12 edits
The other night in Obama's speech about health care, he said that his NHC plan was the "right" thing to do and the "moral" thing to do. However, is it politically correct to say such things? After all, this is coming the same party that has bashed conservatives for trying to legislate morality in terms of issues surrounding abortion etc? Have both parties come full circle with the realization that legislation is all about deciding what the right thing to do is or is it only the conservative right who continue to be out of line discussing issues of morality and politics?
In many ways I feel vindicated now for discussing in the past the connection between our laws and our moral code, or at least, the President seems to agree with me.
This also raises another questoin I have. The President made is clear that the proposed NHC plan will not cover illegals, which prompted Repubicans to shout out that he was lying durning his speech. So assuming he is telling the truth, how then is it the moral thing to do to deny them health care simply on the basis of not being able to afford to do so and being an "illegal"? In fact, it sound strangely similar to the conservative arguements about doing the same for American citizens because we cannot afford to do so. In fact, if we are not going to pay for illegals, what do the Democrats propose to do with illegals who show up at hospitals on deaths door? Do we turn them away? However, if the President is lying about covering illegals and he plans to do so, is it morally acceptable to lie about such things in order to simply get a plan passed that he deems as "good"?
1 edit
Every time Congress votes on something, a decision is being made on whether something is the "right" or "moral" thing to do. Every law is a moral statement of some sort.
You raise a good point regarding illegals. You can't insist that your health reforms will never benefit illegals without creating some awful humanitarian scenarios. But at the same time, you can't admit that your plan would benefit illegals without creating some awful political scenarios.
This is an illustration of when telling the whole truth is going to get you into major trouble. What should Obama have said here?
4 edits
Originally posted by MelanerpesWhat should he have said here? Well I guess to sell his legislation, which his presidency is hinging upon, you lie your arse off because they all know that public sentiment has had it with the US governments laize fair attitude regarding illegal aliens. They do nothing to gaurd the borders nor do they do anything to those that cross illegally and the public has had it with their inability/unwillingness to enforce the laws on the books. This is just another example of how politicians go around and make mess after mess but refuse to pick up after themselves before moving on to make other messes. Instead, they seek to make more messes like the new proposed NHC plan will inevitably make. The truth of the matter is, is that we will be paying for illegals just like we are doing today. Nothing changes as nothing often ever does except for the fact that Big Brother will have an ever increasing power over your health care. This also brings into question the affordability, does it not? After all, if it is "good" to lie about not covering illegals because the legislation is the "right" thing to do, then why not lie about the cost? AFter all, according to Obama, health care is a right, so it makes little difference what price we pay for something that is a God given right. Right?
This is an illustration of when telling the whole truth is going to get you into major trouble. What should Obama have said here?[/b]
7 edits
Originally posted by MelanerpesSo do you then agree that it was hypocritical of the left to attack the conservative right regarding abortion soley based upon the premise that you can't legislate morality? Is it not hypocritical for abortionists, such as Obama, to go around lecturing me about morality? If you ask me, it is immoral to violate the golden rule, which is to do unto other as you would have them do to you, yet, these same politicians set up seperate and superior retirement programs for themselves, and health care plans for themselves than what they vote to give the average Joe. Then they go around and bankrupt the treasury of the US via their unchecked and unaccountable spending habits while they themselves pad their own offshore bank accounts to the brim. So they can preach all they want to about morality, but all I can do is laugh in their hypocritical faces. Meanwhile, our children are faced with the daunting task of paying the debts of those who came before them which will undoubtidly negatively impact their future as well as their soon to be diminished freedoms over their own health care. As to how much of a negative impact this all will make, that is speculative I suppose, but no matter, just as long as the government is in control of health care, that is all that seems to matter.
[b]Every time Congress votes on something, a decision is being made on whether something is the "right" or "moral" thing to do. Every law is a moral statement of some sort.
Originally posted by whodeyThe reason government doesn't doing "anything" about the illegal immigrants is because the people keep demanding contradictory things. The people don't want to give the immigrants amnesty, but they also don't want the "ethnic cleansing" that would be necessary to force them all to leave. And while everyone is in favor of "guarding the borders", the biggest fortress won't work as long as you allow foreigners to come in for tourist, education, or business reasons.
What should he have said here? Well I guess to sell his legislation, which his presidency is hinging upon, you lie your arse off because they all know that public sentiment has had it with the US governments laize fair attitude regarding illegal aliens. They do nothing to gaurd the borders nor do they do anything to those that cross illegally and the public ...[text shortened]... t makes little difference what price we pay for something that is a God given right. Right?
As for healthcare reform, any plan that's going have real benefits will have costs. You only get what you pay for (or borrow for). But once again, the people demand contradictory things. They want twice the benefits while only paying half the taxes.
As long as people make contradictory demands, the only way you're going to please them is to lie. If you tell the truth, you'll face lots of angry voters at the next election. If you sincerely try to actually meet everyone's demands, you find it to be logically impossible. So if you want to get anything done (and nobody goes into politics without having things they want to get done), you end up pretending that the benefits will be glorious and the costs will be few.
Someday, (and perhaps in a different universe), the masses will learn and will start making demands that are logically possible to meet. Until then, we're going to be stuck with lots of lies and half-truths.
Originally posted by MelanerpesActually there have been civilian organizations that have vulentarily taken it upon themselves to gaurd the borders. They do this on their own time and with their own money because their government will not do it for them.
[b]The reason government doesn't doing "anything" about the illegal immigrants is because the people keep demanding contradictory things. The people don't want to give the immigrants amnesty, but they also don't want the "ethnic cleansing" that would be necessary to force them all to leave. And while everyone is in favor of "guarding the borders", the bigges ...[text shortened]... rk as long as you allow foreigners to come in for tourist, education, or business reasons.
Originally posted by MelanerpesThe last time I checked, public sentiment was against the new NHC plan just like they are about illegal immigration. So is the moral thing to do for their constituents to ignore them?
As for healthcare reform, any plan that's going have real benefits will have costs. You only get what you pay for (or borrow for). But once again, the people demand contradictory things. They want twice the benefits while only paying half the taxes.
Originally posted by whodeyhere is an interesting point about why imigration is given only lip service by the government. you may not like it, but its the truth. Since we import far more than we export, how then do we make our economy grow? Our economic system requires "actors' to invest or sell "inputs' or other resources into the system. if you are rich, usually this takes the form of land or other natural resource (oil, coal,wood etc...). If you are not rich, then you "sell" your labor as an input to the economy. What you recieve back is your profit (wages). those wages then go to fuel more economic transactions.
What should he have said here? Well I guess to sell his legislation, which his presidency is hinging upon, you lie your arse off because they all know that public sentiment has had it with the US governments laize fair attitude regarding illegal aliens. They do nothing to gaurd the borders nor do they do anything to those that cross illegally and the public ...[text shortened]... t makes little difference what price we pay for something that is a God given right. Right?
For the economy to grow, we need more "actors" to sell inputs (labor) into the market. since without immigration the US would be experiencing an overall shrinkage in not just population, but workforce, outside "inputs" or labor is necessary for growth. Its hard cheese to swallow, but that is how the economy works. Without immigrants we would be dead in the water.
Originally posted by whodeylast time you checked where? Fox news? Around my lunch table at work everyone is in favor of it. The reason my health insurance costs my employer so much is because of all the employers who gain an unfair competetive advantage by not offering it, how you ask? because every time an uninsured person goes to the emergancy room, the cost of that visit is spread over all the insured patients, whose insurance company passes that cost on to the employer, who passes it on to the employee by not offering raises because they kept the cost of insurance steady, or raising your co-pay, which offsets any raise that you may recieve (which has happened to me 3 times in the last 5 years)
The last time I checked, public sentiment was against the new NHC plan just like they are about illegal immigration. So is the moral thing to do for their constituents to ignore them?
2 edits
Originally posted by whodeyAn important thing to remember is that no one in Congress represents the "public" as a whole. They represent a specific district or state.
The last time I checked, public sentiment was against the new NHC plan just like they are about illegal immigration. So is the moral thing to do for their constituents to ignore them?
Much of the heavy opposition is located in "red" districts - places where people generally oppose all "big gummint" - and these places elect GOP representatives, almost all of whom are opposed to just about any healthcare reform.
The constituents in the "blue" districts are a lot different from the red ones. They're generally comfortable with government programs and "liberal" positions. The representatives from these districts know they'll face serious opposition in the primaries if they don't deliver an ambitious healthcare reform.
Most interesting are the competitive "purple" districts - where you have a relatively even mix of liberals and conservatives. This is where you have the blue-dog Dems - who favor healthcare reform, but resist the more ambitious proposals. But even here, they may have to face a lot of angry liberals in the next primary if reforms are watered down too much or don't pass at all.
3 edits
Originally posted by duecerAnd this may not be something that you want to hear, but if it were not for the abortion industry, the US would not be having as big of an issue with finding labor, now would it?
For the economy to grow, we need more "actors" to sell inputs (labor) into the market. since without immigration the US would be experiencing an overall shrinkage in not just population, but workforce, outside "inputs" or labor is necessary for growth. Its hard cheese to swallow, but that is how the economy works. Without immigrants we would be dead in the water.[/b]
So it appears that the US immigration laws are antiquated, or at leat in your view in regards to the needs when it comes to the economy. So why not clean up the mess and change the laws instead of moving to health care with the whole illegal immigrant issue confounding our out of date immigration laws? In fact, do we wish to give them further power over other matters when they cannot govern compently enough with the power that they currently have? Also, how are we to then have confidence in this same governing body in reform of the new HCP that wiill inevitably need to be made at some point? More than likely, they will just let it continue to fail as they are doing with social security and the rest of the failing entitlement programs.
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyhow did we go from economics to abortion? Does your mind work in any semblance of a logical fashion? The number of new Americans would not be significantly increased by eliminating abortions. as far as economic impact, the majority would be single moms who would have to quit their jobs and go on welfare....a further drain on our economy. so now we are not only missing moms labor in the work force, but we are paying to raise her children and supporting her. Your argument is irrelevant and ill thought out.
And this may not be something that you want to hear, but if it were not for the abortion industry, the US would not be having as big of an issue with finding labor, now would it?
So it appears that the US immigration laws are antiquated, or at leat in your view in regards to the needs when it comes to the economy. So why not clean up the mess and change ...[text shortened]... to fail as they are doing with social security and the rest of the failing entitlement programs.
next!?
1 edit
Originally posted by duecerNo offense, but the US is a little bigger than your work place. In fact, the last poll I saw said that 49% were in opposition as where 46% were in favor. Also, seniors seem to be the ones who oppose it the most with 42% thinking it will worsen their access opposed to 24% who think it will increase their access.
last time you checked where? Fox news? Around my lunch table at work everyone is in favor of it. The reason my health insurance costs my employer so much is because of all the employers who gain an unfair competetive advantage by not offering it, how you ask? because every time an uninsured person goes to the emergancy room, the cost of that visit is spread o ...[text shortened]... ch offsets any raise that you may recieve (which has happened to me 3 times in the last 5 years)
So the question begs, is it a moral thing to do to go against the popular sentiment? Should the masses be allowed to decide such issues or should we trust in Big Brother? Of course, those governments that dictate to the masses what is good for them would agree that they masses don't know what is best for them.
So what then is best, a tyranny or democracy?
Originally posted by whodeyyour own numbers support my argument, there is no clear majority of people who are against NHC. After Obamma's speach, I would be willing to bet the numbers have swung way over to the other side by now, especially since many of the lies spread by the right have been outed
No offense, but the US is a little bigger than your work place. In fact, the last poll I saw said that 49% were in opposition as where 46% were in favor. Also, seniors seem to be the ones who oppose it the most with 42% thinking it will worsen their access opposed to 24% who think it will increase their access.
So the question begs, is it a moral thing t ...[text shortened]... ey masses don't know what is best for them.
So what then is best, a tyranny or democracy?
Originally posted by whodeyour system of government was designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority, let the legislators do their job
No offense, but the US is a little bigger than your work place. In fact, the last poll I saw said that 49% were in opposition as where 46% were in favor. Also, seniors seem to be the ones who oppose it the most with 42% thinking it will worsen their access opposed to 24% who think it will increase their access.
So the question begs, is it a moral thing t ...[text shortened]... ey masses don't know what is best for them.
So what then is best, a tyranny or democracy?