# Health care Issues



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

Could it be the rush for health care some folks messed up.


The United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers is reportedly the first union to officially call for repeal of the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare. The health care law is prompting some serious buyer’s remorse in Big Labor, which worked hard on behalf of the administration to pass it:

The union’s statement can be found here. The full text is below:

United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers International President Kinsey M. Robinson issued the following statement today calling for a repeal or complete reform of President Obama’s Affordable Care Act (ACA):

“Our Union and its members have supported President Obama and his Administration for both of his terms in office.

But regrettably, our concerns over certain provisions in the ACA have not been addressed, or in some instances, totally ignored. In the rush to achieve its passage, many of the Act’s provisions were not fully conceived, resulting in unintended consequences that are inconsistent with the promise that those who were satisfied with their employer sponsored coverage could keep it.

These provisions jeopardize our multi-employer health plans, have the potential to cause a loss of work for our members, create an unfair bidding advantage for those contractors who do not provide health coverage to their workers, and in the worst case, may cause our members and their families to lose the benefits they currently enjoy as participants in multi-employer health plans…


Read more at http://www.reagancoalition.com/articles/2013/20130417005-union-repealed.html#EKHio8G1i10xxGhH.99


----------



## jbfan (Jan 22, 2007)

We must pass it before we know whats in it!

I have a friend that just lost his job because of the ACA.
He worked for a small time medical supplier that could not survive the tax increases to medical equipment that was implemented.


----------



## walkerj (May 13, 2007)

I have never in my life been without health insurance. 

All this ACA nonsense is is another way to 'buy' votes. 
JMSHO


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Good on this union says I

fascist health care is all about disabling labor


~CS~


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

jbfan said:


> We must pass it before we know whats in it!
> 
> I have a friend that just lost his job because of the ACA.
> He worked for a small time medical supplier that could not survive the tax increases to medical equipment that was implemented.


I think that the tax on medical devices is being repeled?

Unintended conquences.


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

An article that is quoting an article, that is quoting an article.

So instead the article linked calls brian john a union thug and he gleefully links it anyway.

How about spending a nano second and linking to the actual content and the actual reason why they want it repealed?

http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20130417/NEWS03/130419847?tags=|62|63|307|74|278

The reason why they want it repealed is union roofers have insurance and non union companies with less than 50 employees might have a bidding advantage.

Workers, American workers, American people stand to benefit from the ACA. 

Greedy dollar pinching short term wall street folks stand to lose a few pennies over ACA. So they will spend millions to convince you that ACA is bad. They will make up any lie, tell any story, fabricate any truth that might convince you that is it bad.

And it is working...

We went from unions want fair competition to union thugs want to repeal Obamacare in less than 24 hours.

Shameless.


----------



## FlyingSparks (Dec 10, 2012)

chicken steve said:


> Good on this union says I
> 
> fascist health care is all about disabling labor
> 
> ~CS~


Fascist? LOL


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

I'm sorry, but once they let open Pandora's box, dey aint goin be no puttin da monster back in dere........




Not like they were not warned.


----------



## johnsmithh134 (May 3, 2013)

*There are some biggest health care issue.

1. **Avoidable Harm to Patients**
2. **Billions* *of Dollars are Being Wasted **
3. **Perverse Incentives in How We Pay for Care**
4. **Lack of Transparency**
5. **Too Much Unnecessary Care*


----------



## forgotflying (Mar 2, 2011)

OMG the small business are going to have an unfair advantage........ROFL


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

eejack said:


> Greedy dollar pinching short term wall street folks stand to lose a few pennies over ACA. So they will spend millions to convince you that ACA is bad. They will make up any lie, tell any story, fabricate any truth that might convince you that is it bad.


Why would they spend millions if they are only going to lose a few pennies?:blink:


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

Would this be considered a political thread? :jester:


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

All the MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF EXPENSE malarky is made up crap.

Seriously.

Every single person in America has healthcare now. You just have to go to an emergency room.

ACA basically makes it more affordable ( since you get real medical coverage outside of emergency rooms ).

Somehow that turns into trillions of wasted dollars.

BS


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

hardworkingstiff said:


> Would this be considered a political thread? :jester:


Yes because it is based entirely upon Republican lies.


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

HARRY304E said:


> Why would they spend millions if they are only going to lose a few pennies?:blink:


It makes about as much sense as all the hate, lies and fabricated horror that the ACA causes. I never said those folks were smart. but they are just rich enough to destroy the American way of life for their own purposes.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

eejack said:


> All the MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF EXPENSE malarky is made up crap.
> 
> Seriously.
> 
> ...


Then you have been asleep the past two weeks as supporters have said maybe we were to hasty.


----------



## Loose Neutral (Jun 3, 2009)

Facts are it's gonna cost our plan a $1 per member this year, but in 2014 jump to $63 per belly button. Sucks it's money, but not a huge sum of cash either. It's the next bubble and right or wrong it needs to be addressed.


----------



## Loose Neutral (Jun 3, 2009)

brian john said:


> Then you have been asleep the past two weeks as supporters have said maybe we were to hasty.


I don't see where the we part comes into play.


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

brian john said:


> Then you have been asleep the past two weeks as supporters have said maybe we were to hasty.


Oh yeah, totally missed the part where millions of Americans suddenly changed their mind.


----------



## Loose Neutral (Jun 3, 2009)

What is going on with this site.


----------



## Loose Neutral (Jun 3, 2009)

I swear the mods are trolling this site.


----------



## Loose Neutral (Jun 3, 2009)

How do select posts just disappear.


----------



## Loose Neutral (Jun 3, 2009)

This site sucks.


----------



## Loose Neutral (Jun 3, 2009)

I swear it's shunk that doing this and i think he is cletis.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

eejack said:


> Oh yeah, totally missed the part where millions of Americans suddenly changed their mind.


There was NEVER a majority of Americans in favor of the plan. BUT that is not how our country runs, congress decides not the public and *some* in congress are having buyers remorse


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

Loose Neutral said:


> This site sucks.


You do not have to post here! I found when I was a mod 99.9% of the disappearing post were user error, NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MODS.


----------



## Wirenuting (Sep 12, 2010)

A large nation wide movie theater company just took their employees at 300 theaters down to 30 hours or less a week. 
Now the employees have no coverage. 
The fine is less then the required coverage. 
Something wrong with that picture.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

eejack said:


> It makes about as much sense as all the hate, lies and fabricated horror that the ACA causes. I never said those folks were smart. but they are just rich enough to destroy the American way of life for their own purposes.


I view it as the complete opposite,But speaking of the "Rich " You might want to pay attention to the folks who are on your side they have the most money world wide,,However you can look that up yourself.

I really do not see forcing people to purchase a product in this case Health insurance just so those who own Health insurance company's can guarantee their own income through the force of law.

That is about as UN-American as it gets

Ever wonder why the Health insurance company's did not spend one penny fighting off the ACA?

They are owned by your side that's why.

Does the Health care system in the USA need fixing ? yup.

The first step is to get rid of the Health insurance company's.

Doctors are leaving the profession in droves and there will be a shortage for us peasants.

Just My opinion...


.


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

brian john said:


> There was NEVER a majority of Americans in favor of the plan. BUT that is not how our country runs, congress decides not the public and *some* in congress are having buyers remorse


Actually the majority of Americans have been and are in favor of the ACA. 

Congress obviously does whatever they want though...look at recent polling where 91% of Americans want something and laws do not get passed.


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

HARRY304E said:


> Does the Health care system in the USA need fixing ? yup.
> 
> The first step is to get rid of the Health insurance company's.
> 
> ...


I can see why you think that way. I have a lot of similar opinions. I think we will start seeing more nurse practitioners that a doctor oversees. You know, for the flu or general checkup. If the NP deems it necessary, you go to the Dr.


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

HARRY304E said:


> I view it as the complete opposite,But speaking of the "Rich " You might want to pay attention to the folks who are on your side they have the most money world wide,,However you can look that up yourself.
> 
> I really do not see forcing people to purchase a product in this case Health insurance just so those who own Health insurance company's can guarantee their own income through the force of law.
> 
> ...


See, the problem with what you wrote is the obvious inconsistencies that you have been fed yet have not researched. ( Yes, I have actually 'looked stuff up'. I just used a variety of sources, not just from one source ).

IF costs are going up then doctors would make more money so they would not be leaving in droves. Sorry - simple Adam Smith invisible hand stuff. ( No, doctors are not actually leaving in droves ).

You might view it as 'forcing people to buy a product', I look at the current system as 'forcing me to pay for your healthcare'.

Current system, no insurance, you go to the emergency room and get treated, and I ( with insurance and taxes ) have to pay for your treatment.

Health insurance companies compete with each other so competition should bring down costs ( again - free market yeah! ). 

Getting rid of the insurance companies and going full socialized medicine as you suggest is an option, albeit fraught with their own problems.

I don't think the ACA is perfect, but it will bring better healthcare to more people at lower costs, taking the burden off of the remaining middle class that still has insurance. Everyone benefits.


----------



## walkerj (May 13, 2007)

eejack said:


> See, the problem with what you wrote is the obvious inconsistencies that you have been fed yet have not researched. ( Yes, I have actually 'looked stuff up'. I just used a variety of sources, not just from one source ).
> 
> IF costs are going up then doctors would make more money so they would not be leaving in droves. Sorry - simple Adam Smith invisible hand stuff. ( No, doctors are not actually leaving in droves ).
> 
> ...


Then why has my and my employers cost gone up?


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

You think we are wrong we know you are wrong so lets just let it rest, you'll never convince me the government can run anything, much less health insurance. They screwed the pooch on this one and you feel they did not.

Case closed.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

HARRY304E said:


> I view it as the complete opposite,But speaking of the "Rich " You might want to pay attention to the folks who are on your side they have the most money world wide,,However you can look that up yourself.
> 
> I really do not see forcing people to purchase a product in this case Health insurance just so those who own Health insurance company's can guarantee their own income through the force of law.
> 
> ...





eejack said:


> See, the problem with what you wrote is the obvious inconsistencies that you have been fed yet have not researched. ( Yes, I have actually 'looked stuff up'. I just used a variety of sources, not just from one source ).
> 
> IF costs are going up then doctors would make more money so they would not be leaving in droves. Sorry - simple Adam Smith invisible hand stuff. ( No, doctors are not actually leaving in droves ).
> 
> ...


Sorry but I did not say that in red.

My quote is above in Green.

But this is a hopeless topic we will never agree on..


----------



## Loose Neutral (Jun 3, 2009)

brian john said:


> You do not have to post here! I found when I was a mod 99.9% of the disappearing post were user error, NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MODS.


Not user error it's the .1 It sucks when your in the middle of a thread and posts just start to disappear. I still think it's Shunk.


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

walkerj said:


> Then why has my and my employers cost gone up?


Because the plan is only partially implemented ( and depending upon your state those costs might not go down - those who refuse to set up a market will get one from the fed - and as brianjohn points out, that will probably not be efficient. ).


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

brian john said:


> You think we are wrong we know you are wrong so lets just let it rest, you'll never convince me the government can run anything, much less health insurance. They screwed the pooch on this one and you feel they did not.
> 
> Case closed.


Except they won't be 'running' it - except in states that refused to set up an exchange. And don't include me in your we please.


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

HARRY304E said:


> Sorry but I did not say that in red.
> 
> My quote is above in Green.
> 
> But this is a hopeless topic we will never agree on..


Hey, if you want to abandon insurance and not replace it I am okay with it. Just understand that destroying the healthcare industry and our health is the end result of that. 

I am a bit of a nihilist so people dying in their homes due to the lack of access to doctors and basic medicines is something I can accept. Since we currently kill about 45,000 people a year in this country due to a lack of insurance we can solve the population explosion problem as well.

Maybe we can get back to the infant mortality rates of the good old days. :thumbsup:


----------



## big2bird (Oct 1, 2012)

One thing is for certain. We now will need more lawyers.:laughing:


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

*If you claim to be Christian*



> Bottom line: it really isn't about liberalism, conservatism, or any other -ism. It's only about ensuring the well-being of "the least of these."
> 
> The purpose here is not to argue that Jesus would be a "liberal" and not a "conservative" if he were alive today. It is to point out how ludicrous it is for people who profess to be Christians to hyperventilate solely because serious measures to ameliorate economic injustice are proposed.


http://www.right-wing-pseudo-christians.com/jesus-liberal-conservative.htm



> A critical point to understand is that while misfortune can be cured by charity, structural/systemic injustice – the type called "structures of sin" by Pope John Paul II -- can be cured only by structural/systemic solutions. Charity can provide a sometimes critically necessary Band-Aid for the results of structural/systemic injustice, but charity alone cannot provide the cure.
> 
> Government is one legitimate structural/systemic means to use for solving problems that are society-wide and systemic, or are otherwise beyond the ability of private charity to handle.


The author makes some very interesting points and I submit it for recommended reading for those with a spiritual side. For those that are atheist this will not be a good read. I will not offer my opinions because I know I'm crossing the line and I just wanted to put this up for others to review.

As far as the ACA, yea, too fast and not enough planning. I am in favor of the general intent.


----------



## Zog (Apr 15, 2009)

walkerj said:


> Then why has my and my employers cost gone up?


Just got my quote for this year and my costs went up 29% for the exact same plan. That is a huge business expense, have not figured out what I am going to do yet.


----------



## B4T (Feb 10, 2009)

Zog said:


> Just got my quote for this year and my costs went up 29% for the exact same plan. That is a huge business expense, have not figured out what I am going to do yet.


That is plain crazy..

The boys on the hill should put a cap on the amount a policy can be raised each year...

How do they expect a business to absorb a 30% increase.. :blink::blink:


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

Zog said:


> Just got my quote for this year and my costs went up 29% for the exact same plan. That is a huge business expense, have not figured out what I am going to do yet.





B4T said:


> That is plain crazy..
> 
> The boys on the hill should put a cap on the amount a policy can be raised each year...
> 
> How do they expect a business to absorb a 30% increase.. :blink::blink:


Increases in medical insurance has had other periods of excessive increases. While everyone is blaming the law, it's not the 1st time this has happened.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

hardworkingstiff said:


> http://www.right-wing-pseudo-christians.com/jesus-liberal-conservative.htm
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> Government is one legitimate structural/systemic means to use for solving problems that are society-wide and systemic, or are otherwise beyond thandle ability of private charity to he.


Government is one legitimate structural/systemic means to keep people poor and dependent we will pass laws that will push those in the middle class and make them poor,We will design these laws to look like we are really helping these people and they will vote for us forever no matter how much they suffer,What a wonderful concept,Next we will flood the country with 20,000,000 Immigrants who have no education,This will fix the cost of labor for at least a generation these people will work for much less and displace the more expensive American work force,forcing even more people into Government dependency and of course they will vote for us ....Sorry Lou...:laughing:


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

B4T said:


> That is plain crazy..
> 
> The boys on the hill should put a cap on the amount a policy can be raised each year...
> 
> How do they expect a business to absorb a 30% increase.. :blink::blink:


They don't,They want all the small and medium corporations to fail so that their out of the way of the huge multy national corporations.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

hardworkingstiff said:


> Increases in medical insurance has had other periods of excessive increases. While everyone is blaming the law, it's not the 1st time this has happened.


Medical insurance company's have guaranteed their income through the force of law and can now raise rates as high as they want,and all the politicians buy and sell their stock and make a killing.


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

HARRY304E said:


> Government is one legitimate structural/systemic means to keep people poor and dependent we will pass laws that will push those in the middle class and make them poor,We will design these laws to look like we are really helping these people and they will vote for us forever no matter how much they suffer,What a wonderful concept,Next we will flood the country with 20,000,000 Immigrants who have no education,This will fix the cost of labor for at least a generation these people will work for much less and displace the more expensive American work force,forcing even more people into Government dependency and of course they will vote for us ....Sorry Lou...:laughing:


You are silly Harry.


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

HARRY304E said:


> Medical insurance company's have guaranteed their income through the force of law and can now raise rates as high as they want,and all the politicians buy and sell their stock and make a killing.


You are silly Harry.


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

Zog said:


> Just got my quote for this year and my costs went up 29% for the exact same plan. That is a huge business expense, have not figured out what I am going to do yet.


Back in the 1980's, I remember having reduction in benefits (to curb cost increases) and still have increases in premiums of 15%.

Good luck Zog, in figuring what to do. I don't envy your position.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

hardworkingstiff said:


> You are silly Harry.





hardworkingstiff said:


> You are silly Harry.


:laughing::laughing:


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

Zog said:


> Just got my quote for this year and my costs went up 29% for the exact same plan. That is a huge business expense, have not figured out what I am going to do yet.


You beat me by 1%

My taxes went up, cost of labor went up, insurance went up, hard to cover all those cost by raising rates all at once.


----------



## carambola (Sep 15, 2011)

The big thing for me is that Health Care will become taxable in 2018.
For a family of four, that will be close to 40 a year, now taxable.


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

A GC friend of mine in Winchester, VA. today told me that his went up less than 3%. It might be time for you guys to do a price check to make sure you are not taken for granted.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

carambola said:


> The big thing for me is that Health Care will become taxable in 2018.
> For a family of four, that will be close to 40 a year, now taxable.


That's cool,an income tax on money you can't spend...:laughing:


----------



## carambola (Sep 15, 2011)

I hope I don't have to spend.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

eejack said:


> See, the problem with what you wrote is the obvious inconsistencies that you have been fed yet have not researched. ( Yes, I have actually 'looked stuff up'. I just used a variety of sources, not just from one source ).
> 
> IF costs are going up then doctors would make more money so they would not be leaving in droves. Sorry - simple Adam Smith invisible hand stuff. ( No, doctors are not actually leaving in droves ).
> 
> ...


Always a joy to read from someone with a sense of entitlement the size of their azz eejack-off

Do you have any idea how many uninsured minors there are in America?

Maybe you should ask Congress to requistion their little piggy banks...

~CS~


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

HARRY304E said:


> Government is one legitimate structural/systemic* tool of the fortune 500* to keep people poor and dependent we will pass laws that will push those in the middle class and make them poor,We will design these laws to look like we are really helping these people and they will vote for us forever no matter how much they suffer,What a wonderful concept,Next we will flood the country with 20,000,000 Immigrants who have no education,This will fix the cost of labor for at least a generation these people will work for much less and displace the more expensive American work force,forcing even more people into Government dependency and of course they will vote for us ....Sorry Lou...:laughing:



fify.....

~CS~


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

HARRY304E said:


> Medical insurance company's have guaranteed their income through the force of law and can now raise rates as high as they want,and all the politicians buy and sell their stock and make a killing.


True

so when will our NFPA dues finally make a legislative dent in Congress so we can stick our rates up the public's azz?

~CS~


----------



## Mozzy49 (Feb 21, 2013)

Personally, I can't see any good thing coming out of ACA other than more unemployment and cutting of hours. But if you are going to be for entitlements on healthcare then go all in and do the "universal Healthcare" that Hillary put up back in the mid 90's - why 1/2 ass it. You get rid of Medicare/Caid - increase taxes and everyone has healthcare (like Canada,England,etc). I am not for entitlements (unless they are deserved - but IMO the handout generation needs to end) personally but if one is going to go that route then at least do it right and don't half-ass it. 

JMO


----------



## sbrn33 (Mar 15, 2007)

have never figured out why health insurance has anything to do with an employer. It should be every persons sole responsibility. When did taking care of your self become somebody elses problem?


----------



## Mozzy49 (Feb 21, 2013)

sbrn33 said:


> have never figured out why health insurance has anything to do with an employer. It should be every persons sole responsibility. When did taking care of your self become somebody elses problem?



Try making ends meet after you or your wife/child has been in the hospital for more than a week. Let me know how you are doing w/o insurance. 

Health benefits are a perk to attract good employees to work at your establishment. Like the Union makes sure all the companies they job people out to pay for their insurance (I would venture to guess EIT) and pension. If your a journeyman that 42 an hour isn't what the shop pays for you that's just what you see.


----------



## John Valdes (May 17, 2007)

Loose Neutral said:


> Facts are it's gonna cost our plan a $1 per member this year, but in 2014 jump to $63 per belly button. Sucks it's money, but not a huge sum of cash either. It's the next bubble and right or wrong it needs to be addressed.


It does to be addressed. To bad real health care for all was blocked by the right.



walkerj said:


> Then why has my and my employers cost gone up?


Last year, the year before and all the years before that had increases in health insurance. Why do you think we are trying to do something.?



eejack said:


> Except they won't be 'running' it - except in states that refused to set up an exchange. And don't include me in your we please.


Take a look at SC. They have refused to implement it.
And they re-elected Mark Sanford this week too. :whistling2:



hardworkingstiff said:


> As far as the ACA, yea, too fast and not enough planning. I am in favor of the general intent.


The general intent was ruined by the right. Affordable health care and the one payer system is what we need. We have tried. But because of the likes of republicans, we have this watered down bill.
It is the fault of anyone that voted for republicans.
Any increase or pain this causes is their fault.



Zog said:


> Just got my quote for this year and my costs went up 29% for the exact same plan. That is a huge business expense, have not figured out what I am going to do yet.


You would have figured it out. You would have had an increase anyway and maybe you should do some insurance shopping.



hardworkingstiff said:


> Increases in medical insurance has had other periods of excessive increases. While everyone is blaming the law, it's not the 1st time this has happened.


Very true. But it so much easier to blame the president.
You see no one does anything wrong but him.



HARRY304E said:


> They don't,They want all the small and medium corporations to fail so that their out of the way of the huge multy national corporations.


Harry, I like you. But this is silly.



HARRY304E said:


> Medical insurance company's have guaranteed their income through the force of law and can now raise rates as high as they want,and all the politicians buy and sell their stock and make a killing.


Comon Harry. Lay off the fox news kool aid.



hardworkingstiff said:


> Back in the 1980's, I remember having reduction in benefits (to curb cost increases) and still have increases in premiums of 15%.
> Good luck Zog, in figuring what to do. I don't envy your position.


He is posturing for the right. He would complain if Obama sent him a million dollars. he would have wanted two million.



sbrn33 said:


> have never figured out why health insurance has anything to do with an employer. It should be every persons sole responsibility. When did taking care of your self become somebody elses problem?


 I have a number of jobs over the years. I have always had employer sponsored health care.
Good employers provide health insurance to attract the people they need to run their American dreams.

Do you provide health care to your employees? If not, do you pay them enough so they can go out and buy insurance for their family at the same cost you could buy it for as group insurance.

I have always had insurance and I am damn glad it was offered at the companies I worked for.
Let me re-phrase that statement. "the Good Companies I worked for".


----------



## Mozzy49 (Feb 21, 2013)

^^^

I guess I am fully in the minority here. IMO if you are going to do something then do it right or not at all. If you want to be pro-entitlements then push through Universal Healthcare. Yes healthcare would not be as good and would be tougher to get what you need but everyone would have it - and you could get rid of Medicare/caid as well. Please tell me something good Obamacare does other than Cost Jobs,hours and money? 

Personally the entitlement generation has really hurt this country IMO - I guess I am just tired of the government satisfying all these people that put their hands out just because it helps them win votes. People have to work to get into the union so THEY CAN GET THE BENEFITS one of which is healthcare. Just like people have to be good at what they do in other jobs so they can work for a good employer that provides HC. How fast people forget JFK and his "Ask not what your country can do for you" speech. As these days it is just about WHAT MY COUNTRY CAN DO FOR ME.


----------



## John Valdes (May 17, 2007)

Mozzy49 said:


> ^^^
> 
> I guess I am fully in the minority here. IMO if you are going to do something then do it right or not at all. If you want to be pro-entitlements then push through Universal Healthcare. Yes healthcare would not be as good and would be tougher to get what you need but everyone would have it - and you could get rid of Medicare/caid as well. Please tell me something good Obamacare does other than Cost Jobs,hours and money?
> 
> Personally the entitlement generation has really hurt this country IMO - I guess I am just tired of the government satisfying all these people that put their hands out just because it helps them win votes. People have to work to get into the union so THEY CAN GET THE BENEFITS one of which is healthcare. Just like people have to be good at what they do in other jobs so they can work for a good employer that provides HC. How fast people forget JFK and his "Ask not what your country can do for you" speech. As these days it is just about WHAT MY COUNTRY CAN DO FOR ME.


You are right. You and I will never agree.

And as far as entitlements. This was a non-word until fox news made it the popular go to phrase for loony right.

I for one have no problem helping those that need it.
Its kinda like our judicial system.
Some murderers must go free to make sure we have representation for all.

And when you say entitlements which one are you talking about?
The ones retired people get that have been paying into their whole lives?
Or the entitlements the service people get because they don't make enough money to feed and clothe their family.

Which one do you want to take away? Which one?


----------



## mgraw (Jan 14, 2011)

John Valdes said:


> It does to be addressed. To bad real health care for all was blocked by the right.
> 
> Not true. Not one member of the right authored, amended, or voted for the bill.
> 
> ...


Facts don't seem to matter to some.


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

mgraw said:


> Facts don't seem to matter to republicans.


Fixed that for you :thumbsup:


----------



## robnj772 (Jan 15, 2008)

John Valdes said:


> You are right. You and I will never agree.
> 
> And as far as entitlements. This was a non-word until fox news made it the popular go to phrase for loony right.
> 
> ...


This place REALLY needs a STFU button.


----------



## robnj772 (Jan 15, 2008)

eejack said:


> Fixed that for you :thumbsup:


And a mod should fix your post with a ban.

The facts don't matter to dumbocrats when it comes to Benghazi so I think you should keep politics out of it cause your statement makes you look like the jackass used as your parties symbol.


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

robnj772 said:


> And a mod should fix your post with a ban


I welcome them too.

Out of curiosity, it is because you are a republican and you took offense to being thought of poorly or is it because you are allergic to the truth?

You are encouraged to go elsewhere if it suits you better, I am certain Hannity has a forum somewhere you can echo in.


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

robnj772 said:


> The facts don't matter to dumbocrats when it comes to Benghazi so I think you should keep politics out of it cause your statement makes you look like the jackass used as your parties symbol.


----------



## robnj772 (Jan 15, 2008)

eejack said:


> I welcome them too.
> 
> Out of curiosity, it is because you are a republican and you took offense to being thought of poorly or is it because you are allergic to the truth?
> 
> You are encouraged to go elsewhere if it suits you better, I am certain Hannity has a forum somewhere you can echo in.


And you should go back to friends and family troll boy.

I know the facts unlike that Kenyan born Muslim you voted for.

This isn't a political forum, politics aren't allowed so STFU LGLS


----------



## Norcal (Mar 22, 2007)

The so-called "ACA" was jammed down our throats, and the members of the group responsible for it should go on a 90% of gross tax rate just to be "fair" since they seem be screaming "fairness" lets have em take their medicine.

Time to put all the politicians, government employees, & union members on Medicare, so they can enjoy what they shoved up our rear ends.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

sbrn33 said:


> have never figured out why health insurance has anything to do with an employer. It should be every persons sole responsibility. When did taking care of your self become somebody elses problem?



A very good point sbrn , there is no legislation obligating an employer to be liable for an employee's car insurance , so why health care?




> *The rise of employer-sponsored coverage*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


wiki

~CS~


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

Norcal said:


> The so-called "ACA" was jammed down our throats, and the members of the group responsible for it should go on a 90% of gross tax rate just to be "fair" since they seem be screaming "fairness" lets have em take their medicine.
> 
> Time to put all the politicians, government employees, & union members on Medicare, so they can enjoy what they shoved up our rear ends.


So you want to tax the majority of voting Americans at 90% because you don't like the ACA?

And just for giggles - let us also get three groups of already insured people and give them Medicare.

What I really like about your viewpoint is you show an amazing lack of knowledge on top of an insightful inability to understand that which you find somehow offensive.

The ACA allows everyone the ability to have healthcare. That is a good thing. There is very little one could call bad about everyone having healthcare, unless you like sick people, folks dying due to lack of basic medicines, high infant mortality rates and cancer.

Basically Anti-ACA = ProCancer.

And while we don't really know each other Norcal, I know you are against cancer. I suspect you are a loving and caring family man who donates time and money to local causes and believes in being a fair and honest person. So it baffles me that you, of all people, are against healthcare for the members of your community.

Seek out information not tainted by political agenda, of any sort, and be the good person we all know you are.

Thank you.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Norcal said:


> The so-called "ACA" was jammed down our throats, and the members of the group responsible for it should go on a 90% of gross tax rate just to be "fair" since they seem be screaming "fairness" lets have em take their medicine.
> 
> Time to put all the politicians, government employees, & union members on Medicare, so they can enjoy what they shoved up our rear ends.


Actually Medicare works quite well comparatively , allbeit the usual social engineering foisted upon us to the adverse

Our illustrious reps were presented with the *Public Option* act, not to be confused with Single Payer

The insurance cabal made d*mn sure it was buried quicker than cat poop in a litter box. The same folks who had an average of 6 lobbyists per Congresscritter during the entire HC debacle 

The same Congresscritters who , btw, receive HC bennies well beyond that of any of their constituents 

who could even write a conspiracy like that?

~CS~


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

> Basically Anti-ACA = ProCancer.



great logo for some large obscure inflatable rodent eejack :thumbsup:

~CS~


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

robnj772 said:


> This isn't a political forum, politics aren't allowed so STFU LGLS


True, but it is an EC's forum, and as we are affected by politics i suggest you stay healthy , or be fired

~CS~


----------



## robnj772 (Jan 15, 2008)

chicken steve said:


> True, but it is an EC's forum, and as we are affected by politics i suggest you stay healthy , or be fired
> 
> ~CS~


I own my business ain't nobody gonna fire me.


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

If the ACA is so great why did everyone who voted for it exclude themselves from it?

Is that the Republicans fault?


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

robnj772 said:


> I own my business ain't nobody gonna fire me.


ah, righto....

show us your wallet there Mr Bossman!:thumbsup:

~CS~


----------



## Norcal (Mar 22, 2007)

eejack said:


> So you want to tax the majority of voting Americans at 90% because you don't like the ACA?
> 
> And just for giggles - let us also get three groups of already insured people and give them Medicare.
> 
> ...


ACA is about as popular as cancer and as the inept fools enact it it will get worse, and I am talking about the party & it's members that was 100% in power at the time that needs a modest 90% tax rate. 


If they had allowed shopping across state lines, clipped the trial lawyers balls off, made basic medical the responsibility of the indv. & have insurance for catastrophic illness only & have the patient shop for services it would drive costs down,paying for minor stuff w/ a medical savings account. go to the DMV & then tell me the Gov. can run anything correctly, the current is not the best but "ACA" is much worse.


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

Norcal said:


> ACA is about as popular as cancer and as the inept fools enact it it will get worse, and I am talking about the party & it's members that was 100% in power at the time that needs a modest 90% tax rate.
> 
> 
> If they had allowed shopping across state lines, clipped the trial lawyers balls off, made basic medical the responsibility of the indv. & have insurance for catastrophic illness only & have the patient shop for services it would drive costs down,paying for minor stuff w/ a medical savings account. go to the DMV & then tell me the Gov. can run anything correctly, the current is not the best but "ACA" is much worse.


The ACA is still running between 40 and 60 percent approval ( as it has been since it was implemented ).

No one was 100% in power - there was lots of compromise and obstruction by the party that has gerrymandered their way into seats.

I agree the ACA could be improved - but if instead of trying to repeal it 38 times a certain group started acting like adults and worked with instead of against, some good stuff would happen.

As far as state govs are concerned - most of the states that take more in federal monies than they pay in taxes are asking the fed to run their exchanges - so they realize that they are unable to handle it and are accepting help.


----------



## mgraw (Jan 14, 2011)

eejack said:


> The ACA is still running between 40 and 60 percent approval ( as it has been since it was implemented ).
> 
> The latest polls show the ACA to be between 35-41% favorable
> 
> ...


 Just the Facts


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Perhaps hearing from the consumer perspective fits here......



~CS~


----------



## mgraw (Jan 14, 2011)

chicken steve said:


> Perhaps hearing from the consumer perspective fits here......
> 
> 
> 
> ~CS~


 You mean Union perspective don't you?


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

mgraw said:


> You mean Union perspective don't you?


No, i meant general populace , at least in that link....

However, the HC issues the unions originally advocated did grow into a huge liability for employers

In fact, they were the better part of Detroit's demise , moving factories across boarders

I read of one Union rep who advocated universal HC , can't find it this a.m., but he seemed to understand the issue wielded considerable weight remaining competitive in what was a quickly globalizing situation

Had there been more like him, Americans would have more jobs IN America

Correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't that what Unions are supposed to be about?

~CS~


----------



## mgraw (Jan 14, 2011)

chicken steve said:


> No, i meant general populace , at least in that link....
> 
> However, the HC issues the unions originally advocated did grow into a huge liability for employers
> 
> ...


 The group in your link is tied to the SEIU.

I don't believe universal health care would make US corporations more competitive globally. It may help, in a small way, unions be more competitive domestically.

Detroit's demise was a multitude of issues and yes benefits were a part of that.


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

mgraw said:


> I don't believe universal health care would make US corporations more competitive globally.


It might help. Another thing that could help is CEO pay.


> "We already know from numerous studies that chief executives of large U.S. corporations make hundreds of times what an average worker makes, with the gap growing steadily wider. We also know it's possible to run successfuladvanced market economies with large corporations where the ratio is 25-1 (Britain), 13-1 (Sweden), 11-1 (Germany) and 10-1 (Japan). Whether the ratio at Exxon-Mobil last year was 320-to-1 or 276-to-1 seems rather beside the point."
> 
> Since other highly successful industrialized countries are able to acquire good talent in the CEO realm by paying far less this would seem to indicate that the argument for high, higher and highest CEO salaries is false. The simplequestion is why are U.S. CEOs worth 10 times more than CEOs of other industrialized economies in what I have been told is a globalized world?


http://articles.baltimoresun.com/20...711_1_american-ceo-median-worker-salary-ratio

It seems the working people in this country get the shaft from the have's and the have not's. One group makes laws to give themselves tax breaks based on how they earn their income (their wages are a very low part of their income) while the other sits around and expects more.


----------



## John Valdes (May 17, 2007)

Norcal said:


> ACA is about as popular as cancer and as the inept fools enact it it will get worse, and I am talking about the party & it's members that was 100% in power at the time that needs a modest 90% tax rate.
> 
> 
> If they had allowed shopping across state lines, clipped the trial lawyers balls off, made basic medical the responsibility of the indv. & have insurance for catastrophic illness only & have the patient shop for services it would drive costs down,paying for minor stuff w/ a medical savings account. go to the DMV & then tell me the Gov. can run anything correctly, the current is not the best but "ACA" is much worse.


Employer sponsored health plans are a fact of life in this country.
If all employers payed their people enough to buy insurance on their own, I might agree with you.
Our country was built this way.


When you support a "One Payer" or "Universal Health Care" system in the US, just like our neighbors to the north, you will in turn find the need for employer plans of any type not needed anymore.

But its not the case. The Pee Party has everyone riled up and saying your words verbatim.

Health savings plans were designed to augment employer health plans with money for deductibles and other out of pocket costs.
Not to take the place of employer sponsored health plans.

The people complaining the most about this is the right wing Pee party fanatics.
They should turn in their medicare paid for scooters, turn in their medicare cards before running their mouths.
They are voting and protesting with their hearts, not their minds.

They are voting for their own demise.

Health care is a basic human right.
If you cannot see that, you are sub human.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

mgraw said:


> The group in your link is tied to the SEIU.
> 
> I don't believe universal health care would make US corporations more competitive globally. It may help, in a small way, unions be more competitive domestically.
> 
> Detroit's demise was a multitude of issues and yes benefits were a part of that.


HC is the _numero uno _thing a worker looks for in a job , after your pay rate is negotiated mgraw

Removing that albatross from the necks of employers, especially small biz operations, would be a _monumental_ leap 

Further, if you understand the inescapable interconnectability of globalization, you'll quickly realize that these small business that may never leave their home state _still _receive the benefit of competitiveness 

Now elevate that to every small change biz like yours truly being able to hire ONE worker tomorrow

I think we'd be outta this recession a lot quicker and more effectively than all the corporate welfare we've seen legislature dole out to the fortune 500's in the last 20 years

jmho~CS~


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

John Valdes said:


> The people complaining the most about this is the right wing Pee party fanatics.
> They should turn in their medicare paid for scooters, turn in their medicare cards before running their mouths.
> They are voting and protesting with their hearts, not their minds.
> 
> ...


----------



## sbrn33 (Mar 15, 2007)

John Valdes said:


> Health care is a basic human right.
> If you cannot see that, you are sub human.


I am apparently sub human. I view health care as every persons responsibility. If you are an out of shape lazy ****, why should I pay for you?

I have one guy that is 45 years old and smokes. I give my guys an allowance every month based on his insurance cost. right now I believe it is around $250 or so, I could be wrong.
I would much rather pay them more per hour. than **** around with insurance crap that should be their responsibility. Seems to me like one more thing the unions screwed up for the good of their workers but for the downfall of our nation.


----------



## mgraw (Jan 14, 2011)

chicken steve said:


> HC is the _numero uno _thing a worker looks for in a job , after your pay rate is negotiated mgraw
> 
> Removing that albatross from the necks of employers, especially small biz operations, would be a _monumental_ leap
> 
> ...


 Silliest argument yet! Who do you think is going to pay for Universal health care? Government? Businesses? Individuals? Of course it is individuals. Governments take what they want. Businesses charge more to make their profits. Individuals pay for everything which means they have less to spend. What happens when individuals have less to spend?


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

mgraw said:


> Silliest argument yet! Who do you think is going to pay for Universal health care? Government? Businesses? Individuals? Of course it is individuals. Governments take what they want. Businesses charge more to make their profits. Individuals pay for everything which means they have less to spend. What happens when individuals have less to spend?


First, i was speaking hypothetically mgraw

Second, you are right that we'd all pay for universal HC, in fact would you believe we are paying for_ other countries_ universal HC? 

Why do you think it costs $100 for an asprin in the ER? 

Or whatever medical procedure here costs 3X's what it would in other countries? (can you say medical tourism?)

You see, the insurance cabal bows to no one flag, hails from no one nation

If they are to loose in countries with constraints _(you may call it socialism if you like)_ they're going to make it up in countries with a '*free market*'

Think on that the next time someone truly sick is having to pay $1000's a month for pharmacuticals _just to stay alive_

~CS~


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

sbrn33 said:


> I am apparently sub human. I view health care as every persons responsibility. If you are an out of shape lazy ****, why should I pay for you?
> 
> .


I love this twist in HC debates, makes me wanna drop and do 20 for the gipper!

But i'll play, ok so you think it's an issue of personal responsibility?

Sure, fine...it takes me a while to recall all the folks who worked hard all their lives, paid their dues, only to assume some illness of degrading caliber to where they can't work

Then it's only a matter of time before it comes down to paying cobra , or eat/heat, and you don't even want to get into medicaid spendowns with me tonight...

Even if they can maintain their insurance, they'll literally be kicked while they're down , and those constant callers sent by insurance cabal bean counters _D*MN WELL KNOW THEY'RE TOO WEAK TO FIGHT BACK_

Are we still talking personal responsibility? Or is it Russian Roulette?

~CS~


----------



## robnj772 (Jan 15, 2008)

John Valdes said:


> Employer sponsored health plans are a fact of life in this country.
> If all employers payed their people enough to buy insurance on their own, I might agree with you.
> Our country was built this way.
> 
> ...


You are the most delusional person on this planet.

Our country was built on employer sponsored health care?

Your out of your mind, you " sub human" self entitled dumocrat 

Health care is a right?? But owning a firearm isn't?

Gee funny so which amendment does that fall under?

I bet you think it's ok for kids these days to get trophies even when they lose. People like you are ruining our country with this bull**** welfare socialist communist attitude.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

robnj772 said:


> Health care is a right?? But owning a firearm isn't?
> 
> Gee funny so which amendment does that fall under?
> 
> .


Iirc, it's in the preamble>



We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, *promote the general Welfare*, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America


~CS~


----------



## mgraw (Jan 14, 2011)

chicken steve said:


> Iirc, it's in the preamble>
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 I do not think Universal Health Care is what the framers had in mind when they wrote that.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

mgraw said:


> I do not think Universal Health Care is what the framers had in mind when they wrote that.




Ok, so what DO you think they were addressing mgraw?

~CS~


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

chicken steve said:


> Ok, so what DO you think they were addressing mgraw?
> 
> ~CS~


Promote not provide.



Holy bat**** I am having such a hard time keeping my mouth shut in this ****ing train wreck. 

Time to go go outside, maybe I'll take the kids shopping for Mothers Day presents.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Goldagain said:


> Promote not provide.
> 
> 
> 
> .







~CS~


----------



## walkerj (May 13, 2007)

chicken steve said:


> Iirc, it's in the preamble>
> 
> We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America
> 
> ~CS~


Back then every man woman and child in this mfer had a gun and no one had health care. 
So now we just turn both of those around and everyone has healthcare and no one has guns. 

I can tell you that my family has had healthcare since the 50s. Every last one of us. No complaints in that department. 
I've seen my people die of cancer and their insurance that they WORKED for and EARNED payed off and none of the family was bankrupted. 
And we are no silver spoon fed folks either. After all I am from LOUISIANA, the scum of the USA. 
There is no reason any dumb SOB can't get a job with insurance. NONE. 
It is no right. It is a privilege that is earned. 
And whoever said anti-ACA is pro-cancer, that is the dumbest **** I have ever read in my life. I watched my father, his father, and his mother die of cancer so come say that to my face. 

Now we do however have a RIGHT to bear arms that is most definitely in the constitution. 
But delusional people think only the government should have them and its OK for them to buy 100s of millions of hollow points that they are technically not allowed to use. 

This thread should be:
A) Closed 
Or
B) you people come to my house and we settle this like MEN would. Your parents parents might actually finally be proud of you. 

I'm with Gold. FTS


----------



## Gold IV (May 12, 2013)

chicken steve said:


> ~CS~


This has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. I'm not going to argue weather or not the document is relative. I think it is and I'm ready to shoot you to defend it. (Metaphorically speaking of course) So I have no need to have that discussion. The preamble you quoted uses the word Promote not provide. That is my sole point.


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

Gold IV said:


> This has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.


Someone is have an issue keeping their alts straight.


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

walkerj said:


> And whoever said anti-ACA is pro-cancer, that is the dumbest **** I have ever read in my life. I watched my father, his father, and his mother die of cancer so come say that to my face.
> 
> you people come to my house and we settle this like MEN would. Your parents parents might actually finally be proud of you.


I said it. I am sorry cancer killed your family, but that does not mitigate the fact that people are dying because of a lack of healthcare and we as a country, the supposed greatest country on earth, owe it to ourselves, those that came before and those that will come after to provide the most basic of health care. You tell the 45,000 families who lose a family member every year that they are dumb SOBs who should have gotten a job with insurance.

You make bold statements about forebears you know nothing about. 

Back then, as you put it, the world is not as you imagine it. It was not an fully armed blood watering the tree of liberty time. Arms were rare, slaves were owed, women were chattle, one in ten children died as infants and if you lived to 50 you crushed the odds.

Our country grew from that shabby and disgusting time to a point in our history were a man could earn a living for his family and provide food shelter and medicine...and now look at it. Two parents having to work, no good jobs with insurance, our manufacturing 'globalized', our companies turned into short term stock manipulated toys for wall street pukes to play with. The middle class is gone, our economy is in ruins and we cannot even get over ourselves long enough to do basic accounting in congress.

So if you are feeling froggy, go find one of the obstructionist douche nozzles who only cares about helping his rich masters and invite them to act like MEN at your place - some of us are too busy trying to act like adults.


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

Heh now I can thank you twice Walker. You deserve it.:thumbsup:


----------



## walkerj (May 13, 2007)

eejack said:


> I said it. I am sorry cancer killed your family, but that does not mitigate the fact that people are dying because of a lack of healthcare and we as a country, the supposed greatest country on earth, owe it to ourselves, those that came before and those that will come after to provide the most basic of health care. You tell the 45,000 families who lose a family member every year that they are dumb SOBs who should have gotten a job with insurance.
> 
> You make bold statements about forebears you know nothing about.
> 
> ...


They should get insurance. They shouldn't have wasted their lives on drugs and kicks. 

If you think arms were rare you need to get a history book. 

A man can still provide food and shelter and medicine, they just have to work for it like back then. 

I am the middle class and so are you and everyone else in this discussion. How are we destroyed?
Who on this forum doesn't have insurance because they can't get it before ACA?

I will let you win this 'argument' because I really don't care if you think you are right. 

The South WILL rise again.


----------



## robnj772 (Jan 15, 2008)

eejack said:


> Someone is have an issue keeping their alts straight.


Yea he got banned yet your still here?

How the **** did that happen?


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

walkerj said:


> They should get insurance. They shouldn't have wasted their lives on drugs and kicks.
> 
> If you think arms were rare you need to get a history book.
> 
> ...


The largest employer in America does not provide insurance. 

Arms were rare because in any society including the colonial states they were prohibited.

Nearly 16% of Americans live below the poverty line and 11.7 million unemployed workers. You cannot work if there are no jobs.



http://money.usnews.com/money/personal-finance/articles/2012/10/16/decline-of-the-middle-class-behind-the-numbers
said:


> Hard numbers paint a stark picture of the middle-class decline. According to an August 2012 Pew Research Center report, only half of American households are middle-income, down from 61 percent in the 1970s. In addition, median middle-class income decreased by 5 percent in the last decade, while total wealth dropped 28 percent. According to the Economic Policy Institute, households in the wealthiest 1 percent of the U.S. population now have 288 times the amount of wealth of the average middle-class American family.


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

walkerj said:


> The South WILL rise again.


I wish they would HTF up. :laughing:


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

eejack said:


> Arms were rare because in any society including the colonial states they were prohibited.
> .


This sin't true, they were banned briefly by the British at the start of the revolutionary war. They said we didn't need guns only the Crown did and they would protect us. Look how that turned out.


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

robnj772 said:


> Yea he got banned yet your still here?
> 
> How the **** did that happen?


Well his other account is still active so....

( I cannot speak for why I have not been banned, perhaps it has something to do with what I have written. )


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

Goldagain said:


> This sin't true, they were banned briefly by the British at the start of the revolutionary war. They said we didn't need guns only the Crown did and they would protect us. Look how that turned out.


so they were not banned except for when they were banned?

The NRA disagrees...



http://www.jaegerkorps.org/NRA/Hunting%20Guns%20in%20Colonial%20America.htm said:


> The practice of hunting in England at the time the American Colonies were settled was legally restricted to the gentry. Virtually all of the land was owned in large parcels by the wealthy, who preserved them from generation to generation by bequeathing their entire estates intact to the oldest son through the law of primogeniture. To protect these fields and woodlands from poachers, gamekeepers were employed who patrolled the properties and provided selective hunting for the owners. By law, no one was allowed to own a gun unless he possessed substantial freehold property or was given special permission. Thus, legal shooting was not even a choice for the average citizen. By the 1740s this restrictive practice led to hunting being considered a symbol of wealth, and field shooting “on the wing” had become a popular sport for the well-to-do.


----------



## walkerj (May 13, 2007)

eejack said:


> The largest employer in America does not provide insurance.
> 
> Arms were rare because in any society including the colonial states they were prohibited.
> 
> Nearly 16% of Americans live below the poverty line and 11.7 million unemployed workers. You cannot work if there are no jobs.


How about this:
All these supposed unemployed victims move here. If they can pass a drug test I promise you they can get a job. 

But...
I'm sure half of them couldn't pass they test and half of those would rather have a free ride. 

And btw. 
http://www.saf.org/journal/16/colonialfirearmregulation.pdf
You don't know what you're talking about.

Men were required to have firearms


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

eejack said:


> Well his other account is still active so....
> 
> ( I cannot speak for why I have not been banned, perhaps it has something to do with what I have written. )


Why are you so concerned with my accounts? Mind your own business.


eejack said:


> so they were not banned except for when they were banned?


They were banned by the British after the declaration of independence, a time in which we no longer gave them the authority to do so.


eejack said:


> The NRA disagrees...





> Originally Posted by http://www.jaegerkorps.org/NRA/Hunting Guns in Colonial America.htm
> *The practice of hunting in England* at the time the American Colonies were settled was legally restricted to the gentry. Virtually all of the land was owned in large parcels by the wealthy, who preserved them from generation to generation by bequeathing their entire estates intact to the oldest son through the law of primogeniture. To protect these fields and woodlands from poachers, gamekeepers were employed who patrolled the properties and provided selective hunting for the owners. By law, no one was allowed to own a gun unless he possessed substantial freehold property or was given special permission. Thus, legal shooting was not even a choice for the average citizen. By the 1740s this restrictive practice led to hunting being considered a symbol of wealth, and field shooting “on the wing” had become a popular sport for the well-to-do.


We are in the United States, not England.


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

walkerj said:


> How about this:
> All these supposed unemployed victims move here. If they can pass a drug test I promise you they can get a job.
> 
> But...
> ...


So now they are victims? Oh, sorry - drug users. Do you have 12 million jobs on hand?

As far as Cramer's work is concerned...seriously? I get he is an enthusiastic supporter of gun rights ( as am I btw ) but his research is snippets of laws without supporting evidence or clarification. Research what a freeman was back then and reread his schtuff.


----------



## walkerj (May 13, 2007)

Goldagain said:


> I wish they would HTF up. :laughing:


Come on down. We need guys like you even though you probably talk funny


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

Goldagain said:


> Why are you so concerned with my accounts? Mind your own business.
> 
> They were banned by the British after the declaration of independence, a time in which we no longer gave them the authority to do so.
> 
> We are in the United States, not England.


Stop trolling union topics and you will cease to be amusing to me.

They were banned by law before the colonies revolted. Yes, once the colonies revolted English law no longer applied.


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

eejack said:


> Stop trolling union topics and you will cease to be amusing to me.
> 
> They were banned by law before the colonies revolted. Yes, once the colonies revolted English law no longer applied.


Thats not entirely true either, while there were bans they weren't total and all inclusive of all states, in fact most states did NOT ever have any ban while a few had limitations.


I'm really tired of being called a troll. Why do you think your opinion has more value than mine? Are you better than me? Are you more educated? Do you have more of a vested interest? Or are you simply trying to discredit me to make your argument?

.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

eejack said:


> so they were not banned except for when they were banned?
> 
> The NRA disagrees..so they were not banned except for when they were banned?
> 
> ...


eejack I fail to see your point,What are you talking about?I don't think that anyone here would stick up for the way the British empire ruled America before we armed ourselves legal or not and started the revolution that set man free 4 July 1776 before that time your hatred should be directed at the kingdom and not what is now known, as The USA.


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

Goldagain said:


> I'm really tired of being called a troll.


Well, then stop acting like one. :thumbsup:


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

walkerj said:


> Come on down. We need guys like you even though you probably talk funny


We do talk funny...:laughing:


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

eejack said:


> Well, then stop acting like one. :thumbsup:


Ok. I will. Tell me how I am acting like a troll. By disagreeing with you?


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

HARRY304E said:


> eejack I fail to see your point,What are you talking about?I don't think that anyone here would stick up for the way the British empire ruled America before we armed ourselves legal or not and started the revolution that set man free 4 July 1776 before that time your hatred should be directed at the kingdom and not what is now known, as The USA.


And yet folks want to revise history, telling us that the colonists were this well armed group of individualists that fought off the british for their individual good.

No.

The colonies were beset with all kinds of restrictions from England - including the ownership of arms ( which we all know was to prevent rebellion ). It was through great hazard and sacrifice that the colonies broke away from that oppressive monarchy.

What these folks fail to point out, fail to recognize, was that it was a community effort. The nation stood united, and it is always in the best interest of the nation to stand united.

We as a nation need to stand united now, but instead we allow foreign powers to divide us ( Rupert Murdoch ) with lies and hate and animosity. We allow greed to give us reason to trample our downtrodden ( Wall Street ). We allow special interest groups to stifle the will of the people ( NRA ). We cannot even be united in helping those who need our help ( returning wounded soldiers ).

We need to return to being a country of us and not a country of me. The ACA is a step in that direction. Time to stop being selfish.


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

Goldagain said:


> Ok. I will. Tell me how I am acting like a troll. By disagreeing with you?


By consistently creating alternative accounts for which to post.


----------



## walkerj (May 13, 2007)

eejack said:


> And yet folks want to revise history, telling us that the colonists were this well armed group of individualists that fought off the british for their individual good.
> 
> No.
> 
> ...


In some people's opinion....


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

eejack said:


> By consistently creating alternative accounts for which to post.


I have had 4 accounts in the last 5 years or so. 2 today because I couldn't sign into one the latter banned because I had 2. All 4 have had my original name GOLD in them. Explain how that is "Consistently creating new accounts" then tell me which of the post I made in this thread is "Trolling"


----------



## walkerj (May 13, 2007)

This is my step mom, my daughter, and my dad that died when my daughter was 2 months old. 
I took the picture. 
We love cancer and we celebrate it every 1st Wednesday because it is so great. 
He had insurance. 
He was middle class. 
He provided me with a roof, protection, medicine, and everything else a boy could want. 
He is evil and so am I because I don't support this nonsense?

I can tell you that if you were to come down to God's country sporting that gibberish that you probably wouldn't make it out the same way you came here. 
So stay wherever it is you are and don't come to a land of men that believe in freedom and hard work.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

eejack said:


> And yet folks want to revise history, telling us that the colonists were this well armed group of individualists that fought off the british for their individual good.
> 
> No.
> 
> ...


Funny how you left out George Soros...


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

HARRY304E said:


> Funny how you left out George Soros...


and ACORN


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

walkerj said:


> This is my step mom, my daughter, and my dad that died when my daughter was 2 months old.
> I took the picture.
> We love cancer and we celebrate it every 1st Wednesday because it is so great.
> He had insurance.
> ...


Like I said, I am sorry cancer killed your family, but I am shattered you want other families to go through this.

Even with all the advantage he gave you and he had himself you went through this. Imagine, no prospects, no insurance. You want even more folks to go though this?

You of all people should be pushing to alleviate others of your burden.

( and yes, I have been down in your neck of the woods post katrina - came out just as well as can be expected considering )


----------



## walkerj (May 13, 2007)

eejack said:


> Like I said, I am sorry cancer killed your family, but I am shattered you want other families to go through this.
> 
> Even with all the advantage he gave you and he had himself you went through this. Imagine, no prospects, no insurance. You want even more folks to go though this?
> 
> ...


Dude are you obtuse. 

He had insurance that he worked for. 
It want given to him. 

How would ACA prevent this?

I wouldn't wish it upon my worst enemy.


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

walkerj said:


> Dude are you obtuse.
> 
> He had insurance that he worked for.
> It want given to him.
> ...


Nothing would have prevent your loss. Nothing would have made that any better in any way shape or form.

However, many others are dying who could be not dying if they had insurance. 45,000 per year. Going though what you went through. For no reason at all.

Would ACA have prevented your tragic loss - no. But it might prevent someone else's.


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

Goldagain said:


> I have had 4 accounts in the last 5 years or so. 2 today because I couldn't sign into one the latter banned because I had 2. All 4 have had my original name GOLD in them. Explain how that is "Consistently creating new accounts" then tell me which of the post I made in this thread is "Trolling"


Don't ignore me you called me out, back it up. 



eejack said:


> I am sorry


I couldn't agree more, you sure are.


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

Goldagain said:


> Don't ignore me you called me out, back it up.


Back what up - I said you consistently created accounts and you said you did it 4 times with the same name. Kind of nothing left to say, is there?


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

eejack said:


> Nothing would have prevent your loss. Nothing would have made that any better in any way shape or form.
> 
> However, many others are dying who could be not dying if they had insurance. 45,000 per year. Going though what you went through. For no reason at all.
> 
> Would ACA have prevented your tragic loss - no. But it might prevent someone else's.


ACA Doesn't provide anyone insurance it simply fines the uninsured and the small businesses who can't afford to insure their employees.

You don't even know what your defending.

It doesn't provide more doctors it provides more IRS agents. It doesn't insure anyone in poverty for free, thats still done by medicaid the income levels for coverage were just lowered by ACA so it effects FEWER covered. 

Lose the talking points your an offensive broken record.


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

eejack said:


> Back what up - I said you consistently created accounts and you said you did it 4 times with the same name. Kind of nothing left to say, is there?


So anyone with more than 1 account per year and a half is a troll and there opinion is somehow worth less than yours?


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

Goldagain said:


> So anyone with more than 1 account per year and a half is a troll and there opinion is somehow worth less than yours?


No, but it does make you a troll. :thumbsup:


----------



## mgraw (Jan 14, 2011)

chicken steve said:


> Ok, so what DO you think they were addressing mgraw?
> 
> ~CS~


 You do realize the preamble was not written by the framers and has no force of law.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

So the two camps here are either

*A)* for health care to be legislated mandatory by the government into the hands of corporatist bean counters

or 

*B)* single payer UHC

unfortunate that few grasp* C)* Public Option, previously posted ....as it appears unaddressed....


It also seems assumed that anyone can get a job with insurance

and that if one is insured , no harm will possibly come to them or theirs

does anyone see a problem here?

~CS~


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

This is what we'll be getting with option *A *folks>



> On March 5, 2006, I gave birth to a post-term, stillborn, beautiful, baby girl. Our daughter died because Kaiser withheld care and rudely sent me home even while being aware that she was in trouble. They could have saved our daughter's life with a timely delivery but Kaiser does not induce labor since there is a greater risk of c-section, which of course would mean more money out of their pocket. California has a cap of $250,000. Letting her die saved them possbily millions in lifetime care if she had been born compromised. After our Baby's death, critical medical records just mysteriously "vanished." - Sarah, Michigan


~CS~


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

As what is proposed via *A* will be primarily job based, what happens if there are fewer jobs?










vs....










~CS~


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

And this is what your _'personal responsibility' _grants you under our current (soon to crawl up everyone's azz) system now>



> Bankruptcies due to medical bills increased by nearly 50 percent in a six-year period, from 46 percent in 2001 to 62 percent in 2007, and most of those who filed for bankruptcy were middle-class, well-educated homeowners, according to a report that will be published in the August issue of The American Journal of Medicine.
> 
> "*Unless you're a Warren Buffett or Bill Gates, you're one illness away from financial ruin in this country*," says lead author Steffie Woolhandler, M.D., of the Harvard Medical School, in Cambridge, Mass. "If an illness is long enough and expensive enough, private insurance offers very little protection against medical bankruptcy, and that's the major finding in our study."


~CS~


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

eejack said:


> And yet folks want to revise history, telling us that the colonists were this well armed group of individualists that fought off the british for their individual good.
> 
> No.
> 
> ...


Revisionists usually fail to recognize the balkanization the Sons of Liberty imposed on the then infantile American populace

~CS~


----------



## mgraw (Jan 14, 2011)

chicken steve said:


> This is what we'll be getting with option *A *folks>
> 
> 
> 
> ~CS~


WOW! That's just awful. (jk) Did you expect anything less from a group associated with MoveOn.org.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Your partisan diversions are ineffective debate tactics.....go pick a source w/stats to _your_ liking mgraw

~CS~


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

walkerj said:


> The South WILL rise again.


Oh brother! But it did remind me of a CD song.





Which in turn reminded me of one of his songs that was (and kind of still is) my mantra.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

~CS~


----------



## mgraw (Jan 14, 2011)

chicken steve said:


> Your partisan diversions are ineffective debate tactics.....go pick a source w/stats to _your_ liking mgraw
> 
> ~CS~


Whether the information is from the extreme left or the extreme right I am equally skeptical. You though only seem to quote the extreme left.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

so a job w/bennies is all it takes......?










_April 2008: 62.7 percent

April 2009: 59.8 percent

April 2010: 58.7 percent

April 2011: 58.4 percent

April 2012: 58.5 percent

April 2013: 58.6 percent_

~CS~


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

mgraw said:


> Whether the information is from the extreme left or the extreme right I am equally skeptical. You though only seem to quote the extreme left.



first off, the last thing i am is partisan

partisans are the tools of the fools in office who think they can fool everyone all the time

but i digress, i was attempting to address personal bankrupcies in America

The majority of them are HC related, and growing in #'s

If you don't like my source i challenge YOU SIR to dig one up from a source YOU like mgraw

And i'll up the ante' as well, challenging YOU to discuss how fascist HC is going to change any the current stats you'll bring to the table

~CS~


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

mgraw said:


> Whether the information is from the extreme left or the extreme right I am equally skeptical. You though only seem to quote the extreme left.





chicken steve said:


> And i'll up the ante' as well, challenging YOU to discuss how fascist HC is going to change any the current stats you'll bring to the table
> 
> ~CS~






Selling tickets to ring side. :thumbup: :laughing:

PS, my money's on CS.


----------



## mgraw (Jan 14, 2011)

chicken steve said:


> first off, the last thing i am is partisan
> 
> partisans are the tools of the fools in office who think they can fool everyone all the time
> 
> ...


From your link:

However, Peter Cunningham, Ph.D., a senior fellow at the Center for Studying Health System Change, a nonpartisan policy research organization in Washington, D.C., isn't completely convinced. He says it's often hard to tell in which cases medical bills add to the bleak financial picture without being directly responsible for the bankruptcies.
"I'm not sure that it is correct to say that medical problems were the direct cause of all of these bankruptcies," he says. "In most of these cases, it's going to be medical expenses and other things, other debt that is accumulating."

Either way, he agrees that medical bills are an increasing problem for many people. 

"I think medical bills are something that a lot of families are having a lot of difficulty with and whether it's the direct cause of bankruptcy or whether it helps to push them over the edge because they already were in a precarious financial situation, it's a big concern and hopefully that's what medical reform will try to address," he says.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

_will it _address it is the Q mgraw

One of the biggest canards in our system is that these HC related fiscal disasters for Americans is because they're uninsured

While true that the uninsured are _hosed _in the event of serious illness, the majority of fiscal distress hails from those who ARE insured.

These are Americans who've paid their dues here too, many summarily suckerpunched by inurance bureaucracy when they're down

Now we have mandated HC on the table, i would think that any one of the 99 EC's here can tell you all about _how well_ mandated insurance(s) work

It'll loose all customer service

You'll no longer have choices as you would or could have, because they'll legislated_ all_ those loopholes out to where they're all basically the same game

If you are unfortunate enough to fall into some sort of illness that takes your job away, you're best hope is it kills you quickly

~CS~


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Oh, _almost fergot !_ We've a 1 outta 2 chance (Male) and 1 outta 3 chance (Female) of Cancer by age 70 statistically here

guess who's _lovin _that!


~CS~


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

Here is a glimpse of what may be coming down the road.


----------



## mgraw (Jan 14, 2011)

chicken steve said:


> _will it _address it is the Q mgraw
> 
> One of the biggest canards in our system is that these HC related fiscal disasters for Americans is because they're uninsured
> 
> ...


 No doubt there will be some that are forced into bankruptcy because of medical problems. But I would not be surprised if the majority of them were already in financial difficulty or just barley getting along before the medical problem. This is where personal responsibility comes in.


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

> Even more troubling, the U.S. health system is on the wrong track. Overall, performance has not improved since the first National Scorecard was issued in 2006. Of greatest concern, access to health care has significantly declined. As of 2007, more than 75 million adults—42 percent of all adults ages 19 to 64—were either uninsured during the year or underinsured, up from 35 percent in 2003. At the same time, the U.S. failed to keep pace with gains in health outcomes achieved by the leading countries. The U.S. now ranks last out of 19 countries on a measure of mortality amenable to medical care, falling from 15th as other countries raised the bar on performance. Up to 101,000 fewer people would die prematurely if the U.S. could achieve leading, benchmark country rates.


http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Pub...-on-U-S--Health-System-Performance--2008.aspx

According to that site, before the ACA, the US as a whole was failing to keep pace with other countries when it came to healthcare outcome.

It seems obvious that the path we were on was not working for the country as a whole. While it was working great for some, not so much for the majority. 

Like it or not, the bill is law, and the supreme court failed to do the bidding of some.

What side you are on often depends on what your needs are, and what resources you have available.


----------



## highleg (May 11, 2013)

chicken steve said:


> This is what we'll be getting with option *A *folks>
> 
> ~Sad story of someone dying during child birth~
> 
> ...


Steve, why did this woman get pregnant when she did not have insurance?

Why don't we look into the causes of these issues instead of looking for bandaids (which always consist of having the responsible pay for the irresponsible)?


----------



## highleg (May 11, 2013)

eejack said:


> Stop trolling union topics and you will cease to be amusing to me.


Gold, eejack thinks that you are me.


What he doesn't understand is that I am a 15 year (wow, it's almost 16 now that I think of it) veteran of his sister local. You know that as a fact, as do many others. However, he doesn't believe it just because some of my views go against the normal union grain. 

I spent more time in 164's territory than my own, and I met many great men. Unfortunately, because of typical politics, many people "jump in with both feet" and follow their political party without question, and they hate anyone who dares to bring up a different viewpoint. This happens on both sides, and it's truly a shame because it's part of the problem.

The fact is, eejack won't acknowledge the truth about how many of his own union people will suffer from the ACA. He will talk around the facts that many of his brothers who were once making $100K and have a large mortgage and lease payments will now be hustling to make $##,### which will just barely allow them to pass by. And because of the ACA, they will now owe more money in "taxes", money that they do not have, money that is paying for people who are most likely not hustling nearly as hard as they are.

He'll play with the numbers to the point where he thinks it's accurate to say that this won't happen, but it will, and it will happen to a huge number of good, hardworking Americans. He won't be willing to be open minded enough to see any other view than what he was spoon fed.

For example:


> We allow special interest groups to stifle the will of the people ( NRA ).


 It's funny, he has no problems when the unions (special interest groups) lobby for laws that protect them, even knowing that the union membership in this country is rather low. But he calls out the NRA... And he says that the NRA is going against the will of the people, let me guess, he is believing Obama's number: _90% want background checks! _ Bologna, untrue, false, wrong.

So, in closing, if eejack wanted to have a reasonable conversation, I would oblige. But as long as he is posting falsehoods and protecting "his side" without actually finding all the facts, then I will respond to him in kind.


----------



## highleg (May 11, 2013)

chicken steve said:


> but i digress, i was attempting to address personal bankrupcies in America
> 
> The majority of them are HC related, and growing in #'s


Is that true?

How do you know that?

You do realize that those healthcare bills are simply the ones that people don't pay, right?

What I mean is that the majority of these people are living in a house with too big of a mortgage for their salary, with leased cars that are too expensive, with televisions and toys that are too expensive, and credit card bills higher than they make in 2 years. But the medical bills come last because they aren't worried about those being repossessed like the house and cars. 

I know many people who went bankrupt, and only one of them truly deserved that "easy out" because he truly tried and found himself in a worse position every time. All of the rest went bankrupt because they were extremely irresponsible and continued to spend and spend and spend long after they knew they would never be able to pay it off.


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

highleg said:


> _90% want background checks! _ Bologna, untrue, false, wrong.





> The vast majority of American voters do. Eighty-five percent of Americans said they support background checks at gun shows and for private sales in a Pew Research Center poll released earlier this year. Other polls have found even wider support for broadening checks, with 92 percent of respondents to a February survey by Quinnipiac University saying they favored them on every single gun sale. That number dropped to 91 percent among gun-owning households.


http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...nd-checks-for-guns-what-you-need-to-know?lite



> Nationally, surveys taken since the Newtown, Conn., shooting similarly show a broad consensus behind background checks, outstripping the support given to most other gun control policies. A CBS/New York Times poll found that 92 percent of Americans favor universal background checks. Other surveys showed support for the proposal hovering somewhere between 80 and 90 percent.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/31/background-checks_n_2590495.html



> 92% favor background checks for all potential gun buyers, while just 7% are opposed.


http://www.scribd.com/doc/120711121/CBS-News-New-York-Times-Poll



> Prior to the Senate's failure to pass the proposal, most national polling indicated that nearly nine in 10 Americans supported expanded background checks for gun sales.


http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...rity-wanted-background-checks-to-pass-senate/

I now await your sources that say otherwise.


----------



## highleg (May 11, 2013)

hardworkingstiff said:


> I now await your sources that say otherwise.


When you poll a small group of people in NJ, NY, and the urban areas of PA, like the "non-biased" sources your cited did, do you expect to get anywhere near a realistic number? Do you feel that number truly encompasses the majority of this country?

Any poll that shows 90% or higher agreeing on one thing can not be trusted in any way. If you went around asking normal average people if they would like a million dollars, more than 10% of them would have some reason to say NO. You can't get 90% of the American public to agree on anything. You know that.

Going up to a Subaru with an Obama sticker in New York City and asking their opinion on gun control is not going to net you accurate results.


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

highleg said:


> When you poll a small group of people in NJ, NY, and the urban areas of PA, like the "non-biased" sources your cited did, do you expect to get anywhere near a realistic number? Do you feel that number truly encompasses the majority of this country?
> 
> Any poll that shows 90% or higher agreeing on one thing can not be trusted in any way. If you went around asking normal average people if they would like a million dollars, more than 10% of them would have some reason to say NO. You can't get 90% of the American public to agree on anything. You know that.
> 
> Going up to a Subaru with an Obama sticker in New York City and asking their opinion on gun control is not going to net you accurate results.


So you don't have a source, just your understanding of how polls and statistics work. OK, I understand now. Thanks.

BTW, what was your name before this one?


----------



## highleg (May 11, 2013)

hardworkingstiff said:


> So you don't have a source, just your understanding of how polls and statistics work. OK, I understand now. Thanks.


 Would you like me to do as you did and post biased sources showing inaccurate statistics? Would that really further this discussion in the right direction?


> BTW, what was your name before this one?


http://www.electriciantalk.com/members/arrrrrmatey-9374/


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

hardworkingstiff said:


> Here is a glimpse of what may be coming down the road.


Worth every second of it's 6:42 Lou,_ kudos_ for posting this!

Those_ radical_ Okies! maybe the south will rise again ......via medical tourism !

~CS~


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

highleg said:


> Would you like me to do as you did and post biased sources showing inaccurate statistics?


Yes please. Yes yes yes. 

Thank you.


----------



## highleg (May 11, 2013)

hardworkingstiff said:


> Yes please. Yes yes yes.
> 
> Thank you.


You can find them yourself, I'm not here to do your legwork. It's very easy, especially with the advent of this wonderful thing called Google...


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

highleg said:


> You can find them yourself, I'm not here to do your legwork. It's very easy, especially with the advent of this wonderful thing called Google...


I tried but couldn't find any, that's why I asked you to post some. I think maybe you don't have any and that's why you are trying to put it back on me. Maybe you have been caught spouting beliefs as facts?


----------



## highleg (May 11, 2013)

hardworkingstiff said:


> I tried but couldn't find any,


That's not true, being less than honest is no way to go about life.

I also find it mighty telling that you refuse to even speak about the fact that the polling that your biased sources cited was only done in clearly left leaning areas.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

highleg said:


> > Is that true?
> 
> 
> yes
> ...


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

highleg said:


> That's not true, being less than honest is no way to go about life.


I'm trying to look at this with an open mind. If you can't post a source, then it's hard to take you as credible. I think you have a valid concern, but finding support from a source other than you is difficult. If you can't provide one, I would have to think you are the one being "less than honest". 

This is not a battle (at least not for me). I'm truly interested. I agree with you that a poll is all about how a question is asked and who is asked. That doesn't necessarily mean a poll is inaccurate. If these polls taken were so blatantly biased, I think the NRA would have been all over them and you would be able to post a link to something to back your statement.

If you only want to name call or post opinion as fact, well I guess we don't have anything left to discuss.


----------



## highleg (May 11, 2013)

chicken steve said:


> I'll go out on a limb and say finding $2-3K a month _just to stay alive _rates priority for most


 They don't have to find that money, it's already been spent on other things. They go into debt for the medical bills because they spent their money elsewhere. No, medical insurance is not a priority, or else people would be buying policies long before the other luxuries in life.

You talk about all the people without insurance, but they all have televisions, computers, video games, cars, houses bigger than they need, etc.


> You really think bankruptcy is an _easy way_ out?


 Yes, it is. It was even easier up until a few years ago. 



> Further, insisting fiscal irresponsibility is the chief culprit in an economy that's trashed jobs and home values in the order of 6 zeros is to claim an inordinate amount of Americans as suddenly waking up and deciding they'd rather be on the dole, etc.
> 
> i.e.- they must ALL be losers, because there can't be a systemic reason
> 
> ~CS~


So that's your excuse? Screw personal responsibility?


I stand by what I said earlier, it's inaccurate to say that healthcare is the leading cause of bankruptcy because that same person spent their money on many other things, but simply felt the healthcare bill was the one that could go without being paid.


----------



## highleg (May 11, 2013)

hardworkingstiff said:


> I'm trying to look at this with an open mind. If you can't post a source, then it's hard to take you as credible. I think you have a valid concern, but finding support from a source other than you is difficult. If you can't provide one, I would have to think you are the one being "less than honest".
> 
> This is not a battle (at least not for me). I'm truly interested. I agree with you that a poll is all about how a question is asked and who is asked. That doesn't necessarily mean a poll is inaccurate. If these polls taken were so blatantly biased, I think the NRA would have been all over them and you would be able to post a link to something to back your statement.
> 
> If you only want to name call or post opinion as fact, well I guess we don't have anything left to discuss.


You are pandering and you know it.

The information is right there, I refuse to allow you to lead me around by a leash and spend my time posting the same things that you could find doing a simple search.

And, as I already mentioned, I find it so very convenient that you refuse to comment on the fact that the polling that you cited from left leaning sources was performed in extremely left leaning areas (right where I live). 

A poll that shows 90% of the people agreeing on something is not a poll that any non-biased person would ever even begin to entertain.


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

highleg said:


> You are pandering and you know it.
> 
> The information is right there, I refuse to allow you to lead me around by a leash and spend my time posting the same things that you could find doing a simple search.
> 
> ...


So be it, bye.


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

highleg said:


> Gold, eejack thinks that you are me.


No, I know who you are. I also know what you are. Your style is rather particular, bland but effective.

You make a statement then natter along expecting folks to chase your lie whilst denying any possible proof that you are lying.

Your point about 90% of Americans wanting background checks for example. Common knowledge - poll after poll - yet even with evidence in front of you the tactic is 'you found the wrong polls' or 'the sample is biased'. You don't actually care about the facts of the issue, you just want to keep the trawling going until someone gets frustrated and takes it personally.

Your response to this would be that I am obscuring facts or spouting falsehoods and you might be encouraged to have a reasonable conversation if only I accepted your facts as mine are so blatantly tainted.

No.

I recognize you for what you are.


----------



## highleg (May 11, 2013)

eejack said:


> No, I know who you are. I also know what you are. Your style is rather particular, bland but effective.
> 
> You make a statement then natter along expecting folks to chase your lie whilst denying any possible proof that you are lying.
> 
> ...


Typical in your fashion, ignore the discussion and try to insult me on a personal level, you have done the same thing since the first time we spoke.

That's fine with me. You are still what you are.

One day, when you actually look at the facts and think about the issue deeper than just what was written on your Local's latest newsletter, you will thank me for opening your eyes.


----------



## highleg (May 11, 2013)

hardworkingstiff said:


> So be it, bye.


So you are refusing to comment in any way, shape, or form on the fact that the polls that you cited were only performed in extremely left leaning areas?

Why would you ignore that fact? 

You want me to go and do research for you, but you won't even discuss the most serious part of this topic?


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

highleg said:


> Typical in your fashion, ignore the discussion and try to insult me on a personal level, you have done the same thing since the first time we spoke.
> 
> That's fine with me. You are still what you are.
> 
> One day, when you actually look at the facts and think about the issue deeper than just what was written on your Local's latest newsletter, you will thank me for opening your eyes.


This is not a discussion. You refuse to actually discuss anything. Throw out a lie and dodge and weave your way into a post count.

Go ahead, post some links that refute the 90% number. Do it yourself if google is so easy. Don't wimp out, stand by what you wrote. 

Surely you will deliver this time.....:thumbsup:


----------



## highleg (May 11, 2013)

eejack said:


> This is not a discussion. You refuse to actually discuss anything.


 Are you honestly trying to act as if you have ever budged on anything, or even slightly entertained someone else's viewpoint on this matter?

:laughing:

By your own admission, the ACA is great and anyone who opposes it loves cancer and wants people to die of cancer. Good job, what a stand up guy.

You still ignore the fact that many of our brothers will be suffering from the ACA, as I have pointed out many times, and even reiterated in this thread-which you conveniently ignored.


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

highleg said:


> So you are refusing to comment in any way, shape, or form on the fact that the polls that you cited were only performed in extremely left leaning areas?


Would you consider Georgia an extremely left leaning area? 

From PolitiFact - Georgia



> A Fox News poll done Jan. 15-17 found 91 percent of respondents were in favor of criminal background checks on all gun buyers, including those buying at gun shows and private sales. Thirty-nine percent of the respondents said they think of themselves as Democrats, 34 percent Republicans and 23 percent said they were independents. The pollsters interviewed 1,008 Americans. Slightly more than half of the respondents said someone owned a gun in their household.


http://www.politifact.com/georgia/s...er-uses-polls-make-case-against-georgia-gun-/


> Why would you ignore that fact?


Maybe you prefer PolitiFact Texas


> Our ruling
> 
> Austin’s mayor said 90 percent of Americans and 74 percent of National Rifle Association members support universal background checks for gun purchases.
> 
> ...


http://www.politifact.com/texas/sta...ffingwell-says-polls-show-90-percent-america/


> You want me to go and do research for you, but you won't even discuss the most serious part of this topic?


You have done no research. You only have made statements of what you believe with nothing else to back your statements.

You sir, are being narrow-minded, obstinate, and small-minded. Why do you refuse to put up supporting documentation? Because you have none.


----------



## highleg (May 11, 2013)

hardworkingstiff said:


> Because you have none.


No, because I refuse to do what you just did, yet again, and put up false polls from biased sources.

74% of the NRA supports background checks!!! That's been debunked for a while now, the fact that you would post that lie today shows how out of it you are.


----------



## big2bird (Oct 1, 2012)

Fact is, this bill is so enormous, no one has read it all, or understands it all. Therefore, anything said here is pure speculation on their part. Even a lawyer that "might" have thought they understood it could still be wrong. 
Have fun guessing guys. Only God knows this outcome.


----------



## big2bird (Oct 1, 2012)

highleg said:


> No, because I refuse to do what you just did, yet again, and put up false polls from biased sources.
> 
> 74% of the NRA supports background checks!!! That's been debunked for a while now, the fact that you would post that lie today shows how out of it you are.


What does the NRA have to do with health care?


----------



## highleg (May 11, 2013)

big2bird said:


> Fact is, this bill is so enormous, no one has read it all, or understands it all. Therefore, anything said here is pure speculation on their part. Even a lawyer that "might" have thought they understood it could still be wrong.
> Have fun guessing guys. Only God knows this outcome.


Although what you say is true, it won't matter to the people who support the bill just because they were told to.


----------



## highleg (May 11, 2013)

big2bird said:


> What does the NRA have to do with health care?


Nothing, eejack and stiff brought that into the discussion and won't let it go.


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

highleg said:


> 74% of the NRA supports background checks!!! That's been debunked for a while now


That should be easy enough for you to provide a link to back you. But yet, you fail to provide one. Go dig a ditch or pull some wire or something electrical, because you sure don't know how to have a civil debate.


----------



## mgraw (Jan 14, 2011)

These two poll questions I find interesting.
*"Which is more important: protecting the constitutional right of citizens to own guns or protecting citizens from gun violence?" *Options rotated​*Protecting **right t**own guns 53% *
*Protecting **citizens 42%*
*Unsure 5%*



*"Turning now to gun control: Which one of the following do you think is most likely to reduce gun violence? Stricter gun control laws for everyone. Better mental health services. Better parenting."*​ 
*Stricter gun**control laws 24%*
*Better mental **health services 26%*
*Better**parenting 37%*
*All (vol.) 9%*
*Unsure 5%*
​




26243795


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

big2bird said:


> What does the NRA have to do with health care?





highleg said:


> Nothing, eejack and stiff brought that into the discussion and won't let it go.





highleg said:


> _90% want background checks! _ Bologna, untrue, false, wrong.


It was "highleg" that 1st brought up the background checks. The NRA is important because if the NRA members are in support, it pretty much blows highleg out of the water.


----------



## highleg (May 11, 2013)

hardworkingstiff said:


> That should be easy enough for you to provide a link to back you. But yet, you fail to provide one. Go dig a ditch or pull some wire or something electrical, because you sure don't know how to have a civil debate.


Why the need to insult me? Why do you and eejack have to turn this around on me instead of discussing the facts?

I don't think I've met a more biased group of people in my life, and anything that doesn't align with your ideals is simply ignored.

Just look at your own link :laughing:



> Leffingwell aide Amy Everhart said by email that the mayor based his NRA reference on the same poll,* as cited by the group that commissioned it, Mayors Against Illegal Guns*.


Here's your link, this is the last time I am doing the legwork for you: http://www.nraila.org/legislation/s....aspx?s="universal+background+checks"&st=&ps=


----------



## highleg (May 11, 2013)

hardworkingstiff said:


> It was "highleg" that 1st brought up the background checks.


 No, it was eejack. 

You clearly chose sides when you made the above lie.

eejack clearly brought this issue up when he said:


eejack said:


> We allow special interest groups to stifle the will of the people ( NRA ).





> The NRA is important because if the NRA members are in support, it pretty much blows highleg out of the water.


But they aren't, as I proved to you.


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

highleg said:


> Why the need to insult me? Why do you and eejack have to turn this around on me instead of discussing the facts?
> 
> I don't think I've met a more biased group of people in my life, and anything that doesn't align with your ideals is simply ignored.
> 
> Just look at your own link :laughing:


Everyone is bias, you can't help it. I'm willing to entertain your point of view, if you can provide substantiation to your claims. But you are not willing to provide any. We are just supposed to accept your statements as gospel. 

THAT is not going to happen.


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

highleg said:


> But they aren't, as I proved to you.


Please show me where you "proved" it. I must have missed it. BTW, your opinion is not proof.


----------



## highleg (May 11, 2013)

hardworkingstiff said:


> Please show me where you "proved" it. I must have missed it. BTW, your opinion is not proof.


It's clear that you want to do nothing more than argue while acting as if you are non-biased. I have provided plenty of proof to show that the claims you have made are false. You simply ignore it and only quote the one little part of my post that you feel you may be able to pick apart.

When a group with a very clear agenda and a huge wallet do polling that is very clearly biased, it is to be taken as fact. I see, that makes a lot of sense. Why shouldn't we believe the _Mayors for taking guns away_ group when they say that they polled the members of the opposing organization and found that almost all of the members sided with them! Wow, how believable! 

I am done with you.


----------



## bkmichael65 (Mar 25, 2013)

This thread deserves a mercy killing


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

highleg said:


> When a group with a very clear agenda and a huge wallet do polling that is very clearly biased, it is to be taken as fact.


Sort of like posting an NRA statement to support an NRA platform? Right.


> I am done with you.


Good, I can expect not to see you post again? :laughing:


----------



## highleg (May 11, 2013)

hardworkingstiff said:


> Sort of like posting an NRA statement to support an NRA platform? Ig:


Isn't that what I said that I didn't want to do from the beginning?

All sources are biased, all we have is our own common sense.


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

highleg said:


> Isn't that what I said that I didn't want to do from the beginning?
> 
> All sources are biased, all we have is our own common sense.


Since we are in agreement, it sounds like a good place to stop. :thumbsup:


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

highleg said:


> Here's your link, this is the last time I am doing the legwork for you: http://www.nraila.org/legislation/s....aspx?s="universal+background+checks"&st=&ps=


So given all the world that google reaches your 'evidence' of bad polling and disinformation on everyone's part except your own is a letter written by an NRA past president.

I guess all those polls must be wrong because Marion Hammer disagrees.

Actually - wait for it - Marion Hammer does not have any facts to support his allegations, he has a feeling that the polls were 'phony'.

I will give you credit, you bought a couple of pages of responses with your technique. You contribute nothing but lies and fabrications, insults and innuendo, but you get page count so all in all a good day's work.

:thumbup:


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)




----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

highleg said:


> No, because I refuse to do what you just did, yet again, and put up false polls from biased sources....


 If you're gonna take a position and claim it's bolstered by fact, you need to put forth evidence that supports that.

Saying that everything that supports an opposing view is "biased" is a totally self-serving and indefensible position, because you can make that claim about literally everything you don't agree with.

Lou is pretty darn neutral and reasonable. I've seen him change his mind on a lot of hot-button issues, or at least consider them a lot more carefully than many people would. If you actually discuss things logically, he'll listen. A lot of people will.


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

I can do this because I'm a troll.


----------



## highleg (May 11, 2013)

Big John said:


> If you're gonna take a position and claim it's bolstered by fact, you need to put forth evidence that supports that.
> 
> Saying that everything that supports an opposing view is "biased" is a totally self-serving and indefensible position, because you can make that claim about literally everything you don't agree with.
> 
> Lou is pretty darn neutral and reasonable. I've seen him change his mind on a lot of hot-button issues, or at least consider them a lot more carefully than many people would. If you actually discuss things logically, he'll listen. A lot of people will.


Believing Bloomburgs BS about how 90% of Americans and 74% of NRA members support Obamas background check is crazy. All I ask is that you think for yourself. If you do, you'll realize that those numbers are complete bull****.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

highleg said:


> I stand by what I said earlier, it's inaccurate to say that healthcare is the leading cause of bankruptcy because that same person spent their money on many other things, but simply felt the healthcare bill was the one that could go without being paid.



Do tell!



> The bankruptcy statistics in America are alarming. The past few decades have seen a dramatic rise in the number of people that are unable to pay off their debts, and Congress has recently addressed the issue with legislation that makes it harder to qualify for this status. Following is a list of the most common causes of bankruptcy in America today.
> 
> 
> *1. Medical Expenses*
> ...


source


stats directly from federal and state courts

Latest Bankruptcies for the 12 months ended June 30, 2012

*



Average age: 38;

44% of filers are couples;

30% are women filing alone;

26% are men filing alone;

Slightly better educated than the general population;

Two out of three have lost a job;

Half have experienced a serious health problem;

Fewer than 9% have not suffered a job loss, medical event or divorce;

Highest bankruptcy rates: Tennessee, Utah, Georgia, Alabama.

Click to expand...

*TotalBankruptcy



> In 2010, 438,913 Chapter 13 bankruptcy cases (out of more than a million total) were filed in the United States. Of those, 4,174 were filed by businesses and 434,739 were filed by individuals or families. While the U.S. Courts system doesn't provide details on the data, it's possible that many of these cases were filed in an effort to prevent foreclosure.
> 
> The average age of an American bankruptcy filer is about 38
> .
> ...





> Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Statistics: Regular People, Unexpected Debt
> 
> These Chapter 13 bankruptcy statistics paint a picture of the average American. *That suggests that most people who find themselves in need of bankruptcy protection aren't (as rumors sometimes suggest) especially bad at handling money or devoid of moral fortitude.*
> 
> Rather, Chapter 13 filers tend to be regular folks who were hit with an unexpected expense and didn't have the savings cushion to recover from it.


~CS~


----------



## highleg (May 11, 2013)

chicken steve said:


> Do tell!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What part of what I said do you not understand?

Once again, medically bills are usually the last thing to be paid. So of course t would stand to reason that they would seem like they are what's bankrupting people. I gave examples earlier of the other things that contribute more to bankruptcy but get paid off first since they don't want to loose them.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Oh i understand what you said HighOne

It's also rather clear you are an unsubstantiated contrarian without a lick of validation to back anything you've said up

~CS~


----------



## highleg (May 11, 2013)

chicken steve said:


> Oh i understand what you said HighOne
> 
> It's also rather clear you are an unsubstantiated contrarian without a lick of validation to back anything you've said up
> 
> ~CS~


And it's rather clear that some people can't see the forest for the trees and choose to be ignorant and only listen to what someone else tells them.

If at any point you feel like refuting what I said, feel free..


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

And perhaps you should consider more fiber in your diet HighOne.....

~CS~


----------



## highleg (May 11, 2013)

chicken steve said:


> And perhaps you should consider more fiber in your diet HighOne.....
> 
> ~CS~


You're a joke dude. Clown shoes.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)




----------



## mgraw (Jan 14, 2011)

chicken steve said:


> Do tell!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Excellent post CS! Disputes everything you posted earlier.


----------



## robnj772 (Jan 15, 2008)

mgraw said:


> Excellent post CS! Disputes everything you posted earlier.


Either his meds just kicked in or they just started wearing off.


----------



## walkerj (May 13, 2007)

robnj772 said:


> STFU LGLS


Haven't seen that name for a while. 
Is this true?


----------



## highleg (May 11, 2013)

walkerj said:


> Haven't seen that name for a while.
> Is this true?


No. They have completely different posting styles. LGLS was actually pretty good and convincing.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

highleg said:


> No. They have completely different posting styles. *LGLS* was actually pretty good and convincing.



An older member that I miss ocassionally.


----------



## highleg (May 11, 2013)

brian john said:


> An older member that I miss ocassionally.


I honestly don't know why he was banned. He was pretty tame, even tho what he said went against the non-union grain here. Just another casualty of Shunk's mood swing :laughing:


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

highleg said:


> I honestly don't know why he was banned. He was pretty tame, even tho what he said went against the non-union grain here. Just another casualty of Shunk's mood swing :laughing:


What was your other sign in name?


----------



## highleg (May 11, 2013)

brian john said:


> What was your other sign in name?


EDM

http://www.electriciantalk.com/members/edm-9554/


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

highleg said:


> EDM
> 
> http://www.electriciantalk.com/members/edm-9554/


Durn if that rings a bell????


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

highleg said:


> EDM
> 
> http://www.electriciantalk.com/members/edm-9554/


Previously I was Brian John


----------



## highleg (May 11, 2013)

brian john said:


> Durn if that rings a bell????


How about this one? http://www.electriciantalk.com/members/marker-9324/


----------



## gold (Feb 15, 2008)

Your a troll. Anyone with more then one username is a troll.


----------



## highleg (May 11, 2013)

Goldagain said:


> Your a troll. Anyone with more then one username is a troll.


*You're.


----------



## John Valdes (May 17, 2007)

:laughing:


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

John Valdes said:


> :laughing:


:laughing::laughing:

I don't know why you're laughing ,but it sure is funny:laughing::thumbup:


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

Sign the bill, we'll read it afterwards..........http://washingtonexaminer.com/insurers-predict-100-400-obamacare-rate-explosion/article/2529523


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

> Insurers predict 100%-400% Obamacare rate explosion


Gee, there's an epiphany Mac....

Seems we've only two choices, at least choices that are offered....

We've the _socialist _camp , who would like inept governance that can eff up a BJ to run and dole out HC

And we've the _capitalist_ camp, who would like the Gov legislating it all into greedy wall street CEO's 

Either smells like a _train wreck_ to me.....


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

chicken steve said:


> Gee, there's an epiphany Mac....
> 
> Seems we've only two choices, at least choices that are offered....
> 
> ...


Hard for the working stiff to see the difference.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Maybe it comes down to _who_ gets to decide _what_ Lou

Witnessing the insurance cabals response to Oh-bummer-care was to realize their response was pure bean counting. For instance the gov has this fairy tale about having them insure everyone, so some companies have proposed to drop minors, because that first 6 months_ (think premie) _costs them as much as our last 6 months _(terminals)_

They're going to create loopholes, _that's what they do best!_

If so we'll _still_ be doling out to those welfare queens spittin' babies like a play dough press....


*conversely..... *

We can look at other countries who have NHC for the pro's and cons, and loopholes their system has as well


Both camps have a good argument of the inherent and insidious _extremism_ that can creep it's way in.....




The only true concession i have read is Public Option , which was silenced as quickly as it was introduced

~CS~


----------



## highleg (May 11, 2013)

I'll ask this question on a philosophical level which will require you to completely clear your mind and be open to a possible new line of thinking.

*When did it become the government's duty to make sure that everyone is all fine and dandy?* Further, where do they get the power to do so at the cost of others? 

There's actually a nice little list spelling out exactly what power the government has, and no where on that list does it say "_Take money from some people *at gunpoint*, and give it to other people_".

People say "_It's crazy that a serious illness can bankrupt you_!!". But in reality, for thousands of years families have given all of their valuables to doctors (or whatever the position was called at that time) to try and help a sick member. The difference was that back then if they didn't have enough the person would just die off. Today, we have many social programs to help them.

No one ever said life was fair. People need to depend on themselves and therefore fight for a better or healthier life. Instead, people sit around expecting others to take care of them, and the government has become one giant armed robber.

Shall I post the video of the pregnant women who already has 10 kids and is living in a hotel room saying how "_Someone's gotta pay for my kids_!"?


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

highleg said:


> I'll ask this question on a philosophical level


The philosophical level is exactly what is giving me problems. I read this a while back and Jack has some interesting thoughts on what we are talking about.

If you are going to speak philosophically, then I believe you must start from what your core beliefs and values are.

How many of us really know our core beliefs. Not what we say we believe, but what we actually do in life. My brother claims to be a devout Christian, but if you look at what he does in life, you may question his understanding of what a devout Christian would be.


----------



## highleg (May 11, 2013)

hardworkingstiff said:


> The philosophical level is exactly what is giving me problems. I read this a while back and Jack has some interesting thoughts on what we are talking about.


 I'm sorry, but I am not going to read Bible versus.



> If you are going to speak philosophically, then I believe you must start from what your core beliefs and values are.
> 
> How many of us really know our core beliefs. Not what we say we believe, but what we actually do in life. My brother claims to be a devout Christian, but if you look at what he does in life, you may question his understanding of what a devout Christian would be.


I think you did a very good job avoiding my question :thumbup::thumbsup:


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

highleg said:


> I'm sorry, but I am not going to read Bible versus.


If you are not a Christian, then you shouldn't. If you are, then you should.


> I think you did a very good job avoiding my question :thumbup::thumbsup:


:laughing: Yea, I did. Mostly because I've been considering it for a while and have not made up my mind of what I think is correct. It is not a on/off question in my mind. I'm sure it is in yours though.


----------



## highleg (May 11, 2013)

hardworkingstiff said:


> :laughing: Yea, I did. Mostly because I've been considering it for a while and have not made up my mind of what I think is correct. It is not a on/off question in my mind. I'm sure it is in yours though.


It's actually not simple for me either.

Sure, I don't like the fact that some people bust their ass and pay lots and lots of money in order to allow other people who don't want to work have many *luxuries* for free.

On the other hand, in a civilized society we shouldn't allow our fellow man to just die off due to him going thru hard times.

When I see a man who worked hard his whole life and hit rough times and needs help, I'm not complaining.

When I see a video (made by a liberal BTW) interviewing able bodied men outside of a welfare office saying that they don't feel like working because they could come get their "Obama Bucks", I get enraged. 

When I quit smoking due to the cost (even tho I had a good paying job), yet I see someone in line paying for cigarettes with cash and then using their food stamps card (I forget the name of it) to buy junk food, I get enraged.

I don't have to bore you with more, you know it all.


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

highleg said:


> *When did it become the government's duty to make sure that everyone is all fine and dandy?* Further, where do they get the power to do so at the cost of others?


We as a society do better when we as a society do well. It is in our own best interests to help each other. We spend money on roads, businesses make money delivering and we get goods at decent costs. Our hospitals have insured patients, they don't close. 

The cost to others is fair because those 'others' make their money because of all the spending. Exxon makes it's billions putting gas in cars driving on government roads built with Exxon asphalt. They should put up some taxes. 

Good infrastructure is good for everyone. As it turns out, education and healthcare are good infrastructure. From a strictly business standpoint, healthy smart workers make businesses more money.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

eejack said:


> We as a society do better when we as a society do well. It is in our own best interests to help each other. We spend money on roads, businesses make money delivering and we get goods at decent costs. Our hospitals have insured patients, they don't close.
> 
> The cost to others is fair because those 'others' make their money because of all the spending. Exxon makes it's billions putting gas in cars driving on government roads built with Exxon asphalt. They should put up some taxes.
> 
> Good infrastructure is good for everyone. As it turns out, education and healthcare are good infrastructure. From a strictly business standpoint, healthy smart workers make businesses more money.


Good post ,Senator Warren (D) MA.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

Here is my point eejack , Instead of using the talking points of the DNC try to think of the facts.

Government would have Zero money without Business,businesses built the infrastructure that created Government by paying taxes.

If anything You should agree there would be a lot more Houses,Roads,Bridges,Buildings ECT built if the Government would just get out of the way,Instead they are in the way to the point where people in the middle class cannot afford to buy their own home because housing is overpriced because not enough is being built,People in the middle class cannot afford to by a new car except in the DC area because there is not enough of them either ,There are not enough good jobs out there because again the Government is in the way.

Just a few thoughts...


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

highleg said:


> > I'll ask this question on a philosophical level which will require you to completely clear your mind and be open to a possible new line of thinking.
> >
> > *When did it become the government's duty to make sure that everyone is all fine and dandy?* Further, where do they get the power to do so at the cost of others?
> >
> ...


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

HARRY304E said:


> Here is my point eejack , Instead of using the talking points of the DNC try to think of the facts.
> 
> Government would have Zero money without Business,businesses built the infrastructure that created Government by paying taxes.
> 
> ...


There's an _entire _debate in what you've said Harry

First and foremost would be *jobs*

Our gov _'got outta the way' _and allowed a free traitors to offshore anything of a viable manufacturing facility in America

They did nothing to stop it , and we have no jobs because they bowed down to the globalists in this country who have ZERO allegiance to it

~CS~


----------



## walkerj (May 13, 2007)

chicken steve said:


> There's an entire debate in what you've said Harry
> 
> First and foremost would be jobs
> 
> ...


Plenty of jobs in LA


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

HARRY304E said:


> Here is my point eejack , Instead of using the talking points of the DNC try to think of the facts.
> 
> Government would have Zero money without Business,businesses built the infrastructure that created Government by paying taxes.


You can also look at it as if the businesses would have zero money if people didn't purchase their goods and services. So, it's the people spending money that are the builders of the economy.


> If anything You should agree there would be a lot more Houses,Roads,Bridges,Buildings ECT built if the Government would just get out of the way,


I don't think so Harry. You will have to provide a lot more detail or some links to articles that support that statement before I can get behind what you said.


> Instead they are in the way to the point where people in the middle class cannot afford to buy their own home because housing is overpriced because not enough is being built,People in the middle class cannot afford to by a new car except in the DC area because there is not enough of them either ,There are not enough good jobs out there because again the Government is in the way.


Again I think you are looking at it incorrectly. Houses are not being built because people are having a hard time affording them because of the low wages. Corporations have more money now on their books than ever before in history. They are reporting record profits. Yet, it's hard to find a good paying job so you can afford to purchase more goods and services.

Here's a thought for you. Maybe, just maybe, one of the biggest problems we have is money hoarding by businesses and people that have more than they need. By taking that money out of the economy, they effectively slow it down.

So, the question is, how do we deal with this without becoming a socialist or communist society? Unregulated capitalism is just as bad as the others.

Please understand, I'm not claiming to have the answers (if I did I'd be somewhere else than here), I just like to look at multiple sides to try to see the issue as clearly as possible.

BTW, I sure wish we could figure out how to get the fraud out of our government. That would really help.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

walkerj said:


> Plenty of jobs in LA


They follow the poverty rates rather well J

~CS~


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

HARRY304E said:


> Here is my point eejack , Instead of using the talking points of the DNC try to think of the facts.
> 
> Government would have Zero money without Business,businesses built the infrastructure that created Government by paying taxes.
> 
> ...


How about not assuming I am using talking points Harry, and I won't assume you are parroting Fox News.

Because honestly - I am not.

If you get government 'out of the way' as you put it, we would be a third world nation with disease and starvation. Businesses will not build roads or infrastructure. The reason why the middle class cannot afford cars and homes is because business destroyed the middle class.

9.8 Trillion dollars of middle class wealth was destroyed in the banking fiasco of 2007. Basically unrecoverable losses. Why? Because government 'got out of the way' of wall street.

With no government to support businesses, businesses would collapse. No business could survive without government - no matter how bootstrappy folks are and how independent they believe themselves, we are all interconnected through that common thread of government.

Just look at how we are not getting out of this economic crisis...a direct result of government stalemates due to congressional stonewalling. The entire world economy has no confidence in the US because one small group of individuals have decided to hold everyone else hostage.

Government is not in the way right now...it is just not there.


----------



## walkerj (May 13, 2007)

chicken steve said:


> They follow the poverty rates rather well J
> 
> ~CS~


Well around here people at or below the poverty line are lazy or on drugs. 

Do you have any idea how many plants and refineries there are along the river?

My wife is a bartender and she makes more than these unfactual statistics.


----------



## walkerj (May 13, 2007)

eejack said:


> How about not assuming I am using talking points Harry, and I won't assume you are parroting Fox News.
> 
> Because honestly - I am not.
> 
> ...


No middle class was destroyed by business here. 
They are what brought us out of the fields and the swamps. 

Do you work for businesses or the government?


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

walkerj said:


> No middle class was destroyed by business here.
> They are what brought us out of the fields and the swamps.
> 
> Do you work for businesses or the government?


I work for both. 

Yes, many middle class jobs were lost in LA due to the financial crisis caused by wall street businesses. Unemployment in LA went from under 4 to around 8, nearly doubling in a couple of years, having improved recently to around 6% ( way better than NJ ).


----------



## walkerj (May 13, 2007)

To clarify 

Louisiana not Los Angeles.


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

walkerj said:


> To clarify
> 
> Louisiana not Los Angeles.


Yes. Louisiana. Home of zydeco and Huey Long.


----------



## walkerj (May 13, 2007)

True folks lost a job but there were still plenty to go around.


----------



## walkerj (May 13, 2007)

Most jobs that were lost were engineering jobs and they are overpaid to start off with


----------



## walkerj (May 13, 2007)

You talk a lot about things you know nothing about


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

walkerj said:


> True folks lost a job but there were still plenty to go around.


The current gross state product of LA is still less than in 2008, unemployment is higher, number of foreclosures is higher.

No doubt the state is doing better than most - perhaps due to receiving 1.78 dollars in federal spending for every dollar paid in taxes and having 17% of their jobs in the energy sector. Just keep in mind those refineries increase and slow production not due to the need for fuel, but for the need to keep pricing high. ExxonMobile especially decreases production when gas prices get too low.


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

walkerj said:


> Most jobs that were lost were engineering jobs and they are overpaid to start off with


So, yeah...middle class jobs were lost.



walkerj said:


> You talk a lot about things you know nothing about


Actually, I don't. I am usually very certain about what I put down with the keyboard, if I cannot back it up, I usually don't write it. 

When you say things like - all those unemployed are drug users - I cannot prove they aren't so I don't dispute it - even though I know all those folks are not drug users.


----------



## walkerj (May 13, 2007)

eejack said:


> So, yeah...middle class jobs were lost.
> 
> Actually, I don't. I am usually very certain about what I put down with the keyboard, if I cannot back it up, I usually don't write it.
> 
> When you say things like - all those unemployed are drug users - I cannot prove they aren't so I don't dispute it - even though I know all those folks are not drug users.


You obviously know nothing about Louisiana. 
If you are making $40+ dollars an hour you are not middle class. 

And all those folks ARE lazy or drug users. 

Come down here and I might learn you something.


----------



## walkerj (May 13, 2007)

The reason the plants down here quit building was because they were afraid of what was coming. Not because of whatever you read it was. Ask any plant manager. 

The engineering companies are hiring people in droves right now. There are billboards on the interstate saying 'FB&D now hiring. 

You THINK what you read is True but you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to south LA. 
I don't even know where you are and I would never pretend to know about what the outlook is there. Don't pretend like you know what it is here by reading some nonsense on the interwebs.


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

walkerj said:


> The reason the plants down here quit building was because they were afraid of what was coming. Not because of whatever you read it was. Ask any plant manager.
> 
> The engineering companies are hiring people in droves right now. There are billboards on the interstate saying 'FB&D now hiring.
> 
> ...


So if I don't see the billboards I don't know what I am talking about, $40 an hour is living like a king, the quarter of a million unemployed of Louisiana are lazy or drug users, and Ford, Bacon and Davis having 30 jobs available is a big deal.

Glad that is all straightened out.


----------



## walkerj (May 13, 2007)

40$ an hour in la is living like a king. 

And yes the unemployed are lazy. There are now hiring signs everywhere you go. 

Point in case.

Why pretend to know about this place when you don't? You want to look like the big man on the interwebs? Good job failing at it :laughing:


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

eejack said:


> I work for both.
> 
> Yes, many middle class jobs were lost in LA due to the financial crisis caused by wall street businesses. Unemployment in LA went from under 4 to around 8, nearly doubling in a couple of years, having improved recently to around 6% ( way better than NJ ).


The root cause of this mess started with bank reform allowing (FORCING IN SOME CASES) banks to make unsecured loans and the failure of government regulators to perform their jobs.

Had the laws are they were written at the time of the last crisis been enforced long before the crash, much of the pain could have been avoided. Inept government officials aggravated the normal ups and downs of a semi-free market. 

In lieu of a totally regulated market (which is mostly a down market) where there is no middle class only a working class and corrupt government officials, that allow their citizens to be killed by terrorist, use government agencies against the opposition and wire tap news agencies.


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

brian john said:


> The root cause of this mess started with bank reform allowing (FORCING IN SOME CASES) banks to make unsecured loans and the failure of government regulators to perform their jobs.
> 
> Had the laws are they were written at the time of the last crisis been enforced long before the crash, much of the pain could have been avoided. Inept government officials aggravated the normal ups and downs of a semi-free market.


Yes the repeal of Glass–Steagall did pretty much start this mess but it didn't force banks to make unsecured loans. Essentially there were no laws preventing the crisis. Since those regulations have not been restored, a crash of the same sort will happen again.


----------



## walkerj (May 13, 2007)

I will pay for your hotel room. 


Come on down. You're the next contestant on You Don't Know What You're Talking About


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

walkerj said:


> I will pay for your hotel room.
> 
> 
> Come on down. You're the next contestant on You Don't Know What You're Talking About


I like that...might steal that line. 

But, and maybe this concept is a little scary for you, there are these things called facts and facts are what we adults like to call...true. Now, I realize fairy tales make you feel good and feeling good is important so you ignore all those scary facts and everything will work out fine...


----------



## walkerj (May 13, 2007)

eejack said:


> I like that...might steal that line.
> 
> But, and maybe this concept is a little scary for you, there are these things called facts and facts are what we adults like to call...true. Now, I realize fairy tales make you feel good and feeling good is important so you ignore all those scary facts and everything will work out fine...


Wtf do you know about LA other than what you read on the Internet?


----------



## walkerj (May 13, 2007)

I just realized this is in the union topics so maybe i don't know what I'm talking about when it comes to Louisiana union topics. 

I'm sure guys from 1000s of miles away have a better grasp on it than me.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

walkerj said:


> I just realized this is in the union topics so maybe i don't know what I'm talking about when it comes to Louisiana union topics.
> 
> I'm sure guys from 1000s of miles away have a better grasp on it than me.


:laughing:

See there are these things called facts and only people living 1000 miles away are able to determine what are facts and what is just BS from people who think what they have seen actually happened. 

Don't take it personal, eejack has taught me the things I have personally seen happen did not actually happen. I am forever in debt to him for that.


----------



## eejack (Jul 14, 2012)

BBQ said:


> :laughing:
> 
> See there are these things called facts and only people living 1000 miles away are able to determine what are facts and what is just BS from people who think what they have seen actually happened.
> 
> Don't take it personal, eejack has taught me the things I have personally seen happen did not actually happen. I am forever in debt to him for that.


Glad I could help :thumbsup:


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

brian john said:


> The root cause of this mess started with bank reform allowing (FORCING IN SOME CASES) banks to make unsecured loans and the failure of government regulators to perform their jobs.
> 
> Had the laws are they were written at the time of the last crisis been enforced long before the crash, much of the pain could have been avoided. Inept government officials aggravated the normal ups and downs of a semi-free market.
> 
> In lieu of a totally regulated market (which is mostly a down market) where there is no middle class only a working class and corrupt government officials, that allow their citizens to be killed by terrorist, use government agencies against the opposition and wire tap news agencies.



And there's that double edged bureaucratic sword yet again , _good_ that both you and eejack get this :thumbsup:

too _little_ of it, and the market is off it's leash.... we have credit derivative swaps eating up old ladies mortgages, we have $300 a pop asprin in the ER, we have corporations that can monopolize through hostile aquistions, globalizing us into a _'common denominator worker' _ alongside those unfortunates offering customer service waist deep in the Ganges river....


too _much_ of it, and no biz thrives, they're all regulated to death, the Gov becomes the largest employer , there can be no prosperity, no growth

~CS~


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

walkerj said:


> I just realized this is in the union topics so maybe i don't know what I'm talking about when it comes to Louisiana union topics.
> 
> I'm sure guys from 1000s of miles away have a better grasp on it than me.


I'd say you probably do have a good handle on LA unionism, but you could broaden your view a tad Walker

for instance, do you have any idea how many _empty _factories along our rivers decided to move south? 

A generation ago , it was to the Carolina's ,LA, and points in your backyard

When NAFTA passed, the globalists set sights on Mexico

When the Mexicans formed unions, it was China

As the Chinese evolved into having what may be called unions, it was Bangladesh

Think of it as a _global_ Craigs or Angies list Walker.....

~CS~


----------



## big2bird (Oct 1, 2012)

chicken steve said:


> I'd say you probably do have a good handle on LA unionism, but you could broaden your view a tad Walker
> 
> for instance, do you have any idea how many _empty _factories along our rivers decided to move south?
> 
> ...


Don't forget the EPA in that mix. Corporations are set on polluting the entire world before the other nations catch on. As they say no more, manufacturing will come full circle.


----------



## hardworkingstiff (Jan 22, 2007)

CS just hit on something that a lot of people just don't want to happen. We are heading towards a global economy, and eventually, a global government.

I think some of the futuristic movies that show "the man" against "the people" are not so far off. If we don't come together as a world community, then eventually we are doomed to extinction at our own hand.

Man, I need to go find some work to do. :laughing:


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

But it's not only happening, it's _been_ happening for some time Lou

a purely anecdotal aside.....

Back in the 70's i held a job in high tech as an assistant to a gaggle of prototype engineers in a high tech company.

This wasn't too long after Nixon opened the free world's market to China 

So we educated a contingent of Chinese come over and stay with us for 3-4 months here, they were sent by the Chinese gov because they wanted their people to emulate our technology

Before that it was Ed Deming in Japan

We never did have a technological _prime directive_ (per se) , in fact there's a _good _argument for a lot of what was imparted with good intents being weaponized , and then we have had to deal with the_ azzholes_

As far as the market goes, we do have the ability to tariff, we _do_ have the ability to regulate global monopolism , outsourcings, insourcings, off shoring, etc 

Bottom line, we retain our jobs while managing to operate in a world marketplace, or that market carpet will be yanked out from under us

~CS~


----------

