Jump to content
Hash, Inc. Forums
Sign in to follow this  
heyvern

Political cartoon

Recommended Posts

I think one of the biggest problem is not party system, but corporate control. After the robber baron days we put in laws against monopoly, and now we are making concession for some monopoly, and over the years releasing the beast of corporation by giving them the same rights of a US citizen, and entity of a person. We have heard many typical story of the board of director and stock holder making decision solely base on profit and not social responsibility. Ethics would require all party to follow suit for it to work, otherwise its a dog eat dog world. The one who forgo ethics in the name of profit wins these days in surviving in the marketplace. It is in the interest of the corporation to not educate too many people for cheap labor. When you have a large population of low educated workers, that can manage enough to push buttons all day (Metropolis) then you have vast source of cheap labor. (George Carlin)

 

Discourage birth control and outlaw abortion, with the addition of low education spells vast cheap labor, and a population dependent on handout. Also encouraging crime rates and insurance payoff for replacement of stolen goods to add to the growing market. Most vehicle were made to be stolen, goods are made to fall apart, and products are made to be dependent upon the company to keep replacement on standby.

 

Our representative in our govt are too occupied listening to whoever has the money. Even the Bush administration were caught enticing a fees to get an audience, much like it ever has throughout the history of kings and Lordship in the medieval times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slightly Off-Topic...

 

Here in Mich we are getting bombarded with commercials from a man named 'Pickens' who has a plan:

 

http://www.pickensplan.com/

 

His plan relies on increased natural gas usage and immediate building of wind-mills from Texas to Canada, and eventual nuclear increases. He is not running for president, rather he wants enough people to buy into his plan by 'signing-up' that WHOM-EVER moves into the White House in January will have to consider it...

 

He points out that at 750 BILLION per year (that we are spending on foriegn oil) that the 'transfer of wealth' could be lethal to America, and the time for action is now, and he welcomes anyone with a better plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here in Mich we are getting bombarded with commercials from a man named 'Pickens' who has a plan:

 

Is he related to Ross Perot? Perhaps a long lost brother?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I held back for a while with this but perhaps it's time for (hopefully) a laugh or two.

I got this in a batch mailing and it does not necessarily represent any political views I hold and I don't intend any disrespect either.

I just thought it was a bit funny.

Killogs.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like that, Gangus!

 

Now that is disrespectful on a bi-partisan basis,,,chock-full-O-hangin chads!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK- Time to stir the bee-hive...

 

McCain is the typical Republican... looks like he might have picked the female equivalent of Dan Quayle as his running mate, but he is still a strong candidate-whatever...

 

Obama may or may not be the 'rock-star' he is being sold as... 'change' comes in two flavors... he's only mentioning one, but heck- it's working for him!

 

BUT. I think-

 

The Dems missed a major opportunity this year in not getting behind what the world considers a 'sure thing'...Al Gore.

 

Hillary pushed him aside by saying 'THIS IS MY TURN' and he...being the Al Gore that he is...obliged her and stepped aside. Not in my lifetime has the USA ever had such a pedigreed visionary ready with a plan to lead us from our dour circumstances (I'm too old to remember FDR) and he isn't even considered?

 

I feel like we are playing a giant game of PLINKO with our candidates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Dems missed a major opportunity this year in not getting behind what the world considers a 'sure thing'...Al Gore.

 

I felt that way too. I kinda think he was dissuaded by the idea of having to out-fundraise Hillary, who seemed to be the 600 lb gorilla two years ago.

 

On the other hand, there's still a lot of anti-Gore hysteria out there. It's common to paint him as a fringe electric-car nut.

 

 

Not in my lifetime has the USA ever had such a pedigreed visionary ready with a plan to lead us from our dour circumstances

 

I think it's real tough to sell "smart" to the masses. They're suspicious of that. The Oscar and Nobel prize were probably not helping either.

 

 

I think Obama benefitted greatly in the Dem race by being the main "not Hillary" candidate. The "not Hillary" people wanted someone who was publicly against the war from the start and that narrowed it down to Gore, Obama or Kucinich... and Gore didn't want to run.

 

Novelty, history, genuine campaign skill and Obama girl combined to make the perfect wave and so far he's managed to stay on top of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hard to resist putting 2 cents into the pot on this one.

 

I agree that the democrats missed out on an exceptional opportunity by not fully backing Gore.

I don't see this from the perspective that he was actually electable though.

Hang in with me here k?

 

A large number of people thought Gore should have won against Bush. (thats a given)

Even more would consider that he still deserved his shot.

But something happened that (I think) has injured the democratic party subtantially.

By failing to unite behind their own candidate (the one was perceived to have gotten robbed out of the top job) they sent a message that its not about who is best for the job but that politics and personal interest rules over all. How Hillary even got into the mix is still a mystery to me but its seems clear she sunk Gores ship before it got a chance to leave port.

 

Someone high up decided Hillary was more electible than Gore and others in decision making positions backed that decision up. The end effect is that where the Democrats were moving forward as one now they are multidirectionless. Their main chance to correct their course and send a clear message that all Democrats are fully backing Obama seems scuttled... again by the Hillary Clinton camp. What is going on?

 

I think where the Democrats had an opportunity to sit in the White house for many years to come they've let their personal aspirations erode that to less than an even chance.

 

Its not unlike Sen. McCain's choice for a running mate. (Nothing against her... I speak of the division it seems likely to make in the most conservative minds of Republicans at large)

 

Its a strange thing. Its almost as if both parties have been trying their utmost not to get elected.

 

Meanwhile, Obama pretty much on his own and despite the politics of it all continues to move forward with his eyes continually on the prize. I find that to be the most interesting and compeling aspect of it all.

 

Apparently this was suppose to be Hillary's win but this young upstart has gone and overturned the apple cart.

 

Politics and partisanships aside I think Obama will make a fine President. The real question is... Will the nation rally behind him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This choice of Palin for VP has me so confused.

 

I just can't imagine a woman with 5 kids, one that is still breast feeding and "challenged", and a 17 year old pregnant daughter and all the work that involves, can take the pressure of the VP job or stay focused. At some point, more so than not, she MUST put her family completely aside. If the country is in a crisis how will she react? I guess she will hire nannies but... isn't that one of those right wing fundamental "no no's"? She seems to be a contradiction. I still don't understand why she said yes to this. She has a lot of time in the future to run for a bigger office, even the presidency, but to try it now under these circumstances, the press like hungry sharks with the scent of blood in the water... good god woman! I hope you know what you got yourself into.

 

On the question of her pregnant minor daughter... I don't think it is coming across the way she hopes it would. It wouldn't be my first choice for a poster child for the "pro life" campaign. Instead of that coming to mind I just think about all the unwanted teen pregnancies and how if you only preach abstinence and adoption... uh... you just end up with 17 year olds getting married WAY TOO YOUNG. 50 bucks those kids are divorced before the hit puberty I mean their 20's. Can you imagine? She could make a go of it, decide it isn't working, get a divorce... before she's 20. That's just sad.

 

Here's this Palin woman who is suppose to be the strongest advocate of all these family values. Draw in the right wing conservatives and make them drool, and her own daughter is pregnant OUT OF WED LOCK and before she's 18. It just doesn't come across as a positive thing for her. These things happen. I don't blame the mother for it but still... what was she teaching her daughter? Did she tell her about contraception or is that "bad" and encouraging kids to make the beast with two backs? My sisters didn't get pregnant at 17 and we didn't have strict bible thumping right wing parents. We were all pretty liberal actually. I sure hope the republicans don't even attempt to bring up family values in this election. McCain probably has a glass house and forgot about it. ;)

 

There is also all the corruption that has plagued Alaskan politics for years. She may or may not be part of that. She definately has not come out against Stevens... yet... who is in the most hot water. She may have voted against that bridge NOW but she voted for it at first... and the facts haven't really changed... only... more people know it's a bad thing. If anyone should have know what that was all about it should have been her (Palin, not Charlton Heston. Couldn't resist. ;) )

 

-vern

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vern. Your analysis seems to completely ignore that Mrs. Palin has a husband. Husbands can watch kids you know. From your analysis, it seems clear that you're searching for a problem because of Mrs. Palin's political views. Not because there is an actual, real, rational problem. Either that, or you're just 50 years behind the times.

 

I'm not endorsing any candidates or parties here. I just want the political discussion to be about real things. I want policies to be important. That's my issue here.

Again, I'm tired of these criticisms that have nothing to do with policies. These critiques just seems so petty. So anti-intellectual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh please. He isn't going to "gut it". There is nothing in Obama's plan to gut the military. That is a huge gigantic in your face exaggeration. He can't "gut" the military. He wants to SAVE the military. He wants to make it stronger by cutting back on waste and stupid useless misguided wars.

 

Vern, you apparently didn't (or didn't want to) listen to his OWN words. I posted his plan on dealing with our military. If you listened to that and some how got the impression that our military is going to be kept the same and not reduced, then I don't know what to say except put the cool aid down.

 

 

Oh please! Once again you are mixing up your facts. Afghanistan had the terrorists. We didn't finish the job there. Irag NEVER ATTACKED THE UNITED STATES. If Bush's concern was for the PEOPLE of Irag that should have been his only reason to attack. If he wanted the oil he should have made it clear. He and his administration LIED about terrorists and WMD in Iraq. This is FACT proven over and over and over.

 

I love this ridiculous comment from people about Bush lying and it being a fact. I can only respond in a way that MIGHT get you to at least say hmmm....

Don't you think that if it was A FACT that Bush DELIBERATELY lied to go to war with Iraq that the DEMS would be ALL OVER IT!?!?!? Don't you think Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid would be the FIRST one to sling the noose? The fact is Vern, there is NO proof of the Bush Admin. lying to the country. If there were, he'd have been impeached and probably imprisoned. I'm not getting my facts mixed up, YOU are distorting the facts!

 

Obama is NOT a socialist. Also, what is so wrong with a little tiny bit of socialism? People have that word confused with something else. Canada, France, have the BEST "socialized" health care in the world.

 

Not according to the reports I've heard. I don't think I want a health care system where I have to wait my turn to see a dentist. One guy was on a waiting list for (I'm not making this up) 3 years. To see a dentist??? He decide (as others have also) to pull his own tooth.

 

True it's an extreme example but do we REALLY want a system where everyone is on a great big list and that you have to wait your turn for medical attention? And who knows what it'd be like with other medical procedures.

 

Hey Vern, I heard a Canadian guy say that when some Canadian's need urgent medical care they come to America. Why would that be if socialized medicine is so good?

 

Yes it has some problems BUT IT FREAKING WORKS. It isn't perfect but it's TEN TIMES BETTER THAN WHAT WE HAVE.

 

I don't know what you have but my current medical coverage is very good and I'm not on a waiting list to get treatment.

 

 

The administration is in the pocket of the pharmaceutical companies. Do you realize that 60% of all health care casts ARE PAPER WORK? Yes, forms.

 

Are YOU aware that 30% of all medicare (government controlled medical coverage) is fraudulent (people making false claims)? Imagine how much bigger that'll be when everyone can apply.

 

 

Something like 60% of employees that work in medical health care industry only fill out and process forms. Every freaking insurance company has a DIFFERENT FORM. This is because there are no rules, no one telling them to streamline and save money.

 

Actually, government programs do that. I've seen with my own eyes the quick handout of government assistance with just about no questions asked. You talk about no oversight, that's the problem today with goverment programs on all levels.

 

 

Once again, Obama is not a "socialist" and you really need to do some research on that word. You don't really know what it means in todays world.

 

To say that Obama's not a socialist shows me that YOU don't know what a socialist is. Here's the definition according to dictionary.com:

 

1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

 

Obama's plan to pay for the massive healthcare for everyone is to take the capital from the rich guys to pay for his flawed plan for the poor guys.

 

Sorry Vern, but that's SOCIALISM!!!!!!

 

I heard his plan may take as much as 80% in taxes on people who make over 200,000 (might be a higher yearly wage but I believe that's it).

 

I don't make 200,000 so I'm not going to get the hit but if I were to ever make it big with an idea or product, and DID make over 200,000 a year, I would NOT want a socialist government taking 80% of my money from me. If this plan is incorporated it will destroy businesses.

 

 

You are repeating the propaganda and lies perpetrated by those who support the current administration. Yes Clinton may have missed the boat but he didn't have hindsight to know. AND HE TOLD THE BUSH WHITEHOUSE TO WATCH OUT FOR BIN LADEN! He warned them. When the Clinton administration left office they told Bush and his people that Al quaida was a bad thing and to keep an eye on them. Bush ignored those warnings. Maybe because he hated Bill so much who knows. Maybe because he didn't agree with it. Doesn't matter now, water under the bridge.

 

I'm repeating the facts. You are aware of Clinton's administration separating the CIA and the FBI? (Read up on John Ashcroft's statement about Jamie Gorelick ). This one important change alone, hindered our ability to track Bin Laden and the 911 attackers. Clinton was on watch during the 1st attack on the WTC attack in 1993, during the Al Qaeda suicide bombings of the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzanian in 1998 and of the Cole (an Al Qaeda attack on a big American ship) that killed 17 Americans in 2000.

 

To say Clinton missed the boat is an understatement! To say he didn't have hindsight just isn't true. And although he told the Bush admin., he also believed that terrorism is a law inforcement matter and not a military one. It was Bush who actually went to Afghanistan (as opposed to lobbing a few missles) and took out the government that supported Bin Laden's Al Qaeda organization and training camps (the Taliban).

 

 

911 happened a year into the Bush presidency. Bush had nearly a YEAR to "fix" any mistakes that Clinton made. Maybe if Gore had won in 2000 he would have LISTENED to the warnings instead of ignoring them. Don't try to shift blame of 911 onto Clinton. That's just ridiculous. 911 was no one's "fault" except the terrorists who perpetrated it. It happened. It was tragic. Our whole government dropped the ball INCLUDING Bush.

 

WOW finally something we both can agree on (I didn't think it was possible). You are absolutely right. Bush had a year. Clinton only had 8 years. They both missed the boat but I agree, it was the TERRORIST's fault. Not ours. Oh and Gore as president would have been interesting. I wonder how many missiles he'd have lobbed?

 

 

Get your facts straight... not much point in asking that because whenever people like you hear the truth you deny it as a cover up or conspiracy. The truth just doesn't work.

 

Wow! You WERE looking at the mirror as you were typing this right ? :lol:

 

 

Obama is not a socialist, he is not a muslim, and he isn't going to "gut" the military or turn us into a "third world country".

McCain's money did not come from organized crime, and he is not funded by Alquaida and he is not "just" a wrinkly old man.

 

Both candidates could run this country without a hitch. I am sure of that. My concern is HOW they will do it. What will happen in the long term? One has a status quo philosophy. The other wants to try a new approach. Neither idea will destroy America. We're to strong for that. A single president couldn't destroy America, although Bush has made a good start. We need some CHANGE. And that word is not some "catch phrase" made up by advertising consultants... it means what it says... CHANGE. We need a new different direction.

 

 

-vern

 

 

Very well said although I question the varacity of the statement.

 

I do hope McCain directs the change though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Both candidates could run this country without a hitch. I am sure of that. My concern is HOW they will do it. What will happen in the long term? One has a status quo philosophy. The other wants to try a new approach. Neither idea will destroy America. We're to strong for that. A single president couldn't destroy America, although Bush has made a good start. We need some CHANGE. And that word is not some "catch phrase" made up by advertising consultants... it means what it says... CHANGE. We need a new different direction."

 

Hitler made from one of the most freeminded and liberal democracies a dictatorship within a few years. Before Nazis, the Weimar Republik was a very liberal democracy. He used this liberaly against itself and in the end killed millions of peoples. So dont be too confident that one couldnt get the US down... it only needs many people with an attitude like "We are unbeatable and nothing bad can happen to us..." and an evil minded, clever person. Just leave your eyes open and learn from other peoples failure.

 

Many people here use the term sozialism like it was the same as comunism - as it would be the most evil thing on earth or something. Germany for example has penson-system, basic healthcare for everyone, helps people to get a new jobs and while they are trying that they get a small monthly pay for a certain while. I dont think that that is evil but it is social. Some people abuse the system, but most are really trying to take the chance and if you abuse it, you will be loosing the help and have to pay everything back with a penaltiy. It is not about getting the money away from the big guys... it is about helping people who are willing to get a job and work hard who just had misfortune.

 

See it like that: If you would for example buy with very much of your money shares from some oil-company and tomorrow the cold fusion would be invented or you disable a person WITHOUT ANY PURPOSE by accident with your car... wouldnt you be happy to get a small restartup-help? It means that the (really) rich people get a thousand dollars less, but it although means that people wont have to die or be starving because of misfortune and that the rich people if they ever have a problem wont end on the streets neighter. It is a second chance. If you can do great things or you got a great idea or you are working harder than others, you will gain more money than others. That is the way it should be. But it is although nice to know, that you wont loose everything if you cant do that whyever. Think of this:

 

Your child becomes ill. The threatment costs too much. You cant get that much money but your child will die even so it is unfair that your little girl has to. What would you say... "bad luck... more luck the next time?"

In Germany, if it is absolutly necessary you would get the threatment for free or at least very cheap, if it really needs to be done. I think a state is there too support his citizens...

I dont know enough about the american-healthcaresystem so. I only know what comes from the movies. There was one with denzel washington about that topic, where he had to take hostages in a hospital because he couldnt get enough money but his child needed a very expensive medical threatmeant (I think it was a heart-transplantation or something like that... if it is really like that in the US... I only can shake my head about that. For me, a life is more worthy than money.

 

"Financial support to come back on your feet." - This is especially useful in a country where a hot coffee on someones trousers can cost millions... (in Germany nobody would get millions for such a thing... I consider that as totally mad and here many people make fun of the incredible high penalties for not that important things in the US, but maybe you consider it as totally mad that you dont get that much money for such thing...)

 

And so on... Our social system is not perfect and there are some black sheeps here and there, but overall I think it is not a bad system. It means that every person has a last "save all" if it is really necessary.

 

*Fuchur*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For all the purported horror stories told about canadian healthcare, their life expectancy is still longer than in the US, their infant mortality is lower than in the US and their general health is better than in the US.

 

And this happens even though they spend about half as much per person on health care than in the US. They must be doing something that is getting them a better result. What is it?

 

Canada doesn't really have "national" or "socialized" health care. Those are scare words that the US healthcare industry promotes to preserve its own financial interests.

 

Each province in canada has it's own insurance system which pays the mostly private doctors and hospitals for their services, much as the various private insurance companies in the US pay for the mostly private doctor and hospital services.

 

In both cases the governement doesn't employ or manage the doctors and hospitals. There may be some government run health care facilities in Canada but we have many of those in the US also.

 

Each province has slightly different standards on what is and isn't covered by their insurance just as each US insurance company has different standards on what is and isn't covered.

 

Canada doesn't force doctors to serve certain areas anymore than the US does so I imagine some remote areas of Canada are underserved just as remote areas of the US are underserved.

 

I couldn't find a reference to the man waiting three years in canada to see a dentist, but i can tell you an equivalent story here. I was at a surplus store about a year ago and an old woman was wandering around holding her jaw and crying "I need something for my tooth! I need something for my tooth!" Everyone was ignoring her and I was too but then she actually comes right up to me and says "I need something for my tooth!"

 

I tell her, "You really need to see a dentist if you have a toothache. THere's nothing in this store that will cure a toothache."

 

"But i dont' have money for a dentist" she says and wanders off again.

 

For her, the wait for a dentist will be infinite because she will never have the $150 it takes to just see a dentist in this city never mind the ~$600 for a tooth extraction.

 

There are some free dental services available in the US at dental schools but they will only take patients who present the sort of cases they are interested in practicing on. I also doubt the old woman would have been able to negoitate the enormous amount of paperwork involved in applying for such care. The wait times for that free care are extensive.

 

I know this because my boyfriend tried to apply for such dental care. It took months to fulfill all their requests for documentation. Then nearly a year wait for a first appointment. Then 8 more months to be seen by someone who could actually decide what might be done for him (he was a kidney transplant patient and the transplant drugs were ruining his teeth) and then 3 more months wait to find out that, no, they wouldn't do anything for him, his case was too unusual, he would have to go to a private dentist.

 

I know someone will say that my stories are just anecdotal cases, but so is the guy in canada, right? It's not indicative of the general situation since Canada is getting an overall better result for less money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vern. Your analysis seems to completely ignore that Mrs. Palin has a husband. Husbands can watch kids you know. From your analysis, it seems clear that you're searching for a problem because of Mrs. Palin's political views. Not because there is an actual, real, rational problem. Either that, or you're just 50 years behind the times.

 

Uh.. hold on. My personal beliefs are that WOMEN any woman can be as good as or probably better than a man in ANY job (except a Chippendale dancer or sperm donor). I don't subscribe to the concept of the "stay-at-home-wife-cooking-cleaning-taking-care-of-the-kids". I didn't come up with that scenario of the "traditional family". It is the PARTY and the GROUP that Palin says she belongs to that dictated that concept. That is why I question her. That is why I say she is a contradiction. She is a conservative fundamentalist and yet, plans to NOT stay home with the family. The job of VP requires that you focus on your job more than anything else. This is the only job that really justifies that position. To be a president or vice president, your job MUST COME FIRST. If you can't accept that, get into a different line of work.

 

I know she has a husband who can "watch the kids". But that is a reversal of the roles that conservative Christians subscribe to (at least the ones I'm familiar with who voted for Bush... twice... and think McCain is the "chosen one"). They always preach about the two parents being present, some even say the MOTHER SHOULD stay home with the kids. I am trying to point out the hypocrisy.

 

I don't object to Palin as VP because she is a woman with small children. I object to her belief structure being completely opposite to her actions. You can't have your cake and eat it to. If she truly believed what she preaches she would NOT take the VP position so she can spend more of her time supporting her family and it's needs. If she does become VP there will be times (rare) when even her family can't get in touch with her, or even know where she is. She won't be Governor of Alaska, she will be the Vice President of the most powerful country in the world. A heartbeat away from the presidency.

 

------------------------------------------------------------

 

Jeetman,

 

You take the words of Obama and exaggerate them to mean "gutting the military". Cutting back on waste and streamlining the military is not GUTTING IT. George Bush has already gutted the military. It is a fraction of what it was 8 years ago. We aren't really prepared for any serious threats right now. I say this again, Obama will not GUT the military. We are not going to become a "Socialist" state. We are not going to turn into a 3rd world country when Obama becomes president.

 

Pelosi and all the Dems KNOW that Bush MISLEAD them and the whole country. This is FACT. Whether it was done intentionally and planned from the start or just sort of happened as they went along can't be proven (that info is only in their heads) but the misleading, misquoted, edited, falsified reports that led up to the Iraq war are documented and verifiable. Scooter got convicted. Plame was outed (most likely by Chenney). No one in their right mind can say that Bush didn't not play fast and loose with the intelligence reports when planning this war. He and Chenney had planned from DAY 1 to attack Iraq at any cost. None of this is "rumor" or speculation. Pelosi has stated there will be no impeachment of Bush because it would be a distraction to more important things. However, don't think there won't be repercussions down the road. I see Bush possibly facing war crime tribunals in his future, or at least some kind of trial regarding his actions in office leading up to the war in Iraq.

 

George W was president and had been for a while when 911 happened. He was at the helm. He had the time and the resources to follow up on any of the tips that CLINTON himself gave him about Alquaida and Bin laden. He chose to ignore those warnings, regardless of any mistakes Bill Clinton made. Bush's lack of action could be attributed to the same thing as Clinton. Maybe Clinton didn't do the right thing? Is that George Bush's excuse for doing the exact same thing? Nothing? Blame it on the other guy who isn't in office? Who do we blame the economy on? Bush's dad?

 

Your argument in support of Bush and his absolutely failed and miserable plans is... just... I can't put it into words. Bush's ratings are the lowest for a president in history. Clinton's approval ratings were 75% DURING his impeachment hearings (not really impeached actually, just sort of). To defend Bush's policies and his fabricated and twisted evidence for starting the war in Iraq is just... well... it's just... crazy. Bush has blinders on. I don't think he even "gets it" (to quote Obama about McCain). He has no clue. He stubbornly refuses to admit this so called "war on terror" isn't working under his plan. He won't make needed changes because changing your mind looks weak. That's not rational.

 

----------------------------------------------------

Ranting and raving:

 

John McCain WILL be another 4 years of Bush and his failed policies. And now with Palin... my GOD! I will wait quietly for the book burnings to start, creationism taught in schools, mandated prayer to The Christian God in public schools... and then I'm leaving the country. I say that in jest... but it's the first time I ever seriously considered moving to Canada or Europe. if McCain wins. If he wins I just don't think I have a place here. Obvously the right wing conservatives don't really want a free and open society in America. They want laws and constitutional ammendments stating who can marry whom, what "science" or "psuedo-science" can be taught in schools, the choices a woman can make about her own freaking body. Some old fat over the hill white guy thinks he knows better about how a woman should handle her personal health care. That isn't free. All those issues are based on religious beliefs not the law or the constitution. That is a theocracy. (I'm also sick of this "pro choice/pro life" label. I am not PRO DEATH. I'm PRO LIFE AND PRO CHOICE. You CAN have it both ways. You can HATE abortion and still support those who are the ones who actually have to make that decision and it's really none of my business anyway. I will never be in that position. Ever ever. Unless some miraculous medical procedure is invented... really really soon.)

 

We are headed towards a theocracy. That Palin woman scares me more than Bush or McCain. Her strict hard line beliefs scare my pants off. She supports the teaching of religion as science in public schools. That's enough to send a shiver down anyone's spine. Even Bush never came out and said that out loud. I believe if McCain wins Palin is going to go hog wild trying to make policy about, family planning, gay rights, religion in the government. We will have another four years of a fundamentalist Christian government. Obama must win in my opinion. He may not be the absolutely perfect choice. He may not be perfect but he's a bazillion times better than the only alternative. I am sick to death of conservatives trying to force their beliefs on everyone in this country. Trying to shove down our throats their beliefs on how we should live our lives. America is a free country. Free to believe what you want. Free to speak your mind. Follow any religion. Once laws are made that constrain our freedoms to one religious philosophy we are no longer free.

 

I support freedom of religion just don't MAKE IT A LAW I HAVE TO FOLLOW. A truly fare minded leader will follow his own beliefs but make decisions based on facts OUTSIDE of those beliefs so that ALL AMERICANS are EQUALLY protected. If God gets into the government "too much" we're doomed. Theocracies are a disaster. If McCain wins be prepared. He will have the chance to make the supreme court a conservative majority. When that happens... I can't even imagine.

 

Can you imagine Dobson or John "Katrina was sent by God!" Hagee in his cabinet? Yikes.

 

 

-vern

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My, everybody foaming at the mouth (pro and con) over Palin. Speculation, speculation. We have two months and a week to find out what her thoughts and plans are. Why don't we just shut up and watch for a while?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Canadian health care system is slower than Americans if you have the money, or insurance that covers it. If you have no insurance than the Canadians system is faster as oppose to never see you, until you are close to death.

 

The Canadians encourage the people to have regular checkups, so that as soon as they detect anything then they can address it in timely matters. It is when they skip checkups that they end up being screwed and by the time they are being seen it's too late for any operable cure. The wait is sometimes up to 3-6 month to get an MRI in Canada, while for Americans, who have insurance coverage will be seen that afternoon.

 

Companies that provide insurance for full time employees run a gamut of reducing the employment time just short of the requirement to avoid coverage. That is why in America, many people have many part time jobs and no insurance coverage. This is why there is a move to get away from corporation to help provide coverage and let govt take over. If govt takes over than this will also lift the burden off of small companies and allow them to grow, and encourage full time employment of one job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL I give up. I'd have to write a mini-book to answer Vern and others.

 

So I'm done with this thread. Thank you. It was very enjoyable trying to debate the undebatable hehe. You can't debate someone who's convinced the President deliberately mislead the American people to start a war and cause thousands of casualties for what oil? Oh and this isn't some leftwing nutty POV. It's an absolute FACT! Just ask Vern. Apparently the Dems who oppose the war and would rather we lose anyway don't have the info to nail Bush. After all it was just for oil. Well one does. Dennis Kusinich. He's been trying to get Bush impeached for the deliberate misleading and intelligence tampering to fool the American public so he could have his war. It's amazing to me that apparently the government doesn't have the same info that Vern has. Vern, you should bring your facts to Washington and help Kusinich Impeach Bush. If you have the absolute proof, then as an American you are obligated to present this evidence.

 

About gutting the military Vern, You apparently hear something totally different than I do LOL

 

Robert,

 

Sorry I wasn't talking about Canada when giving the example of the guy waiting for 3 years for a dentist. He was a Brit. Just do a search for people pulling their own teeth and you'll find a bunch of stories about it. The argument I was making was about socialized medicine so it still fits.

 

I'll end my post with this observation I've made just talking to people who believe that the government can provide health care for everyone.

 

The same people who will tell you straight out that our American government is corrupt and all politicians are crooks will tell you in the same breath that these same government corrupt and crooked politicians are going to provide good, honest and legitimate health care for all.

 

Give that some thought LOL.

 

All I can say is I seriously hope enough Americans see through the Obama Hype.

 

OK back to animating now.

 

George

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before you run away, you should know that there has been handful of CIA officer testified and brought document that Bush lied us to war and paid intelligence to produce a forge document from Niger, and literally hundreds of document were purposefully circumvented to reach Bush stating that Saddam was not a threat to us. There have also been a congressional investigation that concluded that Bush lied the US into war on falsified information that was fabricated.

 

That being said, the congress have the lowest approval rating in history and much of it stems from lack of accountability toward the executive branch. But don't take my word for it, listen to their own, such as Scott McClellan talk about the fake document, and outing of a covert agent. I have no idea where you think that this is all made up, and probably the few that cling to that. Vern isn't pulling this out of thin air, with hard evidence, it is a fact that Bush lied the US into war.

 

Read Ron Suskind book! Everything laid out in that book. "The Way of the World" and even though Whitehouse denies the allegation, London intelligence confirm Ron Suskind allegation. The downing street report is very old and confirm story of what took place there. I am just not sure how those report could be marginalize as being fiction?

 

As for Obama hype, he repeatedly stated that its not him but the people. We as people are so hungry for a change and not recycle another 4 years of the same policy. It may be Obama charisma, but I think it may be more anything but another term of Bush failed policy.

 

This RNconvention have resulted in the arrest of 3 award winning reporters on the street and a major network personality barred from the convention, and dozen of homes raided for suspect of participating in a plan protest rally. This isn't wiretapping, but makes you wonder if they have nothing to hide why suppress free speech from the media?

 

But if Bush policy went so well and you want another third term of the same, then name me one positive thing Bush has accomplish?

 

BTW Jeetman, fiction sell really well! what are you going to call your mini-book? :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard his plan may take as much as 80% in taxes on people who make over 200,000 (might be a higher yearly wage but I believe that's it).

 

Obama tax plan is raising the rich mostly by 4% over what McCain propose, and giving a break for the lower 60% of the population. Obama is increasing Corporate gains by 10% over McCain. But by and large most americans pay close to 35% of the income on tax. In Britain it's close to 50% of your income.

 

When you get free health care it makes it kind of hard to fraudulent something that is free. The system that we have now makes it very inviting to fraud the insurance company. In the long run it is cheaper to have preventative health care than to wait until your health is failing. If health care become free, then practicing preventative care is much more likely to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you have free health care, defrauding it is the easiest thing in the world. People go to the emergency room for a head cold. I know, I've been in plenty of emergency rooms - anybody with an iffy ticker and sixty years under his belt has - and I've had to wait in line for other patients whose "emergency" was that they were loud and drunk.

 

Of course, this isn't free. A trip to the ER in Minneapolis, where my experiences have been, costs over $10,000. If you don't have insurance, you don't go to the ER for something as trivial as a head cold because you can't afford it. If you do have insurance, you don't go because you don't want your premiums to go up. But if you're on welfare, then hell, why not? Head cold, hangnail, stubbed toe, nosebleed, anything; it costs taxpayers $10,000 to treat your hangnail but you don't pay a nickel. So in Minneapolis, drunks routinely (many times a day) get "treated" at the ER at $10,000 a pop. You're probably having trouble believing this situation exists, but it does - or at least it did when I lived there, up until 2 years ago.

 

Does going to the ER for a $10,000 head-cold treatment count as "defrauding" the system? If not, then the system has lost its mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Warning - really long and rambling post....

 

Majorly long and boring post deleted.

 

After some consideration and a little time, I decided that this really didn't belong on this site.

 

Thanks

 

-Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People go to the emergency room for a head cold. I know, I've been in plenty of emergency rooms - anybody with an iffy ticker and sixty years under his belt has - and I've had to wait in line for other patients whose "emergency" was that they were loud and drunk.

 

But if you're on welfare, then hell, why not? Head cold, hangnail, stubbed toe, nosebleed, anything; it costs taxpayers $10,000 to treat your hangnail but you don't pay a nickel. So in Minneapolis, drunks routinely (many times a day) get "treated" at the ER at $10,000 a pop.

 

Does going to the ER for a $10,000 head-cold treatment count as "defrauding" the system? If not, then the system has lost its mind.

You seem to be acknowledging that our present health care system resembles a communist philosophy. "From each, according to his ability. To each, according to his need." Why the conservative sector (of all people) wants to maintain this is beyond me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry I wasn't talking about Canada when giving the example of the guy waiting for 3 years for a dentist. He was a Brit. Just do a search for people pulling their own teeth and you'll find a bunch of stories about it.

That means the anecdote is even more unlike anything being proposed for the US.

 

The argument I was making was about socialized medicine so it still fits.
But no one running for office is proposing socialized medicine in the US. That term means the government runs all health care. "Socialized" is scare word that has no relation to the our situation. The UK does have a "socialized" health service, the NHS. (and yet, even with all it's awfulness, it still gets a better overall result for less money than the US system).

 

The only proposals on the table in the US are to make sure everyone has health insurance. It's entirely possible that could be implemented badly but it doesn't have to be.

 

 

When you have free health care, defrauding it is the easiest thing in the world.

obvious hyperbole that doesn't add any information to the discussion.

 

BTW, almost nobody in the US has "free" healthcare. Almost all plans have a co-payment requirement that put a percentage of the burden on the patient.

 

I think Indians on reservations may have "free" healthcare. Medicaid is "free" but you have to be completely broke first and stay broke.

 

People go to the emergency room for a head cold.

You're a doctor and were able to diagnose their problem by sitting across the waiting room from them? That's very Bill Frist.

 

Many people with chronic conditions are told by their doctor to go to the ER immediately if something comes up.

 

I know, I've been in plenty of emergency rooms -

 

Me too.

 

anybody with an iffy ticker and sixty years under his belt has - and I've had to wait in line for other patients whose "emergency" was that they were loud and drunk.

Or is it some other condition that resembles drunkeness? Again, you can diagnose this from afar?

 

An ER desk person makes an initial assessment about who needs to be seen and what priority to assign them. If you had to wait for the loud person to be seen first, that was a judgement call the the ER staff and wouldn't have been any different if we had universal heath insurance. He wouldn't be any more or less loud and your ticker wouldn't be any more or less "iffy" just because the mode of paying for the ER visits changed.

 

The anecdote is presented to build up some sort of emotional support for your position but it really has no bearing on the universal coverage debate. If we had universal coverage, it wouldn't put the loud guy any more in front of you in line than he already is.

 

 

Of course, this isn't free. A trip to the ER in Minneapolis, where my experiences have been, costs over $10,000.

You said that you're elderly and have chronic heart trouble. Such a patient might well run up more than someone with a minor injury would.

 

Where I am a "walk-in" ER visit starts at $250. That's not cheap but it's not $10,000. Implying that $10,000 would be the bill for a head cold is hyperbole. If it isn't hyperbole then I'd say that's a clear sign something is wrong with the US healthcare system you're intent on not changing.

 

If you don't have insurance, you don't go to the ER for something as trivial as a head cold because you can't afford it. If you do have insurance, you don't go because you don't want your premiums to go up.

Your insurance sounds unlike most in the US. When I had health insurance, via my employer, their standard reccomendation was to go to the ER if I had a reason and couldn't get an immediate visit to my doctor. Once I had something caught in my eye. Go to the ER they said. They're the ones with the special equipment to handle odd things. My GP won't.

 

And like most health insurance plans inthe US it was group insurance so my rates couldn't be raised just because I went to the ER X number of times.

 

Sounds like you have a bad plan and would benefit from some sort of national coverage standards that made sense. But instead you argue to maintain the bad situation.

 

I predict you will win. I dont' think universal coverage will ever happen here no matter who wins an election. There are too many for-profit health companies fighting against it.

 

And if we do get universal coverage, i bet it still doesn't include dental care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...