|
|
Post by Godot showed up on Jan 14, 2010 10:50:45 GMT -5
Thoughts? If Brown won...ooohhh. That would be delicious. I've been saying aloud (although I haven't posted the thought) that every Republican who's a conservative--or just any Republican whop wants to be elected--should run on an explicit promise to repeal Obamacare, no matter how long it takes, and to fight its implementation while/if it's law tooth and nail, to do everything to chop it up, hobble it, and starve any appropriations for it as much as possible. Brown is doing just that.
I checked Rasmussen, and Brown is leading 71% to 23% among unaffiliated voters, ie, "independents." That's huge, and it's going to be reflected nationally in nearly every election in November, you can bet.
|
|
|
|
Post by whitestar on Jan 14, 2010 15:37:40 GMT -5
Too bad for those 40 million uninsured American citizens  |
|
|
|
Post by Godot showed up on Jan 14, 2010 18:28:15 GMT -5
Too bad for those 40 million uninsured American citizens Nice to see you WS! There aren't 40 million uninsured US citizens. There are, at most, 12 million uninsured who actually want healthcare insurance and can't get it--and most of those are eligible for a program we already have, Medicaid. The rest are illegals, and shouldn't be here draining our resources (and they sure as hell aren't citizens, by definition) Healthcare is NOT a right, except that as a society we have decided that to be humane, to simply not be ugly, we must give emergency care to all, including illegals--or any person, period. Hell, that includes terrorists at war with us, as the SOB who tried to ignite his genitals on a plane got the best care in the world, free. Insurance, a product sold for profit, is undeniably not a right. It is a product, period. The goal of healthcare reform should have been to create an environment in the private sector that would have promoted lower prices for private insurance and enhanced tax incentives to buy health insurance, for individuals and for businesses, which would have naturally increased its accessibility to more Americans; not to create a new entitlement program to insure the uninsured. Instead, we have a gigantic tax bill and power grab that will both cause healthcare to be rationed and prices to rise for all, and will socialize--read, nationalize--a huge portion of the American economy, draining more wealth from the private sector in the midst of a recession, thus deepening the recession. Which is part of the real purpose of Obamacare, as well as its main purpose of taking control of our lives even more than the federal government already has--and our deaths as well. |
|
|
|
Post by rachaelfabulous on Jan 15, 2010 9:40:30 GMT -5
Too bad for those 40 million uninsured American citizens Ted Kennedy would be so happy to hear that one person in the world is still buying that figure!  |
|
lepatte
Bachelors from Celiberal
Posts: 280
|
Post by lepatte on Jan 15, 2010 9:49:46 GMT -5
Nice to see you WS! Insurance, a product sold for profit, is undeniably not a right. It is a product, period. Except that in this case this "product" as you call it, is the health and the life of millions of people. You can't play with people's life... |
|
|
|
Post by Godot showed up on Jan 15, 2010 12:17:08 GMT -5
Nice to see you WS! Insurance, a product sold for profit, is undeniably not a right. It is a product, period. Except that in this case this "product" as you call it, is the health and the life of millions of people. You can't play with people's life... This is beautiful! Oh, I left out that a clear majority of Americans oppose this government takeover of healthcare. Lepatte, I do not accept the premise that I'm responsible for other people's basic necessities. You need food to live, too, and I don't consider that my responsibility to provide to other people, and the same goes for healthcare. Nevertheless, we have an extensive social safety net in the US, and it isn't free. The taxpayers are ponying up enough already for those who aren't ponying up. Medicaid is available to anyone who walks into a hospital and is unable to pay. There are several tremendous steps that could be taken to increase the ranks of the insured. Allow competition across state lines between insurance providers. And absolutely we must have tort reform. There has to be an end to patients--and lawyers--seeing doctors and hospitals as cash cows. If you don't think the cost of malpractice insurance is one of the central reasons healthcare costs have exploded, then you're missing an important point. As for playing games with people's lives--that's exactly what Obama and the Dems want, to make decisions about who will get what healthcare. To play ideological games with people's lives. THEY'RE the ones--or rather, the malthusian ideologues who will staff any new healthcare bureaucracy--who'll be deciding what lives are worth saving and which ones aren't, and that is flat-out tyranny. If you want to address the problem of the relatively few uninsured in this country, I'm not against. But leave the rest of us the hell alone! |
|
|
|
Post by rachaelfabulous on Jan 15, 2010 15:21:28 GMT -5
I'll drink to that!
|
|
dagio
Newbie to Celiberal
Posts: 10
|
Post by dagio on Jan 15, 2010 19:34:57 GMT -5
Liberals say we all have a right to health insurance. Fine. But I'm a little confused by their definition of a "right". For example, we all have the right to vote, but we aren't forced to vote. So if health insurance is a right, why should I be forced to buy it if I don't want to? Shouldn't I have the "right" to spend my money the way I want?
Or am I completely off base here? Please help me!
|
|
|
|
Post by minimo on Jan 15, 2010 19:46:43 GMT -5
Health insurance is not a 'right' as a lot of people look at rights. It's no different that those who claim abortions are a 'right'.
I hear a lot of macaca about the state of our health care and from some of these posts, there are those who believe the spin.
In my entire life I have never known anyone denied health care. If you don't have insurance you still get the care - somewhere down the line, those of us with insurance pay for it! Every state has programs to care for those who either cannot or just don't carry health insurance.
I don't know anyone who has had their insurance cancelled because they got sick. This one really slays me as I have had personally experience in this area.
Every state also has a program for people who cannot get standard insurance. Yes, it can cost more and cover less, but it is available.
Most of the whiners about national health care don't know how good we have it!
|
|
|
|
Post by ladyduomaxwell on Jan 16, 2010 15:42:49 GMT -5
Doesn't Massachusetts already have a "Universal Plan" that didn't work out?
|
|
|
|
Post by revwayne on Jan 16, 2010 16:54:35 GMT -5
Liberals say we all have a right to health insurance. Fine. But I'm a little confused by their definition of a "right". For example, we all have the right to vote, but we aren't forced to vote. So if health insurance is a right, why should I be forced to buy it if I don't want to? Shouldn't I have the "right" to spend my money the way I want? Or am I completely off base here? Please help me! Rights guaranteed on a national basis do not include a right to vote - the states reserve that as a right among its population to determine who has the right to vote. As a right to vote within your state you aren't forced to vote as say Belgium requires its citizens to vote (Kris I think that's still correct). Right does mean privilege but right doesn't mean that you MUST exercise that privilege as you say 'forced to buy it if you don't want to.' |
|
|
|
Post by revwayne on Jan 16, 2010 17:00:11 GMT -5
Hey MM, rachel, lady, godot, kris - good to see you all!
|
|
|
|
Post by minimo on Jan 18, 2010 11:14:57 GMT -5
As audience members streamed out of Pres. Obama's rally on behalf of AG Martha Coakley (D) here tonight, the consensus was that the fault for Coakley's now-floundering MA SEN bid lies with one person -- George W. Bush."People are upset because there's so many problems," Rosemary Kverek, 70, a retired Charleston schoolteacher said as tonight's rally wrapped up. "But the problems came from the previous administration. So we're blaming poor Obama, who's working 36 hours a day ... to solve these problems that he inherited." Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI), speaking with a gaggle of reporters after the event, said that while state Sen. Scott Brown (R) offers voters a quick fix, in reality, the problems created by "George Bush and his cronies" are not so easily solved. "If you think there's magic out there and things can be turned around overnight, then you would vote for someone who could promise you that, like Scott Brown," Kennedy said. "If you don't, if you know that it takes eight years for George Bush and his cronies to put our country into this hole ... then you know we have a lot of digging to do, but some work needs to be done and this president's in the process of doing it and we need to get Marcia Coakley to help him to do that." (Curiously, Kennedy mentioned Coakley repeatedly during his remarks to reporters, each time referring to her as "Marcia," not "Martha.") hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2010/01/after_obama_ral.php |
|
|
|
Post by archangel on Jan 18, 2010 23:26:21 GMT -5
36 hours a day? About as bad as 57 states. What they fail to recall is that during the last 2 years of the Bush administration Congress was controlled by the demokrats. Hmmm. I thought the buck stops with Obama. What a piece of crap he is. He is no leader. Unless you compare him to the Pied Piper. |
|
|
|
Post by milimama on Jan 19, 2010 8:00:20 GMT -5
36 hours a day? About as bad as 57 states. LOL! When I 1st hear 36 hours a day, I couldn't help but flash to all of the visuals of him golfing in the aftermath of the undie-bomber. I didn't realize that golf counted as overtime. |
|
