Forgot your password?
Type your email address below and click the sign up button to create an account.
lol... Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman and Glenn Beck probably have a combined IQ of 100 but they bring in big bucks because as PT Barnum is credited saying" there's a sucker born every minute."... I'm aware that someone else said that.
Even birther queen, Orly Taitz, got 370 ,000 votes in the California republican primary for Secretary of State but she still lost by a 49%....If they were all that easy.
Frustration is too mild a term. Sarah Palin and Michelle Beckman are always in Beck's pants.
For one, we cannot compare the president of the Harvard Law review, the eventual president, to a nurse, political activists, who ran as a tea party candidate .... Debra Medina is a wing nut and only received 20% of the vote in the primary, she was not a match for Glenn Beck because she was not ready for prime time. I believe if you don't have a solid answer(she did not) and you actually had the stoop that low to go on his show, you deserve what you get.
You listen to those people on a daily basis, so I understand your frustration but you will ever see any of them on " Meet the Press" or their views quoted by serious politicians. Entertainment purposes only. People that listen or view those programs know what they're getting and they like it.
Victoria is an aging libertarian/conservative area that listens to the AM entertainers but it is AGING.
I believe you're wrong on this subject but as always we will just have to agree to disagree.
Please I urged not to start anything with me. If you were here months ago, you wouldn’t said that. As far as how I feel about someone, I would rather be honest, then being silent and voiceless.
tsk, tsk, writein. hate is a very strong word. for all of the "chest beating" you claim others are doing, you seem to be the only one actually doing it.
You were one who bought it up first. SO LETS NOT GO THERE, VBB. STOP, STOP STOP TRYING TO PLAY VICTIM ON HERE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You do not KNOW what you are talking about. Where did I say “everyone” who voted against the President is based on Hannity, Beck, etc? PAY ATTENTION !!!!!!!!!!……..I SAID People voted against Obama because of the opinions of Sean hannity, Glenn Beck, Pags, and Rush. I have a friend who voted for another candidate because of his ideology. He hates HATE TALK RADIO and your point is………….
You decided to ask me a dumb question. LET ME TELL YOU SOMETHING, Barack Obama wasn’t the only black person running in 2008. LOOK IT UP before saying something ignorant.
Since you decide to “bait” me, maybe you need to know the facts before opening your mouth,. In 2004, I voted for John Edwards over to black candidates Al Sharpton and Carol Moseley Brun because Edwards’ views (despite his vote for the Iraq War) were closer to mine and that I have a strong hatred of Al Sharpton and very ashamed of Brun. In 2008, is the same way. I have a strong dislike/ hatred of Alan Keyes ( GOP/Constitutional Party candidate) and Former Democratic Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney (2008 Green Party Candidate).
Oh by the way, Sharpton, Brun, McKinney, and Keyes are black and I HATE THEM. SO what excuse, WHAT EXCUSE VBB, are you going to make now?
BigJ, the Civil War wasn't all bout slavery...it was about the States maintaining their own individual rights. Why even bother with State leadership anymore if everything is going to be dictated by the Federal Government? I believe all non National security issues should be handled by the individual states as they, meaning us, see fit. Why do you feel the need to read racism into every post you disagree with?
You say everyone who voted against Obama did so because of talking heads & I say you only voted for Obama cuz hes black....which is worse?
Every thing you said is an agreement. How can you say I am wrong? Victoria is right wing area. WOAI broadcasts these racist Cheat beaters on the radio in Texas, especially in the Crossroads, while making tons of money. Maybe you should ask Mrs. Debra Medina about the treatment she received by WOAI namly Glenn Beck and that snake Joe Pags.
Writein...Rush and Hannity aren't why I voted against BO in the last election and they aren't why I'll vote against him next time.
WriteinWe have discussed this issue many times in the past and I still disagree with your assessment because:
1. Those entertainers you mentioned are preaching to the choir.....Their listeners like to have their ears tickled.2. Although they have a huge audience, it's an AM radio audience.3. According to exit polls, the only demographics McCain/Palin carried was the 65+ year old white male.4. It's the elderly that will vote in this coming off-season election; in the general the young, minorities, women, and independents will look at the economy and vote accordingly.... If unemployment is still high in 2012, the GOP will sweep.
Since you bought up the Civil War.......States right to do what? Oh..the state's rights to have some in bondage.
People voted against Obama because of the opinions of Sean hannity, Glenn Beck, Pags, and Rush.
Born....yes. They are important issues BUT they aren't a matter of national security. Let the States & the people who inhabit the states have a say in how their state is run. When States are able to decide for themselves, people have a say. States have lost the right to govern themselves & we are all not the same, we need to bring back states rights.
So these "important issues" should be voted on by the people of each state?
Take Healthcare Reform....that was unpopular with the majority of Americans...when it was shoved down our throats less than 50% wanted it. The few that did like it probably were unaware of what it entailed or believed they wouldnt be affected by it. I believe such life changing laws shouldnt be allowed to get ram rodded through Congress & made into law by threats & intimidadtion as this one did. The next one coming up is immigration reform, same thing will happen with that....it will happen how the powers that be want it to happen regardless of how we feel about it. I think these types of issues should be handed back to the individual states to figure out as not all states are having the same issues/problems. Let the people in those states have choices on how to handle these decisions, as they are not a matter of national security. States need to get their rights back & that is how we can get our voices back. I don't really care about other states, if they want to regulate & mandate healthcare & their people are good with it, great, but I want a choice. If other states want to grant amnesty to illegals, fine, but if we dont, that should be our choice. States rights...isn't that what the Civil War was about?
And again...thats where us normal people come into the picture....stop following the flock & think for ourselves....educate ourselves on the people running, their historys & backgrounds. It seems like everything is a popularity contest these days...people vote who they percieve to be most popular instead of best qualified. This isn't American Idol....this is our lives..
I have a hard time seeing it happen. The ones with powerfull backing and money, are the ones that get elected because they have the money to swamp the airways with smear campaigns, do the traveling, and buy voters and elected officials.How is an honest man going to do it? Without costly public exposure, how will anyone know who they are?
B2BM - yes it is possible to return government to the people....it will not be easy though. People will have to quit blindly following the herd & learn to do & think for themselves.
Who has time for governing?
Holly1..." they do 1/3rd of seats every 2 years in both houses so all wont be out running for office at the same time."
Uhhhh, no, they don't. the SENATE has six year terms and every two years one-third of the SENATE is up for election. The House of Representatives has two year terms, so every two years, the ENTIRE House of Representatives is up for election. Every representative goes back into re-election mode about three weeks after he or she takes the oath. Those first three weeks are for celebrating the win.
Do you really think that those running as either Liberal, or Conservative are what they claim to be? It seems lately that a whole lot of elected Liberals are exactly the opposite once they get into office. Trickery at it's finest.
Is it even possible to return the government to the people?
Mike...I have been called a racist for not liking Obama, even though I dislike him for his politics which he is SHOVING DOWN OUR THROATS...I don't need a poll to tell me that.
I would venture to guess a whole mess of those people live in urban settings. They can start with their own neighborhoods, cleaning up trash & graffiti. Treating it as Community Service did pop ino my head too. Oh yes, drug testing must be made mandatory to recieve a dime of taxpayer money. Maybe it'll free up their idle hands & they won't have as much time to pop out the kids. I just found out my worthless cousins daughter is expecting her 3rd child in so many years. The 1st 2 kids daddy is in jail for back child support on some other kid so I don't know whos kid this one is. She has a cell phone, computer, car & obviously money since she can't wait to find out what it is so she can go shopping....oh yea, she's only 22. I found all this out from FaceBook, where she also has an account. This community service idea would be perfect for people like her.
As far as politicians lying to get elected, it is more common than not these days. They say what we want to hear to get elected then turn around & do what they want, or are pressured into doing what the others want. That is why the governments role should me minimized, not maximized. The more the are contained the more say we have.
I don't have public transportation where I live and that is just for people in towns. Many, many live in rural areas.I'm not saying that what you describe isn't happening, but you cannot paint everyone with the same brush.
holly1, isn't it true that 80-90% of the time, politicians are in election mode, whether it be for their own runs at office, or other members of their party?How do you fix that? We need people that are doing what we elected them to do, not be worrying about different elections all the time and letting that worry be the deciding factor on how they vote for different things. Tough decisions have to be made and those decisions should not have to be about whether it gets them elected again, or vice versa.
How can anyone know for sure what a person stands for? Their stances change with the wind.
most places have public transport. and its free for them to and from service place.
they don't seem to have a problem getting to a bank to cash that check or to a store for beer and lottery tickets
not so born2be
it lets us be able to get rid of the bums after 2 years in the house. they do 1/3rd of seats every 2 years in both houses so all wont be out running for office at the same time. reform the process and limit funds that can be collected and spent to the same for everyone no opting out so you can spend all you want.
alot of voters have no clue what a person they voted for stands for all they ever hear are the sound bites or blindly follow the crowd.
public works only, but how would people who didn't have transportation get to their workplaces? There's a lot of things to think about.
Term limits are a good idea. Can you think of a way to have a bigger break between elections and upcoming primaries? It seems that politics has become a non-stop election year.I was thinking 1 term, but then got to thinking that without the incentive of re-election, politicians would just grab what they could during the one term, knowing it wouldn't matter what they did, or didn't do.These off-setting elections every two years are ruining the political process.
public works only no private jobs filled at all.
Just call it community service. I have no problem with that as long as companies do not get it in their head to use the free labor and quit paying people to do jobs.
No Holly, that would require a NEW government agency with 100,000 or so employees and a budget of $1 billion to run.
Just let the people who get help sign a card so that the .....
Never mind that won't work either, the government would have to create and staff welfare offices to check cards and write checks, another $1 billion agency.... and the postal service would loose all the postage to mail the checks!
The federal and state governments subsidize housing for a huge cost to taxpayers. Maybe here's a plan use some of these homes the govt now ownes as incentives to those on assistance to get off these programs. They could live in one of these homes rent free (saves govt money ) and by working for the money they get after a set timeframe would own that home if they worked hard and got off public assistance programs. I would have no problem with that as they would be earning it and save us from haveing to pay rent some where as well as the house they would be living in is owned by the govt already. They would have to maintain it just like it was there's as part of the deal and when it was turned over to them it would be back on the tax roles as well.
Before I get slammed for my comments here I only expect this of those able to do these things. There are many who are not able to do these thing but might get help getting their grass mowed as well. These would have to be assigned tasks with a way to document times and dates worked with a required number of hours a month to be done to keep getting those checks.
Guess who won't be on Obama care either. those very same people who are doing us such a favor with that bill. Who would have ever thought in a few more years I will be an outlaw if I don'tbuy insurance and being self-employed won't be eligible for any of those govt programs that help pay for it.
Holly1...I agree 100%...Get up off their lazy butts & do something worthwhile, it would be a win/win for all involved.
born 2 be
there are plenty of "jobs" for those getting govt assistance checks. Just look at every street in every town america. they all could use a good sweeping. every park need work. Not to be mean hear but The smarter ones could assist in the schools as aides or tutors or in the hospitals as vols., Or helping the elderly around their homes mowing or whatever If those getting these assistance payments were doing things like above I would not be so upset with paying for these programs. We as a people would be better off for it as well. these programs could eliminate some of the costs of government entitlements because those on these programs could be doing some of things the govt pays to have done anyway. If they are gonna get that assistance check they should have to do something to offset the costs to taxpayers by providing a needed service to others who may not be able to afford these things due to limited incomes or advanced age.
I'm not talking about them working in hospitals or nursing homes but out in their neighborhood or town. Even if just to walk with and elderly person that has to do activities for health reasons as someone to talk to and to be there in case of a fall. To a widowed /widower living home alone a smiling face that spends a few minutes a day making small talk is a bright spot in their days.
Also to help reduce the costs to our own cities by providing a needed service that could be done for less.
What we need are term limits to control the feeding frenzy that is occurring right now. We need more regulations on political contributions & they need to be better scrutinized. Too many politicians are "corporately sponsored". Too many politicians are also closely affiliated to these "evil" corporations. They may step down off the boards so as to not to have the appearance of impropriety but they appoint one of their stooges in their place. It's all smoke & mirrors.
Dirty politicians started this mess way back when & have created the loopholes that are now in place that allow "greedy" corporations their "tax light" status & pass it off to us poor working stiffs. Some of the most corrupt politics historically have been in Chicago & the Northeast, traditional democrat strongholds. Kennedys daddy bought a lot of their political clout back in the day with dirty money to boot.
I'm sure every single one of us would & do utilize every loophole afforded us in the tax codes, by not doing so would make us stupid. So you cannot blame all of this on the "greedy" corporations, they are just using the current system to their advantage, as it was written by the politicians.
I vote for less government, as it is the politicians who are playing both sides against the middle, to their own advantage. How many politicians took a financial bath when the market crashed? I heard about it hitting pretty much every segment of the population, except politicians. They all came out smelling like roses, how is that?
I agree with you totally
The programs in themselves are not the problem, it is what they have become. It is how they are being implemented today.Unfortuantely, if you take all people on aid programs and put them out to do odd jobs, it will take jobs away from others. The fact is, there are only so many jobs to go around and America is so overpopulated, and getting worse with immigration, that it leaves many people without jobs, no matter how you do it. It's a vicious circle.To correct this, you would have to have the government overreach it's powers and make companies that bring their products back into the United States, either pay a hefty fine to support the out-of-work people that they created, or make them return their operations to US soil. Of course, protectionism doesn't work either because then other countries boycott our products, and around and around we go.You either want government out of your lives, or you want them in it. There is not much room for middle ground.In a perfect world, it should be just like you said, holly1, but unfortunately, nothing is ever perfect.
If we must have welfare it should be renamed WORKFARE. If you want that govt check then get out and do some work for it.
It's ok to never work a day in your life and get free housing (SECTION 8 HOUSING) free food (FOOD STAMPS) free medical services (MEDICAID) free education (GOVT GRANTS FOR COLLEGE) spending money (WELFARE CHECKS) But at the same time the poor working man who can't afford health insurance and still be able to pay all his/her bills will get poked with fines and penalties for not buying their own health insurance on top of having to pay taxes to provide all the freebie's to the freeloaders. Talk about adding injury to insult. Now not only will I have to buy health insurance I can't afford I will still also have to pay for all the freeloaders too.
If I remember my history correctly during the great depression the federal govt provided for the people by forming the CCC and other safety net programs with the major difference with todays welfare program in that these programs required you to WORK on govt funded projects to get that assistance. THATS HOW MOST STATE AND NATIONAL PARKS WERE CONSTRUCTED along with many other worthwhile projects. But somewhere along the way it was determined that to require a person of able body to work for that assistance was degrading to them so that requirement was dropped. Now we just have millions of multi-generational welfare bums with no desire to better them-selves and who yell the loudest about how un-fair the system is to them and are always the first in line with hand out waiting for more free goodies. We have created a whole segment of our population who think it's their right to get these free programs forever with-out ever having to lift a finger for it in any way at all. Maybe a return to the old form of govt assistance is needed. That way if you don't want to do the work required to get the help all you have to do is GET A JOB LIKE THE REST OF US.
Another point to make while i'm at it. The govt states the unemployment rate as somewhere around 9.8% THAT'S BULL because is doesn't count all the people on WELFARE. All they count are us poor working stiffs who are out of a job. I find it offensive to have worked all my life and the one time I ever LOWERED myself to apply for FOOD STAMPS when I was hurt on my job and was going to be off from work for 4 months. I was told I did not Qualify because I was self-employed and made to much money the prior year. Also because I was self-employed I was never able to file for unemployment or any other govt program.
So I guess the moral of this story is if you work hard and for some reason need help you dont qualify but if your a lazy freeloader you get everything handed to you. ONLY IN AMERICA can you be worthless and have it all.
People already have their minds made up about threads such as these, so what's the use in debating anything or clearing anything up?
goodnight Ed, Have a nice sleep.
but ed, they would if they could and they actually do a little bit, because you pay an unfair share of taxes and they get off not paying their fair share, by abusing loopholes and moving their operation off of American shores to evade taxes. The government is the only thing that stands between you and total takeover.
Take commercial fishing versus you (if you fish). If they had total control, you wouldn't be able to fish one fish out of the water, but they could go fish the waters dry.Take your water rights as an example. We're about to lose that battle too. The only thing we have between the Corporations and us is the Government, so you should start supporting enough Government a little more.Take FDIC insurance. You and I both know that without those safeguards, none of our money would be safe.Go ahead, weaken what government we have left and see where you end up.
The thing is, there are more honest politicians than there are corrupt ones. They know that they have to answer to the voters, but corporate crooks don't have to answer to anyone. There is a checks and balance system in place. The government is still the wall between average Americans and corporate Communism. It's not perfect, but at least it is something.
How does an honest politician say no when the corruption is hidden behind corporate walls?
The buck stops with whoever is sneaky and greedy enough to stuff it in ones pocket.
What's the difference between a greedy CEO and a corrupt politician?
Nothing. The same lure of power, wealth and control exists in government and the corporate world. You can blame one over the other but they are simply two labels for the same types of individuals.
Greedy corporations have the added advantage, however of being able to keep themselves in power - a corrupt board of directors is a powerful entity. On the flip side every corrupt politician at some time has to come down off the mountain and face the public voter.
Ultimately, be it corporation or government it is we the voters that are responsible for the monsters we create.
kind of like, what comes first?
The chicken or the egg. The ones who buy the politicians or the ones who take the bribe. No money, no bribe. No takers, still bribers.
"corporate greed" is thrown out quite a bit these days without much thought to the politicians &/or their appointees who sit on the boards of these "greedy corporations". Without greedy politicians who are willing to sell their constituants souls for $$ & favors, there wouldn't be any corporate lobbyists. Our government consists of politicians who essentially are whoring themselves (really us taxpayers) out to the deepest pockets. They are souless cretins who care about nothing or no one except their own bottom line. Politicians are the ones to blame for pretty much everything wrong & politicians = government.
but the bribes don't come from Average Americans. Corporations don't Lobby average Americans. Average American taxpayers don't have much say in what happens.
That is not what I said. It all starts with corporate greed and corruption, in the form of bribes. It STARTS with corporate money.
Whatever you say. Take the Government out of the equation and it'll be much worse than a puny little fox guarding the henhouse, it will be Godzilla destroying everything in it's sight for that last dollar. Take Mexico for instance.....
Pork Barrel spending is PART of corporate greed..
Who else do we have to turn to for help against the greed and corruption of crooked corportations, except the Government.Basically, that is what the Government is for.
If we turn to government to save us from invasion, if we turn to government to clean up the many natural disasters that occur, if we turn to government to provide us with assistance when we are too old to work, if we turn to government to uphold the laws of this land when we are wrongly accused then, it's my opinion, we should be able to turn to government to help us when we need medical care.
Given a choice between a larger government role in life which can be voted out every 4 years and unregulated corporations who value profit over life itself it's quite clear to me where to cast my vote.
You're sourcing Wikipedia!You must not have any shame.
Your hangup on "talking points" is getting old.Try something fresh for a change like answering peoples' questions.
Will illegal immigrants be required to purchase health care? You sound like you're OK with a welfare state if you insist that government should protect its citizens with health care, free handouts, etc. Do you really want this country to become dependent on big government?
The welfare reform bill of 1996 primary effects included:
* Ending welfare as an entitlement program; * Requiring recipients to begin working after two years of receiving benefits; * Placing a lifetime limit of five years on benefits paid by federal funds; * Aiming to encourage two-parent families and discouraging out-of-wedlock births. * Enhancing enforcement of child support.
Do you have documented evidence that this is not happening across the nation?
chicken, the key phrase is "I've been able to get to where I am in life." Good for you. You actually used the system the way it is supposed to be used. Unfortunately, I think you are the exception not the rule. Maybe I've become too cynical, but we keep pumping more money into the system, but we're not seeing more people getting out.
Mike, these mandates have been in place for years. It appears that most are spending around 50% of the premiums on actual care. The other 50% is spent on admin costs, overhead, salaries and an incredible amount on lobbying.
Chickenfriedlizard said"I'm just quoting some of my compadres from the right. They admonish welfare recipients and other recipients of government handouts, users of the emergency room for free healthcare, et al. They are all labeled as freeloaders. Those individuals and any advocates of their ilk are the source of all the nation's ills.
I don't know how old you are but that is been going on for a long time.... Oh I remember hearing the stories about( oh, just any minority) paying for groceries with food stamps and driving off in their Cadillac.... Today its probably a Hummer or a Lexus. They use a strategy of " say it enough times" and people will believe it.
Using scapegoats allowed the republicans to ignore our Healthcare problems, but now the chickens have come home to roost...Its caught up with the middle class paying most of the cost.
Sometimes you have to go father left than you want to go, just to level the playing field.
It's sort of like a campaign, appeal to your base in the primary but move to the center in the general. But I hear you, it's like we're always in primary mode.
I'll tell you where they went, exactly the same place they are today and after coming off a republican convention with a mandate of " Drill baby drill"..." Drill here, drill there, drill everywhere" now, it's" we never said that."..The Tea Party should be out on the Louisiana beach's with their best misspelled signs shouting " Fix the leak."....They are nowhere to be found.
A president of the United States and a Supreme Court justice came from homes that took welfare and I would bet that there are several welfare to success stories out there but I don't know the ratio of abuse to success. In today's climate, it is hard are to tell those who are unemployed through no fault of their own from those who are not looking for work but I admit I don't have any expertise on this subject because my wife and I have never been unemployed.... Knock on wood but I am retired and she will be in October.... If I had to be judgmental, I would do it on a case by case basis and not paint with a broad brush.
I won't argue the point of pride in self-reliance because it is a valid point but I'm not against a safety net for the underprivileged. The United States is one of the wealthiest nations in the world, it is my opinion, it is a moral obligation to take care of the poor. I know conservatives like people to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps but about 20% of this country will never have bootstraps.... I was with the republicans and Bill Clinton when welfare reform was passed ; perhaps we should revisit it....I still like the words of Bill Clinton"Mend it.... Don't end it."
Mike, why would I go to right wing blogs, that is like you going to left wings blogs totally boring. You know ding well why you post blogs here in this forum. You love the argument. You’re totally against the right and all hail to the left, you’re very adamant about it. I do believe you would sound credible if you went to left wing blogs and repeated your words of wisdom. Come on Mike its entertainment at its best. Look at this way the worst thing that could wrong “carpel tunnel syndrome” from a keyboard accident.
Have a good one Mike
It's a shame the ultra-polarized climate we find ourselves in these days is encouraging such black and white views of the world.
Where were all these nut jobs when the national debt was run threw the roof under Bush? Where were they when Bush started a war with Irak for bogus reasons? Remember weapons of mass destruction that were never found? Where were these same people when Bush passed budget after budget that did not pay one cent towards his war? Where were these people when Bush gave the rich huge tax breaks and threw the middle class a bone? Where were these loudmouth people back then?
As a recipient of a few unemployment checks in the past, government backed student loans, an FHA mortgage and a government backed SBA loan, I've been able to get to where I am in life. I'm not too proud to take the money but I used it to make myself a better and more productive person in society and am happily paying it back now. Kudos to you & your wife. But me and my wife liked uncle sam being there for us.
Holein1Was it really a mandate or a mutual agreement because the insurance companies saw the 31 million new customers? I think it was the latter.
I'm not in the predicting business but I can where the insurance companies will go out of business or will be reduced to just a few.... They cannot do anything to cut cost because they're basically paper shufflers. All they can do it is raise premiums or cut benefits.... A company pays them to do the administrative work and make out the checks....... The Mayo Clinic and the Cleveland Clinic are ideal Healthcare Systems that we should duplicate, the doctors, patients, and clinics are very happy and efficient.
i see where you're going with that chickenfried.
as one who leans to the right, i have to say that they are responsible for some of the ills. not all, but some.
the welfare system, imo, kills pride and self-reliance. my wife was out of work for a month or so. she could have applied for unemployment and gotten benefits. she didn't because she said she had too much pride to take a hand-out. we had to make adjustments to our lifestyle to make ends meet, even when she was able get a part-time job. it's been 2 years and we still catching up, but we did it without the help of some government program.
the problem is that some people think doing certain kinds of work is beneath them, but standing in line with your hand out begging is not. ironic.
of course these statements are referring to able-bodied persons.
I'm just quoting some of my compadres from the right. They admonish welfare recipients and other recipients of government handouts, users of the emergency room for free healthcare, et al. They are all labeled as freeloaders. Those individuals and any advocates of their ilk are the source of all the nation's ills.
That is one of the ways the backers of the bill sold it to America.
I watched a little CSPAN a month or so ago with a subcommittee going after the insurance industry. It was nice to watch them squirm and try to justify costs.
Did you know that the government has mandated that insurance companies must spend a certain % of their premiums on actual health care costs?
I don't like government mandates or regulation, but I dislike insurance companies even more.
Name any other industry that requires you to pay them, but when you actually use the service you've paid for, they drop you or increase your cost exponentially.
I don't understand the premise of your questions. I guess you're wondering how an uninsured person that uses the emergency room justifies a higher insurance rate.... That the good question; I'm stumped but I bet it has to do with anticipated costs.
itisiLet me repeat, a blog is basically an online journal about what I want to write about and the emphasis is on "I." I'm not a newspaper are any other type of media that has an obligation.I will humor you and answer some are your silly statements coming from your one sided view.
I think the Congressional Budget Office does a very good job with their projections but that's what they are, we have about %3.2 percent growth right now but what if that jumps up to %3.7 what does that do to the deficit and debt. We have a bipartisan commission working on the problems of Medicare; they will make their report in December of this year. If their advice is taken to take steps to reduce the cost of Medicare; what will that do to the 10 year projection of the CBO?
The International Monetary Fund will ensure that we have some place to sell our exports. You might not like it, but we're not isolationists.
I don't have the faintest idea about some Chicago Climate Exchange, some supposedly Obama supporters are watching and what it means.Nor do I care...Is that the latest right wing worry?
I don't know about the administration but I think Israel was wrong for attacking a an unarmed ship sending humanitarian supplies to the Gaza strip. That ship was in international waters and I don't think they should have killed nine people. You may be a loyalist to Israel but I'm not...I may turn out to be wrong.
I don't know about grandstanding but I certainly don't work for you or your ilk, so you probably are you not gonna see the words you want, while reading my blog..... Again, you do have options, there are several right wing blogs that you can be in lockstep with.
Mike, I was using ChickenFried's term of freeloader, but it fits.
The insurance companies have a set price list, so does Medicare and Medicad. These prices are usually not even close to what the physicians charge for these procedures. The insurance company is going to pay what it thinks the procedure is worth. The physicians and hospitals adjust their prices to account for this and the cost of non-payment by those without insurance that do not pay their bills.
How is that passed on to the insurance company? How does the insurance company justify higher premiums because of uninsured?
Sorry Mike, you’re just not telling all of the facts; you’re certainly sugar coding your remarks.
CBO; now says healthcare will cost more than anticipated, woo no truth about that from your side.OB wants to cut spending, but congress just ran up 200 billion more on the deficit, nothing from you on that issue. That just happened one week ago.
IMF; nothing from you why the USA is throwing tax dollars into that fund.
Ob has refused to stand with Israel on the latest international incident, nothing from you about that issue.
Why are so many of OB’s followers setting at the Chicago Climate Exchange waiting on Cape and Trade, they have a web site, check it out.
The list goes on and on… As far as lecturing, I don’t think so; if that shoe fits you wear it. The grandstand is all yours♠♠♠
ItisiA blog is basically an online journal with the authors thoughts on a particular subject or whenever they want to write about. There are no rules about biases or objectivity.
You know, you do have options, there are many blogs in this forum and you sure would sound credible if you went to the right wing blogs and repeated your words of wisdom.
I don't have a problem with the insurance companies making a profit but how can you market a heart attack? America has an older workforce, we are overweight and have the complications that come with it. It's been said that the people on Medicare use up 50% of the medical cost in this country. Unless we deal with obesity and preventive medicine the healthcare costs will continue to go up.
Who are these freeloaders? Are they the 9.7% that are unemployed through no fault of their own or those that cannot obtain Health Insurance because of preexisting conditions?Line me up as a potential buyer of that bridge because I think preventive medicine will catch catastrophic diseases in their early stages at a much lower cost. I don't think we could just use what we deem to be freeloaders as a scapegoat, and then forget about all the other things like duplication of test, expensive cat scans we might not need, and releasing patience before they are healed. Health Care if such a complicated subject ;it shouldn't be reduced to just blaming some scapegoat.
Mike, I wasn’t trying to be rude. But on the other side of the coin, you do nothing more than repeat your side’s talking points. Then you state your opinions and hypothetical BS. Do you expect everyone to agree with you? I guess when you read your on Blog you must get some type of chemical reaction, because you sure do glut over it. My comment over on Zorro’s blog was valid whether you think so or not, the evidence and documentation is there to back it up. Possible you haven’t done any home work in the field of environmental BS.
"a corporation whose bureaucrat's main objective is to increase the company's bottom line.""will decrease health care costs; the emergency room is expensive and we pay for the uninsured through pricier insurance premiums and hospital stays"
I agree that freeloaders are responsible for higher medical costs. But, if you think that doing away with freeloaders at the ER is going to drop our insurance premiums, then i've got a bridge to sell you.
You said it yourself in the first quote. The insurance companies are only concerned with one thing, the bottom line. They couldn't be happier about the health care bill.
The white house is open to criticism whenever, by whomever. Lets just use facts when stating claims.
@edpost - Obama just gave the order that you will be required to go to the local police station and register your guns starting next week. He said anyone that voted for him will not have to register theirs. Acorn tracked the votes and then changed some so Obama would be elected. They were paid handsomely by the Kenyan/ Indonesia Muslim cartel that paid off the Hawaiian officials and newspaper back in 1961 to print the birth announcement in the newspaper.
Here comes BOS with his the the the talking points over the latest thing the right wing wants to get upset about.... President Obama did not have to be shown a DVD of the oil spill like president Bush did on Katrina....
I'm not here to do your research for you, or argue with someone that just wants to discuss the latest left /right gibberish...... Find someone else.
Obamacare, as you so affectionately refer to it as, does require individuals to purchase health insurance. I like this about it. No longer will people go to the expensive emergency room after hours to seek medical care. This fact, alone, will decrease health care costs; the emergency room is expensive and we pay for the uninsured through pricier insurance premiums and hospital stays. A freeloader will no longer be able to be a freeloader. I hear negativity all the time about people on welfare and looking for government assistance. Now the government does something about someone milking the system of getting free healthcare in emergency rooms and now their civil liberties are being violated because of the mandate to buy insurance.
The Commerce Clause is an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes".
The Supreme Court has ruled that the Federal Government has jurisdiction over interstate commerce which the health insurance industry falls into.
You would rather it be on a state by state basis where one state could have lax rules in regards to what insurance companies have to pay and who they cover and therefore all insurance companies would be headquartered there? If you ever get sick, then they could drop you.
Look, my father died of cancer. Insurance companies told us what treatments he could take due to what they would pay for or not. Then he hits his lifetime limit. The last 6 months, he gave up because if he didn't, it would have left his family broke. I'd rather be paying and him still be around, but he made the decision because it was terminal. Your goddess Palin spoke of death panels, and your lord Beck raged about a bureaucrat between you and your health care provider. I trust my government with elected officials who can easily be replaced to look out for my well being more so than a corporation whose bureaucrat's main objective is to increase the company's bottom line.
It's always comical to watch one partisan lecture another partisan because they're being too partisan...... That sounds like that might be a good Rumsfeld quote.
I was talking about a bipartisan Congress not individual posters. That's what good about the word hypocritical; it swings both ways. i.e. This weekend Itisi said"Look everyone if Mike and Zorro, and rest of the liberals believe all this of this environmental crap that is going on and is going to change over night they better think again or you have been smoking some bad stuff. " Now he wants to come and lecture about objectivity..... Itisi, you handle your blog material the way you want and I will do the same.
@BOStinks: "Obamacare will require you and every other U.S. citizen to purchase a product (health insurance) for the first time in American history. Sounds like a step toward socialism to me."
I also had to have a birth certificate and you won't get far in life without a social security card. Being mandated to purchase it changes what exactly? How does it really curtail your freedom?
Call it what you want but it's in line with my ideological beliefs and that's why I support it.
I agree with you "The primary role of government is to protect its people" and health coverage is a great way to attain that goal.
Obamacare will require you and every other U.S. citizen to purchase a product (health insurance) for the first time in American history. Sounds like a step toward socialism to me. Don't compare this to auto insurance, because you have an option not to own a car.
The primary role of government is to protect its people. I'm sure you were one of those who blamed Katrina on Bush, while most of the blame for the slow evacuation of NO rested on local/state government's shoulders.
Now that a Dem is in the White House, the federal government is immune from any criticism? This oil spill can potentially do more ecological and economical damage to the Gulf Coast than Katrina. BO goes down there for photo ops and picks through the sand for oil balls and that's enough for you?
Please enlighten me and give me a list of things the Bush administration blamed on the Clinton administration other than bizarre stains on the Oral Office carpet.
Mike, I think we all can safely say that you’re solidly in the partisan column. You made mention of polls, you might not support them, but you continue to use that particular area of politics to make your point.
I think some of your post is a clear contradiction of your own blog, such as personal view points and being hypothetical.
During round table discussions one can conclude that opinions/view points and the term hypothetical is part of coming up with a solution on how the build a foundation. I for one would not discount some ones view point or opinion; regardless of a picture on a coin it has two sides. I see no objective in your blog totally one sided.
Have a good one
ObserverI'll see your one trillion dollar healthcare bill and up the ante to the $7 trillion Medicare Part D bill the GOP passed in the wee hours of the morning, without any complaints from the local conservatives....Memories.
The write downs just meant that fortune 500 companies could no longer deduct the healthcare premiums and get the credit at the same time. If I remember correctly the GOP Congress enacted a tax-free subsidy when Part D was created. No argument, that money could have been used in creating jobs or CEO bonuses. I imagine the companies will do the norm and cut healthcare benefits.
How can the healthcare be socialized medicine? Because Glenn Beck & Rush say so?... The weak healthcare bill that was passed was a gift to the insurance companies, in fact, the stocks of the health industry peaked when this legislation passed.
Was it forced on Americans? I don't think 31 million new customers will think that; nor will those that will get their children insurance for the very first time because they had preexisting conditions. I think Americans who have college aid students will be glad they can keep them on their Health Care policy. Like Social Security and Medicare(socialist programs) the healthcare bill will be improved on and be accepted.
Holly1You don't know how comforting it is to be your total opposite.After the 2008 election results, I vowed that never to get into the left and right childish arguments. I will stray off the reservation a little bit (once again) because I cannot let your post go unanswered.
The Republican Party supports that label (party of no) in fact Sarah Palin repeats the phrase coined by Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal " Not only are we the party of no but we're the party of hell no."
The healthcare bill started in the senate finance committee where it was made up of three republicans, three democrats, and the chair, conservative democrat ,Max Baucus. 60 republican amendments came out of that committee and put into the initial bill. Did they magically appear? The republicans were shut out of the consolidation bill after the senate passed their version. That's routine.... In all honesty republicans have never been big on healthcare reform; the record shows that. They did pass a $7 trillion dollar Medicaid Part D that was not paid for.
Now recent polls show that 20% of the voters identify with the Republican Party and 33% identify with the democrats. The Republican Party of today is a southern regional party or as the pundits put it" old, stale, and pale.".... The GOP needs the Tea Party and the fiscal conservative Independents. In the upcoming midterm elections it looks like they will get those votes but if unemployment drops to about 8.7%, the independents will come back to the democrats. That's why republicans are scared to death of straight line voting. They don't have the numbers.
I'm still trying to figure out which part of the Healthcare bill is socialized... The public option doesn't exist and that was the only part of it that had any chance of being argued as socialist. Medicare part D was more socialist than this bill.
As for documented facts, the fact is when the proverbial stuff hits the fan, conservatives are big fans of socialism. When the financial markets were crashing...Bush calls on Uncle Sam. When the oil keeps flowing...conservatives are calling on the Federal government to intervene. I thought the government couldn't do anything right. I thought that the free market and corporations are king; however, when a corporation is tasked with stopping the oil gusher and can't...they go clamoring for Uncle Sam. It reminds me of the big tough kid that gets meets his match and goes crying to momma.
The party of no as you call the republicans were not even allowed into the room when they wrote the Turkey of a bill that was fed to us by the party of the free hand-out to buy a vote. Why else would they want to give 12 million ILLEGALS the right to vote unless they new it would be 12 million new democrats voting to keep those FREE WELFARE checks coming in the mail. Mike I think you stuck you foot in it with this post because it sure smells like crap to me.
Actual data? For one, the Socialized Medicine bill that was shoved down everyone's throats was repeatedly described as costing less than $900 billion. Every reliable source now says that the cost will be in excess of $1 trillion, possibly as high as $1.3 trillion. And have you already forgotten the incredible writedowns by Fortune 500 companies recognizing the hit they will take from it? That is money that will no longer be productively employed in the private sector, creating jobs. Once again, since you seem to have a very short memory, government can give nothing to anyone that it does not first take from someone else.
Still personal opinions backed by one sided Hypotheticals.
Folklore and home spun rhetoric is not an adequate substitute for actual data.
Have a good one.
EdAs usually those are just your personal points of view ;not supported by documented facts.