jump to last post 1-20 of 20 discussions (152 posts)

Please Explain Obama's Lies About Health Care Reform

  1. Jezzzz profile image49
    Jezzzzposted 8 years ago

    I hear every day about how Obama is not telling the truth about health care reform.  I would like to be educated about the subject.  What is he saying that just get under your skin about health care reform.  And if it get under your skin, how would he need to change to have you to approve?

    Express Yourself!!!

    1. Neil Sperling profile image83
      Neil Sperlingposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      By the way - In Canada every province is different. Example - in Alberta when I lived there I was billed over 600 dollars a year for my families Health Care "Insurance"...LOL --- In Ontario it is hidden in a Provincial sales tax everyone pays when they purchase goods at the till.

      Government takes in 100 bucks - wastes 75 and puts 25 towards some program to entice the voters to think all is great. Close to 65% of our health care dollars goes to Pharmaceutical companies, 25% goes to administration and only 10% makes it to he public..... and natural health remedies are taxed and laws make it hard for people to follow a "Natural Path" way for good health.  --- Do the math - who is getting rich off our Health Care in Canada - DRUG COMPANIES. -- and who owns the Pharmaceutical companies - - "The already rich" --- and who are the already rich? -- the ones who manipulate Government Bills by funding political parties!

      BULL!

      1. Misha profile image76
        Mishaposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        Democracy, Sir smile

        1. Neil Sperling profile image83
          Neil Sperlingposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          Yeah. Democracy!

          Ain't it just great.

          CRAP

    2. atomswifey profile image67
      atomswifeyposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Below is a model for oppression and how to get people to scream for it. I wrote a hub containing it. All I ask is that as you read substitute the word "token" in this for Obamas health care reform and you will see the problem it, along with other policies pose:

      1. Introduce oppression as a theoretical idea. Gauge the response.

      2. Make oppression optional. Depending on the opposition to the idea (you did remember to gauge the response to the theoretical idea, didn't you?), offer some worthless token that the masses believe has some great value and tell the masses that the oppression is the "trade-off" needed to obtain the token. Highlight the fact that it is still optional -- if they don't want the token, they don't have to accept the oppression. Some people will buy into it; others won't.

      3. Make oppression mandatory for some things. It is essential that you create the appearance that the masses have a choice. Only instead of pointing out that those who do not choose your oppression are missing out on exclusive benefits, paint the opposition as a deluded group of sadists who are "depriving themselves" of "basic rights" to your worthless tokens. This will win you converts, because no one wants to be seen as depriving himself of anything.

      4. Make oppression mandatory across the board. If you have followed the above steps, you can now claim that the oppression is the de facto standard that has not only been "accepted" but "endorsed" by the masses. Anyone who questions the oppression can be refuted with this claim, which will strengthen the masses' belief that the oppression is "right" and "good." At this point, you may withdraw the worthless tokens or advance your oppression, because the masses no longer have a choice -- they have already made it and must trust their own judgment.

      You can substitute the word token here for

      health care reform
      stimulous money (and yes I know Bush started it, doesn't mean Obama had to spend trillions more on it though!)
      "bail outs" banks, GM, Chrysler
      Even Obama himself! (go ahead try this one smile)

      Look at how much bigger the government is getting and we say, well thats ok because we NEED these tokens. And most people having voted for Obama and the dems in office cannot say anything negative about it all now because just like in the model above they have already made their choice and must now trust their own judgement.

    3. SparklingJewel profile image76
      SparklingJewelposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      If anyone has listened and read the many varied positions Obama has taken on any particular aspect of the issue, they will have heard him trying to please everyone... to the point of lying.

      If you define lying as using misleading half truths. big_smile

      like saying abortions will not be paid for by taxpayers...sure the word "abortion" was not used, but the words "reproductive health" were, implying abortion as a component thereof.

      1. profile image0
        Leta Sposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        Uh, no, Jewel.  I'm afraid the language has to be a little more concise than that....or there would be some people out of jobs and who paid too much for their education.

        And I would assume you want gynecological care and reproductive health care to be included in most plans...not just Viagra, etc., ie?

        1. SparklingJewel profile image76
          SparklingJewelposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          ...go read the legislation...yes, more concise wording is in order big_smile

    4. profile image45
      mpriesposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Read the house bill H.R.3200 Once you have read the bill you will be concernd. The bill says you will be taxed 399.95 dollars if you don't have coverage.  Your employer will be taxed for offering health care coverage to you. The cost of this plan is Est. at 9 trillion dollars. of our money through taxes.  A government agency will deturmen what kind of care you will get. do you want this.

      1. hglick profile image88
        hglickposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        This is a recent post by Dick Morris (who once worked for the Clinton Administration as an advisor to President Clinton)

        As any good Persian rug dealer knows, you have to hold back a bargaining chit so that you can whip it out at the very end to tie down the sale. That’s how Obama is playing the so-called public option in his health care program. His plan seems to be to combine its abandonment with some form of tort reform and try to buy off some Republicans - maybe only Maine’s Olympia Snowe - to give moderate Democrats enough confidence in the veneer of bi-partisanship to win their backing for his bill.

        But it’s a fraud and a trick.

        Here’s why:


        (a) Whether or not there is a public option makes no difference in the fundamental objection most elderly have to the bill - that it guts Medicare and Medicaid. All of the bills now under consideration cut these two programs by one half of a trillion dollars. And all of them require the medical community to serve thirty to fifty million new patients without any concomitant growth in the number of doctors or nurses. These cuts and shortages will lead to draconian rationing of medical care for the elderly, whether under a public option or not.

        (b) The most likely proposal is to replace the public option with some form of buyer’s co-op. But since there is no currently existing co-op to serve as a vehicle for health insurance, it would have to be formed. By who? The government, of course. That would mean, as a practical matter, that the “co-op option” would be a government run plan for several years. In fact, they may not get around to setting up a co-op at all.

        (c) The other alternative, mentioned by Senator Snowe herself, would be for a “trigger” mechanism. This provision would require the creation of a public alternative to private insurance plans if, after a specified period of time, they did not lower rates to a pre-determined level. Given the escalation of health care costs, it is almost inevitable that this provision would lead to a government plan. And, anyway, who says that the government insurance option would be more successful in reducing costs?

        But Obama has to at least appear to be willing to compromise, so he has invented the idea of re-packaging the public option in order to seem to be flexible.

        The key, here, is not to be distracted by the debate over the public option. It matters very much to private insurance companies whether the government becomes their competitor, but, for the elderly (and the near-elderly), the key concern is not the public option by the rationing and cuts projected under the program.

        In the Clinton Administration, we worked hard to kill the proposed Medicare cuts and are no less committed to stopping them in the Obama presidency. That they were once proposed by the right and are now being pushed by the left makes no difference. A cut is a cut is a cut. And Medicare should not be cut.

        1. ledefensetech profile image73
          ledefensetechposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          That's a first rate analysis of the problems with any sort of healthcare "reform" to come out of Washington.  Have you ever asked yourself why there always seems to be rationing when you talk about "reform" of healthcare?

          Honestly, if you don't ration, where is all the money going to come from.  You know you're going to lose quite a bit of tax money to cover overhead from bureaucracy.  There's just no getting around that.  How do you control costs in that sort of an environment. 

          What's happened now is that most people see "FREE", but they don't realize that nothing is truly free.  We all pay for it in one manner or another.  There are some better ways to pay for things than others.  I'm not sure that paying for the inflated costs of healthcare is the best way to go about it.

          Why do you think that healthcare costs are spiraling out of control?

  2. gandalfthegrey profile image61
    gandalfthegreyposted 8 years ago

    The United States is the only advanced nation on Earth with no Universal Health Care coverage for all it's citizens. Most others in Europe, Canada have had it for many decades. All people are covered for any injury, disease, etc.
    It is a major trade advantage! Businesses love it because they have a cost advantage, not having to provide coverage as a cost to the business.
    The time has come.

    1. profile image0
      Madame Xposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      I think you should look into your Palantia again Gandalf . . .

    2. nicomp profile image69
      nicompposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Maybe in your world. Everything costs and health coverage costs big time. It's not a major trade advantage; no one buys products based on whether their vendor provides health insurance.

      And it's not universal in Canada or Britain. Both countries have private carriers that sell additional coverage to people who can afford it.

      1. Pr0metheus profile image61
        Pr0metheusposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        Yes, but the people who can't still get some coverage (hence the term universal).  It is a huge advantage for the countries because healthy workers make better workers.  I've said it before and I'll say it again.  If you don't want all americans to be as healthy, and hard working as possible, then you are not a patriot - and you don't really support the country.

        1. nicomp profile image69
          nicompposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          Well done; play the patriot card.

          I want all americans to have transportation, housing, and clothing as well. I am more patriotic than you. Let's confiscate more money from hard-working americans and give it to anyone who wants a free house.

          Was George Washington patriotic? He understood the tyranny of a centralized government with no spending limits. Do you?

          Please show me the constitutional basis for the federal government getting involved in health care. That'd be patriotic of you.

          1. Pr0metheus profile image61
            Pr0metheusposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            Yup,  I played it.  You played it when democrats protested an unjustified war.  I dont see how universal health care = tyranny.  Its not about the constitution, a document that was written over 200 years ago.  It's about ending the tyranny of private insurance.  It's about having happy, healthy, workers so the US doesn't fall behind on the world's stage.   It's about caring for your fellow americans ( which, as a right winger, I'm sur you know little about).  Times change, and so must laws and governments, lest they perish.  Tax the top 1% more money.  They don't need it, while the lower class does.  We've expanded the economic pie enough for now.  It's time to say no to selfish impulses and spread the wealth.
            Excuse typos this was writtwn from my iPhone.

            1. ledefensetech profile image73
              ledefensetechposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              So you're going to replace the tyranny of a corporation with the tyranny of a government, not very smart.

              1. Pr0metheus profile image61
                Pr0metheusposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                hell yes!  At least the public has some sway over government.   I agree, insurance companies need to go, or at least be limited.   What do u propose we fix?   As for the jonestown brew comment,  go f^ck yourself.  Obama is just a scapegoat for people like u.  Maybe u should lay off the cheney wine (there I go again using right wing tactics- I should be ashamed)

                1. ledefensetech profile image73
                  ledefensetechposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  Hahahahahhahahha.  How effective were people in stopping the Iraq war?  Anytime you get a politician in office, he or she claims a mandate and does whatever they want.  You really were born at last night weren't you?

                  1. Pr0metheus profile image61
                    Pr0metheusposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                    And you're sitting there quoting the constitution and other governmental documents to protest that argument?  At least they're trying to do something.  Great, we couldn't stop the Iraq war, because a corrupt executive branch was screwing our country up.  That sucks.  I'd rather have some control than none at all.

                    If you don't trust the government that much, then LEAVE.  Get out!  America doesn't want you.  No, I wasn't born last night, I was busy boning your mom (oh crap, right wing tactics again!  I'm so ashamed).

            2. nicomp profile image69
              nicompposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              You knew me back then?

              Take a visit to Mt. Vernon, then come see me about tyranny.

              I can't even respond to that, Mr. Patriot. I shudder to think about what you might do with an American Flag.

              Capitalism is tyranny? I don't like where this is heading. You seem to have a very low opinion of your fellow americans who work for the insurance companies.

              If you need the government to make you happy, I am saddened for you.

              I haven't disclosed my politics, but I am all in favor of caring for those who can't care for themselves. Beyond that, the government has no business with insurance or health care.

              Situational ethics, the last refuge of a progressive/liberal/democrat.

              50% of your fellow americans don't pay income tax already. the top 1% provide you with jobs. Ever ask a poor person for a job?

              You wish the government to legislate altruism. Is there anything we can do for ourselves?


              No worries there.

              1. Pr0metheus profile image61
                Pr0metheusposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                I don't understand what me waving a flag has to do with amending the constitution.

                ... no real other arguments to respond to...

                The top 1% employing the rest of American's actually is a good argument, although I see flaws in it.  It is actually the companies owned by the top 1%, not the excess spending cash attained by the top 1%.

                1. nicomp profile image69
                  nicompposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  The top companies are publicly held. You are attacking those that you think you are helping.

                  1. Pr0metheus profile image61
                    Pr0metheusposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                    I'm not talking about the top companies, I'm talking about small businesses - and taxing the individual persons spending money, not the companies.  Unfortunately, that is a whole other argument.  Go watch fox news, I'm done with this thread.

                2. nicomp profile image69
                  nicompposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  You implied ignoring the constitution, not amending it. I am all for an amendment regarding free health care. You don't have seem to the stomach for our 200 year old political process.

                  By your logic the government can do anything because the Constitution is 200 years old. A terrifying thought.

                  fair enough. Your choice.


                  There's no such thing as excess spending cash. Any luxury car, yacht, or 50 room mansion was built by the same people you think you are looking out for. Even 'excess cash' sitting in the bank is loaned to the commoners for car loans and mortgages. Eat the Rich and the entire economy suffers.

                  1. Pr0metheus profile image61
                    Pr0metheusposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                    That's twisting the argument, I was saying that a 200 year old document can't hope to deal with all the problems we see today, that's why it needs to be amended from time to time.  Perhaps I should have clarified that.

                    Cash spent to make the rich richer is not considered excess spending money?

                    So, let's just leave the extremely rich where they are and let the poor and lower middle class suffer?  We're on our way to becoming China.

      2. egiv profile image69
        egivposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        I see we've got an economist over here. When companies pay health insurance, their product costs more to cover the added expense. Hence, it is more difficult to compete with companies that don't have this expense.

        1. nicomp profile image69
          nicompposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          Another issue the Democrats/progressives/liberals have obfuscated is the concept of health insurance versus health care. Health insurance, by definition, is limited. Any insurance policy, by definition,is limited. Auto, home, life, health; all of them are capped. No one buys an unlimited policy to insure anything.

          The government is proposing universal access to health care but they are disguising it as insurance. At the same time, Obama swears there will be no rationing, which means no caps or limits. That kind of system is obviously unsustainable. He's obviously lying.

          1. egiv profile image69
            egivposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            I fail to see your argument in the first paragraph, but I like how you group Democrats/Progressives/Liberals all together; obviously they all believe the same thing all the time. Whatever makes it easier for you...

            The government is proposing universal access to health care by ensuring that everybody receives insurance. What is being disguised? I think he was pretty clear in the speech the other day. You're obviously lying.

            1. nicomp profile image69
              nicompposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              Sorry if I offended you. I don't know what you all like to be called these days. Feel free to substitute whatever identifier you prefer. That's not really the issue here anyway.

              You don't seem to grasp my basic explanation of health insurance vs health care.

              Try this: go get your auto insurance policy. I'll wait......

              OK, now scan the declarations page and look for the word "Limit". You'll see it in several places. Your insurance policy is capped, and you agreed to it when you sent in your payment.

              Now, assuming you have health insurance, go get your policy. I'll wait.....

              OK, scan that document for the word "Limit". It will be harder to find than the auto policy, but I know you can do it.

              As you can plainly see, your policy has limits, caps, exclusions, and such. You can't have all the health care you want.

              That's the diff. Health insurance tops out. Health care does not.

              Easy as pie!

        2. Neil Sperling profile image83
          Neil Sperlingposted 8 years agoin reply to this
        3. Neil Sperling profile image83
          Neil Sperlingposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          Ooops - Either way it costs. When we look to government for solutions and point our finger at those in power to fix things - three fingers point back at ourselves. What that means as far a I can see - the Government takes in 100 busks - wastes $75 then packages their $25 hand out so we think it is free. Less government is what we need - not more!

          Take it from me - I'm Canadian and tax freedom day here in Canada is mid June. That means from Jan 1st to mid June we are working for the system and government being so good at handing out money to the already rich and the large companies is plain Bull!!! The rest of us hand out the 75 bucks and get only a 25 dollar advantage. -- remember - when we point our fingers at government for help - 3 fingers point back to us. We pay and pay and pay and pay!!!

          1. megs78 profile image60
            megs78posted 8 years agoin reply to this

            This argument doesn't hold water for me because there are numerous options for us canadians when we pay taxes to the government. Take for example, our maternity/paternity/sickness leave.  It is an amazing option that pays you a total of 52 weeks at 65 percent of your income for when you have babies so that we can stay home and parent our children and be paid for it.  If youve ever hurt yourself, sickness and injury is an even higher percentage.  and all eligible candidates have the option to be retrained and have it all paid, as well as getting a paycheck throughout.  How is this terrible? we pay alot of taxes but we have a good system because of it.  try telling that mother who has to return to work when her baby is just 6 weeks old because she has no more benefit money.  it is deplorable to treat the people who rear our future generation like that.

            1. ledefensetech profile image73
              ledefensetechposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              That's because the system works for you and not against you.  Where does the money come from to pay you for your time off?  Ever ask yourself what you give up when you let the government take your money?  There's a reason why Canadians and Europeans buy their drugs from American companies, not the other way around.  As messed up as our system is, we still reward risk taking so we get the benefits of advances in medicine that are impossible to get in socialist countries.

              Not to mention you're stealing from the future to pay for today.  It's deplorable to do that, too.

              1. megs78 profile image60
                megs78posted 8 years agoin reply to this

                may i remind you that advances in medicine happen in Canada as well.  Take for example the very new breakthroughs for MS.  Please don't say things just for the hell of it.  And the money comes off my paycheck.  I see it going, its sometimes frustrating to see it gone, but at the same time, I have a safety net.  Im paying into a fund that will protect me when and if i need it.  We pay taxes on food and goods too.  a lot of taxes.  I never denied that, but im ok with it little by little because I would never be able to afford the pricetag of chemo all in one shot.  and as far as im concerned, you have some facts backwards.  I know for a fact that alot of americans come here to buy their medication.  anything else?

                1. ledefensetech profile image73
                  ledefensetechposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  Sigh.  Most new techniques for medicine are either developed or fielded in the US for the first time.  Tell me, how long did Canada have to wait until they stated paying for MRI?  So I'm not really saying things for the hell of it.  Please pay attention.

                  Canada, like the US, uses a progressive tax system.  So the lower 20% of income pay far less than the upper 20% of income earners.  But it's not like everyone pays the same percentage, the rich pay more.  Which really isn't fair when you think about it.  Since the rich tend to invest their money and create new businesses and, you know, jobs, that's what you give up when you let the government take your money from you.  Some of those companies that would have been invested in would probably have provided healthcare for people.

                  Of course Americans go there to pay for drugs.  The cost of drugs in your country is subsidized by your government.  You're still paying, you just don't see it.

                  1. megs78 profile image60
                    megs78posted 8 years agoin reply to this

                    did i not just state that i see it coming off my paycheck and paying for it in grocery stores???  i know im paying.  but at least i AM paying.  your argument that the rich have to pay more because the poor cant afford it doesnt work here.  we ALL pay here and that maybe a hard pill to swallow for some, but to me its fair.

      3. megs78 profile image60
        megs78posted 8 years agoin reply to this

        I'm pretty sure 'Universal' means you can take it with you wherever you go (in canada, I mean).  If you have your health card, you're covered no matter what province you're visiting.  I think anyway.  And yes we have private options, but that is for things like dental, optometry and the like.

        1. nicomp profile image69
          nicompposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          Yes, I agree. The word Universal does imply 'portable', and I also think it also applies 'unlimited' when Obama presents his plan. If it's not unlimited, then it must be limited, which is the same as rationed. If it's unlimited, then it cannot be sustained.

      4. T_Augustus profile image59
        T_Augustusposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        I think the point was that if companies don't have to pay health insurance, their expenses are lower.  This allows them to price their products more competitively, OR utilize those excess resources/funds to improve their equipment and produce higher quality goods.  I think it's a cost efficient issue not a people issue (when talk about trade advantages).  Outside of your statement being out of place, you are 100% correct in saying that people don't know or even care about the health of the workers that manufacture the product.

        1. ledefensetech profile image73
          ledefensetechposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          Why should customers care about whether or not the employer offers healthcare to their employees?  Isn't that something to be discussed between the employer and employee?

          You've just as admitted that offering health insurance increases the costs of producing things.  Shouldn't an employer factor that in when making a decision as to offer health insurance?  After all offering that may give you a better quality workforce which will pay for itself.  How can any government bureaucracy have the knowledge to figure out what is right for all the myriad businesses in the US?

    3. Pr0metheus profile image61
      Pr0metheusposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  3. jiberish profile image71
    jiberishposted 8 years ago

    It will be great to cover all the un-insured in this country, and to make it mandatory to have health insurance.  The question is, if they can't afford it now, how will they afford it when it's mandatory??? and those who choose not to have it, will be fined $3800.... It's not going to be free...HUMmmmm

  4. bgpappa profile image83
    bgpappaposted 8 years ago

    Those who can't afford it will get a tax credit offsetting what they pay, at least that is what I heard today.  As for Universal Healthcare, Obama isn't talking about Universal Healthcare, a single payer option or anything of the sort.

    1. nicomp profile image69
      nicompposted 8 years agoin reply to this
    2. atomswifey profile image67
      atomswifeyposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Uhm, lol those who cannot afford it will get what? A tax credit?
      If one cannot afford it, how does one then pay anything for it? And if they do not pay, where does the credit come in at? Does not make sense

      1. nicomp profile image69
        nicompposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        It's single-payer and the Federal Government will become that single payer. No way around that. We've all posted the videos of Obama endorsing single-payer and promising to get there. The Libs/Dems/Progs ignore BHO's own words because they don't want
        to admit they've been duped.

        Stay on message, all you nasty capitalists. wink Don't get distracted by apologies, by beer parties at the White House, by ad hominem attacks. Keep spreading the facts.

  5. earnestshub profile image87
    earnestshubposted 8 years ago

    Those of us who have had free health care for decades already know how to do it with a mixture of insurance and a safety net.
    You can use the free system insured or not. smile

    1. profile image0
      Leta Sposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      THIS.

      Obviously.  smile  Thanks, Earnest.

      1. nicomp profile image69
        nicompposted 8 years agoin reply to this
        1. profile image0
          Leta Sposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          Last time I checked, Earnest was from Australia.  wink  Check yer references.

          1. nicomp profile image69
            nicompposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            Please do me a huge favor and stop responding to my posts. I'd very much appreciate it. You win.

            1. profile image0
              Leta Sposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              I'd point out, you responded to MY post...AGAIN.  I was referencing Earnest.

              And yes, of course, I know I win.  Obviously, if you cannot reference where a poster is from, you have serious issues understanding the scope of your references.  Which, incidentally, are almost all partisan rags.  Which are not impressive or conclusive...unless you are a hard core indoctrinated neocon.

              You understand the object of poetry, perhaps, a little?  Say a lot, but quite tersely?  Hence, Australia...  Do you have some studies on that country?  Hmmm?

              All you deal in is stereotypes, exaggerations and Limbaugh style 'cutsies.'  ....Yep, if you cannot take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

              1. nicomp profile image69
                nicompposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                You win. Please stop. Uncle. Pick on someone else. I'll find a Liberal/progressive/Democrat on this site who can elucidate concepts and exchange ideas on a different level than you. I won't tease you any more and in return you please stop responding to my posts.

                Everybody wins.

                1. profile image0
                  Leta Sposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  You mean, you will find somebody new and who has no idea how you really operate and continue to pick the wings off flies in an extremely stereotypical partisan manner so that you may continue to believe you actually make any sense whatsoever.

                  I took your temperature long ago.  I believe it was that abortion 'debate' where you said a pro-abortionist would have killed your somewhat preemie daughter in the delivery room.

                  Now that's debating with class!  wink  Surely one such as me could not elucidate your fallacies there.  lol

                  1. nicomp profile image69
                    nicompposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                    Uncle.

                2. profile image0
                  Leta Sposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  Oh, forgot to say, using y'all's own 'language,' poooooor whiny little neocon, OH MY!  sad

              2. tksensei profile image59
                tksenseiposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                Time to do the laundry?

                1. nicomp profile image69
                  nicompposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  Hallelujah. She can pick on you. I'm done with this battle. Hopefully a liberal/progressive/democrat will arise who is willing to exchange ideas on an adult level.

                  1. egiv profile image69
                    egivposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                    I've been making legitimate arguments all day, but it seems they are harder for you to respond to than personal attacks and name-calling you claim to hate so much.

  6. profile image67
    logic,commonsenseposted 8 years ago

    Obama does not believe he is lying.  He believes what his handlers are telling him.  As for himself, he really doesn't have a clue and doesn't really care.  He just wants to be popular and tell the rest of us how to run our lives.

  7. egiv profile image69
    egivposted 8 years ago

    He is not proposing free clinics that pump out morphine by the gallon and offer prescription medication in pez dispensers. People are keeping insurance, the new plan just makes it more affordable for those who can't afford it now. As long as insurance companies are still in business, your "caps" and "limits" are still included. It's just that now they can't be used as a reason to deny someone necessary health care.

  8. tksensei profile image59
    tksenseiposted 8 years ago

    That' laundry's not gonna wash itself you know!

  9. megs78 profile image60
    megs78posted 8 years ago

    To me, this is all very simple.  If you don't have your health, what do you have?  Nothing.  Thats what it boils down to.  How could the fact that the government want to provide healthcare to the uninsured be such a horrible thing?

    This reminds me of the greed that plagues humanity.  Money, money money...thats all it is about.  Deregulation is not always a good thing.  Just think back to the crash of september 2008!!!  YOu argue that the government should not have its hand in these issues, but you fail to see that because of that fact alone...because of the regulation of canadian banks, loans, and credit, we are not in the same terrible spot that Americans are in.  There are no mass exoduses of people leaving their homes for one simple reason... because they were not told they could afford something they could not.

    The way the american health care system is run is very similar to the way the banks there were run.  Greed took over and the bubble eventually popped.  You're heading there all over again with the health care system if reform is not taken seriously.

    1. profile image0
      Leta Sposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Amen.  And I dare say, our own capitalist Warren Buffet would agree with the general principles and common sense laid out here.

      1. Misha profile image76
        Mishaposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        Surely you definitely know what he would do. lol

        1. profile image0
          Leta Sposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          Buffet is from my home town, Misha.  Read my hub.  He is also a known Obama supporter.

          Point made.  No other inference suggested.

          1. Misha profile image76
            Mishaposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            So should I take it you are able to read the mind of every Obama supporter from your home town? wink

            1. profile image0
              Leta Sposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              Silly.  Though I also know you are trying to chat me up, only, wink.

              What I am saying is that Megs laid out the general principles I find very valid in Warren Buffet's approach to investing, economy and business.  It really is kind of common sense, but of course Buffet has taken it to an art form. 

              Same, incidentally, approach I plan to use with my Forex trading, smile.

      2. megs78 profile image60
        megs78posted 8 years agoin reply to this

        Thank you lita!  Common sense does seem to be lacking in this health care reform thing if you ask me.  But we shall see what the masses choose when it comes time...take care

  10. Misha profile image76
    Mishaposted 8 years ago

    Yet you said you can read his mind tongue

    but good luck with your forex, mind reading must be a valuable skill there lol

    1. profile image0
      Leta Sposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      No, I did not.  You waaaay extrapolate...but then again, I know that's about chatting me up, too, wink.  I said, essentially, I found the same common sense Warren Buffet displays in Meg's answer.

      And I study anything I approach, Misha.  Or I don't do it at all.  I'm not a gambler.

  11. Misha profile image76
    Mishaposted 8 years ago

    Misinterpretation on my side then tongue

    Not sure this is the common sense though, but time will tell smile

  12. megs78 profile image60
    megs78posted 8 years ago

    What did you misinterpret Misha?  and why do you think that this is not common sense?  or am I misinterpreting something here?  I feel kind of lost...

    1. Misha profile image76
      Mishaposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      it was not about you, it was about Lita being not too accurate in using her language, despite of MA in journalism.

      As for the common sense, I disagree with Obama's approach to health reform, but I said what I could on the matter countless times already, and grew tired of repeating my common sense over and over again. smile

      1. profile image0
        Leta Sposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        Uh, Misha...  I would not speak about inaccuracies in using language.  That's really, really funny to me, wink.  It's your READING.

        And for the record, I do not have an M.A. in journalism.  lol  Sizzle.  Check your references. wink

        1. Misha profile image76
          Mishaposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          Guess another misinterpretation on my side. You claimed so many degrees I got lost smile

          1. profile image0
            Leta Sposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            I never "claim" anything.  Nor do I lie.  You're silly...perhaps it is your own feelings and some of that airport philosophy RK was referencing on another thread, wink.

            Sorry for it...but what can I do?

            Gotta go get ready for a PR event.  I'm sure the trolls will be along calling out 'laundry' soon.  oh, well.

  13. RKHenry profile image80
    RKHenryposted 8 years ago

    I'm sure to catch hell from all the thumb suckers out there, but seriously how has Obama lied about health care reform?

    What is the one specific direct quote, word for word- LIE???, he has said?

    What was it?  Who is the source?  Who said he lied?

    Doctors?, Nurses?, Scrubs?, or just some RW hot head?  Where is the specific lie?

    1. ledefensetech profile image73
      ledefensetechposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      He said that illegal aliens would not be covered under universal healthcare.  Yet neither he nor the Democrats in Congress support an amendment to the bill explicitly stating that.  Without said amendment, the courts will amend the law to cover illegals.  That's why illegals are covered under many state programs today.  So the President lied when he said that illegals wouldn't be covered, because he knows what is going to happen after the law is passed and gets to the courts.

      This is just another massive attempt to buy off voters to support a particular political agenda.  Look at ACORN.  They're willing to support a prostitute who plans to bring kids over for the sex trade and sell their "services" to pedophiles, just to get another member so they can claim that they have a certain percentage of the population behind them. 

      And the President expects us to believe that he, personally, is going to get rid of waste, fraud and graft to pay for his universal healthcare vote buying scheme.  Please.  Paying for the cost of healthcare is not going to solve the problem.  If you want to make something more affordable, increase the supply of it.  It really is that simple.  To support anything else is to support those special interest groups which have a vested interest in keeping healthcare expensive, for their own selfish reasons.

      1. nicomp profile image69
        nicompposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        Allow the free market to increase the supply. The government can't increase the supply of anything without confiscating resources from somewhere else.

        1. ledefensetech profile image73
          ledefensetechposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          Sorry, what I should have said was repeal all laws that restrict the supply of doctors, medical schools, drugs etc.

      2. Pr0metheus profile image61
        Pr0metheusposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        LOL.  Thats already in the bill and the acorn comment is just stupid.   Keep listening to the insurance giants ...

        1. ledefensetech profile image73
          ledefensetechposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          Why don't you check out the hub I just published.  We need to get rid of insurance companies too.  But I'd expect those sorts of comments for someone who's had too much of Obama's Jonestown brew.

  14. Misha profile image76
    Mishaposted 8 years ago

    Good luck with your laundry, silly lol

  15. Misha profile image76
    Mishaposted 8 years ago

    Yeah Neil, it is sad

    Yet there is not much we can do to get rid of it, at least not within a single lifetime, so I guess we have to learn to live with that crap smile

  16. megs78 profile image60
    megs78posted 8 years ago

    No matter what non-canadians think of us, we are not the idiots that we have been portrayed as.

    http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ … 081109.php

    1. nicomp profile image69
      nicompposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Good Grief. No one implied you were idiots. Now you have an inkling of how we americans feel when the rest of the world is so quick to tell us how to run our socialized medicine, which you have just done in your posts. If your system works for you, great. Our constitution prohibits federal involvement in socialized health care. Period.

      1. megs78 profile image60
        megs78posted 8 years agoin reply to this

        Listen you were the one posting links to show how the canadian system fails, machinery is outdated, wait times, etc, etc,  I have only been trying to defend my country against your claims.

        1. ledefensetech profile image73
          ledefensetechposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          Can you prove those links are wrong?  If so, can I see the evidence?  Because if what you're saying is true, I have some studying to do.

          1. megs78 profile image60
            megs78posted 8 years agoin reply to this

            I have never claimed that there were no wait times in Canada.  There are, but what I did say, is that I take it as a sacrifice for those who need more urgent care.  When you need to be seen quickly, you are.  But if its non-urgent, you wait.  I don't dispute that fact, and the fact that its annoying.  so dont worry about researching that.  How it fails though?  you will have to do some digging on that claim because you will be hard pressed to find a majority who supports it.  And maybe our machinery is a little outdated, but if it works, why do i care?  But what i want to know, is what is the alternative?

            1. ledefensetech profile image73
              ledefensetechposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              That's great you've decided to do that.  You, don't, however, have the right to make that decision for other people.  At least as it concerns their money.

              I'm not saying our system is perfect either.  But when you really dig into the thing, here, you find that it's not the markets that have mucked things up, it's the government meddling in things that have.

              If you're interested I wrote a hub on why socialist healthcare systems cannot deliver the care a free healthcare system can.

  17. Elena. profile image89
    Elena.posted 8 years ago

    Yes, Texan, I was just going now. Not before blowing you a kiss, though.  So long!

    1. profile image0
      A Texanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      We could have had a demonstration against Maddof but we figured he got the idea he was wrong when he was sentenced to 150 YEARS IN PRISON!!!

  18. Colebabie profile image60
    Colebabieposted 8 years ago

    Didn't we already discuss this?

    1. profile image0
      Leta Sposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      If you are talking about reproductive care, Cole, I didn't see it.  But I'm sure you can explain it...if she comes back and is interested.

      1. Colebabie profile image60
        Colebabieposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/19358#post304324
        Yeah I already did. So I'm gonna go finish my lab report. Have a great day everyone! smile

  19. jiberish profile image71
    jiberishposted 8 years ago

    Lita Sorensen wrote:
    The problem with most of them is that they are living about one century behind everyone else.  Notice the present tense.

    And stupidity works because neocons do it, ie.

    oops! 





    "Neocons", now that's an interesting choice of name calling.

    1. profile image0
      A Texanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Ain't it though?

  20. profile image52
    khoustelloposted 8 years ago

    We here in the U.K.have the National Health Service which has been in operation since 1944.You Americans have been trying to set one up since Teddy Roosevelt was in power!Isnt it about time you people(as Mr Perot would have said) got your act together!

    1. profile image0
      A Texanposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      No, but thanks for your concern!

      By the way NHS did not start until 1948, in case you were interested.

 
working