No, he offers $485 billion in subsidies to buy insurance from insurance companies. It's a huge difference, and the more subsidies the better healthcare reform is and the closer it is to single-payer.
As long as there is a money pie to be divvied up, lobbyists for corporations will find a way to get it. Remove the source, and the leech will dry up and die. Trying to stop this by passing more laws to prevent the lobbyist influence will not be sufficient. Respecting property rights by not taking one's wages will produce much better results.
Wait a minute! A bailout of insurance companies?!? This entire time the Democrats have been screaming that the Republicans are the corporate whores, caring more for business than families. But, now Democrats are in complete control of the White House and both houses of Congress and...we see corporate bailouts from THEM?!?I never want to hear liberals whine about the Republicans being for business and Democrats being for the little man. Both parties suck...and liberal diggers are just going to have to admit their hypocritical Democrat stooges suck too.
<a class="user" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy</a>Direct democracy was very much opposed by the framers of the United States Constitution and some signers of the Declaration of Independence. They saw a danger in majorities forcing their will on minorities, notably manifested in what Madison referred to as the "leveling impulse" of democracy to restrict the wealth and power of economic and social elites in favor of the public at large.ALL RIGHT f**kERS, EVEN MADISON SAID RICH AND POWERFUL PEOPLE SHOULD RULE THE COUNTRY. AND YOU POOR f**kERS CAN JUST ROT. THEY WANTED THE RICH TO RUN AROUND UNRESTRICTED, AND YOU POOR CAN JUST FEND FOR YOURSELVES. SO YOU GET NO LEVELING IMPULSE, THE MANY WILL NOT GET TO CONTROL THE ELITE. IT WILL BE THE OTHER WAY AROUND. And if you read nothing else I say, read this: ITS NOT A DEMOCRACY, UNLESS IT'S A DIRECT DEMOCRACY. A REPRESNITIVE DEMOCRACY WILL JUST END UP AS IT IS. THE REPRESENTIVES ARE IN THE POCKETS WHO PAY THEM THE MOST. WHO SHOULD THE REPRESNTIVES LOOK OUT FOR, PEOPLE WHO LINE THEIR POCKETS OR PEOPLE LIKE YOU WHO OFFER THEM NOTHING.
thefirstenemyOct 4, 2009
No, he offers $485 billion in subsidies to buy insurance from insurance companies. It's a huge difference, and the more subsidies the better healthcare reform is and the closer it is to single-payer.
bsmangOct 5, 2009
This account has been closed by the user
kaelyiestaOct 5, 2009
As long as there is a money pie to be divvied up, lobbyists for corporations will find a way to get it. Remove the source, and the leech will dry up and die. Trying to stop this by passing more laws to prevent the lobbyist influence will not be sufficient. Respecting property rights by not taking one's wages will produce much better results.
frccOct 5, 2009
It's not a bailout, its a handout of tax payer money.
davidnivenOct 5, 2009
Wait a minute! A bailout of insurance companies?!? This entire time the Democrats have been screaming that the Republicans are the corporate whores, caring more for business than families. But, now Democrats are in complete control of the White House and both houses of Congress and...we see corporate bailouts from THEM?!?I never want to hear liberals whine about the Republicans being for business and Democrats being for the little man. Both parties suck...and liberal diggers are just going to have to admit their hypocritical Democrat stooges suck too.
Closed AccountOct 6, 2009
<a class="user" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy</a>Direct democracy was very much opposed by the framers of the United States Constitution and some signers of the Declaration of Independence. They saw a danger in majorities forcing their will on minorities, notably manifested in what Madison referred to as the "leveling impulse" of democracy to restrict the wealth and power of economic and social elites in favor of the public at large.ALL RIGHT f**kERS, EVEN MADISON SAID RICH AND POWERFUL PEOPLE SHOULD RULE THE COUNTRY. AND YOU POOR f**kERS CAN JUST ROT. THEY WANTED THE RICH TO RUN AROUND UNRESTRICTED, AND YOU POOR CAN JUST FEND FOR YOURSELVES. SO YOU GET NO LEVELING IMPULSE, THE MANY WILL NOT GET TO CONTROL THE ELITE. IT WILL BE THE OTHER WAY AROUND. And if you read nothing else I say, read this: ITS NOT A DEMOCRACY, UNLESS IT'S A DIRECT DEMOCRACY. A REPRESNITIVE DEMOCRACY WILL JUST END UP AS IT IS. THE REPRESENTIVES ARE IN THE POCKETS WHO PAY THEM THE MOST. WHO SHOULD THE REPRESNTIVES LOOK OUT FOR, PEOPLE WHO LINE THEIR POCKETS OR PEOPLE LIKE YOU WHO OFFER THEM NOTHING.