Ok so here is the bill for your beloved healthcare plan.

Congressional Analysts: Senate Finance Health Care Bill Will Cost $829 Billion

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/07/health.care/index.html

the bill passed today

w00t w00t.

oh, and:

Quote :

It also would reduce the federal deficit by more than $80 billion, according to a report from the Congressional Budget Office.

yeaaaah. if you don't approve of it, then you're a communist. and we all know what happens to communists...

Yea.... I want them to say that in a couple of years. These health care bills never stay the same price and we all know it. It only gets more expensive.

BobShark wrote:

Yea.... I want them to say that in a couple of years. These health care bills never stay the same price and we all know it. It only gets more expensive.

I'm pretty sure that those genius guys that calculated the stuff took that into consideration based on trends over the past 20 years regarding the increase in cost for healthcare.

I hope your being sarcastic.

What people don't understand about this whole free health care shit is that we DON'T have the money for these things.
If we had the money and used our health care wisely then yes, we should most def have free health care.
But people in this country are retarded and would be like "oh hai, free healthcare? I have a sore throat today, I'm going to the hospital and I'm gunna get there early so that people that are much more sick will just have to wait in line behind me because I was there first.
People ALREADY do that, they're gunna do it even more with free health care.
If we were to raise taxes, then we could have free health care but of course, no one wants higher taxes, they just want everything to be free.
I don't approve of free health care.
Call me a communist, idgaf.

You can't be a communist....you're a Nazi.

BobShark wrote:

You can't be a communist....you're a Nazi.

I only said that because Slurry said "yeaaaah. if you don't approve of it, then you're a communist. and we all know what happens to communists..."
And no, I'm not a Nazi either -_-

Government cannot give anything free because government does not have anything.

To me, the problem with our health care system today is not the free market for which is falsely accused. Corporatism and the increase in insurance availability effects the prices of health care itself.

So what I'm getting at is, we cannot give what we don't have, and definitely cannot buy when we(The Government) have no money.

Are we going to continue to seek government solutions (which through out the years have only created more problems) or are we going to seek the alternative solution?

Raising taxes to pay for healthcare that you would've already had (except previously, you were paying more) isn't a big deal.

Hasta la victoria siempre
o/ el Ché

Ah Che can suck it.

You can suck it. Ché is probably one of the best people to ever live, being beaten by people like Muhammad, Jesus, Abraham, moar Bible figures, and FDR.

a commie is a commie

Keep your money in my Pet Banks. It is the proper way of saving money for taxes and Health-care.

BobShark wrote:

a commie is a commie

El Ché was a socialist. Socialist=/=communist. Therefore, you logic is flawed.

It is no difference to me. Both extremely flawed economic and political systems.

BobShark wrote:

It is no difference to me. Both extremely flawed economic and political systems.

Funny, I thought you were talking about socialism and communism, but it appears to be that you're talking about capitalism and communism.

Call it flawed, call it whatever you want, but for me and plenty of other people, it's the best form of government around--almost none.

I find that a ridiculous view shared by many. I do not believe a system that denies incentive, innovation and information can be considered "best". Before this turns into a further argument I just want to say, this is my view -_-.

Socialism gives power to the government. Capitalism has one important difference. Freedom (a fact acknowledged by socialists that I personally know). Now before you try to compare the US economic system to socialism, take note that Capitalism within the United States is barely even capitalism at all. It has been tainted with government involvement and (like i stated before ) corporatism.

Of course capitalism is not perfect (because no system is) but I believe it is better by means of Standard of Living, and Prosperity.

Whig > All other parties

/thread

@first paragraph: fair enough. I respect other people's political views, as long as they aren't regurgitating what they've been told by adults/politicians.

BobShark wrote:

Socialism gives power to the government.

I'm going to stop you right there because socialism does not give power to the government. Socialism is rule by the people. So unless you refer to the citizens of a country as the government, you're pretty wrong.

Unless you were thinking of communism. Communism is when a nice little group of people takes control of a socialist country and forces things to be their way--you can look to the USSR for a good example. Communist governments take control of everything. Socialist "governments" don't; rather, they let the people choose nearly everything. The only thing they choose is things like foreign relations, war things, etc.--stuff that citizens wouldn't be able to handle on their own.

There is not, and has not been, one single true pure socialist government in any country.

Oh good God, Ive heard Matthews fairy tale stories of a great socialist country. Thats not gonna happen and never will.

and please do not make your own definition for the word Socialism. Socialism has never meant rule by the people. Your mistaking that with the word Democracy.
Also, It is not a political system it is an economic system. If you need me to find some definitions for socialism I will love to do so.

BobShark wrote:

Oh good God, Ive heard Matthews fairy tale stories of a great socialist country. Thats not gonna happen and never will.

and please do not make your own definition for the word Socialism. Socialism has never meant rule by the people. Your mistaking that with the word Democracy.
Also, It is not a political system it is an economic system. If you need me to find some definitions for socialism I will love to do so.

That's funny, because political standpoints are subjective towards the person who holds or is against said political standpoint.

You see, the average American would call what we have a democracy, when in fact we do not--this is my opinion. I'll use Bush as an example--he lost the popular vote (meaning the people didn't want him to be president!) but still won and became president. The electoral college is what really picks the president. They're expected to vote with who the people picked, but they don't have to--and they don't always do, obviously.

Furthermore, I mentioned that they're subjective. I'm quiet positive that Hitler didn't view himself as a terrible leader--yet most people view fascism as a terrible form of government. Stalin most likely didn't think himself a bad leader--but most people did. In the same way is socialism. Most people, like yourself, view it as bad and whatnot. I personally view it as the bset possible form of government if done correctly. Which is where my (quote) "own definition for the word Socialism" comes into play. I take the basis of socialism and adapt it to a way that will work. The rich are taxed higher (a few extra percent), the middle class are taxed normally, and the lower class is taxed lower (a few less percent). Why? Because, say, 10% of someone that makes a ton of money doesn't fuck them over as much as 10% of someone that makes next to nothing. Sure, the poor person is taxed less money, but that money could be the difference between food for the week or not.

In the same way can one turn any economic, religious, social, or whatever other type of thought process into a form of government or rule. In ancient China, they turned the Confucian thought system into the basis of their government. In the same way can I turn socialism, an economic system, into a form of government. You simply take the basis of the system (equality) and adapt it to a government system. Well, that would mean that each person's vote is weighed equally, rather than having a group of guys that more or less pick the president without needing (note: they do not need to, but it's generally expected of them to) input from the citizens.

My thoughts are rather jumbled currently, as I've got a huge fucking mcheadache, so if I forgot to answer one of your points, feel free to point it out and I'll answer it. Or if I wasn't clear or didn't make sense, point that out and I'll reword it once my mcheadache goes away.

I need more popcorn.

Who will win?