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.
His plans aren't anymore socialistic than social security, medicaire, public schools etc. which Obama didn't create. Why does it appear that he doesn't want us out? We didn't get in overnight and wont get out overnight. I agree with the last statement.
There has been news recently about Obama expanding our presence in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq and the pullout date being pushed back.
I shouldn't have only said Iraq....I support some presence in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but cetainly not Obama's plans.
UHC and trying to control so many businesses/corporations are far more socialistic than social security and medicare.
There has been news recently about Obama expanding our presence in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq and the pullout date being pushed back.
I shouldn't have only said Iraq....I support some presence in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but cetainly not Obama's plans.
UHC and trying to control so many businesses/corporations are far more socialistic than social security and medicare.
Adjusting the timeline based on what's happening on the ground is a good thing. I'm glad Obama is not stubborn and rigid which is a break from the previous administration.
Universal Heathcare wont mandate that you join, it will only offer you the option. He's not trying to control many businesses, the situation dictated what has happened with a few. Letting them go out of business or continue on there current path wasn't a viable option.
UHC and trying to control so many businesses/corporations are far more socialistic than social security and medicare.
Elaborate, please. You are saying that having a government health care program like Medicare, which has worked since the mid 1960s, isn't socialism but UHC is? Why?
I agree that our country has a lot of socialist programs, but why would allowing all Americans to have health care instead of a particular age group be any more extreme? Not arguing, just curious to hear your explanation.
Elaborate, please. You are saying that having a government health care program like Medicare, which has worked since the mid 1960s, isn't socialism but UHC is? Why?
I agree that our country has a lot of socialist programs, but why would allowing all Americans to have health care instead of a particular age group be any more extreme? Not arguing, just curious to hear your explanation.
Personally I think Medicare, SS, etc. should all be abolished. I'm not saying the programs themselves should be abolished, but they should be state issues. I would support them in my state, but do not support them nationally.
As far as UHC, it's far more expansive than Medicare. It's larger. Medicare is a form of socialism; to an extent, socialistic programs are necessary, but they should be kept as small as possible.
Adjusting the timeline based on what's happening on the ground is a good thing. I'm glad Obama is not stubborn and rigid which is a break from the previous administration.
I suppose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tank1906
Universal Heathcare wont mandate that you join, it will only offer you the option. He's not trying to control many businesses, the situation dictated what has happened with a few. Letting them go out of business or continue on there current path wasn't a viable option.
But we will all suffer in the longrun. Our children and grandchildren will be the main ones to suffer. The debt levels are/will be astounding.
But we will all suffer in the longrun. Our children and grandchildren will be the main ones to suffer. The debt levels are/will be astounding.
I think our children will collectively benefit from having the guarantee of health-care. Sick kids are unproductive kids which will do nothing positive for our future economic prospects. Relieving already strapped parents of that one burden may work wonders on the mental and emotional stability and viablity of the average American family.
I think our children will collectively benefit from having the guarantee of health-care. Sick kids are unproductive kids which will do nothing positive for our future economic prospects. Relieving already strapped parents of that one burden may work wonders on the mental and emotional stability and viablity of the average American family.
I support free health care for children (but not adults) provided at the state level. I wouldn't support requiring states to do it, but I would support it in my state.
I have seen up close the harm done to children by ultra-liberal wackos ("parents"), in order to hang onto their beloved agendas. There is always the rationale, the "excuse", for the "greater good", etc. crapola. That is the TRUE definition of an infidel. Obama meets the criterion.
I support free health care for children (but not adults) provided at the state level. I wouldn't support requiring states to do it, but I would support it in my state.
I hate the idea of yet another federal program.
If it works, I'm for it public or private. I don't have an overarching adverse view of good government, just bad government.
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.
