Trying to understand the Tea Party

Gern Blansten · April 2010

scb wrote:

Gern Blansten wrote:

I say that a single payer/universal system is the way to go as far as delivering health care. It is the most efficient and eliminates the multiple profit layers that our current system has

My state has conducted 3 independent studies in the last 15 years to try to figure out what the best healthcare model would be. All of them have come to this same conclusion. My understanding is that studies conducted by other states have had these results as well.

It makes perfect sense....and I am a registered Republican

of course I would be rejected by my own party but as I've said if you look at it logically it makes the most sense and other countries that have the same model are very successful with it.

All of these arguments about socialized medicine are bullshit. Imagine taking the best available care, making it available to everyone, then making it so efficient through single payer that billions of $$$ are saved each year.

Why do the GOP reject this? Because the democrats want it.

_ · April 2010

Gern Blansten wrote:

scb wrote:

Gern Blansten wrote:

I say that a single payer/universal system is the way to go as far as delivering health care. It is the most efficient and eliminates the multiple profit layers that our current system has

My state has conducted 3 independent studies in the last 15 years to try to figure out what the best healthcare model would be. All of them have come to this same conclusion. My understanding is that studies conducted by other states have had these results as well.

It makes perfect sense....and I am a registered Republican

of course I would be rejected by my own party but as I've said if you look at it logically it makes the most sense and other countries that have the same model are very successful with it.

All of these arguments about socialized medicine is bullshit. Imagine taking the best available care, making it available to everyone, then making it so efficient through single payer that billions of $$$ are saved each year.

Why do the GOP reject this? Because the democrats want it.

Bingo! It's too bad people can't see past their differences enough to really focus on the best solution.

(Did you see the post in my thread about saving the U.S. $13 billion, about the post-natal care in England? My good God! How can other countries provide SUCH better care than we do?!)

mikepegg44 · April 2010

scb

Also, you totally skirted the issue at hand, which is the safety of children.

I am not saying that every human being should be out there riding on the tops of vans like teenwolf and jamming scissors into their eyes...I am just saying that the government and a lot of its regulation go too far in the interest of protecting the children. Which is why no one can ever get elected by saying things along the lines of education spending is out of control. . . if you are anti-nanny states then you must hate kids. . .

_ · April 2010

mikepegg44 wrote:

scb

Also, you totally skirted the issue at hand, which is the safety of children.

I am not saying that every human being should be out there riding on the tops of vans like teenwolf and jamming scissors into their eyes...I am just saying that the government and a lot of its regulation go too far in the interest of protecting the children. Which is why no one can ever get elected by saying things along the lines of education spending is out of control. . . if you are anti-nanny states then you must hate kids. . .

So where should the government draw the line between inconvenience and the protection of children? Or are you suggesting there should be NO regulations to protect children (which I believe I've already asked you)?

mikepegg44 · April 2010

A helmet might NOT save a child from injury but it just might save their life. Which would you rather have an injury of a broken arm or brain damage or possibly death? I'd take a broken arm or leg over a head injury anyday. I never let my daughter ride her bike without her helmet, maybe because I'm a cyclist and i've faced too many close calls to ride without one.

Could you live with yourself if you let your child ride without a helmet and take a chance of death in an accident?

I dont think that I could deal with any situation where my child was killed, it isn't like if they had a helmet on and they died I would feel any better... I love bike helmets, I wear one and expect my kids to all the time, I just think it unnecessary for the government to tell people when they need to wear one.

michelleelise · April 2010

mikepegg44 wrote:

I dont think that I could deal with any situation where my child was killed, it isn't like if they had a helmet on and they died I would feel any better... I love bike helmets, I wear one and expect my kids to all the time, I just think it unnecessary for the government to tell people when they need to wear one.

The government doesn't care about your head anymore than they care about your lung cancer or diabetes. They care about the ER and hospital bills you will rack up. As they should, since the rest of us will likely end up paying for it. Turns out that people who are irresponsible enough to behave that way and think themselves invincible enough as to not need a helmet also tend to be irresponsible with insurance coverage.

"Less than 10% of the motorcycle riders involved in these accidents had insurance of any kind to provide medical care or replace property."

http://www.bike-law.com/CM/Resources/Mo ... istics.asp

mikepegg44 · April 2010

scb wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

In minnesota, I have to keep my kid in a car seat/booster until the age of 7.

Do you seriously have a problem with this one? Are you saying it should not be required that kids are put in car seats? And if that's what you're saying, I guess you're fine with the extra medical costs you ultimately pay for the injuries of these children? Do you also not think child abuse & neglect should be outlawed?

it isn't abuse, they are two different things. it isn't neglect either.

mikepegg44 wrote:

While in my office, a family of 4 (1 unemployed mom, 3 kids) who were on Medical Assistance, had two kids answer texts on their iPhones!

Do you think this family would be able to afford any & all medical bills that might arise for a family of four (especially if they had three kids who weren't in car seats and didn't wear bike helmets) had they not purchased a couple of $200 phones?

Lol, first off nice touch with the helmet thing...
second, I think you are missing the bigger picture here. The unemployed mom, getting free medical care for her kids, was able to purchase and have a plan for two children to have iphones... you don't see anything wrong with that...People complain all day long about being poor and not being able to afford food and healthcare and blah blah blah... and then call each other on their iphones... I fined it kind of disingenuous of you to act like you didn't see that point. . .

mikepegg44 · April 2010

scb wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

scb

Also, you totally skirted the issue at hand, which is the safety of children.

I am not saying that every human being should be out there riding on the tops of vans like teenwolf and jamming scissors into their eyes...I am just saying that the government and a lot of its regulation go too far in the interest of protecting the children. Which is why no one can ever get elected by saying things along the lines of education spending is out of control. . . if you are anti-nanny states then you must hate kids. . .

So where should the government draw the line between inconvenience and the protection of children? Or are you suggesting there should be NO regulations to protect children (which I believe I've already asked you)?

there is a difference between allowing a kid to wear a god damn bike helmet and having a law that says you have to feed a human being... There are laws that keep kids alive, abuse and neglect is not right no matter what your age...but not having a kid who knows how to ride a bike wear a helmet are two separate things. They are not all the same. So no, I don't agree with silly regulations like this...guess that means my kid is going to die in a firey car crash that is going to directly cost all of you millions of dollars.
Again, because I am against a nanny state I am against protection of kids right to live. I am not sure if you cannot see the difference or deliberately ignore the difference to pretend you are all about the kids...

edit: I am gonna put this here too so that I can make sure that you read this because it is mostly aimed at you SCB
Jesus christ, it isn't just about bike helmets, it was one example... I could of come up with the example of how it is illegal for me to walk my pigeon unleashed through downtown owatonna, MN.
It isn't the exact topic that is important here, it is the idea they have the right to tell me how to live. It is the same reason they were able to tell two people who are in love they cannot get married...it is all the same to me, they are involved in areas they have no need to be.

mikepegg44 · April 2010

michelle822 wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

I dont think that I could deal with any situation where my child was killed, it isn't like if they had a helmet on and they died I would feel any better... I love bike helmets, I wear one and expect my kids to all the time, I just think it unnecessary for the government to tell people when they need to wear one.

The government doesn't care about your head anymore than they care about your lung cancer or diabetes. They care about the ER and hospital bills you will rack up. As they should, since the rest of us will likely end up paying for it. Turns out that people who are irresponsible enough to behave that way and think themselves invincible enough as to not need a helmet also tend to be irresponsible with insurance coverage.

"Less than 10% of the motorcycle riders involved in these accidents had insurance of any kind to provide medical care or replace property."

http://www.bike-law.com/CM/Resources/Mo ... istics.asp

Keep in mind that I am not attacking you here with this, I understand why the government decided it was okay to make these laws.

But Jesus christ, it isn't just about bike helmets, it was one example... I could of come up with the example of how it is illegal for me to walk my pigeon unleashed through downtown owatonna, MN.
It isn't the exact topic that is important here, it is the idea they have the right to tell me how to live. It is the same reason they were able to tell two people who are in love they cannot get married...it is all the same to me, they are involved in areas they have no need to be.

inmytree · April 2010

mikepegg44 wrote:

michelle822 wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

I dont think that I could deal with any situation where my child was killed, it isn't like if they had a helmet on and they died I would feel any better... I love bike helmets, I wear one and expect my kids to all the time, I just think it unnecessary for the government to tell people when they need to wear one.

The government doesn't care about your head anymore than they care about your lung cancer or diabetes. They care about the ER and hospital bills you will rack up. As they should, since the rest of us will likely end up paying for it. Turns out that people who are irresponsible enough to behave that way and think themselves invincible enough as to not need a helmet also tend to be irresponsible with insurance coverage.

"Less than 10% of the motorcycle riders involved in these accidents had insurance of any kind to provide medical care or replace property."

http://www.bike-law.com/CM/Resources/Mo ... istics.asp

Keep in mind that I am not attacking you here with this, I understand why the government decided it was okay to make these laws.

But Jesus christ, it isn't just about bike helmets, it was one example... I could of come up with the example of how it is illegal for me to walk my pigeon unleashed through downtown owatonna, MN.
It isn't the exact topic that is important here, it is the idea they have the right to tell me how to live. It is the same reason they were able to tell two people who are in love they cannot get married...it is all the same to me, they are involved in areas they have no need to be.

are you advocating abolishing all laws or just the ones that annoy you...?

michelleelise · April 2010

No doubt there are myriad ridiculous laws on the book, especially at the city and state levels. If you want less government involvement then by all means vote for the candidate you think best will best represent you. But acknowledge that your neighbors at the city, state and national level may not agree and your candidate may very well lose. And maybe it's not because your neighbors have some desire for the government to micro-manage their life - maybe it's because through age or experience they've seen time and again what happens when regulation is removed. Many of these laws don't come about in anticipation of problems - though obviously some do - many of them are the result of problems experienced and costs incurred. Like the helmet laws, as just one example.

mikepegg44 · April 2010

"inmytree wrote:

are you advocating abolishing all laws or just the ones that annoy you...?

why the overgeneralization?
There are laws on the books that make a lot of sense. anything that stops you from your right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...you don't have to want all laws abolished, just ones that don't fit that formula. but go ahead with your follow up, I will bite on your leading question

mikepegg44 · April 2010

michelle822 wrote:

No doubt there are myriad ridiculous laws on the book, especially at the city and state levels. If you want less government involvement then by all means vote for the candidate you think best will best represent you. But acknowledge that your neighbors at the city, state and national level may not agree and your candidate may very well lose. And maybe it's not because your neighbors have some desire for the government to micro-manage their life - maybe it's because through age or experience they've seen time and again what happens when regulation is removed. Many of these laws don't come about in anticipation of problems - though obviously some do - many of them are the result of problems experienced and costs incurred. Like the helmet laws, as just one example.

I realize the right of all people to choose the candidate they best think fits with their ideals, that wasn't the original question or point to the thread. I have no problem living in america, but people kept responding and asking me questions or talking about the points I made, I felt it was an invitation to have a discussion like people who disagree often do. I am curious as to the point of your response...are you telling me that more of america wants these laws than doesn't? are you telling me that people disagree on politics? all of which I would agree with. What are you trying to tell me? I fully disagree with your assessment that age and experience are the reasons why people invite these types of laws into their lives. I disagree whole heartedly with that
The main point of the thread was about trying to understand the Tea Party. Which in a general sense I tried to answer by talking about legislation that involved the everyday life of people that seemed an unnecessary reach into the lives of the people. I brought up an example of helmet laws, and apparently it is the touchiest subject ever on the boards. I wish I had gone with the pigeon one from the start, but I didn't.

FiveB247x · April 2010

The notion that they "have a right to tell you how to live" is grey - not black and white. To you that may mean gay marriage or helmets... to some else it may mean legalize drugs or prostitution. All of these things boil down to some form of morality that we as a society (in general whole terms) set as standards. It doesn't mean everyone agrees or likes it, but as a whole, we set certain things up for the betterment and safety of all. Disagreeing with some of these moral codes doesn't necessarily equate to or mean government infringement. I don't like to pay taxes as it infringes on me seeing Pearl Jam more often, but I hardly doubt anyone would say this is a legitimate claim - merely disagreement on my part.

mikepegg44 wrote:

But Jesus christ, it isn't just about bike helmets, it was one example... I could of come up with the example of how it is illegal for me to walk my pigeon unleashed through downtown owatonna, MN.
It isn't the exact topic that is important here, it is the idea they have the right to tell me how to live. It is the same reason they were able to tell two people who are in love they cannot get married...it is all the same to me, they are involved in areas they have no need to be.

mikepegg44 · April 2010

FiveB247x wrote:

The notion that they "have a right to tell you how to live" is grey - not black and white. To you that may mean gay marriage or helmets... to some else it may mean legalize drugs or prostitution. All of these things boil down to some form of morality that we as a society (in general whole terms) set as standards. It doesn't mean everyone agrees or likes it, but as a whole, we set certain things up for the betterment and safety of all. Disagreeing with some of these moral codes doesn't necessarily equate to or mean government infringement. I don't like to pay taxes as it infringes on me seeing Pearl Jam more often, but I hardly doubt anyone would say this is a legitimate claim - merely disagreement on my part.

mikepegg44 wrote:

But Jesus christ, it isn't just about bike helmets, it was one example... I could of come up with the example of how it is illegal for me to walk my pigeon unleashed through downtown owatonna, MN.
It isn't the exact topic that is important here, it is the idea they have the right to tell me how to live. It is the same reason they were able to tell two people who are in love they cannot get married...it is all the same to me, they are involved in areas they have no need to be.

right, moral codes are different for everyone, that is why there really should be a huge attempt to stay out of it as much as possible and just promote laws that don't stop someone from the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. There is a definite line between the two and it should never be crossed. Consequences from this could be bad for some, but there will also be many positives. I just happen to think those positives outweigh the possible bad.

FiveB247x · April 2010

But you're not specific nor is the language - life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. It's interpretation no matter how much government involvement you want (little, lots or none). There's a million and one examples that can go in any direction...so simply saying things like "stay out as much as possible" isn't realistic to practice or governing society (no matter how much or little).

mikepegg44 wrote:

right, moral codes are different for everyone, that is why there really should be a huge attempt to stay out of it as much as possible and just promote laws that don't stop someone from the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. There is a definite line between the two and it should never be crossed. Consequences from this could be bad for some, but there will also be many positives. I just happen to think those positives outweigh the possible bad.

_ · April 2010

mikepegg44 wrote:

scb wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

In minnesota, I have to keep my kid in a car seat/booster until the age of 7.

Do you seriously have a problem with this one? Are you saying it should not be required that kids are put in car seats? And if that's what you're saying, I guess you're fine with the extra medical costs you ultimately pay for the injuries of these children? Do you also not think child abuse & neglect should be outlawed?

it isn't abuse, they are two different things. it isn't neglect either.

mikepegg44 wrote:

While in my office, a family of 4 (1 unemployed mom, 3 kids) who were on Medical Assistance, had two kids answer texts on their iPhones!

Do you think this family would be able to afford any & all medical bills that might arise for a family of four (especially if they had three kids who weren't in car seats and didn't wear bike helmets) had they not purchased a couple of $200 phones?

Lol, first off nice touch with the helmet thing...
second, I think you are missing the bigger picture here. The unemployed mom, getting free medical care for her kids, was able to purchase and have a plan for two children to have iphones... you don't see anything wrong with that...People complain all day long about being poor and not being able to afford food and healthcare and blah blah blah... and then call each other on their iphones... I fined it kind of disingenuous of you to act like you didn't see that point. . .

How is failing to put your child in a car seat anything but neglect??

I see your point about the iPhones, but I don't know if you see mine. For one thing, you really have no idea who purchased the phones or pays for the plan. There are plenty of kids who receive phones & coverage as part of their fathers', grandparents', adult siblings', or whoever's plans. I don't think you should judge when you don't really know the facts.

Secondly, and more to my original point, health insurance and/or medical expenses are CONSIDERABLY more expensive than phones. If forgoing the phones would enable them to not have to rely on the state for healthcare coverage, then I would agree that they should chose healthcare coverage over phones. But not having phones doesn't mean having coverage and having phones doesn't mean not having coverage. It's apples and oranges. Your argument reminds me of a scenario where a friend wants you to go on a trip to Europe and you say you can't go because you can't afford it, so then he gives you shit for ordering a steak at dinner. Just because someone can afford $20 for a steak doesn't mean they can afford $2000 for a trip to Europe, ya know? And just because someone can't afford a trip to Europe doesn't mean they should never get to enjoy a steak. But everyone's so quick to judge.

Also, you STILL haven't asnwered the questions I underlined above.

_ · April 2010

mikepegg44 wrote:

scb wrote:

So where should the government draw the line between inconvenience and the protection of children? Or are you suggesting there should be NO regulations to protect children (which I believe I've already asked you)?

there is a difference between allowing a kid to wear a god damn bike helmet and having a law that says you have to feed a human being... There are laws that keep kids alive, abuse and neglect is not right no matter what your age...but not having a kid who knows how to ride a bike wear a helmet are two separate things. They are not all the same. So no, I don't agree with silly regulations like this...guess that means my kid is going to die in a firey car crash that is going to directly cost all of you millions of dollars.
Again, because I am against a nanny state I am against protection of kids right to live. I am not sure if you cannot see the difference or deliberately ignore the difference to pretend you are all about the kids...

edit: I am gonna put this here too so that I can make sure that you read this because it is mostly aimed at you SCB
Jesus christ, it isn't just about bike helmets, it was one example... I could of come up with the example of how it is illegal for me to walk my pigeon unleashed through downtown owatonna, MN.
It isn't the exact topic that is important here, it is the idea they have the right to tell me how to live. It is the same reason they were able to tell two people who are in love they cannot get married...it is all the same to me, they are involved in areas they have no need to be.

I'm sorry, where did you say you draw the line? I must've missed that part of your response. :?

inmytree · April 2010

mikepegg44 wrote:

why the overgeneralization?
There are laws on the books that make a lot of sense. anything that stops you from your right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...you don't have to want all laws abolished, just ones that don't fit that formula. but go ahead with your follow up, I will bite on your leading question

I was just curious...thus I asked a question...

I wonder how wearing a helmet stops you from your right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...I'm guessing you're unhappy with wearing a helmet...as if it's such a horrible travesty...fyi...S. Carolina does not require you to wear a helmet...I get the sense this is of paramount importance to you...so if your in the market to relocate...

_ · April 2010

mikepegg44 wrote:

inmytree wrote:

are you advocating abolishing all laws or just the ones that annoy you...?

why the overgeneralization?
There are laws on the books that make a lot of sense. anything that stops you from your right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...you don't have to want all laws abolished, just ones that don't fit that formula. but go ahead with your follow up, I will bite on your leading question

The problem, as I believe I said and you ignored before, is that this is not black and white. There is a huge gray area and it's open to interpretation. It's not obvious where the balance lies. You have been completely unclear about where you draw that line and why, opting instead to just ignore the attempt at balance and make overgeneralizing accusations of a government takeover of your rights.

Trying to understand the Tea Party

Comments

Categories