The American Politics Discussion Thread

Lishy said:

Very disappointed Gary Johnson did not get the 5% he needed for the Libertarian party to be recognized federally. I'm not going to comment on silly issues like healthcare or abortion or any of that political football. There are more important issues at hand, but a pokemon forum is not the place to discuss it.

Click to expand...

The health of a nations population is a silly matter! Not sure there is a more important issue than healthcare beside avoiding foreign conflict.

Doesn't matter who is elected in 2016, whether it be Gary Johnson or not if Congress can't get anything positive done for the nation!

Keiran777 said:

The health of a nations population is a silly matter! Not sure there is a more important issue than healthcare beside avoiding foreign conflict.

Click to expand...

Healthcare would not be a silly issue if the U.S. government wasn't violating our liberties more than any other Western country in the world.

It's like going to a drug dealer for prescription medication.

That may or may not be the best example, but our government tried to prosecute Julian Assange, putting him on the same level of Al-Qaeda. And Bradley Manning IS being prosecuted over the wikileaks fiasco!

So forget all the war crimes our military has done in Iraq and Afghanistan revealed by those documents. Our government only cares about prosecuting Bradley Manning? Not the person in a helicopter gunning down innocent Arabs?

Let's take this a step further. Did you know the federal government bans people from government-jobs if they read wikileaks? It's true. Now we're being punished for our first amendment rights for what is already in the public domain. Taking it a step further, we're being punished simply for "knowing too much". Don't you see there's something pretty messed up about that?

Healthcare in the United States is not just a silly issue, but also a STUPID issue! Because why should we trust our government who try to cover up the truth? Once you give them power over healthcare, how do we know they wont mandate treatments which are harmful for people? It's not like they even acknowledge the truth, so how can we trust them whatsoever?

Furthermore, once the federal government takes over healthcare, does that mean no doctor is allowed to read wikileaks? If the government continues to monopolize jobs after healthcare, does that mean they could censor any citizen they choose at the expense of his job?

Again, this is not just silly. It's stupid! Prosecute the crooks BEFORE they touch healthcare!

Let's get our priorities straight, people!

Mr. X said:

Yes, until they lost that is. After that, he suddenly didn't care about them.

Click to expand...

I grant that at least keep them active until everyone's back home. Beyond that though... campaign's over. Why keep them active? They should have given them 72 hours, beyond that nothing. Time to move on

As for Romney, Howard Stern tares him apart best:

youtu.be/YvvKvI3nr4k (Cannot post as url due to needing 15 posts...)

I also hear Romney stood for increasing the size of our military and attacking Iran. But imagine if Iran had a presidential candidate who ran on promises of attacking Israel? We would call them terrorists. There for I will not hesitate calling Mitt Romney a terrorist either!

Romney stood for no revolutionary ideals whatsoever. He never once preached to his supporters whatsoever about the crisis of our dissolving liberties. All he did is blame Democrats. (And I'm saying this as an independent who hates democrats too!)

Obama is not good either, but my god, Republicans must be borderline crazy if they voted Romney to go against Obama!

I hear Ron Paul polled best of any of the Republican candidates to go against Obama. But NOPE! Romney was more "electable" (establishment?) so even though Ron Paul was more capable of going against Obama they still voted Romney anyways because he is "electable" even though he polled bad against the president, BUT it didn't matter to republicans because he was "electable"?

I think Republicans deserve a terrorist like Romney if they are so deep into Stockholm's syndrome.

And yes, Romney is a terrorist. I explained in this very post why he is a terrorist.

Lishy said:

Healthcare in the United States is not just a silly issue, but also a STUPID issue! Because why should we trust our government who try to cover up the truth? Once you give them power over healthcare, how do we know they wont mandate treatments which are harmful for people? It's not like they even acknowledge the truth, so how can we trust them whatsoever?

Again, this is not just silly. It's stupid! Prosecute the crooks they touch healthcare!

Let's get our priorities straight, people!

Click to expand...

Right, well you wouldn't have military folks in charge of health care first off. Nor the government. "Obamacare" is private insurance. Just like car insurance, where you're mandated to have it. The government isn't taking over healthcare. They aren't supplying it or funding it. No changes in how it is administered. Unless your private insurance can mandate a treatment for you, you have nothing to worry about.

Neither would you for actual public health care. France, Germany, England, Canada - largely public/private partnerships. Coverage of different degrees depending on the country, but always there's private insurance to supplement it. There may be case where prices are regulated (Canada enforces what private doctors who accept the public plan may charge, for instance. As does England's NHS, but then there are also hospitals and clinics that will only accept private plans and they have see higher costs for the patient). Government doesn't perform surgery on you or give you medicine, it's just a way of having healthcare more affordable (not free. Pretty sure Germany is only long-term care. France is 70% coverage. Canada doesn't cover medicine. NHS lacks some specialized treatments and clinics. Your own pocket, or private insurance makes up the difference. Not free, just cheaper)

In the US, military gets coverage and elected officials get coverage. There's also medicare and medicaid. This isn't really foreign to the US. Just need to extend it and tailor it for the whole population.

TRIFORCE89 said:

In the US, military gets coverage and elected officials get coverage. There's also medicare and medicaid. This isn't really foreign to the US. Just need to extend it and tailor it for the whole population.

Click to expand...

Again, I'm not opposed to the idea of universal healthcare. However, the federal government has zero credibility. We should not be trusting them to extend healthcare until we set the liberties issue straight.

It's a trust issue more than anything else.

Lishy said:

Again, I'm not opposed to the idea of universal healthcare. However, the federal government has zero credibility. We should not be trusting them to extend healthcare until we set the liberties issue straight.

It's a trust issue more than anything else.

Click to expand...

But they're not actually doing... anything. What do you have to trust them with? That when you swipe your health card it actually works?

My beef is with bureaucracy and mismanagement. But, nothing malicious like you seem to be implying.

TRIFORCE89 said:

I grant that at least keep them active until everyone's back home. Beyond that though... campaign's over. Why keep them active? They should have given them 72 hours, beyond that nothing. Time to move on

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone would be upset if they had given 72 hours and a warning, or even just the rest of the night, as long as the people with the cards knew when it was. No one's saying to keep them active forever. o_O

@Lishy: It's kind of silly to argue that everything else needs to be fixed before we can try to get healthcare for everyone. It's not like the person who slipped and fell down the stairs and broke their arm can wait until we figure out every single other problem with our government. They need healthcare.

I won't deny that there are serious issues with our government; there have been serious issues probably since it began, and it will never be perfect and pushing for reform in instances of terrible things happening is a noble task. But once you get into the "government is the worst EVER you guys IT'S HIDING EVERYTHING KILL IT WITH FIRE" mentality you're getting off-track. The government runs the road systems, the DMV, libraries, they regulate drugs so you can be guaranteed to get the drug you're paying for and banks so they can't lend out your life savings and then lose it. That's just things I can think of off the top of my head. To start going on about how the government is terrible at everything and needs to be denied regulating healthcare seems to make massive generalizations and assumptions.

In addition, think of it the other way. The goal of private companies is to make money. The goal of private insurance companies? To make money. Not to help anyone. If they can drop someone for a profit, whether or not the person is sick and needs care, they will because it affects their bottom line. Why should they be given unrestricted control over the health of our citizens?

Toujours said:

In addition, think of it the other way. The goal of private companies is to make money. The goal of private insurance companies? To make money. Not to help anyone. If they can drop someone for a profit, whether or not the person is sick and needs care, they will because it affects their bottom line. Why should they be given unrestricted control over the health of our citizens?

Click to expand...

I wont deny there are flaws with the private insurance companies.

But I guarantee you, the next excuse to violate our liberties with what we do to our own bodies will be "..well society is paying for it!"

Also, why is healthcare a federal issue instead of state issue? It's like getting an electrician to fix your computer because he works with electricity. That's not to say the federal government hasn't already overstepped their boundaries, but why is this suddenly a federal issue? What is wrong with having it remain a state issue?

Because it's remained a state issue and people are still going without insurance because they can't afford it, avoiding going to the doctor and getting preventative care because they can't afford the cost of it, and then going into massive debt when something bad happens because they never were able to afford to get insurance. If the states were doing a good job of making sure everyone could afford insurance to begin with we wouldn't have a problem.

Toujours said:

Because it's remained a state issue and people are still going without insurance because they can't afford it, avoiding going to the doctor and getting preventative care because they can't afford the cost of it, and then going into massive debt when something bad happens because they never were able to afford to get insurance. If the states were doing a good job of making sure everyone could afford insurance to begin with we wouldn't have a problem.

Click to expand...

You states had health care if you had a pre existing condititon before obama took health care he added mandates increased price added thing people are against and they pay 0 dollars for it if we had candain healthcare it would be good but we dont

Toujours said:

Because it's remained a state issue and people are still going without insurance because they can't afford it, avoiding going to the doctor and getting preventative care because they can't afford the cost of it, and then going into massive debt when something bad happens because they never were able to afford to get insurance. If the states were doing a good job of making sure everyone could afford insurance to begin with we wouldn't have a problem.

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if some people still can't afford a doctor. We have to look at the bigger picture.

If the people of whatever state vote AGAINST healthcare, the federal government should not have the power to triumph over their rights to force their own ideology on them.

We might as well not have states if this continues. Under the current system, it's like the federal government is mommy and daddy and the states have to ask them permission before they could make their own decisions.

The legal duty of the federal government, as intended by the founders, is to vigilantly maintain the constitution of the United States to protect the individual liberties from state-level government. However, today it's nothing more than Mommy/Daddy-welfare.

It's like hiring an electrician to fix your computer. It's just plain not their job! I don't care whether or not it's efficient, because it's simply not their job!

You don't care about the people that can't afford a doctor? That's where our conversation ends. I have basic sympathy for people, and I can't have a discussion with someone who does not as we're not on the same basic moral page.

Edit: Rodriguez, it's not enough. If it was, then we wouldn't have people unable to afford insurance and drowning in debt because they got in an accident of some sort or got ill through no fault of their own. I wouldn't be against something that revamped the state insurance system, but until that something is proposed instead of Obamacare, my support goes to the option that would actually allow people to get insurance. I don't think it's perfect. But repealing it should come with something better.

Toujours said:

You don't care about the people that can't afford a doctor? That's where our conversation ends. I have basic sympathy for people, and I can't have a discussion with someone who does not as we're not on the same basic moral page.

Click to expand...

Why should an entire nation accommodate one person's misfortunes? Don't spin my words. I suggested we need to look at the bigger picture. If someone lives in Washington, why should they have to pay for the medical bills of someone in Colarado?

That stance doesn't make me any less moral than anyone else (especially since a majority of readers on this forum do not know me IRL.) But this does pose an ideological question of government and liberty.

If there is such a concern about a minority of people who cannot afford healthcare, why aren't we paying taxes to the UN for welfare programs in Africa? Because it's a different country? So why do we have a federal program here? Because we're American? But one person is from Colorado, and the other from Washington!

How about the UN passes a program where both Canada and the UK must pay for the same healthcare system?

My point is this healthcare program disrespects the votes and decisions of individuals in their own states. We have to end our addiction to the federal government or else we wont have state-level government in the first place. Especially considering our federal government is one which does NOT have a reliable, nor' moral, nor' even LEGAL track record!

Again, the issue is not healthcare as an idea. The issue is our federal government continuing to get bigger each day, and ignoring state rights.

And on the subject of morality, morality is helping others willingly. Not taking it by force. That would be immorality in my opinion.

Lishy said:

If the people of whatever state vote AGAINST healthcare, the federal government should not have the power to triumph over their rights to force their own ideology on them.

Click to expand...

Why? Do people break their legs in some states and not in others? If you need care, you need care.

There's a lot of things that you do, even if you don't like it, because it's the right thing to do. Like seat belts. Or back in the day, getting rid of slavery - that wasn't really popular

TRIFORCE89 said:

Why? Do people break their legs in some states and not in others? If you need care, you need care.

There's a lot of things that you do, even if you don't like it, because it's the right thing to do. Like seat belts. Or back in the day, getting rid of slavery - that wasn't really popular

Click to expand...

You're missing the point. Why are we expanding the federal government for something which should be a state issue?

If someone breaks their leg in a state without health care, isn't that an issue for the state to debate, and ultimately for the state implement the healthcare? Not the federal government?

It doesn't matter how efficient it is, and it has nothing to do whatsoever with morality! Isn't it a state issue instead of a federal issue?

And, as people have missed my original point in my original posts: Why is healthcare a bigger issue than our corrupt foreign policy, or our collapsing economy? If we don't address either of them, healthcare wouldn't even be sustainable in the first place!

What if states voted to do away with their fire departments? There are some things that shouldn't be up for a popular vote because they're necessary to keeping basic standards of living. Health issues are, I'd argue, very important to our standard of living. If you look at the places in the world with the healthiest citizens they tend to have some level of socialized medicine because that's one of the best ways ensure everyone stays as healthy as they can be.

Lishy said:

And, as people have missed my original point in my original posts: Why is healthcare a bigger issue than our corrupt foreign policy, or our collapsing economy? If we don't address either of them, healthcare wouldn't even be sustainable in the first place!

Click to expand...

Bigger than foreign policy because it affects average joes a heck of a lot more. It affects people of the home nation rather than abroad.

And personally I think it is a part of the economy puzzle.

Lishy said:

If someone breaks their leg in a state without health care, isn't that an issue for the state to debate, and ultimately for the state implement the healthcare? Not the federal government?

Click to expand...

There is an argument to be made there, yes. If they both handle it then you have redundancy. As a Canadian, I have no idea why you have a federal Department of Education. We don't do that here. So it seems particularly odd since the US is supposed to be "states first, federal second" where in the priority chain and in Canada kind of the opposite.

It isn't a public plan though that the US government is proposing. If they were, then just having that mandate and having the states implement it as they chose (like they do with education) could work. But it isn't public. It's just a mandate for insurance. Just like if you have a car. Or a house

lower-class Americans are not worry about foreign policy because they want to know that if they brake there finger today they will be able to pay for it not about other countries its not there fault ether i mean if canda were to invade they would probably be happy due to the new free hhealth care
(even if canda did invade i doubt the health care would be the same as canda's)

Lishy said:

It doesn't matter if some people still can't afford a doctor. We have to look at the bigger picture.

If the people of whatever state vote AGAINST healthcare, the federal government should not have the power to triumph over their rights to force their own ideology on them.

We might as well not have states if this continues. Under the current system, it's like the federal government is mommy and daddy and the states have to ask them permission before they could make their own decisions.

The legal duty of the federal government, as intended by the founders, is to vigilantly maintain the constitution of the United States to protect the individual liberties from state-level government. However, today it's nothing more than Mommy/Daddy-welfare.

It's like hiring an electrician to fix your computer. It's just plain not their job! I don't care whether or not it's efficient, because it's simply not their job!

Click to expand...

Nice quote i know where you got it from