• 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!

New health insurance requirement.....was a GOP idea

CriticalThought;1058714560]If I live in a country where people are just trying to get by from paycheck to paycheck and they are one illness away from being bankrupt despite years of hard work. I don't know what fantasy country you live in.

Good, then you do live in this country where that is happening then you would have a case. Since you don't know personal finances of anyone here you couldn't possibly be talking about this country.


Let me get this straight. The private sector is so weak that if the government had a public insurance option that people could select among the private options that are available, then businesses would stagnate and die and all research would come to a halt? Muahaahahahahaha! You gotta be kidding.

The private sector is FOR profit and the public sector isn't, they just print money. Did you ever take a finance course? Govt. vs. private industry is like an allegator in a pond with a duck, which one wins? People like you are simply too naive to understand how business and govt.works. Your outrage over private business is misguided as you control where you spend your money. Not so with the govt. where you are forced to help fund this current 3.8 TRILLION dollar govt. Name for me a TRILLION dollar private business?

Obvious to me that you do not understand the role of govt. because you want it to be something it was never intended to b.


Actually, it would probably slow the grow of government substantially. It would eventually consolidate many of the expenses that the government has and thus reduce its need for involvement. Rather than an expanse of goverment power, a public option would be a consolidation of it.

LOL, you are kidding, right, did SS and Medicare slow down their growth? Stop being naive.


You don't know what all the costs are? Have you been asleep for the last year?

Why don't you tell me what all the costs are and how they have been addressed in this bill?
 
Good, then you do live in this country where that is happening then you would have a case. Since you don't know personal finances of anyone here you couldn't possibly be talking about this country.

I'm talking about the United States. I don't know what fantasy world you live in.

The private sector is FOR profit and the public sector isn't, they just print money. Did you ever take a finance course? Govt. vs. private industry is like an allegator in a pond with a duck, which one wins? People like you are simply too naive to understand how business and govt.works. Your outrage over private business is misguided as you control where you spend your money. Not so with the govt. where you are forced to help fund this current 3.8 TRILLION dollar govt. Name for me a TRILLION dollar private business?

Yadda, yadda, yadda. Not a single word in all that gibberish that relates to a public option or why it wouldn't be a good idea. just a lot of ad homiem crap because you realize your argument is so weak.

Obvious to me that you do not understand the role of govt. because you want it to be something it was never intended to b.

The government is what the people make it to be. I thought you believed in democracy. That whole, "I support whatever the majority supports" bull that you spout off. Well guess what? The majority support a public option.

LOL, you are kidding, right, did SS and Medicare slow down their growth? Stop being naive.

SS and Medicare are not a public option. Why are you comparing apples to oranges and expecting that to be a decent argument?

Why don't you tell me what all the costs are and how they have been addressed in this bill?

And I'll say it one more time since you can't seem to get it through your head. I WANTED A PUBLIC OPTION!
 
CriticalThought;1058715296]I'm talking about the United States. I don't know what fantasy world you live in.

Then you are indeed a loon. people make choices in life and have to live by them. They choose to use drugs, they use to overeat, they choose to engage in other harmful activities to their bodies but somehow that is the responsibility of the taxpayer. You want to bailout a drug addict then do so in your community. You want to subsidize a three pack a day cigarette smoker then do so inside your own community. You want to buy this BS that you are spouting then get involved in your own community to solve problems. How many people today let the things they want get in the way of the things they need. Michael Jordan shoes, pagers, cell phones, computers, TV's, stereos? Think instead of feeling.




Yadda, yadda, yadda. Not a single word in all that gibberish that relates to a public option or why it wouldn't be a good idea. just a lot of ad homiem crap because you realize your argument is so weak.

I cannot deal with people who don't understand the affect govt. has on private business. What business in their right mind is going to join the public option pool where the rules are dictated by the govt?


The government is what the people make it to be. I thought you believed in democracy. That whole, "I support whatever the majority supports" bull that you spout off. Well guess what? The majority support a public option.

The majority are voicing their opinions around the nation right now. Obama won by 6% points and it WAS ALL RACIAL. He got 95% of the African American vote and another percentage of votes from people upset only with Bush. No one researched his record and everyone bought the rhetoric of hope and change. Tell that message today to those 15 plus million unemployed and ask them about their hope and then ask them how much change they have in their pockets. Instead of promoting job growth in the private sector Obama went after the largest increase in entitlements since SS, the healthcare bill. Obama is nothing more than an empty suit campaigner and certainly no leader. Like all liberals he blames someone else for their own poor choices. he is still blaming Bush after being in office over a year and being in the Congress two years prior. That is the height of irresponsibility.



SS and Medicare are not a public option. Why are you comparing apples to oranges and expecting that to be a decent argument?

No, they are govt. run programs that cost more than intended, do less than intended and have created dependents. That is what govt. does. One of these days you may get a job but not with the attitude you have.



And I'll say it one more time since you can't seem to get it through your head. I WANTED A PUBLIC OPTION!

Of course you do, because you are naive, gullible, and misinformed.
 
Conserv,

I've come to you privately and discussed this very issue with you before. What makes you think that everyone who seaks gov't assistance - be it state or federal - are drug addicts, overeaters or otherwise engaged in harmful activities? Couldn't it be that they're just down on their luck? Couldn't it be that they tried to do the right thing all their adult lives but just came onto a bump in the road? Coudn't it be that the circumstances of their lives have changed, i.e., a woman who was a housewife, gets divorced or worse - her husband who was the bread winner dies yet they couldn't afford life insurance yet did everything they could do as a family to make ends meet - now finds herself as the sole wage earner of her family?

What's wrong with you people who seem to have this idea that everyone who turns to gov't aid does so with the full intend of being leaches on society?
 
Then you are indeed a loon. people make choices in life and have to live by them. They choose to use drugs, they use to overeat, they choose to engage in other harmful activities to their bodies but somehow that is the responsibility of the taxpayer. You want to bailout a drug addict then do so in your community. You want to subsidize a three pack a day cigarette smoker then do so inside your own community. You want to buy this BS that you are spouting then get involved in your own community to solve problems. How many people today let the things they want get in the way of the things they need. Michael Jordan shoes, pagers, cell phones, computers, TV's, stereos? Think instead of feeling.

I'm only asking that people have the choice of a public option.

I cannot deal with people who don't understand the affect govt. has on private business. What business in their right mind is going to join the public option pool where the rules are dictated by the govt?

That is exchanges, not a public option.

The majority are voicing their opinions around the nation right now. Obama won by 6% points and it WAS ALL RACIAL. He got 95% of the African American vote and another percentage of votes from people upset only with Bush. No one researched his record and everyone bought the rhetoric of hope and change. Tell that message today to those 15 plus million unemployed and ask them about their hope and then ask them how much change they have in their pockets. Instead of promoting job growth in the private sector Obama went after the largest increase in entitlements since SS, the healthcare bill. Obama is nothing more than an empty suit campaigner and certainly no leader. Like all liberals he blames someone else for their own poor choices. he is still blaming Bush after being in office over a year and being in the Congress two years prior. That is the height of irresponsibility.

Ah, how cute. You still assume that I voted for Obama.

No, they are govt. run programs that cost more than intended, do less than intended and have created dependents. That is what govt. does. One of these days you may get a job but not with the attitude you have.

I've worked since I was 16.

Of course you do, because you are naive, gullible, and misinformed.

More ad hominem attacks? Sorry your argument is so weak, but don't take it out on me.
 
Conserv,

I've come to you privately and discussed this very issue with you before. What makes you think that everyone who seaks gov't assistance - be it state or federal - are drug addicts, overeaters or otherwise engaged in harmful activities? Couldn't it be that they're just down on their luck? Couldn't it be that they tried to do the right thing all their adult lives but just came onto a bump in the road? Coudn't it be that the circumstances of their lives have changed, i.e., a woman who was a housewife, gets divorced or worse - her husband who was the bread winner dies yet they couldn't afford life insurance yet did everything they could do as a family to make ends meet - now finds herself as the sole wage earner of her family?

What's wrong with you people who seem to have this idea that everyone who turns to gov't aid does so with the full intend of being leaches on society?

It's fundamental attribution error. It's the cornerstone of conservative ideology.
 
...and thus, they are wrong.

While it IS true that there are many people out there who are irresponsible and WILL seak to go on state/federal assistance the moment they run into trouble, their are those who are very responsible, who do try to provide for themselves, who are productive members of society but fall short sometimes through no fault of their own and just need help.

Those who cry that's what "charities" are there for forgot that many of these charities also receive financial contributions from the very government they say should NOT help "the people".

Get a clue, folks!
 
Conserv,

I've come to you privately and discussed this very issue with you before. What makes you think that everyone who seaks gov't assistance - be it state or federal - are drug addicts, overeaters or otherwise engaged in harmful activities? Couldn't it be that they're just down on their luck? Couldn't it be that they tried to do the right thing all their adult lives but just came onto a bump in the road? Coudn't it be that the circumstances of their lives have changed, i.e., a woman who was a housewife, gets divorced or worse - her husband who was the bread winner dies yet they couldn't afford life insurance yet did everything they could do as a family to make ends meet - now finds herself as the sole wage earner of her family?

What's wrong with you people who seem to have this idea that everyone who turns to gov't aid does so with the full intend of being leaches on society?

Not unexpected but you take everything out of context to try and make your point, Never did I say that all were drug addicts but to say they aren't included would be a lie. Also obese people, cigarette smokers are part of that group, should the taxpayer support personal behavior issues?

if you want to help people do so, that is what local communities, charities and churches do. Still waiting for you to explain why this is a Federal issue and responsibility?

I am sure you mean well, but you are very naive, gullible, and misinformed, probably lacking real life personal experience in this area. You seem to believe it is the government's role to handle personal responsibility issues so where does it stop?
 
...and thus, they are wrong.

While it IS true that there are many people out there who are irresponsible and WILL seak to go on state/federal assistance the moment they run into trouble, their are those who are very responsible, who do try to provide for themselves, who are productive members of society but fall short sometimes through no fault of their own and just need help.

Those who cry that's what "charities" are there for forgot that many of these charities also receive financial contributions from the very government they say should NOT help "the people".

Get a clue, folks!

They get nothing from the Federal govt. that doesn't come from the taxpayer. It is the taxpayer that funds charities and if the govt. increased the incentive to contribute locally they would need less tax dollars to send back to charities. You need to get a clue but more importantly get out more and find out what is going on in the communitiies.
 
Not unexpected but you take everything out of context to try and make your point, Never did I say that all were drug addicts but to say they aren't included would be a lie. Also obese people, cigarette smokers are part of that group, should the taxpayer support personal behavior issues?

if you want to help people do so, that is what local communities, charities and churches do. Still waiting for you to explain why this is a Federal issue and responsibility?
And I've said it before, the gov't has a responsibility to its people to promote the general welfare, i.e., look after its own. If it does not, the basic fabric of a civilized society crumbles!

I am sure you mean well, but you are very naive, gullible, and misinformed, ...

And there you go again making unfounded presumptions. I'm very well informed as to how the world works. I in no way presume that gov't should be everything to everybody, but it has a moral responsibility to render assistance to its people in every way that it can, and it does so by delegating most of these social programs to the states. If you truly want to blame gov't for mismanagement thereto, look towards the state inwhich you live first and then tell us how efficient and effectively managed the social programs they've been empowered to run is working.

...probably lacking real life personal experience in this area.

Don't presume to know what life experiences I've encountered. I'll throw your words right back at you, "You don't know me, sir!" You have not a clue what I've seen, what I've experienced and what I go through. But even if you did, I see no reason why I should have to justify my life experiences to you or anyone else for that matter. Still, I've expressed my views on gov't's role in their moral responsibility to it's citizens. I don't expect you to agree with them, but I'd still say your hardline view on the matter is wrong. What you appear to want is either a manarchy or a Communist state. How'd that work for England and/or Russia?

"You seem to believe it is the government's role to handle personal responsibility issues so where does it stop?

Again, I've said no such thing. What I have said is gov't does have a moral responsibility to its people. But again, if you honestly believe that gov't can't run social programs effectively, I urge you to run for public office and do whatever you can to effect change YOU can believe in. Until then, stop the madness already.
 
They get nothing from the Federal govt. that doesn't come from the taxpayer. It is the taxpayer that funds charities and if the govt. increased the incentive to contribute locally they would need less tax dollars to send back to charities. You need to get a clue but more importantly get out more and find out what is going on in the communitiies.

What double-talk. Of course charities receive gov't assisted funding, i.e., Red Cross anyone? Some of it may come in the form of gov't grants, but they do receive gov't assistance. Not all of them, but some particularly the bigger charities.
 
Last edited:
This coming from someone who hasn't proven anything to anyone that he/she is qualified to judge anyone else.

Dude, you argued dispositional explanations for seeking government assistance while outright ignoring any situational explanations. You are a textbook example of fundamental attribution error. If an orphan child with one leg and a bad case of the mumps asked for government assistance, you would declare him lazy. I don't have to be qualified in any particular way to know that, I can simply read your posts and pick up on how you oversimplify your view of the world where everything you don't like can be described by poor choices people make or bad personality traits they have and it never has anything to do with things outside their control.
 
Objective Voice;1058715643]And I've said it before, the gov't has a responsibility to its people to promote the general welfare, i.e., look after its own. If it does not, the basic fabric of a civilized society crumbles!

Promote does not mean provide and this is a state and local issue, not a Federal Issue. We have 50 independent states that the Federal Govt. is taking responsibility from.



And there you go again making unfounded presumptions. I'm very well informed as to how the world works. I in no way presume that gov't should be everything to everybody, but it has a moral responsibility to render assistance to its people in every way that it can, and it does so by delegating most of these social programs to the states. If you truly want to blame gov't for mismanagement thereto, look towards the state inwhich you live first and then tell us how efficient and effectively managed the social programs they've been empowered to run is working.

Then read what you post before sending it. That moral responsibility is state and local, not federal. TX has it right, personal responsibility rules.


How'd that work for England and/or Russia?

Wait a year or two and you will find out here, is that what you want?


Again, I've said no such thing. What I have said is gov't does have a moral responsibility to its people. But again, if you honestly believe that gov't can't run social programs effectively, I urge you to run for public office and do whatever you can to effect change YOU can believe in. Until then, stop the madness already.

Fortunately I live in a state and area that takes care of its people. It is a shame that you don't. I explained why Obama won and you ignored it. Is this the change you voted for?
 
Promote does not mean provide and this is a state and local issue, not a Federal Issue.
And as I've said before I agree with you; it is that states who have been delegated much of the responsibility for executing many of the social programs our government has enacted. But you've obviously got selective reading because time and time again, you've missed that part. (I'd say selective listening, but this is a text-based forum...).
Fortunately I live in a state and area that takes care of its people. It is a shame that you don't. I explained why Obama won and you ignored it. Is this the change you voted for?
Then for your sake you should hope TX succeeds from the union and you can have your own version of a capitalistic utopian society. Good Luck with that.
 
Last edited:
Then for your sake you should hope TX succeeds from the union and you can have your own version of a capitalistic utopian society. Good Luck with that.

It would be better if your state and others learned from TX
 
Yeah, I know...everything's not only bigger in TX (ala, egos), but better. :roll:

TX has a part time legislature, no state income tax, economic growth, rising employment, and had a budget surplus until this recession.
 
And they did it without any government subsidies for agriculture or oil or housing or schooling etc :2razz:
 
And they did it without any government subsidies for agriculture or oil or housing or schooling etc :2razz:

they did it the same way other states have the ability to do it but choose not to. The entitlement mentality of far too many have destroyed state budgets. There is no such thing as a free lunch except to liberals who have no problem spending someone else's which to them makes it free
 
they did it the same way other states have the ability to do it but choose not to. The entitlement mentality of far too many have destroyed state budgets. There is no such thing as a free lunch except to liberals who have no problem spending someone else's which to them makes it free

Thats not what im saying. I'm just saying it's super funny that conservatives have no problem taking oil subsidizes when you fill up or a nice housing subsidy. But there's no free lunch, you're right
 
Thats not what im saying. I'm just saying it's super funny that conservatives have no problem taking oil subsidizes when you fill up or a nice housing subsidy. But there's no free lunch, you're right

Oil Subsidizes? what the hell are you talking about? TX has oil, California has oil as well but allow offshore drilling, so does NY State. Oil is what drives our economy so explain what you are talking about.
 
Oil Subsidizes? what the hell are you talking about? TX has oil, California has oil as well but allow offshore drilling, so does NY State. Oil is what drives our economy so explain what you are talking about.

Oil, in the form of gasoline. It's subsidized to keep the market price artificially low...Why do you think it's so cheap here and so expensive in Europe. It's not subsidized as heavily in places like England or France
 
Oil, in the form of gasoline. It's subsidized to keep the market price artificially low...Why do you think it's so cheap here and so expensive in Europe. It's not subsidized as heavily in places like England or France

I spent 35 years in the oil business so I can honestly tell the group you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about. It is expensive in Europe because of the taxes in Europe. Taxes in Europe are measured in dollars not pennies so you need to get the facts instead of making a fool of yourself.
 
I spent 35 years in the oil business so I can honestly tell the group you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about. It is expensive in Europe because of the taxes in Europe. Taxes in Europe are measured in dollars not pennies so you need to get the facts instead of making a fool of yourself.

What the hell are you talking about? Obviously you havent been in a high position in the oil industry otherwise you'd know the government subsidizies oil! rofl

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/vehicle_impacts/cars_pickups_and_suvs/subsidizing-big-oil.html
 
Back
Top Bottom