Thread: Obama won re election

The theocracy stuff is only a talking head bullet point non fact that's pushed around by democrats. It's no more legitimate than ridiculous stuff that glen beck says.

It's like relating the stuff todd akin says to being what the average republican thinks. It's completely false, but it sounds good if you're gullible and you want it to be true that "republicans generally believe that".

Originally Posted by davemillard

I think one reason for Romney losing was not that people are for gay marriage or whatever, it was because of a fear that the Republicans wanted to turn the country into a theocracy. Not everyone is a conservative Christian. That was my fear...I am going on 57, so do not put myself into the "young" demographic, and am white, so maybe I am a minority in my demographic, but I don't want anyone dictating my beliefs.

No,no they aren't trying to establish a theocracy here. No one will force you to alter your beliefs. They simply want to ensure you are legally bound to adhere to their moral and social convictions.

Originally Posted by gugi

I would disagree with FDIC and flood insurance though - the risk is very measurable and plenty of private companies do it day and night. But again, if you leave the government out of it, and don't force those who have built their houses on a rock to pay for the bad decisions of those who built them on sand, you start to unravel the fabric of the society. To me it's a matter of balance.

Measurable doesn't mean insurable. FDIC and flood insurance are not insurable risks, especially not at the cost they are provided. The exercise of FDIC insurance is not a homogeneous risk that is risky for an individual but that can be reasonably spread out with reasonable reserving. It is a catastrophic system-wide risk, something that is not privately insurable. Look up anything on google giving a list, for example of "what makes a risk an insurable risk". Arguing with me about this is like arguing with a surgeon about surgical procedures (despite the fact that I don't work in insurance or for insurers - bonus points if you can guess what my profession is)

And please, don't purport to pin the cost of a life on private industry. Insurers and private industry pay far more "for a chance at extending a life" than public and social systems ever did. The places where the value of a life has been at the absolute cheapest are those where the governments have the most control. I would argue at this point there are far too many covered services that have a low chance at extending life, have a very short duration of life improvement or are both at the same time - and very expensive.

Medicare has plenty that it doesn't cover because they don't have a high enough chance of success for the cost. It's no difference, and perhaps it's more ruthless for medicare to do it because they have more negotiating power - they can just codify what's required as opposed to having to negotiate it.

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

No,no they aren't trying to establish a theocracy here. No one will force you to alter your beliefs. They simply want to ensure you are legally bound to adhere to their moral and social convictions.

That's, first, an oversimplification, and second complete blindness to the reality that everyone does the same thing, regardless of their point of view. If you want labor rights, you are attempting to legally bind someone to your moral and social convictions. Just because you agree with one set and not another doesn't mean they're not the same thing when viewed by an unbiased third party.

Originally Posted by DaveW

Measurable doesn't mean insurable. FDIC and flood insurance are not insurable risks, especially not at the cost they are provided. The exercise of FDIC insurance is not a homogeneous risk that is risky for an individual but that can be reasonably spread out with reasonable reserving. It is a catastrophic system-wide risk, something that is not privately insurable. Look up anything on google giving a list, for example of "what makes a risk an insurable risk". Arguing with me about this is like arguing with a surgeon about surgical procedures (despite the fact that I don't work in insurance or for insurers - bonus points if you can guess what my profession is)

I am not arguing about something that's your profession and not mine, but for the bonus points I'd say something like an actuary.
However, I still have a problem with people (and corporations who are people too) externalizing their costs. And I especially have a problem with the practice of when a business gets run into the ground triggering government intervention on the 'uninsurable' risks, that the executives still get rewarded by getting their bonuses. In my mind a good government should minimize its risk by reducing the chance of uninsurable events for which it's on the hook, and the US financial sector seems like great place to start. Off the top of my head break up any 'too big to fail' so that the pieces get stronger incentive not to fail.

Originally Posted by DaveW

And please, don't purport to pin the cost of a life on private industry. Insurers and private industry pay far more "for a chance at extending a life" than public and social systems ever did. The places where the value of a life has been at the absolute cheapest are those where the governments have the most control.

Well, you're setting up a straw man here, or comparing apples and oranges. For proper comparison between government and private run healthcare you have to make the social factors as close as possible, so Western Europe vs. USA would be more appropriate. I haven't looked up the rankings, but my guess would be that almost all western countries rank higher than US, and their costs are lower. But I may be wrong, I'm just extrapolating from my own experience, which is rather limited.



I guess the lowest level where I see a difference (please correct me if that's not the case) is that you don't think it's wrong for people to pass their risk on others (both insurers and the insured) and therefore the government ought to stay out of it:

Originally Posted by DaveW

I didn't agree, in terms of the quality of care, it's better here than anywhere else in the world *if you can pay*. That's not really debatable, speed of care is faster, too.

The reason it's not a necessity that the government gets involved as a provider is there isn't anything about the business that can't be done by private companies. The risk is spread homogenously and is insurable, the coverage horizon is short.

Originally Posted by DaveW

That's, first, an oversimplification, and second complete blindness to the reality that everyone does the same thing, regardless of their point of view. If you want labor rights, you are attempting to legally bind someone to your moral and social convictions. Just because you agree with one set and not another doesn't mean they're not the same thing when viewed by an unbiased third party.

Do you really feel telling a women she doesn't have control over her body is on the same plane as labor rights?

Originally Posted by DaveW

The theocracy stuff is only a talking head bullet point non fact that's pushed around by democrats. It's no more legitimate than ridiculous stuff that glen beck says.

It's like relating the stuff todd akin says to being what the average republican thinks. It's completely false, but it sounds good if you're gullible and you want it to be true that "republicans generally believe that".

And you are qualified to put down my comment because??

Originally Posted by DaveW

It's like relating the stuff todd akin says to being what the average republican thinks. It's completely false, but it sounds good if you're gullible and you want it to be true that "republicans generally believe that".

After Todd Akin made that comment the party leaders requested that he drop from the race. But then he didn't, and when the deadline for withdrawal expired many went back to supporting him.
I completely agree that most republicans probably do not think the way he does, but I am sure that you would agree that this ought to mean that if his comments are a big deal to them he should not get to represent them. And he shouldn't sit on the committee in charge of science policy. The same goes for the democrats, of course.

On the other hand the guy with the 'God's plan for the rape victim was to become pregnant' didn't get any push back from the party leadership - only that they disagree with him.

Originally Posted by DaveW

It's like relating the stuff todd akin says to being what the average republican thinks. It's completely false, but it sounds good if you're gullible and you want it to be true that "republicans generally believe that".

It has nothing to do with gullibility. The problem with your argument is that there is never a huge condemnation from the GOP anytime the crazies spout off their nonsense, so rather than distancing themselves from the comments it gives the impression that they either (at best) don't care or (at worst) endorse the views. Sure, there may be a few lone Republican voices saying that they don't agree but it has to come from the top down if they want to be seen as a viable mainstream alternative.

easy gentlemen i know we all have diffrent openions and thankfull in the us(and on srp) we are all free to vvoice our openions but i dident start this post to cause bad blood between us most of us have been friends for yrs on here and i dont want polotical views getting in the way of that.

with that rant over im gonna now add my fiel to the fire lol jk

I fewel that most republicans feel that the christina way is the only way, i live in a house of cathics so i know that thy have thee ways and belifs over things like birth control (some more relaxed than others thankfully im lucky to have th relaxed ones) but just because thats your belif dosent mean you can force it on others. i feel everyone should have acess to it and if they chose to use it thats there call (same with abortion and gay marrige) now gentle man please carry on with this descussion as im enjoying readin it.