Democrats: the more people know about government run healthcare, the less they like

[Navy1960]

frankly sealy if you can tell me other than the 300.00 dollars I have heard some are getting what exactly is the Stimulus doing? From what I gather if you look at the job losses from March till now it hasn't stimulated very much. I do like the idea of high-speed rail though and think thats an outstanding idea whos time has come. I would imagine especially in the places like Mi. thats hard hit construction on something like that would be a big benefit to the economy. Then again so would building Nuclear plants too. I will wait and see on the stimulus though.

 

[WillowTree]

frankly sealy if you can tell me other than the 300.00 dollars I have heard some are getting what exactly is the Stimulus doing? From what I gather if you look at the job losses from March till now it hasn't stimulated very much. I do like the idea of high-speed rail though and think thats an outstanding idea whos time has come. I would imagine especially in the places like Mi. thats hard hit construction on something like that would be a big benefit to the economy. Then again so would building Nuclear plants too. I will wait and see on the stimulus though.

yes, when the democrats get through ******* over the car companies dealerships, suppliers, there's going to be a significant rise in the unemployment.. and remember they besssseeeeeeched us the taxpayer to save the jobs.. I forgot to mention the bondholders, pensions, and shareholders,, they got it in the rump too.

 

[STAND4LIBERTY]

Do you understand what led the government to taking over GM?

Absolutely, do you understand that the reasons for GM's failure are completely non sequitur with respect to justifying the actions the administration has and is in the process of taking?

Do you think Obama wants to run a car company?

Absolutely he does, for a gang of statists like the ones in the Obama Administration direct control of a global manufacturing giant is a dream come true.... I'm sure Richard Nixon is jealous as hell since all he to play with after his foray into fascism was Amtrak. Now if you believe that "at some point we'll sell GM back to private investors" nonsense, I've got a bridge in brooklyn and a railroad company to sell you.

The bankers owning this country is fascism. CORPORATE IDEOLOGY.

Well depends on which bankers you're talking about, private or central with respect to the question of facism, in either case I'm a big advocate of ending the federal reserve and the fractional reserve banking system, so you're preaching to the choir.

And the authoritarian nationalistic part is how the GOP used 9-11 to push their radical agenda on us.

So in your estimation it's perfectly ok for the Democrats to attempt to do the same thing only a more rapid and expansive scale?

Banal nationalism refers to the everyday representations of the nation which build an imagined sense of national solidarity and belonging amongst humans. The term is derived from Michael Billig's 1995 book of the same name. Today the term is used primarily in academic discussion of identity formation and geopolitics.

Examples of banal nationalism include the use of flags in everyday contexts, sporting events, national songs, symbols on money, popular expressions and turns of phrase, patriotic clubs, the use of implied togetherness in the national press, for example, the use of terms such as the prime minister, the weather, our team, and divisions into "domestic" and "international" news, etc... Many of these symbols are most effective because of their constant repetition, and almost subliminal nature.

Thanks for that but for future reference I can find Wikipedia on my own if I need to.

Are you wearing your LAPEL PIN?

How is that relative to anything ? but to answer your question, no I don't even own any lapel pins.

 

[sealybobo]

You're wrong on every single ******* point. Punch yourself in the face idiot.

Fascism comprises a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology[1][2][3][4] and a corporatist economic ideology.

Pot meet kettle.

Let's see:

This administration is both radical and authoritarian.

And they are seizing control of industries and mandating that they follow what they want.

If it looks fascist it probably is.

In the early 1980s, Reagan also credentialed a young generation of neocon intellectuals, who pioneered a concept called “perception management,” the shaping of how Americans saw, understood and were frightened by threats from abroad.

Many honest reporters saw their careers damaged when they resisted the lies and distortions of the Reagan administration. Likewise, U.S. intelligence analysts were purged when they refused to bend to the propaganda demands from above.

To marginalize dissent, Reagan and his subordinates stoked anger toward anyone who challenged the era’s feel-good optimism. Skeptics were not just honorable critics, they were un-American defeatists or – in Jeane Kirkpatrick’s memorable attack line – they would “blame America first.”

Nationalism. Either you're with us or against us. Brainwashing. Whetever you want to call it.

Obama is not making a Fascist play on purpose. But Bush, yes, he did it all on purpose. Obama is simply reacting to the situation Bush put him in. What did you want to do? Let GM go belly up? And all its suppliers? Even Ford would have gotten fucked. But you don't care. You only care about Japan & China corporations. Those you suck their cocks.

Consortiumnews.com

 

[Meister]

Now the FOR PROFITS are the ones deciding we should die so they can max out their bonus'.

What a hoot! First of all, you can have choice. We'll have a public plan and you can continue paying 4 times more for what you want. I bet you will come over to the public plan. Or, it'll help lower your costs because right now its a monopoly.

This Ben Franklen quote is silly. You can't apply it here.

So if we break up the Healthcare monopoly, or if we take away the Federal Reserve from the rich bankers that own it, you think thats sacraficing freedom?

You righties are sooo stupid. Remember you kept saying we were in Iraq fighting for freedom? You guys overuse that word.

This is about fascism.

I like Will Rogers quote. "I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a democrat"

Um how the hell can you give government the power to provide health care with tax payers dollars and somehow claim you are breaking up a monopoly? You are the ones creating it!

You do not create freedom by giving up your power to government.

You are right about one thing. This is about fascism. This is about you and your friends in government seizing control of the industry. Which is why we are opposed to you.

Because they won't be for profit.

And the gov won't provide healthcare.

Is medicare facist?

And you'll be able to stay with your private insurer. But without government, the insurance companies are all in collution with each other.

One of the biggest $ drains on our healthcare are poor people using emergency rooms. So give them healthcare if they want it, and charge them $10 a month. Charge you $30 a month and charge people who make a lot of money a little more.

In the end, our corporations are more competitive and profitable, we have more money in our pocket, etc.

Bobo, you don't know what the **** your talking about. The private insurer will be run out of town eventually leaving only the government run disaster that you cherish. Nice try dumbshit, but go peddle your wares at the Huffington Post, they'll listen to your crap.

 

[sealybobo]

Do you understand what led the government to taking over GM?

Absolutely, do you understand that the reasons for GM's failure are completely non sequitur with respect to justifying the actions the administration has and is in the process of taking?


I don't think you do understand why GM and Chrysler failed. You only understand half of it. One side.

The US is the only country that doesn't protect its auto industry.


Are GM & Chrysler greedy corporations too? Hell yea. But they employ a lot of people, which is the only reason they needed to be saved.

The last 8 years were great for oil, defense, healthcare providers, phone companies, bankers. Even though they did really really good, they still fucked up and lost our money. I think they did it on purpose. I think the GOP did all this on purpose because it will make ending social programs a lot easier.

 

[sealybobo]

Um how the hell can you give government the power to provide health care with tax payers dollars and somehow claim you are breaking up a monopoly? You are the ones creating it!

You do not create freedom by giving up your power to government.

You are right about one thing. This is about fascism. This is about you and your friends in government seizing control of the industry. Which is why we are opposed to you.

Because they won't be for profit.

And the gov won't provide healthcare.

Is medicare facist?

And you'll be able to stay with your private insurer. But without government, the insurance companies are all in collution with each other.

One of the biggest $ drains on our healthcare are poor people using emergency rooms. So give them healthcare if they want it, and charge them $10 a month. Charge you $30 a month and charge people who make a lot of money a little more.

In the end, our corporations are more competitive and profitable, we have more money in our pocket, etc.

Bobo, you don't know what the **** your talking about. The private insurer will be run out of town eventually leaving only the government run disaster that you cherish. Nice try dumbshit, but go peddle your wares at the Huffington Post, they'll listen to your crap.

If they can't compete, **** EM!!!

And they won't be run out of town. They'll just have to cut costs.

Before Reagan, corporate CEOs earned less than 50 times the salary of an average worker. By the end of the Reagan-Bush-I administrations in 1993, the average CEO salary was more than 100 times that of a typical worker. (At the end of the Bush-II administration, that CEO-salary figure was more than 250 times that of an average worker.)

You're a fool.

 

[STAND4LIBERTY]

Obama is not making a Fascist play on purpose.

ROFLMAO !!! Wow how blindly partisan and foolish must one be to make a statement like this?

What did you want to do? Let GM go belly up? And all its suppliers?

Absolutely ! an orderly and non politicized unwinding of GM's malinvestments through the bankruptcy court would have given the company a chance to survive on it's own, what we will end up with instead is a permanent drag on our economy as the tax payer foots the bill for GMs operational loses. If you want to see how this turns out from a financial perspective just go look at Amtraks books then multiply the numbers by a thousand and you'll have some idea of what these wonderful people in Washington just put you and your children on the hook for.

Even Ford would have gotten fucked.

Ford IS getting fucked since they're now being forced to compete with a tax payer subsidized, government controlled manufacturer. Essentially they are being forced to subsidize their own competitor who is controlled by the very entity that also controls fiscal policy and has regulatory authority.

 

[Meister]

Because they won't be for profit.

And the gov won't provide healthcare.

Is medicare facist?

And you'll be able to stay with your private insurer. But without government, the insurance companies are all in collution with each other.

One of the biggest $ drains on our healthcare are poor people using emergency rooms. So give them healthcare if they want it, and charge them $10 a month. Charge you $30 a month and charge people who make a lot of money a little more.

In the end, our corporations are more competitive and profitable, we have more money in our pocket, etc.

Bobo, you don't know what the **** your talking about. The private insurer will be run out of town eventually leaving only the government run disaster that you cherish. Nice try dumbshit, but go peddle your wares at the Huffington Post, they'll listen to your crap.

If they can't compete, **** EM!!!

And they won't be run out of town. They'll just have to cut costs.

Before Reagan, corporate CEOs earned less than 50 times the salary of an average worker. By the end of the Reagan-Bush-I administrations in 1993, the average CEO salary was more than 100 times that of a typical worker. (At the end of the Bush-II administration, that CEO-salary figure was more than 250 times that of an average worker.)

You're a fool.

You are one stupid ass leach...it ain't competing, it's the government mandating them. For the love of God, get your head out of your sorry ass and take a breath of fresh air. I don't give a shit about a CEO's pay, and ain't the ******* governments business to get into the policies of the private sector.

 

[WillowTree]

GM failed for no other reason than the unions priced themselves right the hell outta competition and don't ever let anyone tell you differently.. and that's the only reason comrade obama bought the car companies as a gift for electing him.. and don't ever let anyone tell you anything different..

 

[MaggieMae]

What I'm totally missing out on is either your unwillingness to see or hear,, about how well this dosen't go in the countries who have done it??? and we are talking relatively small countries in comparison to the numbers of people you want this to work out on in your fantasy world.. what you get for medical care in exchange for your 70% tax rate is the opportunity to get in line and wait for care. that's all you get.. some die waiting.. and yes those countries have a shortage of doctors and beds why do you think Canadians bolt across the border and come here for care??? Why don't they go to the mythical land of Cuba for the best care in the world?? doyathink??

And of course, you've only looked at the "right" side (in this case the "wrong" side) of the issue. There's more than enough evidence that the people living in countries who have universal care WOULD NOT TRADE IT for a return to privately run health care. But there's nothing more to say when trying to debate a brick wall.

but you did not answer her question Maggie about the amount of people to cover...20-50 mill.compared to 300 mill.....and the size of the countries....how good is China's ,Russia's Brazil,India and any other 100 million plus countries health care?

Once again, everyone seems to be under the mistaken impression that the health care program being debated now is universal coverage. IT IS NOT. So the questions are hypothetical at this point. (I have a feeling that it will be a cold day in hell before true universal care is instituted, and that cold day will be when the skyrocketing costs of doing health care as usual begins to hit the pocketbooks of millionnaires.)

As for INSURING Americans, which is what the current health care issue is about, I can see the cost advantages right away if more people feel they can now see a doctor for a small problem rather than waiting until it gets out of control, and then they become a part of the "free" system which taxpayers pay for anyway. The way I understand it, people can buy all sorts of coverage, including policies that cover bare bones, which would include X-number of visits per year for preventive care.

As for the countries Willow asks ME to compare, I still say she asks stupid questions that, if she was really interested in answers, she would look 'em up herself. I get sick of doing her homework for her, only for her to come back at me with some illiterate childish remark using her retarded vocabulary.

 

[sealybobo]

Obama is not making a Fascist play on purpose.

ROFLMAO !!! Wow how blindly partisan and foolish must one be to make a statement like this?

What did you want to do? Let GM go belly up? And all its suppliers?

Absolutely ! an orderly and non politicized unwinding of GM's malinvestments through the bankruptcy court would have given the company a chance to survive on it's own, what we will end up with instead is a permanent drag on our economy as the tax payer foots the bill for GMs operational loses. If you want to see how this turns out from a financial perspective just go look at Amtraks books then multiply the numbers by a thousand and you'll have some idea of what these wonderful people in Washington just put you and your children on the hook for.

Even Ford would have gotten fucked.

Ford IS getting fucked since they're now being forced to compete with a tax payer subsidized, government controlled manufacturer. Essentially they are being forced to subsidize their own competitor who is controlled by the very entity that also controls fiscal policy and has regulatory authority.

More people are now buying Ford because they didn't take any government $. They have increased their output of F150's and they expect sales to pick up.

Their only problems are:

GM and Chrysler are offering really really low prices, especially dealerships that are closing.

And, Ford has debt. Chrysler and GM got to just wipe out their debt.

But Ford supported the bailout because they knew if GM and Chrysler went under, so would a lot of Ford's parts suppliers.

You really don't know what you are talking about son. And you clearly don't know what led us to this mess.

Obama is a great man and a great leader. He cares. He wants what is best for all Americans. The GOP, Reagan/Bush/Bush/Rudy/Mitt/MCCain/Gindal/Boehner/etc. They only want what is best for the rich.

Are you rich? Probably not rich enough to be voting GOP. ******* fool.

 

[sealybobo]

And of course, you've only looked at the "right" side (in this case the "wrong" side) of the issue. There's more than enough evidence that the people living in countries who have universal care WOULD NOT TRADE IT for a return to privately run health care. But there's nothing more to say when trying to debate a brick wall.

but you did not answer her question Maggie about the amount of people to cover...20-50 mill.compared to 300 mill.....and the size of the countries....how good is China's ,Russia's Brazil,India and any other 100 million plus countries health care?

Once again, everyone seems to be under the mistaken impression that the health care program being debated now is universal coverage. IT IS NOT. So the questions are hypothetical at this point. (I have a feeling that it will be a cold day in hell before true universal care is instituted, and that cold day will be when the skyrocketing costs of doing health care as usual begins to hit the pocketbooks of millionnaires.)

As for INSURING Americans, which is what the current health care issue is about, I can see the cost advantages right away if more people feel they can now see a doctor for a small problem rather than waiting until it gets out of control, and then they become a part of the "free" system which taxpayers pay for anyway. The way I understand it, people can buy all sorts of coverage, including policies that cover bare bones, which would include X-number of visits per year for preventive care.

As for the countries Willow asks ME to compare, I still say she asks stupid questions that, if she was really interested in answers, she would look 'em up herself. I get sick of doing her homework for her, only for her to come back at me with some illiterate childish remark using her retarded vocabulary.

Fuckin Amen!!

 

[STAND4LIBERTY]

As for INSURING Americans, which is what the current health care issue is about, I can see the cost advantages right away if more people feel they can now see a doctor for a small problem rather than waiting until it gets out of control,

So you can see the cost advantages of increasing demand without a corresponding increase in supply? I'm assuming you do realize that medical care is a FINITE resource, right?

 

[sealybobo]

Bobo, you don't know what the **** your talking about. The private insurer will be run out of town eventually leaving only the government run disaster that you cherish. Nice try dumbshit, but go peddle your wares at the Huffington Post, they'll listen to your crap.

If they can't compete, **** EM!!!

And they won't be run out of town. They'll just have to cut costs.

Before Reagan, corporate CEOs earned less than 50 times the salary of an average worker. By the end of the Reagan-Bush-I administrations in 1993, the average CEO salary was more than 100 times that of a typical worker. (At the end of the Bush-II administration, that CEO-salary figure was more than 250 times that of an average worker.)

You're a fool.

You are one stupid ass leach...it ain't competing, it's the government mandating them. For the love of God, get your head out of your sorry ass and take a breath of fresh air. I don't give a shit about a CEO's pay, and ain't the ******* governments business to get into the policies of the private sector.

Yes it is. The government makes the rules. You are one dumb son of a cock sucker.

 

[Meister]

Obama is not making a Fascist play on purpose.

ROFLMAO !!! Wow how blindly partisan and foolish must one be to make a statement like this?


Absolutely ! an orderly and non politicized unwinding of GM's malinvestments through the bankruptcy court would have given the company a chance to survive on it's own, what we will end up with instead is a permanent drag on our economy as the tax payer foots the bill for GMs operational loses. If you want to see how this turns out from a financial perspective just go look at Amtraks books then multiply the numbers by a thousand and you'll have some idea of what these wonderful people in Washington just put you and your children on the hook for.

Even Ford would have gotten fucked.

Ford IS getting fucked since they're now being forced to compete with a tax payer subsidized, government controlled manufacturer. Essentially they are being forced to subsidize their own competitor who is controlled by the very entity that also controls fiscal policy and has regulatory authority.

More people are now buying Ford because they didn't take any government $. They have increased their output of F150's and they expect sales to pick up.

Their only problems are:

GM and Chrysler are offering really really low prices, especially dealerships that are closing.

And, Ford has debt. Chrysler and GM got to just wipe out their debt.

But Ford supported the bailout because they knew if GM and Chrysler went under, so would a lot of Ford's parts suppliers.

You really don't know what you are talking about son. And you clearly don't know what led us to this mess.

Obama is a great man and a great leader. He cares. He wants what is best for all Americans. The GOP, Reagan/Bush/Bush/Rudy/Mitt/MCCain/Gindal/Boehner/etc. They only want what is best for the rich.

Are you rich? Probably not rich enough to be voting GOP. ******* fool.

There's only one person who doesn't get it, and it's not Stand4Liberty, It's you fool.

 

[WillowTree]

And of course, you've only looked at the "right" side (in this case the "wrong" side) of the issue. There's more than enough evidence that the people living in countries who have universal care WOULD NOT TRADE IT for a return to privately run health care. But there's nothing more to say when trying to debate a brick wall.

but you did not answer her question Maggie about the amount of people to cover...20-50 mill.compared to 300 mill.....and the size of the countries....how good is China's ,Russia's Brazil,India and any other 100 million plus countries health care?

Once again, everyone seems to be under the mistaken impression that the health care program being debated now is universal coverage. IT IS NOT. So the questions are hypothetical at this point. (I have a feeling that it will be a cold day in hell before true universal care is instituted, and that cold day will be when the skyrocketing costs of doing health care as usual begins to hit the pocketbooks of millionnaires.)

As for INSURING Americans, which is what the current health care issue is about, I can see the cost advantages right away if more people feel they can now see a doctor for a small problem rather than waiting until it gets out of control, and then they become a part of the "free" system which taxpayers pay for anyway. The way I understand it, people can buy all sorts of coverage, including policies that cover bare bones, which would include X-number of visits per year for preventive care.

As for the countries Willow asks ME to compare, I still say she asks stupid questions that, if she was really interested in answers, she would look 'em up herself. I get sick of doing her homework for her, only for her to come back at me with some illiterate childish remark using her retarded vocabulary.

then don't do my homework for me,, i stated an opinion,, it won't work,, if you're too lazy to support your allegations that's on you not me.. so there tweakers. I already looked up my answers,, all my answers,, they are the right answers yours are the wrong answers..

 

[sealybobo]

As for INSURING Americans, which is what the current health care issue is about, I can see the cost advantages right away if more people feel they can now see a doctor for a small problem rather than waiting until it gets out of control,

So you can see the cost advantages of increasing demand without a corresponding increase in supply? I'm assuming you do realize that medical care is a FINITE resource, right?

We're trying to figure out just how much you don't realize.

 

[Meister]

If they can't compete, **** EM!!!

And they won't be run out of town. They'll just have to cut costs.

Before Reagan, corporate CEOs earned less than 50 times the salary of an average worker. By the end of the Reagan-Bush-I administrations in 1993, the average CEO salary was more than 100 times that of a typical worker. (At the end of the Bush-II administration, that CEO-salary figure was more than 250 times that of an average worker.)

You're a fool.

You are one stupid ass leach...it ain't competing, it's the government mandating them. For the love of God, get your head out of your sorry ass and take a breath of fresh air. I don't give a shit about a CEO's pay, and ain't the ******* governments business to get into the policies of the private sector.

Yes it is. The government makes the rules. You are one dumb son of a cock sucker.

In your world it is...but you would feel comfortable in a communist country. By the way...the best part of you ran down your daddy's leg.

 

[sealybobo]

but you did not answer her question Maggie about the amount of people to cover...20-50 mill.compared to 300 mill.....and the size of the countries....how good is China's ,Russia's Brazil,India and any other 100 million plus countries health care?

Once again, everyone seems to be under the mistaken impression that the health care program being debated now is universal coverage. IT IS NOT. So the questions are hypothetical at this point. (I have a feeling that it will be a cold day in hell before true universal care is instituted, and that cold day will be when the skyrocketing costs of doing health care as usual begins to hit the pocketbooks of millionnaires.)

As for INSURING Americans, which is what the current health care issue is about, I can see the cost advantages right away if more people feel they can now see a doctor for a small problem rather than waiting until it gets out of control, and then they become a part of the "free" system which taxpayers pay for anyway. The way I understand it, people can buy all sorts of coverage, including policies that cover bare bones, which would include X-number of visits per year for preventive care.

As for the countries Willow asks ME to compare, I still say she asks stupid questions that, if she was really interested in answers, she would look 'em up herself. I get sick of doing her homework for her, only for her to come back at me with some illiterate childish remark using her retarded vocabulary.

then don't do my homework for me,, i stated an opinion,, it won't work,, if you're too lazy to support your allegations that's on you not me.. so there tweakers. I already looked up my answers,, all my answers,, they are the right answers yours are the wrong answers..

I'm sorry, but you are a ****.