5 Freedoms You'd Lose in Healthcare Reform
- Thread starter VanD
- Start date
Fuck Socialism.
Anyways. I do believe EVERYONE deserves health care, for the sake of humanity especially. There's people out there who are sick and that are spreading disease because they can't afford to get checked out.
I see it kind of like the prison system. Criminals must be dealt with. You have to quarintine them and treat them like the virus they are. They can't be left on the street, just as sick people shouldn't be left untreated.
For a nation to stay powerful, it needs to stay healthy.
It's a very complicated issue, but the health care system does need a reform of some sort. Corruption needs to be cleaned out I say. There's a lot of money being made from drugs and in most instances we are just being treated temporarily, so we keep coming back. It's all business. It's not about finding cures, it's about keeping us temporarily healthy with drugs. That's the kind of corruption that needs to be cleansed.
Anyways. I do believe EVERYONE deserves health care, for the sake of humanity especially. There's people out there who are sick and that are spreading disease because they can't afford to get checked out.
I see it kind of like the prison system. Criminals must be dealt with. You have to quarintine them and treat them like the virus they are. They can't be left on the street, just as sick people shouldn't be left untreated.
For a nation to stay powerful, it needs to stay healthy.
It's a very complicated issue, but the health care system does need a reform of some sort. Corruption needs to be cleaned out I say. There's a lot of money being made from drugs and in most instances we are just being treated temporarily, so we keep coming back. It's all business. It's not about finding cures, it's about keeping us temporarily healthy with drugs. That's the kind of corruption that needs to be cleansed.
What obama represent is not socialism what Obama has established is the Mussolini fascist coprate state where the goverment selected winners out of the crises from the coprorate world (in this case it is banks like goldman sachs bank of america )togheter is driving down things like healthcare,wages, production and genral wellfare in favor of a fictious ecnonomy.
People in this thread that stated that the stimulus package wont end the crises are right and thats becouse most of the money from it has gone in to wall street except a small amount that has gone to actual good things. but it is such a small amounts compeard to what the banks have gotten that you can almost call it window dressing.
But at the same time the notion that economy heals it self trough a mystries bisuness cycel is also wrong.
the only way to recover an economy is if the state take control of the money supply and start lending to production and why? becouse an ecomomy needs to be backed up by something physical if not it will evetually crash and burn and it dont matter how many bubbles you blow the shit will only repeat it self over and over again.
you could argue that this is the cycal,but it is a cycel that regular people wont be a part of.
People in this thread that stated that the stimulus package wont end the crises are right and thats becouse most of the money from it has gone in to wall street except a small amount that has gone to actual good things. but it is such a small amounts compeard to what the banks have gotten that you can almost call it window dressing.
But at the same time the notion that economy heals it self trough a mystries bisuness cycel is also wrong.
the only way to recover an economy is if the state take control of the money supply and start lending to production and why? becouse an ecomomy needs to be backed up by something physical if not it will evetually crash and burn and it dont matter how many bubbles you blow the shit will only repeat it self over and over again.
you could argue that this is the cycal,but it is a cycel that regular people wont be a part of.
1) LOL @ "i dont need to provide sources"
Well University of Michigan just did a study that proved Obama's health care reforms would increase costs for everyone, decrease coverage for everyone, decrease the number of doctors, and cause many people to start going to veterinarians for their checkups. (no source needed)
____________________________________________________________________
2) Throughout your responses in this thread, you are repeatedly committing a pretty obvious logical fallacy in assuming people that don't support Obama must have supported Bush and/or are republicans and conservative.
Some people support or reject things based on the merits of that particular idea and aren't so influenced by irrelevant factors such as partisan politics. Try it out.
URGENCY>PRICE
I VOTED FOR OBAMA, AND I BELIEVE WE SHOULD ALL HAVE FREE HEALTHCARE. BUT SADLY THERE ARE 100 CONS FOR EVERY PRO, THATS JUST HOW SHIT IS NOWADAYS... AND I THINK IT WOULD HURT US MORE THAN IT WOULD HELP. LIFE THERATENING CONDITIONS WOULD HAVE AS LONG AS A WAIT AS A BROKEN PINKY.
ANYWAYS WERE LOCKING PEOPLE UP FOR STUPID ASS DRUG CRIMES... Y DONT WE FOCUS ON THAT
DOSENT MATTER IF A DRUG DEALER SELLS TO STRICTLY KNOCKS AND GEST LOCKED UP FOR TRYING TO GET MONEY TO FEED HIS KIDS... OR IF A SERIAL KILLER KILLS 3 CHILDREN, 5 WOMEN, BAMBI, A UNICORN, AND BARNEY... IF THEY LOCKED UP WERE STILL PAYING FOR THEM. A CHILD MOLESTER IS GETTING FED A MEAL FROM OUR TAX DOLLARS RIGHT NOW.
I VOTED FOR OBAMA, AND I BELIEVE WE SHOULD ALL HAVE FREE HEALTHCARE. BUT SADLY THERE ARE 100 CONS FOR EVERY PRO, THATS JUST HOW SHIT IS NOWADAYS... AND I THINK IT WOULD HURT US MORE THAN IT WOULD HELP. LIFE THERATENING CONDITIONS WOULD HAVE AS LONG AS A WAIT AS A BROKEN PINKY.
ANYWAYS WERE LOCKING PEOPLE UP FOR STUPID ASS DRUG CRIMES... Y DONT WE FOCUS ON THAT
DOSENT MATTER IF A DRUG DEALER SELLS TO STRICTLY KNOCKS AND GEST LOCKED UP FOR TRYING TO GET MONEY TO FEED HIS KIDS... OR IF A SERIAL KILLER KILLS 3 CHILDREN, 5 WOMEN, BAMBI, A UNICORN, AND BARNEY... IF THEY LOCKED UP WERE STILL PAYING FOR THEM. A CHILD MOLESTER IS GETTING FED A MEAL FROM OUR TAX DOLLARS RIGHT NOW.
I'm not going to get into this argument, but fact is that the current health care system in the U.S. is not sustainable. It has to be changed, simple as that.
Watch 10 Trillion & Counting, and if you still oppose Obama's plan then you are hopeless. I recommend watching the whole thing, but if you can't sit through a 55 minute documentary, then just skip to around 40 minutes & 30 seconds & watch the rest. It shows exactly why the current system must be changed.
Watch 10 Trillion & Counting, and if you still oppose Obama's plan then you are hopeless. I recommend watching the whole thing, but if you can't sit through a 55 minute documentary, then just skip to around 40 minutes & 30 seconds & watch the rest. It shows exactly why the current system must be changed.
please go do your home work, Obama does not want to redestribute money , he is NOT a socialist you're delusional. Obama doesn't want that he wants everyone to buy insurance making it the law that you have to or if you can not afford it you get medicare or some other government progarm. can you tell me in the world what rank is America in terms health care ?
yeah i want the freedom not to have health care because im too poor to afford it
yeah i want the freedom not to have health care because im too poor to afford it
Quotes from Stanislav Mishin...Russian writer.
“the American descent into Marxism is happening with breath-taking speed.”
“the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education” that produced millions of Americans who “know more about their favorite TV dramas than the drama in D.C. that directly affects their lives.”
under Obamanomics, “America at best will resemble the Weimar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.”
Earlier this year, reports Mishin, “Prime Minister Putin … warned Obama and UK’s Blair, not to follow the path to Marxism, it only leads to disaster.” Mishin has concluded that we are ignoring Putin’s warning—based on 70 years of suffering during the nightmarish Soviet experiment in central planning—and he concludes, “The proud American will go down into his slavery without a fight, beating his chest and proclaiming to the world how free he really is. The world will only snicker.”
What does a silly Russian know, though?
“the American descent into Marxism is happening with breath-taking speed.”
“the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education” that produced millions of Americans who “know more about their favorite TV dramas than the drama in D.C. that directly affects their lives.”
under Obamanomics, “America at best will resemble the Weimar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.”
Earlier this year, reports Mishin, “Prime Minister Putin … warned Obama and UK’s Blair, not to follow the path to Marxism, it only leads to disaster.” Mishin has concluded that we are ignoring Putin’s warning—based on 70 years of suffering during the nightmarish Soviet experiment in central planning—and he concludes, “The proud American will go down into his slavery without a fight, beating his chest and proclaiming to the world how free he really is. The world will only snicker.”
What does a silly Russian know, though?
Socialism refers to any one of various theories of economic organization advocating public or cooperative worker self-ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with a more egalitarian method of compensation.
Sounds a bit familiar.
Sounds a bit familiar.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/07/obama_and_his_socialist_agenda.html
July 19, 2007
Obama and His Socialist Agenda
Rick Moran
We all knew that Barak Obama was liberal. But just how devoted he is to the nanny state has been a pretty well kept secret by both the Senator and his campaign. In fact, if you read most mainstream media accounts of where the Senator stands on a host of issues, you might think he was a candidate of the center or slightly left of Hillary Clinton. There has been much more discussion of Obama's "themes" of empowerment and unity than there has been of specific policy proposals.
But Obama let his true colors show yesterday in a speech in Washington, D.C. about urban poverty. His "solutions" will sound familiar to those who listened to Lyndon Johnson's poverty gurus and their fellow travelers under Jimmy Carter's presidency. Promising massive government assistance with the help of private businesses (help that never seems to be asked for when the programs hit the streets), Obama goes Johnson one better by promising to empower unions to organize (read "intimidate") just about everyone:
When I'm President, I will raise the minimum wage and make it a living wage by making sure that it rises every time the cost of living does. I'll start letting our unions do what they do best again – organize our workers and lift up our middle-class. And I'll finally make sure every American has affordable health care that stays with you no matter what happens by passing my plan to provide universal coverage and cut the cost of health care by up to $2500 per family.
And this 1960's-style rhetoric about poverty should be a dead giveaway for those knowledgeable about how the left speaks in code words to mask their true intent:
The philosophy behind the project is simple – if poverty is a disease that infects an entire community in the form of unemployment and violence; failing schools and broken homes, then we can't just treat those symptoms in isolation. We have to heal that entire community. And we have to focus on what actually works.
If Obama and his socialist friends were to focus on what "actually works," they would make school choice the law of the land, crack down on drugs and gangs, lower taxes in urban areas to encourage the growth of the private sector, and a host of other free market solutions that have been advocated for decades. Instead, we get the same old tired bromides about government intervention.
The inner city is not the liberal's pet laboratory where they can experiment with people's lives as if they were lab rats. What the inner city needs, Obama and his socialist theories of government activism cannot provide. And that is the simple human dignity that goes with being self sufficient and supporting your loved ones. Getting those jobs to where they can do the most good will require rethinking urban policy so that lower taxes as well as tax incentives will begin the process of wealth creation that Americans are so good at. But asking these big city Democratic mayors to lower taxes and seek more free market solutions to their problems flies in the face of their own interests in feeding the numerous interest groups, special pleaders, and cronies who have gotten used to the contracts, the handouts, and the barely disguised bribes that pass for local government action these days.
It was federal government policies and programs that caused most of the problems of the inner city today. The fact that Obama wants to try more of the same only shows that absolute dearth of ideas emanating from the left regarding urban policy. They just can't help themselves. And Obama can no longer disguise his far left policies by advocating them using soothing, non-threatening rhetoric.
July 19, 2007
Obama and His Socialist Agenda
Rick Moran
We all knew that Barak Obama was liberal. But just how devoted he is to the nanny state has been a pretty well kept secret by both the Senator and his campaign. In fact, if you read most mainstream media accounts of where the Senator stands on a host of issues, you might think he was a candidate of the center or slightly left of Hillary Clinton. There has been much more discussion of Obama's "themes" of empowerment and unity than there has been of specific policy proposals.
But Obama let his true colors show yesterday in a speech in Washington, D.C. about urban poverty. His "solutions" will sound familiar to those who listened to Lyndon Johnson's poverty gurus and their fellow travelers under Jimmy Carter's presidency. Promising massive government assistance with the help of private businesses (help that never seems to be asked for when the programs hit the streets), Obama goes Johnson one better by promising to empower unions to organize (read "intimidate") just about everyone:
When I'm President, I will raise the minimum wage and make it a living wage by making sure that it rises every time the cost of living does. I'll start letting our unions do what they do best again – organize our workers and lift up our middle-class. And I'll finally make sure every American has affordable health care that stays with you no matter what happens by passing my plan to provide universal coverage and cut the cost of health care by up to $2500 per family.
And this 1960's-style rhetoric about poverty should be a dead giveaway for those knowledgeable about how the left speaks in code words to mask their true intent:
The philosophy behind the project is simple – if poverty is a disease that infects an entire community in the form of unemployment and violence; failing schools and broken homes, then we can't just treat those symptoms in isolation. We have to heal that entire community. And we have to focus on what actually works.
If Obama and his socialist friends were to focus on what "actually works," they would make school choice the law of the land, crack down on drugs and gangs, lower taxes in urban areas to encourage the growth of the private sector, and a host of other free market solutions that have been advocated for decades. Instead, we get the same old tired bromides about government intervention.
The inner city is not the liberal's pet laboratory where they can experiment with people's lives as if they were lab rats. What the inner city needs, Obama and his socialist theories of government activism cannot provide. And that is the simple human dignity that goes with being self sufficient and supporting your loved ones. Getting those jobs to where they can do the most good will require rethinking urban policy so that lower taxes as well as tax incentives will begin the process of wealth creation that Americans are so good at. But asking these big city Democratic mayors to lower taxes and seek more free market solutions to their problems flies in the face of their own interests in feeding the numerous interest groups, special pleaders, and cronies who have gotten used to the contracts, the handouts, and the barely disguised bribes that pass for local government action these days.
It was federal government policies and programs that caused most of the problems of the inner city today. The fact that Obama wants to try more of the same only shows that absolute dearth of ideas emanating from the left regarding urban policy. They just can't help themselves. And Obama can no longer disguise his far left policies by advocating them using soothing, non-threatening rhetoric.
Americans would be educated when? I see schools closing left and right, losing programs left and right, and have been for a good few years. When are they going to be educated? When are teachers and professors going to teach both sides of the spectrum rather than just one?
Are you telling me that if we turn into a Marxist society we will suddenly be smart again? Is that what you're saying?
Are you telling me that if we turn into a Marxist society we will suddenly be smart again? Is that what you're saying?