huffingtonpost.com — Republicans warn Democrats about the political downside if Obama-Pelosi win Sunday's vote on Health Care. Actually, it's the GOP that's in a lose-lose -- either the Democrats earn due credit for change or the public will blame the GOP for opposing major social breakthroughs as it so often has.
Mar 20, 2010 View in Crawl 4
yeahwhatever58Mar 22, 2010
I love it how the socialist loving group always tries to paint it out in extreme terms as a live or die situation. If that is the case, then I think the whole food and grocery industry needs to be run and regulated by the government. We need to get full approval over what foods and drinks we consume....because after all, what we consume has everything to do with our life as well. All stores need to be owned and operated by the government too....because, of course, they always know better than us. Freedom and liberty means that people get to choose their path and take responsibility for it. Health insurance is not a right, it is a privilege and an individual responsibility. We already have a safety net where people cannot be denied health care because they don't have the money. No one is turned away from emergency centers. I believe in reform to health care insurance as well. But this bill does nothing to enhance real reform. So to just pass something for the sake of trying to say something was done, and for a political party to say they won a victory is really quite pathetic. Real reform could have been done in segments attacking the areas most needed and then work from there. Not this turkey of a bill.The pro-life crowd believes that a human has the right to the chance to live....a baby who has done nothing wrong and broke no laws....it just grows and wants to live. It has always boggled my mind how the pro-choice crowd is many times against the death penalty. They want to snuff out a life who has done nothing wrong, yet preserve a life that has committed heinous crimes...probably killing others. If they are willing to take the life of an innocent, they should be willing to take the life of the guilty. Go figure.It all really comes down to how much freedom a person thinks they deserve. I believe in maximum freedom providing that laws are followed and the exercise of one's freedom does not infringe on another's free choice. The pro-choice crowd obviously doesn't run on that principle because when they exercise their freedom of choice to abort, they are infringing on another's right to live.The Dems now own this legislation...good or bad. I think it is going to blow up in their face, but time will tell. But if/when it does blow up, then the zero support from the GOP will indeed be a good sign.
dunderland1Mar 22, 2010
what about the BBC?
yeahwhatever58Mar 22, 2010
Well, your statements need some adjustments because they are off the mark totally.Yes, emergency rooms are there to stabilize you but they won't just summarily send you home unless you are able to be sent home. They are not going to treat a gun shot wound and put a band aid on it and send you home. It may lead to surgery and the hospital is not going to release home a patient in any sort of critical condition for fear of a lawsuit, but ultimately, the poor person is not going to be paying for it, it is covered for them.Regarding grocery stores and the cost differential...a couple things there. First of all, the cost shouldn't matter if it is something that your life depends on and since it depends on food, then the government should run the total food industry...not just grocery stores, but all food outlets including wholesalers, retailers, restaurants, etc. etc. etc. All of those industries have to do with food and the life of the individual and if you added up all those industries, it would be in the mega billions of dollars nationwide. Hey, people's lives depend on that and we all know that the people are stupid and don't know what is best for them....so yes, we must turn it over to the government to distribute as they choose. Another point regarding that is you use a 99 cent burger to illustrate how cheap food is....but the reality is in a person's lifetime, they are going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on food and beverage related items. So your argument to try to dumb it down to a 99 cent cheeseburger comparison is ridiculous. By the way, I know you are concerned that people go to bed hungry in America and we should be ashamed of that but hey....with government controlled food, that would never happen again right?? Yet another reason to go the socialist route regarding the food industry. The government does a bang up job making sure their medicare patients are well taken care of (as medicare claim rejections go up and up in that bankrupt program), so I am sure they will handle the food industry just fine.Also, your cost factors for childbirth are way off the mark my friend. If one has insurance and all goes well, it is not going to cost tens of thousands of dollars out of pocket to have a baby.Get it straight now, don't put words in my mouth to suit your argument...It is a right to life...but it is a person's responsibility to live their life. Along the way, they make their own choices and some of those choices are privileges. So of course I wouldn't be willing to say to someone's face who is experiencing misfortune what you said about getting to live is a privilege...because I don't believe that either.If healthcare reform was attacked in the right direction with the correct common goals of helping those who aren't insured..be insured, and lowering the cost of insurance, then it would make more sense. These ridiculous arguments dramatizing that people are dying because they lost their job and their insurance is nothing but over hyped political posturing slogans. The free market needs to be cut loose and free and allow it to work. Amazing things can be accomplished when the American people get together in common bond towards a goal...not when they are hijacked and forced into something.I would be willing to bet on something. Instead of mandating crap and taxes on people and businesses to have to do this and have to do that regarding healthcare, why not set up charities that are for this specific cause. Cut it loose to the private sector to set up 501(c3) organizations for the cause of providing medical care funds to those without and give everyone a nice big tax write off who contributes to those charities. I would be willing to bet that America could raise the funds to cover those who can't pay for their medical services...hands down with no problems at all. Americans are some of the most charitable people in the world. They contribute over 300 billion dollars to charities each year. Now imagine if individuals could get a nice tax write-off for helping others in this cause AND if businesses could get a nice write-off for their contributions to this cause, there would be no need to mandate on people. I mean, people already give to cancer societies and diabetes and heart disease societies, why wouldn't they give for this medically related cause too? This is what I mean when I say that the power of the free market could find a way to provide what people need. We don't need to turn to government to turn over our freedom and choices and authorize them to go ahead and make our lives miserable through taxes and regulations. We can handle problems ourselves.So making arguments to accuse people that we just want others to die and it's too bad for them....just shows that your compassion only extends as far as your political leanings allows you to use them when debating your opponents. Otherwise, you wouldn't be so free and willing to mandate charity upon others for the sake of what you feel is right. Americans are willing to give...both here and abroad...when they are asked...but they reject it when they are told they must do it.
retsam06Mar 23, 2010
@LifeNo, that's not what I said at all. I said there are unintended consequences and we don't know how it'll turn out entirely. Nothing about "trying nothing at all."I'm still kind of perplexed at the idea of calling someone a coward across the anonymity of the internet.@CaptObliviousWay to be part of the problem.
juicebagMar 24, 2010
Do you know what either of those words mean?
jwgmacMar 26, 2010
The bill does provide for "small changes over the years." Do you even know how it works. Different aspects get phased in over 8 years. Is that either "too slow" or "too fast" for you?
biblenutMar 31, 2010
I don't have health insurance, thus I GET TO CHOOSE MY OWN DOCTOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I CHOOSE not to have insurance. Now I will be FORCED to have insurance. That's taking away my freedom. Why would you want to take away my freedom?
biblenutMar 31, 2010
Government is going to RATION health care. That means they are going to DECIDE for you who you can see and what you can have done based on what it cost. After the insurance agencies go under, (and believe me they will), government will be to ONLY place you can go.That means that GOVERNMENT is in control of your healthcare. Why would you allow yourself to be enslaved?
Closed AccountApr 7, 2010
I support getting rid of Medicare, Medicaid and SS. Everyone expects their own entitlement now. Shame that this country has turned its back on liberty.