Does President Obama play too much Golf?

[David in FL]

Originally Posted by phan52

Which is why every working person in this country who pays an insurance premium for their healthcare and every employer who pays similar premiums for their employees should vote for him. I don't care if it is the government, a non-profit, or a private entity but we NEED a one payer system.

Healthcare should not be a commodity. The only people who should be profiting from healthcare are doctors, hospitals and entrepreneurs who come up with treatments and cures. The amount of healthcare costs that go into the coffers of insurance companies is criminal and it WILL end some day. It is common sense, not socialism.

This is an honest post.  One that I respect.  I absolutely DO NOT agree with you and will continue to debate the subject, but you make no effort to disguise your opinion or try to misrepresent what Obama ultimately wants.

Too many try to misrepresent either their personal views or those of Obama in the hopes that they'll somehow appear less extreme in their own views.  As I've said before, people should not be embarrassed about what they really believe.  You're not.  I'm not.  A bunch on here certainly appear to be.....

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by Joakim

I really hope at that time we have a President that plays golf. Lol.

Me too!

But what really matters to me is whether or not porn actors will be required to use condoms in their movies.  OK I lied, that isn't true at all, I don't care.  I just wanted an excuse to tell people who were unaware that there is actually a measure on the ballot (Measure B, Los Angeles County) regarding that very topic.  I feel like that belongs in the Sports Illustrated "Sign of the Apocalypse" section.

[x129]

It isn't that the worst thing about Mitt? He has all that cash and he is blowing it on horses instead of clubs and country club memberships. Clear sign that the guy doesn't have his priorities straight in life The real reason we know Obama doesn't play enough golf? He is still a double digit handicap. As I have been telling my wife, it is those low single digit guys that spend too much time on the course. Not use high cappers.

Hmm someone needs to figure out the handicap's of all the candidates for the past 50 years so we can see if the best golfer always wins.  In recent history (Kerry, Gore,  Dukkais, McCain, Dole) all lost to better golfers (well at one point. I don't want to guess what Reagans game was like in 84). Carter was 1 for 2 against golfers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joakim

I really hope at that time we have a President that plays golf. Lol..

[Joakim]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Me too!

But what really matters to me is whether or not porn actors will be required to use condoms in their movies.  OK I lied, that isn't true at all, I don't care.  I just wanted an excuse to tell people who were unaware that there is actually a measure on the ballot (Measure B, Los Angeles County) regarding that very topic.  I feel like that belongs in the Sports Illustrated "Sign of the Apocalypse" section.

Don't tell Romney, he will create a bill out lawing condems. Sorry couldn't resist. LA county IS THE KING OF PORN.

[newtogolf]

I agree 100%, I won't be surprised if Mitt does really play golf but has down played it because it's bad for his image.

One thing I'll be glad about is no matter who wins, these discussions will be tabled for another 3 years.  I'm done with hurricanes and election talk for a while.  Time to make sure everything is secured for tomorrows norEaster.

Originally Posted by Joakim

I really hope at that time we have a President that plays golf. Lol..

[zipazoid]

This thread just now got moved to the Grill Room?

[phan52]

Quote:

Originally Posted by David in FL

Quote:

Which is why every working person in this country who pays an insurance premium for their healthcare and every employer who pays similar premiums for their employees should vote for him. I don't care if it is the government, a non-profit, or a private entity but we NEED a one payer system.

Healthcare should not be a commodity. The only people who should be profiting from healthcare are doctors, hospitals and entrepreneurs who come up with treatments and cures. The amount of healthcare costs that go into the coffers of insurance companies is criminal and it WILL end some day. It is common sense, not socialism.

This is an honest post.  One that I respect.  I absolutely DO NOT agree with you and will continue to debate the subject, but you make no effort to disguise your opinion or try to misrepresent what Obama ultimately wants.

Too many try to misrepresent either their personal views or those of Obama in the hopes that they'll somehow appear less extreme in their own views.  As I've said before, people should not be embarrassed about what they really believe.  You're not.  I'm not.  A bunch on here certainly appear to be.....

Our market systems don't work for everything. Everybody doesn't have a choice when it comes to healthcare; they or their family will eventually NEED it in some form. I believe that if the issue is kept "honest" and not misrepresented as a falling into the evils of socialism, a one payer system is one that the vast majority of Americans would embrace. Any reasonable employer who is stuck with the nasty job of sifting through their current options should jump all over it because, they not only have to do all the research, they have to foot a large portion of the bill in today's system. You want to ask the main reason for job slowdowns in this country? Ask a responsible small businessman about the costs attached to a new hire.

Nobody is asking for "death panels" or "rationed" healthcare, but that is always part of any argument that people make against a one-payer system. The main thing we need to do is educate and make sure that people utiliyze the "wellness" part of any plan in order to head off problems down the road that are REALLY expensive. People who have healthcare plans who do not use them for regular checkups are stupid and, eventually, wasteful.

BTW, which current system is the most efficient and cost-effective healthcare payment delivery system that we have today in this country? And be "honest".

[Joakim]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

I agree 100%, I won't be surprised if Mitt does really play golf but has down played it because it's bad for his image.

One thing I'll be glad about is no matter who wins, these discussions will be tabled for another 3 years.  I'm done with hurricanes and election talk for a while.  Time to make sure everything is secured for tomorrows norEaster.

Whats wrong with his image. Lol.

[x129]

Some days I miss california. The number of wacky propositions out there is crazy. I think I ended up voting favor of letting people eat horses one year.  The general rule is vote no on everything.  Pretty much all the bills were sponsered by some special interest and not good for the state in general.

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Me too!

But what really matters to me is whether or not porn actors will be required to use condoms in their movies.  OK I lied, that isn't true at all, I don't care.  I just wanted an excuse to tell people who were unaware that there is actually a measure on the ballot (Measure B, Los Angeles County) regarding that very topic.  I feel like that belongs in the Sports Illustrated "Sign of the Apocalypse" section.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by x129

Some days I miss california. The number of wacky propositions out there is crazy. I think I ended up voting favor of letting people eat horses one year.  The general rule is vote no on everything.  Pretty much all the bills were sponsered by some special interest and not good for the state in general.

And frequently those "special interests" are not even in/from California.

I swear even the special interests themselves can't even keep up.  I'm pretty sure I've heard commercials where the League of Women Voters or the LA Times, etc. have endorsed both sides of the same Prop.

[Joakim]

Originally Posted by x129

Some days I miss california. The number of wacky propositions out there is crazy. I think I ended up voting favor of letting people eat horses one year.  The general rule is vote no on everything.  Pretty much all the bills were sponsered by some special interest and not good for the state in general.

They have some amazing golf courses too. You might want to roll one from the 17th at Pebble.

[David in FL]

Originally Posted by phan52

BTW, which current system is the most efficient and cost-effective healthcare payment delivery system that we have today in this country? And be "honest".

I'm always honest......

The only "system" that I believe in is the one that says that an individual has the freedom to choose that which he believes is best for him and his family.  Along with that freedom comes the personal responsibility for the decisions he makes.

If he's like me, he's going to opt for some kind of insurance that he feels best meets the individual needs of his family.  He'll either buy it himself, or choose to work for an employer that offers it as a benefit.  Some people will choose to self-insure.  I think that's a silly choice, but it's not my place, nor that of the government, to try to protect someone from what you or I might consider to be a bad decision.  With that decision comes responsibility for the consequences of that decision though.  Those consequences could range from benefitting financially from not having to pay insurance premiums if the person remains generally healthy, to devastating if they fall seriously ill.

The obvious exception is that as a society, I believe we have a responsibility to take care of those who are genuinely unable to take care of themselves because they are physically unable to work and support themselves.

[jgreen85]

Originally Posted by David in FL

I'm always honest......

The only "system" that I believe in is the one that says that an individual has the freedom to choose that which he believes is best for him and his family.  Along with that freedom comes the personal responsibility for the decisions he makes.

If he's like me, he's going to opt for some kind of insurance that he feels best meets the individual needs of his family.  He'll either buy it himself, or choose to work for an employer that offers it as a benefit.  Some people will choose to self-insure.  I think that's a silly choice, but it's not my place, nor that of the government, to try to protect someone from what you or I might consider to be a bad decision.  With that decision comes responsibility for the consequences of that decision though.  Those consequences could range from benefitting financially from not having to pay insurance premiums if the person remains generally healthy, to devastating if they fall seriously ill.

The obvious exception is that as a society, I believe we have a responsibility to take care of those who are genuinely unable to take care of themselves because they are physically unable to work and support themselves.

So you're comfortable with the ERs turning people away unless they can produce an insurance card or some form of proof they can pay for the care they receive?

Right now, we do not have a system that requires personal responsibility. Right now, we have a system in which those who don't want to pay for healthcare force those in the healthcare system to pay for their care. Until you're willing to let people without insurance or the ability to pay die in the streets of afflictions that are treatable, your system of responsibility will not work. Simply billing someone and then they declare bankruptcy doesn't mean the doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies aren't going to be paid. The tax payers cover that cost one way or the other.

Romney's point is that this is a decision best left to states. Here's a hypothetical: I live in Arizona, say I'm travelling in TX, is TX now obligated to treat me in its emergency rooms? I don't pay taxes in Texas and I don't have insurance because Arizona doesn't require it. Does TX foot the bill? Do they bill Arizona? Or do I just have to avoid the state of Texas for the rest of my life? Leaving things to the states sounds nice, except that it rarely works in practice unless every state is required to offer insurance.

That's the beauty of a single payer system: we're either all in or we're all on our own.

People all will, at some point, require healthcare. That's a fact. I'd like to see healthcare taken away from employers, so people see the true cost of care and hold the providers accountable, but having a system where people are just not treated is not something I'm ok.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

5.  Socialism is when the government OWNS and CONTROLS all means of production.  To say that any redistribution of wealth alone is socialism shows your ignorance of political science and economics.

It may not be socialism, but it's darned close to communism.  Everyone works for the common good, and only takes what he needs.  However, once you step outside of a 70's hippie commune, it fails miserably.  It didn't really even work for them and they were willing to live by that philosophy.  You always end up with the hangers-on who won't pull their weight, who want to get along on the labor of the majority.

That is the problem with welfare, you get the same situation.  Too many floating by, living off the efforts of the majority for no reason than pure laziness.  It isn't the idea of helping those who are unable to help themselves that is wrong, it's the reality that too many of those receiving benefits are not unable, but unwilling to do anything to help themselves.  Taking more from the wealthy to sweeten the pot will just make it that much more appetizing to those who make a lifestyle of living off the system.

[David in FL]

So you're comfortable with the ERs turning people away unless they can produce an insurance card or some form of proof they can pay for the care they receive? Right now, we do not have a system that requires personal responsibility. Right now, we have a system in which those who don't want to pay for healthcare force those in the healthcare system to pay for their care. Until you're willing to let people without insurance or the ability to pay die in the streets of afflictions that are treatable, your system of responsibility will not work. Simply billing someone and then they declare bankruptcy doesn't mean the doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies aren't going to be paid. The tax payers cover that cost one way or the other. Romney's point is that this is a decision best left to states. Here's a hypothetical: I live in Arizona, say I'm travelling in TX, is TX now obligated to treat me in its emergency rooms? I don't pay taxes in Texas and I don't have insurance because Arizona doesn't require it. Does TX foot the bill? Do they bill Arizona? Or do I just have to avoid the state of Texas for the rest of my life? Leaving things to the states sounds nice, except that it rarely works in practice unless every state is required to offer insurance. That's the beauty of a single payer system: we're either all in or we're all on our own. People all will, at some point, require healthcare. That's a fact. I'd like to see healthcare taken away from employers, so people see the true cost of care and hold the providers accountable, but having a system where people are just not treated is not something I'm ok.

Not at all. They get treated and if they made the choice not to carry insurance, they pay out of their pocket. Those that cannot, are subject to the same civil process that anyone who failed to pay a debt would be. They will likely end up with a large judgement. Their wages may be garnished, and their assets seized and sold to pay their debt. Ugly.....but as I said, with freedom comes responsibility for the actions and decisions you make. And you're exactly right. With a single payer system there is no individual. From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs....

[jgreen85]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

It may not be socialism, but it's darned close to communism.  Everyone works for the common good, and only takes what he needs.  However, once you step outside of a 70's hippie commune, it fails miserably.  It didn't really even work for them and they were willing to live by that philosophy.  You always end up with the hangers-on who won't pull their weight, who want to get along on the labor of the majority.

That is the problem with welfare, you get the same situation.  Too many floating by, living off the efforts of the majority for no reason than pure laziness.  It isn't the idea of helping those who are unable to help themselves that is wrong, it's the reality that too many of those receiving benefits are not unable, but unwilling to do anything to help themselves.  Taking more from the wealthy to sweeten the pot will just make it that much more appetizing to those who make a lifestyle of living off the system.

Basically, the federal government should do the things you value and not others. That's essentially what you're saying.

You describe others as living in an ideological world, but you do as well. Fourputt, your mind lives in an ideological world in which all it takes to succeed is effort. In reality, cards are stacked insurmountably against about 30% of the population, just stacked against another 20%, and 40% live in your world where effort is all that it's required, and then 10% live in a world where they are spoiled beyond imagination, yet add nothing to society (read: Romney, Mitt; unless you consider the Winter Olympics, but seriously which companies has he worked with that added to society).

I'm very much aware that people live off of the system, but ultimately, I know they're not happy in the slightest with their existence. The reality is that it'd be so damn expensive to remove the cards that are stacked against them, that the "makers" are better off just paying this group off. Your taxes would be significantly higher if you seriously wanted to have people stop living off of the system. It's not effort that's lacking. It's not even knowing where to start.

[jgreen85]

Originally Posted by David in FL

Not at all. They get treated and if they made the choice not to carry insurance, they pay out of their pocket. Those that cannot, are subject to the same civil process that anyone who failed to pay a debt would be. They will likely end up with a large judgement. Their wages may be garnished, and their assets seized and sold to pay their debt. Ugly.....but as I said, with freedom comes responsibility for the actions and decisions you make.

And you're exactly right. With a single payer system there is no individual. From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs....

wages garnished, so you will then provide them with food? a place to live? clothes? electricity? Where will they live? Are you comfortable with people setting up shacks and shanty towns? Where you will significantly more for police and fire protection. Where people will steal/kill/destroy for their next meal? You see, personal responsibility sounds great until you look at what it would really take. Like I said in a previous post, people don't go without because they want to or because they're too lazy, they do it largely because they have no other choice. Someone working at Wal-Mart is doing their best, but those wages aren't enough to pay to fix a broken leg or arm, or to provide medicine to treat cancer.

Your system would have people die in the streets. It's a fact. It's reality. Jesus said, "The poor, they will be with you always."

[newtogolf]

Where do these numbers come from and what are these cards?  The only people with an excuse to not succeed are the elderly and disabled (both groups which should be taken care of).

Mitt Romney adds more to the society than most, he's run the Olympics, been a public servant and donates heavily to charities.  In fact, I'd bet Mitt has donated more money to charity over his life than all of us on here combined will make in our lifetime.  Now maybe you don't like his charity, but that's not what the discussion is about, is it?

Originally Posted by jgreen85

Basically, the federal government should do the things you value and not others. That's essentially what you're saying.

You describe others as living in an ideological world, but you do as well. Fourputt, your mind lives in an ideological world in which all it takes to succeed is effort. In reality, cards are stacked insurmountably against about 30% of the population, just stacked against another 20%, and 40% live in your world where effort is all that it's required, and then 10% live in a world where they are spoiled beyond imagination, yet add nothing to society (read: Romney, Mitt; unless you consider the Winter Olympics, but seriously which companies has he worked with that added to society).