Dems Move all-in: Protesters are Un-American

[Navy1960]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jRj-pWbWJo&feature=PlayList&p=19E4A769D878FEA9&index=30]YouTube - Protest of Bush at Monticello[/ame]

I have no other comments on this one other than to say as I did in another thread, all this fake outrage over these healthcare protests is just that fake, why? because when you had this going on for the last eight years all you heard was, they are exercising their 1st Amendment rights which they were, and now we have a call to be civil. So spare me fake outrage.

 

[L.K.Eder]

Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American.

un-American, or not?

 

[Nik]

Did you actually read what I wrote or did you just make an assumption? What I suggest is you read the commerce clause of the constitution to understand what I wrote but then again that might pose a problem because you have made the statement that you don't feel the need to to be bound by it.

I've read it, thanks. Its not that helpful without considering how the USSC has interpreted it. Have you read the commerce clause line of cases?

However, I would encourage you to take a look at it to understand that as it applies to interstate commerce, I made it quite clear what the Govt. as the power to do and to regulate. If you took that to mean no money to fund this then obviously you didn't read it or understand it.

I'm aware of what the government can do under the commerce clause. However, you stated that the government can't fund it due to "public good" issues which is categorically incorrect.

What I did say though is that it did not empower Govt. "rights" of ownership such as in the case of Amtrak. Your trying to compare fire and police which is clearly a local and state issue with a Federal one again exposes your lack of understanding in your own Govt.

Who owns it is, frankly, irrelevant since its not a profit making venture. You'd be in favor of the US government throwing money down a hole that is profiting private investors instead of just performing a service? Thats absurd.

Progressivism is a political and social term that refers to ideologies and movements favoring or advocating changes or reform, usually in a statist or egalitarian direction for economic policies (government management) and liberal direction for social policies (personal choice). Progressivism is often viewed in opposition to conservative ideologies.

Thats a broad generalization. I don't think progressives are trying to reform medicare, nor are they trying to reform social security whereas "conservatives" want to privatize both.

Those who are really convinced that they have made progress in science would not demand freedom for the new views to continue side by side with the old, but the substitution of the new views for the old.

Lenin

And? I can find quotes by Hitler that jives with conservatism, that doesn't mean that republicans are somehow nazis. Making asinine comparisons like that only shows the blind ideology that influences your core beliefs.

THE SOCIALIST PARTY strives to establish a radical democracy that places people's lives under their own control - a non-racist, classless, feminist socialist society... where working people own and control the means of production and distribution through democratically-controlled public agencies; where full employment is realized for everyone who wants to work; where workers have the right to form unions freely, and to strike and engage in other forms of job actions; and where the production of society is used for the benefit of all humanity, not for the private profit of a few. We believe socialism and democracy are one and indivisible- Socialist Party USA

And? If you don't know the difference between this and progressive Democrats, you need to educate yourself.

You really should take some time to read the constitution Nik then you would realize that the beauty of it lay in the ability to change it. Your inability to see outside whatever you hear and wahtever talking points you get are showing very clearly in this thread Nik and again it would serve you well to actually read , then you would understand what my posting really meant.

Oy. Spare me the condescending bullshit. I've read the US Constitution as well as the EU Constitution, the SA Constitution, the Australian Constitution, and others. I am well aware of the US Constitution and what it says. It, if followed to the letter, would mean that you would be significantly worse off today.

But go ahead. Keep blindly worshiping the views of old dead white men who owned slaves. I mean just because the Constitution said blacks were 3/5ths of a person doesn't mean theres any reason to doubt it, right?

Oh, and as for the beauty of the constitution being that it can be changed, thats asinine. Its only been changed a handful of times in history. The beauty of it is that they set up an original, and pretty decent, system of government. But hey, we know more now than they did 250 years ago. Its not actually that great anymore. Although they did leave it vague enough for us to interpret the fuck out of it, which is helpful.

But go ahead. Keep saying that the government shouldn't act in the public good cause the constitution doesn't say it can. And I'll keep laughing at you

 

[Nik]

Yes, instead of Medicare, we should have lots of elderly people dying in the streets. Much better system.

Medicare actually works quite well. Much better than private insurance, and is very popular. But of course its a failure because....well Republicans say so!

thats your opinion Nik.....not everyone feels that way...both my folkes were on Medicare and it was 50/50....my old man got tired of seeing some shitty doctors,not all of them mind you,but enough....so they got Blue shield as well....now all of a sudden my dad was going to the Joslen Diabetes Center at UCI Med Center paid entirely by Blue Shield....Medicare would not let him go....also instead of just seeing a handful of docs at the center....he was able to see ANYONE of them...his medical care jumped up 5-6 pegs...so did my moms.... experiencing something is a wonder NIK....instead of just listening to those around you.....Medicare only goes so far....apparently they have a limit too....

Of course medicare only goes so far. It should be funded better. Regardless, look at polls more people on medicare are satisfied with their health coverage than people who are on private insurance.

That and the fact that, without medicare, a lot more old folks would be dead.

 

[Nik]

YouTube - Protest of Bush at Monticello

I have no other comments on this one other than to say as I did in another thread, all this fake outrage over these healthcare protests is just that fake, why? because when you had this going on for the last eight years all you heard was, they are exercising their 1st Amendment rights which they were, and now we have a call to be civil. So spare me fake outrage.

Where were the reports of rioting? Of death threats to congressman?

Sorry, but the anti-war protests weren't the same as these health reform riots.

 

[DiveCon]

YouTube - Protest of Bush at Monticello

I have no other comments on this one other than to say as I did in another thread, all this fake outrage over these healthcare protests is just that fake, why? because when you had this going on for the last eight years all you heard was, they are exercising their 1st Amendment rights which they were, and now we have a call to be civil. So spare me fake outrage.

Where were the reports of rioting? Of death threats to congressman?

Sorry, but the anti-war protests weren't the same as these health reform riots.

RIOTS?????

LOL
yeah sure

 

[Nik]

YouTube - Protest of Bush at Monticello

I have no other comments on this one other than to say as I did in another thread, all this fake outrage over these healthcare protests is just that fake, why? because when you had this going on for the last eight years all you heard was, they are exercising their 1st Amendment rights which they were, and now we have a call to be civil. So spare me fake outrage.

Where were the reports of rioting? Of death threats to congressman?

Sorry, but the anti-war protests weren't the same as these health reform riots.

RIOTS?????

LOL
yeah sure

Yeah, they were soooooooo peaceful

Tampa Town Hall On Health Care Reform Disrupted By Violence (VIDEO)

 

[DiveCon]

Where were the reports of rioting? Of death threats to congressman?

Sorry, but the anti-war protests weren't the same as these health reform riots.

RIOTS?????

LOL
yeah sure

Yeah, they were soooooooo peaceful

Tampa Town Hall On Health Care Reform Disrupted By Violence (VIDEO)

that is what YOU call a riot?
you should be sure to stay out of places like South Boston and south central LA

 

[Navy1960]

Did you actually read what I wrote or did you just make an assumption? What I suggest is you read the commerce clause of the constitution to understand what I wrote but then again that might pose a problem because you have made the statement that you don't feel the need to to be bound by it.

I've read it, thanks. Its not that helpful without considering how the USSC has interpreted it. Have you read the commerce clause line of cases?

However, I would encourage you to take a look at it to understand that as it applies to interstate commerce, I made it quite clear what the Govt. as the power to do and to regulate. If you took that to mean no money to fund this then obviously you didn't read it or understand it.

I'm aware of what the government can do under the commerce clause. However, you stated that the government can't fund it due to "public good" issues which is categorically incorrect.



Who owns it is, frankly, irrelevant since its not a profit making venture. You'd be in favor of the US government throwing money down a hole that is profiting private investors instead of just performing a service? Thats absurd.



Thats a broad generalization. I don't think progressives are trying to reform medicare, nor are they trying to reform social security whereas "conservatives" want to privatize both.



And? I can find quotes by Hitler that jives with conservatism, that doesn't mean that republicans are somehow nazis. Making asinine comparisons like that only shows the blind ideology that influences your core beliefs.

THE SOCIALIST PARTY strives to establish a radical democracy that places people's lives under their own control - a non-racist, classless, feminist socialist society... where working people own and control the means of production and distribution through democratically-controlled public agencies; where full employment is realized for everyone who wants to work; where workers have the right to form unions freely, and to strike and engage in other forms of job actions; and where the production of society is used for the benefit of all humanity, not for the private profit of a few. We believe socialism and democracy are one and indivisible- Socialist Party USA

And? If you don't know the difference between this and progressive Democrats, you need to educate yourself.

You really should take some time to read the constitution Nik then you would realize that the beauty of it lay in the ability to change it. Your inability to see outside whatever you hear and wahtever talking points you get are showing very clearly in this thread Nik and again it would serve you well to actually read , then you would understand what my posting really meant.

Oy. Spare me the condescending bullshit. I've read the US Constitution as well as the EU Constitution, the SA Constitution, the Australian Constitution, and others. I am well aware of the US Constitution and what it says. It, if followed to the letter, would mean that you would be significantly worse off today.

But go ahead. Keep blindly worshiping the views of old dead white men who owned slaves. I mean just because the Constitution said blacks were 3/5ths of a person doesn't mean theres any reason to doubt it, right?

Oh, and as for the beauty of the constitution being that it can be changed, thats asinine. Its only been changed a handful of times in history. The beauty of it is that they set up an original, and pretty decent, system of government. But hey, we know more now than they did 250 years ago. Its not actually that great anymore. Although they did leave it vague enough for us to interpret the fuck out of it, which is helpful.

But go ahead. Keep saying that the government shouldn't act in the public good cause the constitution doesn't say it can. And I'll keep laughing at you

The three-fifths compromise is found in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution:

“ Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Im very well aware of the 3/5ths compromise and it's implications and if you were as well read as you said you were then you would have known this as well. You laughing at me is the last of my worry's want to know why? because people like you I actually pity because your so lacking in a general understanding of our form of Govt. that it's you who are often laughed at when you post the nonsense you do that is often repeated and found from just about any pamphlet that every progressive group hands out. I am extremely well aware cases having dealth with the commerce clause

Among the Several States .--Continuing in Gibbons v. Ogden, Chief Justice Marshall observed that the phrase ''among the several States'' was ''not one which would probably have been selected to indicate the completely interior traffic of a state.'' It must therefore have been selected to demark ''the exclusively internal commerce of a state.'' While, of course, the phrase ''may very properly be restricted to that commerce which concerns more states than one,'' it is obvious that ''[c]ommerce among the states, cannot stop at the exterior boundary line of each state, but may be introduced into the interior.'' The Chief Justice then succinctly stated the rule, which, though restricted in some periods, continues to govern the interpretation of the clause. ''The genius and character of the whole government seem to be, that its action is to be applied to all the external concerns of the nation, and to those internal concerns which affect the states generally; but not to those which are completely within a particular state, which do not affect other states, and with which it is not necessary to interfere, for the purpose of executing some of the general powers of the government

Again if you were not so blinded by partisanship and were able to actually comprehend what you were reading then you would have seen that even the SCOTUS has through the years ruled that interstate commerce can be regulated by the Federal Govt. and as roads carry interstate commerce per my postings they can also be regulated. However, this does not give congress the power to regulatewithin the states roads that do not have any connection to interstate commerce or rail for that matter. Perhaps they helps clear it up for you as you seem so intent to not understand what your reading.


United States v. Butler.

T]he [General Welfare] clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. … It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution. … But the adoption of the broader construction leaves the power to spend subject to limitations. … [T]he powers of taxation and appropriation extend only to matters of national, as distinguished from local, welfare.

The tax imposed in Butler was nevertheless held unconstitutional as a violation of the Tenth Amendment reservation of power to the states.

Shortly after Butler, in Helvering v. Davis,[22] the Supreme Court interpreted the clause even more expansively, conferring upon Congress a plenary power to impose taxes and to spend money for the general welfare subject almost entirely to its own discretion. Even more recently, the Court has included the power to indirectly coerce the states into adopting national standards by threatening to withhold federal funds in South Dakota v. Dole.[15

So again I ask you where exactly do you find "public good" in the constitution?
The Federalist Paper No.10 argues that a republic is capable of controlling the effects of faction, more so than a democracy. The reason put forward is that a system of representation is more capable of protecting the rights of individuals and minorities, as well as being better able to balance the needs of the public good. Madison notes that representatives are more divorced from the issues being raised by factions and consequently better able to create just legislation that is compatible with rights and the public good. Public Good while a theory and a goal of Govt. it is not something that gives Govt. broad powers to legislate. Had you a little knowledge of your nation then you would have been able to understand this concept.

I will end on this note and that is the Amendment process. if you wish to change the constitution as you seem to be such a deep scholar of the constitution , then my suggesting this should not come as such a surprise. I'm very well aware what a progressive democrat is and the difference between a traditional democrat and a progressive one is. In fact , I submit that many of those that call themselves progressives have zero clue of exactly what that means as they often call themselves liberals as well which is laughable. considering the fact that a traditional liberal would never want Govt. to controls that a so called progressive advocates. So again, young man I suggest you pick up a history book and not a social studies book to have a clue as to what kind of nation you actually live in. Of course i'd be happy to kep educating you if you so desire.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Yes, instead of Medicare, we should have lots of elderly people dying in the streets. Much better system.

Medicare actually works quite well. Much better than private insurance, and is very popular. But of course its a failure because....well Republicans say so!

thats your opinion Nik.....not everyone feels that way...both my folkes were on Medicare and it was 50/50....my old man got tired of seeing some shitty doctors,not all of them mind you,but enough....so they got Blue shield as well....now all of a sudden my dad was going to the Joslen Diabetes Center at UCI Med Center paid entirely by Blue Shield....Medicare would not let him go....also instead of just seeing a handful of docs at the center....he was able to see ANYONE of them...his medical care jumped up 5-6 pegs...so did my moms.... experiencing something is a wonder NIK....instead of just listening to those around you.....Medicare only goes so far....apparently they have a limit too....

Of course medicare only goes so far. It should be funded better. Regardless, look at polls more people on medicare are satisfied with their health coverage than people who are on private insurance.

That and the fact that, without medicare, a lot more old folks would be dead.

so if it only goes so far....whats the difference?.....it sounds to me that a NHC plan is only going to cover the basics...and serious stuff that may be more extensive and expensive may not get covered.....if so to those people nothing has changed....and they are the ones who seem to be getting the shaft right now......

 

[Harry Dresden]

Where were the reports of rioting? Of death threats to congressman?

Sorry, but the anti-war protests weren't the same as these health reform riots.

RIOTS?????

LOL
yeah sure

Yeah, they were soooooooo peaceful

Tampa Town Hall On Health Care Reform Disrupted By Violence (VIDEO)

i agree with Dive Nik....you call that violent?....geezus come out here for a Immigration rally put on by Left leaning activists and watch what happens when ANYONE speaks up against ILLEGAL immigration.....one in Santa Ana a guy saying that he was opposed to entitlement programs for non-Citizens... after someone yelling RACIST a chair went flying towards the guy...and then a little bit of hell broke out....thats violent....what you showed was angry people yelling...

 

[American Horse]

Crowds trained by political operativs to scream out in public meetings in oder to prevent rational discussions are NOT "ordinary middle-class citizens".

How do I know this?

I used to be one of those political operatives.

Projection.

 

[DiveCon]

RIOTS?????

LOL
yeah sure

Yeah, they were soooooooo peaceful

Tampa Town Hall On Health Care Reform Disrupted By Violence (VIDEO)

i agree with Dive Nik....you call that violent?....geezus come out here for a Immigration rally put on by Left leaning activists and watch what happens when ANYONE speaks up against ILLEGAL immigration.....one in Santa Ana a guy saying that he was opposed to entitlement programs for non-Citizens... after someone yelling RACIST a chair went flying towards the guy...and then a little bit of hell broke out....thats violent....what you showed was angry people yelling...

hell, there is more violence on a jerry springer show

 

[txlonghorn]

This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Dems have ALWAYS considered republicans as un-American.

I'll tell you what's un-American...the attempt at stifling free speech of ANYONE who shows up at any town hall meeting.

Has anyone seen the ads on Craigs List offering to pay people to go to the town hall meetings to outnumber the conservatives? I heard that on a local radio station today and haven't had a chance to research it myself.

Wondered if that was true.

 

[Ringel05]

Here is an e-mail I just received from a friend who was in attendance at Arlan Spector's town hall. Now granted he is somewhat biased towards the right but despite his obvious bias he still reported what exactly happened. I would not have posted this if I thought he was extrapolating, I know him better than that.

Just a few highlights regarding the Specter town hall in Lebanon I attended this morning:
Doors at HACC were not scheduled to open until 9:00 AM; people concerned about Obamacare were in line at 7:00 AM
Specter made a brief statement and then opened it up for questions; problem is that unknown to the audience, Specter's people had given numbered cars to select people and they were the only ones allowed to ask questions! You could feel the air get sucked out of the room when Specter said only people with cards could ask questions because everyone felt the event was rigged. Fortunately, because so many real Americans were early, the scheme back-fired and the majority of the questions dealt with the issues of concern; this prompted one attendee to get up and demand the right to speak (that's the video that's been run on TV all day)
Specter either is ignorant about the House bill which is the crux of the debate or lying about some things because when challenged on the euthanasia aspects of the bill, he claimed it was a malicious lie (the language of the bill clearly indicates otherwise)
Overwhelming majority of attendees are not happy with these healthcare "reform" plans
A TEA Party rally was held outside during the town hall which several hundred people who could not get into the town hall (which held 250) attended
There were a couple of verbal efforts by the union thugs to initiate confrontation but they were blown off
The Lebanon City police were great - polite but firm and they worked well with the HACC security people
Despite the one episode that generated all of the media attention, the majority of attendees were very civil but very vocal in their opposition to Obamacare and I am proud of the character of my neighbors
I was also impressed with the knowledge my fellow citizens demonstrated about Obamacare in general and the US Constitution in particular, and the ardent defense that so many were willing to make in defense of the Constitution was very encouraging
The Obamabots were the true 'organized mob'; they had pre-printed campaign-style signs, "Healthcare Now" stickers and other paraphernalia, and it was obvious many had been shipped in from outside of the area because they had received marching orders to do so.

 

[Nik]

The three-fifths compromise is found in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution:

“ Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Im very well aware of the 3/5ths compromise and it's implications and if you were as well read as you said you were then you would have known this as well. You laughing at me is the last of my worry's want to know why? because people like you I actually pity because your so lacking in a general understanding of our form of Govt. that it's you who are often laughed at when you post the nonsense you do that is often repeated and found from just about any pamphlet that every progressive group hands out. I am extremely well aware cases having dealth with the commerce clause

Well, maybe instead of blubbering on telling me how much you know, how bout you actually explain the implications of it. You like to bullshit a lot and pretend you actually know stuff, but where is any evidence that we should hold sacred the ideas of a bunch of white, old, property owning men who were NOT representative, and who owned slaves?

Among the Several States .--Continuing in Gibbons v. Ogden, Chief Justice Marshall observed that the phrase ''among the several States'' was ''not one which would probably have been selected to indicate the completely interior traffic of a state.'' It must therefore have been selected to demark ''the exclusively internal commerce of a state.'' While, of course, the phrase ''may very properly be restricted to that commerce which concerns more states than one,'' it is obvious that ''[c]ommerce among the states, cannot stop at the exterior boundary line of each state, but may be introduced into the interior.'' The Chief Justice then succinctly stated the rule, which, though restricted in some periods, continues to govern the interpretation of the clause. ''The genius and character of the whole government seem to be, that its action is to be applied to all the external concerns of the nation, and to those internal concerns which affect the states generally; but not to those which are completely within a particular state, which do not affect other states, and with which it is not necessary to interfere, for the purpose of executing some of the general powers of the government

Again if you were not so blinded by partisanship and were able to actually comprehend what you were reading then you would have seen that even the SCOTUS has through the years ruled that interstate commerce can be regulated by the Federal Govt. and as roads carry interstate commerce per my postings they can also be regulated. However, this does not give congress the power to regulatewithin the states roads that do not have any connection to interstate commerce or rail for that matter. Perhaps they helps clear it up for you as you seem so intent to not understand what your reading.

You are apparently quite stupid. Nowhere in the commerce clause does it say that the federal government can FUND interstate commerce, merely than it can regulate it. Besides the fact that, nothing in the US Constitution says that SCOTUS gets to interpret it, and, if you knew anything about the commerce clause line of cases, you would know they've done great violence to the original meanings. Violence that I agree with, but violence nonetheless.


United States v. Butler.

T]he [General Welfare] clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. … It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution. … But the adoption of the broader construction leaves the power to spend subject to limitations. … [T]he powers of taxation and appropriation extend only to matters of national, as distinguished from local, welfare.

The tax imposed in Butler was nevertheless held unconstitutional as a violation of the Tenth Amendment reservation of power to the states.

And? Your point?

Shortly after Butler, in Helvering v. Davis,[22] the Supreme Court interpreted the clause even more expansively, conferring upon Congress a plenary power to impose taxes and to spend money for the general welfare subject almost entirely to its own discretion. Even more recently, the Court has included the power to indirectly coerce the states into adopting national standards by threatening to withhold federal funds in South Dakota v. Dole.[15

So again I ask you where exactly do you find "public good" in the constitution?

Nowhere. But anything the government can do, such as regulate commerce, it is allowed to do for the "public good". This is simple stuff, really.

The Federalist Paper No.10 argues that a republic is capable of controlling the effects of faction, more so than a democracy. The reason put forward is that a system of representation is more capable of protecting the rights of individuals and minorities, as well as being better able to balance the needs of the public good. Madison notes that representatives are more divorced from the issues being raised by factions and consequently better able to create just legislation that is compatible with rights and the public good. Public Good while a theory and a goal of Govt. it is not something that gives Govt. broad powers to legislate. Had you a little knowledge of your nation then you would have been able to understand this concept.

If you knew how to read, you'd understand that I never said that the public good gives the government broad powers to legislate.

I will end on this note and that is the Amendment process. if you wish to change the constitution as you seem to be such a deep scholar of the constitution , then my suggesting this should not come as such a surprise. I'm very well aware what a progressive democrat is and the difference between a traditional democrat and a progressive one is. In fact , I submit that many of those that call themselves progressives have zero clue of exactly what that means as they often call themselves liberals as well which is laughable. considering the fact that a traditional liberal would never want Govt. to controls that a so called progressive advocates. So again, young man I suggest you pick up a history book and not a social studies book to have a clue as to what kind of nation you actually live in. Of course i'd be happy to kep educating you if you so desire.

Oh, do keep "educating" me. If you can really call this rambling half-coherent mass of gibberish an education.

I read law books. Not history or "social studies" books. I know a wee bit more about American jurisprudence than you do.

 

[Nik]

thats your opinion Nik.....not everyone feels that way...both my folkes were on Medicare and it was 50/50....my old man got tired of seeing some shitty doctors,not all of them mind you,but enough....so they got Blue shield as well....now all of a sudden my dad was going to the Joslen Diabetes Center at UCI Med Center paid entirely by Blue Shield....Medicare would not let him go....also instead of just seeing a handful of docs at the center....he was able to see ANYONE of them...his medical care jumped up 5-6 pegs...so did my moms.... experiencing something is a wonder NIK....instead of just listening to those around you.....Medicare only goes so far....apparently they have a limit too....

Of course medicare only goes so far. It should be funded better. Regardless, look at polls more people on medicare are satisfied with their health coverage than people who are on private insurance.

That and the fact that, without medicare, a lot more old folks would be dead.

so if it only goes so far....whats the difference?.....it sounds to me that a NHC plan is only going to cover the basics...and serious stuff that may be more extensive and expensive may not get covered.....if so to those people nothing has changed....and they are the ones who seem to be getting the shaft right now......

The difference between that and no health insurance? Seriously?

Everything "only goes so far".

 

[Nik]

RIOTS?????

LOL
yeah sure

Yeah, they were soooooooo peaceful

Tampa Town Hall On Health Care Reform Disrupted By Violence (VIDEO)

i agree with Dive Nik....you call that violent?....geezus come out here for a Immigration rally put on by Left leaning activists and watch what happens when ANYONE speaks up against ILLEGAL immigration.....one in Santa Ana a guy saying that he was opposed to entitlement programs for non-Citizens... after someone yelling RACIST a chair went flying towards the guy...and then a little bit of hell broke out....thats violent....what you showed was angry people yelling...

Umm, alright. That doesn't excuse this type of behavior.

Edit: yes, I consider a fistfight violent.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Of course medicare only goes so far. It should be funded better. Regardless, look at polls more people on medicare are satisfied with their health coverage than people who are on private insurance.

That and the fact that, without medicare, a lot more old folks would be dead.

so if it only goes so far....whats the difference?.....it sounds to me that a NHC plan is only going to cover the basics...and serious stuff that may be more extensive and expensive may not get covered.....if so to those people nothing has changed....and they are the ones who seem to be getting the shaft right now......

The difference between that and no health insurance? Seriously?

Everything "only goes so far".

so those who have serious problems,and rather costly diseases,those who may need daily professional help,the elderly with their meds....those people and others experiencing similar problems....those people are still fucked...right Nik?....

 

[AllieBaba]

so if it only goes so far....whats the difference?.....it sounds to me that a NHC plan is only going to cover the basics...and serious stuff that may be more extensive and expensive may not get covered.....if so to those people nothing has changed....and they are the ones who seem to be getting the shaft right now......

The difference between that and no health insurance? Seriously?

Everything "only goes so far".

so those who have serious problems,and rather costly diseases,those who may need daily professional help,the elderly with their meds....those people and others experiencing similar problems....those people are still fucked...right Nik?....

Those people aren't fucked now. Those people have coverage.