View Single Post
Old 06-20-2009, 11:50 AM   #54
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post

All you've done is argue in theory that had pure free market principals been allowed to shape our present health care system from it's inception that it would be different. we'll never know because governments(federal and state) have constantly tinkerd with, created mandates and requirements that take all or most competition out of the system and make it impossible for companies to even operate in many makets.....RI is a shining example of this with the criminality that was going on between the dems in the legislature and BC/BS, OBAMACARE will be the mother of all tinkering, eliminate the competition then infect what is left with government inefficiency

As for constitutionality, this has nothing to do with liberal or conservative. If a state government wishes to change it's constitution to provide health care, it could be quite constitutional and I'm sure you would argue still liberal. ummmm, wouldn't the people have some say in changing their constitution???

You score RIROCKHOUND a liberal yet nearly all who label themselves a liberal (less than 20% of the US) are for a single payer system which he clearly states isn't necessary. "he argues that GOVERNMENT should make it more affordable and provide it for minors whose parents can't afford it" and at the same time he states that we don't need Universal Healthcare....soooo, since government makes things more affordable by giving things away and creating large beaureaucracies to manage making things more "affordable"....how exactly is this supposed to work....sounds like stating many obvious or appealing, unarguable postitons with no practical answers and claiming to be liberal, logical or both?....GOVERMENT SHOULD MAKE MY GROCERIES MORE AFFORDABLE....single payer is the goal, Obama and his henchmen have all said it in the past and will admit to it now when caught gloating that the private insurers SHOULD go out of business if they can't compete with the PUBLIC OPTION...if you are for this phony PUBLIC OPTION then you are for single payer as that is the ultimate destination

Sounds like his position is in the mainstream and very logical.


This is more of a mindless rant than an assessment of his position.

RIROCKHOUND clearly advocates: WHAT??? with all due respect, he lists a bunch of HOPES and never explains how you get there....I think we should all have PEACE

1) Limits on Federal intrusion on local school systems keep Ted Kennedy away!
2) Emphasis on critical thinking imrove thinking, not rote memorization
3) Unfettered access to private education " "Kids can go to private school if they need that education." is this what you mean??
4) Performance based pay contrary to the existing union standards. Performance pay and union standards ...haaaaaaaaa

All sounds like something I'd hear from a conservative.



It's a completely logical response when excesses are often gained by unethical or illegal means. In the financial sector it's certainly possible to make money while your clients loose (via transactional fees) but to see large gains usually requires your customers to be successful as well. We have had numerous events in the past few years of just the opposite which have led to exposed corruption or regulatory need. The lack of oversight for credit default swaps is a perfect example.

The simple fact is that the general public, unless they go to cash, has little influence with the top executives who have free reign to play with the tens of trillions of notional dollars floating through the system. There is a lack of implicit trust that the people expect the government to back fill via reasonable regulations.

Not liberal, just logical.


According to the last polling only about 21% of Americans believe abortion shouldn't be permitted. RIROCKHOUND's statement is really just stating the obvious. Most Americans believe abortion should be available in some form, and to be for some abortion doesn't mean you're for all forms of abortion all of the time. OBAMA IS, even the really icky ones

Believing in the right of a woman to control her body is more mainstream than liberal. Only a small segment of the fringe left believes in unfettered abortion.

Your focus on partial birth abortion is an emotional argument more than a logical one, as doctors do say there are legitimate reasons for the procedure in some circumstances. I love your rediculous generalizations "DOCTORS DO SAY"...I'm sure that's exactly what all the partial birth abortionists say..."legitimate reason" could be pretty much anything I suppose


As by your own teachings I've learned that liberals are driven by emotion over logic, I'd have to say that you are the liberal on this one.

-spence
you shouldn't call people liberal, that's mean
go fishing Spence, the fish are biting...

Last edited by scottw; 06-20-2009 at 12:01 PM..
scottw is offline