Sums it all up in my opinion...

Aldebaran · Sep 3, 2015

stamperben said:
Okay, you lost me here.

But I'll leave you with a few words of wisdom that I gleaned over the course of events in my lifetime:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...
When the governed consent to having those with the ability to help the good of the nation do so in the form of a graduated tax rate it is shouted from the sidelines that "You want to change things and follow the lead of OTHER countries? You should move there instead!" That flies in the face of the words above, IMO anyway.

The next set of words I'll leave you with may not be quite so profound but none the less they are true:

Courageous people can agree to disagree.
Be courageous.

First, I DO disagree with you. Is that courageous?
Now, back to your first point: You are assuming that the governed is giving it's consent. You're assuming that it's even the majority that are giving that consent. For the governing class to tell one group of people that they'll give more of another group's earnings to them if they simply cast a vote is NOT governing. That's called divide and conquer in order to come out elected.

Ringo84 · Sep 3, 2015

Aldebaran said:
Inviting someone to go to a country they would be happier living in is not hateful.

But nice attempt at changing the subject of the conversation by using an personal accusation!

Telling someone "think like me or leave the country" isn't hateful? Whatever you say.

Skaloop · Sep 3, 2015

Aldebaran said:
Improve?

Yes.

You may think it won't, but consider the other 310 million people before jumping to such a conclusion.

Also, "fundamentally transform the country"? :scratch:

stamperben · Sep 3, 2015

Aldebaran said:
First, I DO disagree with you. Is that courageous?
Now, back to your first point: You are assuming that the governed is giving it's consent. You're assuming that it's even the majority that are giving that consent. For the governing class to tell one group of people that they'll give more of another group's earnings to them if they simply cast a vote is NOT governing. That's called divide and conquer in order to come out elected.

I wasn't going to answer, but the question is asked. It's a democratic republic for a reason. We as citizens go to the ballot box every two years. If that results in a change, a change of any sort, it has to do with that "democratic" part of who we are. Deal with it, or, there are other places on earth where perhaps you might be more comfortable?

Maren · Sep 3, 2015

Sorry, put a post in the wrong thread.

amanuensis63 · Sep 3, 2015

Aldebaran said:
Now you're not only putting words into the mouths of an entire group of people, but you're talking about a different subject as well.

Actually he's not. MOst of the complaints many of us have about America today are follow-ons to the Progressive Era in the early 20th century. The last 30 or so years have seen erosion of labor rights and a widening economic gap. We have plutocrats running elections with huge sums of money. We hear the GOP espousing elimination of oversite organizations like the EPA or other safety organizations.

I can't think of a better example than a discussion with a Gilded Age plutocrat to characterize what many of us are fighting against.

amanuensis63 · Sep 3, 2015

Aldebaran said:
It may be the country you're living in, but others live here as well. About 310 million others. Consider that when you want to fundamentally transform the country.

Funny but by all polls conducted before Obamacare got passed had an OVERWHELMING support of each of the individual fixes the ACA was supposed to do. It wasn't until it was listed as "Obamacare" did people say they didn't want it. But they want all the good from the ACA. No one likes "pre-existing conditions", no one likes "lifetime caps", etc.

And, indeed, no one likes losing income, but minimum wage earners have lost purchasing power. In 1960 the minimum wage had more purchasing power than it does today. American productivity has increased amazingly but only a small fraction of people at the very top have seen any improvement in their economic position over the last 30 years.

If you aren't bothered by these things then I will suggest that your position is actually in the minority in this country.

amanuensis63 · Sep 3, 2015

Aldebaran said:
Yeah, you said "left behind in this economy". What else does that imply other than that you're referring to being left behind financially?

It means that while AMerican productivity has increased middle class incomes have stagnated. While CEO's have seen salary increases of several hundred percent the middle class barely keeps up with cost of living.

From: http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/10/income-inequality-america

amanuensis63 · Sep 3, 2015

Aldebaran said:
Well, I'm certainly not in the top 1% of anything, yet I manage these things by living frugally and not spending beyond my means.

Look at the graph above. If you are not in the top 1% you are being taken for a ride. If it doesn't bother you then how much more can they do to you before you DO become bothered? Because they WILL do it. They will find your "pain point".

Hetta · Sep 3, 2015

bhsmte said:
Would you say, it is easier to immigrate to the United States, then other euro countries?

I don't think it is any easier. A friend of mine in the UK is married to a non-national from a non-English speaking country, and has been for 14 years. She lives in the UK on a visa basis, as his wife, because the requirements for citizenship are really stringent, including that she complete a workshop or some kind of certification in English. She speaks okay English, but very strongly accented, and he doesn't think she will pass this certification. So, to him, it is not worth the cost of trying to get her citizenship. Their children are British citizens of course. This said, it was easy for me to get citizenship here, but it was far from cheap. I cannot remember costs now, but because we had been married for some time, it was not complicated. I would see some people at the immigration office with thick folders, and others with a lawyer. That made me sad and wonder what their story was.

Hetta · Sep 3, 2015

bhsmte said:
I am a pretty reasonable person, who don't expect a lot out of people in situations where I am in a different culture and I do not come close to being aggressive or violate anyone's space.

I thought Paris and Nice were very cool, but I have to say, I had 3-4 experiences with locals that were absolutely over the top rude. I heard stories before I went, but I am big on forming my own opinions and much of what people told me, occurred to some degree.

In one circumstance, I was in line in a store buying bottled water and by accident, I handed over a few coins that were only for postal services. The clerk took them and actually threw them back at me and they fell on the floor. Behind me, was someone from Houston, who had been living in Paris for over a year and they apologized up and down to me and went on to explain how things were. I had a couple other really bad experiences at a hotel and at the airport.

I spent just as much time in Italy and Switzerland as well and had nothing bad great experiences with the people.

Yikes. Yes, the French reputation for rudeness is based on fact - particularly Parisians. But we are not all like this.

Hetta · Sep 3, 2015

amanuensis63 said:
It isn't as easy as coming to America if one has the skills. Many countries actually do have preference to their own citizens first unlike the USA where our tech company CEO's are actively asking for more H1B visas so they can get tech work done much cheaper than if they were to hire Americans.

The great thing about America is we so worship Mammon that we think it a virtue when our executives do whatever they feel they need to to Americans in order to get cheaper labor.

I don't know why anyone would want to change that about this great country! So long as we honor Mammon, Mammon will continue to bless us.

Was that last line ironic? Because it is my understanding that the love of money is the root of all evil.

Hetta · Sep 3, 2015

Aldebaran said:
Well, I'm certainly not in the top 1% of anything, yet I manage these things by living frugally and not spending beyond my means.

You have no spouse or children. So yes, that's much easier than actually providing for others.

bhsmte · Sep 3, 2015

Hetta said:
Yikes. Yes, the French reputation for rudeness is based on fact - particularly Parisians. But we are not all like this.

Well, it is what it is and the culture is different in certain areas, with a higher probability of running into these types. Other people were very nice, but the 3 negative experiences I had, were quite memorable.

In Italy, where I actually spent more time, the people were over the top helpful and understanding. Also in Switzerland, but they are just a little more reserved, but not rude.

Aldebaran · Sep 4, 2015

amanuensis63 said:
Funny but by all polls conducted before Obamacare got passed had an OVERWHELMING support of each of the individual fixes the ACA was supposed to do. It wasn't until it was listed as "Obamacare" did people say they didn't want it. But they want all the good from the ACA. No one likes "pre-existing conditions", no one likes "lifetime caps", etc.

They might not like those terms and conditions, but that's how insurance companies were able to keep costs under control. Can you imagine if a home owners insurance policy included pre-existing conditions? They could be mandated to "insure" a home that was half-burned, and then be forced to pay for the repairs. That's not insurance! Same with health care. If a person is healthy, they get insurance to cover them for when something happens. But if a person who is already a high risk for health problems and even has a number of them walks in and wants that same insurance, it's not financially feasible to insure them. But if the company is forced to do so, guess what happens to everyone else's rates? That's right, they go up. Now, if everyone who has pre-existing conditions and lousy health habits gets in this way, prices will necessarily skyrocket, which is something our president has no problem with, but you and I should because we're the one who will ultimately pay through the nose.

Aldebaran · Sep 4, 2015

Hetta said:
You have no spouse or children. So yes, that's much easier than actually providing for others.

We're not talking about providing for others. We're talking about being considered "left behind" if you're not in the top 1% of income earners, which is nonsense.

Aldebaran · Sep 4, 2015

Ringo84 said:
Telling someone "think like me or leave the country" isn't hateful? Whatever you say.

Nobody said "think like me". Read a post correctly before replying.

Aldebaran · Sep 4, 2015

amanuensis63 said:
Look at the graph above. If you are not in the top 1% you are being taken for a ride. If it doesn't bother you then how much more can they do to you before you DO become bothered? Because they WILL do it. They will find your "pain point".

They? Who are the "they" that are doing something to me? You seem to think that if someone has more than you, then you're suffering because you don't enjoy what someone else has and are envying them and want to take what they have. What ever happened to being content with what you have rather than being jealous of what someone else has?

Maren · Sep 4, 2015

Aldebaran said:
They might not like those terms and conditions, but that's how insurance companies were able to keep costs under control. Can you imagine if a home owners insurance policy included pre-existing conditions? They could be mandated to "insure" a home that was half-burned, and then be forced to pay for the repairs. That's not insurance! Same with health care. If a person is healthy, they get insurance to cover them for when something happens. But if a person who is already a high risk for health problems and even has a number of them walks in and wants that same insurance, it's not financially feasible to insure them. But if the company is forced to do so, guess what happens to everyone else's rates? That's right, they go up. Now, if everyone who has pre-existing conditions and lousy health habits gets in this way, prices will necessarily skyrocket, which is something our president has no problem with, but you and I should because we're the one who will ultimately pay through the nose.

Which is the point of this whole thing, to ensure there are no more "pre-existing conditions." Under the old system, insurers have abused the idea of "pre-existing" conditions -- if I switch jobs (remaining insured) and think I'm healthy, but find out that I have cancer, the new insurance company will attempt to deny because they'll claim I first had the cancer before their insurance started. Of course, the old insurance company will deny any claim because I am no longer insured by them and there is no evidence (since I thought I was healthy) that I had cancer while I was insured with them. Basically, it becomes as if I had no insurance, even though I was constantly insured.

So you should be in favor of this, as it will save hospitals money; it largely removes people coming in who don't have insurance. It also removes the idea of "pre-existing conditions" -- as all people remain insured. While sometimes a new insurer may have to pay for someone's "pre-existing conditions" because they switched insurance -- this equals out because all insurers will have the same requirement -- they won't have to pay for another person who switched from them to a new insurer before finding out they were sick.

Aldebaran · Sep 4, 2015

Maren said:
Which is the point of this whole thing, to ensure there are no more "pre-existing conditions." Under the old system, insurers have abused the idea of "pre-existing" conditions -- if I switch jobs (remaining insured) and think I'm healthy, but find out that I have cancer, the new insurance company will attempt to deny because they'll claim I first had the cancer before their insurance started. Of course, the old insurance company will deny any claim because I am no longer insured by them and there is no evidence (since I thought I was healthy) that I had cancer while I was insured with them. Basically, it becomes as if I had no insurance, even though I was constantly insured.

So you should be in favor of this, as it will save hospitals money; it largely removes people coming in who don't have insurance. It also removes the idea of "pre-existing conditions" -- as all people remain insured. While sometimes a new insurer may have to pay for someone's "pre-existing conditions" because they switched insurance -- this equals out because all insurers will have the same requirement -- they won't have to pay for another person who switched from them to a new insurer before finding out they were sick.

Ok, I agree with you that someone who was already insured should continue to be. My problem is with people who are already high-risk before becoming insured in the first place. Even more so, the people who have bad health due to their own volunary actions (smoking, drinking, drugs, multiple sex partners, etc.) and see no need to change their behavior because the government has mandated that they cover these people no matter what they do.

Sums it all up in my opinion...

NCC-1701-A

Separation of Church and State expert

Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion

It's an old family tradition

Veteran

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

I'll find my way home

I'll find my way home

I'll find my way home

I'll find my way home

Newbie

NCC-1701-A

NCC-1701-A

NCC-1701-A

NCC-1701-A

Veteran

NCC-1701-A

Similar threads