I pledge alegience, to the Pres...

[ladybug]

Please. I've supported my points. The issue here is that you're determined to paint Obama as a radical leftist, no matter what the truth of the matter is. If you were suggesting that Ralph Nader or Dennis Kucinich was a racial leftist, then I'd agree. But the assertion that Obama is one is simply absurd on the face of it. He's obviously a lot more left than you are, but he's far from the fringe of the party. He's right smack in the middle of it, actually. He's left of Lieberman and right of Frank. But feel free to keep calling him whatever you like. Just know that repeating it over and over won't make it true.

Me thinks you are an Obama troll,you seem to defend him at every turn,no one can speak bad of the man that is tearing our country apart,or you will attack and defend to your very last breath! Obama is bad,I think he is corrupt,and he is in bed with Acorn! By the way,Acorn is tax free,and gets tax payer's dollars to operate with!

 

[jimik]

To me,it is starting to sound like if you disagree with Obama's policies,you are labled a racist! Disagreeing with policy is totally different than being a racist! The race card is played way too much,and is getting sooo old. And I totally disagree with him(Obama) on everything,so I guess I am a racist.Also,the only reason,though I am happy abouy it now,I quit smoking,was Obama enacted chip bill that raised the taxes on cigs,to pay for free health care for kids,I thought get your money somewhere else sucker,not through me,you creep Obama!

I consider myself fairly liberal, and I gotta agree with the entire racist thing. Not all of us liberals think that conservatives are all racist. I sometimes think they are heartless, and a bit paranoid, but not racist I can understand the conservative side of things, I don't agree with them but I understand why it is important for a lot of people.

If it were my way, socialized insurance would be paid by the people who use it. I don't think that you should be forced to pay for something you are not going to use. It is something I want for my family and I, but not at your expense. Same thing for most socialized programs where it could be applicable.

I would hate to think of what would happen if an event were to occur and you needed the help, but the choice should be there. If you don't want to be taken care of, you should not have to pay. But, the result of which is denial of service in the event that things go wrong for you.

 

[eric]

Me thinks you are an Obama troll,you seem to defend him at every turn,no one can speak bad of the man that is tearing our country apart,or you will attack and defend to your very last breath! Obama is bad,I think he is corrupt,and he is in bed with Acorn! By the way,Acorn is tax free,and gets tax payer's dollars to operate with!

I hardly think Obama is tearing our country apart... Do you forget Bush and the disdain held by the left when he was president? Did that destroy the country? Well, almost, but... No.

I am on your side in that Obama is not the man I want to lead America in the direction I believe our forefathers intended it to be led, but to accuse him of corruption and conspiracy with naught but speculation and association is hardly different than a leftist claiming Bush only sought oil wealth in the middle east and not the safety and security of this country... or perhaps even a conspiracy theorist claiming 9/11 was an inside job.

If you want to debate with Surf Monkey and even warrant a response, you're going to have to form your argument a bit more clearly and rationally than that. I heard this ACORN rubbish on Fox News and KSKY as well, but you can't take anything at face value until it is either proven, or there is even remote evidence that the accused is guilty. Currently, Obama remains innocent of any wrong-doing in his association with ACORN. Time will tell whether or not my current stance is correct.

I'll forewarn you about SM, though... he's a bit of a schlemiel.

 

[heather]

To me,it is starting to sound like if you disagree with Obama's policies,you are labled a racist! Disagreeing with policy is totally different than being a racist! The race card is played way too much,and is getting sooo old. And I totally disagree with him(Obama) on everything,so I guess I am a racist.Also,the only reason,though I am happy abouy it now,I quit smoking,was Obama enacted chip bill that raised the taxes on cigs,to pay for free health care for kids,I thought get your money somewhere else sucker,not through me,you creep Obama!

Not only are we racist but apparently we are cold-hearted if we don't support his healthcare plan.

 

[heather]

I hardly think Obama is tearing our country apart... Do you forget Bush and the disdain held by the left when he was president? Did that destroy the country? Well, almost, but... No.

I am on your side in that Obama is not the man I want to lead America in the direction I believe our forefathers intended it to be led, but to accuse him of corruption and conspiracy with naught but speculation and association is hardly different than a leftist claiming Bush only sought oil wealth in the middle east and not the safety and security of this country... or perhaps even a conspiracy theorist claiming 9/11 was an inside job.

If you want to debate with Surf Monkey and even warrant a response, you're going to have to form your argument a bit more clearly and rationally than that. I heard this ACORN rubbish on Fox News and KSKY as well, but you can't take anything at face value until it is either proven, or there is even remote evidence that the accused is guilty. Currently, Obama remains innocent of any wrong-doing in his association with ACORN. Time will tell whether or not my current stance is correct.

I'll forewarn you about SM, though... he's a bit of a schlemiel.

Fox news coverage on ACORN was not rubbish. They have already voted to completely de-fund ACORN(yesterday), a prelimilary vote, consisting of both repub. and demo. in a great majority to de-fund them based on the tapes. What happened to investigative journalism? 60 minutes use to do it, now they don't. The mainstream media needs to stop being so bias and do their jobs, I cast a "vote of no confidence" in the main stream media! At least CNN covered the story, not the other networks though.

And how can you not scrutinize Obama by his associations? If it were one or two bad apples, I would agree with you, but there are several questionable people surrounding his presidency. My Mom always told me, "you are known by the company you keep" Why would Obama be exempt from this notion? Most of these questionable people, including the czars, were appointed by Obama himself. And again, if were just a few, Obama could claim ignorance, but it is many! I can make a list of all the people and organizations if you'd like me to.

 

[SLDS181]

If it were my way, socialized insurance would be paid by the people who use it. I don't think that you should be forced to pay for something you are not going to use. It is something I want for my family and I, but not at your expense. Same thing for most socialized programs where it could be applicable.

Except thats not socialized medicine

But, while free healthcare is great in concept, I have yet to see an example of it working well, and thats why I'm 100% against it.

 

[Pav]

And how can you not scrutinize Obama by his associations? If it were one or two bad apples, I would agree with you, but there are several questionable people surrounding his presidency. My Mom always told me, "you are known by the company you keep" Why would Obama be exempt from this notion?

That would be fine if both sides would follow the same standard. Of course all the right wingers who call Obama out on some sketchy connections, totally overlook the Bush family being connected to the Saudi dictatorship.

Both sides just see what they want to see.

 

[SLDS181]

That would be fine if both sides would follow the same standard. Of course all the right wingers who call Obama out on some sketchy connections, totally overlook the Bush family being connected to the Saudi dictatorship.

Both sides just see what they want to see.

You assume a side or association.

I judge both as asshats.

 

[Surf Monkey]

Me thinks you are an Obama troll,you seem to defend him at every turn,no one can speak bad of the man that is tearing our country apart,or you will attack and defend to your very last breath! Obama is bad,I think he is corrupt,and he is in bed with Acorn! By the way,Acorn is tax free,and gets tax payer's dollars to operate with!

You really need to check yourself, ladybug. Your constant assertions that I "defend [Obama] at every turn" are bunk. It's just a way for you to rationalize your own extreme hatred of the man and has very little to do with my personal position on him. It's clear from this and many other posts you've made that you don't actually read what I write. You just see that it's someone who agrees with some of Obama's policy and then short circuit into accusations.

As I've shown again and again here, I have no problem having a rational conversation with people who disagree with me. What I have a BIG problem with is people like you who throw baseless accusations and insults. It's your prerogative and right to disagree with Obama but at least have the courtesy not to make things up about me in the process.

 

[Surf Monkey]

If you want to debate with Surf Monkey and even warrant a response, you're going to have to form your argument a bit more clearly and rationally than that.

Thanks, eric.

I'll forewarn you about SM, though... he's a bit of a schlemiel.

LOL

You say that as if you think I don't know what schlemiel means.

 

[eric]

If you want to debate with Surf Monkey and even warrant a response, you're going to have to form your argument a bit more clearly and rationally than that.

Thanks, eric.

LOL

You say that as if you think I don't know what schlemiel means.

Oh, there's no doubt you're just as hard headed as I am, if not more so.

 

[hobson]

Absolutely and completely incorrect. In order for the government to own the means of production when it comes to health care it would have to nationalize the hospitals, clinics and pharmaceutical companies. None of that is going to happen. The feds aren't talking about taking over the means of production. All they're discussing is offering an alternative insurance avenue.

It's sad how deeply people seem to misunderstand what socialism is. Of course, it really has more to do with smearing Obama with a word that they personally find repugnant and very little to do with reality.

The Healthcare bill contains provisions that will subsequently eliminate private insurance making government the "single payer" of insurance.

If the government becomes the only source of payment to Healthcare providers, what will happen if the government stops paying? The buildings will still stand but they’ll be empty.

He who has the gold makes the rules. Or, to put it another way, controls the means of production and distribution.

I'm not trying to smear Obama with anything. It is what it is. Socialists are the first to yell "it's not socialism!" so they must find it repugnant as well.

 

[Surf Monkey]

The Healthcare bill contains provisions that will subsequently eliminate private insurance making the government the "single payer" of insurance.

Which bill? There are several. Having read most of the legislation I have to say that your assertion above is, to the best of my knowledge, incorrect.

If the government becomes the only source of payment to Healthcare providers, what will happen if the government stops paying? The buildings will still stand but they’ll be empty.

And when the private insurance companies fail like the major banks did, what's going to happen? The buildings will stand but they'll be empty... or the government will spend your money bailing them out.

He who has the gold makes the rules. Or, to put it another way, controls the means of production and distribution.

I'm not trying to smear Obama with anything. It is what it is. Socialists are the first to yell "it's not socialism!" so they must find it repugnant as well.

Nice hyperbola. Too bad it bears little if any relationship to reality.

 

[Justncredible]

And when the private insurance companies fail like the major banks did, what's going to happen? The buildings will stand but they'll be empty... or the government will spend your money bailing them out. .

No, the doctors will just lower prices until people can afford what they need or want.

Lasik eye surgeys show that when there is no insurance involved the prices drop and drop and the service gets better.

Get government out of business, it is that simple. Examples prove it works.

 

[Pav]

The Healthcare bill contains provisions that will subsequently eliminate private insurance making government the "single payer" of insurance.

I'll believe that when I see it. The bill is being drafted by the insurance providers (and big pharma and other lobbyists). Why would they put themselves out of business?

We should be so lucky to get out of being screwed by the big corporate insurance providers.

 

[Surf Monkey]

No, the doctors will just lower prices until people can afford what they need or want.

LOL

Just keep telling yourself that.

 

[SLDS181]

Which bill? There are several. Having read most of the legislation I have to say that your assertion above is, to the best of my knowledge, incorrect.

Thats how they did it in Canada - its one of the models being looked at, though I really hope we steer clear of it.

And when the private insurance companies fail like the major banks did, what's going to happen? The buildings will stand but they'll be empty... or the government will spend your money bailing them out.

Thats virtually impossible, for two reasons. For one, hospitals can't turn people away. Two, they wouldn't go under - payments and projected costs are based on a constantly revised risk assessment, and payments are adjusted regularly. There is no reason an insurance company should ever be unable to pay out, and no similarity to banks (where money was loaned and unable to be paid back). I see no relationship between those two examples.

Still, I would be very impressed to see a model that actually worked while providing an appropriate degree of healthcare. The problem (despite what many people are concerned about, the "death council" as it were) for me is not end of life care, but intermediary care. Less expensive steps taken on non-life threatening issues which could cause other issues (physical and psychological).

I'm sure alot of people have had cysts - I had one. It was a minor thing, but it was getting bigger - and while not very visible, it was annoying. Under most plans (I did the comparison a while ago, way way way before Obama..... 2003ish? satisfying my own curiosity), it would have been left alone. I have great private insurance, it was removed by a surgeon I chose, who happened to be a reconstructive surgery specialist I knew (read: plastic surgeon, not the bigger boobs kind, but the fix-your-face-after-car-accidents kind - great guy). The cyst was underneath my jaw, if you feel the back of your jaw... that spot between the very back and your neck. You could imagine how something (as I found out) golf ball sized inside there could be annoying to you, despite not being visible to others. In most cases, this can leave an annoying scar.

Since I had someone doing this who knew what they were doing with regards to faces, growth, etc, the cut was made very precisely along my jaw line, and removed with great care. I've seen the scars from some other surgeries, and I'm very happy I was able to go this route with my insurance.

I do not feel any currently implemented socialized medical system would allow this degree of care, from what I have seen.

Is this a minor issue? Sure. But what if the cyst was more visible? Would it still be turned down (I've seen cases where it was, this is anecdotal)? If they removed it, would the same care be taken on such a visible area?

I have a hard time believing that it would be. And while it wasn't a huge deal for me, visible scarring can have severe psychological implications. Just ask any woman who lost a breast, people who were in car accidents, etc.

Just my opinion, but its something I'm concerned with regardless when it comes to any socialized medicine system.

 

[Surf Monkey]

I don't see how national coverage would change your situation. The legislation (all versions) does not eliminate private insurance. The idea is to provide everyone with base coverage and then allow them to supplement that with whatever additional coverage they choose to have.

But again, the main problem here is cost. The price of private insurance isn't going down. We're all getting brutally soaked by the private insurers. Adding a public insurance program isn't going to force these companies out of business, but it may cause them to lower their prices to a more reasonable level.

If something's not done to control the price of health insurance and health care this nation is going to go broke.

 

[SLDS181]

I don't see how national coverage would change your situation. The legislation (all versions) does not eliminate private insurance. The idea is to provide everyone with base coverage and then allow them to supplement that with whatever additional coverage they choose to have.

But again, the main problem here is cost. The price of private insurance isn't going down. We're all getting brutally soaked by the private insurers. Adding a public insurance program isn't going to force these companies out of business, but it may cause them to lower their prices to a more reasonable level.

If something's not done to control the price of health insurance and health care this nation is going to go broke.

They won't within whats currently proposed, as I understand it, no.

In other countries, its different. But again, thats for me, with private insurance. Lesser services would still be given to those without private insurance, making things (as I see it) a lesser amount of health coverage.

Also, for me, as a taxpayer, I will be hit twice - once for private insurance, and once in taxes to cover other people. I feel that effectively punishes me for having good private health insurance. I worked my ... off to get where I am, and I despise the idea that I have to pay for something I've worked for, taking more money out of my pocket.

I do not believe, in the slightest, this helps the majority of people from lower-middle class on up. Just down.

EDIT - take that to mean that I believe this can only serve to harm the middle class.

 

[Surf Monkey]

Lesser services would still be given to those without private insurance, making things (as I see it) a lesser amount of health coverage.

I'm not sure what that assumption is based on. We can speculate about the quality of care offered by a public plan, but we don't know if it'll be deficient or excellent. The various versions of the legislation on the table all include a periodic review process that's designed to maintain a consistent level of coverage.

Also, for me, as a taxpayer, I will be hit twice - once for private insurance, and once in taxes to cover other people. I feel that effectively punishes me for having good private health insurance. I worked my ... off to get where I am, and I despise the idea that I have to pay for something I've worked for, taking more money out of my pocket.

Maybe so, but you as a purchaser of private health insurance are already paying for other people... and for a healthy profit margin. The idea is to shift the dollars into a more efficient and cost effective channel. One that doesn't include a year over year profit motive.

I do not believe, in the slightest, this helps the majority of people from lower-middle class on up. Just down.

EDIT - take that to mean that I believe this can only serve to harm the middle class.

I have the opposite viewpoint. If it contains the cost of caring for uninsured and underinsured people those savings will trickle up to the middle class and beyond. Private insurance costs are going through the roof because people are using emergency rooms as their GP, because millions of people have no insurance but still incur costs that we as consumers have to absorb, because insurance companies are beholden to their stock holders to make healthy profits every year, because profit margins in the industry are driven by the denial of claims... the list goes on and on. From my POV, the system is so screwed right now that government intervention is unlikely to make it any worse and may in fact make it better.

Costs have to be contained. The bottom line in this debate is who we want to hand our money too so that they can pay our doctors. You're fine with handing that money to companies that have shown that profit is more important to them than providing reliable coverage. I'd rather hand that money to a non-profit that may be able to contain costs more effectively. Both approaches have potential pitfalls. It seems to me that we've tried the private insurance rout and it's failed. Now is the time to try a different approach.