Jump to content

Where's the outrage?


TypeO

Recommended Posts

Pretty funny to see Ann Coulter owning James Carville on Good Morning America this morning.

In typical "stick-to-the-playbook" fashion, Carville couldn't break away from his scripted comments that those who were speaking up at the Town Hall meetings were simply conservatives and Republicans frustrated that their party has lost ground. Even after Chris Cuomo re-emphasized that he wanted the pair to discuss the actual issues that were being raised by the attendees, as Coulter did, he just got his usual pinched-face-of-agitation and went off on a tangent. He's not used to any hiccups from the media, and I'm sure Chris Cuomo was suitably dressed-down afterwards.

james-carville.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I only blame the public for being too lazy to do more research.

Chalking it up to "money talks" doesn't quite get to the real problem.

The problem is they've chosen a particular side of the "political coin" and skew everything accordingly. It's just a short step from full propaganda and controlled information.

That's why I'm so surprised that many liberals aren't more concerned.

It's hard to believe they'd be so shallow as to only oppose coercion and indoctrination if it was ideologies they disagreed with.

Well, maybe that's the trouble, what is true anymore? I mean news is a thing of the past, what people are into now is 'infotainment'.

Most liberals aren't complaining because they're getting their beef cooked how they want it. And I think that's all we see these days is the tug-o-war between this ideological divide. For me, I'm neither a conservative nor a liberal, mostly because I don't have any moral idealism, well not much anyway. A liberal friend of mine (who really is what I call a professional protester) was trying to get money out of me to 'fix' the indigenous health problem, and my remark was "successive governments have been throwing money at that for years, so obviously money isn't the answer". She was stunned at that comment, then felt the need to call me a bigoted racist, lol, but there you go that's part of the ideological battle, if you're not with us, you're against us, who's side are you on etc?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a so-called liberal (I'm actually not, but the Right hasn't acknowledged being 'moderate' for quite some time), I'm still trying to figure out what I'm supposed to be outraged at. Is it the outrage over Republicans planting people at health care meetings in order to disrupt them ? Or is it the Obama pr campaign to reform health care ? Seems to me only one of those two items is a covert effort, and only one is attempting to preserve the status quo.

Had to love the 80 year old lady who looked like Wendy's Clara Peller. As she's pushing everyone out of the way at the meeting, she shouts out, "We don't want national health care, and leave my medicare alone !" :D

Wasn't I supposed to be outraged at the "cash for clunkers" program also ? Oh that was such an evil success. Thanks America....we appreciated it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a so-called liberal (I'm actually not, but the Right hasn't acknowledged being 'moderate' for quite some time), I'm still trying to figure out what I'm supposed to be outraged at. Is it the outrage over Republicans planting people at health care meetings in order to disrupt them ? Or is it the Obama pr campaign to reform health care ? Seems to me only one of those two items is a covert effort, and only one is attempting to preserve the status quo.

Had to love the 80 year old lady who looked like Wendy's Clara Peller. As she's pushing everyone out of the way at the meeting, she shouts out, "We don't want national health care, and leave my medicare alone !" :D

Wasn't I supposed to be outraged at the "cash for clunkers" program also ? Oh that was such an evil success. Thanks America....we appreciated it.

Conservatives showing up and speaking out (with that right to free speech that Democrats and Liberals so fervently embraced when calling Bush a nazi and whatnot) to voice their disagreement with an agenda that will have very direct and severe consequences on them personally are simply "planted" by the Republican party in your eyes. I guess with all the protests organized by MoveOn.org, CodePink, ActUp, etc., it's natural for liberals to expect the same from those who don't agree with them.

As for "Where's the outrage?", I have to assume you're being disingenuous since I know from experience you aren't dumb.

To recap:

Where is the outrage that the media completely ignores documentable lies uttered by the President? They certainly never missed a chance to call out Bush.

Where is the outrage that this administration is initiating various policies and procedures that have more direct effect on everyday citizens than any of the Patriot Act provisions, i.e., data collection on citizens who speak out or oppose Obama's healthcare agenda; requiring access to computers of automobile dealerships who participate in "Cash for Clunkers".

Where is the outrage that our news media has become a thin veneer of supposed objectivity barely hiding what has become a practically state-run propaganda machine?

So again I ask, are liberals so shallow as to only care about these issues when they are used AGAINST them? But it's OK if you happen to agree with the ideologies?

Do liberals actually adhere to principles, or just simply ideologies?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Conservatives showing up and speaking out (with that right to free speech that Democrats and Liberals so fervently embraced when calling Bush a nazi and whatnot) to voice their disagreement with an agenda that will have very direct and severe consequences on them personally are simply "planted" by the Republican party in your eyes. I guess with all the protests organized by MoveOn.org, CodePink, ActUp, etc., it's natural for liberals to expect the same from those who don't agree with them.

Well it's either that or they're just dumb-asses.

As for "Where's the outrage?", I have to assume you're being disingenuous since I know from experience you aren't dumb.

Opinions vary on that one.

To recap:

Where is the outrage that the media completely ignores documentable lies uttered by the President? They certainly never missed a chance to call out Bush.

Where is the outrage that this administration is initiating various policies and procedures that have more direct effect on everyday citizens than any of the Patriot Act provisions, i.e., data collection on citizens who speak out or oppose Obama's healthcare agenda; requiring access to computers of automobile dealerships who participate in "Cash for Clunkers".

Where is the outrage that our news media has become a thin veneer of supposed objectivity barely hiding what has become a practically state-run propaganda machine?

So again I ask, are liberals so shallow as to only care about these issues when they are used AGAINST them? But it's OK if you happen to agree with the ideologies?

Do liberals actually adhere to principles, or just simply ideologies?

It seems you want me to be up in arms like your side is over government intervention. I consider it progress that we are even able to have this debate over health care. It was only seven months ago that our entire financial system was on the brink of failure. That failure occurred because of a lack of Gov't regulation and oversight of the banking system, and anyone telling you different is lying thru their teeth. Tough times call for tough decisions. Mistakes will be made, and the President's critics certainly have a right and a duty to analyze/criticize when necessary. It seems to me that the Republican mantra concerning health care reform is "it ain't broke, so don't fix it". I interpet this to mean, "I have mine...so f*ck them".

Now let's look at some facts concerning your complaint.....

"There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov"

Do you interpet this as spying and ratting on your neighbor ? Do you think the gov't is creating a data base of dissenters ? I'm sorry, but that's hilarious !

Who is it telling these irate senior citizens that they are going to be euthanized ? Who is telling them they are going to be losing their medicare ? What group is bussing these people to these events ? Who is comparing health care reform to Nazis and the holocaust ? (what an embarrassment !) Who is sponsoring this insanity ? WHO ? Could yet another dumb-ass Republican Senator from South Carolina be involved ? Jeez...What are the odds ?

I find the whole earmark discussion to be useless. As far as I can tell, an earmark is defined as any cost going to any congressional district but your own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends on how you feel about government funds (taxpayer's dollars) being used to destroy serviceable automobiles for the sake of compelling people to purchase green

cars. This is nothing more than social conditioning and it seems to be working like a

fucking charm.

Yep....Kind of like when the gov't decided to mandate flouride in your toothpaste. Smile Steve ! :D

The average exchange increase was over 10 mpg, and more than half of those sales were for foreign vehicles. It also greatly reduced inventories, which means people from all the auto companies and their suppliers will be put back to work sooner. It wasn't a perfect program, but it still worked out much better than the opposition insisted it would. The "cash for clunkers" bill was basically sponsored by Michigan people and a few others, so I guess we can label that an earmark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep....Kind of like when the gov't decided to mandate flouride in your toothpaste. Smile Steve ! :D

The average exchange increase was over 10 mpg, and more than half of those sales were for foreign vehicles. It also greatly reduced inventories, which means people from all the auto companies and their suppliers will be put back to work sooner. It wasn't a perfect program, but it still worked out much better than the opposition insisted it would. The "cash for clunkers" bill was basically sponsored by Michigan people and a few others, so I guess we can label that an earmark.

Destroying viable assets?

Now, there's a smart, financially-sound business model.

Kinda like those labor jobs in the "stimulus" bill that worked out to six-figures to "create".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's funny to me. Bush haters were "concerned citizens". Obama dissenters are "anti-American loons". I'm just an observer, I rarely speak out. But let me make an observation. Liberals can voice their opinions anywhere and in any way they please in a free society. Conservatives doing the same are thugs trying to hinder the government from saving the world. The hypocrisy is staggering. I'm glad I'm not altogether on either side. I just watch and shake my head. It's all Fox News' fault. Yeah right. As if the majority of the American public can't think for themselves and draw their own conclusions. And I suppose this point of view indicates I'm a mindless follower of Glenn Beck. Um, no. I just remember all those "Impeach Bush" stickers. God forbid someone voice dissent about Lord Obama. It's the gagging of the right by the left that has me outraged. Send the fucking emails to the White House? Holy Jesus on a moped! :slapface:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's funny to me. Bush haters were "concerned citizens". Obama dissenters are "anti-American loons". I'm just an observer, I rarely speak out. But let me make an observation. Liberals can voice their opinions anywhere and in any way they please in a free society. Conservatives doing the same are thugs trying to hinder the government from saving the world. The hypocrisy is staggering. I'm glad I'm not altogether on either side. I just watch and shake my head. It's all Fox News' fault. Yeah right. As if the majority of the American public can't think for themselves and draw their own conclusions. And I suppose this point of view indicates I'm a mindless follower of Glenn Beck. Um, no. I just remember all those "Impeach Bush" stickers. God forbid someone voice dissent about Lord Obama. It's the gagging of the right by the left that has me outraged. Send the fucking emails to the White House? Holy Jesus on a moped! :slapface:

:goodpost:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There should not be any National Health Care Coverage Plan.

Here's little Something for the healthcare debate ( from an English man who can't get his head around why so many Americans seem to be so against having a healthcare system similar to what we have here in the UK) that i found i found that might interest for our American cousins ..................Take it as you will.......

The American right is correct. It is socialist. Nothing could be more socialist. It suits Marx's moral maxim perfectly: from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. In this case, the ability is the ability to pay, and the need is the need of care. It is not, in actual fact, the state or the government which is responsible for the NHS. It is us. We pay for it. We use it. The state is merely a prism through which the money and the care must pass. The NHS is us taking care of each other.

We live in a mixed economy. We aim to have enough free market to control the state, and provide the things we want. But we also need enough socialism to ensure we do not live like savages, the weakest amongst us starving to death on the street while a rich woman buys a Gucci handbag. Socialism without capitalism turns to tyranny. Capitalism without socialism turns to barbarism.

The sooner Americans realise the truth of a mixed economy, the better their world will become. In the meantime, their right-wing pundits should learn from the NHS, not mock it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Socialism without capitalism turns to tyranny. Capitalism without socialism turns to barbarism.

This is very good.

I think it speaks to the heart of the matter.

Those who oppose Obamacare feel it's tipping the balance too far towards socialism and the resultant tyranny.

The U.S. is not without its "socialist" programs, so it's not like we're barreling towards barbarism.

Also, the fact that this is the latest step in this administration's "government takeover/control" in just 8 short months. It smacks of a power-grab to change the very core of what this nation stands for, and that's really why people are so upset.

The "47 million uninsured" (roughly 15% of the population - since when does 15% constitute a "crisis"?) includes young, healthy working adults who choose not to be insured as they are of an age where they face few medical problems. I certainly did so when I was in my 20s. It also includes "undocumented"/illegal aliens.

It's actually under 10% of American citizens who actually cannot get/afford healthcare, and that can be addressed, but forcing the other 90% to change is not the way to go about it.

And Obama has already demonstrated a willingness to say whatever is necessary to achieve his goals, like any other politician. He's already on record as intending to have single-payer eventually, so all his talk of public option and keeping your own insurance is just smokescreen. Once it's approved, they can do whatever they want and he knows that. People are already reading the 1200 pages and finding exactly that, too - elimination of the public option.

So the glow is gone, we understand he's not "the chosen one", some rare new breed of politician who speaks the truth and has our best interests at heart. He has the best interests of his party, his financial supporters, and his vision of how he'll be viewed in history (less than 3 months into his term his administration was making comments and references to his "legacy" - wtf? Get something DONE first!) all coming ahead of what's truly best for this country.

"Cash for Clunkers" has had one of the most immediate effects on the economy of ANY of Obama's "stimulus" projects.

And what is "Cash for Clunkers" other than a variation of a tax cut?

They're using tax dollars to incentive-ize purchasing.

Tax cuts are PROVEN to work the fastest to stimulate the economy, and that's what the Republicans pushed for over and over.

But Obama ignored and shut out the Republicans because he wanted to pander to his interests.

And it wasn't until he managed to dress up this basic Republican concept to resemble something he thought up on his own that there has been any measurable results in the economy.

So instead of admitting the Republican idea was the best solution and employing it, he wasted time and spread untold billions around to his pet projects, while the economy continued to crumble before he finally relented and initiated "Cash for Clunkers."

If it worked that well for cars, imagine how the economy would take off if we just had some of that money given directly to us to purchase whatever we need, instead of just what the government wants us to purchase.

Oh, but the government took over control of the auto industry, so they want us to spend that money THERE before anywhere else.

Anyone see a pattern yet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is very good.

I think it speaks to the heart of the matter.

Those who oppose Obamacare feel it's tipping the balance too far towards socialism and the resultant tyranny.

The U.S. is not without its "socialist" programs, so it's not like we're barreling towards barbarism.

Also, the fact that this is the latest step in this administration's "government takeover/control" in just 8 short months. It smacks of a power-grab to change the very core of what this nation stands for, and that's really why people are so upset.

The "47 million uninsured" (roughly 15% of the population - since when does 15% constitute a "crisis"?) includes young, healthy working adults who choose not to be insured as they are of an age where they face few medical problems. I certainly did so when I was in my 20s. It also includes "undocumented"/illegal aliens.

It's actually under 10% of American citizens who actually cannot get/afford healthcare, and that can be addressed, but forcing the other 90% to change is not the way to go about it.

And Obama has already demonstrated a willingness to say whatever is necessary to achieve his goals, like any other politician. He's already on record as intending to have single-payer eventually, so all his talk of public option and keeping your own insurance is just smokescreen. Once it's approved, they can do whatever they want and he knows that. People are already reading the 1200 pages and finding exactly that, too - elimination of the public option.

So the glow is gone, we understand he's not "the chosen one", some rare new breed of politician who speaks the truth and has our best interests at heart. He has the best interests of his party, his financial supporters, and his vision of how he'll be viewed in history (less than 3 months into his term his administration was making comments and references to his "legacy" - wtf? Get something DONE first!) all coming ahead of what's truly best for this country.

"Cash for Clunkers" has had one of the most immediate effects on the economy of ANY of Obama's "stimulus" projects.

And what is "Cash for Clunkers" other than a variation of a tax cut?

They're using tax dollars to incentive-ize purchasing.

Tax cuts are PROVEN to work the fastest to stimulate the economy, and that's what the Republicans pushed for over and over.

But Obama ignored and shut out the Republicans because he wanted to pander to his interests.

And it wasn't until he managed to dress up this basic Republican concept to resemble something he thought up on his own that there has been any measurable results in the economy.

So instead of admitting the Republican idea was the best solution and employing it, he wasted time and spread untold billions around to his pet projects, while the economy continued to crumble before he finally relented and initiated "Cash for Clunkers."

If it worked that well for cars, imagine how the economy would take off if we just had some of that money given directly to us to purchase whatever we need, instead of just what the government wants us to purchase.

Oh, but the government took over control of the auto industry, so they want us to spend that money THERE before anywhere else.

Anyone see a pattern yet?

to the bolded part, even if someone is insured they can still get fucked with insane billing and co-pays. People shouldn't have to go bankrupt while going through expensive treatments like chemotherapy and surgeries.

My sister is a nurse tech and sees people getting kicked out of the hospital all of the time. 47 million might not seem like much to you, but it's too many. Healthcare should be a right, like education. Not a commodity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is very good.

I think it speaks to the heart of the matter.

Those who oppose Obamacare feel it's tipping the balance too far towards socialism and the resultant tyranny.

The U.S. is not without its "socialist" programs, so it's not like we're barreling towards barbarism.

Also, the fact that this is the latest step in this administration's "government takeover/control" in just 8 short months. It smacks of a power-grab to change the very core of what this nation stands for, and that's really why people are so upset.

The "47 million uninsured" (roughly 15% of the population - since when does 15% constitute a "crisis"?) includes young, healthy working adults who choose not to be insured as they are of an age where they face few medical problems. I certainly did so when I was in my 20s. It also includes "undocumented"/illegal aliens.

It's actually under 10% of American citizens who actually cannot get/afford healthcare, and that can be addressed, but forcing the other 90% to change is not the way to go about it.

And Obama has already demonstrated a willingness to say whatever is necessary to achieve his goals, like any other politician. He's already on record as intending to have single-payer eventually, so all his talk of public option and keeping your own insurance is just smokescreen. Once it's approved, they can do whatever they want and he knows that. People are already reading the 1200 pages and finding exactly that, too - elimination of the public option.

So the glow is gone, we understand he's not "the chosen one", some rare new breed of politician who speaks the truth and has our best interests at heart. He has the best interests of his party, his financial supporters, and his vision of how he'll be viewed in history (less than 3 months into his term his administration was making comments and references to his "legacy" - wtf? Get something DONE first!) all coming ahead of what's truly best for this country.

"Cash for Clunkers" has had one of the most immediate effects on the economy of ANY of Obama's "stimulus" projects.

And what is "Cash for Clunkers" other than a variation of a tax cut?

They're using tax dollars to incentive-ize purchasing.

Tax cuts are PROVEN to work the fastest to stimulate the economy, and that's what the Republicans pushed for over and over.

But Obama ignored and shut out the Republicans because he wanted to pander to his interests.

And it wasn't until he managed to dress up this basic Republican concept to resemble something he thought up on his own that there has been any measurable results in the economy.

So instead of admitting the Republican idea was the best solution and employing it, he wasted time and spread untold billions around to his pet projects, while the economy continued to crumble before he finally relented and initiated "Cash for Clunkers."

If it worked that well for cars, imagine how the economy would take off if we just had some of that money given directly to us to purchase whatever we need, instead of just what the government wants us to purchase.

Oh, but the government took over control of the auto industry, so they want us to spend that money THERE before anywhere else.

Anyone see a pattern yet?

Thanks for making things a little clearer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

to the bolded part, even if someone is insured they can still get fucked with insane billing and co-pays. People shouldn't have to go bankrupt while going through expensive treatments like chemotherapy and surgeries.

My sister is a nurse tech and sees people getting kicked out of the hospital all of the time. 47 million might not seem like much to you, but it's too many. Healthcare should be a right, like education. Not a commodity.

2 words – Tort reform.

Sensible legislation would dramatically reduce the total costs of healthcare as doctors could order/perform ONLY treatments they saw as necessary.

Just 3 months ago, my wife was hospitalized with pericardial inflammation, and the doctor explained the test they had just done and had to wait for results from wouldn't reveal anything but was mandatory before he could order another test that she actually needed. But if he didn't order the first test, if he were sued and he hadn't ordered the first test, he'd be held liable.

This is just a simple example of the vast web of precautionary measures doctors must utilize to ensure they aren't sued into the stone age if things don't go absolutely perfect.

But the Obama administration is employing their recurring strategy of demonizing and vilifying doctors as evil greedy bastards that will cut your leg off for a few extra bucks.

Before that it was the evil auto execs.

And before that the evil bankers.

Again, anyone beginning to see a pattern?

Also freeing up insurance for MORE competition.

Why can't you get insurance from outside of your state?

Control and restriction of competition leads to stagnation and bloating of prices.

Free competition fuels efficiency and reduces costs.

These are basic economic principles.

It's the government's involvement that's the current problem, increasing that involvement is not the solution.

Unless you believe Vice President Biden's economic theory of spending more to avoid going bankrupt. :slapface:

One of the most elementary lessons of economics is that you can't borrow your way out of debt.

Seems this administration somehow missed that one.

Healthcare should be a right, like education.

Then propose an amendment to the Bill of Rights and let the American people vote on it.

If enough people agree, it will be.

I just don't think all that many people actually feel that way, contrary to what the Democrats would have us believe.

Funny Robert Gates said polls reflecting people's opinion on Obama's healthcare plan are tanking don't reflect the majority of Americans. :blink:

Since when does this administration dismiss poll results, this administration who has lived and breathed poll results?

Oh, when those poll results don't favor them, that's when.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

to the bolded part, even if someone is insured they can still get fucked with insane billing and co-pays. People shouldn't have to go bankrupt while going through expensive treatments like chemotherapy and surgeries.

My sister is a nurse tech and sees people getting kicked out of the hospital all of the time. 47 million might not seem like much to you, but it's too many. Healthcare should be a right, like education. Not a commodity.

Here's a few examples of what it's like here in the UK (England)

You break an arm or a leg etc it's fixed for free.

Need a new kidney a heart or a liver, you can get one for free....You will have to wait for one to become available though.

Get cancer..need chemotherapy...well thats free too...Some drugs may have to be paid for just like prescrption items (for anything) which most of the time which have to be paid for.........Insulin for diabetics for example is free.

Minor surgery..(like a vasectomy or certain cosmetic surgery procedures) free as well but with a waiting time.

They are few examples of what it's like under the UK "healthcare" system.

Funding for all this "free" stuff comes from those that work making National Insurance contributions ..Mine is about £35 aweek which is roughly 50 US dollars.

But if you have the money you have the option go to a private non NHS hospital/doctor for all your needs, sort of like the current US system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

to the bolded part, even if someone is insured they can still get fucked with insane billing and co-pays. People shouldn't have to go bankrupt while going through expensive treatments like chemotherapy and surgeries.

My sister is a nurse tech and sees people getting kicked out of the hospital all of the time. 47 million might not seem like much to you, but it's too many. Healthcare should be a right, like education. Not a commodity.

I saw on the t.v the amount of Americans who slagged off our healthcare, saying that we're 'evil' and like 'Russia'. Where is the 'evil' in getting free and fast (yes - believe it or not - we don't wait for 'six' weeks) healthcare? Sheer ignorance on their part.

I'm so fucking proud of the NHS. If I'm ill, I get healthcare. I don't have to worry about how I'll pay. I don't get turned away because I'm not covered. I get treatment. I don't have to pay for the treatment (the medicine, I do). I've been treated on the NHS, my immediate and extended family have, also. And we're all still here, and we've all recovered. My two cousins are both recovering from breast cancer and have had excellent treatment. Before my uncle passed away from lung cancer, he also had the very best treatment given to him. You can choose the option to go private, but some can't. For those, it's a god send. For anyone who gets on their high horse, saying it's socialist - fine. Obviously, beggers can be chooses. 45 million don't have insurance in the U.S? I find that incomprehensible that you can allow your people to have to scrimp and save to get better. Price should never be put on health.

You may not like having to paying for universal healthcare, but I'm willing to bet that if you didn't work, it suddenly wouldn't seem like such a bad idea. Especially as so many of us are out of work. It's the one thing I am guaranteed to have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your post doesn't upset me at all Del, in fact, I agree with you! I think your response to the situation is hystericallly funny! Kudos! As in every walk of life there are 'fanatics'. Obviously the people that you are describing are fanatics...as is you :P

The bummer is, the fanatics always get all the press and then a whole group of people are defined by their fanatical behavior. It isn't fair to any of the groups of people involved. Just because you are on the left or the right side of 'the fence' doesn't mean you subscribe to the fanatical viewpoints. The middle of the road people (which I would think are the majority) get lost in the battle of the fanatics. That's why I'm with the others on this board that we really do need a strong 3rd party.

I've experienced the same thing. Last year I was asked to not park my truck on the company lot because my bumper stickers "might offend some our clients." I work in Hollywood at a post production facility, but never were any of the owners of "Impeach Bush" or "Bush Lied" slogans on other cars ever asked to tone it down.

So I would just get to work earlier and park my truck on the street RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE DRIVEWAY with all my political stickers clearly visible. And it's not like I had a whole bunch of stuff on the truck either. Just an NRA sticker, a 'YES on 8' (California's proposition to define marriage as one man and one woman) and a NASCAR sticker. Not exactly a foaming at the mouth conservatvie message --- and I didn't even have a McCain/Palin sticker despite the numerous Obama stickers on other employee's cars.

I was told that my sticker supporting traditional marriage might be creating a hostile work enviroment. WTF!!!! IS THIS NOT AMERICA!!! You can't campaign peacfully for your politics without being accused of hate mongering? Would they rather I just resort to armed resistance and not the ballot box? Because I could play it that way too I suppose.

So the last week before the elections last year I put a huge 'YES ON 8' sign on my truck. One like you would put in the front yard --- and I didn't give a shit what the liberal nutters thought. Cry me a river I told a couple of them.

No offense to any of my liberal friends here. But in my opinion I am convinced that liberalism is the result of an infantile personality disorder. How could anyone be so offended by the mere sighting of an opposing point of view, that they would require it to be removed from their sight? It's like a baby that doesn't want to see a scary movie poster because it gives them nightmares.

But wtf!!!! Much of the same mentality exists just about everywhere, even here. I'll probably get another warning for having an opinion that upsets people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The big problem with any form of government is the left over's from the guy who was in there before, and the new guy, who is now making all the changes to everything.

For instance, when we (USA) get a new leader they do every thing from redecorating the White House to changing the way the nation is run from the Oval Office!

I've heard it called "Baggage", but you can be sure that any leader will be trying hard to leave there mark on the world. That make's thing's pile up over the decade's and even century's! And that can also make thing's hard to get done with out some bump's in the road.

One word and two number's...... "Catch 22" B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw on the t.v the amount of Americans who slagged off our healthcare, saying that we're 'evil' and like 'Russia'. Where is the 'evil' in getting free and fast (yes - believe it or not - we don't wait for 'six' weeks) healthcare? Sheer ignorance on their part.

I'm so fucking proud of the NHS. If I'm ill, I get healthcare. I don't have to worry about how I'll pay. I don't get turned away because I'm not covered. I get treatment. I don't have to pay for the treatment (the medicine, I do). I've been treated on the NHS, my immediate and extended family have, also. And we're all still here, and we've all recovered. My two cousins are both recovering from breast cancer and have had excellent treatment. Before my uncle passed away from lung cancer, he also had the very best treatment given to him. You can choose the option to go private, but some can't. For those, it's a god send. For anyone who gets on their high horse, saying it's socialist - fine. Obviously, beggers can be chooses. 45 million don't have insurance in the U.S? I find that incomprehensible that you can allow your people to have to scrimp and save to get better. Price should never be put on health.

You may not like having to paying for universal healthcare, but I'm willing to bet that if you didn't work, it suddenly wouldn't seem like such a bad idea. Especially as so many of us are out of work. It's the one thing I am guaranteed to have.

I was listening to the BBC the other day and they had a woman on who was a dual citizen of the U.S. and the U.K. and had been in hospitals in both countries. In a nutshell, she said American healthcare was great when she had insurance, but she went extremely far into debt when she lost her insurance after the insurance company wouldn't pay for something. As far as the U.K. system goes, she said it wasn't as "nice" as the U.S. system and she felt less at ease in the hospital there, but she was treated and didn't have to go into the red to get that treatment.

I think people should have the option to participate in government health insurance or pay for private care.

It continues to amuse me how much U.S. citizens are scared of their own government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The big problem with any form of government is the left over's from the guy who was in there before, and the new guy, who is now making all the changes to everything.

I felt the same way when Clinton took over from Bush Sr. It's gonna take time. Again when George W took over from Clinton: Change will take time. Yet Obama already has a legacy? So far his only legacy is having written a shitload of checks. The rest is all dialog. It's going to be some time before we truly see what his legacy will be.

Meanwhile I'll spend the next 14 months much like I did the first two years of the last three presidencies. Watching and waiting while sifting the torrent of words and ideas.

and hoping we don't get fucked. :beer:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree Jarlaxle, people should be able to participate in both forms of health care. If you can afford private health care and choose to use that option then why shouldn't you be able to . It lessons the buren on the public system and allows those who can't afford the private option to move up on the waiting list for non emergency surgery's. I know it's quite controversial in Canada and the politics of it all have been debated for years but, the fact remains that waiting lists are a reality in this country and to me that is unacceptable. No health care system is of any use to anyone if you can't use it so clearly, a compromise is needed to get people treated properly and , quickly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Illegal immigrants are not covered by the proposed reformed healthcare.

False: Illegal Immigrants Will Be Covered

One Republican congressman issued a press release claiming that "5,600,000 Illegal Aliens May Be Covered Under Obamacare," and we've been peppered with queries about similar claims. They're not true. In fact, the House bill (the only bill to be formally introduced in its entirety) specifically says that no federal money would be spent on giving illegal immigrants health coverage:

H.R. 3200: Sec 246 — NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS

Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.

Also, under current law, those in the country illegal don't qualify for federal health programs. Of interest: About half of illegal immigrants have health insurance now, according to the nonpartisan Pew Hispanic Center, which says those who lack insurance do so principally because their employers don't offer it.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/211981/page/3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was listening to the BBC the other day and they had a woman on who was a dual citizen of the U.S. and the U.K. and had been in hospitals in both countries. In a nutshell, she said American healthcare was great when she had insurance, but she went extremely far into debt when she lost her insurance after the insurance company wouldn't pay for something. As far as the U.K. system goes, she said it wasn't as "nice" as the U.S. system and she felt less at ease in the hospital there, but she was treated and didn't have to go into the red to get that treatment.

I think people should have the option to participate in government health insurance or pay for private care.

It continues to amuse me how much U.S. citizens are scared of their own government.

Well, as it is, if you have a decent job you get health insurance. There's a couple of them out there, and having seen both sides of the coin - NHS and private cover - you know which'll be the better one. But, that's not the point. The point is we have the choice. If a member of my family falls ill, he/she can go with private cover, or they can go with the NHS. Ultimately, they'll still get what they need. True, some patients do have to wait on, say, certain lists, but it's not to the extreme that the U.S would believe.

It should also be noted that NHS hospitals are vastly larger than private hospitals. The major one in my town is the biggest in the country, and the largest teaching hospital in Europe.

And, it should also be noted, that private cover doesn't always mean that you'll be treated in a private hospital. My mother had a her hip operation in an NHS hospital, though it was covered privately. Ironically, the private hospital didn't have the equipment to operate on her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...