the new health care?

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

My bad, I wasn't aware your office was it's own sector.

In my eyes it is.LOL

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by dmek25

so we let the insurance/ medical field control the costs of managed health care? that seems to working just fine( not) i have an idea. lets try something new! oh my god, i said it. the dreaded change word, that petrifies many

Change is fine but what do you want to change? What is the new plan?

I admit, I do not see a real solution. Does that mean I am not open to one? No. My family is getting by on a shoe string so if your change is going to cost me substantially more in the short term or lower the quality of my kids care, your plan better be damn good. Further, I am not going to say something is good just because it is different.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I hope Obama has something that will work. I promise to give any plan he puts forth fair scrutiny. What I have seen from him on this front so far is not "new". It may be change but that does not necessarily make it better.

Give me a plan that lowers costs while still providing quality care to the vast number of already insured americans. If you have a plan for that, I will gladly pay what I currently pay now and an extra 10% on top to help insure the currently uninsurable.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Monksdown

I am a disenfranchised fiscal conservative as well my friend. So i lean Republican, but god do they make some very crucial mistakes. We need a GNP(Grand New Party), with smart, charasmatic leaders that arent tied to the right so fastly. I'm sure you can imagine how difficult it is to be a pro-choice, fiscal conservative.

I think you mean tied to the social conservatives so fastly. The christian right's co-opting of the Republican party started in the 80's with Mr. Falwell and the Moral Majority. It concerned me then and has ultimately cost the Republican party its soul as the social conservatives became more interested in government interventionism as time wore on.

Whereas originally this group was very defensive saying, essentially, "We have a right to believe as we do and to express that belief" (which I agree with), they changed to a very aggressive stance saying "We have the right to believe as we do and, where we are the majority, to make laws reflecting and enforcing our religious beliefs." In doing so, the went from a stance that required govt. to simply stay out of the way to one that called for interventionist policies. Once you buy into the "Govt. can legislate belief", it is only a short trip down the road to Govt activism.

The social conservatives and the democratic socialists have the same formula, they just believe in different ingredients.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Monksdown

I am a disenfranchised fiscal conservative as well my friend. So i lean Republican, but god do they make some very crucial mistakes. We need a GNP(Grand New Party), with smart, charasmatic leaders that arent tied to the right so fastly. I'm sure you can imagine how difficult it is to be a pro-choice, fiscal conservative.

Add myself, and I believe FRPLG and GMScud to that group

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Add myself, and I believe FRPLG and GMScud to that group

Yessir. I enjoy this board way too much to get into political back and forth (although I occasionally lurk on the political threads and enjoy some of the discussion). However I'm not shy about revealing my political alignment.

[dmek25]

Joe, i never said Obama's plan is the right one. or even that its going to work. but the system, the way its set up now, doesn't work. it needs fixed. im willing to suffer thru some setbacks, until it gets righted. i already know alot of people aren't

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by dmek25

Joe, i never said Obama's plan is the right one. or even that its going to work. but the system, the way its set up now, doesn't work. it needs fixed. im willing to suffer thru some setbacks, until it gets righted. i already know alot of people aren't

I would not say the system doesn't work but I do agree that we can do better then the current system. I'm just against goverment taking over the system because I feel it will get worse instead of getting any better.

[dmek25]

like i asked earlier, then what would you do about it?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by dmek25

Joe, i never said Obama's plan is the right one. or even that its going to work. but the system, the way its set up now, doesn't work. it needs fixed. im willing to suffer thru some setbacks, until it gets righted. i already know alot of people aren't

Well, what is the right plan? Before we going tearing up an imperfect system that provides coverage for 80% of the population, shouldn't we have an idea of what's coming? You want me to suffer through setbacks? I am perfectly fine with sacrifice if you can point me to something that will ultimately lead to a better system.

This self-righteous "you're just afraid of change" bs is just that. Fiscal conservatives are perfectly willing to make short term sacrifices for long term gains. Their just isn't a plan out there that can w/stand any sort of scrutiny and fit that description.

You, like me, don't have a plan. Unlike you, however, I recognize that "change" for change's sake could lead to something even worse than the current system.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Is there any sector that is running things in the green right now?

I think Wal-mart is up

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

I think you mean tied to the social conservatives so fastly. The christian right's co-opting of the Republican party started in the 80's with Mr. Falwell and the Moral Majority. It concerned me then and has ultimately cost the Republican party its soul as the social conservatives became more interested in government interventionism as time wore on.

Whereas originally this group was very defensive saying, essentially, "We have a right to believe as we do and to express that belief" (which I agree with), they changed to a very aggressive stance saying "We have the right to believe as we do and, where we are the majority, to make laws reflecting and enforcing our religious beliefs." In doing so, the went from a stance that required govt. to simply stay out of the way to one that called for interventionist policies. Once you buy into the "Govt. can legislate belief", it is only a short trip down the road to Govt activism.

The social conservatives and the democratic socialists have the same formula, they just believe in different ingredients.

Well then what is a hate crime? If I call someone a name as I'm betting on them its a different set of rules and a longer sentence. Besides abortion what othe religious type laws have the Rep. pushed for.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Well then what is a hate crime? If I call someone a name as I'm betting on them its a different set of rules and a longer sentence. Besides abortion what othe religious type laws have the Rep. pushed for.

1. I think the "hate crime" as an additional penalty falls in the "democratic socialists = social conservatives but with different ingredients" rule. For the record, I oppose additional sentencing for "hate crimes" as they strike me as thought crimes a la' Orwell's 1984.

2. Off the top of my head, I would suggest the attempt to modify the constitution to include and define one of the seven traditional christian sacraments could be an example.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

1. I think the "hate crime" as an additional penalty falls in the "democratic socialists = social conservatives but with different ingredients" rule. For the record, I oppose additional sentencing for "hate crimes" as they strike me as thought crimes a la' Orwell's 1984.

2. Off the top of my head, I would suggest the attempt to modify the constitution to include and define one of the seven traditional christian sacraments could be an example.

Never heard of your example but did it get alot of support or was it just a few people trying to pass that bill. My point is you hear of a few things here and there but you never really see these things having strong support. I'm sure if we looked we could find stupid stuff on both sides that introduce crazy bills but without alot if any strong support from others in congress. The last thing I remember is the fight for a judge to post the ten commandments in or around the court building and I think that was a legal issue.

[saden1]

Well, this thread has recovered nicely.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Never heard of your example but did it get alot of support or was it just a few people trying to pass that bill. My point is you hear of a few things here and there but you never really see these things having strong support. I'm sure if we looked we could find stupid stuff on both sides that introduce crazy bills but without alot if any strong support from others in congress. The last thing I remember is the fight for a judge to post the ten commandments in or around the court building and I think that was a legal issue.

Bush called for, and a significant number of social conservatives supported, the call for a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as being a between a man and woman. Federal Marriage Amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

As for the Ten Commandments, the courts ordered the block removed but the religious right then lobbied for a bill cutting off funding to enforce the order -

"The Hostettler bill, passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on July 23, 2004, indicates the strength of the religious right. While media attention focused on the two-ton granite monument of the Ten Commandments placed in the lobby of the Alabama Supreme Court by its Chief Justice Roy Moore, little, if any attention was focused on a House measure that passed by a vote of 260 - 161. The Hostettler bill blocks the federal government from spending any tax funds to enforce the 11th U.S. circuit Court of Appeals order to have the monument removed. During floor debate, the author of the bill insisted that Congress has the power to curb the courts."

Introduction