How's that Obamacare Repeal Working Out For You?

[Okeefenokee]

1) Why should we have such a gigantic, wasteful, inefficient, and corrupt Congressional-Military-Industrial Complex?
2) All the NATO countries had the same healthcare even when they were spending far more for the Cold War than they do today.
3) Our healtcare cost 50% more, and does less, than anyone else. We could cover everyone without spending anymore than we do now.

1) Because we can.
2) Prove it
3) Prove it

[clubgop]

What if your son or daughter was accused of murder, wouldn't you want them to get their full rights, or are you sticking them with a public defender?

See this is nonsensical bullshit. How is a public defender not "full rights." You think with public healthcare suddenly everyone going to get the best doctors? Maybe if we send every child to school they'll get the best teachers too. You are a joke whose policy analysis doesn't extend beyond Daytime talk show.

[jbird4049]

Since wealth is inanimate, there is no letting or not letting wealth accumulate. You say it that way to hide what you're really saying. You want to stop people from being able to accumulate wealth. The end of that road is totalitarianism. We've seen it enough times. Not interested.

What anyone wants does not matter. It is a binary solution set. Peaceful reforms, or unpeaceful reforms. Peace, or war.

Regardless of the political, or economic systems used, a group of people always succeed at gaming the system and accumulate great wealth. Since the end result of unfettered wealth accumulation is the vacuuming up of all wealth from everyone else into the coffers of a very few, very wealthy, and now very powerful small elite which invariable impose a form of totalitarianism on all everyone else, what is the difference? There is no choice really. If wealth accumulation is not halted, and preferable reversed, our country will fall sooner than later. At the very least, we will become a police state in order to protect the very wealthy, powerful small elite class.

I can tell you that the fall of Empires usually happens at the same time, or at least civil unrest, or actual civil wars. Every. Damn. Time. The unbalance becomes too great. It is like a law of nature. Akkad, Assyria, Both the Roman Republic and Roman Empire, various Chinese Dynasties, France, the various revolutions of 1848, and yes, the United States in the 1880s-1910s, and the 1930s.

Only when an emperor, king, prime minister, president, or a group of reformers succeed in halting, and then reducing the trend are collapses, or unrest, stopped. Or at least the cause of a downfall becomes external, and not internal.

So we have two choices. Do you want successful peaceful reforms, which has happened, albeit rarely, or unrest possibly leading to outright civil war, which has happen a lot?

[Okeefenokee]

What if your son or daughter was accused of murder, wouldn't you want them to get their full rights, or are you sticking them with a public defender?

See this is nonsensical bullshit. How is a public defender not "full rights." You think with public healthcare suddenly everyone going to get the best doctors? Maybe if we send every child to school they'll get the best teachers too. You are a joke whose policy analysis doesn't extend beyond Daytime talk show.

I don't think you care about the feelz.

[Okeefenokee]

Since wealth is inanimate, there is no letting or not letting wealth accumulate. You say it that way to hide what you're really saying. You want to stop people from being able to accumulate wealth. The end of that road is totalitarianism. We've seen it enough times. Not interested.

What anyone wants does not matter. It is a binary solution set. Peaceful reforms, or unpeaceful reforms. Peace, or war.

Regardless of the political, or economic systems used, a group of people always succeed at gaming the system and accumulate great wealth. Since the end result of unfettered wealth accumulation is the vacuuming up of all wealth from everyone else into the coffers of a very few, very wealthy, and now very powerful small elite which invariable impose a form of totalitarianism on all everyone else, what is the difference? There is no choice really. If wealth accumulation is not halted, and preferable reversed, our country will fall sooner than later. At the very least, we will become a police state in order to protect the very wealthy, powerful small elite class.

I can tell you that the fall of Empires usually happens at the same time, or at least civil unrest, or actual civil wars. Every. Damn. Time. The unbalance becomes too great. It is like a law of nature. Akkad, Assyria, Both the Roman Republic and Roman Empire, various Chinese Dynasties, France, the various revolutions of 1848, and yes, the United States in the 1880s-1910s, and the 1930s.

Only when an emperor, king, prime minister, president, or a group of reformers succeed in halting, and then reducing the trend are collapses, or unrest, stopped. Or at least the cause of a downfall becomes external, and not internal.

So we have two choices. Do you want successful peaceful reforms, which has happened, albeit rarely, or unrest possibly leading to outright civil war, which has happen a lot?

whatever. I can pick one arbitrary thing that exists in every society at different levels throughout all of history and say that that was the cause of all their declines, too.

I'm gonna pick eating utensils. As societies increase in wealth, the use of eating utensils increases. At a certain point, they reach critical mass and collapse. Just look at the mongols. Riding around on the steppe with a bow in one hand and goat leg in the other. Fast forward a couple generations and they're all living high on the hog, probably eating humus or something other lily white shit, and they were using spoons. Next thing you, no more mongols.

Luckily, the west veered back on course by eating mostly paper wrapped food from the drive through window. I think that's the only thing that saved us from this vicious cycle of eating utensil inflicted social collapse.

[jbird4049]

1) Why should we have such a gigantic, wasteful, inefficient, and corrupt Congressional-Military-Industrial Complex?
2) All the NATO countries had the same healthcare even when they were spending far more for the Cold War than they do today.
3) Our healtcare cost 50% more, and does less, than anyone else. We could cover everyone without spending anymore than we do now.

1) Because we can. That's crazy talk. Let's spend more than the next seven countries combined, but bleep all healthcare.
2) Prove it I'm still looking for information.
3) Prove it Please note chart.

[Okeefenokee]

1) Why should we have such a gigantic, wasteful, inefficient, and corrupt Congressional-Military-Industrial Complex?
2) All the NATO countries had the same healthcare even when they were spending far more for the Cold War than they do today.
3) Our healtcare cost 50% more, and does less, than anyone else. We could cover everyone without spending anymore than we do now.

1) Because we can. That's crazy talk. Let's spend more than the next seven countries combined, but bleep all healthcare.
2) Prove it I'm still looking for information.
3) Prove it Please note chart.

3) The chart does not say that we could cover everyone without spending more. The chart says healthcare in the US costs more. There are many reasons why that is, and nothing on that chart indicates what you say it does.

[Martin Hash]

% of GNP would have to be turned into a number to make valid comparisons, unless there's an intrinsic reason people in the U.S. need pricier healthcare somehow related to the GNP.

[Penner]

Around and around we go on this.

Come on. Every Western European country, Japan, Canada, and Taiwan all have medical cover for their people that covers (almost) everything, that cost less, and covers everyone. People do not go bankrupt paying for their care, and do not die, or suffer for it's lack as they still do here despite Obamacare.

So there have been at least five serious attempts to pass legislation to cover the entire population. Once each in the '30s, '40s, '60s, '90s, and 2010s. Every time they are defeated, or as in Obamacare's case, deformed into some Frankenstein. All under the war cries of Socialism!

Somehow our exceptional country can not do what all these nations have been doing. Some for over a century. Sure, the various system all have some problems, but they work. And no one, beside some fucked up ideologies, and corruption, can explain why we do not.

Let's not forget about the screams of "death panels" that came up when health reform came up in 2010.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4475784/?#sp=show-clips

[clubgop]

Around and around we go on this.

Come on. Every Western European country, Japan, Canada, and Taiwan all have medical cover for their people that covers (almost) everything, that cost less, and covers everyone. People do not go bankrupt paying for their care, and do not die, or suffer for it's lack as they still do here despite Obamacare.

So there have been at least five serious attempts to pass legislation to cover the entire population. Once each in the '30s, '40s, '60s, '90s, and 2010s. Every time they are defeated, or as in Obamacare's case, deformed into some Frankenstein. All under the war cries of Socialism!

Somehow our exceptional country can not do what all these nations have been doing. Some for over a century. Sure, the various system all have some problems, but they work. And no one, beside some fucked up ideologies, and corruption, can explain why we do not.

Let's not forget about the screams of "death panels" that came up when health reform came up in 2010.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4475784/?#sp=show-clips

And lets not forget the response. They said there were no death panels but promptly removed the provision in question. My 2 year old doesnt get away with that you bitches won't either.