Did you really spend all that time analyzing my sentences? Wow. In short, i said Obama has moved the country to the left, but he isn't a liberal (but he is left of center and the country is right of center so it was only natural). It really isn't that hard to ignore any mistaken diction or grammatical error on a message board. So you think Healthcare reform, with no public option or single payer, is more pervasive and intrusive than the patriot act (because of a health mandate?) and will lead to a larger bureaucracy than Homeland Security? I must say, I completely disagree on both points. Actually, it is completely different. If the government retains ownership, it means its motives may have been other than just helping a company out financially. If they give it all back and get all the money that they paid back, then this was simply a good move that helped the country.
Without the grammar aspect, I'd like to discuss this particular issue and your disagreement. You do know that DHS is "only" a 40B/yr entity that consolidates almost all of our non-DoD security, surveillance and emergency agencies, right? As opposed to, say, a bureaucracy that manages 1/6th of the GDP? For example, DHS isn't even bigger than the Veterans Affairs Department, which covers approximately 9% of Americans who are veterans. You think a government agency covering 100% of Americans would be less of a bureaucracy? As for the Patriot Act, I can understand (even if I don't particularly agree with) some points of it that people don't like, or the opinion that it's taking us closer to a 1984 world. But I can't fathom that you'd think that the government making you do something (like get medical insurance) is more pervasive or instrusive than them surveilling you as you do what you want. Which they have severe restrictions on.
If the government took over health care this argument would be valid. But there is no public option or single payer. There is some oversight, a mandate, and rules for the PRIVATE insurance industry. It is in no way a government bureaucracy in the sense of the department of homeland security in my mind. Health care as a whole, sure. One of them has a sort of precedence in mandating car insurance. Either way, I disagree with both. I like Obama's idea to let states opt out of the mandate.
Dude, you're just flat out wrong. And it isn't even close. Depending on which numbers you use, the healthcare reform is going to cost somewhere between $1 Trillion and $2 Trillion over the next decade, or $100billion to $200 billion per year. As Brian mentioned, the DHS is about $40 billion / year. Beyond the cost issue, healthcare reform will affect everybody in this country and also forces people to do something. The Patriot Act has nowhere near that amount of effect on our lives. Are you REALLY trying to argue that the DHS is a larger expansion of the government than healthcare reform? Go ahead and keep arguing and disagreeing, but it looks ridiculous. False. Whether or not the government retains ownership, it shows that the government was willing to step into the private sector and take over... more in the direction of socialism. They already did that, whether you want to analyze it now or later is immaterial. Just like the fact that we already went to war. If you want to analyze whether or not Bush was willing to go to war after we are out of Iraq doesn't make any sense.
Its called learning from our mistakes during the first great depression and hoping to prevent the second. Yes, because I don't see health care forming that big of a bureaucracy. The cost of a bill and the budget of a government department are far different. I don't see tax cuts as a bigger bureaucracy than DHS even though they cost more and effect more Americans. I don't see a car insurance mandate as a bigger government program than DHS. I see the Patriot Act as a huge overstepping of Government. I also see the health mandate as one, because the government has no place to mandate us to do something. But there is a huge difference between the two. Why are republicans, who say they will fight for personal freedoms, not see the Patriot Act as a huge problem? Its so partisan its ridiculous. Like the Libertarians say, conservatives want government out of economic freedoms but want government intrusion in our social lives (Patriot Act, Gay Marriage, Abortion, Drugs)... and Liberals want government out of personal lives and want government intrusion in our economic freedoms. Either way, I'd rather chat with BrianFromWA than BB because I think BB takes this stuff way too seriously, while BfWA makes intelligent yet non bitchy arguments (and probably THE most convincing arguments coming from a righty on this site).
Isn't the IRS going to need something like 100,000 additional employees just to collect the penalties from those who opt out of ObamaCare? It's a huge clusterfuck of a bureaucracy and the IRS in general is as anti-libertarian as it gets
I do. I think your 1/6 of GDP argument is pretty misleading. By that reasoning, the IRS must be the largest bureaucracy, since it 'manages' 100% of GDP (well, except for GE's portion of GDP, apparently). The truth is that the healthcare bill doesn't require 'management' of the entire healthcare system. If we'd nationalized all the doctors and nurses, all the hospitals, all the insurance companies, all the drug companies, then your argument would actually be legitimate. But the something they are making me do is something I was doing already, and that I'm happy to keep doing. Whereas reading my email and tapping my phone is taking away something that I previously had: privacy. barfo
Sounds good to me. Your logic is so flawed it is an embarrassment. I'm happy to have a discussion with somebody that has opposing views... But it is extremely annoying to have a conversation with somebody can't formulate a logically sound position.
Even if it isn't 1/6 of the GDP that the government will manage, the portion they will manage will make the DHS beaurocracy look tiny. The relative spending on each of those programs gives a reasonable indication. Healthcare will be an order of magnitude larger. That isn't a valid argument. If the government required that all men gave free bj's, that is something some already do and something I'm sure they'd be happy to keep doing. That doesn't mean it is a reasonable thing for the government to mandate.
I'm not seeing an actual argument here, just an assertion. I assert back that you are wrong. I wasn't making an argument. I was explaining why *I* consider the one worse than the other. That's a matter of opinion, obviously, and you are free to have a different one. projection is a terrible affliction. barfo
Wrong about what? The spending numbers? You're opinion is valid when talking about which one you think is more invasive in your life. Your opinion doesn't matter when comparing the sizes of the beauracracies, which was the original point. Brian edited my post, but it was funny. I must say, I'm a little disappointed in your response, Barfo. I was expecting something better from you.
I'll grant you the 1/6 of GDP thing, b/c it's nebulous. But what about the DVA example? Management of the health care of veterans (whether through managing their care, paying for the management, paying off disability claims, etc) is a bigger chunk of budget than DHS, and it's only for 9% of Americans maximum (and probably much less, since not every veteran is cared for, paid by or uses DVA). My personal belief is that, for a program this big, you're going to have to stand up (not consolidate, as DHS did or DoD did in the 50's) a brand new bureaucracy for it. Maybe not cabinet-level, but still a large and costly stand-up. But not everyone is doing it, and not everyone WANTS to do it. And (as far a I can tell, though I profess ignorance on the finer points of the health insurance reform) they can't opt out of it by, say, not driving. So in this case, it works out for you. But government regulation of our actions seems like a larger and more intrusive matter; since who's to say in 2 years that the gov't regulates everyone pays 10% to charity? I mean, it's something I was doing already and I'm happy to keep doing. Or, you could opt out and just give the "penalty" of 10% to the gov't.
Who do I contact to opt out of supporting DHS and wars for profit? They are something I would never approve of and I'm not at all happy about my tax dollars being misused in these un-American, treasonous enterprises.
Yeah, that's the point. You can't opt out of these programs... just like you can't opt out of Obamacare. Did you miss that point?
Is the VA really an apples-to-apples comparison? Is the level of services provided to veterans limited to mandating that they buy insurance? I kind of guess not, but I suspect you know more about the VA than I do. Sure, I wasn't claiming that my experience was universal. Although, a majority of the country does now have health insurance. Sure, it's a slippery slope. One day they make us buy health insurance, and the next day they'll be choosing who we can and can't marry. Oh, wait, I guess they do that already. I think this objection is a nice theoretical point, but in the real world, it just isn't that big a deal. Are you outraged by walk/don't walk signs at crosswalks? They are telling you what to do, man! Some machine is taking away your freedom! barfo
