Vienna - I simply call it like I see it. Your party affiliation and your reasoning are your own business. I simply pointed out that your choice to decry an action that is done by both sides, yet you chose to only fault one side - smacks of blind partisanship.

I agree the practice is wrong and should be stopped. However, if your going to find fault - don't blame just one side. You take umbrage at being called a partisan hack - I can only respond and say your original complaint makes you appear to be one. Thus, I said you show yourself to be something. Like you said, I don't know you - so I can only go off of how you portray yourself. Was the call inaccurate? Maybe. But it was based of a legitimate observation of you acting entirely one sided.

As for hitting a raw nerve - I am tired of the partisan crap that exists when people ignore the failure of both sides and lambast only one. As for lacking viable underpinnings - we are not disagreeing that the right shouldn't do it - we just are at this point because you didn't fault "your own side" for the same action. Failure to have the same standards when looking at one side vs the other is what defines a person as a partisan.

Ultimately, I would like to see us do that. Now that doesn't mean you can't choose to contribute if you wanted to - but right now, the entire "social net" is compulsory for any working citizen. The government doesn't offer you the choice of whether you want to be a part of providing for others. It mandates your "social responsibility", whether you agree with it or not. The problem is, not only does it mishandle the funds it takes from you and I, it also can increasingly require our "level of social responsibility" to be greater and greater. All without us being able to do anything about it.

I know we will likely disagree on this, but I don't believe that mandating citizen social responsibility is the proper job or role of government. Thus, I would like to see all such mandates end.

I am realistic enough to know that isn't going to happen, and even if it were it would need decades to phase into place. But I think the trend of the people becoming more and more reliant on government to control what they get and how they get it is unhealthy for the cause of liberty and freedom.

Yes, we both agree neither side should do actions that are unethical or lacking in common sense. However, I made the comment you that you dispute as a form of ironic sarcasm to Bubbles own one-sided view of the national condition and his own inability to critcally assess issues. Sometimes, as the saying goes, "Irony is lost on some people"...

This is where I can't understand the hardcore righties. They're so opposed to "entitlement" spending, but things like the spread of birth control that prevents entitlement spending and the necessity for things like welfare, they're against! :06:

I don't think that we would disagree about the need of government to remove itself from social responsibility. I think that we would disagree about how far it would go, and not in the way that you might anticipate that we would disagree. I am all for the removal of all safety nets. I am also for the legalization of all drugs, the end of restriction of marriage as it pertains to same-sex marriage or even polygamy and the full availabilty of abortion in any and all cases. To me, civil liberties are just as important as fiscal liberties.

It is here that I disagree with the Republican party. When they talk about 'liberty', they mean almost exclusively finance. Civil liberty is not now, nor has it been for most of the past century, a priority. This is a party that gave us the so-called Patriot Act, opposes abortion as part of it's party platform, attempts to legislate theological morality and stands in the way of gay rights. It is the polar opposite of the Democratic party, which is in favor of civil rights, but wants to control your money. I want a party that holds liberty in a much broader light.

I think there are some things that should not be market based. National defense, law enforcement and health care are three of the big ones.

Because of the thirst for profit the cost of even basic health care has risen beyond the ability of most people to pay. Even when they can afford insurance they are routinely denied and/or delayed compensation, sometimes right into the grave. The only solution may be a national health care system.

But if that's the way we're going to go then it has to be complete. NHS hospitals, clinics, doctors, nurses, technicians and labs. The whole enchilada. This idea of the government telling me I have to purchase health care insurance from a private company is crazy. It's like they're holding me down while the insurance company robs me.

Well said. The problem with Obama's current health care "reform" mess is that it was written by the health insurance industry to do exactly what you said - have the government hold you down while the insurance industry robs you. The bill was written by Liz Fowler, the ex-VP of Wellpoint insurance. To solve it, I'm not sure what to do. I guess a good start would be to take profit motive out of the equation. Not because the government could do it so much better, but because the insurance companies do it so much worse.

Government for the corporation, by the corporation is alive and well in America.

either which way; just because it's covered by the institution does not mean you have to use them. If people are morally opposed, it should be their decision to use or not use said products. I think it's a slippery slope when we let "moral judgement" decide whats covered and whats not. It's such a subjective thing, especially when you are in effect letting another party decide whats going to happen to YOUR body...especially when this is a take it or leave it health care situation...students don't have money to pay for health care ( i know i sure don't).

well yes, I think 3 things would work; in descending order on what i think is best:
1. Universal health care
2. take out profit motive
3. get rid of the bill

But something needs to change because I think your health is something that nobody SHOULD EVER make profit off of, especially when it's mandated. It's really not a fair market, healthcare is all too often emergency situations and shopping around for the best deal is not something that's often an option, If I'm in a car wreck with a broken neck, I'm not gonna talk to the ambulance drivers about their rates, or read information compairing hospital prices in the city, I'm going to get the nearest ambulance and go to the nearest hospital AT ANY price...because my life is on the line. And that pretty much shoots the free market in the foot.

Then we agree in many ways. The issue of drugs and abortion I will differ with you on - because both hold dangers to people other than the user/recipient. The issue of "gay marriage" is one where government shouldn't be in the marriage business at all.... While I have a moral objection to it - the reality remains that your talking about something that government shouldn't have its fingers in either way. Still - your entirely correct that "team R" definines freedom and liberty with a narrow scope under most circumstances.

If you look at your statement - you will see why you don't understand the objection. Your coming at this with the predetermined view that some entitlement spending by government is absolutely a necessity. Your example of "the necessity for things like welfare" is exactly where the confusion comes in. Sure, if you assume welfare is a necessity, then reducing more kids on welfare reduces the cost of the program. But for many conservatives, the welfare system is broken beyond repair.

Take a moment to step outside of your normal view and play devils advocate for a moment. Pretend that you see entitlements - all of them (Social security being a partial caveat) as entirely NOT the job of government. Medicaid, TANF & SNAP (welfare and foodstamps), Section 8 (subsidized housing), etc - look at it from the perspective of "none of these are the job of the government". If you do that - then the entire equation changes.

Now - lets be realistic. These programs cannot be just "killed" outright - but when a conservative sees how much the government has already gotten into things they feel it shouldn't - and then it wants to add MORE fingers to the pie, for whatever reason - they scream and yell and kick and raise a fuss. Why? Because its all going the WRONG way - we should be looking at putting more responsibility on citizenry for their own welfare - not increasing the role of government in their lives.

As conservatives - we hear all the time that new program A is "for the children", and new program B is "for the elderly" and new program C is "for the poor" or "for the GLTB folks" or some other nonsense - and that if we oppose more government gimme's we are somehow heartless and meanspirited.

Yes - to a few nuts this is about some biblical moral standard. For most of us, its not. Its about personal responsibility and the role of government. If someone wants to argue the fiscal wisdom of this - thats fine. But before that conversation can happen, the real root of the matter needs to be addressed - where is the line that defines how much government intervention in the life of its citizens?

The first question any legislator or government official should ask when they consider a "government program" or governmental interference is simple..... HOW is this within the proper role of government as defined by the Constitution.

If Washington had done that over the last 100 years or so - we would not be anywhere near this mess - and a whole lot more people in this nation would be standing on their own 2 feet, instead of kneeling at the alter of the government nipple.

They want it both ways. They scream about "free market! free market! let the market decide!" but then anytime the issue of revoking the antitrust exemption for insurance companies (McCarran-Ferguson Act) is brought up, all of a sudden it's "Whoooooaaaa, not that free of a market!" The insurance companies in this country are absolute slimeballs and one of the worst examples of regulatory capture.

It is, and that's the prevailing view in Washington as well.

Then you're getting into a completely different argument altogether.

Ok, I'll go with you on your tangent. The social safety net was enacted because the world we lived in without it was brutal and cruel. Some have the attitude of "oh the government's gone wrong, it's made all these mistakes getting into the health insurance and food stamp business. etc etc." as if there was no good reason for the programs to be enacted in the first place. The days of debtor prisons and the elderly's only choice, as a rule, was having to live in squalor or with relatives are too far gone for anyone alive today to remember. Maybe that's why there's these pushbacks against the programs that eliminated these things. Do we really want to go back to the days of child labor? Do we want to go back to people dying in the streets or in sanitariums? Would it be an improvement to tell the elderly "welp, you've used up your usefulness and you can't work anymore, so unless you've saved and had good luck with your investments, piss off!" I don't think that's a world I'd like to go back to.

Soooo, social Darwinism? No thanks. As I said before, that's a brutal way of life.

Telling the disadvantaged that they just have to suck it up and tough poop for your disadvantage is pretty heartless and mean spirited. ""Any society, any nation, is judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest members ; the last, the least, the littlest." - Cardinal Mahoney or Ghandi or a million other sources. Still a good quote though. And if you don't care for that one, there's always "Whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me." - Jesus.

Just lovely.

I get a letter from Blue Cross today telling me that as of April 1st they will no longer cover my Lipitor prescription. I guess i'll just have to do without it. Isn't mandatory health care insurance just grand?

Didn't Lipitor just go generic? They won't even cover that?

I don't know. The letter just says to talk to my doctor to see if there is an alternate medication.

The insurance company is probably responding to the Lipitor "co-pay" situation. Once the generic forms were given the go ahead, Pfizer, the maker of Lipitor tried lowering its prices, but was unable to compete with the $4 generics. So they devised the "$4 dollar co-pay". But the lower price comes with conditions that may be what has caused your insurer to balk:

http://myhealthcafe.com/pfizer-offer...ood-to-be-true

The hardcore flaming right has come to Rush's defense. :03:

NSFW - http://www.defendrush.org





.