Who is more intolerant of political opponents the "left" or "the right"

[owebo]

nobody does, however not everybody can afford the payments that would come along with the ACA. redistribution of income is a definite left type of thing.
I wont even refer to it as redistribution of wealth, wealth would indicate that someone actually had the extra money to pay for someone else, with the ACA this is not the case.

Rather than use a phrase such as "redistribution of income", I would use the term tax. Socialist programs use tax revenue to provide essential services, such as healthcare, to the people. If some people do not want their taxes to pay for heart operations of other citizens then people will die who are treatable but lack the fees. It is not civilized for a family to fear that a child will get leukemia because they might be unable to pay for treatment. You do not have to be Left to have compassion but to redistribute wealth so that people have the essentials in life is how the Left think and this is not the American way.

No I dont want to see someone die from something curable because they couldnt afford treatment, yet on the other hand I dont want to see any of my family members die because I couldnt afford my new out of pocket that I have to pay in order to provide service to the other guy that would have died without treatment.
see the problem here?

Everyone is guaranteed essentials in a socialist or social democratic state. You would not go without. But I do not see Americans going for this because corporations own the country.

Who pays for these guaranteed things?

Everybody does.

OK, with what?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Rather than use a phrase such as "redistribution of income", I would use the term tax. Socialist programs use tax revenue to provide essential services, such as healthcare, to the people. If some people do not want their taxes to pay for heart operations of other citizens then people will die who are treatable but lack the fees. It is not civilized for a family to fear that a child will get leukemia because they might be unable to pay for treatment. You do not have to be Left to have compassion but to redistribute wealth so that people have the essentials in life is how the Left think and this is not the American way.

No I dont want to see someone die from something curable because they couldnt afford treatment, yet on the other hand I dont want to see any of my family members die because I couldnt afford my new out of pocket that I have to pay in order to provide service to the other guy that would have died without treatment.
see the problem here?

Everyone is guaranteed essentials in a socialist or social democratic state. You would not go without. But I do not see Americans going for this because corporations own the country.

Who pays for these guaranteed things?

Everybody does.

OK, with what?

Magic beans ! What do you think pays for it ?

 

[owebo]

No I dont want to see someone die from something curable because they couldnt afford treatment, yet on the other hand I dont want to see any of my family members die because I couldnt afford my new out of pocket that I have to pay in order to provide service to the other guy that would have died without treatment.
see the problem here?

Everyone is guaranteed essentials in a socialist or social democratic state. You would not go without. But I do not see Americans going for this because corporations own the country.

Who pays for these guaranteed things?

Everybody does.

OK, with what?

Magic beans ! What do you think pays for it ?

Who grows these beans? Everyone? Then what are they worth of everyone has beans?

 

[easyt65]

Yeah, socialism is awesome...which is why it has failed everywhere except in little pockets of dictatorship like Cuba and North Korea.

In the US our leaders, know it sucks so badly that they have violated the Constitution and law to elevate themselve above the programs, systems, and laws they have imposed on us.

While declaring the ACA was so 'awesome' - and lying their asses off about it - they were planning to exempt themselves from it - before it even passed. Just like is your standard socialist govt the oligarchists / elitists FORCE their plans / programs on the people while taking the very best for themselves.

The ACA was such a 'great' idea that Liberals:
- Had to lies their asses off about it

- Rammed it through into the law in the wee hours of the night while the American people were asleep

- Made it MANDATORY for all Americans

- Instituted a monetary penalty (fine) against anyone who refused to OR COULD NOT AFFORD TO participate

- And finally exempted themselves from the POS they imposed on everyone else

It's only fitting that a POS socialist law / program such as this....that is utterly collapsing...is Obama's 'legacy' to this nation.

 

[easyt65]

Everyone is guaranteed essentials in a socialist or social democratic state. You would not go without. But I do not see Americans going for this because corporations own the country.

Who pays for these guaranteed things?

Everybody does.

OK, with what?

Magic beans ! What do you think pays for it ?

Who grows these beans? Everyone? Then what are they worth of everyone has beans?

You didn't build that...

 

[Maryland Patriot]

nobody does, however not everybody can afford the payments that would come along with the ACA. redistribution of income is a definite left type of thing.
I wont even refer to it as redistribution of wealth, wealth would indicate that someone actually had the extra money to pay for someone else, with the ACA this is not the case.

Rather than use a phrase such as "redistribution of income", I would use the term tax. Socialist programs use tax revenue to provide essential services, such as healthcare, to the people. If some people do not want their taxes to pay for heart operations of other citizens then people will die who are treatable but lack the fees. It is not civilized for a family to fear that a child will get leukemia because they might be unable to pay for treatment. You do not have to be Left to have compassion but to redistribute wealth so that people have the essentials in life is how the Left think and this is not the American way.

No I dont want to see someone die from something curable because they couldnt afford treatment, yet on the other hand I dont want to see any of my family members die because I couldnt afford my new out of pocket that I have to pay in order to provide service to the other guy that would have died without treatment.
see the problem here?

Everyone is guaranteed essentials in a socialist or social democratic state. You would not go without. But I do not see Americans going for this because corporations own the country.

Who pays for these guaranteed things?

Everybody does.

Ive tried to explain this before,either people did not want to try and understand or I am just not good at conveying my point here.
Places like where you are for example have had socialist, or however you want to refer to it, healthcare pretty much forever.
we have not. and this is where the huge problem comes that makes it prohibitive to people in my income bracket.
You most likely have had this type of shared expense care since you were a child, when you went to work the amount taken regardless of the cost was a known expense. If you made a dollar you knew that among the other taxes you would be paying X amount toward the health care right? so when it came time for you to sign on the line and buy that house, or the car, or even how much you would set aside each month for food and living expenses, that amount for health care was already there. you were able to plan for it.
Now consider if like me, you have been paying around 500 a month for your families health care that had no out of pocket, 10 dollar doctor visits, 7 dollar prescriptions free for the ER or specialists that you were referred to.
You work, buy the house the car vacations savings etc.. and everything is good, you balance your checkbook every month. Now all of a sudden with almost no warning you get hit with this health care that is now going to cost you an extra 300 to 400 a month in premiums, and you now have a 12,800 a year out of pocket before the insurance kicks in. What was a 6000 a year bill yesterday has suddenly become 10 to 28,000 dollar expense today. You have not planned for it because it was not something that was a consideration your entire life. How do you do it? do you sell the car? the house? not send your child to college as planned? remember, the insurance is forced so when you have to find that extra1500 a month what do you suddenly today start going without.
What if you worked your entire life, youve been responsible and have worked with planners to make sure you had enough to live on when that retirement day came. Maybe you are planning to retire next year but all of a sudden you realize that you planned too well and even your retirement income leaves you without subsidies for the insurance. Guess what? you might not be able to retire, you might have just been forced into working till you drop dead at work.
See, this is a huge difference between your country that has had this type of coverage forever, and a country like the U.S that has not. our politicians are in an income bracket that allows them to spend the extra money without noticing too much. They fail to realize that the average citizen does not enjoy the same financial freedom.
For most in this country, the ACA once in full play, or even single payer, is going to create extreme financial hardship.
You cant expect someone that planned for retirement under one set of rules to be able to shift tracks and suddenly find out they are 20k short from eating if they retire, same for the guy still working, e cant do it either without losing something or going totally broke.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Rather than use a phrase such as "redistribution of income", I would use the term tax. Socialist programs use tax revenue to provide essential services, such as healthcare, to the people. If some people do not want their taxes to pay for heart operations of other citizens then people will die who are treatable but lack the fees. It is not civilized for a family to fear that a child will get leukemia because they might be unable to pay for treatment. You do not have to be Left to have compassion but to redistribute wealth so that people have the essentials in life is how the Left think and this is not the American way.

No I dont want to see someone die from something curable because they couldnt afford treatment, yet on the other hand I dont want to see any of my family members die because I couldnt afford my new out of pocket that I have to pay in order to provide service to the other guy that would have died without treatment.
see the problem here?

Everyone is guaranteed essentials in a socialist or social democratic state. You would not go without. But I do not see Americans going for this because corporations own the country.

Who pays for these guaranteed things?

Everybody does.

Ive tried to explain this before,either people did not want to try and understand or I am just not good at conveying my point here.
Places like where you are for example have had socialist, or however you want to refer to it, healthcare pretty much forever.
we have not. and this is where the huge problem comes that makes it prohibitive to people in my income bracket.
You most likely have had this type of shared expense care since you were a child, when you went to work the amount taken regardless of the cost was a known expense. If you made a dollar you knew that among the other taxes you would be paying X amount toward the health care right? so when it came time for you to sign on the line and buy that house, or the car, or even how much you would set aside each month for food and living expenses, that amount for health care was already there. you were able to plan for it.
Now consider if like me, you have been paying around 500 a month for your families health care that had no out of pocket, 10 dollar doctor visits, 7 dollar prescriptions free for the ER or specialists that you were referred to.
You work, buy the house the car vacations savings etc.. and everything is good, you balance your checkbook every month. Now all of a sudden with almost no warning you get hit with this health care that is now going to cost you an extra 300 to 400 a month in premiums, and you now have a 12,800 a year out of pocket before the insurance kicks in. What was a 6000 a year bill yesterday has suddenly become 10 to 28,000 dollar expense today. You have not planned for it because it was not something that was a consideration your entire life. How do you do it? do you sell the car? the house? not send your child to college as planned? remember, the insurance is forced so when you have to find that extra1500 a month what do you suddenly today start going without.
What if you worked your entire life, youve been responsible and have worked with planners to make sure you had enough to live on when that retirement day came. Maybe you are planning to retire next year but all of a sudden you realize that you planned too well and even your retirement income leaves you without subsidies for the insurance. Guess what? you might not be able to retire, you might have just been forced into working till you drop dead at work.
See, this is a huge difference between your country that has had this type of coverage forever, and a country like the U.S that has not. our politicians are in an income bracket that allows them to spend the extra money without noticing too much. They fail to realize that the average citizen does not enjoy the same financial freedom.
For most in this country, the ACA once in full play, or even single payer, is going to create extreme financial hardship.
You cant expect someone that planned for retirement under one set of rules to be able to shift tracks and suddenly find out they are 20k short from eating if they retire, same for the guy still working, e cant do it either without losing something or going totally broke.

I will be honest and state that those figures are jaw dropping. It looks like a real mess and you have my sympathy.

The NHS was introduced after the war by a great Welshman, Nye Bevan. It replaced a patchwork of charities,private insurance and mutual societies which were well meaning but inefficient and out of the reach of many.

This is a good read if you want a picture of life before the NHS. I have heard similar tales from family members.

“Hunger, filth, fear and death”: remembering life before the NHS

This Telegraph article is an easy to understand calculator on the costs to the individual. In truth I have never given the cost a moments thought. I know it is wrapped up in my tax bill but what I pay and what I get are weighted heavily in my favour.

Revealed: how much you pay towards benefit bill

So by the figures given a man on £30k a year pays £1200 towards the NHS. That covers himself and all his family. £30k would be considered a decent wage in the uk and is above average I think.

And thats it. There are no exemptions or exclusions. When our guy is too old to work he is still covered as the next generations taxes pay for it.

Sick people can concentrate on getting better rather than worrying about actually paying for their care.

We do have private provision in the UK. But it is not a universal service. I had it for many years with my employer and only used it twice. Once when my employer wanted me to have an operation at a specific time and date for work reasons. And the other was when my wife wanted to see Madonnas gynaecologist for a specific condition.

Looking at your 6k a year original cost for a second. The Telegraph chart reckons that you would need to earn 125,000 dollars a year to have to put in that much.

For somebody on low income , say 15k or 18000 dollars the cost is just £360 p/a. These might be people on zero hours contracts or ,primarily women, working part time. They get the same level of care as the guy earning 125k.

The truth is that there are probably aspects of the American system that we can learn from and vice versa.

I also think we should be spending more on the NHS as the government have cut funding,in real terms, for the past few years.

But it would still make it a good deal compared to the American model.
There are efficiencies in doing things on this scale.

Drugs costs being a prime example.
The U.S. Pays a Lot More for Top Drugs Than Other Countries

And of course there are no corporations that need to make a profit.

But there are cultural differences which make it unacceptable to many Americans.

NB - The Telegraph is a right wing source.

 

[Eloy]

The Affordable Care Act is not Left in the strict sense as I understand it except is the broadest sense that the government wants to make sure everyone get health care but doesn't everyone? You see, a left or socialist health system would not look at all like ACA because the American system is all about insurance coverage from private insurance corporations. True socialist health care is when the actual care is provided by the state with state-employed doctors in state-owned hospitals. By contrast the ACA is positively capitalist and the insurance corporations must love it.
Similarly, the American food stamp program gives vouchers to the poor but they are redeemed in private stores. The shop owners must love this. In a socialist or Left program the state would actually provide the food from state-owned warehouses. The American system is wrongly termed Left only because the government does not want to see the poor begging on the streets and dying but who does?

nobody does, however not everybody can afford the payments that would come along with the ACA. redistribution of income is a definite left type of thing.
I wont even refer to it as redistribution of wealth, wealth would indicate that someone actually had the extra money to pay for someone else, with the ACA this is not the case.

Rather than use a phrase such as "redistribution of income", I would use the term tax. Socialist programs use tax revenue to provide essential services, such as healthcare, to the people. If some people do not want their taxes to pay for heart operations of other citizens then people will die who are treatable but lack the fees. It is not civilized for a family to fear that a child will get leukemia because they might be unable to pay for treatment. You do not have to be Left to have compassion but to redistribute wealth so that people have the essentials in life is how the Left think and this is not the American way.

No I dont want to see someone die from something curable because they couldnt afford treatment, yet on the other hand I dont want to see any of my family members die because I couldnt afford my new out of pocket that I have to pay in order to provide service to the other guy that would have died without treatment.
see the problem here?

Everyone is guaranteed essentials in a socialist or social democratic state. You would not go without. But I do not see Americans going for this because corporations own the country.

Who pays for these guaranteed things?

The people through taxes.

 

[owebo]

nobody does, however not everybody can afford the payments that would come along with the ACA. redistribution of income is a definite left type of thing.
I wont even refer to it as redistribution of wealth, wealth would indicate that someone actually had the extra money to pay for someone else, with the ACA this is not the case.

Rather than use a phrase such as "redistribution of income", I would use the term tax. Socialist programs use tax revenue to provide essential services, such as healthcare, to the people. If some people do not want their taxes to pay for heart operations of other citizens then people will die who are treatable but lack the fees. It is not civilized for a family to fear that a child will get leukemia because they might be unable to pay for treatment. You do not have to be Left to have compassion but to redistribute wealth so that people have the essentials in life is how the Left think and this is not the American way.

No I dont want to see someone die from something curable because they couldnt afford treatment, yet on the other hand I dont want to see any of my family members die because I couldnt afford my new out of pocket that I have to pay in order to provide service to the other guy that would have died without treatment.
see the problem here?

Everyone is guaranteed essentials in a socialist or social democratic state. You would not go without. But I do not see Americans going for this because corporations own the country.

Who pays for these guaranteed things?

The people through taxes.

What about your slaves?

 

[2aguy]

The right wingers here accuse the "liberals" to be intolerant of political opponents, but are they any better?

Yes...they are...they do not call for censorship....they do not ban speakers or keep left wing speakers from college campuses as the left does, they do not create speech codes the way the left does, they do not organize violent attacks on their opponents the way the left does........all documented.....

The left is intolerant and violent....the Conservatives/libertarians/Tea Party believe in the Bill of Rights and all the freedoms protected by that document......

 

[emilynghiem]

The leftwing are not taught or empowered to enforce natural laws and rights directly by following and exercising them,
so they have defined their rights and agenda based on political force by party.

Any one able to make sense of the mass of assumptions and contradictions in that post?

Dear cnm
What I mean is instead of the left setting up their own programs to support their beliefs in right to health care, right to marriage, etc. They depend on party leaders getting elected to govt to force rulings mandates or interpretations on others through govt instead of practicing these rights on their own.

They depend on govt to establish rights and free choice instead of teaching and practicing these naturally and funding those policies directly themselves!

So that isn't free choice if it has to be mandated through govt.

 

[2aguy]

The right wingers here accuse the "liberals" to be intolerant of political opponents, but are they any better?

I'd say the rightwing have the advantage of invoking either Christian authority by scriptural laws
and/or Constitutional authority by natural laws and Constitutional principles,
so they are better at giving and accepting rebukes correction by these standards and process.

The leftwing depends on political party to push through media or govt.
So anything that threatens that collective influence or image is rejected.

As a progressive Green Democrat, I have more trouble working with fellow liberals
who are conditioned to depend on party and govt, and not empowered to take on equal responsibility for
funding and managing social agenda directly.

I have an easier time resolving differences in beliefs with Christians and Constitutionalists
who put universal principles first, before party representation, and those tend to be on the right not the left.
And still, I have an easier time defending prochoice principles with the right
while the left contradicts themselves.

When I point out contradictions to the rightwing about discirminating against Muslims,
they do better at understanding and receiving corrections.

But when I point out contradictions to the leftwing about imposing beliefs
about health care and marriage that violate "separate of church and state"
all I get is more justifications why this is necessary for equality.

They generally don't acknowledge their own beliefs on the same level
as a political religion, and believe they have the right to impose their beliefs by majority rule
as "rights" they don't see as "beliefs". And complain when rightwing do the same,
and take what they see as truth and impose that through govt when it constitutes "beliefs."
The rightwing are more understanding when I explain this in Constitutional terms.

The leftwing are not taught or empowered to enforce natural laws and rights directly by following and exercising them,
so they have defined their rights and agenda based on political force by party.

Only recently, when this system was slapped down with a huge loss in the national elections, have I seen receptiveness to the idea of self-govt instead of depending on party.

Please explain how the right discriminates against muslims? That is untrue. Expecting immigrants from countries that are steeped in radical islamic terrorism and strict interpretations of Shariah to be vetted before they come here is not discriminating against muslims.....considering how many muslims are already here.....and wanting to provide for the needs of muslim refugees in their own region of the world is not discriminating against muslims.........not wanting to drag them half way across the world, into a culture different from their own simply so they will vote for democrats is not discrimination...

Please....choose your phrasing more carefully....

 

[emilynghiem]

Anyone with a brain and an ounce of honesty can make sense of her post.

'Natural law'? What a load. As ludicrous as the rest of it.

Dear cnm
Yes it is Natural Law that humans are born with free will and naturally resist any attempt to violate what a person wants or believes.

That natural law applies to all people who have a conscience that balances the desires of the individual with the relations with others in society.

Even anarchists and secular humanists recognize human nature and natural laws.

What do you call these things cnm
If you don't call them Natural laws???

 

[2aguy]

The leftwing are not taught or empowered to enforce natural laws and rights directly by following and exercising them,
so they have defined their rights and agenda based on political force by party.

Any one able to make sense of the mass of assumptions and contradictions in that post?

Anyone with a brain and an ounce of honesty can make sense of her post.

Your post demonstrates a difference between right wing posts and others.
cnm asked if anyone could make sense the content in the post of EMILYNGHIEM and you attacked cnm by implying that he was intellectually deficient. Attacking the person rather than what he says is characteristic of the Right.

You are an idiot.........attacking the person is exactly what the left does...over and over.........

 

[2aguy]

There is no left in America. Just right and extreme right.

and you are actually wrong...there is no Right in Europe...just the left, and the extreme left.......

 

[2aguy]

thats interesting, I see the government as left or extreme left.

He who looks in mirror see all things wrong way round. (Old Chinese Proverb)

and sometimes he ends up looking at the truth, or in some cases the problem.

I cannot think how the federal government in the USA is in any way Left (with the possible exception of the U.S. Postal Service). Private Enterprise runs so much there.

I think when we say the government is left, or right that we are talking about DC, congress, senate, president etc...
and when I look at the things that are being done, I dont see right, I see heavy left. the ACA is a good example, that is without argument a very left type of program. Same with food stamps, abortions and so on. The federal government certainly leans heavy to the left.

The Affordable Care Act is not Left in the strict sense as I understand it except is the broadest sense that the government wants to make sure everyone get health care but doesn't everyone? You see, a left or socialist health system would not look at all like ACA because the American system is all about insurance coverage from private insurance corporations. True socialist health care is when the actual care is provided by the state with state-employed doctors in state-owned hospitals. By contrast the ACA is positively capitalist and the insurance corporations must love it.
Similarly, the American food stamp program gives vouchers to the poor but they are redeemed in private stores. The shop owners must love this. In a socialist or Left program the state would actually provide the food from state-owned warehouses. The American system is wrongly termed Left only because the government does not want to see the poor begging on the streets and dying but who does?

It is left....it tells you you have to have health insurance and if you don't, you will be punished...and then it slowly gets rid of private healthcare through government mandates for the type of things that must be covered...without having any idea how to support the costs of those mandates...

The goal is to get rid of private healthcare to allow the government to impose government direct control over healthcare...obama has stated that goal in speeches to unions...it is not a secret..he stated it...

 

[emilynghiem]

The right wingers here accuse the "liberals" to be intolerant of political opponents, but are they any better?

I'd say the rightwing have the advantage of invoking either Christian authority by scriptural laws
and/or Constitutional authority by natural laws and Constitutional principles,
so they are better at giving and accepting rebukes correction by these standards and process.

The leftwing depends on political party to push through media or govt.
So anything that threatens that collective influence or image is rejected.

As a progressive Green Democrat, I have more trouble working with fellow liberals
who are conditioned to depend on party and govt, and not empowered to take on equal responsibility for
funding and managing social agenda directly.

I have an easier time resolving differences in beliefs with Christians and Constitutionalists
who put universal principles first, before party representation, and those tend to be on the right not the left.
And still, I have an easier time defending prochoice principles with the right
while the left contradicts themselves.

When I point out contradictions to the rightwing about discirminating against Muslims,
they do better at understanding and receiving corrections.

But when I point out contradictions to the leftwing about imposing beliefs
about health care and marriage that violate "separate of church and state"
all I get is more justifications why this is necessary for equality.

They generally don't acknowledge their own beliefs on the same level
as a political religion, and believe they have the right to impose their beliefs by majority rule
as "rights" they don't see as "beliefs". And complain when rightwing do the same,
and take what they see as truth and impose that through govt when it constitutes "beliefs."
The rightwing are more understanding when I explain this in Constitutional terms.

The leftwing are not taught or empowered to enforce natural laws and rights directly by following and exercising them,
so they have defined their rights and agenda based on political force by party.

Only recently, when this system was slapped down with a huge loss in the national elections, have I seen receptiveness to the idea of self-govt instead of depending on party.

Please explain how the right discriminates against muslims? That is untrue. Expecting immigrants from countries that are steeped in radical islamic terrorism and strict interpretations of Shariah to be vetted before they come here is not discriminating against muslims.....considering how many muslims are already here.....and wanting to provide for the needs of muslim refugees in their own region of the world is not discriminating against muslims.........not wanting to drag them half way across the world, into a culture different from their own simply so they will vote for democrats is not discrimination...

Please....choose your phrasing more carefully....

Dear 2aguy
The laws on citizenship should be uniform for all people from all backgrounds, and as you also state, must be "carefully" worded or stated so it doesn't target just one group.

For example, if all citizens are required to take oaths to uphold the Constitutional rights protections beliefs and due process of all other citizens equally, then no religious or political abuses would be legal.

That would cover ALL groups, ALL parties, ALL religious organizations, corporations, political religions etc.

Not just targeting Muslims but requiring all residents and citizens to pledge to follow laws respect due process and even to pay costs for any abuse they commit.

 

[2aguy]

I think when we say the government is left, or right that we are talking about DC, congress, senate, president etc...
and when I look at the things that are being done, I dont see right, I see heavy left. the ACA is a good example, that is without argument a very left type of program. Same with food stamps, abortions and so on. The federal government certainly leans heavy to the left.

The Affordable Care Act is not Left in the strict sense as I understand it except is the broadest sense that the government wants to make sure everyone get health care but doesn't everyone? You see, a left or socialist health system would not look at all like ACA because the American system is all about insurance coverage from private insurance corporations. True socialist health care is when the actual care is provided by the state with state-employed doctors in state-owned hospitals. By contrast the ACA is positively capitalist and the insurance corporations must love it.
Similarly, the American food stamp program gives vouchers to the poor but they are redeemed in private stores. The shop owners must love this. In a socialist or Left program the state would actually provide the food from state-owned warehouses. The American system is wrongly termed Left only because the government does not want to see the poor begging on the streets and dying but who does?

nobody does, however not everybody can afford the payments that would come along with the ACA. redistribution of income is a definite left type of thing.
I wont even refer to it as redistribution of wealth, wealth would indicate that someone actually had the extra money to pay for someone else, with the ACA this is not the case.

Rather than use a phrase such as "redistribution of income", I would use the term tax. Socialist programs use tax revenue to provide essential services, such as healthcare, to the people. If some people do not want their taxes to pay for heart operations of other citizens then people will die who are treatable but lack the fees. It is not civilized for a family to fear that a child will get leukemia because they might be unable to pay for treatment. You do not have to be Left to have compassion but to redistribute wealth so that people have the essentials in life is how the Left think and this is not the American way.

No I dont want to see someone die from something curable because they couldnt afford treatment, yet on the other hand I dont want to see any of my family members die because I couldnt afford my new out of pocket that I have to pay in order to provide service to the other guy that would have died without treatment.
see the problem here?

Everyone is guaranteed essentials in a socialist or social democratic state. You would not go without. But I do not see Americans going for this because corporations own the country.

No....everyone is guaranteed the veneer of healthcare......until the money runs out and the system crashes......you all have healthcare, you simply can't always be allowed to get medical treatment......it gets rationed according to government mandates on age, type of illness and bureaucratic decisions rather than on what the individual wants or needs.......and you have your money, that you earned, taken by the government regardless of wether or not you are using the service......

In a free market system the costs go down the quality goes up...in all the left wing systems the costs go up, and the quality goes down....our system had problems...but those problems stemmed from the government making mandates that hurt the system...arbitrary boundaries for insurance companies....government programs that didn't pay the full cost of the treatment...but demanded that treatment take place, forcing doctors and hospitals to raise prices to cover those short falls...

The free market will fix healthcare...just like it gives us the best cell phones and cars......competiton, not government control, is the key....

 

[2aguy]

The Affordable Care Act is not Left in the strict sense as I understand it except is the broadest sense that the government wants to make sure everyone get health care but doesn't everyone? You see, a left or socialist health system would not look at all like ACA because the American system is all about insurance coverage from private insurance corporations. True socialist health care is when the actual care is provided by the state with state-employed doctors in state-owned hospitals. By contrast the ACA is positively capitalist and the insurance corporations must love it.
Similarly, the American food stamp program gives vouchers to the poor but they are redeemed in private stores. The shop owners must love this. In a socialist or Left program the state would actually provide the food from state-owned warehouses. The American system is wrongly termed Left only because the government does not want to see the poor begging on the streets and dying but who does?

nobody does, however not everybody can afford the payments that would come along with the ACA. redistribution of income is a definite left type of thing.
I wont even refer to it as redistribution of wealth, wealth would indicate that someone actually had the extra money to pay for someone else, with the ACA this is not the case.

Rather than use a phrase such as "redistribution of income", I would use the term tax. Socialist programs use tax revenue to provide essential services, such as healthcare, to the people. If some people do not want their taxes to pay for heart operations of other citizens then people will die who are treatable but lack the fees. It is not civilized for a family to fear that a child will get leukemia because they might be unable to pay for treatment. You do not have to be Left to have compassion but to redistribute wealth so that people have the essentials in life is how the Left think and this is not the American way.

No I dont want to see someone die from something curable because they couldnt afford treatment, yet on the other hand I dont want to see any of my family members die because I couldnt afford my new out of pocket that I have to pay in order to provide service to the other guy that would have died without treatment.
see the problem here?

Everyone is guaranteed essentials in a socialist or social democratic state. You would not go without. But I do not see Americans going for this because corporations own the country.

Nobody in the UK would want an American system which relies on ability to pay.

I broke my ankle this time last year and was laid up for the best part of 6 months. I had excellent treatment from world class Doctors and I was not presented with a bill for any of it. I pay a small sum every month through my tax but I get a great deal from this.

Its amazing.

Even better, when I am fit and healthy, I know my contributions are helping my neighbour. Its community, we are bound together by mutual support and self interest.

The NHS is under threat from tories who want to bring in an American system despite the NHS being proven to be better value for money.

The NHS is on the verge of collapse.......you guys can't provide for it because you don't have the money to pay for the corrupt, inefficient system....

The only way you can afford to sustain it for now is the fact that the United States provides you with protection...we are your navy, and your army......if you actually had to pay for an effective military, your system would collapse, just like the Soviet Union collapsed....

 

[2aguy]

The right wingers here accuse the "liberals" to be intolerant of political opponents, but are they any better?

I'd say the rightwing have the advantage of invoking either Christian authority by scriptural laws
and/or Constitutional authority by natural laws and Constitutional principles,
so they are better at giving and accepting rebukes correction by these standards and process.

The leftwing depends on political party to push through media or govt.
So anything that threatens that collective influence or image is rejected.

As a progressive Green Democrat, I have more trouble working with fellow liberals
who are conditioned to depend on party and govt, and not empowered to take on equal responsibility for
funding and managing social agenda directly.

I have an easier time resolving differences in beliefs with Christians and Constitutionalists
who put universal principles first, before party representation, and those tend to be on the right not the left.
And still, I have an easier time defending prochoice principles with the right
while the left contradicts themselves.

When I point out contradictions to the rightwing about discirminating against Muslims,
they do better at understanding and receiving corrections.

But when I point out contradictions to the leftwing about imposing beliefs
about health care and marriage that violate "separate of church and state"
all I get is more justifications why this is necessary for equality.

They generally don't acknowledge their own beliefs on the same level
as a political religion, and believe they have the right to impose their beliefs by majority rule
as "rights" they don't see as "beliefs". And complain when rightwing do the same,
and take what they see as truth and impose that through govt when it constitutes "beliefs."
The rightwing are more understanding when I explain this in Constitutional terms.

The leftwing are not taught or empowered to enforce natural laws and rights directly by following and exercising them,
so they have defined their rights and agenda based on political force by party.

Only recently, when this system was slapped down with a huge loss in the national elections, have I seen receptiveness to the idea of self-govt instead of depending on party.

Please explain how the right discriminates against muslims? That is untrue. Expecting immigrants from countries that are steeped in radical islamic terrorism and strict interpretations of Shariah to be vetted before they come here is not discriminating against muslims.....considering how many muslims are already here.....and wanting to provide for the needs of muslim refugees in their own region of the world is not discriminating against muslims.........not wanting to drag them half way across the world, into a culture different from their own simply so they will vote for democrats is not discrimination...

Please....choose your phrasing more carefully....

Dear 2aguy
The laws on citizenship should be uniform for all people from all backgrounds, and as you also state, must be "carefully" worded or stated so it doesn't target just one group.

For example, if all citizens are required to take oaths to uphold the Constitutional rights protections beliefs and due process of all other citizens equally, then no religious or political abuses would be legal.

That would cover ALL groups, ALL parties, ALL religious organizations, corporations, political religions etc.

Not just targeting Muslims but requiring all residents and citizens to pledge to follow laws respect due process and even to pay costs for any abuse they commit.

Please...explain how we are targeting muslims....this country is the best country in the world for muslims to live...even after muslims murdered 3,000 people, and then murdered people all around the countrry in these shootings, there have been no mass or even individual acts of retaliation that you see anywhere else in the world...

You have bought into the lie the left tells to smear this country....expecting immigrants coming to this country to be vetted for possible threats and to make sure they will be willing to actually become Americans is not targeting anyone........muslims from Syria cannot be vetted.......and they have beliefs that conflict with our Bill of Rights..........

Please...think a little more before you attack conservatives....