The Political Fray - Political Forum
Go Back   Political Fray > The Political Fray > Current Events

Current Events Latest news, current events, and headlines from around the world


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old March 30th, 2010, 09:31 AM   #1
Representative
 
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 317

Obama changes health laws - again, conservatives "lose freedoms?"

Quote:
Obama signs law finalizing health care, loan redo

By PHILIP ELLIOTT, Associated Press Writer Philip Elliott, Associated Press Writer ? 3 mins ago

WASHINGTON ? Finalizing two major pieces of his agenda, President Barack Obama on Tuesday sealed his health care overhaul and made the government the primary lender to students by cutting banks out of the process. ?

The new law makes a series of changes to the massive health insurance reform bill that he signed into law with even greater fanfare last week. Those fixes included removing some specials deals that had angered the public and providing more money for poorer and middle-income individuals and families to help them buy health insurance. ?

The law strips banks of their role as middlemen in federal student loans and puts the government in charge. The president said that change would save more than $60 billion over the next 10 years, which in turn would be used to boost Pell Grants for students and reinvest in community colleges.

?[T]he change reflected in the new law represents a significant loss in what has been a $70 billion business for the banking industry.

Among many other features, the new law is expected to make it easier for some college graduates to repay loans.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100330/..._student_loans
Can anybody explain how America will "lose freedoms"? Other than just asserting it philosophically I mean.
chuck schmidt is offline  
Old March 30th, 2010, 12:41 PM   #2
myp
Founding Father
 
myp's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
From: us
Posts: 5,841

Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck schmidt View Post
Can anybody explain how America will "lose freedoms"? Other than just asserting it philosophically I mean.
What part exactly are you referring to here?

Generally though, government is operated upon coercion and expanding government to take over the private sector generally leads to coercion replacing free will. If you are talking about the mandate specifically, then the freedom lost is in the ability to choose whether or not to buy insurance. The freedom to spend one's own money how they want is also hurt and perhaps even more unfortunate is the freedom for the future to spend as they want- this bill just handed them (whether it is us later in our lives, our children, or whoever in the future that has to pay) trillions more in debt that they have to pay with the fruits of THEIR labor.
myp is offline  
Old March 30th, 2010, 02:00 PM   #3
Anarchist
 
Dirk's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2009
From: Disunited Queendom
Posts: 1,944

Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck schmidt View Post
Can anybody explain how America will "lose freedoms"? Other than just asserting it philosophically I mean.
I and most Americans find that the compulsory purchase of insurance is unnecessary. Long overdue changes, the others, mind.
Dirk is offline  
Old March 30th, 2010, 09:58 PM   #4
Representative
 
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 317

Quote:
Originally Posted by myp View Post

Generally though, government is operated upon coercion and expanding government to take over the private sector generally leads to coercion replacing free will.
Great essay. Good grammar and punctuation. Now to reality ...?

Quote:
If you are talking about the mandate specifically, then the freedom lost is in the ability to choose whether or not to buy insurance.
I don't necessarily agree with mandating health care either, but other jurisdictions are finding it workable. Or are you suggesting that America is too wise and powerful to learn from others? Perhaps its a sign of how seriously US health care has deteriorated? At some point you have to trust that your leaders have done right even when you don't necessarily agree. No plan will receive the approval of 330,000,000 people.

Once again I repeat the point you ignore: perfection is the enemy of the possible. The plight of 20,000,000-40,000,000 Americans without health coverage has obviously reached a national point of criticality. The private sector could have kept their mandate forever. Unfortunately their computers started telling them some years ago that statistically people would always trade money for life and health, especially for their families, so the money pit was potentially bottomless. The old guard who used to recognize ethical barriers to profit taking were eased out and the new, aggressive, computer oriented capitalist thinkers replaced them. The industry always knew that the curve had to have an end point somewhere, and they gambled that they could make enough to make it work. The most optimistic believed that they could find a level at which to plateau that would be long-term sustainable. Unfortunately the greedy profit takers out-voted the cautious plateau seekers and they lost - or have they? They are still here and still have a place. They are just no longer trusted with control. Too many Americans died and were bankrupted.


Quote:
The freedom to spend one's own money how they want is also hurt
There is no such absolute right in any organized society. Unless you wish to retreat to the deep bush and live without supporting or being supported by others (in the broad societal sense), you can never expect absolute control over your money. To do so is short sighted, greedy and irresponsible. Having said that there is nothing short sighted, greedy or irresponsible about opting out and living as a sole social unit. Just remember that the collective gives you your greatest freedom. I have lived in the bush. It was great for a while. But eventually one must replace a chain saw, buy ammunition, get clothing. Unless you already have money you must earn some. Then you must pay taxes. you don't "have" to of course, but not doing so is an offense. That is immoral.


Quote:
perhaps even more unfortunate is the freedom for the future to spend as they want- this bill just handed them (whether it is us later in our lives, our children, or whoever in the future that has to pay) trillions more in debt that they have to pay with the fruits of THEIR labor.
America has the biggest military and lowest gasoline prices in the western world. Suck it up and start paying as much for a gallon of gas as (ie) Canadians or Brits and many things will be affordable. Bring home the military and put half of the carrier battle groups into short term mothballs. There are more options than multi-generational debt. They just don't all permit current vested interests to keep their licenses to print money for corporate coffers.

Just IMO, anyway (ain't I humble? )
chuck schmidt is offline  
Old March 30th, 2010, 10:11 PM   #5
myp
Founding Father
 
myp's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
From: us
Posts: 5,841

Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck schmidt View Post
Great essay. Good grammar and punctuation. Now to reality ...?
Uncalled for.

As for your next two segments, no need to copy/paste them here. I read and responded to them in the first thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck schmidt View Post
There is no such absolute right in any organized society. Unless you wish to retreat to the deep bush and live without supporting or being supported by others (in the broad societal sense), you can never expect absolute control over your money. To do so is short sighted, greedy and irresponsible. Having said that there is nothing short sighted, greedy or irresponsible about opting out and living as a sole social unit. Just remember that the collective gives you your greatest freedom. I have lived in the bush. It was great for a while. But eventually one must replace a chain saw, buy ammunition, get clothing. Unless you already have money you must earn some. Then you must pay taxes. you don't "have" to of course, but not doing so is an offense. That is immoral.
To want to keep the fruits of my labor is greedy but to force others to pay for something you want is not? Wow.

As for the collective giving you the most freedom- no disrespect intended, but any political philosopher would laugh at that- even the egalitarians.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck schmidt View Post
America has the biggest military and lowest gasoline prices in the western world. Suck it up and start paying as much for a gallon of gas as (ie) Canadians or Brits and many things will be affordable. Bring home the military and put half of the carrier battle groups into short term mothballs. There are more options than multi-generational debt. They just don't all permit current vested interests to keep their licenses to print money for corporate coffers.

Just IMO, anyway (ain't I humble? )
You obviously don't realize that Europe is still in massive debt even with those high gas taxes, etc. As for the military argument- that has nothing to do with this debate. Besides, the health care entitlements you are for are on their own unsustainable fiscally anyway.

On a side note, why are you infatuated with comparing yourself to others? Looking at and learning from another is one thing, but constantly comparing yourself just shows no faith in yourself (or in this case, our own country, our own culture, and our own people.)
myp is offline  
Old March 30th, 2010, 11:02 PM   #6
Representative
 
dave's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: Alaska
Posts: 131

Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck schmidt View Post
There is no such absolute right in any organized society. Unless you wish to retreat to the deep bush and live without supporting or being supported by others (in the broad societal sense), you can never expect absolute control over your money. To do so is short sighted, greedy and irresponsible.
There absolutely is an absolute right to use your own money as you see fit too use it. Money is property, and the right to own property is fundamental to freedom. Some of the Founders considered it the fundamental right, and without it, all other rights are just words on paper. If you control how a person spends their money, you control that person, that person has no freedom.

There are many quotes, even entire letters (this one by James Madison is a good one, [COLOR=#22229c]http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/found...v1ch16s23.html ) written on the fundamental freedom of private property, but this quote summarizes it well:
 
Freedom depends on the right to property just as it does to rights of free speech...There is no human activity that does not involve the use of property. We cannot sleep, wake, eat, walk, drive, fly, swim, boat, work, go to church, print a paper, view a movie, make a speech, procreate, or engage in conversation without using property in some one or more of its dimensions. If a church cannot be owned by its communicants, their freedom to worship is under the control of someone else. If a press cannot be privately owned, freedom of the press is an illusion. If government controls all property, freedom of speech is something belonging to government, not to individuals.
CARSON, CLARENCE B., Free Enterprise: The Key to Prosperity

 
dave is offline  
Old March 31st, 2010, 12:31 AM   #7
Secretary of State
 
deanhills's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,187

How on earth did the student loans become part of the Health Care Reform Bill????? That really boggles the mind, in fact may send alarm bells ringing, as one then wonders what other oddities are hiding in the 2000 plus pages Health Care Reform Bill?

Second, why put Government in charge of the loans? How did this happen? Did someone vote on this? We're talking about freedom here, but is there any? The whole idea of having such an uncoordinated, messy, chaotic 2000 pages plus legislation containing bits and pieces that do not belong to it, is evidence of how little freedom there really is. No doubt the bits that do not belong, must have surfaced as part of the many deals that have been negotiated in order to win votes for steamrolling the legislation through.

Obama and his team must be patting themselves on the back for today, but I have no doubt in my mind that this messy legislation is going to be Obama's worst legacy and nightmare to come.
deanhills is offline  
Old March 31st, 2010, 07:25 PM   #8
Representative
 
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 317

Quote:
Originally Posted by myp View Post
uncalled for
Not at all. Your positions are way out of touch with reality, IMO. Great for a college term paper showing that you are starting to learn to think in the terms of a discipline, but useless for governing.

Quote:
As for your next two segments, no need to copy/paste them here. I read and responded to them in the first thread.
I wondered if you'd play that card. There are at least two reasons why it isn't a winning hand.

[COLOR=Red]1. Look at the times on the post. This thread was first. I copied from here to there.

2. When you ask me the same question or raise the same issue twice you don't get a different answer each time. I didn't duplicate the answer until you duplicated the issue.

Quote:
To want to keep the fruits of my labor is greedy but to force others to pay for something you want is not? Wow.
Pure sophistry, my friend.

Quote:
As for the collective giving you the most freedom- no disrespect intended, but any political philosopher would laugh at that- even the egalitarians.
Once you get out of college, read more, understand more and think more you might realize that in the context of the real world I am correct. Methinks you attend a conservative college somewhere and are regurgitating their philosophies without adequate thought. If all you have been taught is the conservative position you need more exposure to the other side of the argument to gain a greater understanding.

Quote:
As for the military argument- that has nothing to do with this debate.
Absolute nonsense. Your issue is government spending and a position that government cannot afford it. The military issue is a massive source of wasted federal funds better spent in America on Americans.

Quote:
Besides, the health care entitlements you are for are on their own unsustainable fiscally anyway.
And the military is not?

Quote:
On a side note, why are you infatuated with comparing yourself to others?
Me? I compare me to nobody. You don't even know who or where I am. I think you're losing this argument so badly you're getting upset.
chuck schmidt is offline  
Old April 1st, 2010, 08:19 AM   #9
myp
Founding Father
 
myp's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2009
From: us
Posts: 5,841

Chuck, I do not get upset if I am "losing" because I don't think it is even possible for me to lose here- this is an unmoderated debate and everyone is entitled to their own opinions. When I said why do you compare yourself, I meant why do you compare your country- phrasing might have been a bit misleading I guess.

As for the military argument, that is what is known as a red herring. It is an outside issue which you throw in to try to hurt my ethos. It really has nothing to do with health care, which is the primary topic here. I am speaking out against health care spending in particular here because that is the topic at hand. Besides, I actually agree that we need to stop policing the world, so on that front we might be comparable- we just disagree on the idea of spending for universal health care. Since we do agree on the military issue, it is even more irrelevant (which it still would be even if I didn't agree with you on it as per the structure of classical debate.)

And I find it ironic that you tell me I have no idea who you are, what you do (which is true and again, I meant you as in comparing your country) when you pretend who know who I am and what I do to bring on a long speech in which you try to hurt my ethos by making be look like some ignorant college student. In today's day and age, with the internet and so many resources available, basically anyone who can read can be well informed. It doesn't matter if I am a college student or not. Counter my ideas (if you can), but don't just write me off because of my age. Doing so only hurts your own argument. (and on a side note, I have worked in the real world, I have had to pay bills and I do have family members without health care insurance.)

As for similar issues coming up, that is because the two topics are intertwined.
myp is offline  
Old April 2nd, 2010, 04:45 AM   #10
Secretary of State
 
deanhills's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,187

Perhaps we need to stick with the subject of the thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck schmidt View Post
Can anybody explain how America will "lose freedoms"? Other than just asserting it philosophically I mean.
Personally, if I do not want to purchase health insurance, and the Government forces me to do so, that in its own right takes away my freedom of choice. If some of the States don't want to subscribe to Obama's Health Reform Bill, for a list of rationally thought through reasons, they should have the right to opt out. If they don't have that right, then that would affect their freedom of choice as well as right to govern their own State. In effect, this Bill is taking away people's freedom of choice to decide for themselves. I am very surprised that no one has determined in advance of voting, that there should be a two thirds majority vote set as a requirement as this Bill obviously has serious ramifications for the people's freedom to choose. It is obvious that there are an overwhelming number of individuals as well as States opposed to the Bill. From an administration point of view, the Bill is also completely chaotic, inefficient, and consists of too many bits and pieces that are going to haunt administrators for the rest of the life of that Bill. Most certainly more legislation will have to be passed in order to deal with all the inconsistencies of the current Bill. Imagine how expensive that is going to be.

When the Bill started out, Obama and the Dems promised almost 80 billion of dollars student loans that would be possible, that has shrunk to half of the amount, and symbolically for me, the cost of the administration and implementation of the Bill may double for exactly the same reason, which is a mixture of dealmaking, manipulation, band-aid strip negotiations, and just plain chaos.
deanhills is offline  
Old April 2nd, 2010, 09:54 PM   #11
Representative
 
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 317

Quote:
Originally Posted by myp View Post
As for the military argument, that is what is known as a red herring. It is an outside issue which you throw in to try to hurt my ethos.
Not at all. Your objections to the health care issue are largely economic. It is my position that America wastes billions a year on unnecessary military spending. Divert money from defence spending to health care and there is no economic deficit. You seem to be suggesting that unless health care takes in more money than it costs it is a failure? The military doesn't show a direct profit? Why must the ill health and accidents of the American people show a profit? All of society will produce more and better and poverty will decrease if health care improves. Both increased production and less poverty are positives.
chuck schmidt is offline  
Old April 4th, 2010, 06:05 AM   #12
Secretary of State
 
deanhills's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,187

Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck schmidt View Post
Not at all. Your objections to the health care issue are largely economic. It is my position that America wastes billions a year on unnecessary military spending. Divert money from defence spending to health care and there is no economic deficit. You seem to be suggesting that unless health care takes in more money than it costs it is a failure? The military doesn't show a direct profit? Why must the ill health and accidents of the American people show a profit? All of society will produce more and better and poverty will decrease if health care improves. Both increased production and less poverty are positives.
If you let go of the military, health insurance will become completely unaffordable for everyone. Everyone will have to fend for themselves against terrorism. Live a while in countries where there are regular occurrences of bomb blasts in restaurants and cafes, and maybe it is cheaper to have the military from a health point of view.
deanhills is offline  
Old April 4th, 2010, 11:29 AM   #13
Representative
 
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 317

Quote:
Originally Posted by deanhills View Post
If you let go of the military, health insurance will become completely unaffordable for everyone. Everyone will have to fend for themselves against terrorism.
Bring home the military and terrorists lose their motive.
chuck schmidt is offline  
Old April 4th, 2010, 09:17 PM   #14
Vice President
 
David's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
From: Opa Locka
Posts: 5,494

Quote:
Originally Posted by deanhills View Post
If you let go of the military, health insurance will become completely unaffordable for everyone. Everyone will have to fend for themselves against terrorism. Live a while in countries where there are regular occurrences of bomb blasts in restaurants and cafes, and maybe it is cheaper to have the military from a health point of view.
You do realize America is almost totally demilitarized, right? Vary few of our assets are actually in the Homeland and most of our armories are depleted/under supplied. Yet despite all this, the closet we've come to anti-gov't rebellion has been the TP and the closet to invasion being the Mexican drug/warlords making a few raids along the border. We're safe and we have no army.

Love nukes. We can cut spending domestically and close bases while diverting what's left to the war effort and not suffer.

Not that I'd support it, mind you.
David is offline  
Old April 5th, 2010, 09:12 AM   #15
Secretary of State
 
deanhills's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,187

Quote:
Originally Posted by David View Post
You do realize America is almost totally demilitarized, right?
Right, it is fighting its enemies outside the States in an attempt to keep them there, so that America can remain demilitarized. Nukes are not used to make war, but for balance of power so that Americans can prevent nuclear war.
deanhills is offline  
Old April 5th, 2010, 11:20 AM   #16
Representative
 
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 317

Quote:
Originally Posted by David View Post
You do realize America is almost totally demilitarized, right?
The world's largest defence budget and most powerful military = demilitarized?

He-lloooooooooooooooo conservatives. I guess that means y'all oughtta ramp up the defence budget before Mexico and Canada invade and split y'all cross the Mason-Dixon line?
chuck schmidt is offline  
Old April 6th, 2010, 03:20 AM   #17
Secretary of State
 
deanhills's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,187

Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck schmidt View Post
I guess that means y'all oughtta ramp up the defence budget before Mexico and Canada invade and split y'all cross the Mason-Dixon line?
Maybe Mexico, and perhaps in a way they have been at it for a very long time, but Canada, maybe not.
deanhills is offline  
Old April 6th, 2010, 11:00 PM   #18
Representative
 
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 317

Quote:
Originally Posted by deanhills View Post
Maybe Mexico, and perhaps in a way they have been at it for a very long time, but Canada, maybe not.
If America is truly demilitarized Canada should have no problem in theory. In practical terms I doubt Canada would see anything to be gained.
chuck schmidt is offline  
Old April 7th, 2010, 11:13 AM   #19
Secretary of State
 
deanhills's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,187

Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck schmidt View Post
If America is truly demilitarized Canada should have no problem in theory. In practical terms I doubt Canada would see anything to be gained.
Since more than 90% of Canada's trade is with the United States, it is probably in Canada's interest to keep it strong. So Canada would probably think more in terms of how it can help the States, than taking it over. The Mexicans on the other hand may feel they have a few axes to grind. They probably will start with Texas I think.
deanhills is offline  
Old April 7th, 2010, 01:35 PM   #20
Vice President
 
David's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
From: Opa Locka
Posts: 5,494

Quote:
Originally Posted by deanhills View Post
Since more than 90% of Canada's trade is with the United States, it is probably in Canada's interest to keep it strong. So Canada would probably think more in terms of how it can help the States, than taking it over. The Mexicans on the other hand may feel they have a few axes to grind. They probably will start with Texas I think.
Mexico as a functioning country no longer exists. I think the De jour gov't has bigger issues to worry about.
David is offline  
Reply

  Political Fray > The Political Fray > Current Events

Tags
conservatives , health , helth , laws , lose freedoms , obama



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Santorum says Obama agenda not based on Bible, but "different theology" myp Current Events 8 February 21st, 2012 01:06 PM
"Obama, gop showdown russia nuke pact" WillypHD Current Events 16 November 30th, 2010 06:59 AM
Obama wishes to use "bounty hunters" for checking on health care fraud deanhills Government and Politics 0 March 10th, 2010 01:08 AM
From "cap and trade" to "pollution reduction targets" myp Current Events 12 March 9th, 2010 07:30 PM
Obama cuts 100M of "wasteful spending" omej Current Events 29 May 8th, 2009 07:16 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2009-2013 Political Fray. All rights reserved.