Politics

[irishpat183]

Hope is clearly that the mandate will broaden the base and offset the influx of costly patients, unfortunately for you, and other young adults,( who use insurance very little) unless you get the low income subsidy youll be paying more than you "should" or wouldve before

And how is that "affordable"?


This is my problem with this. Becuase guess what? All those younger, healthier peopel will just drop their coverage, pay the fine, and we'll be right back where we started. Where we have a large segment that isn't covered.

Because that was the goal, right? To have EVERYONE covered. (think "people dying in the streets")

It's like the left and our government didn't think this through.


(not that you personally agree with the ACA, just asking a question)

 

[Irish Houstonian]

And the GOP shutdown cost the economy $24 billion. That must be super-extra-mega-tea-party criminal.

Funny, that's almost exactly what the 6 month Gulf Moratorium cost in 2012, not including the tens of thousands of jobs.

 

[irishpat183]

Obamacare Facts Show No Matter How You Fudge the Data, It's Bad For Young People - PolicyMic

 

[DSully1995]

And how is that "affordable"?


This is my problem with this. Becuase guess what? All those younger, healthier peopel will just drop their coverage, pay the fine, and we'll be right back where we started. Where we have a large segment that isn't covered.

Because that was the goal, right? To have EVERYONE covered. (think "people dying in the streets")

It's like the left and our government didn't think this through.


(not that you personally agree with the ACA, just asking a question)

I dont agree with it. Was just trying to state the objective goal. They arent trying to make healtcare affordable, they are trying to win elections, those people who get (now) cheaper coverage than before because they have pre-existing conditions will see huge benefit and vote democrat. The ones who didnt have PEC (their hope) is that their plan increase a bit.

Its a classic government dilemma, the special interest (affordable care for PEC) outweighs the general interest (having the most cost effective/efficient healthcare)

 

[irishpat183]

I dont agree with it. Was just trying to state the objective goal. They arent trying to make healtcare affordable, they are trying to win elections, those people who get (now) cheaper coverage than before because they have pre-existing conditions will see huge benefit and vote democrat. The ones who didnt have PEC (their hope) is that their plan increase a bit.

Its a classic government dilemma, the special interest (affordable care for PEC) outweighs the general interest (having the most cost effective/efficient healthcare)

And having access to quality care. We haven't even mentioned the strain on that..

 

[GoIrish41]

I dont agree with it. Was just trying to state the objective goal. They arent trying to make healtcare affordable, they are trying to win elections, those people who get (now) cheaper coverage than before because they have pre-existing conditions will see huge benefit and vote democrat. The ones who didnt have PEC (their hope) is that their plan increase a bit.

Its a classic government dilemma, the special interest (affordable care for PEC) outweighs the general interest (having the most cost effective/efficient healthcare)

I don't see it this way. Politically, isn't the promise of providing universal healthcare better than actually, as many are saying, haphazardly jaming a plan through that will "harm the economy" and "screws people over"? You are suggesting that the party in the majority in the Senate and White House are committing potential political suicide, not acting in a way that would suggest they are just trying to win elections.

Eventually everyone will be older and almost everyone will eventually have a pre-existing condition, too. I also think it is funny to consider people with pre-existing conditions as a special interest group, but I won't go into that right now. These young people who it is being suggested will pay more now (I don't fully agree with this premise) will not get overcharged for insurance when they get older or have a pre-exisiting condition. I'm not sure I have a huge problem with that.

 

[NDFANnSouthWest]

Medicaid applications are spiking this is really really bad....this ACA is now competing with other gov programs. No matter what your political views are this is going to end bad for America.

 

[phgreek]

I don't see it this way. Politically, isn't the promise of providing universal healthcare better than actually, as many are saying, haphazardly jaming a plan through that will "harm the economy" and "screws people over"? You are suggesting that the party in the majority in the Senate and White House are committing potential political suicide, not acting in a way that would suggest they are just trying to win elections.

Eventually everyone will be older and almost everyone will eventually have a pre-existing condition, too. I also think it is funny to consider people with pre-existing conditions as a special interest group, but I won't go into that right now. These young people who it is being suggested will pay more now (I don't fully agree with this premise) will not get overcharged for insurance when they get older or have a pre-exisiting condition. I'm not sure I have a huge problem with that.

Lets assume it goes as you say...

does that jive with the claim that healthcare would be $2500 cheaper per household? This kind of chicanery has been a big part of my heartburn all along...Don't you think there is something fundamentally wrong with having to lie to get support...it seemed to be wrong when it got us into the gulf war, and while healthcare is obviously a better thing than war...walking us into another financial black hole, with no accountability, is probably not a good idea...not only that, it is clear no one at the helm understands how to scale and project much of anything...shouldn't that cause you pause regarding all the things that have been offered as justification for our ability to do this as well as the availability of physicians?

we seem to always come to a point where no COST or risk is deterrent for folks who want ACA...and that is BAD!

 

[GoIrish41]

Lets assume it goes as you say...

does that jive with the claim that healthcare would be $2500 cheaper per household? This kind of chicanery has been a big part of my heartburn all along...Don't you think there is something fundamentally wrong with having to lie to get support...it seemed to be wrong when it got us into the gulf war, and while healthcare is obviously a better thing than war...walking us into another financial black hole, with no accountability, is probably not a good idea...not only that, it is clear no one at the helm understands how to scale and project much of anything...shouldn't that cause you pause regarding all the things that have been offered as justification for our ability to do this as well as the availability of physicians?

we seem to always come to a point where no COST or risk is deterrent for folks who want ACA...and that is BAD!

To be clear, I am not saying it will go one way or another. I'm saying that the Democrats believe it will go as they predict and not as detractors to ACA predict. I don't think they are lying (even if many do) because they believe what they are saying. Even if they are wrong, it isn't really the same thing as being dishonest. Further, I think that it would not make political sense for them to sell the country a faulty bill of goods and it would be better to have the prospect of healthcare hanging in the air rather than to force a knowingly bad product on the American people. I am not sure you are correct in your assumption that this will lead to a financial black hole either. That remains to be seen. I am angry that the roleout did not go as it should have, because I view this law as the best chance this nation has ever had to do something big on the healthcare front, and a collective bad experience for the nation could potentially cost this promise another 20 or 30 years. I believe that the problems will be fixed, the ACA will be successful and the new benefits will be wildly popular.

 

[Black Irish]

To be clear, I am not saying it will go one way or another. I'm saying that the Democrats believe it will go as they predict and not as detractors to ACA predict. I don't think they are lying (even if many do) because they believe what they are saying. Even if they are wrong, it isn't really the same thing as being dishonest. Further, I think that it would not make political sense for them to sell the country a faulty bill of goods and it would be better to have the prospect of healthcare hanging in the air rather than to force a knowingly bad product on the American people. I am not sure you are correct in your assumption that this will lead to a financial black hole either. That remains to be seen. I am angry that the roleout did not go as it should have, because I view this law as the best chance this nation has ever had to do something big on the healthcare front, and a collective bad experience for the nation could potentially cost this promise another 20 or 30 years. I believe that the problems will be fixed, the ACA will be successful and the new benefits will be wildly popular.

Here is the problem I have. First, I am not attacking you personally, because I think you have very accurately described the intentions and mindset of those who framed and support the ACA.

-You say "I don't believe they are lying...they believe what they say." I agree with that. The people behind the ACA in particular and universal gov't controlled healthcare in general really do believe it is the best solution. The problem is that so many of them refuse to look at other data or viewpoints. How many times have we heard other options get blindly written off as "GOP talking points" "Fox News misinformation" ignorance, racism, and so forth. So while those on the left may not be lying, their narrow view and partisanship makes them no less right or credible.

-"I view this law as the best chance this nation has ever had to do something big on the healthcare front..." That's the language of political opportunity. Politicians want to get re-elected, but even more so, they want to leave a lasting legacy. They may want to help people, but many of them also want to serve their egos as much if not more so. Also, the problem with so many on the Left is that the solution is almost always: 1.) Big 2.) Instituted and controlled by the federal government. You don't get monuments erected in your name by solving problems through small, piecemeal solutions, even it would be more effective. Give more control to states? Remove barriers to commerce that would drive down consumer prices and increase access? Create a smaller-scale gov't program that would deal directly with those with pre-existing conditions without roping in everyone else? No. That would not be big, bold, and memorable. The New Deal style of governing seems to be the only one that the Democrats have known for the past 80 years. In my view, it has not been successful.

-"the ACA will be successful and the new benefits will be wildly popular." That would be great, but at what cost? Will it be because an environment has been created that no better alternatives exist? Will we wind up with another Social Security program? A program in which so many are blind to the problems because they want so hard to believe that their benefit is not a huge drain on the Treasury, and that the numbers are juggled in downright criminal ways to make it appear so? Will it get to the point that a mediocre healthcare system can not be replaced by a good one because people have become too complacent and dependent on that mediocrity?

If the ACA turns out great and things improve dramatically, I'm all for that. But I seriously doubt that will happen. It is bad legislation which is being executed poorly, and we are seeing more problems than benefits right now. At what point can we call it a failure? By the standard logic of the Left, never. The excuse will always be that there wasn't enough money, we need more time, we need more control. Probably 10-20 years from now, we'll still be hearing excuses and justifications about how the ACA is "almost there." And the country will be worse off because of it.

 

[johnnycando]

Medicaid applications are spiking this is really really bad....this ACA is now competing with other gov programs. No matter what your political views are this is going to end bad for America.

The dumba$$es that voted for the dumba$$es carry the burden.

Us: we'll just pay for it.

 

[phgreek]

Here is the problem I have. First, I am not attacking you personally, because I think you have very accurately described the intentions and mindset of those who framed and support the ACA.

-You say "I don't believe they are lying...they believe what they say." I agree with that. The people behind the ACA in particular and universal gov't controlled healthcare in general really do believe it is the best solution. The problem is that so many of them refuse to look at other data or viewpoints. How many times have we heard other options get blindly written off as "GOP talking points" "Fox News misinformation" ignorance, racism, and so forth. So while those on the left may not be lying, their narrow view and partisanship makes them no less right or credible.

-"I view this law as the best chance this nation has ever had to do something big on the healthcare front..." That's the language of political opportunity. Politicians want to get re-elected, but even more so, they want to leave a lasting legacy. They may want to help people, but many of them also want to serve their egos as much if not more so. Also, the problem with so many on the Left is that the solution is almost always: 1.) Big 2.) Instituted and controlled by the federal government. You don't get monuments erected in your name by solving problems through small, piecemeal solutions, even it would be more effective. Give more control to states? Remove barriers to commerce that would drive down consumer prices and increase access? Create a smaller-scale gov't program that would deal directly with those with pre-existing conditions without roping in everyone else? No. That would not be big, bold, and memorable. The New Deal style of governing seems to be the only one that the Democrats have known for the past 80 years. In my view, it has not been successful.

-"the ACA will be successful and the new benefits will be wildly popular." That would be great, but at what cost? Will it be because an environment has been created that no better alternatives exist? Will we wind up with another Social Security program? A program in which so many are blind to the problems because they want so hard to believe that their benefit is not a huge drain on the Treasury, and that the numbers are juggled in downright criminal ways to make it appear so? Will it get to the point that a mediocre healthcare system can not be replaced by a good one because people have become too complacent and dependent on that mediocrity?

If the ACA turns out great and things improve dramatically, I'm all for that. But I seriously doubt that will happen. It is bad legislation which is being executed poorly, and we are seeing more problems than benefits right now. At what point can we call it a failure? By the standard logic of the Left, never. The excuse will always be that there wasn't enough money, we need more time, we need more control. Probably 10-20 years from now, we'll still be hearing excuses and justifications about how the ACA is "almost there." And the country will be worse off because of it.

...YES

 

[GoIrish41]

Here is the problem I have. First, I am not attacking you personally, because I think you have very accurately described the intentions and mindset of those who framed and support the ACA.

-You say "I don't believe they are lying...they believe what they say." I agree with that. The people behind the ACA in particular and universal gov't controlled healthcare in general really do believe it is the best solution. The problem is that so many of them refuse to look at other data or viewpoints. How many times have we heard other options get blindly written off as "GOP talking points" "Fox News misinformation" ignorance, racism, and so forth. So while those on the left may not be lying, their narrow view and partisanship makes them no less right or credible.

-"I view this law as the best chance this nation has ever had to do something big on the healthcare front..." That's the language of political opportunity. Politicians want to get re-elected, but even more so, they want to leave a lasting legacy. They may want to help people, but many of them also want to serve their egos as much if not more so. Also, the problem with so many on the Left is that the solution is almost always: 1.) Big 2.) Instituted and controlled by the federal government. You don't get monuments erected in your name by solving problems through small, piecemeal solutions, even it would be more effective. Give more control to states? Remove barriers to commerce that would drive down consumer prices and increase access? Create a smaller-scale gov't program that would deal directly with those with pre-existing conditions without roping in everyone else? No. That would not be big, bold, and memorable. The New Deal style of governing seems to be the only one that the Democrats have known for the past 80 years. In my view, it has not been successful.

-"the ACA will be successful and the new benefits will be wildly popular." That would be great, but at what cost? Will it be because an environment has been created that no better alternatives exist? Will we wind up with another Social Security program? A program in which so many are blind to the problems because they want so hard to believe that their benefit is not a huge drain on the Treasury, and that the numbers are juggled in downright criminal ways to make it appear so? Will it get to the point that a mediocre healthcare system can not be replaced by a good one because people have become too complacent and dependent on that mediocrity?

If the ACA turns out great and things improve dramatically, I'm all for that. But I seriously doubt that will happen. It is bad legislation which is being executed poorly, and we are seeing more problems than benefits right now. At what point can we call it a failure? By the standard logic of the Left, never. The excuse will always be that there wasn't enough money, we need more time, we need more control. Probably 10-20 years from now, we'll still be hearing excuses and justifications about how the ACA is "almost there." And the country will be worse off because of it.

They tried to give more control to states, and many, many red states refused to step up to the plate. One could argue that the exchanges that are working best right now are being run by the states. This doesn't fit with the "states right" argument.

If the ACA is a successful than social security has been for this country, history will be very favorable to the President. Is he swinging for the fences to get a statue in the Capitol -- maybe. But, at the end of the day that really doesn't matter much to me because I agree with doing something big on healthcare. It has been broken so badly for so long that it has become a big problem in need of a big solution. Piecemeal approaches rarely are effective when a problem requires a comprehensive solution because it is broken at so many levels that all intertwine.

If it is a failure, I will be right there with you saying it is a failure. We can both call it a failure together, but lets give it a reasonable amount of time to be implemented before we do. Coverage won't even begin for the earliest of those who signed up until January. We have to give this at least a few years to play out if we are going to give it a legitimate chance to succeed.

 

[T Town Tommy]

This President will go down as the the worst modern day President in history. And after Carter and Bush, Jr I didn't think that was possible.

He doesn't need the ACA to be successful in order to preserve his legacy. It has already went down the toilet with his inability to move the economy forward, huge budget deficits, Bengazi, the IRS scandal, the NSA scandal, etc. What's worse, the true extend of how bad he damaged our country won't truly be known for at least a decade. I feel for the next couple of Presidents that have to come in and clean his mess up.

 

[ACamp1900]

This President will go down as the the worst modern day President in history. And after Carter and Bush, Jr I didn't think that was possible.

He doesn't need the ACA to be successful in order to preserve his legacy. It has already went down the toilet with his inability to move the economy forward, huge budget deficits, Bengazi, the IRS scandal, the NSA scandal, etc. What's worse, the true extend of how bad he damaged our country won't truly be known for at least a decade. I feel for the next couple of Presidents that have to come in and clean his mess up.

Haven't you heard... If only the red states would have worked with him (sat down, shut up, and given him his way on everything) and not been such racist haters, he'd have been the most successful leader in world history...

 

[T Town Tommy]

Haven't you heard... If only the red states would have worked with him (sat down, shut up, and given him his way on everything) and not been such racist haters, he'd have been the most successful leader in world history...

Yep. And therein lies his failures. He has no ability to build a consensus because he has no willingness to entertain other options instead of the socialist garbage he wants our county to become. All he needs to do is look across the pond at Europe for a case study in
socialist-economic policies and how it has failed so miserably.

 

[BGIF]

This President will go down as the the worst modern day President in history. And after Carter and Bush, Jr I didn't think that was possible.

Wow! That is an indictment.

He doesn't need the ACA to be successful in order to preserve his legacy. It has already went down the toilet with his inability to move the economy forward, huge budget deficits, Bengazi, the IRS scandal, the NSA scandal, etc. What's worse, the true extend of how bad he damaged our country won't truly be known for at least a decade. I feel for the next couple of Presidents that have to come in and clean his mess up.

Whoa, whoa, woe!

Everyone knows the economy was Bush's fault.

Hugh deficit's belonged to Bush and The Trickle Down Guy, Reagan.

Bengazi? Wasn't an issue really, as the U.S. had no Embassy, no Consulate, or any other kind of diplomatic facility in Bengazi, there was only a ... CIA station. So nothing existed. Besides, "what difference does it make?" Everyone knows the CIA was Harry Truman's and FDR's baby (OSS).

IRS scandal? That started with a Republican's brainstorm, see Lincoln.

NSA scandal? Another Truman offspring.

ACA mess? No way, Al Gore invented computers.

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

Yep. And therein lies his failures. He has no ability to build a consensus because he has no willingness to entertain other options instead of the socialist garbage he wants our county to become. All he needs to do is look across the pond at Europe for a case study in
socialist-economic policies and how it has failed so miserably.

That's nonsense. He's actually been pretty moderate.

 

[Wild Bill]

That's nonsense. He's actually been pretty moderate.

Please explain.

 

[ACamp1900]

That's nonsense. He's actually been pretty moderate compared to Stalin

Fify...

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...2oDIAQ&usg=AFQjCNHhw-JVvPnUzK0v6yImkzRZfq9NZg

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...2oDIAQ&usg=AFQjCNFiH4HY89zOLIWVcXH-Qekeb6wFfg

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...n4GgAg&usg=AFQjCNEz1BCnQfnNPidjaNDsLFA96UDXwQ

 

[Buster Bluth]

Yep. And therein lies his failures. He has no ability to build a consensus because he has no willingness to entertain other options instead of the socialist garbage he wants our county to become. All he needs to do is look across the pond at Europe for a case study in
socialist-economic policies and how it has failed so miserably.

Strawman argument and mostly bullshit at that.

 

[T Town Tommy]

Strawman argument and mostly bullshit at that.

That's exactly what the Prez would say too. Care to elaborate? I haven't seen him reach across the aisle in five years. And the way he has moved this country towards Socialism is exactly what Europe was doing 20 years ago. How's that worked out for them?

 

[phgreek]

Wow! That is an indictment.




Whoa, whoa, woe!

Everyone knows the economy was Bush's fault.

Hugh deficit's belonged to Bush and The Trickle Down Guy, Reagan.

Bengazi? Wasn't an issue really, as the U.S. had no Embassy, no Consulate, or any other kind of diplomatic facility in Bengazi, there was only a ... CIA station. So nothing existed. Besides, "what difference does it make?" Everyone knows the CIA was Harry Truman's and FDR's baby (OSS).

IRS scandal? That started with a Republican's brainstorm, see Lincoln.

NSA scandal? Another Truman offspring.

ACA mess? No way, Al Gore invented computers.

well look who decided to bring his brand of sarcasm to the party...
...popcorn please

 

[Buster Bluth]

That's exactly what the Prez would say too. Care to elaborate? I haven't seen him reach across the aisle in five years.

Listen I'm not an Obama fan at all. But you're kidding yourself if you think the Republicans really want to work with him. It's totally irrelevant if he wants to work with the GOP or not, it's not like either party has had a good idea in my lifetime.

And the way he has moved this country towards Socialism is exactly what Europe was doing 20 years ago.

I don't think you could elaborate on this if you tried. That's a real challenge by the way; I'm not joking.

How's that worked out for them?

I'd say pretty well. Socialism isn't what is ruining them. You might be forgetting that the EU GDP is about a trillion dollars higher than our GDP, and the Euro compared to the Dollar is doing quite well. And they do that despite inheriting countries which spent the last half century under communist rule and several in civil wars right up until a few years ago. Not too shabby.

You're also kidding yourself if you don't think Europe is a capitalist place. Capitalism certainly isn't the opposite of socialism. Where do you get this notion that the economies of places like Germany aren't supremely robust?

Things haven't worked out too well here if you haven't noticed. The good jobs are harder and harder to find as our tremendous capitalism automatizes more and more people out of the workplace ("blame Obama!").

But no, let's just continue to ignorantly assume that having to live our lives within the confines of what the corporate interests allow is way better than realizing we live in a society and should make policies accordingly.

 

[irishpat183]

Listen I'm not an Obama fan at all. But you're kidding yourself if you think the Republicans really want to work with him. It's totally irrelevant if he wants to work with the GOP or not, it's not like either party has had a good idea in my lifetime.



I don't think you could elaborate on this if you tried. That's a real challenge by the way; I'm not joking.



I'd say pretty well. Socialism isn't what is ruining them. You might be forgetting that the EU GDP is about a trillion dollars higher than our GDP, and the Euro compared to the Dollar is doing quite well. And they do that despite inheriting countries which spent the last half century under communist rule and several in civil wars right up until a few years ago. Not too shabby.

You're also kidding yourself if you don't think Europe is a capitalist place. Capitalism certainly isn't the opposite of socialism. Where do you get this notion that the economies of places like Germany aren't supremely robust?

Things haven't worked out too well here if you haven't noticed. The good jobs are harder and harder to find as our tremendous capitalism automatizes more and more people out of the workplace ("blame Obama!").

But no, let's just continue to ignorantly assume that having to live our lives within the confines of what the corporate interests allow is way better than realizing we live in a society and should make policies accordingly.

Um...the Euro is in shambles as well (who saw that coming)...but all paper currency based on credit is garbage.

And I won't even go into the countries that are on the verge of economic collapse or banks not letting people take their money.


And don't start with the blame obama crap...I"ve been listening to idiotic libs blaming bush for everything since Obama took office. It's about time that Obama and the left has started to actually feel the burn and accept SOME (not all) of the responsibility of train wrecking this country.

 

[BobD]

At the current exchange the Euro is worth almost 40% more than a US Dollar......shambles?

 

[Buster Bluth]

Um...the Euro is in shambles as well (who saw that coming)...but all paper currency based on credit is garbage.

I lol'd.

And I won't even go into the countries that are on the verge of economic collapse or banks not letting people take their money.

And if we're comparing countries...wasn't the US there just a few years ago? Just because we were there first doesn't give us the right to scoff at them.

Regardless, the EU isn't just Greece, Portugal, etc. Now they are in, financially speaking, a very bad place because of how it's all tied together with the Euro. But it's not too different than our banking crisis in the since that all fifty states would have bitten the dust (insert "NOT TEXAS!! Muahahaha!!!") as they're tied together by the USD.

Double regardless, it's totally irrelevant because it's a banking issue and not the result of being "socialist." Is Obama openly trying to turn the US into Europe a la making retarded banking policies that America just wouldn't do without him in power? Uhhhh no.

And don't start with the blame obama crap...I"ve been listening to idiotic libs blaming bush for everything since Obama took office. It's about time that Obama and the left has started to actually feel the burn and accept SOME (not all) of the responsibility of train wrecking this country.

Or, it's time we all put on our thinking caps and say "Well if it's not Obama's fault, and it's not Bush's fault...can it be something else? Or, perhaps, both?"

 

[DSully1995]

At the current exchange the Euro is worth almost 40% more than a US Dollar......shambles?

That means nothing, its all about its relative appreciation based on the past value.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Listen I'm not an Obama fan at all. But you're kidding yourself if you think the Republicans really want to work with him. It's totally irrelevant if he wants to work with the GOP or not, it's not like either party has had a good idea in my lifetime.



I don't think you could elaborate on this if you tried. That's a real challenge by the way; I'm not joking.



I'd say pretty well. Socialism isn't what is ruining them. You might be forgetting that the EU GDP is about a trillion dollars higher than our GDP, and the Euro compared to the Dollar is doing quite well. And they do that despite inheriting countries which spent the last half century under communist rule and several in civil wars right up until a few years ago. Not too shabby.

You're also kidding yourself if you don't think Europe is a capitalist place. Capitalism certainly isn't the opposite of socialism. Where do you get this notion that the economies of places like Germany aren't supremely robust?

Things haven't worked out too well here if you haven't noticed. The good jobs are harder and harder to find as our tremendous capitalism automatizes more and more people out of the workplace ("blame Obama!").

But no, let's just continue to ignorantly assume that having to live our lives within the confines of what the corporate interests allow is way better than realizing we live in a society and should make policies accordingly.

1) Socialism isn't ruining them? Hahahahahaha. What is, the robust growing economy? Are you friggin nuts? Outside of Germany, the EU is a joke. The socialist nanny state is going belly up, and fast. They have college students in their 30's, they retire at 50, and can't figure out why everyone in between can't pay for everything. Greece, Spain, Italy, France, sadly Ireland...all going downhill really fast. Not to mention, look at their demographics. The Europeans are really giving up on this having a family and kids model. Birth rates going down like crazy.

2) Things have declined here for a number of reasons, Buster, but painting the picture of our society already being like "I Robot" isn't 100% it. Our education system is garbage, we're not preparing young people for jobs in demand, we've got bigger cultural issues, we're apathetic, and we're electing self-serving Dbags who consistently spend more than they can bring in. SS, medicare, medicaid all broke by 2030. Throw in obamacare on top of those 3 and you've got the perfect storm for bad news ahead.

3) I don't know what kind of "corporate interests" influence your life and how you live it, but I'd say the only corporate entity that influences my life to a noticeable degree is ND Football haha.