Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Sun Dec 21, 2014 6:27 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 119 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Obligatory Obamacare thread 
Author Message
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pm
Posts: 2157
Post Re: Obligatory Obamacare thread
I hate to break this news, but you're paying for plenty of random joes you've never met under any insurance plan, ACA or no ACA. That includes the joes who don't have any coverage at all--in fact, that makes it worse, because those emergency room visits aren't cheap and the money has to come from somewhere.

Private health insurance in general is a pretty terrible idea when you get right down to it. The entire reason for keeping a business in the private sector is to subject it to consumer-driven market pressures. In theory, if people are choosy with what they pay for, companies are forced to keep their prices low and their innovation high so they can stay competitive.

Insurance, by nature, takes those decisions out of the consumer's hands. The benefits of privatization do not apply to insurance. The only entities that stand to gain from private health insurance are private health insurance companies. It's the random joes--us included--who get hosed.

_________________
The temptation is to like what you should like--not what you do like... another temptation is to come up with an interesting reason for liking it that may not actually be the reason you like it.


Wed Nov 20, 2013 7:32 pm
Profile
Cinematographer

Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2009 6:19 pm
Posts: 665
Post Re: Obligatory Obamacare thread
Yes. But under this plan everyone's cost are supposed to go down and not one dime was to be added to the deficit. I heard the President say so many times and can post video if helpful. Why didn't you break the news to us prior to the 2012 elections?


Wed Nov 20, 2013 8:07 pm
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 4:04 pm
Posts: 1802
Location: New Hampshire
Post Re: Obligatory Obamacare thread
CasualDad wrote:
Yes. But under this plan everyone's cost are supposed to go down and not one dime was to be added to the deficit. I heard the President say so many times and can post video if helpful. Why didn't you break the news to us prior to the 2012 elections?


Because that's politics. Obama is like any other politician; he'd have cozied up with the Aryan Nation if it would win him the election. For Christ's sake, people act like Obama is the first person to do this.

_________________
Death is pretty final
I'm collecting vinyl
I'm gonna DJ at the end of the world.


Wed Nov 20, 2013 8:17 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 12:07 pm
Posts: 373
Post Re: Obligatory Obamacare thread
Sexual Chocolate wrote:
CasualDad wrote:
Yes. But under this plan everyone's cost are supposed to go down and not one dime was to be added to the deficit. I heard the President say so many times and can post video if helpful. Why didn't you break the news to us prior to the 2012 elections?


Because that's politics. Obama is like any other politician; he'd have cozied up with the Aryan Nation if it would win him the election. For Christ's sake, people act like Obama is the first person to do this.


Yes, exactly!!! But his campaigns were predicated on proving Bush and Romney to be liars, and then what does he do during his presidency? He blatantly lies. He is as big of a hypocrite as any other politician.


Wed Nov 20, 2013 8:42 pm
Profile
Cinematographer

Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2009 6:19 pm
Posts: 665
Post Re: Obligatory Obamacare thread
So the stance now is that con men and cons have always existed and upon that basis we should all just relax and accept the con? I guess the people truly have rejected the idea of self-governance once and forever.


Wed Nov 20, 2013 8:52 pm
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 4:04 pm
Posts: 1802
Location: New Hampshire
Post Re: Obligatory Obamacare thread
roastbeef_ajus wrote:

But his campaigns were predicated on proving Bush and Romney to be liars, and then what does he do during his presidency? He blatantly lies.


And this surprises you?

_________________
Death is pretty final
I'm collecting vinyl
I'm gonna DJ at the end of the world.


Wed Nov 20, 2013 8:52 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 12:07 pm
Posts: 373
Post Re: Obligatory Obamacare thread
Sexual Chocolate wrote:
roastbeef_ajus wrote:

But his campaigns were predicated on proving Bush and Romney to be liars, and then what does he do during his presidency? He blatantly lies.


And this surprises you?


Hell no. I knew it would be like this before he was elected the first time. I'm just laughing my ass off at those that elected him and expected something different. Just 3 more years!!!! (Unless he figures out a way to con the Supreme Court and get elected again or something...at which point I really would seek refuge in Australia or somewhere.)


Wed Nov 20, 2013 8:58 pm
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:37 am
Posts: 1186
Location: Laurel, MD
Post Re: Obligatory Obamacare thread
CasualDad wrote:
So the stance now is that con men and cons have always existed and upon that basis we should all just relax and accept the con? I guess the people truly have rejected the idea of self-governance once and forever.


Well, I know that JB has given up on it. Remember that infamous 2010 Reelthoughts entry where he proposed Election Day be moved to Halloween?

Hell, I'm even thinking about doing so in 2016. I live in Maryland, a hardcore blue state. I take my vote out and nothing changes.

_________________
https://www.facebook.com/ken.rossman.5


Wed Nov 20, 2013 9:29 pm
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 4:04 pm
Posts: 1802
Location: New Hampshire
Post Re: Obligatory Obamacare thread
roastbeef_ajus wrote:
Sexual Chocolate wrote:
roastbeef_ajus wrote:

But his campaigns were predicated on proving Bush and Romney to be liars, and then what does he do during his presidency? He blatantly lies.


And this surprises you?


Hell no. I knew it would be like this before he was elected the first time. I'm just laughing my ass off at those that elected him and expected something different. Just 3 more years!!!! (Unless he figures out a way to con the Supreme Court and get elected again or something...at which point I really would seek refuge in Australia or somewhere.)


You seem to think that everything sucks because we elected Obama, and that things would be peachy keen had we elected a Republican. It's naive thinking; don't bullshit yourself. Obama does not run this country. Once you understand that, everything is much more clear.

_________________
Death is pretty final
I'm collecting vinyl
I'm gonna DJ at the end of the world.


Wed Nov 20, 2013 10:00 pm
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pm
Posts: 2157
Post Re: Obligatory Obamacare thread
My position is this: Obama has done almost literally everything he can possibly do to shake off progressive voters, and had done so probably well within his first term. The people who have stuck with him since then are people who would stick with him through hell and back.

I do not believe in a binary system; therefore, my opinions about Obama have no bearing on my opinions about any other candidate. Romney sucked. Obama sucked. I did not vote for one or the other based on the suckage of either one.

Maybe that means I didn't vote for someone who had a chance* of winning, but fuck it. I prefer not to vote for candidates who don't represent me.

_
*Meaning a candidate with major corporate backing, because lord knows that candidates who actually stand up for their principles aren't worth a shit unless Big Hollywood or Big Oil starts writing checks for their campaigns.

_________________
The temptation is to like what you should like--not what you do like... another temptation is to come up with an interesting reason for liking it that may not actually be the reason you like it.


Thu Nov 21, 2013 1:16 am
Profile
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2012 9:17 am
Posts: 235
Post Re: Obligatory Obamacare thread
I think that becuase you have a 2 party system politics in America has become, one side against the other.
It has come to the point where what ever the republicans put forward the democrats reject and vice versa.
It has become not about solving issues but getting one up on the oposition.
The democrats will block the replublicans on everything, whether it be a good idea or not and vice versa.

One thing everyone should also consider is that Obama is the head of the Government.
He is told by all his adivisors what is needed to be done. This is the same for every President since the 1900's.

Wouldn't it be grerat if you changed your election process and removed each state. Add all the votes accross the country.
That way you would get a truer vote.


Thu Nov 21, 2013 1:05 pm
Profile
Cinematographer

Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2009 6:19 pm
Posts: 665
Post Re: Obligatory Obamacare thread
Not really. One of the intents of the electoral college was to try and prevent large urban areas from permanently controlling national politics. As it is, it is possible to become president by winning only the 11 most populous states; giving those states the most influence. If you go to a strictly direct election you will focus even more influence in the urban areas. The president could steer all beneficial financial expenditures and attention to these population centers while comfortably ignoring low population areas. Or steer undesirable things to North Dakota without worry about what they think. The people living in lower population areas deserve some measure of federal political power beyond their senate representation.


Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:11 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2012 9:17 am
Posts: 235
Post Re: Obligatory Obamacare thread
CasualDad wrote:
Not really. One of the intents of the electoral college was to try and prevent large urban areas from permanently controlling national politics.

I doin't know if I aggree with this idea. If large urban area which contain the most amount of people have greater conrol of their own country, wouldn't that be a better reflection of the people on the whole being represented
CasualDad wrote:
As it is, it is possible to become president by winning only the 11 most populous states; giving those states the most influence.

I am not asying that you aggree with this but does that not contradict your first point. If the electoral college wants to prevent large urban areas from contolling national politics why should they allow 11 states to do that same very thing.
CasualDad wrote:
If you go to a strictly direct election you will focus even more influence in the urban areas. The president could steer all beneficial financial expenditures and attention to these population centers while comfortably ignoring low population areas. Or steer undesirable things to North Dakota without worry about what they think.

Here you have a point.
How and ever, if the more money is spent where there are the highest population wouldn't more people benifit in the long run. Undesirable things have to go somewhere. So I could summise that the President could send them to a state that he knows he has no hope of winning anyway..
CasualDad wrote:
The people living in lower population areas deserve some measure of federal political power beyond their senate representation.

Why do they deserve more representaion ?


Fri Nov 22, 2013 8:59 am
Profile
Cinematographer

Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2009 6:19 pm
Posts: 665
Post Re: Obligatory Obamacare thread
They do not deserve more representation, they deserve equal representation from the executive branch. The purpose of organizing the original colonies into a union was to provide a united representation to the rest of the world and to provide a compact of sorts to defend equally all regions of the territory. The electoral collage is not intended to distribute all power away from the population centers, but divided it up by states in hopes that regional concerns would not be forgotten. The executive branch has the power to make many decisions that could be beneficial or detrimental to one region or state in the country. The president should view each and every citizen of this country as an equal, something he might not do if only a direct vote is being used. The citizen in rural North Dakota or New Mexico, or Mississippi expects to be equally defended and supported by the executive branch as the people in Los Angeles, NYC, and Houston are, but if their votes are completely insignificant to the outcome of a federal election they almost certainly won't be.


Fri Nov 22, 2013 9:57 am
Profile
Second Unit Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 12:07 pm
Posts: 373
Post Re: Obligatory Obamacare thread
p604 wrote:


CasualDad wrote:
Not really. One of the intents of the electoral college was to try and prevent large urban areas from permanently controlling national politics.



I doin't know if I aggree with this idea. If large urban area which contain the most amount of people have greater conrol of their own country, wouldn't that be a better reflection of the people on the whole being represented


CasualDad wrote:
As it is, it is possible to become president by winning only the 11 most populous states; giving those states the most influence.



I am not asying that you aggree with this but does that not contradict your first point. If the electoral college wants to prevent large urban areas from contolling national politics why should they allow 11 states to do that same very thing.



This line of thinking goes back to the Civil War. What most people don't understand, especially if they're not from this country, is that the Civil War was not fought over slavery. It was fought because the southern states felt they had no representation anymore; they felt they had no more say in what the federal government did. (I'm sure Vex or somebody will get in here and try to say otherwise...maybe he failed to take that class in his college).

Why should the liberal hippy fuckheads in California and New York have more say about this country than any other area?


Fri Nov 22, 2013 11:09 am
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pm
Posts: 2157
Post Re: Obligatory Obamacare thread
p604 wrote:
Why do they deserve more representaion ?

Think of it like a video game that has multiple playable characters. Some of the characters are much stronger than others--they have better moves, they don't have as many weaknesses, whatever. The game isn't as good as it could be, because the winners are always going to be those same few characters who have the best attributes.

As they say in the business, the game designers can buff the weak characters and nerf the strong ones. They can even out the odds--give the strong characters more weaknesses, boost the strength of the weaker characters, and generally tweak their attributes so that everybody can compete.

That's what the Electoral College is supposed to do, at least in theory. It buffs the weak players and it nerfs the strong ones. It's supposed to give everyone a fair shot at winning.

That said, just as it is with video games, it doesn't work perfectly. When you have a big, unpredictable system of rules, players, and options, no set of buffs and nerfs can be wise and prescient enough to cover every possible contingency and ward off every potential problem. It's no simple thing to manage such a system.

-

roastbeef_ajus wrote:
What most people don't understand, especially if they're not from this country, is that the Civil War was not fought over slavery. It was fought because the southern states felt they had no representation anymore; they felt they had no more say in what the federal government did. (I'm sure Vex or somebody will get in here and try to say otherwise...maybe he failed to take that class in his college).

Did you know that several of the Confederate States issued declarations as to why they were seceding from the Union? Obviously you didn't... but you do now!

Georgia:
* objects to the northern states for enacting laws to allow slaves to stay in northern territory as freemen
- 1. an objection very much concerned with continuing the institution of slavery
- 2. an objection directly concerned with upholding the federal government's power to limit the laws of individual states
- 3. an objection very much opposed to the preservation of rights of individual states
- this is couched in language that alternately refers to slaves as fugitives from labor and as lost property
* the text of this one is big and blocky, but just CTRL+F "slave"

South Carolina:
* like Georgia, SC objects to the northern states harboring slaves instead of returning them
* accuses northern states of educating slaves who remained in the south and inciting them to rebel

Texas:
* credits whites with the establishment of American civilization and expressly denies all credit to African slaves
* describes blacks as "inferior" and "dependent" and that they could not benefit from or tolerate any other condition
* describes slavery as mutually beneficial to slavemasters and slaves
* invokes the authority of God to justify the right to keep Africans enslaved

Mississippi:
* Seriously, just read the whole thing. It's an easy breezy read and it's really, really awful.

-

I will reiterate that these are all official declarations issued by these states to express their reasoning for seceding from the Union, and by extension their reasoning for opposing the northern states in the Civil War.

Then there's this here speech delivered by Alexander Stephens, who, as we all know because we're really smart about our history, was Vice President of the Confederate States.
* "Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas [see below]; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition."
* the ideas he talks of opposing here are the ideas held by most Revolution-era Americans that slavery was temporary and should soon pass from existence
* and pay close attention to the part where he outright said the Confederacy was founded upon the idea that Africans are naturally subservient and that slavery should be held in perpetuity.

-

At this point, just so nobody's forgotten, I'll repeat what you said:

roastbeef_ajus wrote:
What most people don't understand, especially if they're not from this country, is that the Civil War was not fought over slavery. It was fought because the southern states felt they had no representation anymore; they felt they had no more say in what the federal government did. (I'm sure Vex or somebody will get in here and try to say otherwise...maybe he failed to take that class in his college).

Let's be clear that I'm not the one saying otherwise. None of this stuff is my invention. That said, I did take a pretty extensive Antebellum American History class... in college. (musical sting here)

I think you should ditch the needlessly hostile language toward people whose opinions you oppose. Language like "liberal hippy fuckheads" is for lesser Internet forums. It brings this place down.

I also think you owe an apology to Vexer for preemptively calling him out on a matter that turned out to be a misconception on your part.*


_
*I put that as gently as I could. Take it as an opportunity to go the classy route.

_________________
The temptation is to like what you should like--not what you do like... another temptation is to come up with an interesting reason for liking it that may not actually be the reason you like it.


Fri Nov 22, 2013 1:10 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 12:07 pm
Posts: 373
Post Re: Obligatory Obamacare thread
roastbeef_ajus wrote:
It was fought because the southern states felt they had no representation anymore; they felt they had no more say in what the federal government did.


So am I right or wrong?


Fri Nov 22, 2013 1:18 pm
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pm
Posts: 2157
Post Re: Obligatory Obamacare thread
roastbeef_ajus wrote:
the Civil War was not fought over slavery.
Wrong. Obviously wrong. Categorically wrong.

roastbeef_ajus wrote:
It was fought because the southern states felt they had no representation anymore;
A broad and therefore unuseful claim; any specific grievance the south might have had with the Union could be filed under this.

roastbeef_ajus wrote:
they felt they had no more say in what the federal government did.
Except where they supported the federal government in opposition to decisions made by northern states that southern states didn't like.

_________________
The temptation is to like what you should like--not what you do like... another temptation is to come up with an interesting reason for liking it that may not actually be the reason you like it.


Fri Nov 22, 2013 1:25 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 12:07 pm
Posts: 373
Post Re: Obligatory Obamacare thread
Agree to disagree.


Fri Nov 22, 2013 1:30 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2012 9:17 am
Posts: 235
Post Re: Obligatory Obamacare thread
roastbeef_ajus wrote:

Why should the liberal hippy fuckheads in California and New York have more say about this country than any other area?


Because there are more of them.


Fri Nov 22, 2013 1:38 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 119 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr