# Healthcare Legislation to be pushed thru without Republicans



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Okay, so the Obama administration only wasted seven months-more than an eighth of his first term (and perhaps his presidency)-trying to make nice with the GOP and the shrieking lunatics in the GOP base and the talking heads on Fox News who are trying to get him killed. Gee it is a wonder that he ever thought it might ever work at all... :roll:

So now the Democrats are *talking about going it alone*...



> Given hardening Republican opposition to Congressional health care proposals, Democrats now say they see little chance of the minority's cooperation in approving any overhaul, and are increasingly focused on drawing support for a final plan from within their own ranks.
> 
> Top Democrats said Tuesday that their go-it-alone view was being shaped by what they saw as Republicans' purposely strident tone against health care legislation during this month's Congressional recess, _as well as remarks by leading Republicans that current proposals were flawed beyond repair_....
> 
> [Such] a change could alter the dynamic of talks surrounding health care legislation, and even change the substance of a final bill. *With no need to negotiate with Republicans, Democrats might be better able to move more quickly, relying on their large majorities in both houses.*


I say what the hell... just shove it through, Democrats, and then when the dust settles and Americans have access to health insurance-including a public option-and the sky doesn't fall and no one is forced to stand before death panels and health-care-expense-related bankruptcies come down and the whole thing is, in retrospect, insanely popular and people can't remember what all the fuss was about, _*then you can claim 100% of the credit for health-care reform*_.

Stop trying to bring the Rs along. Screw 'em.

At this point they are just being completely obstructionist anyways...

enough is enough.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Ryan since the HC program would not start until 2013, it will mean a huge turn over in Congress come 2010! Even people like Peterson, Dorgan,Pooperboy would go under the bus if they vote for passage of a Gov run program.

It is very apparent at the town meetings across the state that in ND at least this is not a party issue. It is about debt and defect spending, Medicare, SS!!!!!!!

The program to work as presented will require deep cuts in Medicare! Look at the State of ND, and the 7th District in MN!!!! for average age!!!!

Politicians are all about self preservation, Dorgan and Pooperboy want to stay in Washington as elected officials, they will not vote for a Gov run plan if they want to return. I like what my buddy said about the Colfax meeting with Dorgan. He watched people drive up with Nobama and Pooperboy stickers on their cars and trucks. They where some of the most local and adamant opponents!!!!!!!!! Do you get it!!!!!!!


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> I say what the hell... just shove it through, Democrats, and then when the dust settles and Americans have access to health insurance-including a public option-and the sky doesn't fall and no one is forced to stand before death panels and health-care-expense-related bankruptcies come down and the whole thing is, in retrospect, insanely popular and people can't remember what all the fuss was about, then you can claim 100% of the credit for health-care reform.
> 
> Stop trying to bring the Rs along. Screw 'em.


Now what if it fails??? The dems are the only ones to blame. That is a slippery slope.

Like I posted in another thread......do the dem's only care about the people who voted them in office or do they care about the whole country? Because even elected Dem's still represent the whole state in which they come from. So they owe it to all the people in the state. That is what is screwy with elected officials. Both sides. They think that once elected they don't have to worry about the other side. WRONG. They have to worry about everyone. They are still representing that state. Like I said before.....I did not vote for Obama. But he is my president now. I will not follow him blindly but he is my leader.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

I'll grant you that it will be extremely interesting to see how those scenarios play out in the coming weeks.

I'm sure the Dems have considered just that very thing Ron, yet they are still forging ahead with their plans anyways.

There were folks just like this protesting Medicare when it was first pushed thru... you don't hear from those complainers anymore, and further, any mention of reining in further Medicare changes brings howls of protest from those seniors enjoying their benefits.

The very same scenario seems to be shaping up here....


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Chuck Smith said:


> > I say what the hell... just shove it through, Democrats, and then when the dust settles and Americans have access to health insurance-including a public option-and the sky doesn't fall and no one is forced to stand before death panels and health-care-expense-related bankruptcies come down and the whole thing is, in retrospect, insanely popular and people can't remember what all the fuss was about, then you can claim 100% of the credit for health-care reform.
> >
> > Stop trying to bring the Rs along. Screw 'em.
> 
> ...


If it fails then the Dems go down. Pretty simple. However for the Dems to fully succeed many of the reasons for it "failing" will also be much less likely, as that type of total insurance reform, tort reform, gain in efficiencies from a public/co-op style option, will bring out the necessary change to completely reform how "bidness" is now being done.

Elections have consequences Chuck. Those who lose need to accept that even if they get stomping mad, that their wishes might take a back seat for a few years. It is cyclical, and in 8 years the R's will be back trying to restore the Corporate lobbyists stranglehold on government and medicine... don't worry..

You bet they "owe" it to all people of their representative states to look out for their interests. However that doesn't mean that simply because a few dozen vocal opponents want something, that they will get it. That will not result in substantive change, even if they show up to disrupt political events. It is a shame that those who are so active and vocal weren't so active in vocal last September and October before the elections. They would have been well advised to put that energy towards positive change, rather than after the fact protests... but then again that type of activism doesn't get on TV like this recent stuff does...

Or so it seems to me....


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Ryan.....agree on the election part. But these elected officials....both sides. Seem not to care what the other side thinks. Like this post states the dems will just push it through. Now with all the up roar is this bill really representing the united states? See many are like me....they see good points and bad points in this bill. It needs to be tweeked. But pushing a bill through is not representing the whole country. It is only representing a minority. Just look at all the out bursts, look at all the people both dems and reps that think this is wrong, etc. this should be a wake up call.

I am all for reform but not an over haul. I don't believe a public option is needed. Like I have stated before there are over 60 health insurance companies in the united states. Adding a public option will do nothing in the way of competition. Now removing state mandates and state regulations will open up competition for these 60+ companies to expand.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

couple of points to consider: 1) Medicare will be slashed to fund a govt. option and the seniors will make payback a political hell for the dems.

2) all the illegal aliens (12 mil or so) when granted amnesty will qualify for the same benefits you will receive....let's see, i have been paying taxes as a LEGAL CITIZEN for 30-40 years and now i will pay even *more *taxes so Juan and Jullio can receive the same benefits, basically for free. yeah, that won't pi$$ me off too bad, things will calm down, once we vote all the dems and Obama out of office!

Rahm is trying to convince Obama they can get away with it, but i think it is the quickest method of political suicide we may ever witness. there will be demonstrations in DC like you have never seen before. people will literally rise up (yes, the majority of 53% that are against this scam) and the town halls will look mild. it could easily end up as a civil uprising.

i don't think the first black president would want that on his resume??

Obama is dumb, but he isn't stupid......well, we shall see, but like they say, "you can't fix stupid". :lol:


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

The only way they can pass it is through reconciliation process, which will essentially strip a vast majority of the bill away, which would probably be better than the whole thing passing, but still a disaster. It is also open to challenge in the reconciliation process as that was intended only for the bare bones budget in the constitution.

The dems won't do it because of all the backlash, and they have all begun to see the deathspiral of a lot of their political careers if it goes this way.

All those supposed fiscally conservative democrats that got elected this last round will be run out of office if it goes this way, along with a probably public revolt, and a lot of long standing dems standing to get ousted too.

Remember, no matter what the issue, they serve us, as in all of us, and the public is speaking a resounding *no* in all polling data, with it only going more and more that way every single day.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> It is also open to challenge in the reconciliation process as that was intended only for the bare bones budget in the constitution.


That is correct, and it is unconstitutional to use reconciliation for anything but budget.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Ryan can you show me in the current Leg any tort reform? Can you show me where costs at Merit Care,Inovis, or Mayo are going to be found and passed on to the consumer???

You like all who have a nirvana belief that if the Gov suddenly enters the market costs will magical drop!!!!!

The simple fact remains that there a host of factors that are affecting health care costs including one that for some reason none of your kind want to admit and that is Gov intrusion into HC. Be it Medicare, Medicaid,S-Chip etc....

To reform the stem this also needs fixing and what is the fix? I know lets cut Medicare costs. How do we do this? Two ways pay less and shift the rest to the big bad insurance companies to pick up the rest or reduce what is covered services!!!!!!!!!!!

You and anyone else who thinks Gov HC option is going to lower costs is a farce!!!!!! All it does is shift who is paying the bill and with money running out, it will be even more from us!!!!!

I can hear you now Ryan, you are stuttering saying BUT BUT BUT!!!!!!!!!!!

It is very simple Ryan, to increase competition states need more uniform standards. Those standards mean less mandates for coverage, but what they can mandate is that providers must make available for purchase options that a consumer may want. Like pregnancy,mental health coverage, etc....

But you know that!

Over the past weeks of HC talk, it is plain to all who really pay attention that there is no reform in this. It simply as has been pointed out a shift in who pays. The ultimate goal of wealth re-distribution and voting block security!!!!!!!!!

And yes elections have consequences just as arrogance does. The Rep found that out, but it took a war and mortgage crisis to figure it out. The Dem's have a bit over a two hundred days to do the same thing!

Incumbents who once where locks are now no longer except Rep Sen and Reps. Boxer in CA is polling even with her new opponent. Dodd with his HC push and Countrywide sweetheart deal is floundering.

Specter, well switching to the Dem's is not helping him in the least.

Then look across the border in MN, Peterson slip of the tongue on 9/11 conspiracy believers, and HC are from all appearances making him a 50-50 bet at best!!!!!!!

And in our own state, Dorgan and Pooperboy on record stating they would not vote for a public option!!!!!!!!

I can see the TV and radio ads now! Dorgan or Pooperboy voice or image comes across the air waves saying I will not vote for!!!!

Followed by he lied to you about HC, can you believe anything he says????? Paid for by the candidate who without this mistake could not have beaten him!!!!!!!!!!

Heck even Fiengold is polling low on HC in his stronghold areas of Milwaukee and Madison corridor. I realize it is a long way off to Nov of 2010, but this along with Carbon Tax are nothing but poison pills!!!!!


----------



## whistler312 (Jul 15, 2009)

"shrieking lunatics" *Give me a fricken break Ryan*


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Didn't the Clinton administration all ready put us through this BS? When is this country going to wake up? Liars are liars no matter what color or cause!! uke:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> "shrieking lunatics" Give me a fricken break Ryan


Does anyone remember: Yeeeeeehaaaaaaaaaaw?


----------



## NDTerminator (Aug 20, 2003)

I truly hope the Left is stupid enough to try to push this through against America's wishes. Good luck with those 2010 & 2012 elections if you flakes do!...


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> will be back trying to restore the Corporate lobbyists stranglehold on government and medicine


Spoken like a loyal Marxist. No, I am not calling you names, I am serious. Wanting government intrusion into so many parts of our lives is socialist at the least, and perhaps full fledged Marxist. Don't you see anything wrong with government controlling much of the economy? Don't you see anything wrong with government having so much control over out personal lives? 
I guess I am curious about what makes people tick. For the liberals out there that think government health care is ok I would like to seriously ask which you value most liberty or perceived security? When you are controlled you loose liberty, and when you have liberty you have the freedom to make your own choices. You might screw up, and that scares some people. When your ten your mother is there to clean up your screw ups. I strongly suspect that a 40 year old liberal wants government to take the place of mother in that aspect.
The old explorers that were willing to sail into uncharted waters, cross continents unknown to European man, and face the unknown with only a handful of men must have possessed the character that would have made them conservatives today. In North America alone the frightened stayed on the east coast, the pioneers broke trail to the west coast, and when all was safe the meek followed. Today the liberals are trying to create meek followers of thier government control. It's such a quandary. The liberal leaders who are vicious want meek liberal followers, while the conservative less controlling leaders want more liberty and aggressive individualism. 
Think about this for a moment. Socialism puts it's value in society as a whole, while conservatism puts it's value on the individual. Do you want to be important to your leaders as an individual, or just a number among the multitude?


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Ron Great post.

To everyone screaming that we need a public option to make for competition. I say to you won't loosening state mandates do the same with out tax payers money? Will that not open up competition for the over 60 health insurance companies out there now? I have asked this to my elected officials and they have no answer to that. I have talked with people that are high up in the Mayo clinic....they have asked the same questions to higher ups and still no response on why the public option is better than opening up state mandates. Hmmmm...... That might be a better option.


----------



## bearhunter (Jan 30, 2009)

good-god Ryan, don't go away mad, just ......................


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

The "budget reconciliation" process cuts both ways. Fun, huh?

I hope my representatives wake up in time to cram this home over the objections of those too blinded by the insurance lobby to do a simple cost-benefit analysis. Every country pays significantly less. All of the industrialized ones get better results. It's that simple.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

yep, hope you enjoy paying a lot more for those 12 mil illegals that Pelosi is going to grant amnesty...... :lol: of course they will also be dipping into your social security as well....... :lol: :lol:


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

Chuck Smith said:


> To everyone screaming that we need a public option to make for competition. I say to you won't loosening state mandates do the same with out tax payers money? Will that not open up competition for the over 60 health insurance companies out there now?


Unless, the mandates on what is covered are made at a Federal level, it's an invitation for insurance conglomerates to shop for the state with the most consumer-unfriendly laws, and sell from there, which is what credit card companies used to do (and here you thought they just liked Delaware).

During the presidential campaign, you had the GAO saying that McCain's plan (opening up across state lines and subsidizing individual plans) would cost millions of people their employer-based healthcare, because it would have a built in incentive for the young, healthy people to go elsewhere.


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

hunter9494 said:


> yep, hope you enjoy paying a lot more for those 12 mil illegals that Pelosi is going to grant amnesty......


OMG! They want to give free healthcare to 4% of the population? Why that will make my costs go up by eleventy-billion percent! Of course, since they ALREADY go to the ER for treatment (instead of preventing conditions from getting worse), those numbers may be slightly exaggerated.

In other "words": :roll:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> Unless, the mandates on what is covered are made at a Federal level, it's an invitation for insurance conglomerates to shop for the state with the most consumer-unfriendly laws, and sell from there, which is what credit card companies used to do (and here you thought they just liked Delaware).


That is what they are talking about. Having the feds say....what needs to be covered then you can up grade from there.

This will not cost the tax payers one dime. But it does not have goverment control.



> OMG! They want to give free healthcare to 4% of the population? Why that will make my costs go up by eleventy-billion percent! Of course, since they ALREADY go to the ER for treatment (instead of preventing conditions from getting worse), those numbers may be slightly exaggerated.


Now the 47 million is about 15% of the country not insured.......take away 4% like you state and now we are at 11% of the nation not insured now and the dem's say "NEED the public option". With that 11% how many are covered under parents plans but they are 18 and don't have their own plan. That is why I keep saying.....what makes up that 47 million uninsured. So that number everytime I hear it makes me uke:


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

Making sure that everybody is covered is what has to be done to make sure there is no "pre-existing condition". Basically, the only way to do it is to make sure that no condition "pre-exists" some sort of coverage. For my end of the bargain, I get to know that my insurance company can't trump up some BS to drop me, once I cost them money. Every other industrialized country does this, and they manage to do it all for significantly LESS money than we do.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

yes, Canada for example, is so broke with this same system, they are considering bringing back private insurance companies. of course those who are really ill and have the money, come here to the US for treatment, but that level of care will soon go broke when the public option no longer affords it.......sweet.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> I get to know that my insurance company can't trump up some BS to drop me, once I cost them money.


They can't if you read your policy. You will know what or how they can drop you if they can by the coverage you have selected.

This is the fear that people have of getting dropped. But the fact of the matter is it is very hard for a company to drop you. If you have good coverage...which about 80% of the insured population has the insurance company's can't drop you if you get sick.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> OMG! They want to give free healthcare to 4% of the population?


They are not part of our legal United States population. They are alien criminals.



> For my end of the bargain, I get to know that my insurance company can't trump up some BS to drop me, once I cost them money.


It's always those who know little that think they know the most. Please read your policy before you continue. You should at least know something before you debate guys like Chuck who do know what's going on. Your exhibiting ignorance of your own insurance while condemning them at the same time. You may not like them, but you at least owe them considerate thought.



> Every other industrialized country does this


That's simply a liberal talking point. Think for yourself. It also cost those countries more. Paying taxes twice our rate and the government telling them their health care is free and you want us to drink that cool-aid? I have heard that crap so many times that Europe does it cheaper and they have better health care. BS I say. Now you can tell me how many friends you have around the world that love their socialistic health care. I know it's coming from someone, it always does.

Socialized health care is for the irresponsible who want to spend their money on toys, then have the government take care of them with someone else's money when they get sick. It's a parasitic program. It will come about in a democratic nation when the parasites outnumber the productive.

I have a question for those of you who support Obama care. Doesn't it bother you that you will be sucking from your neighbors wallet? :eyeroll:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> Think for yourself. It also cost those countries more. Paying taxes twice our rate and the government telling them their health care is free and you want us to drink that cool-aid? I have heard that crap so many times that Europe does it cheaper and they have better health care. BS I say. Now you can tell me how many friends you have around the world that love their socialistic health care. I know it's coming from someone, it always does.
> 
> Socialized health care is for the irresponsible who want to spend their money on toys, then have the government take care of them with someone else's money when they get sick. It's a parasitic program. It will come about in a democratic nation when the parasites outnumber the productive.


Another thing to look at with people saying Socialized medicine is the way to go and point to European country's.... How are the peoples standards of living compared to the US. How much is their weekly, monthly, yearly incomes compared to the US. How is their middle class living? Many of these country's middle classes we would consider living in poverty. Do you want that?


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

These are free countries that have to pass well-publicized budgets through their legislative bodies, just like we do. When all the money comes from the same source, it's shockingly easy to track the spending.

They pay for it in higher taxes. We pay for it in reduced wages from our employers (and some taxes). They just plain spend less than we do.

You can talk about their taxes. That's valid, but there is more than the healthcare costs in their tax rates. I have never seen a single source that has shown any country spending even close to what we do as a percentage of GDP, which is the only way to demonstrate cost independently of how it's paid for. If you've got one, I'd love to see it.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

omegax...

Are these other nations as populated as the USA? Are these other nations spending as much as we do in Military, education, research grants, transportation, taking care of handicap, and now banking and auto industry...etc.? The answer will be a huge NO to all.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

omegax said:


> These are free countries that have to pass well-publicized budgets through their legislative bodies, just like we do. When all the money comes from the same source, it's shockingly easy to track the spending.
> 
> They pay for it in higher taxes. We pay for it in reduced wages from our employers (and some taxes). They just plain spend less than we do.
> 
> You can talk about their taxes. That's valid, but there is more than the healthcare costs in their tax rates. I have never seen a single source that has shown any country spending even close to what we do as a percentage of GDP, which is the only way to demonstrate cost independently of how it's paid for. If you've got one, I'd love to see it.


Right, people always point to higher tax rates in Europe when having healthcare conversations and imply cause and effect. For one, many of these countries have free college education. For example, there is no such thing as college tuition even for graduate school. I'm not advocating this, just pointing out that higher tax rates have more to do than just healthcare.

And Chuck, no, the middle class in Europe isn't poverty. :roll: I used to live there, I know what I'm talking about.

Plainsman, we can put our heads in the sand and hope that these illegals will just leave on their own... or we can grant them amnesty and get them paying taxes just like all of us do. I think at a certain point we need to be realistic about this situation.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Chuck Smith said:


> omegax...
> 
> Are these other nations as populated as the USA? Are these other nations spending as much as we do in Military, education, research grants, transportation, taking care of handicap, and now banking and auto industry...etc.? The answer will be a huge NO to all.


Chuck, my guess is that northern European countries spend more per capita than we do on education, research grants, transportation and taking care of the handicap than we do. I'm sure you are right regarding military spending though.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Middle class is not poverty....

I know of a legal assistant making $500 a month. That is not poverty.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> Chuck, my guess is that northern European countries spend more per capita than we do on education, research grants, transportation and taking care of the handicap than we do. I'm sure you are right regarding military spending though.


I highly doubt they spend as much as the USA.

Now on transportation....do they have a network of highways, roads, etc spanning as many miles as the USA? Do they have as many children in Public school systems as we do?

The point I am getting at:

Germany: Land Mass:... 357,021(km)..... population 82,370,000
United States: land Mass: 9,629,091(km)..... population 303,825,000

That is a huge difference between the two. I could keep comparing if you wish. What other countries do you want to see the differences. Hmm....so transportation costs are a fraction of the USA, Public education costs are a fraction of the USA. That is why they can pay for college. Even though the USA does if for people who are in the military. But people forget that part.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Here is a link to look at. It is population and land mass of country's.

http://mongabay.com/igapo/world_statist ... ountry.htm

So any country that people point at and say higher taxes pays for so much more....look at land mass and what they would have for a network of highways that the United States has. Look at the public school systems vs population. More kids means more money spent on education. Look at the amount of taxes that goes to local goverments and cities in the USA. Compare that to the size and amount of towns/villages and what not in other country's. Does that tax $$$ trickle down to the local goverment like it does in the United States.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Chuck Smith said:


> > Chuck, my guess is that northern European countries spend more per capita than we do on education, research grants, transportation and taking care of the handicap than we do. I'm sure you are right regarding military spending though.
> 
> 
> Now on transportation....do they have a network of highways, roads, etc spanning as many miles as the USA? Do they have as many children in Public school systems as we do?
> ...


But comparing land mass isn't everything, right? I mean, there are major public transportation systems criss-crossing all of europe. You can easily take a train from one end to the other, from any city to any city. From the train station you can jump on a bus or a metro and get to your street corner. All of this infrastructure costs money. So I imagine it's a little more complex than getting the wikipedia stats on Germany and then stating they pay lesss than we do. They probably do in fact, but it goes beyond land mass and population. One of my favorite cities over there was Arnhem, the netherlands which had all electrici city buses. I believe powered by electricity from france nuclear power. That probably isn't cheap infrastructure.

Public education costs are a fraction of the US? Where are they saving money where we don't? Are you implying they are better at educating their citizens than we are?


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

sorry for hijacking...


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> But comparing land mass isn't everything, right? I mean, there are major public transportation systems criss-crossing all of europe. You can easily take a train from one end to the other, from any city to any city. From the train station you can jump on a bus or a metro and get to your street corner. All of this infrastructure costs money. So I imagine it's a little more complex than getting the wikipedia stats on Germany and then stating they pay lesss than we do. They probably do in fact, but it goes beyond land mass and population. One of my favorite cities over there was Arnhem, the netherlands which had all electrici city buses. I believe powered by electricity from france nuclear power. That probably isn't cheap infrastructure.
> 
> Public education costs are a fraction of the US? Where are they saving money where we don't? Are you implying they are better at educating their citizens than we are?


More on transportation. Like you said it is highways criss-crossed all over spanning countries. Hmmm....split costs between country's.

I am not saying our education is better by any means. I am saying if you have a population of 82 million and a population of 303 million you have to give more education to more people so it will cost more to give education to 303 million than 82 million. So more of our GNP in comparison goes towards educating over 200 million more people.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

This is really not high jacking. because I will put it into perspective.

These other country's that people say have a great public health system and it costs less. But they pay higher taxes. Are not spending as much of their said country's GNP on education, transportation, less city and local goverment expenses, communications infra structure, electricity distribution infra structure, etc. because they have less population and less land mass (transportation, communication issues).

So the taxes they pay can go into a HC system. But now the people pushing the bill are saying our taxes won't rise or anything like that to pay for a Public option. How can it if we already pay more for these other things? How can we support a public run health option with out raising taxes or cutting from education, transportation, etc. or going BANKRUPT,


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I'm not sure about their education. I have had two Phd's from China work with me. The reason Chinese high school graduates look smarter than U. S. students is very simple. Only the top two percent graduate. They weed out the rest. So when someone compares China we are talking their top two percent compared to our over all average student.

I would guess there are a lot of factors. Perhaps in the European education system if they pay less and have a better education we don't need to increase our spending we need to change the way we educate.

Health care which is out subject has perhaps a dozen different and confusing variables. I have never seen government do anything that private companies couldn't do better. Perhaps some controls are in order, but not a government take over of 1/6 of our economy. Socialist countries don't enjoy the same freedom as we do. Sure they can smoke dope, but they don't hunt much. So what are you willing to sacrifice for cheaper health care. Less care, rationing, less freedom, more government intrusion, etc. Your without doubt going to give up something.

I would rather see less restrictions on competition. Why would we want to strangle free enterprise anyway? This all boils down to if you retain the independence of our ancestors or if you have become soft and need someone to care for you. Or perhaps you want to parasites your neighbor who has a newer car than you. Our society has become such a jealous petty driven bunch who thinks only of themselves. They want everything, and even better if they can make someone else pay for it.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Plainsman said:


> Our society has become such a jealous petty driven bunch who thinks only of themselves. They want everything, and even better if they can make someone else pay for it.


Plainsman, do you think the liberals on this site that are for public healthcare would personally benefit by its passing? I mean, do you think that we would utilize it and therefore "parasitize our neighbor's wallets"? I can only imagine that the handful of liberals here will not switch healthcare plans if this passess, because we have healthcare provided by our employers. So how is it that we are the ones "only thinking of ourselves?" Going beyond this site, the loudest proponents aren't likely the ones that would utilize it. So I just don't understand how the republicans are holier than thou, but the democrats are demonized for trying to get a plan going for affordable healthcare for everyone. Its been my personal experience that a) republicans traditionally think only about themselves, and could care less about anyone else, and b) want everything that a liberal wants, but just don't want to pay for it.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> Plainsman, do you think the liberals on this site that are for public healthcare would personally benefit by its passing? I mean, do you think that we would utilize it and therefore "parasitize our neighbor's wallets"? I can only imagine that the handful of liberals here will not switch healthcare plans if this passess, because we have healthcare provided by our employers. So how is it that we are the ones "only thinking of ourselves?" Going beyond this site, the loudest proponents aren't likely the ones that would utilize it. So I just don't understand how the republicans are holier than thou, but the democrats are demonized for trying to get a plan going for affordable healthcare for everyone. Its been my personal experience that a) republicans traditionally think only about themselves, and could care less about anyone else, and b) want everything that a liberal wants, but just don't want to pay for it.


Let me take a stab at it. One of the ways that the people for the bill are saying they will pay for it with out raising personal income taxes is to tax business that are not providing care. But like Ron pointed out to me is that the tax on companies not providing care could be considerably less than what the company is paying in. So company's that provide care might not provide it and just get taxed instead because it is cheaper. So that will push others into the federal option. So that is how anyone and everyone is effected by this.

edit...

So anyone who's work pays for dental, eye care, or any other luxury type say good bye to that. So the people pushing the bill say coverages for people won't change. BS


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

Chuck Smith said:


> > Plainsman, do you think the liberals on this site that are for public healthcare would personally benefit by its passing? I mean, do you think that we would utilize it and therefore "parasitize our neighbor's wallets"? I can only imagine that the handful of liberals here will not switch healthcare plans if this passess, because we have healthcare provided by our employers. So how is it that we are the ones "only thinking of ourselves?" Going beyond this site, the loudest proponents aren't likely the ones that would utilize it. So I just don't understand how the republicans are holier than thou, but the democrats are demonized for trying to get a plan going for affordable healthcare for everyone. Its been my personal experience that a) republicans traditionally think only about themselves, and could care less about anyone else, and b) want everything that a liberal wants, but just don't want to pay for it.
> 
> 
> Let me take a stab at it. One of the ways that the people for the bill are saying they will pay for it with out raising personal income taxes is to tax business that are not providing care. But like Ron pointed out to me is that the tax on companies not providing care could be considerably less than what the company is paying in. So company's that provide care might not provide it and just get taxed instead because it is cheaper. So that will push others into the federal option. So that is how anyone and everyone is effected by this.
> ...


i agree, kind of basic stuff Chuck, that has been explained repeatedly, but i guess there are plenty who are not paying attention, but just drinking the koolaid!


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

buckseye said:


> Didn't the Clinton administration all ready put us through this BS? When is this country going to wake up? Liars are liars no matter what color or cause!! uke:


Yup, there's "career politicians" on both sides, and we need to end that.

Term limits all around!!!

The sooner we do that, the better off we'll all be.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

barebackjack said:


> buckseye said:
> 
> 
> > Didn't the Clinton administration all ready put us through this BS? When is this country going to wake up? Liars are liars no matter what color or cause!! uke:
> ...


I agree, and seabass, I don't like republicans that much either. I am against health care by the government because I think it will hurt more people than it helps. It will hurt productive people and companies for the benefit of those who want others to pay. There are a few exceptions, and I am willing to find ways to help them, but not with a government controlled insurance.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

Ryan, Barney Frank the elected official speaking to his constituents was asked a legitimate question. Does he support Obamas HC plan. Barney Frank decided to attack the wording his constituent used and NEVER answered the question at hand. Typical of Barney and the whole Obama regime.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

:lol: :lol: if Barney is caving Osama is screwed! :lol: :lol: :lol:

eh, rhino? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------

