Healthcare Econ 101 - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

RogueGypsy · 03-28-2010, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

You don't know much about the conservative movement in the US, do you?

I mean it was all the rage to question and or insult the POTUS during war time when Clinton held the office, as it is now with Obama. But when Bush Jr. was in the Oval Office it was nothing less then treason.

Just watch Fox News, they'll fill you in on all the awful stuff Obama's up to. Of course for eight years you heard nothing but how great the POTUS was and how anyone who question him was a treasonous sore loser and should leave the country immediately, if not sooner.

I bet right now they're working in a way to prove that by visiting the troops in Afghanistan Obama is really a socialist.

Yeah, that swings both ways with the media now doesn't it.

Think of all the Liberals who were gnashing their teeth and crying in the streets over the heinous acts of the Bush's in the middle east. Now strangely quiet with Obama in office.

It's all a sick evil joke. So what is it this week? Laugh or Cry?

silent_jay · 03-28-2010, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RogueGypsy

It may sound as though I'm claiming we were the soul reason, that was not my intent. However, without us, it would have gone differently. Europe was defeated, North Africa over run. I find it hard to believe Russia would have stopped at Berlin. Why not keep pushing south all the way to Africa? The hard work was already done for them.

Still it's saying 2 separate things, I'm not saying we were the soul reason, but if we weren't there Europe would have been fucked, is basically what you just said, which sounds an awful lot like we were the soul reason they weren't screwed, which is just wrong, and is still just revisionist history bullshit as I said before.

SecretMethod70 · 03-28-2010, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RogueGypsy

Think of all the Liberals who were gnashing their teeth and crying in the streets over the heinous acts of the Bush's in the middle east. Now strangely quiet with Obama in office.

Except... they're not.

Just one example that I read today: The Last War Supplemental Ever | Firedoglake

Liberals have continued complaining about Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanimo, the PATRIOT Act, and the list goes on.

RogueGypsy · 03-28-2010, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

Trying to compare what has been passed to what constitutes "universal health care" in central European and Scandinavian countries is a joke. Trying to put what has been passed as similar to what real social democracies do is a joke. This project is incredibly similar to what was suggested by republicans in 94 and what Romney actually ran on in 08.

And to call this the biggest expansion of the welfare state in so many years is another joke. Medicare part D costs significantly more than this reform, even when we take away all cost offsets. In less than a decade Medicare part D is expected to account for 1/3 of all medicare payments. But unlike this legislation, medicare part D has no cost offsets and is pretty much a gift to pharma companies, given how it prohibits negotiation for lower prices.

Finally, taxes SHOULD go up, and last I checked the VAT is the dream child of conservatives, as opposed to the progressive income taxation of real social democrats. The fact is that government programs are much more popular than most would acknowledge, with less than 1/5 of republicans (nevermind the general public) willing to cut medicare, medicaid, or social security. Sure, we would all like government programs that gave out benefits but didn't cost anything, but as we must remind conservatives this time around, there is no free lunch.

Taxes shouldn't go up. The government should learn to spend within it's means. Congress, the Senate and every other government employee from the president to your local ditch digger should make the same pay as their equivalent in the private sector. Granted, it's hard to find the equivalent of a Senator in the private sector, the useless are normally unemployed. Really, why do these idiots have the power to vote themselves raises?

It's like it has become a game to see how much of our money they can take. Unfortunately, they have control and we have a short attention span.

---------- Post added at 08:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:06 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70

Except... they're not.

Just one example that I read today: The Last War Supplemental Ever | Firedoglake

Liberals have continued complaining about Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanimo, the PATRIOT Act, and the list goes on.

That was in direct response to the media question. That was one paper today. Four years ago it was every paper, every day.

filtherton · 03-28-2010, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RogueGypsy

That was in direct response to the media question. That was one paper today. Four years ago it was every paper, every day.

I think we live in different realities.

RogueGypsy · 03-28-2010, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by silent_jay

Still it's saying 2 separate things, I'm not saying we were the soul reason, but if we weren't there Europe would have been fucked, is basically what you just said, which sounds an awful lot like we were the soul reason they weren't screwed, which is just wrong, and is still just revisionist history bullshit as I said before.

I'm not understanding your confusion. I understand it was a group effort, I understand the US did not win alone. I understand that our total troop commitment was greater than the entire population of Canada at the time. So what exactly is the confusion?

---------- Post added at 08:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:30 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

I think we live in different realities.

Is yours better, I'm looking for a new one.

---------- Post added at 08:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:32 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70

Except... they're not.

Just one example that I read today: The Last War Supplemental Ever | Firedoglake

Liberals have continued complaining about Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanimo, the PATRIOT Act, and the list goes on.

Did you actually read what you linked too??

"Last April, shortly after beginning his first term as president, Barak Obama promised that the war supplemental he requested from Congress would be the last one ever:

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Thursday that this will be the last supplemental spending request for the wars. The administration has already earmarked $130 billion for military operations next year, but officials have said they do not want that funding tagged “emergency.”

“The honest budgeting and appropriations process that the president has talked about falls somewhat victim to the fact that this is the way that wars have been funded previously,” Gibbs said. “So we can’t wait until the appropriations process is done in … August or September to fund operations in Iraq and Afghanistan in June.”

And suddenly a lot of the members of Congress who had opposed war supplementals in the past and promised not to vote for another one, decided “just this one last time” to go along.

Well guess what, even though “the … Congress has approved [$128.3 billion] for war-related expenses in fiscal 2010,” there’s a new war supplemental being prepared. This time it’s for $33 billion and while originally proposed for passage around Memorial Day, Sec Def Gates is now pushing to move up approval of the latest blank check.

At the same time “congressional defense committees will continue to be enmeshed in hearings on the Pentagon’s request for a $548.9 billion base budget and $159.3 billion in war funding for FY ’11, which begins Oct. 1.”

The drumbeat for the added funds moved into high gear with the president’s surprise visit to Kabul this morning. Expect a lot more – from reports of “success” from the hyped up battle for Marjah to an upcoming big fight for Kandahar. With so much cash on the line, the sales pitch is sure to be quite loud – and irresistable to a congress who once again will break their promises to stop these off budget supplementals."

This sounds more like the Libs are giving up more money for the war, not complaining about it.

And how is this obscure blog compared to network news and major newspapers????

Is this the Johnny Cochran defense??? Look at the monkey, look at the monkey.....

silent_jay · 03-28-2010, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RogueGypsy

I'm not understanding your confusion. I understand it was a group effort, I understand the US did not win alone. I understand that our total troop commitment was greater than the entire population of Canada at the time. So what exactly is the confusion?

You don't seem to understand that though, you say you do but clearly you don't, as ou say one thing out of one side of your mouth, then the opposite out of the other. Having more troops committed than Canada's population means what exactly? Oh of course that must mean the US shouldered all the work in your distorted view of history.

RogueGypsy · 03-28-2010, 08:02 PM

You must have been referring to the comments below. Not what I would hope for, but better than nothing.

I falsely assumed the same public servants would be upset too.

---------- Post added at 09:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:45 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by silent_jay

You don't seem to understand that though, you say you do but clearly you don't, as ou say one thing out of one side of your mouth, then the opposite out of the other. Having more troops committed than Canada's population means what exactly? Oh of course that must mean the US shouldered all the work in your distorted view of history.

Go back and read all the posts, you are the only one saying the US did all the work.

You also seem to be having a really hard time understanding the impact 13 millions troops, tanks, aircraft, aircraft carriers, and battleships have in a war.

That is not to say, they would or could have won it alone. Simply that without them, things were not going so well and after they arrived, things got better.

Now if you are looking for an ego driven statement, how about this. I do believe you could have removed any other single country from the war and still won. If we were still there. It's a matter of numbers and power. We accounted for roughly 38% of the troops and 50% (discounting the atomic bomb, which only we had at the time) of the fire power. In a war involving 15 or so allies. Now you can revise your history any way you like, but facts are facts. We made a significant difference.

---------- Post added at 09:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:01 PM ----------

This is straying way off topic, I will cease and desist.

silent_jay · 03-28-2010, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RogueGypsy

Go back and read all the posts, you are the only one saying the US did all the work.

Really? You remember this from last page, it really wasn't that long ago.

Quote:

Europe, France in particular, can kiss my shiny American ass. Not once, but twice we saved your pathetic, self righteous asses from a life of speaking German and eating sauerkraut. On second thought, France, you can tongue my ass.

Nice try though.

Quote:

You also seem to be having a really hard time understanding the impact 13 millions troops, tanks, aircraft, aircraft carriers, and battleships have in a war.

Not at all, I understand what that means, it isn't rocket science to figure out, I just want you to understand you didn't do it all alone as you seem to think.

Quote:

Now you can revise your history any way you like, but facts are facts. We made a significant difference.

I never said you didn't make a significant difference at all, no where did I say that, I merely pointed out you never did it all alone as you stated last page.

Quote:

This is straying way off topic, I will cease and desist.

Yep it is, that's what happens when patriotism gets in the way of facts.

dc_dux · 03-28-2010, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RogueGypsy

"Last April, shortly after beginning his first term as president, Barak Obama promised that the war supplemental he requested from Congress would be the last one ever:

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Thursday that this will be the last supplemental spending request for the wars. The administration has already earmarked $130 billion for military operations next year, but officials have said they do not want that funding tagged “emergency.”

“The honest budgeting and appropriations process that the president has talked about falls somewhat victim to the fact that this is the way that wars have been funded previously,” Gibbs said. “So we can’t wait until the appropriations process is done in … August or September to fund operations in Iraq and Afghanistan in June.”

And suddenly a lot of the members of Congress who had opposed war supplementals in the past and promised not to vote for another one, decided “just this one last time” to go along.

Well guess what, even though “the … Congress has approved [$128.3 billion] for war-related expenses in fiscal 2010,” there’s a new war supplemental being prepared. This time it’s for $33 billion and while originally proposed for passage around Memorial Day, Sec Def Gates is now pushing to move up approval of the latest blank check.

At the same time “congressional defense committees will continue to be enmeshed in hearings on the Pentagon’s request for a $548.9 billion base budget and $159.3 billion in war funding for FY ’11, which begins Oct. 1.”

The drumbeat for the added funds moved into high gear with the president’s surprise visit to Kabul this morning. Expect a lot more – from reports of “success” from the hyped up battle for Marjah to an upcoming big fight for Kandahar. With so much cash on the line, the sales pitch is sure to be quite loud – and irresistable to a congress who once again will break their promises to stop these off budget supplementals."

This sounds more like the Libs are giving up more money for the war, not complaining about it.

And how is this obscure blog compared to network news and major newspapers????

Is this the Johnny Cochran defense??? Look at the monkey, look at the monkey.....

You missed the point here completely.

Whaat Obama promised was no more war supplementals, which was the way Bush kept the war funding out of the budget, and thus, not contributing to the Bush deficit. In fact, nearly $1 billion of Iraq war funding between 2003-09 was off budget. While it contributes to the long term national debt, it never showed up in annual budget deficits.

Spending for the war in Afghanistan is now included in the annual DoD appropriations. No budget gimmicks.

Tully Mars · 03-29-2010, 04:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RogueGypsy

Thus the unless they were stopped part.

Romans? Yeah, they had no impact on the world. That's why we use the Latin Alphabet. Brits? No impact their either.

Looking back at almost any region, several groups moved into a single area, lived either unknown to each other or in harmony. Until the stronger group rose up and either slaughtered or assimilated the weaker. So, which is worse, the assimilation/annihilation of a culture or what you see in modern day US, Canada and Australia? What about Mexico's indigenous people? Not a lot of Mayans and Incas running around these days.

Just because it's recent history, doesn't make it the only history.

Japan has it's own little history:

In 645, Nakatomi no Kamatari started the era of the Fujiwara clan that was to last until the rise of the military class (samurai) in the 11th century. In the same year, the Taika reforms were realized: A new government and administrative system was established after the Chinese model. All land was bought by the state and redistributed equally among the farmers in a large land reform in order to introduce the new tax system that was also adopted from China. This was after taking over several island islands now part of Japan, who did not (some still do not) consider them selves Japanese.

You said-

Quote:

Natives? Ditto, every other country on the face of the earth, unless they were stopped

Did the Romans and Brits have an impact, sure. Do they still control all the land they invaded. No.

As for Japan, you're talking, other then some small islands near the main island, about hostilities within Japan, not some foreign attacking force wiping out the indigenous people.

As for your comments on Mexico. The Incas never were in Mexico. They were in Western South America. Mexico's history includes several distinct civilizations. The main ones being Olmec, Izapa, Teotihuacan, Maya, Zapotec, Mixtec, Huastec, Tarascan, "Toltec" and Aztec. Some of these faded out prior to the arrival of the Europeans in the 16th century. After the Europeans arrived many were in fact slaughtered but really the main idea was to enslave the indigenous people, rather then wipe them out. The result has been a large number of people who are still around and are most certainly native. I live in the state of Yucatan here in Mexico. I can assure you the Mayan people and Mayan culture are alive and well. My landlord is Mayan. Most of his family speaks Mayan, Spanish and English. There are many town within a 50 mile radius of my house where the majority of people are of direct Mayan decent. I had a funny thing happened to me not long after moving here, I'd been invited to a party and at the party an older couple decided they needed to leave early. I think the husband was not feeling well. The party host asked if I could drive them home so they wouldn't have to take the bus. I said "sure." They got in my truck and I asked "which way?" They answered but I didn't understand one word. I figured my Spanish was just really, really bad. I asked "left, right, forward???" Again they spoke and spoke and spoke some more... I understood not one word. Finally in Spanish worse then mine (which is saying something) the wife stated they only speak Mayan. I got them home but only through hand gestures.

But this all started when you stated-

Quote:

I'll remind every United States Citizen here today, no matter your political, religious or social views. You are here today because you, or one of your ancestors, said 'Fuck You' to the rat hole over governed twat of a country from whence you were spawned. And now some of you would like to not only take that right from the rest of the world, but you would like to 'reform' us in their image. To you I say; there is an airport in every major city in the US, go find one, buy a ticket, get on a plane and have a great fuckin' day.

Which I answered with-

Quote:

That is unless of course your ancestors lived on the North American Continent 500-or 600 plus years ago. Then you're here because you manged to survive what the invading peoples did to your peoples.

Which lead to your response-

Quote:

Natives? Ditto, every other country on the face of the earth, unless they were stopped.

Nothing you've posted shows all nations have either been taken over or fought off some invading foreign force. I believe your understanding of world history is a bit lacking.

---------- Post added at 06:20 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:05 AM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by RogueGypsy

Yeah, that swings both ways with the media now doesn't it.

Think of all the Liberals who were gnashing their teeth and crying in the streets over the heinous acts of the Bush's in the middle east. Now strangely quiet with Obama in office.

It's all a sick evil joke. So what is it this week? Laugh or Cry?

I agree with much of what you're saying here. I think the news is reporting on the protests currently happening by the right. Though Fox is more cheer leading then reporting. It's not reporting when your producers stand behind the reporter and make gestures to whip up the crowd. It's also not reporting when you use footage that's two months old to show what a huge crowd has gathered to protest.

I think the left was upset with Bush over a lot more then just his actions in the Middle East. Just as I think the right is upset with Obama for a lot more then just the health care law.

Personally I think it's important to note that Bush was elected by 50.7% to Kerry's 48.3%. Not exactly a mandate. Obama won with 53% to McCain's 47%. Again not exactly a mandate. But as you pointed out when Bush won and was in office many on the left were "gnashing their teeth and crying in the streets." Now that Obama is POTUS we're seeing the same thing by people on the right.

So laugh or cry seems to depend on whether or not your side is in power.

RogueGypsy · 03-29-2010, 01:34 PM

Tully-
First off I need to learn how to quote segments like you just did, that would make this soooo much easier.

Since I haven't yet, moving on.

Quote:

You said-

Quote:
Natives? Ditto, every other country on the face of the earth, unless they were stopped

Did the Romans and Brits have an impact, sure. Do they still control all the land they invaded. No.

As for Japan, you're talking, other then some small islands near the main island, about hostilities within Japan, not some foreign attacking force wiping out the indigenous people.

Quote:

Nothing you've posted shows all nations have either been taken over or fought off some invading foreign force. I believe your understanding of world history is a bit lacking.

Yes I exaggerated. As far as my history being lacking, I will never know enough about history. The fact that it is being rewritten almost annually by new anthropological discoveries doesn't help. Nor does the fact that the victors get to write their version and the defeated nothing. I tend to view history in a broader scope and generalities.

My point is, everyone came from somewhere else at some time and once they were there had to defend their land or be slaughtered. Often the first to settle an area are not now the current inhabitants. You are correct, it did not happen everywhere. It did happen more often than not. That was why I included "unless they were stopped". Anthropology is not showing virtually
all existing nation lie on the ruins of a former people. The US, Canada and Australia still having Aboriginal people intact are just easier to point a finger at.

I disagree with your assessment of Japan as well. If you are an inhabitant of an Island and consider yourself and your people to be 'of' that island, you are a native nation. When a neighboring (non-native to your island) island invades you and makes you part of their nation, you have indeed been invaded and assimilated by a foreign nation. Wiped out, no. Although certainly there were casualties.

Quote:

As for Japan, you're talking, other then some small islands near the main island, about hostilities within Japan, not some foreign attacking force wiping out the indigenous people.

I'm not sure how you define 'foreign force'. We (Europeans) were here and established before the real blood shed began. I don't condone what happened, nor do I look at it as a foreign invading force. As history shows, when two or more nations occupy the same territory and don't have agreeable life styles, the stronger will destroy the weaker.

Quote:

That is unless of course your ancestors lived on the North American Continent 500-or 600 plus years ago. Then you're here because you manged to survive what the invading peoples did to your peoples.

They too left their native lands to arrive here, be it long before we did. They did come looking for greener pastures.
Also Native Americans are a sovereign nation within our borders, I was not referring to them in the original statement.

African Americans (or whatever the politically correct phrase of the day is), immigrants now out number the descendants of slavery. Former slaves were granted amnesty by Lincoln and had the choice to return to Africa if they so desired. They did not, so while they did not leave their home nation by choice, they did effectively abandon it by not returning.

Mexican, thank you for the correction, I was confusing Incas and Aztecs. They, non-the-less, are not doing so well. Thank you Spain.

Quote:

I agree with much of what you're saying here. I think the news is reporting on the protests currently happening by the right. Though Fox is more cheer leading then reporting. It's not reporting when your producers stand behind the reporter and make gestures to whip up the crowd. It's also not reporting when you use footage that's two months old to show what a huge crowd has gathered to protest.

I think the left was upset with Bush over a lot more then just his actions in the Middle East. Just as I think the right is upset with Obama for a lot more then just the health care law.

Personally I think it's important to note that Bush was elected by 50.7% to Kerry's 48.3%. Not exactly a mandate. Obama won with 53% to McCain's 47%. Again not exactly a mandate. But as you pointed out when Bush won and was in office many on the left were "gnashing their teeth and crying in the streets." Now that Obama is POTUS we're seeing the same thing by people on the right.

So laugh or cry seems to depend on whether or not your side is in power.

Originally, I was referring specifically to the media coverage of protesters in the street. It has dropped off significantly with the new administration, yet the war continues. Personally, I'm having a hard time finding any reliable American Media. They all seem to have an agenda. I view all the news channels, read several newspapers, scour the web and seek outside media (mostly BBC and Canadian news). I then develop my own opinion of what is happening based on all I have seen and read. The disparities amongst the various sources are numerous. There is no single news source I trust to deliver the truth.

---------- Post added at 02:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:34 PM ----------

SWEET! It looks like I did figure out how to multi-quote. Yea me.

Tully Mars · 03-29-2010, 02:30 PM

Maybe it's just me but I think your tone has changed a lot. I think that's a good thing.

I will say from what I've seen the Mayans are doing fine, Spanish couldn't break all of them. Not that they didn't try. Some of those that did break ended up assimilating. Of course there's many that were killed too. But I think over all the indigenous people here in Mexico fared far better then those in the US.

I'll also say IMO the reason you can't find a reliable news source is they no longer exist. Given the choice between watching an hour of MSNBC or Fox on any given night and slamming my head in door... I'll take the door. Be less painful and over with quicker.

Charlatan · 03-29-2010, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gypsy Rose

African Americans (or whatever the politically correct phrase of the day is), immigrants now out number the descendants of slavery. Former slaves were granted amnesty by Lincoln and had the choice to return to Africa if they so desired. They did not, so while they did not leave their home nation by choice, they did effectively abandon it by not returning.

First off, I agree with Tully. You have come around in your attitude. "Tongue my ass" isn't far from where you are now but it's a lot more reasoned and respectable.

I do have small issue with your comment above. I find it difficult to say that the blacks that Lincoln emancipated somehow abandoned their home nation by not returning to Africa. We are talking about people who were born and raised in slavery in the US and not people who were fresh off the slaver's boat. Some did return to Africa (see Sierra Leone and Freetown) but most, decided to stay because they had no connection to the land of their ancestors.

aceventura3 · 04-05-2010, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RogueGypsy

African Americans (or whatever the politically correct phrase of the day is), immigrants now out number the descendants of slavery. Former slaves were granted amnesty by Lincoln and had the choice to return to Africa if they so desired. They did not, so while they did not leave their home nation by choice, they did effectively abandon it by not returning.

Need to re-think this line of thought on many levels but the most glaring is the fact that when Lincoln was President most slaves were born in this country and had no connection to the African continent or awareness of where their ancestors were from.

03-29-2010, 02:30 PM	#93 (permalink)
Tully Mars Living in a Warmer Insanity Super Moderator Location: Yucatan, Mexico	Maybe it's just me but I think your tone has changed a lot. I think that's a good thing. I will say from what I've seen the Mayans are doing fine, Spanish couldn't break all of them. Not that they didn't try. Some of those that did break ended up assimilating. Of course there's many that were killed too. But I think over all the indigenous people here in Mexico fared far better then those in the US. I'll also say IMO the reason you can't find a reliable news source is they no longer exist. Given the choice between watching an hour of MSNBC or Fox on any given night and slamming my head in door... I'll take the door. Be less painful and over with quicker. __________________ I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club