Obama care passes. Any opinions? Lawyers reading it over

[jabe]

I would say the above statement, "Anyone who isn't liberal at 20 has no heart. Anyone who isn't conservative at 40 has no brain," is more of an indictment of age, laziness, and pure and simple greed, nothing more. You see as a person ages it also tends to make one cynical which resorts to the person feeling a sense of, I am gonna get what I can get and to hell with everyone else. The problem is that is a very selfish and assinine position. A cognitive dissonance results and the conservative mindset is thus born. It's simple, the ideology of youth gives way to the self-serving pragmatism of middle age, and to justify this about face and embrace of the accumulation of money at all costs.

But, that's just my humble opinion as a person who holds strong feelings of civic responsibility and a proponent of Carnegie's Gospel of Wealth.

BONUS: I did not have to result to base name calling, then again I hold respect for my fellow human beings.

"I am gonna get what I can get and to hell with everyone else," sounds more like an entitlement mentality, rather than a conservative virtue.

If hard work and honest achievement of wealth, be it monetary and/or spiritual, then hell yes, I am greedy, but feel no guilt.

You are, SR, correct about cynicism, at least in my personal post 40 year old view. All I've got to do is look at all the cocksuckers (base name calling) in Washington and the tripped out fantasy land most of them live in. Politicians as whole, rub me raw.

As far as civic responsibility, my wife and I donate funds to a local homeless shelter, The Salvation Army, and a couple of churches we don't attend, on an annual basis. Not to toot my horn, but I believe conservatives support the unfortunate and needy in a way greater than liberals do. Evolution.

Lastly, does liberalism really work in a postive way in the real world, real time, or drain resources? Or succeed only in the pages of the written word?

[mstork]

This survey certainly echoes what I've heard from the doctors I know (and I know quite a few):

Eighty-three percent of American physicians have considered leaving their practices over President Barack Obama’s health care reform law, according to a survey released by the Doctor Patient Medical Association.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/09/report-83-percent-of-doctors-have-considered-quitting-over-obamacare/#ixzz20ApE0OUg

[Walter]

^ Where will they go, what will they do? Or are they ALL retiring?

What an article, especially the comment about Wright and the reader's comments at the bottom of the page!

[jimmie ray]

^ Where will they go, what will they do?

Sell painkillers at Walmart parking lots.

[Walter]

Sell painkillers at Walmart parking lots.

True Dat!

[Sagittarius Rising]

"I am gonna get what I can get and to hell with everyone else," sounds more like an entitlement mentality, rather than a conservative virtue.

If hard work and honest achievement of wealth, be it monetary and/or spiritual, then hell yes, I am greedy, but feel no guilt.

You are, SR, correct about cynicism, at least in my personal post 40 year old view. All I've got to do is look at all the cocksuckers (base name calling) in Washington and the tripped out fantasy land most of them live in. Politicians as whole, rub me raw.

As far as civic responsibility, my wife and I donate funds to a local homeless shelter, The Salvation Army, and a couple of churches we don't attend, on an annual basis. Not to toot my horn, but I believe conservatives support the unfortunate and needy in a way greater than liberals do. Evolution.

Lastly, does liberalism really work in a postive way in the real world, real time, or drain resources? Or succeed only in the pages of the written word?

Really? You do realize the vast bulk of "welfare programs" go to the corporations correct? Do you really think the "welfare queen" who is cheating the system (this is wrong by the way) has any impact compared to what the corporations get in corporate welfare? And just so they can outsource the jobs overseas? You know I was talking to my wife last night having to explain how our 1.5 year old $2,000 refrig is broken and needs fixing. She then asked me how this could be on such a new appliance, at which point I explained how this made in China piece of shit is par for the course. How an American made (with union hands) GE or Zenith product from 1956 is probably still in perfect working condition today (if the fools did not trade it in for a shitty LG).

In answer to your last sentence I will leave you with this, from 1955 to 1984 the max tax rate in America was as high as 91% and never lower than 55%, yet this was the period of greatest wealth and stability in the 20th - 21st century. Once the tax rate was lowered under Reagan (before he had to raise it several times), things went to shit. Enter Clinton and a higher tax rate and guess what, a balanced budget and surplus for the first time since Eisenhower...explain that please.

[DAS]

I would say the above statement, "Anyone who isn't liberal at 20 has no heart. Anyone who isn't conservative at 40 has no brain," is more of an indictment of age, laziness, and pure and simple greed, nothing more. You see as a person ages it also tends to make one cynical which resorts to the person feeling a sense of, I am gonna get what I can get and to hell with everyone else. The problem is that is a very selfish and assinine position. A cognitive dissonance results and the conservative mindset is thus born. It's simple, the ideology of youth gives way to the self-serving pragmatism of middle age, and to justify this about face and embrace of the accumulation of money at all costs.

But, that's just my humble opinion as a person who holds strong feelings of civic responsibility and a proponent of Carnegie's Gospel of Wealth.

BONUS: I did not have to result to base name calling, then again I hold respect for my fellow human beings.

You must be a teenager. (FYI: You used a lot of name calling in this response.)

[Walter]

^

[cryingbluerain]

Enter Clinton and a higher tax rate and guess what, a balanced budget and surplus for the first time since Eisenhower...explain that please.

Sure, you can thank Alan Greenspan who kept interest rates artificially low and created the dot com bubble which caused huge gains in the stock market and brought in hundreds of millions in unanticipated tax revenue from taxes on capital gains and rising salaries. He did the same thing (keeping rates too low) again during the Bush years and created the housing bubble.

[mstork]

Really? You do realize the vast bulk of "welfare programs" go to the corporations correct? Do you really think the "welfare queen" who is cheating the system (this is wrong by the way) has any impact compared to what the corporations get in corporate welfare? And just so they can outsource the jobs overseas? You know I was talking to my wife last night having to explain how our 1.5 year old $2,000 refrig is broken and needs fixing. She then asked me how this could be on such a new appliance, at which point I explained how this made in China piece of shit is par for the course. How an American made (with union hands) GE or Zenith product from 1956 is probably still in perfect working condition today (if the fools did not trade it in for a shitty LG).

Unions in '56, like a lot of other things in America, were better than their modern-day counterparts. Look at the awesome cars in the 50's and compare them to the crap cars of the 70's. Both produced by unions.

In answer to your last sentence I will leave you with this, from 1955 to 1984 the max tax rate in America was as high as 91% and never lower than 55%, yet this was the period of greatest wealth and stability in the 20th - 21st century. Once the tax rate was lowered under Reagan (before he had to raise it several times), things went to shit. Enter Clinton and a higher tax rate and guess what, a balanced budget and surplus for the first time since Eisenhower...explain that please.

You neglect to mention that things didn't go to shit due to Reagan, they went to shit under Carter. Reagan's policies sparked the biggest peacetime expansion of our economy in history. It's arguable that the seeds of the 90's tech boom, which was much more responsible for the good economy of the Clinton years than higher income taxes, were planted during Reagan's 8 years.

Furthermore, nobody mentions that Clinton actually LOWERED capital gains taxes, which had a positive effect on the economy.

[TypeO]

I would say the above statement, "Anyone who isn't liberal at 20 has no heart. Anyone who isn't conservative at 40 has no brain," is more of an indictment of age, laziness, and pure and simple greed, nothing more. You see as a person ages it also tends to make one cynical which resorts to the person feeling a sense of, I am gonna get what I can get and to hell with everyone else. The problem is that is a very selfish and assinine position. A cognitive dissonance results and the conservative mindset is thus born. It's simple, the ideology of youth gives way to the self-serving pragmatism of middle age, and to justify this about face and embrace of the accumulation of money at all costs.

But, that's just my humble opinion as a person who holds strong feelings of civic responsibility and a proponent of Carnegie's Gospel of Wealth.

BONUS: I did not have to result to base name calling, then again I hold respect for my fellow human beings.

Number one, my comment was directed specifically at the person I responded to.

Also, it's a common quotation, not my personal comment, often attributed to Winston Churchill, but actually a variant of a quote from François Guizot, which was Not to be a republican at 20 is proof of want of heart; to be one at 30 is proof of want of head.

Point being, it's not my sentiment alone.

Also, your interpretation of that quote is uniquely your own.

It's odd to me that you hold your fellow man in such poor disregard - that they are basically cynical, lazy, greedy and selfish.

The standard interpretation of that quote is that everyone is liberal when they are young, wild and idealistic.

But once they are are older and have more experience and wisdom, they realize things aren't as simple as chants of "give peace a chance" and whatnot.

And I get your identification with "the 99%" and your disdain for all these bad corporations.

That's that idealistic perspective.

But my conservative perspective recognizes that the vast majority of those corporations aren't particularly evil or taking "corporate welfare."

And my conservative perspective also tells me the vast majority of those corporations make up the bulk of most people's 401K portfolios.

So when they do well, the rest of us "regular Joes" do well.

You know, that whole "trickle-down" theory that libs love to mock but refuse to acknowledge the veracity of.

So, despite what "the 99%" claim, overall it's a good thing when "the 1%" are successful.

Most of all, I said before (either in this or the other thread) that I don't necessarily believe liberals are bad people (although there are many exceptions), I just don't think they are going about things the best way.

[TypeO]

BONUS: I did not have to result to base name calling, then again I hold respect for my fellow human beings.

Where did I use base name calling?

The only identifier/name I used was the term "liberal".

Although, to be fair, I guess I'd be somewhat offended (if more than a little baffled) at being called that myself. lulz

[DAS]

Though I don't agree with the quote itself it is hinting at something very true. Young people tend to get very passionate and liberalism does a good job of selling it's agenda to people based on emotion what with their constant talking about saving the world. At the same time conservatism is a much more rational, intellectual position that will appeal to people who want policies that will actual work in a positive way. If we could have everyone adapt the passion of the liberals and GENUINE desire to help people with the intelligent and effective policies of conservatism we could change the world. However, it just seems that both sides are 90% talk. Conservatives could make this country and the world a better place to live but rarely try and when they do usually don't see it through. Liberals tend to talk a lot about saving the world but then do nothing as well and when they do make things worse for the people they wanted to help.

[ally]

So, what does everyone think of a pay by cash only system ? If you've got it, you can have as much health care as you can afford. If you don't... oh well. Point is people, as with the rest of the world,the American economy is on very fragile ground and if it were to get worse, how much do you think it would cost to get private health care coverage ? Would you give a monkeys about the free enterprise of doctors if you couldn't afford to walk into a doctors office or couldn't afford to have necessary surgey in a hospital ? What about your children and loved ones. ? Believe me, I am an advocate for quality, affordable and sustainable health care no matter what the model is but quite frankly, with the world the way it is today, I'd be ignorant not to look at reality of access first. Without that, it's all a mute point

[Sagittarius Rising]

Then you won't be offended when I am explicit in response.

Fuck off.

Oh, the irony of liberals who preach tolerance while berating those who don't share their beliefs as intolerant.

Yeah, I was a child of the 70s, used drugs, partied hard.

But then I grew up and got a job and had to start paying taxes.

And I began giving a damn where and on what my tax money was being spent on.

To paraphrase a common quotation, Anyone who isn't liberal at 20 has no heart. Anyone who isn't conservative at 40 has no brain.

Most of all, GeorgeC, I don't seek out like-minded philosophies to validate my opinions, nor do I wish opposing opinions to go away.

I seek out differing opinions in order to expand my understanding.

But that's just me.

I guess you forgot about that second sentence. Though not actually name calling per se, it is still base and borish at best and simply implies the mentality of the author.

[TypeO]

I guess you forgot about that second sentence. Though not actually name calling per se, it is still base and borish at best and simply implies the mentality of the author.

You're not real good at following the flow and context of a conversation, I gather.

It was an intentional use of hyperbole to draw attention to the offensive nature of the original comment.

it is still base and borish at best and simply implies the mentality of the author.

Just cuz we ain't all got degrees in pschomacology and all yer fancy book-learnin' don't mean we ain't as smartified as you, Doc.

The fact that you fail so often at interpreting the dynamics of a conversation - something I would have imagined a psychologist would need to be somewhat adept at - says more than a little about your own mentality.

This is especially surprising in that the conversation is in writing and thus easily reviewed or even re-read if necessary, as opposed to a spoken conversation where one must rely on memory to recall what was said.

Cliff's: Even though the conversation in question is right in front of your eyes, you still fixate on a single element - without context - in order to criticize me.

Certainly your prerogative, but still rather disingenuous to the point of being ironic.

And by disingenuous I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you understood the point to begin with.

[Sagittarius Rising]

You're not real good at following the flow and context of a conversation, I gather.

It was an intentional use of hyperbole to draw attention to the offensive nature of the original comment.

Just cuz we ain't all got degrees in pschomacology and all yer fancy book-learnin' don't mean we ain't as smartified as you, Doc.

The fact that you fail so often at interpreting the dynamics of a conversation - something I would have imagined a psychologist would need to be somewhat adept at - says more than a little about your own mentality.

This is especially surprising in that the conversation is in writing and thus easily reviewed or even re-read if necessary, as opposed to a spoken conversation where one must rely on memory to recall what was said.

Cliff's: Even though the conversation in question is right in front of your eyes, you still fixate on a single element - without context - in order to criticize me.

Certainly your prerogative, but still rather disingenuous to the point of being ironic.

And by disingenuous I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you understood the point to begin with.

Glad you bring that up because in psychology we are trained to look for the subtleties in a conversation as that reveals the true nature of a person. This is why EMDR and stream of consciousness therapy are so successful. To translate, since you ain't got no fancy book lernin...The Devil is in the Details.

[Sagittarius Rising]

You're not real good at following the flow and context of a conversation, I gather.

It was an intentional use of hyperbole to draw attention to the offensive nature of the original comment.

Just cuz we ain't all got degrees in pschomacology and all yer fancy book-learnin' don't mean we ain't as smartified as you, Doc.

The fact that you fail so often at interpreting the dynamics of a conversation - something I would have imagined a psychologist would need to be somewhat adept at - says more than a little about your own mentality.

This is especially surprising in that the conversation is in writing and thus easily reviewed or even re-read if necessary, as opposed to a spoken conversation where one must rely on memory to recall what was said.

Cliff's: Even though the conversation in question is right in front of your eyes, you still fixate on a single element - without context - in order to criticize me.

Certainly your prerogative, but still rather disingenuous to the point of being ironic.

And by disingenuous I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you understood the point to begin with.

One last point: May I suggest you go up to your local MMA group, pick out the leader, and use some of that "hyperbole" on him, then come back and tell me what happened.

[TypeO]

One last point: May I suggest you go up to your local MMA group, pick out the leader, and use some of that "hyperbole" on him, then come back and tell me what happened.

Ahhh, this has drug out beyond all reason.

But I'll play along.

To begin with, your suggestion would only be valid in the context of this discussion if the leader of said MMA group had made an offensive remark towards me.

And because I'm no MMA fighter, if he decided to kick my ass he'd most likely succeed.

Of course, then he would get his ass kicked in court for aggravated assault.

And then I'd probably file a civil suit once he was convicted.

So what's your point?

[mstork]

Ahhh, this has drug out beyond all reason.

But I'll play along.

To begin with, your suggestion would only be valid in the context of this discussion if the leader of said MMA group had made an offensive remark towards me.

And because I'm no MMA fighter, if he decided to kick my ass he'd most likely succeed.

Of course, then he would get his ass kicked in court for aggravated assault.

And then I'd probably file a civil suit once he was convicted.

So what's your point?

The point was "your view is different than mine therefore you deserve to be beaten up. Since I can't/won't do it, I'd appreciate it if you would get beaten up by an MMA dude so I can cheer from the bleachers".

Tolerance.

[TypeO]

The point was "your view is different than mine therefore you deserve to be beaten up. Since I can't/won't do it, I'd appreciate it if you would get beaten up by an MMA dude so I can cheer from the bleachers".

Tolerance.

lulz

[Bong-Man]

Since he's rejected his own, I'm still waiting for "The Romney Plan". No reason to be shy... Hell, it's July....just bring it out and we can all analyze it for four months. We'll even call it The Cantor Plan" if that pleases you. Bueller ?

[mstork]

Since he's rejected his own, I'm still waiting for "The Romney Plan". No reason to be shy... Hell, it's July....just bring it out and we can all analyze it for four months. We'll even call it The Cantor Plan" if that pleases you. Bueller ?

He has spoken broadly about the kind of reforms he envisions, but why hold him to a higher standard than our current President? Obama campaigned against the individual mandate in the primaries, "evolved", then farmed out the writing of the actual 2500 page bill to Pelosi and others.

We could call it "Pelosicare" if you like but it would be ironic given how many waivers she's been handing out to her friends.

[Bluesbrothersx2]

It's not real. If we don't pay for health care directly then they'll screw us some other way. Now back to Led Zeppelin.

Posted by a little girl.

[2bitnogoodjive]

It's not real. If we don't pay for health care directly then they'll screw us some other way. Now back to Led Zeppelin.

Posted by a little girl.

Who's "they"?