Why I am voting for Obama again

[expatriate]

I am willing to write you a check for ten thousand dollars if you are right.....

What in the fuck am I going to do with $10,000 in Food Stamps, asswipe?

more baseless insults... all hat and no cattle. why am I not surprised? pussy.

what a fucking loser.

 

[thereisnospoon]

You know what I don't like? Someone who makes a whole host of assumptions based on nothing. I have done plenty of research on all the issues and the candidates. I don't need you to tell me what I know and what I don't know.

I'm not going to write a novel so I'll start with healthcare. Research what they do in Taiwan right now as an idea or research expanding Medicare for all based on income.

Here, I'll start you out with some links. And no, this is not the only place I've researched this. I work in the healthcare field at a large VA hospital and have worked for health insurance companies.

Medicare for All: Home

Health Care in Taiwan | Health Beat by Maggie Mahar

I made no assumptions. Your post told me the story of you.
Typically when people rattle off lists of things it is because they lack knowledge of specifics or they are attempting to deflect attention away from the fact that the one doing the listing has no interest in a discussion. The equivalent would be to shine a bright light in a person's eyes then run away and hide while the person is temporarily blinded.
Ok. It is very nice that these other places have their version of what you believe is universal healthcare. The bottom line is this: The cost is always there. Whether the privately insured pay for care as part of their premiums or the taxpayers via a government system fund it, the costs continue to rise because the cost of the labor to do the research, perform the care and develop the technology always rises.
The only way to control the market is for government to FIX the market. In other words, create a monopoly. When that happens, rationing of the product follows.
Now, these other countries have less than 10% of the population of the US. It is impossible for a country to insure and administer a health program for 315 million people without the cost of administration reaching stratospheric levels.
Newsflash. Health care will NEVER be "free".. To anyone.
Now I asked YOU to answer those questions. Not plan an escape by posting links.
You made your statement regarding the issues on which you would vote for Obama.
I ask you again to answer those simple questions. I am not letting this go. You put it out there on a public message board. Just feel free to back it up.
Worked in the healthcare field doing what?...Worked for insurance companies doing what?
My father and father in law have been patients at VA hospitals. They offer their observations. You worked in one. Who is better qualified to offer an unbiased observation of the system as they saw it? One who got the care or one who sees the government system as the best type and is committed to that end?...
Forget the links. Just answer the questions. This is important. This is why you have made up your mind to vote for Obama.

Listen, I have a life and only so much time to type out every little detail of every little thing I believe in politically. I'm a busy person with a full time job and a family. I will answer you but it is gonna take time and I'm coming to this board to discuss/debate these issues but I'm not gonna tolerate someone telling me exactly what I have to say and how I have to say it. That doesn't fly with me and it'll never work. I use links only if they are informative and a good place to get more details I don't want to type out here in their entirety. I know many people who have gotten care at the VA and I currently work there. See my bio in my profile for my job title. I used to work as a claims examiner for United Health Care among others. I think that's enough about me right now.

Regarding your first statement. Who the hell said it would be free? I didn't and I offered you ideas in those links how to pay for it. We pay for it right now. We pay for the uninsured who go to the ER to get care. We pay massive insurance premiums-or at least the copays and deductibles. We pay for Medicare and Medicaid with our taxes. We pay plenty right now. And we have millions who get no care, and only get seen when they are so sick it is going to cost the taxpayer a hell of a lot more money than if they had free preventative care which is what the ACA mandates. Heck, look at all the people who declare bankruptcy due to medical bills. Who pays for that? What happens when they have to foreclose on their house and what does that do to the market value of the rest of the houses in the neighborhood. I could go on and on. I hope you get the point.

We can pay for universal health care so easily with the money already being spent on health care, that we could cover everyone and even pay less than we do now. Premiums, and even those on Medicare pay premiums, could be pegged to income so that families could pay far less than the average 25% of their income that they are paying now to get covered. Doctors could put their resources into delivering medical care instead of personnel to deal with the endless reams of paperwork and fight for coverage for their patients from the insurance companies, which would bring down medical costs without reducing medical service. The uninsured and the underinsured could get the treatment they need and preventative care, like physical examinations could catch illnesses while it is less expensive to treat. Your doctor could make the medical decisions about your treatment instead of some clerk in an insurance office.

I do believe healthcare is a right in this country. It's called life. We have a right to life. All of us. Everyone. This is my personal opinion of which I am entiteled to.

You're just pissed because I called you on your post. Now you don't want to stoop so low as to defend your position. Hey, I get it. Lazy and uninformed. So be it.
I never demanded HOW to answer. Just asked some questions and you got aggravated.
On your point about doctors pooling resources. It is being done now. Google "doctors hospitals"..Also there are medical associations to which patients pay a fee to join. There is no insurance accepted. The problem is ACA makes these things illegal.
"Easily afford"? Stop it.
With universal care the taxpayers pay not only for care through taxation, but administrative costs which government has no incentive in keeping control. The answer as always is with government "increase taxes"...That will not fly.
Health insurance is expensive for many reasons...Federal mandates on types of coverage. The inability of insurance companies to sell policies across state lines which eliminates competition and thus drives up the price. And finally there are no catastrophic loss policies available. These are high deductible policies designed to cover serious illness or injury and long term care.
The most glaring issue with medical insurance is the belief that first dollar coverage is a right or should be universally available. In other words, medicine should be free. That is nonsense.
I would much rather have a system where I go to my family doctor for minor things and pay out of pocket. For those who cannot pay, we have medicaid and medicare.
A captive government run system where no one pays is not realistic.

 

[Avatar4321]

I oppose none of those things. I do, however, oppose the majority of the platform of the GOP.

Liberty, sane fiscal policy, and basic human rights are the platform

 

[expatriate]

You're talking about the national debt and supporting Obama in the same sentence???

I am suggesting that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. If the republicans want to get all outraged about Obama suddenly running up the debt, it would be a bit more plausible if they ever had a GOP president that DIDN'T run up the debt. Or is that concept too complex for ya?

 

[Avatar4321]

I am suggesting that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. If the republicans want to get all outraged about Obama suddenly running up the debt, it would be a bit more plausible if they ever had a GOP president that DIDN'T run up the debt. Or is that concept too complex for ya?

We will in 4 months. That's one of Romney's biggest selling points. He can balance a budget. He understands the importance of cutting waste.

Obama cant even present a budget.

 

[expatriate]

I am suggesting that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. If the republicans want to get all outraged about Obama suddenly running up the debt, it would be a bit more plausible if they ever had a GOP president that DIDN'T run up the debt. Or is that concept too complex for ya?

We will in 4 months. That's one of Romney's biggest selling points. He can balance a budget. He understands the importance of cutting waste.

Obama cant even present a budget.

isn't that what every republican president since WWII has also promised to do? Why IS it that you all actually expect anyone to believe you when you have promoted yourselves as being the fiscally responsible party for over a half a century and have yet to exercise one iota of fiscal responsibility? Oh...trust us... this time we really WILL do it???? Honestly? If your children offered up that excuse, would you believe them?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

and again... I am not confused about a thing. Well... I AM confused about how you said - erroneously, by the way - that the democrats controlled all or part of the government for the last 60 years as a dodge to avoid answering the question: What republican president since WWII has NOT raised the national debt during his presidency? And if you want to claim that the congress did so against the president's wishes, show me the long line of overridden vetoes where fiscally responsible GOP presidents did all they could to keep the debt from rising. Can you answer that, or can you simply tapdance?

Being part of the collective would over shadow Individualism and personal responsibility. Liberal completely embrace collectivism

nice tap dancing!

do you have a macro that spews that line about collectivism out so you don't have to keep retyping it over and over again? I, for one, do NOT completely embrace anything, unless perhaps when we discuss my family.

now... about that record of fiscally responsible GOP presidents.... any luck on that, or will the dance continue?

nice tap dancing!

That is not a tap dance that is a fact being a liberal you would not believe in Individualism and personal responsibility, being part of the collective does over shadow those two human traits

do you have a macro that spews that line about collectivism out so you don't have to keep retyping it over and over again? I, for one, do NOT completely embrace anything, unless perhaps when we discuss my family.

Why did you lie and say you do?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/5926503-post238.html

now... about that record of fiscally responsible GOP presidents.... any luck on that, or will the dance continue?

You mention tap dancing and danced around democrats controlling congress in part or whole for 60+ years since 1946 is laughable.

 

[Newby]

You're talking about the national debt and supporting Obama in the same sentence???

I am suggesting that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. If the republicans want to get all outraged about Obama suddenly running up the debt, it would be a bit more plausible if they ever had a GOP president that DIDN'T run up the debt. Or is that concept too complex for ya?

Okay, but you're talking about Obama here, who's run up the national debt more than any other president in history. And you're defending that and your assinine decision to vote for him again based on the fact that none of the republicans have lowered it either? I could see maybe abstaining from voting, or writing in, or going third party, but your argument to vote Democrat again when set up against your supposed reasons is not based in logic at all. You could give a rat's ass about the national debt, that's what I think.

By the way, in case you didn't notice, your house is made of glass too.

 

[Warrior102]

You're talking about the national debt and supporting Obama in the same sentence???

I am suggesting that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. If the republicans want to get all outraged about Obama suddenly running up the debt, it would be a bit more plausible if they ever had a GOP president that DIDN'T run up the debt. Or is that concept too complex for ya?

Bush did run up the debt - $1 trillion in eight years.

In four years, Obama has added $16 trillion to that!

Put your mouth back on Obama's ass and STFU, asswipe.

 

[kaz]

WHY I AM VOTING FOR OBAMA AGAIN

A tip, when you touch the hot stove and get burned, next time, don't touch the hot stove...

 

[expatriate]

You mention tap dancing and danced around democrats controlling congress in part or whole for 60+ years since 1946 is laughable.

and if you could show me the long line of overridden vetoes by GOP presidents who were attempting to exercise fiscal responsibility, you might have a point. Again.... why in the world should America believe that we will have fiscal responsibility once again and our national debt will begin decreasing if we only put a republican back in the white house, when the last six republicans in the white house ALL INCREASED the debt during their term of office?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

WHY I AM VOTING FOR OBAMA AGAIN

A tip, when you touch the hot stove and get burned, next time, don't touch the hot stove...

The collective will save him

 

[bigrebnc1775]

and again... I am not confused about a thing. Well... I AM confused about how you said - erroneously, by the way - that the democrats controlled all or part of the government for the last 60 years as a dodge to avoid answering the question: What republican president since WWII has NOT raised the national debt during his presidency? And if you want to claim that the congress did so against the president's wishes, show me the long line of overridden vetoes where fiscally responsible GOP presidents did all they could to keep the debt from rising. Can you answer that, or can you simply tapdance?

Being part of the collective would over shadow Individualism and personal responsibility. Liberal completely embrace collectivism

nice tap dancing!

do you have a macro that spews that line about collectivism out so you don't have to keep retyping it over and over again? I, for one, do NOT completely embrace anything, unless perhaps when we discuss my family.

now... about that record of fiscally responsible GOP presidents.... any luck on that, or will the dance continue?

nice tap dancing!

That is not a tap dance that is a fact being a liberal you would not believe in Individualism and personal responsibility, being part of the collective does over shadow those two human traits

do you have a macro that spews that line about collectivism out so you don't have to keep retyping it over and over again? I, for one, do NOT completely embrace anything, unless perhaps when we discuss my family.

Why did you lie and say you do?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/5926503-post238.html

now... about that record of fiscally responsible GOP presidents.... any luck on that, or will the dance continue?

You mention tap dancing and danced around democrats controlling congress in part or whole for 60+ years since 1946 is laughable.

and if you could show me the long line of overridden vetoes by GOP presidents who were attempting to exercise fiscal responsibility, you might have a point. Again.... why in the world should America believe that we will have fiscal responsibility once again and our national debt will begin decreasing if we only put a republican back in the white house, when the last six republicans in the white house ALL INCREASED the debt during their term of office?

Talk about tap dancing when a person quotes just a portion of a response it shows they are tap dancing around everything.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not bitter at all, and well aware that things change without being bitter about it.

That is not the case with many of my older peers in the GOP: that's a shame.

We have a group of embittered, older white folks realizing, finally, a fact of life.

Things always change.

Their way of life for many of them is coming to an end.

So be it, they can't change it, but they can whine about it. And why not? They will soon be gone.

And so will you, not seeing the point here, other than you are bitter and you are going to die.

 

[expatriate]

You're talking about the national debt and supporting Obama in the same sentence???

I am suggesting that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. If the republicans want to get all outraged about Obama suddenly running up the debt, it would be a bit more plausible if they ever had a GOP president that DIDN'T run up the debt. Or is that concept too complex for ya?

Okay, but you're talking about Obama here, who's run up the national debt more than any other president in history. And you're defending that and your assinine decision to vote for him again based on the fact that none of the republicans have lowered it either? I could see maybe abstaining from voting, or writing in, or going third party, but your argument to vote Democrat again when set up against your supposed reasons is not based in logic at all. You could give a rat's ass about the national debt, that's what I think.

By the way, in case you didn't notice, your house is made of glass too.

My decision to vote for Obama, as stated in the OP has nothing to do with the debt whatsoever. It has to do with the basic beliefs of the democratic party versus the republican party. the DEBT is the big issue that the GOP has latched onto this season and I only point out how funny that is, given the fact that the last six GOP presidents have ALL raised the debt.... I guess raising the debt is OK when you guys do it?

 

[Avatar4321]

I am suggesting that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. If the republicans want to get all outraged about Obama suddenly running up the debt, it would be a bit more plausible if they ever had a GOP president that DIDN'T run up the debt. Or is that concept too complex for ya?

We will in 4 months. That's one of Romney's biggest selling points. He can balance a budget. He understands the importance of cutting waste.

Obama cant even present a budget.

isn't that what every republican president since WWII has also promised to do? Why IS it that you all actually expect anyone to believe you when you have promoted yourselves as being the fiscally responsible party for over a half a century and have yet to exercise one iota of fiscal responsibility? Oh...trust us... this time we really WILL do it???? Honestly? If your children offered up that excuse, would you believe them?

Considering that it was the Republican Congress under Newt Gingrich that did balance the budget the only time in the latter half of the 20th century, i think that gives them some credibility on the matter.

And Romney has several decades of history balancing books, eliminating waste and corruption from organizations. His track record speaks for itself.

 

[CandySlice]

.

Funny, you won't give Obama the blame but are more then happy to give it to Bush and transpose that onto Romney. I would say that regardless of what you think Romney is saying now look at what he DID in Mass. and the Olympics and if you like that you'll probably like what he will do as president. MAYBE Romney will be a rehash of Bush but I doubt it seriously what we know is that Obama will be a rehash of Obama without the fear of reelection. Of course, as he said, that will then give him more flexibility with the Russians when he does not have to worry about what you or I think.

That's called magical thinking. It helps these poor beknighted people to overlook reality. If you can twist it around in your mind to where it suits your philosophy you don't have to think at all. And that's what keeps these people together. Any new thought coming in or any effort to make them see what's really going on makes them tremble at the idea the earth might not really be flat.

 

[Avatar4321]

WHY I AM VOTING FOR OBAMA AGAIN

A tip, when you touch the hot stove and get burned, next time, don't touch the hot stove...

Some people learn slowly

 

[expatriate]

You're talking about the national debt and supporting Obama in the same sentence???

I am suggesting that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. If the republicans want to get all outraged about Obama suddenly running up the debt, it would be a bit more plausible if they ever had a GOP president that DIDN'T run up the debt. Or is that concept too complex for ya?

Bush did run up the debt - $1 trillion in eight years.

In four years, Obama has added $16 trillion to that!

Put your mouth back on Obama's ass and STFU, asswipe.

oh...it's the little yappy dog with no nuts... the douchebag who is all internet tough guy insulting everyone but doesn't have the stones to back it up... I thought I heard some whining ! run away little doggie... come back when you grow a set.

 

[Newby]

Not bitter at all, and well aware that things change without being bitter about it.

That is not the case with many of my older peers in the GOP: that's a shame.

We have a group of embittered, older white folks realizing, finally, a fact of life.

Things always change.

Their way of life for many of them is coming to an end.

So be it, they can't change it, but they can whine about it. And why not? They will soon be gone.

And so will you, not seeing the point here, other than you are bitter and you are going to die.

Still pretending to be a conservative repulican, Jake?