This The Republican Health Plan: NOTHING! (Limbaugh, legal, health care, Canada)

[KevK]

Hannity made that crystal clear. The Republicans do not want to do anything on health care. Let's see how far the Democrats have went on the issue: We started with wanting a single payer system similar to national heath systems in Canada and the UK. This is really the best way to go- everybody pays IN and everybody benefits.
That was not good enough so we went to the "compromise" public private mix. Private insurance with a "public option"- mainly for those who have employers who are not providing them ANY insurance right now and dumping their employees on the rest of us who do have insurance. But that is not good enough for the Republicans either.
So now, according to some reports, we have "compromised on the compromise" and went to the so called "private non profit coops" which would get some government "seed money" to begin but be totally ran by a private board of directors elected by their members- similar to the EMC that the government started in the 30s to for rural electric power.
Now the Republicans say that is not good enough either. Are you folks starting to get the picture here?? You can see that doing nothing is far more important to the Republicans than doing something. That is why they did nothing for 8 years while in power on this issue. This while they collect millions from big pharma and big insurance.

[wdavid002]

People who are not happy with how the US is run and our system and manner of living, should seriously think about leaving. I mean..why not move to a place where things are done to ones liking. So if one likes Socialism for example, they should move to a Socialist country instead of trying to change our Country into something that it is not, nor will ever be. Doesn't that make sense to most fair minded people (not loons)

[Rhett_Butler]

Originally Posted by wdavid002

People who are not happy with how the US is run and our system and manner of living, should seriously think about leaving. I mean..why not move to a place where things are done to ones liking. So if one likes Socialism for example, they should move to a Socialist country instead of trying to change our Country into something that it is not, nor will ever be. Doesn't that make sense to most fair minded people (not loons)

--Maybe because that isn't how our society has worked, EVER.?

--That change is affected by people that STAY here and try to change the imperfections of our society for the better? (in their opinion of course)

--That this is an evolving democracy and always has been?

Your statement is pretty obtuse and flies in the face of what this country is about. So perhaps if anyone should leave, it should be you.

I guess MLK Jr. should have just left along with all the other black people, eh?

I guess women should have just left?

I guess gays should just leave?

I guess that those who think marijuana should be legal should just leave?

ETC.....

[allydriver]

Hannity made that crystal clear. The Republicans do not want to do anything on health care

I thought Limbaugh was in charge of the GOP?

[city414]

Originally Posted by allydriver

I thought Limbaugh was in charge of the GOP?

he is, michael steele is a pawn not approved by limbaugh

[city414]

Originally Posted by wdavid002

People who are not happy with how the US is run and our system and manner of living, should seriously think about leaving. I mean..why not move to a place where things are done to ones liking. So if one likes Socialism for example, they should move to a Socialist country instead of trying to change our Country into something that it is not, nor will ever be. Doesn't that make sense to most fair minded people (not loons)

hmm well why should other countries allow the US to change the way they do things

[allydriver]

Originally Posted by city414

he is, michael steele is a pawn not approved by limbaugh

I thought this was about what Hannity wants for the GOP?

You guys need to synchronize your talking points.

[PurpleLove08]

Originally Posted by KevK

Hannity made that crystal clear. The Republicans do not want to do anything on health care. Let's see how far the Democrats have went on the issue: We started with wanting a single payer system similar to national heath systems in Canada and the UK. This is really the best way to go- everybody pays IN and everybody benefits.
That was not good enough so we went to the "compromise" public private mix. Private insurance with a "public option"- mainly for those who have employers who are not providing them ANY insurance right now and dumping their employees on the rest of us who do have insurance. But that is not good enough for the Republicans either.
So now, according to some reports, we have "compromised on the compromise" and went to the so called "private non profit coops" which would get some government "seed money" to begin but be totally ran by a private board of directors elected by their members- similar to the EMC that the government started in the 30s to for rural electric power.
Now the Republicans say that is not good enough either. Are you folks starting to get the picture here?? You can see that doing nothing is far more important to the Republicans than doing something. That is why they did nothing for 8 years while in power on this issue. This while they collect millions from big pharma and big insurance.

I'm surprised the Republicans would even want that.

One minute they scream we shouldn't be involved in private business matters (IE: the bailouts) but then they want to give TAXPAYER money to a company that is going to be PRIVATELY ran and will deliver some pretty bad results.

Kent Conrad proposed 6 BILLION in start-up costs. That money could be used to fund a SINGLE PAYER system...

Q:WHAT ARE THE DISADVANTAGES?
A:Many Democrats worry that co-ops would be too weak to provide any real competition to the private insurance industry. Public plan advocate Senator John Rockefeller points out that healthcare cooperatives have been tried in the past to provide medical care to rural areas. Thousands were formed and almost all of them failed.
Conservative critics argue that the co-operatives would just be another form of government-run insurance because of the role the government would play in setting them up and overseeing their operations.

Q+A: Co-ops in focus in U.S. healthcare debate | Special Coverage | Reuters


NOW! Blog » Rockefeller Destroys the Co-op Idea: Unregulated and Unproven

[Visvaldis]

Originally Posted by wdavid002

People who are not happy with how the US is run and our system and manner of living, should seriously think about leaving. I mean..why not move to a place where things are done to ones liking. So if one likes Socialism for example, they should move to a Socialist country instead of trying to change our Country into something that it is not, nor will ever be. Doesn't that make sense to most fair minded people (not loons)

I think you're right. That's why the Confederacy should have been allowed to exist. That would have created less problems in this time.

[wdavid002]

Originally Posted by Rhett_Butler

--Maybe because that isn't how our society has worked, EVER.?

--That change is affected by people that STAY here and try to change the imperfections of our society for the better? (in their opinion of course)

--That this is an evolving democracy and always has been?

Your statement is pretty obtuse and flies in the face of what this country is about. So perhaps if anyone should leave, it should be you.

I guess MLK Jr. should have just left along with all the other black people, eh?

I guess women should have just left?

I guess gays should just leave?

I guess that those who think marijuana should be legal should just leave?

ETC.....

1 - people should go where they would be most happy...not force their views on the rest of us.

2 - your argument is weak at best

3 - this is a Republic, not a Democracy

Moderator cut: Discuss topic, not posters