just Obama's constituents getting in on his promise of "sharing the wealth".....
There was a woman that was there interviewed on the radio and when they asked her if she knew where the money was coming from her response was "oh, from Predisdent Obama himself"......
We are doomed to have 3 more years of this lunacy....I hope our great country can survive this mess of an administration we now have......
The less I say about any aspect of this, the better off I'll be.
Well I can certainly understand that you'd be reluctant to let your true colors show.
Once we have Obamacare, do you think local clinics will look like this?
Why would they? Do you imagine that "Obamacare" (whatever that is) would feature poorly organized, poorly publicized single-shot opportunities to see a doctor? That sure ain't what I've seen in any of the myriad of proposals, either bad or good.
The less I say about any aspect of this, the better off I'll be.
Well I can certainly understand that you'd be reluctant to let your true colors show.
Around here, indeed...
Once we have Obamacare, do you think local clinics will look like this?
Why would they? Do you imagine that "Obamacare" (whatever that is) would feature poorly organized, poorly publicized single-shot opportunities to see a doctor? That sure ain't what I've seen in any of the myriad of proposals, either bad or good.
Yes! All of the above! What the hell makes you think it would be in any of the proposals? Were lines of morons featured in the proposals for the stimulus bills?
Yes! All of the above! What the hell makes you think it would be in any of the proposals? Were lines of morons featured in the proposals for the stimulus bills?
That's absurd. No, it's idiotic. People who have insurance can schedule appointments. If anything, healthcare reform will alleviate the kind of mob scenes we have had in emergency rooms for decades.
EDIT: And people applying for housing aid are morons in your estimation? Why?
This message has been edited by jrooth on Oct 8, 2009 1:23 PM
Yes! All of the above! What the hell makes you think it would be in any of the proposals? Were lines of morons featured in the proposals for the stimulus bills?
That's absurd. No, it's idiotic. People who have insurance can schedule appointments. If anything, healthcare reform will alleviate the kind of mob scenes we have had in emergency rooms for decades.
Right, *chortle*. People will respond with measured restraint, and intellectual understanding, just like Detroit. The latest wrinkle is reports of scammers selling bogus applications near the back of the lines for twenty bucks.
Why would they? Do you imagine that "Obamacare" (whatever that is) would feature poorly organized, poorly publicized single-shot opportunities to see a doctor? That sure ain't what I've seen in any of the myriad of proposals, either bad or good.
Seriously? The pitfalls and failures of socialized medicine in places like Canada and the UK certainly weren't sold that way. If he can get the public option, he knows we will be on the road to single payer, which is what he wants, but he is not telling that to anyone either. Apparently in Obama's world, corporations provide healthcare out of the generosity of their hearts. Shedding that cost would mean nothing to them..
Have any of you seen the kids on CNN??? LOL Simply unbelievable.
I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious.
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)
"We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you." - Hussein Massawi, the former leader of Hezbollah
Seriously? The pitfalls and failures of socialized medicine in places like Canada and the UK certainly weren't sold that way.
Where to start ...
The UK has socialized medicine (doctors are employed by the state, hospitals owned by the state etc.) Canada does not.
I certainly don't agree with the characterization that their systems are "failures."
Perhaps you know more of the history of the development of the Canadian and UK healthcare systems than I do, but I am not aware that they were "sold" as anything significantly different than what they are.
If he can get the public option, he knows we will be on the road to single payer, which is what he wants, but he is not telling that to anyone either.
Every point in this assertion is pure unsubstantiated speculation. I have been a proponent of single payer - I certainly do not expect that even the strongest of public option proposals will put us "on the road to single payer."
Apparently in Obama's world, corporations provide healthcare out of the generosity of their hearts. Shedding that cost would mean nothing to them..
This is just pure silliness. Have you actually listened to what he says (rather than your preconceived notions of what he would say?)
I find it quite funny that you guys on the right have been touting the inherent superiority of the private sector over the public sector for decades, yet faced with the prospect of having private corporations competing directly against public bureaucracy you are all certain that the corporations have no chance.
The UK has socialized medicine (doctors are employed by the state, hospitals owned by the state etc.) Canada does not.
Irrelevant. They both experience the same failures.
I certainly don't agree with the characterization that their systems are "failures."
Agreed, you and I have different standards for failure. My standard is care based. Care in this country will suffer. Fewer doctors, more patients, longer lines and government buaracracy added to the mix. Failure.
Perhaps you know more of the history of the development of the Canadian and UK healthcare systems than I do, but I am not aware that they were "sold" as anything significantly different than what they are.
Perhaps. My guess is, they were not told. They weren't told about the wait times. They weren't told about the shortages, they weren't told about the cottage industry in Canada to find Canadiens hospitals in the US to get service that can't get in Canada at all, or in a timely manner.
If he can get the public option, he knows we will be on the road to single payer, which is what he wants, but he is not telling that to anyone either.
Every point in this assertion is pure unsubstantiated speculation. I have been a proponent of single payer - I certainly do not expect that even the strongest of public option proposals will put us "on the road to single payer."
Apparently you believe then, that corporations will continue to pay for health coverage for employees, when they can dump them and let them get it using the "public option".
Apparently in Obama's world, corporations provide healthcare out of the generosity of their hearts. Shedding that cost would mean nothing to them..
This is just pure silliness. Have you actually listened to what he says (rather than your preconceived notions of what he would say?)
I have. What part do you disagree with?
I find it quite funny that you guys on the right have been touting the inherent superiority of the private sector over the public sector for decades, yet faced with the prospect of having private corporations competing directly against public bureaucracy you are all certain that the corporations have no chance.
Again, you aren't dumb Jan and you don't play it very well either. Surely you aren't suggesting that the public "option" would compete? LOL The public option will not have the state restrictions private insurance does among many things, but more importantly, the public option does not have to profit. They can eat billions a year.
I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious.
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)
"We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you." - Hussein Massawi, the former leader of Hezbollah
Irrelevant. They both experience the same failures.
Just because you assert something doesn't make it so. The overall quality of healthcare in the rest of the developed world is quite comparable to ours at substantially lower cost. Claims of rationing are a red herring - we ration healthcare in this country, just not in a particularly equitable fashion.
Agreed, you and I have different standards for failure. My standard is care based. Care in this country will suffer. Fewer doctors, more patients, longer lines and government buaracracy added to the mix. Failure.
Again, just because you assert something doesn't make it so. More patients I'll grant you - but unless you're going to declare that you oppose more people getting access to healthcare (which I have a fair suspicion is actually the Republican position, as Congressman Grayson cogently pointed out) there's no escaping that one. I see no reason there would be fewer doctors. As for long lines, hell it typically takes over two months for me to get an appointment with a doctor for anything but an emergency. I haven't seen any evidence that it's worse in Canada.
Perhaps. My guess is, they were not told. They weren't told about the wait times. They weren't told about the shortages, they weren't told about the cottage industry in Canada to find Canadiens hospitals in the US to get service that can't get in Canada at all, or in a timely manner.
LOL!! "My guess is" ... need I say more? You're talking out of your ass.
Apparently you believe then, that corporations will continue to pay for health coverage for employees, when they can dump them and let them get it using the "public option".
Corporations aren't forced to provide insurance to their employees today. They do so as an incentive, and I expect many of them will continue to do so. And employees who do not get insurance through their employers might also choose one of the private options in the marketplace, if those private companies are as great as you guys always claim they are.
I have. What part do you disagree with?
The part, for example, where you ignore everything he's said about how single payer might be a good idea if we were starting from scratch but the switch would be too disruptive and we can accomplish the same goals by adapting our current system to provide universal coverage.
Again, you aren't dumb Jan and you don't play it very well either. Surely you aren't suggesting that the public "option" would compete? LOL The public option will not have the state restrictions private insurance does among many things, ...
Again. you're apparently not paying any attention to what the proposed public options are - I haven't seen one proposal that would not have to compete. At most, there are some suggestions out there that would alleviate the need to immediately have a reserve fund in place by having the treasury back the public plan for some few years. But I don't believe that's in any of the actual bills that are out there. And at any rate, every version has it being self-supporting through premiums.
... but more importantly, the public option does not have to profit. They can eat billions a year.
You leap from it "does not have to profit" (true) to it can "eat billions a year" (false.) Every version out there has the public option self-supporting through premiums, just like a private plan is.
Every version out there has the public option self-supporting through premiums, just like a private plan is.
And I guess with the above statement, your fantasy world and my reality won't meet. Good luck to you and the public option supporters. There is absolutely nothing the government does that would make a rational, sensible individual buy what you are selling with that assertion.
I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious.
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)
"We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you." - Hussein Massawi, the former leader of Hezbollah
And I guess with the above statement, your fantasy world and my reality won't meet.
LOL ... pretty funny statement given that I'm the one actually reading proposed legislation and seeking out facts and you're the one using "my guess is" as the authority for your arguments.
That guy in the video is homeless, but living with his grandmother?
It's a sad situation, but Detroit isn't the only city with high unemployment and people facing eviction, needing utility assistance. The assistance is "temporary". What happens after this money runs out and people are still unemployed?
if Obama truly wants to do something to create LESS dependant on his handouts from "his stash" then he will enact tax cuts for companies to create an incentive to hire people....
With out that, then we are just back to pre-Slick-Willie days where Welfare is the main occupation in the big cities.....
Never mind the messenger, it's the sound byte. I just don't think I want to hear anymore about rednecks, hillbillies, southern crackers, etc. etc. for awhile.
Never mind the messenger, it's the sound byte. I just don't think I want to hear anymore about rednecks, hillbillies, southern crackers, etc. etc. for awhile.
if Obama truly wants to do something to create LESS dependant on his handouts from "his stash" then he will enact tax cuts for companies to create an incentive to hire people....
With out that, then we are just back to pre-Slick-Willie days where Welfare is the main occupation in the big cities.....
-----------
Well, tax cuts for companies so they can create jobs is more appropriate, in order and would better serve the economy, imo. But, it's more fun to hand out cash to your supporters, especially when one's name is attached to that money, as in "Obama Money".
My point, above, was that the guy in the video was not homeless. He is living with his grandmother, so NOT homeless, nor facing homelessness. We don't know if he lost his place of residency, lost his job, is working but can't afford rent, doesn't have the upfront cash for a place of his own, needs deposits for utility turn-ons, etc.. But, he is NOT homeless. I said this assistance is temporary, so if he lost his job, how will he pay the rent if he gets his own place?
Here is the description of the program from HUD:
The Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program will provide financial assistance and services to prevent individuals and families from becoming homeless and help those who are experiencing homelessness to be quickly re-housed and stabilized. The funds under this program are intended to target individuals and families who would be homeless but for this assistance. The funds will provide for a variety of assistance, including: short-term or medium-term rental assistance and housing relocation and stabilization services, including such activities as mediation, credit counseling, security or utility deposits, utility payments, moving cost assistance, and case management.
I have no doubt there are, and will be, people who do not qualify will still get their "Obama Money". There is no way in hell that the gubamint will take the time to completely verify these applications to weed out fraud, and their "formulas" won't find it either. Their mission, as they've chosen to accept it, is to get the money doled out as the program states:
"At least 60 percent of funds must be spent within two years; all funds must be spent within three years. Reporting requirements will be presented in the forthcoming notice."
well, I feel for this guy, and all the others like him.....so all the more reason to cut taxes, get the economy working again, increase tax revenues so we can AFFORD to help out those that need help.
Remember, libs short memories forget that under Bush tax cuts we had the lowest unemployment in history and the highest tax revenues in our history!
So, why won't Obami do the same? hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Remember, libs short memories forget that under Bush tax cuts we had the lowest unemployment in history and the highest tax revenues in our history!
What the hell are you talking about? The lowest unemployment under Bush was 4.3% in the first month of his first term - before the tax cut went into effect. Clinton had many months with a lower rate than that - not to mention if one goes back to the 50s the rate was frequently below 3%.
The "highest tax revenues" is bullshit too - you're ignoring inflation and the inherent growth of the tax base. You won't find many economists or economic analysts (even conservative ones) who deny that tax revenue under Bush would have been higher without the tax cuts.
sigh....so, that's your solution, raise taxes huh....
How did we get on that topic? I was pointing out that your statement was false.
Now I do think some taxes should be raised and others lowered, but that isn't the topic of this thread nor did I say that anywhere in this thread - but if it helps you ignore that you were flat wrong then who am I to insist that you acknowledge your falsehoods ... (others reading may draw their own conclusions about who suffers from short memory, however)
just not specific enough, the State of Washington experienced the lowest unemployment in history and I know 16, 17 other states as well and many other states close to their histoical lows....
For taxes, 2006 was a historical record of $2407 Billion. Do you know of year there was more? I was not talking about income as a % of GDP.
just not specific enough, the State of Washington experienced the lowest unemployment in history and I know 16, 17 other states as well and many other states close to their histoical lows....
Even assuming that's so, The State of Washington is hardy the whole nation.
For taxes, 2006 was a historical record of $2407 Billion. Do you know of year there was more? I was not talking about income as a % of GDP.
I was talking about revenue in constant (inflation adjusted) dollars:
Although even in unadjusted dollars there was a drop for several years:
Although, since you mention it ... relative to GDP the tax revenue has been essentially flat since 1948:
![[linked image]](http://www.network54.com/Realm/JansRealm/wfelix.gif)
