overseas conflicts AND not using tax dollars on handout programs.
Come up with a real argument instead of the tired liberal talking points of the last 8 years. Your man and your party are in power now.
What you call a "handout" I call SECURITY, I call an investment, I call it a lot of other things intended not to blame victims of the system for their predicament.
lol, so you're a statist when it comes to economic affairs, but then someone who advocates limited government in social affairs? You don't see the hypocrisy in that?
Besides, NeoCons would definitely argue that the Patriot Act secured our freedom not to get attacked and live peacefully for our useless freedom of privacy. Unfortunately, it is the same line of reasoning.
I am not a statist. The government needs to step in to prevent monopolies or regulate natural monopolies. You do not have multiple electric wires going into your house. You don't have multiple roads leading to your house. You don't have multiple water pipes (in either direction). Utilities like these need to be regulated and / or structured to prevent monopolistic abuse.
I'm not behind you on this one. You also have to look at how we got here. This ultimatum shouldn't even be presented, healthcare should be affordable. The AMA is partly to blame, we need to end the monopoly on practicing medicine and allow health co-ops to exist instead of having them raided because they didn't go through the monopoly. We can't just patch new problems with new ultimatums, you have to look at the sources. There is a lot of damage to undo and that is where I agree with the right.
The biggest damage right now is to the individuals unable to get healthcare because they are unable to get insurance or are denied coverage. I place my priorities on the people getting hurt most in the system and I would encourage you to do the same.
There's a lot of ways to stop that. We can start with ending the tax incentives for employers to provide insurance. People should earn more money and have a choice. When business has been consolidated as much as it has been, the employer provided insurance is generally a smaller marketplace and the tax incentives just promote negligent insurers. Mutualist organizations used to provide healthcare to immigrants and the poor, but the AMA sanctioned those doctors; they wanted to jack up their pay.
Rightwings like to talk about choices, but when you got 5 dollars doesnt it mater how many style of pizza a pizzeria has when the cheapest is 6,99.
And if unions press up saleries so ppl can start afford living then the rightwing say that unions are evil and drain the life blood out of the corperations.
I live in a country with 56% total tax burden and USA has 28% total tax burden and still even with lower salery i got higher standing of livign then the average american.
I'm not against unionization. I don't believe in a mandatory minimum wage, but collective bargaining is fine. I believe in democratic workplaces and self management, and I also believe that having a choice is what improves our standards of living. The "rightwings" are retards who still want your tax dollars to fund their police state and pass legislation for their buddies who lobbied them. They talk a big game but they have no desire to follow through. The problem is the institution itself.
For me is taxation not a problem as long as the goverment use the tax money wisely and you got transpeancy so you can se how they are used. Basicly the ppl neeed to feel they get there moneys worth out of the taxes.
I understand that is a problem in USA.
Heck i live in "socialistic" sweden where we got no minimum wage but the collective bargain set the standard and if some one dont pay the standard the unions boycott the employer and put him/her in blockade.
when has any government ever spent tax dollars wisely? government size and power have only done one thing in all of history and that is grow, never has a government (that i know of at least) decreased its size and power by its self, not without revolution. That's where America is heading socialism or a bloody revolution.
Taxation should be a form of democracy, also meaning you have a choice to opt out. It should not be a "tax". If the government doesn't use your money wisely, you don't have a choice, you have to work within that institution even if its as corrupt as the US. That's not the way to go. Government would be forced to use your money wisely if it actually had to compete for it, then it wouldn't be "government". It would actually provide value. All the government does now is destroy value i.e. dollar.
The left party of sweden (communists) want a tax reform in sweden, wich basicly make you able to decide how much of your tax will go to diffrent areas as law enforcement, school, healthcare, childcare, military and so on.
It means all pay same taxes but depending on priorities among the ppl diffrent areas get what they need, The other parties are investigate how it should work but it may be a future tax system here for both right and left seem to think it is an intresting concept.
The problem is the growth of government in every aspect of our lives and the two party system we have. if we had even one other serious contending party maybe Rep would put out a candidate that doesn't run down the middle of the road trying to make sure he sucks "everyone off" same for the Dems, look at Obama he ran as a moderate but when he got in office he turn out to be a hardcore liberal radical. its a messed up system and its getting worse everyday.
Hes hardly radical. He is blown way out of proportion. He has done everything a president would be expected to do. If anything he is a fascist, as most presidents have been. The demagoguery of the right has thrown the "socialist" or "communist" label on everything, they need to read a book or at least what Mussolini had to say about fascism. And there is no such thing as "limited government", its a myth.
"In order to secure some freedoms, we much sacrifice others."
That is complete and utter BS.
You should probably take just a moment or two to do some actual research on the results of socialized healthcare, which goes beyond watching a clip or two of ABC news.
Currently, people cannot wait until they get sick to get health insurance. That's a moot point.
And saying the the government is just "competition" shows a complete lack of understanding.
France has ACTUAL socialized medicine and they have the best health care system in the world. In reality there is no reason for private health insurance to exist.
I would agree that private healthcare causes problems. Insurance companies should act as insurance companies and not healthcare. Private healthcare doesn't drive doctors and hospitals to compete and thus raises the prices of medical care. Going social will not fix this. Instead, we will see unreasonable wait times such as Canada, and drops in the quality of medical care. This will undoubtedly include massive power grabs by our govt.
Monolithic in regards to its size or its single mindedness?
Have you not noticed that every candidate seems to promise a smaller or more transparent government and then none even attempt to deliver?
The type or person attracted to politics is those who wish to have more control. It's human nature. Look at the Federal government we have and compare it to the Constitutional government we are supposed to have, then try to convince me that they are not single minded in their quest for power.
I would also urge to the look into positive vs. negative rights. You argue that we have a right to medical care, and I would agree. But that is not a positive right.
For instance, we have an individual right to keep and bear arms. That does not mean that the govt. has to issue us each a firearm.
This video of yours is insane. Give the health insurance competition by having a public option AND forcing people to buy health insurance? You're clearly out of your mind. There are so many things wrong with this I don't know where to start.... Get a grip, j0hn.
That doesn't even make sense. I also find it quite ironic that you play the party game. A bit of a collectivist are we? A hypocrite as well I might add.
First 12 seconds COMPLETELY rebutted by Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would sacrifice freedom for a little more security deserve neither freedom NOR security."
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Let's see if you pick up on the subtle difference. Giving up one freedom for another isn't even in the same category.
Nuance?! Good God! I already have Medicare running a racket on my paycheck! It's called MEDICARE!!! Oh look! Socialized-ENOUGH medical care! And Obastard wants to add MORE taxes?! Uh uh! No way! Fuck him! Nope!
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
- Benjamin Franklin
Your argument is invalid!
fitedeltachi 2 years ago 2
That is a paraphrase, the actual quote is:
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety".
I am making no such suggestion. I am trading one kind of useless freedom for a better more useful freedom.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
While I'm not 100% sure about those quotes (it's what google produced...) it changes nothing. Your argument is invalid! Giving up the freedom of choosing health care for forced health care (i.e. security) is insane. Plus, this is not the role of government; the federal govt needs to stay out of our lives!
fitedeltachi 2 years ago
Giving up the freedom to choose to not have healthcare (a DUMB choice) in order to have the freedom to choose among different plans once you get sick is what I am talking about and something that you are apparently unable or unwilling to understand.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
What you are unwilling to understand are simple facts: 1) Govt has no business in our lives making these decisions (whether you think they are smart decisions or not. 2) Obama care isn't going to give health care to everyone but FORCE them to buy health care, or else! 3) Not everyone who has pre-conditions will get good and/or cheap care due to this plan.
I know you are gullible and want to believe that Obama care will only help people but it's time to wake up from your silly delusions.
fitedeltachi 2 years ago
Do you always try to pass off your opinion as fact? The point of making people get healthcare is EXACTLY and PRECISELY to get rid of any and all clauses denying coverage of preexisting conditions.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
But THAT point is fallacious! If you bothered to read and research the FACTS, you would notice that Obama LIED about people getting coverage with pre-conditions! And before you dismiss my facts as "mere opinion" you might want to bring evidence to the table. I've seen what you consider evidence to be, from your other vids where you quote *1* outdated source and think you'd got something to offer.
Learn the facts and get an informed opinion!
fitedeltachi 2 years ago
The bills in congress ban certain types of behavior regarding pre-existing conditions, but it is not strong enough to prevent all types of discrimination, and I am sure they will figure out how to exploit loopholes. That is why a PUBLIC OPTION is such a vital part of this bill.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
And that's the point! You finally got it! The LOOPHOLES are so vast and numerous that the govt will find multiple reasons to deny people coverage (with little oversight from us they can get away with it) AND still fine and penalize us for not having health care. The public option won't stop any of this. The only way to stop the corruption is to get rid of the whole fucking thing!
fitedeltachi 2 years ago 2
The government has no right to privacy, unlike private corporations. Corporations will actively try to hide the use of loopholes.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
You don't like to think before you post. Corporations are pretty fucking open with their operations and their spending due to taxes and investigations in the market (thanks to the noisy govt). And while the govt has no right to privacy, that doesn't stop them from BEING private: IRS, CIA, and the non-govt org Federal Reserve which is just NOW going to be audited!
Face the facts! Corporations and Govt are businesses, only that there is no oversight when it comes to loopholes exploited by govt!
fitedeltachi 2 years ago 3
This would lead to the destruction of private insurance companies. Good Job.
rockandrock44 2 years ago
Most uneducated seem to think going Marxist is best too until the people actually live under the iron fist of governmental force...this is why our schools bastardize history.
tubaboy71 2 years ago
france's system is rated 1st in the world by the WHO. America is rated 37th.
and france's system is roughly $2K cheaper pp than amaerica's!
ashtool 2 years ago
yeah, only a fine for those who refuse to participate is being considered, no jail. but yeah, if they evade their taxes then they could go to jail. if you ever have time, the neatest most detailed widget i've come across concerning reform can be found if you google "kaiser side-by-side comparison" the kaiser family foundation (kff) has it.
sisforshayla 2 years ago
"In order to secure some freedoms, we much sacrifice others."
Sounds like you support the Patriot Act. Same line of reasoning.
notyourfriendbuddy 2 years ago
The patriot act wasn't about freedom. It was about security, or shall we say the cover story was about security. I think Franklin's advice definitely applies in this case. Government should not be empowered to go after individuals unless they can show rational cause for doing so. Government should deal with society as a whole. All men are equal under the law. Government should be transparent, not individuals. Individuals should have a right to privacy, not government.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
But it doesn't apply to healthcare? I thought that was the same argument in favor of socialized medicine. People need to be "secure" in their ability to receive care.
"Individuals should have a right to privacy, not government."
You think there will be privacy/transparency when the GOVERNMENT runs the show?!
notyourfriendbuddy 2 years ago
The government is supposed to be transparent. If it is not, ask where all the conservatives were when Bush was in office making sure he kept more and more from public view. You elect people determined to prove the government is a failure. Big SURPRISE!
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
Nice try j0hn, but I don't fall for the "where were you when Bush blah blah blah" trick. Politicians are scum no matter what party. The founding fathers envisioned a LIMITED GOVERNMENT. That means not using tax dollars on vague overseas conflicts AND not using tax dollars on handout programs.
Come up with a real argument instead of the tired liberal talking points of the last 8 years. Your man and your party are in power now.
notyourfriendbuddy 2 years ago
What you call a "handout" I call SECURITY, I call an investment, I call it a lot of other things intended not to blame victims of the system for their predicament.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
Which brings us back to the Benjamim Franklin Quote.
notyourfriendbuddy 2 years ago
lol, so you're a statist when it comes to economic affairs, but then someone who advocates limited government in social affairs? You don't see the hypocrisy in that?
Besides, NeoCons would definitely argue that the Patriot Act secured our freedom not to get attacked and live peacefully for our useless freedom of privacy. Unfortunately, it is the same line of reasoning.
rockandrock44 2 years ago
I am not a statist. The government needs to step in to prevent monopolies or regulate natural monopolies. You do not have multiple electric wires going into your house. You don't have multiple roads leading to your house. You don't have multiple water pipes (in either direction). Utilities like these need to be regulated and / or structured to prevent monopolistic abuse.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
I'm not behind you on this one. You also have to look at how we got here. This ultimatum shouldn't even be presented, healthcare should be affordable. The AMA is partly to blame, we need to end the monopoly on practicing medicine and allow health co-ops to exist instead of having them raided because they didn't go through the monopoly. We can't just patch new problems with new ultimatums, you have to look at the sources. There is a lot of damage to undo and that is where I agree with the right.
abortabraham 2 years ago
The biggest damage right now is to the individuals unable to get healthcare because they are unable to get insurance or are denied coverage. I place my priorities on the people getting hurt most in the system and I would encourage you to do the same.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
There's a lot of ways to stop that. We can start with ending the tax incentives for employers to provide insurance. People should earn more money and have a choice. When business has been consolidated as much as it has been, the employer provided insurance is generally a smaller marketplace and the tax incentives just promote negligent insurers. Mutualist organizations used to provide healthcare to immigrants and the poor, but the AMA sanctioned those doctors; they wanted to jack up their pay.
abortabraham 2 years ago
Rightwings like to talk about choices, but when you got 5 dollars doesnt it mater how many style of pizza a pizzeria has when the cheapest is 6,99.
And if unions press up saleries so ppl can start afford living then the rightwing say that unions are evil and drain the life blood out of the corperations.
I live in a country with 56% total tax burden and USA has 28% total tax burden and still even with lower salery i got higher standing of livign then the average american.
Gripen1974 2 years ago
I'm not against unionization. I don't believe in a mandatory minimum wage, but collective bargaining is fine. I believe in democratic workplaces and self management, and I also believe that having a choice is what improves our standards of living. The "rightwings" are retards who still want your tax dollars to fund their police state and pass legislation for their buddies who lobbied them. They talk a big game but they have no desire to follow through. The problem is the institution itself.
abortabraham 2 years ago
For me is taxation not a problem as long as the goverment use the tax money wisely and you got transpeancy so you can se how they are used. Basicly the ppl neeed to feel they get there moneys worth out of the taxes.
I understand that is a problem in USA.
Heck i live in "socialistic" sweden where we got no minimum wage but the collective bargain set the standard and if some one dont pay the standard the unions boycott the employer and put him/her in blockade.
Gripen1974 2 years ago
when has any government ever spent tax dollars wisely? government size and power have only done one thing in all of history and that is grow, never has a government (that i know of at least) decreased its size and power by its self, not without revolution. That's where America is heading socialism or a bloody revolution.
blurbum9 2 years ago
Taxation should be a form of democracy, also meaning you have a choice to opt out. It should not be a "tax". If the government doesn't use your money wisely, you don't have a choice, you have to work within that institution even if its as corrupt as the US. That's not the way to go. Government would be forced to use your money wisely if it actually had to compete for it, then it wouldn't be "government". It would actually provide value. All the government does now is destroy value i.e. dollar.
abortabraham 2 years ago
The left party of sweden (communists) want a tax reform in sweden, wich basicly make you able to decide how much of your tax will go to diffrent areas as law enforcement, school, healthcare, childcare, military and so on.
It means all pay same taxes but depending on priorities among the ppl diffrent areas get what they need, The other parties are investigate how it should work but it may be a future tax system here for both right and left seem to think it is an intresting concept.
Gripen1974 2 years ago
The problem is the growth of government in every aspect of our lives and the two party system we have. if we had even one other serious contending party maybe Rep would put out a candidate that doesn't run down the middle of the road trying to make sure he sucks "everyone off" same for the Dems, look at Obama he ran as a moderate but when he got in office he turn out to be a hardcore liberal radical. its a messed up system and its getting worse everyday.
blurbum9 2 years ago
Hes hardly radical. He is blown way out of proportion. He has done everything a president would be expected to do. If anything he is a fascist, as most presidents have been. The demagoguery of the right has thrown the "socialist" or "communist" label on everything, they need to read a book or at least what Mussolini had to say about fascism. And there is no such thing as "limited government", its a myth.
abortabraham 2 years ago
"The biggest damage right now is to the individuals unable to get healthcare because they are unable to get insurance or are denied coverage."
That is such bullshit and you know it!
NO ONE can be denied medical care REGARDLESS of their ability to pay.
notyourfriendbuddy 2 years ago
At the emergency ward, buddy. Try getting chemotherapy at the emergency ward.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
"In order to secure some freedoms, we much sacrifice others."
That is complete and utter BS.
You should probably take just a moment or two to do some actual research on the results of socialized healthcare, which goes beyond watching a clip or two of ABC news.
Currently, people cannot wait until they get sick to get health insurance. That's a moot point.
And saying the the government is just "competition" shows a complete lack of understanding.
bldgy 2 years ago
France has ACTUAL socialized medicine and they have the best health care system in the world. In reality there is no reason for private health insurance to exist.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
I would agree that private healthcare causes problems. Insurance companies should act as insurance companies and not healthcare. Private healthcare doesn't drive doctors and hospitals to compete and thus raises the prices of medical care. Going social will not fix this. Instead, we will see unreasonable wait times such as Canada, and drops in the quality of medical care. This will undoubtedly include massive power grabs by our govt.
bldgy 2 years ago
You seem to think the government is some monolithic thing.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
Monolithic in regards to its size or its single mindedness?
Have you not noticed that every candidate seems to promise a smaller or more transparent government and then none even attempt to deliver?
The type or person attracted to politics is those who wish to have more control. It's human nature. Look at the Federal government we have and compare it to the Constitutional government we are supposed to have, then try to convince me that they are not single minded in their quest for power.
bldgy 2 years ago
I would also urge to the look into positive vs. negative rights. You argue that we have a right to medical care, and I would agree. But that is not a positive right.
For instance, we have an individual right to keep and bear arms. That does not mean that the govt. has to issue us each a firearm.
bldgy 2 years ago
And the fact that you deleted my first post certainly says quite a bit...
The fact is, your statement about choosing rights is a completely false notion.
bldgy 2 years ago
I never delete posts. I can't control youtube weirdness.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
This video of yours is insane. Give the health insurance competition by having a public option AND forcing people to buy health insurance? You're clearly out of your mind. There are so many things wrong with this I don't know where to start.... Get a grip, j0hn.
kommisar 2 years ago
Not knowing where to begin is a common ailment with conservatives.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
That doesn't even make sense. I also find it quite ironic that you play the party game. A bit of a collectivist are we? A hypocrite as well I might add.
kommisar 2 years ago
First 12 seconds COMPLETELY rebutted by Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would sacrifice freedom for a little more security deserve neither freedom NOR security."
Yup!
QuartuvLarry 2 years ago
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Let's see if you pick up on the subtle difference. Giving up one freedom for another isn't even in the same category.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
Nuance?! Good God! I already have Medicare running a racket on my paycheck! It's called MEDICARE!!! Oh look! Socialized-ENOUGH medical care! And Obastard wants to add MORE taxes?! Uh uh! No way! Fuck him! Nope!
QuartuvLarry 2 years ago