Since we're here...

[Farbin Kaiber]

"The road to Hell is paved with good intentions" - H.G. Bohn, 1855

[Wiglaf]

... I don't understand how the liberal ideology isn't asking for "handouts." Now I understand you're not saying you want to sit on your ass and get free stuff, but you are saying, through social programs of all kinds, that you want SOMEONE out there to get something because they don't have it already. Otherwise, these social programs wouldn't be needed. I'm curious, how democrats think that A) this isn't relying on the gov't and B) this will make the gov't smaller? (serious questions, please take them as such)

The intention behind these programs aren't any more of an entitlement or handout than what your local police, fire, waste removal, etc. We all share the cost of these programs via taxes, and these departments are examples of functional socialist systems in our environment. Some are run better than others, but all in all it's much cheaper for the individual to pay thier share of taxes than it is to hire private security, install a commercial grade fire supression system, etc.

Other programs like unemployment are safety nets. I'm sure some people out there find ways to play the system, but the vast majority of people are thankful that there is a little help to pay the bills should something bad happen. Most people don't have enough in the bank to last 4 months should something happen. I don't, and would bet 10:1 that you don't either. I'd have to take the first shit job that comes along regardless of it being a non-career 50% paycut or not.

When it comes down to the actual execution, how thick the lawbooks are, how much more efficiently tax collection could be refined.. we have totally missed the boat. No arguing this point. And yeah anyone with an "entitlement attitude" regarding getting assistance is infuriating, no matter what the actual situation.

When you go the opposite direction with a program, in hopes that competition will drive down prices, it's a whole different set of pros and cons. Each one has to be taken on a case by case basis on if a private model is feasible or not. What if instead of unemployment your tax was lowered a little bit and companies out there offered job loss insurance. Would I expect a similar experience to my car insurance? noooo thanks. Not if I want it to be useful _before_ the electric is disconnected. They act like I'm killing them if I file a claim, but are on me like white on rice if I make a late payment. Then try to lowball me and shit. Plus half the people that didn't go for the insurance would be up a creek and needing even more help from anywhere they can get it, perhaps even adding to the forclosure mess. Well maybe insurance was a bad example, seeing as they tend to be the most anti-competitive of the bunch.. classic examples of market manipulation, ceo's getting paid 1000x what the employees do, yadda yadda.

Part of me thinks people only defend someone making hundreds of millions because they really truly think they could be that guy one day. Not unless you sell your soul you won't.

looks like i'm drifting off into a spiteful rant. gonna punch out before i get stupid.

[LBJefferies]

Yeah I was saying normal people don't need the threat of a fee, if they don't have it, to make them have health care.

Yes they do because now that people cannot be turned down for pre-existing conditions, people would just wait till they got sick before purchasing insurance. The penalty is there so people don't do this.

I don't necessarily agree with being forced to buy something but it makes sense. People are going to buy insurance regardless and having a penalty will prevent people from abusing the system.

[E30Kaiser]

What fee's? There is only a fee if you don't purchase it and the subsidies are designed to make it affordable for those that can't afford it.

Yeah I was saying normal people don't need the threat of a fee, if they don't have it, to make them have health care.

[LBJefferies]

All normal people don't need a fucking fee to make them get it. Poor people aren't normal either.

What fee's? There is only a fee if you don't purchase it and the subsidies are designed to make it affordable for those that can't afford it.

[E30Kaiser]

That negligible because all normal people want health insurance.

All normal people don't need a fucking fee to make them get it. Poor people aren't normal either.

[LBJefferies]

There are fee's being added for people who don't join up, which will cause more government oversight and you need people to do that.

That negligible because all normal people want health insurance.

[87e30]

There are no more taxes being added for this bill. In fact, the government is offering subsidies to people who make less than 88k a year.

But there has been an increased budget for this, so where is the money coming from?

[E30Kaiser]

There are no more taxes being added for this bill. In fact, the government is offering subsidies to people who make less than 88k a year.

There are fee's being added for people who don't join up, which will cause more government oversight and you need people to do that.

[LBJefferies]

I realize that the system is still private, but do you honestly believe that more tax dollars controlled by the government, required approved health care packages, and more government jobs does not equal a larger government? Or do you not believe the health care bill causes those things?

I understand liberal does not equal democrat. But, in this country it seems that if you are liberal you'll end up voting democrat and same goes for conservatives. Lesser of two evils, so the saying goes.

There are no more taxes being added for this bill. In fact, the government is offering subsidies to people who make less than 88k a year.

[87e30]

First, you need to stop equating liberalism with the democratic party. They are very different. Second, democratic reform does not typically lead to social programs. Democratic reform can be just about anything that is different from the way things are and is voted upon. Third, the health care bill does not create a larger government. In fact, health insurance is still 100% PRIVATE and PRIVATE health insurance companies just expanded their customer base by nearly 50 million people.

I realize that the system is still private, but do you honestly believe that more tax dollars controlled by the government, required approved health care packages, and more government jobs does not equal a larger government? Or do you not believe the health care bill causes those things?

I understand liberal does not equal democrat. But, in this country it seems that if you are liberal you'll end up voting democrat and same goes for conservatives. Lesser of two evils, so the saying goes.

[LBJefferies]

I'm assuming liberal equates to democrat. Because you definitely are not a republican. And democratic "reform" typically leads to social programs, such as the current health care bill, which does in fact create a larger government. (more government positions, larger budget, we still won't know the exact impact). Whether or not you are for or against you agree it creates a larger government, and comes as a "reform" program from a liberal democratic policy, right? Or am I wrong here too?

First, you need to stop equating liberalism with the democratic party. They are very different. Second, democratic reform does not typically lead to social programs. Democratic reform can be just about anything that is different from the way things are and is voted upon. Third, the health care bill does not create a larger government. In fact, health insurance is still 100% PRIVATE and PRIVATE health insurance companies just expanded their customer base by nearly 50 million people.

[87e30]

^ So, they are all about reform, but the methods that they will use is big government, social programs, and handouts.

I do find the other have of being liberally socially quite interesting. Such as the idea of creating more freedoms, when in a very large sense more government programs take away freedoms.

Both parties face incredible ironies.

[E30Kaiser]

Liberalism in the USA and Liberalism in general are not the same thing. Our country has very warped examples of both Liberalism and Conservatism.

[87e30]

This is not over-simplified, it is just plain wrong. Liberals want reform that is all. Liberalism isn't about big government, social programs and handouts. You've been watching too much Fox News buddy.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal

Of all those definitions it does not once say that a liberal is one who want's big government and handouts. You have been misinformed.

I'm assuming liberal equates to democrat. Because you definitely are not a republican. And democratic "reform" typically leads to social programs, such as the current health care bill, which does in fact create a larger government. (more government positions, larger budget, we still won't know the exact impact). Whether or not you are for or against you agree it creates a larger government, and comes as a "reform" program from a liberal democratic policy, right? Or am I wrong here too?