good find. there are lots of things we shouldnt have let bush get away with and vice-versa. thats the problem with bi-partisan thinking. someone is always gonna be in the wrong.....
the problem with turning offices over to other parties is that the new guy always thinks they were elected to do what they want to do. instead of what we want them to do.
you're wrong here, if you think presidents get to decide what they want to do. presidents win elections because of big special interest groups. the more money those groups donate to their campaigns, the more important their agenda becomes in the presidents term.
i'm speaking a bit tongue in cheek here. I don't literally mean do what they want. I mean as an antithesis to the outgoing party. the facetious example would be Obama going to see that broadway show. but the more relevant example would be government owned and managed health care plans. Polls reflect that people aren't nearly as interested in that as the elected are. You'll also note the campaigning didn't talk much about this stuff either. Obama wasn't elected because people wanted a socialised medicine arm of the government. People wanted Obama to fix what was wrong with the current private system. Obama and his legislature core doesn't want to fix it, they want to replace it. ...the problem with turning offices over to other parties is that the new guy always thinks they were elected to do what -they- want to do. instead of what -we- want them to do.
Wow, only on Yahoo does such non news become news...the title of the article might as well have been, "Obama Human". YOU may not want to see a new system, as someone who has been without health insurance in the past, and worked in the medical field, I have heard an outcry for a public health insurance system for a long time. Polls are about the worst "scientific measure" ever created. Why even bother citing them?
and how would you suggest going about collecting the information that reflects what you say is an outcry? I suppose you might have to hold a poll. ;p
My point was that the "outcry" I spoke of was anecdotal, and probably as representative as many polls. I think the only way we can effectively determine what the majority of the people want in their government is through elections. Obama DID campaign with the message of a public option being part of the path to healthcare reform. Many politicians (Republican and Democrat alike) have viewed a public health care system as a "poison pill" issue. An issue that may have proponents, but would ultimately be politically untenable due to the massive lobbying power of the private insurance industry. I wonder if anyone really thinks that a republican president would meet this kind of opposition to healthcare reform from the right? The idea of a public insurance option being somehow anti-democratic or an impingement on personal freedoms has to be one of the most brilliantly crafted, lobbyist generated communications policies ever. The fact that it plays to the fears of many of those most likely to benefit makes it all the more effective....
We're getting off topic a bit, but a couple things: I will point out that the current versions of the 'government ''option''' is in fact an infringement on personal freedom for 2 reasons. 1st: it forces other insurance companies to carry types of coverage on their policies they may not already, regardless if they want to or if their customers want them to. This is tantamount to a governor saying your comprehensive car insurance must add coverage for flat tires, and you don't get a choice if you want to pay for it. the 2nd: reason is that a government program doesn't have to make a profit, or in government speak a "surplus", like a real business does, it merely raises taxes to continue existing. I can choose to not be a customer of a failing business. I can't choose to not pay taxes that are being proposed to pay for this. ---- but back to the politics of inequity. politicians have the same problem as Bobby Cox... they don't know how/refuse to play 'small ball.' Each time a new party has gotten in the last 20 years, they've made big moves to do giant sweeping actions in government. they ultimately overstep, and betray trust to try and reach the goal they set. Inevitably, the corner cutting and the long path of compromises laid behind upsets the voting public and further escalates distrust. I don't understand why politicians, even on the local level, can't focus on smaller specific tasks and be successful at them. In no other management organisational engine would we tolerate the behavior of politicians freshly elected, from either side. Nor would we tolerate the utter lack of complicity, research, cause and effect, lack of study, or openness that the current legislative branch engages in if it were to come in any other form. instead, both sides drum up misplaced urgency, shoot for huge actions, and proceed to tick off the voting public to no end.
It's called get a job that offers an insurance plan. If you can't afford it, get two jobs. If you can't afford still then get an education in a field that pays well enough to buy insurance. If you want to be a social butterfly and go to all the cool parties then bitch about having a low paying job and no insurance, well, go find you a nice little dark corner and die please.
So we can continue to ensure that insurance company executives can make massive salaries, deny people coverage when they actually do get sick and file claims, and generally bend the consumer over at every opportunity? No thanks... As for higher paying jobs, when everyone has graduate degrees and these higher paying jobs, who is going to serve you a beer at the bar or pick up your trash? But your right, its far easier just to let the uninsured simply die (really?)...
on healthcare, why not be exactly like this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Sweden one of THE best healthcare systems in the world for almost 30yrs and still running strong..... what's truly sad to me, is in all of this healthcare reforming mumbo-jumbo talk in the last year i have YET to hear Sweden even mentioned as a model or base to start from. EDIT: i understand that means COMPLETE government control of healthcare, but the reality is it works GREAT and no one person or persons would benefit from this it would be fair (lol, cuz its socialist). don't get me wrong, im no socialist. but there are a couple things this country could greatly benefit from having a set of (high) government standards to adhere to. healthcare being one, and the deplorable state of our nations schools is another.
Sorry but that picture.....Bahahahahaha^^^^^^ I was at the unemployment office yesterday I waited 4.5 hours to submit an address change. All I could think of is, shit this could be the doctors office. There does need to be major reform: pre-existing condition, catastrophic coverage but certainly not Government mandated health care. The Government could also offer major tax brakes as an incentive for companies to offer discounted coverage and for insurance companies to provide catastrophic plans. There are so many good alternatives to stimulate a free market solution where government can provide incentives for healthy competition in the private sector. As Breel stated it is about getting a job and the ability for employers to offer insurance. In summary there does need to be reform and I think both parties are in full agreement on this, hopefully bi-partisan special interest which is what is truly influencing all these politicians find some common ground. The current system as it stands in not good and socialism is not the answer. More jobs would help immensely. From a personal standpoint. I was laid off last January and have not had health insurance since. Cobra is insanely expensive and the current plans out there for unemployed or self employed individuals are either heinously expensive or the deductible is so high you better be dying before you see the doctor. I have not been sitting on my duff complaining and collecting checks. I have been job hunting since January, going to graduate school and I started a company www.imeclimited.com (Web site just went live, sorry about the mess it's still under construction) I have no credit card debt, no house, my car is paid for and I live within my means. I have also worked since I was 8 and am know 44 and I don't have one iota of guilt collecting unemployment which I have been paying into for 28 years. If I get sick I am fubared. If for some reason I am stricken with a catastrophic health care situation I have a special bullet saved. I have no fear of putting a bullet between my eyes as apposed to getting discharged from a hospital after recovery only to be in debt hundreds of thousands maybe a million dollars or more for the rest of my life. My Mother survived colon cancer if it comes back she would most likely be denied coverage and forced to die in major debt. Case and point the current situation from a very personal level as a common American is not working for me and Socialism is not the answer.
if you read the wiki on swedish healthcare you'll see its not government run. it is still locally run by individuals. if there is an emergency or urgent car you still get in immidiately (well probly as immediately as you do at the ER now), the only downside i read is you have to make an appointment to see your doctor 3 days in advance. you could potentially be seen earlier but its WITHIN a 3 day period. also i know no elective surgeries are covered in sweden. essentially, if you want a boob job you have to come out of pocket for that. and also for instance, wisdom teeth: if they aren't causing pain/infection or messing up the rest of your teeth they will not remove them. my best friend's uncle is an oral surgeon in sweden essentially, the bottom levels of healthcare, wouldnt change much. its the big surgeries and extended hospital stays that you would see more of a government impact. (in a swedish type system)
In all honesty, if the government and the special interest groups would not stipulate all the bullshit they require the insurance companies to carry, we would have affordable insurance.
this is true. but you also know if it were left any more unregulated than it already is, it would wind up like the oil industries back in the 20's-30's. a huge monopoly. haha i guess the question is, do you want a private sector run monopoly or a government run monopoly?
I can't help but mention that when I did have health care it sucked so bad, basically I stopped going to the doctor anyway. Unless it was an emergency I usually had to wait 3-4 days sometimes up to a week or two to see my doctor. You also had to go to multiple appointments and get referrals to actually get to the right doctor, or specialist for what you required. Most doctors were so busy and impersonal, many times they rushed you in and out did not document your files correctly or spend enough time with you to diagnose you correctly. Most of them were completely closed to alternative medicine or any natural alternatives to prescription drugs. Most of them were actually pushing drugs and surgery like a used car sales person sells cars. Don't get me wrong there are some good doctors and surgeons out there but they are worth their weight in gold and once you find one you better keep them close at hand and pray your coverage doesn't change. My girlfriend who is from Florence Italy and still a citizen goes back to Italy once a year to see her doctor. My parents get their drugs from Canada as do all their friends. My Cousins, Aunts, Uncles and siblings live in Canada, Germany and England have not really had that many issues. My Grandparents who both passed away recently received phenomenal health care throughout their later lives in Sarnia Ontario which is a small city South of London Ontario. My Grandfather had a quadruple bypass and later died of lung cancer had excellent care until his death. My grandmother who had cancer, heart disease diabetes to name a few never once had a administrative health care situation that put her at risk of waiting for treatment and lived until she was 89 including at home nursing care for the final year of her life. Neither of them died owing hospitals or doctors thousands of dollars nor did their surviving family members have to deal with hospitals trying to sue them for unpaid bills of deceased relatives. My point being the U.S system used to be one of the best but it has definitely eroded to a level equal if not worse than many socialist health care systems which is unacceptable and know we are to the point were we have to deal with if we can't bet them join them. After Decades of special interest and the pimping out of America to foreign special interest and the gangsters on Wall street by the Clinton and then the Bush administrations we may have passed the point of no return. Our economy is fubared and we are being controlled by foreign special interest from Dubai to Hong Kong, that is who is actually influencing legislation. We have lost the ability to compete as an industrial nation and the only thing that is keeping us afloat right now is our ability to consume. We have lost our borders, language and culture. My personal opinion is every man for himself. Minimize your stuff, keep your body in good shape to keep from getting sick, arm yourself and protect your loved ones and be ready for the worst hope for the best. *Americans need to turn off that HBO quit drugging and drinking themselves into oblivion, quit being distracted by mainstream media and take their country back, otherwise get ready for far worse than socialized health care and brush up on your Mandarin Chinese, Arabic and be ready to abide by some Sharia law. It is already past being on the doorstep it is in your legislation. Just a footnote: Fuck all these Cup Half full, prozac popping, smell the roses fools who want to make it seem like something is wrong with you if you appear: angry, "negative", cynical or just plain fed up. They make it seem like if you're not walking around with a big "the world is a beautiful wonderful place" look you need counseling. I tell them you be happy with that half cup and pretend it's half full while I go get a full cup, idiot! *Americans may be defined as any person who is a legal U.S. citizen (Not dependent on race, gender, handicap, social status.....)
simple solution...If you have not paid into the system and over the age of 18...then you should not benefit. Just think of how many of us DO pay into the system and will never see a damn dime of that money. Sweden? how many people in that country? If all the people in this country that do NOT have ins. got ins.....the medical providers will be over run and do not have the infrastrucure to handle it. I could rant all day but I will stop here...for now
How did this go from a "What if bush had done this?" discussion to a healthcare debate. Take this to another thread or start a new one if there isnt a new one. This thread is for straight up bashing president obama as a hypocrite and hailing ex president bush as the supreme christian leader of america.
this is what we WANT the Democrats to do when they're voted into power. We want them to enforce compliance with policies for transparency, simplicity, and openness. And to not let the free market escalate to a level where its predatory by its complexity. Thats a key policy and philosophical goal of legacy Democrats Instead, current Liberal Democrats want to 'take over' for the free market. That was my original point... when a party change happens, the politicians think its a free ticket to do what -they- want and not what the voters want. -----
guess this falls under the same premise that some Republicans believe they must start a war or conflict of some sort to energize the economy and ultimately drain it of all its resources...
Did you presume ownership of this thread or are you somehow also RSConvert? Are you the Supreme Christian leader of all threads?:rofl: Wouldn't God be the Supreme Christian Leader?
you could say that of Obama, or the press reports on him. Anyone notice how they tried to sweep under the rug the whole withdrawing out of Poland with Missile defense being pulled out to appease Russia? And then after Russia didn't help us with Iran or NK, how he quietly went back to Poland to talk about establishing a new missile treaty?