BF2S Forums Change we can finally believe in!!

JohnG@lt wrote:

I'm glad that this thread turned into another lowing pile-on. I really am.

You notice that to huh?

nlsme1 wrote:

Never said it made them equal. However I did say a large portion of Obama's spending can be blamed on Bush. But as you always do, you decide to try and discredit the smaller point in a thread while ignoring the bigger factors, or other posts entirely. Now please respond to the rest of my earlier posts.

Obama care is a large portion of Obama spending, CONTINUED bailout money even after it has been proven it will not work is a large portion of Obama spending. At least Bush did not have proof it wouldn't work before he spend his bail out money. and I am quite sure he would not have done it again if it didn't work the first time.

Obama and democratic pet projects that he can finally get passed is a large portion of OBamas spending.

Gotta disagree, I do not think a large portion of Obama spending can be blamed on Bush

Last edited by lowing (2010-01-21 06:16:01)

nlsme1 wrote:

Well you can thank Lowing for being the OP then.

Why would I thank lowing? This thread was civil. You showed up and immediately started attacking him. You're just being a douche.

One election in a small state has no bearing to the rest of the country. And before you say it was because they disaproved of Obamacare, they have uni helath coverage so moot that point. And "the war' I am referring to is Iraq, so moot that point too.

Last edited by nlsme1 (2010-01-21 06:45:15)

JohnG@lt wrote:

nlsme1 wrote:

One election in a small state has no bearing to the rest of the country. And before you say it was because they disaproved of Obamacare, they have uni helath coverage so moot that point. And "the war' I am referring to is Iraq, so moot that point too.

Oh wow, you're one of those dyed in the wool blinders on progressives aren't you? Gonna change the world! How's that sociology degree working out for you?

He wasn't elected under the prmise of "change"? Learn to comprehend. For the record, if Obama was ABLE to kill, or even hurt the ins. ind. my hometown would be devastated. Me and my family are covered. Im financially stable. So before you start spouting about me wanting a piece of the govteet, know you know nothing about me personally. BTW, my degree is in something a little more useful then sociology.

nlsme1 wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

nlsme1 wrote:

One election in a small state has no bearing to the rest of the country. And before you say it was because they disaproved of Obamacare, they have uni helath coverage so moot that point. And "the war' I am referring to is Iraq, so moot that point too.

Oh wow, you're one of those dyed in the wool blinders on progressives aren't you? Gonna change the world! How's that sociology degree working out for you?

He wasn't elected under the prmise of "change"? Learn to comprehend. For the record, if Obama was ABLE to kill, or even hurt the ins. ind. my hometown would be devastated. Me and my family are covered. Im financially stable. So before you start spouting about me wanting a piece of the govteet, know you know nothing about me personally. BTW, my degree is in something a little more useful then sociology.

Then you should know that watching Keith Olbermann and listening to Ed Shultz will rot your brain.

Massachusetts is significant because the health care bill was the main reason there was such an unusually large turnout for a special election. People rarely vote in special elections unless there is a burning issue that they really care about. Two thirds of this country want the health care bill to die a grisly death. That is a fact.

And I'll tell you this, people aren't pissed at Obama and the Dems because they haven't been 'liberal enough', it's because they've been too goddamn frivolous with our goddamn money! You think the people sitting on their couch because they are out of work can't see through a stimulus package that did nothing more than subsidize bloated state government union labor contracts?

Mark my words. Unless Obama takes a hard right turn and comes back to the center he will be a one term president. There isn't enough rhetoric in the world to save his ass if he continues down the path he's trod for the past year.

nlsme1 wrote:

I think those people laying on their couch because they were laid off can see they were there, or on their way there before they even heard the name Obama. The mass. vote was NOT a signifacant a sign against health reform as you like to dream. They already have Universal Healthcare. There are none of them that don't have it. Of course they would want to vote down something that will only COST THEM MORE. They get nothing out of it. BTW talking like you know someone when you don't only shows ignorance. I dont watch gossip shows for either side. Do you? Just not the 2 you mentioned.

Nope. I barely watch tv and when I do, I don't waste my time having opinions force fed to me by talking heads.

The health care bill that is currently sitting in Congress is a nightmare of epic proportions. It does nothing. Forcing people to buy a product offered by private corporations or face a fine? Please show me anything in any law written at the federal level that does this. You won't.

Health care is an easy fix. All that needs to happen is a bill that prevents insurance companies from denying or dropping coverage due to pre-existing conditions. Oh, but that will raise insurance premiums, right? Ok, next you enforce the interstate commerce laws and tear down the legislation that states have built that precludes entry into their market. Most states have cut sweetheart deals with their local insurance companies and make the cost of entry impossibly steep for anyone trying to enter the market in competition. Rip out that legislation and force competition across state lines for health insurance companies. Competition drives down prices.

So, two very easy 'fixes' to the system, solves a big issue letting everyone feel good about themselves (no more tear jerking stories about dropped coverage) and the price of insurance is no longer inflated by state run monopolies. Win-win for everyone and it doesn't involve massive government expansion.

Edit - And if you really want to look at the reasons that health insurance premiums have gone up, look no further than the unhealthy lifestyles that most Americans live. It's a fact that obesity raises risks for most diseases. You can't have your McDonald's and low cost health care too The other reason is that every American expects their doctor to be Gregory House and run a million tests on them in the offchance that something is found. If that doctor fails to be the mythical House? Sue.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-01-21 07:28:21)

nlsme1 wrote:

The public option has been off the table for some time now. I actually agree with your plan. Have since I was a wee lil git. Always thought it was absurd that Mississippi has one ins. company that holds 95% of the contracts. That would be a monopoly. We both agree health reform is needed.

I don't think it's a super high priority or a national emergency but yeah, it's something that should be looked at. The system has been pretty solid and worked for the vast, vast majority of Americans. The only reason it was even brought up and made an issue is because the progressives in the Dem party wanted socialized health care. It's been an enduring dream of theirs. It's just never going to happen here in America.

We don't have people dying in the gutters from lack of health care. We just don't. Anyone can go to a hospital and receive emergency care with or without insurance.

Frankly, I think the Dems are sorry they ever brought the topic up in the first place now. They never really cared about reforming the system, they wanted a 100% takeover, Canadian-Euro style UHC. They thought that with a super majority in the senate and control of the house and presidency that it was their time to finally make the dream happen. As I said above, it's never going to happen in America. Now they're stuck trying to 'fix' something that most people don't consider broken and that was never their intention in the first place.

nlsme1 wrote:

One election in a small state has no bearing to the rest of the country. And before you say it was because they disaproved of Obamacare, they have uni helath coverage so moot that point. And "the war' I am referring to is Iraq, so moot that point too.

War is Iraq was not over terrorism. It only became that later AFTER Saddam was taken out.

Actually one election in a small state does have major significance, read some current events to find out how. also coupled with 2 other elections in Virgina and New Jersey a definite pattern is forming and it is not looking good for the socialists.

I will not argue the agenda of someone I don't know. But I will say it is one of the highest priorities for our nation. Small businuss is the backbone of this country. They are having to bear the brunt of the health care cost increases. They are not competetive on the global market because of this. Health care costs have been rising at an exponential rate. How long small businuss can coninue to bear this burden is not long.
Yes, people can be seen at an emergency room if it a life threatening condition. But it definatly isn't free. It is passed on down the line. That is the biggest factor in our growing health costs. That is why it does make since to mandate health ins. for everyone. The fact everyone loves ins. companies boggles my mind. Biggest bunch of crooks there are. They rake in billions and deny people for what they have paid for. I feel heathcare should be a government controlled program. Just like edu..

nlsme1 wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

nlsme1 wrote:

And you have to look a lil deeper then that to see why our health costs have gone up. If it is only because of Micky D's, then how do ceos of ins. companies make $57,000 an hour? How does an aspirin in the hospital cost $50. How come you can get the exact same medicines in canada that are made in the us for half the cost? You cant say it because of micky d"s solely because micky d's is an international orginization.

The CEO makes that much because his job is harder than yours? I mean seriously, don't bring jealousy into the picture, you were doing so well

As far as costs... Canadians pay half the price because they aren't spending a nickel developing the drugs. Our pharma companies are. Do they not deserve to get paid for their research?

No our government is. why not make that nickel off of everyone you sell your meds too, and not just the country where you make them? Harder then mine. LMFAO. I work my ass off. They play golf. Jeolous, no just pissed off that they deny deserving people in order to maintain profits yet pillar the coghers.

So you're saying you could be a successful CEO of a multi-billion dollar company?

lowing wrote:

nlsme1 wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Oh wow, you're one of those dyed in the wool blinders on progressives aren't you? Gonna change the world! How's that sociology degree working out for you?

He wasn't elected under the prmise of "change"? Learn to comprehend. For the record, if Obama was ABLE to kill, or even hurt the ins. ind. my hometown would be devastated. Me and my family are covered. Im financially stable. So before you start spouting about me wanting a piece of the govteet, know you know nothing about me personally. BTW, my degree is in something a little more useful then sociology.

you are correct he was not elected under the promise of change. He was elected under the promise of change AND hope. He has no credentials on which to base either is failing miserably, and is reflected in his polls and recent elections. The honeymoon is over and people are sobering up from their punch drunk infatuation with Obama.

Well maybe people are getting tired of the fact change has yet to happen? There is a thread on this sight saying just that. Maybe people do actually want change. Mass wouldnt have changed at all so it doesnt matter what that election outcome was. As i said they already have it so why give it to the rest of the nation? And there is another point, if there votes were such an outcry against uni healthcare, why did they give it to themselves in the first place?
Like I said my hometown would be devastated if big ins. was to go away. It is where most of them are headquartered. I have friends that work for them. They would lose their jobs. Even some of them think something needs to be done.

nlsme1 wrote:

lowing wrote:

nlsme1 wrote:

He wasn't elected under the prmise of "change"? Learn to comprehend. For the record, if Obama was ABLE to kill, or even hurt the ins. ind. my hometown would be devastated. Me and my family are covered. Im financially stable. So before you start spouting about me wanting a piece of the govteet, know you know nothing about me personally. BTW, my degree is in something a little more useful then sociology.

you are correct he was not elected under the promise of change. He was elected under the promise of change AND hope. He has no credentials on which to base either is failing miserably, and is reflected in his polls and recent elections. The honeymoon is over and people are sobering up from their punch drunk infatuation with Obama.

Well maybe people are getting tired of the fact change has yet to happen? There is a thread on this sight saying just that. Maybe people do actually want change. Mass wouldnt have changed at all so it doesnt matter what that election outcome was. As i said they already have it so why give it to the rest of the nation? And there is another point, if there votes were such an outcry against uni healthcare, why did they give it to themselves in the first place?
Like I said my hometown would be devastated if big ins. was to go away. It is where most of them are headquartered. I have friends that work for them. They would lose their jobs. Even some of them think something needs to be done.

The 'change' people wanted was simply a change from Bush. I guarantee there was a serious disconnect between what Obama was calling 'change' and what the average Joe American voter was expecting. Progressives/Socialists make up a whopping 20% of the population, hardly a majority or even a serious minority. We don't want socialized health care, that wasn't the 'change' Americans were buying into.