# Historic healthcare overhaul passes House



## CJIS (Mar 12, 2005)

*Historic healthcare overhaul passes House *

Los Angeles Times - ‎1 hour ago‎
The 220-215 vote marks the first such victory in decades of efforts to expand insurance coverage. The bill wins a lone GOP vote and loses many Democrats, pointing to challenges awaiting in the Senate. 

Video: House Passes Health Care Bill The Associated Press

House passes health care reform bill CNN International 

Oh No!


----------



## BB-59 (Oct 19, 2005)

So much for "Goverment fo the People".


----------



## rg1283 (Sep 14, 2005)

100% wrong answer even considering a bill like this.

They want to cut medicare (Most people on medicare are seniors or chronically ill) then cut nursing home care and home care. Then tax the private employers and insurance companies more.

For what? This doesn't help anyone.

Then have the government negotiate prices for services.

A lot of hospitals depends on certain insurance companies and deals to stay open. 

So first Obama and company support screwing over the healthcare industry which in a lot of cases (especially in nursing home and mental health settings) pretty much barely breaks even. 

Then the private companies will have to cut hours of employees and play games to even make $ due to the required health insurance law.

Right now the legislatures should be focusing on the obvious.


----------



## 263FPD (Oct 29, 2004)

BB-59 said:


> So much for "Goverment fo the People".


What do you mean? Doesn't Obama know what's good for us?


----------



## BB-59 (Oct 19, 2005)

263FPD said:


> What do you mean? Doesn't Obama know what's good for us?


Sorry, forgot my "Obama Kool aid". Ahh! Obama is the anoited one!

Much better now!


----------



## 8MORE (Nov 25, 2008)

If this "_Health Care Reform" _is such a great deal, Why did they have to do this on a Saturday night at almost midnight,(When they think no one will notice?)?? They really are a slimy bunch!!!!


----------



## dcs2244 (Jan 29, 2004)

If it's such a good idea, why did they exempt themselves from Obamacare?


----------



## grn3charlie (Jul 18, 2005)

Waa waa waa, so we are thowing capitalism out the window even though our country is has thrived upon it. Stop worrying about the old slackers on the medicare dole, they'll be first in line at the death panels so no harm no foul.

Listen up and listen good. The mighty one has spoken and even though socialism has fallen flat everywhere it's been tried, the mighty one will make it happen here. Oh, as for speaking out against this, watch out, they are listening and you will be called in by the secret national police nice knowin ya!

BTW, on a lighter note, doesn't Bella Pelosi look like the crypt keeper?


----------



## 263FPD (Oct 29, 2004)

grn3charlie said:


> Waa waa waa, so we are thowing capitalism out the window even though our country is has thrived upon it. Stop worrying about the old slackers on the medicare dole, they'll be first in line at the death panels so no harm no foul.
> 
> Listen up and listen good. The mighty one has spoken and even though socialism has fallen flat everywhere it's been tried, the mighty one will make it happen here. Oh, as for speaking out against this, watch out, they are listening and you will be called in by the secret national police nice knowin ya!
> 
> BTW, on a lighter note, doesn't Bella Pelosi look like the crypt keeper?


If I did not know that there was actual sarcasm there, I would have to hunt you down and arrest you for being a commie propagandist.


----------



## StbbrnMedic (Nov 28, 2008)

grn3charlie said:


> BTW, on a lighter note, doesn't Bella Pelosi look like the crypt keeper?


:L: :L:
This made me laugh out loud!!!


----------



## grn3charlie (Jul 18, 2005)

263FPD said:


> If I did not know that there was actual sarcasm there, I would have to hunt you down and arrest you for being a commie propagandist.


If there were no sarcasm you could find me at the Boston Globe. Get it? Boston Globe (liberal/socialists) in the "red" bahahahaha!

Cue crickets.............

Aw shucks!


----------



## Nyla (Oct 31, 2009)

a poll running today on Foxnews.com indicates that over 95% of submitted votes believe that the Democrats did NOT do the right thing in passing the Health Reform Bill. Over 95,000 respondents to the poll.... how much louder do we have to be ???!!!


----------



## StbbrnMedic (Nov 28, 2008)

We don't matter... They say we do, but they're full of shit.


----------



## rg1283 (Sep 14, 2005)

Remember it still has to go through the Senate, etc. This bill has a while to go.

I am still scared though. Working in the healthcare industry this may affect that. 

Look and see how well the Massachusetts System is working. This "national" system is similar to the Massachusetts System. Imagine the impact it will have on businesses and investors. Those people will be less likely to invest in the U.S. and look elsewhere around the world for employees and facilities. 

I don't know why people think Mitt Romney is the next Ronald Reagan. Mitt wasn't too bad. However he did 2 things that ticked me off.

1. Signed the MA Healthcare law we have today/

2. Signed the MA Assault Weapons Ban Law Renewal.


----------



## Omega (Oct 14, 2009)

grn3charlie said:


> \ Oh, as for speaking out against this, watch out, they are listening and you will be called in by the secret national police nice knowin ya!


You can thank Bush and the Patriot Act for that


----------



## Guest (Nov 9, 2009)

mtc said:


> I just threw up.. more than a little.


I hope you are not getting sick. Under the new plan it will take awhile to see the doctor.


----------



## Omega (Oct 14, 2009)

MSP75 said:


> I hope you are not getting sick.


made me think of something I seen the other day...I was at the WVU/Louisville games on Saturday (one of the most boring games I have ever watched in my life) and a message came across the Jumbotron that said "Got H1N1? Go Home!" and then some website. I laughed a little.


----------



## 263FPD (Oct 29, 2004)

Omega said:


> You can thank Bush and the Patriot Act for that


Omega, really?

Kindly GFY!!!

SInce 9/11, how many other terrorist attacks have we had under Bush's Patriot Act? Your almighty "O" is fixing to undo all of that.

Hey I just thought of the new symbol for the Almighty "O"


----------



## Eagle13 (Jun 12, 2008)

We are so fucked. Everyone better be voting next time around.


----------



## 263FPD (Oct 29, 2004)

Eagle13 said:


> We are so fucked. Everyone better be voting next time around.


Every body did vote the last time. Trouble is,that the fuckers that never voted before in their life, drank the koolaid and voted solely based on a racial bias. And, Presto, welcome to Socialism.


----------



## uspresident1 (Jan 12, 2007)

Woudln't it be nice if only the members of this forum were allowed to vote in elections? Not the 20 year old idiots from Harvard and the hippies who sit in starbucks all day


----------



## grn3charlie (Jul 18, 2005)

Omega said:


> You can thank Bush and the Patriot Act for that


Damn near passed my koolaid through my nose reading that!!


----------



## OfficerObie59 (Sep 14, 2007)

rg1283 said:


> Remember it still has to go through the Senate, etc. This bill has a while to go.


Same here. My biggest fear is the public option, and I doubt that's making it through the Senate hell or highwater. Harry Reid himself has said he doubts the Senate will be able to pass their own version by the end of the year, nevermind reconcile the two versions.

When you have Joe Lieberman saying he won't vote for it, that'll show you what a leftist idea it is, seconded by the fact it only won by 5 House votes.


rg1283 said:


> I am still scared though. Working in the healthcare industry this may affect that.
> 
> Look and see how well the Massachusetts System is working. This "national" system is similar to the Massachusetts System. Imagine the impact it will have on businesses and investors. Those people will be less likely to invest in the U.S. and look elsewhere around the world for employees and facilities.
> 
> ...


I also don't get the love affair with Romney, or the comparisons to him as the next Ronald Regan. Sure, he's better than any Democrat out there, but as far as the Republicans go, I can think of quite a few others I'd rather have than Mitt.

Whatever electorate Mitt needs to please is where his current politics and ideology stands. Sorry, but I'd take someone with a true set of convictions I may not all share, than someone whose convictions matches mine 100% but that were completely different 10 years ago.

That said, he'll be the Republican nominee in 2012. The GOP has this persistant habit of choosing it's last runner up for Presidential primetime on the next go-round.



Omega said:


> You can thank Bush and the Patriot Act for that


Yeah, because half of the entirely democratic Massachusetts Congressional delegation and both Kerry and Kennedy didn't vote the PATRIOT Act into law...it's all Bush's fault.

http://www.denverpost.com/viewpoints/ci_13671921?source=bb


----------



## uspresident1 (Jan 12, 2007)

OfficerObie59 said:


> I also don't get the love affair with Romney, or the comparisons to him as the next Ronald Regan. Sure, he's better than any Democrat out there, but *as far as the Republicans go, I can think of quite a few others I'd rather have than Mitt.*


Absolutly, 100% agree. I do like Romney for the most part but as RG said he was the governor who initiated this Mass Health nonsense. He is not the ideal conservative canidate. I know I am dreaming but I would love to see Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, or Alan Keyes in the White House in 2013.


----------



## Omega (Oct 14, 2009)

Calm down people, it was a joke notice the smiley at the end. I know that both Dems and Repubs voted to pass it, but I don't like potentially having my privacy invaded. 

"Those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither"-Benjamin Franklin


----------



## 263FPD (Oct 29, 2004)

Omega said:


> Calm down people, it was a joke notice the smiley at the end. I know that both Dems and Repubs voted to pass it, but I don't like potentially having my privacy invaded.
> 
> "Those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither"-Benjamin Franklin


Benjamin Franklin did not live to see the fall of the twin towers either, so Benjamin Franklin can just stay dead and not worry about it.


----------



## Kilvinsky (Jan 15, 2007)

Nyla said:


> a poll running today on Foxnews.com indicates that over 95% of submitted votes believe that the Democrats did NOT do the right thing in passing the Health Reform Bill. Over 95,000 respondents to the poll.... how much louder do we have to be ???!!!


You can't go by a Fox poll, you know they only ask the opinion of registered Republicans!

I did feel reassured when even Dirty Harry Reid admitted it wasn't going anywhere fast. It must have killed him and no doubt he went right over to the Crypt Keeper's (I LOVE THAT) house that very night and sobbed on her breast. "Forgive me dear Nancy, please, oh, how I did try!"

As for the 2012 election, we'll all be dead anyway, so it really doesn't matter anyway. Ask any Mayan, they'll tell you!8-O


----------



## OfficerObie59 (Sep 14, 2007)

Omega said:


> Calm down people, it was a joke notice the smiley at the end. I know that both Dems and Repubs voted to pass it, but I don't like potentially having my privacy invaded.
> 
> "Those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither"-Benjamin Franklin


The Patriot Act had some provisions that make me uneasy, but I focus the blame in the proper direction.

Personally, I can't stand it when people who don't believe in virtually any of other values the Founding Fathers fought for cite that mis- and overused quote. At least quote Dr. Franklin properly, as the quote was a bit more articulate than the manner in which you use it. He deserves at least as much:


> "They who can give up _essential_ liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."


When Franklin wrote the quote, he was noting that if the citizens of Massachusetts should bend over and let Parliment alter thier laws sans representation without a fight, they deserved all they got.
Memoirs of the life and writings of ... - Google Books

While we're exchanging Franklin quotes here, I find this one even much more current:


> "He that lives upon hope will die fasting." - 'Poor' Richard Saunders


Basically, if you sit around on your ass waiting for shit to happen (like, oh say, for the government to do shit for you), you'll be left with nothing. In our nanny state, it's not as true as it should be, though those that voted for "Hope" still seem to be fasting.
Life of Benjamin Franklin - Google Books


----------



## grn3charlie (Jul 18, 2005)

OfficerObie59 said:


> In our *Namby pamby *state, it's not as true as it should be, though those that voted for "Hope" still seem to be fasting.
> Life of Benjamin Franklin - Google Books


FIFY!


----------



## MichaelJones (Nov 11, 2009)

I'm not sure what to think about this bill. On one hand we desperately need overhaul on the otherhand no one will work together at a consensus... And make sure we aren't rushing this through.. 

I wish I had the time to read this hefty thing..

So much propaganda from both ends clouds the actual outcome and intentions of this bill.. Wake up America, stop arguing and start discussing.


----------



## Eagle13 (Jun 12, 2008)

MichaelJones said:


> I'm not sure what to think about this bill. On one hand we desperately need overhaul on the otherhand no one will work together at a consensus... And make sure we aren't rushing this through..
> 
> I wish I had the time to read this hefty thing..


I wish the legislature would take the time they have to actually read it too!


----------



## MichaelJones (Nov 11, 2009)

Eagle13 said:


> I wish the legislature would take the time they have to actually read it too!


Would be a refreshing pace, it's too bad money is all that matters to those blockheads.


----------



## Eagle13 (Jun 12, 2008)

MichaelJones said:


> Would be a refreshing pace, it's too bad money is all that matters to those blockheads.


We agree on something there!


----------



## chief801 (Dec 8, 2004)

MichaelJones said:


> I'm not sure what to think about this bill. On one hand we desperately need overhaul on the otherhand no one will work together at a consensus... And make sure we aren't rushing this through..
> 
> I wish I had the time to read this hefty thing..
> 
> So much propaganda from both ends clouds the actual outcome and intentions of this bill.. Wake up America, stop arguing and start discussing.


Bravo MJ....you've summed up the very problem with our entire system. Both sides are so busy pushing and pulling for what they believe is right that nothing of any significance actually gets done. We are more worried about party politics than true nationalism (not to be confused with socialism!). We spend more time crapping on the other side and looking for errors so that our respective parties can prevail in the next election than we do actually trying to solve problems. Obama may not be my favorite, but he is the freakin' president of the United States. The focus should be to stand behind him in a united front...if his ideas fail, vote him out! I'll give him some credit for at least trying to bring about change. Change cannot happen if our political machine will not allow it to. We all agree the system is f'd...and private insurance has done nothing but cause cost increases that far outpace annual cost of living raises. I know we are looking at a 7% increase in our plan this year after getting a 2% raise last year, a few years back, we had a 14% increase with a 3% raise. Something has to be done! We count on government for education and public safety, why not healthcare? If we determine that healthcare is a social right in our country, all of the money that is currently going to private entitities in the form of profits could be put towards better/cheaper care. It could be left to choice, either pay into the cheaper, govt. backed package, or opt out and continue with private coverage. We allow this with schools...either go to public school, or foot the bill for private school. I don't hear any of us sceaming to make public safety private! Hell, we want more government dollars put towards public safety. Aren't the goals of public safety and public health parallel? Isn't the idea behind both to protect the lives of American citizens?


----------



## OfficerObie59 (Sep 14, 2007)

MichaelJones said:


> I'm not sure what to think about this bill. On one hand we desperately need overhaul on the otherhand no one will work together at a consensus... And make sure we aren't rushing this through..
> 
> I wish I had the time to read this hefty thing..
> 
> So much propaganda from both ends clouds the actual outcome and intentions of this bill.. Wake up America, stop arguing and start discussing.


I have no problems discussing, but in any negotiation, both parties come in with bottom lines of what they're willing to accept. And when this bottom lines overlap, a stalemate occurs. Passing legislation is supposed to be a difficult and arduous process. When it's not, we get shit like making Operation after Supension a $500 fine for 6 weeks before it gets changed back again. Seems to me this is representitive democracy in action.

But again, I disagree with the very foundation of your argument.

We "deparately need overhaul"? Really? Says who? My healthcare is just fine. I'm happy with it. And if god forbid I loose my job down the line, I damn well better do something about it. I live my life under the premise of always being self-sufficent, and I expect others to be as well.

Other people's healthcare? Falls under the category of "not my problem". If their employer doesn't provide healthcare, they should get a job that does. If they can't get a job that does, then they should take steps that will enable them to get such a job.

Listen, is some reform needed? Sure. But under no means is it an emergency, nor should it compose 1,900 pages. When the public option is added, it's where I take my ball off the bargaining table and go home. That's my bottom line. I hope a cloture-proof majority of senators do the same.

I still stand behind every word...
http://www.masscops.com/forums/blogs/officerobie59/44-obamonation-obamacare.html


----------



## MichaelJones (Nov 11, 2009)

OfficerObie59 said:


> Seems to me this is representitive democracy in action.


It's not the stalemate, it's the way they conduct themselves and the way they are more obsessed with proving whose side is right by pure lies. (Death Panels, Miraculous Bills that will fix all that ails our system, etc..)



> But again, I disagree with the very foundation of your argument.


Because you haven't had to deal with the dark side of healthcare.



> We "deparately need overhaul"? Really? Says who? My healthcare is just fine. I'm happy with it. And if god forbid I loose my job down the line, I damn well better do something about it.


 Who provides your health care, and as an officer I'm sure you are well paid and very well able to afford it. But ....








All of us in this country aren't blessed with high finances.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Personal_Household_Income_U.png











> I live my life under the premise of always being self-sufficent, and I expect others to be as well.


 I agree people should be self-sufficient, but should people who get cancer, who get hit with bills continue to be denied future coverage and stuck with bills that no longer allow them to pay their mortgage? Should a baby with a few extra pounds not be allowed insurance? I also hate welfare and think it seriously needs to be fixed and with time limits, but do you honestly think all those uninsured are simply uninsured because of laziness, or because of many factors? A job that pays barely enough to pay your bills, and especially no health insurance? Because for someone working at minimum wage, theirs no way they can seriously afford health care.. That's a large majority of our populations, be it through medical problems, a lack of education we have people who will get sick and without health insurance end up costing our hospitals in the end, by people who don't pay their extremely high medical bills, they charge you a couple grand to fix up a stitch without insurance....



> Other people's healthcare? Falls under the category of "not my problem".


 I'm not quite as cold, other people are just extensions of myself. I am strict in this regard, people deserve a helpup not a handout. That means if people are truly struggling, help them be it through food, education, insurance etc.. but this helpup can not be permanent nor can it be unregulated.. Welfare is an example of failed helpup, turned handout system. Without serious limitations and people seriously checking up on all welfare recipients it's nothing but a failed system.

I would never say, "not my problem" whether it was or wasn't you're all brothers and sisters in humanity, and more importantly citizens of this great country.



> If their employer doesn't provide healthcare, they should get a job that does. If they can't get a job that does, then they should take steps that will enable them to get such a job.


 Simple to say, harder to do. When you are stuck at a dead-end low paying job, with no one able to assist you it's hard to afford college, or to find a higher paying job at the snap of a finger. When all the money you make is made for rent, bills, and food, it leaves little for health insurance, and college at the same time... A lot of us had parents that helped us get to where we are at this point in life, or we grew up in a different time when jobs were more available and to strike your way into the world without a college education was quite simple, but that is not the case in 2009. With the fall of the industrialized America towards the service based America we live in today, hardly any real jobs are available without a college education..



> Listen, is some reform needed? Sure. But under no means is it an emergency, nor should it compose 1,900 pages.


 I would argue that it's an emergency. Insurance companies basically at this point have all the power and decision making in their courts. They can deny anyone for whatever reasons they deem fit, car insurance companies can't even do this. They overcharge on a daily basis, and make it so unaffordable that a large majority of this country is not insured and ends up costing us taxpayers money in the long run when they drop into the hospital and never pay their bills...



> When the public option is added, it's where I take my ball off the bargaining table and go home. That's my bottom line. I hope a cloture-proof majority of senators do the same.


 I understand your fear, their needs to be clear way to pay for this public option. Be it through cutting of other less needed pork, or services... But honestly our people really need more affordable health insurance.


----------



## dcs2244 (Jan 29, 2004)

chief801 said:


> "Bravo MJ....you've summed up the very problem with our entire system. Both sides are so busy pushing and pulling for what they believe is right that nothing of any significance actually gets done. We are more worried about party politics than true nationalism (not to be confused with socialism!). We spend more time crapping on the other side and looking for errors so that our respective parties can prevail in the next election than we do actually trying to solve problems. COLOR="Red"]Obama may not be my favorite, but he is the freakin' president of the United States. The focus should be to stand behind him in a united front...if his ideas fail, vote him out! I'll give him some credit for at least trying to bring about change.[/COLOR]"


Wrong, sir. President Obama's "ideas" have failed. They failed in Soviet Russia. They failed in Eastern Europe. They failed in Red China (real 'change' is in process there). They failed in North Korea and Cuba. In fact, they have failed everywhere they have been tried previously, even the milquetoast versions in the EU (If you doubt the president's political philosophy, please examine the people he has surrounded himself with). Why are you so willing to allow the application of a bankrupt philosophy to America? No, our system is not perfect; no system designed by man can be. Our system, however, is the best thus far.

"Something has to be done! We count on government for education and public safety, why not healthcare? If we determine that healthcare is a social right in our country, all of the money that is currently going to private entitities in the form of profits could be put towards better/cheaper care. It could be left to choice, either pay into the cheaper, govt. backed package, or opt out and continue with private coverage. We allow this with schools...either go to public school, or foot the bill for private school. I don't hear any of us sceaming to make public safety private! Hell, we want more government dollars put towards public safety. Aren't the goals of public safety and public health parallel? Isn't the idea behind both to protect the lives of American citizens?"

Something may indeed have to be done. But not just "anything" so that people can say we "did something." Once profit is removed from the system, research stops. Nobody is risking money for free. The insurance company profits average approximately 3%. What a windfall! A true free market would go far toward remedying some of the problems with our current system. We need to look at healthcare banks and insurance separate from employers.

The government system will not be cheaper. It's not cheaper anywhere else. The cost may be less, but the availability of care is rationed. Doctors and nurses are in short supply. Witness the wait at the Peace Bridge in Buffalo as Canadians flock to the US to pay for stuff out-of-pocket that they are denied, or waiting for months/years for under the Canadian Plan. A plan that, like Britain's before it, was touted as THE MODEL for a US plan. Even now, the Massachusetts plan is beginning to ration, reducing the physicians available to the individual, and the hospitals to which they can go for treatment of certain problems. Contrary to what you've been told, "opt out" is a chimeara; once out of the private insurance, you will not be allowed to leave the government health dole and re-enter the private sphere. Too, since government will be dictating the price structure (and therefore the wage structure), private industry will not be able to compete.

Your argument vis-à-vis public school/public safety is a straw man. Sure, one can choose to send their children to a public school, but if they wish to send their children to a private school, then they must pay for it AND the public option (see the whole voucher argument). Public safety is rightly a government responsibility as "general welfare." Schools are not, and neither is healthcare. Lets not forget some of the other government success stories: Social Security; Medicaid/Medicare; Welfare; Public Education. 
No, the goals of public safety and public health care are not the same. Public Safety seeks to provide a secure society in which the INDIVIDUAL can best regulate his pursuit of industry (h/t TJ). Public healthcare is merely a vehicle for the government to regulate a large portion of the economy, and to regulate an individual's personal conduct (determining what's good for you). If you believe this healthcare debate is about healthcare, you are seriously misinformed. It's about control. It's about America Unfree. 
Understand this, Chief, if we are unable to sort this out at the ballot box, we shall surely be sorting it out via the cartridge box. When that happens, you and I will likely be enemies, as I will never permit Americans to be subjugated by anyone, regardless of the perceived purity of their motivations. Americans, once again at each others throats.

The Republic shall be restored.


----------



## grn3charlie (Jul 18, 2005)

dcs2244 said:


> Wrong, sir. President Obama's "ideas" have failed. They failed in Soviet Russia. They failed in Eastern Europe. They failed in Red China (real 'change' is in process there). They failed in North Korea and Cuba. In fact, they have failed everywhere they have been tried previously, even the milquetoast versions in the EU (If you doubt the president's political philosophy, please examine the people he has surrounded himself with). Why are you so willing to allow the application of a bankrupt philosophy to America? No, our system is not perfect; no system designed by man can be. Our system, however, is the best thus far.
> 
> "Something has to be done! We count on government for education and public safety, why not healthcare? If we determine that healthcare is a social right in our country, all of the money that is currently going to private entitities in the form of profits could be put towards better/cheaper care. It could be left to choice, either pay into the cheaper, govt. backed package, or opt out and continue with private coverage. We allow this with schools...either go to public school, or foot the bill for private school. I don't hear any of us sceaming to make public safety private! Hell, we want more government dollars put towards public safety. Aren't the goals of public safety and public health parallel? Isn't the idea behind both to protect the lives of American citizens?"
> 
> ...


OK, that's just too intelligently written for me to comment on other than to say, wha he thaid!!

BTW chief, haven't seen you around here in a while. Nice to see you back. Though we do not see eye to eye on all, I respect your thick skin and willingness to listen to others.


----------



## OfficerObie59 (Sep 14, 2007)

dcs2244 said:


> Public healthcare is merely a vehicle for the government to regulate a large portion of the economy, and to regulate an individual's personal conduct (determining what's good for you).


Bravo.

My biggest qualm with the public option is not cost, nor the expansion of government, but rather the aspects of our daily lives it will allow the government to control.

All the gov't needs to do is say that there is a compelling government interest in banning certain products and behaviors because they are too costly in healthcare costs.



MichaelJones said:


> Because you haven't had to deal with the dark side of healthcare...Who provides your health care, and as an officer I'm sure you are well paid and very well able to afford it. But .... All of us in this country aren't blessed with high finances...


See, here's the disconnect. Unless mommy and daddy are wealthy, most people are not "blessed". They work had for what they have and are self made.

I'm a public servant who has earned everything he has without handouts from anyone, to include my parents. Joined the Army out of high school, went to Iraq for 16 months, came home took an exam, and went to college. I'm completely self made, and I'm by no means the brightest bulb in the bunch. If I can do it, there's no reason why others cannot as well.



MichaelJones said:


> I agree people should be self-sufficient, but should people who get cancer, who get hit with bills continue to be denied future coverage and stuck with bills that no longer allow them to pay their mortgage? Should a baby with a few extra pounds not be allowed insurance? I also hate welfare and think it seriously needs to be fixed and with time limits, but do you honestly think all those uninsured are simply uninsured because of laziness, or because of many factors? A job that pays barely enough to pay your bills, and especially no health insurance? Because for someone working at minimum wage, theirs no way they can seriously afford health care.. That's a large majority of our populations, be it through medical problems, a lack of education we have people who will get sick and without health insurance end up costing our hospitals in the end, by people who don't pay their extremely high medical bills, they charge you a couple grand to fix up a stitch without insurance....


You do bring up some good points, and I'm not unwavering to a bill of any kind. But like I said, I cannot begin to negotiate at the current time, because there are certain parts of the bill I will not agree to under any circumstances.


MichaelJones said:


> I'm not quite as cold, other people are just extensions of myself. I am strict in this regard, *people deserve a helpup* not a handout. That means if people are truly struggling, help them be it through food, education, insurance etc..


No, no, no. People do not _deserve_ anything from government other than the minimum services it takes to maintain a society. Government services are instituted to do for us collectively what we cannot do as individuals. Public safety, public works, and common defense are good examples. In contrast, I cannot think of very many things more individual than one's healthcare. 


MichaelJones said:


> I would never say, "not my problem" whether it was or wasn't you're all brothers and sisters in humanity, and more importantly citizens of this great country.


So if you're not that cold, feel free to donte the additonal money you'd be taxed, and pay for healthcare that way. Leave me out of it.

I'm not that cold; I just don't think government should be the one to do the helping. I donate to private entities when I can, and I do _that _out of choice and love for my fellow citizens. The government on the other hand, takes my hard-earned money under forced payroll deductions and the coercive threat of a tax-evasion charge and jail time and dispurses my money as _it_ sees fit. It robs from me to give to someone else...kinda sounds like...socialism.



MichaelJones said:


> Simple to say, harder to do. When you are stuck at a dead-end low paying job, with no one able to assist you it's hard to afford college, or to find a higher paying job at the snap of a finger. When all the money you make is made for rent, bills, and food, it leaves little for health insurance, and college at the same time... A lot of us had parents that helped us get to where we are at this point in life, or we grew up in a different time when jobs were more available and to strike your way into the world without a college education was quite simple, but that is not the case in 2009. With the fall of the industrialized America towards the service based America we live in today, hardly any real jobs are available without a college education..


Again, my parents helped diddly squat with our educations. As a matter of fact, my wife's parents wer actually _a hinderance_ before we got married. One of the benefits of nupuals was that she no longer had to calculate her parents into student loan calculations--even though they never helped with a penny of her schooling anyways. She and I have paid for our entire way.

For those who hadn't the foresight to prepare for a life of proseperity, my heart goes out to them, as does the money I'll drop into the Salvation Army bucket this holiday season. But again, it's simply not a proper governmental role to compensate for people's on lack of planning in their own lives.



MichaelJones said:


> I would argue that it's an emergency. Insurance companies basically at this point have all the power and decision making in their courts. They can deny anyone for whatever reasons they deem fit, car insurance companies can't even do this. *They overcharge on a daily basis, and make it so unaffordable that a large majority of this country is not insured* and ends up costing us taxpayers money in the long run when they drop into the hospital and never pay their bills...


Really? A large majority? In a country that has 300 million people, that would mean more than 150 million are uninsured. Even MSNBC is using the absurd 47 million figure.

When only 10-15 million--or 1 in 30--are 1) Aerican citizens, 2) without health insurance and 3) have no means or ability whatsoever of getting it, there's no emergency. There's a problem, sure, but it is not an urgent one.


MichaelJones said:


> I understand your fear, their needs to be clear way to pay for this public option. Be it through cutting of other less needed pork, or services... But honestly our people really need more affordable health insurance.


It's not fear. I consdier it healthy, vehelment skepticism about the role of government in the United States.

This country was founded on the notion that people ought to be skeptical of government power. I will not allow that value to disappear completely as long as I walk this earth.


----------



## chief801 (Dec 8, 2004)

dcs2244 said:


> Wrong, sir. President Obama's "ideas" have failed. They failed in Soviet Russia. They failed in Eastern Europe. They failed in Red China (real 'change' is in process there). They failed in North Korea and Cuba. In fact, they have failed everywhere they have been tried previously, even the milquetoast versions in the EU (If you doubt the president's political philosophy, please examine the people he has surrounded himself with). Why are you so willing to allow the application of a bankrupt philosophy to America? No, our system is not perfect; no system designed by man can be. Our system, however, is the best thus far.
> 
> "Something has to be done! We count on government for education and public safety, why not healthcare? If we determine that healthcare is a social right in our country, all of the money that is currently going to private entitities in the form of profits could be put towards better/cheaper care. It could be left to choice, either pay into the cheaper, govt. backed package, or opt out and continue with private coverage. We allow this with schools...either go to public school, or foot the bill for private school. I don't hear any of us sceaming to make public safety private! Hell, we want more government dollars put towards public safety. Aren't the goals of public safety and public health parallel? Isn't the idea behind both to protect the lives of American citizens?"
> 
> ...


Good argument, but bluntly stating I'm wrong is a stretch...different opinion, yes, but wrong...hardly. I would suggest reading Karl Polanyi's "Great Transformation", Douglass North "Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance", and Gosta Esping-Andersen "The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism". Polanyi gives a historical perspective on the development of the free market economy and offers a good discussion on how, left unregulated, it will crash. We've seen it time and time again. His basic premise is that the commodification of labor leads to the market controlling society, as opposed to society controlling the market. Once the market dictates who can and cannot work, you create social stratification and the need for social welfare. It is the unrestricted free market that causes fluctuations in the supply and demand for labor, which then leads to people wanting government assistance.

North's discussions are similar to Polanyi, as he states it is imperative for certain legal and social institutions to be in place if the free market is going to flourish.

Esping-Andersen discusses three types of welfare regimes: liberal, conservative, and social democratic. Basically, good background information.

I'm not an advocate of communism, socialism, or an unrestricted free market. Esping-Andersen's social democratic model is sort of a hybrid, if you will, that calls for a free market with appropriate restrictions in place that will minimize the wild fluctuations we've experienced that lead to economic crisis. We will not become a socialist country, regardless what some may think.

You were quick to jump to taking up arms and becoming enemies, which makes my point about the polarizing effects of our system. There is a common ground to be had that does the most good for the most people, I don't see the harm in that. Healthcare is both a public health and an economic issue. I personally believe that in this day and age, with the collective wealth and technology possessed by us, that there should be a minimum level of healthcare available to everyone. That's not communist nor socialist, but humanitarian.

As I said previously, good debate, but instead of trying to prove right or wrong, I propose taking the good points from both sides to develop a solution that has not been tried yet, because obviously we can do better.


----------



## OfficerObie59 (Sep 14, 2007)

chief801 said:


> Polanyi gives a historical perspective on the development of the free market economy and offers a good discussion on how, left unregulated, it will crash. We've seen it time and time again. His basic premise is that the commodification of labor leads to the market controlling society, as opposed to society controlling the market. Once the market dictates who can and cannot work, you create social stratification and the need for social welfare. It is the unrestricted free market that causes fluctuations in the supply and demand for labor, which then leads to people wanting government assistance.


As much as I love the teachings of Ayn Rand, I don't favor Randian lazzez-faire capitalism. Hell, her biggest protoge Alan Greenspan has even admitted to it's flaws as you note above. But saying that since totally free markets don't work, social welfare is the answer--that's a fallicy of a false alternative. It's like saying since my car has a air leak in one tire, I have to go buy a new car. It's a disproportionate remedy.

Minor regulation of the markets is perfectly reasonable, and also happens to be a constitutional mandate of Congress via the Commerce Clause.



chief801 said:


> Healthcare is both a public health and an economic issue. I personally believe that in this day and age, with the _collective_ wealth and technology possessed by us, that there should be a minimum level of healthcare available to everyone.


First of all, my wealth belongs to me and only me. My wealth (limited as it is) is not the collective property of others, and as such I should be under no obligation to share it with anyone other than myself unless I dictate so. It is my hard labor that provides my family with my paycheck, and the portion of which goes to the government should only be enough to cover the aforementioned basic services.

And I disagree this healthcare issue is a "public health" issue. What is more individual to person than their own health? Someone answer that question for me, because it always seems to go unadressed.

In contrast, true public health issues are those in which the individual cannot under any circumstances remedy alone. Controlling the spread of swine flu, making sure the drinking water is safe, making sure the materials my home is built with will not kill me by disease--those are true public health issues, and ones that conincidentally display some of government's biggest failures and f*ck ups.



chief801 said:


> That's not communist nor socialist, but humanitarian.


Commie no, socialist yes. Because it is the *government* who you believe should be the provider of the healthcare.

I would love to see everyone have healthcare, but again, it is not the government's role. And when the government is the provider, I deem that socialistic.

How about this: Everyone who wants universal healthcare can go set up a foundation where they provide healthcare to the 50 or so million they claim don't have it. That would be fine with me; I might even donate.

But don't use government's coercive power to forcefully take from me to make it happen.


----------



## dcs2244 (Jan 29, 2004)

chief801 said:


> Good argument, but bluntly stating I'm wrong is a stretch...different opinion, yes, but wrong...hardly. I would suggest reading Karl Polanyi's "Great Transformation", Douglass North "Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance", and Gosta Esping-Andersen "The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism". Polanyi gives a historical perspective on the development of the free market economy and offers a good discussion on how, left unregulated, it will crash. We've seen it time and time again. His basic premise is that the commodification of labor leads to the market controlling society, as opposed to society controlling the market. Once the market dictates who can and cannot work, you create social stratification and the need for social welfare. It is the unrestricted free market that causes fluctuations in the supply and demand for labor, which then leads to people wanting government assistance.
> 
> North's discussions are similar to Polanyi, as he states it is imperative for certain legal and social institutions to be in place if the free market is going to flourish.
> 
> ...


Such is the pollution of the western academy with Marxist and Neomarxist thought, that I am not surprised you would try to use Polanyi's "Great Transformation" to defend your thesis. I'll avoid "reinventing the wheel" and let Murray N. Rothbard address Professor Polanyi (circa 1961):

"Karl Polanyi's The Great Transformation is a farrago of confusions, absurdities, fallacies, and distorted attacks on the free market. The temptation is to engage in almost a line-by-line critique. I will abjure this to first set out some of the basic philosophic and economic flaws, before going into some of the detailed criticisms.

One basic philosophic flaw in Polanyi is a common defect of modern intellectuals-a defect which has been rampant since Rousseau and the Romantic Movement: Worship of the Primitive&#8230;" Down With Primitivism: A Thorough Critique of Polanyi - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Institute

Everybody: this link is to a brief essay that is fully referenced, allowing you to pursue your personal edification to the limits of your interest in the subject. Dr. Rothbard's intellect is nonpareil, and he is a natural teacher; he explains things in a manner that is very accessible to the layman.

*Douglass North* attempts to reintegrate economic theory with economic history; the guy won a Nobel prize (for actually doing, as opposed to the president's Nobel) for his school of thought. I'm not competent to refute a whole school (New Institutional History), however the Austrians aren't buying it. Joseph Stromberg discusses North's ideas in the paper "Douglass North and Non-Marxist Institutional Development" (Don't get excited; North has described himself as a Marxist):

"... Douglass North has written many essays and books over forty or more years in which
he has sought to reintegrate economic theory and economic history. ..."

Search Results: Douglass North

*Gosta Esping-Andersen's* ideas are grounded in Marxism, and divide the welfare hierarchy into three groups based on "class mobility:" Liberal (USA), Conservative (Germany), and Social Democratic (Sweden). This is just Marxism with a wig and lipstick.

Chief, in eschewing Marxism, socialism, and communism, you have in fact endorsed them! This is the peril of the modern western academy, Marxism reinvented and made palatable in the name of "social justice." Calling it "humanitarian" doesn't change the thing&#8230;a rose, and all that. Unfortunately, this is not the way people, and thus the world, work. See Ludwig Von Mises "Human Action" and Henry Hazlitt's "Economics in one Lesson." Too, read Robert Graves "I, Claudius" for an insight into the human animal .

Bluntly stating "wrong" merely stated my opinion of your position, and drew a line in the sand, demanding a response from you. You did, and I reciprocated. You suggested that I was quick to "&#8230;taking up arms&#8230;"; indeed, since any compromise with those who insist on statist solutions will result in tyranny and slavery, the matter will likely be resolved by armed conflict. My family has never accepted slavery, and never will; make of that what you will, Chief. Nothing personal. It's a matter of human liberty.


----------



## OfficerObie59 (Sep 14, 2007)

dcs2244 said:


> Such is the pollution of the western academy with Marxist and Neomarxist thought, that I am not surprised you would try to use Polanyi's "Great Transformation" to defend your thesis. I'll avoid "reinventing the wheel" and let Murray N. Rothbard address Professor Polanyi (circa 1961):
> 
> "Karl Polanyi's The Great Transformation is a farrago of confusions, absurdities, fallacies, and distorted attacks on the free market. The temptation is to engage in almost a line-by-line critique. I will abjure this to first set out some of the basic philosophic and economic flaws, before going into some of the detailed criticisms.
> 
> ...


Wow.......


----------



## MichaelJones (Nov 11, 2009)

OfficerObie59 said:


> See, here's the disconnect. Unless mommy and daddy are wealthy, most people are not "blessed". They work had for what they have and are self made.
> 
> I'm a public servant who has earned everything he has without handouts from anyone, to include my parents. Joined the Army out of high school, went to Iraq for 16 months, came home took an exam, and went to college. I'm completely self made, and I'm by no means the brightest bulb in the bunch. If I can do it, there's no reason why others cannot as well.


 In a country with billions of people and less jobs, that is hardly feasible. Many people will find good jobs, be it through connections, hard work, or the right parents showing you the way.. Not everyone is going to join the Army and have their scholarship paid for them. You try working at a minimum or low wage job, and being able to afford school it's not quite as simple. The military path is a great option for those who are ready for that kind of life. But what about the rest of the US that doesn't have a parent or military scholarship to do? This is an example of where I believe the Government should be giving hand ups, helping more poor but willing students helped into college. Instead of constantly giving money in welfare checks that people can live off of indefinitely, we can empower these people with knowledge and an ability to find a job.



> You do bring up some good points, and I'm not unwavering to a bill of any kind. But like I said, I cannot begin to negotiate at the current time, because there are certain parts of the bill I will not agree to under any circumstances.


 No one will ever agree.



> No, no, no. People do not _deserve_ anything from government other than the minimum services it takes to maintain a society.


Tell that to all the taxes we pay.



> Government services are instituted to do for us collectively what we cannot do as individuals. Public safety, public works, and common defense are good examples. In contrast, I cannot think of very many things more individual than one's healthcare.


 And our system, whether you admit it or not is a failure.. Yes you may have a good plan, but when was the last time you had a fatal disease and had them telling you no..

Old.. The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems

But ranked 37..



> So if you're not that cold, feel free to donte the additonal money you'd be taxed, and pay for healthcare that way. Leave me out of it.


Our taxes our enormous already, would be nice to see some of it get back to someone other than a politicians pet project.



> I'm not that cold; I just don't think government should be the one to do the helping.


And I think they should, no that doesn't mean they should socialize and take over every industry and production. But when our countries people are suffering, who can we look to but our government.. Is it really just a cold machine that we must put money into and get the minimal amount of good back? Either way, these people who can't afford insurance will cost us money whether we have a public option or not... Either when they get sick and don't pay their bills, or by providing insurance in some way.



> I donate to private entities when I can, and I do _that _out of choice and love for my fellow citizens. The government on the other hand, takes my hard-earned money under forced payroll deductions and the coercive threat of a tax-evasion charge and jail time and dispurses my money as _it_ sees fit. It robs from me to give to someone else...kinda sounds like...socialism.


Actually taxes, are about as old as civilized society.. Socialism is directly controlling just about everything.. I hardly see, taking some % of money as direct control.. I think our taxes our high, and I can see many places that need to be cut.. but I can see insurance being far more useful than some systems currently in place.



> Again, my parents helped diddly squat with our educations. As a matter of fact, my wife's parents wer actually _a hinderance_ before we got married. One of the benefits of nupuals was that she no longer had to calculate her parents into student loan calculations--even though they never helped with a penny of her schooling anyways. She and I have paid for our entire way.


Not everyone has a significant other to help, or the high paying enough job to afford school.. It's no cheap.. and if someone is stuck in a bad situation barely able to pay their current bills, no amount of scrounging will help.



> For those who hadn't the foresight to prepare for a life of proseperity, my heart goes out to them, as does the money I'll drop into the Salvation Army bucket this holiday season.


 I don't think that is the problem, some people perhaps.. but things happen unexpectedly.. things don't always work out.. You had a good life, and made it.. others don't.



> But again, it's simply not a proper governmental role to compensate for people's on lack of planning in their own lives.


 Providing health insurance for those who can't afford, makes more sense than welfare. People who are struggling should be helped, to a poin



> Really? A large majority? In a country that has 300 million people, that would mean more than 150 million are uninsured. Even MSNBC is using the absurd 47 million figure.
> 
> When only 10-15 million--or 1 in 30--are 1) Aerican citizens, 2) without health insurance and 3) have no means or ability whatsoever of getting it, there's no emergency. There's a problem, sure, but it is not an urgent one.


 1 in 30 without insurance or 10 - 15 million, probably teenagers, some older... I consider 10, 15 million people uninsured a large majority... maybe not a large percentage.. but still a lot of people.



> It's not fear. I consdier it healthy, vehelment skepticism about the role of government in the United States.


Plenty of fear, if you watch fox..



> This country was founded on the notion that people ought to be skeptical of government power. I will not allow that value to disappear completely as long as I walk this earth.


No one would expect you to, but the government is also not always out to screw you.

Healthy, educated citizens make for a less-violent, more civilized country.. and that is a fact.


----------



## Guest (Nov 14, 2009)

I really don't have the attention span to read your entire post, but this:



> No one would expect you to, *but the government is also not always out to screw you.*


is all I need to know. 

The government does NOT have our best interest in mind. They have the interest of whatever group put them in power. Nothing more. Nothing Less.


----------



## MichaelJones (Nov 11, 2009)

5-0 said:


> I really don't have the attention span to read your entire post, but this:
> 
> is all I need to know.
> 
> The government does NOT have our best interest in mind. They have the interest of whatever group put them in power. Nothing more. Nothing Less.


What part of always didn't you understand? If their always out to screw us, why bother having any government at all?

After all.. Police/Fire/Ambulance services.. etc.. are all funded by the government.. just once you get out of the ambulance you are into the private sector.. seems odd.

Just one more reason to push lobbyists and corporate funded campaigns out... that is a republican/democrat problem.

Why don't we just get them all out of office if they do nothing for us.... ?


----------



## Guest (Nov 14, 2009)

MichaelJones said:


> What part of always didn't you understand? If their always out to screw us, why bother having any government at all?
> 
> After all.. Police/Fire/Ambulance services.. etc.. are all funded by the government.. just once you get out of the ambulance you are into the private sector.. seems odd.
> 
> Just one more reason to push lobbyists and corporate funded campaigns out... that is a republican/democrat problem.


I'll stipulate that they aren't ALWAYS actively trying to screw us, but I'll also stand by my belief that they NEVER have our best interest as their primary motivation for ANYTHING that they do.


----------



## MichaelJones (Nov 11, 2009)

5-0 said:


> I'll stipulate that they aren't ALWAYS actively trying to screw us, but I'll also stand by my belief that they NEVER have our best interest as their primary motivation for ANYTHING that they do.


Sad state of George and the founders pet.


----------



## MrPat (Jan 6, 2007)




----------



## OfficerObie59 (Sep 14, 2007)

MichaelJones said:


> In a country with billions of people and less jobs, that is hardly feasible. Many people will find good jobs, be it through connections, hard work, or the right parents showing you the way.. Not everyone is going to join the Army and have their scholarship paid for them.


The military is an option for most people. Hell, if they disagree with our current engagements abroad, they are more than welcome to join the Coast Guard.

It's an option. And if someone doesn't take it, I don't want to hear that they need a handout.


MichaelJones said:


> You try working at a minimum or low wage job...


I worked at Mickey D's for 3 years and was casheir at JCPenney for another two while in school. Minimum wage sucks...no one says it's easy, but neither is life. Suck it up and drive on.


MichaelJones said:


> ...and being able to afford school it's not quite as simple.


Student loans. That's how most people pay for school nowadays.


MichaelJones said:


> The military path is a great option for those who are ready for that kind of life.


Again, it's an option that if someone chooses to forgo, fine, but they shouldn't expect any more help from Uncle Sam down the line.


MichaelJones said:


> But what about the rest of the US that doesn't have a parent or military scholarship to do?


Again, my wife had neither, lived alone, and worked at JCPenney for 8 bucks an hour. She did it; why can't everyone else? I know! Laziness that is spurned by your foregoing quote...


MichaelJones said:


> This is an example of where I believe the Government should be giving hand ups, helping more poor but willing students helped into college. Instead of constantly giving money in welfare checks that people can live off of indefinitely, we can empower these people with knowledge and an ability to find a job.


Begging hands and bleeding hearts will only cry out for more.


MichaelJones said:


> No one will ever agree.


Then I guess democracy is fuctioning as intended.


> "No, no, no. People do not _deserve_ anything from government other than the minimum services it takes to maintain a society."





MichaelJones said:


> Tell that to all the taxes we pay.


Therein you prove my point. That's why when a pollster calls my house, I always answer "yes" the "country heading in the wrong direction question". It's also interesting that the people that consume a majority of the welfare services pay no taxes.


MichaelJones said:


> And our system, whether you admit it or not is a failure.. Yes you may have a good plan, but when was the last time you had a fatal disease and had them telling you no..
> 
> Old.. The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems
> 
> But ranked 37..


To be clear, I never said there were no problems. But I disagree that it is a failure, or that the problems are representive of an emergency.


MichaelJones said:


> Our taxes our enormous already, would be nice to see some of it get back to someone other than a politicians pet project.


I have an idea. Take that money that is going to the politicians pet project and give it back to the taxpayer, widen Route 3 on the South Shore, or fully fund the Quinn Bill.


MichaelJones said:


> And I think they should, no that doesn't mean they should socialize and take over every industry and production. But when our countries people are suffering, who can we look to but our government..


How about they bypass the middle man and look directly to the bleeding hearts that want to help them? 


MichaelJones said:


> Not everyone has a significant other to help, or the high paying enough job to afford school.. It's no cheap.. and if someone is stuck in a bad situation barely able to pay their current bills, no amount of scrounging will help.


99.9% of these people made the mistake of having children before their education. And no matter how you cut it having kids is ALWAYS a choice.


MichaelJones said:


> I don't think that is the problem, some people perhaps.. but things happen unexpectedly.. things don't always work out.. You had a good life, and made it.. others don't.


Sucks for them. And see, that's what gets me--you talk as if my life is based totally on luck rather than working hard.


MichaelJones said:


> Providing health insurance for those who can't afford, makes more sense than welfare. _People who are struggling should be helped, to a point _


I agree with you on your stance on welfare. And struggling people should be helped, just not by government.


MichaelJones said:


> 1 in 30 without insurance or 10 - 15 million, probably teenagers, some older... _I consider 10, 15 million people uninsured a large majority_... maybe not a large percentage.. but still a lot of people.


Huh?????

A majority by defintion is more than half of what ever is being measured. 10-15 million people is not half of the country. 
A large majority of what? What population are you refe


MichaelJones said:


> No one would expect you to, but the government is also not always out to screw you.


LOL...that's funny.

Even if the government is trying to screw me by design, that doesn't mean that decades of demonstrable incompetence won't screw me in the process.


MichaelJones said:


> Healthy, educated citizens make for a less-violent, more civilized country.. and that is a fact.


Great. We agree on something. Now if we only could agree that the public option will make people less healthy.


----------



## DEI8 (Jan 20, 2006)

OfficerObie59 said:


> The military is an option for most people. Hell, if they disagree with our current engagements abroad, they are more than welcome to join the Coast Guard.
> 
> It's an option. And if someone doesn't take it, I don't want to hear that they need a handout.
> 
> ...


I think we need to remove the "QUOTE+1" button. Just saying.


----------



## OfficerObie59 (Sep 14, 2007)

DEI8 said:


> I think we need to remove the "QUOTE+1" button. Just saying.


Maybe...though considering I didn't use it...Cut n' paste the post link mofo...


----------



## Guest (Nov 15, 2009)

DEI8 said:


> I think we need to remove the "QUOTE+1" button. Just saying.


says the guy who quoted Obies ENTIRE post that we all read just prior...


----------



## DEI8 (Jan 20, 2006)

5-0 said:


> says the guy who quoted Obies ENTIRE post that we all read just prior...


Yea my bad on that one..There has been some long posts on this thread. Definately a hot topic. Hopefully it will never make through.


----------



## pahapoika (Nov 5, 2006)

the new health care bill will also have "affirmative action"

_* the healthcare bill will give preferential federal funding to medical schools that "have demonstrated a record" of training students from "underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds."*_
_* page 879-880,*_

so anyone going on about helping the needy can stop it.

it's a bill designed to further propagate the leftist liberal agenda.

national health care will have nothing to do about helping the "needy" and everything about controlling the working people of this country


----------



## MichaelJones (Nov 11, 2009)

OfficerObie59 said:


> The military is an option for most people. Hell, if they disagree with our current engagements abroad, they are more than welcome to join the Coast Guard.


Except those not meeting physical requirements, than their is psychological factors.. We don't want everyone joining the military, especially those who would bring down our quality soldiers.



> It's an option. And if someone doesn't take it, I don't want to hear that they need a handout.


 Handouts in my eye are simply giving people money, hand ups would be helping people stay healthy or become more educated.



> I worked at Mickey D's for 3 years and was casheir at JCPenney for another two while in school. Minimum wage sucks...no one says it's easy, but neither is life. Suck it up and drive on.


 And if people are working at a minimum wage, and have all their money going to bills and can't get a loan?



> Student loans. That's how most people pay for school nowadays.


 Student loans need a lot of legislation to change the practices banks are using, they charge ridiculous rates. And as far as I'm aware aren't given to everyone?



> Again, it's an option that if someone chooses to forgo, fine, but they shouldn't expect any more help from Uncle Sam down the line.


 It's less of an expectant and more of a reality of the new age. We should want our citizens, healthy and educated. If we want to continue to be the burgeoning power in the world we have been. With the cuts to education in general, and unhealthy citizens we are going to end up being surpassed by India, Japan, China, etc.. in the coming years. War is great, but not as important as well educated and healthy children. For they make intelligent employees and leaders.



> Again, my wife had neither, lived alone, and worked at JCPenney for 8 bucks an hour. She did it; why can't everyone else? I know! Laziness that is spurned by your foregoing quote...





> Begging hands and bleeding hearts will only cry out for more.


 And they won't get it, instead of keeping this welfare system in place we'd be better off diverting that money into getting our young and poor into education and keeping them healthy.



> Then I guess democracy is fuctioning as intended.


Dis-functioning, more often than not.



> Therein you prove my point. That's why when a pollster calls my house, I always answer "yes" the "country heading in the wrong direction question". It's also interesting that the people that consume a majority of the welfare services pay no taxes.


 One more reason to get rid of welfare, provide them healthcare and education.. Education is a temporary cost and builds upon these people, handouts such as welfare do nothing but make them complacent and with no desire to better themselves.



> To be clear, I never said there were no problems. But I disagree that it is a failure, or that the problems are representive of an emergency.


 15 million uninsured, who could get sick at any moment and cost us more money in the long run than insuring them, is an emergency in my book.



> I have an idea. Take that money that is going to the politicians pet project and give it back to the taxpayer, widen Route 3 on the South Shore, or fully fund the Quinn Bill.


 Can't say I disagree, wish I had the power to go through the budget and make cuts and additions..



> How about they bypass the middle man and look directly to the bleeding hearts that want to help them?


 I hardly think their are enough bleeding hearts to fix this country.



> 99.9% of these people made the mistake of having children before their education. And no matter how you cut it having kids is ALWAYS a choice.


 I don't disagree, but the uneducated, continue to have more uneducated children. Which is why education needs to become a major part of fixing this country, educated people don't have kids they can't afford.. and if we get rid or scale down welfare to a point where having more kids doesn't guarantee you funds... Parents would have no incentive to have more kids if all they got was an education, but these children who do have the education will hopefully produce more productive and intelligent citizens.



> Sucks for them. And see, that's what gets me--you talk as if my life is based totally on luck rather than working hard.


Hardly, but whether you factor it in whether you call it luck or destiny doesn't really matter. You were given a healthy body and a healthy mind, I'm assuming with intelligent but not rich parents who taught you the value of a dollar. I'm not saying your life isn't the result of hard work, but a result of hard work with guidance. The lessons you learn growing up have a big impact on the decisions you make.

Their are many factors that could screw up someones life,
1. Parental problems - Bad parents, abusive parents, alcohol/drug-addicted parents, etc.
2. Physical or Mental problems - Goes without much explanation 
3. Than their are those who dedicate their lives to a profession, to only lose their job and have their skills become obsolete.



> I agree with you on your stance on welfare. And struggling people should be helped, just not by government.


 Hardworking Americans in my book deserve a little help from their government, not the welfare leeching Americans that we have today. We at this point certaintly pay enough taxes, until we eliminate most of them I see no reason not to encourage productive, healthy citizens. In the end it only benefits the entire country.



> Huh?????
> 
> A majority by defintion is more than half of what ever is being measured. 10-15 million people is not half of the country.
> A large majority of what? What population are you refe


I guess I didn't mean majority, but 15 million people is still a large amount of people in my book.



> LOL...that's funny.
> 
> Even if the government is trying to screw me by design, that doesn't mean that decades of demonstrable incompetence won't screw me in the process.
> Great. We agree on something. Now if we only could agree that the public option will make people less healthy.


People speculating on the public option are only making educated guesses on both sides.


----------



## 263FPD (Oct 29, 2004)




----------



## MichaelJones (Nov 11, 2009)

What do the Ninja Turtles have to do with anything? You just discovered photoshop or something?


----------



## 263FPD (Oct 29, 2004)

MichaelJones said:


> What do the Ninja Turtles have to do with anything? You just discovered photoshop or something?


That's Mike Jones in the top photo. You douche!!!


----------



## MichaelJones (Nov 11, 2009)

263FPD said:


> That's Mike Jones in the top photo. You douche!!!


Why do I care about some rapper named Mike Jones? At least the turtles are a quality group of superheroes.


----------



## 263FPD (Oct 29, 2004)

MichaelJones said:


> Why do I care about some rapper named Mike Jones? At least the turtles are a quality group of superheroes.


Because you seem to care about everything and everybody.


----------



## MichaelJones (Nov 11, 2009)

I almost laughed at that joke. I know wanting our poor and educated, to be healthy and educated..

It's like I want to hand out free jacksons on main st. 

You seem to care enough to groan


----------



## Guest (Nov 17, 2009)

> And they won't get it, instead of keeping this welfare system in place we'd be better off diverting that money into getting our young and poor into education and keeping them healthy.


This is where you are drinking a giant glass of Kool-Aid Michael, and it's one thing that the rest of us have learned by reading a bit of history. The government hardly ever gets rid of programs, and we are just staring down the barrel of another MONSTROUS entitlement program that isn't going to do what it's supposed to (Cash for Clunkers, Welfare, Social Security, etc...). The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and we've got 1 Trillion funding the paving project (hopefully I can at least get a few road jobs out of it before I have to go Zombiland on some bitches).


----------



## Kem25 (Aug 7, 2007)

Anybody who has had any dealings with the VA healthcare should be able to tell you how good a govt. run system is. If this country can not get healthcare right for its vets how in the world do people think it will be able to get it right for others! While I will say we need healthcare reform (not overhaul) the current party in power is going to screw this up. 2010 and 1/20/13 can not come soon enough!


----------



## Kilvinsky (Jan 15, 2007)

I find these new reccomendations on mamograms to be very interesting. The panel is said to be independent and has NO political motives. That could very well be true, but is sure SMELLS of the cutbacks that the government will no doubt impose on the people and that is enough to make me shake my head.

My analogy concerning the whole health care issue has always been, if your car needs a tune up, do you really feel it's in your best interest to replace the whole engine?

Reforms are needed, definately, but having the government take over is replacing an otherwise well running engine that just needs an oil change, sparkplugs, an air filter, the the head of James Sokolove on a pike.

When fewer money grubbing scum lawyers stop suing for EVERY mistake a doctor makes, no matter how trivial and non-life threatening (admit it, even doctors are human), then doctors won't be running tests for liver cancer when you go in needing stitches on your hand. The costs of health care will naturally go down.

There's a lot more to it, I know that, but let's start by barring ambulance chasers from bringing frivolous law suits that cost doctors, then insurance companies and eventually US ALL a lot of money. Don't let Obamacare cost us even more because you know damn well, even if his holiness gets his bill pushed down our throats, it won't stop the suits.

TORT REFORM is the best *start* from my standpoint.


----------



## 7costanza (Aug 29, 2006)

*And the winner is...‏*

Here is an email I got from that a-hole David Plouffe, you know him hes oBamas puppetmaster. This is the winning video for their healthcare reform and it isnt the least bit surprsiing they used kids for their agenda and of course there is always that please donate comment at the bottom.








sean --

After nearly 1,000 submissions, 20 amazing finalists, and more than 3 million views, we have the winner of the Organizing for America Health Reform Video Challenge.

The winning video shows that our supporters' creativity and passion is more than a match for the slick ads and partisan spin doctors on the other side. In the next few days, we'll be using this video as the basis for a new television ad that will air across the country -- and you can help, by ensuring we have the resources to make the biggest impact.

*Check out the winning video now.*



With Congress wrapping up its last round of negotiations and closely gauging the public's mood in these crucial final weeks, now is the exact time to get this grassroots message out far and wide.

Your passion has brought our country closer to health reform than we've ever been before -- and it's what will keep our momentum strong so that we finish the job before the end of the year.

So please watch the winning video, pass it on to everyone you know, and give what you can to spread the message on national television:

*http://my.barackobama.com/WinningVideo*http://my.barackobama.com/page/m/55c100d3/6beb5d8a/cb4add73/1188676f/1524231400/VEsF/

Thanks,

David Plouffe

​
Paid for by Organizing for America, a project of the Democratic National Committee -- 430 South Capitol Street SE, Washington, D.C. 20003. This communication is not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. Monetary contributions to the Democratic National Committee are not tax-deductible. Health Reform Video Challenge Official Contest Rules


----------



## Kilvinsky (Jan 15, 2007)

Anyone else recall the song "Tomorrow Belongs to Me" In Cabaret? It's sung by Hitler Youth. It's along the lines of that terrific video of the school children singing for Obama.

BRAIN WASHING!

"my video is not slick. it is amatureish so that it appears that I am a regular person in support of the god that IS Obama. I am NOT brainwashed. I am NOT brainwashed. Republicans BAD. Republicans BAD. Health care NOW. Health Care NOW! I am NOT brainwashed."


----------

