Obama admits "health care overhaul" may die (generation, illegal, health care system)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your Great Leader, in and of himself with no help needed from us, is an incitement to violence, because he is committed to the very overthrow of our form of government. Never in the history of this country has her sovereign integrity and constitutional form of government been so challenged. You lefties should be proud as he couldn't have totally failed without your dedicated support. And now we're about to see a congress change hands yet again and fill up with an amalgam of newbie legislators of many parties and most all the demonRATic power brokers will be history.
I salute you
Wishful thinking, magic thinking, which one is it, dear?
And yes, I did vote for Obama. And so did many others. He is the US president, isn't he?
He hasn't gone far into fixing the major problems of this country yet for the Republicans in Congress Ney Chorale who have done their important work of singing their Neys whenever something significant came to pass.
Do you think that this will guarantee a Republican majority Congress again?
How short do you think the American people's memory is?
The Republican majority congress had 12 years to bring the country is it's worst financial and economic crisis of the last 70 years. Is a reward what they deserve?
I give more credit to the American people than you do!
Last edited by learningCA; 02-22-2010 at 06:31 PM..
Dont you think that the wealthiest of the leadership, like Nancy Pelosi and Reid, could out of the goodness of their hearts and in the name of redistribution of wealth, go without a paycheck? They could give up the gold plated retirement package as well, since they really do not need the money.
I would love to propose that on the house floor.
I hear that Halliburton has been quite good to Dick Cheney. Why don't you have him contribute just one month worth of his pasive income to a charity helping the increasing number of American families with children becoming homeless, MontleyCrew?
Dont you think that the wealthiest of the leadership, like Nancy Pelosi and Reid, could out of the goodness of their hearts and in the name of redistribution of wealth, go without a paycheck? They could give up the gold plated retirement package as well, since they really do not need the money.
I would love to propose that on the house floor.
Surely you jest!
Quote:
"...the goodness of their hearts"
...what hearts?
And remember...they only believe in redistribution of the wealth OF OTHERS. They're the ruling elite class and don't have to sacrifice for the greater good like the proletariat class. In a socialist or communist state the rules are for the working class ONLY.
And remember...they only believe in redistribution of the wealth OF OTHERS. They're the ruling elite class and don't have to sacrifice for the greater good like the proletariat class. In a socialist or communist state the rules are for the working class ONLY.
Socialist or communist?! I admit, some of this stuff gets to me big time.
Otherwise, hard to believe, I know, I can just mind my own business and let it be.
I'll have to do that anyway. You and others like you just preach to your choir.
And I probably do just the same. Although my choir is more appreciative with reputation points.
Last edited by learningCA; 02-23-2010 at 12:05 AM..
Socialist or communist?! I admit, some of this stuff gets to me big time. (Which "stuff" do you mean?)
Otherwise, hard to believe, I know, I can just mind my own business and let it be. (In that case, you are not a true beliver in your own principles. If you were you'd be promoting what YOU believe in the face of opposing opinion. What I call..."trying to win over the hearts and minds".)
I'll have to do that anyway. You and others like you just preach to your choir. (Not so at all. Note my last comment. I see a threat to this country as a continuing, viable sovereign republic and respond.)
And I probably do just the same. Although my choir is more appreciative with reputation points. (How juvenile learningCA! Before I came here to C-D I never really knew what those rep notations meant. Since I've now experienced them I understand that it is as you've just noted, a self-indulgence to egoistic motivation and NOT something I even care about. I'm not here to gratify my own ego and could care less how many of those 'buddy suck-up' points I have. You want mine? Take them, I don't need them, BUT...you've just made it QUITE APPARENT that you do!I never cared to be a performing seal.)
All sad, but true!
Last edited by doctorhugo; 02-23-2010 at 03:58 AM..
Reason: error
"a self-indulgence to egoistic motivation and NOT something I even care about. I'm not here to gratify my own ego"
It's pretty amusing, doc, you edit my entire post with your comments and that you comment on your own comments.
If that is not self-gratification what is it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by doctorhugo
All sad, but true!
And if I don't respond to your posts you chase me down with harrassing personal messages.
Do you need other people to define your own identity by opposing them, doc?
It may be true, I may be juvenile, but you are... how should I say it kindly, well, just boring.
Last edited by learningCA; 02-23-2010 at 11:40 PM..
Obama admits health care overhaul may die on Hill - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100205/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul - broken link)
I can't say I'm crying buckets.
My heart goes out to those who are uninsured, who have high premiums, have high deductibles, etc but this bill Congress put together is not the direction our country needs to go in.
We can learn a lot from all the other industrialized countries that have managed to figure out universal health care. We are the only industrialized country that doesn't guarantee health care to all it's citizens. Let's take a look at Germany, France, the UK, and Canada. They all get very good marks in certain areas.
Oh the humanity, where will Canadians go when they need real health care like the big wig politicians?
An unapologetic Danny Williams says he was aware his trip to the United States for heart surgery earlier this month would spark outcry, but he concluded his personal health trumped any public fallout over the controversial decision.
In an interview with The Canadian Press, Williams said he went to Miami to have a "minimally invasive" surgery for an ailment first detected nearly a year ago, based on the advice of his doctors.
"This was my heart, my choice and my health," Williams said late Monday from his condominium in Sarasota, Fla.
I am all for reform, I understand we need it and as someone with a family member with a preexisting condition I know only to well the high cost of insurance.
The worst I ever got it was when I owned a small company in the 90's and offered 100% company paid health insurance. I was told I was one of the last company's to offer free health insurance to employees and their families but I liked doing it.
As I said the company was small and the highest number of families I had on it was 9.
The insurance company HAD to take my family member with the preexisting condition and you need to bear in mind the individual was never without health insurance their entire life. This was not a case of not having insurance until you got sick.
Straight up insurance premiums for the group averaged around $600 a month, this was the 90's but it was a very good plan, but while the company had to accept the preexisting condition at the same premium as everyone else they were allowed to "rate the group" to a maximum of 30%.
Instead of paying an average of $600 per month the cost was $780 per month on each family. The person with the preexisting condition cost the company an additional $1,620 per month on top of the standard $600 premium for a total of $2,220 per month (1995 dollars.
That's $26,640 per year additional and having to deal with company's through the 80's, when they could just dump you, I was overjoyed I could purchase it at any price.
Adjusting for inflation what cost $2,220.00 in 1995 would cost $3,107.41 in 2008. In today's dollars that would be over $37,000.00 per year to insure one person. I was very fortunate at the time I could afford it.
I am telling you this so you know I am more personally acquainted with the problems than most and as a result I believe I have researched how to solve the problem more than most people.
The Canadian system sucks and so does England. It sounds great at first, it's free, free, free but it's rationing and that is not good.
I don't like the terminology that the health care system is broken when we have the best in the world.
Proponents love to point out how life expectancy is much higher in countries that spend less and life longer but that isn't honest. Japan for example spends a lot less and enjoys a much longer life expectancy but their system does not have to deal with drug, crime rates and bad health habits to the extent we do in America.
That fact is if America was totalitarian enough to enforce 1)absolutely no use of tobacco products in any form in the country 2)absolutely no private ownership of guns and 3)anyone with a BMI exceeding 32 would be fined 50% of their wage I am convinced we would see a huge increase in life expectancy. It is dishonest to blame a "broken health care system" for the lower American life expectancy but that is what the ObamaCare pushers are.
Our health care system system is fine but the way it is funded is broken.
As I explained I know more than most how important it is to fix the way it is funded but that pile of vomit called ObamaCare was not the answer.
Germany, France, the UK, and Canada always seem to get mentioned but the best system I have found is what is available in Australia. How come the Australian system (it is universal and everyone is covered) is never mentioned?
I am all for reform, I understand we need it and as someone with a family member with a preexisting condition I know only to well the high cost of insurance.
The worst I ever got it was when I owned a small company in the 90's and offered 100% company paid health insurance. I was told I was one of the last company's to offer free health insurance to employees and their families but I liked doing it.
As I said the company was small and the highest number of families I had on it was 9.
The insurance company HAD to take my family member with the preexisting condition and you need to bear in mind the individual was never without health insurance their entire life. This was not a case of not having insurance until you got sick.
Straight up insurance premiums for the group averaged around $600 a month, this was the 90's but it was a very good plan, but while the company had to accept the preexisting condition at the same premium as everyone else they were allowed to "rate the group" to a maximum of 30%.
Instead of paying an average of $600 per month the cost was $780 per month on each family. The person with the preexisting condition cost the company an additional $1,620 per month on top of the standard $600 premium for a total of $2,220 per month (1995 dollars.
That's $26,640 per year additional and having to deal with company's through the 80's, when they could just dump you, I was overjoyed I could purchase it at any price.
Adjusting for inflation what cost $2,220.00 in 1995 would cost $3,107.41 in 2008. In today's dollars that would be over $37,000.00 per year to insure one person. I was very fortunate at the time I could afford it.
I am telling you this so you know I am more personally acquainted with the problems than most and as a result I believe I have researched how to solve the problem more than most people.
The Canadian system sucks and so does England. It sounds great at first, it's free, free, free but it's rationing and that is not good.
I don't like the terminology that the health care system is broken when we have the best in the world.
Proponents love to point out how life expectancy is much higher in countries that spend less and life longer but that isn't honest. Japan for example spends a lot less and enjoys a much longer life expectancy but their system does not have to deal with drug, crime rates and bad health habits to the extent we do in America.
That fact is if America was totalitarian enough to enforce 1)absolutely no use of tobacco products in any form in the country 2)absolutely no private ownership of guns and 3)anyone with a BMI exceeding 32 would be fined 50% of their wage I am convinced we would see a huge increase in life expectancy. It is dishonest to blame a "broken health care system" for the lower American life expectancy but that is what the ObamaCare pushers are.
Our health care system system is fine but the way it is funded is broken.
As I explained I know more than most how important it is to fix the way it is funded but that pile of vomit called ObamaCare was not the answer.
Germany, France, the UK, and Canada always seem to get mentioned but the best system I have found is what is available in Australia. How come the Australian system (it is universal and everyone is covered) is never mentioned?
You are quite right. The care side of the system is probably the best. The cost and payment side is where we are woefully lacking. We are rapidly evolving into a system that allows only the more privileged few, access to it.
You are quite right. The care side of the system is probably the best. The cost and payment side is where we are woefully lacking. We are rapidly evolving into a system that allows only the more privileged few, access to it.
It would be easy to fix but the special interests would be hard to battle with.
Lawyers for one. Thousands of lawyers, the likes of Saint John Edwards among them, would lose their source of income and we just can't be having that.
I have a personal friend who lives in Australia which is one of the reasons I looked at the system they have. Like any system it isn't perfect but it is the best one I have seen by far.
What it is is a combination of government funding and private health insurance companies. Everyone gets basic care but those who can purchase private insurance and there are some things they get that those without the ability to pay don't. Sounds unfair maybe but that is the way the world works and nobody can be denied private insurance or suffer inflated rates. If you want it (cost like $150 per month for a family) it can get it. I should add I talked to him some years ago so I don't know how it is today but I suspect people like it.
The extra money allows research and advances. I am afraid if we went to a single payer system finance would become paramount and the huge advances (they are like nowhere else in the world) would come to a screeching halt.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
MotleyCrew
They're the ruling elite class and don't have to sacrifice for the greater good like the proletariat class. In a socialist or communist state the rules are for the working class ONLY.
