KartMan

I actually don’t like arugula and brie, can I still be an elitist? I’m down in San Diego and only go up to LA when I have to. I can’t eat much pizza with my restriction, I’m only good for a few bites. My new thing though is to chew and spit out food. I know it sounds gross, but at least it gives me the sensation of eating. I call it a preventative PB.

Oh the democrats are already drinking bottled water. How else would we wash down all that arugula and brie?

Don’t give us too much credit. We are still barbaric enough to discriminate against gays.

I’m a little late on this thread. I think of myself as a left leaning Centrist, or center leaning Liberal, after reading my rants you are free call me whatever you like. I don’t much like labels. I really don’t care much for the extremists from either side. I am a registered Republican for two reasons. First, when I was younger I identified with the Republican party. I came of age under Reagan – sue me. I was also in the military at the time, which tends to lead one a bit to the right. Sadly, after all these years I see that many of Reagan’s ideals were built on a flawed foundation. Now I stay Republican because it gives me at least some say in who wins the Republican Primaries in CA. My voting record: 1984 Reagan (Winner) 1988 Bush 1 (Winner) 1992 Bush 1 (Loser) 1996 Dole (Loser) 2000 Bush 2 (Winner) 2004 Kerry (Loser) 2008 Obama (Winner) 2012 Obama (Winner:sneaky:)

Short of Medicare for all or at least a Public Option, I am happy with what we got.

Dumbfuckistan :lol: That is my new favorite place.

Yes. They used to believe in wrestling, but they figured out that was all fake. Now they are in love with Beck because he is the real deal.

I want just what I said, Medicare for all. I don’t consider that to be Socialized Medicine, if anyone else does then that is their definition not mine.

Absolutely not. A fair percentage of income (that includes all income) should be reserved for taxes. The revenue from those taxes should be spread across the things that society deems important. Obviously, we all have different opinions of what we think is appropriate. I for one abhor the idea that my tax dollars are being spent on wars that appear to have no end and continue to kill countless civilians and our precious soldiers. You on the other hand do not feel that health care is a “right” and that it should not be paid for via tax dollars. This difference of opinion is meant to be addressed by our electoral process. Last November, the voters picked the guy that said he would steer us away from the wars (I think he has done a less than stellar job in this respect) and provide Health Care reform for all. He got Health Care reform passed. It is not exactly the plan I wanted, but it’s a huge step in the right direction as far as I’m concerned.

Because like him or not, he had the nads to push his agenda through, the Republicans in the House and Senate are the same way. In my view, Republicans have a much smaller tent, but they know how to stay on message and how to keep unity within their party. One of the great things about the Democratic Party is it’s wide diversity – unfortunately that very diversity doesn’t always give them the numbers on the vote when it comes to the floor. Since they don’t always vote in lock-step the way the republicans do, each and every vote is a nail biter, even when they have a super majority.

It doesn’t matter what you “think” I said or if Medicare is Socialized Medicine (it’s not), I don’t want to fight with you about semantics. What does matter (at least to me) is that Medicare works well today for those that have access to it. I do think that it is underfunded and fraud has to be closely watched (it always does), but it actually works fairly well. People pay into it throughout their lives, they get it when they are eligible, they pick the doctor they want, that doctor gets paid on time, and here is the real catch – those that have it wouldn’t let you take it away for anything in the world. Why not provide that same basic health care to everyone in the same manner? The tradeoff would be that you would pay a higher Medicare Tax (perish the thought), but you wouldn’t have to pay a premium to an insurance company. Now unless you just love your insurance company I don’t see how this is a bad deal. I have said before that there is still a place in this type of system for insurance companies to exist. They can sell insurance for everything over and above whatever is deemed to be “basic care”.

I have horrible spelling and grammar (which is even worse on the iphone), so I can relate. I agonize over it on the computer and usually am able to clean most of it up (although I usually spot something later on a reread). I don’t think that problem has anything do with our political views or even our intelligence for that matter.

If the 24 year old is truly that poor, they likely would qualify for Medicaid on their own so that would be a moot point.

They can sue if they want , but they will lose and they will waste a ton of money doing so. Here is interesting piece on why they are doomed to fail: http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/03/24/jost.health.bill.challenges/index.html?hpt=T1 In full disclose, this guy is clearly a Democrat – so he his undoubtedly biased, but most legal scholars that I have read in the last few days come to very similar conclusions.

Look, if you are going try to quote me, at least read what I said. I said what I am advocating is NOT Socialized Medicine. I went on to say that our VA and the British systems ARE socialized medicine because the whole system (Administration, Doctors, and Hospitals) are paid by and are part of the government. What you are probably getting confused on is that I said we already have a system the likes of what I am advocating in Medicare. I have no idea what are talking about. I never decided I couldn’t win an argument with you. Why would I? I firmly believe in my convictions and am thoroughly convinced that your reasoning is fundamentally flawed. I haven’t gone back to every single message in the thread, so maybe I didn’t see it. Or, it’s quite possible that whatever you are referring to did not interest me enough to warrant a response.

BJean, Don’t misunderstand me – I am happy that we got what we did. But I am certainly not ready to give up on what we “should” have gotten, which is Universal Health Care. You are right, the opposition to this plan has always been more about opposition to Obama rather than to the concepts of the plan.

No, you misunderstood me. I said that those other programs were Socialized Medicine and “Medicare for All” could at best described as Socialized Insurance (or Administration). The point in this thinking is that we do a very good job of administrating Medicare today (we just don’t fund it properly), doctors prefer it to private insurance because they don’t have nearly the administration cost that they do with private healthcare, the people that have Medicare now wouldn’t give it up for anything (which should tell you how good it is).

It’s not socialized medicine – that is nothing more than a talking point. At best, it might be described as socialized insurance administration. Socialized medicine would be more like our VA or the British system (I’m not advocating for either of those). In those systems, the administration, hospitals, and doctors are ALL employees of the government. We actually do it here today, its called Medicare. And here is a surprise, it actually works and the people that get it like it pretty well. The part of Medicare that doesn’t work in its funding. We haven’t increased the taxes on it to keep up with inflation and people are living longer now than when it was first conceived. So if it costs more and you fund it the same you will have a shortfall – simple math. Don’t tell me to move. I am a small business owner (I do provide insurance to my employees btw), a tax payer, a veteran, and a voter. I’m not saying my plan is the one the majority wants, I am just saying it is the one that make the most sense to me.

Then we agree, Obama is at least as good as Bush in protecting us from attack. The underwear bomber is exactly the same as the shoe bomber, both were neutralized in the same way. The Fort Hood incident “appears” to be a lone kook that was in some ways influenced by religious extremism. There were several cases like this during the Bush administration as well, so again I think they cancel out. I don’t think it is so much that either Administration has “protected” us from terrorists. There are a plethora of law enforcement organizations that are doing their job in that respect. I don’t think Bush caused 9/11 – he just happened to be president at the time. He did though make a colossal mistake in taking us into an unjust war and taking his eye off the real prize (Al Qaida). Taking us into that war and all of the cowboy tactics used by him and his administration have destroyed all of the good will the world had for us after 9/11. When 9/11 happened, the world was behind us in condemning that heinous act of terrorism. Instead of harnessing that good will, we started a war that had nothing to do with 9/11 then granted ourselves rights to do whatever we wanted to to whoever we wanted to. That war and those tactics have created more terrorists than Al Qaida could have dreamed of building form any grass roots initiative. Unfortunately, Obama has continued down the same path by ramping up the war in Afghanistan. Why can’t we understand that every innocent civilian we kill in Afghanistan has the potential of creating 10s or 100s of terrorists? I know that if a bomb came out of the sky form an unmanned drone and killed my family, I would personally go to war on the people that caused that – that would make me a terrorist.

You’re right. A better method would be to asses an appropriate Medicare tax on ALL earned income and provide Basic Universal Coverage to everyone - Medicare for all. Under basic coverage everyone would have access to well doctor visits, medically necessary procedures, chronic disease coverage, and catastrophic illness protection. Everything above basic coverage could be covered under supplemental insurance that could be purchased on the open market. Why is this such a hard concept to understand?

Did I miss something? Has Obama “caused” us to be attacked during his time in office? In fact, I think the data shows that under his (Obama’s) watch more high level Al Qaida and Taliban have been killed or captured at a faster rate than under the last administration.

Really? That is an incredibly myopic and ignorant view of history. The unjustified and unnecessary war in Iraq created more terrorists than any recruiting drive Al-Qaida could have conceived of. The war in Iraq also created a tremendous opportunity for Iran to become the nemesis they are today. The illegal torture techniques, Abu Ghraib, and Guantanamo (Cheney still defends these today) are all used by our enemies as a justification for everything they are doing. The ongoing doomed to failure approach in Afghanistan is doing nothing more than propping up a corrupt drug dealing dictatorship and a civil war that is of no business of ours.

Bravo Phil, couldnt have said it better myself.