You all know how I would vote. So lets see how many like me are out there.

patty: "But I thought we were talking about the past proposed HC bill."

And why would we do that? Just to butt heads for the sake of butting heads?

patty when claiming that health care without profit as the bottom line, is bad: "It is [bad] if the government is running it."

Don't you realize how dumb that sounds? It seems to be proof positive that you're determined that anything that the Democrats endorse is bad. That's not only short-sighted, it is amazingly naive and/or just plain dumb.

I'm pretty much a staunch Democrat but I would never say that the Republicans can't come up with a good health care plan or anything else. Republicans are people. And I have a certain amount of faith in all people. Even Republicans. Too bad the current Republicans don't have faith in anything but denouncing the Democrats in general and Obama specifically. We the people are being screwed royally by the self-serving Republican obstructionists. That's what's BAD!

Edited January 30, 201016 yr by BJean

There isn't much that the government runs that isn't bankrupt and/or taxing the crap out of us, or is costing way, way more than the private industry can do it for.

Well, it sounds like this govt was trying to develop something new. And it also sounds like it was deliberately hamstrung. An opportunity lost and profits for the profiteers.

There isn't much that the government runs that isn't bankrupt and/or taxing the crap out of us, or is costing way, way more than the private industry can do it for.

You contradict yourself. First you say a government run healthcare public option would put private insurance out of business because it would cost less. Then you say that anything the government does costs way more than what it would with private industry. :biggrin:

I'm kinda feeling sorry for patty...

It's all these darned facts that keep making her look bad. No fair!

A program to provide health care for all that doesn't have profit as their bottom line?? And this is bad???

I really have a hard time understanding this fear-based paranoia about all this. Maybe it's apples and oranges. I would have huge reservations about my (Canadian) health care system being run by big profit centred corporations. I also would have even more reservations if my neighbour (whether he was currently working or not) would not get the same care as me.

I also have a hard time understanding the self centred attitude I've read on some of the postings, things like "why should I end up paying for people who sit on their asses all day and are too lazy to work and therefore get insurance."

I get the feeling that even if a universal health care system was more affordable for current insurance payers they would still be pissed off because "It's not FAIR!!" (feet stomp petulantly).

This whole thing continues to astound me and makes me lose hope for the US. It feels a hell of a lot like devolution.

You said it all! Not all of us are so short sighted and selfish, but unfortunately too many are. I seriously considered attempting to move to Canada a few years ago when I saw that we going to have to endure a "W" regime, but bottom line I love my country and have a duty to try to change from within.

It seems to be proof positive that you're determined that anything that the Democrats endorse is bad.

Did I say 'democrats'? I thought I said 'government'.

You contradict yourself. First you say a government run healthcare public option would put private insurance out of business because it would cost less.

Then you say that anything the government does costs way more than what it would with private industry. :biggrin:

The premiums for the gov. run ins. would cost less than the premiums for the private ins. companies. This is true because the gov. is not trying to make a profit. But, like I stated before, that would only be for the first 5 years after it has begun. AFTER that, the premiums would raise more than the private ins. companies would have been because they won't have enough funds to pay for it. They would HAVE to raise the premiums for the HC, or else start rationing the care.

Do I need to reprint my past post about how the HC bill would have been paid for?:glare:

The premiums for the gov. run ins. would cost less than the premiums for the private ins. companies. This is true because the gov. is not trying to make a profit. But, like I stated before, that would only be for the first 5 years after it has begun. AFTER that, the premiums would raise more than the private ins. companies would have been because they won't have enough funds to pay for it. They would HAVE to raise the premiums for the HC, or else start rationing the care.

Do I need to reprint my past post about how the HC bill would have been paid for?:biggrin:

No, don't reprint it. It wasn't true the first time and it won't make it anymore true the second time.

Again, you just make up stuff. You have no proof for anything you print.

patty: "Did I say 'democrats'? I thought I said 'government'. "

Yes in so many words, you did. Because the stuff you post is Republican rehtoric. You're as repetitive with the anti-Democrat crap as you are with saying the Bible is God's literal written word.

But when Dubya was in office, you were all about everybody supporting him and his administration because he was, after all, our president and he was waging an important war in Iraq. Because if we didn't fight them over there we'd sure be fighting them over here.

Never mind that using that logic, we're using our brave men and women in uniform as bait.

But I digress. The point is that your arguments about government vs. anti-government have everything to do with who is in power. I know you want everyone to think that you're just anti-government period. But the transparency of your right wing extremism is all too apparent.

Im just chiming in here, this might not even relate to what your talking about. When did president bush ever talk to democrats only? Never. Obama showed up, answered all the republicans questions. Instead of debating with him face to face, they ran their mouths to fox interviewers afterwards. Typical, because they dont have any answers of their own. All they are concerned about is making sure Obama fails,politics only. I think this was a very positive outcome for democrats. Im going to show my republican side now(with stats). A cnn poll i believe, showed before state of union, 48% people agreed with obama. After 68% agreed. Looks like republicans got more than they asked for!! Just to go back a little when i said reps. dont have answers of their own, Ive never heard of a republican healthcare program. I hear them put obamas down and how theirs would do this and that but ive never read or heard any "concrete" plans.

I forgot. I heard fox saying the other day Obama cant blame bush anymore. I disagree, the Iraq war should be considered "Bushs" war until our troops come home. Obama didnt start the war but he will more than likely end it. The economy took 8 years under bush to get where we are today. It will take longer than 1 year to get us out of it. On a local republican radio show the other day the host said "obama cant blame bush because hes been in office for a year now, a caller called in about 9-11 being on bushs watch so his fault. the host said bush wasnt in office long enough to stop 9-11, it was clintons fault. I dont know, bush was in office for almost a year! Whats good for Obama should also be good for Bush. Typical rep. talking out both ends!

Im just chiming in here, this might not even relate to what your talking about. When did president bush ever talk to democrats only? Never. Obama showed up, answered all the republicans questions. Instead of debating with him face to face, they ran their mouths to fox interviewers afterwards. Typical, because they dont have any answers of their own. All they are concerned about is making sure Obama fails,politics only. I think this was a very positive outcome for democrats. Im going to show my republican side now(with stats). A cnn poll i believe, showed before state of union, 48% people agreed with obama. After 68% agreed. Looks like republicans got more than they asked for!! Just to go back a little when i said reps. dont have answers of their own, Ive never heard of a republican healthcare program. I hear them put obamas down and how theirs would do this and that but ive never read or heard any "concrete" plans.

I will give republicans credit for being able to get their message out with lies. And selective amnesia. It works.

How else could you name something that would allow for more pollution the "Clean Air Act"?

How else could you portray a real, actual war hero (Kerry) as a traitor and some draft dodging bush (yes, that's why his dad got him in the national guard) chicken-hawk as some great veteran?

Swiftboating has now become part of American lexicon.

How else can you keep saying that despite the worst terrorist attack that took place on our soil happened under bush that "he kept us safe"?

How else can you criticize Pres. Obama for taking 3 days to respond to the Christmas day threat when it took bush 10 days to respond to Richard Reed the shoe bomber?

How else can you criticize Pres. Obama for wanting to have civilian trials for the terrorists when bush did the same thing and they were convicted - and which was praised by Giuliani then but of course not now?

How else could you criticize Pres. Obama for spending to get us out of the failing economy when bush turned a budget surplus into a deficit?

And the democrats let them get away with these lies. The only democrat who I have seen stand up to them and tell it like it is - is Alan Grayson. I really like what he has to say and how he says it.

If we want to make sure that our country isn't taken over by the right wing extremist who want to take us back to the failed policies of the bush administration - then we must make sure we get OUR message out.

A program to provide health care for all that doesn't have profit as their bottom line?? And this is bad???

I really have a hard time understanding this fear-based paranoia about all this. Maybe it's apples and oranges. I would have huge reservations about my (Canadian) health care system being run by big profit centred corporations. I also would have even more reservations if my neighbour (whether he was currently working or not) would not get the same care as me.

I also have a hard time understanding the self centred attitude I've read on some of the postings, things like "why should I end up paying for people who sit on their asses all day and are too lazy to work and therefore get insurance."

I get the feeling that even if a universal health care system was more affordable for current insurance payers they would still be pissed off because "It's not FAIR!!" (feet stomp petulantly).

This whole thing continues to astound me and makes me lose hope for the US. It feels a hell of a lot like devolution.

Devana, I thought you might be interested in this. I read it in the paper today. It said that Harry Manx, a musician from British Columbia, offered this definition of his countrymen:

What's a Canadian?: And unarmed American with health insurance.

I have a question for those who are opposed to abortion, are you opposed to In vitro fertilisation (IVF) also?

No, don't reprint it. It wasn't true the first time and it won't make it anymore true the second time.

Again, you just make up stuff. You have no proof for anything you print.

It was talked about for a long time. How the people would start paying for Obama's public option plan as soon as the bill was passed, but coverage wouldn't begin until AFTER 5 years have passed by.

If we started paying for it in 2010, (saving up 5 years of income and not using it) and began recieving the care from it in 2015, (and was still collecting the same rate from the people for those 5 years), how could we continue to have the same great coverage 5 years later (in 2020 and beyond) when we are not taking in the same amount of money? We are only bringing in 1/2 of what we had. ( we will have used up the savings that was collected in the first 5 years before the HC services actually began, plus the incoming monies) The only way to get the same treatment as in the first 5 years of the program is to raise the premiums (tax) If we don't raise them, we would have had to ration the care.

This is where they got the idea of rationed care and a deficit increase. Now, this does not have to be written down somewhere and 'proven', for the people to forsee what would happen in the future (after the first 10 years)when there was no more saved up money and not enough revenue coming in to meet the HC payments going out. Any moron could figure it out. Obama was being truthful when he told you that it would not increase the deficit. He just conveniently left out the latter half of the sentence, "until 2020." He should have said, "It will not increase the deficit until 2020."

Edited January 31, 201016 yr by pattygreen