# Ya know? How about an honest discussion.



## G.T. (Aug 20, 2009)

Some people amaze me man. 

In the spirit of politics, it was 1,000% predictable that the "opposition" party would disapprove of ANY bill proposed regarding Healthcare. 

But why can't I, an everyday non-partisan American hear some honest discussions on the subject without having to be so cynical, without having to read 1,000+ pages? 

Why does the "opposition" party oppose this thing based on 1/2 lies, and 1/2 truths? Why lie? I fucking hate liars. 

I remember when the 2006 debating began before that election, then the same in 2008. The Conservative guys like Limbaugh and Hannity ratcheted up their mean-spirited rhetoric and after some fact checks, I found they were fibbing (not all the way lies) around 50% of the time. 

I can recall thinking, ya know, these guys' attitudes and mean spirit aren't going to do any good in getting votes. Most Americans are probably good people, and don't want to hear such negative angles on every little thing. No honest discussions from these fellows, such straight oppose oppose oppose and negative viewpoints. Why? Why? Why!!

My prediction came to fruition. The country is not as retarted as the sensationalizers and mean-spirited hosts think. Their ratings rose, because people enjoy controversial viewpoints. As their ratings rose, their voting support dropped. (odd)

Here you have this:
FACT CHECK: Health overhaul myths taking root - Yahoo! News


A prime example of why I, a regular assed dude, am frustrated with my Country's political discussion. It's childish, and it makes me want to  off politics and pop someone in the jugular. 

So, thanks alot for the honest discussion on such an important issue in healthcare(important in my life), and yah....Obama's a nazi!! (ARGGGHHHH!)

*grow the fuck up, political "debaters"


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Aug 20, 2009)

G.T. said:


> Some people amaze me man.
> 
> In the spirit of politics, it was 1,000% predictable that the "opposition" party would disapprove of ANY bill proposed regarding Healthcare.
> 
> ...



Why don't you mention some liberal pundits that tell "half truths" and outright "lies" and who are "mean-spirited"?  You have not done anything that I've seen that  resembles non-partisanship, this post is full of partisan bullshit.  You want an honest discussion yet you can't be honest.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Aug 20, 2009)

By the way Factcheck.org or whatever the fuck it's called doesn't tell the WHOLE truth. The bill doesn't say it will cover illegal immigrants, but it doesn't say it wouldn't either. The bill does provide cuts in Medicare,( 500 billion in the next ten years) which will effect senior citizens. Oh but factcheck doesn't mention that huh? How convenient.


----------



## G.T. (Aug 20, 2009)

I don't think you got the point. It's not a side vs. side discussion, it's a Discussion regarding what I've seen. That's it, that's all. Speaking from my own experience, that's it. 

The "mean spirit" on the left must not be as in my face, or effective. The Radio ratings and television ratings belong to mean-spirited, controversial conservatives. So, those are who I spoke on.


----------



## cunclusion (Aug 20, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Some people amaze me man.
> ...



The main issue is there have been lies from both sides some so false they deserve an old fashion ass whoopin. That is the main issue you cant talk about truths when both sides are spouting lies and character attacks at each other.


----------



## Gudrid (Aug 20, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> BThe bill doesn't say it will cover illegal immigrants, but it doesn't say it wouldn't either.



Yes, it actually says that explicitly.  Factcheck mentioned the section, and I looked it up in the text of the bill on opencongress.


----------



## G.T. (Aug 20, 2009)

Gudrid said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > BThe bill doesn't say it will cover illegal immigrants, but it doesn't say it wouldn't either.
> ...


oops!~


----------



## Gudrid (Aug 20, 2009)

There's no need to be snarky.  It's a bajillion page bill.  Who has time for that?  I consider myself pretty dedicated to reading such things, I read very fast on top of that, and I certainly haven't read the whole thing.  Probably about a third of it at this point.  Admittedly I haven't been here long, but Lonestar hasn't come across to me as someone who rejects valid information.  

I do strongly agree with your initial post in this thread.


----------



## tigerbob (Aug 20, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Some people amaze me man.
> ...



He was talking about the criticism of Obama's healthcare proposals.  The criticism has come from the right.  Of course there is bullshit from the left as well but that wasn't the point he was making.  Why not just stick to the topic?  Does everything have to be full of disclaimers?


----------



## tigerbob (Aug 20, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> By the way Factcheck.org or whatever the fuck it's called doesn't tell the WHOLE truth. The bill doesn't say it will cover illegal immigrants, but it doesn't say it wouldn't either. The bill does provide cuts in Medicare,( 500 billion in the next ten years) which will effect senior citizens. Oh but factcheck doesn't mention that huh? How convenient.



That's better.


----------



## strollingbones (Aug 20, 2009)

honest discussion would take the admission by americans that we do not have the best medical system in the world....destroying an allusion that many cling to. most industrialized countries see medical care as providing security for their people...not the u.s.  people who cling to the "rationed" medical care are in denial of the current system that rations medical care according to profit.  should health care be profitable?  or should hmos be deciding health care over doctors?  is it right to deny advance treatments in hopes of the patient dying and going away?  that is what insurance companies engage in now.

if you question allotting funds for treatment of the old....then you must question funds for treatment of all..should extreme premmies be saved?  there are moral and ethical questions most will not face...so there will never be an "honest" discussion


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Aug 20, 2009)

> Why does the "opposition" party oppose this thing based on 1/2 lies, and 1/2 truths? Why lie? I fucking hate liars



So, what's your take on Obama who has both publicaly stated that his objective is a single payer, government system and that he opposes a single payer government system?

This whole healthcare "debate" is a lie.  There is no debate.  It's all BS being crammed down your throat.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Aug 20, 2009)

Anyway, every program these clowns have touched is now BROKE.  So,. this is the magic nugget that they will get right?  Yeah, okay.


----------



## cunclusion (Aug 20, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> By the way Factcheck.org or whatever the fuck it's called doesn't tell the WHOLE truth. The bill doesn't say it will cover illegal immigrants, but it doesn't say it wouldn't either. The bill does provide cuts in Medicare,( 500 billion in the next ten years) which will effect senior citizens. Oh but factcheck doesn't mention that huh? How convenient.



But to be honest illegal immigrants already get free healthcare and we pay for it.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Aug 20, 2009)

Why does this have to be done RIGHT NOW THIS WAY ONLY OR THE WORLD WILL STOP TURNING.  Just like the bailouts, etc.  Sorry, anytime i hear that shit I run for cover.  And aren't these  the same folks that insisted Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were "sound"????  When people raised questions about that they were called racists and told to STFU.

And gee, then guess what hapenned?  BOOM!!!


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Aug 20, 2009)

> But to be honest illegal immigrants already get free healthcare and we pay for it.


No doubt, and nobody I know advocates letting them die in the streets.  BUT... something is serioulsy wrong when I take my 87 year old father, a career army guy from WWII & Korea to the emergency room and we have to wait behind 20 Mexicans with stubbed toes.
I wont accept that this cannot be addressed somehow.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Aug 20, 2009)

strollingbones said:


> honest discussion would take the admission by americans that we do not have the best medical system in the world....destroying an allusion that many cling to. most industrialized countries see medical care as providing security for their people...not the u.s.  people who cling to the "rationed" medical care are in denial of the current system that rations medical care according to profit.  should health care be profitable?  or should hmos be deciding health care over doctors?  is it right to deny advance treatments in hopes of the patient dying and going away?  that is what insurance companies engage in now.
> 
> if you question allotting funds for treatment of the old....then you must question funds for treatment of all..should extreme premmies be saved?  there are moral and ethical questions most will not face...so there will never be an "honest" discussion



Amen to the truth.

Thanks for your great post bones.  Notice she asked questions, didn't call names or throw insults.  If you don't like her questions give them an answer from you're own personal perspective.


----------



## Gudrid (Aug 20, 2009)

cunclusion said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > By the way Factcheck.org or whatever the fuck it's called doesn't tell the WHOLE truth. The bill doesn't say it will cover illegal immigrants, but it doesn't say it wouldn't either. The bill does provide cuts in Medicare,( 500 billion in the next ten years) which will effect senior citizens. Oh but factcheck doesn't mention that huh? How convenient.
> ...



Agreed.  And to be honest, that will continue in cases of emergencies just as it does now.


----------



## WillowTree (Aug 20, 2009)

G.T. said:


> *I don't think you got the point. It's not a side vs. side discussion, it's a Discussion regarding what I've seen. That's it, that's all. Speaking from my own experience, that's it. *
> 
> The "mean spirit" on the left must not be as in my face, or effective. The Radio ratings and television ratings belong to mean-spirited, controversial conservatives. So, those are who I spoke on.



*Oh well hell why didn't you tell the people right up front you only wanted to talk to you. jeez so simple. for sure you won't disagree with you.. for it. dayuuum!*


----------



## G.T. (Aug 20, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> *Oh well hell why didn't you tell the people right up front you only wanted to talk to you. jeez so simple. for sure you won't disagree with you.. for it. dayuuum!*




Umm, let yourself out the door if you could, kindly. 

I've read your literature, you have a distorted reality because you're an overt partisan. Not knocking you for it, but I'm not giving anything you say water based on past readings. Credibility issues and all that.


----------



## Big Black Dog (Aug 20, 2009)

> Why does the "opposition" party oppose this thing based on 1/2 lies, and 1/2 truths? Why lie? I fucking hate liars.



I agree too.  Like when Obama said on national tv that the AARP supported his proposed Health Care Reform bill.  That was a big lie that the AARP immediately cleared up for the American people.  The  only time politicians tell the truth is when they call each other liars.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Aug 20, 2009)

G.T. said:


> Some people amaze me man.
> 
> In the spirit of politics, it was 1,000% predictable that the "opposition" party would disapprove of ANY bill proposed regarding Healthcare.
> 
> ...



In fact, support for this bill is based almost entirely on lies.  Obama promised he would rein in health care costs, but the CBO has told us HR 3200 will cause health care costs to increase more rapidly.  The title of the bill promises that health insurance will be more affordable, but each reform, such as insurance at standard rates for those with pre existing conditions, continuation of coverage if you stop paying premiums because of loss of income due to illness, caps on out of pocket expenses, etc., all good things, will increase costs to insurance companies or a public plan and that will increase what you have to pay for health insurance.  How much more will you have to pay?  No one knows.  Will it be 1% more?  5% more?  10% more?  20% more?  More than 20%?  No one knows because no one has asked the CBO to cost out just how much these reforms will increase the premiums you have to pay for your health insurance.  Would you order dinner in a restaurant that doesn't put the prices on its menu?  Then why would you support a bill that doesn't tell you how much it's going to take out of your pocket in higher health insurance premiums, not out of some rich guy's pocket, directly out of your pocket every month?

Since we don't know how much these reforms will cause health insurance premiums to increase, we don't know how much it will cost to provide health insurance to those who are currently uninsured.  The estimates by Congressional committees and the CBO have all been made on the basis of what health insurance costs now, but since that cost will go up if all these proposed reforms pass, the cost of providing health insurance to those now uninsured will certainly be higher than these estimates.  So just how much more will this bill add to the deficit?  Again, we just don't know because no one has asked the CBO to cost out just how much more these reforms will increase the cost of health insurance.  Does any member of Congress who supports this bill without first demanding to know how much these reforms will cost his constituents and how much they will add to the deficit deserve to have a seat in Congress?

This bill increases eligibility for Medicaid to 150% of the poverty level, which means that Medicaid eligibility rolls will increase by more than 50%, but makes no provisions for where the states' share of this new expense is to come from.  With many states already teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, how will they raise the hundreds of millions to billions of dollars this bill will demand of them?  Raise state taxes?  Cut state services such as education or law enforcement?  Will local governments have to raise property taxes to offset state cutbacks or cut services such as education, police and fire protection?  Does any Congressperson who supports this bill without first demanding to know just how the cost of this Medicaid increase will effect taxes, state and local services and the economy in his state and in his district in these difficult economic times deserve to sit in Congress?

If you really hate liars, then Obama and the other Dem leaders should be at the top of your shit list because they have done nothing but lie to the country about how this bill will effect the cost of health care, how it will effect the deficit, how it will effect our national economy, how it will effect state economies and just how much money it will take out of the pockets of people who now have health insurance every month because the reforms it proposes will increase the cost of health insurance.


----------



## cunclusion (Aug 20, 2009)

Gudrid said:


> cunclusion said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



So based on that shouldnt we get more since we have to pay one way or another. The waiting thing is crazy I was in the Emergency room for 8 hours having an asthma attack left went home thank goodness that a couple of my cousins were nurses and able to get me a breathing treatment.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Aug 20, 2009)

Let's make sure I have this straight. You claim to be non-partisan, and want an honest discussion, then link to us to a Associated Press article? AP, who is sucking Obama's dick since Day One? All in one post?

Excuse me while I seek medical attention for my splitting sides!

         

http://eipnetworks.com/clear.mp3


----------



## strollingbones (Aug 20, 2009)

another factor that prevents discussion if the 'dumbing' of americans.....people wont or dont read or research anything....so they have to go by some trumped up party line...hiding behind partisan shit allows people to "think" they know what they are talking about when they only know what the are 'parroting' this concept applies to both parties and all people regardless of political party... we have become to lazy to govern ourselves...too lazy to read...we must be spoon feed facts by punits.


----------



## wvpeach (Aug 20, 2009)

Excellent , excellent post GT!  

   Tell it like it is man!  

    The truth always finds it's way to the light!  




G.T. said:


> Some people amaze me man.
> 
> In the spirit of politics, it was 1,000% predictable that the "opposition" party would disapprove of ANY bill proposed regarding Healthcare.
> 
> ...


----------



## WillowTree (Aug 20, 2009)

G.T. said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > *Oh well hell why didn't you tell the people right up front you only wanted to talk to you. jeez so simple. for sure you won't disagree with you.. for it. dayuuum!*
> ...



too bad for you! .


----------



## WillowTree (Aug 20, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> Let's make sure I have this straight. You claim to be non-partisan, and want an honest discussion, then link to the Soros-funded and highly partisan fact check dot org? All in one post?
> 
> Excuse me while I seek medical attention for my splitting sides!
> 
> ...






b-u-l-l-s-e-y-e


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Aug 20, 2009)

wvpeach said:


> Excellent , excellent post GT!
> 
> Tell it like it is man!
> 
> The truth always finds it's way to the light!


Yeah, we should just _believe_ AP, NBC, SeeBS, and all the media outlets. They have no dog in this fight and are unbiased!

Right?


----------



## WillowTree (Aug 20, 2009)

KISS look at  Massachusetts.

The model for what is proposed. How far in the red is that state??? Hello?


----------



## WillowTree (Aug 20, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> By the way Factcheck.org or whatever the fuck it's called doesn't tell the WHOLE truth. The bill doesn't say it will cover illegal immigrants, but it doesn't say it wouldn't either. The bill does provide cuts in Medicare,( 500 billion in the next ten years) which will effect senior citizens. Oh but factcheck doesn't mention that huh? How convenient.



It will cover illegals. You see the democwat congresscritters voted down the Heller Amendment. That's the game say you are against illegal immigration out of one side of your mouth and out of the other make it impossible to check.. Dishonest fuckery at it's very best. And no we don't presently cover illegals with full service medical care.. they are only entitled to emergency care.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Aug 20, 2009)

strollingbones said:


> another factor that prevents discussion if the 'dumbing' of americans.....people wont or dont read or research anything....so they have to go by some trumped up party line...hiding behind partisan shit allows people to "think" they know what they are talking about when they only know what the are 'parroting' this concept applies to both parties and all people regardless of political party... we have become to lazy to govern ourselves...too lazy to read...we must be spoon feed facts by punits.



I don't think the fault lies with the American people but with the leadership of the Democratic Party.  When our cheerleader-in-chief announced he wanted House and Senate bills out of committee before the summer recess and a bill signed into law before the 2010 campaign season began because the issue was too urgent to waste time in careful study, honest disclosure of costs or open debate, he set the stage for the circus that has followed.  The Democratic push has been based entirely on ideological and political considerations and not at all on careful assessments of costs and benefits and for this reason they deserve all the anger and ridicule they have received.  This anger and ridicule is an honest expression of frustration about the way the Democrats have tried to ram this thing through before anyone really knows what it will cost or how it will impact our national or state economies and the Democratic response to this frustration has been almost entirely dishonest.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Aug 20, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> KISS look at  Massachusetts.
> 
> The model for what is proposed. How far in the red is that state??? Hello?



We are only 2 billion in debt right now (we had a surplus instead as little as 3 years ago).  .

But at least our sales tax got raised 25%, the registry and car related fees have all gone up, they raised our tolls, they have put a tax on our health insurance payments, if you CHOOSE not to get coverage you get to pay an annual uninsured tax, and they are proposing more fee's to help pay for our "universal" health care.

BTW we also kicked 30,000 LEGAL immigrants off the govt funded plan since we dont have enough money and almost 3% of the commonwealth are still uninsured.   

Oh and one more thing, my cost of insurance has gone up from 38/week to 50/week

I prefer to fight from behind the lines


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Aug 20, 2009)

strollingbones said:


> another factor that prevents discussion if the 'dumbing' of americans.....people wont or dont read or research anything....


Bonez.... Some reading and research for you:

Have you studied the health care problems of native Americans who live on reservations? They have had single-payer, government controlled healthcare since the government set up the reservations. It's third-world medical care right in the middle of a first-world country!

Indians' motto is "don't get sick after June" because that's when the funding runs out, and it's been a problem for two hundred years! Think of other US government run medical programs, such as the horrendous VA, then ask yourself, "why do we want the government taking over ALL healthcare?"

Start the reading on this here:

"Don't get sick after June!" - John Stossel's Take

Then check all this out:

"Don't get sick after June!" - Google Search

Shouldn't they like, FIX this first and prove to the rest of us they can run a health care system, on a _small_ scale? Before we put them solely in the driver's seat of a really BIG bus with everyone on it? And with LOTS of folks thrown UNDER that bus?


----------



## wvpeach (Aug 20, 2009)

Ah, after having read some of these posts, lets do a little moral fact checking here , shall we?  

    First of all who lets all these illegals in and who does there presence here benefit?  

    Corporations is who benefits from illegals coming in to work for chump change which also lowers Americans wages. 

   So it would be all but impossible for anybody to argue that because companies don't want the boarders closed we allow them to remain open. Because illegals benefit big business.   .................... And small business I might add.  Many is the contractor willing to hire all Mexicans who will work for 1/2 the price of a American carpenter. 

    So moral fact check here that apparently some of you need.  

    Can you blame a poor Mexican for jumping the boarder because they can't find a job in Mexico and coming to America to find a job working for what Americans consider  chump change , but are  rich wages  to them? 

    Any answers to that question from you right wingers?  

     Let me give you the logical and moral answer right wingers.  

*   No ! You cannot blame a person for jumping a boarder in order to keep food in their kids mouths and try to better life for their families.  *....................   

   Now , next moral question.  

    Said illegal is in the country and gets a high fever or breaks a leg on a job site, do we deny them treatment at a emergency room? 

    Can any of you right wingers give the logical and moral answer to that question?  

 Logical because it's the US that doesn't bother to close our boarders and lets them in , in the first place to help business profit.   Logical because they could be contracting a communicable illness we need to know about.    Plaques and serious flu epidemics can still kill millions if left unchecked .  And many of these illegals live 12 to a home in cramped less than hygienic conditions .  So we wouldn't want them getting cases of say swine flu and then painting your home and passing it on to you. 

*   Moral* because many is this nation like to call this a " Christian nation" well got news for you Christians, nor moral people consign people to die in the streets for any reason when we could possibly help them. 

    The boarder should have been closed 2 decades ago.  

*  Don't bitch at illegals.  Bitch at a government that won't close the boarder.  
    And who you really need to bitch at is corporate America who lobby's to keep that boarder open so they can drive down wages across the board. * 




    The answer would be that we have a moral as well as logical obligation to treat them.


----------



## kwc57 (Aug 20, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> Let's make sure I have this straight. You claim to be non-partisan, and want an honest discussion, then link to us to a Associated Press article? AP, who is sucking Obama's dick since Day One? All in one post?
> 
> Excuse me while I seek medical attention for my splitting sides!
> 
> ...



What would you prefer, WND?


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Aug 20, 2009)

wvpeach said:


> Can you blame a poor Mexican for jumping the boarder


If the boarder is female, and good-looking, I wouldn't blame anyone for jumping her!


----------



## WillowTree (Aug 20, 2009)

wvpeach said:


> Ah, after having read some of these posts, lets do a little moral fact checking here , shall we?
> 
> First of all who lets all these illegals in and who does there presence here benefit?
> 
> ...



Krauthammer predicted this on Sunday. 



no why don't you tell us why we American citizens are obligated to work and pay for the health care of 1/2 of Mexico! How moral is that?


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Aug 20, 2009)

kwc57 said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > Let's make sure I have this straight. You claim to be non-partisan, and want an honest discussion, then link to us to a Associated Press article? AP, who is sucking Obama's dick since Day One? All in one post?
> ...


If I wished to prove my claim to be non-partisan and my stated desire for an honest discussion, I wouldn't link to anything partisan.

Right?

Especially not AP, WND (whatever that is) or any of the MSM.


----------



## wvpeach (Aug 20, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> KISS look at  Massachusetts.
> 
> The model for what is proposed. How far in the red is that state??? Hello?




    That is an unrealistic comparison willow tree. 

    First study after study has been done showing that universal health care if implemented throughout the country will actually drive health care costs down. 

   Secondly if individual states try to go it alone they are at distinct disadvantages . The first thing the insurance companies do is raise rates and say tough luck if you don't like it we will just pull out of your state. 

   For instance Kentucky tried several years ago to put caps on medical and auto insurance rates.  Insurance companies just pulled out of the state.  Took their ball and went home and said we won't play unless you let us charge what we want. 

   States like Massachusetts that try to go it alone are seeing the insurance companies raise rates sky high because they are being told they cannot exclude people for pre existing conditions.    With insurance rates that high, hospitals and doctors naturally want their share of the pie so rates go up across the board including for the state run programs. 

*  Common sense says prices cannot be controlled unless all states are in and coverage is universal across the nation.  *

   Naturally the insurance companies don't like that because that means they will have to compete for a share of the pie.   It means they won't make multi billions a year , they may just make a few billion.


----------



## G.T. (Aug 20, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> If I wished to prove my claim to be non-partisan and my stated desire for an honest discussion, I wouldn't link to anything partisan.
> 
> Right?
> 
> Especially not AP, WND (whatever that is) or any of the MSM.



How about not being a complete douchebag for 35 seconds and actually disproving the claims in said-source, instead of dismissing it out of hand as though that's a credible way to have an adult discussion.


----------



## wvpeach (Aug 20, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> Krauthammer predicted this on Sunday.
> 
> 
> 
> no why don't you tell us why we American citizens are obligated to work and pay for the health care of 1/2 of Mexico! How moral is that?




    Would that be Charles Krauthammer that immoral man who spouts off on Fox news regularly?    Surely you wouldn't believe a word that man says?   Immorality and total lack of empathy for any humanity reeks from the man.  He is so immoral it shows on his physical demeanor and literally makes him one of the ugliest men I have ever seen. 


   As to your question willow tree why do tax payers end up footing the bill for the emergency medical treatment of illegals. I told you that in my last post .  Very clearly I believe.   Did you not read it willowtree? 
*We pay for emergency medical care for illegals because logically we can't ignore them possibly getting some illness that could spread and kill millions of us. *

   And we pay because the government refuses to shut the boarder with Mexico because business wants the illegals here to drive down wages.  

   Pretty simple really.  

    And morality dictates that if we allow these people to be here we don't stand idly by and let them die in emergencies.


----------



## kwc57 (Aug 20, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> > Midnight Marauder said:
> ...



You don't know what World Net Daily is?  Really?  Did you just fall off the turnip truck and stumble onto the interwebs message boards yesterday or something?


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 20, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> By the way Factcheck.org or whatever the fuck it's called doesn't tell the WHOLE truth. The bill doesn't say it will cover illegal immigrants, but it doesn't say it wouldn't either. The bill does provide cuts in Medicare,( 500 billion in the next ten years) which will effect senior citizens. Oh but factcheck doesn't mention that huh? How convenient.



It's incredible how people like you continue to believe those chain e-mails. THE HOUSE VERSION OF THE BILL SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT ILLEGAL (UNDOCUMENTED) PEOPLE WILL _NOT_ BE COVERED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(Section 246 on page 143)

There will be *NO* cuts to benefits under the base Medicare program. There would be *spending* cuts, particularly in the Medicare Advantage program (added benefits) which private insurers underwrite and for which they receive taxpayer money for subsidizing the basic Medicare coverage.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Aug 20, 2009)

G.T. said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > If I wished to prove my claim to be non-partisan and my stated desire for an honest discussion, I wouldn't link to anything partisan.
> ...


How about not being the complete moron, claiming to be non-partisan and wanting an honest discussion, then linking us to an article from the corrupt and dishonest and partisan AP!


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Aug 20, 2009)

kwc57 said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > kwc57 said:
> ...


I simply have no information on WND, other than since you referenced it, it must be partisan.

See?

And I've been on the innertubes since even before Al Gore invented it!


----------



## G.T. (Aug 20, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> How about not being the complete moron, claiming to be non-partisan and wanting an honest discussion, then linking us to an article from the corrupt and dishonest and partisan AP!




^ that logic is what I mean by douchebag. My reading yahoo! news points to my partisanship. Right. And pimples are caused by premature ejaculation. My friend doris has a house on the dark side of the moon, and my grandma won a beat contest against Tommy Lee. Cool  ----   story  ----  bro.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Aug 20, 2009)

G.T. said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > How about not being the complete moron, claiming to be non-partisan and wanting an honest discussion, then linking us to an article from the corrupt and dishonest and partisan AP!
> ...


"Yahoo news" is simply a regurgitator of the MSM. The actual article the link goes to is from the AP.

Next!


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 20, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> wvpeach said:
> 
> 
> > Excellent , excellent post GT!
> ...



I just wish everyone would quite bitching about the media and look for panel debates by respected and knowledgeable people within the medical arena on C-Span who know what the fuck they're talking about, and will give YOU the information in LAY TERMS so that you will *get* it in a completely unbiased fashion. In the meantime, a reminder that *NOTHING HAS YET BEEN PASSED, NOR EVEN LEGALLY DEBATED BY CONGRESS.*


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 20, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> wvpeach said:
> 
> 
> > Excellent , excellent post GT!
> ...



Something tells me that if one of them started promoting your music and videos, you'd have a sudden change of heart.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Aug 20, 2009)

wvpeach said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > KISS look at  Massachusetts.
> ...



I disagree with you're post above.  It contradicts my personal experience in the MA universal health system.



PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > KISS look at  Massachusetts.
> ...


----------



## G.T. (Aug 20, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> Next!



Um,

You haven't made a point yet. 

You first have to actually address the material in the story. All you've done is the same hack shit that adult males on political websites have been doing for years: a corny "quip" and a claim of victory, totally devoid of intelligent thought or actual merit. Sorry dude, I don't indulge in these fruity partisan talking point games. I haven't seen the "source" argument 6k times yet without the "opponent" actually addressing the material, before. Get a life.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Aug 20, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > wvpeach said:
> ...


And yet? They tried to BUMUSH this through before anyone had a chance to READ it and analyze it!


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 20, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> KISS look at  Massachusetts.
> 
> The model for what is proposed. How far in the red is that state??? Hello?



None of the states which have implemented their own health care initiatives ever promised it wouldn't cost anything at the startup, nor that it would ever be a profitable exercise. THINK, for a change, would ya?


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Aug 20, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > wvpeach said:
> ...


         

You hacks are _killing_ me with your strawmen!


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Aug 20, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > KISS look at  Massachusetts.
> ...



But the quality of care and the availabilty of care have both decreased in my state over the last 2 years while the cost of care has risen over the same time frame.

That is what OUR universal health care has done, so far, along with leaving people uninsured and even removing people from the medicare rolls (30,000 LEGAL immigrants sounds like rationing. )

Maybe the knucleheads in congress are smarter than the history of all their other proposed social programs prove.   If this bill does pass I can only pray that they are.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Aug 20, 2009)

G.T. said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > Next!
> ...


I do not. I address the irony of an idiot claiming to be non-partisan and wanting a honest discussion, linking us to the dishonest, corrupt and partisan AP as a backup!

Then watch all the partisan hack idiots ignore post #34!

And by the way, it's either outright ignorance or dishonesty from you, claiming in the OP that "the opposition party" has anything to do with this -- the Dems can pass anything they want without a single opposition vote or any opposition support whatsoever.

Truly non-partisan folks know that, and don't try to blame-shift.


----------



## wvpeach (Aug 20, 2009)

Not true .  Obviously you don't watch much c-span.  You should start toomuchtime since you have so much time on your hands c-span is a good place to spend it. 

    Study after study has been done for decades about the economic benefits to the entire country if we adopt  universal healthcare.  Major organizations , universities and the AMA , including the states, all know universal health care will drive down costs and save money after being implemented for the first couple of years.  .................

   To be clear, the studies that show universal coverage would be cheaper are in the hundreds and have been done by non partisans over the last decade.  

    And, had you been watching c-span you would have seen dozens of hearing on health care up on capital hill.   Insurers, medical groups, doctors, economists on committee after committee up on capital hill testifying about the best way to drive down health care costs . Which by the way, always starts with getting everybody covered so the insured aren't having to pick up the bill for the uninsured. 

*To be clear had you watched c-span you would have seen literally thousands of hours of studies on this health care issue.* 

*  So it's simply a right wing lie & talking point to say that this is all being rushed through.  That is a lie.  This issue has been worked on for a decade and since President Obama took office he has brought all the players to capital hill and held hundreds of hours of meetings about how to best get this done.  *

    Problem being the mainstream media and right wingers as well as some on the left realize that the average American has the attention span of a gnat and if it's not American Idol , some goofy reality TV show , Nascar or sports Americans aren't watching. 

*That lets the pundits on both sides especially the right side,  get away with telling outright lies.  Because they know the American people most likely haven't been paying attention.  *

    To stop this politicians and citizens need to be able to sue for these lies being told. 
  Back in the day politicians did sue if a newspaper lied about them and often caused the newspapers to have to retract the lies and kept them in check in the future. 

   Perhaps we need to return to that policy and situate laws so that if a pundit is lying they can easily be taken to court and pay out big damages.  Because we certainly have a whole lot of lying going on on national TV. * Especially Fox news.  *








toomuchtime_ said:


> strollingbones said:
> 
> 
> > another factor that prevents discussion if the 'dumbing' of americans.....people wont or dont read or research anything....so they have to go by some trumped up party line...hiding behind partisan shit allows people to "think" they know what they are talking about when they only know what the are 'parroting' this concept applies to both parties and all people regardless of political party... we have become to lazy to govern ourselves...too lazy to read...we must be spoon feed facts by punits.
> ...


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Aug 20, 2009)

There are certain markers and keywords that can easily identify partisans.


----------



## G.T. (Aug 20, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> I do not.




Yea, enough said. I'll be sure to take what you say in the remaining posts in this thread with a grain of salt. Sea salt.


----------



## G.T. (Aug 20, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> There are certain markers and keywords that can easily identify partisans.



Yea, you can tell that because I harp on the mean-spirited, lying propoganda from right wingerz, that I don't support the death penalty, I don't hate abortion, I don't take my gun rights seriously, I'm not marrying in a catholic church in less than three weeks, etc.

No, geniuses like midnight marauder had me PINNED!! when I linked to an AP story.

Douchebaggery does, indeed, exist heavier on the right and yes, I say that with a straight face and all the while fostering many right winged views. Truth is truth. Sorry if you old and bitter fucks have nothing better to do than hate hate hate and invent boogymen. "oh noes!! the left!!"

Fucking pussies.


----------



## kwc57 (Aug 20, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> > Midnight Marauder said:
> ...



Since WND is one of the sources sited as acceptable just like Fox News, Weekly Standard, Washington Times and Rush by folks who whine about the LMSM.......and the fact that I've known of you from years on another board, I simply don't believe you don't know what WND is as it is linked to constantly by posters.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Aug 20, 2009)

wvpeach said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > KISS look at  Massachusetts.
> ...



There is no basis in fact or logic for claiming universal health insurance will drive down health care/insurance rates.  Government run/controlled health care/insurance can drive down health care/insurance rates by, to the extent the government controls the market, forcing providers, doctors, hospitals, etc., to accept lower payments and by rationing health care services in various ways, however, Congress could pass laws today that would force providers to accept lower payments and prevent insurance companies from providing high cost services without universal health care/insurance and without a government run plan and thereby significantly lower per capita health care costs.  HR 3200 already contains provisions to limit increases in insurance premiums from private insurers, and over time this will force providers to accept less money or the insurance companies to provide less coverage.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Aug 20, 2009)

kwc57 said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > kwc57 said:
> ...


I have never been aware of any such "list." Can you link me to it?


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Aug 20, 2009)

G.T. said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > There are certain markers and keywords that can easily identify partisans.
> ...


You're simply a leftist partisan, trying to claim to be non-partisan. And, you're a thin-skinned crybaby to boot!


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Aug 20, 2009)

G.T. said:


> old and bitter fucks


Oooooh! _*Ageism bigotry!*_ And even mis-aimed at that!

More hallmarks of the Obamaphile!


----------



## wvpeach (Aug 20, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > wvpeach said:
> ...




Well said maggie mae!  

   Well said and your right on!


----------



## G.T. (Aug 20, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> You're simply a leftist partisan, trying to claim to be non-partisan. And, you're a thin-skinned crybaby to boot!



And,

You're an old out-dated Idiot who is lead around byn his nose by guys like Rush Limbaugh, would give anything to give the man head; and if Rush ascribes "the evil left is doing ___ because their evil intention is _____" then that's your next story on the radio. 

That's right wing radio. An entire premise made up of an invisible boogy-man and exascerbated by guys playing you fucking dupes for chumps who will take their word as gospel and continue the "preach on, brotherman!!" mentality. 

It's so awful it makes me fucking sick to my stomach sometimes. Then I remember, I get laid. You don't. That much is prevalent.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Aug 20, 2009)

G.T. said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > You're simply a leftist partisan, trying to claim to be non-partisan. And, you're a thin-skinned crybaby to boot!
> ...


This is how ignorant you are. I am neither old, nor an a talk radio listener. But as we all see by your OP, facts mean zilch to you.

And idiot, "sea salt" is NO different than any other food salt with two large exceptions. It's sodium chloride without the benefit of iodine, and idiots pay three times as much for it!


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Aug 20, 2009)

G.T. said:


> old out-dated


It's little wonder the elderly fear Obama's health scare program, with *ageism bigots* such as yourself part of his cult!

Why do you hate old people?


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 20, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > By the way Factcheck.org or whatever the fuck it's called doesn't tell the WHOLE truth. The bill doesn't say it will cover illegal immigrants, but it doesn't say it wouldn't either. The bill does provide cuts in Medicare,( 500 billion in the next ten years) which will effect senior citizens. Oh but factcheck doesn't mention that huh? How convenient.
> ...



I've posted the truth about the Heller amendment for YOU, specifically, and you choose to ignore it, as does the Just Say No blogosphere which is literally afire with attacks concerning that amendment.

The facts are these:  

The only way _anyone_ can get free health care under the existing proposals is to get *"affordability credits"* to pay for their health care. Two sections in the House bill already address this:

Sec. 242 states that in order to be eligible for *affordability credits *a person must be "an individual who is lawfully present in a State in the United States."

Section 246 states "*NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS." **Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States."*

Both of those sections basically render the Heller amendment moot, since undocumented aliens are clearly NOT covered. 

Finally, the Heller amendment would have generated intrusive investigation of _ONLY_ those who opted for the public plan, and not those who opt for private plans creating a blatant discriminatory practice against poorer Americans.


----------



## wvpeach (Aug 20, 2009)

toomuchtime_ said:


> There is no basis in fact or logic for claiming universal health insurance will drive down health care/insurance rates.  Government run/controlled health care/insurance can drive down health care/insurance rates by, to the extent the government controls the market, forcing providers, doctors, hospitals, etc., to accept lower payments and by rationing health care services in various ways, however, Congress could pass laws today that would force providers to accept lower payments and prevent insurance companies from providing high cost services without universal health care/insurance and without a government run plan and thereby significantly lower per capita health care costs.  HR 3200 already contains provisions to limit increases in insurance premiums from private insurers, and over time this will force providers to accept less money or the insurance companies to provide less coverage.




   Uh, excuse me toomuchtime.........................  Did you go back and read your own post? 

   Just saying?   You seem to have made several of my points very, very well. 

    Yep we have to set rates on drugs and procedures to bend the cost curve in medical care.   It's done in other nations and works very well.

    And it seems your all for HR 3200 toomuchtime which by the by the way includes a public option to drive down costs from private insurers.  

    By your post seems your for it.  Good for you toomuchtime.


----------



## G.T. (Aug 20, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> This is how ignorant you are. I am neither old, nor an a talk radio listener. But as we all see by your OP, facts mean zilch to you.
> 
> And idiot, "sea salt" is NO different than any other food salt with two large exceptions. It's sodium chloride without the benefit of iodine, and idiots pay three times as much for it!



 And you're ignorant of my "partisanship," and bears shit.....wherever the fuck they want. PS, I don't use added salt to my meals.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Aug 20, 2009)

wvpeach said:


> Not true .  Obviously you don't watch much c-span.  You should start toomuchtime since you have so much time on your hands c-span is a good place to spend it.
> 
> Study after study has been done for decades about the economic benefits to the entire country if we adopt  universal healthcare.  Major organizations , universities and the AMA , including the states, all know universal health care will drive down costs and save money after being implemented for the first couple of years.  .................
> 
> ...



You are confusing universal health insurance with government run/controlled health insurance.  Universal health care/insurance by itself will increase health care costs, but government run/controlled health care/insurance can lower health care/insurance costs by forcing providers to accept less money and by rationing health care services, but the government can apply these measures to force health care/insurance costs down without providing universal health care/insurance.  

The fact that even after watching all those thousands of hours of C-Span you remain confused about these two concepts, universal health care and government controlled health insurance, is clear evidence the Dems are trying to force this bill through long before even such a devoted researcher as yourself has been able to understand what it is about.


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 20, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> strollingbones said:
> 
> 
> > another factor that prevents discussion if the 'dumbing' of americans.....people wont or dont read or research anything....
> ...



Oh goody, this is the year conservatives are going to start caring about what happens on Indian reservations instead of pocketing whatever private wealth they have? (Jack Abramoff, Inc.) Can't wait to hear more.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Aug 20, 2009)

wvpeach said:


> And it seems your all for HR 3200 toomuchtime which by the by the way _includes a public option_ to drive down costs from private insurers.


You can never, EVER drive down costs by greatly increasing demand without greatly increasing supply. The exact opposite will happen. Why is everyone ignoring the definitely non-partisan CBO these days?

And it's not a public _option_, it's mandatory. Or, they tax the piss out of you. Penalize you.


----------



## G.T. (Aug 20, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> It's little wonder the elderly fear Obama's health scare program, with *ageism bigots* such as yourself part of his cult!
> 
> Why do you hate old people?


I have no hate in my blood except for dishonest and/or mean spirited people. 

Old people are fine, just annoying. Stuck in their ways as human evolution occurs around them. They should move over or get run the fuck over. Contribute to discussions, don't just spite anything new. (evil wibwaws)


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Aug 20, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > strollingbones said:
> ...


First, I am not a conservative. Second, I don't give two red rat's asses what happens on indian reservations. But you, as a liberal, should.

They have third-world health care that is run by the government. It's horrendous by all accounts. Shouldn't they fix that first? Prove to us they can run a health care program?


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Aug 20, 2009)

G.T. said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > It's little wonder the elderly fear Obama's health scare program, with *ageism bigots* such as yourself part of his cult!
> ...


And I have none at all, for anyone! But it's clear you hate yourself, if you read the bolded part of your quote really closely!





> Old people are fine, just annoying. Stuck in their ways as human evolution occurs around them. They should move over or get run the fuck over.


And you want them to hurry the fuck up and DIE already.

Bigot.


----------



## G.T. (Aug 20, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> First, I am not a conservative. Second, I don't give two red rat's asses what happens on indian reservations. But you, as a liberal, should.
> 
> They have third-world health care that is run by the government. It's horrendous by all accounts. Shouldn't they fix that first? Prove to us they can run a health care program?



I'm sure there's no outside factors such as where their Doctors went to school, how different their diets/lifestyles are, etc. Must all be that evil liberal boogyman stuff. There can't be any other explanation.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Aug 20, 2009)

wvpeach said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > There is no basis in fact or logic for claiming universal health insurance will drive down health care/insurance rates.  Government run/controlled health care/insurance can drive down health care/insurance rates by, to the extent the government controls the market, forcing providers, doctors, hospitals, etc., to accept lower payments and by rationing health care services in various ways, however, Congress could pass laws today that would force providers to accept lower payments and prevent insurance companies from providing high cost services without universal health care/insurance and without a government run plan and thereby significantly lower per capita health care costs.  HR 3200 already contains provisions to limit increases in insurance premiums from private insurers, and over time this will force providers to accept less money or the insurance companies to provide less coverage.
> ...



I was just trying to help you overcome your confusion about the effects of universal health care/insurance and government controlled health care/insurance on costs and how there is no necessary relationship between them, but obviously I failed.


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 20, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> > Midnight Marauder said:
> ...



Then how come you still appear to be so unenlightened? If you have spent 20 years doing research on the Internet, you wouldn't have made that last truly stupid comment. 

snopes.com: Al Gore Invented the Internet


----------



## G.T. (Aug 20, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> Bigot.



It doesn't really effect me what you think I want. Me and my Gram are good friends, but she's also not an anti-"times are changin!!" moron. 

(i dont want people who disagree with me to die, fuckin dick.).


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 20, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Midnight Marauder said:
> ...



So where does your regurgitation come from?


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Aug 20, 2009)

G.T. said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > First, I am not a conservative. Second, I don't give two red rat's asses what happens on indian reservations. But you, as a liberal, should.
> ...


Why don't you study it and find out? Have some honesty. Expect and demand the government FIX it no matter what the specific problems are. Make them show competence in driving a tricycle instead of handing them the keys to the bus?

Simpleton moron.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Aug 20, 2009)

G.T. said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > Bigot.
> ...


So is Obama and his "gram." But as he says, she's a "typical white person."

You think old people should get out of the way or get run over. Wait, you don't just think it, you said it.

Have you told your gram that?


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 20, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Midnight Marauder said:
> ...



Which is also bullshit. For one thing the HOUSE doesn't enact bills. So it has yet to "push through" anything, if my translation of "bumush" is correct.

Second point, if "nobody read it," then why all the point-by-point conflict during and immediately after the House passed its version? Make some sense, cowboy.


----------



## G.T. (Aug 20, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> Why don't you study it and find out? Have some honesty. Expect and demand the government FIX it no matter what the specific problems are. Make them show competence in driving a tricycle instead of handing them the keys to the bus?
> 
> Simpleton moron.




There you go pegging me for someone who's in support of the Gubbamint regardless of tactic. No, you're just mad that I called assholes, assholes, so I'm an automatic leftist in your book. Giant book it is, too. Everyone who isn't down the line is an evil leftist that the country should be ohhh so afraid of. Right>?


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Aug 20, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > kwc57 said:
> ...


It was a joke, stupid. That's what the ROFL icon means.

And here we go again, linking to a partisan "fact" site. Snopes! Love it!


----------



## kwc57 (Aug 20, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> > Midnight Marauder said:
> ...



Sure, just as soon as you link us to your proof that the AP has been sucking Obama's dick since day one.  See how that works?


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Aug 20, 2009)

G.T. said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > Why don't you study it and find out? Have some honesty. Expect and demand the government FIX it no matter what the specific problems are. Make them show competence in driving a tricycle instead of handing them the keys to the bus?
> ...


I'm not "mad" at all. I send dings to dishonest idiots who try to cloak themselves as "non-partisan." Don't like it? Tough noogies.

Fucking crybaby.


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 20, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Midnight Marauder said:
> ...



Then take the straw off your signature.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Aug 20, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...


There's a thread devoted to it, where you can debate it there.

No Country

Why are you in favor of limiting my speech?


----------



## G.T. (Aug 20, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> So is Obama and his "gram." But as he says, she's a "typical white person."
> 
> You think old people should get out of the way or get run over. Wait, you don't just think it, you said it.
> 
> Have you told your gram that?



My gram doesnt fight new technology and ways of doing things, hence "getting out of the way" and when she disagrees w/something, she discusses it maturely, unlike Radio Gods who provide : "it's the evil leftist swine conspiracy."


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Aug 20, 2009)

G.T. said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > So is Obama and his "gram." But as he says, she's a "typical white person."
> ...


Why do you hate old people and want them dead? I certainly don't.

Why are you a ageism bigot?


----------



## G.T. (Aug 20, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> I'm not "mad" at all. I send dings to dishonest idiots who try to cloak themselves as "non-partisan." Don't like it? Tough noogies.
> 
> Fucking crybaby.



I could care less how you feel, it's just fun that you're engaging me the way cupcakes like you have been engaging people on the net for years and it's predictable. Don't like it? Lick mah bawwws


----------



## G.T. (Aug 20, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> Why do you hate old people and want them dead? I certainly don't.
> 
> Why are you a ageism bigot?




 yepp.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Aug 20, 2009)

G.T. said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not "mad" at all. I send dings to dishonest idiots who try to cloak themselves as "non-partisan." Don't like it? Tough noogies.
> ...


I am "engaging" your obvious dishonesty and your complete lack of any grasp of irony. Oh and your total, towering lack of intellectual honesty, even with yourself.

You want old people to just hurry up and die already. Ageism bigots like you make me ashamed I joined you in voting for Obama!


----------



## Liability (Aug 20, 2009)

strollingbones said:


> honest discussion would take the admission by americans that we do not have the best medical system in the world....destroying an allusion that many cling to.



Why do you persist in saying such silly things?

There is no problem for most Americans in admitting that we might not have the "best" medical system in the world.  On the other hand, much of the proposed tinkering would make it a whole lot worse.

It also isn't a "system."  It is a business.  And the problem I see with most of the chuckleheads on the left who insist that our medical delivery "system" is "bad," stems from the fact that they abhor "business."

The word you wanted, by the way, was illusion.  An allusion is something else entirely.

What we have in the health care delivery business is actually pretty good.  It may not be perfect, but that is not the same thing as "bad."  The proposed tinkering could easily make it "bad" -- as in the kind of crap they have in Canada.



strollingbones said:


> most industrialized countries see medical care as providing security for their people...not the u.s.  people who cling to the "rationed" medical care are in denial of the current system that rations medical care according to profit.  should health care be profitable?  or should hmos be deciding health care over doctors?  is it right to deny advance treatments in hopes of the patient dying and going away?  that is what insurance companies engage in now.



More overwrought nonsense.  YOUR porposed "system" will unquestionably engage in rationing, too.  The only question will be HOW "they" decide how to apportion the scarce resources.  The "they" will be largely government beauracrats.   Oh, and thanks.  That's great.  And their bases for suich rationing dcisions will be partly economic and partly something else (I won't spell it all out just yet, but use your imagination).  ANd the result WILL, unquestionably, be that we ALL get crappy medical services.



strollingbones said:


> if you question allotting funds for treatment of the old....then you must question funds for treatment of all..should extreme premmies be saved?  there are moral and ethical questions most will not face...so there will never be an "honest" discussion



Again, the "rationing" implicit in the new "system" you call for will be based on something other than profits, perhaps, but it will still entail a great deal of worrying over costs and expenses.  

Why don't you just come out and say, clearly and without equivocation, what it is about the present medical delivery business in the United States that offends you so?


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 20, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...



Could you post some current statistics to support your contentions? I recently read an interview with Governor Romney on Human Events, and while he repeats the usual Republican spin about universal care (and public health care insurance), he also defends his own plan which is incredibly similar.

Romney Attacks Obamacare - HUMAN EVENTS


----------



## wvpeach (Aug 20, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> wvpeach said:
> 
> 
> > And it seems your all for HR 3200 toomuchtime which by the by the way _includes a public option_ to drive down costs from private insurers.
> ...




      True to a certain extent.   My son is a doctor and my daughter a pharmacist.   I know a bit about the medical profession.   True we have a shortage of doctors and nurses in this nation.   That shortage exists now and will only be made worse by universal care.  

   But that doesn't mean we should allow that shortage to continue .  What it means is that we have not been smart enough and forward thinking enough to provide tuition relief for doctors and nurses at the levels we should have been doing all along. 

   Tell me midnight.

   If it becomes apparent that Americans will starve to death if we don't start growing more food then wouldn't you say we have a logical, ethical and moral responsibility to get out and grow more food so we don't have Americans starving to death? 

   Yes................... Yes we should you say midnight?  

   Well, then it's the exact same thing with health care facilities, doctors and nurses.  People die in this country from lack of medical care.   I know two people personally that died because they could not get medical care.  And through no fault of their own.  Their steel plant had closed up and moved over seas leaving them with no medical care when they happened to come down with cancer and heart disease.  

* You don't throw up your hands and say we can't do it when it comes to life and death.  
  You figure out how it can be done.  *


----------



## G.T. (Aug 20, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> I am "engaging" your obvious dishonesty and your complete lack of any grasp of irony. Oh and your total, towering lack of intellectual honesty, even with yourself.
> 
> You want old people to just hurry up and die already. Ageism bigots like you make me ashamed I joined you in voting for Obama!




Well, 

When you're wrong on all accounts in one post, I could ignore it......tell the truth which subsequently, and baselessly, is called a lie, or continue on playing with ya. Hmm. I have to ponder this.


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 20, 2009)

wvpeach said:


> Not true .  Obviously you don't watch much c-span.  You should start toomuchtime since you have so much time on your hands c-span is a good place to spend it.
> 
> Study after study has been done for decades about the economic benefits to the entire country if we adopt  universal healthcare.  Major organizations , universities and the AMA , including the states, all know universal health care will drive down costs and save money after being implemented for the first couple of years.  .................
> 
> ...



I also constantly recommend C-Span as a valuable source. In fact, you don't even need to watch/listen to any of it. Just go to their home page C-span.org, and there are hundreds of links from which to choose on a variety of topics, health care being just one. But, Peach, you can bet that if just ONE of those links even hints of support for anything Obama, the HATE BRIGADE will begin dismissing C-Span just as they now dismiss the AP over...exactly what, is anyone's guess.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Aug 20, 2009)

wvpeach said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > wvpeach said:
> ...


It doesn't mean we nationalize it and put the government in total control of it. Right? It doesn't mean we greatly exxaggerate the problem with lousy analogies like you just did, then demonize all opponents as much as possible.

The mantra of  "the anti-healthcare crowd" is dishonest on its face. *No one's* against health care reform. The people are simply against _this_ far over-reaching, Marxist PLAN.

_Instead of fixing the leaky roof, replacing the sagging steps, fixing the faulty plumbing and electrical, and changing out the bath water, THIS plan proposes to tear the whole house down and replace it with a new, trillion dollar one that still will have a leaky roof, sagging steps, bad plumbing and electrical, and throws the baby out with the bath water!

AND tries to pack millions more into it without any increase in square footage!_ 

The plan makes no sense, and the fast, hard sell just didn't fly.

So now, following Saul Alinsky's rules for radicals, they have to try to demonize those who resist, by claiming they are "against reform, against health care" and displaying their ageism bigotry by calling them "old, bitter fucks" with no evidence to support any of it whatsoever!

See?


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 20, 2009)

kwc57 said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > kwc57 said:
> ...



The home of *The Birthers*, after all. How could they miss that?


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Aug 20, 2009)

G.T. said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > I am "engaging" your obvious dishonesty and your complete lack of any grasp of irony. Oh and your total, towering lack of intellectual honesty, even with yourself.
> ...


I had such a decision as well, after reading your OP here. I decided to slap you around on it a little. And since you're such a wailing crybaby, it's been fun! So I keep it up!

You however, said about 30 posts ago you were going to take the rest of my posts here with a grain of sea salt. How's that working out for you as you soil your diapers?

And you've already made your hatred and disdain for old people known. So it's been educational to anyone who searches up *ageism bigotry* on google, and sees your sterling examples!


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Aug 20, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> > Midnight Marauder said:
> ...


THAT would be why I don't know about it! That entire topic is as idiotic as every other conspiracy theory, and I don't pay it any attention!


----------



## G.T. (Aug 20, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> I had such a decision as well, after reading your OP here. I decided to *slap you around *on it a little. And since you're such a wailing crybaby, it's been fun! So I keep it up!
> 
> You however, said about 30 posts ago you were going to take the rest of my posts here with a grain of sea salt. *How's that working out for you *as you soil your diapers?
> 
> And you've already made your hatred and disdain for old people known. So it's been educational to anyone who searches up *ageism bigotry* on google, and sees your sterling examples!


Could ---  never--happen. 

It's working out pretty well, actually.


----------



## wvpeach (Aug 20, 2009)

I also constantly recommend C-Span as a valuable source. In fact, you don't even need to watch/listen to any of it. Just go to their home page C-span.org, and there are hundreds of links from which to choose on a variety of topics, health care being just one. But, Peach, you can bet that if just ONE of those links even hints of support for anything Obama, the HATE BRIGADE will begin dismissing C-Span just as they now dismiss the AP over...exactly what, is anyone's guess.[/QUOTE]


    So true Maggie !   I listen to Washington Journal in the mornings now that I am mostly retired.    You know that call in show on c-span.  I am sure your familiar with it. 
   Anyhoo, just as at these townhall meetings by far right wing nut cases call in far more than democrats or independents do on most days.   C-spans phone lines are over ran with right wing partisans , birthers, claiming president Obama is not president.  Nut cases hollering about this becoming a socialist nation , on and on they go.   The right wing nut cases are way more vocal about calling in to c-span and c-span reguarly has that disgusting Mechelle Malkin and other right wingers on the program who proceed to spout lies.   Yet right wingers call in constantly complaining because they say c-span is biased.  

    Why do they seem to think that one would ask? 
   Because they ever dare to let one opinion be heard that does no agree with the nutty right wingers.  

   Thus I have been writing every congress person and senator I can get ahold of along with president Obama and encouraging them to forget these people and proceed without paying them any more heed.  

   You can't talk sense to a rock and most of the right wingers seem to have no more mental capabilities than a rock.


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 20, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> wvpeach said:
> 
> 
> > And it seems your all for HR 3200 toomuchtime which by the by the way _includes a public option_ to drive down costs from private insurers.
> ...



Er, the "demand" part already exists. The "supply" part comes with the number of uninsured who will henceforth become insured by some sort of insurance pool, newly _added to _the existing industry. As far as I know, the CBO has addressed the potential deficit increases, and not supply and demand within the industry. I believe Peach was talking about driving down individual costs.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Aug 20, 2009)

G.T. said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > I had such a decision as well, after reading your OP here. I decided to *slap you around *on it a little. And since you're such a wailing crybaby, it's been fun! So I keep it up!
> ...


Here's how stupid you are. While you are here nursing this thread, crybabying all over it, I am also slapping around other partisan hacks in another thread who are *trying to blame Obama for the uptick in violence in Iraq!* Only your claim to be non-partisan could be more idiotic than that!

Word and deed. So many hacks, so little time!


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Aug 20, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Er, the "demand" part already exists. The "supply" part comes with the number of uninsured who will henceforth become insured by some sort of insurance pool, newly _added to _the existing industry. As far as I know, the CBO has addressed the potential deficit increases, and not supply and demand within the industry. I believe Peach was talking about driving down individual costs.


It's the other way around, dummy. Have you not been listening to Obama, Frank, Pelosi, et al?

The greatly increased DEMAND comes when you enroll 47 million more people, and have not the nurses, doctors, facilities or supplies to handle the increased demand. And this bill? Addresses none of that at all.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Aug 20, 2009)

> You can't talk sense to a rock and most of the right wingers seem to have no more mental capabilities than a rock.



Tall talk from someone goostepping behind das Fuhrer, Lord Obama, no mater the agenda.  You're not exhibitting much in the way of independent thought yourself.


----------



## G.T. (Aug 20, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> Here's how stupid you are. While you are here nursing this thread, crybabying all over it, I am also slapping around other partisan hacks in another thread who are *trying to blame Obama for the uptick in violence in Iraq!* Only your claim to be non-partisan could be more idiotic than that!
> 
> Word and deed. So many hacks, so little time!



Here's how stupid you are, since it hasn't been made obvious for you. I'll stop batting at you now like a cat does to a furball. 

QUESTION: 

Which of my political views make me one side, over the other, in-terms of being a partisan.

I mean, if you're going to label me something, fuck it, let's discuss based on its actual merits. 

What views make me which-sided? G'luck. I already know your response.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Aug 20, 2009)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> > You can't talk sense to a rock and most of the right wingers seem to have no more mental capabilities than a rock.
> 
> 
> Tall talk from someone goostepping behind das Fuhrer, Lord Obama, no mater the agenda.


Nonsense.


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 20, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Midnight Marauder said:
> ...



Hmmm, let's see. You're not a Republican; you're not a conservative; you don't read newspapers, you're critical of cable news (not here, but surely elsewhere) you don't read online blogs and therefore don't know what World Net Daily is; you seem to have rigid opinions based on what, no one knows; you express concern about American Indian healthcare in one breath, then don't give a rat's ass in another. 

So, the $64,000 question we ALL want answered is: What ARE you? One of them space aliens from up yonder somewhere? If that's you in your avatar, could be... Just askin'.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Aug 20, 2009)

Driving down costs?  So.. doctors, nurses, drugs, syringes, cotton balls, blood, etc. are going to miracuously cost less now?  Seeems to me the only cost in healthcare is treating the sick... so driving down the costs would, barring the afforementioned, mean less treatments for the sick.
Reminds me of progressives like Wilson and talk about ridding ourselves of the "feebles".
Yeah, this is all a great idea.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Aug 20, 2009)

Sorry kids, none of tis crap adds up.  Clearly the majority of Americans don't want what is being foisted.. so.. what's the REAL agenda?


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Aug 20, 2009)

G.T. said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > Here's how stupid you are. While you are here nursing this thread, crybabying all over it, I am also slapping around other partisan hacks in another thread who are *trying to blame Obama for the uptick in violence in Iraq!* Only your claim to be non-partisan could be more idiotic than that!
> ...


See, you're getting all upset now. I love it when a plan comes together!

Please go back and read your OP, and try to see the irony in it. Then read all your posts here, which have been nothing more than far-left regurgitated, spoon fed talking points from places like the DU, sweetened with inaccurate, ad-hom demonization religiously following Saul Alinsky's rules for radicals, then you have answered your own question.

Tack on your *ageism bigotry*, and the fact that you use vehicular manslaughter analogies against old people, and the leftist partisan hack label fits you to a T.


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 20, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Midnight Marauder said:
> ...



Yep, everything is "leftist partisan" unless it's an analysis of something generated in that empty thing you carry around on top of your head. 

Ironically, I posted the Snopes link in response to your _<gasp>_ strawman comment, hypocrite.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Aug 20, 2009)

Are you saying Al Gore DIDN'T invent the internet?  Next thing you'll be telling me is that Michael JAckson is dead.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Aug 20, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> So, the $64,000 question we ALL want answered is: What ARE you?


The actual rare, hardly ever seen, independent thinker.

Who indeed, not that long ago used to wear the mask and the tights -- stopping purse snatchers, helping old ladies across the street, base jumping off buildings and towers at midnight, and running from the law who were trying to catch me for two years.


----------



## G.T. (Aug 20, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> See, you're getting all upset now. I love it when a plan comes together!
> 
> Please go back and read your OP, and try to see the irony in it. Then read all your posts here, which have been nothing more than far-left regurgitated, spoon fed talking points from places like the DU, sweetened with inaccurate, ad-hom demonization religiously following Saul Alinsky's rules for radicals, then you have answered your own question.
> 
> Tack on your *ageism bigotry*, and the fact that you use vehicular manslaughter analogies against old people, and the leftist partisan hack label fits you to a T.



Umm,

Here's your issue. You can't decipher my disagreement with the right's tactics in expressing their views and dismissing the left's with my ACTUAL VIEWS ON ISSUES. Once you can tell the difference, let me know and maybe I'll share some of those views which are, essentially, what determine whether I'm a partisan (boogy boogy) or not. 

You seem to think that these are two opposing football teams, and if you know one side's "people" you play for the other. 

No, I just hate dirtbags and I happen to listen to talk radio on my rides home hence my feelings for them, as people, NOT their views. 

I guess you won't learn the different unless it was tattooed on your forehead, but I digress. My views on issues determine my partisanship, not my distaste for the political discourse going on between the big ole children. Pretty simple stuff.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Aug 20, 2009)

G.T. said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > See, you're getting all upset now. I love it when a plan comes together!
> ...


Now you have admitted you're partisan. Progress!

Now just embrace it and stop lying about it.

And work on the *ageism bigotry* thing. That's about the most ugly hate there is.


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 20, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Midnight Marauder said:
> ...



Actually, I'm one of the few who probably even clicked on it and listened to it. Who said anything about free speech? I also watched the video you and KittenKoder did. Not too shabby for cowboy propaganda. See? Strum away.


----------



## G.T. (Aug 20, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> Now you have admitted you're partisan. Progress!
> 
> Now just embrace it and stop lying about it.
> 
> And work on the *ageism bigotry* thing. That's about the most ugly hate there is.




One more time for the death-marked old man. Which of my views on issues make me lean one way or the other? If you can't answer that, you got nothin. Sorry, all of your mumbo-jumbo rhetoric can't change that fact.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Aug 20, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> cowboy propaganda.


If there's points of it you think you can debate, have at it! I linked you to the thread!


----------



## WillowTree (Aug 20, 2009)

wvpeach said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > KISS look at  Massachusetts.
> ...



These are all nice answers, polite and nicely worded but in no way address the problem of illegal aliens.. and a progressive tax system.. so here we go again.. we will be obligated to pay for 1/2 of Mexico's health care because congress refuses to enforce or immigration laws, secondly roughly 50% of the American public actually pay federal income tax, the others do not and that includes 1/2 of Mexico.. It's an immoral burden on the 50% who will be expected to pay for,, we will be the equivalent of slaves.. or yoked oxen. oh! and just to add they contemplate a 500 billion dollar cut in medicare, so seniors will suffer, and illegals will benefit from that suffering. there is no other way to see it. democrats have thrown the elderly to the wolves in favor of illegals.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Aug 20, 2009)

G.T. said:


> death-marked old man.


Inaccurate again, and more *ageism bigotry* on display!


----------



## G.T. (Aug 20, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > death-marked old man.
> ...



Oh noes!! Booo!


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Aug 20, 2009)

G.T. said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


You really should seek counseling on why you hate old people so much, and want them all to die.

And should also work on your ASSumptions. You have no idea how old anyone here is, and the only reason it might matter to you is, your bigotry.

Correct? Yes.


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 20, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Er, the "demand" part already exists. The "supply" part comes with the number of uninsured who will henceforth become insured by some sort of insurance pool, newly _added to _the existing industry. As far as I know, the CBO has addressed the potential deficit increases, and not supply and demand within the industry. I believe Peach was talking about driving down individual costs.
> ...



I think college credits proposed (but not yet debated) in an education bill will encourage more nurses and PAs into the system. Much of the bill concerns preventive medicine, rather than specialized, which those two disciplines can easily handle. Then there's all those docs who get their education only to realize they can make ten times more by consulting lobbyists instead of actually practicing. Yes, it's a whole different problem, but it also opens up a whole new area for employment opportunities. This, like everything else, isn't going to have stellar results overnight.


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 20, 2009)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Sorry kids, none of tis crap adds up.  Clearly the majority of Americans don't want what is being foisted.. so.. what's the REAL agenda?



The reason it appears most Americans don't want it is because once again, the Republican Noise Machine has won.


----------



## WillowTree (Aug 20, 2009)

wvpeach said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > Krauthammer predicted this on Sunday.
> ...


*and you said you wanted an honest discusson nobody here ever said we should stand idly by and watch them die.. how about making them pay for their care instead of sending the money home to bolster the Mexican economy>> You want Mexico to thrive while the US of KKKA goes bankrupt? How is that moral doyathink????*



I don't buy no bullshit MORAL crap from no low down demoncwat.


----------



## G.T. (Aug 20, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> You really should seek counseling on why you hate old people so much, and *want them all to die*.
> 
> And should also work on your *ASSumptions*. You have no idea how old anyone here is, and the only reason it might matter to you is, your bigotry.
> 
> Correct? Yes.


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 20, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Midnight Marauder said:
> ...



Ironically, the radical right organizations responsible for the wild protests have been using the Alinsky model. I think Dick Armey even alluded to that on MTP Sunday.


----------



## veritas (Aug 20, 2009)

wow!! Maggie mae and WVpeach are on fire with facts!!!

Demand is there. It's the boondoggle of delivery crapped up by insurance that is the problem. People aren't suddenly going to get sick if they are covered. So the demand angle is fallacious and dishonest.

I have a friend who would get insurance if someone would sell it to him. But he has pre-existing conditions, not really.......he went through several shock traumas and came out of them like the bionic man and is an incredible specimen. He has a dangerous job and then some lady hit him with her car.  He was shock trauma'd to a hospital, and because he wasn't insured he got crappy care and was released before he was stable. He got cellulitis and went back to the hospital and they told him to go away, then he had to go back because he almost lost his leg to the cellulitis and then it took a month in hospital to get him back to stable. Is this a good thing? Crappy care because of no insurance and then a month of bed space.? The hospital had to eat it. But he struggled for 4 years because of their practices and is still dealing with a dead tendon in his foot and out of pocket like 50k for that. He works, he has a rare skill, but isn't insurable. So the insurance industry is locking him out. He'd gladly pay into the schip in the state here, but he is single and has no children so he isn't eligible. He was out of the work force for several years tending to his injury on his own when he could have been a productive member of society and paying taxes, there are very few people who know how to do what he does, the demand is high for his skills.  

Insurance fucks with every aspect of our lives and makes it worse, clogs the courts and slows down production and steals from the tax base.


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 20, 2009)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Are you saying Al Gore DIDN'T invent the internet?  Next thing you'll be telling me is that Michael JAckson is dead.



Didn't read the link, I see. But in truth, Al Gore _WAS_ the one who pushed the importance of the information highway. And aren't you glad he did? He just never claimed to "invent" it in the true sense of the word. It always was and still is a lame-ass embellishment of truth.


----------



## WillowTree (Aug 20, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > KISS look at  Massachusetts.
> ...



phuck YEW


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 20, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > So, the $64,000 question we ALL want answered is: What ARE you?
> ...



Mighty Mouse?


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Aug 20, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry kids, none of tis crap adds up.  Clearly the majority of Americans don't want what is being foisted.. so.. what's the REAL agenda?
> ...


Oh, you're wrong again my Dear.

The Dems WILL pass this, no matter what. They are invested in Obama doing well and they WILL fall on their re-election swords to get this passed. They don't NEED any GOP votes or support to do so, so blaming the GOP for the trouble they're having is hugely misplaced blame.

If you must blame someone, blame the blue-dogs who stopped this from getting passed before the recess! The rest of the Party is, that's why they're talking about special rules for this vote -- simple majority -- to get this passed without the GOP _or_ their blue-dogs!

We're going to get this bill, I've never had any doubts about that.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Aug 20, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...




Keep blaming boogeymen! That "non-partisan" G.T. will be ALL over you!


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 20, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> wvpeach said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...



Immigration laws will be coming. Shall we get past this controversy first? Trying to link the two is counterproductive.


----------



## wvpeach (Aug 20, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...





  Now I wouldn't call your behavior very lady like .   Would you Willow? 

   Or is that not a consideration for you?


----------



## WillowTree (Aug 20, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



phuck yew!


----------



## WillowTree (Aug 20, 2009)

so I am correct illegals will receive care because the democrats refuse to allow anyone to verify legal status. end of story. you can't have it both ways. either verify legal status or stfu democrats.. 500 billion dollar cuts from medicare + refusal to veryify legal status == taking from seniors and giving to illegals.


----------



## WillowTree (Aug 20, 2009)

wvpeach said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



don't give a shit what you call it. Maggie knows..


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 20, 2009)

veritas said:


> wow!! Maggie mae and WVpeach are on fire with facts!!!
> 
> Demand is there. It's the boondoggle of delivery crapped up by insurance that is the problem. People aren't suddenly going to get sick if they are covered. So the demand angle is fallacious and dishonest.
> 
> ...



Just one of tens of thousands of horror stories. I have my own, which doesn't involve a painful illness, but hospital overcharging Medicare--because they can. There was someone on a panel sponsored by Health Affairs on C-Span2 this morning, and he was discussing the same thing in my personal complaint. When you go to the hospital for lab tests, you literally get charged an arm and a leg because you are shuttled through a half-dozen tiers of fully staffed hospital offices before you actually get to the one where the tests are done. And the tests wind up being the least expensive of the entire trip.


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 20, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Soggy in NOLA said:
> ...



They can't even get a simple majority without the Blue Dogs and with Kennedy and Byrd out of commission. If anything passes at all, it will simply be a regulatory overhaul of the insurance industry.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Aug 20, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...


They will appease enough of the blue dogs, sweeten the pot for them and their districts enough, and will get a very few GOP votes the same way. For an example, see the stimulus.

It's going to be passed.


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 20, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Midnight Marauder said:
> ...



Really? Recognize anything here?

From Alinsky's Rules for Radicals:

Tactics are those conscious deliberate acts by which human beings live with each other and deal with the world around them. ... Here our concern is with the tactic of taking; how the Have-Nots can take power away from the Haves." p.126 

Always remember the first rule of power tactics (pps.127-134): 

1. "Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have."

2. "Never go outside the expertise of your people. When an action or tactic is outside the experience of the people, the result is confusion, fear and retreat.... [and] the collapse of communication.

3. "Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy. Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.) 

4. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity."

5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."

6. "A good tactic is one your people enjoy." 

7. "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time...."

8. "Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose."

9. "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself." 

10. "The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign."

11. "If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside... every positive has its negative." 

12. "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative." 

13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.  In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and 'frozen.'... 

     "...any target can always say, 'Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?' When your 'freeze the target,' you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments.... Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the 'others' come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target...'


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Aug 20, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...


Yes, that's exactly what the far-Left is doing. Hence the recognition!


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 20, 2009)

wvpeach said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



It's how wittle wiwwow aways adwessses me. (You probably haven't seen her baby talk yet.)


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 20, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> so I am correct illegals will receive care because the democrats refuse to allow anyone to verify legal status. end of story. you can't have it both ways. either verify legal status or stfu democrats.. 500 billion dollar cuts from medicare + refusal to veryify legal status == taking from seniors and giving to illegals.



If someone without legal documents applies for health care assistance, it will be known whether he/she is here illegally and would be deported. It's a fucking no-brainer, woman.


----------



## wvpeach (Aug 20, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> wvpeach said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...




    Haven't known Willow Tree long but it's fast becoming apparent she is not worth knowing.


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 20, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Midnight Marauder said:
> ...



So how can that be when at least in some of these town hall meetings, the speaker (presumed to be an evil far-leftist) is shouted down and not allowed to speak. Make sense, cowboy. Second request.


----------



## WillowTree (Aug 20, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > so I am correct illegals will receive care because the democrats refuse to allow anyone to verify legal status. end of story. you can't have it both ways. either verify legal status or stfu democrats.. 500 billion dollar cuts from medicare + refusal to veryify legal status == taking from seniors and giving to illegals.
> ...



phuck yew!


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Aug 20, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...




You've never watched, or attended any of these meetings have you. You're simply babbling regurgitated nonsense again! And _following_ Alinksy's rules yourself! Don't you see that?


----------



## WillowTree (Aug 20, 2009)

wvpeach said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > wvpeach said:
> ...



good,, then don't bother..


----------



## WillowTree (Aug 20, 2009)

Here's the real deal,, The honest truth.

Illegals steal identification to land jobs, to buy homes, with stolen ID they will be enrolled at the public's expense in your socialized medical care. Your government owned government run health care and americans will be expected to foot the bill for it. so take your morality manta and place it where the moon don't shine,, same thing with your "lets have an honest discussion mantra.".

Illegal immigrants turn to identity theft - Security- msnbc.com


so until and unless you are willing to E verify some ones legality I don't want you blowing demoncwat smoke up my ass cause that dog don't hunt.


----------



## WillowTree (Aug 20, 2009)

tell you how goddamn stupid a democwat is,, he will refuse to verify an illegal's status, he will refuse to require an ID to vote but he will make an American produce proof that a person  is a regestered  democwat before allowing him in to voice an  opinion.and excercise free speech. that's how goddamn dumb a demoncwat is. WE can all say hypocrite now!


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Aug 20, 2009)

> The reason it appears most Americans don't want it is because once again, the Republican Noise Machine has won.



Yeah, that must be it.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Aug 20, 2009)

Gudrid said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > BThe bill doesn't say it will cover illegal immigrants, but it doesn't say it wouldn't either.
> ...



Damn I go to lunch and this thing has exploded into five pages.

From the link GT posted the only thing it says about illegal immigrants is:

THE POLL: 55 percent expect the overhaul will give coverage to illegal immigrants; 34 percent don't.

THE FACTS: The proposals being negotiated do not provide coverage for illegal immigrants.

FACT: 

The Democratically-controlled  U.S. House Ways and Means Committee voted 23-18 to defeat the measure introduced by Rep. Dean Heller (R-NV), which would have required the use of the existing Income and Eligibility Verification System and the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements System, before any care is given. This move would have ensured that only U.S. citizens would receive the taxpayer funded care.

While Obama has made claims that illegal aliens will not be covered by his plan, the following line can be found among the 1018 page bill: Sec. 59B, Pg. 170, Line 1 - Any NONRESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes.

Judicial Watchs president Tom Fitton recently reported that Mexico directs their citizens who live in the U.S. illegally, to use taxpayer funded clinics in a dozen cities. The program is called Ventanillas de Salud (Health Windows), and is implemented in American cities which have Mexican consulates.

The government of Mexico has operated the program for some time. In 2007, Fitton wrote the following:

Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, San Diego and Indiana are among the cities where Mexican consulates operate the health referral system which annually costs U.S. taxpayers billions of dollars. In Los Angeles County alone, illegal immigrants cost taxpayers nearly $440 million in health services annually and a whopping $1.1 billion statewide.

Illegal aliens will be covered under Obamaâs healthcare bill


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Aug 20, 2009)

cunclusion said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > By the way Factcheck.org or whatever the fuck it's called doesn't tell the WHOLE truth. The bill doesn't say it will cover illegal immigrants, but it doesn't say it wouldn't either. The bill does provide cuts in Medicare,( 500 billion in the next ten years) which will effect senior citizens. Oh but factcheck doesn't mention that huh? How convenient.
> ...



Yea and they shouldn't.


----------



## WillowTree (Aug 20, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Gudrid said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



They just talk bullshit outta both sides of their mouths and then get all pissy cause you don't buy into it.  good job.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Aug 20, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > so I am correct illegals will receive care because the democrats refuse to allow anyone to verify legal status. end of story. you can't have it both ways. either verify legal status or stfu democrats.. 500 billion dollar cuts from medicare + refusal to veryify legal status == taking from seniors and giving to illegals.
> ...



How will it be known?


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Aug 20, 2009)

Bottom line is the progressives in congress along with Obama are on shakey ground.  This 47 million uninsured number, the CBO estimates to be more around 9 million actually uninsured who actually desire insurance.  So, we're proposing a massive overhaul to benefit 3% of the population?  Nope it doesn't add up.


----------



## hjmick (Aug 20, 2009)

Gudrid said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > BThe bill doesn't say it will cover illegal immigrants, but it doesn't say it wouldn't either.
> ...



Once Obama grants them all amnesty, they'll no longer be illegal. Problem solved...



WillowTree said:


> phuck yew!



Shouldn't that be "phuck ewe?"


----------



## wvpeach (Aug 20, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...




   Only citizens with valid social security cards will be issued health care cards.  

    No brainer - indeed.


----------



## veritas (Aug 20, 2009)

I think most Americans DO want it. Seniors want to keep their Medicare, so I find it hard for them to assert that  younger people should be locked out of something similar to what they have. That's ageism and hypocritical. 

The other thing is, the people who have medicare now, haven't paid into it the way subsequent generations have had to. They got in on the ground floor without having to have borne the expense of the deduction in their paychecks to get it. Along comes the next generation and finds that opponents not only want no public option or single payer, and so they were in this thing paying along and blammo, the rules change. The people on medicare had affordable insurance available to them back in the day. They weren't paying a huge percentage of their income on it, it was a minor expense. There were pensions and the pensions were intact. That's all changed. There is no such thing as a secure pension, unless you are in Congress.

Take McCain for example. He's eligible for Medicare, VA, and Congressional coverage and has the scratch for private insurance. So he has 3 government options and is lucky enough to be able to pay out of pocket. We should all be so lucky. The most vociferous opponents of the public option already have their public options, Medicare and Congresscare. Before they spew, they should give up what they have, otherwise they are just blowing hot air. We're already taxed so that old people and Congress get theirs, why not let us get in on the program? What reasonable argument is there against it?


----------



## wvpeach (Aug 20, 2009)

hjmick said:


> Gudrid said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...




   How about we close the boarders?  

   Then worry about the illegals already in the nation. 

   Doesn't that sound reasonable.  

   No sense after all worrying about illegals already here till we stop them from pouring over the boarder every day..................... now is there?


----------



## WillowTree (Aug 20, 2009)

hjmick said:


> Gudrid said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...


----------



## hjmick (Aug 20, 2009)

wvpeach said:


> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> > Gudrid said:
> ...



I have no issue with closing the border, hell, close the northern border as well. Plenty of crossings there as well. To say there is no sense in worrying about those already in the country strikes me as somewhat defeatist, however. Despite protestations to the contrary, it could be possible to find those in this country illegally and deport them to their country of origin. It's been done before. The problem is, the current politically correct atmosphere in which we find ourselves would make the process very hard.


----------



## WillowTree (Aug 20, 2009)

wvpeach said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



for those of you with no brain,, it's just that easy. hey?


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Aug 20, 2009)

> We're already taxed so that old people and Congress get theirs, why not let us get in on the program?



You got yours so gimme mine.  That is what this is really all about, isn't it?


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Aug 20, 2009)

> Only citizens with valid social security cards will be issued health care cards.
> 
> No brainer - indeed.



Wel, let the party begin!


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Aug 20, 2009)

> If someone without legal documents applies for health care assistance, it will be known whether he/she is here illegally and would be deported



Oh!  Since you put it this way!
Like this is hapenning at ER's all over the ocuntry now?


----------



## veritas (Aug 20, 2009)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> > We're already taxed so that old people and Congress get theirs, why not let us get in on the program?
> 
> 
> 
> You got yours so gimme mine.  That is what this is really all about, isn't it?



No. I'm already paying for yours, now let me pay for mine as well and include me in on the deal.

Try again.


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 20, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Midnight Marauder said:
> ...



No, I don't. Because Alinsky's tactics weigh heavily on pressuring your [perceived] enemy. I don't see the speakers putting "pressure" on the audience, and I don't think I put "pressure" on you or anyone else here. (Hell, I never thought I had THAT much power of persuasion!) I call 'em like I see 'em, based on FACTS that have been well researched, sprinkled with sass and arrogance where called for. There's a world of difference. When Armey's Army (I've forgotten what it's called--Freedom [something]) calls for intentional disruptions, and worse, he has employed Alinsky's model.

Frankly, during my usual time out between 2-4PM, when I do some stuff I actually get paid for, I got to feeling bad that I picked on you. You're certainly entitled to your independent opinions, free of any media influence if you so desire. So I won't put 'pressure' on you anymore (that is until you go all goofy on me again).


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 20, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> Here's the real deal,, The honest truth.
> 
> Illegals steal identification to land jobs, to buy homes, with stolen ID they will be enrolled at the public's expense in your socialized medical care. Your government owned government run health care and americans will be expected to foot the bill for it. so take your morality manta and place it where the moon don't shine,, same thing with your "lets have an honest discussion mantra.".
> 
> ...



E-Verify will become effective September 8, 2009.
Senate passes E-Verify provision for contractors -- Federal Computer Week


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 20, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Gudrid said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



There you go again. You absolutely REFUSE to accept as fact the two sections of the House bill which deal with illegals which I posted previously. I'm not going to go looking for it, because you seem to have the worst case of tunnel vision I've ever encountered on any message board and it therefore isn't worth my double time, always necessary where you're concerned. 

And by the way, what the hell does some article from 2007 have to do with anything? Or some opinion page which also is not up to snuff on the current facts as they appear in black and white TODAY?


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 20, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...



Oh please, now you're talking like you're about five. Even someone without legal ID who wants food stamps needs to produce SOMETHING to prove s/he's a resident. In some states, they will require a utility bill in the person's name or if they are homeless, they must produce a voucher for the food stamps from the shelter administrator. *Nobody* can just walk in off the street and jump into a federal program. Do you enjoy being dumbed down?


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 20, 2009)

hjmick said:


> wvpeach said:
> 
> 
> > hjmick said:
> ...



It isn't just the political atmosphere, but the simple logistical problem of rounding up all the illegals. What if there was a nationwide dragnet? Where would we put them all while waiting for convoys of busses to arrive at hubs to transport them south of the border? What would we do with children of illegals who were born here and have a right to legally remain? Start refurbishing crumbling orphanages? Where would the extra border agents or police enforcers come from to begin even rounding them up? 

People who think simply deporting illegals is a simple task that isn't being done because it's politically disadvantageous are not thinking through this huge problem.


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 20, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> wvpeach said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Okay, genius, enlighten me. Tell me how easy it would be for an illegal immigrant to sneak into any government sponsored healthcare system without papers of any kind.


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 20, 2009)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> > We're already taxed so that old people and Congress get theirs, why not let us get in on the program?
> 
> 
> 
> You got yours so gimme mine.  That is what this is really all about, isn't it?



Huh? Kinda got that backwards, bud. It's the have-nots who want a fighting chance. It's you people with the attitude: I got mine, so fuck you.


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 20, 2009)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> > If someone without legal documents applies for health care assistance, it will be known whether he/she is here illegally and would be deported
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's a whole different ballgame. Hospitals have their own code of ethics and turn NO ONE away. It has nothing to do with laws.


----------



## hjmick (Aug 20, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> > wvpeach said:
> ...



I have no allusions about the difficulties of such a plan, but to say it can't be done at all is conceding defeat. You could start by deporting those picked up during the course of everyday police activity rather than turning them out with a ticket. This may sound harsh, and I suppose it is, but at some point the sovereignty of our borders has to be enforced. As for the children of illegals born here, I would argue that the "anchor baby" aspect of the 14th has outlived it's usefulness and needs to be addressed. I am not aware of any other country with this type of provision in their laws, why do we? It would not be an esay thing to do and it would have to start with little changes, but if nothing is done, nothing will change.


----------



## WillowTree (Aug 20, 2009)

That's why we call em DUmmies. they live under the illusion that it is so easy to find and export illegals,, so why hasn't it been done? Why is California going broke? 23 billion dollar deficit cause it ain't possible for no illegal to get signed onto any government program.. yea right. Go sell you bridge to someone else whydonchya? Why if they were serious about illegals not being enrolled on our socialistic gov. run health care plan did they just vote YES on the Heller Amendment.? I know I know. they aren't in fact serious the dummiecrats have every intention of insuring the illegals at the expense of seniors..


----------



## WillowTree (Aug 20, 2009)

A government who cannot control it's borders cannot control your health care. It's just that simple.


----------



## veritas (Aug 20, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> A government who cannot control it's borders cannot control your health care. It's just that simple.




It's possible, but the Republicans don't want to. They have to keep their big biz homies in cheap labor yanno........and play ball with meckseeco.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Aug 20, 2009)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> > You can't talk sense to a rock and most of the right wingers seem to have no more mental capabilities than a rock.
> 
> 
> Tall talk from someone goostepping behind das Fuhrer, Lord Obama, no mater the agenda.  You're not exhibitting much in the way of independent thought yourself.



your akshibtititititng inderpendant orthograffy


----------



## veritas (Aug 20, 2009)

suffering succotash!!!


----------



## WillowTree (Aug 20, 2009)

veritas said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > A government who cannot control it's borders cannot control your health care. It's just that simple.
> ...



demoncwats are in charge now big buddy , they voted down any and all attempts to identify illegals.. nice spin but yer dog don't hunt.


----------



## wvpeach (Aug 20, 2009)

Willow . 

   You seem to have missed a few things.  It's not that our government can't control the boarders. It's that they don't want to control the boarders.  

   Big difference between won't and  can't willow.  

    As said before the government doesn't control the boarders for several reasons.  Not the least of which the influx of illegal labor allows wages for the average working man to be driven down.  

*Also consider that Mexico is one of our biggest oil suppliers.* 

 Mexico has several times been on the verge of a civil war.  Right now they are poised to be taken over by drug cartels and crime king pins.   If we close the boarder to our neighbor, tensions will continue to rise in Mexico and when all hell breaks out  over there it will effect the US in the way of possibly millions of Mexican refugees streaming across that boarder to escape the violence in their own country.  

     So while it would be nice to have the boarder closed.   There are a lot of reasons to let it be porous enough to keep Mexico from erupting and spilling across our boarders in a much bigger way than they do now.


----------



## WillowTree (Aug 20, 2009)

wvpeach said:


> Willow .
> 
> You seem to have missed a few things.  It's not that our government can't control the boarders. It's that they don't want to control the boarders.
> 
> ...



although I appreciate your lecture let's get it clear.. a boarder is someone you give room and board to.. a border is something our government cannot or will not control. Therefore it is just stupid to think they can control our health care. always with the excuses of why it cannot be done. you have just proved my point. We can't deport them, we can't control them, we can't identify them and  we can't close the borders.. those were your words,, so I say we can't trust them to control our health care and I'm not willing to pay for 1/2 of the Mexican population.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Aug 20, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> A government who cannot control it's borders cannot control your health care. It's just that simple.



A government that cant run a savings program such as Social Security without turning it into a Ponzie Scheme (madoff) can't be trusted with you're health care. 

 There is more where this is coming from.


----------



## hjmick (Aug 20, 2009)

wvpeach said:


> Willow .
> 
> You seem to have missed a few things.  It's not that our government can't control the boarders. It's that they don't want to control the boarders.
> 
> ...



So you're saying that, because the elected government of Mexico is unable to control it's own country and enforce it's laws, the U.S. should simply ignore it's own laws and the sovereignty of it's borders? That about right?


----------



## veritas (Aug 20, 2009)

> I'm not willing to pay for 1/2 of the Mexican population.



We already are.


----------



## WillowTree (Aug 20, 2009)

hjmick said:


> wvpeach said:
> 
> 
> > Willow .
> ...



that's exactly the spin. exactly.


----------



## veritas (Aug 20, 2009)

That's not spin, it's reality.


----------



## hjmick (Aug 20, 2009)

veritas said:


> That's not spin, it's reality.



Spin or reality, doesn't matter. It's bullshit either way.


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 21, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > cowboy propaganda.
> ...



I only have one: Nobody is planning on taking all your guns away.


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 21, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Midnight Marauder said:
> ...



According to Olympia Snow, just this morning, no Republican will vote for a Senate bill containing a pubic option. Later today, it was pretty much confirmed that the conservative Democrats won't either (about 20 in the Senate). So there ya go.


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 21, 2009)

hjmick said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > hjmick said:
> ...



I'm not saying it can't be done, just that it won't be as easy as some people envision. For starters, just enforcing the current laws about not hiring illegals will help. Cities and towns need to patrol those areas where illegals congregate to line up for day labor, start making arrests and deportations. Before long, those will disappear. Without jobs keeping them in the country, they will soon return to Mexico. In fact, many have returned already because of job shortages resulting from the economic situation. Yes, it sounds cruel to boot people out of the country who simply want to work, but they knew the risks before they entered illegally, and being deported is the least potential harm to them, especially if they spent days crossing a desert or in the back of an 18-wheeler. At least the bus back home would be air-conditioned.

I also think lack of cheap Mexican labor will force agri-business (mega farms) to invest in heavy duty harvesting equipment. After all, how long ago was the cotton gin invented? You mean in all those years, nobody has come up with a similar solution for harvesting lettuce?


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 21, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> That's why we call em DUmmies. they live under the illusion that it is so easy to find and export illegals,, so why hasn't it been done? Why is California going broke? 23 billion dollar deficit cause it ain't possible for no illegal to get signed onto any government program.. yea right. Go sell you bridge to someone else whydonchya? Why if they were serious about illegals not being enrolled on our socialistic gov. run health care plan did they just vote YES on the Heller Amendment.? I know I know. they aren't in fact serious the dummiecrats have every intention of insuring the illegals at the expense of seniors..



Try this, Willow. It might also shake something loose.


----------



## MaggieMae (Aug 21, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> veritas said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...



Do you not read anything I post and just automatically paw in "PHUCK YEW"?? Why don't you just put me on ignore, you ignorant twit? 

Senate approves E-Verify expansion - Nextgov

_The Senate passed an amendment last week that would allow employers to verify the work eligibility of existing employees, not just new hires.

The measure, included in the fiscal 2010 Homeland Security spending bill, would require all workers at companies that use E-Verify to present government-issued photo ID to employers, and encourage employers to use the system to confirm that their employees are legally allowed to work in the United States. Currently, employers voluntarily use the E-Verify system for new hires; federal agencies are required to use the program, which checks employees' Social Security numbers against a government database to determine their immigration status_


----------



## Zoom-boing (Aug 21, 2009)

wvpeach said:


> Would that be Charles Krauthammer that immoral man who spouts off on Fox news regularly?    Surely you wouldn't believe a word that man says?  * Immorality and total lack of empathy for any humanity reeks from the man.  He is so immoral it shows on his physical demeanor and literally makes him one of the ugliest men I have ever seen.
> *
> 
> .



You think he looks the way he does because he's immoral and lacks empathy?  I thought it was because he was paralyzed (in 1972).  He's in a wheelchair and I get the impression that he doesn't have a lot of freedom of movement in his body; not just that he can't walk but overall movement.  I always got the impression that he may be hooked up to a respirator that breathes for him - the same way Christopher Reeves was on one.  The way he talks it seems as if he has to time his speech with a machine.  I could be wrong but that's what I see.  How is he immoral?


----------



## hjmick (Aug 21, 2009)

Zoom-boing said:


> wvpeach said:
> 
> 
> > Would that be Charles Krauthammer that immoral man who spouts off on Fox news regularly?    Surely you wouldn't believe a word that man says?  * Immorality and total lack of empathy for any humanity reeks from the man.  He is so immoral it shows on his physical demeanor and literally makes him one of the ugliest men I have ever seen.
> ...



Except for jumping into an empty swimming pool, Krauthammer is a very intelligent and complex man. He worked for Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale. He is a supporter of embryonic stem cell research and a longtime advocate of radically higher energy taxes to induce conservation. He is an opponent of the death penalty, a supporter of legalized abortion, an intelligent design critic and an advocate for the scientific consensus on evolution.

He attended Herzliah High School and McGill University and obtained an honors degree in political science and economics in 1970. From 1970 to 1971, he was a Commonwealth Scholar in politics at Balliol College, Oxford. He later moved to the United States, where he attended Harvard Medical School. Suffering a paralyzing accident in his first year of medical school when he jumped into a waterless pool, he was hospitalized for a year, during which time he continued his medical studies. He graduated with his class, earning an M.D. from Harvard Medical School in 1975, and then began working as a psychiatrist at Massachusetts General Hospital. In October 1984, he became board certified in psychiatry by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology.

From 19751978, Krauthammer was a Resident and then a Chief Resident in Psychiatry at the Massachusetts General Hospital. During this time he and a colleague identified a form of mania resulting from a concomitant medical illness, rather than a primary inherent disorder, which they named "secondary mania" and published a second important paper on the epidemiology of manic illness. The standard textbook for bipolar disease (Manic Depressive Illness by Goodwin and Jamison) contains twelve references to his work.

In 1978, Krauthammer quit medical practice to direct planning in psychiatric research for the Jimmy Carter administration, and began contributing to The New Republic magazine. During the presidential campaign of 1980, Krauthammer served as a speech writer to Vice President Walter Mondale.


----------



## Gudrid (Aug 21, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...



Eligibility would be screened prior to enrollment in the program.  Standard government documents tend to be a birth certificate and social security card.  

I haven't been able to read the massive amount of stuff that was added since this morning - did anyone manage to find the text of the Heller amendment?  I'm not willing to take the media's word for it on what it said.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 21, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> By the way Factcheck.org or whatever the fuck it's called doesn't tell the WHOLE truth. The bill doesn't say it will cover illegal immigrants, but it doesn't say it wouldn't either. The bill does provide cuts in Medicare,( 500 billion in the next ten years) which will effect senior citizens. Oh but factcheck doesn't mention that huh? How convenient.



Fellow, I am a senior citizen, and if they just cut out fellows like Rick Scott, who stole at least 1.7 billion from Medicare, and then defended the theft by stating that everybody was doing it, you could easily cut that much out of the Medicare budget over a decade. 

By the way, Scott is now the head of Conservatives for Patients Rights. And is running a company that is showing the governments of Iran and Saudi Arabia how to censure the internet. You fellow pick some doozies for leaders.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 21, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > A government who cannot control it's borders cannot control your health care. It's just that simple.
> ...



That is stupid, and you know it. The SS administrative costs are about 4%. Not only that, I just recieved a little notice from the SS administration on a construction company that I worked for that stated that in 2002, they had $8600 in a Davis-Bacon account in my name. I gave them a call, and their people administrating that plan had grown that amount in the last seven years to just over $500. Not an additional $500, but only $500. 

At least the SS Administration is paying me exactly what they said they would. If they were ran like that private business, I would be getting about 90% less than they promised.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Aug 21, 2009)

G.T. said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > It's little wonder the elderly fear Obama's health scare program, with *ageism bigots* such as yourself part of his cult!
> ...



Perhaps you should write to Barry and his boys and suggest they put in a 'Cash for Codgers' amendment into the health care bills.  It would help solve so many problems and if 'Cash for Clunkers' is any indication, it would be a smashing success.  

btw, you should be taken out and shot.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Aug 21, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> I've posted the truth about the Heller amendment for YOU, specifically, and you choose to ignore it, as does the Just Say No blogosphere which is literally afire with attacks concerning that amendment.
> 
> The facts are these:
> 
> ...



How will they determine if these individuals are lawfully present or illegally present?


----------



## rdean (Aug 21, 2009)

If you want an "honest" discussion, limit it to Democrats.

See, that was easy.


----------



## wvpeach (Aug 21, 2009)

Geex Louise!   

   What a mess. More right wing anal retentive behavior.  

   Willow , you say boarder, I say border, you say po ta to I will say potato . 

   What are you 10 years old Willow ?  All you can do is correct people's spelling? 
   Obviously that is the best you have , because your arguments are all pitiful and prove you got nothing.  

   As for the rest of you right wing pilers on.   LOL 




   Listen up.  

  It's apparent you all have no morals.  Thus you complain about any kind of health care for anybody else.   I'd bet good money that a majority of you doing the bitching are on social security or disability of some kind.  Sitting at home all day long bitching on the internet about anything anybody else gets.  Selfish and bitter in your small little life's .  

   As for Charles Krauthammer.   I do not give a shit who or what he is.  I know he is a immoral nasty man.    It's just that simple.   Makes it all the worse if he is wheel chair bound because  do you want to bet that social security disability picked up his medical care for a long while.  Or some similiar program.   So that makes the man a bigger immoral  slime ball than I thought he was.   He no doubt has been a beneficiary of the kindness of social programs.   ...........................  Or he had filthy rich parents.   
   Yet he would deny people in similar situations the same care he got. 
   Makes old Krauthammer even more immoral in my eyes. 
   And if he really is that bad off he best rethink his nasty heart, because he may about to meet his God and that will not be pretty for old nasty Krauthammer. 

    Boy you right wingers .   You all stick your heads in the sands and try to pretend your not immoral.   Go ahead and try.   I happen to know there is one that knows every lie and immorality in your being.


----------



## WillowTree (Aug 21, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > That's why we call em DUmmies. they live under the illusion that it is so easy to find and export illegals,, so why hasn't it been done? Why is California going broke? 23 billion dollar deficit cause it ain't possible for no illegal to get signed onto any government program.. yea right. Go sell you bridge to someone else whydonchya? Why if they were serious about illegals not being enrolled on our socialistic gov. run health care plan did they just vote YES on the Heller Amendment.? I know I know. they aren't in fact serious the dummiecrats have every intention of insuring the illegals at the expense of seniors..
> ...



Tell me if it helps ya bitch,,


----------



## WillowTree (Aug 21, 2009)

wvpeach said:


> Geex Louise!
> 
> What a mess. More right wing anal retentive behavior.
> 
> ...



Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!


----------



## wvpeach (Aug 21, 2009)

So tell us willow what kind of government program is picking up the tab for your life?


----------



## Zoom-boing (Aug 21, 2009)

wvpeach said:


> As for Charles Krauthammer.   I do not give a shit who or what he is.  *I know he is a immoral nasty man.    It's just that simple. *  Makes it all the worse if he is wheel chair bound because  do you want to bet that social security disability picked up his medical care for a long while.  Or some similiar program.   So that makes the man a bigger immoral  slime ball than I thought he was.   He no doubt has been a beneficiary of the kindness of social programs.   ...........................  Or he had filthy rich parents.
> Yet he would deny people in similar situations the same care he got.
> Makes old Krauthammer even more immoral in my eyes.
> And if he really is that bad off he best rethink his nasty heart, because he may about to meet his God and that will not be pretty for old nasty Krauthammer.



Oh well, if you_ just know_  . . . . then that answers everything.


----------



## hjmick (Aug 21, 2009)

Wow, the Peach really doesn't like you "right-wingers" very much...


----------



## Zoom-boing (Aug 21, 2009)

hjmick said:


> Wow, the Peach really doesn't like you "right-wingers" very much...



Especially those damn cripples.  Nothing but leeches!


----------



## WillowTree (Aug 21, 2009)

wvpeach said:


> So tell us willow what kind of government program is picking up the tab for your life?






unfortunately for your dishonest ass,, I pay my own fucking way, always have even when I was dirt poor.. go find you a sugar tittie little whining democwat.


----------



## WillowTree (Aug 21, 2009)

hjmick said:


> Wow, the Peach really doesn't like you "right-wingers" very much...



and that's exactly how we like it, the more she hates us the more we feel we've done our job.. success is directly proportional to her DUmbass disdain.


----------



## veritas (Aug 21, 2009)

yanno......it is ODD Krauthammer supports stem cell research, but he sides with the anti-science nutters.......


----------



## hjmick (Aug 21, 2009)

veritas said:


> yanno......it is ODD Krauthammer supports stem cell research, but he sides with the anti-science nutters.......



He also beleives in evolution, go figure. He's more than one dimensional.


----------



## wvpeach (Aug 21, 2009)

Zoom-boing said:


> wvpeach said:
> 
> 
> > As for Charles Krauthammer.   I do not give a shit who or what he is.  *I know he is a immoral nasty man.    It's just that simple. *  Makes it all the worse if he is wheel chair bound because  do you want to bet that social security disability picked up his medical care for a long while.  Or some similiar program.   So that makes the man a bigger immoral  slime ball than I thought he was.   He no doubt has been a beneficiary of the kindness of social programs.   ...........................  Or he had filthy rich parents.
> ...




   It's the words that come from the man's mouth.  He pretty much is a FOX news lie spitter.  But every occasionally they let him show up on some other news show and like Sean Hannity or Sarah Palin is, if  Old evil Charles mouth is moving his is probably lying.  The man wouldn't know truth if it hit him in the head. 
   And right wingers are always quoting the man's articles on the internet .  Anybody with a brain that can read and knows what is going on knows that Charles Krauthammer is one of the biggest liars in the media.  The truth seems to be something he lacks almost totally. 

    And since you point out he was saved by social programs from death that is pretty damn hypocritical of him on top of all the lies he tells.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Aug 21, 2009)

wvpeach said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > wvpeach said:
> ...



I've no idea if he had filthy rich parents or was saved by social programs or something in between.  Do you?  My previous comment was a joke.  

Can you point to some specifics where he's lied?  I find him to be intelligent in his remarks.


----------



## wvpeach (Aug 21, 2009)

Where has he lied ? Where to start there are so many. 

  lets see I caught him on a morning show the other day claiming that President Obama plans and will have to raise taxes on the middle class to pay for healthcare reform. 
   A obvious lie as President Obama has said that will not happen. 

   On the same show he also parroted Sarah Palin on the death panels.  

   On Fox,  Krauthammer echoed conservative claim that CRA played key role in subprime crisis
December 23, 2008 2:47 pm ET
EMBED
SUMMARY: On Special Report,  Charles Krauthammer echoed other conservatives in claiming that the Community Reinvestment Act and efforts to expand affordable housing are at least in part to blame for the home foreclosure crisis. But as experts have noted, the CRA does not govern the vast majority of subprime lenders. On Fox, Barnes, Krauthammer echoed conservative claim that CRA played key role in subprime crisis | Media Matters for America



    Krauthammer mischaracterized new FISA law as limited to foreign-to-foreign communications
August 07, 2007 5:06 pm ET

   On the August 6 edition of Fox News' Special Report, nationally syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer falsely suggested that the recently approved amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) allow the administration to intercept without a warrant only foreign-to-foreign communications that happen to be routed through telecommunications switches in the United States. In fact, the recent changes to FISA also permit warrantless monitoring of Americans' international communications -- so long as the government surveillance is "directed at" someone the government "reasonably believe" to be outside the United States. Indeed, in an August 6 article, The New York Times quoted White House spokesman Tony Fratto as acknowledging, in the Times' words, that "the new law went beyond fixing the foreign-to-foreign problem, potentially allowing the government to listen to Americans calling overseas."

Krauthammer mischaracterized new FISA law as limited to foreign-to-foreign communications | Media Matters for America




     tell you what start a thread and pull up some of old lying Krauthammer's articles and we will pick the lies apart in them. 

   I'm game.  

  Call it the Charles Krauthammer thread .  

   The man is a right wing hack who belongs to one of those right wing  foreign policy think tanks that thinks the US needs to govern the entire world.  

   If you like him so much start a thread and post his articles as they come out.  
   Any person with a brain can see he is a mix of that liar Sean Hannity and Sarah Palin.


----------



## veritas (Aug 21, 2009)

> If you like him so much start a thread and post his articles as they come out.
> Any person with a brain can see he is a mix of that liar Sean Hannity and Sarah Palin.




If you mixed 100 Hannitys with 100 Palins, they still wouldn't make a Krauthammer. They are dolts, he is not. He's just a mean angry neocon grump.


----------



## WillowTree (Aug 21, 2009)

wvpeach said:


> Where has he lied ? Where to start there are so many.
> 
> lets see I caught him on a morning show the other day claiming that President Obama plans and will have to raise taxes on the middle class to pay for healthcare reform.
> * A obvious lie as President Obama has said that will not happen. * sorry,, seriously
> ...


----------



## Zoom-boing (Aug 21, 2009)

wvpeach said:


> Where has he lied ? Where to start there are so many.
> 
> lets see I caught him on a morning show the other day claiming that President Obama plans and will have to raise taxes on the middle class to pay for healthcare reform.
> A obvious lie as President Obama has said that will not happen.



He didn't say _Obama_ said that.  He is saying that _he _believes that Obama will have to raise taxes on the middle class to pay for health care reform.  He was giving his opinion on what he thought Obama was going to have to do.  Due to the CBO's findings I'd say.



> On the same show he also parroted Sarah Palin on the death panels.



He wishes Palin would leave the room.

RealClearPolitics - The Truth About Death Counseling



> On Fox,  Krauthammer echoed conservative claim that CRA played key role in subprime crisis
> December 23, 2008 2:47 pm ET
> EMBED
> SUMMARY: On Special Report,  Charles Krauthammer echoed other conservatives in claiming that the Community Reinvestment Act and efforts to expand affordable housing *are at least in part to blame *for the home foreclosure crisis. But as experts have noted, the CRA does not govern the vast majority of subprime lenders. On Fox, Barnes, Krauthammer echoed conservative claim that CRA played key role in subprime crisis | Media Matters for America



Was the CRA not, in part, to blame?  



> Krauthammer mischaracterized new FISA law as limited to foreign-to-foreign communications
> August 07, 2007 5:06 pm ET
> 
> On the August 6 edition of Fox News' Special Report, nationally syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer falsely suggested that the recently approved amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) allow the administration to intercept without a warrant only foreign-to-foreign communications that happen to be routed through telecommunications switches in the United States. In fact, the recent changes to FISA also permit warrantless monitoring of Americans' international communications -- so long as the government surveillance is "directed at" someone the government "reasonably believe" to be outside the United States. Indeed, in an August 6 article, The New York Times quoted White House spokesman Tony Fratto as acknowledging, in the Times' words, that "the new law went beyond fixing the foreign-to-foreign problem, potentially allowing the government to listen to Americans calling overseas."
> ...




It's late and and I'm tired so maybe I'm reading the article wrong but  . . .  the article says that  Krauthammer suggested that warrantless surveillance only pertained to foreign-to-foreign communications but he omitted American communications.  It also states that the new law excludes from the warrant requirement any "surveillance directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States." The new law requires only that, within 120 days of the law's enactment, the administration submit to the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court its "procedures" for how the government assesses that any specific eavesdropping it conducts without court approval under the new law falls into that exclusion. The court must approve those procedures unless they are "clearly erroneous."

Krauthammer states:  It means if a bad guy in Pakistan is speaking to a bad guy in London, and if the speech or the email happens to go through a router in the U.S., through a computer in the U.S., under the old law you'd have to get a warrant, which is absurd. 

NYT states:  For example, if a person in Indianapolis calls someone in London, the National Security Agency can eavesdrop on that conversation without a warrant, as long as the N.S.A.'s target is the person in London.

Tony Fratto, a White House spokesman, said Sunday in an interview that the new law went beyond fixing the foreign-to-foreign problem, potentially allowing the government to listen to Americans calling overseas.

So, do you need a warrent or not?  Sorry, I"'m too tired to focus on this one.  And Krauthammer focused on just the foreign rather than the government also being able to eavesdrop on Americans and you're complaining?  I'd think you appreciate the fact that he omitted the American part.  lol  I'm really tired.



> The man is a right wing hack who belongs to one of those right wing  foreign policy think tanks that thinks the US needs to govern the entire world.
> 
> If you like him so much start a thread and post his articles as they come out.
> Any person with a brain can see he is a mix of that liar Sean Hannity and Sarah Palin.



Your last two sentences gives me a very clear picture of where you stand on Krauthammer and the right in general.  I have to laugh though  . . . you claim that _Fox's_ Krauthammer "lies" and then back it up with _Media Matters _"truth" (and then throw in Hannity and Palin to boot?)  Please.


----------

