MisterMcLov1n Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 Obama now seems unsure about health care reform. Strong on ideals, weak when it comes to execution. So much for assuring us a better future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 Very sad that I spent so many useless hours standing in line just to see their show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveAJones Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 Obama now seems unsure about health care reform. Strong on ideals, weak when it comes to execution. So much for assuring us a better future. He is experiencing what happens when naive idealism collides with reality. I hope he soaks it in and changes course quick because he's looking like the second coming of Jimmy Carter each passing day. Do yourself a huge favor and make your own future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 I intend to keep my standards higher than the ones that you would set for me, thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I have got a horsey Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 He is experiencing what happens when naive idealism collides with reality. I hope he soaks it in and changes course quick because he's looking like the second coming of Jimmy Carter each passing day. Do yourself a huge favor and make your own future. Well you never know, you might be lucky. This could just be the situation that helps get Sarah Palin elected in 2012... I mean it worked for Reagan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 I see no reason to settle for garbage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveAJones Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 Well you never know, you might be lucky. This could just be the situation that helps get Sarah Palin elected in 2012... I mean it worked for Reagan I cannot fathom a Palin Presidency as lucky under any circumstance. If she wasn't physically attractive no one would pay her any attention, and certainly not now that she has resigned. We could discuss Reagan, a formidable politician, all day long. My bottom line on him is he remains the last U.S. President that played the part well. Unfortunately, both parties have looooong since sold out to special interests so it really doesn't matter whom gets elected. The less government intrusion the better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveAJones Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 I intend to keep my standards higher than the ones that you would set for me, thank you. I see no reason to settle for garbage. Huh? Responding to any particular post(s) or have you gone stream of consciousness? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 As long as the economy does not grind to a complete halt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evster2012 Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 Some men are just plain distasteful. I don't know why she ever settled for him, when she could have done much, much better. Women should know that there are better options than guys like him. You are referring to Edith Bunker right? A fictional character from a 70s tv sitcom? Wow. Ask Norman Lear I guess. I doubt it will help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 She was an interesting character, an unfortunate woman trying so hard to understand someone like him. What was most intriguing about her was the way she managed to remain in a state of grace throughout, this ficitonal character. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evster2012 Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 Now Carol Brady. There's a spoiled woman. I feel sorry for Alice. Did she ever get a day off? I wonder if she had healthcare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickZepp Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 The US pays around 2.60 dollars per gallon of gas right now(that's around .70 cents per litre for those in countries that don't use gallons) Canada pays for around 3.70 per gallon of gas. Great Britain the average gas price I could find is equivalent to around 6.50 per gallon of gas France pays around 6.80 per gallon of gas Germany pays just over 7.00 per gallon of gas. Of course only US uses gallons the others use litres and their forms of currency but these are all the USA equivalents for gas. Paying for healthcare has to be paid for in other places and things like gas and groceries and overall tax is where the healthcare gets paid for. There's over 300 million people in America. Combine those 4 countries together and you don't have 300 million people in those countries combined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 Regular was $2.99 per gallon the last time I filled the tank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evster2012 Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 The US pays around 2.60 dollars per gallon of gas right now(that's around .70 cents per litre for those in countries that don't use gallons) Canada pays for around 3.70 per gallon of gas. Great Britain the average gas price I could find is equivalent to around 6.50 per gallon of gas France pays around 6.80 per gallon of gas Germany pays just over 7.00 per gallon of gas. Of course only US uses gallons the others use litres and their forms of currency but these are all the USA equivalents for gas. Paying for healthcare has to be paid for in other places and things like gas and groceries and overall tax is where the healthcare gets paid for. There's over 300 million people in America. Combine those 4 countries together and you don't have 300 million people in those countries combined. Also, few people in those countries have to drive so far from the urban sprawl to their jobs. People here drive upwards of 60 miles a day to work. If you were in France, that would be like working in Belgium. An exaggeration perhaps, but you get the point. Poor planning by our cities. Put the factories here, and build homes waaaaay over here. The irony is, it's the homeless that live in the business districts. The employed live out of town. How messed up is that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickZepp Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 Regular was $2.99 per gallon the last time I filled the tank. The American average is 2.62. Depends on where you are though. The cheapest places are around 2.40 a gallon the most expensive is around 3.00 The cheapest you can get for gas in Canada is around 3.40 per gallon(93 cents per liter) but you could be paying as much as 4 bucks a gallon. Europe you are paying the about 5-6 more dollars a gallon than in America. And I can't even find the tax on things like food and national tax in those countries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickZepp Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 Also, few people in those countries have to drive so far from the urban sprawl to their jobs. People here drive upwards of 60 miles a day to work. If you were in France, that would be like working in Belgium. An exaggeration perhaps, but you get the point. Poor planning by our cities. Put the factories here, and build homes waaaaay over here. The irony is, it's the homeless that live in the business districts. The employed live out of town. How messed up is that? People moving to the outer areas of cities is always about getting away from those people. In other words the poor minorities. But now more minorities are becoming rich. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 The homeless in the United States live in tent cities. Subprime -The 'new' homeless in the US 8000 Floridians ,Homeless in the Woods 2008 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evster2012 Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 People moving to the outer areas of cities is always about getting away from those people. In other words the poor minorities. But now more minorities are becoming rich. That is the case nowadays, true. But when they built the suburbs in Orange County, CA where I grew up, it was a matter of expansion, not escape. When my dad worked for TRW in Torrance in the late 60s, there weren't homes in the area. And a four-bedroom house in sunny Seal Beach for $30,000 was irresistable. And the distance from our nice apartment in L.A. to the job and the new house in Seal Beach was roughly equal. So we moved from our nice apartment in L.A. because mom was having my brother, and the homes up there, while still in very upscale neighborhoods were abundant, the idea of brand new, never before occupied home 4 miles from the beach was the ticket. So it was moving up, not out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evster2012 Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 The homeless in the United States live in tent cities. Mitch the cigarette guy lives on the roof of the 7-11. Craig the wino lives behind a dumpster in back of WalMart. Lucy, the woman who stands on the corner and yells at nobody sleeps at the bus stop. Alfredo sleeps in the restroom at the park. We have a massive homeless population in Las Vegas. They're everywhere. No tent city though. There's a nature preserve behind the Sam Boyd Silver Bowl. That would make an excellent site. Plenty of fresh water. Public toilets. Or to borrow from George Carlin, how about a couple of golf courses? We've got like 50. Surely one or two won't be missed. They water the grass every morning. Free showers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted August 18, 2009 Share Posted August 18, 2009 How very entrepreneurial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypeO Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 Everyone posting in this thread should read the following post very carefully, as it's one of the most informed and insightful responses in the entire thread. I work for a non-profit Blue Cross Blue Shield Plan. We are still the insurer of last resort in Pennsylvania. We can't turn anyone away because of pre-existing conditions and the state insurance department regulates the rates we can charge. This means that we have to offer benefit plans that are not medically underwritten(ie not based on a person's risk factors/medical condition). The other health insurers that operate in the state are permitted to use medical underwriting and therefore we get the sicker people and the others get the healthy people. As a result, our rates continue to increase (within the limits set by the state), and the other insurers get healthy people and the truly sick people who can't afford the premium go without. We do get a tax break for being non-profit. A simple solution that would go a long way towards insuring all Americans would to require all insurers to provide coverage for people with pre-existing conditions which would mean to get rid of medical underwriting. In order for that to work, there would have to be a law that all Americans have health insurance. You can not choose to go without. There are a lot of healthy young people that choose not to pay for health insurance. In order for the insurance rates to drop, there has to be a pool of healthy people subsidizing the sick people. It's no different than car insurance where good drivers with no claims subsidize the accident-prone. 2 points that cut straight to the heart of the matter: For everyone who keeps bemoaning all the poor unfortunate 47 million uninsured Americans... There are a lot of healthy young people that choose not to pay for health insurance. For everyone who "just can't understand" why people oppose this proposal... In order for the insurance rates to drop, there has to be a pool of healthy people subsidizing the sick people. It's no different than car insurance where good drivers with no claims subsidize the accident-prone. This is the "spread the wealth" aspect. They HAVE to squeeze the healthy to support the uninsured. So the notion that you'll be able to keep your own insurance is a fallacy. All they have to do is allow the choice at the onset (to justify their promises) in order to get it passed. Once it's passed, there's no going back, and then they'll be free to change it at will. And because the government doesn't have to operate at a profit, it will be more and more difficult for private insurers to meet the requirements for coverage until they are forced to shut down. So those who keep their insurance will be paying against their own money (insurance premiums vs. tax dollars) in a losing cause. And once everyone is brought in under the government program, then instead of paying higher premiums to a private insurance company because you're obese, or a smoker, they'll have to ADD TAXES to sugary foods, cigarettes (even more, if that seems possible), and anything else they deem unhealthy in order to sustain the system, so that EVERYONE, obese or not, has to pay more. So the system favors first - those who are uninsured, second - those who are sick/unhealthy, and favors least of all average, mostly-healthy Americans. And average, mostly-healthy Americans comprise the vast majority of our population. But it shouldn't come as a surprise that liberals want the majority of Americans to accept the demands of a minority of Americans, as that is the pattern they have established. Other than that 2000 election thing, when they screamed that the majority of the popular vote should matter. Does anyone else find it odd that the same people who so stridently support a woman's right to make her own decisions about her body, don't want to allow the rest of us the right to exercise the same principle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evster2012 Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 How very entrepreneurial. How very unkind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 I think it is a simple issue of improving access to basic health care in the most affordable manner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 How very unkind. Ain't it though. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aR5GBRUUX7M Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.