Healthcare reform

[Cure]

Before we begin, I got special permission to create this thread so keep it civil and blah blah.

SO, what's everybody's opinion on this issue that seems to be everywhere (in the US)? I'm as confused as ever and tried looking it up and whatnot but still don't get what's going on, and if anything, it'll affect me a lot cuz I need to see a doctor every 4 weeks. So what's going on?

[Ninjinister]

Your guess is as good as mine. I haven't been following it at all, but I went to research it the other day to see what all the hubbub was about, and couldn't make heads or tails about what all of these yahoos are babbling about. Everything I turn up is either conflicting, biased, or just plain nonsensical.

[Wingnut]

There's no money to be made solving this problem. Hence, it will never have a concrete resolution. My mom broke her arm last summer and the total bill was 12000 dollars, for a broken f*cking arm.

Do you think the swine that ended up getting that 12k are going to give their gravy train up without one hell of a fight? Hell no.

Too many crooked f*ckers making too much money off honest people. It will take more than a piece of paper to stop that. It's self sustaining at this point.

[That Matt Guy]

Free health care in the US will never happen, unfortunately.

[Cure]

So is that what this is about? Making healthcare free?

[Sewer Bull]

Free health care in the US will never happen, unfortunately.

Is there any place in the world where it is free, except for some rich Arabic countries like Kuwait?

[Canadian Turtle]

Is there any place in the world where it is free, except for some rich Arabic countries like Kuwait?

Canada... the UK, France, most developed nations with a semi liberal government.

The saddest part of this is... there are many many many Americans who DO NOT want free Health Care... If you can explain that one without sounding ridiculous... well I'll eat my shoe.

I was born in a nation where we take care of each other, and I don't care what anyone says about "higher taxes" or "wanting to pay for services they get"... I say bullsh!t.

[Roseangelo]

there are many many many Americans who DO NOT want free Health Care...

There is no such thing as free health care.

[The Stryker]

Spoilers. This isn't going to end well.

I honestly don't see what's wrong with trying to reform healthcare the way they're going about it.

[Cure]

There is no such thing as free health care.

Alright, enlighten me. Why not?

[Roseangelo]

Alright, enlighten me. Why not?

Because even if you're not handing money over to the receptionist, you're still paying for it with taxes. Nothing's free.

[The Stryker]

I would rather pay a few extra dollars in taxes than thousands of f*cking dollars to get my arm in a cast while paying normal taxes on top of that.

[Roseangelo]

I would rather pay a few extra dollars in taxes than thousands of f*cking dollars to get my arm in a cast while paying normal taxes on top of that.

That's fine, and easy enough to say, but that's essentially what the divide on the issue comes down to. Personally, I would rather pay for my own broken arm than collectively help pay for everyone else's.

I just did a quick google search to get these numbers, so I don't know their accuracy, but something like 95% of all income tax is paid by only he top 3% of income earners, and the lower 40% pay no tax, with a very large percent of them actually getting money back in the form of EIC credit and such. (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_americans_pay_taxes)

So you're putting the bulk of the responsibility of the health of the nation on actually very few people. And that's in addition to all of the other services taxes already pay for. And for all of that we're something like $9 Trillion in debt?

I really don't want to debate people on the issue, I'm just presenting that side of it. I honestly know very little about the current deal that is being proposed, so I really can't speak of a specific opinion on it. I recognize the health care system we currently have is greatly flawed and there's a lot of room for improvement, but I do wish it wasn't something the President was trying to get passed ASAP. Right now it just feels to me like it's something he wants to get passed for the sake of getting it passed, rather than the sake of getting it right and really making the system better.

[Hannah]

I just did a quick google search to get these numbers, so I don't know their accuracy, but something like 95% of all income tax is paid by only he top 3% of income earners, and the lower 40% pay no tax, with a very large percent of them actually getting money back in the form of EIC credit and such. (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_americans_pay_taxes)

http://bp3.blogger.com/_kvJ_Wpzvc5I/RqPXx1Z_G-I/AAAAAAAAAVI/xgrW9ZAQClo/s320/DisneyRH001.jpg
Take from the rich and give to the poor!

[The Stryker]

Those poor rich people. If only they had disposable income!

[Ninjinister]

The entire reason taxes exist is to collectively pay for important things. I know not all taxes go to said causes, but if my few extra bucks are going to saving someone's life or livelyhood, I'm all for it. The karma might kick back in my favor some day.

[Anarky]

I seriously have no mercy for the rich.

On another note. The whole system you lot are fighting so fiercly over has been reality over here for about ninety years. It's evolved into a sort of semi-privatized thing and it works pretty well. Over here, you get a bill at the end of the month and you pay that bill. It's not that much, really. And if you can't pay it, there's plenty of rich folks who pay way more and so you can still go to the doctors if you need it. However, I'd like to do it via taxes, to be honest, that would be really fair. But I suppose there wouldn't be profit in a fair system.

What's neat, too, is that the insurances get special discounts in hospitals, so while you'd pay $12000 to get your arm in a cast, the insurance has to pay considerably less, which once again shifts the baggage off the actual sick people.

Granted, Americans don't really like caring for each other, as voiced here and everywhere else, and they're apparently still afraid of communism, which is ridiculous, but it does work and it does a whole lot of good. And I'd be willing to say that a lot less people die because of it. And whatever keeps people alive is okay in my book.

[Katie]

Healthcare reform is needed baddly. I've had my share of experiences with it.

I'll tell you the bottom line, Cure. what they are wanting to do is reqire everyone in the country to have some form of health insurance so that no one is left with no means to pay. This will be achieved by requiring people who do not have health insurance to buy into one of several as yet determined options including the dreaded public option which is being deamonized in the town Hall meetings (around here anyway) Other ideas being insurance co-ops where large groups of people band together to buy private insurance at the same rate big corporations can.

There is a bill in congress which is HUGE and alot of really inflamitory press / commercials / general misinformation floating around making everyone really scared (from what I can tell.)

My disclaimer is that I am for the President's bill (but given that I am a Democrat, you guys probably knew that anyway)

People who are against the bill will give arguments like this will cause higher taxes, illegal immigrants will be covered, the whole "death panel" scare tactic. They say that a public option for low income people will cause employers to drop their company insurance in favor of making their employees take the public option. In a nut shell, higher taxes and the death of private insurance / private medicine.

People who are for the bill will give arguments such as the government "public option" alternative for low income people will provide competition to the big insurance companies and will drive prices down. (ie if they are losing customers to a cheaper public option they will have to provide lower cost products to retain customers and stay in business) In a nut shell. lower costs will occur with competition.


Here's my 2 cents. The US health care system is an abomination. Doctors work a'la carte in their practices meaning that they receive pay based on the number and types of transactions that they do. Alot of times if you go to multiple doctors you will have the same tests over and over as each does their due diligence and thereby causing the insurance companies to pay for redundant testing, which then drives prices up.

Insurance companies are able to refuse coverage to people that they deem too risky. (i. e. you have a "pre-existing condition") People with known medical problems are often excluded because the companies know they will have to spend more money on these people. They may also come back after you have been diagnosed with an illness and drop you because the illness might have existed before your coverage with them started.

If people do not have insurance and cannot afford to pay they will go to public hospitals to be treated. Public hospitals HAVE to treat you whether you pay or not, and if you don't pay they write off the charges causing prices to increase further. And these public hospitals are funded by taxes so if you pay taxes and you think you aren't already paying for uninsured people and illegal immigrants healthcare you 're living in a dream world.

I think they need to pass a bill that includes a public option (if for anythign else to track that stuff) require insurance company regulation and reform to get rid of their ability to arbitrarily choose who they will or will not cover, adopt a salary system for doctors who work in hospitals, and insurance cards which contain your medical history to eliminate redundant testing.

If I have to pay a little more in taxes to achieve this, so be it. I do believe changing some of the practices I spoke about will end up lowering overall costs, but if I can help people less fortunate than myself, I'm happy to do it.

[ToTheNines]

and they're apparently still afraid of communism,

:lol: So true. It's illegal to own a red flag in some states.

[Canadian Turtle]

Hahaha wow... there are some long posts.

I want to make a few quick points and hopes that they are short enough for people to read them, because I think it is important for you to hear them... I hope that doesn't come off wrong, but I have a different point of view than most of you.

The fact that no health care is free, is more of less true yes, I pay for it with taxes. I also pay for roads, cops, fire, and other important things with taxes.

Here is the deal with that. I am 23, I live on my own I pay no income tax, I get it all back, because I don't make a hell of a lot in a year. We don't have much more sales tax than anyone else. So here I am, I have little to no extra taxation burden on me... if I break my arm, sprain my ankle, have a stuffy nose, or am about to die from blood loss, I can go any time any where for what ever I want to, to a hospital and I will get taken care of as needed. That beats paying 300 plus a month for health insurance with a stupid high deductible.

I am not saying the system is perfect here either. The debate about making it partially paid for, such as those who can afford it have to pay a little has been going on for a while up here. Making the rich pay more in taxes and or health care ACTUALLY makes sense in a stable economy. This however is a different argument, because the system of pushing the poor man down while the rich man gets richer is the system in place now and guess what... IT DOSN'T WORK!

Last note. Someone mentioned the idea of people caring for one another. As much as some of you may or may not like Mr. Moore the Documentary guy, he said something very interesting at a movie opening up here once. He pointed out that it is part of every Canadians being, that we are all in this together. If my taxes go to help someone who needs help and not in some rich insurance company pocket, GREAT! I want to help the other guy, because guess what! He is going to help me when I need it. This actually is something at the core of us which makes us different in day to day life. I am sorry, but it does. I can't really explain it fully or do it justice here on this post late at night, but maybe it can help some of you to look at it another way. But that's just the way it has always been up here.

Change is scary, but change is good!!

[Sewer Bull]

Canada... the UK, France, most developed nations with a semi liberal government.

That's not free healthcare, everyone is charged with it every month.

True, I think it is a very good system, to pay a few dozens or even hundreds euros each months rather than a few thousands at once, and I'm going to defend it - but definitely the "free" part here is a lie. The only "free healthcare" is in those oil Arabic nations, where they sleep on petrodollars and governments literally pay for the citizens' health service.

[Barkworm]

The system we have in Europe is great even though it's not "free" health care per se. I can honestly not see how anyone would argue that.

[ThirdMarioBro]

Here's a reason why I'm so deeply invested in this debate.

I've been watching my Dad get jerked around by insurance companies for 20 years. He can't drop the crooked one he has because no other insurer would take him. He suffered from gout (a severe form or arthritis) his whole young life. In the past when he could work, they refused to pay for his gout medicine causing him to have to work on a pipeline in all kinds of weather with swollen and inflamed joints every day of his life in heinous pain. When he was in the fire accident many years back, their interference with his care almost killed him three times. He would have been dead on each of those occasions had my mother not been a nurse once upon a time and known what they were doing to him. Imagine a man covered from head to toe in third degree burns, then an insurance agent storms in the hospital room and demands that his inflatable airbed (that took pressure off of his bloody and blistered back) be taken away because "he can live without it". Then the doctors toss him onto a hard, flat hospital bed where he writhes and cries in pain for the next three month until the stress and strain causes him to have a stroke that took away his ability to speak. This is what insurance companies do to the sick without regulation. This is what they did to our powerless family. There are hundreds of thousands of stories around the nation from other powerless people with no voice that are just like mine. Its time to hold insurance companies accountable for their actions.

People are scared of this public "option" because they are misinformed and have no real idea what it is. That dumb cluck Sarah Palin started the death panel rumor (which is complete unmitigated bullsh*t) to scare people because she believes that its the sole role of the Church (rather than government) to provide charitable relief, and because she's just an ignorant retard (and for the record, that has nothing to do with her religion. She's just stuuupid). The only reason the rumor was never dispelled on a national level is because the damn media sensationalized it and never just told us the simple facts. That just shows the true failing of our media's lack of an ability to actually inform people. After the President's speech yesterday, all the newspapers wanted to talk about was the one disrespectful tool who heckled him. They had no interest in discussing the issues because a scared public makes for lots of news interest which equals profits. Our media is in a truly scary shape. Just looking at the slanted "journalists" on MSNBC and Faux News reminds me of this.

You want death panels? I'll tell you where to find them. Go look into the board rooms of any major insurance corporation. There you'll find the people who decide which subscribers get treatment and which don't. If some poor random nobody out there gets cancer and tries to get treatment, its very likely that the insurance company that he/she paid money to their entire lives for this occasion will drop them flat and refuse their treatment, thus leaving them to die or rather only agree to clear an inferior treatment that won't cure them, but rather prolong their futile misery. Who's going to help them? Who's going to care? Who's going to tell their story to prevent it from happening to somebody else? Nobody. This happens by the thousands every year because nobody keeps them in check. If you sue them to get the treatment (the usual course of action), it likely they'll use their army of lawyers to keep the case in the legal system until you just die off and get out of their hair.

The "public option" is a proposed national non-profit health care system that serves as an alternative to the existing private insurers. It doesn't put them out of business. It forces them to get competitive. The reason the public "option" is needed is simply to give those with no insurance a chance to get cheap insurance to protect themselves and their families. If you would rather stick with one of the established crooked existing private insurers, there's nothing in the bill that says you can't. Frankly, I don't think the public option insurance is enough. I would rather have socialized medicine. Shouldn't the health of our own bodies be considered as important as say, the police and fire department? These things are socialized. We don't wait for the fire fighters to come to our burning house, knock on the door and say, "Cash or credit". We don't expect a policeman to stop at the scene of a rape and ask the victim if she's been pre-approved for protection. But we aren't going to get that socialized medicine. Its too much too soon for this slow nation.


Obama's bill is nothing more than regulation that protects us from the horrors of what these people do without a watchdog and creates a low cost alternative that forces the private companies to get competitive again. There's a reason that Europe and Canada are healthier than us. Their system promotes wellness. We live in a society that makes money treating the sick rather than preventing the cause. Since this way of thinking makes money, we've had it for over a hundred years.


In the end, this bill we so desperately need will probably die either because the poor misinformed public shoot down their own well being, or because the crooked Republicans and Democrats in congress line their pockets with enough lobbyist money to bury their conscience.

[PAAATE]

I just can't understand what all the arguing is about

All the anti-people, are they all seriously just anti-paying a little more tax to help others and possibly themselves in the future.. Is that all there is to it?

Selfish and immature if you ask me

But then again I'm a socialist, so what would you expect me to think... :P

[ThirdMarioBro]

Should I also mention that a monthly medication my Dad takes (that he would die without) costs us $450 a month, but would only cost us only $6 in the UK? This status quot is what people are fighting to protect?

[Anarky]

Yeah, see, the $444 a month have to go somewhere. Pair that up with the fact that people don't actually like helping each other, hell, $444 is awesome. Now imagine having a thousand people paying for the same meds. There's a huge amount of money rich people might lose.

And then there's the fact that America will turn into a bunch of dirty commie rats.

[愛]

So...are you here to troll us, Anarky, or...?

Remember, guys. No bashing each other's countries. We're all in this together...kinda.

[odupianist]

That's fine, and easy enough to say, but that's essentially what the divide on the issue comes down to. Personally, I would rather pay for my own broken arm than collectively help pay for everyone else's.

I agree with Rose wholeheartedly. I have no problem sounding like an ass when I say this, but I'm not going to pay for someone else's issues. I agree that prices are too high, and I'm sure people out there need help. On the whole though, there will be people taking advantage of it by not taking care of themselves (much like the US welfare system). I can sound like a capitalist all day, and I'm fine with that. I work hard and have worked hard to earn the money I'm making, and I'm not going to pay for someone who can't take care of themselves (because that's what a lot of that money will be going towards). If I can come from the upper lower class to now being the upper middle class, anyone else can too.

You can say I'm being selfish and don't know what I'm talking about because it's all just going to come from my taxes anyways and I'm doing it already with roads. Trust me, I know that. I work for a muncipal government as an engineer who puts together roadway projects. I know how the taxes and stuff work. There's a big difference between paying for someone who's going to continue to have health problems (for whatever reason, cigarettes, unhealthy eating, lack of exercise, etc) and paying for the roads that benefit us all to help us get where we need to.

[Canadian Turtle]

Well other than you kinda contradict yourself at the end there, I can't change your mind. I can and will say that you are misinformed, however have valid points about helping others, valid but sad.

Earlier it was obvious that people didn't read my bigger post because they were quoting things I said previous and did not take my explanation into account.

This last persons argument also substantiates what I was saying about the core difference between our nations. I am not bashing anyone's country, I am simply saying there are certain methods of control and manipulation that have over generations forced you to believe putrid lies and ways of thinking to benefit the powers that be. Whether or not you actually believe under your own experiences that you do not want to help others is fine with me. You can not ignore however, the fact that this corrupt system benefits GREATLY from that point of view.

I will say that the overt capitalist point of view is not only selfish in nature, but very sad. I actually feel sorry for those who take this seriously. I am sad because it is blind ignorance to a way of life that would not only benefit others would DRAMATICALLY benefit yourself, and any capitalist should like that.

My thoughts also go out to the family of 'ThirdMarioBro' whos story is repeated over and over and over and over, and no one listens. I am sorry bro!

One last thing, this constant fear of communism is absolutely ridiculous. Not to bring religion into a political debate, but the right wing Christians who are more often then not hard core capitalists miss the biggest point of the book. Jesus was a socialist, plain and simple.

[Anarky]

Not really trolling. I just thing it's bloody hilarious that there are actually educated, intelligent and clever people out there who still are scared of becoming communists. So, if anything, I'm being cynical about it.

Odu: The thing is, everyone can make it from poor to rich, given the chance or rather the ability to do so. If you're in bad health, there's no way you're going to get a decent job or that promotion you'd need to get further or being able to attend the classes or college if you want to. Basically, if the basis is screwed, you will never make it. So in many ways, this actually would be a huge step forward and in many ways more effective than the welfare system.

See, we've had it for years, and yes there is some abuse and everyone's all up in arms about it. That's why the insurance-people do their very best, working together with basically everyone they can to prevent it. And if they do catch someone abusing it, he has to pay everything back, plus a really, really hefty fee. It's not like it will be an instant free-for-all.

[NightwatchersOnlygirl]

In the UK we get free healthcare

[Mecha Cow]

In no system are you "paying for other people's problems". That's just as ridiculous as "free health care". Thing is, the current American health care system is broken, and at least making an effort to fix things isn't likely to make it any worse.

[andrewdsz]

Im young,im healthy,I've been payin healthcare for 20 yrs for NOTHING. I think i spent over 100K on this but i never ever went to hospital/doctor even once in my life time. If i got sick just get some medicines from the street for five bucks, i dont even see why the hell i need to pay for MYSELF.

Also, i think obama should make this tax payment an OPTION, not a requirement. Right now im paying over 35% tax and i DONT want my tax go higher than 40%. When that dude is on the stage all he does is to make us pay pay pay and make the economy down. 700 billion debt already on this country right now for holy mother's sake. WHO is gonna fill up that hole? We tax payers.

I refuse to pay a single dent on this, if you ask me my personal opinion,not my business.

If someone wanna save his dad go ahead, dont ask ME to pay for you in the form of increasing taxes!!!

I dont care if u think im selfish or not, i dont giv a S, leave my money alone.

[Ninjinister]

If i got sick just get some medicines from the street for five bucks


Not everyone would go for a discount dimebag, buddy.

[Mecha Cow]

Wow, awesome attitude in here. "I refuse" this, "I want" that. Your government isn't asking you for a favor.

[愛]

I've never really had any major health problems other than a few things which I take cheap medication for, so I can't really know if the healthcare system is in need of reform or not. The current health plan that I have right now is from my college, and it covers basically nothing except big stuff, like a car accident. I'm okay with that, though. Just gotta be careful, and weigh in every so often what I'm due for in terms of new glasses or whatever.

[andrewdsz]

Wow, awesome attitude in here. "I refuse" this, "I want" that. Your government isn't asking you for a favor.

Yes it ****in did. I pay 35% for :
bombs,missles and guns which drop to other country to kill off innocent ppls
"poor" ppl who is freakin healthy and sounded,stay home did nothin but collect wellfares
ppl who have 10 kids and stay home doin nothin but collect government aids
born retards who spent 200k a yr just to keep alive
120 yrs old who is hospitalized for 20 yrs who spent another 200k a yr of us

I paid the government soooo much for nothin myself,and u talkin about government isnt "asking" me a favor? I beg at least 50% of the taxes we paid are not absolutely necessary.

We should have something like 20% the most on taxes, not 40.

[Barkworm]

Again, don't you realize that what you so quickly condemn works perfectly fine in most Western European countries? Why shouldn't it work in the USA?

[Cure]

Yes it ****in did. I pay 35% for :
bombs,missles and guns which drop to other country to kill off innocent ppls
"poor" ppl who is freakin healthy and sounded,stay home did nothin but collect wellfares
ppl who have 10 kids and stay home doin nothin but collect government aids
born retards who spent 200k a yr just to keep alive
120 yrs old who is hospitalized for 20 yrs who spent another 200k a yr of us

I paid the government soooo much for nothin myself,and u talkin about government isnt "asking" me a favor? I beg at least 50% of the taxes we paid are not absolutely necessary.

We should have something like 20% the most on taxes, not 40.

This would be offensive if it wasn't so hilariously typed.

[Mecha Cow]

I paid the government soooo much for nothin myself,and u talkin about government isnt "asking" me a favor? I beg at least 50% of the taxes we paid are not absolutely necessary.
Alright, then stop paying them. See what happens.

[ToTheNines]

All the anti-people, are they all seriously just anti-paying a little more tax to help others and possibly themselves in the future.. Is that all there is to it?

Basically it's well-off people who are afraid the government will screw the whole thing up. The conservative news sources just keep saying how it's going to piss off doctors and make the whole process of going to the hospital take hours longer. Minor negativities really.

[Katie]

Im young,im healthy,I've been payin healthcare for 20 yrs for NOTHING. I think i spent over 100K on this but i never ever went to hospital/doctor even once in my life time. If i got sick just get some medicines from the street for five bucks, i dont even see why the hell i need to pay for MYSELF.

Also, i think obama should make this tax payment an OPTION, not a requirement. Right now im paying over 35% tax and i DONT want my tax go higher than 40%. When that dude is on the stage all he does is to make us pay pay pay and make the economy down. 700 billion debt already on this country right now for holy mother's sake. WHO is gonna fill up that hole? We tax payers.

I refuse to pay a single dent on this, if you ask me my personal opinion,not my business.

If someone wanna save his dad go ahead, dont ask ME to pay for you in the form of increasing taxes!!!

I dont care if u think im selfish or not, i dont giv a S, leave my money alone.


It's still hilarious, Cure. I look at tax stuff all day long. its my job. You have to make $357,700 per year as a single person before your federal taxes get to 35%. I'm pretty sure this guy isn't making that kind of money. Most people that post here are gonna fall into the 0-15% range.

I also hope he never gets really sick with a disease like cancer or something like that or never has a car accident or is ever injured or lives to be very old. can't fix that with $5 meds from the pharmacy.

He doesn't realize that HE IS paying for other's health care now. Public Hospitals don't get funding from magic faries. YOUR TAXES pay for them to operate.

My statment from the presidential thread last year still stands. This the f'ing United States of America. We can afford to make sure EVERYONE in this country gets decent health care. This is not a third world country. People in this country should not be dying of treatable diseases because they cannot afford to pay for treatment

I do hope that all our foreign friends looking at this thread realize that not all us Americans are uncaring selfish bastards

[愛]

Yes it ****in did. I pay 35% for :
bombs,missles and guns which drop to other country to kill off innocent ppls
"poor" ppl who is freakin healthy and sounded,stay home did nothin but collect wellfares
ppl who have 10 kids and stay home doin nothin but collect government aids
born retards who spent 200k a yr just to keep alive
120 yrs old who is hospitalized for 20 yrs who spent another 200k a yr of us

I paid the government soooo much for nothin myself,and u talkin about government isnt "asking" me a favor? I beg at least 50% of the taxes we paid are not absolutely necessary.

We should have something like 20% the most on taxes, not 40.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v48/TheFatedBattle/1251640210324.jpg

[Jester]

OZguOTrNbIY
Posted by voice actor Maurice LaMarche on his facebook

[ThirdMarioBro]

One last thing, this constant fear of communism is absolutely ridiculous. Not to bring religion into a political debate, but the right wing Christians who are more often then not hard core capitalists miss the biggest point of the book. Jesus was a socialist, plain and simple.

Yes, but you gotta' realize that 99% of man-made organized religion no longer has any real connection to the teachings of the original Jesus. They re-write their official canon more often than a Trekkie.

Im young,im healthy,I've been payin healthcare for 20 yrs for NOTHING. I think i spent over 100K on this but i never ever went to hospital/doctor even once in my life time. If i got sick just get some medicines from the street for five bucks, i dont even see why the hell i need to pay for MYSELF.

I (fortunately) haven't had a need for it either, but I will one day. We all get old, and we all wear out, and sooner or later we all get sick. Easy thing for a young person to say they don't get sick, so why pay for insurance. Let's see what you say in 25 years though. Its easy for young people to complain about having to take care of their seniors, but its also selfish as hell considering how they once took care of us all when we were helpless.

I'm not going to pay for someone else's issues...You can say I'm being selfish....

Already did it for me. Not everybody is fortunate to get the same opportunities as you did. Does that mean they should just die and get out of society's hair? Its easy to say we should all pull ourselves up by our bootstraps when some people have no bootstraps to pull by.

Yes it ****in did. I pay 35% for :
bombs,missles and guns which drop to other country to kill off innocent ppls
"poor" ppl who is freakin healthy and sounded,stay home did nothin but collect wellfares
ppl who have 10 kids and stay home doin nothin but collect government aids
born retards who spent 200k a yr just to keep alive
120 yrs old who is hospitalized for 20 yrs who spent another 200k a yr of us


What a selfish bastard. So we should kill the developmentally challenged simply because they can't contribute to society?

Again, don't you realize that what you so quickly condemn works perfectly fine in most Western European countries? Why shouldn't it work in the USA?

He's a loser who can't spell and probably didn't graduate from grade school considering the fact he brags about getting drugs from the street. Healthy debate is one thing, but this loon doesn't even know basic facts or feel basic human compassion. He's a troll. Ignore him.

OZguOTrNbIY
Posted by voice actor Maurice LaMarche on his facebook

Makes me ashamed to admit this man is my Senator. This is an asshole who was once quoted as saying that women who get abortions (for even the protection of their own health) are on the same level as murderers and should be treated as such. Looking forward to voting against him (again) in 14 months.

[Wingnut]

To think people predicted all of this well over 100 years ago.

[Newton Gimmick]

Just for the record, NOWHERE in Obama's plan or any of the subsequent plans have a "free healthcare" system. It's almost nothing like what they have in the UK or elsewhere.

The plan is to create a government run healthcare system (along with lots of other things) to lower the cost of insurance. But it's not like they're going to stop all private insurance. They're just going to offer another insurance that poor folks can buy into.

That's the deal. Cut and dry.

The reform part of it is that they'll be making a lot of changes to how health care companies can run things, such as online records, lower prescription costs and making it so that people can't be denied for pre-existing conditions.

Under none of these plans will Rose pay for my broken arm, at least not anymore than she already does. What most fail to realize is that we already pay tons to cover the uninsured. Both from taxes and into any insurance premiums we pay. The current plan will reduce everyone's cost of healthcare, even if you don't opt into the Government plan.

It's amazing that people have no issue using their taxes to build bombs, tanks or research Star Wars missiles, but use even a dollar of that for something else and people freak out.

The people who are upset about this issue either A. don't understand it or B. are far more concerned with money than anything else.

Most don't understand and think something else is being sold to them.

A large majority (over 80% in some polls) agree with the ideas being presented when they fully understand them. Unfortunately those who oppose this healthcare reform are much more interested in spreading lies and nonsense, while offering no solutions. The waters are so muddied that most people don't understand it.

I do think we will get healthcare reform passed, but probably nowhere near to the drastic extent this country needs. Baby steps though I guess is progress.

Healthcare should not be a business and once it became one, it's VERY hard to turn that back around.

[Leo656]

This is really long, so I have to split it... sorry...

Part 1

Who even knows what to believe anymore. Some places you hear that people live longer and, on average, get better treatment for cancer and other things here in the U.S., and just as often you hear that the opposite is true, depending on who gives the numbers.

I do know there is a need for affordable health care here. I myself have struggled my whole life with severe sinus infections that sometimes last weeks, and not your little "stuffy nose" kinda thing, I'm talking completely bedridden, lose 25 lbs, spitting blood and coughing out softball-sized phlegm-bombs respiratory sickness. It's gotten less frequent as I've gotten older, but sometimes the severity is worse. Last year I spent a week on a steroid respirator before it cleared up. So it's safe to say I'm in favor of not having to pay $100 or more for a visit to a doctor, or $100 more for antibiotics that don't work much better or more quickly than Advil Cold & Sinus (plug).

Like many Americans, I do have access to health insurance, through my job, and like many, I choose to not use it. At $80 a week, it just does not fit into my budget right now. To my knowledge, no one at work except the two owners and the three secretaries get the insurance, because only they make enough to afford it.

By the way, if you wanna talk about a real social injustice, try figuring out how a phone-jockeying secretary for a moving company should make SO MUCH more money than they guys that actually break their bodies to pieces doing the job of tossing 500-lb furniture around. They're sweet girls, but c'mon.

But as usual, I digress. S'what I do.

All that said, I'm just not very trusting of the proposed reforms. In part, I'm a bit old-fashioned perhaps, but I just do not believe in government programs. I know it's kind of stupid and does not apply to everyone in every case, but I was raised with an old-school Irish mindset of "if you don't work, you don't eat, and if you want something, you pay for it, period". I don't even believe in welfare, and I have definitely qualified for it at some point over the last ten years, but I would rather bust my ass for the little bit that I have rather than say the government was paying my bills.

Just a bit of history about my own experiences with government programs: When my dad lost his job at Squibb pharmaceutical, we ended up on welfare for about five years starting when I was about seven. For various reasons I've never understood, we were constantly threatened with it being taken away, despite both my parents being out of work. Not willingly out of work, but there was in fact a recession early on during those glorious Clinton years. It got even better when my father, in addition to going into diabetic shock and almost dying, suffered a life-threatening heart attack that required major bypass surgery in which his heart was basically removed and drained while he was kept alive by machines. He's had about a dozen various surgeries since the first in 1993. When he applied for permanent disability, he was REJECTED numerous times on the grounds that he was in fact "not disabled enough". In 1997, he was finally approved, and in-between he worked off the books delivering pizzas and washing dishes in hot restaurant kitchens for a paltry $60 a week, despite doctors advisory that he should not work anymore, ever, that he required ungodly amounts of medication from blood-thinners to painkillers, and that he should avoid places of stress and extreme heat.

And yet, our next door neighbor was getting disability coverage of about $1000 a month and had been for years. She suffered from migraines.

How, I wondered, can a man who almost died repeatedly of diabetes and heart disease be denied government disability payments, while a woman in her mid-30s essentially gets all her bills paid by Uncle Sam b/c she gets bad headaches? And I still have the same concerns today when it comes to any health care that is gov't funded, run, or organized: Who decides who gets what, and why?

(Continued)

[Leo656]

Part 2

Fast forward to today, or about a month ago rather, when my girlfriend and I were homeless. After exhausting all our favors from very non-sympathetic family, we bit the bullet and applied for welfare and homeless assistance. Day one, we didn't get to see anyone. Before I continue, I feel I must add the caveat that I am not a racist, my best friend is black and I'm generally not a racially-motivated person. Anyway, aside from myself and Mary there were only two other white people in the welfare office, and they were there when we arrived at about 12:30-1pm. At 4 or so, whenever they close at these places, we were the only four people who were not called up or spoken to, and had to come back the next day. It just seemed... odd. The next day, to make a long story short, they told us I essentially make too much money for any help. A percentage of my income is cash jobs for contractors, so my paystubs showed less than $200 a week, and we were told that is more than enough money for two people to live and survive on, homeless or not. The homeless aid people were even better, saying the best they could do is get us a couple days at a motel, and after that "your girlfriend is just gonna have to find a job". For the record, she's currently applied at over 60 places; things don't always pop up when you need them to.

So I just said f*ck gov't aid, f*ck welfare, f*ck Section 8, we'll sleep in a car if we have to, but I'm not going to play their rigged game. I believe many government programs are to some degree motivated by racial guilt, slanted towards minorities, and tend to leave people like me to twist because of some belief that, as a white male, if I'm not doing well it must be my own fault, and thus I don't deserve help. A lot of people I work with who've tried getting various forms of aid agree with me, and that includes the minorities, whether they've gotten help or not. My one friend said to me "That's f*cked up that you're homeless and they said you make too much money for help. I make the same as you, and y'know what? I bet they'd help my black ass."

So as far as health care or ANY gov't aid, I want proof that every legal citizen would be treated equally based on need, regardless if they were black or white or purple. Everyone except those gargantuan Swedes. Plus, like a lot of people, I'm very skeptical about claims that illegal immigrants would not be covered under any gov't plan. Really? Are these the same Democrats that spend all day and night saying "Let 'em come, who're they hurtin'"? Again, it's not racial, I just have to be very realistic about the drain illegals put on our over-burdened system. In my business, most shadier companies hire illegals for about $5-7 an hour, and that affects the rest of us, because we end up making a lot less than what we generally deserve. A Rutgers Material Services technician can make a salary equal to between $20 and $30 an hour. A mover at a normal moving company makes anywhere from $9 to $13 on average, drivers making up to $18, maybe $20 if they've been doing it twenty years. And the only difference between jobs is that at Rutgers they're worth more simply because it's a guarantee that they cannot hire uneducated or illegal people to work as movers.

So as a rule, I tend to not want anybody in this country having to pay higher taxes for programs to help out people that, legally, shouldn't be here.

Then there's the "competitive" public option idea. Sounds like a great way to keep the insurance companies in line, except for the fact that just about every employer that offers insurance is going to dump their workers into the cheaper "public" plan, and eventually the insurance companies are going to start going under, and then what happens when the gov't option is the only one left? Is it still "competitive" then? It very well could happen; the contractors I work with as owner-operators mostly hate the idea of gov't-run health care, but admit they'd pretty much have to file their employees under the public plan as a cost-saver. My bosses would likely do the same. Kind of takes the steam out of that whole "If you like your plan you can keep it" argument. Maybe some will, but realistically most won't.

I just don't know. I know things need to change. I know insurers are greedy and HMOs are crooked. I just don't know what exactly can be done about it that isn't going to screw things up more in the long run. Any gov't system of care is going to cost billions eventually no matter what anyone says, care will eventually be rationed to offset costs no matter what anyone thinks, and politicians are going to end up using their "compassionate health care system" to squeeze more and more tax dollars out of everyone, because that's what they do.

I wish there were an easy, non-controversial, non-partisan solution, but in the end a lotta people are gonna be pissed no matter what happens. All I know is that more government programs should almost never be touted as a solution, because they never work as promised. We need less government in general, not more, and the fact that a lot of people wish the gov't would just take over the whole shebang shows how sad and screwy the health care system is. :ohwell:

(Oh, and lest I forget, we do now have a place to live. So we're good.)

EDIT: I agree with the end of what Newton said; once something becomes a game entirely based on profit, how can it be fixed? Sadly, it usually can't.

[shredder17]

i am thankful for everyones thoughtful views on the subject. my only problem is the idea that if one is a capitalist they are greedy and unloving. i consider myself a compassionate capitalist that helps the poor with my own income and through my church. i dont believe government should force its citizens to be charitable. i dont make a lot of money but i dont want government over taxing others to give to me, i think thats legal theft. Jesus was not a socialist in the modern political sense, but he did teach his followers to be loving to all people and do everything possible to meet the needs of others. i do have a question though, obama says that healthcare is a moral issue and therefore should be passed. he also says that abortion is a moral issue but then says everyone should have thier own choice in the matter. so if a women kills her baby through abortion she's not considered evil but if i dont want to support a public option i am now evil. what happened to my choice?

[The Stryker]

Wow, Abortion out of f*cking nowhere. Do we really need to bring THAT up?

[Barkworm]

i am thankful for everyones thoughtful views on the subject. my only problem is the idea that if one is a capitalist they are greedy and unloving. i consider myself a compassionate capitalist that helps the poor with my own income and through my church. i dont believe government should force its citizens to be charitable. i dont make a lot of money but i dont want government over taxing others to give to me, i think thats legal theft. Jesus was not a socialist in the modern political sense, but he did teach his followers to be loving to all people and do everything possible to meet the needs of others. i do have a question though, obama says that healthcare is a moral issue and therefore should be passed. he also says that abortion is a moral issue but then says everyone should have thier own choice in the matter. so if a women kills her baby through abortion she's not considered evil but if i dont want to support a public option i am now evil. what happened to my choice?

This post doesn't even make sense. Also, Jesus said that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. What about that? (actually don't answer that).

[Leo656]

Stryker: Rather than bring it up, would it be more appropriate to, say, "flush it down"?

Wait, is that abortion humor, or miscarriage humor? Can it be both? I hope so. Dead baby jokes rule.

[Barkworm]

Ba-dum-PSH!!!

[ThirdMarioBro]

I see what you did there. lol

[Anarky]

As for the "private insurance will die"-argument, the guy with the economy degree wishes to say something.

Yes, there will be a huge market shift. And yes, some insurance companies will die, namely the ones who are in it for profit only and have grown to need the insane amount of money people pay them. Before they fold, they will most likely be bought by another insurance company that had the ability to adapt better.

Those companies will have to lower their plans, obviously, because otherwise, everyone would go to the government. Either that, or they increase their service and all that. This leads to a better service at the private companies than what you get with the government, more or less at the same price.

This again, will lead to people abandoning the public option and going for the private ones again, because they maybe have a better plan for families with children or people who need extensive dental work or any other kind of social or health-related situation you can think of, while the governmental plan will be a solid, but minimalist general plan. That's what's happened over here. I'm not really unhealthy, so I'm on a general plan with a private company. My ex-girlfriend has a body that doesn't produce estrogen, so she has to eat a handful of pills every day or her body goes into shock. So she's at some other company that have a good plan for hormonal things or womanly issues.

So all in all, this will not lead to a crushing of the insurance business, but rather a diversification. This is good. I'd go for that.

As for the "We'll help all them-there Mexicans, Billy-Bob-Joe!"-thing. You guys do realize that you need to sign a healthcare plan in order to get it? You're not just getting one thrown at you. And normally, you have to deliver proof of income. And if you're insured by your employer, you need a signed contract of employment too. Guess what illegal workers don't have?

Granted, it's not all fun and roses. There will be some abuse. But everything gets abused at some point. People are creative and smarter than most others give them credit for, they find loopholes and all that. There's this awesome quote from the IT-world that goes "Programming is a race: Programmers try to make a system idiot-proof. Meanwhile the universe tries to invent an even bigger idiot."

[shredder17]

the verse that you are talking about is from matthew 19:16-30. jesus is talking to a rich man who is trusting in his riches and goods deeds to enter heaven. jesus challenges the man to get rid of the idol in his life which was his money and then trust and follower christ. there were many rich people in the gospels that jesus never commanded to give away all thier substance because they were not trusting in thier riches and they were helping people. there is nothing virtuous about being poor or rich. the issue is do you put jesus and others before yourself and are you responsible and charitable with all your goods. i am not trying force biblical christianity on anyone here but since it was mentioned i just wanted to make a statement.

[shredder17]

i love humor and i am not angry at some of the comments. but my problem is with the philosophy that there are no limits to humor. a guy will make abortion jokes but then get offended at 9/11, holocost or black slavery jokes. or maybe a joke about his mother that was raped and killed. i believe there should be a limit to humor. do you?

[Barkworm]

the verse that you are talking about is from matthew 19:16-30. jesus is talking to a rich man who is trusting in his riches and goods deeds to enter heaven. jesus challenges the man to get rid of the idol in his life which was his money and then trust and follower christ. there were many rich people in the gospels that jesus never commanded to give away all thier substance because they were not trusting in thier riches and they were helping people.

I wasn't looking for a bible lesson, I know the book better than most people.

[Wingnut]

i believe there should be a limit to humor. do you?

No. You're too late anyway, blue humor has already been invented.

Also, don't talk about the bible in a political thread. Just my 2 cents.

[shredder17]

my intention was never to talk about the bible but someone said jesus was socialist and quoted a bible verse and i wanted to respond. and by the way the bible has a lot to do with politics, economics and the philosophy of government. the reason why there is such a great debate on healthcare is that we have different expectations on what government should be in involved in. i like many conservative and christian americans believe that truth is founded on the bible and natural law and our rights come from God and not the state. the founding fathers believed in natural law and the understanding that we were all created equal by God. so from these truthes we believe in limit government, ownership of private property, free market economy, democratic in our voting of leaders but republican in ''rule by law'' instead of full democracy in ''rule by majority''. the problem with socialist and communist governments is that they reject natural law and the understanding that our rights are from God. in the communist governments rights come from the state and property and capital belong to the state. many believe that this is unbiblical and fight against it. so its because of the bible that i many people throughout history have been opposed to these systems. so the bible does have a lot to do with this debate. you can never really separate politics and religion. you will hear people say ''STOP TRYING TO LEGISLATE MORALITY" but all laws are the codifed morality of a group of people. you might disagree with all of this but i dont think we can say "LEAVE THE BIBLE OUT OF A POLITCAL DEBATE".

[Mecha Cow]

but i dont think we can say "LEAVE THE BIBLE OUT OF A POLITCAL DEBATE".
We can and will. Like it or not; not your entire country shares your beliefs, but you do have to share the same government.

[shredder17]

on the humor issue i was not saying i want to stop free speech but i find it inconsistent that one would joke about dead babies and then be horrified at a holocost joke. and the abortion issue is a topic in the healthcare debate because its very possible if its passed tax money would go to abortion. obama promised planned parenthood before his election that he would do all he can to include abortion in a public option.

[Leo656]

No, there are no limits to humor, and I'm pretty sure I never got offended by any jokes about the Holocaust...

But then again, I'm the guy who, whenever some smart aleck makes an "I banged yo momma" joke, I just say "Hope you brought a shovel and a miner's lamp, moron, she's f*ckin' DEAD."

So maybe I'm just bent.

But yeah, no matter what you believe in, everybody needs to just get some George Carlin DVDs an' lighten the F up.

Which reminds me... What's the difference between the George Carlin DVD box set, and a fetus in a jar? I sadly do not have the Carlin box set sitting on my desk. 8)

Last post from me in this thread, promise.

[GK Punk]

No. You're too late anyway, blue humor has already been invented.

Also, don't talk about the bible in a political thread. Just my 2 cents.

Agreed, and hey look I'm here to make it official!

[shredder17]

please guys understand that i not forcing my views on anyone. i understand that we all have different views i was just sharing mine. its just a friendly debate. i have a good friend thats a satanist and he hates all christians except me. i have friends from almost all points of view and they know me that would not force my views or hate anyone for being different. i really like you guys and i am eternally in your debt for all the information you have given me through the years on the turtles. thanks

[GK Punk]

Christianity isn't the problem. The debate is t he problem as it gets too personal and degrades in to arguments quicker than any other topic known to man.

[PAAATE]

Christianity isn't the problem. The debate is t he problem as it gets too personal and degrades in to arguments quicker than any other topic known to man.

As long as it doesn't degrade into hell I think we should let religion be part of the discussion

shredder17 obviously is a Christian, and because of that has Christian values

I'm not religious in any way myself, but I still think that most religious texts have a lot of good points about love and understanding, and, in my eyes, one of the biggest problems with society today is that people have no understanding for each other.. That creates a gap much wider than anything economy, race or sexuality can create..

So as long as the discussion does stay civil, at least I don't mind the bible

But... yeah, health care-discussion anyone? :P

[GK Punk]

The reason everyone is so against it, is these forums don't exactly have a good rep for religeous discussion. 100% of the time it sadly, degrades fast...

If everyone can stay mature about it, go for it.

[Canadian Turtle]

please guys understand that i not forcing my views on anyone. i understand that we all have different views i was just sharing mine. its just a friendly debate. i have a good friend thats a satanist and he hates all christians except me. i have friends from almost all points of view and they know me that would not force my views or hate anyone for being different. i really like you guys and i am eternally in your debt for all the information you have given me through the years on the turtles. thanks


You were responding to one of my post, so I brought, so I'll try to put it to rest.

First I wasn't making a joke, I was pointing out an opinion, I don't think many "jokes" are being made here.

Sadly we should not get into a religious discussion on this board, because it does get heated on both sides and that isn't good for anyone.

This is a secular nation (north america as a whole), in which case I am proud to say Church and State are two different things, and it is of my opinion that in cases where they are to close, CHAOS rules and a lot of people get hurt.

I am not making a personal attack when I say I wish you hadn't brought abortion into this conversation at all, you are entitled to your own opinion, but the fact that you are making that connection in a public forum like this makes me both sad and angry. It is my belief that it is an essential service, and if it is going to be used as propaganda ammo in a public health care debate like this, then I say stay private health care and avoid the trip back to the dark ages.

And ThirdMario! I am glad we are on the same page, your comment to my post was spot on.

[Anarky]

Weren't we talking about health care in this thread? As far as I know, Jesus has never been insured by anyone, so he can stay that way for now. Seriously, religion on this board - trust me - it's a bad idea.

Besides, it's against the forum rules anyways, so: If you want to stay here, keep Jesus in your heart and leave him there.

Apparently, there are a lot of things that aren't clear about this whole healthcare thing, so having a place where we can voice those concerns and pro-arguments and get the insights of people who have lived in a system with what you're hopefully about to get for years. Besides, it's one of the most interesting threads on here in ages, so it would be such a shame to see it go kaput because of some religious argument that could easily be avoided.

[Katie]

^^ Agreed, and BTW you economics post was perfect. you beat me to those thoughts.


The most amusing thing to me in the whole healthcare debate is how it has blown COMPLETELY out of control. I have never seen so many people be so completely polarized by this. We had a healthcare debate back in the Clinton years and there weren't people hopping on "tea party" busses and working euthanasia and other scare tactics into the debate.

I truely think that alot of the vile, negative propoganda is coming because of the man who is presenting it this time around. That and people dumbly taking other people's word as gospel on this instead of looking at the thing for themselves.

[Anarky]

^^ Agreed, and BTW you economics post was perfect. you beat me to those thoughts. Thank you very much. Turns out the only thing my economics degree is good for is to tell people on the internet how the business world works.


The most amusing thing to me in the whole healthcare debate is how it has blown COMPLETELY out of control. I have never seen so many people be so completely polarized by this. We had a healthcare debate back in the Clinton years and there weren't people hopping on "tea party" busses and working euthanasia and other scare tactics into the debate.

I truely think that alot of the vile, negative propoganda is coming because of the man who is presenting it this time around. That and people dumbly taking other people's word as gospel on this instead of looking at the thing for themselves.

Both these points can be explained by the discovery of the internet. Us regular Joes have discovered the internet long ago and through us, it has evolved into a behemoth of information, disinformation, lolcats and social networking.

However, Obama was actually the first one to use the internet or "New Media" in general for political purposes. He made a whole campaign in the form of viral marketing. Needless to say, everyone saw what huge impact this had so everyone tries it now. You get angry letters about how you'd euthanise people alongside people who claim that they should be on some list because they're liberals and a cat playing with an american flag with the caption "Dis Amerkah iz purty helfy!"

Because this is new for everyone, nobody really knows what to make of it yet, so the confusion is understandable. The few who actually know what's going on get flooded away by the many panicking and overexaggerating everything.

What certainly doesn't help is the American tendency to overexaggerate everything to the point where they essentially parodying their own standpoint. There's this video going around of a single mother complaining to an opponent of the healthcare thing in public. And she's holding her son and uses language "as heard on TV." She's a farce who once had a valid point and thought she'd illustrate it by being an overdramatic cow. She didn't even get to the point where she could have gotten her point across because the way she presented it was too ridiculous.

[Sewer Bull]

i like many conservative and christian americans believe that truth is founded on the bible and natural law and our rights come from God and not the state. the founding fathers believed in natural law and the understanding that we were all created equal by God. so from these truthes we believe in limit government, ownership of private property, free market economy, democratic in our voting of leaders but republican in ''rule by law'' instead of full democracy in ''rule by majority''. the problem with socialist and communist governments is that they reject natural law and the understanding that our rights are from God. in the communist governments rights come from the state and property and capital belong to the state. many believe that this is unbiblical and fight against it.

Where exactly in the Bible is all that?

And if any mod thinks this discussion is getting off-topic, please move the Bible part to a new thread, this is getting interesting.

[The Stryker]

Other than shining a light on the true faces of some of the members here. I love this thread for giving me this ad

http://i728.photobucket.com/albums/ww286/DiscoBryan/Obamacare.png

[Voltron]

I do believe Christ was the originator of free health care. He was always healing the blind and the sick and what not. So, really, if you don't LIKE free health care, you hate Jesus.

[The Stryker]

You-You have a point there. Never shall I doubt you.

[Barkworm]

Voltron's logic is ultimate.

[Sewer Bull]

Ditto. I think we can close this thread now, Voltron owned everyone.

[Katie]

Isn't it amazing how much better you understand some of this suff if you know how business works! I have a pretty useless business degree myself, but it's great to have learned how things work in the market.



What certainly doesn't help is the American tendency to overexaggerate everything to the point where they essentially parodying their own standpoint. There's this video going around of a single mother complaining to an opponent of the healthcare thing in public. And she's holding her son and uses language "as heard on TV." She's a farce who once had a valid point and thought she'd illustrate it by being an overdramatic cow. She didn't even get to the point where she could have gotten her point across because the way she presented it was too ridiculous.

I know exactly what you're talking about. The media has a knack for finding the most rediculous people to illustrate their slant in the debate. I see the most rediculous sounding supporters of the plan played 24/7 on Fox news and the most evil portrayals of people who are against it on CNN. I get so tired of it that I literally change the channel or leave the room when they interview someone on the debate.

It seems like lately that anything attached to Obama gets blown out of proportion, no matter what it is, before it happens, only to disappear completely once he's finished whatever it was and everyone sees it was a non-issue.

case in point, the education speech. OMG. i have never seen so many people get so up in arms over a presidential speech. "I'm keeping my kids home from school!" "He's trying to brain wash our kids into accepting a liberal agenda!"

Holy crap people! Most school age kids haven't developed the brain maturation needed to understand political concepts (this happens around age 14-16 BTW....the ability to understand abstract concepts) How can they be brainwashed?

Then the speech happens and it is the most benign "stay in school, you need education to achieve your goals" thing you have ever heard in your life. now it's a non issue.

He (Obama) has been made out to be such a demon that almost everythign he does is met with such negative propoganda and anger that it seems like nothing will ever get done.

I just get so angry. If people would just learn for two seconds to think for themselves instead of regurgitating all the crap on TV....take time to look at the facts. THE REAL FACTS. Read the healthcare bill. I did! THEN make your judgements.

[Warhorse]

^That has been the most baffling thing I have witnessed in my life time, people going up in arms over Obama's speech to the schools. I watched the news, saw the dumb ass parents crying how they don't want their kids brain washed, blah, blah, blah, and I was like, WTF? You serious!

If I had to put a face behind all of this ridiculous hatred going on, it would be Rush Limbaugh. I should throw in Rhandi Rhodes too. Both are ego maniacs that have an alarming and scary amount of followers.

As for free health care (or as free as it can get through higher taxes (it's not happening anytime soon. And besides, I think the government should be enticing the big corporations into bringing back the mass manufacturing jobs that were sent over seas.

But whatever, it's all screwed. We're heading into another civil war in the future, very near future.

[Anarky]

Isn't it amazing how much better you understand some of this suff if you know how business works! I have a pretty useless business degree myself, but it's great to have learned how things work in the market.
I think what I benefit of most is the ability to read business language and separate the bullsh*t that's in every bloody press release from the real information. Apart from that, it's useless.

I know exactly what you're talking about. The media has a knack for finding the most rediculous people to illustrate their slant in the debate. I see the most rediculous sounding supporters of the plan played 24/7 on Fox news and the most evil portrayals of people who are against it on CNN. I get so tired of it that I literally change the channel or leave the room when they interview someone on the debate.

It's not just that. The main point where the whole ordeal becomes a travesty of itself is when they try to bring in more emotional content. You can't just have a single mom with an asthma-stricken kid to talk in front of some public hearing thing anymore. No, she must carry the sick child with her and look like the dog ate her up. Then the boy coughs once or twice and she goes "Do you see what you are doing to my child!?" and the a couple of tears are shed.

Her arguments wouldn't be any more or less valid if she would have left the child at home or with family. But she willingly decides that she must drag her child into this to add some theatralics because she was either instructed to by some marketing-crackhead or decided to do it on her own because that's the way she thinks this sort of stuff should go down.

It seems like lately that anything attached to Obama gets blown out of proportion, no matter what it is, before it happens, only to disappear completely once he's finished whatever it was and everyone sees it was a non-issue.
Well, he does have a really different approach to things, or at least he makes it sound like he does. And change scares people, especially when they had half an eternity to get comfortable with the status quo.

I just get so angry. If people would just learn for two seconds to think for themselves instead of regurgitating all the crap on TV....take time to look at the facts. THE REAL FACTS. Read the healthcare bill. I did! THEN make your judgements.

The problem is that we're not used to thinking. No matter in which direction you think, there's always a couple of lunatics that call themselves experts that spoil your view. And often, they know how to appeal to people.

Besides, individual thinking is not encouraged in our times. Nobody likes free thinkers, they tend to be too unpredictable.

http://img2.imageshack.us/img2/4421/cnnchickenlittle.jpg


But whatever, it's all screwed. We're heading into another civil war in the future, very near future.

It won't be a civil war. More sort of more or less organized civil unrest. Look to the Paris Riots for a good template. But first, peopel would need to realize that they actually do have power. And that's another reason why individual thinking is not encouraged.

[Voltron]

I AM SICK AND TIRED OF ALL THIS LOGIC AND SENSE. EVERYONE BETTER START HATING RIGHT NOW, DAMMIT! :evil:

[Ninjinister]

I AM SICK AND TIRED OF ALL THIS LOGIC AND SENSE. EVERYONE BETTER START HATING RIGHT NOW, DAMMIT! :evil:

Can't. Your own logic on the previous page was infallible.

[odupianist]

case in point, the education speech. OMG. i have never seen so many people get so up in arms over a presidential speech. "I'm keeping my kids home from school!" "He's trying to brain wash our kids into accepting a liberal agenda!"

If I remember right, Bush wanted to (and did, didn't he?) do the same thing, and the liberals pretty much had the same reaction. It's all ridiculous hypocrisy when it comes to party debates.

I want to thank Anarky though. I know there's the public option, and I can keep my private option (which I definitely will). I just wanted to say thank you for a really well put together post about the cycle of all of it. I wouldn't be surprised if that happened honestly.

[Katie]

It was Bush Senior....and No, i don't remember a huge freak out over it

[Anarky]

Back then, there wasn't all the media overkill we have today. No Twitter to twitter the masive responses immediately and to organize protests or what have you. You just had telly and could talk to the people you met at the pub. There were fewer radio and TV stations and to get a Google result, you had to write a Fax.

The world was fairly small back then, you see. And while the outrage might have been around, it was mostly unheard and localized.

[ThirdMarioBro]

The whole school pep talk speech revolt was (in my opinion) subconscious racism. At least that's the impression I get from the local people (remember, I live in the nation's reddest state). Lots of people from predominantly white neighborhoods (like around here) seem to just not like the idea of a black man talking to their kids while they aren't present. Its dick-ish and shallow, but that's how they are. They convince themselves that its not racist by telling themselves and others that he's going to brainwash their kids with a speech about socialism. I mean, seriously, what in the hell? I noticed that a lot of the more African American heavy school districts around here had no problem showing the speech, but in the white upper-class neighborhoods, they were giving parents the option to let their kids skip half a day, or they just didn't show the speech at all.

They may tell themselves that its not racist, but people's views are defined by their actions. I thought both of the Bush's were ass-clowns, but I would have had no issue with them talking to children because the President of the United States isn't going to "indoctrinate" children. You should respect the office of the president, even if you don't respect the man's views personally. Anybody who would tell their kids to listen to a school pep talk from a white president, then revolt and try to keep them from listening to a black president is just a closet racist who is teaching their kids not to respect their nation's highest official. Its bad parenting on countless levels. There wasn't a damn thing inappropriate in that speech, and any parent who refuses to watch it and see for themselves just continues to prove my point.

[Anarky]

The other thing about Obama, other than him being not-so-caucasian, might be that he makes it all sound so simple. Which is essentially would be, since he's the most powerful man in the world.

And while using simple words, he presents himself most attractively and as every man's buddy. What naturally doesn't help is that he is saying things that differ quite a bit from the previous course of the USA.

So his skin colour might not even be the thing triggering the racism, it might actually be what he's saying and how he's saying it.

Example: Let's say there's a war going on in Pinguslavia. The Pinguslavians have resorted to guerilla tactics and our troops are taking heavy casualties. However, we can't just leave the Pinguslavian people to their fate, since we bombed them back to the stone age and they're basically screwed without the aid our troops bring. Naturally, some Pinguslavians don't like us, so they'll keep attacking us regardless of whether we rape their daughters or bring them all candy. Thing is, we can't just walk away from it all, but we do need to get away from it.

Now, after getting a lot of flak from friends, enemies and everyday people, the president decides to hold a speech. He basically wants to say "Yeah, we're in the crapper, but we're getting out of there asap." So here's what he can say.
"A retreat is no option at this point in time as our mission, defending the liberty and all that is the american way, is not being fulfilled to our expectations and responsibilities. This also applies to our humanitarian efforts we promote every day in Pinguslavia. We will stay truthful to our mission but ensure that our troops come home when the time is ripe.
We will get our troops home! But first we must ensure the survival of all the innocent civilians in Pinguslavia. As soon as that is accomplished, our boys will be back home.

So what would you rather like to hear?

[Type 97 Chi-ha]

Funny, when Condoleeza Rice, who is fully black, was criticized harshly, I don't recall screams of racism then. Those who scream "racism" at every criticism of Obama really need to grow up. He's President of the United States, he has to follow the same rules as all his predecessors.

And guess what? The first and second President Bushes got the same treatment as Obama did when they made speeches to American children.

[offensive comment removed]

[Barkworm]

The real racists are Obama's supporters, not his critics.
This kind of generalisation is exactly what this thread does NOT need.

[odupianist]

Type 97's got a point though Barkworm. (Granted, we're getting off topic but still...) During the election, if you didn't like Obama, you were racist for not liking him. Hell, I didn't like him nor McCain (I'm more libertarian than anything). All I heard though was how great Obama was, he's the next Lincoln, blah blah blah. No offense, he's not any better than most at this point (I say at this point, he could do something really spectacular, who knows). A lot of African Americans were just supporting it (it seemed like to me) just because he was African American more than his actually campaign (which he did run a really great campaign).

As for the speech thing, you can use the race card (which is getting really old, ridiculous and pointless at this point IMO), but I think it was more of a worry about the whole socialism thing. The whole Obama talking to the kids, people worried about him pushing his political agenda on them at such a young impressionable age. I was not old enough to remember Bush Sr. doing it. I would worry no matter what the political party of the president was because of the political agenda behind most of it. The little bit I did hear of the speech though seemed to be alright though. My biggest gripe with America is that we're so stuck on this two party idea system. If you're not a supporter of one, you must support the other one. This thought process is compete bull. Now I'm going to stop because I've gotten completely off topic from health care lol.

[Mecha Cow]

Type 97's got a point though Barkworm.
No he doesn't. At all. Don't even go there.

The whole Obama talking to the kids, people worried about him pushing his political agenda on them at such a young impressionable age. I was not old enough to remember Bush Sr. doing it.
This is some amazing irony right here. Please read this again.

My biggest gripe with America is that we're so stuck on this two party idea system. If you're not a supporter of one, you must support the other one. This thought process is compete bull.
This on the other hand I completely agree with. The either/or mentality is retarded and is why people are so quick to throw around extreme terms like "communist", "nazi", and "racist".

[Type 97 Chi-ha]

This kind of generalisation is exactly what this thread does NOT need.

No worse than ThirdMarioBro's. And yes, the Bushes did get even worse treatment than Obama has done. And yes, I do have a point that Obama's critics are unfairly called racists-a lot. You want to throw the label around, expect it back. Or else leave race out of it.

[Mecha Cow]

TMB was stupid for bringing up race in the first place, but you flat-out called an entire group of people racists without any basis whatsoever, which was ridiculous and offensive. Don't start backpaddling; admit what you did and be done with it.

[PAAATE]

My biggest gripe with America is that we're so stuck on this two party idea system. If you're not a supporter of one, you must support the other one.

Sadly, that's just not America... In our Swedish riksdag we have seven parties, but only two really big ones... Four of those seven are right-wing, two are leftist and one is in the middle but work together with the left...

Anyway, the two big ones are the moderates and the social democrats...

And whenever I say that I don't like the moderates (the current government) people always assume I support the social democrats, which I don't, since even them are too right-leaning for my taste

I hate that attitude, you know.. "All is black and white", there's just not room for anything else in certain people's minds...

[Mecha Cow]

It's extremely childish too. Going out into the streets calling your president a "communist" every time he says something you disagree with is nothing short of pathetic. Grow the f*ck up, seriously.

[Type 97 Chi-ha]

TMB was stupid for bringing up race in the first place, but you flat-out called an entire group of people racists without any basis whatsoever, which was ridiculous and offensive. Don't start backpaddling; admit what you did and be done with it.

OK I was wrong to say it like that. But TMB was implying that people who disliked Obama were motivated by race and not genuine opposition; I was throwing his tactic back in his face. Which was stupidity of my own and I apologize. :(

[Barkworm]

Let's just completely leave out the topic of race here. And Mecha is right, all the "communism" bullsh*t is ridiculous.

[ThirdMarioBro]

The American mindset is generally ignorant (oh-nos, I might get hanged for critisizing America!). Americans have been trained to think socialism is bad by their officials in government who profit from the existing system, when in mild doses it can be great. Our police force and fire fighter are socialized. I hear no complaints. Frankly, as far as I'm concerned health care should be a basic human right, not something reserved only for those who've got money and feel indignant about somebody else not getting it without paying through the nose. None of us should pay through the nose. In ten years, health care will be reserved for the super rich alone. If thinking we all have a basic right to good health makes me a communist in redneck nation, then so be it. :P

Where's that Republican "Right to life" chant now?

[ToTheNines]

So apparently they're compromising with Republicans on this bill... which is bad news for me. The really poor people will be taken care of, the rich/rich-ish will be fine, but the new premiums are really going to screw families in the 60-80 thousand a year area. Right about where I'm at.

[Type 97 Chi-ha]

So apparently they're compromising with Republicans on this bill... which is bad news for me. The really poor people will be taken care of, the rich/rich-ish will be fine, but the new premiums are really going to screw families in the 60-80 thousand a year area. Right about where I'm at.

Funny, it sounds exactly like the current system is now.

[Type 97 Chi-ha]

The American mindset is generally ignorant (oh-nos, I might get hanged for critisizing America!). Americans have been trained to think socialism is bad by their officials in government who profit from the existing system, when in mild doses it can be great. Our police force and fire fighter are socialized. I hear no complaints. Frankly, as far as I'm concerned health care should be a basic human right, not something reserved only for those who've got money and feel indignant about somebody else not getting it without paying through the nose. None of us should pay through the nose. In ten years, health care will be reserved for the super rich alone. If thinking we all have a basic right to good health makes me a communist in redneck nation, then so be it. :P

Where's that Republican "Right to life" chant now?

It seems you missed the entire point of the objection to socialized medicine. It's a matter of "Will socialized medicine deliver on its promises, or will we all end up paying through the nose for a system even worse than we have now?" With the Obama administration already infamous for spending money like water in a down economy, and not keeping its promises (Improved world opinion? Economic recovery anytime soon? Guantanamo Bay closing? Yeah, right), the American people have every reason in the world not to trust our current President, and it's certainly not only the rednecks who feel this way.

If we could believe Obama could carry out his promise of delivering a health system that would save money while providing care for all, there wouldn't be all this fuss. But the Congressional Budget Office itself has predicted that Obama's proposed health care reform would cost more money, not less, both over the short term and the long term. And you're shocked people are so angry? :roll:

[ThirdMarioBro]

So apparently they're compromising with Republicans on this bill... which is bad news for me. The really poor people will be taken care of, the rich/rich-ish will be fine, but the new premiums are really going to screw families in the 60-80 thousand a year area. Right about where I'm at.

The Democrats are such pussies. They always wimp out at go time. This so called "reform" bill going around right now is just a gift-wrapped present to the current health care establishment.

Looks like a repeat of Clinton. We should have a Republican congress by next November.

[Type 97 Chi-ha]

The Democrats are such pussies. They always wimp out at go time. This so called "reform" bill going around right now is just a gift-wrapped present to the current health care establishment.

Looks like a repeat of Clinton. We should have a Republican congress by next November.

Well, we can at least agree on that.

Also, never underestimate the power of lobbyists. Did you think I was kidding when I said long ago that Obama wasn't going to be such a change after all? Elected politicians can't just do as they please if they expect to stay in office.

[ThirdMarioBro]

Our nation is run by corporations. Has been for decades, and it'll just get worse as time goes by.

I voted for Obama for Net Neutrality (self preservation, considering my job) and protection of minority's social rights (GLBT rights specifically). McCain was in bed with the cable lobbyists and about two of the more extremist mega-churches, so that was a no-go. Obama ran on a net neutrality platform for several years. So far, net neutrality has gone buried. If he lets Time Warner, Comcast, Cox, and Clear Channel bury our internet rights after mobilizing a MASSIVE chunk of the nerd base on that issue specifically, I won't vote for him again in 2012 (correction: won't vote at all. I'd rather drink my own blood than vote for Palin, Cheney, or whoever the other team gets).

[odupianist]

Our nation is run by corporations. Has been for decades, and it'll just get worse as time goes by.

Sadly, this is true. The all time question though is who do we want to be run by? Incompetent politicians or incompetent businessmen? lol

(correction: won't vote at all. I'd rather drink my own blood than vote for Palin, Cheney, or whoever the other team gets).

Why not vote libertarian or some third party? If you don't mind, I'll use you as an example for the whole two party system. You think that since you don't want to vote Democratic, you have to vote Republican. It's not the case at all luckily.

If we could believe Obama could carry out his promise of delivering a health system that would save money while providing care for all, there wouldn't be all this fuss. But the Congressional Budget Office itself has predicted that Obama's proposed health care reform would cost more money, not less, both over the short term and the long term. And you're shocked people are so angry? :roll:

Didn't he say he was going to end the war right away too? :roll:

This is some amazing irony right here. Please read this again.

I was speaking for me personally, not other younger people at the time or even now.

[ThirdMarioBro]

Why not vote libertarian or some third party? If you don't mind, I'll use you as an example for the whole two party system. You think that since you don't want to vote Democratic, you have to vote Republican. It's not the case at all luckily.

Well, no offense, but I kind of find the libertarianism platform to be a little extremist in many ways (though I agree with them on a few issues....like pot and abolition of property taxes).

Didn't he say he was going to end the war right away too? :roll:

Heh, yeah. The military industrial complex put an end to that real quick.

[odupianist]

Well, no offense, but I kind of find the libertarianism platform to be a little extremist in many ways (though I agree with them on a few issues....like pot and abolition of property taxes).

Extreme in what way if you don't mind me asking. I'm just more of the ideal that the less government in general and in my affairs is best, but that's just me. I prefer things to be as simple as possible. Granted, I know this isn't always possible.

[Barkworm]

New Harvard study finds 45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage. (http://harvardscience.harvard.edu/medicine-health/articles/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-lack-health-coverage)

Steffie Woolhandler, study co-author, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, and a primary care physician at Cambridge Health Alliance, noted: “Historically, every other developed nation has achieved universal health care through some form of nonprofit national health insurance. Our failure to do so means that all Americans pay higher health care costs, and 45,000 pay with their lives.”

[The Stryker]

I'M NOT PAYING MONEY OUT OF MY POCKET FOR THOSE PEOPLE!


....My money. MINE.

[Wingnut]

As long as there's money in screwing other people out of their money, this kind of problem will exist. Common people, hell even rich people (aka anyone who is not the upper 1%) need to help each other implement a system where this highway robbery by insurance companies is not possible, or at the very least make it somewhat difficult.

That's what should happen. I know it won't happen.

[shredder17]

i dont understand you guys. someone made a connection of jesus to socialism and i responded to it, and i in turn was corrected for mentioning jesus. thats fine but then one of you says if we dont support the healthcare bill that means we "hate jesus", and no one corrects him. if i try to respond to it. all of you will say "stop talking about jesus". This is what happends on every site, people make jokes or wrong statements on jesus and then a christian says something in defence and then everyone gets offended. remember one of you mentioned jesus first not me. i was always general and never said anything personal like "IF YOU DONT FOLLOW JESUS YOU'RE GOING TO HELL". but one of you can get personal and say ''i hate jesus if i dont support healthcare''. this is not fair guys. some of you are baised.

[The Stryker]

Oh god. The enter key is your friend.

[shredder17]

i dont understand your response. can someone answer my question? why can one give verbal attacks on healthcare and ''hating jesus, if you dont support it'' but no one will correct this person?

[shredder17]

i agree that religion should not be directly discussed on this site. so dont stop using GOD and JESUS CHRIST as sentence inhancers. stop making jokes such as ''JESUS DINOSOUR RIDING CHRIST". stop saying jesus was a socialist or anything else and i bet no one will bring up religion. i have never brought up religion on this site, i only responded to the comment of others.

[Mecha Cow]

I'm sorry, but Christians don't have a monolopy on mentioning God and Jesus. There will be references and jokes; you'll have to learn to deal with that. Besides, you are overreacting. I don't recall anyone mentioning Jesus in an explicitly religious context or saying anything like what you keep bringing up.

Religious discussion is not allowed on these boards, for good reason. There are no ifs and buts about it, it just never ends well. For the record, while I disagree with you I think you have been civil so far, but it's best if you just drop the issue.

[Anarky]

In other news, Voltron was making a joke. If it hurt your feelings, take it to Krang or live with it. Not everything in life will please you, you better come to terms with that. Whatever you do, however, do not mention it in this thread or on the forums in general.

"Not talking about Jesus" doesn't mean "Not believing in Jesus." We even have priests on here and they don't hold cermons either. So if our local priests can sit on it, then I figure you should be able to do that too.

[ThirdMarioBro]

i dont understand you guys. someone made a connection of jesus to socialism and i responded to it, and i in turn was corrected for mentioning jesus. thats fine but then one of you says if we dont support the healthcare bill that means we "hate jesus", and no one corrects him. if i try to respond to it. all of you will say "stop talking about jesus". This is what happends on every site, people make jokes or wrong statements on jesus and then a christian says something in defence and then everyone gets offended. remember one of you mentioned jesus first not me. i was always general and never said anything personal like "IF YOU DONT FOLLOW JESUS YOU'RE GOING TO HELL". but one of you can get personal and say ''i hate jesus if i dont support healthcare''. this is not fair guys. some of you are baised.

Weren't we through with this like a week ago? Jesus Christ......

...whoops.

[shredder17]

i would not report on any one or try to get any one in trouble. i was only saying you guys need to be consistent with your corrections. i am not offended at what was said. i never tried to preach any sermons or convert anyone. for the hundred time i was only responding to a comment. and i dont think christians have sole ownership of the name ''JESUS'' but if a poster blasphemes or takes the name in vain, dont i have the right to respond in a civil way. and my mention of the ''bible'' and ''jesus'' were in the context of the healthcare issue. i never told anyone here they need to trust in jesus. can you guys agree to this that i was not disrespectful, mean or uncaring with my words?

[Peanut]

You guys remember that time I got warned for making fun of Jesus? Good times.

[Barkworm]

So, what about that article I posted? Nothing from the anti-healthcare people about that?

[Wingnut]

So, what about that article I posted? Nothing from the anti-healthcare people about that?
It's not shocking. Hell I bet more people die from malpractice.

[Newton Gimmick]

So, what about that article I posted? Nothing from the anti-healthcare people about that?

Most anti-Healthcare people don't have points. Or if they do it's with logic holes you could drive a MAC truck through.

Someone said earlier about how Obama is spending too much money, as if he didn't come into the biggest recession in recent history? I know, that's his fault too, right? How do you get out of something like that? Typically spending money on reconstruction and big projects. The fact that the economy is showing signs of recovery already says it was the right thing to do.

Thus far Obama has done a good job sticking to many of his major ideas and given that he's been in for a little under a year, that's a pretty good sign.

The guy who writes Obama off at 9 months as "someone you can't trust because of his past actions" is pretty short sighted. No one cn do much in 9 months as President and if you're comparing him to previous Presidents, he's worked to get a lot done in a short span of time.

[ThirdMarioBro]

For the moment. I'm going to set aside the health care debate. Obama's FCC chair just announced the unveiling of some new (strict) net neutrality provisions to be announced Monday. Presumably, it will protect internet freedom across all networks, including wireless networks (the current hot-spot for corperate web content filtering *coughiphonecough*. This was the primary issue that decided my voting in the primaries for Obama. Should this go through, he will have fulfilled his commitment to the geek community.

I'm sure the telecom industry and their brain-washed conservative supporters will try to spin it as a government takeover of the internet, possibly throwing some Chinese federal censorship references in there, even though the whole purpose of net neutrality is to protect us from corporate filtering and throttling of web content (which has already been quietly tested by most all of the major providers in small communities). The fight for internet freedom is about to begin. Obama certainly has a lot on his plate, but I'm sure as hell glad he's finally stepping up to the plate on this issue.

[Mecha Cow]

but if a poster blasphemes or takes the name in vain, dont i have the right to respond in a civil way
No, as per the forum rules. Also, blasphemy and such are a matter of perspective. Most people do not mean to "take the Lord's name in vain" when they mention Jesus, and you can't expect them to adhere to your personal standards on the matter. No one has the right to insult your beliefs either, but I don't see that happening here.

Again, you have been civil, but it's simply against the rules. Religion is a very sensitive, personal issue that makes for unpleasant conversations, even if people are respectful about it. That's why it's not allowed, no matter the reason. Please let it go.

[Type 97 Chi-ha]

Most anti-Healthcare people don't have points. Or if they do it's with logic holes you could drive a MAC truck through.

Someone said earlier about how Obama is spending too much money, as if he didn't come into the biggest recession in recent history? I know, that's his fault too, right? How do you get out of something like that? Typically spending money on reconstruction and big projects. The fact that the economy is showing signs of recovery already says it was the right thing to do.

Thus far Obama has done a good job sticking to many of his major ideas and given that he's been in for a little under a year, that's a pretty good sign.

The guy who writes Obama off at 9 months as "someone you can't trust because of his past actions" is pretty short sighted. No one cn do much in 9 months as President and if you're comparing him to previous Presidents, he's worked to get a lot done in a short span of time.

You've never learned economics, have you? Do you honestly think the economy is recovering? I see no signs of that. Things are still getting worse, not better. Obama may have inherited problems, but he's making them worse, not better. When you're in debt, you cut your spending, not increase it on pork-barrel projects. If you're referring to FDR, he failed to get us out of the Great Depression. In fact, most people had become disillusioned with the New Deal. It was World War Two that saved us. Any historian can tell you that.

Obama sticking to his major ideas? Name a promise he kept. Is he closing Guantanamo Bay? Is the economy improving? Is the USA looking better to the world? (Yeah, the love Obama, but they despise us more than ever.) Is anything getting better? Ever looked at his current popularity ratings? Dropping like a stone.

We may be short-sighted, but anyone who still supports him is absolutely blind.

[Leo656]

I'll chime in that NJ's state economy is pretty much the worst it's ever been and not looking at any improvements in the near future. My whole company just came back to work in June, and we're already being told to get ready to go back on unemployment. Most of us exhausted our benefits over winter/spring, so it's not an option. The movers can't find moving jobs elsewhere, the drivers can't find driving jobs elsewhere, and nobody wants to start an entirely new job at less pay. It's lousy.

I don't blame Obama, I just think he was foolish to promise a bunch of stuff he couldn't ever hope to deliver. They all do that, but his promises were SO outlandish as to be ridiculous; that's why most people I know never supported him, not because of his race, but that whole "turning back the tides/healing the Earth" spiel of his. :roll:

[Anarky]

When you're in debt, you cut your spending, not increase it on pork-barrel projects.

This statement is wrong.

If you're a person, saving money in times of crisis is good. If you're an economy, then it's not. You see, most economic crises come from the need of more money than is available. So with no money in circulation, and I'm not talking cash in registers and wallets, there's no money anywhere. You best battle a recession by making more money circulate, by pumping money into sectors that need it. Over here, that's usually the railways and the roadworkers, which is why we have an awesome railway network and nice roads everywhere. At the slghtest sign of internal recession, we start digging holes into roads and buying new trains to minimize the effects of a recession, as there will be more money around that can be spent and re-spent and thus keeps the market going.

If you're referring to FDR, he failed to get us out of the Great Depression. In fact, most people had become disillusioned with the New Deal. It was World War Two that saved us. Any historian can tell you that.

So you suggest what? A new war?

Obama sticking to his major ideas? Name a promise he kept. Is he closing Guantanamo Bay? Is the economy improving? Is the USA looking better to the world? (Yeah, the love Obama, but they despise us more than ever.) Is anything getting better? Ever looked at his current popularity ratings? Dropping like a stone.

That was probably Obama's real challenge. Winning the election wasn't a problem after he had Palin - who frankly scared the sh*t out of everyone with half a brain cell - as an opponent.

His problem was, from then on, to be able to fulfill his promises as quickly as possible. The thing is, he stopped just short of proclaiming himself the reincarnation of Jesus and told the people that he'd do a huge number of monumentally cool things. People being idiots and impatient want instant change, of course. Every halfeways on-this-planet-living person however knows that these things take time. Luckily, Obama has four years of time to get some things done. He's not even been in office for a year. Give the man a bit of time, he just might live up to his promises. Of course, you won't give the man time, because you don't like him, but that's cool, because he has over three more years to do stuff and there's nothing you can do about it.

By the way, many of his promises are actually feasible given a reasonable timeframe. His ideas are nothing new and have been implemented in other nations around the globe reasonably quickly and reasonably well.

But economics take time. You as a self-proclaimed expert should know that.

[Type 97 Chi-ha]

You found Palin scary? Reminds me of the time my mother's cat Figaro got frightened at the sight of a caterpillar. :lol: Seriously, the reason McCain lost because the economy suddenly went into recession. I find nothing scary about Palin, but I find Obama's supporters to be very scary, knowing that they really believed he was some sort of miracle worker. In a way he is. He's making President Bush look like a model of restrain and competence.

Putting money into the economy is good, but when and where? Spending money willy-nilly makes things worse. The "Cash for Clunkers" program, which set us back billions of dollars, was simply welfare for people who could and would have bought new cars anyway. Yes, we can print money, but guess what happens when we print too much? Ever heard of high inflation? Not a problem since Reagan solved that, but old problems can always come back.

And why talk about national health care when we've got far more urgent worries right now? Obama certainly didn't make a fuss about it when he ran for office. The cynic in me suggests that he's only making a big thing of it now as a distraction from everything else that has gone wrong.

It's not that Obama is too slow in making things right. It's that we now believe he's not going to make thinghs right.

[Anarky]

You found Palin scary? Reminds me of the time my mother's cat Figaro got frightened at the sight of a caterpillar. :lol: Seriously, the reason McCain lost because the economy suddenly went into recession. I find nothing scary about Palin, but I find Obama's supporters to be very scary, knowing that they really believed he was some sort of miracle worker. In a way he is. He's making President Bush look like a model of restrain and competence.

To a European, a religious über-nutjob like her makes Obama's "I'm Jesus V2.0" seem rather harmless in comparison.

Putting money into the economy is good, but when and where? Spending money willy-nilly makes things worse.

Precisely. That's why you set up plans to make failing industry twigs better. Over here, it's - as mentioned - roadwork and the like. It does make a lot of sense for Obama and his economic team to tackle healthcare. There are billions and billions of dollars the insurance companies have not yet made. Granted, it's not the most short-term of plans, but it will work. For more precise details, read my post on how this will play out in the end.

But yes, just spending money on random crap doesn't do any good. But spending it into the health-industry in a country where insured people are a minority: That's killing two birds with one stone. You make the people more healthy so that they can work more and better. And you completely overhaul an antique and complacent system of insurances and make them into efficient and working companies.

Ever heard of high inflation?
I have, but I really don't see how this has anything to do with the healthcare reform. The money he's willing to spend into the healthcare-sector is already floating around in circulation. So no new money will be made, no reserves needed or anything.

Besides, all the money spent will come in again manyfold quicker than in any other business deal of recent history, making this one of the most efficient and sleakest deals I've seen in quite some time, because you've suddenly opened the market to people who have been craving the product you now make available to them. Quite frankly, from an economic standpoint, it's a genius move.

And why talk about national health care when we've got far more urgent worries right now? Obama certainly didn't make a fuss about it when he ran for office. The cynic in me suggests that he's only making a big thing of it now as a distraction from everything else that has gone wrong.

Naturally, the people who are screaming bloody murder don't really help Obama to focus on other, possibly more important matters. And as a president, your people come first. If the people want to discuss healthcare, then you talk to them about healthcare. It's not rocket science. Americans and basically any people would be confused if Obama would suddenly go on about the number of donkeys in Nebraska.

If you're going to ask me about, let's say, the weather, I won't respond to you

It's not that Obama is too slow in making things right. It's that we now believe he's not going to make thinghs right.
Who's this we? Global politics and global economics believe that Obama has some seriously good ideas still up his sleeve. Americans and quite possibly the people under his communist rule usually are a bit more short-sighted and expect instant miracles. But we're going in circles. Naturally, he hasn't quite managed to turn manure into gold yet, despite probably having mentioned something along the lines during the election. But that doesn't mean he won't do it, however unlikely.

But what cracks me up here is that all those vocal oponents, of which there seem to be plenty more this time term, at least in America (whereas Bush had the War-bonus going on and the world around the USA hated him,) have three more years of mostly irrational ranting and raving to do. From an outside perspective, this is actually rather funny.

[Wingnut]

If you're referring to FDR, he failed to get us out of the Great Depression. In fact, most people had become disillusioned with the New Deal.
Yeah, but he put people to work on projects exactly like Anarky mentioned. Blasting rock, paving roads, building parks, you know real tangible work. That saved our economy in the long run. You don't come out of a sh*t storm like the Great Depression in a few years.

And WW2 helped because WE WON.

[Leo656]

I miss Reagan. Well, the last two years not so much...

[PAAATE]

To a European, a religious über-nutjob like her makes Obama's "I'm Jesus V2.0" seem rather harmless in comparison.

Very true.

The possibility of her getting the kind of power in the world that she would get as vice president seriously frightens me, and the few friends I have who cares for international politics agree.

[Type 97 Chi-ha]

This may come as a tremendous shock to you, but you non-Americans love to think you know us so well when you are actually totally clueless about us.

Palin a religious nut-job? Where do you get this from? The reality is that the most murderous and brutal dictators in human history were in fact atheists. Many people who fled to America are in fact refugees from nations where such dictators ruled. And as far as atheists are concerned, I find them worse than the worst Bible-thumpers I encountered in terms of ignorance, irrationality, and sanctimony.

Health care reform is well and good, if it's done right. But what if it costs more and in fact makes things worse, as many people fear? Yes, I already hear how Europeans are supposed to have a more effective system. But we'd like to know how things really are in national health care before we vote for it. There are plenty of horror stories about the Veterans Administration hospitals to give us pause.

[Mecha Cow]

This may come as a tremendous shock to you, but you non-Americans love to think you know us so well when you are actually totally clueless about us.
Don't start with this again.

[PAAATE]

Palin a religious nut-job? Where do you get this from?

From the fact that she's said some pretty stupid stuff? C'mon, religion is ok, and I don't mind people having a faith at all, but someone who says that the earth is a few thousand years old can't possibly be serious... To me, that's almost Scientology-level of absurdness right there

The reality is that the most murderous and brutal dictators in human history were in fact atheists.

Yes, but one's religion, or lack thereof, doesn't really point to how good a leader you are... There's been some pretty horrible leaders from all religions... With the exception of Buddhism, I think... Of course, there's been good leaders from all religions, too...

But anyway, Sarah Palin, she was just... It's not even her believes that bothered me the most... You saw the interview by Katie Couric, right? Right! There you go, possible presidential material? Not really, if you ask me

[Katie]

Don't start with this again.


I like how he says "us" like everyone in the country shares his viewpoint. Sure, there are people who do.....but not all of us by any means. Some of us actually like what we see going on......and were completely horrified by the prospect of someone like Palin leading our country.

[Anarky]

This may come as a tremendous shock to you, but you non-Americans love to think you know us so well when you are actually totally clueless about us.

I might not know all the intricacies of American Culture but I do know economics, and especially global economics are - as the name implies - global. And I know those.

Palin a religious nut-job? Where do you get this from?
We got the same speeches broadcasted over here as you got in the states. The election was actually pretty well-covered due to the USA still being somewhat the driving force of this planet's happenings and all that. Besides, there was a black president to maybe be had at that point. That was big news, man.

What you got wrong here - which I might have not specifically mentioned - is that she's not a nutjob because of religion, but a nutjob in general with added religion. Religion on its own is fine and dandy if that's your thing. I know some perfectly reasonable, deeply religious people, so all evidence points to the nutjob-creating factor not being religion.

Health care reform is well and good, if it's done right. But what if it costs more and in fact makes things worse, as many people fear? Yes, I already hear how Europeans are supposed to have a more effective system. But we'd like to know how things really are in national health care before we vote for it. There are plenty of horror stories about the Veterans Administration hospitals to give us pause.
I'm pretty sure that as soon as the reform hits, at least one insurance company will go "Hey, the veterans have it bad. Let's have a special veteran's plan." Seriously, over here, there are plans for everything. I mean, how often does it happen that a girl has a body that produces little to no estrogen and require you to pop pills for the rest of your days or else your body shuts down? And there is a plan for it. Well, it falls under "Female hormonal disorders" but it's good enough.

And can we leave our respective political and religious views out of this, please? I know, I slipped up by bringing Palin into this and calling her a raving lunatic and I apologize. Let's just let Palin be ex-governor and a devout Christian in Alaska and be done with it.

[Wingnut]

I miss Reagan. Well, the last two years not so much...
You mean the Jelly Bean years :lol:

[Leo656]

:lol: Nobody's perfect... He did do a lotta good things, though, Nancy and her "spritual advisors" notwithstanding. Plus he had a hot daughter.

I'm not a huge fan of Palin's, just think she's pretty hot for a politician with a buncha kids. But to be fair, I'm pretty certain anybody who was as inexperienced with prepared speeches and reading from a teleprompter as she apparently was would have come off sounding "confused". Not saying she's not a little "touched", not saying she really needed to be THAT high up on the totem pole, just that it can't be easy to be thrust into the global spotlight that quickly.

The whole deal with her was pretty transparent. Republicans looked at how the media was drooling over Obama from Day One, despite him pretty much being an empty suit propped up by said news media with no real accomplishments to speak of that made him, y'know, qualified, and they knew they needed to try something desperate. So they made a big fuss about his racist reverend that hates America so much, and nobody really cared about that. So then they made a bunch of noise about all his friends and supporters that were involved with the Weather Underground back in the day. Y'know, those domestic terrorists that spent the 60s and 70s trying to blow up gov't buildings, kill politicians, hid out for 15-20 years and now all teach college courses while constantly saying they "didn't do enough" to "bring down the man"? And again, nobody really paid attention. So they tried making a stink about his ACORN buddies and all their illegal shenanigans, not the least of which being how they got caught registering dead people to vote in last year's election, and again, nobody really said much.

So the Republicans, being desperate, took a long look at the Democrat opposition, one being a minority and one being a woman, and they figured out (finally) that it's all just a big popularity contest where credentials really don't matter and everyone's personal skeletons are forgiven as long as they pander to their base and wave a big enough flag. So then they said "Well hell, WE should get a token novelty candidate, too!"

And that's where they scrounged palin up from. Can't really blame 'em for it, either, it's just probably good that she didn't get to go all the way. I'd love to hear HER opinions about health care reform: "Well gosh darnit, y'know, where I'm from, if we get sick, we just skin up a few more moose carcasses for furs and guzzle some maple syrup. You betcha!" :lol:

[Type 97 Chi-ha]

I remember when it was revealed that Nancy Reagan used an astrologer. A lot of people were saying, "I hope they keep the astrologer!" :lol: (Unfortunately they didn't.)

Yes, Leo just made a better case about Obama than I could have. Yes, Boris Yeltsin was certainly popular outside of Russia, but within Russia...well, to make a long story short, Obama is our Boris Yeltsin.

[GK Punk]

Obama is our Boris Yeltsin.

No offense, but speak for yourself not the entire country.

[Cure]

No offense, but speak for yourself not the entire country.

Same way I feel, minus the no offense.

[Type 97 Chi-ha]

Same way I feel, minus the no offense.

I don't speak for the entire country, only the more intelligent members of it.

[GK Punk]

I don't speak for the entire country, only the more intelligent members of it.

Well you just killed any validity of your own arguments by turning around and throwing these childish insults out there.

[Type 97 Chi-ha]

Well you just killed any validity of your own arguments by turning around and throwing these childish insults out there.

I'm just talking to a certain person here in the only language he can understand.

[Cure]

Hahaha, dude. You're like the king of over generalizations. Just stop.

[Brodie]

I don't speak for the entire country, only the more intelligent members of it.

Just because you passed a 7th grade Social Studies class and remembered the name Boris Yeltsin, that doesn't make you smart. Nor should a person like you speak on behalf of the intelligent members of the country.

That would be like Reed Richards letting Corky, from Life Goes On, debate intellectually on his behalf.


http://www.performabilities.org/Chris%20Burke03a.jpg

[Voltron]

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah!

I hate politics. It gives us labels so we might weigh everybody's worth. We start saying things out of spite. He's a conservative, she's a liberal. He's gay, he's a social terrorist. She's black, she must be bitter about everything.


I'm a human being. I want peace and quiet. Ockham's Razor, man. . .Ockham's Razor.

Is it so bad that we have a little charity for those in tight spots?

[Barkworm]

I don't speak for the entire country, only the more intelligent members of it.
Just throw in a couple more of these and we'll have you warned in no time.

[The Stryker]

i hate politics. It gives us labels so we might weigh everybody's worth. We start saying things out of spite. He's a conservative, she's a liberal. He's gay, he's a social terrorist. She's black, she must be bitter about everything.


I'm a human being. I want peace and quiet. Ockham's razor, man. . .ockham's razor.

Is it so bad that we have a little charity for those in tight spots?

COMMIE PIG!!

Get him!

[ThirdMarioBro]

This may come as a tremendous shock to you, but you non-Americans love to think you know us so well when you are actually totally clueless about us.

I don't speak for the entire country, only the more intelligent members of it.

I love the way that if you piss off a conservative enough, their viewpoints essentially boil down to a superiority complex. Its like the stubborn mule gag on Family Guy. No matter how many times I tell you Kevin Bacon was in Footloose, you'll tell me I'm wrong. I can't possibly be right, because you are naturally smarter than me.

Don't speak for "us". Speak for yourself. Anybody who agrees with the psycho-religiously driven policies of one Sarah Palin would see her as a sister in arms (which is part of the problem), fighting the fight for "morals" and "values". Anyone from the outside who is lucky enough to not have their political viewpoints tainted by faith (never combine the two), be it a fellow American like me (like it or not) or a neutral party such as a European can clearly see her as the whack job she is.

And by the way, I never saw a video of Obama standing in a Church to receive a blessing from a guest witch doctor. Palin? Well....

*Cue Reverend Wright speech about Obama hates America*

[Type 97 Chi-ha]

I love the way that if you piss off a conservative enough, their viewpoints essentially boil down to a superiority complex. Its like the stubborn mule gag on Family Guy. No matter how many times I tell you Kevin Bacon was in Footloose, you'll tell me I'm wrong. I can't possibly be right, because you are naturally smarter than me.

Don't speak for "us". Speak for yourself. Anybody who agrees with the psycho-religiously driven policies of one Sarah Palin would see her as a sister in arms (which is part of the problem), fighting the fight for "morals" and "values". Anyone from the outside who is lucky enough to not have their political viewpoints tainted by faith (never combine the two), be it a fellow American like me (like it or not) or a neutral party such as a European can clearly see her as the whack job she is.

And by the way, I never saw a video of Obama standing in a Church to receive a blessing from a guest witch doctor. Palin? Well....

*Cue Reverend Wright speech about Obama hates America*

I find it ironic that you attack Sarah Palin for faith when I get the impression that Obama supporters are obviously motivated by blind faith in him. When he campaigned, did he have a program for us? All I remember are a bunch of slogans such as "Yes we can!" and "Change we can believe in." In other words, take faith in Obama and he will magically get things right for you.

As far as "superiority complex", have you looked in the mirror lately? You obviously insult anyone who dares disagree with you. Speak for yourselves. You don't speak for the nation either. There were plenty of us who have seen, and still do see, that Obama isn't the messiah you evidently think he is.

[Type 97 Chi-ha]

Just because you passed a 7th grade Social Studies class and remembered the name Boris Yeltsin, that doesn't make you smart. Nor should a person like you speak on behalf of the intelligent members of the country.

That would be like Reed Richards letting Corky, from Life Goes On, debate intellectually on his behalf.


http://www.performabilities.org/Chris%20Burke03a.jpg

You must secretly agree with that comment when you make a childish remark like that. :lol:

[Anarky]

I find it ironic that you attack Sarah Palin for faith when I get the impression that Obama supporters are obviously motivated by blind faith in him. When he campaigned, did he have a program for us? All I remember are a bunch of slogans such as "Yes we can!" and "Change we can believe in." In other words, take faith in Obama and he will magically get things right for you.
That was the interesting thing about Obama. He didn't go into all the poitical trench-fighting during the election. He made general promises like "I'll see to it that you lot will get healthy" and he did occasionally back it up with more detailed plans. But he essentially said the same things as every politician on the world said. Lower taxes, better education, less crime... blahblahblah... you know the drill. In the USA, you can add "One nation under God" and "Get our boys home" but essentially it's the same everywhere and on every side.

However, what Obama did, and he did that masterfully, he presented it better. He presented it in a fresh and way more natural way than many of his predecessors. He won the popular vote by far, because McCain didn't expect that he had to be popular to win - technically, a politician doesn't have to be popular, but it does help immensely when trying to get elected.

Obama was also the first one who relied heavily on the internet. Newsletters, Facebook et cetera, Obama's campaign had it all, while McCain's campaign relied on signs in front yards and the occasional public appearance. And this new and revolutionary way of Obama rallying, that was a huge factor as well. And on the internet, you must - at all cost - avoid the tl;dr factor and be brief. A couple of good slogans, a nice and daring smile, a neat symbol and you've got yourself a winner.

Basically, Obama's shtick was to get people to believe in him. And he succeeded masterfully.

During the next campaign, I expect way more general things like Obama's campaign, where people don't go into longwinded and excrutiatingly boring speeches about the intricate details of their plan as POTUS, but more a "Who's awesome? We're awesome!"-approach.

That's all nice and dandy, but the real election-killer for the McCainies came when the VP's were presented. While Joe Biden was basically a cardboard cutout of a man in a suit, it was quite possibly the VP-thing that cost McCain the job. Palin was - apart from quite probably being insane, not because of religion, though - little more than a novelty candidate. Her "Maverick"-blahblah was quite novel in its approach too, but she scared quite some people, both domestically and internationally. Personal feelings and beliefs aside, she probably cost McCain the election.

[Brodie]

You must secretly agree with that comment when you make a childish remark like that. :lol:

No, see.....you misunderstood. I'll break it down for you:

I was calling you retarded.

[Type 97 Chi-ha]

No, see.....you misunderstood. I'll break it down for you:

I was calling you retarded.

I understood you completely. Calling someone retarded is childish, because it shows that you cannot come up with any intelligent arguments. Puerile insults only serve to make the insulter look ridiculous, not the target. Like saying, "You're ugly and your mother dresses you funny!" If you say that, you're the one who looks like an idiot.

[Type 97 Chi-ha]

Sorry, Anarky, but you are wrong on several counts. For one thing, it was Howard Dean (who later became head of the Democratic National Committee)
who was first to use the Internet extensively. He was in fact the early frontrunner in the 2000 primary, and expected to win, but he wasn't able to follow up on his early success and fizzled out early. The Internet can only do so much.

As far as Obama is concerned, he was far more lucky than masterful. For one thing, the news media was on his side. For another, he only got into the Senate because his Republican opponent was destroyed in a scandal. For still another, his major opponent was Hillary Clinton, and besides any negative baggage she carried, there was reluctance to keep repeating the same political families in office. For yet another, the recession hit during the election, which hurt because we had a Republican President at the time. And yes, McCain didn't inspire great enthusiasm either. But I never got the idea that Obama was suited for the Presidency.

[Cure]

You obviously insult anyone who dares disagree with you. Speak for yourselves. You don't speak for the nation either.

Yo, you called anyone who disagrees with you UNINTELLIGENT, homie. You're being irrational.

[Dr. Doom]

Corky seemed like he had things pretty well figured out.

[Type 97 Chi-ha]

Yo, you called anyone who disagrees with you UNINTELLIGENT, homie. You're being irrational.

Actually, you're right, I just started a juvenile insult contest. I apologize.

Corky seemed like he had things pretty well figured out.

Ever seen the movie Forrest Gump? Actually the book it was based on was meant to be a satire.

[Wingnut]

Ever seen the movie Forrest Gump? Actually the book it was based on was meant to be a satire.
Now you've gone too far, Forrest Gump was a great man. Leave him outta this.

In all seriousness though, you mentioned before how Obama was lucky... Obama wasn't lucky, he (and his handlers) ran the better campaign. Plain and simple. The candidate that resorted solely to mudslinging tactics would lose, at least that was my prediction before the Iowa caucuses. Sure enough almost every McCain/Palin ad tried to play up Obama's middle name or where he was from. Obama, for the most part stuck to the issues (when he was running). His campaign knew you're not going to out shine a Vietnam POW if it comes down to personal accolades and reputation.

McCain's age coupled with Palin being VP didn't help things either. If McCain was 50-60 years old or Palin wasn't in the mix, he would've won hands down.

Also, quit blaming the "liberal media" for conservative shortcomings. That's like a hippie blaming the "system" for everything.

[That Matt Guy]

i'm cherokee jack

[ThirdMarioBro]

As far as Obama is concerned, he was far more lucky than masterful. For one thing, the news media was on his side.

Ah, the old "liberal elite media" bullsh*t. 80% of the news media is Republicans. Just ask Faux News and the endless empire of newspapers they slant in their favor daily. Corporate media has wanted health care to fail from the beginning because their network bosses are invested in the current establishment. If the media truly were liberal, we wouldn't even be having this debate.

[Barkworm]

I have heard this so many times by now: Conservatives talking about the "liberal media", liberals whining about "Republican broadcast stations". What's the truth?

[Anarky]

Both and none. It's one of these things that doesn't have an absolute truth. Media always go with the gout-de-jour and if people like being conservatives, then the media are conservative. After all, the media is not only about information but also about ratings and such. And in order to have people watch what you're broadcasting, you have to give them what they want. So, depeding on what the public's angle on a thing is, the networks take that position. Some do it more, some do it less extreme.

[odupianist]

The media goes with what will make them news and get them watched.

[Anarky]

Oh, really? Are you sure? I mean, that's a bold statement you make there. The only thing that bothers me a bit is that I get this weird feeling someone wrote that already somewhere.

I mean, I should maybe feel honoured that my posts are being knocked off, but that's just pathetic. Seriously, if you're going to regurgitate what I've said, then at least add something new to it. I'm pretty certain that you'd have plenty of stuff to add since you are - as opposed to me - immersed in the media we're talking about. Please, at least pretend to make effort.

[Type 97 Chi-ha]

One thing you've missed. Until the 1980's, with the removal of the Fairness Doctrine law and the rise of cable TV in urban areas (with more channels available), there were only a few major media outlets available to the public. The Big Three television stations, plus a couple of local ones, some radio stations which were interlinked with the TV ones, and a few major newspapers. People followed them because that's all there was. There was no Fox News thirty years ago. With this media oligopoly, the media could pretty much run whatever content they wanted.

Bang went the old system when more news outlets were readily available. The major news outlets probably never expected there was a serious market for conservative opinions. Of course, with the rise of Fox News, the old-time news outlets stuck with their old formulas, to keep their old customer base.

Also, it was the Internet that put the kibosh on Dan Rather's career:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents

The late Robert Novak said in his column that for an experienced newsman like Dan Rather, it couldn't possibly have been an honest mistake.

[Katie]

See, that's part of the problem. Goes back to allllllllllll the information overload Anarky was talking about before. there are SO many choices out there for receiving your information. People only pay attention to the stuff that supports their own perspective be it right or wrong or whatever. You never really get exposed to other points of view. maybe what you're hearing is wrong...maybe what i'm hearing is wrong. But instead of talking about it, everyone's screaming at each other and NO ONE gets any benefit from all the angry shouting that's going on out there in the country. No one's listening to anyone else. It's just a bunch of anger. everyone's polarized

For example:


My dad calls CNN the communist news network. The man believes George W. Bush was too liberal. He's a die hard conservative. He will not listen to any other opinion because he thinks there is no other right but his right. (that's right as in right vs. wrong) if he were to come into a room with CNN on (or any network other than Fox) he just leaves....or bitches about all the lies and liberal blah blah blah. So, his entire opinion on any political subject is usually taken word for word from the Fox news crew.

Freaking frustrating to have an intelligent conversation with someone who has no desire or respect to hear the other opinion on the subject. He and I have long LONG LONG "discussions" about politics which basically is just a pissing contest where he tells me all the things wrong with the way I think, act, live my life, etc. If I try and give my thoughts and why I think it's not a bad thing to pay a little more to help people and he just glazes over and tells me I don't understand anything and I'm going to hell and stuff like that. (not rebuttals or anything, just stupid Sh*t) I'm SO turned off by hearing him say I'm stupid while he bitches about the president and all the money and all the other crap that really I have a bad taste in my mouth about anyone who thinks like that.

Thus the debate falls apart.


On a wider scale, this is what's happening in the country. conservatives scream bloody murder over all the spending and other things like that and call liberals stupid and say they're mad as hell. Liberals think the conservatives are stupid and selfish and can't understand why no one sees the benefit in helping those less fortunate.

meanwhile no one is listening to anyone because its all so angry.

nothing will ever be done because no one wants to see things from anyone else's perspective. God forbid we might have some common ground.



The United States is such a dysfunctional family

[Type 97 Chi-ha]

Actually Bush was hardly conservative. He actually was the one starting the big-time spending on social programs (not just the wars). Obama is doing the same thing on a much greater scale. And it's easy to talk about "helping those less fortunate", which is an implication that arguing against social programs is being heartless. Social programs, in some cases, have cost too much or have done more harm than good. Obama's "Cash for Clunkers" program was obviously welfare for the more fortunate, not the people who genuinely needed help, and it certainly failed to do any economic good.

Having read articles about the history of the American newspaper business, the newspapers in the early days were openly partisan and made no pretense otherwise. Fox may be lying when they call themselves "fair and balanced", but Dan Rather, the example I used previously, was no better-and in fact dishonest, which correctly ruined his career.

[kyabetsu]

Please forgive me. I'm gonna jump back to the beginning of the thread.

Health care!

The basic: I'm for health care reform and a public option.

Why?

Personal Experience
Basic Logic Applied to Workforce Statistics
Basic Logic Applied to Economics
The Appeal of Compromise
A Desire to Efficiently Fulfill My Sense of Moral Obligation


Details:

1. Personal Experience
I would be dead right now if Cambridge, Massachusetts didn't have a generous public health policy. I was a resident of Cambridge without employment, not enrolled in a school, and sick with a debilitating illness that took me 2 years to heal ENOUGH that I could begin to work. Seven years later, I have gone from working part time to working full time in a salaried position and setting up my own business on the side. A few weeks ago, I cut free of my salaried position and am now a full time self-employed small business owner. AMERICAN DREAM FOR THE WIN!!

The people of Cambridge and Massachusetts, through their state taxes, saved my life by ensuring that the medication I was prescribed in the emergency room was available to me. With their help, I got to the point where I bought that stupidly expensive medication myself, and now, I'm a completely functional member of the American Economic Machine.

For everyone that takes advantage of the system, there is someone who uses the system as a necessary stepping stool. Not all medical issues are fatal.

I'm currently un-insured. I'll be going to the doctor tomorrow b/c my left eye has a retinal tear. I can afford the visit out of pocket, but if there's something the doc's gotta do to fix my eye so i don't lose my sight? I'll have to think about it. If it's immediately necessary, I'll put it on my credit card. If not, I'll go back to the doctor when my vision starts sparking and throwing up spots again.

Personally, I would rather pay for my own broken arm than collectively help pay for everyone else's.

My family was freaking rich as hell when I was kid. It doesn't take much to go from 'we sent our daughter to Europe twice in high school' to 'that daughter has $12.00 to her name. Period. Hope she likes ramen.' Right now, you can pay for your broken arm. Will you always be able to? What if it wasn't $1200 for arm, but $200,000 for your cervical cancer?

Insurance is all about paying some one just in case you get sick. Why pay people who are not legally bound to help you if you do get sick?

Reform would force insurance companies to uphold their end of their contracts. You pay in, then you WILL get taken care of.

Having a public option gives folks who cannot afford to 'pay in to' a shot at the same things private insurers offer (but may or may not deliver on).

As to you paying to chip in on that public option? You already pay for hospital treatments for people like me who stumble into emergency rooms and cannot legally be denied care. What you don't pay for in most states is my medication, which turns me from a drooling drain on society to a functioning, tax-paying, small business-owning, EMPLOYMENT-GENERATING member of these United States.

...I agree that prices are too high, and I'm sure people out there need help. I work hard and have worked hard to earn the money I'm making...

Yes. They do need help. Hell, you work hard. You know how it is. You've earned the money you're making. Why would you want to continue to spend it in an insurance market that can set its own prices? Drug companies hyper-inflate their costs. Insurance companies pad their bottom line. You're not guaranteed coverage if you do get sick. Why pay for that?!

If you're gonna keep your money--why not pay a little more in taxes and a lot LESS in insurance premiums and deductibles--with the added bonus of getting what you pay for? If you end up ahead, that's what helps your family, right? Call it enlightened self-interest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_self-interest).

...So as far as health care or ANY gov't aid, I want proof that every legal citizen would be treated equally based on need, regardless if they were black or white or purple. ...Plus, like a lot of people, I'm very skeptical about claims that illegal immigrants would not be covered under any gov't plan. ... I tend to not want anybody in this country having to pay higher taxes for programs to help out people that, legally, shouldn't be here...

I'm sorry you had so many terrible experiences with public programs. I had my share of bumps when I moved from Massachusetts to North Carolina and again to Maryland. Some states have CRAP-TASTIC program administration. North Carolina couldn't decide if I was allowed to see specialists. Maryland couldn't decide where or not I qualified for poverty-discounts from pharmaceutical companies b/c big-pharma kept changing their minimums.

I don't know how New Jersey compares, but if you have a system that's helping some people--even selectively--I would want to correct and codify that system so that it's applied as evenly and fairly across the entire country as humanly possible.

I'm not libertarian. I do believe that what's wrong with our system are not the programs themselves, but the way they are being run. I believe that you can work within our system to fix what's wrong. (Though Congress is testing my faith in that hypothesis).

I agree that immigrants who come here should do it legally. I agree that proof of citizenship or foreign insurance should be required for not only for patients seeking care, but of companies paying workers. (Mini-Rant: If you wanna stop illegal immigrants from finding work in the US, there need to be harsher criminal penalties for hiring them. It's currently cheaper for companies to pay a fee if they get caught with the wrong kind of workers than it is to pay at market rate to legal citizen. Punish the law-breaking companies. Not just ambitious illegal workers.) I agree that the health care system should be applied equally, not just to people without 'pre-existing conditions.' Whether those conditions are medical or racial. (Me, I was born with a pre-existing 'hispanic' condition.)


2. Basic Logic Applied to Workforce Statistics.

You want people working and generating taxable income? Make them healthy enough to DO work. See my first point.

Also, working people can afford birth control, go see a doctor rather than pass along swine flu, and more readily go back to school. All things that improve welfare numbers, not make them grow.

On the whole though, there will be people taking advantage of it by not taking care of themselves (much like the US welfare system). There's a big difference between paying for someone who's going to continue to have health problems (for whatever reason, cigarettes, unhealthy eating, lack of exercise, etc) and paying for the roads that benefit us all to help us get where we need to.

It's easier to eat healthy, care about exercise, and give up smoking when you're employed, not strung out about where next month's rent will come from, able to afford vegetables and real meal rather than ramen, and stable enough to make healthy choices for yourself. You can't force people to make those changes, but you can give them the option.

Many people will take it!


3. Basic Logic Applied to Economics
Re-read all of Anarky's & Katie's posts. This post is already too long and they've said it better than I could.


4. The Appeal of Compromise
The public option IS compromise.

I WANT a single-payer system. I will settle for the chance to have what insured people have. Health care that doesn't put me and my family out of our home--oh wait. It HAS. I'm moving at the end of the month because we can't make rent anymore.

I WANT a public option NOW. I will settle for one that's phased in slowly. I can live with family for a while. I will earn my way out of their house. I have before. I can do it again. It'll be harder if my left eye requires surgery, but I work hard, and I will repay my debts.

I understand that things cannot be done suddenly or the stock market will panic again and we'll all be screwed. I know it takes time to develop a completely new program. I know it's important that the administration be set up properly. I will compromise. I can wait. For a little while.


5. A Desire to Efficiently Fulfill My Sense of Moral Obligation

Churches and private groups cannot do enough with voluntary donations of money or volunteer efforts. If you want to help as many people as need to be helped across the country, we need something bigger than a local soup kitchen.

This is why the government builds roads. You don't leave those up to neighborhood associations.

Heck, even leaving much of health care to the states means that folks like Leo get the ****-end of the stick in New Jersey and I get the run-around in Maryland, but in Massachusetts they're saving lives! Patchwork and partial is not enough.

Consistent, Legal, and EQUAL care must be taken to take care of not 'those poor people,' but ME and others like me whose biggest hurdle to being productive is not welfare-reliance, but our own bodies.

People helped me. I want to know that help is still there, no matter where I live--and I need to know that I can PAY IT BACK both monetarily and morally. Not to some credit card company with stupidly high interest rates, but to others who are right where I was: ready to work and under a heap of health-related issues and debt.

[Anarky]

Actually Bush was hardly conservative. He actually was the one starting the big-time spending on social programs (not just the wars). Obama is doing the same thing on a much greater scale. And it's easy to talk about "helping those less fortunate", which is an implication that arguing against social programs is being heartless. Social programs, in some cases, have cost too much or have done more harm than good. Obama's "Cash for Clunkers" program was obviously welfare for the more fortunate, not the people who genuinely needed help, and it certainly failed to do any economic good.

Jeez, way to miss the point of Katie's post. Well done. Simmer down for a second and read it again without getting into one of the Katie-defined frenzies.

As for "helping the less fortunate:" You can't really call denying medical help to people who need but can't afford it "helping." That doesn't work out on a very basic level, regardless of political conviction or belief-system.

Having read articles about the history of the American newspaper business, the newspapers in the early days were openly partisan and made no pretense otherwise. Fox may be lying when they call themselves "fair and balanced", but Dan Rather, the example I used previously, was no better-and in fact dishonest, which correctly ruined his career.
All news media have to adorn themselves with adjectives like "Fair" and "Balanced" and "Objective." Otherwise they wouldn't be approved as official, real news. Then they'd be one of these boulevard-programmes.

As for dishonest people in the media... go into any newsroom, pay the editor a coffee and tell him to stand in the middle of the office and yell "You bastard, I saw what you did there! That's nothing more than a lie!" and you'll see how many people start trembling. Having worked for two newspapers, I can say that this is not one of the funnier gags your editor pulls.

[Roseangelo]

Right now, you can pay for your broken arm. Will you always be able to? What if it wasn't $1200 for arm, but $200,000 for your cervical cancer?

Actually, I couldn't pay for my own broken arm right now. I haven't had insurance since I dropped off my parents' coverage 8 years ago, I'm currently unemployed, and might as well have no money to my name. But I still can't support any of the health "reform" options that are currently being discussed and I would still rather take care of my own broken arm.

Please don't quote me and make assumptions about me when you don't know me.

[kyabetsu]

Sorry, it's a habit to quote. I won't quote you anymore. Your post was so far back at the beginning of the thread, I wanted to be sure I was reading it and responding to it correctly.

Even with every word you said, I still took the wrong idea away from your post. I'm glad you did address my questions to you, b/c I did want to hear your response. Thank you.

[Barkworm]

Actually, I couldn't pay for my own broken arm right now. I haven't had insurance since I dropped off my parents' coverage 8 years ago, I'm currently unemployed, and might as well have no money to my name. But I still can't support any of the health "reform" options that are currently being discussed and I would still rather take care of my own broken arm.

Hahaha, I'm sorry but this doesn't make any sense. Your political opinion is more important to you than your own health?

[Type 97 Chi-ha]

Jeez, way to miss the point of Katie's post. Well done. Simmer down for a second and read it again without getting into one of the Katie-defined frenzies.

As for "helping the less fortunate:" You can't really call denying medical help to people who need but can't afford it "helping." That doesn't work out on a very basic level, regardless of political conviction or belief-system.


All news media have to adorn themselves with adjectives like "Fair" and "Balanced" and "Objective." Otherwise they wouldn't be approved as official, real news. Then they'd be one of these boulevard-programmes.

As for dishonest people in the media... go into any newsroom, pay the editor a coffee and tell him to stand in the middle of the office and yell "You bastard, I saw what you did there! That's nothing more than a lie!" and you'll see how many people start trembling. Having worked for two newspapers, I can say that this is not one of the funnier gags your editor pulls.

First, the part about "helping the less fortunate": I assumed Katie was not talking about government health care specifically, as we already have Medicare and Medicaid, meant for the elderly and the very poor, respectively. As far as government assistance programs, there are legitimate concerns about whether they will work and how much do they cost. We taxpayers do have the right to ask such questions as we're the ones stuck with the bill. As far as government health care is concerned, will it cost us more, or not? And do we benefit? Everyone is going to vote on, "What's in it for me?" Certainly everyone in the U. S. Congress is aware of this, which is why they're not going to say "How high?" when Obama says to jump. Not if they want to stay in office.

Second, the part about the news media. Dan Rather was a television reporter for CBS, with a large public reputation. Bringing down someone so prominent would be a tall order indeed, and I doubt any editor could have made him tremble. Sometimes a liar just is a liar.

[Roseangelo]

Hahaha, I'm sorry but this doesn't make any sense. Your political opinion is more important to you than your own health?

My political opinion is not decided by what may or may not make life "easy" for me, and it's hardly something I need to justify to anyone here. I know I'm in a minority on this forum, which is why I exited the debate. Nothing said here is swaying any opinions, and I really don't care to try to. And that's all I really have to say on it.

[ThirdMarioBro]

Actually Bush was hardly conservative.

Well, we can at least agree on that point.

[odupianist]

It's easier to eat healthy, care about exercise, and give up smoking when you're employed, not strung out about where next month's rent will come from, able to afford vegetables and real meal rather than ramen, and stable enough to make healthy choices for yourself. You can't force people to make those changes, but you can give them the option.

Actually I was unemployed for a few months earlier this year. I had no insurance, no idea where morgage was coming from at all, and busting butt to find a new job. I took it upon myself to work out more (mainly to keep my mind off the fact I was jobless), and take better care of myself because I didn't have those things, and it was all I had to myself really. It was my own personal strength that helped me make the choices to take care of myself and not get strung out just because I was unemployed. But I'll agree that everyone handles stress differently. The option is still there to always take care of yourself (in all aspects, mentally, physically, emotionally) whether you have money or not. It just takes the desire and want to do so.

[Type 97 Chi-ha]

Well, we can at least agree on that point.

There are quite a number of political commentators who agree with us on that point as well. It's why the Republicans got voted out-they stopped listening to their supporters.

[kyabetsu]

The option is still there to always take care of yourself (in all aspects, mentally, physically, emotionally) whether you have money or not. It just takes the desire and want to do so.

Yes, you're right. The option make healthy choices is always there.

It's just considerably more remote if you were doing all that self-improvement (kudos to you, by the way, that kind of resolve deserves applause) if you're doing it in spite of a medical condition.

We were talking about affordable health care, so consider a hypothetical version of your scenario where 'diet & exercise' weren't enough to keep you healthy. Unemployed, uninsured, with a spine injury? with a dangerous pregnancy (which you would have been able to afford if there weren't so many scary complications with your baby's--and your--life)? with a sudden inexplicable blindness that might have been preventable if you had enough $$?

Medicare is for the elderly. And Medicaid is damn near impossible to qualify for. So don't think of those as options. There are doctors who do offer a discount on their services to the uninsured, but not all of them, and the diagnostic tests are never cheap.

So, you're exercising (as best you can) and you're eating right (with what you can afford) and you're looking for work (if you can still do work) and the medical bills are piling up and it's not just your mortgage you're worried about anymore...

I can see your argument having merit if we were talking about straight welfare. You had normal expenses and you still had yourself.

What if you don't have 'yourself?' Major illness takes that from you.

Health care isn't for 'lazy people' or 'unmotivated people.' It's for sick folks. Who are already functioning under some massive set-backs, which, by their very nature, snowball over time as the bills mount higher and the person's health bars them from gaining real, meaningful employment.


I admire your strength getting yourself out of a poor situation. No sarcasm, that's awesome for you!

Thing is, not everyone can reach their own bootstrap. Not out of some personal failing, but because of larger circumstances. I'm living proof that giving some one help does not mean they will be reliant on the system for the rest of their lives. It just means that they have a rest of their lives.


I respect that your opinion won't suddenly swing in the other direction, but if I helped you consider the other side of things, that's all I can ask.

[Cure]

The option is still there to always take care of yourself (in all aspects, mentally, physically, emotionally) whether you have money or not. It just takes the desire and want to do so.

Yeah, well, not everyone is born healthy, you know, so getting some medical care would be appreciated by those people, I'm sure.

[愛]

Yeah, well, not everyone is born healthy, you know, so getting some medical care would be appreciated by those people, I'm sure.

Yeah, sure, you and your fake disease. lololololol

[Cure]

It's better than yellow fever. Loooooooooooooooooooolz.

[愛]

Oh, I SERIOUSLY doubt that. :)

[Anarky]

Actually I was unemployed for a few months earlier this year. I had no insurance, no idea where morgage was coming from at all, and busting butt to find a new job. I took it upon myself to work out more (mainly to keep my mind off the fact I was jobless), and take better care of myself because I didn't have those things, and it was all I had to myself really. It was my own personal strength that helped me make the choices to take care of myself and not get strung out just because I was unemployed. But I'll agree that everyone handles stress differently. The option is still there to always take care of yourself (in all aspects, mentally, physically, emotionally) whether you have money or not. It just takes the desire and want to do so.
Heh, having a bit of experience in terms of unemployment, I can safely say that that's not always the case. The first couple of weeks, even months at times are fun. You sleep in, you cook, you do nice things. But when you run out of money, like in the serious way where you're actually struggling to pay bills, then you're screwed.

I mean, back in the day, I've had to share my plate of spaghetti with the dog, because we were both hungry. We lived off Ramen for months. My health really declined during that time, too. It wasn't really the stress. It was just that there was no food I could buy. Nothing. Couple packets or Ramen with water and some - but not enough - dry food for the dog. Broke my heart, I tell you, to see the little guy go hungry, but that's neither here nor there. I still went to training and everything, but I fell behind because I just couldn't focus at times anymore.

And no, unemployment is not covered by any form of health-care.

[Leo656]

I just can't help but foresee the possibility of private insurers - who make no mistake, I am no fan of - get squeezed out by the cheaper public option. Once that happens, there isn't even the semblance of "competition", just a gov't-run system. And it's not like it's impossible or could never happen. Every contractor I've spoken to is sticking their workers on the public option if they can, even the ones that hate the idea. Why? To save money. It's kinda like throwing your candy wrapper on the ground instead of in the trash; maybe no big deal if it's just you, but what about when everyone does it?

Competition is great, but gov't programs do tend to be overwhelmingly inefficient at best and incompetent at worst, so I just can't see any easy way of sticking 20 million people on gov't coverage without some serious snafus.

And that's not even mentioning the fact that care rationing can, does, and will happen. No doubt, it happens right now under our current system. But when it's the gov't that's telling you what doctors to see and when, and what you can and can't receive... yeah, I don't like that. My dad was glad when he finally got coverage, but right away he had to switch from the doctors he'd always had to ones that were "approved", and that was more than a little annoying. A big part of health care is trust, and you can't deny that more than a few people are distrustful of ANYthing the gov't does.

As for Obama promising every single hour that "his" plan won't be corrupt, or inefficient, or cover ANY illegals, or cost "one dime" more... yeah, that doesn't help. Full disclosure: In case it wasn't obvious, I do not like the man. I don't approve of how he got his start in politics, I don't like his ACORN/Weather Underground cronies, I don't like how he apologizes for the everything the U.S. ever did like we're always the bad guy, but mostly, I cannot stand the way he promises things that are impossible for anyone to oversee or deliver. People act like he isn't as dirty or dishonest as anyone else in politics, but he is. If you subscribe to the theory "show me your friends and I will tell you who you are", he's even dirtier, he just was smart enough to stay *just* far away from the people doing the *really* bad things, so that he could keep playing his "I had no idea..." spiel. So no, I'm not impressed by him. Maybe he'll do a good job, god knows he's got another 7 1/2 years (after all the fuss made over him we almost have no choice but to re-elect him). But every time the man talks, his nose grows, and people are starting to notice and get fed up with it.

So a big, BIG part of the people's rejection of his plan is b/c of HIM, and not b/c of race as Rangel and Paterson keep insisting, but because the guy who swore he'd never ever lie to us has been exposed repeatedly as just another politician.

Bottom line: things are gonna change one way or another b/c they have to, but you can't blame people for being skeptical about HOW. If a public option remains just that, an option, that's one thing. But if the day comes that it's the ONLY option, and it turns out to be not a very good one, there's gonna be a whole lotta pissed-off people saying "I told ya so" b/c that's all anyone in this country seems to be good at anymore.

And kya: excellent insights, but when you quoted me you lopped off the part about "those gargantuan Swedes". That part was vital to the core message. Please try to quote me in full in the future. Oh, and on that note, I also wish for midgets to be left out of any public option, too, on account of they scare me. And while I'm discriminating, we should exclude anyone with a lisp, as all they really need is someone to give 'em a good smack in the mouth and yell "Don't TALK like that!" and they'll be fine.

[Anarky]

I just can't help but foresee the possibility of private insurers - who make no mistake, I am no fan of - get squeezed out by the cheaper public option. Once that happens, there isn't even the semblance of "competition", just a gov't-run system. And it's not like it's impossible or could never happen. Every contractor I've spoken to is sticking their workers on the public option if they can, even the ones that hate the idea. Why? To save money. It's kinda like throwing your candy wrapper on the ground instead of in the trash; maybe no big deal if it's just you, but what about when everyone does it?

For the sake of not having to type it all out again, I'll quote an earlier post of mine.

What American probably doesn't realize yet is that there is not just "one healthcare." Over here, we have a million different plans for everything, going from blindness over astma to chronic fungus infections. That happened as a response to the public option, which nobody really uses anymore.

Yes, there will be a huge market shift. And yes, some insurance companies will die, namely the ones who are in it for profit only and have grown to need the insane amount of money people pay them. Before they fold, they will most likely be bought by another insurance company that had the ability to adapt better.

Those companies will have to lower their plans, obviously, because otherwise, everyone would go to the government. Either that, or they increase their service and all that. This leads to a better service at the private companies than what you get with the government, more or less at the same price.

This again, will lead to people abandoning the public option and going for the private ones again, because they maybe have a better plan for families with children or people who need extensive dental work or any other kind of social or health-related situation you can think of, while the governmental plan will be a solid, but minimalist general plan. That's what's happened over here. I'm not really unhealthy, so I'm on a general plan with a private company. My ex-girlfriend has a body that doesn't produce estrogen, so she has to eat a handful of pills every day or her body goes into shock. So she's at some other company that have a good plan for hormonal things or womanly issues.

So all in all, this will not lead to a crushing of the insurance business, but rather a diversification. This is good. I'd go for that.

Competition is great, but gov't programs do tend to be overwhelmingly inefficient at best and incompetent at worst, so I just can't see any easy way of sticking 20 million people on gov't coverage without some serious snafus.

As with any system newly introduced, some things will go wrong, some abuse will be had. But these short-term obstacles shouldn't prevent anyone from getting a good long-term solution.

And that's not even mentioning the fact that care rationing can, does, and will happen. No doubt, it happens right now under our current system. But when it's the gov't that's telling you what doctors to see and when, and what you can and can't receive... yeah, I don't like that.
Normally, in these systems, when you sign a healthcare plan, you need to name a general physician who then becomes your "Home Doctor" (the translation sucks, I know) but basically, he's the guy you first go to when something's wrong unless you're bleeding heavily and you need a hospital. They're cool with any doctor as long as you have a medical degree. Over here, they went as far as saying "Okay, name a doctor, a dentist and an eye-doctor" (in my case, because one-eye-blind and all. You could name a lung-doctor too, if you wanted.

My dad was glad when he finally got coverage, but right away he had to switch from the doctors he'd always had to ones that were "approved", and that was more than a little annoying. A big part of health care is trust, and you can't deny that more than a few people are distrustful of ANYthing the gov't does.

That is the problem with the private insurance people since they basically have deals with Doctor X and so they send all people there. However, the government has absolutely no interest in making deals with Doctor X because they're so far above and beyond cheapass deals with doctors that it doesn't matter anymore.

I don't like how he apologizes for the everything the U.S. ever did like we're always the bad guy

Heh, we have a similar case over here right now where we arrested Gadaffi's son and threw him in jail for attacking embassy personnel. So we humbly apologized for having laws, so I see what you mean.

The problem is, the USA needs serious brownie points with everyone these days. I know, they shouldn't but that doesn't change reality as we have it. The Bush Administration pretty much wrecked any opinion anyone might ever have had about the USA. Nowadays, the old world sees you as cruel, inhuman warmongers hell-bent on world domination. I blame the media entirely, but that's the way it is. Therefore, an apology or two might not be the worst idea at the moment.

Of course, every American and fairly educated person on the planet knows that the warmonger-image is quite far from the truth and world-domination would - if achieved... Ha Ha. - only be a side-effect. But that's the image you have right now. Again, perceived truth and reality differ greatly.

And I don't see anything good in further escalating the whole Islam-conflict. Just carefully de-escalate that crap and be done with it.

People act like he isn't as dirty or dishonest as anyone else in politics, but he is. If you subscribe to the theory "show me your friends and I will tell you who you are", he's even dirtier, he just was smart enough to stay *just* far away from the people doing the *really* bad things, so that he could keep playing his "I had no idea..." spiel.
Heh, that I can see. I don't trust the man either, so I don't go "Trust Obama!" but "Get that healthcare thing." Obama might be the one with the initial idea and from what I've read so far, it sounds like a good idea. And it will stick around way longer than he will.

[Type 97 Chi-ha]

The problem is, the USA needs serious brownie points with everyone these days. I know, they shouldn't but that doesn't change reality as we have it. The Bush Administration pretty much wrecked any opinion anyone might ever have had about the USA. Nowadays, the old world sees you as cruel, inhuman warmongers hell-bent on world domination. I blame the media entirely, but that's the way it is. Therefore, an apology or two might not be the worst idea at the moment.

Of course, every American and fairly educated person on the planet knows that the warmonger-image is quite far from the truth and world-domination would - if achieved... Ha Ha. - only be a side-effect. But that's the image you have right now. Again, perceived truth and reality differ greatly.

And I don't see anything good in further escalating the whole Islam-conflict. Just carefully de-escalate that crap and be done with it.

The world hates us as it always hates us-because of penis envy, not because of the Bush administration or our supposed overthrow of democratically elected governments (and yes, those stories are pure malarkey.) And this whole global warming crap is just another pretext to hate us-we're to blame for your bad weather. Oh, you needed us to help you in Yugoslavia because you couldn't do it yourselves. The reality is you hate us because you need us more than we need you.

And we didn't start the Islam conflist-they did. They're the one who bombed and slaughtered us without provocation. We have the right to defend ourselves, and it doesn't matter to us what you think of us. You've hated us until you needed us in the past, and then you'll do it in the future. And they wonder why we Americans don't give a hoot about world opinion.

[Mecha Cow]

The world hates us as it always hates us-because of penis envy
Enough of this. You do not speak on behalf of the United States, you do not speak on behalf of the world; you do not speak on behalf of anyone but yourself, period. Stop speaking in terms of "us" and "them": this is the exact sort of attitude that creates division, tension and conflict. It is extremely offensive. We are f*cking people, not flags. Don't be a tool. Jesus Christ.

[GK Punk]

The world hates us as it always hates us-because of penis envy,

Just stop. Seriously. Your doing nothing but causing conflict at this point.

[Peanut]

As a rule, I have never (and will never) get involved with these idiotic conflicts. These types of conversations rarely stay intelligent and civil in the real world, let alone over the Internet.

However, I have to say...Type 97, shut the f*ck up, old man.

[kyabetsu]

I just can't help but foresee the possibility of private insurers - who make no mistake, I am no fan of - get squeezed out by the cheaper public option. Once that happens, there isn't even the semblance of "competition", just a gov't-run system. And it's not like it's impossible or could never happen. Every contractor I've spoken to is sticking their workers on the public option if they can, even the ones that hate the idea. Why? To save money. It's kinda like throwing your candy wrapper on the ground instead of in the trash; maybe no big deal if it's just you, but what about when everyone does it?

Leo, this is America. We brought the world "ShamWow," Baconnaise, the jet-powered surfboard (http://www.google.com/patents?id=zEM8AAAAEBAJ), and the User-Operated Amusement Apparatus for Kicking the Users Buttocks. (http://www.google.com/patents?id=XYYHAAAAEBAJ)

If our godless, greedy, predatory business community can't find a way to take advantage of the weakness of health care industry giants who have dominated the field for the past decade? Then we're seriously losing our touch. The "Give a Hoot; Don't Pollute" campaign totally put municipal trash can manufacturers into some serious bank.

Capitalism: Some one ALWAYS profits.

Competition is great, but gov't programs do tend to be overwhelmingly inefficient at best and incompetent at worst, so I just can't see any easy way of sticking 20 million people on gov't coverage without some serious snafus.

OH YES. That will happen. Just like it happens when a major company changes its health care provider or when a minor company changes health care providers... or when one person changes... really, health care companies are crap about coordinating anything with anyone.

I'm willing to believe that after the initial wave of screwed up sign-ups and transfers finally subsides, the system will be just as efficient as Kaiser Permanente. Which doesn't say much, but it can't be much worse.

I would hope that enough forethought would go into the process to set up a very large 'trouble-shooting' branch for the public health care administration. Something that started with loads of staffers, but reassigned them as the initial influx of folks tapered off. Perhaps re-locating them into case management as more people were successfully enrolled in the program?


And that's not even mentioning the fact that care rationing can, does, and will happen. No doubt, it happens right now under our current system. But when it's the gov't that's telling you what doctors to see and when, and what you can and can't receive... yeah, I don't like that. My dad was glad when he finally got coverage, but right away he had to switch from the doctors he'd always had to ones that were "approved", and that was more than a little annoying. A big part of health care is trust, and you can't deny that more than a few people are distrustful of ANYthing the gov't does.

Any changed health plan requires this, though. And sometimes, health care companies undergo restructuring and you've gotta change your doctor anyways. Or worse, they just drop you.


Bottom line: things are gonna change one way or another b/c they have to, but you can't blame people for being skeptical about HOW. If a public option remains just that, an option, that's one thing. But if the day comes that it's the ONLY option, and it turns out to be not a very good one, there's gonna be a whole lotta pissed-off people saying "I told ya so" b/c that's all anyone in this country seems to be good at anymore.

AGREEMENT! Skepticism is great! You can't have democracy without it. Solid, rational concerns (like yours) are the kind of things that should shape the final product. You can't avoid problems if you're not watching out for them.

And if we get crapped on, then 'I told ya so,' is entirely appropriate. It'll be time to try something else.

And kya: excellent insights, but when you quoted me you lopped off the part about "those gargantuan Swedes". That part was vital to the core message. Please try to quote me in full in the future. Oh, and on that note, I also wish for midgets to be left out of any public option, too, on account of they scare me. And while I'm discriminating, we should exclude anyone with a lisp, as all they really need is someone to give 'em a good smack in the mouth and yell "Don't TALK like that!" and they'll be fine.

Full quoteth, as requethted. :D



Gonna be outta town this weekend, so I'll see y'all when I get back. Everybody stay healthy. ;)

[Sewer Bull]

The world hates us as it always hates us-because of penis envy

Yeah, especially China and their capital funding the American treasury bonds, haha.

[Type 97 Chi-ha]

Yeah, especially China and their capital funding the American treasury bonds, haha.

Oh, I wouldn't say they're doing it out of love for us. They need the US market. Also note that the President-for-life of Venezuela has kept selling us his oil, too, though he hates us so much. Why? Because we have the proper facilities to refine his high-sulfur-content oil. And the Chinese hate him! :lol:

[Sewer Bull]

Oh, I more of meant 'penis envy' here than 'hates'. You proved my point, thank you.

[Barkworm]

Type 97, just shut the f*ck up now. Enough with your ridiculous little inferiority complex....

[odupianist]

Wow, you all are making it worse by telling him to shut the eff up. If he irritates you, just ignore him. While he didn't put it the best way, he's got a point. It's funny, when some 3rd world crack of the ass country has a tsunami or earthquake, who's there to help? America. Who do they hate once they have their money? America. Who should ignore them when they request help yet hate us? America.

[Sewer Bull]

It's funny, when some 3rd world crack of the ass country has a tsunami or earthquake, who's there to help? America. Who do they hate once they have their money? America. Who should ignore them when they request help yet hate us? America.

Specific examples, please.

[Mecha Cow]

Wow, you all are making it worse by telling him to shut the eff up. If he irritates you, just ignore him. While he didn't put it the best way, he's got a point. It's funny, when some 3rd world crack of the ass country has a tsunami or earthquake, who's there to help? America. Who do they hate once they have their money? America. Who should ignore them when they request help yet hate us? America.
"They"? Who is "they"? Who is "us"? Who is "you"? What the f*ck are you talking about? Who are you talking to? What exactly is this "point"? You have no idea, do you?

You're just regurgitating the same old bullsh*t, without even having a clue just what the hell it is you're saying. It's easy to give into that mindset, isn't it? That's exactly why it's so dangerous.

[Leo656]

While I don't agree with every word Type says or how he says it, I do agree a lot with the source of his frustration. I get frustrated a lot myself about a lot of the same things. I don't speak it the same way, so I guess people don't get mad at me as much for what I believe in, but I probably have way more controversial, unpopular ideas and points of view than anyone here. Not one person on this forum would probably even talk to me in real life because of the things I believe and support.

I'm a wrestling fan, one that hates WWE. I prefer DC to Marvel. My fiancee, my father and I all LOVE George W. Bush and his old man. I think Obama could end up hurting this country way more in the long run than Bush is perceived to have, albeit for entirely different reasons. I believe war is a natural element of the human condition, an unavoidable one, thus I supported both Iraq wars wholeheartedly, so long as we fight to win (which we didn't/weren't allowed to until Gen. Patreus started calling the shots in '2008...). I think Israel has every right to exist and that maybe it's certain Arabs who deserve a few missiles in their yard if they keep tossing threats the way some of them do and denying the Holocaust (so-called "President" Ahmadenijad, I'm looking at YOU). I don't begrudge rich people the right to be rich and don't think taxing half their income is necessarily fair just because most of us don't make that much. I believe in the death penalty, and think drug dealers should get it. I still salute the American flag, and hold my hand to my heart when the national anthem plays. I truly believe America has (mostly) set an example the rest of the world should respect, if not learn from (how many countries after all came so far in so short a time, even if mistakes were made?) I actually thought the Speed Racer movie was kick-ass. And I would probably do Sally Field, even if she is like 90.


LOT of unpopular opinions, there. I get hell all the time from people who think I'm ignorant for one reason or another. Like supporting both Bushes, even though it's a simple, personal act of self-preservation on our part. Republican President, me and mine do OK. Democrat President, we starve. Not the same for everybody, obviously, but it has been a noticeable pattern for us. I won't even get into Iraq, I'll just say that anyone who was against it simply b/c "war is bad" needs to seriously pay attention to the realities of life.

So I get frustrated too. That's why I try not to tread too hard on what others think or believe in, b/c I catch hell all the time from people who tell me I'm an idiot for supporting ANY conservative "b/c they're all crooks" (and Charlie Rangel's a saint, apparently), or that it's America's fault that our worldwide PR sucks, "b/c we're a mean selfish, warmongering country" (that gives more foreign aid than almost anyone on Earth, and most of our wars are fought for the benefit of people not our own), or that Bush was "the devil" (who spent more money on hospitals, schools and AIDS medicines in Africa than just about any President, ever).

So yeah, frustration simmers among everyone when these kinda debates come up. And then personal opinions start to negatively influence otherwise sound, well-reasoned debates when people start exaggerating on either side because they're so damn sure they're right. Everybody gets carried away, names get called, and suddenly one person tells another person to basically "shut the F up" and go away, thusly erasing that person's right to an opinion, which isn't neccesary or fair.

I guess what I'm saying is, we could all do to meet in the middle a bit more. Try a little harder to see someone else's side before we malign them, or call them ignorant, or even when they go a little OT to vent some simmering frustration. They may not be right, or even coherent, but they have a right to a voice. And so do you.

What's great about MY country, is that you NEVER have to shut up and go away b/c you're pissing people off. At least, that's the general idea... people screw with it more than they should, but it's my favorite part of the Constitution. Freedom of Speech definitely needs more practice; let's keep on practicing it now, the way we have been so far, and the way the Founding Fathers did: civilized disagreements mixed with some healthy debate. And maybe a few cane lashings thrown in for good measure. Man those Congressional slavery hearings got heated, didn't they? That's why the segregationists didn't get to keep their own country: too damn ornery.

So settle down everyone, take a breath, and try not to let another person's frustration ruin your baked potato. Even if they're generalizing; just let 'em rant. It's a message board. S'what we do here.

On-topic: Mary's car insurance is paying for my chiropractor visits. God Bless America!

[Anarky]

That's all fine and dandy about your America and not having to shut up ever. Problem is, we're not really in America here. We're on the internet. Internet and nations don't really fit together. It's not the Amerinternet and it's not the European Wide Web either. Or the Afri-Net either. It's this big, global thing. And that sort of includes maybe not mouthing off every brainfart that comes across your mind, especially when your opposite is being civil and goes through great lengths to explain things a bit. This is independent from every kind of political view or personal preference (partially because economics don't really care about the human element).

And I'm really sorry if I rained on your parade when I went on about how America's seen in the rest of the world, but that's just the way it is. And no flag-saluting and standing tall will change that. So maybe just saying "Hey, we're sorry for our mistakes, we're just a nation of people and all that rot. But we'll try to do better now." is a good idea. It's what being human is and even presidents, good bad, red or blue, are just human beings. And for the first time in quite a while, the world is willing to accept that and go "Hey, America, you're not so bad after all. Let's give this a go again." Sure, people like Ahmadinejad and Gadhaffi want to profile themselves at the biggest and baddest badasses ever. But nobody over here takes them really seriously, and neither should you.

[Type 97 Chi-ha]

I may not be diplomatic like Leo656, but I don't apologize for what I've said. I find that those who tell me to shut the f*** up do so because I tell people facts that they don't want to hear. It's not my fault that many Americans do share my opinions, or that I find that Anarky is full of beans. We really are hated due to our strength, not to our supposed evil. I know for a fact that Bill Clinton is the great hero of Croatia, and (as far as I know) nto any European leaders. And guess which part of the world is where George W. Bush is considered a hero? Darfur! Why? Because they credit him with bringing their plight to the world's attention.

As far as how Europeans view us? Do you think we Americans really care? They couldn't send enough forces to do us much good in Afghanistan, and now we elected a black President like they wanted, why aren't they doing anything for us in return? Why aren't they sending more troops to Afghanistan? Why didn't they try to help us in our financial crisis? We might as well have elected Bush for a third term. He was certainly better than the clown we have in the Oval Office now.

[Leo656]

Anarky: Nobody rains on this parade, jack. Sorry if you thought I was aggravated about something, I was just playing devil's advocate. I like you. You're smart. And man-pretty.

....Woah... random...

Anyway, no, I get what you're saying, and I agree with tons of what you say, I just strongly feel that everyone should get the right to a voice, even if that voice is rambling or unpopular or overly caustic. I was trying to say that it's one thing for people to get frustrated or angry, and quite another for them to get personally offended or take their disagreements to a personal level. I'm not taking sides, just saying that these things are gonna happen, and we should all just chill out a bit when they do.

Cuz it's all just talk, y'know?

And I know the Internet aint strictly "America", but the truth is the 'net really is the best place for uncensored, unadulterated freedom of expression, which is why we all got into it in the first place. Except me. I just like porn.

Type: Please don't refer to me as "diplomatic". I have a reputation as an a$$hole to maintain. Every time someone says anything nice about me, I have to kick a puppy to balance things out. Want that on your soul? Didn't think so.

[Anarky]

I may not be diplomatic like Leo656, but I don't apologize for what I've said... Again, this is where the others are right when they tell you to not think you're the entire USA. I don't think Den Haag would care much about an apology from you. This isn't about you, in case you haven't quite realized.

What I would like from you, though, is that you'd actually show some sign of willingness to actually think about what I and many others have written here. And distinguising between silly and intelligent posts should be quite easy.

But wait, before you go into yet another one of your "I'm standing tall!"-rants, I don't expect you to share my viewpoint. I never did. I would like you to see the other side, maybe learn something in the process. I, for example, learnt quite a bit from your first posts before you got stuck in your "I'm America! I'm unkillable and very awesome!"-rut. I get that you think your country is superawesome. I just hope that you get why the rest of the world might not agree with you.

I find that those who tell me to shut the f*** up do so because I tell people facts that they don't want to hear.
No, you're not a martyr either. I think it has to do with how you seem to say it. You seem aggressive, annoyed, pig-ignorant and ultimately boring and repetitive. Everyone in here has gotten your point, the slowest of us after five of the "America! F*ck yeah!"-posts (which really is a great slogan. Someone should make something of that.)

We really are hated due to our strength, not to our supposed evil.
I'm sorry, mate, but that's just not the case. People hate you because the media tells them that you're a people of warmongering, uneducated, racist inbreds with guns and tanks, hell-bent on world domination. Of course, the army's somewhere in there, because if it wasn't T-Shirts with "Join the US Army: Travel Around. See Different Cultures, Meet People. And Kill Them" wouldn't be selling so well over here. I've said before that this is quite far from the truth, but it's the sad reality we live in.

As far as how Europeans view us? Do you think we Americans really care? They couldn't send enough forces to do us much good in Afghanistan, and now we elected a black President like they wanted, why aren't they doing anything for us in return? Why aren't they sending more troops to Afghanistan?

For someone who doesn't care what people from other continents thing, you do make quite a fuss about it. But anyways, the reason why nobody's deploying troops is that they either have already deployed troops - and often withdrawn them again - or just think that this is your war and you should finish it. Not everyone shares the stereotypical American hard-on for war. Granted, some people deserve to be bombed back into the stone age, but "The War on Terror" is your thing. Go finish it.

Why didn't they try to help us in our financial crisis?
Because we all have a financial crisis as well? It's not called a global economic crisis for nothing. International efforts to help are being made from all sides, but every government's main priority is to keep their own people alive and their own economy going. And if we have that, then we can go and help big time.

[Barkworm]

And for the record, I'm from Europe and I don't hate the USA or any nation. The only thing I hate is a f*cking moron.

[Sewer Bull]

Of course, the army's somewhere in there, because if it wasn't T-Shirts with "Join the US Army: Travel Around. See Different Cultures, Meet People. And Kill Them" wouldn't be selling so well over here.


... wait, what? They sell such shirts in Switzerland?

[GK Punk]

I find that those who tell me to shut the f*** up do so because I tell people facts that they don't want to hear.

No, it's because you sound like an ignorant hate monger.


It's not my fault that many Americans do share my opinions

Again, speak for yourself. Now get back on the original topic, last time I'm saying it.

[Mecha Cow]

You know, I was all set and ready to argue some more, but then...

now we elected a black President like they wanted, why aren't they doing anything for us in return?
Hahahahaha. Holy sh*t. How can anyone possibly argue with this? There's nothing you can say to that. In the twisted little reality he has crafted for himself, this guy is completely and irrevocably right.

Oh man. You sad, stupid old man. I have to commend you for managing to function in this world when you are clearly so terribly deluded. Oh my God, hahaha.

F*ck this thread, I'm out.

[Barkworm]

Mecha, that post was so beautiful, there's a tear in my eye.

[Type 97 Chi-ha]

For someone who doesn't care what people from other continents thing, you do make quite a fuss about it. But anyways, the reason why nobody's deploying troops is that they either have already deployed troops - and often withdrawn them again - or just think that this is your war and you should finish it. Not everyone shares the stereotypical American hard-on for war. Granted, some people deserve to be bombed back into the stone age, but "The War on Terror" is your thing. Go finish it.


No it's not America's war. We're part of NATO, remember? The charter says that if one member gets attacked, the others have to come help. It's not an American hard-on for war. We don't have one. We just are exercising our right to survive.

And what do we think of Europeans, especially Western Europeans? Weak and degenerate, and who need our help, even though they refuse to own up to it. Remember Yugoslavia? Why were we Americans needed? Why couldn't your militaries take on such a little backward country, which could hardly pose a threat to any of you, on your own?

And what are we getting out of a President whom you love so much? So we're "not so bad". Big deal. When we get some real benefits in return out of you, then we'll start worrying about what you think of us.

[GK Punk]

God dammit. Ok, that's it. Go home.