He's trying to push that healthcare reform thing. God help us all.
Except not on Fox...So You Think You Can Dance is deemed more important.
Many theories can be extracted from that fact...
LOL UW! Guess "America's Got Talent" doesn't rate. After all, we don't have Susan Boyle. It was pre-empted in a heartbeat!
Oh good, that means the DVR will record SYTYCD! Sweet!
Means well? Hm.
He's just a post turtle anyway.
What's a post turtle?
If you've ever gone down the road and seen a turtle on top of a fence post, his legs unable to touch anything but air, his shell just stuck there helplessly, you already know. See, you know he doesn't BELONG up there...he doesn't know what he's DOING up there...he didn't get up there by himself...and it leaves you wondering who the idiot was who put him up there in the first place.
Got that from a friend's email earlier today. Can ya tell she's not a liberal Democrat? Can ya?
The sad part is that Republicans simply look at the turtle and laugh and do nothing to help.
But the turtle wins in the end.
Ya know, the sad, sad thing is that you are SO right!
How does the turtle win in the end? I'm thinking he's either going to stay stuck where he is, baking in the sun - or else he's going to take a header onto off the post and hope his shell doesn't crack when he hits. I'm just not sure that turtle can win, whether anyone wants him to or not.
The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then get elected and prove it.
P.J. O'ROURKE, Holidays in Hell
I agree,although Id say Bush was more like a rabbit in headlights
At least the turtle means well. That scores points with the liberal/progressive/Democrat lemmings.
Hmmm...guess the choice, then, is between sunbaked turtle soup and a time honored source of organic fertilizer. Of course, there's always the possibility of a Third Party--you know, the inspiration for The Invisible Man.
That post turtle "joke" is not new. I first heard it in reference to George W. Bush.
Seems that email was sent to me from someone who wasn't a Liberal Democrat either!
Healthcare in the USA is a joke compared to other countries.
I wish Pres Obama well in this reform, too many have and continue to be hurt because they cannot afford healthcare.
Our health care is the best in the world, the delivery system needs a tweak.
Kiwi. I'm one of those people without health insurance, so I know. And I have a daughter who is a diabetic. So I REALLY know. Up until this so-called "healthcare reform", I actually felt sorry for Obama. He was put on such a high pedestal when elected that there was nowhere for him to go but down.
I lost that feeling when he said (loosely translated) "we have been able to pull our economy back from the brink". WTF? Really? I've had five more calls over the past week from friends who have lost their jobs. My soon-to-be college graduate daughter is home for the summer where she usually makes all of her spending money for the year. She's working at the local country club and is getting approx. 4 hours/week of work because people just aren't coming in. She can't even get babysitting jobs because there are so many people out of work they don't need daycare.
My company is struggling in this economy, and I go to bed every night worried about whether I'm going to be able to put food on the table next week. And I'm middle class. I would hate to see what the low income are going through. Oh yeah, they're the ones getting the jobs -- and the healthcare in Obama's plan!
But he still hasn't been in office long enough to change things. The lost jobs have been coming for years. And God forbid that low income people should have a chance for a job..
The fearmongering over healthcare in the US is ridiculous. Half the civilized world has socialized medicine. No one loses out...
I'm asking this question out of "legitimate" wanting to know the real answer. I heard today on (talk radio) that in the UK a person over a certain age with a certain kind of illness will be refused treatment while someone younger who is an illegal immigrant will be given the same treatment for the same condition. Is that true?
Another question: Is it true that some people in Canada are refused treatment for something like cancer (when it's believed to be too far along)? (Republicans have some woman "out there", saying she's from Canada and couldn't get treatment. She claims she came to the US, got treatment, and has gotten better.
Lisa I posted this in another thread referring to the Republican propaganda commercial with the Canadian that you speak of. It's all fear-mongering. Al Gore would have started an national health care system. That would have been better than going to war over false pretenses. Have you forgot about the Terri Schiavo incident? That happened in the US.
You make good points, UW, but I beg to differ. "Low income" people have a better chance at finding a job than I do, God forbid I become unemployed. Bottom line, the jobs that are available are "low income" jobs. And if you're not low income, yet put in those circumstances via layoffs, etc., you're more than likely "over qualified" to work in a gas station and no one wants to hire you. Oh, and you're probably trying desperately trying to figure out where the electric bill payment is coming from, but whether you qualify for public assistance depends on last year's paycheck -- not how much you have in the bank. So most of these laid off workers are too "highly paid" for public assistance, but can't provide basic necessities for their families.
No one has any fearmongering over socialized medicine. We actually would welcome it right about now. The question is at what cost and who is going to pay for it?
First of all Irohner I dont beleive everything I hear ,Politicians are similar the world over ,so Im not completely blown away with the hype.
I will say this though , from my short experience here in the USA, healthcare costs really shocked me. Its true that I came from a country that had free emergency health care, and the health system ie doctors visits are subsidised by an Insurance Company or Govt Subsidy, prescriptions were much lower and kept on datatbase so they reduced in cost again after a certain limit, becoming free after 25 scripts.
That was what concerned me personally , and Immigration fees ,but thats another topic.
My husband has been away for 4yrs and speaking to different people from realators ,bankers, to employers the gist of the conversation was always the same -this is not the America I remember.
So I assume much of the recovery process has been because of the spending of the previous government.
Pres. Obama did re-iterate that its to help most Americans (97%)
but even it helps more than its doing now ,its gotta be some improvement.The part that is most comforting is , an overhaul of how the money is spent. I got the very disticnt impression that Insurance Companies have been living like Kings previous years.
I am sorry to hear how the economy has affected you personally , its just as shakey for us too,damned scary in fact.
Hubby got a job that he has to walk too , because the bus system is so run down ,its unreliable, cars dealers charge unreal interest so we'd rather save ,but not in a bank ,because they cant be trusted anymore....
Ok Im done
Kiwi, ya know I luv ya, and am sorry to hear of any problems you are having. HUGS!
I'm less worried about where this problem started (let's face it -- every Presidency blames their ills on the last one). History is history after all. And maybe in me this comes from too many years raising teens, but I don't believe anything (like "it's gonna help 97% Americans) without something to back it up. And I can't find that backup in Obama's plan. I have too many friends trying to figure out where their next meal is coming from to buy this "we saved us from the brink of economic collapse -- let's move forward and solve the healthcare crisis" crap.
I still can't fathom why folks get so hateful and full of assumptions as soon as they figure someone else belongs to the "wrong" political group. I'm rather liberal in some of my beliefs and quite conservative in others. Depending on the subject we're discussing, someone could label me as belonging to one party or another - and they'd be so very wrong.
It is easier, I suppose, to pigeonhole people into whatever box we think they belong in. That way, we don't have to accept that most people are very complex in their ways of thinking and believing - and (gasp!) don't fit one of the ready-made stereotypes out there.
It reminds me of junior high where you clump people into groups (jocks, nerds, goths, whatever) and assume that each and every person who associates with that group or likes the same kind of spaghetti sauce as someone in that group MUST then have every single ideal in common with said group. It just seems silly and unrealistic.
Nothing is that black & white!
Okay, I'm done
This was spurred mostly by nicomp's "lemmings" line, just fyi
A guy on the radio yesterday said a survey gave 50 million as the number of people without insurance in the US. He went on to say that of those, x million were people earning over 75,000 and choosing not to have insurance, x million were illegal immigrants, and 8 million are people who can't afford insurance.
His answer was to insure the 8 million and leave the other 300 million of us who are happy with our private health care alone. Not that aren't some flaws in this, but in Massachusetts people are required to have insurance. If they don't have their own they have to sign up for insurance programs aimed at people under a certain income (with all or part of it being paid for by the government). Of course, this forces people who are against welfare insurance to sign up for it if they can't afford anything else, so a lot of people find that a little coercive.
Well said, RooBee!
I am honestly interested to know why people who oppose Obama's healthcare reform plans are so upset about? Do you think it is going to take something away from you personally? Do you think it unfairly taxes people (those making over $1 million a year) and redistributed to slackers?
Either you believe healthcare is a basic human right -- as many countries around the world do -- or you believe it is ok to deprive some citizens of access to healthcare.
Let me ask you this... In those other countries where they see it as a basic human right and have universal or socialized health care systems don't their citizens have less access, because of longer waits and rationing?
I will agree that this country could use some health care reform, but I do not believe this is the way to do it. When has the government proved that it could efficiently and effectively do anything?
To be honest, I have never heard of anyone being denied medical care in Canada. I have heard of people going to the States to get treatment to avoid waiting for a few weeks. Of course, that is those who can afford it.
And if the UK is anything like Canada, illegal immigrants do not get free medical coverage. If you do not have a health card, you have to pay up front.
(So, it would have to be a legal immigrant who gets the treatment over an older or sicker person born in the country, I guess. Maybe I heard the radio guy wrong.)
I once ran into a lady in an online discussion. She said she's an elderly lady and is married (to an elderly guy ). She said she's in Canada and he has had a lot of health problems. (I know you never really know if what people say online is true.) She said he's had heart problems and now needs some kind of surgery because of some circulatory problem in his leg. She said the wait is months, and her point was that they live somewhere fairly rural, he's sick, she's scared, and wishes he could treated sooner. They don't have a lot of money.
Between all the talk about waits for treatment in Canada (ABC's John Stossel did a thing on how long people can wait in Canada) and being worried about what we know about how our own government does things, people in the US (a good number of whom have access to fast, excellent, health care even if they don't have a good income) are horrified to think what we have will be destroyed. (As this plan is now, it will be illegal for companies to even offer insurance to employees in five years. It will also be illegal for insurance companies to offer supplemental health insurance.) In other words, Obama's plan will eradicate all other options other than the government (unless, I guess, someone can afford to pay cash for his own care - and even then I'm not sure about that because there's talk of pushing down doctors' pays).
I don't think the 15-to-1 calls against Obama's health plan (to Congress and the White House) are from fear-mongering. I think it's a matter of a lot of people knowing what it's like to have good health care and not wanting to lose it. Something else is that we, in the US, know who works in government agencies. They're not the "cream of the crop". They don't work in a setting that anywhere near resembles how things are done in corporations. The people move slowly (really). Everyone has his little task and is not allowed to concern himself with anything else. Every agency is separate and is not allowed to communicate with any other. People who couldn't get jobs anywhere else are often hired into government agency jobs through things like the state employment agency and welfare-to-work programs. Dynamos and geniuses most of these people certainly are not. A lot of people don't want the decisions about their 70-year-old mother's health in the hands of anyone who wouldn't kill himself if he had to work in the government-agency setting. Maybe Canada has better standards when hiring workers in their agencies. In the US, there's a sign, "No sharp cookies, dynamos, or geniuses needed apply".
"So, it would have to be a legal immigrant who gets the treatment over an older or sicker person born in the country, I guess. Maybe I heard the radio guy wrong."
An immigrant is a citizen of the country...why make the distinction on where they were born?
I agree, UW. But quite often we don't know whether an immigrant is legally or illegally here. I would bet there are more illegals than legals. Maybe that's what they were referring to?
I, personally, am not particularly making that distinction. The point of the guy on the radio show was from a standpoint of what a country owes its people (if any country owes its people anything). (The whole healthcare thing is based on what the government "owes" the people.) His point was that the 70-year person born in a country should probably not be passed by in favor of the 45-year-person who moved into a country four years ago. It was that automatic "dismissing" of the older, born-here, person he was objecting to (based on the idea that the person contributed to paying taxes, to working in one area or another, etc.)
This whole debate would not be taking place in this country if medical care was given at a reasonable cost. The same medicine made in America will cost half as much in Canada or Mexico and even less in some countries. Don't believe me? Check it out for yourself online. I can buy the same medicine from Canada for less than I can get it here with good insurance.
The same goes for hospital care and physicians visits. These other countries bargain with the pharmaceutical industry to get a good price. We will be able to do the same with a good health care program.
I do think it will take something away from - my right to have the kind of health care I want provided I can pay for it. Today, if I work at a company and am kicking in a relative few dollars a month toward insurance, I can have some very good coverage. I can choose to supplement that if I want. (As the new healthcare plan is now it will be illegal for companies to offer insurance or for insurance companies to offer supplemental plans a few years from now.)
I have no idea how much this thing will cost, but long after I'm gone my children and future grandchildren will be living in a country that is paying the price of it.
It may take away from me the right I thought I had to decide what treatments I'll get or not get, if I'm seriously sick and, say, 70 years old. It will, as far as I know, take away every very sick person's right to decide if he wants to try to keep staying alive or not.
It will take away my very precious and American right not to have the government have a say in my personal, medical, affairs. It may even take away my right to know I'll get medical care when I need it, because I think so little of the way government agencies operate I'm going to be really reluctant to go any doctor once the government is running the healthcare show.
There are any number of other things it will take away from me and other Americans. There are ways to help the people who can't afford insurance or healthcare without destroying what is excellent about the present system.
I think I understand what you are saying, Lisa, but have you considered how much you are really paying for health care now? Just paying the "relatively few dollars a month" is not the end for most people. I don't know how much you pay per month but my insurance puts a dent in my income as I am self employed so don't have the benefit of a group plan.
There are also co-payments on doctor visits and medicines added to the cost of the insurance. What about the ever increasing numbers of those loosing their jobs, and therefore, their insurance benefits? We have to pay double the price of medicine because there are many private insurance companies instead of one. They cannot bargain with our own pharmaceutical producers like Canada does to get reasonable drug prices.
The medical business in America is just that, a business. Just like the credit card and other banking interests, they will gouge us as much as they can. It's the American way. You do not trust the government to handle things such as this and I agree to a point, but I do not trust the money grubbers either.
How many drug ads do you see everyday? These ads seem to say "a perfect life is here for the taking, just take our pills." Do you remember when this was not allowed? Am I the only one who sees this as a dangerous thing? How often do you see lawyers on TV ads asking you to join in a suit against one or the other drug companies because a former miracle drug has caused death or other illness? No problem for the drug company though, they made enough to pay off the suit with money to spare.
So here we are, depending on private companies to charge a fair price for medical care without taking advantage of us in the process.
I stopped listening to him a long time ago. It's like listening to a shifty used car salesman. You know everything he's telling you is either a lie or half-truth all the while he's smiling and looking you in the eye!
by GA Anderson3 weeks ago
I would like to take credit for this thought, but I heard it first from a news pundit.Consider...For progress, societal change is necessary, and inevitable, (I think), but - the larger the society, and the more...
by AnnCee5 years ago
Former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty turned out a blockbuster economic-growth plan this past week, including deep cuts in taxes, spending, and regulations. It's really the first Reaganesque supply-side growth plan...
by Holle Abee4 years ago
I didn't realize it was produced by Gerald Molen. I love his other movies.Is it pro-Obama, anti-Obama, or just a biography?
by Harvey Stelman7 years ago
With the prices of homes and investments going down; have you been the smart one?
by Judy Specht4 years ago
“Driven from every other corner of the earth, freedom of thought and the right of private judgment in matters of conscience direct their course to this happy country as their last asylum."— Samuel Adams , in a...
by Marcy Goodfleisch3 years ago
Post something self-centered and vacuous that you might see on FB. We need the fun here. I'll start. Just tried a new sugar-free Mojito-flavored powdered mix. It does have the mint and lime taste. Not sure...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.