NationStates Jolt Archive

Massachussettes

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060405/hl_afp/ushealthinsurance_060405202034

The law is built on compromise between republicans and democrats. This is just an example of what can happen when people are willing to compromise their political views. These saw something, their own ideologies would not have worked but would have made shit worse, way worse. They talked it over in the legislature, they were willing to compromise their ideology and political beliefs (both sides did) and they were able to pass a law that gives healthcare to every single person in the state of Massachussettes. These people are good example of what happens you put bitter ideological partisanship and hatred aside for the common good. These legilators are an example for other politicians around America and the will on the subject of why compromise is always good and never bad.

These legilators are an example for other politicians around America and the will on the subject of why compromise is always good and never bad.I'd protest against that. There's plenty bad compromises out there...

I'd protest against that. There's plenty bad compromises out there...

Munich comes to mind.

Munich comes to mind.
So does counting part of the people denied the right to vote due to skin color as part of the population.

Massachusetts residents who are already covered will see their contributions fall slightly

Not to sound selfish, but this is the part of the plan I like the most.

So does counting part of the people denied the right to vote due to skin color as part of the population.

3/5ths Compromise. Good one.

3/5ths Compromise. Good one.How that?
EDIT: Argh! I'm confuzzled! I'm not sure whether you applauded my pointing out the compromise or the compromise itself!

How that?
EDIT: Argh! I'm confuzzled! I'm not sure whether you applauded my pointing out the compromise or the compromise itself!
I believe he's referring to the old compromise over slavery. Each slave counted as 3/5 of a person. But that was before the civil war and all.

How that?
EDIT: Argh! I'm confuzzled! I'm not sure whether you applauded my pointing out the compromise or the compromise itself!

Pointing it out. I hadn't thought of it.

I believe he's referring to the old compromise over slavery. Each slave counted as 3/5 of a person. But that was before the civil war and all.Yes. That was the one I was referring to...

Also:

The Missouri Compromise.

I'd protest against that. There's plenty bad compromises out there...
But if you avoid all compromises then nothing gets done and evil still prevails.

The genocide that happened in Africa a few years back, was not stopped because the world's powers refused to accept some kind of compromise on the issue. As a result lots and lots of people were killed by a brutal genocidal maniacs.
Compromise can be weapon for the good of the people more so than an aid of evil.
Did you know refusal to compromise is one of the greatest reasons why governments collapse.


For example, the US government almost collapsed in the 90's over the issue of the Clinton impeachment and budget issues. Both sides were entrenched. But the day was saved when both sides gave up their partisan ideology and accepted compromise. No one got everything they wanted but everyone got something which is better than getting nothing. Also, compromise doesn't alienate your opponent like "sticking to your guns" politics does.

yes there a bad compromises. But the good compromises far outnumber the bad compromises.

Also, compromise doesn't alienate your opponent like "sticking to your guns" politics does.

What if I don't care?

If a person wants to institue, say, a ban on gay sex, I don't want to compromise with him. I want to be free to have or not have gay sex.

If a person wants to institute censorship (R. Bork, take heed), I don't want to compromise with him. I want to be free to read Hustler.

There can be no compromise on issue of principle.

What if I don't care?

If a person wants to institue, say, a ban on gay sex, I don't want to compromise with him. I want to be free to have or not have gay sex.

If a person wants to institute censorship (R. Bork, take heed), I don't want to compromise with him. I want to be free to read Hustler.

There can be no compromise on issue of principle.
Unless you compromise you won't be able to get any of the other stuff you want that might be more important than those.

Unless you compromise you won't be able to get any of the other stuff you want that might be more important than those.

Please remind me what is more important then basic human rights like freedom of speech, dignity, privacy, and equality before the law.

Let me repeat again:

Issues of principle are not subject to compromise.

Also:

The Missouri Compromise.
And the Louisiana purchase.

These people are good example of what happens you put bitter ideological partisanship and hatred aside for the common good.
They create a system that is in the long run bound to fail? I can't wait for the doctors to flee the state. They should go to New Hampshire. Much less crime, and the government tends to leave you alone.

They create a system that is in the long run bound to fail? I can't wait for the doctors to flee the state. They should go to New Hampshire. Much less crime, and the government tends to leave you alone.

That won't be a problem. Why would doctors flee the state?

If a person wants to institute censorship (R. Bork, take heed), I don't want to compromise with him. I want to be free to read Hustler.


In a sense, any kind of liberal (in the original sense of the word) policy, like freedom of speech, or of the press, is a grand compromise. You have the right to read Hustler, but that does not mean it is the most efficient use of your time, or will make you happy, or will save your eternal soul. The idea is, if you read Hustler, and your love life suffers, or your kids hate you, or you get struck by lightning as punishment, hey, that's your problem.

Also, if Bork were appointed to the Supreme Court, would you consider it morally right to assasinate him? I'm guessing no, because of your ability to compromise your personal beliefs for the sake of society. Compromise of some level is the essence of tolerance and peace, and the essence of any form of liberalism.

As to the original topic hijackers, I am a libertarian, so I don't like it. However, as a Texan, I don't care. Massachusetts can do whatever they want to, and who am I to stop it? If it works, I might take a closer look at it. If it doesn't, hey, it's your own fault for messing with the market forces.

There can be no compromise on issue of principle.
I don't understand. We do it in Europe all the time. :confused:

:p

What a shock coming from liberal taxachuetts. Isnt that state about to collaspe?

Massachussettes

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060405/hl_afp/ushealthinsurance_060405202034

The law is built on compromise between republicans and democrats. This is just an example of what can happen when people are willing to compromise their political views. These saw something, their own ideologies would not have worked but would have made shit worse, way worse. They talked it over in the legislature, they were willing to compromise their ideology and political beliefs (both sides did) and they were able to pass a law that gives healthcare to every single person in the state of Massachussettes. These people are good example of what happens you put bitter ideological partisanship and hatred aside for the common good. These legilators are an example for other politicians around America and the will on the subject of why compromise is always good and never bad.
I hope this massachussets thing really works out. then, we can have a model for the entire country. And if the governor of mass, Mitt Romney, ran for president, he'd sure as hell have my vote (provided that the massachusets system is successful)

What a shock coming from liberal taxachuetts. Isnt that state about to collaspe?
Not even close to collapse. Besides, what's wrong with giving everyone healthcare?

This could be really bad for the country, because the system is being financed partially by Medicaid which is already a fiscal time bomb; if more states do this the burden will be increased immensely and the costs to consumers, taxes paid, and possibly inflation will accelerate considerably.

While done with the best of intentions, I fear this will have serious repercussions for consumers and the larger economy in the future.

What a shock coming from liberal taxachuetts. Isnt that state about to collaspe?

Yes. We have our Republimorman governor, Mitt Romney, to thank for that.

Not even close to collapse. Besides, what's wrong with giving everyone healthcare?
Nothing I suppose as long as its quality and doesnt cost alot. But why force people to be covered? I dont want insurance, so I dont have any, seems kinda unAmerican to me, but that is just me.

Not even close to collapse. Besides, what's wrong with giving everyone healthcare?

Because it encourages all those lazy, poor people to loaf around on life-support instead of working for a living.

Nothing I suppose as long as its quality and doesnt cost alot. But why force people to be covered? I dont want insurance, so I dont have any, seems kinda unAmerican to me, but that is just me.
That's like saying that you don't want education, so you don't even have to attend elementary school.

Because it encourages all those lazy, poor people to loaf around on life-support instead of working for a living.
Well, I see your point, but what about their kids? Should the kids suffer bad health simply because their parents are lazy oafs?

Well, I see your point, but what about their kids? Should the kids suffer bad health simply because their parents are lazy oafs?

If those kids were kept busy sweeping chimneys or shoveling nuclear waste then they wouldn't claim to be ill half as often. Banning child labour has created a generation of cry-babies.

Well, I see your point, but what about their kids? Should the kids suffer bad health simply because their parents are lazy oafs?
sounds like someone should have had better parents.../sarcasm

One step closer to Canadianizing you Americans!

TAKE THAT!

If those kids were kept busy sweeping chimneys or shoveling nuclear waste then they wouldn't claim to be ill half as often. Banning child labour has created a generation of cry-babies.

Randomlittleisland, your sarcasm is palpable even through my laptop screen.:p

If those kids were kept busy sweeping chimneys or shoveling nuclear waste then they wouldn't claim to be ill half as often. Banning child labour has created a generation of cry-babies.
And if those kids were sweeping chimneys then they wouldn't be in school, and they wouldn't have a chance to get good jobs, and...healthcare. It's a vicious circle.

sounds like someone should have had better parents.../sarcasm
naw...my parents are alright. they've done the best they good for me.

It's a vicious circle.
of freedom

Randomlittleisland, your sarcasm is palpable even through my laptop screen.:p

I knew I was pushing it with 'shovelling nuclear waste'. :D

of freedom
you took my quote out of context. way out of context.

And if those kids were sweeping chimneys then they wouldn't be in school, and they wouldn't have a chance to get good jobs, and...healthcare. It's a vicious circle.

Don't you love freedom? You're no better than the terrorists.

you took my quote out of context. way out of context.

That's what he's here for.

That's what he's here for.
you heard it hear 1st, Im here to spread freedom

you took my quote out of context. way out of context.
or did I just put it in the context you meant to put it in?

And if those kids were sweeping chimneys then they wouldn't be in school, and they wouldn't have a chance to get good jobs, and...healthcare. It's a vicious circle.

Just checking...you realise he was being sarcastic...right?

Our Governor here in Michigan wants to do something similar, but we just can't afford it, what with our 6.6% unemployment and declining revenues due to the collapsing American auto industry.

or did I just put it in the context you meant to put it in?

No. Just took it out of context. It's what he said; if he'd meant to say something else, he would have typed that.

Wow, why is Massachusetts the only state to have anything good happen in it?

In a sense, any kind of liberal (in the original sense of the word) policy, like freedom of speech, or of the press, is a grand compromise. You have the right to read Hustler, but that does not mean it is the most efficient use of your time, or will make you happy, or will save your eternal soul. The idea is, if you read Hustler, and your love life suffers, or your kids hate you, or you get struck by lightning as punishment, hey, that's your problem.

Also, if Bork were appointed to the Supreme Court, would you consider it morally right to assasinate him? I'm guessing no, because of your ability to compromise your personal beliefs for the sake of society. Compromise of some level is the essence of tolerance and peace, and the essence of any form of liberalism.

As to the original topic hijackers, I am a libertarian, so I don't like it. However, as a Texan, I don't care. Massachusetts can do whatever they want to, and who am I to stop it? If it works, I might take a closer look at it. If it doesn't, hey, it's your own fault for messing with the market forces.
I am not libertarian. However, I second your point.

Just checking...you realise he was being sarcastic...right?
oh, shit, no, i didn't. i do hope i haven't made a fool out of myself.

you heard it hear 1st, Im here to spread freedom
But not the freedom to have a long healthy life?

But not the freedom to have a long healthy life?
I dont follow

finaaly something like canada....will it work though?

Because it encourages all those lazy, poor people to loaf around on life-support instead of working for a living.
tell that to the conservative republicans who voted for the law

oh, shit, no, i didn't. i do hope i haven't made a fool out of myself.

Touche

Wow, why is Massachusetts the only state to have anything good happen in it?

Some form of State Darwinism?

I dont follow
I'm talking about universal healthcare, and all of a sudden, you make this about freedom, which is a completely different topic, and hardly related (somewhat related, but not enough to bring it up). You're just trying to steer the discussion away from the real issue, which is (get ready): universal healthcare!!!:headbang:

Wow, why is Massachusetts the only state to have anything good happen in it?

Because I'm here.

In a theoretical world, universal healthcare is good. However, in the real world, one full of abuse and other bad stuff, it's more bad than good. It's bad for the economy. It will hurt other, much more needed, government projects. It will be too easily abused. I live in America. Most Americans have to pay for their healthcare, unless they are old enough to get it for free. I believe France is much more socialist. I think they have some form of universal healthcare. The difference between the US and France. In France, everytime a non-Socialist law is announced that could help lower unemployment by taking away the risk associated with hiring young workers, riots break out with spoiled commies breaking everything. They are too spoiled with having alot of things garanteed. They're losing garanteed employment. Employers are now being given the right to fire youmg, lazy workers. The young are told that they have to work as hard as older workers now. They're rioting.

In the US, we are much more capitalistic. There is a much lower risk associated with hiring people because because employers can fire any college student for almost any non-racist/sexist reason. As a result, America, with its much larger population(third largest in the world, behind India and China) and much worse economy, has a much lower unemplyment rate.

Sometimes, socialist ideals are good. Sometimes, they are bad. In order to create the best possible nation, a balance between the two is needed. Too far right and we have a repeat of the industiral revolution's badside. Too far left and riots can spark almost instantly from almost anything. Plus, too-far leftist ideas harm the economy.

Because it encourages all those lazy, poor people to loaf around on life-support instead of working for a living.
This may be the funniest thing I read today.

Employers are now being given the right to fire youmg, lazy workers. The young are told that they have to work as hard as older workers now. They're rioting.

Not exactly correct, employers have always had the right to fire lazy workers what the riots in France concern is that employers can fire a worker with no reason given whatsoever.

Our Governor here in Michigan wants to do something similar, but we just can't afford it, what with our 6.6% unemployment and declining revenues due to the collapsing American auto industry.

You can thank the Unions for that.

As to Mass., I'll have to wait for results before I can say it was a good idea or not. The plan sounds good but most plans do before they fail.

You can thank the Unions for that.

Damnit, I hate it when I agree with Corneliu. Though, I will say, GM management has been pretty incompetent the last 20 years or so, too.

Damnit, I hate it when I agree with Corneliu. Though, I will say, GM management has been pretty incompetent the last 20 years or so, too.

Them too.

In a theoretical world, universal healthcare is good. However, in the real world, one full of abuse and other bad stuff, it's more bad than good. It's bad for the economy. It will hurt other, much more needed, government projects. It will be too easily abused. I live in America. Most Americans have to pay for their healthcare, unless they are old enough to get it for free. I believe France is much more socialist. I think they have some form of universal healthcare. The difference between the US and France. In France, everytime a non-Socialist law is announced that could help lower unemployment by taking away the risk associated with hiring young workers, riots break out with spoiled commies breaking everything. They are too spoiled with having alot of things garanteed. They're losing garanteed employment. Employers are now being given the right to fire youmg, lazy workers. The young are told that they have to work as hard as older workers now. They're rioting.

In the US, we are much more capitalistic. There is a much lower risk associated with hiring people because because employers can fire any college student for almost any non-racist/sexist reason. As a result, America, with its much larger population(third largest in the world, behind India and China) and much worse economy, has a much lower unemplyment rate.

Sometimes, socialist ideals are good. Sometimes, they are bad. In order to create the best possible nation, a balance between the two is needed. Too far right and we have a repeat of the industiral revolution's badside. Too far left and riots can spark almost instantly from almost anything. Plus, too-far leftist ideas harm the economy.
well, in britain, their system seems to be working just fine. with proper oversight, it would work.

You can thank the Unions for that.

I blame the Unions for being inflexible in changing with the global economy. I also blame the automakers for not making cars that sell.

But above all I blame the changes to the global economy. Manufacturing is going out in the West, and manufacturing makes up around 40% of Michigan's GDP.

I blame the Unions for being inflexible in changing with the global economy. I also blame the automakers for not making cars that sell.

Specifically, that the automakers have 19 trillion different marquees that all have the same models of cars that don't sell.

oh, shit, no, i didn't. i do hope i haven't made a fool out of myself.

I realise that it's hard to recognise sarcasm online, especially when the UN Ambassadorship's in the thread. However, I did expect you to catch on after I wrote: "If those kids were kept busy sweeping chimneys or shoveling nuclear waste". ;)

Yes. We have our Republimorman governor, Mitt Romney, to thank for that.
Who anywhere else would probably be running as a democrat.

Our Governor here in Michigan wants to do something similar, but we just can't afford it, what with our 6.6% unemployment and declining revenues due to the collapsing American auto industry.
Which, incidentally, is collapsing from the Union stranglehold and a lack of automation that's rather sad.