Obama re-elected!!!!

[Jakke]

 

[stratjacket]

The reason healthcare costs are so expensive is because when a person with limited means gets a $120 hospital bill for having a bandaid changed, he's probably going to default on it. That means that the hospital is going to be left holding the bag, so in an effort to mitigate costs, they'll charge the next guy $125, and so forth. It's a vicious cycle.

Trust me when I say this: 4 years of even the comparatively minimal healthcare that you guys are going to get is going to do wonders for your medical costs.

When my mother was very young is when the concept of socialized healthcare started spreading around Canada, thanks to Tommy Douglas. My grandparents were *horrified* by the concept. However, seeing it all these years later, knowing how much it has helped both individuals and society as a whole here in Canada, they think it's madness not to have some form of national healthcare program, and they're very conservative people.

I think we both care about people, just different ways. I think the reason the cost is $120 instead of $60 (or some lower price) is because of the interference and price setting forced on the doctor/hospital. I also think the the person who can't afford that cost is also being held down by the very "help" the govt is giving him.

But I understand the way people think, they really think these things are helping people, but I just disagree. I see them as just another tool to control people and keep them down, keeping the people who have power, in power. I grew up dirt poor in the "projects" and its hell. I worked my ass off to get out of there and I think keeping people in there and dependent is cruel, I would much rather have them the opportunity to live free. I believe all these "helpful" programs do more harm than good. But I know am in the minority thinking this way. Its just hard for me to explain in words my experiences and feelings in this without sounding like I'm mean or something. I'm not, I just have a different idea of help.

 

[YngwieJ]

I think restricting corporations or anyone around environmental issues is also wrong. If a company owns the land, I think they can use it how they want as long as it doesn't risk other people's safety with a basic set of laws, not complicated ones that no one understands. It's property rights. If the public disagrees, there will be outcry and the company will naturally cave.

This makes absolutely no sense. While companies and individuals may own titles and leases to land, they don't just have free reign to do whatever they want on it. When BP ignored regulations and safety concerns, would you let them off the hook when their pipe explodes and causes billions worth of dollars in damage to the environment and lost revenue from businesses that were affected?

What about when pollution from coal plants cause tens of thousands of deaths each year? Should we just let them do what they want?

What about when PG&E's cooling stations in Hinkley, California contaminated the town's water supply and caused cancer in many of the residents?

We are all part of the environment in which we live, and everyone's actions affect it. That's why we need regulations to curb that impact. You say we need a basic set of laws, not ones that nobody understands. So please tell me what you think is so complicated about the ones we have.

 

[Waelstrum]

That's funny, but Australia a far left country? We don't have gay marriage even with prominent a front bench politician being gay. Also, my home state elected the most conservative Premiere for fifteen years (as in conservative enough to be a modern Republican).

But I guess, compared to US politics, anyone from the centre leftwards must seem a bit radical.

EDIT: That's not to mention the highly conservative border policies that even Bill O'Reilly would say go to far, wherein we've been locking up refugees for daring to be too poor to have identification.

 

[Jakke]

That's funny, but Australia a far left country? We don't have gay marriage even with prominent a front bench politician being gay. Also, my home state elected the most conservative Premiere for fifteen years (as in conservative enough to be a modern Republican).

But I guess, compared to US politics, anyone from the centre leftwards must seem a bit radical.

I reacted to that too, same as when they have called Sweden a "socialist country" on occasion. But I suppose it all has to do with perspective.

 

[stratjacket]

This makes absolutely no sense. While companies and individuals may own titles and leases to land, they don't just have free reign to do whatever they want on it. When BP ignored regulations and safety concerns, would you let them off the hook when their pipe explodes and causes billions worth of dollars in damage to the environment and lost revenue from businesses that were affected?

What about when pollution from coal plants cause tens of thousands of deaths each year? Should we just let them do what they want?

What about when PG&E's cooling stations in Hinkley, California contaminated the town's water supply and caused cancer in many of the residents?

We are all part of the environment in which we live, and everyone's actions affect it. That's why we need regulations to curb that impact. You say we need a basic set of laws, not ones that nobody understands. So please tell me what you think is so complicated about the ones we have.

Not sure why this is hard to understand. I said a basic set of laws would cover these things. You even posted that BP ignored the law, so you're not making much sense in your argument.

 

[stratjacket]

Let me rephrase. I understand you love the environment and don't want some big company X to screw it up for everyone and future generations. I agree, that's not what I'm saying. I can't tell you what the laws should be for an oil rig, I've never been on one. I've never worked in a PG&E cooling station, so I'm not sure what kind of regulation they need either. Obviously anything that harms others is not good. But I also know that if laws are too complicated and it's hard to get work done, then people cut corners, regulators turn blind eyes and become on site judges of what parts of the laws should be enforced and what can slide. This creates disasters. So all I'm saying is keep it simple.

 

[flint757]

Please re-read my post, because that's not what I said. I said you need a basic set of laws for public safety, so that is not what I'm implying.

Well you said companies should be allowed to do what they want with their property so in a way it is. Currently the laws in place are arguable for the public's safety. I assume, given your position, that you feel it should be less so who draws this line and decides when a company is polluting too much? Some people don't think protecting the environment has anything to do with public safety, they'd be wrong, but they exist.

There is no way for it not to be complicated because as you pointed out there are a ton of scenarios/industries. Simple simply isn't possible. Companies care about profit above all else, whether that means ignoring laws, cutting corners or trying to do the bare minimum involving regulations. If we lowered regulations, most companies would just pollute more as it is generally cheaper than being green. (not always the case albeit)

It isn't hard to get work done, companies simply feel like it is a waste of their money to be good citizens. It is all about the money.

 

[ASoC]

let me just throw in that I didn't care at all about the environment until about two years ago.

I took an environmental science class (I wasn't really interested, just wanted college credit) and it opened my eyes. All the stuff I learned in that class completely changed my worldview.

Basically, the biggest thing I took away from that class (and this was my own conclusion, it was not taught to me) was that when companies aren't regulated heavily, bad things happen. Its continuously happening, all the way from stuff like DDT and the Love Canal to more modern times with Coca Cola contaminating the water supply in India.

 

[stratjacket]

Well you said companies should be allowed to do what they want with their property so in a way it is. Currently the laws in place are arguable for the public's safety. I assume, given your position, that you feel it should be less so who draws this line and decides when a company is polluting too much? Some people don't think protecting the environment has anything to do with public safety, they'd be wrong, but they exist.

There is no way for it not to be complicated because as you pointed out there are a ton of scenarios/industries. Simple simply isn't possible. Companies care about profit above all else, whether that means ignoring laws, cutting corners or trying to do the bare minimum involving regulations. If we lowered regulations, most companies would just pollute more as it is generally cheaper than being green. (not always the case albeit)

It isn't hard to get work done, companies simply feel like it is a waste of their money to be good citizens. It is all about the money.

Well, you have your beliefs and so many have been educated to think like this, I'm not trying to change your mind.

I think Obama believes like you and will have been in office for 8 years by 2016, we'll see. I bet the world will be just as polluted as it is today, we'll have more environmental laws than ever and just as many accidents. All we'll have to show for it is more poverty, less opportunity and people will still blame some one else. The poorest will get hit the worst which is the saddest part, especially the poor in less developed countries.

I don't mean to hijack this thread. it's people mostly happy Obama won, so I don't want to come off like I'm raining on the parade. I'm hoping for the best, let's see how it plays out. Please note, I am not a republican, nor a democrat. I think I'm a pretty free thinker and open minded. I appreciate the give and take.

 

[flint757]

Well I agree that pollution certainly isn't getting better. I doubt there will be 'more than ever' though. When it came to environmental talk Romney was talking about the larger change and he intended to remove a lot of regulations. I think there was even talk of eliminating the EPA. Environmental law does not cause poverty as the companies that do the most pollution are typically million dollar companies, at least in the states. It isn't like the money gets thrown into a void either. As for outside the country, can't say as other than controlling outsourcing our government has no control over that AFAIK. It is beneficial in some ways financially for companies to go green though as their is usually a tax credit not to mention good publicity.

My biggest gripe is that people seem to be very shortsighted. Like when it comes to oil, as an example, I feel like we should extract it (but not destroy the whole world for it or be in needless wars either) for things that are currently impossible to run without it like airplanes or oil based products, but when green is possible (also infinite) why not use it? Using more green would also extend how long oil can be viable until we can find alternatives for everything. At the rate and mentality of this current generation we are just riding the wave until there is no more and we've destroyed Alaska, Canada and have been involved in every war possible to maintain its use. Then we will run out and have nothing sufficient to replace it for all the many uses it served. If 'saving' the Earth isn't a high priority for people then thinking ahead should be IMO.

 

[Scar Symmetry]

The thing that excites me most is that US identity seems to be changing. The whole 'merica fuck yeah' thing is being toned down and the whole 'what those clever bastards in Europe have been doing looks like a good idea' is being toned up. Nice one 'merica

 

[Scar Symmetry]

(p.s. TRENCHLORD if you're reading this, we don't hate you, come back guy )

 

[m3l-mrq3z]

The thing that excites me most is that US identity seems to be changing. The whole 'merica fuck yeah' thing is being toned down and the whole 'what those clever bastards in Europe have been doing looks like a good idea' is being toned up. Nice one 'merica

Hmm those 'ropean bastards stop appearing clever when you consider the consequences of socialist policies. Sure, extreme capitalism is in the long run harmful to a country's economy and security, but socialism, really?

 

[Stealthdjentstic]

He didnt say anything about socialism.

 

[Scar Symmetry]

He didnt say anything about socialism.

Stealth, how dare you not read between the lines of what I said. I was CLEARLY saying I fully support socialism and that's why I hate America.









In all seriousness, I support Social Democracy, but I recognise the values in modern Conservatism and if he runs, I will probably support Chris Christie for 2016.

 

[m3l-mrq3z]

Stealth, how dare you not read between the lines of what I said. I was CLEARLY saying I fully support socialism and that's why I hate America.

In all seriousness, I support Social Democracy, but I recognise the values in modern Conservatism and as if he runs, I will probably support Chris Christie for 2016.

What if I told you that it was the force of capitalism what made England what it is today?

 

[Scar Symmetry]

What if I told you that it was the force of capitalism what made England what it is today?

I think you've missed the intended humour there my man. I don't hate America. Right now I LOVE America.

 

[m3l-mrq3z]

But you did dislike capitalist, imperialist America, right?

 

[Scar Symmetry]

But you did dislike capitalist, imperialist America, right?

I don't need a history lesson thanks dude. There's more to consider than the point I think you're about to make.