Someone from the administration will be knocking on your door shortly to fit you for a navy blue jump suit with matching cap.
http://cornyn.senate.gov/public/index.c … cf4c7a255c
Wasn't it Bush, who failed to veto the Patriot Act? In order to piss away our rights and freedoms, so HE and his administration could spy on us good citizens? Oh I mean, terrorists!
I appreciate what you have to say here, but honestly Bush was the true Big Brother. Was he not? Now I've witnessed your past behavior towards other hubbers. And with all do respect to you and to your own personal feelings, I'd appreciate it if you didn't start attacking me and down grading MY general knowledge on the situation, because I do not worship the ground W. walked on. You know, Republican to Republican. That is I assuming you are a conservative. But I feel there is no need to beat me up, just stating an opinion tksensei.
Obama campaigned on the promise to roll back the Patriot Act, especially the immunity provisions for telcos that provide warrantless wiretaps. He hasn't done it. There's plenty of constitutional-trampling blame to go around.
A lot of this has to do with compromising in Washington with those who want to keep these policies in place. Also, personally I was never adamantly opposed to the wiretaps. Unless you are doing something illegal there is nothing to hide really. People should only have important conversations in public because no technology is secure.
Translation: Obama "means well" so it's OK.
(Sound of the constitution being shredded.)
Good point, but our business model has become dependent on telephones and also on the assumption that the government isn't listening. We value our privacy simply for the sake of valuing our privacy.
My goodness, don't you think he has been a little busy? I don't know, like you know, the economy, Korea, foreign affairs, healthcare.... Just to name a few. Now by all means, please run for the Presidency if you can manage a timeline like that of American populace, better than He OR Bush, or Ronald Reagan could or can. I promise to vote for you. Because you would be a Christmas Miracle.
Sorry, but that is one thing I'm really getting tired about, concerning my party. And that is this unrealistic, fictional 'timeline' on getting things done in America. Us Americans can't even balance our checkbook, without assistance...... Like I don't a "bank statement." Americans can't even keep a balanced budget in check, let alone drive and talk on a cellphone at the same time. There are 3.33 years left in his 4.00 termed presidency. That's all I'm saying. As a conservative, I recognize that Obama isn't GOD. He doesn't have the power to go, POOF in the night and it all be done. I wouldn't like it if the Dem's went about bashing McCain, especially if we have NO clue about walking in the Presidents shoes. It's not like Bush left him a clean bill of health to deal with. Thanks.
mpries wrote You are so right. soon our government will be telling us what to do and how to do it. We all need to stand up and tell our reps to lisen to us.
The only thing getting fitted,.. is my fist in someones mouth !!! HOOAH !!!
Slide, slide, slide...
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09 … -students/
Let us stop and reflect on the aneurysms, kittens, spasms, and projectile vomiting the Progressives would be experiencing if GW made a similar request of the American People.
The mind boggles. Be sure to tune into MSNBC tonight for fair and balanced coverage of this debacle.
No doubt. There would literally have been rioting in the streets.
I was just watching a video tonight where a mob of people were chasing Obama's health rep's and chanting. Must of been about a hundred. Even saw a group of about 6 or 7 from the deep south show up to protest, and they lived in the hollar parts of the south. Oh boy,..government better not mess with them,..they are some tough old guys down that away,..LOL.
I still think some people are way too dramatic. I feel bad for the health representative, and this solidifies my decision to continue to support Obama and his policies. Nationalized health care could be a very good thing for people who have to pay deductibles, and the like. Also, people in the military basically get free health care, so that is government run too. The drama kings and queens chasing a representative are just over the top lol.
Nothing wrong with being more civil about it and discussing your concerns. Some of the town hall meetings actually were very smooth because the Republicans told their constituents there would be no monkey business. On the other hand, the Democratic representatives put up with the screaming. If I was a representative at one of those meetings I would tell everyone you can either remember what you learned in kindergarten, or there is the door.
Representatives work for the people, not the other way around. If anyone is telling anyone where the door is, it wil be the citizens who vote these jokers out of a job if they forget who is really the boss.
Yes we should have rules and decorum in public buildings, classrooms, and many other places. If you start throwing a fit in a restaurant or do not wear a shirt, they have the right to show you the door. People who have felonies on their records cannot vote, so there are certain limitations when it comes to democracy. It is not a free for all and all about a small group of bullies.
Are you going to tell me that you are the type of parent that thinks it is okay for your child to question a teacher rudely? That is part of the reason I left teaching was because I got tired of how one or two kids had feelings of self-entitlement, and there parents would back them up. Principals and teachers usually poke fun at those type of kids and parents because they are so loud, and demand that their wants and needs come before others. As I said there were some Republicans that actually ran respectful and smooth town halls, and I thought since they were members of your party that you would have approved.
If I own the restaurant I'll say what I want.
In California we have strict health codes, as they do in many states. If your restaurant has screaming people, fights, and unhygienic wait staff and customers you will get reported to the health department. They often make surprise and official inspections, and they actually do listen to reports from people in the community. If you have disruptive customers people will call the police, which is what happened at a local restaurant when some people got in a fight.
Later some customers asked about it, and then he suggested that both parties go to the police to make a statement. You might want to rethink letting any type of behavior occur in your establishment .
Missing the point AGAIN...
Are we going to talk about people at townhall meetings taking their shirts off now? ...
I think you are taking how it should be for how it is
That is how it is. Turn on the news. Sometimes people are lazy, sometimes they are pissed.
If you had watched the news you would have seen how representatives from you own party demanded that everyone listen and not shout at their town meetings. Their constituents actually listened, and people had a real dialogue.
And why do you think that was?
"If you had watched the news"...
What do-do questions. I did watch the news, and at least I do not have to roll my eyes. The Republican representative who demanded decorum actually went on Bill Maher and shared how they did not agree with the rabble rousing that occurred at some of the Democratic town hall meetings. Personally if I had been the Democratic representatives I would have asked for decorum, but you prefer screaming people. No rationalizing with you .
And why would you or would you not get what you asked for?
They would have got what they asked for if they expected people not to shout. It does not mean people would have agreed with the bill, but they would have been listening to each other. Oh well, you only see what you want to see. Being liberal is cool, fun, and actually happy. I do not want to control people like in your party. I actually do not mind if gays get married, or if people restrict people's access to affordable health care. To me the Republican party is one big control freak party, which is why you have lost many votes of the last few years.
I edited my sentence above if you ever bothered to notice. Talk about dwelling on the past. Look at the posting button and it says edit for a reason. Usually I type far more text than you, so if I make one or two typos I am allowed to go back and fix these.
Democrats in California are not usually in favor of restrictive propositions like prop eight. We do not spend our time trying to restrict health care to only the wealthy people who can afford it. We admire what works in other countries, and we are not closed minded about it. That is why being liberal is fun, plus I now know it irks you for me to say so .
The proposition that was PASSED by the voters of California and upheld by the state Supreme Court?
The Democratic party is much more accepting of a wide range of opinions and people. Independents, Libertarians, and pretty much every other party in the US is less restrictive than the Republican party. One of the big focuses in your party is banning marriage for people of the same sex, abortion, not providing affordable health care, so this is not exactly an inclusive party. Not many same sex couples belong to the Republican party because of its stances either.
So, the Democrat party doesn't advocate controlling people?
Not like Republicans do. Do you believe that all couples should have the right to legally marry in the US? I am just curious .
I think same sex couples should have the right to get married. If both parties are over the age of eighteen no one should stop them from having a legal marriage. Are you in favor of same sex marriage or not? I am just curious.
I said couples who are over the age of eighteen should have the right to get legally married. It sounds like you may be against same sex marriage and are just hesitant to say so. That is your choice, but it is also a classic Republican party stance. I know some Democrats are also against same sex marriage, but by and large more people in our party are in favor of a couple's right to choose.
NO, you asked: " Do you believe that all couples should have the right to legally marry in the US?"
And I told you that YOU do not. Not even those over the age of 18 (of course those under the age of 18 can be married now under certain circumstances).
You are not writing coherent sentences. Try again . Yes people can be married under the age of 18 in some states, and under some circumstances, but I would like to see the age raised to eighteen in all cases. People should not get married until they are adults, and yes this is my annoying little opinion. Kids do not need to get married, even if they are pregnant. People under the age of eighteen are too young to know whether a marriage would or would not work out, and even eighteen is a little young in my humble opinion.
Eighteen is a reasonable age for people to get married because all parties are considered legal adults. However, telling same sex couples they cannot get married is restrictive, and I am not for that. Telling a woman she cannot have an abortion is restrictive, and I am not for that either. Personally I would not abort my child, but telling other people what they can do is ridiculous. See how much more open this is?
So you advocate that RESTRICTION? I see. What a control freak. You support further restrictions as well.
It is less restrictive than the multiple restrictions your party places on people. Oh well, you never do want to reveal where you are on certain issues. What is your stance on same sex marriage?
Ah, so now we've gone from the 'control freak' party vs. the 'freedom' party to a comparison of different controls. Funny how quickly positions can 'evolve.'
Good job editing your original post. Spelling is hard, huh?
My stance is that states should be allowed to decide that for themselves. As for me, I would oppose same-sex marriage but support civil unions.
Actually my spelling is very good. I noticed you spell things wrong all the time, and write some very incoherent sentences. However, I am not a meanie like you, so I do not go around pointing out vapid things.
Have you heard any representative of the Republican party indicate that as a focus of the party?
Yes, your party has failed to provide a coherent and affordable plan for health care. Instead, many activists in your party are spreading false rumors about how nationalized health care will deprive the elderly and cancer patients from seeking proper medical treatment.
That is a false statement by a blatant shill for the Democrat party, which is fine as long as you recognize what you are. If you support the plan being pushed by Obama now that's up to you, but try to be honest if you have it in you.
I heard a couple of Republican candidates state they think everyone in the US should have the same access to the health plan federal employees have. They did not exactly explain how this would work, but they are the only Republicans I have heard sharing a plan. Others are simply screaming, along with Blue Dog Democrats.
Maybe you should use your much touted intelligence to pay more attention to all sides of the issue.
HOOAH !!! That's what I'm saying,..for the exception of SweetiePie,..We never agree,..But she's Kewl !!! Ron Paul's son Grant is running for Senate right now,..I sure would feel better seeing another Paul in for the vote's.
The problem is that people are not being heard. These types of protests are in keeping with being an American. You just don't like them because they stand against something you believe in. Likewise, I didn't agree with many of the war protesters, but that was their right to protest. If our leaders were smart, they'd start listening. It's kind of like the 1960's. Southern politicians at the time kept trying to socially engineer society using Jim Crow laws and ignored the deep undercurrent of resentment by certain segments of the population. Oops. Likewise today, our leadership is all about now, now now. People don't want that, they want the chance to discuss things and not rush into things. Our leaders ignore these things at their peril.
Actually I do not dislike anyone. I just believe in more decorum, and I actually respected the Republican representatives who kept their town halls in check without the screaming. Also, I am aware that people spoke out against health care at these meetings, but at least more than one person's voice was being heard. When it comes to any type of protest I would never participate because there are other ways I can contribute.
It's not about decorum, it's about realizing that there is a certain segment of the population whose views aren't being represented. Whether or not decorum is being met is not the point. You cannot force people to do things they don't want to do. By forcing people to support things like universal healthcare against their will our leadership is setting themselves up for protests and riots. There are a lot of people who don't want government telling them how to live. That's what we're seeing with these town halls. By attempting to force the issue, the leadership in Washington is ignoring the concerns of citizens of the US. Whenever you do that, you set yourself up for the sorts of things you see today.
This isn't just about healthcare. It's about government making more and more of our decisions. T
Over the last hundred years the US government has become more powerful. None of the Republican candidates actually practiced the small government that their party preaches. I hate to say it, but even as a Libertarian if you were elected president of the US I think you would find it hard to change the status quo. Like Obama, you would probably find yourself having to compromise on many of your tenets in order to work with others in Washington. Our country has grown, and it is no longer practical to even pretend that small government is possible with a large populace.
Yes it is about decorum because if two or three people are screaming at a town meeting then no one else is heard. As Ron shared even in his state people had civil town hall meetings, and that is what I am advocating.
I am not sure why you are so obsessed about the government making decisions for you because it already does in many ways.
And it does them poorly. You're advocating tyranny just for the simple reason that "that's the way things are". Which is, sorry to say, insane. Would you have gone along with concentration camps in Germany? Before you answer no, consider that the vast majority of Germans knew something was going on, but since it was happening to someone else, they didn't say anything or do anything about it.
Not that I'd ever expect to be, but if I were elected President, well suffice to say since the President has been given such sweeping powers, those powers can be used to wreck the whole autocratic system. Ron Paul had the right idea when he said he'd close down the Fed and get rid of the IRS. Those two acts alone would get rid of most of the power the federal government has accumulated their power of the last century. It would be a start.
The US is primarily a two party system, and overall I believe in working within the system. I find it to insane to compare our government to Nazi Germany, and I notice this is becoming the much oft comparison point. Ron Paul said a lot of great things, but if he had been elected president he would have had to compromise. Washington would not have bent to all his ideas, and both you and I know it.
How is that a choice? You should be electing a person because you trust their judgment, not because they make certain promises or adhere to a particular party. How many politicians do you know that make promises then break them in the name of "political expediency" or bipartisan compromise? How does that in any way ensure that they are making the right decision for all of their constitutients, not just their supporters?
I trust more leaders within the Democratic party more than I do any other party. All governments are pretty strong and centralized these days, so I am not sure why Libertarians are so worried about centralized government. You are welcome to worry about it, but I dare say I prefer the status quo compared to what you are advocating.
All politicians break their promises, but some make more decisions I find myself disagreeing with. Overall the Republican administrations make more choices I do not support, and the Democratic administrations at least attempt to take the thoughts of a larger number of constituents in mind. By the way, some constituents do not have health care or cannot even afford health care with insurance, so their opinions are important, too. Sorry, but even Ron Paul would have disappointed you as he is a human being. I do not expect a politician to make everything all better.
You're more trusting than I. I don't trust any of the leadership. I rather think you like what the Democratic party says are their goals and I'll admit they sound pretty. But where they fail is on the specifics of their plans. You won't hear them commit to anything and their bills, like all bills, are so wordy and contradictory as to be deliberately confusing. Bills are made that way for a reason. It's all in the interpretation, which means the bills are often not interpreted in the way they are sold to the American people.
You don't seem to understand that cost is not the problem with healthcare. It's the supply that matters. For various reasons we have limits placed on the supply of doctors, drugs etc. That is why costs are so high. Doctors, too, are a special interest and their interest is to keep their wages high. One easy way to do that is by limiting the number of doctors medical schools graduate each year. Less doctors=higher prices. It's not that hard to understand really.
I understand the costs, but I will also dare to wager anyone in office right now would be spending up a storm. Also, money is a man made invention, so I doubt even the economist that claim to understand the economy would do a better job if they were in charge. It is what we have to work with, but I am highly skeptical of anyone who claims to say their way of dealing with money is better than the theory other people have. Basically many people love to argue over the man made thing called money, and at the end of the day I can find happiness without it. I have a job to make some to meet my basic needs, but I do not obsess about it.
I do not have blind faith in politicians, but I also do not expect them to wave a magic wand and make everything pretty. Every party has contradictions, and the Republicans are just as contradictory as the Democrats. As I said if a Libertarian ever was elected to office he or she would be contradictory and disappoint people to. There is no way that Washington would allow any Libertarian president to do away with many of the power structures you detest. Your ideas on health care sound interesting, but currently I do not see much chance of your plan passing. This current health care plan may not even pass either.
I support the Democratic party because they are more open on same sex marriage, health care, abortion, women's rights, and promoting peace talks with countries over seas. I admire Bill Clinton and what he has done to try and achieve with the peace process in the Middle East, and his diplomatic missions.
I'm not sure anyone really realizes all the costs, and yes, I include myself in that assessment. The funny thing is that you'd support a libertarian too because we really have no stance on same sex marriage, abortion, women's right's etc. Most of those things are private decisions that should be made by individuals, not the state. Personally I may not agree with some, many or all of those decisions, but that's great, I don't have to agree, all I have to do is live my life as I see fit.
I do have to point out that Clinton was an adulterer and womanized and I find it pretty hard that anyone can excuse him that despite the way he attempted to make a place for himself in the history books. Quite a few, not all by any measure, but quite a few of our problems today can be laid at his feet.
Money is funny. It's man made, yes, but it also behaves according to certain rules. As does the economy. You can learn these rules and by learning them you can predict what will work and what won't. The more stable a monetary supply, generally the better off the economy is. I could go into the reasons, if you'd like. Suffice to say, we do not have a stable monetary supply today. That's another root cause of our problems.
I know no such thing. He's been an advocate of limited government since he started serving in the 70's. Yet his people keep sending him back. He doesn't bribe them with government contracts or any of that nonsense, yet they continue to send him back. How do you explain that?
Healthcare reform is comparable to setting up concentration camps? Yeah, you should probably stay out of the town hall meetings.
Do try to read, Ron. I was responding to her statement that the government has been taking our liberties slowly but surely over the last century. The word healthcare doesn't even appear in that post anywhere.
You switched "tyranny" for healthcare but we all knew what you meant.
Now who's being childish? You're putting words in my mouth and also butting in on the conversation of another. You talk about decorum and reasoned argument, but see no problem in "knowing what you mean" when I obviously was writing about something different.
I know why you want universal healthcare so badly, but like most, you don't understand that it's not a cost issue, it's a supply issue. That's why I'm so opposed to universal healthcare. It fixes the symptoms, for a time, not the root cause.
So what, I catch you being less than intellectually honest and you have to stoop to such lows. That's sad.
You falsly attribute positions to me. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, maybe you don't see so well, seeing words that don't appear on your screen.
The problem with basing your position on emotionally charged rhetoric which leads to your constant references to Nazis and Socialists, is that you find yourself backed into a corner with the only option left being to repeat the same tired assertions and hoping they make sense this time.
Start over without the premise that every public debate is a sign of your prophesized revolution. You'll feel better.
You do realize that we suffer from the electronic version of checks and letters crossing in the mail, don't you? That at times we respond to things previously posted and don't see updated responses immediately, especially when you are responding to a post?
I didn't notice your claim that you were against a single payer universal health care system until after I'd already responded. So no, I don't need a checkup. But you still didn't answer my question. You're against single payer, but that leaves the door open to some sort of other universal health care plan. So?
Does anyone remember the furor over the AT&T records and other records of personal phone calls given to the government? But it must be OK that Papa Obama is doing this because he obviously knows best. The Progressives have really lost their minds haven't they. They seem to have finally lost touch with reality and think people really are as weak and naive as they've always portrayed them. Oh well, it's another sign that the Second American Revolution is on its way.
Oh what a relief to see others seeing the stuff I have been seeing. I have been doing exstensive research on many things,..Ive logged about 18 hours a day for the past month, and I was absolutly besides myself at times of discovering stuff. I am currently putting together some new hubs I think my friends should see,..exspecially if they have kids or grandkids whos needing vaccinations this fall. The stuff they put in these vaccinations is atroshish,..Really. In fact I think I will try to get that hub up in the next 24 hours. Oh boy you'll be,..No way !!!!
Ok, the 'second American Revolution' stuff frankly sounds like bug-eyed, hiding-in-a-mountain-side-redoubt lunatic nonsense.
I really think some people just can't live without the drama.
This is exactly how it worked back in the 30s back in the USSR. Neighbor reporting thy neighbor to authorities, for whatever reason. People never learn, really...
That's not how it worked. That's how it was broken.
It was broken in the same way in the US with McCarthy and briefly in UK with Oswald Mosely (British Union of Fascists). It's re-emerging in US. Not pleasant to see.
Misha, at email@example.com they are asking for sites or news that sounds "fishy", so i sent them a link to thier own website. I may be in jail next week for it.
We'll start a legal defense fund for you.
OH! That's a good one!
I couldn't have said it any better fellas. Way to stay on topic!
Not sure what you meant by "broken" Dave. Could you elaborate?
Something of a joke. I use it here in the middle east too. When folk say, that's not how it works out here, you have to say, yes, but it doesn't work. It's broken. The system is a failure. Like USSR, McCarthyism, Mosely's Fascists, and the emerging US far-right. All broken. Nothing working there, OK?
Sure, yet it worked to the extent of several millions killed, and I'm afraid it will work here to the similar extent. Hope I am wrong, but I don't hold my breadth...
And no, I think it is not far right here, it is far left - they blame all problems on rich, not on some ethnic group.
Except that our problem isn't with the emerging right, it's with the Left.
Your problem is with emerging stupidity. Right vs left, black vs white, man vs woman, old vs young, gay vs straight, etc, etc. By encouraging such infantile divisions, the real villains ensure that no-one notices them running off with all the wealth, power and military muscle.
No kidding. If you note, in one of my above posts I asked SP not to refer to me as a conservative, but as a libertarian. It's not my fault people don't understand the nuances and are either politically indoctrinated not the understand the differences or too intellectually lazy to understand the difference.
That sort of makes my point for me. Most people are government educated. Government can't even educate people, what makes you think they can run something as complex as health care?
Governments have a better chance of running health care than libertarians do. But governments don't need to run it anyway, they just need to establish it. Let the specialists run it. It works pretty well in Europe. Not perfectly, but pretty well.
p.s. - if you think I'm politically indoctrinated or intellectually lazy we should part company now.
If this is true, does it surprise any of us, what each person or president is capable of doing or saying for that matter?
Senator Cornyn is opposed to health care reform because he is a conservative. He does not like the grass root organizing of the Obama administration, which is running itself similar to how they did during the election. When it comes to health care they are simply asking people to knock on doors and send out emails to get out the true information about health care. They are not compiling an enemy's list and simply sending out emails to the same lists that are available to businesses that send out mass emails. Sadly some businesses do sell email addresses, and others are available when you sign up for any type of political information. I have been solicited by conservative organizations without ever having signed up for their websites. Republican Senator Cornyn from Texas is a Bush supporter, so he is pretty much causing a new distraction to try and push against nationalized health care.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/06/healt … ealth.html
I noticed Cornyn is also against the appointment of Sotomayor, so he will do anything in his power to create a new diversion against nationalized health care.
Also the reporting of information about health care on the web is so the Obama administration will be aware of all takes on the issue. They are just interested in what is being put out there, and people will usually share that information anyway. People love to share on blogs as we have seen.
http://cornyn.senate.gov/public/index.c … 14c07b6b38
He is not opposed to health care reform. That is a flatly false statement. Being opposed to the bills currently being pushed by President Obama does not mean one is opposed to health care reform generally. Come on now...
Cornyn happens to be the fourth most conservative US senator in the country and an avid supporter of Bush, and has not purposed anything better for health care reform. Nationalized health care works very well through out the world, and the US is ranked 37th at the moment.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/voterati … mp;o2=desc
Great, but that has nothing to do with this discussion and is clearly nothing but empty partisan prejudice.
Another false statement. You did not follow the link I provided, did you?
Being conservative or liberal means nothing on this issue. The only important thing is a bill that will transform the system for the better. Your article on Cornyn says nothing about him being against health care reform, he is against Obama's plan. So he is the fourth most conservative, where do you think Obama ranks as a liberal?
Sweetie Pie said 'Senator Cornyn is opposed to health care reform because he is a conservative.'
Senator Cornyn is opposed to health care reform because he is listening to his constituents-of which I am one.
You are referring to organizations that fall under the umbrella of ACORN, which receives federal funding and hardly qualifies any more as grass roots.
Sadly you are uninformed on this issue. Please refer to the whitehouse web site. http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Ar … rn-Things/
The government is not a business. The government is ostensibly subject to a different set of rules, referred to as The Constitution.
Bush again. Sigh.
A Supreme Court appointment is a diversion? Perhaps Obama should have the Air Force bomb something, like Clinton did when he needed a diversion.
If it's already on the web, why does Linda Douglass want us to send the info to her? Is her browser out of date? Perhaps she should bring her daughter to work so she can learn how to work that PC behind her.
Actually Cornyn is against the take over of health care by the US Government because he represents conservatives! You know that whole Representative Republic thing!
What is the worlds largest commodity?
Who uses it the most?
What will they do to get it?
Do you ever wonder what our world would be like without money?
Money is a flawed man made invention, but we have to use it because that is what we have. Many Native American tribes got along just fine without the use of money because they gardened, hunted, fished, etc. It must have been interesting to live during those times, but I prefer living in today's world where I can work for my paycheck.
Oh dont get me wrong , but was thinking about it last night before I went to sleep ( y'know those kinda crazy ideas0 and it got me thinking....
No money , no banks, no debt personal or otherwise, no thinking , do I have enough money
where is the money coming from
money for the future
money to pay for college
money to pay for babies
" " death
" " living on and on.....
Im truly not sure how I would like it ,but there is something appealing about trading our talents,skills, work, in its raw state.
Sweetiepie, I have yet to look up the WH release for myself ("Facts are Stubborn Things") but you bring up some very important points about possible spins and distractions by Sen. Cornyn. From his tone, it certainly sounds like the release asks that data be forwarded to the Whitehouse, but I'll have to see for myself.
Good points about money... I just wish it were backed by something, say, tangible instead of being made up at the whim of the Fed... (that reminds me, new thread.....)
I gave you a link the the New York Times article about Cornyn spin on the issue, so you are free to read this. What the conservatives are failing to tell us he too is a politician, and asking for information about what people are saying about health care in America. He is just more subtle about it and uses what I would consider to be scare tactics to get people on a letter writing campaign. They have the right to do that, but what he is doing is not all that different than what the White House is doing. Both sides want to do their campaigning for or against nationalized health care. On that note anyone who thinks health care does not need to be reformed in America should do some research. We currently rank 37th in the world, whereas Canada ranks 31st and the UK I believe ranks 12th.
Do you really think there is a "push against better health care"? Do you think anyone opposed to the current bill is against better health care or does not want improvement?
Ranks in what respect? Why don't Americans go overseas for health care, enough of them come here from every country.
write to express my concern about a new White House program to monitor American citizens' speech opposing your health care policies, and to seek your assurances that this program is being carried out in a manner consistent with the First Amendment and America's tradition of free speech and public discourse.
You begin with this and you end in a nightmare. Luckily I see a lot of Americans leaving their brainwash aside
Honestly the best plan for improvement is coming from a push for nationalized health care, which works well in many other countries that have it. As I said the US ranks 37th in the world and our health care, and ours is more costly than any industrialized country. Thus, I am going with the liberal and centrist Democrats that have a plan for that reform. You may not agree with the plan, but I have the right to support it. Also, here is some research showing the flaws in the current system:
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/heal … classifier
In your opinion, an opinion not shared by a great many Americans.
Of course there is a lot misinformation about health care out there at the moment, and a considerable number of Americans do support health care reform. On the other hand a majority of Americans did support Obama and not your candidate at the polls, so I guess you were in the minority on that one. I shared quite a bit of research and facts in my last post, but you are just using emotional statement, which you accused me of doing many times. You have a problem with anyone that does not agree with you, and that is what I have seen.
Most Americans support health care reform of some sort. A majority DO NOT support the plan Obama is pushing.
Has nothing to do with this discussion. Focus.
Speculation. Incorrect. Has nothing to do with this discussion. Focus.
Where is any of your evidence TK saying most Americans do not support Pres Obama health plans?
I have posted links many times now.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/121997/Ameri … aways.aspx
I got from it a 'slowing down' but to be honest polls can be very fickle...depends on the group surveyed ,when , where etc.
They said something on the news but figures were different.
The main point is something needs to be done and while people critize the Obama admin ,I do not see that same group offering a solution out of the problem. That helps no one.
There are plenty of solutions out of this mess. Unfortunately the optimum ones won't increase the power of politicians so they aren't about to implement them.
You ask over and over for proof, and when I provide it (for about the 5th time now) it becomes "polls are fickle" and "the main point" is suddenly something else.
I asked once ,quit being a drama queen.
I want people to support improvement to Healthcare no matter who implements it!! just so happens whoevers in power has it.
If you give someone power over you, you give up choice. I'm not willing to do that. There are solutions that don't require someone to give up their choices. We've talked about them before.
SP, people spend thousands of dollars to send their kids to private schools because public schools are a wreck. In fact the decline of public schools should be a warning to anyone who wants to socialize anything in this country. It'll work for a while and the first people using the program will benefit the most, but sooner or later the system will collapse. You have not right to demand anything from me to pay for your costs. If I choose to help that's one thing, but you have no right to force me to do so.
Some public schools here in California actually rank better than private schools. One private Christian school tried to hire me, but I soon found out they were not accredited. The principal wanted me to help revamp the history program to meet the state standards.
Where are you getting your numbers? Obama had just over 50% of the vote, which turns out to be only about 25% of the population. Not exactly a mandate from the people. As for lots of people supporting universal healthcare, even the AP is a lot of resistance to the idea especially in the Midwest:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090806/ap_ … erhaul_ark
Also when you consider the efforts Papa Obama is reaching to discredit Palin, well that doesn't bode well for the future. It's not so much paranoia as seeing the blatant abuse of power. If this is what the Progressives want as the future of America, I for one won't stand for it.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic … from_.html
http://www.redstate.com/gary4205/2009/0 … s-on-them/
I'm sure, Misha, you're having flashbacks to the "good old days" of the USSR.
He obtained the majority of the voting electorate, so that is still a majority. I am well researched and a very intelligent lady, so I will not fall for conservatives trying to make me feel less. Did you notice no one else really has ventured onto this thread? I wonder why conservatives love to speak down to anyone that does not share their views. Opposition to health care has been by conservative Democrats and Republicans, but there is still a possibility it may pass.
Calling someone Papa Obama is offensive because that is not his name or title. He is not Papa Smurf.
Exactly , He is president of the United States...I wasnt that fond of George Bush either but I didnt call him kiddy like names...disrespectful and childish
To say Pres Obama discredits someone ,then you do it to him, isnt that hypocrisy?
That's where you're wrong. A majority of the voting public is not a mandate to do as you wish. I'm sorry you feel less when someone disagrees with you, but that's not really my problem. Anytime you post something like "Of course there is a lot misinformation about health care out there at the moment, and a considerable number of Americans do support health care reform. On the other hand a majority of Americans did support Obama and not your candidate at the polls, so I guess you were in the minority on that one." Which is blatantly untrue. You might believe such things but that does not make it true.
There are practical considerations as well. TK seems to think I'm ranting and paranoid, but when you only have the support of 25% of your population and you begin programs that prove deeply unpopular or are going to have terrible consequences then you're playing with fire. Just wait SP until we feel the sting of inflation due to the first round of "stimulus". The president will lose just about all support after that. Look at what happened to Carter.
As for respecting the president because he's the president, I could quote the old Bible quote about the beam in thine own eye, but suffice to say that the dignity of the office didn't stop liberals from trashing our previous president. Your argument might have more merit if they didn't do that. If I call Papa Obama, Papa, it's because he's trying to make himself the father of the nation. He wants to put in place a nanny state and let government make decisions for us all. That's a progressive agenda and has been their agenda for well over a century.
As for finding things offensive, I take offense at your characterizing me as a conservative. I'm not. I'm a libertarian and proud of that fact. I'm sorry that you can only see the liberal/conservative divide and not understand that there are more philosophies that simply those two. Then again that places you in the majority of Americans who go for the easy answers rather than the correct ones.
Obama's polls are falling faster than any President. Health care in the US is by far the best. Become ill in another country and take a number. Does that happen when you call a doctor? Do other countries have the equipment we do, no. Which country is #1 in R & D? If one is over 59 they are not eligible for many procedure's. You're gonna love that when you get older.
Your last comment was also prejudiced towards me. I followed the link and read it, which is why I posted the New York Times article initially showing how Cornyn is spinning the health care debate in his favor. Your link was written by Cornyn, a politician lobbying against health care, whereas I provided two other links that are well researched on conservatism and the health care debate. Cornyn has yet to present a national plan that would improve health care, and he is spending his time lobbying against a plan that could help to improve our system.
This discussion is not about you or me. For crying out loud, could you try to focus?
I am a strong focusing think tank on this one providing facts and links not simply written by a politician, and that is what you have provided. You made your comment personal towards me, so I was simply pointing that out. Oh well, have your conservative rant on this thread because as I shared with several hubbers last night debates usually never change anyone's mind.
You even implied Obama was outfitting people with Communistic outfits in your intial post, which is just plain silly.
Is there a sentence in there somewhere? If I interpret that pile of words correctly I have to wonder how you can claim politician X or Y does or does not support some plan and then exclude his own statements on the matter as evidence.
There is nothing wrong with my sentence. Of course you love to pick things apart, but did you notice I do not do that to you. It is not a pile of words, but my true thoughts on the issue. What a rude comment lol.
Yes, that was meant to be silly. Thanks for recognizing it.
If you had you might have seen quite a few specific aspects of health care reform that the Senator supports. One of the reasons why this plan has become so contentious is that Democrats effectively shut Republicans out of the process of writing it (putting the lie to Obama's oft-repeated claim that the process would be bipartisan). You don't have to support Republican ideas for reform any more than conservatives necessarily support Democrat ideas, but let's be honest about it.
I have never called anyone politician kiddy names, and there is a little point to do so. Let us call everyone by their title, or at least by their real name.
I am very honest and frank. Nationalized health care works well in many other countries that have better health care than the US, so can you explain why we are ranked 37th if our system works so well?
Here it is again , in case you missed it!
Seems to me TK you dont answer ,because you do not have an answer.
I conclude then that SP wins the debate
Honestly I would just appreciate being treated with more dignity by a few, but that is never possible with political discussions it seems.
Dignity is pretty low on the ground at times in Politics and Religion ,and I try hard to respect everyone -I do,but TK seems to get more joy out of always debating the negative whatever the topic.
You say black , he says white lol
Not true. There are just 'a few' who have no dignity here, SP. You know it, I know it, many know it.
Not sure it's worth it to YOU to post?
I agree, but I was merely pointing this out on the current thread. Probably did not even need to say it .
lol well who needs to say anything then
no, its not a perfect world, and we all have different opinions , different personalities, some way left ,some way right and some appear to come from another planet
I shouldnt laugh , as my neighbour is seriously convinced aliens are out there and into Politics bigtime.
I dont laugh at him ,who knows ,he could be right , but that knowledge does nothing for my daily life, so I just nod n smile and wish hin a good day.
I need to know the rents paid, gas in the tank ( well when I get a car) and food in the cupboard at the end of the day.
My goodness, I go away to read a few Hubs and WHAM! Thread explodes...
Good points SP, in your response to my statement of data collection -- that both sides are doing this to further the particular campaigns of action. Seems like a very reasonable description of what may be happening.
I'm no typical conservative -- I'm a social liberal and a fiscal conservative, a Jeffersonian Libertarian for the record... but I myself do not support nationalized healthcare. I do not wish to pay for the healthcare of others through my taxes.
However, I *do* agree that the current system needs an overhaul. As you said, we are far down the list of nations in level of healthcare quality and cost.
By no means an alliance or endorsement, still I have to agree with TK that being against Obama's bill does not make one against Healthcare reform in general.
My ideas on what *should* happen are probably moot, since they involve plans to raise the quality of life of individuals to levels where healthcare is affordable and health problems are reduced by the raised level of life-quality. That, like individual self-government on a mass-scale, isn't going to happen anytime soon the Libertarian pipedream.
However your points have made me think quite a bit about the nature of the problem, and stimulate me to ponder the solutions on the table more closely. Thanks everyone.
edit: correction; "we are far down the list of nations in level of healthcare quality and have skyrocketing costs"
You know I have never driven a day in my life and I walk home from work a lot. Driving scared me quite a bit when I tried, so I am happy with walking. I have saved quite a bit on car payments, repairs, and other things that cost people a lot of money. Walking is not for everyone, but it is my exercise since I am not into gyms .
Well I have focused on discussion and presented many facts. Where you are not focusing is on your insistence upon saying I am not focusing, which is making it personal. Maybe you need to let up on that game and simply post your findings and opinions. However, I know you pretty much like to be contrary of anything I say. I could say chocolate is the best flavor of ice cream, and you would probably say I should pick strawberry! National health care is a better alternative and works well in many other countries, and the Republicans and conservative Democrats have yet to present a concrete plan that would work. The US also has a broken educational system, whereas the Japanese and Europeans excel in this area. Taking ideas from other countries is not wrong, and other countries are open to American ideas all the time.
Wow, negative? Personally I've tried to be nothing but positive even if disagreeing.
Re: my last post regarding solutions.
Nationalized health care works well in the UK, Canada, France, and many other European countries. All of these countries spend less per person, and actually rank higher than US health care. I find opposition to nationalized health care to be slightly negative because there is a great deal of evidence to show it can work quite well. Under nationalized health care you can even pay to see a private physician, or for more specialized care if the standard care is not for you.
People are willing to spend thousands of dollars to send their kids to private schools here in the US, go on expensive vacations, but balk at the idea of paying taxes for health care. Taxes are not fun, but who is going to pay for the roads, schools, libraries, senior centers, community centers, and many other facilities that enrich the community. Essentially these institutions are pretty socialistic, but most people are not opposed to these.
Yay!! Healthcare as good as our roads and schools. Sign me up.
I am talking about improving all of it if you have been following what I have been saying. Actually here in California with the stimulus money they have been improving many of our roads. Construction is going on at many funny hours of the day.
And of course the source of the stimulus money was voluntary contributions from concerned citizens?
Countries with good social safety nets in Europe require people to pay taxes. People may not love these taxes, but the higher quality of life is the reward. Here in the US there is a large discrepancy between the wealthy and the poor, which is the widest gap of any industrialized nation on earth. We have differing political stances on this, so I do not expect you to agree with me.
Of course not, but I hope you begin to understand why there will always be resistance in this country to increasing the size and scope of our government. You make comparisons to Europe - the continent and social structure that many of us or our recent ancestors fled from. The European model is not feasible here any more than the Antarctic model would be.
Taxes are not just the merely unpleasant annoyance you make them out to be, they are the confiscation of funds, backed by threat of violence, from those who have earned them. There are extreme cases where we have to make this unpleasant and morally complicated decision to take what is rightfully someone else's, but each time we do we open the door to the next "emergency need" to confiscate.
Well when you think about it money is a man made invention, so something can only anger you if you let it. Actually better social programs are possible in the US, but those advocating smaller government do not think so. I admire certain things about European countries and Canada, but some Americans are very opposed to any type of improvement. Since Truman we have been talking about nationalized health care, so this is not a new argument. Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan actually were very good friends because of their conservative stances, which had to do with many of her policies in the UK in the 80's.
There are actually conservative politicians in Europe too, and some of them oppose social programs just like in the US. However, the devastation of World World II taught the majority of Europeans that humanism is not an evil thing. Many Americans do hold my views, I am not the only one. The European model is based on post-World War II, and not what Americans fled.
However, assuming someone does not understand there is an opposition is slightly flagrant. Stating that European models of government are based on the oppression most Americans fled is not true, because at the time most left for religious and economic reasons. Today people in Europe people have a much higher standard of living, so that is not an accurate assumption. Also, there is a great deal of freedom of religion.
Have you ever lived in Europe or know anyone who may have Fled?
I talk to many Europeans and I study history. Many Europeans came to America before World War II, and since the end of the war life has improved there. I noticed there is a tendency to poke fun at anyone who does not agree with the conservative stance here. We had a golden time here in the US, but it is much harder in this day in age for immigrant families and the poor to achieve success. Many people now immigrate to Europe as opposed to the US for these reasons.
I disagree, everyone has an equal chance for success, some just choose not to try.
You are welcome to disagree, but there are some immigrant families that I know who have tried very hard here, but success was not on their side. After the Second War we were the world leader, and still are somewhat today, but a great deal of our jobs have been sent overseas to China. Today in many parts of the country it is hard for people to find jobs, and that is not for lack of trying. There are many hard working people in this country that do not have the same opportunities as others. Also, today it is easier for some families to immigrate to Europe verses the US, that was my point. There is a social net there where people believe in taking care of their neighbors, but here many people are poor and do not have access to resources. I would rather be in America, but I understand why some people prefer their countries.
1 United States 38,355,000 &020.5600 20.56 12.81
2 Russia 12,080,000 &006.4740 6.474 8.483
3 Germany 10,144,000 &005.4370 5.437 12.31
4 Ukraine 6,833,000 &003.6620 3.662 14.7
5 France 6,471,000 &003.4680 3.468 10.18
6 Saudi Arabia 6,361,000 &003.4090 3.409 25.25
7 Canada 6,106,000 &003.2720 3.272 18.76
8 India 5,700,000 &003.0550 3.055 0.517
9 United Kingdom 5,408,000 &002.8980 2.898 8.982
10 Spain 4,790,000 &002.5670 2.567 10.79
11 Australia 4,097,000 &002.1960 2.196 19.93
12 People's Republic of China 3,852,000 &002.0640 2.064 0.2944 does not include Hong Kong (SAR) and Macau (SAR)
13 Pakistan 3,254,000 &001.7440 1.744 1.984
14 United Arab Emirates 3,212,000 &001.722 1.722 71.4
Hong Kong (PR China) 2,999,000 &001.6070 1.607 42.59
15 Israel 2,661,000 &001.4260 1.426 37.87
16 Italy 2,519,000 &001.3500 1.35 4.288
17 Kazakhstan 2,502,000 &001.3410 1.341 16.88
18 Côte d'Ivoire 2,371,000 &001.2710 1.271 13.06
19 Jordan 2,225,000 &001.1930 1.193 39.01
20 Japan 2,048,000 &001.0980 1.098 1.599
USA is an Immigrant nation ,was built on Immigrants
How many leave ?
My Point exactly....this country is still the 'Land of the Free', meaning each person has the freedom to accomplish anything they want. Every opportunity is given to all, It is this country that has set the precedence for others.
What do you think oppression is? Limiting peoples ability to worship and keep what they earn, that's why they fled. You may have the superficial freedoms, but at it's core things in Europe haven't changed much.
Why is keeping all of your earning so important to you? You pay taxes today, so you do not keep every penny anyway. Europeans do not have superficial freedoms, and that is just ridiculous. There are still Christians that go to church and Muslims that go to mosque in Europe. Religious tolerance has been the norm in Europe since the Second World War. People are no longer mistreated because of their religious affiliations.
"Why is keeping all of your earning so important to you?"
On that note, I bid you folks goodnight. It's been a very informative, educational conversation everyone. See you on the Hubs later!
Honestly to me it is a cogent question because every country pays taxes to have some efficiency, and to believe our country could run without taxes is ridiculous. Americans have been paranoid about taxes since the American Revolution, which was during a time would should not have been paying taxes because we had no representation in the British Parliament. During the Whiskey Rebellion the US government ordered that taxes had to be paid because at that time we did have a representative government. Ben Franklin said the two things you can count on in life are death and taxes. I do not allow money to make me upset, that is all.
Well no one has burst my bubble. I just happen to be outspoken today sharing my views. This thread does not want to hear the other side, that is all. How silly!
Of course people love to imply the opposition has their head in the sand or lives in a bubble. I have heard it all before. Besides, to deny there is a large gap between the poor and the rich when it comes to health care, that is another bubble.
He happens to have been elected by conservative constituency, and he is the fourth most conservative senator in the country. I am glad he is listening to you, but I must ask why you are so opposed to health care reform? Why are you not more concerned about a system that is bogging us down financially, and leaves many without proper health care?
I too will be letting my state senators know I am highly in favor of health care reform. It is your right to speak your mind, but I am very concerned for Americans without health care. Of course my mom says I always worry about people too much, so maybe I should not care as much. Oh well.
I think everyone is concerned about the rising cots of health care as well as the rising costs of GOVERNMENT! I find it hard to believe ANYONE can believe the government can provide health care cheaper and better than private industry, given the government's history running big social programs, Medicaid, Medicaid, and social security are cases in point all on the verge of bankruptcy, medicaid by 2017!!
Do you really want to turn over the entire health care system to the government?
Let me ask you this, what government program, action or policy has EVER come in at below or even NEAR government estimates? The war in Iraq was estimated to cost 250 billion and we have already spent 1.5 trillion on that! Cash for clunkers was funded for a billion and after a week they had to add 2 billion more to make the program last a month!
Do you really want to turn over 1/6 of the nations economy to the government? Do you really think it will only cost 1 trillion dollars? Do you really believe the government can provide the same level of care for LESS?
1st-I'm not against health reform , but specifically against government run health care. I realize as much as the next person that health care costs and insurance costs are to high and something needs to be done. I do not pretend to know what that'something' should be.
2nd- I am concerned but do not consider myself 'bogged down' with it. I work full time and have health insurance that I pay for. If my spouse, my kids or I get sick we go to the doctor. As far as the system 'leaving many without' I think those people have a personal responsibility to pay for their own healthcare like I do.
Please understand, I am not against lending a helping hand. But I am against additional taxes that will be required in order to fund a health care reform bill that will provide health care to those people who are not willing to work and provide for themselves or are in this country illegally. No one is forced to go without health care here- there are many organizations that provide free immunizations and clinics that offer discounted rates. If nothing else an ER visit can provide necessary teatment when the patient can not go to a primary care Dr. even if they are illegal.
I'm for reform of some sort, but not the kind that's on the table at the moment.
I am highly self taught, and I do know the difference between a Libertarian and a Republican. Both tend to be more conservative in their fiscal and social policies, so what I said was very true. You on the other hand are disparaging my education, which is very condescending. When I was thirteen I was reading books on my own about Pitcairn Island, and much of what I know is via my own study. You call Obama Papa Smurf, and do not even apologize for that.
I really think you should be more considerate of others in your comments. Do not pretend to know the first thing about me. I am definitely not intellectual lazy, and I could teach you about many things. Why do you feel the need to put people down? I hope some day you can rise above that. I have asked you on several occasions to stop making assumptions about me, so that would be nice. Many dynamic minds come out of public education and private school. Not everyone is going to fit in your little box.
I do not consider myself intellectually lazy, and never would fathom that insult towards others. I know I am well read and research, and as I said once I refuse to put up with being spoken down too.
No, it seems you do not understand much about Libertarians. They are not socially conservative in the sense that Republicans are.
I'll assume that you did not actually mean to post "what I said was not true".
Once again I am not falling for it. Libertarians by and large are more socially conservative than say liberal Democrats. I am a very intelligent lady you know, but I see the men are picking on the lady again.
No, we agree on a lot of things. For instance your statement, "what I said was not true". See, the guys are in agreement with the lady. One big happy family.
Yes and I was one of those dynamic minds. Yet exceptional thought in public school is the exception not the rule. When you have to continually revise the curriculum downward to get people to pass so you can keep your funding, there is something wrong with the whole system. I assume you've seen that test from 1890 that makes the rounds on the Internet from time to time? That was a fifth grade test. How many fifth graders could answer those questions? Heck, how many tenth graders could answer those questions? Why is it that home schooled kids tend to be much better educated than those who go to school. Since you're self taught, you might want to look into John Dewey and how is plans have affected education in the US both intentional and unintentional. It's funny how contrary to the current belief that early Americans were yokels off the farm the generally unorganized educational system had a 97% literacy rate. What is our literacy rate in this country today?
I never said that Ron. What I say is very true for me. Stop picking at straws, and I know I am smart. I guess you think it is cool that ledefensetech implies I am intellectually lazy. Glad you all feel so much better than me. Oh I see I made a typo, and you were picking on me for that. I know everyone makes typos on this thread. Wow, pick, pick, pick!
Just having some fun, (as I do with myself and all other posters I have exchanges with). Yes, you are smart, you are worthy, and gosh darnit people like you. (including me)
Is that the 3rd or 4th time you've felt the need to say that in this thread alone?
You know how some things are so expensive that people say, "If you have to ask..."?
Okay TK, that really is not one in the same. I did not ask if I was smart or not, I am simply stating what I know to be true . You say the same things all the time. So my favorite flavor of ice cream is mint and chip, what should it be instead?
I can honestly say that I don't know if I am smart or not. I hope to be informative, sometimes compassionate, but I will leave my "smartness" to the opinions of others.
I definitely do not hold my intelligence to the opinion of others because I learned from a young age people can be cruel. Some love to look for weaknesses in others and make people feel bad about themselves, and I just to not fall for those tactics. You can feel anyway you like about yourself, but I in turn will not allow anyone to make me feel less.
I am not looking for affirmations or anything, but I am definitely going to stand up for myself when I feel things cross the line . I think you are pretty cool too Ron.
I took prompt action and sent an email to firstname.lastname@example.org expressing my strong objections to this national health plan. I'm proud to now be on the "list"!
Yes I do because I have much more faith of the administration in power at the moment. The war in Iraq, on the other hand, was a grave mistake, and failed to take much stock of international opinion. The health care reform being planned is similar to what has been very effective in other countries with nationalized health care. This system may not be perfect if passed, but far better than what we have now in meeting the needs of the uninsured and under insured. I have never been a advocate of small government personally because not one administration has ever lived up to that claim in the past hundred years. Not even the ones that claim to be.
The Insurance companies have been skimming the cream very nicely for a long time and yet more and more employers have quit providing it ( or revamped their input)-thats in the last 3yrs ,so what happened there?...
I think maybe the cost of war is a factor. Most other countries have not had to figure into their budgets,so that has to have some bearing on how Government will afford anything.
Maybe at the end of the day it will be up to the American people and what they value most. Because they have always been able to afford fast food ,fast cars and fast women.
No I am not misinformed on this one. However, it is popular quote and pick rather than substantiate. I really should go write a hub about my findings because this thread is going in a funny direction lol.
Yes write a hub SP ,you have the facts n figures and have obviously attracted comments and listeners who type well too
Save these pages and youll fire a hub off in nano seconds lol
Do it smart girl !! Go GO GO ( like not right this minute ,but y'know what I mean)
I am confident enough with my self not to allow other people opinions change mine, but open minded enough, to listen.
Here is an article about the mass immigration Europe has experienced since World War II.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/ma … tion-islam
1 United States 38,355,000
2 Russia 12,080,000
3 Germany 10,144,000
4 Ukraine 6,833,000
5 France 6,471,000
6 Saudi Arabia 6,361,000
7 Canada 6,106,000
8 India 5,700,000
9 United Kingdom 5,408,000
10 Spain 4,790,000
11 Australia 4,097,000
12 People's Republic of China 3,852,000 does not include Hong Kong (SAR) and Macau (SAR)
13 Pakistan 3,254,000
14 United Arab Emirates 3,212,000
Hong Kong (PR China) 2,999,000
15 Israel 2,661,000
16 Italy 2,519,000
17 Kazakhstan 2,502,000
18 Côte d'Ivoire 2,371,000
19 Jordan 2,225,000
20 Japan 2,048,000
Those who choose other countries over America, are free to go. Yes, we are having issues in this country now, but WE THE PEOPLE have a voice, and a vote, this is what freedom is. Take a look at the countries who have tried to protest recently, they have no freedoms.
This Forum started with the heading 'Big Brother Obama', so, reporting your neighbor to the gov't is the first step on loosing your freedom.
But my brother is .........good point...who is my brother anymore?
I believe the countries that were being compared to America have just the same kinds of freedom ,just some have less tax and better healthcare. These are western developed countries.
I certainly do not believe anyone on this forum is going around reporting others. Do you really believe this? America is a great place to live and I would never live anywhere else. Well California and Hawaii are my favorite states, and many people still move here because there are opportunities. However, it is misleading not to see that there are some who try, but do not succeed because of obstacles. We like all countries have things we need to remedy. Europeans, Australians, and many others all have a great deal of freedom in their respective countries. We are not the only free society on earth. We are a great country, but not the only one.
Yes they do. However, many also have outstanding medical bills.
Yep mine came too $845.00 for one xray , and 15min consult.
I thought going to a regular doctor @$150 was too expensive , and hubby said no Im taking you to A&E they will treat you for cheaper ...wrooooong!
And those doctors want more pay??...gimme a break!
An old guy we got talkin to in the parking lot said , no ones got any money , they wont get their money either.
So in terms of this discussion , if they charge these outrageous prices and dont get half of it back , what the hell is the point of it all??
So go Pres Obama change something.
Oh and I didnt mention the prescription either
Whats up with that ?
It's called 'shop around.' Good grief. Gas, milk, clothes, food all vary in price in the same neighborhood. We're not entitled to the lowest price by walking in the door.
Good grief , no its called drug companies in bed with insurance companies.
Sorry I was used to a Government that didnt penalise the sick.
Its wrong , to expect sick people to friggen chase all over town for cheaper drugs...and stupid too
It's wrong to expect people to compare prices when they buy something? Is it wrong to expect people to think for themselves or do you want the government to do that for them too?
The next time you clip a coupon to get cheaper Pringles, remember that your snack time is more important than your health care. Heaven forbid you should shop for the least expensive copy of your prescription. I don't even order a pizza without a coupon.
Friggen chasin' all over town can be avoided with the cell phone that every poor person seems to have.
I dont have a cell phone but doesnt say much for a progressive nation still dependant on coupons...c'mon??
Spose its cute , but some other ountries quit doing that a few years back now...
you are putting medicine on the same shelf as food specials, hasnt worked ,just driven prices up not down.
I think America is big enough ,mature enough like SP said to look at and take ideas from other countries. Developed countries that is.
p.s Cant beat $5 Ceasars pizza either...No coupon needed
At Food 4 Less you can get two Tony's pizzas for five dollars. The other brands were not much more expensive .
Digital coupons! Save a tree!
Government meddling drives up the price.
Sure. Sweden is going bankrupt from entitlements and several other countries in Europe are moving away from, not closer to, increased government interference.
Barf! Dried out cheese-leather! True, you don't need a coupon.
No luck necessary. ERs are required by law to treat anyone who walks in the door.
Treatment wasn't what I was speaking of. Medical bills are. I understand that payment is an afterthought as the main concern is for the health of the patient. It is discouraging to some however the cost without having insurance.
Ok, good luck going to a restaurant without money then.
Going out to dinner is a luxury. Healthcare shouldn't be.
It's a necessity you want someone else to pay for.
No, eating at a restaurant is. You're not just paying for food, you're paying for the service.
And it shouldn't be that way. Like I said, eating out is a luxury, healthcare shouldn't be.
You can't get medical care at home or without the service aspect, can you?
You can't relate eating out at a restaurant to receiving medical attention, I'm sorry.
Yes you can. Deciding to eat out or at home is a choice. Deciding to live a healthful lifestyle is likewise a choice. Does that mean you can control all outcomes? No. The only thing we have control over is how we respond to happenings in our life.
That's not to say you can't expect help when things overwhelm you. People, by and large, are sympathetic to those sorts of things. Why else would people hold benefit dances, leave collection tins at convenience stores for people to put money in, etc.? I've seen the way government allocates resources firsthand and I'd rather have the insurance companies at the helm. Actually I'd like to see unfettered capitalism take care of the problem for us, but so many people have been indoctrinated with an anti-capitalist mentality, that I don't see that happening were I to live several lifetimes.
Yes, one can live a healthy lifestyle or not. I'm 22, I eat healthy, work two jobs, go to school full time, i work out, and take care of myself. I happen to have a condition with my ovaries. You're right, the only thing we have control over is how we respond to things in our lives. I am on medication to control my condition and I see my GYN regularly for checkups.
I've seen the way insurance companies handle things. So I'd rather turn over the decision-making. It isn't a "sympathetic" system that I'm looking for. Its more of an equal system.
Equality is a mirage. You have problems with your ovaries, I have diabetes. How can we possibly equate those two treatments? What about MS or cancer or other diseases. Like it or not we're all unique and have to decide for ourselves how and what we will do with our lives. That includes being healthful or not. I could rail to the stars, God, the devil, etc. bemoaning my fate or I can educate myself, take control and do what I can to not only survive, but prosper. Those are decisions only I can make, not some faceless bureaucrat sucking of the public teat.
And if I didn't have the problem with my ovaries, and I was perfectly healthy, and required no medical treatment whatsoever, I would want what I paid to help you with your diabetes.
Thank you, but I wouldn't accept it. It's an integrity thing I have. Still your desire to help is voluntarily, for which I commend you. That is the crux of the problem. When you make something involuntary you give up control of that thing. So the agency you give power to calls the shots and they then become the final arbiter of decisions, not the individual. That can lead to great evils.
Well I relinquish my control. Help me when I need it, and when I don't need it, help someone else.
Again, I applaud you choice, but you can only speak for yourself, not others.
Just as while some may be satisfied with the current health care plan they can only speak for themselves, not others.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not satisfied with the way things are now. Using insurance companies to pay for medical care is socialism-lite as opposed to true free market medical care. My plan would eliminate insurance companies as well as government programs. Remember costs drop if you increase the supply of something, remove the artificial restrictions on doctors and you'd see the supply of doctors rise to meet the demand.
Sure you can. They are both things you won't get without paying one way or another, and if you depend on the government to 'give' you either you will end up with something hard to swallow.
If you don't want to pay, don't go.
Where do you work? Do people walk in and expect free stuff?
Start a savings account for ER visits. Turn off your cell phone and cable TV. Get a second job. Which is more important, Oprah or your health?
I work at a health promotions office. Where yes all of our services are free. I agree that healthcare can be a part of someone's budget. But the cost of an ER visit, which is an unexpected cost, can take a big chunk out of someone's savings.
All unexpected expenses can take a big chunk out of someone's savings. That's the point of saving. What's more important than your health? How can we create a culture that encourages people to stay home rather than pay for treatment?
Sorry I guess I just think that healthcare is a right not a privilege. I save for school, for the future, and yes for unexpected occurrences. However, I would hope that a health crisis would not be one of them. The only other unexpected cost would be my car. Which having a car is a luxury for me. I'm lucky that I don't have a lot of responsibilities. For families, I couldn't imagine how difficult it must be to be living without health insurance, or even with, and hoping that nothing major occurs.
So who are you going to steal from so that person, who didn't plan ahead and save anything, can go to the ER for free. How is that fair? If you want to decrease the cost of something, you have to increase the supply of that thing. That's what you're not hearing in this debate.
The system shouldn't be the way it is. No one is going to be healthy 100% of their lives. While I may have an ER visit this year, someone may have one next year. There will always be a demand for healthcare. Now the supply of doctors, nurses, ARNPs, PAs, etc. yes I will agree that needs to increase.
Your plan, however, requires taking from one person to give to another. My plan allows this sort of thing to resolve itself naturally without the need for theft. So which plan is optimal? And how do you know how much spending in healthcare I consider essential? You don't, you can only speak for yourself. That's the other part of the debate you hear nothing about.
And you think the quantity or quality is going to increase if they are paid less to do more?
Quality will have to increase because there will be more competition. Doctors will have prove themselves in order to stand out from the crowd. Of course this is all hard work and you have to keep at it. Doctors are people, just like any other and only want to work just hard enough, but the way things are set up now, they drive costs up without a corresponding increase in quality, so change things and let them work for a living like everyone else.
If the government runs health care there will be no competition, and the service will rival that at the RMV.
Hopefully the quality and quantity of doctors will increase. Some doctors already work 80 hour weeks. If some of the patient load is relieved and they make less money, then so be it. If they got into the profession for the right reasons then it shouldn't be the biggest issue. A bigger hope is for the increase in PAs and ARNPs.
Those PAs and ARNPs are the markets answer to the artificial limiting of doctors in this country. Some doctors may work 80 hour weeks, but most don't.
Again your reasons are not the reasons someone else might go into the medical profession. I'm considering becoming a PA. The pay sounds great, and I miss working with kids. That most likely is not the reason other people will choose to go into the field, but you know what? That's OK. People do things for their own reasons, not some arbitrary "right" reason.
But many do, and many go into the medical profession for reasons other than money. I agree there are different "reasons". But we were speaking of how the quality and quantity of doctors will change once the salary decreases. I am in the process of applying to PA school, let me know if you need any help. The point is that there aren't enough medical professionals to meet the demand of healthcare. ARNPs and PAs get paid less and relieve the workload of physicians with equal quality of patient care. So what's wrong?
Thanks again. I was thinking of getting RN certified, then a BSN, then applying for a MS as a Physicians Assistant. That way I could get some concrete hands-on experience in the field and broaden my horizons. But that's exactly my point. PA's and ARNP's are largely unregulated by the state. Yet they provide top quality care. Doctors, on the other hand, are highly regulated by the state, to the point of only allowing a certain number of licenses a year. This has the effect of creating an artificial shortage, which drives prices (and doctor's salaries) up. That is the problem.
PA's and ARNP's started being used to meet the demand for medical care that doctors once provided. There's no real reason we need them, other than to meet a demand not met because of a shortage. Supply will always rise to meet demand. That supply might be an alternative, like PA's and ARNP's, but they will meet the demand nonetheless. The only real question will be how much wealth will we waste in the meantime competing for artificially scarce care.
However PAs must be supervised by a physician. All of the charts must be signed off by one. Yes the licensing process is complex, however it is also the lack of medical school spaces. Lots of willing people to go to medical school, just not enough spaces. Of course that creates competition hoping that they get the best of the best to enroll, but that isn't always the case either Sounds like your plan is a good one. Let me know how it goes. I'm finishing up my BS in Biology in the spring and hopefully attending school in the summer
I'm aware of the supervision thing, in fact I've devised a plan for doctors to decrease their patient load and still provide care to people with insurance, medicaid, medicare etc. It requires the use of PA's and maybe a couple of doctors, but using that system would keep a doctors patient load to about 600 he personally sees and his PA's and NP's can see many more, thus providing him and them with a living and meeting the medical care needs of the community.
The lack of medical school spaces is my point exactly. We could have enough doctors to meet the demand of people for healthcare, but the medical schools deliberately keep the supply of doctors down.
So much for your hope then. But don't worry, 'cause that won't happen.
Who's negative? I'm talking about reality. It's not "negative" unless you choose to look at it that way.
"So much for hope". Yes I see that as "negative".
Hope isn't enough. You have to have a plan. Nobody on either side of the debate has a real plan to lower costs, they want somebody else to pay the bill.
Meaning what you were 'hoping' for in your statement is highly unlikely. That is not negative, just realistic.
by Reality Bytes3 years ago
A report Monday night on the nature of the administration's drone program has the potential to dramatically revamp the debate over President Barack Obama's foreign policy and the confirmation process for his incoming...
by OLYHOOCH3 years ago
Dear fellow Patriot,Nearly 1 million American rifles.Banned by a stroke of Barack Obamaâ��s pen.In a move unprecedented in American history, the Obama Administration secretly banned the re-importation of...
by MikeNV4 years ago
$10 Billion per month to spend in Afghanistan per month "fighting terrorists". How many people know the cost of a Gallon of fuel to the military in Afghanistan is $13 per Gallon?30,000 AMERICAN TROOPS on...
by Deforest3 years ago
The US officially removed the MKO (people's Mujahedin of Iran) from its blacklist of terrorist organizations. The same ones who recently killed Iranian scientists. The same organization that was trained, that is funded...
by Reality Bytes4 years ago
Even though he stated he would veto the bill if it included the indefinite detention of Americans, Obama signed the NDAA bill in to law. Now an injunction is administered by a judge questioning the...
by GA Anderson3 years ago
Political pundits are saying the Obama admin is floating the typical "trial balloons", (ie. rumors to pundits to get it in the public conversation/news), of a wealth tax - to see if it would have a...
Copyright © 2016 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.