Category: the Rant Board
Now as gleeful as I am that we forced the will of the few upon the will of the many, the slashing and burning of the Constitution isn't over yet. On Tuesday, the Senate will probably make a weak attempt to preserve the Republic by modifying the ridiculous excesses of this bill, and these are excesses which must be kept in so that we may fatten the pockets of politicians who made sweetheart deals for their various districts. Some have hoped for a last ditch effort to save this country from being thrown off the cliff by delaying the bill's implementation. It is my desire that they fail. It's time to squelch opposition once and for all and begin imposing this unwanted nonsense on the American people, contrary to their clearly expressed wishes. This year, and in years to come, we as leftists have a solemn responsibility to do what is in our own best interest.
This day does not represent the end of my party's systematic destruction of this country. The work of ruining our economy goes on. The work of stultifying private sector job creation goes on. The work of making sure that American families' dreams are permanently out of reach goes on, and we march on like an army of termites whose goal is to eat away at the foundation of a solid structure until it crumbles to the ground as if it were nothing but sand.
In the end, what this day represents is another nail in the coffin for the American dream. Tonight, we slapped those in the face who so nobly gave their lives for our freedom and prosperity that we will no longer enjoy. When faced with a decision, we did not do the right thing -- we chose expediency. We did not embrace our responsibility -- we avoided it. We did not shape our future -- we shrank from it.
Thank you, Marx blesses you, and Marx blesses the new United States Socialist Republic.
TRANSLATED BY:
Eddie Salcido
How typical of a right winger. One socialistic idea equals Marxism and communism. Even Marx claimed not to be a Marxest. Do these people even understand the difference between these theories or do they, as I suppose, use big words that suit their puspose and slap grand labels on things without actually looking. That's like ordering an apple and getting an orange. You complain but the waitress says that it's all fruit so there's no difference. Doesn't work does it?
thanks for the extra laugh!
I love how the opposition likes to argue their point by making what could very well be false interpretations of speeches. Hahaha!
Yeah, me too. Very amusing.
Just goes to show how stupid selfish and ignorant people canbe when our government is actually trying to do something good for us making a basic need we all have affordable health care lol
False, I hardly think so. Biased? Indeed! As SisterDawn said, it's called satire. This is the crown jewel of the Socialist agenda. It started with the progressive income tax of 1913, the direct election of senators by the people, and the systematic purging of religion from the public square.
More like being foisted on us. The bill mandates that private citizens buy insurance or face a fine. Ah well, it's a great time to be alive, actually. I say that because we now know what the liberals really want. They've shown us that they will stop at nothing to get it and the cards are out on the table for the American people to see. The next few months is going to be interesting folks, very interesting.
That was quite an interesting analogy, Eleni--I'm referring to post 2. No matter who I agree with here--or whether I do or not--just wanted to say that that was a great analogy to use to explain your point.
Thanks for the compliment. *smile* and religion has no place in politics today. there are far too many of them and it would be wrong to base everything on one or to force wording about only one type of faith in political documents, oaths etc. I'm a Hellenic Polytheist. so why should I make references to there being only one god? What about those who are atheists?
so how many of you alls that opine on this issue actually have to pay for insurance?
Well got news kiddies, you pay more because others don't. A mandate to pay up, at least with a sliding fee for those as can't, at least will help offset some of the costs. Said mandate already exists for car insurance, home owner's insurance in some states at least. You are required to pay for shots for your damned dog, and here we go boo hooin' at least those as are'nt haveing to pay for it, that you gotta compensate for the health insurance somehow?
If you really don't want this to happen, let's be like Africa and instead of providing health care to those as can't pay, let's let 'em die. After all, the reason a single aspirin in a hospital in this country costs six bucks is because of all those coming in off the street with no insurance that never pay, maybe they can't in some cases. That doesn't include all you who are on assistance: that's getting paid at least at half rate.
And when I had my own business, my family was totally uninsured because we simply couldn't aford it. conservatives? Pro family? Pooh! It's all rot.
The so called sarcasm put forth here, besides not being witty, not being creative, and not making much sense, isn't even good conservatism. Even the odious Richard Nixon saw the need for health care.
What we are paying for now is not for all those do-nothings in the emergency room, we are paying for those excessive bonuses for fat cats. (My apologies to the cat lovers.)
Bob
I'm going to address several points here. The common misconception today is that religion has no place in politics. The first amendment states that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. This meant that we are not to have a church of the United States for example. It did not mean to target those who bow their heads in school to pray or who pray in a public arena. Such actions do not constitute law making in any fashion. Additionally, religiously peppered speeches by public oficials also do not constitute legislation. To Bob, I would say that the value of my piece as an absolute masterpiece of commentary or just so much meaningless drivvle depends upon where you stand on the political spectrum and that is fine. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this point because of partisan affiliation on both of our parts.
when you're a politician, you're supposed to represent the public at large, unless you're part of a very special interest party. But when you're in the mainstream, you can't go around isolating certain elements of the population by catering to one particular area nor can you afford to let your judgements be made based only on religion when they effect the whole nation. As for schools, a silent moment of prayer is one thing. Making it a christian thing is another and that's what was happening, prayers to a single god aloud, god put in money, on the Pledge of Allegiance etc. That's hardly the way for a country which prides itself on freedom and diversity to behave. And speaking of which, "one nation under god"? Talk about discriminatory. Maybe that's where they get the ideas of global domination. Only their nation is under their god, so it's okay to dominate others...
Country Singer...what the fuck sort of agenda are you pushing?
News flash. We all have agendas we're pushing. You and Tiff have a liberal agenda and I have a conservative agenda which I am extremely proud of. To Tiff, how does the phrase "one nation under God" impose discrimination on you personally? That's a big stretch. I'd argue that as blind people, we face more employment discrimination than we do because of a
little phrase printed on our currency. Actually, this country is based upon politicians representing factions and special interests. The liberals are supported by donations from labor lobbies, unions, ETC. while conservatives take contributions from insurance companies and other corporations that are lobbying against things like the health care package that was just passed. The Supreme Court recently gutted large portions of McCain Feingold which placed restrictions on how much corporations and other entities could contribute toward campaign adds. This is good because it once again allows the citizenry at large to put money behind their constitutionally protected 1st amendment rights to express themselves on issues.
Gotta love the radical, delusional right wing idiocy/ideology in the United States. Very, very dangerous and counterproductive stuff.
I've said this before, but will say it again:
The extreme right and extreme left deserve each other.
While the extreme left purports compassion and all, you rarely see them do anything asie from "identify" or "feel the pain".
And as to our folks on the right, if you all thought as much as you claim to think of these executives, you'd start expecting more from them. You'd embrace accountability: so a small town gives a tax break to big corp? Great, they give back, jobs that equate to making a living in the area, or they don't get the break.
No? Then you're basically just treating these supposed benefactors as a pack of "thpecial" window-lickers. The modern right is an embarrassment to capitalism in general: it's just become an elitist nonsense club that makes about as much sense as the academic leftist elite. It don't wear well no matter who's wearin' it.
Eisenhower, who is from your beloved era the 1950s, knew enough to put massive money into education. Yep, you guessed it, it wasn't FDR and it wasn't Carter or Johnson, it was Eisenhower as put together the math and science funding of the 1950s.
Your beloved 1950s era from which we got 'Under God' on the pledge and 'In God We Trust' on the bills, had more organized labor than any other period in history. Yep, more jobs payed a living wage so parents could put their kiddies through college, all under a conservative's banner and not these new wanker half-ass numnuts that pass for I'm-Not-sure-what, right now. If you are a capitalist, and I don't really think most modern right people know what it means, you invest and get your returns. Invest *where you will get your return from*! Doubt any of these new right lickers have read Adam Smith or Thomas Payne except for maybe a snippet here or there.
No, in fact modern capitalists wouldn't dream of investing in their own population to get returns in improvements. They'd rather export it all overseas. That's gonna bust pippy because the overseas markets aren't looking to stay thin, the Chinese and Indian workers are gonna bring themselves up and past us, because their societies are doing now what Eisenhower did in your beloved Fifties, and that is invest in science / math / education, the things ironically the Right is so desperately afraid of. And I say again, Eisenhower was no liberal.
So how does health care fit into this? Well farm boy let me see if I can spell this one out for ya: How much do you suppose farmers pay to keep their capital investment healthy? AThe junk science people who claim all the chemicals in your food are bad ... well the truth is, it's vets administering antibiotics, vitamins and other health-saving measures. That's right pipsqueak: your corporate farmer knows more than you do apparently, about investing in health equals higher yields of profitability. And if you actually read the health care bill (who cares about political speeches), you will see that the primary carriers aka the insurance companies aren't getting beached. Despite what some of you all claim about socialism, that's a rather impossible feat on this particular economy / social structure.
So the question is, I guess, are you capitalist enough, are you man enough, to invest in the long-term healthcare that even your third-world nation competitors are working towards? Modern conservatives haven't been man enough to invest in math / science / education: No, they would rather argue about intelligent design or other nonsequitors. Consequently, they themselves have a greater resemblence to old-guard elitism than some modern liberals, and that's sayin' somethin'!
I put forth they aren't in fact capitlists, just special interest defenders with people putting up pie charts on TV who don't know the difference between cause and effect, or the difference between a midpoint and a mean, because that's all science, which must mean liberal ...
as for how the under god wording is imposing on others...there are people, such as myself in the world who're atheists...and just as you're proud of your nonsense conservatism, I'm proud of my being Liberal, atheist, and being able to back up whatever I say with real evidence...not just crap others have led me to believe. news flash: I think for myself and am damn proud of it!! thank you for the laugh, though.
Just patiently waiting for November for the libs in congress to be sent packing! It's going to be like 1994 all over again! Oh what a joyus day it will be. Your command and home boy thug president cares more about health care than finding you lot jobs. Cares more about cash for clunkers than improving the economy well unless it's the economy of Japan. talk about a lame duck, he isn't going to get anything else done for his remaining 2 years in office. I mean it took him 14 months to get anything done with such a majority in the senate and house.
btw, the health care bill won't take effect for 4 years. Hopefully it will be repealed before then. 16000 IRS agents is just what we need to make sure everyone has the right kind of health care right? Most of you all don't do anything but sit on your ass in the first place. But at least you will be well so you can collect your SSI and drink your beer and smoke your weed!
Homeboy? You have a problem with him because he's black? That has nothing to do with the issues.
And by the way, I am sick of you right wingers pushing your "under god" bullshit. This country was not founded on superstition...and if it was, shoot me now.
I am not pushing any agenda...us liberals do not do that. Us liberals believe in peace and freedome and we do not go around jamming all sorts of shit down the throats of others.
Ah yes, 1994 again. And that particular group didn't do any better than their bleeding predecessors at reducing budgets either ... National debt? Massive increase.
And I'm not saying Obama's is the ultimate in plans. I'm just saying any conservative who isn't a pathetic excuse of a sod fake-capitalist would *innovate* a new solution, would have come out with something affordable to families as well. McCain's plan was way out of reach of low to middle income families: It didn't change the structural problems we have now.
Think you're capitalists? Then innovate, dammit, rather than claim there's nothing wrong. I say we need more engineers running the country, as at least we have the honor to a. admit there are problems, and b. actually fix them. I could not have possibly been more disappointed in this health care debate, because rather than put forth ideas to fix the problem, the conservative wankmonkeys just pretended it was 1966 and they were liberals, and went out all hollering and screaming in the streets.
No innovation, no proposal, lots of sodden excuses about how picked on they are from the mainstream media. Victim don't wear well no matter who's wearin' it. And Fox Network is the most popular network today, so I think their "liberal mainstream media" diatribe is a bit dated: They're the most popular now, they've got their lead for market reasons, just as their predecessors had it for market reasons.
And as to the last poster, regarding most people on here, I think you've got part of it wrong: Your conservatives have never touched entitlements, and although yu are a working stiff like I am, and you're paying for your kiddy's education - or are going to - well, got news for ya: the people who don't do anything and are on entitlements, are rarely if ever affected by either conservative or liberal policies.
The difference between the two camps, is who is the working stiff supposed to pay for? Guy on top gettin' all the breaks / exporting work overseas, or guy on bottom as just drooled on your shoe this morning while *you* were on your way to the office?
None of 'em is for us working folks. Despite what they claim.
And I still say anyone who isn't an embarrassment to capitalism would acknowledge an investment in education / healthcare = more vital work force.
I think we need to bring back the dunce cap ...
A thug is a thug no matter what race he belongs to! The command er and thug just happen to belong to that Acorn group at one time and his other good buddy reverend right. I love it when he stumbles all over himself when his teleprompter screws up. I seem to remember you guys making fun of another president who couldn't speak on his own. uh uh uh uh. what does I say massa.
Liberals don't force beliefs down peoples throats??? Are you really being serious now? PETA, Green peace, Al gore, I thought the liberals were all inclusive or is that to anything that isn't a republican belief.
hahaha I like that. Yes, both extremes are equally bad. Put them in a room and watch them go nuts for an afternoon of pure entertainment. I don't see how big corporations can be benefactors in this day and age when so many of them outsource. Surely, the right thing to do would be to keep the jobs here. I think this is what's given me such a bad taste in my mouth when it comes to capitalism, the fact that most so-called capitalists act just as described in post 17. I've yet to meet a total capitalist or a total communist because most people switch things around, add a bit here and there, to make their lives easier. it's human nature. The right doesn't want anyone educated for the simple reason that knowledge equals power. They're doing exactly what they were afraid the left would do, things that you'd see in Brave New world or farenhight 451. society has dumbed down alot in the past few decades. that horrible fiasco in texas, which some call the texas Massacre in books, is a prime example of this. They're taking out things,including science, that don't sit well with their beliefs and are replacing it with religion. The mainstream media hardly ever encourages anyone to learn, just to buy the latest video games, cars, computers, clothing and so on and to watch the celebrities doing who knows what. How can anyone be expected to know anything if they've never learned it and how can said people be expected to properly rule a country, to be able to vote with knowledge or even to be able to debate with a clear idea of what they're saying?
Thank you Robozork. I couldn't have said it better myself.
I'm not saying the democrats are perfect by any means, but I really don't agree with this translation of Obama's speech. it's okay though. That's just my views, and after all, Politics is a never-ending debate.
I really think we should all give this new Health Care reform a try before we shoot it down.
OceanDream: It sure is, and neither side has the self-respect or personal pride to make it an actual fix to real problems.
TexasShawn, Acorn and the WeatherWeenies were in fact what they were, there have been problems there just as the other side had problems with Smashcroft whose 'security' (expensive) controls were foisted upon the U.S. in pretended response to 9/11, while he had planned this stuff ahead of time.
And as to claiming liberals don't force their views? Who's sayin' that? 'Course they do. You're correct, their tolerance is fake.
So, let's flip this sucker over:
"pro-family?" conservatives? "Pro-life?" OK, you outsource the work, causing families to be out of work / the provider to no longer be able to fulfill his / her obligations. No prenatal care in health insurance with an employer? So who's the accessory to murder when a spontaneous abortion happens? The employer or the murderer? If it is murder, after all, there is accessory, and men have gone to prison with less connected evidence.
Both sides deserve each other, neither is consistent in the least.
To Tiff I say this: Don't despise capitalists because of what you see from a bunch of wannabe wankers who don't know the difference between a donation and a return on an investment. Real capitalism is product-driven, not market-driven, get you Thomas Payne's works, and Adam Smith's works, they're in the public domain.
Which leads me to your latter question? How are we to learn? We have access to more real data (not tweets about Obama has six toes dammit, but real documents!) than ever before.
And we all blinks should know this better than *anyone else!* after all it wasn't that long ago the only info we got was funny reader's-digest-style rag mags and such in Braille, aka whatever was deemed worthy to print to the blinkosphere. There, I just acknowledged the artificial fishbowl of the blikosphere! Now if you have access to the net, and especially a Braille display, you can educate *yourself*. I don't blame someone who can see for not doing this, but to me, it just wasn't that long ago our real-time access to print material was nonexistent!
So let the system take itself a nice long walk off the short pier and educate yourself online. But whatever you do, don't mistake these modern victimy bleeding heart conservatives alter your perception of it. Yep, they're bleeding hearts all right, because rather than expect excellence in local economy from their CEO's, they play outcome-based education type thinking, excusing whatever the CEO does. That's where you get "Can't a CEO do anything anymore?" or "Give the CEOs a chance." It don't wear well, no matter who's wearin' it.
FYI the system we have now with the republican special interests far more resembles the British mercantile system than anything capitalist.
"Uh, what's mercantile? and can I have one?" said a Palin.
"No! It goes to my campaign debt!" said a Hillary Crow Clinton
Well, liberals tend to be more tolerant than their reactionary counterparts. You people think Bush was so great? It seems to me there is brainwashing going on.
And, OceanDream, way to take the high road! This arguing will never end.
The first step to validating your side of the argument is to actually address the other side. You have to establish their credibility to establish your own.
Wow, at least now I have a better understanding about how a bill on health care was decided on abortion rights rather than strictly on health care. And although most of the reforms do not kick in for a few years, there are a few that will take effect by the end of the year . And although I am sure that there will be more debate on this issue from those who sit on either side of the party lines, there are those of us sitting in the middle who may be impressed that some action on this issue was finally taken regardless if it turns out to be good or bad.
Don't tell me these people didn't include the right to abort in their bill! What about contraception at least?
Well, they didn't exactly outlaw abortion, but they created an amendment which says that no federal funds will be used to help pay for an abortion. It was originally not a part of the bill that passed, but was added to please a few Democrats who refused to vote for the bill if this amendment was not included. If these few Democrats had voted against the bill, it most likely would not have passed. Needless to say, there are just a few people who are not exactly happy with the person who created this amendment.
Uh, yeah. Count me in with the so-called few who aren't very happy with this amendment. I could understand limiting the time that the government could help in these situations, but to not help at all is just wrong. Here come more unwanted children.
If this is indeed true, I don't agree with that either. I guess they think the Fosterparents aren't already busy enough.
It has to do with religious convictions. Separation of church and state? What a joke!
I'm amazed how they can do a thing like this, and then later complain how the world is becoming overpopulated.
If any of you all want a text copy of the health care bill ... just PM me
I had Adobe export it to text so it's about as good as a Bookshare scan.
Encourage you all to give a look see. I pretty near ruined a few religious folks's day when this first came out in the fall, by showing them the living will section of the actual bill, aka no death panels, and also the Medicare reforms of 2003 (G W Bush) that, though I would not call them such, would be closer to the supposed "death panel".
In other words get the bill and read for yourselves.
Q: I’m 28, single and healthy. I don’t have health insurance. Is it true the new law would penalize me unless I buy a health care plan? If so, why?
A: Yes, you would be penalized, through a phased-in system that kicks in four years from now: $95 or 1 percent of your taxable income in 2014, whichever is greater; $325 or 2 percent of your taxable income in 2015; $695 or 2.5 percent of your taxable income in 2016 (with a household maximum of $2,085); and amounts afterward that are based on the cost-of-living adjustment.
Here is the government’s justification for penalties: You are now what economists call a "free rider." Your decision not to pay anything for health care, they say, is tantamount to ignoring the ever-present risk that you might get sick or injured. And if you do get sick or injured now, your care is effectively paid through taxpayer funds — through charity or emergency care, for example — even though you lack the insurance plans that other people pay for. For health-care reform to be sustainable, and to make financial sense for insurance companies, even relatively healthy people must have a plan. They can’t wait until they get sick or hurt to buy one.
So just so you know this isn't for free folks, you won't be sucking the government tit for nothin!
Okay Shawn. Let's just go with that thought for a moment then as it seems to upset you so much. if you want to watch television but don't happen to currently own one what should happen? Should everybody else be forced to club together and buy you a TV, or should you have to buy one for yourself. Or how about ride a bus, let's say you needed to go somewhere on the bus but just didn't feel like you should pay for a ticket. Would it then be right for you to just get onto that bus anyway and expect all the other passengers to pick up your fee collectively? Because effectively that is what you're saying. There isn't any real difference. It doesn't matter that you're 28 and healthy. Because that's right now, but should you go out in half an hour and suddenly be struck down by a passing car while crossing the street you'd no longer be healthy would you. You'd most likely require emergency treatment and here's the catch, if you have no insurance then other people have to pay for that treatment and why on earth should they? Just because you'd decided that you shouldn't be responsible for your own health care.
You see, were you able to set aside all that resentment at being forced to pay for insurance for a moment, you'd actually see that it does make perfect sense. You're not somebody else's responsibility and that applies whether you want to own a TV, ride a bus or use the facilities at your local emergency room. The only difference being of course that you could easily live without watching the box, or riding the bus, but there is at least some chance that you wouldn't without health care.
Dan.
Shawn,
All plans put forth by conservatives have stipulated the same.
When automobile insurance became a legal requirement, there were people complaining all over the place aboutgovernment intrusion.
Well I know of two instances in real life where the car insurance situation had a very real effect:
Last year my wife got into a car wreck that totaled our vehicle, it was the other driver cutting across lanes of traffic. Well we all makes mistakes, the driver wasn't malicious or anything. And the driver (fortunate for us) had insurance. This is fortunate because your own insurance will only cover where you are at fault.
Contrast this with some friends of ours who got in a wreck, and the other driver illegally had no insurance. So the friends of ours, since it was the other person's fault, were left to fend for themselves. Their own insurance coverage would only cover when it was their fault.
Tough darts, but that's how it is, and that's why the current plan, and Mitt Romney's plan, BTW, put forth a requirement that all people be insured.
And the amount you will be asked to pay is less than what people pay now for private health insurance.
Just sayin'
well Dan, with government ran health care everyone else pays for it in the first place. So how about while were at it lets extend it to auto insurance, life insurance, maybe someday none of us will have to pay for mortgages etc. a total utopian society
I can bet ya this, the same people who bitch about not being able to aford health care in this country have big flatt screen tv's and every other gadget known to man. so, no I am not complaining about having to purchase health care for myself. I do actually and I have a damn good policy but that is because I choose to nobody is forcing me to do it.
.
the other driver illegally had no insurance.
Let me guess. the driver was illegal too. that figures. so it's quite a bind we find ourselves in. we either offer free health care to everyone the little brown illegals too or we don't and they go birth 10 kids at the local hospital and get it for free anyway! I wonder if health care in america is better than it is in mexico? I'm guessing it's not free down there!
.
Government won't be paying for your health care in this country. We'll just have some unified standards to aid an already-existing industry. And standards always provide the vehicle on which innovation can take place. With everyone paying for their coverage, the net costs do drop.
No Utopia, of course; there isn't one. However, a system with private carriers and a public option for those who can't afford it, but where terms and definitions are ubiquitous in meaning rather than scattered, and where the burden of insurance is not on the employer only, is what we're going to end up with. What we have presented to us, is not all that different from Mitt Romney's proposals.
And you can keep your plan, though you may pay less for it, for the simple reason that everyone will have to pay for insurance, just like we all pay auto insurance.
And once again I say, you're only showing that although you're vehemently against health care reform, that you don't actually have any comprehension of what you're apposed too. America will not be providing nationalized health care to all citizens. That is not what health care reform is all about. America will not be anything like Britain or Canada when all is said and done. The vast majority of citizens will be privately insured, just as the majority are now. Low-income households will get subsidies to help pay for insurance, and about sixteen million more people will become eligible for medicare, but health care reform is not about providing free health care to all, so dispel yourself of that notion.
honestly I could understand the anger if people at least first took the time to work out what it was they were angry about. That's what seems so daft about all this to me. Everybody is up in arms without taking any time to get some basic facts for themselves. What's the point in being angry about having a national health service hoisted upon you when that isn't even close to what is actually happening.
Dan.
1984, Two Minutes' Hate and Hate Week.
We are at war with Eurasia. We have always been at war with Eurasia.
Only instead of the Stalinist left playing the Ministry of Truth, what we have boys and girls, is the Palinist Right doing it. I'm a broken record for saying this, but it don't wear well no matter who's wearin' it.
And might I guess that many of these angered souls have probably never read Orwell's 1984?
It would be so much easier if paying for healthcare were simply done through everyone's taxes being raised a certain amount, according to what they make instead of making people go out and purchase health insurance. that way, everyone has to do it, it's included in taxes and that would be the end of it. But of course, America won't do it with their mentality. If they ever do, it'll take decades, maybe even a century or more, to catch up to this way of thinking. This would still not address those of us who choose to use naturopathic medicine etc. but even I do use birth control, which is synthetic and needs a prescription, and, Gods forbid something major happens that would require emergency treatment, I'd certainly want to be able to have it and not have a huge bill afterword. as for illegals, they need to be sent back to their countries, unless they're willing to work and pay taxes, or if disabled, at least volunteer or do something helpful. Either way, take papers or get the hell out. As for 1984, it's a wonderful book.
Well, imagine a family of 4 or 5 with someone with preconditions, health insurance would cost them probably around $500 a month, so the equivalent of a durn good tv, every month, and I bet you all the insurance executives have huge villas and millions in leisure expenses, and you know where that money comes from.
Why does no one here have issues with us being forced to pay out of our taxes for rebuilding in Iraq and purchasing thousands of tons of weapons, now make that optional and include health insurance in taxes, that would be a step forward.
Regarding illegals, they wouldn't come here if there wasn't a demand for them, they do tons of dirty jobs and are hired to take care of swimming pools, work in the fields and care for kids. If Americans really wanted them out the jobs for them would dry up, instead there is this huge Schpiel of building a big fense, with tax payer money, that really does nothing except justifies more military spending, whilst those who make it across are employed as baby sitters and aggricultural worker because no self respecting American would want to do such dirty jobs.
No, they shouldn't be here, us who are legal immigrants under intense scrutiny feel the heat of it, but the fact is there is a reason for them coming here and nothing has been done to take that reason away, and in any case that is a whole different topic.
The immigrants are doing the jobs that we feel we are to good to do. This sort of bastardized thinking, boys and girls, is brought to you by the conservative right.
I certainly don't agree either with america's agressive stance towards other countries or with any country helping to rebuild an enemy's country after war. the point of war is the original cause (if there is one... which there should always be) and destruction. Not let's hold your hand and be nice now. Granted, the tentions should cool off after a war but not to the point of paying for them to rebuild. As for as for americans working, I don't think this is just on the right. Everyone has become lazy. It's happening in greece too and pro bably in other places. People want jobs, they complain about unemployment but when a job like that is offered to them, they refuse to take it. and then they want everyone to feel sorry for them.
Nothing is free in this world. Let's just make that clear right now. Somehow, some way, you're going to have to pay for that health care, but let's just see which of these two situations you like better:
1. You pay premiums every month while you are helthy. Twenty years down the road, you have a heart attack. Now all that money you paid into your insurance will quite literally save your life.
Or,
2. Some idiot decides to think only of themselves, gets drunk at a party, and thinks it will be okay to drive home. Well, surprise, surprise, they get into a serious accident, and you get to chip in to pay for that irresponsible idiot's hospital stay because they didn't have any health insurance to help cover it themselves.
I do agree that health insurance could possibly be a little better when it comes to your coverage. I really do believe that as long as you are paying your premiums faithfully, there should be no other cost to you when it comes to your health care. If everybody must buy health insurance, I think this should be the case.
Robozork, thank you for providing what I really hope is an unbiased copy of the bill, because it appears that both sides like to put their twist on it to make it sound better.
It's the bill as is from Congress. It's not like some sites that comment on it, the site has links to it in PDF. I would right-click those and save it to disk. I have both copies and again make my offer to anyone who wants it, simply PM me and I will zip them and send them to you. I wonder what we can do to get Bookshare to post it? This is the bill as is.
Getting it on bookshare? hmmm
Oh my goodness, it seems as though this topic has gone from dismantling health care reform to dismantling immigration issues. What will be next? But while you guys sort it all out, I think I’m gonna use my new health care insurance to see one of those doctors who barely speaks a word of English because our country cannot produce enough doctors to actually cover our health care needs.
Wait, every person with a doctors degree in Europe speaks extremely good English and I know many of them are looking to move e.g. to the U.S., would be surprised if doctors who study elsewhere in the world are not required to learn English.
I just wish something was done about the leaks and inefficiencies I listed before in the system i.e. $30000 per year of insurance against needless law suits (cut the law suits, make it harder to sue a doctor, not impossible, but make it difficult and more reasonable), have a database of patients with necessarily good protection to allow doctors and hospitals to share info on patient history, they can do it with credit cards and they must let millions of shops and retail merchants access info, they keep your credit history etc (there are problems, admittedly, butyou could have better cnotrol over a helathcare database), simplify the billing system. I have spoken to doctors here during my visits and they say they are exhausted and discusted with all the papers they have to fill out for insurance, they say most of their time is spent on it and they have to hire a bunch of people to do the work for them, expensive, inefficient, complex, if you can make a doctor spend 90% of his time seeing patients instead of, say, 30% and the rest on paperwork, you already address the doctor shortage.
Hire doctors who can't speak English to treat illegal immigrants for $50 a visit. Did you know if you do not hve a plan and you ask for the insurance company rate at the doctors office you pay $60, if you do not you pay $120 or if you have insurance you pay $20 to $30 so the total money the doctor gets is $80. Why not have insurance cheaper and cover more expensive longterm type emergencies. Given a $250 insurance premiums a month you need to see the doctor 7 times to make it worth while for you, assuming it's just doctor's visits. If you get shots, at lesat under our insurance plan, they are not covered anyway so we have to pay them in full, of course if we are talking expensive scans and hospitals that's different.
Basically I am not sure if the new healthcare bill is the answer, it's too waterred down and too much of a compromise to mend anything and possibly makes things worse for all, but I hope I am wrong in that pessimistic evaluation.
I just know things could be better and when republicans threaten that the system could be as bad as UK or Canda I find it funny, because those healthcare systems are much better than here, unless you have loads of money yourself.
The problem, from what I've heard, is that, in some cases, a medical license received in one country doesn't necessarily carry over to another. so even if the person is a good doctor, he/she might not qualify to be one here. I think everyone who chooses to live in a foreign country should be required to learn tht country's language, and this is more true if they intend on taking a job where working with people is a major part of it. Exceptions to the language rule might be the elderly or the mentally retarded etc.
Yes, I agree that health insurance should be much better, especially if everyone has to have it now.
Wildebrew, you bring up some good points. I was simply trying to make a joke about how a topic on health care reform somehow made its way to immigration reform. Personally, I don’t see how the two are related except for the fact that most doctors here in the United States come from other countries. If people really want to make a difference in the health care debate, then they should at least stick to the issue rather than bringing up other issues that don’t really have anything to do with health care reform.
Tiff, why should the elderly be ixcluded?
It's more difficult, but certainly not impossible, for the elderly to learn a new language. My boyfriend is 64 and has been here for maybe eight years. He's still learning english but he works and he drives. So for him, it's a necessity. If, however, someone comes here with their grandparents or something, and they're not working and don't/can't drive, it's not as necessary for them to learn English as it would be if they were working and out in the public. That said, it certainly would be nice for them to at least try to learn the basics for things like phone calls, doctor's visits etc.
I'd love to participate in this discussion, but unfortunately I have really no idea about what is going on. We are going to talk about it in a class I'm in on Thursday, and we were asked to read some things fround on whitehouse.gov. It is interesting to see both sides of this from this site though. Maybe I'll have some things to say after Thursday.
Hope you do alot of your own research. Don't let yourself be swayed one way or the other.