old europe
 
  3  
Fri 3 Jul, 2009 06:32 am
@H2O MAN,
Doing your Two Minutes' Hate rounds through the threads again, I see....
H2O MAN
 
  -3  
Fri 3 Jul, 2009 06:36 am
@old europe,

I'm just expressing my opinions on certain matters and I am opposed to all of you liberal hate & fear mongers.
parados
 
  0  
Fri 3 Jul, 2009 07:02 am
@H2O MAN,
That's nice Squirt. Did your mother not make breakfast for you this morning?
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  0  
Fri 3 Jul, 2009 09:03 am
@H2O MAN,
Guess!
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Fri 3 Jul, 2009 09:08 am
@Advocate,



You have guessed incorrectly, would you care to guess again?
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Fri 3 Jul, 2009 09:26 am
@cicerone imposter,
Thats the difference between dems and repubs.
Repubs dont feel it needed to post such a list of dem sex offenders, mainly because repubs dont feel party affiliation matters with perverts.

I have to wonder why you feel its neccessary to post such a list.
rabel22
 
  1  
Fri 3 Jul, 2009 09:32 am
@nimh,
Sorry to disagree with you but he gave the impression of fast withdrawal, a year, with his I dident vote for the war Hillery did. His insurance program will reley on private insurance companies backed with public money. Single pay is the best way to straighten out the insurance mess by giveing people an alternative to HMO's and soc sec is better by far than private insurance. I have both and pay 4 times as much for the private insurance as the medicare but only get 1/5th as much protection as i get from medicare. And I dont have to worry that my medicare will drop me if I get really sick like many of the private insurance have done to my friends. I dont think most young people realize how restricive private insurance has become. One has to be my age to realize that private insurance companies are only interested in the bottom line and not in health care which is what they try to convince people is what thier business is about.
mysteryman
 
  1  
Fri 3 Jul, 2009 09:53 am
Is this part of Obama's health care "plan"?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/03/senate-health-care-plan-impose-fines-refusing-coverage/

Quote:
In a revamped health care system envisioned by senators, people would be required to carry health insurance just like motorists must get auto coverage now. The government would provide subsidies for the poor and many middle-class families, but those who still refuse to sign up would face fines of more than $1,000.


So now, they want to fine us if we make a personal decision they dont like?

Somehow, that seems wrong.
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Fri 3 Jul, 2009 09:58 am
@mysteryman,
Quote:
Somehow, that seems wrong.


Somehow just about everything that Obama has done and plans to do seems wrong.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Fri 3 Jul, 2009 10:07 am
So I suppose, you two don't have a car insurance.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -3  
Fri 3 Jul, 2009 10:09 am


Bad ideas that just seem wrong are all Obama has to offer.
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Fri 3 Jul, 2009 10:14 am
@mysteryman,
Quote:
So now, they want to fine us if we make a personal decision they dont like?


Happens all the time...cigarettes just went up $2.00 a pack. All tax/fine.
Seatbelts...not wearing one? $125 fine

Still though, I agree it ain't gonna go over real good with Joe the Plumber.
panzade
 
  1  
Fri 3 Jul, 2009 10:15 am
@old europe,
Very Happy
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -3  
Fri 3 Jul, 2009 10:21 am
@panzade,



Rolling Eyes You liberals have a strange way of thinking... a tax is not a fine.

Taxes can and are used as deterrents to restrict certain activities, but fines are simply money making machines
that only go into effect when a citizen or group of citizens gets caught doing something against the rules or laws.
Our government has figured ways that allows them to double dip and charge you both a tax and a fine for certain things.

0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Fri 3 Jul, 2009 10:37 am
@mysteryman,
Yes, nobody but our mortgage company requires insurance on our property and. once we have paid off the mortgage, we no longer are required to carry insurance if we do not wish to do so. Nor (so far) does the government feel obligated to require us to do so while it does not hesitate to require the rest of us to replace uninsured property destroyed in a natural disaster of some kind.

If we don't intend to drive a car, we are not required to purchase auto insurance. If we choose to ride a motorcycle or bicycle instead of a car, we are not required to fasten a seatbelt.

We are not required to insure ourselves against possible loss of food supply or water which are considered more essential for life than is healthcare.

So why are we so willing to hand over to the government the right to dictate whether or not we will have health insurance which is certain to be followed by government telling us that we must use it--fines if we don't get annual checkups?--or how much and what kind of healthcare we may have. If I choose to use natural homeopathic remedies instead of institutionalized healthcare, why should I not have that right?

Then again, what gives the government the right to demand that you provide my health insurance and/or healthcare if I do not do that for myself?

Finally, why aren't more Americans outraged at taxation without representation when Congress is pushing through enormous spending bills that nobody has time to even read, much less analyze and inform us what is in them. It appears that the House will do healthcare exactly that way later this summer.

So much for the President's solemn campaign promise that government will be fully transparent under his administration and will no longer operate that way.
panzade
 
  1  
Fri 3 Jul, 2009 10:41 am
@mysteryman,
I'm outraged they included
Quote:
Republican zoning supervisor, Boy Scout leader and Lutheran church president Dennis L. Rader

better known as the BTK strangler. He had no political aspirations.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Fri 3 Jul, 2009 10:53 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
why aren't more Americans outraged at taxation without representation when Congress is pushing through
enormous spending bills that nobody has time to even read, much less analyze and inform us what is in them. ??


The dumbmasses are more interested in dead pop stars, TV shows like American Idiot and The View.
The citizens are distracted and our government has instructed the liberal media to keep them distracted.

The only stories that get press are the little meaningless, bull ****, smoke screen stories that work people into a panic.
This manipulation has been going on for years and the dumbmasses are willing participants.



I agree...
So much for the President's solemn campaign promise that government will be
fully transparent under his administration and will no longer operate that way.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Sat 4 Jul, 2009 12:18 pm
I found an interesting article about the Presidents health care plan, and how the plan (including the Senates plan to fine people who dont want insurance) will affect about 9 million people.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/health/article1015741.ece

Quote:
Many people assume that the 47 million Americans who don't have health insurance simply can't afford it.

But the fact is, some don't want it.

Among the 47 million are 9.1 million who earn $75,000 or more a year and 11 million who declined coverage from their employers, according to estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau and the Employment Policies Institute. That also includes many who are young, single and healthy, plus a growing number who rely on alternative and faith-based therapies usually not covered by traditional insurance plans


Quote:
"One thing for everybody doesn't make sense," said June O'Neill, a professor of economics at City University of New York and co-author of "Who are the Uninsured?'' The report, issued last week by the Employment Policies Institute, calls the 47 million figure a "relatively coarse measurement" that doesn't help craft effective policy.

O'Neill divides the uninsured population by:

• Income: 43 percent make more than 21/2 times the poverty level, or $55,125 for a family of four.

• Age: half are under 35.

• Marital status: half are single.

Concludes O'Neill: "There are other things they would rather do with their money" than buy insurance.



So why should those people be forced to get insurance, and why should they be fined if they dont?
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Sat 4 Jul, 2009 01:35 pm
@rabel22,
You know that one of the proposals to save Medicare includes a 20% cut in payments to specialists and most diagnostic imaging, don't you? If that one goes through, I'm expecting a further shortage of M.D. specialists a few years down the road.
Advocate
 
  0  
Sat 4 Jul, 2009 02:46 pm
@roger,
If you do any investigation of the supply of MD's, you would conclude that there would not be a shortage. At present, there are hordes of people who would sell their souls to become doctors. This would not significantly be reduced.
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 1311
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.64 seconds on 03/15/2025 at 02:56:08