a rabble-rousing plant from the health insurance companies

Well, many of them are just that. Two things, though: first, the plants get to speak, too.

Second, and much more amusingly, the Dems did the exact same thing back in 2005 when the issue under debate was Social Security Reform via a number of methods, one of which was a "privitization" option (letting people play the market with their social security money, the same way we do with our 401ks--mine's doing great, btw, market implosion not withstanding). Bus loads of paid union members were trucked into various August 2005 town hall meetings on the topic, where they (surprise, surprise) shouted down politicians and fellow citizens alike with their false, canned talking points--oftentimes, these people weren't even from the same STATE as the congressman hosting the event, much less from his district.

But Astroturf is "unAmerican" when the shoe is on the other foot? HA!

I've amended my views somewhat, Lecter. I'm not anti-gun so much as I'm anti-idiot. And idiots with tools to make being themselves easier is something I'm against. If you're an idiot, you really don't have the right to get deadly weapons, much less a government job that provides you with said weapons.

Guns are not very different from a breaker bar I have in my car or the hand-to-hand skills my stepdad has, except in the fact that anyone with basic coordination can use them; You don't need to strength to swing objects, nor the skill/time needed to learn martial techniques.

As for the Libertarian Party, it's a joke at the moment. Much like most of the third parties, they simply don't get how to pitch their idea to the wide spectrum of people. Right now is a perfect time to, at the very least, garner a large percentage of the vote and affect the political platform of the Major Two Parties (which is how it usually works).

As a sidenote, I'm all for what the Democrats are doing *in theory and in its basest form*, which is help people. Difference is, when I help people, it's all by my choice. Who I help, how I want to help them and if I just walk away. I've seen bums begging for money for food, gone to buy food for them and get angry stares and stomping off simply because they didn't really want food. Other times, people are happy and gobble it up. It's my way of weeding the lowlife lechers who want to use my money for a crack fix from the people who actually need.

Funny enough, I'll pay for a guy's 40 if he's at least honest with me ;)

You don't need to strength to swing objects, nor the skill/time needed to learn martial techniques.

You do understand that that's an argument that cuts strongly in both directions, no?

Also, while I'm not in favor of arming anyone who happens to want a gun, fundamental human rights (free speach, self-defense, procreation, etc.) are unfortunately difficult to deny on the "we know it when we see it" basis. There are plenty of parents to be that I know for a fact would better serve the world be being forcibly sterilized. Sadly, even though statistics say kids from those sorts of homes will go on to commit horrific crimes at X times the average rate, we can't just tie her tubes.

It's so cute you think that you're "for what the Democrats are doing *in theory and in its basest form*... help people"! "Oh man, don't tar me with that whole communalist/socalist brush. I just think it's groovy to, you know, help people, dude." Sure, who can argue with that.

But if you don't understand the enormous difference between charity and well-intentioned theft, you really need to take a close look at what it is you're "for." I, too, think I have a lot of great ideas that would make the world a better place. The difference is that I'm not so insuffrably arrogant as to think I can vote for measures to forcibly implement those ideas at the expense of the minority's money.

Well, that is the liberal line isn't it? In it's most extreme forms, the Left wants to equalize the population (socialism), the Right wants to let skill/work decide (hardcore capitalism).

Like most Americans, I just have a mix of views. I think the government needs to be involved and/or run certain basic things (Left-idea), but needs to keep from infringing on rights by forcing what should be optional things (Right-idea), while figuring out how you'll get the money to pay for X before implementing it (Sane-but-not-very-popular-idea).

For example, Social Security in regards to Old Age benefits. You should be saving for your own retirement on your own, not forced to do so by the government. Companies and even banks have voluntary auto-save deductions where X amount you dictate gets transferred to an IRA or savings account per month, that should be good enough.

Funny sidenote, I seem to remember a quote about The Big Deal package: The things that were meant to last a long time disappeared and the things meant to be temporary are still ongoing.

As an Alaskan, I am sorry we gave you Palin. We could've warned you she is nuts and without equal as one of the most mentally unstable people out there.

I think the critical problem right now with the Republican Party is that there is no single "party" anymore. It's become an absolute anarchist nightmare. The "Ultra-Conservatives" are attacking the "Conservatives" who attack the "Moderates" who call both the others "Neocons".

It's a bad sign for any party, when your spokesperson becomes such a polarizing figure as Rush Limbaugh has become. When the opposition party tells the general public to listen to him, because they KNOW it will cause moderates to shy from you, then you have a major problem.

Now the Democratic party is slowly collapsing over the healthcare bill itself. In the words of William Rivers Pitt, "the sniper fire of the past week has fallen out into outright ground warfare".

An article people should read: http://www.truthout.org/081009A

Another good source of news that at least maintains some neutrality: www.truthout.org

Again i find myself agreeing with lecter. once you start forcing whatever desicion down anybody's throat, it's a slippery slope to total fascism (no, not the same as Nazism, Nazism is a form of fascism). I don't want the gov't deciding 'whats best for me'. They can't even deliver a letter without fouling it up and costing too much. In fact, I want the federal gov't to do only a few things, run the military, secure the borders, and maybe manage the national parks. Everything else, should he a state or local matters.

I liked how they are now having separate entrances at some of these town hall meetings for SCIU members, little different than the brown shirts, these just happen to be purple. When im less tired ill post a link to some sciu thugs beating down some dude for i forget what right now.

oh give this a read
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/08/11/little-girl-at-obama-town-hall-has-not-so-random-political-connections/

"Many of us are. But it can't come from the Left, which is philosophically committed to Helping Everyone Be OK Through Government Assistance."

No, "The Left" is philosophically committed to not having a government at all (because it stifles freedom), and hoping that everyone will be OK without it (because they can just help each other, right?), but the approach always seems to be "Hey, let's create this huge monopoly on everything and hope it goes away all on its own", which unsurprisingly fails every time (see Soviet Union), and why anyone would want to create one on purpose other than to control it themselves...

Funnily enough we do have NHS this side of the pond, and the US healthcare system is always used as a threat to justify pumping more money into it. Evidently both approaches are not very good as they both tend to artificially inflate the cost of healthcare with little or no extra benefit to the recipients of the service, i.e. inefficient.

This thread has a lot of "Obama is terrible" comments... could someone enlighten a non-American what he has done so far to deserve such comments?

I can only partially answer the question on what he's done that pisses people off.

Many of my friends who are deeply committed Democrats (the president's party) are quite depressed and upset with his actions in office. His campaign included a lot of high-sounding rhetoric about changing just about everything on the far-left's laundry list. After taking office, however, it appears to many people that his campaign promises were largely empty.

For instance: gays in the military are still subject to the "Don't ask. Don't tell." policy despite contrary promises.

Guantanamo Bay prison has *not* been closed yet.

There's a troop surge in Afghanistan, though he got the US out of Iraq. Most people complained about a *war* in general, not just Iraq.

Many of the Executive Office practices used by Bush have not been done away with and are even being used by him (basically, it's a method by which the president decides which parts of a bill he will enforce and which he won't).

There may be some more, but that's what I think a lot of belly-aching comes from.

As for why the Right doesn't like him... well... I don't know that much has changed from before the election. In my estimation, Obama's playing the center far more than his campaign rhetoric/image handlers had many people believing. Which is fine by me. But I'm an independent and I don't hold allegiance to any party.

Hope that helps.

Eeep regarding gays in the military, I didn't know it was still an issue... that is both backward and surprising! Here it is illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation, I always assumed it was the same in US!

Guantanamo bay is closing Soon (tm), the repercussions of things being done to close it are already being felt here as far up as the parliament, where the current government (Labour) is now in trouble for not only helping US out by providing transport to/from the place but also for sending their own "terror" suspects that way. Essentially it is a large multinational operation that has been going for years, so it can not be just closed overnight, and it is more than just the Americans that have to do things about it. Give him time till the next election... it will resemble something that is closed by then.

As for Afghanistan, the war has been going on for well over 100 years there (with some short breaks), you joined in late, as always, but welcome in, you are here to stay. Iraq is different, it is a "proper" country where people remember what it is like to live at a time that is not war, have infrastructure, functioning industry, schools, universities, etc. You can not reasonably compare the two countries. If Obama promised to pull out of Afghanistan before his term finished he was clearly joking... as such a statement is laughable.

Your president is allowed to overrule the rest of the government on a whim? That does sound scary and I think (hope) there would be riots here if something like that was attempted.

(Here Obama would be considered moderate-right, not left... Of course you are Americans, and so consider right to be left, far-right to be the centre, and ultra-right to be right. Labels don't usually matter all that much, but such a labelling does demonstrate an unusual fixation with only a small part of the political spectrum)

Anyhow, those are mostly things he has *not* done... has he actually *done* something that offends his electorate?

Yes. I voted for him and regret it every day.

He's spent massive amounts of money on "saving" an auto industry that, for thirty plus years, has had the chance to adapt to earn money but has simply refused to. He's spent massive amounts of money on a banking system that collapsed under its own weight of greed with little to no punishment of those involved. He's trying to, in essence, begin the nationalization of healthcare when the government cannot even take care of senior citizens right through Medicare. And, of, by the way, did I mention that this is on top of the money being spent on The War? So it's Bush Level spending + Democrat spending, and everyone seems disinterested in the fact that soon we're in serious danger of being worse off than most countries. We're America the invincible, right, that could never happen to us... we'll just print more money! It seems to be an extension of the Democrat ideal; "We'll save you you poor thing, but in return, you have to be my pet slave, since you're clearly too stupid to even drink water without choking on it".

Also, the industries the government pumped money into the government now has majority stakes in. The US owns 51%+ of a good number of auto and banking companies, and these would be large global corporations, not tiny neighborhood banks.

Finally, it pisses me off to no end that the "Scare tactics" rhetoric constantly comes up. Ever since the line "Don't cave to the scare tactics of the Republican party; Vote for change" was used with massive success to blind people. Now, it's like Apple Inc; If you don't own an Apple, you're stupid and not part of the cool crowd (everyone point and laugh!). If you're not for Obama, you're clearly a low-brow scary neocon and not part of the cool crowd.

All these, and more (and there is more), adds up to why Obama has spent more in six months than Bush spent in eight years and why Obama has a lower approval rating than Bush did at six months into office (mind you, it's August now. 911 hasn't happened yet). He's more hated than Bush was, but he's just too ignorant to see it.

I'm going to avoid using the term "liberal" or "liberals" to avoid any confusion between the American democrat party, which are now starting to call themselves "progressives", and the "classical liberals", which are the rough equivalent of today's libertarians and political conservatives.

What is today in the united states commonly thought of as the left or in extremes the left wing, are largely modern progressives. Often they are also called liberals which is really more of a misnomer.

Libertarians on the other hand, which as far as I can find are the closes thing to true "classical liberals", are often considered to be rightist by most, except for the really hard line social conservatives.

When you say "No, "The Left" is philosophically committed to not having a government at all (because it stifles freedom), and hoping that everyone will be OK without it" It just sounds alot like classical liberalism, taken to it's logical extreme, anarchy.

The whole left/right thing has gotten very muddled, and I believe that is intentional, it makes decision making harder in a way, though sometimes, better if the result is more careful observation and research.

It seems however that the vast majority of the county is more interested in "American idol" or "insert reality show here" than what is actually happening to our county. With that in mind, whoever controls most of the media, and has the endorsement of pop culture, will generally come out on top. With so many of the Hollywood elite wanting to help the third world and the downtrodden (not necessarily a bad thing), the trend is going to be towards progressives, and the American left.

The problem is, as i see it, when you make the poor comfortable, they continue to be poor. Moreover, you make them dependent upon you, and in a way, slaves to you. If you let them feel a little pain, it might motivate them to pick themselves up, and try harder.

That is why I am mostly libertarian, as long as you don't manage to hurt anybody else, I don't care what you do, drink antifreeze for all I care. You have the right to succeed or fail as you please. The one thing I break with libertarians with is drugs, only because crack addicts, when they can't afford more crack, will try and steal for it. If not for that, I'd have no problem with it, as long as they keep corpses off the roads so i can get by, I really couldn't give a shit. It is, or was, their life, and their choice.

When I hear things like being forced onto the government welfare rolls, it sickens me. Granted I am currently collecting un-employment, but that will run out, long before I come close to taking out what I've paid into in in taxes, which I would rather have kept in the first place to save or fritter at my own risk.

Hehe. Ever since the incident, I like referring to him as:
Barack "I won" Obama. Great moment that.

Oh yeah, the current rhetoric, however, is that you're un-American if you want to disagree with the current party line, or some such rubbish. The Dems are really pissing a lot of people off lately.

I like to compare Obama to the newb VO player who starts playing, does OK against some bots, thinks he's all badass and goes down to B-8 and gets owned by pirates. Repeatedly.

In this case, the pirates represent the entrenched Washington political power structure, of which he is not a part.

My major problem with Obama is that he thinks that more government is the solution to every problem, when in reality, LESS government is a better solution in almost every case. I'm with LNH, the U.S. federal government should be responsible for a very few things such as national defense, foreign policy, and epic disaster response. Let the states and local government do everything else. Federal government social programs are killing this country. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, all these bailouts, and now this healthcare thing - my entire paycheck will be going straight to the government. Why work? I should leech off the government for the rest of my life and let other Americans pay for all of my housing, food, and healthcare.

(Until everyone has that attitude, then we're screwed. HA.)

Oh, and DBZ, in the immortal words of Eric Cartman, "Democrats Piss Me Off."

Sorry Leebs, but I noticed you made a couple errors in your statement. I went ahead and edited them for you. You can thank me later.

My major problem with Obama is that he thinks that more government is the solution to every problem, when in my opinion LESS government is a better solution in almost every case.

There, that's better.

Snax_28: Well, that is his opinion by definition. :-)

moldyman: I see, thanks.

LNH: That is classical socialism taken to its logical extreme: anarchy. Any system that strives for social equality is inherently incompatible with the idea of a state. You are correct that the idea of left/right is muddled beyond making sense, and a description of a party/movement based on a direction is far more appropriate.

"The problem is, as i see it, when you make the poor comfortable, they continue to be poor. Moreover, you make them dependent upon you, and in a way, slaves to you. If you let them feel a little pain, it might motivate them to pick themselves up, and try harder."

Yes but, many people are not poor by choice, but through being born that way (and not yet being old enough to be anything else), or being disabled, or being old, or there not being sufficient jobs available for them to be productive. Lives are pretty shitty for an awful lot of people, and I can not just sit in my high castle and claim that the great unwashed masses below somehow deserve to be that way.

We are a herd specie, and are all interdependent on each other. Some people are just incapable of matching their contribution to society to a level that would satisfy basic demand, so it is my responsibility, as someone of above average mental ability and health, to ensure my surplus of wealth is able to close that gap.

Granted, forcing you to help me is plain wrong... it not so much makes poor people slaves to you, as it makes you a slave to poor people.

Antz, i think you have the definition of socialism, and classical liberalism switched, please consult a dictionary.

As for not being poor by choice, I can sympathize, my grandfather started out with nothing, first generation in this country from Poland, he and his father squatting at times, burning what ever little he could find for heat. By the end of the second world war, which he was a bit too young to serve in, he and an older gentleman had opened up their own store making and selling public address systems, they would scrounge old junk and figure out how to make what the customer wanted with what they could find. Then he became a carpenter building homes. By the time of his passing, he was more than a little well off, not through being some kind of super genius, though he was rather inventive. But through hard work and determination.

That being said, yes their are people too stupid to earn a living, that is sad, but it is a part of evolution.

Look, you seem to confuse the notion of being poor yet having the means to enrich your life and better your position in society, with the notion of being poor and trapped in a life/lifestyle that you have no realistic chance of escaping. They are two very, very different things. While your grandfather quite possibly encountered difficult societal barriers in his quest for survival, it's quite different from someone born into poverty with the added difficulties of mental or physical impairment. More so mental illness, given the staggeringly high rate of undiagnosed cases (physical impairment being relatively obvious); cases where any hindrance to health care access only compounds the problem.

Fun stat #1: Canada spends less of our GDP on health care than the US. Go figure:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/francis/archive/2009/05/12/health-care-lies-about-canda.aspx

Fun stat #2: That's a link from our right wing national paper :P

Thanks Snax_28!

LNH, I did one better, I consulted the en.wikipedia.org.
Socialism taken to its logical conclusion is communism.
Communism is by definition a stateless system. That statement is only amusing because of the amount of epic fail communists have exhibited trying to get rid of the government over the years.

The biggest difference between classical liberalism and socialism that I found, when both systems are taken to their logical extreme, is the economic model proposed by each system.

The difference in itself stems from this apparent difference in the reasoning: Classical liberalism states that everyone should be free to do what they wish as long as it does not interfere with what others are doing, which includes building up wealth.

Communism likewise states that everyone should be free to do what they wish as long as long as it does not interfere with what others are doing, but also states that this can only be achieved if people can not exploit each other, and the only way to achieve that is for everyone to have equal power over one another. It further goes to assume that wealth == power, which leads to a conclusion that unequal wealth leads to exploitation and loss of freedom, and therefore to maximise freedom one must equalise wealth.

Anyway, getting back on topic, Fun Stat #3: UK spends half the GDP on healthcare than the US:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8202684.stm
EIDT: If that link does not work for you as you guys don't pay for TV license try this instead: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8201711.stm

Fun fact #1: and Stephen Hawking is British:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6017878/Stephen-Hawking-I-would-not-be-alive-without-the-NHS.html

I was amused to read reports that he would be dead if he was to be treated by the NHS :-)

A) I don't have healthcare insurance, have never had healthcare insurance and probably won't for a while. I'm part of the 45 million uninsured. And I do so by choice, not because I'm poor (though I am), but because I have a good head on my shoulders and can avoid 99% that which plagues most Americans with IQs below 75. I will be supremely pissed if a bill passes that tells me I have to spend thousands a year on health insurance I do not use, or get fined thousands of dollars which will be used to pay for SOMEONE ELSE'S healthcare and not mine.

Now, dental and eye care insurance I would pay for, because those are both things I need regularly.

B) Duh America spends more of our GDP on healthcare. It's quite easy when your system is not regulated/controlled by the government. When government sets the price, that's the price, however unrealistic it may(always) be. When business sets the price, the price is the maximum price a customer will pay without balking and going someplace else for the product/service. It's the nature of capitalism. And regulation, or a government health option, is not the answer, not the way that has been proposed anyway.

C) In general, Americans are of two minds: They want the government to do more, and yet do it for free OR They want the government to stay the hell out of their lives, including taxes. Not really sustainable, either mentality. Then again, I don't trust the US Government to govern either. We don't have an aristocracy, but we do have a political class.

Also, does anyone have a link to information about healthcare bill? All I get is propaganda from either side and no concrete facts or quotations from the bill.

In regards to "C"...

Those numbers regarding the expenditure of Health Care in relation to said country's GDP are government expenditures. Not the sum total of money spent in the health care sector by both private a government entities. The story they tell is that, in countries such as Canada and the UK, we get much, much more bang for our buck. For whatever reason that is.

And in regards to "A"...

If the system being being proposed is anything like the one in Canada, then if you truly are one of the great unwashed molyman, you won't pay for your insurance. In Canada there is a cutoff of for paying premiums (and I'm most likely wrong on the number here) somewhere in the region of $20,000 a year. Essentially right along the poverty line. Any less, you don't pay any premiums, any higher, and your premiums go up relatively to your salary.