And the Majority of America takes a SIGH of relief!

hanimmal said:

What was the condition?

I also know many people that have insurance and found they have issues and have had to wait months for treatment too, but that is in America, so I am not sure what that is telling us. Are you saying that if people have insurance, they will be able to get their problem treated, so they will use up time of other people that need it done too? Either way you slice it the system needs to accommodate them, if it doesn't someone is going without their needed surgery right?

Click to expand...

I'm saying that when you take a limited resource and greatly increase the demand for it, you had better be able to quickly increase the supply or you will have to ration it. it used to be that good insurance and access to good healthcare was something you earned in life. The goal of nationalized medicine is to make us all do without equally.

I'm saying that when you take a limited resource and greatly increase the demand for it, you had better be able to quickly increase the supply or you will have to ration it. it used to be that good insurance and access to good healthcare was something you earned in life. The goal of nationalized medicine is to make us all do without equally.

Click to expand...

Nothing will ever be equal. The people that can afford to pay for better service (by being able to fly to a hospital that can better take care of them, or expedience, or a higher level of insurance) will get it.

The goal of nationalized medicine for the sane (there are idiots that feel they will get the best) is to give a bare minimum level of care for everyone without exclusive use of expensive emergency rooms and bankruptcy courts.

You are unwilling to listen to a two-minute audio of an Obama supporter explaining the scheme to a friendly audience, and apparently refuse to even acknowledge the 10th Amendment.

Click to expand...

Jonny, jonny. I did listen to the clip, that is why I asked who/what/when/where, I missed the beginning screen, because I just listened to it (was just a picture of him). Did you notice that was in 2007? There was no public option back then, he was decscribing the way the system works today and had nothing to do with Obama or this bill.

And seriously did you not just mention the 10th amendment to me in this same post you just made? How could I duck it before you said it, didn't I make it clear I will bow to your knowledge (and many of the people on this site) of the constitution. I am just not bound to think that there are not things that happened after that counters that argument (like the fact there is medicare).

Robert Reich states clearly at the beginning that this is the way a candidate would explain the health care goals of Democrats if said candidate could be honest with voters.

Click to expand...

He said if a candidate was honest, not that was their goal. And not a Dem, nor Rep. Just someone being honest about how the system currently works.

When you listen to it again, can you not see how that view could be true? Don't insurance companies shy away from old people (because of how expensive they are), that is why the gov't had to come in with the medicare/aid for the people that 1. couldn't afford help, and 2. were so expensive due to advanced age that nobody would cover them.

hanimmal: I noticed you had no spin for incredible debt this admin is racking up.

Click to expand...

Spin, lol.

Anyway you can find it somewhere else. Look at the things that make GDP, and tell me how to have the same number of dollars in GDP, if business investing and consumer spending goes down a trillion dollars and our export/inport stays the same.

Obama now down to 45% support. And 77% of investors think he is anti-business. The dude is Icarus- who, in his arrogance, made wings of wax so he could fly. But he flew too close to the sun and the wings melted. Pride goeth before the fall.

Illegal Smile said:

Obama now down to 45% support. And 77% of investors think he is anti-business. The dude is Icarus- who, in his arrogance, made wings of wax so he could fly. But he flew too close to the sun and the wings melted. Pride goeth before the fall.

Click to expand...

Business needs reigned in. How is that not obvious to you? Of course investors won't like regulation, but it's absolutely necessary. Between the predatory practices and solidified grip-lock, they are some evil motherfuckers.

And yes, the Greeks both pitied and feared hubris, as is shown by Ovid's well-known poem Daedalus and Icarus. But the true hubris is, and was, being displayed by BUSINESS! Obama is responding. You're reacting to the results, not causes. Results, not causes. Results, not causes.

So tell me, what's the cause for Obama's decisions?

And BTW, Icarus did not make the wings of wax - he was a kid. His father, a renowned inventor, made the wings.

Johnnyorganic said:

One more thing.

Mandatory automobile insurance does not bother me because my state decided it was appropriate. It conforms to the Constitution. It is not Federally mandated.

If I did not like it I would move to New Hampshire.

Click to expand...

...and New Hampshire would welcome you. Live Free or Die !

Do you think it is acceptable for a STATE to mandate to the individual?

Rob Roy said:

...and New Hampshire would welcome you. Live Free or Die !

Do you think it is acceptable for a STATE to mandate to the individual?

Click to expand...

................I do.

kiss-ass

jrh72582 said:

So tell me, what's the cause for Obama's decisions?

Click to expand...

A lifetime of indoctrination by Progressive radicals?

ViRedd said:

kiss-ass

A lifetime of indoctrination by Progressive radicals?

Click to expand...

So do you think big business needed no regulation? No regulation for banks? No regulation for oil companies? No checks and balances? At least make your argument clear.

I have never heard the superiority of completely free, unchecked markets over checks and balances.

So where do you stand..........? Have you noticed the fallacy yet? There's a middle ground. Obama is attempting to tread the middle ground, but you careen over to the Aristotelian excess, misinterpreting his agenda, which in essence, is a balancing act.

Why do you misinterpret? Because you, like your buddy Jeff, refuse to consider any viewpoint other than those with right-wing origins. You see through one lens. Do you see how sad and limiting that must be?

cackpircings said:

I don’t understand how Mass goes from having Kennedy for all them years to Brown. Also they only thing Brown is going to do is block a national health care plan. What’s dumb about this is we already have a social heath care system that states run for underprivileged people that qualify for it. Nothing would change its night like all the people were going to run to the hospital if it passed? The same people would go to the hospital that do now. None the less I don’t give a shit, I mean after all this is the United Corporate states of America. That land where any interest group or lobbyist can buy the person they want into office and the laws they want in place. Nothing short of fucking stupid, and a slap in the face to all the men and woman that gave their lives to what they thought was for good of America

Click to expand...

I wholeheartedly agree - NOTHING will change, but all these guys get worked up over one guy or another. Nothing will change - they're all bought out. Why is it that positions cost more and more in America? It takes millions just to lose a damn senatorial seat. They (and by simple metonymy, WE) are owned.

lopezri said:

Oh, thank you God and all you wonderful Massachusettes people who voted for Brown! You've saved us! You've saved us!! You are the true Messiahs!!!!!

Click to expand...

I can't believe that somebody gave me a negative rep just for having my own opinion! Wow! We really are living in a socialist world now, aren't we?

lopezri said:

I can't believe that somebody gave me a negative rep just for having my own opinion! Wow! We really are living in a socialist world now, aren't we?

Click to expand...

Who cares? It's neg rep. So now getting neg. rep means we're socialist. What the fuck are you talking about?!?!

jrh72582 said:

So do you think big business needed no regulation? No regulation for banks? No regulation for oil companies? No checks and balances? At least make your argument clear.

I have never heard the superiority of completely free, unchecked markets over checks and balances.

So where do you stand..........? Have you noticed the fallacy yet? There's a middle ground. Obama is attempting to tread the middle ground, but you careen over to the Aristotelian excess, misinterpreting his agenda, which in essence, is a balancing act.

Why do you misinterpret? Because you, like your buddy Jeff, refuse to consider any viewpoint other than those with right-wing origins. You see through one lens. Do you see how sad and limiting that must be?

Click to expand...

This is what your question was:

So tell me, what's the cause for Obama's decisions?

And this was my answer ... actually a question: A lifetime of indoctrination by Progressive radicals?

And you come back with bullshit about lack of government control over business. Have you been keeping track of Obama's decisions? Who now owns General Motors? What part of security in investments and placement of lien holders upon liquidation or payoff don't you understand? What part of Progressive history don't you understand? Has it occurred to you yet that Obama and the policies he is representing is more akin to the policies and personality of Benito Mussolini than anything we've seen before in the presidency, save for Woodrow Wilson and FDR?

I was wondering, JRH, and perhaps you could fill me in ... Have you ever been in a business of your own and had to make a profit or provide a payroll?

ViRedd said:

This is what your question was:

So tell me, what's the cause for Obama's decisions?

And this was my answer ... actually a question: A lifetime of indoctrination by Progressive radicals?

And you come back with bullshit about lack of government control over business. Have you been keeping track of Obama's decisions? Who now owns General Motors? What part of security in investments and placement of lien holders upon liquidation or payoff don't you understand? What part of Progressive history don't you understand? Has it occurred to you yet that Obama and the policies he is representing is more akin to the policies and personality of Benito Mussolini than anything we've seen before in the presidency, save for Woodrow Wilson and FDR?

I was wondering, JRH, and perhaps you could fill me in ... Have you ever been in a business of your own and had to make a profit or provide a payroll?

Click to expand...

I fully understand the troubles of the SMALL business owner. But the government isn't keeping the small business owner from thriving. The huge corporations are keeping the small business owner from thriving.

And you continue to speak of this progressive indoctrination. Tell me, exactly, what you mean. You're claiming that EVERY school provides progressive indoctrination? Communicate your argument clearly and then I'll respond.

Why do big businesses get the blame for everything? Isn't it the lobbyists working with our government for these big businesses that is the problem? Some act like there is no blame on government, some even think more government is the solution.

jrh72582 said:

I fully understand the troubles of the SMALL business owner. But the government isn't keeping the small business owner from thriving. The huge corporations are keeping the small business owner from thriving.

And you continue to speak of this progressive indoctrination. Tell me, exactly, what you mean. You're claiming that EVERY school provides progressive indoctrination? Communicate your argument clearly and then I'll respond.

Click to expand...

Since you fully understand the troubles of the small business owner, can you explain? I am a small business owner and I think the lack of available credit, taxes, and bullshit regulations are hurting small business. All of this is governments fault.

kappainf said:

Why do big businesses get the blame for everything? Isn't it the lobbyists working with our government for these big businesses that is the problem? Some act like there is no blame on government, some even think more government is the solution.

Click to expand...

Oh, lobbyists and government are to blame as well. Business = lobbyists = government. They ALL share in the blame. My only argument is that government = business.

Total Lobbying Spending
1998 $1.44 Billion
1999 $1.44 Billion
2000 $1.56 Billion
2001 $1.64 Billion
2002 $1.82 Billion
2003 $2.05 Billion
2004 $2.18 Billion
2005 $2.43 Billion
2006 $2.62 Billion
2007 $2.86 Billion
2008 $3.30 Billion
2009 $2.51 Billion
Number of Lobbyists*
1998 10,405
1999 12,936
2000 12,444
2001 11,743
2002 12,050
2003 12,810
2004 13,078
2005 14,007
2006 14,444
2007 14,821
2008 14,443
2009 13,310

lopezri said:

I can't believe that somebody gave me a negative rep just for having my own opinion! Wow! We really are living in a socialist world now, aren't we?

Click to expand...

Welcome to reality. I was given Negative Rep TWICE a couple of weeks apart by what i assume is the same person for saying Obama is not a muslim.

https://www.rollitup.org/politics/281248-right-wingnut-who-keeps-giving.html#post3499669

kappainf said:

Since you fully understand the troubles of the small business owner, can you explain? I am a small business owner and I think the lack of available credit, taxes, and bullshit regulations are hurting small business. All of this is governments fault.

Click to expand...

What was the government responding to when creating these regulations. Results, not causes. You're addressing the results and have not identified the cause. Do you get it?