jump to last post 1-21 of 21 discussions (61 posts)

"Feisty Obama: "I won't stop fighting for you": Yahoo!

  1. fishskinfreak2008 profile image32
    fishskinfreak2008posted 6 years ago


    "Let me dispel this notion that we were somehow focused on that (healthcare) and so as a consequence not focused on the economy. First of all, all I think about is how are we going to create jobs in this area".

    Well, healthcare is indeed important. As far as jobs are concerned, this will be a much longer fight to get to where we need to be.

    1. 0
      Poppa Bluesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Obama isn`t fighting for you or for anyone else other than himself! He is fighting to enslave you and the rest of America by fundamentally transforming our government to a socialist european one! His foolish economic policies will lengthen the time to recover, maintain a high unemployment` create massive inflation and crush us with unsustainable debt! The man is an inexperienced fool!

      1. Ron Montgomery profile image59
        Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, that makes a lot of sense.  Obama is an evil overlord seeking to enslave the people of the United States.  Bravo sir, well stated!

    2. 0
      cosetteposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      oh brother.

      i am not happy with him this morning. a ONE POINT ONE TRILLION DOLLAR TAX HIKE? he is a f---ing tax and spend liberal and i am really getting sick of him.

  2. ledefensetech profile image81
    ledefensetechposted 6 years ago

    Oh yeah, fighting for us.  After spending the last year bowing to any special interest group that would spend money on his campaign, he's now all of a sudden going to fight for us?  This man and his advisors are so out of touch they lost the seat Ted Kennedy held for a half-a-century because they were too busy listening to their buddies at SEIU, ACORN and other left-wing radical groups.  It seems the independent voters of America no longer trust this man.

    Especially when he either lies or is incompetent.  When that stimulus bill was passed we were told it was needed to keep unemployment from going to 8%.  Now it's well over 10% in many areas of the country.  Was it a lie, or is he just incompetent?

    1. 0
      A Texanposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      He is an incompetent liar!

      1. ledefensetech profile image81
        ledefensetechposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I know that and you know that, but I'm curious to see if the faith of the Obamaites have been shaken, or if they're just fanatics.  I'm betting the latter.

        1. 0
          A Texanposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          And you would win that bet, hey Obama, quit fighting for me, it cost too much money for you to save us!

      2. Ohma profile image81
        Ohmaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I would say he is a competent liar; just incompetent at everything else!

        1. 62
          foreignpressposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          People! Please! Lay down your torches! Sheath your swords! There is one minor, yet unmistakable, fact: That Obama was not only elected into office by popular vote but also by a sizable majority. ?The very people who elected him have now become his enemies? This is incredulous!

          1. 0
            Poppa Bluesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            They didn't know they were voting for a socialist!

            That's not the change people wanted! All the things Obama promised, bi-partisanship, no lobbyists, no earmarks, pay-go, transparency, changing the way Washington works, all lies! He's delivered on none of it!

            The change people were hoping for was a return to constitutional government, less intrusion, more freedom, and what we're getting is a gang of radicals hell bent on transforming America, the last bastion of individual freedom, into a socialist democracy! It's criminal!

            1. 0
              Madame Xposted 6 years ago in reply to this


  3. Flightkeeper profile image80
    Flightkeeperposted 6 years ago

    Clearly, Obama is becoming unhinged.

  4. 60
    cindyoposted 6 years ago

    One has to wonder, if he believes he is doing the right thing??? I say that only because, I think he thinks socialism works....Big Government is not America. We are free thinking individuals, who know the truth. Some have been led to believe that they will be taken care of, and fell for security.

    You can take a slave and give him freedom, but you can't take liberty from a free man. Once you know freedom, you likely will hold it most dear.

    What we see are people. They voted on emotion, they believed in the rhetoric, they wanted better. They have gotten worse, people are awake! Not everyone has signed up to be a member of the Tea Party, some will never sign up, but are disgruntled just the same.

    November 2nd, 2010 will be a shockwave for the Dems...

  5. PrettyPanther profile image85
    PrettyPantherposted 6 years ago

    "The reasons he don't take questions is that there is nobody there to ask questions."

    Did you see this?  It was shown in full on all cable news networks except Fox News. The others ran it more than once.  Why do you think Fox News cut away before it was finished?

    Full Video of House Republicans Q & A with President Obama

    1. Pr0metheus profile image60
      Pr0metheusposted 6 years ago in reply to this
  6. pylos26 profile image77
    pylos26posted 6 years ago

    Not actually supporting either party I must say that it seems possible and very probable that the president's popularity ratings rise this year will have a great many of you good ole boys eating crow by summers end.  So continue to chew down on bias new coverage such as fox news.

  7. 0
    Poppa Bluesposted 6 years ago

    He might see a temporary rise in popuarity, but it will be short lived as his economic polices take hold  and unemployment continues to drag on. His budget includes 650 billion in revenue from cap and trade, a bill that hasn`t event been presented no less _assed and the outcome of which can`t possibly be known yet, unless he knows something we don`t! Cap and trade will be a windfall for the big banks, do noth ing to reduce co2 and increase the prices of just about everything which is already feeling upward pressure from a weak dollar!

  8. 0
    jerrylposted 6 years ago

    I believe that some of the people posting negatively about Obama, haven't really thought this through.

    First of all, I do not support either demo or repub.

    I, however, realize that no matter who holds the office of the presidency, he or she, is under the thumbs of the real PTB.  Every president has financial advisors. Every administration is lobbied to the hilt by special interests.

    Ultimately, it is congress and the senate that are supposed to approve or disapprove propoased legislation.

    If any of you have a solutions for our economic problems, I would like to hear about them.  I would also like a detailed explanation on how you would impliment your solutions.

    TPTB control our monetary system, our politicians, our judicial system and of course the media.

    It's awfully easy to be armchair quarterbacks when in the safe position of not having to make critical decisions.

    Let's face it, the president follows orders just like anyone else in government.  Problem is, the people that order the president around, do so with self interest in mind, not the interests of the nation as a whole. If the president didn't follow orders, what do you think would happen? Would the bankster contract the money supply, throwing us into a crash and deep depression?  What other possible repercussions could a president face?

    All of the bickering between Americans, about which president or party is best serving our nation, is a deliberate use of what I call gladiator games by TPTB, meant to keep our attention away from the real PTB, and their sinister intentions.

    The president is no different than a mayor.  A mayor takes orders from his city council, who in turn bow down to the money interests that fund their reelection cmpaigns.

    We need a true republic form of government.  Of, by and for the people.


    1. 0
      Poppa Bluesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      That's just BS! The president PICKS his advisors! And this president came to office with a speciifc agenda which he has worked to carry out regardless of what republicans think, his own party thinks or even what the American people think!

      There are plenty of ideas for helping the economy get back on track many have been used successfully in the past but this President thinks that by spending money we don't have we can spend our way to prosperity! Anyone here with a household, knows that is absurd!

      In spite of what all the lobbyists, special interests, and the American people call for from the government. Obama has taken an oath to uphold and protect the constitution, in other words his powers are LIMITED, and as such he needs to say NO if he is to be guided by the document he has sworn to uphold. Instead Obama is making all kinds of promises to do all kinds of things spending all kinds of money that isn't his, nor is it within his powers to do so.

      So, Mr. Obama, stop bailing out companies and banks that have made bad business decisions. Stop spending money on entitlements which the federal government has no authority to support, social security, medicare, medic aid,health care, cap and trade and education! It's time to tell the American people NO. If they want those things, they need to lobby their state to provide them, and states of course are REQUIRED to balance their budgets and when taxpayers see the true costs of these programs they may decide they can live without them.

      1. rhamson profile image77
        rhamsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        This economy is based on credit and debt partly because of recent trade agreements.  By losing the jobs the tax base has little to draw from because of the reduction of income.  The banks that let us all down created such a deep debt based on assetts that the government had no other choice but to bail them out.  Did you learn nothing from Hoovers flop in '29?

        Your idea of social security and medicare as a gift from the government is way off.  Taxes have been paid and the monies were supposed to be invested in long term programs with a return.  Unfortunately the government has misused these monies but due the taxpayers nevertheless.

        Your cut and dry view and recomendations would send this country into a dangerous tailspin and result in a devastating depression.

  9. Flightkeeper profile image80
    Flightkeeperposted 6 years ago


    1. rhamson profile image77
      rhamsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      What countries do we trade with that currently have a government run healthcare system?

      Here they are.

      Norway 1912 Single Payer
      New Zealand 1938 Two Tier
      Japan 1938 Single Payer
      Germany 1941 Insurance Mandate
      Belgium 1945 Insurance Mandate
      United Kingdom 1948 Single Payer
      Kuwait 1950 Single Payer
      Sweden 1955 Single Payer
      Bahrain 1957 Single Payer
      Brunei 1958 Single Payer
      Canada 1966 Single Payer
      Netherlands 1966 Two-Tier
      Austria 1967 Insurance Mandate
      United Arab Emirates 1971 Single Payer
      Finland 1972 Single Payer
      Slovenia 1972 Single Payer
      Denmark 1973 Two-Tier
      Luxembourg 1973 Insurance Mandate
      France 1974 Two-Tier
      Australia 1975 Two Tier
      Ireland 1977 Two-Tier
      Italy 1978 Single Payer
      Portugal 1979 Single Payer
      Cyprus 1980 Single Payer
      Greece 1983 Insurance Mandate
      Spain 1986 Single Payer
      South Korea 1988 Insurance Mandate
      Iceland 1990 Single Payer
      Hong Kong 1993 Two-Tier
      Singapore 1993 Two-Tier
      Switzerland 1994 Insurance Mandate
      Israel 1995 Two-Tier
      United States ? ?

      How does this effect their ability to lower production costs and be competitive with US companies?

      It's kind of part of the plan.

      1. 0
        Poppa Bluesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        And how many of those countries are better off economically then the USA right now? A good many of them have some serious issues! Anyway healthcare is NOT something that can or should be addressed on a natioal level here in the USA, UNLESS there is passed an amendment to the constitution that grants that power to the feds. That`s a debate worth having!

        1. rhamson profile image77
          rhamsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I don't know,  they are beginning to catch up.  The only people that are better off here economically are the ones that can afford healthcare.

          In a few more years when healthcare is only affordable to the very rich the same statement of who is better off economically will not play for very long.  I am so glad my constitution is there to protect me from that happening.

          1. 0
            Poppa Bluesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Unfortunately health care is NOT a right. You and everyone else in this country have no rights other than to live the life you make for youself freely without interference from the government. The healthcare bill that was proposed did nothing to lower costs and did much to take away our freedom. If people had to pay their health care directly, it would be much cheaper, just look at how the prices for Lasik have come down and that isn`t covered by most insurance! True not everyone has insurance but for many that is a choice they make, for others, well it`s unfortunate but I would hope that generous Americans would donate to charities that could help those that need it. Government however should not be in the charity business.

            1. rhamson profile image77
              rhamsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Who said healthcare was a right?  If you are up to date with what is going on as far as the cost for healthcare,  you know that for many the cost of coverage has doubled in the last three years.  What happens when it gets too expensive for even the wealthy?

              I agree that the current healthcare plan needs to be scrapped.  I blame Obama for the healtcare bill turning out as it did.  No real directives and loose language is all he gave the slimebags on the hill to go by.  What did he expect from this self serving pile of vermin?

              Are we to go fifteen more years before it is reviewed again?  At that time the cost will have gone up more than fifteen times if current rates are maintained.

              I am for a responsible heathcare plan for the country and not a sanctioned rape of the taxayer by the slimebags.

      2. jellydonut25 profile image59
        jellydonut25posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        tax and spend Mr. President! tax and spend...<sigh>

        I wonder when people will get over the notion that what works for other countries will work for America...

        1. Ron Montgomery profile image59
          Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this


          Uggg!  Me agree.  Compassion bad!  Progress bad!  Personal hygeine baaaaaaaaaad!

          1. jellydonut25 profile image59
            jellydonut25posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I didn't know you needed to write a dissertation for your opinion to be considered worthwhile.

            Although, I suppose I could write a multi-page thesis on why Obama's policies are terrible and get this same type of reaction.

            Liberals have always been a classless bunch.

  10. tobey100 profile image62
    tobey100posted 6 years ago

    I wish he would stop fighting for me.  I can't take much more.

  11. 0
    jerrylposted 6 years ago

    Poppa blues,  Every president has an proposed agenda, which is intended to influence voters.  "A chicken in every pot",
    " the great society" Lyndon Johnson,  Bush senior, "the new world order", etc.. Oh yes, and Bush junior's "It's good to be among the haves"!

    Our indebtedness cannot be blamed on one person.  Congress has the power to borrow money on the credit of the United Stated, not Barack Obama.

    You stated that there were several ideas on how to get the economy back on track.  You did not elaborate.  What were they?
    How would they get us back on track, under this system, without more indebtedness?  Please illustrate how those ideas would be implimented.

    It seems to me that if there had been several ideas such as you describe, our past presidents and congresses would have had us out of debt by now.  At the very least, Obama would have inherited a balanced budget, rather than multiple trillions of debt, two wars, and an economy approaching the severity of the 1929 crash and ensuing depreession, from the Bush administration.

    Don't get me wrong, I think they are all crooked.  I however, do not for one minute believe the any president picks his own cabinet, or makes appointments without outside influence by the real PTB.


    1. 0
      Poppa Bluesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      No can`t blame out debt on one person. Certainly Bush was fiscally irresponsible and the wars could have been avoided. Yes presidents all have agendas, but for too long those agendas have included entitlements that the government did and does not have the authority to mandate. For too long congress has sceeded power to the executive and has lacked the courage to act in the interest of the country choosing instead to act in it`s own interest and those of it`s contributors. However, Obama is surpassing all of what`s been enacted in the past with new entitlements and new spending again outside his constitutional authority. We can turn things around but it will mean pissing a lot of people off!

  12. 0
    Poppa Bluesposted 6 years ago

    The federal gov does have a role to play but a take over of the system is not it! They have the authority to regulate trade across state lines and so should encourage competition of insurance companies nation wide. But, as I eluded to in the last post, one of the reasons for skyrocketing costs is increased demand brought about by the misconception of the insured that treatment doesn`t cost them anything. The patient doesn`t pay the doctor and is therefore not concerned with cost and the insurance company is concerned with profit and does whatever it can to delay or refuse payment forcing doctors to charge more. If you add another middleman, the gov, you`ll only make it worse! The patient and the doctor need to be the ones effecting the transaction. Unless and until that is fixeed along with tort reform costs will continue to outpace inflation.

    1. rhamson profile image77
      rhamsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      So the short answer is don't treat the ones who aren't able to pay the overwelming costs that have been caused by the poor who can't pay.  Maybe they will be better helped by the cheaper medical coverage they can't pay across state lines.  Better yet the slack will be picked up by charitable donors such as church and community programs.

      Do you think there will be such a great savings to policy holders when the companies deny benefits?   This is the main thrust of their profit scheme.  It has been since the '70's when Nixon had a choice to do something then.

      Your answer is screw the poor and let them fend for themselves. Plain and simple.  Every society is judged by the way it treats its' underprivileged.  Why can't the self proclaimed greatest country in the world come up with a solution while the rest of the world already has?

  13. 0
    jerrylposted 6 years ago

    Poppa,  In truth, the only way to turn around this economic fiasco, is to gradually replace our fractional banking debt monetary system, with a system based on wealth through earning, not borrowing.

    I don't care which politician is president, or who is elected to congress. Unless our monetary system, (Which is based on fraud by deception), is changed to a wealth system, no president, congress or God almighty will resolve this mess.

    This problem has been with us since this nation's inception. 
    Hamilton was one of the proponents of the central banking systems.  Everything has gone downhill since then,  The people really took it in the shorts when the federal reserve act was passed in 1913. Since then, every president has been at the beck and call of the fed res.

    If we don't borrow, the system begins an immediate collapse. If we give the central bankers too much guff, they can contract the money supply, putting us in a depression. 

    TPTB have the politicians by the short hairs, and dictate to those politicians in order to keep and maintain that power.

    This is not a government representative of the masses, but one that represents the privileged few.

    One last point that I find amazing, is how many people cannot conceive of money in terms of wealth rather than debt.  I guess they have been brainwashed to the point of not being capable to understand the difference. They cannot comprehend that under this debt system, we cannot pay debt with money produced through borrowing.  Money should be the final payment, but under this system, our indebtedness is only transfered to others. 


  14. 0
    jerrylposted 6 years ago

    As far as healthcare goes, trying to get patients and their doctors to remedy things, or insurance companies and lawyers to come up with an answer is ridiculous.  Counting on churches and charities won't work either.  Their excess monies are going to feed the homeless and unemployed.

    It kind of reminds me about the promise of Reagan trickle down economics.  I don't know of many people that the financial benefits trickled down to, but I do recall a lot of people that were (TRICKLED ON)!

    How many political promises were fulfilled by either party in your memory?

    It's all just gladiator games used to stall long enough for TPTB to figure out a way to lay the guilt trip on the masses when the financial crash comes.  They are worried about how to cover their backsides.


  15. Flightkeeper profile image80
    Flightkeeperposted 6 years ago


    He's becoming a bad joke!

    1. 0
      Poppa Bluesposted 6 years ago

      The best and most responsible thing the government is to minimize the burden of government on it`s people both in terms of taxes and in terms of regulation so that there is enough prosperity to make health care affordable for the maxium amount of people. Having the government be the administrator of wealth distribution is inefficient, leads to corruption, and is too expensive. Even with the healthcare bill that was proposed some 20 million would have still been without coverage. There will always be someone that for whatever reason is unable to take advantage of the opportunities this country can provide. Someone is always going to fall into the cracks and maybe that`s unfair, but life isn`t fair and it isn`t thr responsibilty of the gov to make it so. Should we all be made to suffer equally to promote fairness? Where is the justice in that?

      1. rhamson profile image77
        rhamsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Define suffer with reference to your statement.

        1. 0
          Poppa Bluesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Less freedom, lower quality health care, higher taxes less incentive to work more economic pain, which leads to more social pain!

          It's all quite obvious, and it's all been done before. Just go back and look at FDR and the suffering he heaped upon Americans!

          Obama has compared himself to FDR, and rightfully so since he too was a socialist!

          LBJ, was another one! We as Americans are still paying the price for their unconstitutional meddling, the programs they began all on the verge of insolvency, the promises they made to the American, unsustainable and the wealth of future generations confiscated without their permission or their knowledge!

          "Capitalism is the uneven sharing of blessings. Socialism is the equal sharing of miseries." - Winston Churchill

    2. MikeNV profile image75
      MikeNVposted 6 years ago

      If you look at his track record of Appointments its very clear that Obama is doing exactly what the Bankers want him to do.

    3. 0
      jerrylposted 6 years ago

      Poppa,  Leaving the banks and other loaning institutions without regulations and supervision is exactly what allowed Bernie Madoff to get away with what he did!  How many people have to be bilked by the private sector before we realize that they can't be trusted either?  AIG and ENRON are other examples.

      As to your statement about all of us suffering in order for there to be fairness,  I don't see how anyone would feel they were suffering if everything was fair. 


    4. JON EWALL profile image51
      JON EWALLposted 6 years ago


      Canada 1966 Single Payer

      33,000 came to the us for treatment last year

      Many more from all countries of the world
      why?, because we have the best healthcare system in the world

      Healthcare and insurance cost need to be corrected by our government. The insurance industry cost are related to unemployment.
      Many of the 14.9  million unemployed are not paying insurance premiums hence the monies in the insurance pools are being depleted.Therefore in order to stay in business the insurance companies ( the bad guys )have no choice but to raise prices. Sounds like the government has a hand in the rising cost of premiums ?
      In 2006 unemploymrnt was 4.6%,now 9.7% and in actuality around 16.7%.That's a lot of people not able to afford insurance or dropping out of the insurance pool.
      President Obama said,
      the plan is to mandate everyone to pay for insurance, reason being that the more paying reduces the cost, right on mr president.
      Congress and this president wasted 14 months on healthcare when they should have concentrated on jobs jobs jobs.
      Wake Up America,your elected officials need your advise.

      1. Doug Hughes profile image59
        Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        "33,000 came to the us for treatment last year"  Jon Ewell

        "An estimated 750,000 Americans went abroad for health care in 2007, and the report estimated that a million and a half would seek health care outside the US in 2008."


        Looks like we are doing fine for the rich of other countries. Maybe we can reform health care so we can take care of the middle class that has to flee to the 3rd world for care, and the poor who die for the total lack of it.

        1. JON EWALL profile image51
          JON EWALLposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          80Doug Hughes
          Below exerts of wikipedia

          . As a practical matter, providers and customers commonly use informal channels of communication-connection-contract, and in such cases this tends to mean less regulatory or legal oversight to assure quality and less formal recourse to reimbursement or redress, if needed[citation needed].

          Over 50 countries have identified medical tourism as a national industry.[3] However, accreditation and other measures of quality vary widely across the globe, and there are risks and ethical issues that make this method of accessing medical care controversial[citation needed]. Also, some destinations may become hazardous or even dangerous for medical tourists to contemplate.

          In the context of global health, "medical tourism" is a pejorative because during such trips health care providers often practice outside of their areas of expertise or hold different (i.e., lower) standards of care[4][5]. Greater numbers than ever before of student volunteers, health professions trainees, and researchers from resource-rich countries are working temporarily and anticipating future work in resource-starved areas[5][6]. This emphasizes the importance of understanding this other definition.

          Some consumers because of cost are willing to take the risk in the above.The horror stories are out there, how many who knows.
          American healthcare is the best and may I add the safest in the world.

          I  can vouch for the healthcare I received  in the mayo clinic, because I'm still here.

          1. Doug Hughes profile image59
            Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Glad you had insurance for the Mayo? (or did you write a check?)

            What about people who don't have coverage? Die quietly, please?

            I was not endorsing medical tourism as an option. I was just pointing out the balance of trade. You cite 33,000 enter for medical procedures (because they are rich) and I pointed out that  750,000 (in 2007) went abroad for health care that they couldn't afford in the US. You can tell which number is bigger, right? And the article estimated that the number jumped to well over a million in 2008.

            Kinda sux, doesn't it?

            1. JON EWALL profile image51
              JON EWALLposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I didn't take you endorsing healthcare out of the country.I concur with your feelings regarding the poor and now in our economy the unemployed losing their healthcare insurance,a double whammy for some 14.9 million citizens.

              The problems today are not with the US  healthcare ,the problems are with the cost in rising insurance premiums and the government's refusal to correct  what is wrong with the system.
              We all can agree that something is drastically wrong when people can't afford to pay the rising insurance cost.
              The government telling the American people that the poor is denied healthcare is a lie. Anyone seeking medical help can go to any emergency room will be attended to. Iif they have no insurance.in some major cities there are hospitals that admit patients free.
              Government running healthcare and the insurance business would be a disaster for all the American people.
              The politicians in washing ton are the problem, it's time to let them know
              that we need jobs jobs.

              1. Doug Hughes profile image59
                Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                "The government telling the American people that the poor is denied healthcare is a lie. Anyone seeking medical help can go to any emergency room will be attended to. Iif they have no insurance.in some major cities there are hospitals that admit patients free."

                Sure. And it's a well knwn fact that the niggers like living on the plantation better than theit homes in Africa. Don't lie to me or this forum. You know damn well that if you had had to wait until you felt the cold fingers of death before going to thee hoslital (instead of health care at the Mayo) you would be pushing up daisies - justlike 45,000 people per year who DIE for lack of health care every year. (according to a Harvard study)

                You ARE arguing for the death of 45,000 people every year until we bring the level of health care for the poor up to what it is in the rest of the industrialized worlk. We aren't ranked # 37 because we don't have great facilities, doctors and patients for the rick. We are held up as barbarieans by the rest of the world because we mistreat the most needy elements of our society and allow themost greedy practices of the insurance indsutry to execute people whose care would not be profitable.

                It's not just the death toll. There is untold human suffering not immediately accompanied by a funeral. People who can't afford medicine or therapy that would change their lives. These aren't po' lazy folks you hold in contempt. If you have NO money - you qualify for Medicaid. These people are from working families - struggling to carve out a life for themselves.

                Don't pawn off the rationalization that these people HAVE health care - it's just not convenient for them. BS. Al the ER is going to do if you have a serious condition is stablize it and send you home. They don't provide health care!  They don't ! That's why they call it 'emergency'. You want some excuse to deny the truth  to yourslelf. You won't get it from me.

                Hell is too fine a place for people without compassion for their fellow man.

                1. 0
                  jerrylposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Doug,  After reading some of Jon Ewall's posts, I sometimes feel like he is a RUSH LIMBAUGH understudy.

                2. JON EWALL profile image51
                  JON EWALLposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Doug Hughes

                  You really don't understand healthcare, do you?  The poor if they qualify, can get a government run health plan ( medicaid ) right now. Who decides if they qualify, you guessed it, the government.
                  Many of the problems in attending to the poor is that they abuse the system. They go to the ER  with nothing but a headache sometimes and demand service (free).Why not go, they don't have to pay.
                  The cost to the hospital and the paying public create  a problem , higher rates.
                  My fellow liberal
                  As you go on the journey of life, you will one day wake up to the truth and be able to recognize the truth and  hopefully be able to speak the truth.

    5. earnestshub profile image88
      earnestshubposted 6 years ago

      What I don't understand about American politics is that you don't give any credit to the voting public who elect your presidents.
      This much abuse of the office by ignorant commentators would drive most to despair.

      I would tell you all to run the country yourself and stick this underpaid damned if you do or don't job up your nose!

      Any of you run a country? Know what the president can and cannot do and why?
      This thread would indicate the answer is many have not even run a toilet block, but feel qualified to attack the man with the biggest job going!

      1. Sab Oh profile image60
        Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        "Any of you run a country?"

        We all do (the active, voting, paying attention, giving a damn citizens).

        "but feel qualified to attack the man with the biggest job going!"

        We are absolutely qualified (and obligated) to let him and all other elected officials know when they are f-ing things up.

        If he didn't want to be "attacked" he shouldn't have sought the job, and if his supporters can't stand to see him criticized they shouldn't have voted for him. Enough of the "leave him alone!" whining. That's the job - he could have kept on organizing communities in Chicago if he wanted to.

        1. earnestshub profile image88
          earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I feel that attackers should at least understand something of the internal workings. It is naive to assume that the president controls the whole show from startup.
          I agree you should keep an eye on screwups. ( Geitner in treasury is a worry) I simply believe we get what we vote for.

          1. Sab Oh profile image60
            Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            It comes back to the Quarterback problem. The quarterback doesn't play every position and can't win or lose a game by himself, but he gets the glory if his team wins and he gets the blame if they lose and if he doesn't like it he can try out for a job washing the uniforms.

            1. earnestshub profile image88
              earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Yep! I am all for the CEO taking the rap. I did that for 30 years! I still believe a bit of common sense would not go astray when siding one way or the other. Obama is responsible for the 2 wars America is in, and how it is handled is the incumbents responsibility, as is the economy. It would be helpful if some recognised that these were not circumstances of his making, are huge problems, and unless someone has solutions that are better why not let him get on with it, instead of just interfering with the process ensuring it will not work so that the team you barrack for wins by destroying what hope there is for recovery.

              1. Sab Oh profile image60
                Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                "why not let him get on with it"

                No, no, no. This is where you leave the track. Responsible citizens don't lust "let him get on with it."

    6. 0
      jerrylposted 6 years ago

      Why don't you get real?  I don't care who is elected to the presidency, he/she is just a figurehead.

      The house and the senate are responsible for all that goes on.

      It is they who are squatting before the federal reserve and the other powers that be, asking what color sir!

      The president just coordinates the smoke screen, while the rest make it possible for the PTB to take the masses to the cleaners financially, and slowly take away all of their freedoms.

      They will not care about real solutions until there is an awakening of the masses, to the fraud that is being perpetrated upon them.

      1. west40 profile image59
        west40posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        well said jerryl!