US Government shutdown

Then the Bullshit call on

Donnachaidh wrote:...snip...
The only difference I see between them is the Republicans say spend less and tax less but only get around to the taxing less while the Democrats just spend and tax more.
...snip...

Stands. It is not about spending and taxing but social priorities.

Compare what you wrote above and what you wrote below.

T2M

Edit: Not going to go into the past. The Leaders of the Republican party have changed, mostly. If only The House Speaker would change ...

2nd Edit: I would not even have had a problem with, "The only difference I see between them is the Republicans say spend less and tax less but only get around to the taxing less while the Democrats just spend and tax more but spend more than the tax increase." Historically. Doesn't really tell me much about the future unfortunately but is accurate as per past performance.

Donnachaidh wrote:You're right, I'm not using proposed budgets, I'm using what they actually have done in the past. When you look at that neither party is using balanced budgets nor are they getting out of debt.

Do some members believe in that? Absolutely, and many of them are fighting for it. But what's actually happened isn't that.

I'm not defending the spending priorities of Democrats, they get things incredibly wrong financially. But the fact is I have a bigger problem with the social policies that the Republican party espouses than I do with the moronic financial policies of the Democratic party.

I intended that from a financial perspective. My tendency to prefer Democrats to Republicans is because of social policies; I don't care for the financial policies either party has implemented because in my opinion they are not financially sound.

The more I think about it, the more I realize that what I seem to always run into in these kinds of discussions is that we (I'm not excluding myself in this either, I'm just as guilty of it as others) get bogged down by the assumption that when someone says (or appears to be) a member of a party we assume they agree with and support all of the policies of that party. In reality, I don't know that I've ever met anyone who agreed with everything 'their' party says or every view they espouse.

thinkstoomuch wrote:Then the Bullshit call on

Donnachaidh wrote:...snip...
The only difference I see between them is the Republicans say spend less and tax less but only get around to the taxing less while the Democrats just spend and tax more.
...snip...

Stands. It is not about spending and taxing but social priorities.

Compare what you wrote above and what you wrote below.

T2M

Edit: Not going to go into the past. The Leaders of the Republican party have changed, mostly. If only The House Speaker would change ...

2nd Edit: I would not even have had a problem with, "The only difference I see between them is the Republicans say spend less and tax less but only get around to the taxing less while the Democrats just spend and tax more but spend more than the tax increase." Historically. Doesn't really tell me much about the future unfortunately but is accurate as per past performance.

Donnachaidh wrote:You're right, I'm not using proposed budgets, I'm using what they actually have done in the past. When you look at that neither party is using balanced budgets nor are they getting out of debt.

Do some members believe in that? Absolutely, and many of them are fighting for it. But what's actually happened isn't that.

I'm not defending the spending priorities of Democrats, they get things incredibly wrong financially. But the fact is I have a bigger problem with the social policies that the Republican party espouses than I do with the moronic financial policies of the Democratic party.

I thought that I would post this not just to piss people off but to make the point that Obamacare is not government healthcare as most people assume. It is mandated private insurance under government control. It is intended to be an expensive and painful transition to nationalized healthcare with rationing.


http://sarahpalininformation.wordpress. ... ub-in-d-c/


Sometimes I amaze myself. I forgot to includebthe link.

You're absolutely right. Obamacare is what the Democrats felt the could get the Republicans to let them vote through the Senate without a filibuster. IMHO this is because a large number of people hear the word "socialize" and immediately react with Cold War-era ideology rather than taking the time consider the options. Obamacare is not a solution, it's an attempt at a temporary fix that I think has very serious problems. The system before Obamacare was broken, Obamacare fixes some of the worst problems but creates others. Until people are willing to recognize that the insurance industry itself is parasitic and a non-value added process, a true solution will not happen.

namelessfly wrote:I thought that I would post this not just to piss people off but to make the point that Obamacare is not government healthcare as most people assume. It is mandated private insurance under government control.

I can't argue with you either way on this because I have seen no evidence to support your assertion that there is some plan it implement rationing (which as I recall insurance companies already do btw).

namelessfly wrote:It is intended to be an expensive and painful transition to nationalized healthcare with rationing.

As a non American, what do Americans think of this as a health system style?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident_Compensation_Corporation

I found this to be a very interesting statement (from the wikipedia page)

"John Miller said this was a deliberate strategy: "ACC are just acting like these rapacious overseas insurance companies, refusing them holus-bolus on the flimsy grounds of degeneration, because we all have degeneration, and hoping like some of these overseas insurance companies that people won't challenge them," he said."

Spacekiwi wrote:As a non American, what do Americans think of this as a health system style?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident_Compensation_Corporation

Yeah. recently we have had a few hiccups in the system regarding management policies from on high regarding denying claims to attempt to make the bottom line look better for political reasons. Degenerative is normally supposed to be part of the public health system, which is a bit slower than acc, but is still free. but recently there have been lots of people who were 20 to 30 in the 60's and 70's having injuries from labbouring jobs like building sites having hearing loss, or eyesight loss, probably nearly all of which was due to working conditions, so classed as accidental, but they are arguing over how to define an accident, what %age of the damage needs to be due to the work as opposed to age to be covered etc. a fair few have lost out at the moment as treatment improved them, and suddenly the acc claims department is claiming all the improvement was only in the accident affected section, so the percentage has changed, etc. its confusing as hell, but it seems to be moving back in the patients favour.


as an aside, I have been an acc client a few times, due to a car crash, chipping my teeth in a fall, martial arts injuries, having a finger tip nearly lopped off, having a porthole cover on a ship split my head to the bone, dislocating a finger, and other injuries, and for all the times ive been treated, ACC has paid between 80% (physio,not fully covered as they go beyond the basics mandated), to 100% (doctors for the fingers, 3 sets of dental work on my teeth, stitches for the head and checkups etc). I have paid about $45 in fees to my treatment provider in the last 7 years or so, so it works out pretty well.

Donnachaidh wrote:I found this to be a very interesting statement (from the wikipedia page)

"John Miller said this was a deliberate strategy: "ACC are just acting like these rapacious overseas insurance companies, refusing them holus-bolus on the flimsy grounds of degeneration, because we all have degeneration, and hoping like some of these overseas insurance companies that people won't challenge them," he said."

Spacekiwi wrote:As a non American, what do Americans think of this as a health system style?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident_Compensation_Corporation

From what I've read you do have a good system, although one reviewer pointed out that providing a no fault cover to the nation that invented bungee jumping, jet boats, and most other extreme sports was inherently risky.

Spacekiwi wrote:As a non American, what do Americans think of this as a health system style?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident_Compensation_Corporation

Actually, it fits - this is the financial version of extreme sports.

Daryl wrote:From what I've read you do have a good system, although one reviewer pointed out that providing a no fault cover to the nation that invented bungee jumping, jet boats, and most other extreme sports was inherently risky.

Spacekiwi wrote:As a non American, what do Americans think of this as a health system style?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident_Compensation_Corporation

Dude, our country was founded on drunk irish, welsh, scots and englishmen, who were looking for adventure, and the party has stopped for 175 years or so.....

We are a country addicted to the adrenaline rush. I have within 30 minutes of me, one of our most dangerous and popular surf beaches, a ropes course with a 15m frop at some points, an aerodrome that sometimes does the highest skydives in nz, extreme dirt biking and trail riding parks, a road thats used for WRC road rallies, a road used for international Targa rallies, 2 paintball facilities, 2 gun clubs, 3 to 5 martial arts centres, a uni full of drunken engineers and scientists with plenty to prove (including me ) and lots more i cant think of at the moment. To go a day without seeing 3 to 5 ads for extreme sports events is unusual, and if you ask, you can guarantee one of your friends has done it.

Daryl wrote:From what I've read you do have a good system, although one reviewer pointed out that providing a no fault cover to the nation that invented bungee jumping, jet boats, and most other extreme sports was inherently risky.

Spacekiwi wrote:As a non American, what do Americans think of this as a health system style?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident_Compensation_Corporation