American Politics during the Obama Presidency

1. Obamacare increases the cost of healthcare for everyone.

2. Obamacare will stifle innovation in the healthcare field (including pharma)

3. The lying muther fuckers (I, e, democrats in the senate) that foisted this POS on us have to make a decision. That decision is 1) vote for it again (and guarantee defeat in 2012) or vote against it (draw the ire of the organized left.

4. Nationalized healthcare is the clarion call to lovers of those inalienable rights, imbued upon us, via the declaration of independence, to resist government usurpation of constitutionally guaranteed rights.

IT IS Not O'bama CARE.

That sounds very Racist.

All parties agreed to It. It is A Health CARE FOR ALL, Package.

It would cost more to appeal it.

Use Guys need to Travel and Need some Heath CARE when you are there.

Like I said It was cheaper for me to see a Doctor in Buenos Aires than in the USA.

Oh, Cuba was Cheaper When I was there.

I BET MOST OF YOU HAVE NEVER LEFT THE USA.

Most of you most likely did not go to school after the 12th grade.

SCHOOL and learning is a LIFE TIME Session. YOU WILL NEVER STOP Learning and going to SCHOOL.

And if did not go and travel you will not know shit about the World Heath CARE of other Countries.

Only You That HAVE BEEN TO MORE THAN 70 COUNTRIES NEED ANSWER, As I Have Been.

Travel more Then express Your opinions.

I hear this same shit everyday on Radio free USA.

They have never left their HOUSE.

Jackson mentioned about 9-11.

The Terrorists were:

Most were Saudis.

No Afghans,

No Pakistanis,

NO Iraqis.

No WMDs.

WTF.

All of are boys lost for What?

OIL!

Same as Vietnam. A Waste.

This is a Sex Site, Not POLITICIAL SITE.

JACKSON shut down all the Political Threads!


[QUOTE=Wild Walleye; 415156]1. Obamacare increases the cost of healthcare for everyone.

2. Obamacare will stifle innovation in the healthcare field (including pharma)

3. The lying muther fuckers (I, e, democrats in the senate) that foisted this POS on us have to make a decision. That decision is 1) vote for it again (and guarantee defeat in 2012) or vote against it (draw the ire of the organized left.

4. Nationalized healthcare is the clarion call to lovers of those inalienable rights, imbued upon us, via the declaration of independence, to resist government usurpation of constitutionally guaranteed rights. [/QUOTE]

WT69 let's get this stright, it is not "our" healthcare plan, it was ramed throught by liberal Democrats and is in the process of being killed. It will be repealed in 2012 after the elections. It is ObamaCare, even the Dems and left wing media call it that and to say calling it that is racist is pure liberal hogwash and the last bastion of the liberal when they can not win the argement. ObamaCare still remains one of the most disapproved of pieces of legislation to be passed in years. What Congress has done, Congress can undo so get a grip.

I also see you calling on Jackson to kill the political thread, if you can't stand the heat don't go in the kitchen. Simply go to the other threads. No one forces you to click on this thread, read it or contribute to it. If you don't like it don't participate. Again the last bastion of the liberal, if you don't like it censor it or shut it down. For the liberal there is only one opinion and that is their's. Liberals and old Joe Stalin have a lot in common. Only one line and that is the Party's line comrad.

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;415157]Like I said It was cheaper for me to see a Doctor in Buenos Aires than in the USA.[/QUOTE]WT,

Do you really believe that Obamacare is going to rectify this disparity?

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69; 415157]IT IS Not O'bama CARE.

That sounds very Racist.

[/QUOTE]Anybody who didn't vote for Obama is a racist.

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;415157]IT IS Not O'bama CARE.[/QUOTE]Hey WT69 - You are correct.

The name of the new health care law is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). Republicans have a slang name for it as part of their smear, distort and repeal campaign. In the face of such a good piece of legislation, they need to muster all the ammo they can, which explains why their repeal bill calls it the "Job-Killing Health Care Law Act". Another proven GOP distortion.

Though not perfect, it is a very good piece of legislation. The reason it is so good? Because Republicans weren't involved in writing it! There is a reason Americans trust Dems more than Repubs when it comes to health care.

Krauthammer's attack on PPACA frames it as a deficit reduction bill. But actually, it's a health care reform bill. It just has the added benefit of reducing the deficit. That's because it includes two new tax hikes on the wealthy, something we need more of in this country.

Despite all their colorful language and distortions, Republicans have failed to muster significant support for repeal. Americans are growing increasingly tired of it, as evidenced by the latest AP Poll showing support for full repeal down to only 26%. Now that their symbolic vote is out of the way, let's hope Republicans realize they do not have a mandate for repeal, and instead work with Obama and Dems to focus on jobs and the economy.

[QUOTE=Jackson;415149]You already know the liberal answer to this question: It's "fair" because 51% of the voters have decided that it's okay to take whatever they want from the other 49%.[/QUOTE]No, democracy is not always fair to all groups. But it's the fairest way we have on making decisions on what government programs we fund and how they are funded. I asked you before what your proposal was for how decisions should be made, but you didn't answer.

The sweeping statement you made is not what liberals believe. What they believe is that it is fair for the rich to pay more and receive fewer benefits. Here is the reason:

[i]It's fair because it's an approach where people contribute and receive according to their financial means. [/i]

The interesting thing is that [u]most rich people agree with this[/u]. And to an extent, so do Republicans.

[url]http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1438[/url]

Q. Do you think raising income taxes on households making more than "X" should or should not be a main part of any government approach to the deficit?

X = $250,000 X = $1,000,000
Republican 42% 56%
Democrat 82% 89%
Independent 55% 69%
Income >250k 64% 67%

Why the broad support? Maybe it's just [i]common sense[/i]?

This "you have no right to take my money" argument is just an ideological defense for selfishness.

Who Cares?

[QUOTE=Esten;415167]This "you have no right to take my money" argument is just an ideological defense for selfishness.[/QUOTE]You're right, there's a lot of selfishness in this world. Jews, Tutsi's, all the rich bastards right down through history. The majority should rule. Take their property, then hack them to death with machetes. But only if you can first show via an opinion poll that the majority approve.

WT69, Why don't you just stop reading this thread instead of complaining about it.

Mongers-

The "obamacare" health care reform bill is a complete disgrace and the manner in which it was hammered through the legislative process is even more disgraceful. There are two reforms that the US healthcare system direly needed; the making illegal the practice of health insurance companies refusing coverage to individuals based on preexisting conditions and the formation of a truly "public option", meaning a taxpayer funded public healthcare system to operate alongside the current private healthcare system (just like EVERY civilized and semi-civilized country in the world EXCEPT the US has). Essentially, the "obamacare" bill will spend untold billions of dollars to reorganize the current system and NOT solve the main problem at hand. Yes, refusing health insurance based on preexisting conditions will soon be made illegal but that could have been done by executive order or stand alone legislation. I expect that the Supreme Court will find parts of the Obamacare bill unconstitutional and at some point the Congress will vote to repeal the bill; whether the bill will in fact be repealed depends on if Obama is reelected in 2012.

Suerte,

Rock Harders

[QUOTE=Esten;415167]This "you have no right to take my money"[/QUOTE]Let me see if I understand your logic.

If you said this to a lone guman you would be considered morally correct, but if you say it to a crowd you're instead advocating an "[i]ideological defense for selfishness[/i]"?

So, the determining factor is the size of the crowd that has decided to [strike]steal[/strike] appropriate your money?

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Esten;415165]Though not perfect, it is a very good piece of legislation. The reason it is so good? Because Republicans weren't involved in writing it! There is a reason Americans trust Dems more than Repubs when it comes to health care.[/QUOTE]You obviously didn't pay much attention to the mid-term elections. More to follow in 2012. You're suggested approach of denial certainly works short term. I might suggest that dems currently have NO idea WHAT the american people want dude.

As far as WT69 goes! Give me a f*cking break. I will not include all the wild crazy comments I read today from you. You sound like "sadly" the typical wild ass liberal that gives most dems a bad name these days. Since YOU are so well traveled (LOL) , YOU need to explain to us redneck, uneducated, bible thumping idiots how things need to be done as WE JUST DON'T GET IT! IALOTFLMAO! Better YET, just slam you're picture of america down our throats and dismiss us as stupid, uneducated, etc. Shame on you WT69, you have just had too many early breakfast meeting with your girlfriend Pelosi. Suggest you stick to 100 peso privado girls dude. You're politics are totally caustic, and certainly NOT in touch with America in 2011. Tick. Tick. Tick all. 2012 isn't that far off in the distance. Happy Mongering All. Toymann

I just don't understand why Educated people, would want to deny health care to anyone.

My Blue Cross health insurance company is raising their rates, again. Which will make it unfordable to many.

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69; 415175]I just don't understand why Educated people, would want to deny health care to anyone.

My Blue Cross insurance company is raising their rates, again. [/QUOTE]WT,

I don't want to "[i]deny health care to anyone[/i]." But I also don't want to be [u]forced[/u] to pay for someone else's health care.

However, I accept that modern societies will always provide health care subsidies to their most impoverished members, which we're currently doing with Medicare and Medicaid.

The solution here is to enact policies that lower the cost of health care so that it is more affordable to the 15% of people in this country that do not currently have traditional coverage. Unfortunately, Obamacare does NOT and will NOT lower the cost of health care, but then that was never it's intent anyway.

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Toymann; 415174]You obviously didn't pay much attention to the mid-term elections. [/QUOTE. ]

OK pay attention to the mid-terms, but don't get too invested in whatever era you think was just set in motion by the voters. Witness the following:

1992. Clinton wins the presidency. A new era of progressive command is proclaimed.

1994. R's take control of Congress. A new era of conservative command is proclaimed.

1996. Clinton re-elected handily. So much for the conservative era.

2000. Gore wins the popular vote, Bush appointed POTUS by Supreme Court after Florida recount is halted. A new era of compassionate (I. E. Moderate) conservativism is proclaimed.

2004. Gingrich's Rs retake control of Congress. An era of hard-nosed conservative command is proclaimed.

2006. Ds retake control of Congress. Hard-nosed conservative era ends abruptly.

2008. Obama wins and Ds control both houses. New era of progressive command is proclaimed.

2010. Rs retake control of the House, but Ds keep the Senate. Era of progressive command ends abruptly. Tea party era begins.

CONCLUSION:

History shows that US voters are as reliable and consistent as the chicas of BA (and almost as self-absorbed and self-destructive)!

And keep in mind, Obama is better positioned for re-election than either Clinton or Reagan were at the middle of their terms in office. In addition, polls show support for the Tea Party eroding, as their virulent rhetoric loses appeal among moderates and independents. Although in Senate races, the Rs are structurally better positioned with fewer incumbents on the ballots, historically the party whose presidential candidate wins benefits in Senate races. Take note StanDaMann!