Thread: Another Constitutional Crisis

The people those investors had hired to run GM and Chrysler asked the Government to do it. The law is created to achieve results. I care about the law, but my care for the law involves two priorities, first that it is effective and fair, and then that it is enforceable and followed. I never forget that the law is written by human beings with their own private motives and their own inherent limitations. And GM was restructured. That's what the government buyout allowed them to do. If you owned shares in GM and Chrysler prior to the government purchase, and still own them now, you have made money on your investment. As opposed to having lost it all in a bankruptcy. So I don't see where the theft is. The results I care about are direct and have an immediate impact on people's lives. I care about the machinists and car sales-men and parts-sellers who still have jobs. I care about retirement investments that have maintained their value because one of the assets they invested in did not fail. I care about the American made cars that are still being designed and put on the road. These are the direct, specific benefits to people's real lives that occurred as a result of the buyout. What direct, specific benefits would have occurred if we had done what you suggest, and allowed share prices to plummet to zero, real assets seized and sold off in bankruptcy court, factories, dealerships and parts suppliers closed? Who's gonna benefit from that, exactly how, and why do they deserve it?

Originally Posted by Crotalus

WRONG, COMPLETELY WRONG. I do look at what the policy actually does. Obamacare is going to bring down the best healthcare system in the world and reduce it to what the Brits and Canadians have. Why do you think so many of them come here now? They come here to avoid the long lines or to get LIFESAVING care that their country won't give them.

The Brits have a quota for their dentists. They are only paid for a certain amount of procedures a year. When that quota is fulfilled, they go on vacation. Why do you think the Brits have such notoriously bad teeth? They have the best teeth their government can afford, which happens to be horrible.

Where is the 70 Trillion over the next 10 years going to come from for Obamacare? Answer, NOWHERE! The result, healthcare rationing for everyone. They are already stealing half a trillion from the old people and it won't be enough by a long shot. Reduce costs? My ass. It ALWAYS cost more when a program is administered by the government because they load the system with extra bureaucrats making 100+ thousand a year and stupid rules out the ass.

The Government runs Social Security -> BANKRUPT.

The Government runs Medicare -> BANKRUPT.

The Government runs Medicaid -> BANKRUPT.

The Government runs Fannie Mae -> BANKRUPT.

They need to get out of the way and let us live.

You might want to talk to some of our british members before you insult a whole nation of people based on a stereotype....or, you know....maybe visit the place yourself before you do.

Originally Posted by Mike Blue

I disagree, that was Shrodinger...
.

And even for him it was a joke, an absurdism, a funny thought experiment that everyone ended up taking WAY to seriously.

(have a read of this, it's quite funny:
6 Parodies That Succeeded Because Nobody Got the Joke | Cracked.com )

One of my great uncles lived in USA. He moved there after the war and lived in Ft Lauerdale, Florida.
He flew here at least once every year to visit the doctor and to get his dental care. Although the flying tickets were expensive, he said it was cheaper to come here and get decent medical care here.
He moved back here few years before he died. He said that being old and sick and even dying and getting buried is cheaper here. He said he didn't want his family back there to pay that much for him to get buried.
There are many things that are great in USA but of what i've heard, there are also things that aren't. So are in Europe too. Social security and public health care are surely one of those great things and i do not know a single person who would think differently.

British dentistry, from a Brit. It's come a long way, the practice I use is run by two partners that use exactly the same equipment and techniques that are employed for private patients, so in effect I can get fillings, extractions, root canal work,crowns, and basic tooth veneers for free, If want porcelain crowns, gold fillings, diamond fillings, and other bling I pay.

Originally Posted by osdset

British dentistry, from a Brit. It's come a long way, the practice I use is run by two partners that use exactly the same equipment and techniques that are employed for private patients, so in effect I can get fillings, extractions, root canal work,crowns, and basic tooth veneers for free, If want porcelain crowns, gold fillings, diamond fillings, and other bling I pay.

Just for the sake of info:
It's the same in Belgium. removing plaque, filling cavities, root canal, etc is almost free. Below 18 years, even the yearly check is free. Otoh, If you want porcelain crowns, aesthetic corrections, etc, that costs good money and is definitely not free. I have 1 crooked tooth that has been like that forever. It is not a functional problem so any correction would come out of my own pocket. If it were a functional problem, it would be refunded.

One of the big reasons that basic dentistry is almost free is that there is a wide swath of serious medical conditions which can be caused by infections of the gums and teeth. A significant percentage of heart conditions and miscarriages for example is caused by dental infections jumping to the blood stream.

The reasoning is that giving everyone free basic dental care will drastically reduce a smaller but much more expensive group of other ailments. Additionally, treating minor cavities for free will prevent the need for more expensive dental work which would be needed if the cavities developed into bigger cavities requiring root canal treatment.

You know, I don't agree 100% with the way the government is going about trying to fix this economic mess. Maybe Obama isn't doing the best things he could. But I have to have some respect for him and support it because he's trying. I'd rather he try and get it wrong than not try at all. I don't like George Bush, but I respected him for putting some sort of effort into trying to help the economy, even if I didn't agree with his policies. It's the respect that's missing from our politics. Obama is President and has earned the right to try things the way he wants to, just like George Bush did, and every other President before him. To say that he's deliberating doing bad and unlawful things is disrespectful to him and his office. And if Obama loses, then it's Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich's right to try what he thinks is the best way to handle the economic issues in this county. And I can guarantee that I won't agree with their approaches, but I will respect their attempts to fix it and make the country better. We could all stand to show more respect for our elected officials. They have a job that's incomprehensibly difficult.

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

And even for him it was a joke, an absurdism, a funny thought experiment that everyone ended up taking WAY to seriously.

Understood.

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

And even for him it was a joke, an absurdism, a funny thought experiment that everyone ended up taking WAY to seriously.

oops, he got me!

....................

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

oops, he got me!