• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do You Have A Right To Buy Crap?

Do You Have A Right To Buy Crap?

  • Yes

    Votes: 38 88.4%
  • No

    Votes: 5 11.6%

  • Total voters
    43
And why is it that some see "slippery slopes" where there are none? Not going bankrupt because you get sick is not Govt. interference it is govt. doing its job. Who do you think pays those medical bills when someone declares bankruptcy?

The better question is, why is it that some who are sliding down the slope, still think they are on level ground?

Think about it. Should there be a financial means test for people who chose to wander out in public? I mean what happens if they do something that causes harm to ohers? If they get sued and can't pay, and then declare bankruptcy, who pays? Should the government step in and demand people carry personal liability insurance if they chose to go out in public?

The slope you're ignoring is getting steeper and steeper, and it seems clear there are people counting on you not noticing.
 
Lots of idiots on this poll I see.

you have no right to buy (and therefore sell):

diseased meat’
unpasteurized milk
bad liquor
use lead in soldier
Use human waste on food crops (just looking at the 101 worms you can get makes your skin crawl)
Put Cocaine in food or drink.
or any other deadly product.


Of course the GOP types jsut want to kill everyone and profit form these kinds of things...........
 
The better question is, why is it that some who are sliding down the slope, still think they are on level ground?

Think about it. Should there be a financial means test for people who chose to wander out in public? I mean what happens if they do something that causes harm to ohers? If they get sued and can't pay, and then declare bankruptcy, who pays? Should the government step in and demand people carry personal liability insurance if they chose to go out in public?

The slope you're ignoring is getting steeper and steeper, and it seems clear there are people counting on you not noticing.

There is no law requiring the Govt. to pay lawsuits so I don't see your point. There is a law requiring hospitals to treat the sick or injured though.
There is no slope. There is just the same security that Americans have in their old age, and the same that most all western nations already have for their citizens. It's like you don't know about our trajectory since WWII. How can anybody live is such a vacuum? You need to get out more.
 
Last edited:
There is no law requiring the Govt. to pay lawsuits so I don't see your point. There is a law requiring hospitals to treat the sick or injured though.
There is no slope. There is just the same security that Americans have in their old age, and the same that most all western nations already have for their citizens. It's like you don't know about our trajectory since WWII. How can anybody live is such a vacuum? You need to get out more.

Of course you can't see the point. It's above the slippery slope your on.

The trajectory you're rooting for is failing from the ignorance trying to support it. Numbers don't lie.

That's all right though, as the evidence shows, solutions are not a liberal strength. Too much dependance on others to achieve.
 
Of course you can't see the point. It's above the slippery slope your on.

The trajectory you're rooting for is failing from the ignorance trying to support it. Numbers don't lie.

That's all right though, as the evidence shows, solutions are not a liberal strength. Too much dependance on others to achieve.

LOL We just installed another plank from FDR's New Bill of Rights to go alongside Social Security and Medicare so I would say that progressives are doing just fine with solutions. Your side can go along happy or kicking and screaming into the future. It is up to you. The end will be the same.
 
LOL We just installed another plank from FDR's New Bill of Rights to go alongside Social Security and Medicare so I would say that progressives are doing just fine with solutions. Your side can go along happy or kicking and screaming into the future. It is up to you. The end will be the same.

Oh sure they are. LOL.

Hey, at one point you folks managed to change the Constitution and ban alcohol. Your solutions have been epic.

California is certainly providing everyone a chance to see how you do things when you control the whole enchilada.

Should we review the Progressives accomplishments over the last 15 year in California?

Hey, your biggest problem is your scheme requires the rich to stay rich, and get richer. Of course your obession with trying to remove their wealth creates a bit of a long term strategy challenge in that area.

Too funny.
 
Oh sure they are. LOL.

Hey, at one point you folks managed to change the Constitution and ban alcohol. Your solutions have been epic.

California is certainly providing everyone a chance to see how you do things when you control the whole enchilada.

Should we review the Progressives accomplishments over the last 15 year in California?

Hey, your biggest problem is your scheme requires the rich to stay rich, and get richer. Of course your obession with trying to remove their wealth creates a bit of a long term strategy challenge in that area.

Too funny.

What the "scheme" requires besides GDP growth is growth in wages across the board, not like it's been under the supply side BS of the last 30 years. The incredible wage growth of the 1% is unsustainable anyway, and taxing some of that away is not going to hurt anything. The good news is that you will still have a place here in a growing middle class again. That might not be true in the archaic world you envision.
 
I was reading this article on CBC form their Washington correspondent and I found it rather interesting. It talks about Obamacare and Obama saying if you like your policy you can keep it. People are complaining that their old policies are being cancelled by Obamacare because they are substandard, while the reason they are substandard is that they are crap and provide no real protection from healthcare costs.

THis quote illustatres the point very nicely:




All Obamacare does is prevent people from being screwed by insurance companies because then everyone else has to pick up the tab. He goes on to say how is it different than requiring car insurance or banks having to have insurance to protect themselves form bad loans. After all the banks chose to finance sub-prime mortgages it is their fault, but we ended up having to pay for it the end same happens with healthcare.

The policy I can buy at $318/month (Blue Cross Saver plan) for 2013 is NOT crap. The cheapest PPO plan I can buy for 2014 is $515/month (Blue Cross) is, IMO, crap. That's because it provides no coverage until I fork over $6,000 in deductible, for an exorbitant amount. A catastrophic plan is fine. But that warrants a catastrophic PRICE.

It is NOT TRUE that the plans that people bought for less money were crap or substandard. It's simply not true. That's what the administration is trying to convince everyone of. People who haven't checked out specific plans will fall for that nonsense. Those of us who had such plans know better.

The reason the admin didn't want everyone going onto healthcare.gov without creating an account and applying for a subsidy FIRST is to try to hide the costs of the new plans. On every page, while browsing the plans, there is a message at the time in bold font something like, "THE PRICES YOU SEE FOR THE PREMIUMS MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU. YOU MAY QUALIFY FOR A SUBSIDY OR TAX CREDIT, WHICH WILL MAKE THE PREMIUMS LOWER." The reason for that statement? They KNEW the policies were SIGNIFICANTLY higher for millions.
 
Just hope they don't find you obsolete at some point and cancel you for a better version available represented by some other citizen.
 
"Do You Have A Right To Buy Crap?"

Yes, I absolutely do have a right to buy what you think is crap. Because I am not you. Maybe I would be better, smarter, prettier etc if I were you, but I am not. Just didn't happen, my rotten luck. I am someone else. And I have the right - and the duty, actually - to decide for myself what I buy, what I say, what I do, and how I live. Is it a concept to arcane to comprehend?
 
"Do You Have A Right To Buy Crap?"

Yes, I absolutely do have a right to buy what you think is crap. Because I am not you. Maybe I would be better, smarter, prettier etc if I were you, but I am not. Just didn't happen, my rotten luck. I am someone else. And I have the right - and the duty, actually - to decide for myself what I buy, what I say, what I do, and how I live. Is it a concept to arcane to comprehend?

I find it funny that right wing "libertarians" have exactly the same attitude as those Wall Street Bankers that bundled bad mortgages and sold them to clients as "A1" investments and then bet on them to fail. It is Govts. job to prevent the "weak" from being taken advantage of by the "strong". Swindlers go to jail unless you are a banker of course. Is that such a arcane concept to comprehend? We can't all be bankers can we?
 
I literally thought this thread was alluding to buying actual fecal matter when I read the title.....then I saw it was about the ACA and it confirmed my thought.
 
"Do You Have A Right To Buy Excrement"?

Not anymore, its illegal.

The State knows what's best for you.
Centrally planned economies are always superior to the Free Market

I thought everyone knew that?!?
 
I was reading this article on CBC form their Washington correspondent and I found it rather interesting. It talks about Obamacare and Obama saying if you like your policy you can keep it. People are complaining that their old policies are being cancelled by Obamacare because they are substandard, while the reason they are substandard is that they are crap and provide no real protection from healthcare costs.

THis quote illustatres the point very nicely:

All Obamacare does is prevent people from being screwed by insurance companies because then everyone else has to pick up the tab. He goes on to say how is it different than requiring car insurance or banks having to have insurance to protect themselves form bad loans. After all the banks chose to finance sub-prime mortgages it is their fault, but we ended up having to pay for it the end same happens with healthcare.

It has n0othign to do with this is about government preventing people form making stupid decisions that hurt the rest of us.
Who gets to define what's "stupid?" The "smart" people?
Who gets to define what's "hurtful to you?" The people "who care for you?"

If I were to suggest that we wielded government to prevent people from voting for liberals - because in my humble opinion I think I'm smart and because I care about all of us, that voting for liberals would be stupid and would hurt the rest of us because liberalism is about as crappy a product as ever existed - how would you respond? And understand, I'm not being remotely facetious here. The premises underpinning what you're promoting are precisely the same.

If I were to suggest that we wielded government to prevent people from posting the sort of crap being promoted in this thread and many others like it, because imho it's stupid (and because I think myself smart) and hurts the rest of us - how would you respond to that?

Precisely what is it about "government" that you think makes it smarter than the rest of us that we may presume to wield it in the manner you're suggesting?
 
I find it funny that right wing "libertarians" have exactly the same attitude as those Wall Street Bankers that bundled bad mortgages and sold them to clients as "A1" investments and then bet on them to fail. It is Govts. job to prevent the "weak" from being taken advantage of by the "strong". Swindlers go to jail unless you are a banker of course. Is that such a arcane concept to comprehend? We can't all be bankers can we?
What I find tragic (I can't use your word "funny" because it's anything but) is that it seems to have escaped you how "those Wall Street Bankers" were saddled with so many bad mortgages in the first place.

Your premise is that a bunch of intelligent people, allowed themselves to get saddled with a bunch of extremely bad mortgages - mortgages that were bad because they violated their own principles, the most fundamental principles of lending, lending to people they knew did not remotely qualify for such loans, but they went ahead and did it anyway, thinking it was somehow a good idea?

Such a premise defies even the most basic logic.

Have you ever asked yourself what would prompt someone in the business of lending money to lend money to someone they knew couldn't repay it?
 
LOL We just installed another plank from FDR's New Bill of Rights to go alongside Social Security and Medicare so I would say that progressives are doing just fine with solutions. Your side can go along happy or kicking and screaming into the future. It is up to you. The end will be the same.
Another plank on the deck of the Titanic isn't going to raise it. That's the problem with progressive "solutions;" they only make matters progressively worse.
 
Every American has not only the right but the responsibilitity to waste all of their spare cash on whatever trash that they want to waste it on.

Anyone who doesn't agree with this is an anti-American Commie (Or something like that.).
 
Last edited:
Lots of idiots on this poll I see.

you have no right to buy (and therefore sell):

diseased meat’
unpasteurized milk
bad liquor
use lead in soldier
Use human waste on food crops (just looking at the 101 worms you can get makes your skin crawl)
Put Cocaine in food or drink.
or any other deadly product.


Of course the GOP types jsut want to kill everyone and profit form these kinds of things...........
Apparently we DO have a right to buy crap - in this case, ideological crap. And fwiw, I totally support your right to buy it.
 
Interesting. The policies that are being canceled are considered by Obama and friends to be substandard, while the policies available (in theory anyway) on the wab site have such high deductibles and copays that they are not actually insurance at all. We are being pushed toward what is almost a catastrophic plan, but if your 55 year old father develops ovarian cancer he is covered. Now Gramma can finally get that prostate exam, but she is going to have to pay for it anyway because she has a $5000 deductible. And these plans are better?

Something to keep in mind here: Insurance companies are among the best odds makers in the world. These plans are put together by people who know that statistically very few people will actually get payouts exceeding their premiums. If they couldn't do that they would go out of business.

So I'm going to ask again: Of those of you who support this law, how many have signed up and purchased a plan under it? Anybody? Because I have been asking this question since the website opened and you would be the first.
 
I was reading this article on CBC form their Washington correspondent and I found it rather interesting. It talks about Obamacare and Obama saying if you like your policy you can keep it. People are complaining that their old policies are being cancelled by Obamacare because they are substandard, while the reason they are substandard is that they are crap and provide no real protection from healthcare costs.

THis quote illustatres the point very nicely:




All Obamacare does is prevent people from being screwed by insurance companies because then everyone else has to pick up the tab. He goes on to say how is it different than requiring car insurance or banks having to have insurance to protect themselves form bad loans. After all the banks chose to finance sub-prime mortgages it is their fault, but we ended up having to pay for it the end same happens with healthcare.

It is way better to be screwed by the government, where I do not have a choice, than by an insurance company, where I do have a choice.

Leave me to make my own decisions, and I will accept the consequences, So far, the most overbudget cluster**k and most incompetant insurance available is Obamacare, and it is not in effect as of yet.
 
What I find tragic (I can't use your word "funny" because it's anything but) is that it seems to have escaped you how "those Wall Street Bankers" were saddled with so many bad mortgages in the first place.

Your premise is that a bunch of intelligent people, allowed themselves to get saddled with a bunch of extremely bad mortgages - mortgages that were bad because they violated their own principles, the most fundamental principles of lending, lending to people they knew did not remotely qualify for such loans, but they went ahead and did it anyway, thinking it was somehow a good idea?

Such a premise defies even the most basic logic.

Have you ever asked yourself what would prompt someone in the business of lending money to lend money to someone they knew couldn't repay it?

LOL You are defending bankers. Bankers that have already paid billions in fines for their unscrupulous actions. Why do you think they are just folding and paying the fines without appeal? Are they stupid too?
 
It is way better to be screwed by the government, where I do not have a choice, than by an insurance company, where I do have a choice.

Leave me to make my own decisions, and I will accept the consequences, So far, the most overbudget cluster**k and most incompetant insurance available is Obamacare, and it is not in effect as of yet.

How brave of you to accept the consequences of your actions. Except that going bankrupt and not paying you medical bills does not fix anything. It just moves the expense on to the rest of us.
 
Who gets to define what's "stupid?" The "smart" people?
Who gets to define what's "hurtful to you?" The people "who care for you?"

If I were to suggest that we wielded government to prevent people from voting for liberals - because in my humble opinion I think I'm smart and because I care about all of us, that voting for liberals would be stupid and would hurt the rest of us because liberalism is about as crappy a product as ever existed - how would you respond? And understand, I'm not being remotely facetious here. The premises underpinning what you're promoting are precisely the same.

If I were to suggest that we wielded government to prevent people from posting the sort of crap being promoted in this thread and many others like it, because imho it's stupid (and because I think myself smart) and hurts the rest of us - how would you respond to that?

Precisely what is it about "government" that you think makes it smarter than the rest of us that we may presume to wield it in the manner you're suggesting?

So you don't understand how bad policies that don't pay cost the rest of us money? That is not very smart is it?
 
How brave of you to accept the consequences of your actions. Except that going bankrupt and not paying you medical bills does not fix anything. It just moves the expense on to the rest of us.

You have that backwards. The whole purpose of liberal policies is to place the burden of your failure to accept responsibility for your actions on someone else. That includes Obamacare.
 
Let us just get to single payer now and get it over with.
 
Back
Top Bottom