Ask Me Help Desk

Ask Me Help Desk (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forum.php)
-   Current Events (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forumdisplay.php?f=486)
-   -   Presidential dictatorship (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=371576)

  • Jul 23, 2009, 01:34 PM
    aprilgoddard
    Simple truth straight forward -no bull- I appreciate your truth.
    Fact is I cannot trust Obama. He sees evil Americans, disassociates himself with Americans to other countries, and apologizes for our evil around the world ; trying to impress leaders we wouldn't want to govern us (or even their own people), kissing up to them, seeking their approval. All those countries want is for Obama to be a fool so that their vain imaginations can perpetuate their reign over their people, without fear of truth and justice for all. His appearances in other countries reinforces their belief that Americans are evil and stupid, when Americans are able to enjoy the pursuit of happiness. Americans have actively aided the entire world in bringing the quality of life we cherish and have invoked hope to our entire world. Truth America is the ##1 country who believes and employs "green technologies" why are we chastized about this. Americans had the best the quality of life (our quality made other peoples countries have better quality of life), we believe in honor and compassion. Everyone Obama chooses to be a part of his government only see Americans as people who don't understand what is good for them, and that Americans need to be guided to their vision. Remind yourself of this when you see their actions and the things they say and then do. "God damn America" Obama has shown he has no faith in us, why should we believe him to do better for us than we. Look at him brow beating his own Democrats to vote for things against all better judgment. Do it his way do it now, His power trip, his rushing got us into a mess already, and he don't care. In the Obama view they see disgust in America, they choose to see racism-and use it to control people - or people will be perceived as racists ( in fact if they want to abolish racism, they would not play race cards, but encourage unification, not hire a racist judge and emphasize talk about the horror she endured being Latina). They say transparency- but they say they don't have to tell us anything important, they have it handled. They take what has been said and done and re-write history like Orson Well's 1984. President Obama said in his speech last night that when he was elected that more than 700,000 jobs were lost each month, that actually happened after his election. He "inherited the problem" he said and the tasks he has done has created a better economy now as we rise up out of this recession. Well, every thing I have seen and read indicates the exact opposite. Obama said un-employment is at 8.5%, perhaps you are one of them - or maybe you are un-employed and not counted, like me. Unemployment is honestly at almost 14%! Fact the un-employment rate figures do NOT count a very large percentage of the unemployed that needs a job. It does not count people still looking for work who have run out of un-employment like me. It does not count the full-time people who had to take a part-time job for just anything. It does not count all the people who have been cut back to 30 hrs a week to keep their job. It also does not count the 2nd wage earner, or the retiree who has given up looking for work and now stays with the family. Nor does it count first time out of school people looking for work, or your average young un-married college student, or the people who have had to go back to school. Nor people on medical leave who have no job to return to. Neither does it count the people on extended leave, or who are asked to take un-paid vacation, vacation, etc. What's even scarier is that business production is at such a low level that it cannot even sustain the employees there are now at 30 hrs a week. All the economic growth that was over the last 10 years was equally leveled in less than 6 months this year. WHY DOSEN'T the OBAMA ADM. Choose to count the factual truth and actually do something about this. FACT the stimulus was money dolled out for government growth ,to do emergency assistance to states for their first year- after that there is no more. Fact the same stimulus is a about 5% real infrastructure rebuilding to create jobs, the rest were pet projects by congressmen, which is so wrapped up in red tape and stipulations that it will be a long time until your average employee is employed. Fact so much of the stimulus funds are going other than America (outside) and/ or earmarked for outsider jobs. Where did I find this info , gov reports, and factual based news articles - not the Times or CNN or even ABC that slant everything. Oh, by the way I am apparently counted as one of the people screaming out for health care reform- even though I don't want it. I have no freedom to say that I don't want it because I am unemployed and my kids are on the state medical plan. Soon all the choices we make will be much simpler for us - as there won't be many. I do not see the heart of an American as evil. Americans saw hope, faith practiced charity,and we believed in justice for all. If we choose to allow these few to choose for us then we are probably really making our last choices.
  • Jul 23, 2009, 01:38 PM
    ETWolverine
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello again, El:

    Nope, Steve did his own selective reporting to skew the results. S'ok. Need pointed it out.

    But, I can tell when I'm handed a pile of crap, even if it's described as kosher sandwich.

    excon

    He cited the report. He linked to the summary report put out by the CHA. In what way did he cherry pick the results?

    And assume that he did cherry pick the results and only showed you SOME of them. Does that make the results themselves invalid? Are the results themselves wrong?

    Sorry, excon. There is a bullsh!t sandwitch coming down the pike, but it ain't from Speechless or Tom or me.

    Elliot
  • Jul 23, 2009, 01:43 PM
    lshadylady
    [QUOTE=ETWolverine;1875378]NK,

    Do you even realize the pattern you are following?

    ETWolf

    Good answer! Wish I had said that. But I was nice. New member.You were 100% right. Your pregnant friend in Canada, according to that newspaper article, will have to be sent to the US for care. She had better find someone who practices midwifery.

    What will happen when our health care system degenerates to that point? Where will she go then. We are soon to be on our own I guess.

    One of the benefits of our Health care system is the number of small businesses, and some big businesses, that are off-shoots of the healthcare system. I would guess a very large number of them if you stop to think. What is going to happen to them? Right now we have a lot of Doctors to see patients within a week or two or immediately in an emergency(generally a 2 hr. wait for minor emergency) They need and use lots of supplies and equipment. The supply companies flourish. If we no longer have these Doctors seeing so many patients, what will happen to the small business people? What will happen to the economy? I go to business school online and I asked that question in class on a live iConnect feed. The professor said very sadly "We will not have many of them anymore".

    Obahma is an idealist. He really believes this will work. Well it didn't work for the Medicare medication problem. I fought to not have that benefit. I had my own partial coverage and paid the rest myself and I was okey with it. But, I was not allowed to keep it. The Insurance Company dropped seniors from their coverage. The pharmacist said ,"You better get it, they will fine you if you don't and it will cost twice as much." So I buckeled. I had to quit taking some medications after I had to buy groceries instead. It cost me more to get that benefit than it did without it, but that's because I fall somehere in the high middle for cost of medications. They sit up there on the Hill in Washington pretending to know as much as a Medical Doctor, and write laws about how we can all have free medical care and they believe we will get it. They will. They are in a unique position to get the best. We aren't. I'm not an important person and I don't have the money for premium healthcare. I have nearly the best supplemental insurance and I am covered 100% because I know it is important and I choose to spend my money that way. Now they will interfere and, being old, even though I have a young heart and mind, I will soon have a hard time getting medical care.:-/
  • Jul 23, 2009, 01:58 PM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NeedKarma View Post
    The ones from Steve survey link that say that the majority of Canadians:
    a) agree that they are getting quality health care
    b) that 93% agree that it is the responsibility of every Canadian to take care of their own health through prevention of illnesses and injuries, and by leading a healthy lifestyle. (personal responsibility - we must all be conservatives, oh my!!!!)
    c) did not need to use personal savings to care for a family friend
    d) did not experience any adverse effects or events as a result of care received in Canada’s health care system

    Steve didn't show those becasue he did not want to.

    This just goes to show that no matter what anyone puts in front of you if it doesn't fit your view then it's irrelevant. I purposely chose a survey as official as it could be so I wouldn't be impugned. I acknowledge the pros and cons in the report, which I have linked to twice for all to see for themselves, but it does NOT paint the rosy scenario you want us to see. It DOES point to problems. I repeat:

    57% of the public believe they receive quality care, that's less than 6 in 10. Less than half of the public believe the quality of Canadian health care will improve over the next five years including only 37% of doctors, 46% of pharmacists, and just 33% of nurses.

    49% of the public, 81% of doctors, 78% of pharmacists, 81% of nurses and 71% of managers believe timely access has worsened.

    63% (32% strongly), believe being allowed to purchase private insurance would "Result in shorter waiting times." 57% (33% strongly) believe it "Improve access to health care services for everyone." 55% (26% strongly) believe it would "Lead to improved quality in health care services."

    I'm glad it works for you, but apparently a lot Canadians aren't as enamored with it as you are and don't believe it will get better. Can you acknowledge that or not?
  • Jul 23, 2009, 02:05 PM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello again, El:

    Nope, Steve did his own selective reporting to skew the results. S'ok. Need pointed it out.

    But, I can tell when I'm handed a pile of crap, even if it's described as kosher sandwich.

    I suppose I could have pasted the whole report but since I linked to it - twice - folks can read it for themselves. I did however print a couple of answers regarding being allowed to purchase private insurance that don't help my argument, that it would:

    Quote:

    Create a two-tier system where those who can afford to pay will get better
    Treatment than those who can't: 59% (41% strongly)

    Result in increasing costs of health care: 56% (26% strongly)
    NK says it's all good and apparently some is and some isn't. He wants us to acknowledge the good (and I am), you guys needs to acknowledge the bad.
  • Jul 23, 2009, 03:20 PM
    paraclete
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by lshadylady View Post
    Australia's population has twice as many immigrants as we do, Why do you list the aboriginal's as immigrants? Your growth rate is 1.7%. Your interest rate 3% Your government is a constitutional monarchy,democratic federal state system. Your budget was overdrawn more than ours was last march. We caught up and passed you in May. Your inflation rate is 2,5%/year. You export, lots of food products and minerals.

    My dream was to spend a year in Australia. A car wreck kiboshed that. I think I would like Australia even if you don't have a "bill of rights" You do have a constitution patterned after ours.

    Take good care of your country. Don't let it get in the condition ours is right now. We will pull through this depression and Healthcare problem and be just fine. We have done it before. So when your country has problems, just let us know. I'm sure we would be supportive and loan money too.https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/images.../biggrin.gif:-)

    I don't know where you get your statistics but until this recession (not depression) our budget was in surplus, unemployment is not a serious problem and aboriginees aren't immigrants they are indigenous and make up about 2% of the population and account for much of the social problems, welfare, etc. Yes our government has been handing out stimulus packages just as others have, but our recovery will be swift because the world needs what we have to sell, that alone is worth thinking about. We don't need you to loan money to us we have the ability to print our own, The US Dollar is not negotiable currency here as it is in many countries. Our immigrant population statistically may be large but we don't have the annual influx you do and those that come here do so legally for the most part and so contribute skills to the economy not day labour
  • Jul 23, 2009, 03:38 PM
    paraclete
    On the subject of health care I would just like those on the other side of the big pond to consider this. We can see a doctor in most cases within 24 hours although it may take longer to see a doctor of our choice. Emergency room waits weren't longer than an hour until H1N1 hit now because of panic they are longer. Specialists of course always have a waiting list. This costs a 1.5% tax impost for the uninsured and about$AUD200 a month a family for insurance. The benefit of insurance is to reduce the waiting time for elective surgery and bypass the public hospital system. Pharmueticals are regulated by the government which keeps costs within reason.
    Your president may be trying to help your people in a similar way remember you can't get it without paying for it somewhere, but our system hasn't destroyed enterprise in the medical profession, just put a cap on the costs. Like many countries we struggle to train enough doctors to meet the demand
  • Jul 23, 2009, 04:53 PM
    lshadylady
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by paraclete View Post
    On the subject of health care I would just like those on the other side of the big pond to consider this. We can see a doctor in most cases within 24 hours although it may take longer to see a doctor of our choice. Emergency room waits weren't longer than an hour until H1N1 hit now because of panic they are longer. Specialists of course always have a waiting list. This costs a 1.5% tax impost for the uninsured and about$AUD200 a month a family for insurance. The benefit of insurance is to reduce the waiting time for elective surgery and bypass the public hospital system. Pharmueticals are regulated by the government which keeps costs within reason.
    Your president may be trying to help your people in a similiar way remember you can't get it without paying for it somewhere, but our system hasn't destroyed enterprise in the medical profession, just put a cap on the costs. Like many countries we struggle to train enough doctors to meet the demand

    What is H1N1?

    There are some very clever people in this world, and now that the emphasis is on health care, why can't they think of something better? None of our plans are perfect, but why ditch the whole thing. How many people in the US get good health care? Most of the population. The obesity and heart disease is something else entirely. We eat too much and that is our own responsibility. There is more education and research needed on that subject.
  • Jul 23, 2009, 05:21 PM
    NeedKarma
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    NK says it's all good and apparently some is and some isn't. He wants us to acknowledge the good (and I am), you guys needs to acknowledge the bad.

    It is mostly good. There is some bad. The survey is an opinion survey - it's not 40 million people without health insurance or going bankrupt due to medical costs. You can't seem to make that difference.
  • Jul 23, 2009, 07:54 PM
    450donn
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NeedKarma View Post
    It is mostly good. There is some bad. The survey is an opinion survey - it's not 40 million people without health insurance or going bankrupt due to medical costs. You can't seem to make that difference.

    And if YOU believe that there are 40 million US citizens without health care I have a bridge for sale you might be interested in!
    When did this world change from believing that people work for what they earn to people believing that someone else should give them everything for free?
  • Jul 23, 2009, 09:14 PM
    Skell
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by lshadylady View Post

    I have been to Canada. Thats all. I read a lot!!
    :-()

    That quote was funny when Mark Twain's emmissary did a reading on TV years ago.

    Don't try to guess the type of person I am

    Hi Ishadylady,

    I wasn't trying to guess the type of person you are. If I were id guess a nice and caring person. Because your posts appear that way.

    I was merely commenting on your post regarding the UK and Canada having less freedoms than the US. I'd disagree with that!

    That's all.
  • Jul 23, 2009, 11:30 PM
    paraclete
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by lshadylady View Post
    What is H1N1?

    There are some very clever people in this world, and now that the emphasis is on health care, why can't they think of something better? None of our plans are perfect, but why ditch the whole thing. How many people in the US get good health care? Most of the population. The obesity and heart disease is something else entirely. We eat too much and that is our own responsibility. There is more education and research needed on that subject.

    H1N1 is what might be known over there as swine flu. Yes everyone in the capitalist economies eats too much, it goes with having money and opportunity. What we forget is we came from places where food was scarce and maybe they didn't eat every day. The problem is we have accepted processed foods instead of real food. Now if we put McDonald's and KFC out of business and Coke along with them we might see a reversal of the trend. Everything we eat is loaded with sugar and no amount of education and research will stop someone eating a hamburger with a coke
  • Jul 24, 2009, 02:25 AM
    NeedKarma
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by 450donn View Post
    And if YOU believe that there are 40 million US citizens without health care I have a bridge for sale you might be interested in!

    http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/567737
    US Census Press Releases
    NCHC | Facts About Healthcare - Health Insurance Coverage
    Hard Times And Health Insurance: How Many Americans Will Be Uninsured By 2010? -- Gilmer and Kronick 28 (4): w573 -- Health Affairs
    FactCheck.org: How many of the uninsured are U.S. citizens?
  • Jul 24, 2009, 03:54 AM
    cjeep23
    I wonder if the 65% of Americans that voted for Mr. Obama will think when he can tell you which doctor you can go to. Or the younger of them who may lose a grandparent, because they were to old to be worth helping under the new health care system. This is ridiculous people. He has already in 6 months, 6 MONTHS!! TRIPLED THE NATIONAL DEBT. OH BUT HAIL OBAMA...
  • Jul 24, 2009, 05:10 AM
    tomder55

    Quote:

    The problem is we have accepted processed foods instead of real food. Now if we put McDonald's and KFC out of business and Coke along with them we might see a reversal of the trend. Everything we eat is loaded with sugar and no amount of education and research will stop someone eating a hamburger with a coke
    I can live without the burger and coke . But they will pry my hot dog out of my cold dead fingers!!
    Hot dog lawsuit launched against Nathan's and others
  • Jul 24, 2009, 06:51 AM
    ETWolverine
    Paraclete,

    A few points.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by paraclete View Post
    On the subject of health care I would just like those on the other side of the big pond to consider this. We can see a doctor in most cases within 24 hours although it may take longer to see a doctor of our choice.

    We can see the doctor of our choice, usually within just a few hours.


    Quote:

    Emergency room waits weren't longer than an hour until H1N1 hit now because of panic they are longer.
    That's a problem. Because when there is an epidemic or a pandemic is when the poorest need access to the ER the most. Those with insurance can see their private physicians and avoid the ER entirely. At least they can here in the USA. I don't know how things work where you are. I'm not quite sure WHERE you are.

    If you are experiencing a slowdown during an "emergency" caused by a pandemic, that is a systemic problem with your access to care that can have VERY adverse effects during a pandemic situation. If people who may be infected with a deadly disease (and H1N1 is NOT that deadly yet... though H5N1, aka "bird flu" is quite a killer) are sitting around for hours coughing on each other in an ER, then this slowdown in access to care is likely to result in disease spreading.

    Quote:

    Specialists of course always have a waiting list.
    Ours don't. We can usually see a specialist within 24 hours, most often same day. This again seems to me to be a problem with accessability of services that we in the USA don't experience very often.

    Quote:

    This costs a 1.5% tax impost for the uninsured and about$AUD200 a month a family for insurance. The benefit of insurance is to reduce the waiting time for elective surgery and bypass the public hospital system.
    So what you are saying is that your system is a two tier system... one tier for the poor, who have to wait for certain services, and another for those who can afford the extra fees who can bypass those lines.

    I actually have no problem with that. You should get what you pay for, and pay based on what you earn. I'm good with a multi-tier system.

    But there are quite a few on the left in the USA who would see that as elitism and an inequality that should be eliminated from the system. Which, of course, would result in EVERYONE having to wait on lines for certain services.

    Quote:

    Pharmueticals are regulated by the government which keeps costs within reason.
    But it also keeps pharmaceutical breakthroughs at a minimum. When you keep the cost of drugs low, you are keeping profitability low. Without profitability, there is no incentive for innovation, because innovation in pharmacology is EXPENSIVE.

    For every one new drug created by a pharmaceutical company, there are thousands of failures. Each new drug costs roughly $2.5 billion dollars to develop. These costs include:

    Animal screening in rats - 1-2 years @ $500,000 per year.
    In monkeys - 2-5 years at $2 million per year
    Phase I toxicology in humans - 2 years @ $10-20 million per year
    Phase II effictiveness testing in humans- 10 years @ $100+ million per year
    Phase III dosage and side effects testing in humans - 10 years @ $100+ million per year.

    A prospective new drug can fail at any point in these trials, and the money spent trying to develop it is GONE. And there are thousands of failures for each successful drug. Which means that the drug company only recoups the losses on the failed drugs when a new drug goes on the market. The cost of the overhead for all those failures has to be accounted for in the price of the new drug.

    That is why new drugs are so expensive. They have to be in order for the drug company to continue producing new drugs.

    But if the government fixes the prices of the drugs, even if it is enough to cover the cost of development of THIS DRUG, there is no way for the drug company to recoup the losses of all the other drugs that didn't make the cut. Which means they can't afford to experiment on new drugs.

    The reason that something like 85-90% of all new drugs are developed in the USA is because we don't have price fixing on new drugs. Drug companies are free to charge whatever they need in order to make a profit so that they can recoup those losses from all the failures.

    If we suddenly have price fixing of drugs in the USA, the number of new drugs developed in the entire world will drop by roughly 90%. Because it will no longer be financially feasible for drug companies to develop them. We will continue to have what we have. But nothing new will be developed. Or rather, very little. There is SOME development outside the USA... usually by individuals with a personal mission or a few altruists who don't care about financial losses. But it is minimal compared to development in the USA. Eliminate the financial incentive, and you eliminate most of the development.

    Quote:

    Your president may be trying to help your people in a similar way remember you can't get it without paying for it somewhere, but our system hasn't destroyed enterprise in the medical profession, just put a cap on the costs. Like many countries we struggle to train enough doctors to meet the demand
    Actually, as I have pointed out above, it has destroyed enterprise in the medical field. There is no innovation taking place in government-run health care systems because there is no financial incentive to do so, and plenty of disincentives. THAT, in my opinion, is the definition of destroying enterprise in the medical field.

    There's also this question... do your doctors have quotas of patients that must be seen in a particular time? Or perhaps a number of hours they must work?

    If so, what happens to their patients AFTER they have completed their quota? In some European systems, doctors have been known to go on real or "virtual" vacations after they meet their quotas, leaving patients stranded. They get paid the same whether they see the extra patient or not, so why bother. Whereas in the USA's fee-for-service system, the more patients the doctor sees, the more he gets paid, so there is an incentive to see the extra patient, even if its after the posted hours.

    Any system that caps costs and fees automatically destroys incentive to work harder, to develop the new drug, the new tool, the new technique or to see the extra patient.

    Elliot
  • Jul 24, 2009, 06:52 AM
    ETWolverine
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by lshadylady View Post
    What is H1N1?

    Swine flu.
  • Jul 24, 2009, 07:04 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NeedKarma View Post
    It is mostly good. There is some bad.

    That's a step for you, thanks.

    Quote:

    The survey is an opinion survey
    Is it that obvious?

    Quote:

    it's not 40 million people without health insurance or going bankrupt due to medical costs.
    Absolutely, positively, irrelevant to my point.

    Quote:

    You can't seem to make that difference.
    Apparently I can.
  • Jul 24, 2009, 07:11 AM
    ETWolverine
    NK,

    From your own citations, 21% of that 47 million figure are illegal immigrants. That's roughly 10 million.

    Of the rest, 10-15 million are people who work and can afford insurance, BUT HAVE CHOSEN NOT TO PURCHASE IT. You may dislike their decision, but it is their decision to make. And I should not have to pay for people who CHOOSE not to pay for themselves.

    That leaves roughly 22-27 million involuntarily uninsured Americans.

    The Kaiser Foundation found, however, that the vast majority of these (60% or so) were uninsured only for a short period (less than 6 months) before becoming insured again. Almost 80% were back on insurance within 1 year. But let's go with the 60% figure for the point of these calculations.

    That leaves 10.8 million uninsured Americans who remain uninsured for longer than 6 months against their will.

    If the government were to pay the cost of private health insurance for these people, at the very exaggerated cost of $1500 per person (the actual cost is $1500 for FOUR people), the cost would be $194.4 billion annually.

    $194 billion vs $2.3 TRILLION annually.

    Even if we decided to pay the cost of every one of those 47 million uninsured, whether they are here legally or not, whether they have chosen to be uninsured or not (though I don't know why we should), the total cost annually would be $846 billion.

    $846 billion vs. $2.3 Trillion annually.

    And we get to still keep our system as it is.

    Keeping our current system is 63% CHEAPER than dismantling it in favor of a new nationalized health care system.

    So if the cost of insurance is the main concern of the Obama Administration, then he's going about this all wrong. If the main concern is to cover the uninsured, he's going about it all wrong.

    But if his main goal is to socialize the country... well, he's right on target there with his actions.

    Elliot
  • Jul 24, 2009, 07:16 AM
    NeedKarma
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    Absolutely, positively, irrelevant to my point.

    Here's the relevance. 100% of those people have health insurance and don't have to worry about losing their houses to pay for services, what else are they going to about?
  • Jul 24, 2009, 07:56 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NeedKarma View Post
    Here's the relevance. 100% of those people have health insurance and don't have to worry about losing their houses to pay for services, what else are they going to about?

    The point is there are problems with Canadian health care - you finally acknowledged it. Only a little more than than half of COVERED Canadians believe they receive quality care and less than half of COVERED Canadians think it's going to get better and more than half of COVERED Canadians believe private insurance would improve timely access and quality of care.

    Being covered means NOTHING if you can't get the timely, quality care you need.
  • Jul 24, 2009, 08:01 AM
    450donn
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NeedKarma View Post
    Here's the relevance. 100% of those people have health insurance and don't have to worry about losing their houses to pay for services, what else are they going to about?

    More ranting of an uneducated foreigner to the ways of our country!
    The homosexual mayor of Portland has his house in foreclosure because he has not made a house payment since January. Believe that he does not have health insurance? Simply because you have a job does not automatically insulate you from financial problems.
    What you refuse to accept is that our health care system works. The numbers that Nobama spews out are skewed and even the Government will admit it if cornered. It would be far cheaper to simply pay for the health care of those individuals that are for what ever reason uninsured than to make everyone cow tow to a universal health care system that is/has failed in more places of the world that we can count. Except to make more people beholding to the government, thereby securing the democratic parity's place in history as the part that changed our form of government from what we have known and enjoyed for over 200 years to a socialist state that has never in the history of the world enjoyed a life that long.
    If you really want to get on a band wagon, why don't you go out and fight to get basic health care in countries like Africa, India, where a child would be very lucky to see a doctor once or twice in their life time. Which by the way is far shorter than here in OUR poorly run health care system.
  • Jul 24, 2009, 08:04 AM
    excon

    Hello:

    The problem is that nobody knows what the hell they're talking about...

    The debate is NOT a debate. It's one set of fantasy's v another set of fantasy's. Are we ever going to figure it out?? Nahhh, because the jerks in congress who are going to pass or defeat the bill aren't going to read it - they're going to vote based on THEIR own set of fantasy's.

    Can we trust the pundits who are supposed to separate the wheat from the chaff? Nahhh. They TOO have their own set of fantasy's.

    Are we screwed? We are. The HELL with health care. Vote for term limits.

    excon
  • Jul 24, 2009, 08:16 AM
    450donn
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello:


    Are we screwed? We are. The HELL with health care. Vote for term limits.

    excon

    Here Here! Two terms, one in office one in JAIL!
  • Jul 24, 2009, 08:19 AM
    NeedKarma
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by 450donn View Post
    Here Here! Two terms, one in office one in JAIL!

    Why don't you man-up and just kill him?
  • Jul 24, 2009, 08:54 AM
    450donn
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NeedKarma View Post
    Why don't you man-up and just kill him?

    I can't believe that even you would be so stupid as to advocate murdering a head of state!
  • Jul 24, 2009, 09:21 AM
    NeedKarma
    Well if he's not a citizen and is the antichrist plus you have your 2nd amendment that allows you to protect yourself against a leader you hate so much...
  • Jul 24, 2009, 09:23 AM
    ETWolverine
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello:

    The problem is that nobody knows what the hell they're talking about......

    The debate is NOT a debate. It's one set of fantasy's v another set of fantasy's. Are we ever gonna figure it out???? Nahhh, because the jerks in congress who are gonna pass or defeat the bill aren't going to read it - they're going to vote based on THEIR own set of fantasy's.

    Can we trust the pundits who are supposed to separate the wheat from the chaff? Nahhh. They TOO have their own set of fantasy's.

    Are we screwed? We are. The HELL with health care. Vote for term limits.

    excon

    I gree with this much... there are very few people, if any, who have read the full bill.

    Yet Obama wants it passed immediately, even though nobody has read it.

    Nevertheless, there have been parts of the bill that have been read by a lot of people, and those parts seem to contradict what Obama has said about the bill. The stuff about being able to keep your own insurance and your own doctors if you like them is clearly contradicted by the parts of the bill that say that if you leave your current employer, you cannot move to another private insurance, but must immediately join the government plan (pages 425-430 of the bill, if my memory serves).

    So there are certainly parts of the bill that should be questioned by those who have read it.

    Furthermore, the Congressional Budget Office HAS read the entire bill and has put out their own analysis based on what is written in the bill. THEY are not working based on fantasy, but rather based on the bill itself. And they are putting out some pretty dire warnings.

    So your argument that everybody is working based on fantasy and nobody has read the bill is not exactly true, is it? Not everybody is doing that.

    It's not a fantasy, excon. It's a nightmare.

    Elliot
  • Jul 24, 2009, 09:32 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ETWolverine View Post
    t's not a fantasy, excon. It's a nightmare.

    And Obama can't decide who the monster in this nightmare is. He's spent the past two years telling us it was the evil insurance companies and at his presser it was those greedy doctors that might dare recommend a tonsillectomy or prescribe the blue pill.

    He has repeatedly told us he wants patients and doctors making decisions together, but when you factor in his advisory board that will determine what treatments are allowed, who will be allowed to have them and how he feels about greedy doctors - it sure sounds like he doesn't want patients and doctors involved in the decision making process at all.
  • Jul 24, 2009, 09:33 AM
    ETWolverine
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NeedKarma View Post
    Well if he's not a citizen and is the antichrist plus you have your 2nd amendment that allows you to protect yourself against a leader you hate so much....

    Is that the logic you use? No wonder you always come off looking so foolish.

    You really think that the second amendment is there to allow us to assassinate Presidents we don't like?

    First of all, Obama may be a Marxist, but he is obeying the law. He has not violated the Constitution (although the appointment of "Czars" may be cutting it a bit close). He has not attempted to use the military to gain power or authtority that is not rightfully his as President. He is merely someone we dislike politically. Being wrong, politically or about anything else, is not an excuse for assassination. (Otherwise, you'd have been dead a long time ago.)

    Secondly, there are political means by which to stop Obama's Marxist policies. They are clearly working... the health care thing is pretty much dead until the fall, and after that, I doubt it will have much support. By then people will have read the bill, or at least heard about it, and given the tendencies of Americans, they will hate Obama's proposals. And the health care bill will be dead in the water, just like Hillarycare. So there are political means by which to stop him.

    Third, there is one major reason that nobody in their right mind would assassinate Obama. One thing that people fear even more than having a Marxist in office.

    Biden. The walking, talking gaff machine.

    'nuff said.

    Elliot
  • Jul 24, 2009, 10:36 AM
    NeedKarma
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ETWolverine View Post
    You really think that the second amendment is there to allow us to assasinate Presidents we don't like?

    I guess I was taking earlier threads about gun rights and armed insurrection to heart.
  • Jul 24, 2009, 10:57 AM
    ETWolverine
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NeedKarma View Post
    I guess I was taking earlier threads about gun rights and armed insurrection to heart.

    No you weren't, because those threads said nothing of the sort.

    If you will look back VERY CLOSELY at those other threads, we talk about armed insurrection in the face of a government power grab using the MILITARY to enforce unconstitutional change. We talk about fighting the military IF THE MILITARY TURNS ON US. That, in fact, was the very reason that the 2nd Amendment was written in the first place.

    Nobody at any point ever (that I know of) has talked about armed insurrection against a legitimate President using his legitimate powers in a legitimate manner to push his agenda, no matter how much we dislike that agenda.

    That's just your fantasy at work. Don't try to push your ideas off on us.

    Elliot
  • Jul 24, 2009, 11:02 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NeedKarma View Post
    I guess I was taking earlier threads about gun rights and armed insurrection to heart.

    Hello again, Need:

    Whatdya know about that? The ONE time you believe what they said, and then another of 'em comes along and tells you, nahhhhh - we were just kidding about that.

    But, don't, for a second, believe this nicey nice the Wolverine is playing. He thinks the military overthrow of an elected president is the Constitution in action. He thinks Obama is a Dictator and a Marxist.

    Uhhhh... I can add 2 + 2.

    excon
  • Jul 24, 2009, 11:08 AM
    galveston

    I think NK and Ex are missing a point.

    As long as any would-be dictator KNOWS there are millions of firearms in private homes, armed insurrection is not likely to be NEEDED.

    Does that clarify it?
  • Jul 24, 2009, 11:16 AM
    NeedKarma
    So by your reasoning it is impossible for someone to be a dictator in the US.
  • Jul 24, 2009, 11:17 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by galveston View Post
    As long as any would-be dictator KNOWS there are millions of firearms in private homes, armed insurrection is not likely to be NEEDED.

    Does that clarify it?

    Hello again, gal:

    Yup. Perfectly. But if it IS needed, you and the Wolverine'll be right there...

    By the way, what would cause you think it's NEEDED? Socialism, perhaps? Marxism, and the destruction of the American economy for his own agenda? He's been accused of all those things and even worse by your side. The birthers (your side), think's he's an illegal alien. Isn't having an illegal alien with unknown loyalties reason enough for armed insurrection??

    excon
  • Jul 24, 2009, 11:27 AM
    ETWolverine
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NeedKarma View Post
    So by your reasoning it is impossible for someone to be a dictator in the US.

    Only as long as there is a well-armed civilian population.

    Oh... it's possible for someone to TRY. But as long as the population is well armed and outnumbers the military, any attempt at a MILITARY dictatorship would be doomed to failure.

    However, once the government takes away the right to bear arms, all bets are off.

    Remember, the first of the Nuremberg laws (the laws that Hitler put in place to make it impossible for civillians to overthrow him) was the elimination of the right to own a weapon. From that point on, it became impossible for anyone to overthrow Hitler because he controlled the military... he had all the guns.

    This same pattern is played out throughout history.

    In Japan, only the Samurai were allowed to carry weapons, and the Samurai ruled like dictators. In Okinawa, the Japanese forbid anyone to be armed except members of the Japanese military, and they ruled Okinawa like dictators. Ditto for China. In the Soviet Union, only members of the military or the Politburo were allowed to be armed. The first thing that Castro did upon taking over Cuba was the confiscation of weapons from the public. From that point on, he was able to rule with an iron fist and no fear of being overthrown.

    An unarmed society is unable to defend itself and is vulnerable to tyranny and dictatorship.
  • Jul 24, 2009, 11:31 AM
    ETWolverine
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello again, gal:

    Yup. Perfectly. But if it IS needed, you and the Wolverine'll be right there....

    By the way, what would cause you think it's NEEDED? Socialism, perhaps? Marxism, and the destruction of the American economy for his own agenda? He's been accused of all those things and even worse by your side. The birthers (your side), think's he's an illegal alien. Isn't having an illegal alien with unknown loyalties reason enough for armed insurrection???

    excon

    I know you would love to marginalize us, excon. You can't beat us in an argument, and that ticks you off. So the best you can come up with is some sort of fantasy about plotting Obama's assassination out of fear of him becoming a dictator. It would be so EASY for you if we really thought that way, wouldn't it? But we don't. That's YOUR fantasy, not ours. Ours is to stop Obama politically. And so far it seems to be working.

    Sucks to be you, doesn't it. You can't beat us, and you can't marginalize us.

    Elliot
  • Jul 24, 2009, 11:31 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ETWolverine View Post
    An unarmed society is unable to defend itself and is vulnerable to tyranny and dictatorship.

    Hello again:

    On THIS point we agree. It's just that I thought the dufus was edging towards tyranny with HIS assault on the Constitution, and the Wolverine is worried about Obama.

    Go figure.

    excon
  • Jul 24, 2009, 11:35 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    He thinks the military overthrow of an elected president is the Constitution in action. He thinks Obama is a Dictator and a Marxist.

    Ok, excon Goebbels. You keep repeating this lie in hopes that everyone will believe it. It was NOT a "military overthrow" in Honduras. The military was enforcing a lawful order by their Supreme Court against an unlawful attempt at a power grab. You apparently support the wannabe dictator instead of the Honduran constitution and rule of law.

  • All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:09 AM.