2012 U.S. Elections - President Obama Re-elected

[champion]

Non-Internet users are idiots have jobs, pay taxes, and care enough about their money to vote, and don't waste your time preaching to the converted teenagers in their parent's basements, because once they're kicked out of the house and forced to get jobs they'll become conservative and then they'll stop going online and they'll start voting for the other party.

I know you're trying to be a little dramatic here to get him to consider some other possibilities, but c'mon, now you're just making yourself look silly if you really believe this.

[sees_all1]

Non-Internet users are idiots have jobs, pay taxes, and care enough about their money to vote, and don't waste your time preaching to the converted teenagers in their parent's basements, because once they're kicked out of the house and forced to get jobs they'll become conservative and then they'll stop going online and they'll start voting for the other party.

I know you're trying to be a little dramatic here to get him to consider some other possibilities, but c'mon, now you're just making yourself look silly if you really believe this.

Mostly I take offense to using the word "idiot" to describe people with differing viewpoints. It's that type of arrogance that makes politics nasty.

[dusqi]

Non-Internet users are idiots have jobs, pay taxes, and care enough about their money to vote, and don't waste your time preaching to the converted teenagers in their parent's basements, because once they're kicked out of the house and forced to get jobs they'll become conservative and then they'll stop going online and they'll start voting for the other party.

I know you're trying to be a little dramatic here to get him to consider some other possibilities, but c'mon, now you're just making yourself look silly if you really believe this.

Mostly I take offense to using the word "idiot" to describe people with differing viewpoints. It's that type of arrogance that makes politics nasty.

 

 

All of my friends (including me) have jobs thanks, and I also vote (although I do it in the UK).

 

My point was that the Internet is homogeneous, so if you want to get an idea of the types of views people actually have and where they get their information from then you do have to "leave the house". My experience is that despite the occasional troll online, offline you'd be surprised how many people have ridiculously stupid opinions (on all sorts of issues). So, I'm calling them stupid not because they're conservative (you assumed that), but because they don't use the Internet so they probably don't have political debates and instead they get their political views from celebrities, sitcoms, or reality TV.

[sees_all1]

All of my friends (including me) have jobs thanks, and I also vote (although I do it in the UK).

You'll have to excuse my assumption that you're in the US (this is a thread about the US Presidential election :razz: ), politics and viewpoints in the rest of the world are much different and I wouldn't pretend to know anything about other countries.

[Will H]

Non-Internet users are idiots have jobs, pay taxes, and care enough about their money to vote, and don't waste your time preaching to the converted teenagers in their parent's basements, because once they're kicked out of the house and forced to get jobs they'll become conservative and then they'll stop going online and they'll start voting for the other party.

I know you're trying to be a little dramatic here to get him to consider some other possibilities, but c'mon, now you're just making yourself look silly if you really believe this.

Mostly I take offense to using the word "idiot" to describe people with differing viewpoints. It's that type of arrogance that makes politics nasty.

 

 

All of my friends (including me) have jobs thanks, and I also vote (although I do it in the UK).

 

My point was that the Internet is homogeneous, so if you want to get an idea of the types of views people actually have and where they get their information from then you do have to "leave the house". My experience is that despite the occasional troll online, offline you'd be surprised how many people have ridiculously stupid opinions (on all sorts of issues). So, I'm calling them stupid not because they're conservative (you assumed that), but because they don't use the Internet so they probably don't have political debates and instead they get their political views from celebrities, sitcoms, or reality TV.

 

That's really another assumption, but I understand where you are coming from. This really has nothing to do with Conservatism or Liberalism, (after all, I personally identify as a British Conservative, and I'm here), but rather to do with the quality of the sources that people get their political opinions from. Debating with real people who can answer back is strictly a better source than TV or any one-way media. The movement of the internet up the generations will eventually mean that we can be online and get the full spectrum of opinion, not only from the youth, but from the experienced.

 

This will take time, and can't be accelerated in any meaningful way, but it is improving.

[dusqi]

Non-Internet users are idiots have jobs, pay taxes, and care enough about their money to vote, and don't waste your time preaching to the converted teenagers in their parent's basements, because once they're kicked out of the house and forced to get jobs they'll become conservative and then they'll stop going online and they'll start voting for the other party.

I know you're trying to be a little dramatic here to get him to consider some other possibilities, but c'mon, now you're just making yourself look silly if you really believe this.

Mostly I take offense to using the word "idiot" to describe people with differing viewpoints. It's that type of arrogance that makes politics nasty.

 

 

All of my friends (including me) have jobs thanks, and I also vote (although I do it in the UK).

 

My point was that the Internet is homogeneous, so if you want to get an idea of the types of views people actually have and where they get their information from then you do have to "leave the house". My experience is that despite the occasional troll online, offline you'd be surprised how many people have ridiculously stupid opinions (on all sorts of issues). So, I'm calling them stupid not because they're conservative (you assumed that), but because they don't use the Internet so they probably don't have political debates and instead they get their political views from celebrities, sitcoms, or reality TV.

 

That's really another assumption, but I understand where you are coming from. This really has nothing to do with Conservatism or Liberalism, (after all, I personally identify as a British Conservative, and I'm here), but rather to do with the quality of the sources that people get their political opinions from. Debating with real people who can answer back is strictly a better source than TV or any one-way media. The movement of the internet up the generations will eventually mean that we can be online and get the full spectrum of opinion, not only from the youth, but from the experienced.

 

This will take time, and can't be accelerated in any meaningful way, but it is improving.

 

Exactly. The Internet is full of debate, and usually people are encouraged to give their view point (it annoys me when I read a news article online and it doesn't have a comments section). One-way media is very limiting and I think it leads to all sorts of strange opinions because people have a view point that they never tell to anyone, so it never undergoes any critique. Then they get to the ballot box and vote for a party for a bizarre reason.

 

For example, when I talk to real life people who aren't particularly interested in politics, they'll say things like "he looks nice" or "he's a Muslim" (in the case of Obama, which is obviously untrue). That's how they decided who to vote for: looks and lies. So I find it a bit disheartening to sit on the Internet and have reasoned debate, and then realise that an overwhelming majority of the population votes based on ridiculous reasons.

 

I'm not sure what to do about it.

 

 

Anyway, that has been a bit of a cynical aside. Feel free to continue your election talk :)

[Vezon Dash]

I hate it when people who don't live in America come and comment on this thread like they know what they are talking about or what is best for this country. Some of you guys genuinely do know, and I'm fine with that... However, the rest of you who keep trying to say that socializing healthcare is a good thing because it works in your country or in another country need to keep your fingers off of the keyboard. This program hurts those people who actually work for money and have healthcare provided to them through their work, and it will raise taxes more than any living soul wants to pay.

[Hawks]

I hate it when people who don't live in America come and comment on this thread like they know what they are talking about or what is best for this country. Some of you guys genuinely do know, and I'm fine with that... However, the rest of you who keep trying to say that socializing healthcare is a good thing because it works in your country or in another country need to keep your fingers off of the keyboard. This program hurts those people who actually work for money and have healthcare provided to them through their work, and it will raise taxes more than any living soul wants to pay.

Thank you!

 

Already with the garbage healthcare system we have had to pay $4,000 out of pocket for my medical stuffs. A DexCom Seven Plus system, which only lasts for one year, cost us $600 last year and cost us $1,300 this year. I can't get my test strips mailed to me anymore and have to go to the annoyance of getting them from my local pharmacy, and they cost way more than last year (for the same items). Plus my anti-depressant isn't directly covered (only preventative stuff is - ie things that prevent death [like insulin]) so we pay god knows what for that when last year it was $20 copay per prescription.

[Will H]

I hate it when people who don't live in America come and comment on this thread like they know what they are talking about or what is best for this country. Some of you guys genuinely do know, and I'm fine with that... However, the rest of you who keep trying to say that socializing healthcare is a good thing because it works in your country or in another country need to keep your fingers off of the keyboard. This program hurts those people who actually work for money and have healthcare provided to them through their work, and it will raise taxes more than any living soul wants to pay.

 

The existence of countries with socialised healthcare means that we don't have to resort to anecdotal evidence of how things could have been if we go in one direction or another. There's a common theme in American political history of the concept of "universal human rights" and how regardless of race, religion, gender or nationality, humans deserve some of the same basic needs. Determining what these needs are does not remain exclusively in the realm of Americans.

 

We are saying that having to have your healthcare provided via your work is not a fair or logical system, it runs off the mentality that it only makes sense to bring a sick person back to health so they can continue working for you, instead of any appreciation of them as a human being. Everyone gets sick and injured regardless of whether or not they have money or a job, and having either of these things does not afford you more rights in this respect.

[Vezon Dash]

I hate it when people who don't live in America come and comment on this thread like they know what they are talking about or what is best for this country. Some of you guys genuinely do know, and I'm fine with that... However, the rest of you who keep trying to say that socializing healthcare is a good thing because it works in your country or in another country need to keep your fingers off of the keyboard. This program hurts those people who actually work for money and have healthcare provided to them through their work, and it will raise taxes more than any living soul wants to pay.

 

The existence of countries with socialised healthcare means that we don't have to resort to anecdotal evidence of how things could have been if we go in one direction or another. There's a common theme in American political history of the concept of "universal human rights" and how regardless of race, religion, gender or nationality, humans deserve some of the same basic needs. Determining what these needs are does not remain exclusively in the realm of Americans.

 

We are saying that having to have your healthcare provided via your work is not a fair or logical system, it runs off the mentality that it only makes sense to bring a sick person back to health so they can continue working for you, instead of any appreciation of them as a human being. Everyone gets sick and injured regardless of whether or not they have money or a job, and having either of these things does not afford you more rights in this respect.

 

That's the kicker though. If someone were in the position of running a company, I doubt that they would honestly give a shit about your employees. I sure wouldn't. As long as it is good business, it keeps people happy, and it makes me money, it wouldn't care. The thing is though, the healthcare provided by the government would be worse than what I get now, and chances are, it might even end up being more expensive in the long run.

[jasignhagj]

I hate it when people who don't live in America come and comment on this thread like they know what they are talking about or what is best for this country. Some of you guys genuinely do know, and I'm fine with that... However, the rest of you who keep trying to say that socializing healthcare is a good thing because it works in your country or in another country need to keep your fingers off of the keyboard. This program hurts those people who actually work for money and have healthcare provided to them through their work, and it will raise taxes more than any living soul wants to pay.

 

You know if your company doesn't have to pay for your healthcare, they can pay you a higher wage, right? A very large majority of those hard working people would be better off with a universal healthcare system in place, as the tax increase needed to pay for the system would be much lower than what they either already pay, or what they lose in wages through their employer putting them on a healthcare plan.

[Vezon Dash]

You know if your company doesn't have to pay for your healthcare, they can pay you a higher wage, right?

 

That's assuming that they would.

 

Personally, I would take a job that payed less and that gave me a good healthcare plan than one that payed more that didn't. It makes things much simpler and easier than doing it all yourself.

[champion]

The thing is though, the healthcare provided by the government would be worse than what I get now, and chances are, it might even end up being more expensive in the long run.

Could you back this up with some sources?

[jasignhagj]

You know if your company doesn't have to pay for your healthcare, they can pay you a higher wage, right?

 

That's assuming that they would.

 

There's no guarantee that they would. They could just pocket the money, in the same way they could cut your salary by $5000 at any time. However, if they want to stay competitive in the job market, they wouldn't do that. Hopefully you also have union that would help you receive the same compensation.

[Vezon Dash]

The thing is though, the healthcare provided by the government would be worse than what I get now, and chances are, it might even end up being more expensive in the long run.

Could you back this up with some sources?

 

No. Simply because the legislation has not yet been implemented, and the fact that I really do not care to make a blind guess as to how much healthcare will cost me in the future.

 

The truth is, I haven't had time to read the thousands of pages of the bill going in to what all it is going to cost me, and I really don't feel like doing so just to give you a solid answer.

 

 

However, I will tell you that things are quite reasonable the way they are, and I see absolutely no reason to change them.

[Will H]

I hate it when people who don't live in America come and comment on this thread like they know what they are talking about or what is best for this country. Some of you guys genuinely do know, and I'm fine with that... However, the rest of you who keep trying to say that socializing healthcare is a good thing because it works in your country or in another country need to keep your fingers off of the keyboard. This program hurts those people who actually work for money and have healthcare provided to them through their work, and it will raise taxes more than any living soul wants to pay.

 

The existence of countries with socialised healthcare means that we don't have to resort to anecdotal evidence of how things could have been if we go in one direction or another. There's a common theme in American political history of the concept of "universal human rights" and how regardless of race, religion, gender or nationality, humans deserve some of the same basic needs. Determining what these needs are does not remain exclusively in the realm of Americans.

 

We are saying that having to have your healthcare provided via your work is not a fair or logical system, it runs off the mentality that it only makes sense to bring a sick person back to health so they can continue working for you, instead of any appreciation of them as a human being. Everyone gets sick and injured regardless of whether or not they have money or a job, and having either of these things does not afford you more rights in this respect.

 

That's the kicker though. If someone were in the position of running a company, I doubt that they would honestly give a shit about your employees. I sure wouldn't. As long as it is good business, it keeps people happy, and it makes me money, it wouldn't care. The thing is though, the healthcare provided by the government would be worse than what I get now, and chances are, it might even end up being more expensive in the long run.

 

The company gives a shit about not losing their skilled workers to ill health for longer than is necessary, that's why they give healthcare instead of just higher salaries, it's all the same money from the company's point of view, they just give it in a way which implicitly helps themselves. However, this is not why healthcare should be given to people, and there's a certain amount of compassion that needs to be represented in the healthcare of all people.

 

You know if your company doesn't have to pay for your healthcare, they can pay you a higher wage, right?

 

That's assuming that they would.

 

Personally, I would take a job that payed less and that gave me a good healthcare plan than one that payed more that didn't. It makes things much simpler and easier than doing it all yourself.

 

Competition and the laws of Supply and Demand would ensure they would. Healthcare has a value, and it's subtracted from your wages. As I said, it's all the same money at the start.

[Vezon Dash]

 

You know if your company doesn't have to pay for your healthcare, they can pay you a higher wage, right?

 

That's assuming that they would.

 

Personally, I would take a job that payed less and that gave me a good healthcare plan than one that payed more that didn't. It makes things much simpler and easier than doing it all yourself.

 

Competition and the laws of Supply and Demand would ensure they would. Healthcare has a value, and it's subtracted from your wages. As I said, it's all the same money at the start.

 

Like I said though, it is all about the ease factor.

[champion]

The thing is though, the healthcare provided by the government would be worse than what I get now, and chances are, it might even end up being more expensive in the long run.

Could you back this up with some sources?

 

No. Simply because the legislation has not yet been implemented, and the fact that I really do not care to make a blind guess as to how much healthcare will cost me in the future.

Then why are you saying that it's going to be worse and more expensive in the first place? Are you basing your opinion on health care reform on your random guesses?

[Vezon Dash]

The thing is though, the healthcare provided by the government would be worse than what I get now, and chances are, it might even end up being more expensive in the long run.

Could you back this up with some sources?

 

No. Simply because the legislation has not yet been implemented, and the fact that I really do not care to make a blind guess as to how much healthcare will cost me in the future.

Then why are you saying that it's going to be worse and more expensive in the first place? Are you basing your opinion on health care reform on your random guesses?

 

I'm basing it off of what I have heard from other people.

[Hawks]

The thing is though, the healthcare provided by the government would be worse than what I get now, and chances are, it might even end up being more expensive in the long run.

Could you back this up with some sources?

See my post on the previous page. Not all of the legislation has come into effect, but some of it has and it has already had a profound impact on my healthcare costs. Contrary to what Obama said, the plan I had last year (a 'Cadillac' group plan given by a multinational corporation that I'm lucky enough to have my dad work for) is no longer, because it costs the company too much. Instead, we were given an option of a more expensive PPO or a high-deductible plan. We chose the high deductible because we knew it would work out better for us because I'm constantly racking up costs [type 1 diabetes - chronic illness]. Our [family? not 100% sure] deductible is $6,000. Last year's was $100 per person - I met it and my brother did due to an ankle injury; sure, we had a $20 copay at most appointments, but much less opportunity for a huge and horrible accident to throw our finances down the toilet.

 

Sure, we don't have to pay for preventative care, but under this definition, the only prescriptions covered are those that directly prevent death - diabetes and asthma/breathing meds for the most part. Things like antidepressants are not covered and have a higher copay than they had on my previous plan (when everything had a copay).

 

Direct example: My DexCom system needs to be replaced once a year. Last year our copay was $600. This year we had to buy the thing outright due to the deductible, $1300; even without the deductible insurance would have covered less of it, even though it's the same company (different policy).

 

Definitely resulting in more money spent by my family and by the company on the insurance all to cater to some stupid legislation that really doesn't make sense when you look at the results.

 

Imo the only country that has a functional national healthcare system is Germany, and they have a sliding scale and options for companies to buy to provide insurance, much better and different than the Canada/UK thing that leaves holes for many people [i know of at least 3 people who had to fight to get an insulin pump, something that is basically given with most US insurance companies]. I don't live in Germany so I haven't experienced it but I've heard the fewest complaints about it and the structure is sound.

[champion]

See my post on the previous page. Not all of the legislation has come into effect, but some of it has and it has already had a profound impact on my healthcare costs. Contrary to what Obama said, the plan I had last year (a 'Cadillac' group plan given by a multinational corporation that I'm lucky enough to have my dad work for) is no longer, because it costs the company too much.

 

How is this a result of any health care bills/policies that Obama has passed? (I'm not implying it's not, I'm just trying to learn.)

[Hawks]

The reason the company switched plans is because they'd be taxed ridiculously if they kept the plan that we were happy with:

The Act's provisions are intended to be funded by a variety of taxes and offsets. Major sources of new revenue include a much-broadened Medicare tax on incomes over $200' date='000 and $250,000, for individual and joint filers respectively, an annual fee on insurance providers, and a 40% excise tax on "Cadillac" insurance policies. There are also taxes on pharmaceuticals, high-cost diagnostic equipment, and a 10% federal sales tax on indoor tanning services. Offsets are from intended cost savings such as changes in the Medicare Advantage program relative to traditional Medicare.[/quote']

yeah, it's from wikipedia but it's true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act

Also the FSA we had was basically wrecked because we can only put $2500 untaxed a year into it.

[sees_all1]

Found this article on why Obamacare is an absolutely atrocious piece of legislation, from the standpoint of freedom.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/absolutely-infantilizing-dr-keith-ablow-explains-psychological-impact-of-health-care-ruling-to-megyn-kelly/

[champion]

"To treat the American public as though they are preadolescent slingshots them back that way psychologically, so that they say to themselves: 'my decision-making capacity isn't so good. After all, if I don't do what they tell me, I'm going to be fined for it, and it seems that we voted this in…'"

 

Looks like the American public might just need to grow up and realize there's more to judging your decision-making abilities and self-worth than how your government allows you to buy health insurance. While Ablow might have a point that it might reduce some of money's virtual/metaphorical value to some Americans, he just gets ridiculous after that. Tens of million of Obama's "adult children" taking to the streets rioting because apparently they've lost sight of reality due to a new health care law? Really?

[Quyneax]

Found this article on why Obamacare is an absolutely atrocious piece of legislation, from the standpoint of freedom.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/absolutely-infantilizing-dr-keith-ablow-explains-psychological-impact-of-health-care-ruling-to-megyn-kelly/

That guy is not a scientist, not a great psychologist and he definitely doesn't understand how the world works if he really believes what he's saying. He's just making stuff up and coasting on his degree (which, I must admit, more 'celebrity' psychologists do).

 

If there's one thing I hate, it's people posing as scientists in a debate, especially psychologists, sociologists and the like because it's so damn hard to disprove them convincingly - for physicists you can just do the math, but it doesn't work that way for the social sciences (and psychology).

 

Just to set things straight (especially in the context of the US): longer prison sentences do not reduce crime rates compared to lower sentences, harsher regimes (e.g. solitary) do not lower crime rates compared to regimes (based on therapy and re-socialization), and jail time is expensive enough that therapy and re-socialization pay for themselves for the most part. The US, with an incredibly high percentage of prisoners, should learn from this >.>.

^Bit of a random note, but it's incredibly annoying to know there are so many people in prison for comparatively tiny offences, where the cost of keeping them in jail exceeds the damage done by the crime.