magekillr

Reb, I'll answer your other questions that you originally asked in a sec. In the mean time, you cite "25 years ago," which was, once again, when Reagan was President. In any case, I think this chart clearly shows that our tax structure as-is is NOT a "burden" on rich people, that Reagan's tax code changes in the 1980's have clearly been a gift to them, as the top 0.01% have gotten even richer than they did during the Gilded Age...before there even was a god damned income tax: Again...right when Reagan got in. About California: they're in the problems they're in because of a direct referendum, which is more or less direct democracy.

http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=8358625 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/14/healt ... ei=5087%0A http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2009/07 ... alth-bill/ http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/ ... 32642.aspx http://www.gop.com/News/NewsRead.aspx?G ... 38fcc5452f Lol @ 80 people supporting this bill. Not even 80 people voted for the Supreme Court nominee, something that almost always goes through without a hitch of controversy. 1.) Republicans come out against public option, rather than single-payer, because the Democrats came to the table with an already negotiated solution. 2.) Republicans think they've destroyed the public option, so they come out against co-ops. They previously signaled they'd maybe support co-ops, but only to get rid of the public option. They'd be against co-ops later once they thought it was dead (which they are now doing). 3.) Republicans like Senator Kyl come out against forcing insurance people to cover those with pre-existing conditions, among other insurance reforms. So they're against single payer, but support Medicare; they're against socialized medicine, but support the VA; they're in support of co-ops for a short while, but then dub it as government control of health care (lol); then to put the nail in the coffin, they're against insurance reforms. Do you see a pattern here? Step 1, defeat first part. Step 2, move on to next part. Step 3, repeat until it's down to nothing and/or dies. See, Bari, this is why you're full of [cabbage]. Will you look at all of this and stop being so intellectually dishonest? I mean, are you being serious? Are you being paid by the GOP to lie? I think you know exactly what will happen if we wait all 4-8 years: nothing will happen, and that's exactly what you want. Either you don't want any reform whatsoever, like Senator Kyl and Grassley here--you know, the leading Republicans on health care right now--or you're as deluded with your head in the clouds about bipartisanship as the Obama administration. The bill has viable public support. 65% of Americans disagree? Which poll are you citing. I can find polls telling me that 76% agree, 71% agree, 66% agree; are you getting yours from Rasmussen? Also, Americans tend to disagree with things that aren't actually in the bill, but the corporate he-said/she-said media doesn't actually do their job of calling people in power out and just repeats what they say. Like the public disagrees with funding abortions with it, covering illegal Americans, including death panels. Put simply, the American people want a public option: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/healt ... ml?_r=2&hp That's an older poll. Of course most polls aren't as good now because of the GOP spreading their lies about it: July poll: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/healt ... ml?_r=2&hp What about 77% of Americans supporting public option? http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollRep ... b9d1ba8693 That's August. I guess you forgot about those polls and decided to cherry pick some other poll? Besides, support for something tends to be different when you're lied to. You know, like well over two-thirds of Americans supported the Iraq War when they were being lied to about it. Anyway, you know exactly what waiting will do, and it's why you want them to wait: So Republicans can fill the airwaves with their lying lies in hopes that it drives American support so low that they just drop the whole thing. By the by, the only reason Dems have a few false ones on there is because of things like Bernie Sanders saying we pay twice as much as any other nation, which is pretty much true other than 2 or 3 nations who spend like 60% of what we spend instead of 50%. Why didn't you have a problem with George Bush ramming his Iraq War down our throats? He had to lie to get it through; he couldn't even tell the truth about it. Why aren't you angry that Bush used the terror color code reading for political purposes the night before the election (which is, you know....terrorism?)? What about ramming $1.2 trillion in tax cuts without decreases in spending (like Reagan, Bush I, Bush II have done? Clinton balanced the budget with surpluses)? You still haven't told me: what is in this bill that you're so vehemently against? I've told you why I'm against it before, but I'd like to add a new reason: if nothing is passed, some Demcrats will lose their seats. Those would be the blue-dogs (corporate shills), and I will celebrate every one of their losses.

I'll respond to the rest of your post later, but the reason California is in the mess it's in is because of direct democracy. The people constantly vote for programs, and then they won't vote for ways to pay for them. Moreover, their budget must pass with a 2/3 majority. How silly...

You honestly think that would stop the cartels? No, I think it would cripple an area of where a lot of their profits come from. As I said, it wouldn't be a solution, but it would put a huge dent in what they do. Not if you tax the drugs low enough. Cartels are involved in a lot of trafficking of goods, tobacco and alcohol aren't one of them. Huh? Why do people always invoke the size of our country, when they forget that we're governed by a bunch of states who can manage national policy? How will legalizing all drugs do this? I'm not saying it's going to turn Mexico into France, or that it's going to end cartel control. I am saying it will hobble some of their efforts in a similar fashion that removing our agriculture subsidies will hobble terrorism in Afghanistan. That was quite the sexist remark to make. The sexism aside, I'm not hoping the problem will go away. I'm speaking in terms that many serious policy people talk about. Hell, there was an article in the Washington Post just today about it: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 58_pf.html Not only this, but Latin American leaders are all now pressing for legalization. Brazil, Mexico, and Columbia; a lot of their leaders are pressing for it now that they're out of office and not subject to people who will call them immoral for pushing drugs on the populace. http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?art ... ation_push

They're not paying over half of their paycheck because the rich make most of their money from capital gains; a 15% rate if they hold their shares for more than a year, or receive their dividends. The way the tax code is structured, the middle class bear most of the brunt because their income is so much lower with respect to the rich; ie, 28% of $80,000 is a lot more than 35% on $1,000,000. When you reach a certain point in wealth, you actually are taxed at a lower rate because of the cap on social security. Not to mention all of the tax breaks, write offs, deductions and advantages that comes from being rich and hiring accountants. Why do you think there are lawyers to interpret the tax code differently than other people? The tax rate on paper might appear to be half in some states (California comes to mind), but the effective rate is far lower, and has been far lower ever since Ronald Reagan. Also note that Ronald Reagan is when we started our massive budget and trade deficits, something that's continued ever since. Come to think of it, everything seriously wrong with America started in 1981. The tax code in America is an economic crisis in and of itself. About tort reform: tort reform won't do anything. Many states have put limits on punitive damages, limited noneconomic damages, and modified the laws to a great extent. It's not enough for the AMA, and it never will be. Why? It doesn't attack the root of the problem, which is to get lawyers and courts out of the system completely, and adopt the Scandinavian no fault system. Anyone can send in a claim of malpractice to the board of doctors who review the case. If there's malpractice, they award you a settlement. You're free to take it to court if you're unhappy with the settlement, but most people settle for a few reasons: a. it's more than they'd get from the court case and b. it's less of a hassle. It works similar to workers' compensation funds that many states run. One thing that article doesn't cite is that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both sponsored legislation in 2006 that would implement a no fault system, and it didn't make it out of committee. In any case, here's an article of my own: http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezra ... n_practice And...here is an article that proves my point about offering compensation: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... QD99IBA101

I'm all for legalizing weed, but really? Coke, heroin, and LSD and some pretty serious drugs. They ruin lives and you can OD pretty easily. This thread reminds me of season 4 of the show called Weeds :thumbup: Yeah, they can, and they do whilst they're illegal. Should we ban medical drugs because people abuse and OD on them (and they do). Portugal decriminalized all drugs, put their resources into treatment and the result was less drug use across the board in every demographic with every drug. There will be abuse regardless if they're illegal or not. I would rather have the state, rather than the public underground black market, license sellers to control where, when and to whom drugs are sold.

1.) Legalize all drugs; this includes marijuana, cocaine, heroine, LSD, etc. 2.) Legalize prostitution. This isn't going to solve the problem, but it will help alleviate it. It probably would have been a solution a few years back, but now they're involved with more than just drugs and slaves.

Hmm... The only thing I can think that that means is that you can't keep your insurance unless it covers something that the federal insurance doesn't. Under HR 676 you would be required to be covered by the insurance, like Social Security for lack of a better example. HR 3200 goes into detail about the hows and whats of coverage and how coverage will be distributed. Perhaps you forgot to read the link I posted? Even the Heritage Foundation says you're lying. Now that's really wacky.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... ouse-bill/ Are you done lying? The "activists" (astroturfers for the private insurance industry who are all old people) keep saying for people to read the bill, when it's clear they haven't read it themselves; or maybe they can't read it?

If it were as cut and dry as you were making it seem, the number of uninsured during this recession would not have gone up a large amount. Do you know why? Because people are losing their jobs. One thing you forgot to mention about COBRA: it requires you to pay what your employer was paying. Under most insurance plans, your employer covers the bulk of the cost. Under COBRA, you pick up what your employer covered while you were working there. Here's what COBRA does: it allows you to keep that plan for 18 months if you can pay what your employer pays. Your employer is NOT required to pay for your insurance at all. So rather than going on the individual market and finding a new plan, you can keep your same plan....IF you can afford it (which, most cannot). Stop failing. Yeah, and you know, it costs too much and they cannot afford it. Second, I don't care if they want it or not: it needs to be mandated because they're driving up costs for everyone else, including myself. Car insurance is mandated for this very reason. So should health insurance. Lol, um, highly unlikely. What's your deductible? $10,000? One accident with a deductible like that and you'd be done. I highly doubt that your insurance policy is only $200 a month, especially if you're diabetic; not even government employees pay that low. Being a single guy in good health and I probably could get that....by myself, not a family of four. Methinks you're lying, or don't know what you're talking about...again. I mean, the average family plan in America is roughly $11,000 a year, which sounds about right (our plan was about $900 a month when my father was a government contractor. Now that he works directly for the government, it's around $600 with a higher deductible). However, it also depends where you live. Premiums in Wisconsin are likely to be lower than premiums in Montana. Ok, what about right now in a recession when no one is hiring anyone? What then? Typically emergency insurance covers around $1,000 a visit (very little), and allows a few visits per year (by a few, I mean 2-3). Well I've already dealt with COBRA, but let's go with Medicare. You say if you're old or disabled you can go on Medicare, but what you don't realize is that health costs are rising at such a fast pace that Medicare is going to break our budget. No, it's not pork and earmarks like John McCain harped on, it's Medicare and Medicaid that are going to break the budget. So until costs are brought under control, we ARE going to go bankrupt, quite literally. That's what you're not understanding. It's not just the uninsured, it's the insured who are undercovered, it's the insured who cannot afford to pay a 42% increase in their premiums ( ), it's the cost of drugs, it's the dropping of coverage for people who thought they were insured. Do you get it now? btw, a lot of people who want to be insured and can afford it cannot be insured because of pre-existing conditions. No he hasn't. Why do you have to lie? Lol, god you're dense. I just posted several different types of health care systems, and you repeat the typical right wing talking points with no basis in reality. Canada and Britain's systems are completely different from one another, and you lump them into one thing. And then you talk bad about their systems without knowing anything you're talking about. Plenty of people from Canada and Britain are here, and all of them think you're nuts for saying the NHS will "screw you." Not even Britain's conservative party wants to get rid of the NHS. David Cameron just issued many statements defending the NHS after all of the bad mouthing people in America have given it. The only member in their party who does is Daniel Hannan, and he is a crazy person. He's like Britain's Ron Paul. Their CP sent him to the EU to get him out of parliament because he was such a nuisance and crazed idiot.

Alcoholic: White Russians, and my favorite beers are Warsteiner and Dos Equis. Non-alcoholic: Water, milk.

Those numbers are based on overall health care spending; private and government. The country is doing many things wrong: 1.) Not everyone is insured. This poses a problem because people who lack insurance and are sick but don't need dire care go to the emergency room. The ER is by far the biggest waste because of the excessive tests that people are given. For example, women complaining about cramps in their stomach could be pregnant. The ER will give them a pregnancy test by urine, costing several folds higher than a standard over the counter pregnancy test. 2.) More about the testing: doctors are over testing patients because they can. Costs have been rising at a much faster rate ever since technological advancements have been put in place in small doctors offices. I often hear about people complaining that Canadian doctors don't have access to MRI's as easily, but that's actually part of our problem. MRI's, while an important technological advancement, are not needed nearly as much as they're used. See here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 04285.html This doesn't happen in Europe and Canada nearly on the same level because...*cough* they "ration" care. It's not really rationing of care, but it's probably the main reason costs are spiraling out of control. The reason I say this is not rationing is because it's a dumb term to use. For example, is it rationing if the US public schools don't offer to teach Japanese just because a few people want it be so? I don't think so. To same, just because some dolt wants a $500 pill, if there's no real medical benefit, the government isn't going to pay for it. 3.) The insurance companies; health care and malpractice. They raise their rates just because they can, they deny care when people need it most, and they flat out are not interested in your health. They're raising their rates and lowering the value of the care, even on people who have had no change in how they are in health. They also own regional monopolies: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/ ... n_map.html There's an interactive map where you can see the monopolies that are going on. Blue Cross Blue Shield in Montana, for example, has a 75% ownership of patients (Max Baucus' home state). BCBS has a 76% ownership in Minnesota. 4.) The drug companies charge 3-5 times more for the same drugs here that they do in Europe and Canada, and doctors are prescribing them out the yin yang. They also have more protection from competition here than they do there, although their countries set rates and directly negotiate prices. We don't allow that here, and it's why Medicare part D which was passed by George Bush was a giant giveaway to them. Of course...it seems Obama is doing something along the same lines by promising not to allow the government to directly negotiate prices, but in return they'll offer "80 billion in savings over 10 years, and promote his health care reform with $150 million in ads." Bush got nothing in return. Just to note the prospective here, $150 million in ads is more than John McCain spent during the Presidential election. The deal isn't set in stone, and a lot of people are backwalking it, but we'll see where it goes. 5.) Administrative costs. I don't think this is a huge deal, but it's pushing prices up a little bit. I think liberals tout this too much; it's really not going to bend the cost curve down. 6.) Employer based insurance doesn't allow you to keep your insurance if you lose/quit your job. That's the gist of it, but I'd say the most important things to reform are the insurance companies, allow the government to negotiate prices, and have boards of doctors to 'ration' care (as the conservatives put it, even though it's really not rationing). And about your warning of bankruptcy, if nothing is done, health care costs WILL bankrupt America. America never does anything when it comes to reform unless some tragedy happens. Sometimes I wish we let the banks fail because the Great Depression is the only reason we have social security. I fear that catastrophic changes in weather, food and such are the only things that will get America on the ball with climate change as well. Hmmm, what else do I have. That's basically it. Oh, I'll explain the different types of insurance/health care models. France: France has an employer-based system as well. Most people get their health care from their employer, but there's a difference. It's funded mostly through payroll and income taxes. Their funds go to a non-profit government run public insurance plan, where they negotiate prices with doctors directly. The government regulates drug and hospital prices so that they don't get out of control (aka: rationing). Germany: Germany has en employer-based system. They have a public option that anyone can "buy" into, and they have private insurers. This is basically the model that Obama is proposing. The Netherlands: Pretty much the same as Germany, with more regulation. Canada: Canada has what is known as a single-payer system, where rather than paying for insurance, you just pay taxes. The taxes are funneled into a giant "single" fund, and contracts are sold to health care providers (much like Medicare in America). Britain: Similar to Canada, but Britain's health care is actually "socialized medicine." You pay taxes, and your taxes are directly given to doctors and hospitals rather than you being insured. It's socialized because doctors and nurses are employed by the government, and the hospitals are government run. This is similar to the Veterans Hospitals in America. Singapore: You are required by law to put a certain amount of your paycheck into a health fund account. They have public doctors and private. If you can't afford treatment beyond your health fund, the government subsidizes the rest. This model cannot work in other countries, mostly because of the culture and the amount of people/land size. Not to mention their government is very authoritarian. Best model in my opinion? France. If I wanted the lowest cost, I'd pick Britain, but their quality can't match France's.

I love how America expresses so much outrage at what Vick did and believe he should be locked up even after he served his time--something not many elite can say--but don't even care that they all have blood on their hands as their President instituted a form of torture and over 100 detainees were tortured to death. They don't care that Obama is breaking international law and the Constitution by refusing to prosecute these acts. Maybe if the dogs used to torture the detainees were subject to the same treatment they'd get up in a tizzie over it.

Exactly, they shouldn't be illegal because you can't legislate for that. My point is that even if you believe a zygote is a human being who is self aware--you would be wrong, but if you believed that--zygotes are killed many times. It's simply illogical to put a zygote on the same level as a physical born human being, if not for the self-aware reasoning, but for logical reasoning. And about the last sentence: exactly. So, why do you have a problem if a woman is having an abortion?

I'm afraid of death period. However, the worst way of dying would be burning, in my opinion. No, not suffocating from smoke, going unconscious, and THEN burning. I mean like burning at the stake or like the way that one priest was killed in Angels and Demons.

Well, if a corpse is a person and so is someone who is completely brain dead, then being a person is not what matters. The existence of a 'self' is the issue that matters. yes, people believe that only when the aby is truly born is it considered alive. Otherwise, it has little to no personality, it simply develops until it is ready. I still stand by my agument that abortion is wrong. It's not the fact that it is simply a "developing being, and has no individuality, etc etc etc" its that it WILL be an individual sometime down the track. Having the power over whether your child exists or not should never be given. In some rare circumstances fine (like severe complications during birth, etc etc) but for someone to have sex, get pregnant and say "no, I'm not going to let this child exist" should never happen. I also beleive that if you are having sex, even when you are wearing protection, you are conceeding that you are ready for a child. Don't want to get pregnant? Don't have sex. "But I'm 20 and want to have sex". No excuses. You shouldn'be having random sex with guys anyway, who are likely to get you pregnant and ditch you first chance they get. [/hide] Should miscarriages be illegal? And as an aside to the rest of this post: I have flirted with being pro-life in the past. There's a huge difference between miscarriages and abortion, a miscarriage isn't purposeful. You don't miscarry on purpose. Abortion is when you purposely kill the fetus. I figured that would be your response, and now allow my retort: You can be convicted of killing a baby for negligence if you leave it in the car and it dies from heat exhaustion, correct? Well, some miscarriages are the result of smoking, drinking alcohol and taking drugs. In that sense, it wouldn't be purposeful killing, but you would have killed it due to negligence. Second, no, not all abortions are the purposeful killing of the child, especially not during the third trimester as the child can already be dead (which is what IDX is used for in some of the cases). So let me ask you again: should miscarriages be illegal?

[hide=] Well, if a corpse is a person and so is someone who is completely brain dead, then being a person is not what matters. The existence of a 'self' is the issue that matters. yes, people believe that only when the aby is truly born is it considered alive. Otherwise, it has little to no personality, it simply develops until it is ready. I still stand by my agument that abortion is wrong. It's not the fact that it is simply a "developing being, and has no individuality, etc etc etc" its that it WILL be an individual sometime down the track. Having the power over whether your child exists or not should never be given. In some rare circumstances fine (like severe complications during birth, etc etc) but for someone to have sex, get pregnant and say "no, I'm not going to let this child exist" should never happen. I also beleive that if you are having sex, even when you are wearing protection, you are conceeding that you are ready for a child. Don't want to get pregnant? Don't have sex. "But I'm 20 and want to have sex". No excuses. You shouldn'be having random sex with guys anyway, who are likely to get you pregnant and ditch you first chance they get. [/hide] Should miscarriages be illegal? And as an aside to the rest of this post: I have flirted with being pro-life in the past.

Zierro, here's a good example of what I mean by it's not a person: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009 ... rs_mur.php http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus_in_fetu I mean, would ^^ that be a person (in the context with which we are speaking)? I don't think you'd say so, but it is human, it is a separate entity, and it is considered alive.

1.) Abortion is birth control. As much as pro-choice people don't like to admit it, and as much as pro-life people like to rag on about it, abortion, no matter what form it takes, is birth control. Not that I have anything wrong with that, but it is what it is. It's annoying to hear people say "it will be used as a form of birth control" when it IS a form of birth control. 2.) It should always be the choice of the woman. The man can have his input, but it is always her choice because it is her body. 3.) Making abortion illegal has always held one purpose for the people in power: to discriminate against women. The people on the ground might not see it as that way, but that's how the people in power with the groups like Focus on the Family see it. They'd never support using federal money for contraception, but they will support using it for abstinence education. The former reduces abortions, the latter makes them more abundant. If they cared about reducing abortions, they'd support education. 4.) A fetus isn't a person, period. 5.) It doesn't matter what trimester it happens when it comes to me. Third trimester abortions are always for the mother's or baby's health. Typically the baby is already dead, or will live a very short life if it's born; usually it's excruteatingly painful for the child if it's born. 6.) The reasoning doesn't matter to me, as the end result is still the same. If she wanted a boy and it's a girl, that's her choice. Birth defect, her choice. Etc.

_Morris]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/[bleep]_Morris [bleep] Morris is a comedian? Since when? Last I heard, he was an American political author and commentator. If you weren't such a political hack who looked at the facts of who these people are, and weren't so interested in opposing everything I say, maybe you would have realized that. It's not my fault Fox brings him on for his "expertise." The reason they bring these people on is to convince their viewers to think that way. It's why they always bring on creationists and global warming deniers, and then ban people like Bill Maher from appearing. It's why Bill O'Reilly brings people on who oppose him, just to cut their mics during the show; appear fair and balanced, and then shut them up when they make a fool out of you. It's why they never bring on people who are pro-peace "military consultants," and always bring on people who want to wage war with Iran and Iraq. And it's why they bring on [bleep] Morris and John Bolton to say the things they do.

[bleep] Morris obviously felt left out of the John Bolton crowd, so he doubled down: [yt]Ks3Wc9QqgyM[/yt]

Straw man. My argument wasn't he's a psychopath because he disagrees with me. Glenn Beck literally has mental issues. I wouldn't compare Bush to Hitler, but he certainly did take a lot of lessons from him when it came to torture, and the possibility of using the military as a police force. Nope, I'm not a moderate, but the point is that I'm just "left." Bill Maher talked with Dennis Kucinich back in 2007, and as he stated then, "I don't consider myself a radical." America just has no left wing, so that's the way it appears. There you go again, ignoring reality. Would you like to get rid of Medicare and the VA? Surely they manage people's lives, and shouldn't be in existence. What's your solution to the problem? Or do you not think there's a problem?

That's not an ad hominem attack at all. You might want to try something other then the classic authoritarian lynching of anyone who dares to disagree with your blind ideology. It's not an ad hominem attack. Perhaps you should learn what an ad hominem attack is. Glenn Beck is not neutral, and it's demonstrated by his comparing Obama to Hitler on a regular basis. Would you like me to finish the logical end point? Glenn Beck compares BO to Hitler, the Nazis and the 3rd Reich. Comparing Barack Obama to Hitler and the Nazis is not neutral, and it's a psychotic thing to do. Glenn Beck does assorted other psychotic things: People who do these things need help and are not neutral. Glenn Beck is a psycho. The dude's insane. Glenn Beck not as far right as I am left? Dude, listen...read back a few pages where I explained the troubling thing about American politics. Glenn Beck and most Republicans in power right now are not just "on the right." They are far right nationalists. The Democrats are a center right party. No wonder you don't believe in climate change when you're listening to Glenn Beck: If you'd like to discuss health care policy, I'd be glad to do it with facts and data. It's not my fault your ideology doesn't follow that. Which is fine...I can respect someone who says "You know what, government "run" health care saves money, it insures more people, and it's more efficient overall. However, I don't care because I don't want the government doing that." What annoys me is when people refuse to believe the evidence that's right there in front of them, deny it, and say our system is just fine calling America "the greatest health care system in the world." Throw in a few tax breaks, some "tort reform," and call it a day. Texas did tort reform, they have caps, and their health care costs are spiraling out of control just as fast, if not faster than the rest of the country. Incidientally they also have the most people uninsured.

Lol, I can't tell if you're being facetious or not. I thought you were being serious until you mentioned Glenn Beck, the psychopath who compares Obama to Hitler on a regular basis and dreams about banging his sister in his book.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/05/healt ... ghost.html And it continues to get even worse than I had ever imagined.