Thank you Obama

Meatlocker wrote:

Scott wrote:

Meatlocker wrote:

Scott wrote:

It has NOTHING to do with it being related to "socialized" or "socialism"...

In fact I would love for everyone to have access to medical services 24/7... but IT'S NOT PRACTICAL WITH OUR CURRENT ECONOMY. On top of which I don't feel like paying for someone's medical expenses who doesn't work... and doesn't look for work. There are A LOT of lazy people over here...

And oh look... someone who thinks they know how I think... so European...

Buuuut Scott you already do pay for people's health care if they don't work. Doctor's are required to treat people who enter emergency rooms by law. If everyone chips in a little bit overall you will have to pay less and the government will have to deal with less of a free rider problem.

Uh.... less... you think... we'll pay less? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Poor little Meatlocker... no... we wont be paying less. And no... we don't cover THAT (the bold) directly. EMS centers get funded by their insurance company (the state gov)... which is where your taxes go... in part. When they start taxing us for healthcare... it doesn't lessen taxes... it only adds onto them. And who do you think pays these taxes... the freeriders? No... we do. Because it's one more thing they'll deduct from my fucking paycheck. I'm already never going to see all that money that I pay for SS.

Buuut Scott if you are no longer paying for health insurance and instead paying a much smaller monthly premium wouldn't you be paying less?

Because I want GOOD health insurance for me and my family... I pay top dollar for what we have now. A free healthcare system means I can't get certain things I get with my current plan. And when you don't have that plan... emergency and long term rehabilitation... costs more money than you'll ever pay into insurance now.

On top of which, I don't want the government MORE in my life than it already is (now that's more of personal preff). Our gov screw enough things up as is...

One thing that I would like to see... let's tax congress... they don't represent me well enough... and they don't do enough to earn tax relief.

Scott wrote:

It has NOTHING to do with it being related to "socialized" or "socialism"...

In fact I would love for everyone to have access to medical services 24/7... but IT'S NOT PRACTICAL WITH OUR CURRENT ECONOMY. On top of which I don't feel like paying for someone's medical expenses who doesn't work... and doesn't look for work. There are A LOT of lazy people over here...

How is Obama responsible for your shitty economy? Or people being lazy for that matter...

The UK has a (form of) socialized healthcare system (the NHS) and there's the same problem with people being too retarded and lazy to work (seriously, there's like families that are on benefits for three generations, none of their members have ever worked). Unfortunately there's little any government can do about that. A viable solution to fixing it is to give out healthcare only to people who work/have an income other than benefits but that's not gonna spin cause the minute that idea enters the room there's bound to be some group of people to start the 'They're forcing us to work!' shitstorm...

Bobabounty wrote:

We must not be on the same page... the definition of "socialized" is: To place under government or group ownership or control. Sounds oddly like communism/socialism, don't you agree?

Simply put, I was saying that no country that has adopted a form of communism or socialism has been able to live on for more than a century. Even so, the conditions of those countries are vastly different to those who live in capitalistic societies.

Making the people rely on the government for everything does not create a sustaining environment. The people are hooked on the government for help, but what if the government falls? The majority of people with no jobs, solely relying on the government, will become impoverished. In a capitalistic society, people have to work and attain jobs in order to make a living. They are self-sustaining, and can survive for the most part if a catastrophe strikes, economically or militarily.

I believe the key to solving this mess is to increase competition for insurance companies, and make more incentives to lower your prices or attain a number of people, and etc,. The state and the church can provide for those who are poverty-stricken, but the national government should have no say in ordering us to buy health care, or be forced onto a shitty government program.

I've color-coded this:

I've already given a basic explanation of Marxist socialism (the next phase of Marxism)- It's the people working (note-not the same meaning of 'working' under communism/Stalinism) towards the betterment of society. In comparison, communism is the people working (here we mean general labor, not so much intellectual contribution) for the betterment of the community (not the country as a whole, but the local community). Neither socialism or communism aims to place everything under government control. That's Stalinism- when one works his ass off for the supposed betterment of Stalin (the figurehead) who embodies the country. As I said- Stalinism is a cult, not a sociopolitical movement.
The concept of the government owning everything was developed to serve the Stalinist regime.

As I said, no country has successfully managed a socialist regime because you cannot simply skip over several decades of social and political factors. If there is a stable economic backbone (for which the successful adoption of capitalism is required, definitely not what the US has right now) to support the transition to an ideal socialist movement (as theorized by Marx and Engles) it could actually work.

And I'm not even gonna comment on the rest... (Read some articles or books on socialism, preferably not written by newspapers or journalists)

All I'm saying is (prepare to be shocked)- Socialism isn't that bad of an idea. The fact that it hasn't been implemented properly before is not to blame the idea itself, but rather the people trying to implement it.

When you're solving a math problem and get it wrong, you don't blame the numbers, do you?

Ban-Anad wrote:

Aaah yes, and here we see yet another typical American response- blame the President for everything...
Do tell, how is Obama responsible for your misfortunes?

Aaah yes, and here we see yet another typical friendly response from one of our UK neighbors acting like they know more about our country than we do. Do tell, what do you know about the condition our country is in (other than it's presumably bad)?

Meatlocker wrote:

Scott wrote:

Meatlocker wrote:

Scott wrote:

Uh.... less... you think... we'll pay less? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Poor little Meatlocker... no... we wont be paying less. And no... we don't cover THAT (the bold) directly. EMS centers get funded by their insurance company (the state gov)... which is where your taxes go... in part. When they start taxing us for healthcare... it doesn't lessen taxes... it only adds onto them. And who do you think pays these taxes... the freeriders? No... we do. Because it's one more thing they'll deduct from my fucking paycheck. I'm already never going to see all that money that I pay for SS.

Buuut Scott if you are no longer paying for health insurance and instead paying a much smaller monthly premium wouldn't you be paying less?

Because I want GOOD health insurance for me and my family... I pay top dollar for what we have now. A free healthcare system means I can't get certain things I get with my current plan. And when you don't have that plan... emergency and long term rehabilitation... costs more money than you'll ever pay into insurance now.

Buuut Scott how do you know if you don't have the government health care plan yet?

They're called quotes and information systems Meat...

Ban-Anad wrote:

Scott wrote:

It has NOTHING to do with it being related to "socialized" or "socialism"...

In fact I would love for everyone to have access to medical services 24/7... but IT'S NOT PRACTICAL WITH OUR CURRENT ECONOMY. On top of which I don't feel like paying for someone's medical expenses who doesn't work... and doesn't look for work. There are A LOT of lazy people over here...

How is Obama responsible for your shitty economy? Or people being lazy for that matter...

The UK has a (form of) socialized healthcare system (the NHS) and there's the same problem with people being too retarded and lazy to work (seriously, there's like families that are on benefits for three generations, none of their members have ever worked). Unfortunately there's little any government can do about that. A viable solution to fixing it is to give out healthcare only to people who work/have an income other than benefits but that's not gonna spin cause the minute that idea enters the room there's bound to be some group of people to start the 'They're forcing us to work!' shitstorm...

Obama ISN'T responsible for our shitty economy... nor did I say he was. And Obama ISN'T responsible for lazy people. Obama is responsible for pushing free healthcare on an economy that wont take it.

Ryan wrote:

Ban-Anad wrote:

Aaah yes, and here we see yet another typical American response- blame the President for everything...
Do tell, how is Obama responsible for your misfortunes?

Aaah yes, and here we see yet another typical friendly response from one of our UK neighbors acting like they know more about our country than we do. Do tell, what do you know about the condition our country is in (other than it's presumably bad)?

I know that blaming the President, a figurehead that has limited powers and authority, doesn't help your condition much...


And to be honest, I can be equally arbitrary for the UK... Things aren't really that peachy here either and people are blaming everything from the Greeks and Muslims to Martians...
But we don't blame the Queen... (though the Prime Minister does take a lot of shit)

Scott wrote:

Obama ISN'T responsible for our shitty economy... nor did I say he was. And Obama ISN'T responsible for lazy people. Obama is responsible for pushing free healthcare on an economy that wont take it.

How exactly is Obama responsible for the Senate voting on his suggestions? He's a figurehead (i.e- can't really force you into anything), not Supreme Fucking Leader...

Ban-Anad wrote:

Ryan wrote:

Ban-Anad wrote:

Aaah yes, and here we see yet another typical American response- blame the President for everything...
Do tell, how is Obama responsible for your misfortunes?

Aaah yes, and here we see yet another typical friendly response from one of our UK neighbors acting like they know more about our country than we do. Do tell, what do you know about the condition our country is in (other than it's presumably bad)?

I know that blaming the President, a figurehead that has limited powers and authority, doesn't help your condition much...


And to be honest, I can be equally arbitrary for the UK... Things aren't really that peachy here either and people are blaming everything from the Greeks and Muslims to Martians...
But we don't blame the Queen... (though the Prime Minister does take a lot of shit)

Scott wrote:

Obama ISN'T responsible for our shitty economy... nor did I say he was. And Obama ISN'T responsible for lazy people. Obama is responsible for pushing free healthcare on an economy that wont take it.

How exactly is Obama responsible for the Senate voting on his suggestions? He's a figurehead (i.e- can't really force you into anything), not Supreme Fucking Leader...

RESPONSIBLE FOR PUSHING FREE HEALTHCARE... what part of that is hard to understand. It's a president pushing something that wont work... on it's country. And the President is NOT a figurehead... he has a third the fucking vote and military at his command. I think we can all remember a president that proved this.

Ban, I thought you were really American? But you were in London for skewl.

This thread shouldn't even be about politics in the first place.

Ryan wrote:

This thread shouldn't even be about politics in the first place.

You're right... I apologize... I just don't agree with our current president's policies. I'm done arguing...

Hey Branch... how are things?

Scott wrote:

Ban-Anad wrote:

Ryan wrote:

Aaah yes, and here we see yet another typical friendly response from one of our UK neighbors acting like they know more about our country than we do. Do tell, what do you know about the condition our country is in (other than it's presumably bad)?

I know that blaming the President, a figurehead that has limited powers and authority, doesn't help your condition much...


And to be honest, I can be equally arbitrary for the UK... Things aren't really that peachy here either and people are blaming everything from the Greeks and Muslims to Martians...
But we don't blame the Queen... (though the Prime Minister does take a lot of shit)

Scott wrote:

Obama ISN'T responsible for our shitty economy... nor did I say he was. And Obama ISN'T responsible for lazy people. Obama is responsible for pushing free healthcare on an economy that wont take it.

How exactly is Obama responsible for the Senate voting on his suggestions? He's a figurehead (i.e- can't really force you into anything), not Supreme Fucking Leader...

RESPONSIBLE FOR PUSHING FREE HEALTHCARE... what part of that is hard to understand. It's a president pushing something that wont work... on it's country. And the President is NOT a figurehead... he has a third the fucking vote and military at his command. I think we can all remember a president that proved this.

But didn't he push his healthcare suggestions before the world entered this whole economic shitstorm we're all in right now?
I mean, you can't really blame him- back when he started out, there was some chance it could have worked...

Gannicus wrote:

Ban, I thought you were really American? But you were in London for skewl.

What in Uly's several rather vulgar remarks of me being Bulgarian and me stating on several occasions of being from Bulgaria did you miss and made you think I was American?
Though you do have the rest correct...

Aaanyways... Enough about politics... I hate going into that field (though it's always fun arguing with you guys)...

Meatlocker wrote:

Scott wrote:

Ryan wrote:

This thread shouldn't even be about politics in the first place.

You're right... I apologize... I just don't agree with our current president's policies. I'm done arguing...

Hey Branch... how are things?

Buuut Scott Branch is offline.

I am going... to yank out your back molars next.

Meatlocker wrote:

Scott wrote:

Ryan wrote:

This thread shouldn't even be about politics in the first place.

You're right... I apologize... I just don't agree with our current president's policies. I'm done arguing...

Hey Branch... how are things?

Buuut Scott Branch is offline.

Just shut up...

Meatlocker wrote:

You sir, yes you. I like you.

Vulgar what? VULGAR NOTHING! Bulgario, lord of bulgavich? You can call me Amerigo, lord of ameriville, savior of the amerinites, slayer of the dreaded amerinatrix all you like...

Ulyaoth wrote:

Vulgar what? VULGAR NOTHING! Bulgario, lord of bulgavich? You can call me Amerigo, lord of ameriville, savior of the amerinites, slayer of the dreaded amerinatrix all you like...

I'm the Jesus of Suburbia.

Ulyaoth wrote:

Vulgar what? VULGAR NOTHING! Bulgario, lord of bulgavich? You can call me Amerigo, lord of ameriville, savior of the amerinites, slayer of the dreaded amerinatrix all you like...

Have you ever tried drinking caustic soda? I hear it's quite... invigorating...

Ryan wrote:

Meatlocker wrote:

You sir, yes you. I like you.