Buy insurance or face the IRS and or jail.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

It must be tough to live in your world today. I mean, your posts lately are vitriolic and angry. Understandable since your party has control of all branchs and cant get your pet programs through.

Could you ever try to look on things NOT through the "your party/my party" glasses? I personally do not have any party affiliation (and likely never have - they both seem to be full of crap), and looking on some people here, blindly following their party leaders like lemmings walking from the edge into death, it seems to be the only way to keep yourself sane.

Basically what you just said is that you do not have any issues with the bill - well, you didn't even read it, so you obviously cannot - you have problems that the bill was not introduced by your party. Everything else seems to be just a makeup cover .

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

It must be tough to live in your world today. I mean, your posts lately are vitriolic and angry. Understandable since your party has control of all branchs and cant get your pet programs through.

Could you ever try to look on things NOT through the "your party/my party" glasses? I personally do not have any party affiliation (and likely never have - they both seem to be full of crap), and looking on some people here, blindly following their party leaders like lemmings walking from the edge into death, it seems to be the only way to keep yourself sane.

Basically what you just said is that you do not have any issues with the bill - well, you didn't even read it, so you obviously cannot - you have problems that the bill was not introduced by your party. Everything else seems to be just a makeup cover .

I think both parties are the problem too. It just happens at this time Obamas agenda is the most dangerous. (from a gov run political perspective)
And if people here want conversation they need to get of the damned stool and stop implying that those with whom they disagree are less educated or intelligent and stop talking down their noses at them.
And NO!!! I do have issues with the bill. IN GENERAL the government should NOT be running insurance or creating 60 or 80 new departments (I forget exactly how many right now) The gov has no incentive to be efficient with our money. You can not offer up one example that counters that claim.

And I said I have not read the whole bill. See the difference.

Talk about blind fucking support

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

I think both parties are the problem too. It just happens at this time Obamas agenda is the most dangerous. (from a gov run political perspective)

How could you know that if you didn't read the bill yourself? You did not provide any facts to support your thoughts so far.

Quote

And if people here want conversation they need to get of the damned stool and stop implying that those with whom they disagree are less educated or intelligent and stop talking down their noses at them.

To have a reasonable conversation it should be based on the same source. To explain it in your terms, it makes little sense to discuss God if you're using the bible and I'm using Watch Tower magazine to support my thoughts.

Quote

And NO!!! I do have issues with the bill. IN GENERAL the government should NOT be running insurance or creating 60 or 80 new departments (I forget exactly how many right now) The gov has no incentive to be efficient with our money. You can not offer up one example that counters that claim.

So your only issue listed so far is "government should not be doing this", and listening two cases. The first is "running insurance". I assume you mean public plan, as the government has been regulating insurance (kinda of "running" them, i.e. telling them how to run their business) long time ago before the bill. If this is correct, I'd like to see more information why you object public plan. I see both pros and cons in it, and while I'm more in favor of it (i.e. I see more pros), I am open to other opinions.

Second issue is "creating departments". Sorry, but this will not fly. You did not seem to raise any issues when GWB was creating departments and enlarging the government, which makes impression you're not really against it and just use it as cover to hide your real thoughts.

And of course the main question - do you think that current system is fine, and requires no changes? If not, what kind of changes YOU would make (again, be realistic)? This seem to be common issue within those who do not like the bill - they agree "something need to be done", and they say "the bill is not doing it right". However they do not offer any realistic solution themselves.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

I think both parties are the problem too. It just happens at this time Obamas agenda is the most dangerous. (from a gov run political perspective)

How could you know that if you didn't read the bill yourself? You did not provide any facts to support your thoughts so far.

Quote

And if people here want conversation they need to get of the damned stool and stop implying that those with whom they disagree are less educated or intelligent and stop talking down their noses at them.

To have a reasonable conversation it should be based on the same source. To explain it in your terms, it makes little sense to discuss God if you're using the bible and I'm using Watch Tower magazine to support my thoughts.

Quote

And NO!!! I do have issues with the bill. IN GENERAL the government should NOT be running insurance or creating 60 or 80 new departments (I forget exactly how many right now) The gov has no incentive to be efficient with our money. You can not offer up one example that counters that claim.

So your only issue listed so far is "government should not be doing this", and listening two cases. The first is "running insurance". I assume you mean public plan, as the government has been regulating insurance (kinda of "running" them, i.e. telling them how to run their business) long time ago before the bill. If this is correct, I'd like to see more information why you object public plan. I see both pros and cons in it, and while I'm more in favor of it (i.e. I see more pros), I am open to other opinions.

Second issue is "creating departments". Sorry, but this will not fly. You did not seem to raise any issues when GWB was creating departments and enlarging the government, which makes impression you're not really against it and just use it as cover to hide your real thoughts.

And of course the main question - do you think that current system is fine, and requires no changes? If not, what kind of changes YOU would make (again, be realistic)? This seem to be common issue within those who do not like the bill - they agree "something need to be done", and they say "the bill is not doing it right". However they do not offer any realistic solution themselves.

Oh you should search befor you make statements about me in your posts

I did NOT support GWB's drug addtions to medicare. I did NOT support GWB's TSA program. As a matter of fact I supported very little he did unless it was related to Iraq.

Now, is the current system fine? No. Does it need to be scrapped and totally overhauled? HELL no. Should the gov run any part of it? FUCK no. This is (for the most part) a created issues to try and give those in the gov the oportunity to take over yet another part of our lives

Now, go try again

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

Now, is the current system fine? No. ... Should the gov run any part of it? FUCK no.

So, we should just wait around for "private industry' to fix things? They've had 60+ years (since the end of WWII when private health insurance became common) to deal with the problems and they've shown no inclination to do so. Why should they? They're very very profitable as things are, that's all they care about. It's not their problem that people with pre-existing conditions can't get coverage and are being bankrupted at record rates by medical bills. If it were up to the insurance companies they'd be happy to carry on forever collecting premiums from healthy people and purging sick people from their rolls.

So if the private companies won't do it, and in your opinion government should have nothing to do with it, then who do you suggest should step to the plate?

Quote

This is (for the most part) a created issues to try and give those in the gov the oportunity to take over yet another part of our lives

In the last decade premiums, even for people on group plans, have more than doubled while incomes have remained flat or even fallen for many people. Do you really believe the gov't engineered that just so they would have an excuse to take over health insurance?

Quote

Now, go try again

You expect people who are trying to have a serious discussion about a real issue to just keep changing their mind at random until they happen to come up with some piece of crap that you'd be happy with? Why don't you try to change people's mind by offering compelling, logical, fact-based arguments instead of ODS-based drivel?

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[rushmc 18]

Nice PA
And no. I have state simple and I think effective avenues to "change" things without consenting to government control of yet another portion of out lives.

Simple to me and unacceptable to you because you must cherish more government intervention in our lives.

Now, please go insult someone else. I will not take you bait

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

There is a reason people. OPEN YOUR EYES!!!

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Congressional-leaders-fight-against-posting-bills-online-8340658-63557217.html

Quote

Congressional leaders fight against posting bills online
By: Susan Ferrechio
Chief Congressional Correspondent
October 6, 2009

As Congress lurches closer to a decision on an enormous overhaul of the American health care system, pressure is mounting on legislative leaders to make the final bill available online for citizens to read before a vote.

Lawmakers were given just hours to examine the $789 billion stimulus plan, sweeping climate-change legislation and a $700 billion bailout package before final votes.

While most Americans normally ignore parliamentary detail, with health care looming, voters are suddenly paying attention. The Senate is expected to vote on a health bill in the weeks to come, representing months of work and stretching to hundreds of pages. And as of now, there is no assurance that members of the public, or even the senators themselves, will be given the chance to read the legislation before a vote.

"The American people are now suspicious of not only the lawmakers, but the process they hide behind to do their work," said Michael Franc, president of government relations for the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.

At town hall meetings across the country this past summer, the main topic was health care, but there was a strong undercurrent of anger over the way Congress rushed through passage of the stimulus, global warming and bank bailout bills without seeming to understand the consequences. The stimulus bill, for example, was 1,100 pages long and made available to Congress and the public just 13 hours before lawmakers voted on it. The bill has failed to provide the promised help to the job market, and there was outrage when it was discovered that the legislation included an amendment allowing American International Group, a bailout recipient, to give out millions in employee bonuses.

"If someone had a chance to look at the bill, they would have found that out," said Lisa Rosenberg, who lobbies Congress on behalf of the Sunlight Foundation to bring more transparency to government.

The foundation has begun an effort to get Congress to post bills online, for all to see, 72 hours before lawmakers vote on them.

"It would give the public a chance to really digest and understand what is in the bill," Rosenberg said, "and communicate whether that is a good or a bad thing while there is still time to fix it."



What you don't know can hurt you:

» House energy and global warming bill, passed June 26, 2009. 1,200 pages. Available online 15 hours before vote.

» $789 billion stimulus bill, passed Feb. 14, 2009. 1,100 pages. Available online 13 hours before debate.

» $700 billion financial sector rescue package, passed Oct. 3, 2008. 169 pages. Available online 29 hours before vote.

» USA Patriot domestic surveillance bill, passed Oct. 23, 2001. Unavailable to the public before debate.



A similar effort is under way in Congress. Reps. Brian Baird, D-Wash., and Greg Walden, R-Ore., are circulating a petition among House lawmakers that would force a vote on the 72-hour rule.

Nearly every Republican has signed on, but the Democratic leadership is unwilling to cede control over when bills are brought to the floor for votes and are discouraging their rank and file from signing the petition. Senate Democrats voted down a similar measure last week for the health care bill.

The reluctance to implement a three-day rule is not unique to the Democrats.

The Republican majority rushed through the controversial Patriot Act in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks as well as a massive Medicare prescription drug bill in 2003 that added hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit.

For the majority party, legislative timing plays a big role in whether a bill will pass because support can be fleeting.

"The leaders use it as a tool to get votes or to keep amendments off a bill," said one top Senate Democratic aide.

But Baird warned of public backlash.

"Democrats know politically it's difficult to defend not doing this," he said. "The public gets this. They say we entrust you with the profound responsibility of making decisions that affect our lives, and we expect you to exercise due diligence in carrying out that responsibility."

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Consider this and then ask yourself. IF this really is a disaster why can in not support itself? Why lie and distort the numbers?

Quote

Health Care Lie: '47 Million Uninsured Americans'
Michael Moore, politicians and the media use inflated numbers of those without health insurance to promote universal coverage.

By Julia A. Seymour
Business & Media Institute
7/18/2007 4:01:33 PM

Fact Sheet about Michael Moore



Michael Moore was wrong about health insurance.



So were President Bush, Sens. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), presidential candidates former Sen. John Edwards and Gov. Mike Huckabee and The Washington Post, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, People magazine and Time magazine, as well as CNN, CBS and ABC.



Each of these people and media outlets incorrectly claimed the number of uninsured to be 40 to 50 million Americans. The actual total is open to debate. But there are millions of people who should be excluded from that tally, including: those who aren’t American citizens, people who can afford their own insurance, and people who already qualify for government coverage but haven’t signed up.



Government statistics also show 45 percent of those without insurance will have insurance again within four months after job transitions.



Accounting for all those factors, one prominent study places the total for the long-term uninsured as low as 8.2 million – a very different reality than the media and national health care advocates claim.





Breaking It Down: Who’s Uninsured?



The number of the uninsured who aren’t citizens is nearly 10 million on its own, invalidating all the claims of 40+ million “Americans” without health insurance.



“It’s really indefensible that we now have more than 45 million uninsured Americans, 9 million of whom are children, and the vast majority of whom are from working families,” said Sen. Hillary Clinton in a May 31 speech.



It was typical spin and easy to find. ABC medical expert Dr. Tim Johnson cited the incorrect data as he praised a "bold" and "politically brilliant" universal coverage plan on the April 26 “Good Morning America.”



“It’s bold because it does propose to cover all Americans, including the 47 million now who are uninsured, within five years,” said Johnson.



In his propagandumentary “SiCKO” that favored the socialist health care systems of Canada, Britain, France and Cuba, Michael Moore made the fantastic claim that almost 50 million Americans are uninsured.



“SiCKO: There are nearly 50 million Americans without health insurance,” quoted Moore’s Web site.



However, the Census Bureau report “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2005,” puts the initial number of uninsured people living in the country at 46.577 million.



A closer look at that report reveals the Census data include 9.487 million people who are “not a citizen.” Subtracting the 10 million non-Americans, the number of uninsured Americans falls to roughly 37 million.



Moore should have paid attention to that fact, since he agrees that being “an American” matters to get health insurance.



“That’s the only preexisting condition that should exist. I am an American. That’s it,” said Moore in footage aired by ABC’s “Nightline” on June 13.



That isn’t the only problem with the numbers currently being used.



Moore’s Trouble with the Facts



Recently, CNN’s Dr. Sanjay Gupta accused Michael Moore of “fudging” some numbers in his recent film “SiCKO.” This sparked a temper tantrum by Moore who threatened to become the network’s “worst nightmare” if they didn’t apologize and recant.



CNN did “correct and apologize” for one transcription error, but stood by Gupta’s statement “CNN’s numbers and Moore’s numbers aren’t far off, but we believe ours are a fairer comparison.”



In his film and television appearances, Moore left out quite a bit of information about the uninsured.



On his Web site, Moore claimed the Census Bureau had “underreported” the number of people without health insurance.



But Cheryl Hill Lee, a co-author of the Census Bureau study Moore was citing, told the Business & Media Institute that the data showed the exact opposite of what Moore said.



The Census “underreported” the number of people covered by health insurance – meaning that more people have insurance than the report suggests. The Census also underreported the number of people covered by Medicare and Medicaid.





They Can’t Afford Insurance …



Many of the same people pushing the incorrect numbers of uninsured Americans also claim that these people cannot “afford” insurance.



“And when you’ve got 47 million people in this country with no health insurance, they don’t go to the doctor because they can’t afford it,” Moore said on CNN’s “Larry King Live” July 10.



Katie Couric echoed those sentiment on the CBS “Evening News” May 23.



“The number of Americans with no health insurance is continuing to grow as more and more employers say they can’t afford to offer group insurance … People who try to buy insurance on their own often find the price beyond their reach,” said Couric as she introduced a two-part “investigation of the health insurance industry.”



But according to the same Census report, there are 8.3 million uninsured people who make between $50,000 and $74,999 per year and 8.74 million who make more than $75,000 a year. That’s roughly 17 million people who ought to be able to “afford” health insurance because they make substantially more than the median household income of $46,326.



On the July 13 “Larry King Live,” Gupta did make that point, providing more context than Moore and most journalists about the affordability of health insurance.



Subtracting non-citizens and those who can afford their own insurance but choose not to purchase it, about 20 million people are left – less than 7 percent of the population.



“Many Americans are uninsured by choice,” wrote Dr. David Gratzer in his book “The Cure: How Capitalism Can Save American Health Care.” Gratzer cited a study of the “nonpoor uninsured” from the California Healthcare Foundation.



“Why the lack of insurance [among people who own homes and computers]? One clue is that 60 percent reported being in excellent health or very good health,” explained Gratzer.





A Lie that Promotes Big Government



Moore, Clinton and Obama have used the lie about 40-some million uninsured Americans to promote universal health insurance plans. Moore asserted in his film that providing health insurance to everyone is a moral and even religious obligation.



The mainstream media have played along, championing “ambitious” universal coverage plans and referring to the U.S. system as “deeply flawed.”



“California’s ambitious plan to make health insurance available to almost everyone in the state is getting a lot of attention all over the country, and here’s why. According to the latest figures, the number of uninsured Americans has grown to more than 46 million,” said Katie Couric on the “CBS Evening News” January 9.



Journalists’ failure to question that high figure has furthered the cause of nationalized care.



“Proponents of universal health care often use the 46-million figure -- without context or qualification. It creates the false impression that a huge percentage of the population has fallen through the cracks,” Gratzer told BMI. “Again, that’s not to suggest that there is no problem, but it's very different than the universal-care crowd describes.”



Dr. Grace-Marie Turner, a BMI adviser and president of the Galen Institute, agreed that “the number [on uninsured] is inflated and affects the debate.”



Turner also pointed out that “45 percent of the uninsured are going to have insurance within four months [according to the Congressional Budget Office],” because many are transitioning between jobs and most people get health insurance through their employers.



So what is the true extent of the uninsured “crisis?” The Kaiser Family Foundation, a liberal non-profit frequently quoted by the media, puts the number of uninsured Americans who do not qualify for current government programs and make less than $50,000 a year between 13.9 million and 8.2 million. That is a much smaller figure than the media report.



Kaiser’s 8.2 million figure for the chronically uninsured only includes those uninsured for two years or more. It is also worth noting, that, 45 percent of uninsured people will be uninsured for less than four months according to the Congressional Budget Office.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

I did NOT support GWB's drug addtions to medicare. I did NOT support GWB's TSA program. As a matter of fact I supported very little he did unless it was related to Iraq.

Excellent! Since military is part of the government, increasing military is the same as increasing government size and spending (which it is). So you just have proven that you're not against increasing the government size and spending - as long as it fits your agenda. It makes your previous point much weaker.
Another interesting point here is that you think that the government should not directly provide healthcare services to the citizens, but it should invade other countries. This is pretty perverse logic to me.

Quote

Now, is the current system fine? No. Does it need to be scrapped and totally overhauled? HELL no. Should the gov run any part of it? FUCK no.

There is a lot of hells and fucks, but you didn't answer the main question - you're saying the current system is not fine. How exactly would YOU realistically fix it? This is serious question, because as soon as you try to think about it, you'd come to the same conclusion as bill writers - there is no perfect fix, and whatever you can offer will have obvious flaws.

You will never get the perfect system. The point of the bill is to make system work better for majority - which you and me might not belong at this specific moment - but so far no opponent provided any solution, they only critique - and mostly non-constructive.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

There is a reason people. OPEN YOUR EYES!!!
Congressional leaders fight against posting bills online

Why do YOU care? Healthcare bill has been online for several months now - and you still didn't read it!

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Consider this and then ask yourself. IF this really is a disaster why can in not support itself? Why lie and distort the numbers?

You obviously didn't read what you just copypasted, as it contains at least two very strong arguments in favor of the healthcare bill. Beware, your party and your pastor might punish you for spreading Obama propaganda!

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

There is a reason people. OPEN YOUR EYES!!!
Congressional leaders fight against posting bills online

Why do YOU care? Healthcare bill has been online for several months now - and you still didn't read it!

Ya right
Not the one they are looking at now

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

I did NOT support GWB's drug addtions to medicare. I did NOT support GWB's TSA program. As a matter of fact I supported very little he did unless it was related to Iraq.

Excellent! Since military is part of the government, increasing military is the same as increasing government size and spending (which it is). So you just have proven that you're not against increasing the government size and spending - as long as it fits your agenda. It makes your previous point much weaker.
Another interesting point here is that you think that the government should not directly provide healthcare services to the citizens, but it should invade other countries. This is pretty perverse logic to me.

Quote

Now, is the current system fine? No. Does it need to be scrapped and totally overhauled? HELL no. Should the gov run any part of it? FUCK no.

There is a lot of hells and fucks, but you didn't answer the main question - you're saying the current system is not fine. How exactly would YOU realistically fix it? This is serious question, because as soon as you try to think about it, you'd come to the same conclusion as bill writers - there is no perfect fix, and whatever you can offer will have obvious flaws.

You will never get the perfect system. The point of the bill is to make system work better for majority - which you and me might not belong at this specific moment - but so far no opponent provided any solution, they only critique - and mostly non-constructive.

Guys like you will twist anything to make it look like you didn’t screw up. YOU made a claim about my positions. Flat out, YOU WAS WRONG! Live with it.

Then, second, you forget that the military and the security of this country IS under the purview of the responsibilities of those in power. Gov run HC or gov run HC insurance is not.


You want it to be. I don't. It can be made better without this much gov intervention

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[justinb138 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

There is a reason people. OPEN YOUR EYES!!!
Congressional leaders fight against posting bills online

Why do YOU care? Healthcare bill has been online for several months now - and you still didn't read it!

Ya right
Not the one they are looking at now

True, and the only reason the current one is out there is that they weren't able to force it through in a few days before the recess.

Ron Paul has mentioned in a few of his interviews that some of the bills being voted on are covered in ink from overnight and last-minutes minute changes that no one in congress has had a chance to read, much less been released to the public.

One of the most disappointing aspects of this issue is that the president himself promised to address the issue, and has done pretty much the exact opposite.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

There is a reason people. OPEN YOUR EYES!!!
Congressional leaders fight against posting bills online

Why do YOU care? Healthcare bill has been online for several months now - and you still didn't read it!

Ya right
Not the one they are looking at now

True, and the only reason the current one is out there is that they weren't able to force it through in a few days before the recess.

Ron Paul has mentioned in a few of his interviews that some of the bills being voted on are covered in ink from overnight and last-minutes minute changes that no one in congress has had a chance to read, much less been released to the public.

One of the most disappointing aspects of this issue is that the president himself promised to address the issue, and has done pretty much the exact opposite.

and again this moring I HEARD the video where Obama himself said he would sign no bill unles it had been posted on line for 5 days.

Yea right.........

The shit they are trying to push down our throats can not survive in the light!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Guys like you will twist anything to make it look like you didn’t screw up. YOU made a claim about my positions. Flat out, YOU WAS WRONG! Live with it.

Where exactly? I said that you did not raise objections when GWB was enlarging the government, and you even proven it yourself by admitting your support for Iraq war (which was exactly that as every soldier is basically a government employee). Where was I wrong? Please be specific, it requires more than just using capital letters.

Quote

Then, second, you forget that the military and the security of this country IS under the purview of the responsibilities of those in power. Gov run HC or gov run HC insurance is not.

Yet you failed to provide a specific answer to my question whether you consider that the government should not run Medicare or VA (and then who should? Or nobody?). You also failed to provide any supporting evidence to your statement that the government should not run healthcare. Well, the government should not waste money and lives of citizens to invade other countries either.

Quote

You want it to be. I don't. It can be made better without this much gov intervention

And yet you failed to provide any other suggestions how to fix the system - which, as you admitted, needs fixing.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Ya right
Not the one they are looking at now

How'd you know whether it's the one they're looking at now if you didn't read any of them?
How do you know if the difference between them is one page or 100 pages?

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Guys like you will twist anything to make it look like you didn’t screw up. YOU made a claim about my positions. Flat out, YOU WAS WRONG! Live with it.

Where exactly? I said that you did not raise objections when GWB was enlarging the government, and you even proven it yourself by admitting your support for Iraq war (which was exactly that as every soldier is basically a government employee). Where was I wrong? Please be specific, it requires more than just using capital letters.Which is a twist. I DID object. We were speaking of social programs at the time. YOU now have added the military expenditures and claim you are now correct. Dont fly dude. Add to this it is a different topic. Next

Quote

Then, second, you forget that the military and the security of this country IS under the purview of the responsibilities of those in power. Gov run HC or gov run HC insurance is not.

Yet you failed to provide a specific answer to my question whether you consider that the government should not run Medicare or VA (and then who should? Or nobody?). You also failed to provide any supporting evidence to your statement that the government should not run healthcare. Well, the government should not waste money and lives of citizens to invade other countries either.that is different debate. Again, you have to drag this in to try and prove yourself correct. You were not. Fess up!

Quote

You want it to be. I don't. It can be made better without this much gov intervention

And yet you failed to provide any other suggestions how to fix the system - which, as you admitted, needs fixing.

I have made the suggestions to you and others on this site. YOU ignore them. Why? Cause you want bigger government in control of peoples lives. I do not. Again, you fail

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Ya right
Not the one they are looking at now

How'd you know whether it's the one they're looking at now if you didn't read any of them?
How do you know if the difference between them is one page or 100 pages?

So, you have seen the one the Senate is working on? Or just the one the House passed?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Which is a twist. I DID object. We were speaking of social programs at the time. YOU now have added the military expenditures and claim you are now correct. Dont fly dude. Add to this it is a different topic. Next

You still do not understand. My point is that what you said - that you're saying you're against enlarging the government - is not true. You are only against it if the cause is not something you like, but if it is - like invading other countries - you support it, and seem to have no problems with that. THIS is what I tried to point out - you're just against the healthcare bill (no idea why), but hiding the real reasons under "enlarging the government" disguise.

Quote

that is different debate. Again, you have to drag this in to try and prove yourself correct. You were not. Fess up

That is the same debate. If you think someone should consider your opinion just because you _think_ the government should not be providing healthcare, then you yourself should consider opinions of other people, when they think the government should not invade other countries. And if you think you can ignore their opinions, you should expect them to ignore yours as well.

Quote

I have made the suggestions to you and others on this site. YOU ignore them. Why?

Oh sorry, please excuse me for not monitoring your every post 24x7. So could you please just post a link to your post which contains realistic suggestions how should we fix current issues with healthcare?

Quote

Cause you want bigger government in control of peoples lives. I do not.

No, you do - but only for the cases you consider "good for country".
And this makes you no different from anyone else pushing their agendas.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Which is a twist. I DID object. We were speaking of social programs at the time. YOU now have added the military expenditures and claim you are now correct. Dont fly dude. Add to this it is a different topic. Next

You still do not understand. My point is that what you said - that you're saying you're against enlarging the government - is not true.NO, it IS true. Military spending and size ARE in the government scope and will be adjusted as needed. Health care is NOT! Big difference that you want to ignore You are only against it if the cause is not something you like, but if it is - like invading other countries - you support it, and seem to have no problems with that. THIS is what I tried to point out - you're just against the healthcare bill (no idea why), but hiding the real reasons under "enlarging the government" disguise.NO IDEA WHY? For christs sake man have you read anything I have posted???

Quote

that is different debate. Again, you have to drag this in to try and prove yourself correct. You were not. Fess up

That is the same debate. If you think someone should consider your opinion just because you _think_ the government should not be providing healthcare, then you yourself should consider opinions of other people, when they think the government should not invade other countries. And if you think you can ignore their opinions, you should expect them to ignore yours as well.

Quote

I have made the suggestions to you and others on this site. YOU ignore them. Why?

Oh sorry, please excuse me for not monitoring your every post 24x7. So could you please just post a link to your post which contains realistic suggestions how should we fix current issues with healthcare?

Quote

Cause you want bigger government in control of peoples lives. I do not.

No, you do - but only for the cases you consider "good for country".
And this makes you no different from anyone else pushing their agendas.

You dont care to think about what I am saying here so so be it. You want gov controled health care I dont. The end

And gov controled health care is NOT good for the country

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

So, you have seen the one the Senate is working on? Or just the one the House passed?

So far only one. Makes little sense to read the bill which is changing every day, especially now when I'm in Europe, and have limited time.

However let me ask you a question: how many bills previous administration has published online, and widely discussed at the same level the healthcare bill is discussed? Let's compare apples with apples. You're saying 5 days is too little? How many days Partiot Act was discussed by public before it got signed into law?

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

Quote

Ya right
Not the one they are looking at now

How'd you know whether it's the one they're looking at now if you didn't read any of them?
How do you know if the difference between them is one page or 100 pages?

Isn't that the point? Who really knows if the bill is different by one page or a hundred?

Do you not find that concerning?

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[billvon 2,435]

>Ron Paul has mentioned in a few of his interviews that some of the bills
>being voted on are covered in ink from overnight and last-minutes
>minute changes that no one in congress has had a chance to read, much
>less been released to the public.

So if they don't look at it they are lazy and it's a terrible idea to vote on it. If they do look at it - and make changes - it's a terrible idea to vote on it.

I can just hear it now. "Hey, they say that they're going to give everyone a month to read it! If you need a month to read it, it's a terrible, complex law, and it should NEVER be enacted."

There's a reason the approval rating of the GOP is half the approval rating of the democrats. People don't like either one, but at least one is trying to do something other than obstruct, distort and delay.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

So, you have seen the one the Senate is working on? Or just the one the House passed?

that is the damned point dude!!!! They do not want you to know what is in it until after the vote!!!
So far only one. Makes little sense to read the bill which is changing every day, especially now when I'm in Europe, and have limited time.

However let me ask you a question: how many bills previous administration has published online, and widely discussed at the same level the healthcare bill is discussed? Let's compare apples with apples. You're saying 5 days is too little? How many days Partiot Act was discussed by public before it got signed into law?

Very damned few but, in context, most have been debated on the floors of the halls. This admin and congress do not want that now do they. In the past things were not such a hurry hurry senario were they? (with a few exceptions)

IF they would allow debate then posting for 5 days is not as big an issue. There also was a rule in the house that stated the final bill will be printed and (in something) BEFORE debate was even allowed. The bill the house debated was placed there at 1 am the morning of the debate.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln