Why do people hate Liberals?

[Wolfsister77]

Well if you are on the left, then all you have is derailing by name calling and such, as there is no reasoning to support their policies.

How do you know this?

While RKM's statement was more perjorative than I would have phrased it, sadly he does have a point. Again and again and again I have challenged leftists/progressives/modern liberals here at USMB and on numerous other boards to defend a socioeconomic or political concept - ANY concept - without naming or accusing or blaming or deferring to what another person, group, or political party did. In other words, defend the concept on its own merit without referencing anybody.

To date, not one--count them, not one!--has taken me up on that challenge. Those who claim they did so will invariably blame, accuse, or negatively refer to some person, group, or poliical party. They simply cannot defend what their preach on the merits of what they preach, and they become extremely hostile if they are challenged on what they profess.

It seems to be in the liberal psyche.

Even saying this, there are numerous people who lean left that I admire, and have watched, heard, or read over many years now and have learned from. So there are exceptions. They just don't seem to be all that typical. Liberalism seems to mostly have no philosophical center, nothing specific to defend, and is based mostly on a kind of self righteous oneupsmanship and ad hominem.

OK, but are Liberals/those on the left, progressives (not sure with this group how to describe them), that post on messageboards representative of the group as a whole?

Also, if someone has information to back up what they claim and it doesn't meet your standards does not mean it has zero merit. It just means you are very specific in what you find to be acceptable documentation to support something.

Also, sometimes people go by what they believe is right-opinions, morals, etc. and may only have their personal opinion to back up what they say or their own personal values or morals. Example: Abortion debate. Or even, universal healthcare being a right versus a privilege. I can see this being how someone believes it is the right thing to do to make sure everyone has access to health care. Perhaps because they feel people who can't afford care dying when they could of gotten help to be unethical.

 

[mamooth]

Just as your post is totally non responsive to the point I was making here.

You mean the same and only point you try to make on every thread, no matter what the topic is?

You know, how those evil socialist liberals are ruining everything. And how anyone who wants to discuss stupid things like "facts" and "data", as opposed to agreeing with you about how those evil socialist liberals are ruining everything, is clearly "refusing to argue" and "relying on fuzzy emotionalism".

Shame how all your alphas (the ones you showered praise on) over in Environment either got banned for being stalkers, left because the mods warned them to stop spamming, or devolved into alcoholic mutterings. It's tough to be the bully's little toadie if all the bullies are gone. No wonder you left.

 

[Dragonlady]

Perhaps because they're stupid.

More Republicans in Louisiana blame Barrack Obama for the federal government's handing of the Hurricane Katrina disaster, which occurred in 2005, more than three years prior to his election, than blame George W. Bush.

New Poll Shows Louisiana Republicans Blame Obama For How Bush Handled Hurricane Katrina -

 

[RKMBrown]

Also, sometimes people go by what they believe is right-opinions, morals, etc. and may only have their personal opinion to back up what they say or their own personal values or morals. Example: Abortion debate. Or even, universal healthcare being a right versus a privilege. I can see this being how someone believes it is the right thing to do to make sure everyone has access to health care. Perhaps because they feel people who can't afford care dying when they could of gotten help to be unethical.

If they believed it to be ethical to make sure everyone has access to unlimited health care , then why don't they donate all of their income, sell their homes, cars and cell phones to fund what they believe to be right thing to do? I don't see that happening. What I see is a group of people that demand "society" pay for everyone's desire to live forever. Artificial limbs, artificial hearts, dialysis, oncology, ... all great things. How many tens of millions of dollars should we spend on everyone to ensure that everyone gets to live into their 90s? Where's the money and labor for this great miracle coming from?

Two wrongs does not a right make. Taking from others to redistribute to the needy is still theft. It's wrong. Should my kids have to go without college so your kid can get a "free" operation? Should I have to sell my home to pay for a family members operation while another family gets the same operation for free using my tax dollars? Who gets to decide how my money is redistributed fairly to those in need? Why should we use an inefficient government system for charity when every other government program has been an abysmal experiment in inefficiency?

 

[Wolfsister77]

Also, sometimes people go by what they believe is right-opinions, morals, etc. and may only have their personal opinion to back up what they say or their own personal values or morals. Example: Abortion debate. Or even, universal healthcare being a right versus a privilege. I can see this being how someone believes it is the right thing to do to make sure everyone has access to health care. Perhaps because they feel people who can't afford care dying when they could of gotten help to be unethical.

If they believed it to be ethical to make sure everyone has access to unlimited health care , then why don't they donate all of their income, sell their homes, cars and cell phones to fund what they believe to be right thing to do? I don't see that happening. What I see is a group of people that demand "society" pay for everyone's desire to live forever. Artificial limbs, artificial hearts, dialysis, oncology, ... all great things. How many tens of millions of dollars should we spend on everyone to ensure that everyone gets to live into their 90s? Where's the money and labor for this great miracle coming from?

Two wrongs does not a right make. Taking from others to redistribute to the needy is still theft. It's wrong. Should my kids have to go without college so your kid can get a "free" operation? Should I have to sell my home to pay for a family members operation while another family gets the same operation for free using my tax dollars? Who gets to decide how my money is redistributed fairly to those in need? Why should we use an inefficient government system for charity when every other government program has been an abysmal experiment in inefficiency?

Who said it was free? Single-payer implies by it's very wording that this is not free.

Medicare for all with the option to buy private insurance as a supplement would help bring down the cost of health care for everyone because Medicare has lower administrative costs and is more efficient than private insurance companies.

Right now health care costs are high, in part because people who don't have health care go to the ER when they are sick at a much higher cost and it is a much more inefficient system. Private health insurance is not nearly as cost effective as Medicare is. Medicare being able to negotiate for lower drug costs would make it even more cost effective. Less paperwork by switching everyone over to electronic records would also save costs.

------------------------------------------------------------------Above this line are my words, below is from the link I pasted below it.

Upgrading the nation’s Medicare program and expanding it to cover people of all ages would yield more than a half-trillion dollars in efficiency savings in its first year of operation, enough to pay for high-quality, comprehensive health benefits for all residents of the United States at a lower cost to most individuals, families and businesses.

That’s the chief finding of a new fiscal study by Gerald Friedman, a professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. There would even be money left over to help pay down the national debt, he said.

Friedman says his analysis shows that a nonprofit single-payer system based on the principles of the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act, H.R. 676, introduced by Rep. John Conyers Jr., D-Mich., and co-sponsored by 45 other lawmakers, would save an estimated $592 billion in 2014. That would be more than enough to cover all 44 million people the government estimates will be uninsured in that year and to upgrade benefits for everyone else.

“No other plan can achieve this magnitude of savings on health care,” Friedman said.

?Medicare for All? would cover everyone, save billions in first year: new study | Physicians for a National Health Program

 

[Foxfyre]

Also, sometimes people go by what they believe is right-opinions, morals, etc. and may only have their personal opinion to back up what they say or their own personal values or morals. Example: Abortion debate. Or even, universal healthcare being a right versus a privilege. I can see this being how someone believes it is the right thing to do to make sure everyone has access to health care. Perhaps because they feel people who can't afford care dying when they could of gotten help to be unethical.

If they believed it to be ethical to make sure everyone has access to unlimited health care , then why don't they donate all of their income, sell their homes, cars and cell phones to fund what they believe to be right thing to do? I don't see that happening. What I see is a group of people that demand "society" pay for everyone's desire to live forever. Artificial limbs, artificial hearts, dialysis, oncology, ... all great things. How many tens of millions of dollars should we spend on everyone to ensure that everyone gets to live into their 90s? Where's the money and labor for this great miracle coming from?

Two wrongs does not a right make. Taking from others to redistribute to the needy is still theft. It's wrong. Should my kids have to go without college so your kid can get a "free" operation? Should I have to sell my home to pay for a family members operation while another family gets the same operation for free using my tax dollars? Who gets to decide how my money is redistributed fairly to those in need? Why should we use an inefficient government system for charity when every other government program has been an abysmal experiment in inefficiency?

Who said it was free? Single-payer implies by it's very wording that this is not free.

Medicare for all with the option to buy private insurance as a supplement would help bring down the cost of health care for everyone because Medicare has lower administrative costs and is more efficient than private insurance companies.

Right now health care costs are high, in part because people who don't have health care go to the ER when they are sick at a much higher cost and it is a much more inefficient system. Private health insurance is not nearly as cost effective as Medicare is. Medicare being able to negotiate for lower drug costs would make it even more cost effective. Less paperwork by switching everyone over to electronic records would also save costs.

------------------------------------------------------------------Above this line are my words, below is from the link I pasted below it.

Upgrading the nation’s Medicare program and expanding it to cover people of all ages would yield more than a half-trillion dollars in efficiency savings in its first year of operation, enough to pay for high-quality, comprehensive health benefits for all residents of the United States at a lower cost to most individuals, families and businesses.

That’s the chief finding of a new fiscal study by Gerald Friedman, a professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. There would even be money left over to help pay down the national debt, he said.

Friedman says his analysis shows that a nonprofit single-payer system based on the principles of the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act, H.R. 676, introduced by Rep. John Conyers Jr., D-Mich., and co-sponsored by 45 other lawmakers, would save an estimated $592 billion in 2014. That would be more than enough to cover all 44 million people the government estimates will be uninsured in that year and to upgrade benefits for everyone else.

“No other plan can achieve this magnitude of savings on health care,” Friedman said.

?Medicare for All? would cover everyone, save billions in first year: new study | Physicians for a National Health Program

Friedman might have a case except that. like most of his type do, he bases his argument on the basis that everything else stays the same. It won't. We already have people choosing professionals other than medical school because they see the avalanche of regulation and snarled concepts coming. Other physicians are retiring early. Expanding medicare would require all insurance companies and all physicians to take huge hits in their bottom line.

There are consequences for taking property and liberty and choices away from people, and it is absurd to think they will not change their behavior when you do that.

Friedman wants us to trust the government to run the nation's entire healthcare under single payer - which of course is Obama's ultimate goal unless he has changed his tune from pre-President Obama days. That is pretty much the modern American liberal goal in everything--change the world for the better via government.

Just don't talk about the same government that has very few things it can point to that aren't done more efficiently and effectively by the private sector.

Want to know one of the reasons Obamacare is falling apart before our eyes? Read this Bloomberg piece that lays it out there in the flaws in Obamaracare that will bring it down.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...will-bring-down-obama-s-health-care-plan.html

 

[RKMBrown]

Also, sometimes people go by what they believe is right-opinions, morals, etc. and may only have their personal opinion to back up what they say or their own personal values or morals. Example: Abortion debate. Or even, universal healthcare being a right versus a privilege. I can see this being how someone believes it is the right thing to do to make sure everyone has access to health care. Perhaps because they feel people who can't afford care dying when they could of gotten help to be unethical.

If they believed it to be ethical to make sure everyone has access to unlimited health care , then why don't they donate all of their income, sell their homes, cars and cell phones to fund what they believe to be right thing to do? I don't see that happening. What I see is a group of people that demand "society" pay for everyone's desire to live forever. Artificial limbs, artificial hearts, dialysis, oncology, ... all great things. How many tens of millions of dollars should we spend on everyone to ensure that everyone gets to live into their 90s? Where's the money and labor for this great miracle coming from?

Two wrongs does not a right make. Taking from others to redistribute to the needy is still theft. It's wrong. Should my kids have to go without college so your kid can get a "free" operation? Should I have to sell my home to pay for a family members operation while another family gets the same operation for free using my tax dollars? Who gets to decide how my money is redistributed fairly to those in need? Why should we use an inefficient government system for charity when every other government program has been an abysmal experiment in inefficiency?

Who said it was free? Single-payer implies by it's very wording that this is not free.

Medicare for all with the option to buy private insurance as a supplement would help bring down the cost of health care for everyone because Medicare has lower administrative costs and is more efficient than private insurance companies.

Right now health care costs are high, in part because people who don't have health care go to the ER when they are sick at a much higher cost and it is a much more inefficient system. Private health insurance is not nearly as cost effective as Medicare is. Medicare being able to negotiate for lower drug costs would make it even more cost effective. Less paperwork by switching everyone over to electronic records would also save costs.

------------------------------------------------------------------Above this line are my words, below is from the link I pasted below it.

Upgrading the nation’s Medicare program and expanding it to cover people of all ages would yield more than a half-trillion dollars in efficiency savings in its first year of operation, enough to pay for high-quality, comprehensive health benefits for all residents of the United States at a lower cost to most individuals, families and businesses.

That’s the chief finding of a new fiscal study by Gerald Friedman, a professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. There would even be money left over to help pay down the national debt, he said.

Friedman says his analysis shows that a nonprofit single-payer system based on the principles of the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act, H.R. 676, introduced by Rep. John Conyers Jr., D-Mich., and co-sponsored by 45 other lawmakers, would save an estimated $592 billion in 2014. That would be more than enough to cover all 44 million people the government estimates will be uninsured in that year and to upgrade benefits for everyone else.

“No other plan can achieve this magnitude of savings on health care,” Friedman said.

?Medicare for All? would cover everyone, save billions in first year: new study | Physicians for a National Health Program

Typical. Don't answer one question. Deflect and obfuscate. It's free to the people who refuse to work to pay for their health care. The cost is passed on to the stupid people who do pay. Why should anyone pay when there is a requirement that no one is forced to pay?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Also, sometimes people go by what they believe is right-opinions, morals, etc. and may only have their personal opinion to back up what they say or their own personal values or morals. Example: Abortion debate. Or even, universal healthcare being a right versus a privilege. I can see this being how someone believes it is the right thing to do to make sure everyone has access to health care. Perhaps because they feel people who can't afford care dying when they could of gotten help to be unethical.

If they believed it to be ethical to make sure everyone has access to unlimited health care , then why don't they donate all of their income, sell their homes, cars and cell phones to fund what they believe to be right thing to do? I don't see that happening. What I see is a group of people that demand "society" pay for everyone's desire to live forever. Artificial limbs, artificial hearts, dialysis, oncology, ... all great things. How many tens of millions of dollars should we spend on everyone to ensure that everyone gets to live into their 90s? Where's the money and labor for this great miracle coming from?

Two wrongs does not a right make. Taking from others to redistribute to the needy is still theft. It's wrong. Should my kids have to go without college so your kid can get a "free" operation? Should I have to sell my home to pay for a family members operation while another family gets the same operation for free using my tax dollars? Who gets to decide how my money is redistributed fairly to those in need? Why should we use an inefficient government system for charity when every other government program has been an abysmal experiment in inefficiency?

Who said it was free? Single-payer implies by it's very wording that this is not free.

Medicare for all with the option to buy private insurance as a supplement would help bring down the cost of health care for everyone because Medicare has lower administrative costs and is more efficient than private insurance companies.

Right now health care costs are high, in part because people who don't have health care go to the ER when they are sick at a much higher cost and it is a much more inefficient system. Private health insurance is not nearly as cost effective as Medicare is. Medicare being able to negotiate for lower drug costs would make it even more cost effective. Less paperwork by switching everyone over to electronic records would also save costs.

------------------------------------------------------------------Above this line are my words, below is from the link I pasted below it.

Upgrading the nation’s Medicare program and expanding it to cover people of all ages would yield more than a half-trillion dollars in efficiency savings in its first year of operation, enough to pay for high-quality, comprehensive health benefits for all residents of the United States at a lower cost to most individuals, families and businesses.

That’s the chief finding of a new fiscal study by Gerald Friedman, a professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. There would even be money left over to help pay down the national debt, he said.

Friedman says his analysis shows that a nonprofit single-payer system based on the principles of the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act, H.R. 676, introduced by Rep. John Conyers Jr., D-Mich., and co-sponsored by 45 other lawmakers, would save an estimated $592 billion in 2014. That would be more than enough to cover all 44 million people the government estimates will be uninsured in that year and to upgrade benefits for everyone else.

“No other plan can achieve this magnitude of savings on health care,” Friedman said.

?Medicare for All? would cover everyone, save billions in first year: new study | Physicians for a National Health Program

Exactly.

Well said.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If they believed it to be ethical to make sure everyone has access to unlimited health care , then why don't they donate all of their income, sell their homes, cars and cell phones to fund what they believe to be right thing to do? I don't see that happening. What I see is a group of people that demand "society" pay for everyone's desire to live forever. Artificial limbs, artificial hearts, dialysis, oncology, ... all great things. How many tens of millions of dollars should we spend on everyone to ensure that everyone gets to live into their 90s? Where's the money and labor for this great miracle coming from?

Two wrongs does not a right make. Taking from others to redistribute to the needy is still theft. It's wrong. Should my kids have to go without college so your kid can get a "free" operation? Should I have to sell my home to pay for a family members operation while another family gets the same operation for free using my tax dollars? Who gets to decide how my money is redistributed fairly to those in need? Why should we use an inefficient government system for charity when every other government program has been an abysmal experiment in inefficiency?

Who said it was free? Single-payer implies by it's very wording that this is not free.

Medicare for all with the option to buy private insurance as a supplement would help bring down the cost of health care for everyone because Medicare has lower administrative costs and is more efficient than private insurance companies.

Right now health care costs are high, in part because people who don't have health care go to the ER when they are sick at a much higher cost and it is a much more inefficient system. Private health insurance is not nearly as cost effective as Medicare is. Medicare being able to negotiate for lower drug costs would make it even more cost effective. Less paperwork by switching everyone over to electronic records would also save costs.

------------------------------------------------------------------Above this line are my words, below is from the link I pasted below it.

Upgrading the nation’s Medicare program and expanding it to cover people of all ages would yield more than a half-trillion dollars in efficiency savings in its first year of operation, enough to pay for high-quality, comprehensive health benefits for all residents of the United States at a lower cost to most individuals, families and businesses.

That’s the chief finding of a new fiscal study by Gerald Friedman, a professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. There would even be money left over to help pay down the national debt, he said.

Friedman says his analysis shows that a nonprofit single-payer system based on the principles of the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act, H.R. 676, introduced by Rep. John Conyers Jr., D-Mich., and co-sponsored by 45 other lawmakers, would save an estimated $592 billion in 2014. That would be more than enough to cover all 44 million people the government estimates will be uninsured in that year and to upgrade benefits for everyone else.

“No other plan can achieve this magnitude of savings on health care,” Friedman said.

?Medicare for All? would cover everyone, save billions in first year: new study | Physicians for a National Health Program

Typical. Don't answer one question. Deflect and obfuscate. It's free to the people who refuse to work to pay for their health care. The cost is passed on to the stupid people who do pay. Why should anyone pay when there is a requirement that no one is forced to pay?

Then what is the solution you and others on the right advocate?

What’s the conservative plan to ensure every American has health insurance and access to health care?

It’s not enough to seek only to repeal the ACA, you’ve also got to propose what you’ll replace it with.

 

[RKMBrown]

Who said it was free? Single-payer implies by it's very wording that this is not free.

Medicare for all with the option to buy private insurance as a supplement would help bring down the cost of health care for everyone because Medicare has lower administrative costs and is more efficient than private insurance companies.

Right now health care costs are high, in part because people who don't have health care go to the ER when they are sick at a much higher cost and it is a much more inefficient system. Private health insurance is not nearly as cost effective as Medicare is. Medicare being able to negotiate for lower drug costs would make it even more cost effective. Less paperwork by switching everyone over to electronic records would also save costs.

------------------------------------------------------------------Above this line are my words, below is from the link I pasted below it.

Upgrading the nation’s Medicare program and expanding it to cover people of all ages would yield more than a half-trillion dollars in efficiency savings in its first year of operation, enough to pay for high-quality, comprehensive health benefits for all residents of the United States at a lower cost to most individuals, families and businesses.

That’s the chief finding of a new fiscal study by Gerald Friedman, a professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. There would even be money left over to help pay down the national debt, he said.

Friedman says his analysis shows that a nonprofit single-payer system based on the principles of the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act, H.R. 676, introduced by Rep. John Conyers Jr., D-Mich., and co-sponsored by 45 other lawmakers, would save an estimated $592 billion in 2014. That would be more than enough to cover all 44 million people the government estimates will be uninsured in that year and to upgrade benefits for everyone else.

“No other plan can achieve this magnitude of savings on health care,” Friedman said.

?Medicare for All? would cover everyone, save billions in first year: new study | Physicians for a National Health Program

Typical. Don't answer one question. Deflect and obfuscate. It's free to the people who refuse to work to pay for their health care. The cost is passed on to the stupid people who do pay. Why should anyone pay when there is a requirement that no one is forced to pay?

Then what is the solution you and others on the right advocate?

What’s the conservative plan to ensure every American has health insurance and access to health care?

It’s not enough to seek only to repeal the ACA, you’ve also got to propose what you’ll replace it with.

First people can work for their own health care. If you stop paying people to not work and instead collect welfare they will start to try to earn an income to pay their way. People used to negotiate price with their health care providers. We can go back to capitalism. It worked for hundreds of years prior to government intervention. We can go back to having citizens be personally responsible again. People can lean on their families rather than expecting a government bailout.

Second, for people that need charity because they have no family, no money, and no ability to earn income... (why that would be I cant really fathom), how about we let charity go through charities. It's not that hard a concept. Free clinics, donations through charities. Course the government has been doing it's best to shut these down as they don't want charities to compete with single payer.

Why are people trying to turn government into their "church", into some sort of charity organization that gets its funds through forced re-distributions? This will not work People will just quit working to collect the freebies and live on the dole. This is nutz. We have 8.9million people collecting disability now. INSANE

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot...billion-a-year-disability-industrial-complex/

 

[Foxfyre]

To say that Obamacare, however disastrous it might be, must be retained unless it is replaced with something is like saying that if you put out a fire, you have to replace it with something.

 

[Dot Com]

its 17% of the economy so yes Foxy, it has to be replaced or the non-Obamacare premium increases will eventually devour the entire economy. Been a year and a half and STILL the Repubs have not crafted an alternative YET they've spent time/MILLIONS in taxpayer $$$ trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Sad that.

 

[dblack]

Then what is the solution you and others on the right advocate?

What’s the conservative plan to ensure every American has health insurance and access to health care?

It’s not enough to seek only to repeal the ACA, you’ve also got to propose what you’ll replace it with.

That remains to be seen, doesn't it? It might, in fact, be enough. And it seems to me that the possibility would be troubling to supporters of the law. Public enthusiaism for ACA is so low that Republicans are finding significant support without offering to 'replace' it with anything - by simply claiming that they'll repeal it.

But while claiming opposition to ACA might get more Republicans elected, it won't be 'enough' to actually repeal the law. The portion of the Republicans in office who genuinely oppose corporatism is growing, but it's still quite low. Not enough to support actual repeal - no matter what they might say in the lead up to the 2014 elections.

I also want to address the hidden Trojan usually lurking in demands for a 'replacement'. They generally make unwarranted assumptions about what the problem is that we're trying to solve. And you're doing that here (see the portion of your quote that I took the liberty to bold).

The broadest support for health care reform is based on the perception that health care is much more expensive than it should be. There is NOT a broad consensus that government should be used to ensure that everyone has insurance or 'access' (gotta love the word choices) to health care. Yet, from your comments above, you'd reject any alternative to Obamacare that doesn't have that as it's goal.

The point is, we really have to agree on what problem we're trying to solve before we start talking about a plan of attack. And that's not yet been decided clearly. That's what we're still debating as a nation. PPACA is an attempt to prematurely end that debate be enticing dependency and creating yet another opportunity for corporate/government collusion at our expense.

 

[American_Jihad]

The dead end of liberalism

Steve Leigh, Seattle
December 6, 2012

...

The dead end of liberalism | SocialistWorker.org

 

[Bfgrn]

My answer is, if I don't feel like I know enough about a subject, is to just do some research on my own. Read the thread, go study what everyone said, and teach myself.

There is no way anybody knows everything about everything and a lot of it is different interpretations and opinions about things.

If I'm incorrect, I'd like to be told how and how I can learn more to correct myself.

Not be told, as so many do and have, that liberals are uneducated and stupid or don't know history as if all liberals are like that.

How do you know what someone's education level is based solely on a post here?

Assumptions are not a good thing and it really discourages opposing debate.

Just my two cents.

Good for you.

The fact that multiple posters have no clue what inalienable rights are by definition, and further don't understand the laws that protect their own liberty...and yet who insist on interjecting themselves into the dialogue making demands as if they are afforded those things is indicative of a crap education. People who are knowledgeable can certainly discern the education level in any given topic by the vapidity of the comments made. Those of us who do have a working knowledge of history, and our country's political system, and the government, can absolutely recognize deficiencies in the education of people whose comments make it OBVIOUS that they don't have adequate understanding of the topics they opine on to make an intelligent, educated decision.

The ignorance of the left is pervasive, and it is directly attributable to leftist educators, and a progressive system meant to control, rather than educate, the people.

Liberals are able to understand concepts that conservatives have no ability to grasp and never will be able to grasp. Why? Because conservatives don't think, they mimic what they are taught or they emote. I stated a FACT: No one who shows up at a hospital for treatment is turned away, NO ONE...regardless of their ability to pay. It is the law.

Doctors don't go unpaid for that treatment, WE pay for it. It is added to the insurance premiums of every responsible American who KNOWS that health is not guaranteed. An illness or injury can happen to anyone regardless of age. To go without health insurance is not the 'personal responsibility' you right wingers claim as your mantra. it is gross personal irresponsibility.

As a matter of fact, the term for those people was coined by conservatives from right wing think tanks like the Heritage foundation...FREE RIDERS.

I NEVER said health care should be free. I would like to see America go to a single payer plan. Do you notice a key word there? Single PAYER. Everyone PAYS a premium or a tax that would be much lower than our current private cartel run death care.

Thomas Jefferson defined what inalienable rights are in the Declaration of Independence; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

PLEASE explain to me how anyone, regardless of age or wealth can have ANY of those inalienable rights without LIFE? Dead people have no rights. And then explain to me how anyone can have life without health care?

 

[RKMBrown]

My answer is, if I don't feel like I know enough about a subject, is to just do some research on my own. Read the thread, go study what everyone said, and teach myself.

There is no way anybody knows everything about everything and a lot of it is different interpretations and opinions about things.

If I'm incorrect, I'd like to be told how and how I can learn more to correct myself.

Not be told, as so many do and have, that liberals are uneducated and stupid or don't know history as if all liberals are like that.

How do you know what someone's education level is based solely on a post here?

Assumptions are not a good thing and it really discourages opposing debate.

Just my two cents.

Good for you.

The fact that multiple posters have no clue what inalienable rights are by definition, and further don't understand the laws that protect their own liberty...and yet who insist on interjecting themselves into the dialogue making demands as if they are afforded those things is indicative of a crap education. People who are knowledgeable can certainly discern the education level in any given topic by the vapidity of the comments made. Those of us who do have a working knowledge of history, and our country's political system, and the government, can absolutely recognize deficiencies in the education of people whose comments make it OBVIOUS that they don't have adequate understanding of the topics they opine on to make an intelligent, educated decision.

The ignorance of the left is pervasive, and it is directly attributable to leftist educators, and a progressive system meant to control, rather than educate, the people.

Liberals are able to understand concepts that conservatives have no ability to grasp and never will be able to grasp. Why? Because conservatives don't think, they mimic what they are taught or they emote. I stated a FACT: No one who shows up at a hospital for treatment is turned away, NO ONE...regardless of their ability to pay. It is the law.

Doctors don't go unpaid for that treatment, WE pay for it. It is added to the insurance premiums of every responsible American who KNOWS that health is not guaranteed. An illness or injury can happen to anyone regardless of age. To go without health insurance is not the 'personal responsibility' you right wingers claim as your mantra. it is gross personal irresponsibility.

As a matter of fact, the term for those people was coined by conservatives from right wing think tanks like the Heritage foundation...FREE RIDERS.

I NEVER said health care should be free. I would like to see America go to a single payer plan. Do you notice a key word there? Single PAYER. Everyone PAYS a premium or a tax that would be much lower than our current private cartel run death care.

Thomas Jefferson defined what inalienable rights are in the Declaration of Independence; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

PLEASE explain to me how anyone, regardless of age or wealth can have ANY of those inalienable rights without LIFE? Dead people have no rights. And then explain to me how anyone can have life without health care?

OMG everyone pays? How would that work for the people who have no money?

 

[Wolfsister77]

Good for you.

The fact that multiple posters have no clue what inalienable rights are by definition, and further don't understand the laws that protect their own liberty...and yet who insist on interjecting themselves into the dialogue making demands as if they are afforded those things is indicative of a crap education. People who are knowledgeable can certainly discern the education level in any given topic by the vapidity of the comments made. Those of us who do have a working knowledge of history, and our country's political system, and the government, can absolutely recognize deficiencies in the education of people whose comments make it OBVIOUS that they don't have adequate understanding of the topics they opine on to make an intelligent, educated decision.

The ignorance of the left is pervasive, and it is directly attributable to leftist educators, and a progressive system meant to control, rather than educate, the people.

Liberals are able to understand concepts that conservatives have no ability to grasp and never will be able to grasp. Why? Because conservatives don't think, they mimic what they are taught or they emote. I stated a FACT: No one who shows up at a hospital for treatment is turned away, NO ONE...regardless of their ability to pay. It is the law.

Doctors don't go unpaid for that treatment, WE pay for it. It is added to the insurance premiums of every responsible American who KNOWS that health is not guaranteed. An illness or injury can happen to anyone regardless of age. To go without health insurance is not the 'personal responsibility' you right wingers claim as your mantra. it is gross personal irresponsibility.

As a matter of fact, the term for those people was coined by conservatives from right wing think tanks like the Heritage foundation...FREE RIDERS.

I NEVER said health care should be free. I would like to see America go to a single payer plan. Do you notice a key word there? Single PAYER. Everyone PAYS a premium or a tax that would be much lower than our current private cartel run death care.

Thomas Jefferson defined what inalienable rights are in the Declaration of Independence; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

PLEASE explain to me how anyone, regardless of age or wealth can have ANY of those inalienable rights without LIFE? Dead people have no rights. And then explain to me how anyone can have life without health care?

OMG everyone pays? How would that work for the people who have no money?

Do some research on single-payer and how it works. It's not free.

I added a link about HR 676 and how it is funded if anyone is interested.

http://www.pnhp.org/sites/default/files/Funding HR 676_Friedman_7.31.13.pdf

 

[RKMBrown]

Liberals are able to understand concepts that conservatives have no ability to grasp and never will be able to grasp. Why? Because conservatives don't think, they mimic what they are taught or they emote. I stated a FACT: No one who shows up at a hospital for treatment is turned away, NO ONE...regardless of their ability to pay. It is the law.

Doctors don't go unpaid for that treatment, WE pay for it. It is added to the insurance premiums of every responsible American who KNOWS that health is not guaranteed. An illness or injury can happen to anyone regardless of age. To go without health insurance is not the 'personal responsibility' you right wingers claim as your mantra. it is gross personal irresponsibility.

As a matter of fact, the term for those people was coined by conservatives from right wing think tanks like the Heritage foundation...FREE RIDERS.

I NEVER said health care should be free. I would like to see America go to a single payer plan. Do you notice a key word there? Single PAYER. Everyone PAYS a premium or a tax that would be much lower than our current private cartel run death care.

Thomas Jefferson defined what inalienable rights are in the Declaration of Independence; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

PLEASE explain to me how anyone, regardless of age or wealth can have ANY of those inalienable rights without LIFE? Dead people have no rights. And then explain to me how anyone can have life without health care?

OMG everyone pays? How would that work for the people who have no money?

Do some research on single-payer and how it works. It's not free.

How do people who have no assets and refuse to work pay for their health care in a single payer system? Where does the money for their health care come from? Who is this single payer?

 

[Wolfsister77]

OMG everyone pays? How would that work for the people who have no money?

Do some research on single-payer and how it works. It's not free.

How do people who have no assets and refuse to work pay for their health care in a single payer system? Where does the money for their health care come from? Who is this single payer?

Sorry-I edited my post with a link about HR 676 and how it is paid for to be more specific in my post.

 

[Wolfsister77]

OMG everyone pays? How would that work for the people who have no money?

Do some research on single-payer and how it works. It's not free.

How do people who have no assets and refuse to work pay for their health care in a single payer system? Where does the money for their health care come from? Who is this single payer?

Also, you've implied in a few of your posts that the uninsured are people who refuse to work.

I want to point out that many people who work do not have health care.

It isn't an issue of working or not.