Hey Fuzzies,

I am glad you have responded in your usual way : ).

There are a few things about our medical system and the national health care bills circulating that you should understand more about. I know what I know because I am currently pursuing my Masters in Public Health (with a specific focus of Veterinary Public Health). I have several classes in which this is fairly close to the main topic at hand.

That our medical system needs to be altered, I agree with you 100%. Medical costs for U.S. citizens on average are 50% higher than the next closest country. This does need to change.

There is not "one" national health care bill currently circulating Congress but at least three. The Baucus (sp) bill is the most widely known (to my knowledge) but it is not the only bill and before any of them go to the floor to vote they will be consolidated or further worked upon in the Senate and House subcommittees.

So nothing that is currently "out there" is a final end all say all to the medical reform.

Obama giving money in the form of bailouts is redistribution and is a distinctly liberal/left ideology. When Bush did it, it was still this ideology. To not understand the cause and source of wealth and money and to treat it as a static resource is more distinctly "liberal" (however you want to define that term), than any other ideological affiliation.

Back to our health care system: in large part, the skyrocketing cost is due to the way our insurance system is set up. The reason Obama is pursuing this reform (in part) is to introduce a public option (which might not even pass as a part of the bill since it has sharp disfavor already) which is a government sponsored plan that is hoped to increase competition among private insurance companies.

The problem with the public option is that it may end competition and choice if it is subsidized by the government's nearly limitless resources compared to the private sector.

Now, this is something you may not know: there are over 1700 insurance companies across the United States. The reason competition is a problem is due to state mandates. For instance in California, there may be only 7 medical insurance companies that compete for one another's business out of 1700. The reason only seven can compete is because state mandates dictate what must be covered in every plan. Additional coverage is up to the consumer to add to their policy, but by and large many companies don't enter a specific state for business because they cannot meet all the required mandates.

These mandates differ across the states (as you may well imagine). The reason states are in control of what mandates they set for medical insurance companies is because our country was founded on the premise that large, controlling and generally socialistic governments are oppressive and restrict individual freedom. The Revolutionary War was more about economics than religious freedom or any other idea most people have about that time period.

The British were taxing the colonists to death and the colonists revolted and set out to create a government radically different from the Monarch and potentially tyrannical leadership.

This is one of the main reasons why the states, as free entities in a greater union, retain many powers over the jurisdiction of the federal government. They retain the power to create those medical mandates as they feel is necessary and warranted for the people in their state.

You must also know, and I do count 99% of politicians in this category anyways, that I consider many people who adhere to the philosophies of those that have come to represent liberals as consistent hypocrites. We all go back on our word occasionally but these politicians do so at an alarmingly frequent rate. Aside from every administration that is caught doing this, I was highly amused to see Nancy Pelosi caught in her own lie that video proof clearly showed her error.

This is besides the point.

I think what you have a hard time imagining (and I may be wrong about this, let me know) is how our country's mechanics were founded compared to the current beings that have come to be represented as republicans and democrats, or conservatives and liberals (however you wish to term it).

What your statement about New Zealand's government does not relate the necessary information of how liberal the previous government was. Your current government may only be conservative in comparison and not fitting any true definition of the word as it has come to mean in our modern language. I simply don't know.

But you must see my terming Obama liberal because of the nature of how our country was founded. He is essentially almost the very thing the founders fought to protect against. And no on is as evil as we deify them to be but he is aiming at the foundations of our nation in his quest to change America.

What you must also realize about wars, is that they transcend political affiliation. Had Al Gore won the 2000 election instead of President Bush, the U.S.'s response to 911 would most likely have remained the same (but this is highly speculative). Whether Mr. Gore would have gone into Iraq is questionable but neither you nor I can definitively say he would not have.

Getting away from such speculations, President Obama has done nothing to deserve an honor like the Noble Peace Prize and its insulting to the institution that prize represents for such a mockery to have occurred.

If I have left details out of vital areas let me know and I will try to clarify/expand my thoughts.

To add one more additional point about the bailouts, President Obama gained the power or had the gaul to try to use it to ask a private company head to step down when his use of the bailouts was not as expected is a clear step towards Nationalization. This is distinctly liberal in nature (and if you disagree, I think our next few posts should be to determine a common ground for our terms). I have explained to Ananya in depth in a previous thread about the evils of nationalization. She never replied to that post and I doubt I'd find it again now.

I hope you have a good rest of your week, looking forward to your reply.

Consgratulations Areas on allowing Fuzzies to get off topic. This topic is about the Nobel Peace Prize. It is not about health care or left nut or right nut agenda. If I wanted a sermom I would go to church. If I wanted a lecture I would go to a college classroom. If I wanted war I would have joined the U.S. Marines a long time ago.

It has been obvious to me that the Nobel Peace Prize is nothing more than an honorary title. Everyone in this topic appears to be in agreement that O did not deserve the prize yet there are hostilies in this topic. Why?

The JOKE is that the award was given to O. The punch line is that he did not decline it. Can you imagine how much it would have helped O's image if he had declined the prize?

PD,

There is no hostility in any of my posts. I apologize if it came across as such but it simply does not exist.

Every topic gets off topic at some point, this is still largely related on the topic of President Obama, and what he has done. Fuzzies brought up his health care initiatives, I reciprocated with more detailed information on the state of our health care industry in the United States.

The overall divergence still revolves around the issue of what he has done, can do, and has failed to do, period. And this falls under the context once again of why he was ever even considered for this award.

I fully agree with you that he should have declined the award and that it would have helped his credibility but such is who he is.

I hope you have a great day,

Don't apologise, Aeras, for goodness' sake; this is General Discussion, not Debate Forum. If someone wants to avoid a sermon, a lecture or a war, let them leave this General Discussion, or start again in Debate Forum.
I've an idea: let's Generally Discuss whether Obama can shoot boar, or what he eats for breakfast! Or maybe we could Generally Discuss whether someone's cheating in a quiz or not!
Sheesh.

quote:

PD,

There is no hostility in any of my posts. I apologize if it came across as such but it simply does not exist.

Well I did not say there was any hostility in your post. There is criticism about the the President and criticism about the U.S. Some members can't keep peace in their own home yet they feel their opinions should hold credibility. This topic had the potential to be in total agreement and total harmony until some members brought their hosilities into the mix.

At the risk of getting back on subject, Al Gore was awarded a Nobel prize for enviornmental work so I was mistaken.

If one cannot keep peace in his own home then how can he bring peace to the world?

Aeras,

I agree. You were not hostile at all. But if you may stick to Obama and his link to Nobel Peace Prize, it would be better for this thread.

Meanwhile here's the link to the topic on Obama's accomplishments, which you said I hadn't bothered to reply to. When you read it you will see that I had posted a reply (late yes) but I did. Hope that clears things.

So you may post any Obama specific arguements on it... Let's talk more on the Nobel Peace prize and its implications. Let this be about Obama and his war stance, and its effects on the world at large.

Thank you in advance for your co-operation.

***********************************************************************************************

We kill because we are afraid of our own shadow, afraid that if we used a little common sense we'd have to admit that our glorious principles were wrong.
-- Henry Miller, from The Wisdom of the Heart, 1941

***********************************************************************************************

-

much love, light and laughter,
ananya.

quote:

Can you imagine how much it would have helped O's image if he had declined the prize?

No. It was a damned if he did, damned if he didn't position. Turning down a Nobel Prize is a highly, highly political move. Few people do it, and usually the people who do are making overt and radical political statements. Turning the award down puts him in the company of communists, and it would act as a startling and very political snub of the Nobel Awards themselves, which isn't a good look internationally. One section of the US Right would have howled that Obama was being holier-than-thou, and that he had declined to boost his image. Rumours would fly that it was a PR move, and that Obama's adminstration somehow planned this. Liberal conspiracy, yada yada. Queue Glenn Beck and Orly Taitz-athon. It would stay in the media for months and months. Accepting it means a much briefer scuffle that I imagine his advisors think he can live down. More an 'oops, what a dick' moment, than a politicised bear-fight.

WOW:

As far as I can recall; This is only the second time I have concurred with anything Afenton has said (posted).

My initial reacton to the announcement of this years Peace Prize was; ; ; (****x******x******x****x***) I guess typical. However; as is commonly stated “First impressions count”:
A count doesn’t equal a sum & a sum without a total or if you prefer without a proven total is nothing more or less; than a question.

So! When I finally added it all up (for myself). I arrived at an equation, which, interestingly, provided (me) an insight into what; the opposite of an Equation might be? From that (if true) I extrapolated, what might well be; a or the definition of; The word ‘Equation’ (proof of the pudding. . . ).

Well done; The Nobel Prize Awarders:
Who selects the Nobel Laureates? In his last will and testament, Alfred Nobel specifically designated the institutions responsible for the prizes he wished to be established: The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences for the Nobel Prize in Physics and Chemistry, Karolinska Institute for the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, the Swedish Academy for the Nobel Prize in Literature, and a Committee of five persons to be elected by the Norwegian Parliament (Storting) for the Nobel Peace Prize. In 1968, the Sveriges Riksbank established the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economics in Memory of Alfred Nobel. The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences was given the task to select the Economics Prize Laureates starting in 1969.

Adversity leads us to think properly of our state, and so is most beneficial to us. ~ Sammuel Johnson

***

Well I learned something new today. (Not difficult)

So, The Swedish government decides who gets the Peace Prize. I really thought that an impartial committee in some high world of academe made the decision.

To me, now, the value of the Peace Prize has been diminished. More by the awful committee's decision than by their nature.

(Oh! And this is my 2222 post. Must be a significant number, or maybe it just looks good!)

During the past two days I have surveyed almost everyone that I know (dozens) and some people that I don’t know and only one (1) person ONE says that O should have been given the award.

What has he done to deserve it I asked?

“I can’t think of anyone that deserves it more. He is not George Bush. The award was awarded to him based on the hope and promise of peace. The only ones that are giving him a hard time are the Republicans and the Tea Baggers.”

(There is actualy a political party in the U.S. called The Boston Tea Party.)

He also said, “The people that copyrighted dynamite are the ones that first funded the prize money for the Nobel Prize. The Sir name of these people was Nobel.” (He said he heard this on the History Channel.)

Damned if he did and damned if he didn't position, Mattie(y)? Not at all; that's just your selective reading of it. As far as I'm aware, this non-award is played like the equally disgraceful British honours system: The "chosen ones" are first approached, then, if "compliant", the non-award is announced. Obama will certainly have been approached before he was informed; how would it look if the announcement was made, then he turned it down? Just not done, old chap, is it?
So if he did decide to go against his egotistical instincts and just turn it down, someone else would have been chosen and Obama's name wouldn't have even been mentioned. That's how it works over here, and I doubt very much that this IgNoble award system is any different.
If Obama wasn't well aware of at least the advanced situation, then I'm a duck-billed platipus.
So, yes, it was political, but not in the naive way that Mattie(y) thinks. Still, it was Mattie that thought the West Bank was legally, and with extreme violence, taken over by Hamas, so... .


Post number 1372. 1 plus the 3 = 4. 4 plus the 2 = 6. There's only one Obama in this thread, so if we add the 1 to the 6, that's 7.
Or... 13 plus 7 add 2 equals 22. 22 minus the 2 and the 7 and the 13 equals zero. Which is what Obama is: a big zero. Also, add up all his promises (1372) and take away the number of all his actual accomplishments (0) and the resulting number is... 1372. This is some weird shit, man!
Best of all, if you add up the total number of posts in this thread and the triangular root of Mattie's IQ, then subtract the square root of a pie, then shift the decimal point 1.4 places to the left, the resulting number is the exact same as if you hadn't bothered.
Spooky.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Ananya,

Ananya,

Firstly, thank you for providing the link to that thread, I will read through when I get a chance and reply in a pt to any response you may have had that I over looked (if you are still willing to discuss it. If not please let me know in the pt that this is the case).

Secondly, yes I will stick to Obama's link to the award and not his current political involvement with health care, but please indicate all others who have gone off topic in the future instead of singling me out. Thanks.

In response to PD's latest post:

I don't find it surprising that the person who supports Obama's acceptance and award of this award cited as a criteria for his deserving it as "not being George Bush." Obama, and liberals in general, have been blaming Bush for many things they are clearly ignorant on and more so will continue to do so for years. Its sad.

Based on this criteria, I expect my Noble Prize to come in the mail in short order. After all, I too am not George Bush.

Well I just surveyed one of our secretaries.

Do you think that O deserved to be awarded the Nobel Prize for peace, I asked?

"I don't even think that he deserves to be president," she said.

I didn't realize that the paycheck for the Nobel Prize is about $1,000,000.00. No wonder O didn't turn it down.
Well I can name all the awards that I have earned since college on one hand and not one of them was for keeping the peace.

(I was recently awarded a gold plated belt buckle for 25 years of service.)

Change is good