Guard Dog

Okay, first off law enforcement has always held the right to detain without arrest warrant for 24(?) hours. That has not changed. But if you are referring to the Jose Padilla case, that was correctly struck down by the 4th Distinct Appellate Court and Mr. Padilla is on trial. As to the wiretapping and electronic surveillance, section 505 (which provides for wiretaps etc.) of the Patriot Act was stuck down in late 2004 or early 2005 and was amended by Congress in 2005 to conform to the courts ruling. As to the other issues people have been screaming about, the FBI is collecting phone numbers in overseas calls. What number called what number. They are not listening in on the calls. This is perfectly legal. So while I will agree attempts were made to abrogate civil rights, the system performed as it should and no one's rights are being violated. Unless you have examples I'm missing? No kidding there. Everyone is in a snit over perceived but not actual rights violations in the US. In China if you are in the Falon Gong(sp?) you get a bullet in the head and no one here says a word.

couldn't the same be said about anyone who's left wing? people are not 'indoctrinated' because they don't agree with you - they may just have a fundamentally different view of things - although I know the feeling, when you know something to be 'right' and everyone disagrees Fair point Ros. That was a poor choice of wording. "Enamored" would probably be better.

Did you not read the examples I posted? Anyway, you cannot really say free market medicine does not work because you have not seen it applied in the modern era. What we have now could not be called free market by any means. Anyway, this has been an enjoyable thread but there is little more I can say without becoming repetitive (or more so). As I posted earlier, most of you are leaning more to wards socialism and are so indoctrinated to the idea you refuse to even consider an alternative. Even when confronted with the realities of creating such a system in the US. And thats fine, not everybody agrees on everything. It is not the Federal Governments job to provide you with health care, but many of you feel it is and damn the problems and costs that arise from it. I'm certain it will come up again, possible after the next election cycle if the dems win the white house. Hopefully it will be defeated again.

Not at all. We are talking about the FEDERAL Government here. The US Constitution spells out exactly what the role of the FEDERAL Government is. It places limits on it's scope and power. And it angers and frightens me when it over steps those limits with seeming impunity. And even worse when I hear intelligent people like you actually demanding that it overstep it's power to do something the Constitution expressly forbids it to do. If the Federal Government is not held to the Constitution then there is no law and none of us are safe from it. If a STATE Government wanted to provide health care for it's citizens then I would have no problem at all with it. But the words "health care" do not appear in the US Constitution I believe the human condition can and will get better. But you seem to think that can only happen at the aid and direction of government. I disagree. Most of the examples you name are things that are bought, built and administrated by State and Municipal governments. Libraries, Universities, schools, most parks, etc are built funded and run with NO Federal money or oversight. There are some things the Federal Government does do well. Most of them are responsibilities that Constitution specifically defines for them such as trade administration, National Defense and security, administration and management of natural resources, etc. Actually here is a little personal info on me. When I got out of the military I got into politics. First in the Florida Republican Party, then the Libertarian Party. I was a campaign adviser for Don Garlits in his Congressional campaign for US House district 5 in 1994. Then I actually ran for the Florida State House in 1996 (that did not go so well). So I can tell you for a FACT it is detached from the average citizen. To such a point it will really make you angry if you dwell on it. I went back to college after the debacle in 1996 and got a real job.

WTF? The government created the mess you are complaining about, and your solution is for the government to take the whole thing over? @theslug on your last post

Sorry, but I disagree. Drug companies and hospitals care only about money. Without regulation or controls they will charge even more money than they do now. Also they would make more money treating a disease than actually curing it. You put too much faith in capitalism whose whole purpose is to satiate greed. Not to be reptitive but see my previous post on fear of corporations vs fear of government. I would argue you place too much faith in government whose sole purpose is to control (not to mention expand and perpetuate it's own power). But thats fine. You and I are not going to agree on this. Thats why you vote for democrats and I don't. My only consolation there is, more Americans agree with me on this one. It is easy to say "I think everyone should have health care". It is much harder to confront the realities behind that sentiment and not many are willing to do what would need to be done.

Are you still here? Just kidding Sand. I'll repeat one of my last posts:

It's easy to figure out. In any system there should be variation. If there isn't, then there's only one logical conclusion. Control. The government is preventing either preventing people with opossing views from getting these positions (most likely) or is preventing people in these positions from having opposing views (not impossible). I KNEW it! Were is my tinfoil hat?!

As I posted back on pg 2, we will not allow that to happen. Not even for health care. It would literally crush the economy.

You know Taks, you have a point here. I've never met an engineer who was a liberal. They are all somewhere between libertarian or conservative. I wonder why? (Thats liberal/conservative of the american definition to all you euro folks who are thinking wtf?) Anyway, it took 8 pages but we won the point! Yea! *slaps hi-five to Taks*

Interest rates are low, unemployment has never been better, stocks are up (the DJIA hit a record high just 3 weeks ago), bankruptcies are at a 5 year low. Things are pretty good here. Not perfect by any means, The real estate market is in trouble and high gas prices drive up consumer costs on everything. But here is why you get the impression we are in trouble. The BBC gets it's news leads from the big news outlets here in the US. Networks such a CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC & AP. We joke about it but there is some truth to this, there is a real and subtle bias towards the left in these news outlets. And they are mildly antagonistic and quietly hostile to the current administration. So bad news stories tend to reported on heavily and often presented outside of their proper context (NBC is especially bad about this). This is a subtle attempt to influence how people feel about the current administration. The problem is it also breeds a quiet sense of pessimisim which often becomes self fulfilling. For example, if you really think things are going bad, sooner or later they really will. I realize making this claim will put a lot of boardies back up, so here is a few examples. 1)During the Clinton years, the dotcom stocks collapsed and took the stock market with it and led to a mini-recession between 1998-2001. All of the warning signs were there two years ahead of time but unless you read the Wall Street Journal, or watched Fox News or other similar outlets you never saw it. They loved Clinton and tended to over report good economic news and underreport or ignore bad news. 2)In the 2000 election on Dan Rathers coverage he conveyed his bias in his reporting. Remeber that weeks before the election he made a keynote speech on the media at a Democrat fundraiser. And he attended the 2000 Democratric convention but not as a reporter. During his election coverage in 2000 when speaking of Gore his voice was light and he would smile. When speaking of Bush his face was tern and his voice lowered. For example, he would say in a light voice "This just in, Maryland has gone to Gore," then his expression and tone would become darker and more ominous "and South Carolina has fallen to Bush". When you state the media is biased people get worked up and either agree emphaticaly or disagree with equal passion. But it is true and it is very subtle. If you find that phenomenon interesting I'd reccomend the book Bias by Benard Goldberg. Another reason you would get the impression we are regressing is many people claim we are losing our civil rights to Bush through the Patriot Act. I'm sure you have seen THAT tossed about in threads. Then someone like me would ask 'Ok, what civil rights do you think have been violated?" And of course there is no answer because the answer is none. Anyway, did not mean to wander OT here but I did want to address your question. There is a general impression things are not going well in the US right now but it is a feeling, not a fact. and it has more to do with a general dislike for the current political administration than any real problem with the US economy or social order.

Estate . actually it's 1.75 acres out in the last rual area in Palm Beach County.

Exactly the point I was trying to make. Every one here agrees the problem is prohibitive costs. Get the government and the insurance companies out of the way and the market forces will bring the costs to heel. Once thats done, then we work on a way to ensure low income people can afford health care. I have a few ideas. Making ALL medical expenditures a tax deduction (as opposed to a percentage now). Tax exempt medical savings accounts. There are other ways to do it without directly involving the government. Speak for yourself there. If one of my dogs (i have 15) needs something, I will FIND a way to pay for it. I'll take them to the vet before i ever take myself to the doctor.

It works very well when we are talking about veterinary maedicine. it is so inconcievable it will work with human health care?

The funny thing is, you don't even realize that the two things you want are so contraditory that cannot coexist.

Modern: Microsoft Historically: Carnegie Steel and they did what that was bad for consumers? MS got slapped down for actually breaking the law, btw, and like it or not, they offer the best product in the world (and they never had a monopoly anyway), and carnegie actually offered low prices on steel. that was why they got so big in the first place... the world was buying. kudos to the mention of AT&T. that would have been easy to pounce on. taks IIRC Carnagie Steel ran afoul of the government because it owned the iron mines, the train transports, the steel mills, and the ships for export. When you control a product from raw material to finished product that is a monopoly by the definition. @Tale, if you can draw that conclusion from ANYTHING I've ever posted here, you need to do some re-reading because you are way off. I am very mistrustful of the federal government because since the days of FDR is has grown by leaps and bounds and has usurped far more authority and power than the constitution allows. And apparently no one has been inclined to stop it, and only a few have even managed to slow it. And if you are still ticked at me, well jeez, I already apologized. You were right, i was wrong. What, do you want me to write you a check or something?

And denials for treatment high. How do you figure? Without the interference of either a government or insurance entity.

This thread is over! No one is going to top that analysis. Too funny, and well put.

Well don't let that stop!

Modern: Microsoft Historically: Carnegie Steel Tale and Sand, you both have an unreasonable fear of coporations and an unreasonable trust in the fidelity and abilities of the government. First of all, no one is calling for the repeal of the Sherman Act (the US anti-trust law) and both the companies you name have been called down under that statute. Big companies seem to draw a lot of ire as being a "big greedy evil profit mongering" monsters. I've never understood this irrational fear or loathing of corporations many of you exhibit. A comapny cannot take anything away from you that you do not give up freely. They cannot confiscate your house and property, they cannot seize your assets, and they cannot throw in in prison. The government can though. If you sue a company and your complaint is justified you will have a good expectation of success. If you need to go to court against the government the deck is so stacked against you that justice and fact are often not enough to prevail. And you have an unreasonable fear of actually paying attention to what people are saying. You say "unfettered capitalism is an anathema to most of you. But it really does work well, and the only time it does not is when government gets involved. " You then go on to praise competition. All I did was tell you that "unfettered capitalism" does not always mean competition. You go on to say that "no one is calling for the repeal of the Sherman Act." Here's a tidbit for you. The presence of the Sherman Act alone prevents unfettered capitalism. The sole thing I'm speaking against. I'm not speaking against big corporations. Not claiming extensive corporate greed. I'm speaking exclusively against the type of capitalism that you now say you're not asking for. Yet you praise in your other posts. I'm kind of curious as to how I can make two short posts that both speak against monopolies and you suddenly think I've gone wholely socialist. People in power who have the same mindset you do. "If anyone disagrees with me even a little, they must be on the complete opposite side of the spectrum from me." Fair enough. My comments were more directed at Sand than you anyway so I should have replied to his post. He and I debate that same line of thinking in a few other threads around here as well. Sorry to drag you into it.

Modern: Microsoft Historically: Carnegie Steel Tale and Sand, you both have an unreasonable fear of coporations and an unreasonable trust in the fidelity and abilities of the government. First of all, no one is calling for the repeal of the Sherman Act (the US anti-trust law) and both the companies you name have been called down under that statute. Big companies seem to draw a lot of ire as being a "big greedy evil profit mongering" monsters. I've never understood this irrational fear or loathing of corporations many of you exhibit. A comapny cannot take anything away from you that you do not give up freely. They cannot confiscate your house and property, they cannot seize your assets, and they cannot throw in in prison. The government can though. If you sue a company and your complaint is justified you will have a good expectation of success. If you need to go to court against the government the deck is so stacked against you that justice and fact are often not enough to prevail. So who should you really be afraid of here?

How do you figure? Not trying to spark a debate, I'm genuinely curious. In the US, more so than other countries, because of the make up of our government, all things political are cyclical.

WTF??? If that was a joke I don't get it. If it was a statement you do not know Taks or do not understand the definition of your pejoratives.

Wrong. Didn't you read my example? Competition for business keeps prices low.

I lean more towards fascism. Yeah but you are crazier than the rest of them.