He says its going to cover everyone and its going to reduce the deficit at the same time. How can you not be in favor of both of those results?

He says its going to cover everyone and its going to reduce the deficit at the same time. How can you not be in favor of both of those results?

A joke? Or naivete?
Just because Obama says ANYTHING doesn't mean it's truthful. You DO know that right?

Plenty of people would say those are outright lies. I would probably agree with those people. How does creating universal healthcare reduce the deficit? I mean, really...
I have nothing against healthcare reform. I'm sure there's a few good things in there. I haven't read the 2000 page behemoth. I don't need to. Nothing that large should EVER EVER EVER be voted on. Especially when things are being added to it in closed-door meetings.

But at least it's not as blatantly stupid as the OXYMORON Act. :rolleyes: People who put together sweeping, Constitution-destroying legislation are dumb. People who expect others to vote on said legislation without providing written copies of the actual bill are dumb. People who would vote for said bill without having read the damn thing don't deserve to be in office and probably should be tried for treason.

I cheerfully invite anyone who actually thinks the above behavior of voting for radically transformative laws without even reading them is a good thing, to please do voice your opinion. I will state up front that you are... to put it lightly... :crazy:

The guy won the Nobel Peace Prize right before he continued the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. What makes you think he won't reduce government spending by providing the best healthcare money can buy for everyone in America?

Obama can do it. You will see! Obama will pay for all our bills! We won't have to worry! All you have to do is believe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI&feature=related

Or is it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiM7NHcRY58

The guy won the Nobel Peace Prize right before he continued the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. What makes you think he won't reduce government spending by providing the best healthcare money can buy for everyone in America?

Obama can do it. You will see! Obama will pay for all our bills! We won't have to worry! All you have to do is believe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI&feature=related

Or is it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiM7NHcRY58

The sarcasm is not obvious! ;)

Black lady... remember that... absolutely crazy.

White girl... kinda cute... kinda funny... let's run the lights all night...

for a second there it was almost as if joepistole had slipped into a different moniker

Well to be perfectly honest the main reason most people are against healthcare reform in the US is because the democrats are pushing for it, therefor it must be wrong and evil. Some are even inclined to believe that healthcare reform is in fact being pushed by just one man, and evil communist/fascist Kenyan national who as taken control of the US via voodoo magic.

Who to blame for this kind of paranoia? The republicans, the insurance lobby, etc, take your pick. We can't have a honest discussion in this country about the need to reduce health care prices and improve health care quality to that of other first world nations without having to resort to ad hominems. Obama is this, Obama is that, I don't care I just want to get affordable healthcare!

Well to be perfectly honest the main reason most people are against healthcare reform in the US is because the democrats are pushing for it, therefor it must be wrong and evil. Some are even inclined to believe that healthcare reform is in fact being pushed by just one man, and evil communist/fascist Kenyan national who as taken control of the US via voodoo magic.

Who to blame for this kind of paranoia? The republicans, the insurance lobby, etc, take your pick. We can't have a honest discussion in this country about the need to reduce health care prices and improve health care quality to that of other first world nations without having to resort to ad hominems. Obama is this, Obama is that, I don't care I just want to get affordable healthcare!

You are right on ElectricFetus!

And the people against it get into the weird shit like not being consitutional. You cannot make big changes. You cannot do this and you cannot do that completely ignoring what many others have done - like the rest of the world which has a more efficient and cost effective system of healthcare. I think the US is certianly as capable of doing anything thing else that our allies and other industrial countries have done.

I think the answer boils down to fear. Republicans and their industry allies have been exceptional at keeping Americans scared - wittness the posts by Giamattista. Frankly, it is time for Americans to wake up and stop falling victim to the politics of fear.

You are right on ElectricFetus!

And the people against it get into the weird shit like not being consitutional. You cannot make big changes.

But if we interpret our founding fathers, who were infallible, in a specific manner interpreting what they did not say was a right as meaning we can't have that right. So because are founding fathers did not say women could vote, therefor women do not have a right to vote, and because are founding fathers did not say we should have the right to medical care, we don't have the right and should never have that right.


Frankly, it is time for Americans to wake up and stop falling victim to the politics of fear.

Haha, fat chance.

I'm afraid of not responding to the politics of fear.

As for the OP: it's figured it will be "too expensive". And, given how things work, it probably will be. More or perhaps fewer people will not be helped by the plan, when it is or is not done, if it is indeed completely done and not partially.

He says its going to cover everyone and its going to reduce the deficit at the same time. How can you not be in favor of both of those results?

First, a correction: It's NOT Obama's plan! It would have been IF he had taken a leadership role (like he should have) instead of leaving it up to congress to muddle around, make backdoor deals and create the monstrosity that they have.

In my opinion, he completely dropped the ball on his promise and did so with purpose - after all, he's just another politician. This way, he can win, no matter what happens. If congress fails to pass it, he can blame congress. If congress DOES pass it and it turns out to be the eight-legged monster that half the country believes it will, he can STILL blame congress for the mess.

That's what a politician does for a living - make someone else responsible if a mess-up happens. But claim responsibility if things work out right. :shrug:

But if we interpret our founding fathers, who were infallible, in a specific manner interpreting what they did not say was a right as meaning we can't have that right. So because are founding fathers did not say women could vote, therefor women do not have a right to vote, and because are founding fathers did not say we should have the right to medical care, we don't have the right and should never have that right.

Haha, fat chance.

You may be right about the fat chance. But I figure if our military has the balls to put their life on the line for the benefit of the country, our politicians and voters should be brave enough to do the things needed to keep the country well.

Strangely these consitutional whackos have a dreadful lack of understanding in regards to the consitution. For instance they fail too recognize or understand that the reason the document came to be was to form a more powerful central government. And even the founding fathers would not lay claim to the infalibility to which the whackos would lay at their feet. That is the very reason they left us with a change process....it is called the amendment process whereby the founding documents can be changed as needed.

It is a sad state when some people can listen to limbabugh, beck, levin, et al for a few hours, perhaps read a few whacko books, and walk away thinking that they are consitutional experts. And they really don't even know the basics about the history of this country or the founding fathers or their documents.

I think the answer boils down to fear. Republicans and their industry allies have been exceptional at keeping Americans scared - wittness the posts by Giamattista. Frankly, it is time for Americans to wake up and stop falling victim to the politics of fear.

Is Giamattista related to Giambattista?

Industry allies? Lobbyists never attach themselves to Democrats, do they? They's perfect little angels!

AU CONTRAIRE!


All told, 50 lobbyists reported contributions totaling more than $25,000 each in the first six months of the year. Nearly half, 24 of the 50, made more than 80 percent of their contributions to Democrats, while 16 gave more than 80 percent to Republicans.

Over all, lobbyists gave about $190 million. The 50 biggest contributors gave $1.8 million, a relatively modest sum for a campaign in which individual contributions to presidential and Congressional candidates are likely to reach $2 billion.

About $1 million of the top lobbyists’ contributions, or 57 percent, went to Democrats, while $715,000, or 40 percent, went to Republicans. (In addition, some money went to political action committees that focus on specific issues and contribute to candidates of both parties.)

Fourteen of the top 50 lobbyists made all their contributions to Democrats, while only four gave all their contributions to Republicans.


According to Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), the Democrats' health reform legislation is basically a sham.

Appearing on MSNBC's The Ed Show on Friday night, the House's most unabashed progressive condemned Democratic leadership for removing his amendment that would allow states to create their own single-payer systems. Then he called the entire legislative package "a bailout for insurance companies."

Under a single-payer system, like those in Canada and the United Kingdom, the government pools taxpayer funds to pay for citizens' health care and fees are not collected by health care providers. The Kucinich amendment would allow individual states an opt-in to such a system.

The amendment is missing from health reform legislation unveiled Thursday by Democratic leadership.

"Representative Kucinich was livid when he found out that his provision to allow states to create a single payer system was stripped," News Junkie Post noted. "Kucinich’s amendment passed the House Labor and Education Committee in July. 'No one gave me any rational reason,' Kucinich said. 'I can only assume the insurance company interests brought pressure to take it out. Otherwise I would have heard from someone.'
...
... "I think we need the support of the American people to say, look, you need that state single-payer amendment in the bill to make it credible," the congressman said. "I mean, what are people giving up already? They're being mandated to buy private insurance. If you read the bill, the people are going to end up paying -- the insurance companies can raise rates 25 percent right off the bat, if you read the bill.""

But let me guess, it was only Republicans responsible for that? Democrats are never beholden to special interests!

I guess you also missed the little sentence in my previous post about the fact that I'm not against healthcare reform. I'm not an expert on healthcare, but from what I know of this package, I wouldn't vote for it. I wouldn't vote for it simply because of its length.

Well to be perfectly honest the main reason most people are against healthcare reform in the US is because the democrats are pushing for it... Who to blame for this kind of paranoia? The republicans, the insurance lobby, etc, take your pick. We can't have a honest discussion in this country about the need to reduce health care prices and improve health care quality to that of other first world nations without having to resort to ad hominems. Obama is this, Obama is that, I don't care I just want to get affordable healthcare!

Wrong. We're against it because we don't want the government taking over any more of our lives--especially something so valuable/precious as our healthcare. ANYTHING the government touches turns to sh*t. EVERYTHING. We don't want to pay for babies to be killed, criminal aliens' coverage, death panels, long lines, rationed care etc. And that is EXACTLY what you will get.

Blame the people who commit fraud against the insurance companies. They are hiking costs for everyone. Anyone can find money for insurance. Most people would rather have their addictions. I agree prices should be reduced. I should not pay high premiums because my company is too stupid to find all the fraud. I will NEVER need cancer, heart problem, AIDS, pregnancy, STD or any other coverage. Mine is catastrophic-only and I still pay out the nose because of all the sick people I am grouped-in with.

Hospitals are going broke because people refuse to pay. That hikes costs for everyone. If we had more self-responsibility we would all be better off. Not more government intervention.

Is Giamattista related to Giambattista?

Industry allies? Lobbyists never attach themselves to Democrats, do they? They's perfect little angels!

AU CONTRAIRE!

But let me guess, it was only Republicans responsible for that? Democrats are never beholden to special interests!

I guess you also missed the little sentence in my previous post about the fact that I'm not against healthcare reform. I'm not an expert on healthcare, but from what I know of this package, I wouldn't vote for it. I wouldn't vote for it simply because of its length.

I never said Democrats were not without fault. The discussion was about the politics of fear which is the Republican trump card. Dems have stayed away from fear poltics. Republicans have perfected it.

And if the only reason you are against healthcare is because of its length, I think that is a pretty poor reason. Most legislation is rather lengthy. Are there better processes for creation of legislation, probably. But that is not the system we have.

I never said Democrats were not without fault. The discussion was about the politics of fear which is the Republican trump card. Dems have stayed away from fear poltics. Republicans have perfected it. And if the only reason you are against healthcare is because of its length, I think that is a pretty poor reason. Most legislation is rather lengthy. Are there better processes for creation of legislation, probably. But that is not the system we have.

It's not about fear. It's about the filth that the bill allows--killing babies, death panels, covering criminal aliens etc. The bill should scare the crap out of anyone who reads it.

And if the only reason you are against healthcare is because of its length, I think that is a pretty poor reason. Most legislation is rather lengthy. Are there better processes for creation of legislation, probably. But that is not the system we have.

I consider length to be a good indicator of pork and excess. And the principle that you accept all or nothing.

I would never vote for anything over a thousand pages. Period. Because the chances of things I don't agree with in it would be extremely high. Unless it was an absolutely perfect bill.

I would say, Cut this down into important 100-200 page sections, and we can vote on the individual pieces. That just feels sensible to me.

Wrong. We're against it because we don't want the government taking over any more of our lives--especially something so valuable/precious as our healthcare. ANYTHING the government touches turns to sh*t. EVERYTHING. We don't want to pay for babies to be killed, criminal aliens' coverage, death panels, long lines, rationed care etc. And that is EXACTLY what you will get. more untruths from the land of rhe ivory tower. the government does a reasonablely good job. and the history of government run health care shows it has always out performed the private sector.


Blame the people who commit fraud against the insurance companies. They are hiking costs for everyone. fraud is minor. the prices are high so they can rake in the money.
Anyone can find money for insurance. Most people would rather have their addictions. yeah food,clothing, and shelter are addictions? most people can't afford it.
I agree prices should be reduced. I should not pay high premiums because my company is too stupid to find all the fraud. most of the fraud is the insurance company not paying out and dropping people.
I will NEVER need cancer, heart problem, AIDS, pregnancy, STD or any other coverage. So tell than whose going to win the super bowl this year?
Mine is catastrophic-only and I still pay out the nose because of all the sick people I am grouped-in with. So your complaint is that insurance is well being insurance. That's right I guess sick people should just fucking die.


Hospitals are going broke because people refuse to pay. People can't pay. when the average hospital bill is greater than the median income of the country.
That hikes costs for everyone. If we had more self-responsibility we would all be better off. Not more government intervention. the government needs to get involved it the only way prices will go down. We pay the most because we rely on the private sector. their is a reason we pay more and get less than other countries.

It's not about fear. It's about the filth that the bill allows--killing babies, death panels, covering criminal aliens etc. The bill should scare the crap out of anyone who reads it.

How many criminal aliens? What are those provisions?

It's not about fear. It's about the filth that the bill allows--killing babies, death panels, covering criminal aliens etc. The bill should scare the crap out of anyone who reads it.

Why are you trolling and repeating lies?

Well to be perfectly honest the main reason most people are against healthcare reform in the US is because the democrats are pushing for it, therefor it must be wrong and evil. Some are even inclined to believe that healthcare reform is in fact being pushed by just one man, and evil communist/fascist Kenyan national who as taken control of the US via voodoo magic.

Or maybe some people simply believe it's inappropriate for the government to involve itself in this matter?

It is all about the money. They cannot pay for this enormous government run health care system what so ever because they have already stated they must take money away from Medicare to help pay for this system as well as not saying how they are going to pay for the rest of the system without raising taxes or increasing the deficit.

It is all about the money. They cannot pay for this enormous government run health care system what so ever because they have already stated they must take money away from Medicare to help pay for this system as well as not saying how they are going to pay for the rest of the system without raising taxes or increasing the deficit.

so instead of that u propose the people with medical bills usually well over 100k.. should just die? or lose everything to live or the people who need coverage that have been working for 30+ years get laid off and have a pre egsisting problem health insurances whont pick them up because of it. Discrimination" so they have 2 options as i told sandy in another thread die or lose evertying

I consider length to be a good indicator of pork and excess. And the principle that you accept all or nothing.

I would never vote for anything over a thousand pages. Period. Because the chances of things I don't agree with in it would be extremely high. Unless it was an absolutely perfect bill.

I would say, Cut this down into important 100-200 page sections, and we can vote on the individual pieces. That just feels sensible to me.

Short of a consitutional convention or amendment, I don't think we are ever going to rid Washington of pork. If you get rid of it on one piece of legistlation you can bet your family home it will be on the next. Personally, I think we really need a consitutional convention or at the very least an amendment relating to elections and the management of congress.

It is all about the money. They cannot pay for this enormous government run health care system what so ever because they have already stated they must take money away from Medicare to help pay for this system as well as not saying how they are going to pay for the rest of the system without raising taxes or increasing the deficit.

The real truth is we cannot afford the current heathcare system. The money you say is being taken away from Medicare is the NO BID Contract portions that were implemented by Republicans. And the Democrats are improving Medicare coverage by getting rid of the infamous donut hole provision added by Republicans.

Or maybe some people simply believe it's inappropriate for the government to involve itself in this matter?

Most people don't think in such ways, rather they think on impulse. If the person proposing is not on your list of obligated respected you don't accept or respect them, end of story! Does not matter what they say or do, or should I remind you of the last 8 years you were twiddling your fingers as Bush grew the federal government and trotted all over the constitution?

The logic works like this
Government person X wants Y
-> Is X a member of my party = No -> Y must be bad -> find legitimate reasons against Y = if stupid enough can't -> just talk bad about person X as an argument against Y.

Government person Z wants T
-> Is Z a member of my party = Yes -> T must be good -> find legitimate reasons for T = if stupid enough can't -> just talk bad about person X as an argument for T.

I bet that if the republican higher ups were calling out for universal healthcare then most of the party members would be too.

First, a correction: It's NOT Obama's plan! It would have been IF he had taken a leadership role (like he should have) instead of leaving it up to congress to muddle around, make backdoor deals and create the monstrosity that they have.

In my opinion, he completely dropped the ball on his promise and did so with purpose - after all, he's just another politician. This way, he can win, no matter what happens. If congress fails to pass it, he can blame congress. If congress DOES pass it and it turns out to be the eight-legged monster that half the country believes it will, he can STILL blame congress for the mess.

That's what a politician does for a living - make someone else responsible if a mess-up happens. But claim responsibility if things work out right. :shrug:

It is Obama's plan. He is pushing for it. Without him it would be dead already.

Its Congresses job to make laws for the President to sign. Obama can't be expected to do the work of dozens of committees who specialize in healthcare. Its his job to focus the efforts of others, ie Congress.

It is Obama's plan. He is pushing for it. Without him it would be dead already.

Its Congresses job to make laws for the President to sign. Obama can't be expected to do the work of dozens of committees who specialize in healthcare. Its his job to focus the efforts of others, ie Congress.

I suggest you go back again and read what I actually said. He can certainty SUPPORT the idea of a plan - but it's not HIS plan because he took no LEADERSHIP role in shaping it. Obama is doing nothing but following and pushing - he's most certainly NOT leading.

And if you still don't understand what I'm saying, please tell us what SPECIFIC goals and conditions and guidance to congress he has set up under his "plan." (Big hint: Don't worry - because I know you cannot.):bugeye:

There is no such thing as a right to health care. Or a right to iPods. Or a right to a house, or a job, or any of those things.

Those things are privileges afforded by your wealth; tough, but that's the truth. It sounds nice to say that people have a "right to health care", until you realize that it's a stupid idea all-around.

Health care is a service, and just like cable service, you have to pay for it. It's not a right.

A joke? Or naivete?
Just because Obama says ANYTHING doesn't mean it's truthful.Nothing to add here. That's the perfect response.

I haven't read the 2000 page behemoth. I don't need to. Nothing that large should EVER EVER EVER be voted on. Especially when things are being added to it in closed-door meetings.
Well, if you want to know what's in the bill, here's what you have to do:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoE1R-xH5To

I consider length to be a good indicator of pork and excess. And the principle that you accept all or nothing.

I would never vote for anything over a thousand pages. Period. Because the chances of things I don't agree with in it would be extremely high. Unless it was an absolutely perfect bill.

I would say, Cut this down into important 100-200 page sections, and we can vote on the individual pieces. That just feels sensible to me.

The health care bill is over 1000 pages :eek:

The Constitution is only a few pages long. Let's trying following it.

There is no such thing as a right to health care. Or a right to iPods. Or a right to a house, or a job, or any of those things.

Those things are privileges afforded by your wealth; tough, but that's the truth. It sounds nice to say that people have a "right to health care", until you realize that it's a stupid idea all-around.

Health care is a service, and just like cable service, you have to pay for it. It's not a right.

What you are neatly forgetting here is that you can choose whether you not you need a job or a house or an ipod, or cable service. But you can't choose whether or not you need healthcare.

In civilized countries, it's recognized that certain members of society should not be subjected to a lower quality of life, and perhaps even death, for reasons (ie health reasons) that are beyond their control. Responsible societies ensure this is not the case by ensuring equal access to healthcare. For instance, there is no reason (so far as a civilized member of a civilised society can see) why a friend should be disadvantaged financially and otherwise, for life, because of an accident of health, such as diabetes or disability, or cancer. What individuals do after that - whether they get a job, a house, cable service and ipod - is up to them.

You'll no doubt say that some people have luck, some have bad, and that's just how it goes. Ironically, your notions of society - of "America" - betray the people who founded your country. The same notions created the very evils that people went to America to escape. While the "old countries" remember these evils and have moved on, it would seem that America, conversely, has regressed.

As Mahatma Ghandi said,
"The best test of a civilised society is the way in which it treats its most vulnerable and weakest members."

The Constitution is only a few pages long. Let's trying following it.

The more general and less explicit the text, the more opportunity and need for interpretation and invention.

What you are neatly forgetting here is that you can choose whether you not you need a job or a house or an ipod, or cable service. But you can't choose whether or not you need healthcare.

In civilized countries, it's recognized that certain members of society should not be subjected to a lower quality of life, and perhaps even death, for reasons (ie health reasons) that are beyond their control. Responsible societies ensure this is not the case by ensuring equal access to healthcare. For instance, there is no reason (so far as a civilized member of a civilised society can see) why a friend should be disadvantaged financially and otherwise, for life, because of an accident of health, such as diabetes or disability, or cancer. What individuals do after that - whether they get a job, a house, cable service and ipod - is up to them.

You'll no doubt say that some people have luck, some have bad, and that's just how it goes. Ironically, your notions of society - of "America" - betray the people who founded your country. The same notions created the very evils that people went to America to escape. While the "old countries" remember these evils and have moved on, it would seem that America, conversely, has regressed.

As Mahatma Ghandi said,
"The best test of a civilised society is the way in which it treats its most vulnerable and weakest members."

Yes..............but this is where you and I differ. Responsibility means charity; voluntary, private giving. It does not mean wasteful, big government that distorts markets and creates an entitlement mentality.

We should help each other because we want to, not because the government mandates it. So, we ought to have free market health care and treat it as a privilege, service, and valuable resource...not as a right. When you treat services as rights, you endanger liberty and people will take it for granted. This is why many students do not value their education: they do not have to earn it. If you treat education as a privilege and precious resource reserved for the few, then you will definitely get people paying more attention.

The more general and less explicit the text, the more opportunity and need for interpretation and invention.

The Articles of Confederation were pretty nice.

The Articles of Confederation were pretty nice.

With one little problem, they did not work. Hence the founding fathers created the Consitution.

With one little problem, they did not work. Hence the founding fathers created the Consitution.

Work to do what? They worked fine.


The Federal government is too powerful; state sovereignty is more important. The Articles of Confederation were perfect for states' rights.

The more general and less explicit the text, the more opportunity and need for interpretation and invention.
Yes, but what we have now is a situation in which no one person can even know what the law is. It's too complictated, with too much detail. We may as well not have written law as have so many written laws and regulations that no one can possibly read or understand them all.

On top of this, we say that "ignorance of the law is no excuse". This may have been true in Hammurabi's time with ten simple laws engraved on a stone, but now we have basically returned to the situation that existed before written law. Government has almost unlimited power.

Yes, but what we have now is a situation in which no one person can even know what the law is. It's too complictated, with too much detail. We may as well not have written law as have so many written laws and regulations that no one can possibly read or understand them all.

On top of this, we say that "ignorance of the law is no excuse". This may have been true in Hammurabi's time with ten simple laws engraved on a stone, but now we have basically returned to the situation that existed before written law. Government has almost unlimited power.

This reminds me of the quote,

"To retain respect for laws and sausages, one must not watch them in the making", Otto von Bismarck

Most people don't think in such ways, rather they think on impulse. If the person proposing is not on your list of obligated respected you don't accept or respect them, end of story! Does not matter what they say or do, or should I remind you of the last 8 years you were twiddling your fingers as Bush grew the federal government and trotted all over the constitution?

I didn't post here a lot over the last few years, but I've was very critical of the Bush Administration in discussions with friends/family and sometimes on other forums I've frequented (most weren't political in nature). I thought Bush was a terrible president in most regards, which became more and more apparent as time went by.

My view on socialist healthcare has nothing to do with specific people or political parties. What now?

Yes, but what we have now is a situation in which no one person can even know what the law is. It's too complictated, with too much detail. We may as well not have written law as have so many written laws and regulations that no one can possibly read or understand them all.

On top of this, we say that "ignorance of the law is no excuse". This may have been true in Hammurabi's time with ten simple laws engraved on a stone, but now we have basically returned to the situation that existed before written law. Government has almost unlimited power.

Governments have always had almost unlimited power. They have the power of life and death. It does not get more powerful than that in human society. We do have a lot of laws and the laws are complicated. But our society is getting more complex as well, the laws need to follow the demands of society. We have recently seen what happens to our economies if regulation does not follow the need. Complication in law is the price we pay for our modern privilages. It was certianly a lot simplier chopping would and raising cattle and food crops. But it was hardly easier.

I didn't post here a lot over the last few years, but I've was very critical of the Bush Administration in discussions with friends/family and sometimes on other forums I've frequented (most weren't political in nature). I thought Bush was a terrible president in most regards, which became more and more apparent as time went by.

My view on socialist healthcare has nothing to do with specific people or political parties. What now?

Personally, I don't like politicians or any political party. When I vote, I do so based on what I can find out about the individuals running - I have absolutely no interest in the color of their skin, their sexual orientation or anything else besides their track record - what they've supported in the past.

As to the current proposed health plan, it should be completely scrapped. And if Obama really wants one established, he should START the job himself - give congress some clear, firm sensible guidelines and tell them he will veto anything they come up with that does not meet those terms. And if they still can't get the job done, then we've no chance or choice but to wait until the next general election and try again.

He says its going to cover everyone and its going to reduce the deficit at the same time. How can you not be in favor of both of those results?

He says he says he says. Has Obama done a damn thing he "said" he was going to do?? Besides spend almost one trillion dollars on a bailout for the rich :) because thats who needs help right now, CEOs of major companys. Cmon people, are you really that blind? HES A BAD PRESIDENT. Im sorry, i was all for having the first black president too and im looking for change in America aswell but just because hes black or he offers change does not make him any good AT ALL

Personally, I don't like politicians or any political party. When I vote, I do so based on what I can find out about the individuals running - I have absolutely no interest in the color of their skin, their sexual orientation or anything else besides their track record - what they've supported in the past..

Agreed!


As to the current proposed health plan, it should be completely scrapped. And if Obama really wants one established, he should START the job himself - give congress some clear, firm sensible guidelines and tell them he will veto anything they come up with that does not meet those terms. And if they still can't get the job done, then we've no chance or choice but to wait until the next general election and try again.

Here is where I disagree. While I don't like many things about the Democratic healthcare reform plans, it is better than nothing. Anything that bends the cost curve downward is a good first step. The industry needs to be more competitive. When healthcare providers no longer care about price as is the cased today, you have a very unhealthy market place.

The American healthcare system has become so bloated and markets so uncompetitive, it just is no longer consistent with a healthy state. The US cannot afford to continue to bear this burden. We need to get our nations budget under control and this is a first step.

He says he says he says. Has Obama done a damn thing he "said" he was going to do?? Besides spend almost one trillion dollars on a bailout for the rich :) because thats who needs help right now, CEOs of major companys. Cmon people, are you really that blind? HES A BAD PRESIDENT. Im sorry, i was all for having the first black president too and im looking for change in America aswell but just because hes black or he offers change does not make him any good AT ALL

Not really. He has went back on several campaign promises, but that happens with all Presidents, not just him. Yeah I don't see why the rich need bailing out. But it's really his printing of money(which causes inflation) that is ruining the economy. But this is not the topic. The topic is Healthcare.

He says he says he says. Has Obama done a damn thing he "said" he was going to do?? Besides spend almost one trillion dollars on a bailout for the rich :) because thats who needs help right now, CEOs of major companys. Cmon people, are you really that blind? HES A BAD PRESIDENT. Im sorry, i was all for having the first black president too and im looking for change in America aswell but just because hes black or he offers change does not make him any good AT ALL

I didn't vote for him but after he won, I had hopes for him also. Have no fear, though - he's a one-term deal. And he'll most likely go down in history as one of the most ineffectual presidents we've ever had. Right beside or below Carter.

But my major concern is that I don't see an even half-way good prospect for the job anywhere on the horizon. (And we haven't really had a good choice in decades.)

Not really. He has went back on several campaign promises, but that happens with all Presidents, not just him. Yeah I don't see why the rich need bailing out. But it's really his printing of money(which causes inflation) that is ruining the economy. But this is not the topic. The topic is Healthcare.


I understand the topic is health care but I was making the point that the creater of this topic started with "he says"

I didn't vote for him but after he won, I had hopes for him also. Have no fear, though - he's a one-term deal. And he'll most likely go down in history as one of the most ineffectual presidents we've ever had. Right beside or below Carter.

Absolutely true.

I didn't vote for him but after he won, I had hopes for him also. Have no fear, though - he's a one-term deal. And he'll most likely go down in history as one of the most ineffectual presidents we've ever had. Right beside or below Carter.

But my major concern is that I don't see an even half-way good prospect for the job anywhere on the horizon. (And we haven't really had a good choice in decades.)

Carter was an awesome president, probably one of our best. His principles made him somewhat ineffective, since comprimising your principles is what gets things done, especially with a highly obstructive congress.

Carter was an awesome president, probably one of our best. His principles made him somewhat ineffective, since comprimising your principles is what gets things done, especially with a highly obstructive congress.

Actually, I agree with that - strange as it may seem. The real problem was not Carter and his refusal to compromise (I actually admired that VERY much!), but his failure to find a way to work around it.

And yes, I readily acknowledge that that's *much* easier said than done. But he had powers of executive privilege and other things at his disposal that he never employed. And I've always felt that was due to his trying to over-compensate for the way Nixon had abused - and tried to further abuse - those vehicles.

I didn't post here a lot over the last few years, but I've was very critical of the Bush Administration in discussions with friends/family and sometimes on other forums I've frequented (most weren't political in nature). I thought Bush was a terrible president in most regards, which became more and more apparent as time went by.

Sure you did, sure you did ;)



My view on socialist healthcare has nothing to do with specific people or political parties. What now?

Sure they don't, sure ;)