So with the New Health Care Reform passed through the House. Who is for or against it?? Why or why not?

I am not in favor. My opinion (whether it's right or wrong) is why should we pay for the people who are too lazy to get a job just so they can have health insurance? Now it's different if they are disabled and unable to work. But these people who won't get off their butts to get a job shouldn't get subsidized health care that we, tax payers, are paying for!

Edited November 8, 200916 yr by TN_girl21

Sure, you say that now because the public option has been killed. He has always prefered and wanted a single payer system here with the gov. in control fully.He supported the single payer as a candidate but with the strong and heavy handed influence of the big insurance industry he knew the chances were slim. As president, he left the writing of the bill to the house and senate and only the house bill had a public option. He is settling because he knows it's not what the rest of us want. If those things you list were what he wanted most of all, we would not have had this debate at all. It was because he wanted the public option that pissed everyone off, and you know it. Actually, that is not true. If you look at the history of the healthcare reform bill and debate you will see that the public option has always been popular. Most people realize that it is the ONLY thing that would have kept the insurance company from raising premiums even more.

He could care less about wanting those without ins covered, cause if he did, he could have allowed those without ins. to get on medicaid, (or is it medicare?, I get those 2 mixed up) by raising the income guidelines for the program.That's in the bill - the income eligibility for medicaid (for the poor) has been raised so that more are eligible. I'm not sure what it is but I think it might be $60,000 for a family of 4 . And BTW - medicare is for those 65 and older. And then left the rest of us alone. But, as you know, that was not his goal. His goal was a single payer system. Affordable choices could have come by opening up the insurance sales between states. Simple.I have already previously posted factual information by another source about why that is a bad idea and you called it BS. But, no, because that was not his goal, it was a single payer public option ONLY for everyone. (NO option) All of your list could have been accomplished without a public option. But no, because it was not his ultimate goal.

I wish we would have a single payer, government run healthcare along the lines of medicare taking the profit motive out of healthcare, making it more affordable for everyone.

And the private insurance companies would have to find another line of work or go pound sand. Again, a win-win.

Bob, sounds like you've made your LB decision and that you are well-informed! I wish you all the best. Our health is the most important thing and you're seeking to improve your odds and that is a very good thing.

As for Joe the Plumber... that was such a giant fiasco, that most people saw through. But the disturbing part was that people at the top of the Republican party chose to embrace him and his ridiculous arguments. I learned later that he was a regular on a talk show where he was bellyaching about just about every topic that the radio personality brought forth.

He is a crack pot. He lied. The Republicans adored him and made them a big part of their campaign. Need we say more?

Cleo'sM, you are spot on!! Many years ago the insurance companies weren't really much of a factor in our health care system. But they figured out a way to haul in the big bucks and the current system is a result of that. It is bad for people, the doctors haven't wound up being happy with it and the only real winners are the insurance companies and the businesses of the medical system that are profiteers.

My LB doc refuses to take insurance. He is independent and talented enough to tell them to shove it and their control over his patients.

He has pointed out to me on a couple of occasions that the U.S. is no longer enticing the best and brightest of our young people to medicine. They don't see anything good in the current health care system for their future.

The majority of new doctors entering the system in America are not originally from the U.S. And they are not often educated in the U.S. They have been educated in their own countries or in little offshoot medical schools here and there. You can very quickly see where this system is headed, right?

If the current administration and congress don't make some changes now, then Americans will eventually demand it. President Obama is a forward thinking person and he is very intelligent and he is doing all he can to make America a better place for all of us.

The obstructionists want to keep things as they are. They financially benefit from the current system and/or they are scared to death of any kind of change. They fear the word "socialism" but I don't think they even understand the word. President Obama isn't trying to get America to turn into a socialist nation. He is trying to make this a fair country for the majority of the people. That is what this country was founded on - fairness and freedom. That is the opposite of what our health care system today represents. Quite the opposite.

He is trying to make this a fair country for the majority of the people. That is what this country was founded on - fairness and freedom. That is the opposite of what our health care system today represents. Quite the opposite. [end]

Fair to a liberal means "you work as hard as you want and then give it to those who don't work that hard because things should be equal."

I have always likened liberalism and conservatism to a piece of old wisdom. "Give a man a fish you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish you feed him for a lifetime."

A liberal in my opinion will take the fish from a succesfull fisherman and give it to the unsuccesfull fisherman. Thereby making the unsuccesfull a dependent of the successfull. Eliminating any drive to try to be a success at fishing.

A conservative will teach the man to be a successful fisherman. He wants no further burden and wishes the other man to be as independent as he is.

In politics its the same. The liberal will take from the successfull and give to the unsuccesfull. Creating a nanny-state of govt sponsored dependency.

So Patty, what your saying is,Bill Clinton was like Robin Hood. "Steel from the rich and give to the poor". Im guessing George Bush was supposed to be Pinnochio,Lieing about Iraq so he and his buddy Dick could use our kids to serve his agenda,making millions. They said at the start of the war, Shock-n-aw, the B-17 stealth bombers where the first over the border but i believe they where wrong it was "Haliburton" you know, Cheneys money making affiliate.

Yah from what I heard, When haliburton was setting up shop in Iraq, they were confronted by the Republican Guard or Fedayeen i cant remember exactly(this is my republican leaning side coming out,im going to tell the story ,if i cant remember or dont have the facts straight ill improvise and make facts up)but anyhowthey told the iraqi soldiers the B-17s would be here any minute to take cover. So that proves Haliburton was their first!

I have to be honest, I wanted to come on here to kinda get in gear for my band being its coming soon.When I have doubts, i come on to read posts(success stories Bjean)but after the last couple of days of political debating i have no interest in going onto other topics, im having fun. Oh well i guess ill go over to another topic until someone else posts on here, if not tonight, have a good night all and thanks for the fun.

Conservatives don't teach a man to fish. They sit in their castles and teach their children to fish. They look the other way when they see a beggar on the street. They see someone in need and they say that poor schmuck should work like I did instead of trying to get my money.

They're the epitome of selfish demagoguery.

Trying to make liberals who care about their countrymen look bad is ridiculous - unless of course you are willing to make stuff up, tell lies and misrepresent the facts. The making stuff up is the most interesting and disgusting of all their dirty tricks.

Bob I stayed away from LBT for several months because I became so burnt out with the politics on rants & raves. But I missed it and I'm back because not only is it a lot of fun, but you really can learn stuff here. Glad to have you with us.

So Patty, what your saying is,Bill Clinton was like Robin Hood. "Steel from the rich and give to the poor". Im guessing George Bush was supposed to be Pinnochio,Lieing about Iraq so he and his buddy Dick could use our kids to serve his agenda,making millions. They said at the start of the war, Shock-n-aw, the B-17 stealth bombers where the first over the border but i believe they where wrong it was "Haliburton" you know, Cheneys money making affiliate.

Yes, robinhood.

congress (mostly dems) approved that war.

Conservatives don't teach a man to fish. They sit in their castles and teach their children to fish. They look the other way when they see a beggar on the street. They see someone in need and they say that poor schmuck should work like I did instead of trying to get my money.

They're the epitome of selfish demagoguery.

Trying to make liberals who care about their countrymen look bad is ridiculous - unless of course you are willing to make stuff up, tell lies and misrepresent the facts. The making stuff up is the most interesting and disgusting of all their dirty tricks.

Conservatives help their fellowman all the time. They don't need a government to do it for them. Liberals NEED the government to do all their thinking and good deeds for them, they are insecure and NEED to know that there is a back up for them.

Liberals don't care about their countryman, they care about themselves.

patty: "congress (mostly dems) approved that war."

Now patty why would you say such a thing?

patty: "Liberals don't care about their countryman, they care about themselves."

And what in the world would make you say something like this?

I'm beginning to think you need to take a break.

patty: "Liberals don't care about their countryman, they care about themselves."

And what in the world would make you say something like this?

I'm beginning to think you need to take a break.

This is worth repeating:

Liberals suffer from a number of maladies and delusions, but several are painfully obvious. First, not only are they incapable of taking care of themselves, they cannot comprehend why they should be FORCED to take care of themselves. They are terrified of everything that is not pre-processed, homogenized and approved by an official governmental entity.

You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity

by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

What one person receives without working for,

another person must work for without receiving.

The government cannot give to anybody anything

that the government does not first take from somebody else.

When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work

because the other half is going to take care of them,

and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work

because somebody else is going to get what they work for. That my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation.

You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.

I understand why you think this way. But it has beern proven that what you want doesn't work at all. Republicans have sold that crap to the Americans public for so long that we're suffering the consequences.

Read my lips, trickle down economics does not work.

Having a strong middle class is what makes us a nation that can compete and grow and prosper.