Economy grows for the third straight quarter

He may have used the term "National Universal Health Care" or something like that, but "Nationalized Health Care" would have been bad choice of phrase, as it describes something else entirely.

Do you have an example or link?

I do not have the link handy and I am sure that you have seen the Youtube video that I would have pulled up anyway. He said, Universal, I won't question that, but he described nationalized.

And yes, it would have been a bad choice of phrases. He knew that so he didn't say "Nationalized". He said, Universal.

I never said he was an idiot.

Immie
You gotta love these CON$ervative mind-readers. CON$ are free to change anyone's words as they please because CON$ know that they were thinking.

September 5, 2008
RUSH:*** He didn't use those words, but that's what he meant

October 4, 2007
RUSH:* We're dealing here with the potential loss of meaning when others get to say what other people meant. This is a dangerous direction that we're headed in."

October 21, 2008
RUSH:** He didn't say it in those words, but that's exactly what he meant.

October 3, 2007
RUSH:* We've reached a new day, when interpreters are allowed to determine the meaning of words spoken by others.* What happens with that is the loss of meaning.

Mind reader? I never said I was a mind reader. I am taking him at his word.

I believe that is what he was speaking of. Perhaps it is because I believe that all politicians (regardless of party) are untrustworthy.

I don't bow down at your messiah's altar and beg to blow him as you do.

I am however, bringing up my fears and attempting to discuss with LWC and RW in a rational tone. I'd love it if you would join in, however, I've never noticed you discussing anything in a rational manner. You are a partisan troll, plain and simple. Not even worth the time it took to type this out.

Immie
 
Your point is a good one, and Far-Right lunatics like Rush do in fact make claims such as this every day.

But from experience on these boards, I will say Immie is not a "ditto-head".

Rush is a far-right-wing propaganda machine, and the giant distortions he makes every day are way beyond what Immie said here.

Not all folks on the right are extremists. Some of them are quite intelligent and rational about most issues.
 
Last edited:
And I'm afraid Obama used the terms interchangeably.

Immie

He may have used the term "National Universal Health Care" or something like that, but "Nationalized Health Care" would have been bad choice of phrase, as it describes something else entirely.

Do you have an example or link?

He used the term..."single payer healthcare system"....what...EXACTLY...does that mean to you?

Thank you for reminding me of the words he used.

That says, Nationalized Plan as far as I am concerned. It will be under the control of Washington and that to me spells trouble.

Immie
 
Your point is a good one, and Far-Right lunatics like Rush do in fact make claims such as this every day.

But from experience on these boards, I will say Immie is not a "ditto-head".

Rush is a far-right-wing propaganda machine, and the giant distortions he makes every day are way beyond what Immie said here.

Not all folks on the right are extremists. Some of them are quite intelligent and rational about most issues.

I honestly could not even tell you when the last time I listened to a half hour of a Rush Limbaugh program. I won't say I never have, but I can't remember the last time I had his program on for more than thirty seconds.

Sean Hannity either and I used to like Sean until I started paying attention to him.

Michael Savage has done nothing but turn my stomach since the first time I turned his program on. I listened maybe one week and then decided he was trash.

I simply can't stomach the hatred these people dole out to other Americans in the name of entertainment. I suppose Edthecynic thinks he's an entertainer as well. He's on about the same level as Michael Savage.

Now, Neal Boortz, I like, but I haven't listened to him in years either.

Immie
 
He used the term..."single payer healthcare system"....what...EXACTLY...does that mean to you?

I believe you are referring to his description of the "public option", which is a government run alternative to private health care, allowing for freedom of choice in health care insurance and providers.

"Nationalized" health care would be where the government takes complete control of the health care system. It would dictate all costs and not allow for private insurance methods.

That is not the same thing at all.
 
He used the term..."single payer healthcare system"....what...EXACTLY...does that mean to you?

I believe you are referring to his description of the "public option", which is a government run alternative to private health care, allowing for freedom of choice in health care insurance and providers.

"Nationalized" health care would be where the government takes complete control of the health care system. It would dictate all costs and not allow for private insurance methods.

That is not the same thing at all.

You are wrong. The definition of single payer healthcare is exactly what it says....a single payer to the providers of healthcare throughout the U.S. ... meaning the U.S. government being the sole payer to providers for services rendered. This is Obama's stated goal. He specifically said that there is MUCH MORE healthcare legislation coming in the future. His stated goal is single payer healthcare modeled on the Eurotrash version we see throughout Europe.
 
At the moment, unemployment has already dropped.

What did it drop to? 9.7% to ??%

10.2% to 9.7%.

The newest figures have not come out yet, but there has been an additional drop in the numbers over the last few weeks.

Unemployment claims drop in US | The Money Times

Even more promising is the fact that more people have been re-entering the workforce and the unemployment numbers have not gone up, indicating that the so-called "real" unemployment numbers have dropped even further.
 
He used the term..."single payer healthcare system"....what...EXACTLY...does that mean to you?

I believe you are referring to his description of the "public option", which is a government run alternative to private health care, allowing for freedom of choice in health care insurance and providers.

"Nationalized" health care would be where the government takes complete control of the health care system. It would dictate all costs and not allow for private insurance methods.

That is not the same thing at all.

Except that the "Private Option" was written in a way so as to make Private Insurance puppets of the U.S. Government and would have eventually put them out of business. No insurance company that was not an "approved carrier" or whatever the term they used, was forbidden to write new policies. That meant that they were puppets of the government or out of business.

The word option implies that there will be more than one choice. The public option does not offer choices, just a single choice.

Also, his comments did not seem to be speaking about the public option. It seemed to carry on a different meaning than what was offered. He promised a single payer system within 15 years. He got universal coverage in one.

Harry and Nancy indicated there would be more to come. We have not seen the end of this yet.

Immie
 
Last edited:
You are wrong. The definition of single payer healthcare is exactly what it says....a single payer to the providers of healthcare throughout the U.S. ... meaning the U.S. government being the sole payer to providers for services rendered. This is Obama's stated goal. He specifically said that there is MUCH MORE healthcare legislation coming in the future. His stated goal is single payer healthcare modeled on the Eurotrash version we see throughout Europe.

Alrighty, please provide a link.

Make sure it's not some old footage of him talking about what he'd like to see in an ideal world.

After all, we're talking about what he's ACTUALLY trying to get done as President here, not some boyhood dreams.
 
When it goes to directed stimulus, it provides capital to help business thrive.
You mean "survive"

Just like the Reagan tax cuts were supposed to help the economy by adding to the deficit, but increasing capital available for economic growth.
Look up the facts, tax cuts under Reagan did not add to the deficit. Federal revenues increased.

1. Health Care was not "Nationalized", nor was there ever a plan for "Nationalizing Health Care" on the table.
Symantics. When the federal government takes control of the industry, that's nationalization. You will now be forced to purchase health insurance or you will be forced to provide it for others. How is that not a financial burden?


2. How does the reform they actually did put in place "reduce corporate earnings", specifically?
Corporate Earnings Sink Due to Health Care Reform
 
You are wrong. The definition of single payer healthcare is exactly what it says....a single payer to the providers of healthcare throughout the U.S. ... meaning the U.S. government being the sole payer to providers for services rendered. This is Obama's stated goal. He specifically said that there is MUCH MORE healthcare legislation coming in the future. His stated goal is single payer healthcare modeled on the Eurotrash version we see throughout Europe.

Alrighty, please provide a link.

Make sure it's not some old footage of him talking about what he'd like to see in an ideal world.

After all, we're talking about what he's ACTUALLY trying to get done as President here, not some boyhood dreams.

Are you saying he is not trying to bring about his version of an "ideal world"?

Immie
 
This charade of "The economy is not really recovering" will end when they decide to change their story to "The economy would have recovered faster if Obama wasn't President"
I believe that has been the contention all along. Can you point to some specific things the OA has done to IMPROVE the economy? Can you explain how adding a trillion dollars in debt is better overall for our nation? How has nationalizing health care which reduces corporate earnings further, good for the economy?


The Stimulus actually made things worse by delaying the restructuring of state and local governments that is so desperately needed.
 
Except that the "Private Option" was written in a way so as to make Private Insurance puppets of the U.S. Government and would have eventually put them out of business. No insurance company that was not an "approved carrier" or whatever the term they used, was forbidden to write new policies. That meant that they were puppets of the government or out of business.

The word option implies that there will be more than one choice. The public option does not offer choices, just a single choice.

Also, his comments did not seem to be speaking about the public option. It seemed to carry on a different meaning that what was offered. He promised a single payer system within 15 years. He got universal coverage in one.

Harry and Nancy indicated there would be more to come. We have not seen the end of this yet.

Immie

That is a subjective interpretation of the facts.

Do you have specific excerpts of the bill itself that prove your assertions?

And, again, what were those specific comments, and more importantly, WHEN were they made?
 
Are you saying he is not trying to bring about his version of an "ideal world"?

Immie

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying.

In a representative government, one must make compromises with people who do not see things the same way as you.

As you make those compromises, your expectations change, and you try to find a third way to get things done in an agreeable manner.

That is what has happened here.
 
The Stimulus actually made things worse by delaying the restructuring of state and local governments that is so desperately needed.

That is completely subjective.

There is no proof to back up this claim, and no proof that what you said would even have happened.

Are you suggesting that the "Starve the Beast" strategy should have been used in reference to all individual states?

Do you think that would have helped anyone escape an even worse recession?
 
I'm afraid you are confusing the terms "Universal Health Care" and "Nationalized Health Care".

"Universal" means that everyone has access to health care.

"Nationalized" means that the entire health care industry is under the control of the government.

There's a big difference there.

And I'm afraid Obama used the terms interchangeably.

Immie

He may have used the term "National Universal Health Care" or something like that, but "Nationalized Health Care" would have been bad choice of phrase, as it describes something else entirely.

Do you have an example or link?


It's pretty clear what Single Payer means.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE]Obama Supports Single Payer Health Care[/ame]
 

Forum List

Back
Top