The political divide in Colorado (health insurance, buy, school)

[smdensbcs]

Originally Posted by wanneroo

Well, individual freedom doesn't involve enslaving people...

It most definitely can, depending on how far one chooses to push the definition of individual freedom. The pre-Civil War plantation owners vehemently disagreed with you it doesn't involve enslaving people. Look in the Constitution. They took a nation to the bloodiest war we've ever seen to protect their "individual freedom" - their Constitutional right to own slaves and the children of those slaves. Read some history. Learn what "states rights" meant to the Antebellum South and what it is still thinly-veiled code for to those who are very clearly the plantation owner's modern day equivalents. It's pretty much the same places, same people, who have cleverly learned to convert their abhorent ideas into code language for purposes of elections. "Individual freedom" is part of the modern code, like "states rights" just in case you happened to not be aware of how those terms are actually used and for what purposes.

[jazzlover]

Typically, a third political party has never gained any traction in the United States. The few times that they have has been when one of of the two mainstream parties' leadership becomes so divorced from the wishes of its members that a mass defection of the majority of the party members to the third party occurs. This is sort of what happened when the Whig Party morphed into the Republican Party right before the Civil War--primarily over the issue of abolition of slavery.

I think that type of rise of a "third" party could be a distinct possibility for either major political parties in this country if their leadership continues to become more and more radical, which seems to be the trend right now. I doubt that a "three-party" system would be a result. As was the case with the Whigs, the deserted party might hang around for a bit as a minor movement, but the "banished" party would eventually disappear and we would return to a two-party system--just with a new party.

At the end of the day, the fact remains that most of the American electorate is centrist in their views--some left-of-center, some right-of-center. The distribution looks like a Bell Curve, with "radicals" making up a minority at either end of the Bell Curve. For either party to be successful over the long-term, it must moderate its politics enough to capture 50% +1 of the electorate.

Unfortunately, what skews things is that the electorate itself is more concerned with voting itself endless benefits out of the Public Treasury than it is about voting for responsible governance. So, both parties are pandering to their respective constituencies, promising those endless benefits for them from the treasury. That can not endure and will, left unchecked, destroy the Republic and lead to a dictatorship. It is easy to blame the politicians for that, but, in the end, the politicians are simply doing what their constituents are demanding at the ballot box that they want those politicians to do.

[wanneroo]

Originally Posted by xeric

I'll bite on this one. I don't see how anybody can look at what the Republican Right has done in the last 30 years and come to the conclusion that they are in favor of individual freedom. Three examples:

1. The Patriot Act, defacto suspension of habeas corpus, unlimited detention in military facilities (including U.S. citizens). These were Bush administration initiatives and/or policies.

2. When anti-sodomy laws were overturned in the 2000s the Supreme Court justices considered the most right-wing were strong dissenters. This has been the pattern when it comes to laws regulating adult consensual sexual behavior (or birth control for that matter).

3. The Drug War seems to be most actively supported by right-wingers. Certainly it was the supposed anti-government crusaders in Fort Collins who were the most opposed to medical marijuana dispensaries.

So I would rewrite the current Republican motto to this: "We are in favor of minimizing government and maximizing individual rights except for this long list of exceptions ..." Which makes the above just an empty slogan trotted out for the elections.

Plenty of republicans have failed which is why they need voted out.

The Patriot Act, I do not agree with much of it. The anti sodomy laws I have no idea what that story was and it's the least of my concerns right now when the government is attempting to put out of business or take over private business sectors such as healthcare. The drug war, until someone comes up with a better solution, I am all for. The problem with drugs is they alter people's states of mind and that ends up imposing on other people's freedoms. Individual freedom also involves personal responsibility for your actions and most people on drugs are out there wrecking their families, stealing, robbing, etc. Cannibis isn't the old hippy plant from the 60's, it's now a highly refined plant and drug. We don't need pilots, bus drivers, firemen, equipment operators out there stoned out of their mind.

If you can come up with solution where these people can get stoned and drugged out of their mind and where it's not conflicting with the rest of society who are trying to live in peace, I am all for hearing about it. People say just make it legal. Well I don't know any employer out there that wants stoned and brain scrambled employees on the job, so these druggies will still be stealing and robbing to get money for drugs, legal or not.

[Mike from back east]

I'm amazed that anyone thinks the government is trying to or has "taken over" health care. I see it as totally the opposite. The ACA, via the insurance mandate, will annually put many billions of dollars into the hands of PRIVATE health insurance firms. People have freedom of choice to select whatever health insurance firm they want, same as they do mandated auto insurance and mandated homeowners insurance. Our government did NOT nationalize our hospitals and make doctors and nurses employees of the government; that IS the case in England with their nationalized / socialized health care, but that is not the case here. This is the sort of cognitive dissonance we hear from one side, calling ACA a takeover by government when it's the other way around - the insurers will reap billions and billions.

The definition of socialism is "government ownership of the means of production" and that is absolutely not true in this country, save for the V.A. hospital system. Speaking of the V.A. Hospital System, it has been starved for funds for a long time and service is lousy according to what I read. Corporate interests keep trying to kill the V.A. system via lobbyists so they can have millions more patients to feed into their for-profit hospital systems, all neatly paid for by the government.

The drug war has been an abject failure. I hope COLO legalizes MJ this fall; maybe we have enough sense here to treat it the same as alcohol with a similar scheme of taxes and regulations. Alcohol kills about 15,000 people every year on the highway, and at least 75,000 more die and lose an average of 30 years of their lifespan due to alcohol abuse. I sense more cognitive dissonance here, that alcohol is okay but MJ is not. When social conservatives had alcohol outlawed via their war on alcohol and had the Volstead Act enacted, it too was an abject failure and created large criminal organizations that we are still battling.

[CosmicWizard]

wanneroo wrote: We've given more and more responsibility to the government, which of course has failed miserably with it's huge deficits and spending, rather than choose personal responsibility and taking care of our own families and neighbors.

AGREED! The lets us also drop the conservative agenda of governement intervention against homosexuality, abortion, and smoking marijuana for starters. We're all big boys and girls in Colorado, fully capable of making these decisions ourselves. This would cost taxpayers $0.00, and actually save billions of dollars a year on the totally wasteful war-on-drugs. Let's also get the government out of corporate welfare, and never ending war. One place where the government needs to step in is to tell the Federal Reserve to f*ck off, and take back control of this countries money. Immediately thereafter, they need to round up all of the wall street criminals and lock them up for the rest of their lives, each one having a hard core rapists or murderer as a cell mate. What say ye on this proposal?

[wanneroo]

Originally Posted by Mike from back east

I'm amazed that anyone thinks the government is trying to or has "taken over" health care. I see it as totally the opposite. The ACA, via the insurance mandate, will annually put many billions of dollars into the hands of PRIVATE health insurance firms. People have freedom of choice to select whatever health insurance firm they want, same as they do mandated auto insurance and mandated homeowners insurance. Our government did NOT nationalize our hospitals and make doctors and nurses employees of the government; that IS the case in England with their nationalized / socialized health care, but that is not the case here. This is the sort of cognitive dissonance we hear from one side, calling ACA a takeover by government when it's the other way around - the insurers will reap billions and billions.

The definition of socialism is "government ownership of the means of production" and that is absolutely not true in this country, save for the V.A. hospital system. Speaking of the V.A. Hospital System, it has been starved for funds for a long time and service is lousy according to what I read. Corporate interests keep trying to kill the V.A. system via lobbyists so they can have millions more patients to feed into their for-profit hospital systems, all neatly paid for by the government.

The drug war has been an abject failure. I hope COLO legalizes MJ this fall; maybe we have enough sense here to treat it the same as alcohol with a similar scheme of taxes and regulations. Alcohol kills about 15,000 people every year on the highway, and at least 75,000 more die and lose an average of 30 years of their lifespan due to alcohol abuse. I sense more cognitive dissonance here, that alcohol is okay but MJ is not. When social conservatives had alcohol outlawed via their war on alcohol and had the Volstead Act enacted, it too was an abject failure and created large criminal organizations that we are still battling.

The "affordable care act" is like most leftist programs, "the unaffordable care act" is more like it.

I do not know anyone who's health care premiums have gone down, rather they have gone up, in my case 50%, expressly due to meeting the compliance regulations of obamacare. Nothing affordable about that. And it's going to blow out the budget like all these "programs" do.

All it has done so far and will do in the future is drive employers out of offering healthcare, letting go employees to meet costs, driving up costs for insurance companies and health providers and so on. It is estimated up to 20-30 million people will lose their health coverage.

It's not going to drive any new customers to insurance companies because those people will just pay the tax(probably angry as they do so, cutting into all their tax "credits") and when they get sick, dump the cost on everyone else.

Like all leftist programs these days they go about it little by little to take over. Like the car industry, coal industry, agriculture industry, they strangle it with regulation and make such a mess they then use it as an excuse to take over more. That is what they are doing with obamacare. They will make it so unaffordable and impossible to have private health care, they drive people and companies out of that business. It will take 10-20 years and if you look at obamacare, it grants czar like powers to the HHS executive and it will spawn millions of regulations.

What kind of "health care" bill hires 16000 IRS agents?

No one can defend that. We know what it's all about. Taking over and taking more money out of your wallet. Tons of layers of more bureaucrats is not going to fix the problem.

[kooks35]

Originally Posted by Mike from back east

I'm amazed that anyone thinks the government is trying to or has "taken over" health care. I see it as totally the opposite.

Considering the gov't is already responsible for over 50% of healthcare spending right now (and they dictate how care is managed) I'd say they are already well on their way to taking it over even before the ACA kicks in.

[pwd81]

Originally Posted by wanneroo

The drug war, until someone comes up with a better solution, I am all for.

There are tons of better solutions, including some that make it to the ballot. They are having incremental success because a majority of people see them as better solutions.

Originally Posted by wanneroo

The problem with drugs is they alter people's states of mind and that ends up imposing on other people's freedoms. Individual freedom also involves personal responsibility for your actions and most people on drugs are out there wrecking their families, stealing, robbing, etc.

You are talking about alcohol here, right? You need to define "drugs" before making an argument like this. If you are talking about marijuana, have you had someone steal from you in order to get it? From what personal experience are you bringing this perspective? You seem confined to the idea that marijuana users are thieves, or that it turns people into thieves. Or that they aren't able to hold good jobs or be successful, mindful, passionate, caring people. Those are your own biases, which may or may not be rooted in some personal experience. Good and bad people use and abuse all kinds of substances, recreationally and medically. You should consider cause and effect with little more intellectual honesty. Stealing seems to be more of a problem with physically addictive substances, such as prescription pain killers.

Originally Posted by wanneroo

Cannibis isn't the old hippy plant from the 60's, it's now a highly refined plant and drug.

No, its still a plant. The THC is not "refined" or altered or enhanced in any way. It matters not if there is more THC per plant today. It only matters how much of that THC is ingested. It is the same mind-altering effect, that increases or decreases with dosage. Today, there are also better methods of extracting the active ingredient from the plant material. This is healthier, and pharmaceutical companies do it with other substances for a reason. Pain killers are small and powerful and potent, but they come with prescribed dosages. Stronger versions of the same drug are just more pure. More pure = healthier in a lot of ways. Using less for the same effect is a good thing for the responsible user. You are completely ignoring the concept of dosage and assuming that individuals are not able to make dosage choices, as they do with booze. A shot of tequila = a glass of wine = a bottle of beer, right? Same substance, different doses. Like any drug, cannabis can be dosed. So "stronger" is a relative word here. And it's your choice to put labels like "hippy" on it, but it predated the 60's and there is no consistent socioeconomic or cultural profile for cannabis users. Its widespread and diverse. Thieves and CEOs both partake. Again, consider cause and effect with a little more depth.

Originally Posted by wanneroo

We don't need pilots, bus drivers, firemen, equipment operators out there stoned out of their mind.

Do you drink recreationally? What is your job? Do you show up to work drunk out of your mind? Does your pilot or bus driver? If you don't drink, are you suspicious of your coworkers who do? Do they steal from you? Also, are you saying it should be legal for certain careers, like musicians and athletes? It seems to be working well for their careers if you've read the news in the past few decades. My point here is that hiring should be based on performance, no?

Originally Posted by wanneroo

If you can come up with solution where these people can get stoned and drugged out of their mind and where it's not conflicting with the rest of society who are trying to live in peace, I am all for hearing about it.

The current situation reflects the reality of people using marijuana. Look around. Is it currently conflicting with your peace? Examples would be helpful. You do not have to get stoned out of your mind to use marijuana. It is your choice to assume that is how everyone uses it.

Originally Posted by wanneroo

Well I don't know any employer out there that wants stoned and brain scrambled employees on the job, so these druggies will still be stealing and robbing to get money for drugs, legal or not.

Many employers use marijuana themselves. Like many workers, they work to afford things so they don't have to steal. I'm not sure you have a strong grasp on this subject. You seem more concerned about some kind of perceived culture war. As long as you lump every user in the "dumb and destitute and lazy" box, you will continue to struggle with it.

[jacoby23]

Republicans will definitely do one thing....they will make the rich richer.

[CosmicWizard]

^^^^^And the crumbs are supposed to trickle down to the rest of us, so we'll ALL be better off with a republican victory. Gotta love those crumbs....if you're lucky enough to get any.