Iran Fights - Obama Slights

[saveliberty]

During the Bush years, Iran presented a solid, unified front against the US. Now, when Obama is president, they are fracturing.

Right wing neocons in this country say we could be doing something to help. But seriously, who do they want to "help"?

The government of Iran is an extreme right wing government which is against the teaching of evolution, promotes prayer in public schools, and advocates a national religion.

Considering what Republicans did to the middle class here, I'm not even sure which side they are on in Iran.

So you quickly claim any residual Bush effect as your own when the results are favorable, but deny any negatives when it suits you. Once again proving your partisan hackery.

Come on, you have to agree, Bush unified Iran. The constant threats of bombs and invasion. How can you not see that?
You see that, right?

I see an Iranian leader who increasingly cracked down on radicals within his borders. I see a restrictive religious leadership, which didn't see the youth of the country wanting change. That didn't happen in the last twelve months alone.

 

[midcan5]

If we want to counter terrorism as it exists today, we need to stop interfering in the politics of other nations. We make our nation the focus of the crazies.

Good way for a lib to begin the new year, and get those street creds: Blame America for terrorism!

So you think if America were being occupied by a foreign power we would not retaliate? Terrorism is often in the eye of the beholder, surely you are read enough to recognize that fact.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...s-and-jihadi-revolving-doors.html#post1861142


"The difference between political terror and ordinary crime becomes clear during the change of regimes, in which former terrorists become well-regarded representatives of their country." Jurgen Habermas

"I consider Bush's decision to call for a war against terrorism a serious mistake. He is elevating these criminals to the status of war enemies, and one cannot lead a war against a network if the term war is to retain any definite meaning." Jurgen Habermas


PS How in the heck did healthcare get twisted into Iran?

 

[saveliberty]

Terrorists are going to do what they do because they thrive on imposing their will on others. It is merely a matter of degree to which they target us. We need to define more precisely what we consider a threat severe enough to invade a foreign country.

Yemen could be an important turning point for us. It appears Yemen is stepping up to deal with the problem. We should respect them enough to let them continue without invading, as long as progress is being made. Meeting our objectives without a war would be a good example for future problems like this. Countries can decide for themselves whether they want a Yemen or Iraq response from the US.

 

[MaggieMae]

Not at all.

I'm advocating keeping government out of free market solutions to health care

...except for legislation that accomplished the following:

1. Allow the 1300 companies to sell in every state.
2. Tort reform limiting damages to actual costs.
3. No state mandates: buy what coverage you wish.
4. Use the tax system to incentivize more professionals into the medical field.
5. Encourage more to buy their own health insurance with tax deductibility.


The above is based upon the following:
1. The United States has the best healthcare in the world, based on life expectancy.

2. The principle of ‘liberty’ puts each of us in control of making the decisions that will affect our lives, for better of for worse. Thomas Jefferson put it like this: “It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods of no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”


Whenever there is a 2000 page bill, the sotto voce purpose is to make sure that no one can know what is in it.

Ah yes, so simple. How come the Republican Party has never taken the initiative on those points, but instead wait until health care becomes front and center by Democrats? This could all be history revisited by now. Instead, the health care industry was allowed to become a monopolistic behemoth beyond the reach of average Americans. Enter a dramatic solution by the Democrats. And so here we are.

Now, friend Mag, I don't think you can find any post where I have included myself as a Republican- or a Democrat.

My specification has always been as a conservative. So, I do not answer as a Republican.

But as to why did they " wait until health care becomes front and center by Democrats," it is because the issue has been thrust upon them as a wedge issue by the Democrats and their lap dogs of the Fourth Estate.

"...monopolistic behemoth beyond the reach of average Americans..."
I think this is known as 'begging the question' in logic. It is clearly untrue, as almost 90% of the folks respond as satisfied with their health care.

“…while the numbers clearly show that people are happier with their own health care than with the system as a whole, there is no dimension with which their happier than the quality of care they personally receive…a mere 15 percent complain about the quality of care they receive.”.(New England Journal of Medicine)
Health Beat: The Quality Question

Among insured Americans, 82 percent rate their health coverage positively. Among insured people who've experienced a serious or chronic illness or injury in their family in the last year, an enormous 91 percent are satisfied with their care, and 86 percent are satisfied with their coverage.
ABCNEWS.com : U.S. Health Care Concerns Increase


The most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll (June 21) finds that 83 percent of Americans are very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the quality of their health care, and 81 percent are similarly satisfied with their health insurance.

They have good reason to be. If you're diagnosed with cancer, you have a better chance of surviving it in the United States than anywhere else, according to the Concord Five Continent Study. And the World Health Organization ranked the United States No. 1 out of 191 countries for being responsive to patients' needs, including providing timely treatments and a choice of doctors.
Defend Your Healthcare

"dramatic solution by the Democrats"
Bogus.

Since my post is, as you say, "Ah yes, so simple," we should apply Occam's razor, and see whether any of the 'problems' with healthcare raised by the Democrats is not easily solved using my 5-step solution.

And consider this, if as is claimed, millions more are covered, why is there not a strong push to increase the number of doctors?

No, this bill is not about healthcare, and I suspect that you are far too intelligent to have been fooled...you've allowed your bias to blind you.

The agenda is politcal, not medical.

And, yes here we are: having been given the government of the United States, the Democrats will pass this bill, and if it survivews to consumation, most- because they will not be exposed to very serious illness, will not notice that care is more difficult to come by, and a bit more expensive, and for most, they will accept as the folks in Orwell's 1984 did the changes in enemy from Eurasia to Eastasia.

Your first link is a year and a half old. Your second ABC poll has some pretty dismal numbers by those same people, I presume. (Or a different set answering questions about health care in general?) Thank you for at least not posting the usual Rasmussen information, which generally results in conservative viewpoints to the extent that his polling is always distorted.

Frankly, you're missing the basic point. Sure, if you've got employer coverage with only a nominal amount of the premium paid by you, who wouldn't be happy with their insurance coverage? The problem is that as rates for those employers continue to skyrocket (and they ARE), and benefits within chosen policies begin to diminish, employers must opt to either require employees to contribute more or their wages will remain stagnant to cover the increased cost. Those are all recent historic facts produced by a variety of intensive research, not the least of which is the Kaiser Foundation.

 

[MaggieMae]

PC -- Check out Gallup's polling (all of it), including and up to today.

Healthcare System

 

[PoliticalChic]

Ah yes, so simple. How come the Republican Party has never taken the initiative on those points, but instead wait until health care becomes front and center by Democrats? This could all be history revisited by now. Instead, the health care industry was allowed to become a monopolistic behemoth beyond the reach of average Americans. Enter a dramatic solution by the Democrats. And so here we are.

Now, friend Mag, I don't think you can find any post where I have included myself as a Republican- or a Democrat.

My specification has always been as a conservative. So, I do not answer as a Republican.

But as to why did they " wait until health care becomes front and center by Democrats," it is because the issue has been thrust upon them as a wedge issue by the Democrats and their lap dogs of the Fourth Estate.

"...monopolistic behemoth beyond the reach of average Americans..."
I think this is known as 'begging the question' in logic. It is clearly untrue, as almost 90% of the folks respond as satisfied with their health care.

“…while the numbers clearly show that people are happier with their own health care than with the system as a whole, there is no dimension with which their happier than the quality of care they personally receive…a mere 15 percent complain about the quality of care they receive.”.(New England Journal of Medicine)
Health Beat: The Quality Question

Among insured Americans, 82 percent rate their health coverage positively. Among insured people who've experienced a serious or chronic illness or injury in their family in the last year, an enormous 91 percent are satisfied with their care, and 86 percent are satisfied with their coverage.
ABCNEWS.com : U.S. Health Care Concerns Increase


The most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll (June 21) finds that 83 percent of Americans are very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the quality of their health care, and 81 percent are similarly satisfied with their health insurance.

They have good reason to be. If you're diagnosed with cancer, you have a better chance of surviving it in the United States than anywhere else, according to the Concord Five Continent Study. And the World Health Organization ranked the United States No. 1 out of 191 countries for being responsive to patients' needs, including providing timely treatments and a choice of doctors.
Defend Your Healthcare

"dramatic solution by the Democrats"
Bogus.

Since my post is, as you say, "Ah yes, so simple," we should apply Occam's razor, and see whether any of the 'problems' with healthcare raised by the Democrats is not easily solved using my 5-step solution.

And consider this, if as is claimed, millions more are covered, why is there not a strong push to increase the number of doctors?

No, this bill is not about healthcare, and I suspect that you are far too intelligent to have been fooled...you've allowed your bias to blind you.

The agenda is politcal, not medical.

And, yes here we are: having been given the government of the United States, the Democrats will pass this bill, and if it survivews to consumation, most- because they will not be exposed to very serious illness, will not notice that care is more difficult to come by, and a bit more expensive, and for most, they will accept as the folks in Orwell's 1984 did the changes in enemy from Eurasia to Eastasia.

Your first link is a year and a half old. Your second ABC poll has some pretty dismal numbers by those same people, I presume. (Or a different set answering questions about health care in general?) Thank you for at least not posting the usual Rasmussen information, which generally results in conservative viewpoints to the extent that his polling is always distorted.

Frankly, you're missing the basic point. Sure, if you've got employer coverage with only a nominal amount of the premium paid by you, who wouldn't be happy with their insurance coverage? The problem is that as rates for those employers continue to skyrocket (and they ARE), and benefits within chosen policies begin to diminish, employers must opt to either require employees to contribute more or their wages will remain stagnant to cover the increased cost. Those are all recent historic facts produced by a variety of intensive research, not the least of which is the Kaiser Foundation.

No, they are not 'skyrocketing.'

The rate is actually falling, and the benefits are increasing, as in life expectancy.

The rate of education costs is skyrocketing, and we are getting less and less for the money.

Good work getting that poll.

Please pick a specific aspect of the poll and I'll give my 'spin,' you give the other.

 

[jeffrockit]

Iran's fight is not our fight.

If there was one lesson we'd learned from Vietnam, it is this. Let the people handle their own country's problems.

Does that include all of the money we send to Africa and other 3rd world countries for charity? It is always odd to see some advocate we help other countries in need until our help is to liberate them from genocidal dictators. Then it is usually that "we should mind our own business".

 

[noose4]

If there was one lesson we'd learned from Vietnam, it is this. Let the people handle their own country's problems.

Does that include all of the money we send to Africa and other 3rd world countries for charity? It is always odd to see some advocate we help other countries in need until our help is to liberate them from genocidal dictators. Then it is usually that "we should mind our own business".

Though I mostly oppose our tax money going to aid other nations our relief efforts do not result in thousands of dead and injured U.S. service personnel like "liberating" a nation does.

 

[MaggieMae]

Now, friend Mag, I don't think you can find any post where I have included myself as a Republican- or a Democrat.

My specification has always been as a conservative. So, I do not answer as a Republican.

But as to why did they " wait until health care becomes front and center by Democrats," it is because the issue has been thrust upon them as a wedge issue by the Democrats and their lap dogs of the Fourth Estate.

"...monopolistic behemoth beyond the reach of average Americans..."
I think this is known as 'begging the question' in logic. It is clearly untrue, as almost 90% of the folks respond as satisfied with their health care.

“…while the numbers clearly show that people are happier with their own health care than with the system as a whole, there is no dimension with which their happier than the quality of care they personally receive…a mere 15 percent complain about the quality of care they receive.”.(New England Journal of Medicine)
Health Beat: The Quality Question

Among insured Americans, 82 percent rate their health coverage positively. Among insured people who've experienced a serious or chronic illness or injury in their family in the last year, an enormous 91 percent are satisfied with their care, and 86 percent are satisfied with their coverage.
ABCNEWS.com : U.S. Health Care Concerns Increase


The most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll (June 21) finds that 83 percent of Americans are very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the quality of their health care, and 81 percent are similarly satisfied with their health insurance.

They have good reason to be. If you're diagnosed with cancer, you have a better chance of surviving it in the United States than anywhere else, according to the Concord Five Continent Study. And the World Health Organization ranked the United States No. 1 out of 191 countries for being responsive to patients' needs, including providing timely treatments and a choice of doctors.
Defend Your Healthcare

"dramatic solution by the Democrats"
Bogus.

Since my post is, as you say, "Ah yes, so simple," we should apply Occam's razor, and see whether any of the 'problems' with healthcare raised by the Democrats is not easily solved using my 5-step solution.

And consider this, if as is claimed, millions more are covered, why is there not a strong push to increase the number of doctors?

No, this bill is not about healthcare, and I suspect that you are far too intelligent to have been fooled...you've allowed your bias to blind you.

The agenda is politcal, not medical.

And, yes here we are: having been given the government of the United States, the Democrats will pass this bill, and if it survivews to consumation, most- because they will not be exposed to very serious illness, will not notice that care is more difficult to come by, and a bit more expensive, and for most, they will accept as the folks in Orwell's 1984 did the changes in enemy from Eurasia to Eastasia.

Your first link is a year and a half old. Your second ABC poll has some pretty dismal numbers by those same people, I presume. (Or a different set answering questions about health care in general?) Thank you for at least not posting the usual Rasmussen information, which generally results in conservative viewpoints to the extent that his polling is always distorted.

Frankly, you're missing the basic point. Sure, if you've got employer coverage with only a nominal amount of the premium paid by you, who wouldn't be happy with their insurance coverage? The problem is that as rates for those employers continue to skyrocket (and they ARE), and benefits within chosen policies begin to diminish, employers must opt to either require employees to contribute more or their wages will remain stagnant to cover the increased cost. Those are all recent historic facts produced by a variety of intensive research, not the least of which is the Kaiser Foundation.

No, they are not 'skyrocketing.'

The rate is actually falling, and the benefits are increasing, as in life expectancy.

The rate of education costs is skyrocketing, and we are getting less and less for the money.

Good work getting that poll.

Please pick a specific aspect of the poll and I'll give my 'spin,' you give the other.

I don't think it's fair for anyone to discuss the ramifications of the costs of health care based on polling data. The most extensive report was done by the Kaiser Foundation. See page 9 of the report regarding employer costs to maintain insurance for employees.

http://www.kff.org/insurance/upload/7670_02.pdf

I agree with your assessment on education.

 

[rhodescholar]

Iran's fight is not our fight.

Exactly. Until THEY determine their own leadership, there's no one to talk to anyway. What kind of intervention would the US do? It's looking more and more like the IRG is trying to usurp the power of the mullas, so it would be stupid to jump into that fray now.

You bought the media-driven propaganda; there never was a mullah-controlled government. It was simply a front the IRGC manufactured to bestow legitimacy through religion as a facade.

The iranian government IS the IRGC, AN, khameini, etc., are merely figureheads.

 

[American Horse]

Iran's fight is not our fight.

Exactly. Until THEY determine their own leadership, there's no one to talk to anyway. What kind of intervention would the US do? It's looking more and more like the IRG is trying to usurp the power of the mullas, so it would be stupid to jump into that fray now.

We (the president) could ASK all insurance companies (including LLoyds of London - notwithstanding the brusque treatment GB has gotten from the administration) to rescind all liability or risk insurance on ships and shipping in Iranian waters and ports.