Obama '08?

and since we all distinguish between groups, because this is how the brain is wired, even if we try not to and even if we think that we don't we are all by your definition ******* bigots. You have managed to make the term bigot meaningless, and so we are all henceforth free to ignore you when you use it, because you are not saying anything.

As I carefully explained, it is not totally a free market, it has already been corrupted by government intrusion, but as I clearly explained and provided definite proof, there are still some free market forces in play.

You ask why I won't have the same choices under single payer, the answers should be obvious, cyclops, if you cannot figure it out, there is no way it can be explained to you. If one entity is paying for everything, they will control more and more of the choices we have in health care, perhaps not immediately, but increasingly over time our choices will be narrowed down and controlled by the government. The system is not perfect now, but it is infinitely better than it will become under central planning. I am in favor of fixing a good system to make it better, not throw out the baby with the bath water.

Just to be clear, you agree that under Single Payer health insurance, you could still pick your own doctor and service from where you like. You could still choose a higher-deductible plan if you wanted it. And it would likely be much cheaper than what you are paying right now.

You just are afraid that someday, you won't be able to, and you base those fears on ideology.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Just to be clear, you agree that under Single Payer health insurance, you could still pick your own doctor and service from where you like. You could still choose a higher-deductible plan if you wanted it. And it would likely be much cheaper than what you are paying right now.

No I don't know that at all, and I doubt anyone does. I don't trust Pelosi, Reid, or Obama at all, perhaps you do?

Quote:

You just are afraid that someday, you won't be able to, and you base those fears on ideology.

Cycloptichorn

I am not only afraid, I think its a given that we would not under single payer government health care.

And yes, idealogy makes a difference, a huge difference. Look cyclops, this country is already broke, way past broke,

and health care will only make it worse. Dying sooner would be to the government's advantage, both for health care costs and Social Security costs.

and since we all distinguish between groups, because this is how the brain is wired, even if we try not to and even if we think that we don't we are all by your definition ******* bigots. You have managed to make the term bigot meaningless, and so we are all henceforth free to ignore you when you use it, because you are not saying anything.

GOP Lawmakers Warn of Administration Plan to Grant Amnesty to Illegal Immigrants

Published June 23, 2010
| FOXNews.com

...

FILE: Agents raid a drop house for illegal immigrants in Phoenix in April. Republicans say they fear suspected illegal immigrants will be given blanket amnesty by an executive order of President Obama

Eight Republican senators and an independent group that supports tighter limits on immigration are warning that the Obama administration is drafting a plan to "unilaterally" issue blanket amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants as it struggles to win support in Congress for an overhaul of immigration laws.

The senators who wrote the White House on Monday say they are concerned that the administration is readying a "Plan B" in case a comprehensive reform bill cannot win enough support to clear Congress.

"It seems more real than just bullying (Republicans) into a bill -- that it's a plan that they can actually put forward ... circumventing Congress," an aide told FoxNews.com on Wednesday.

In their letter, the senators -- Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa; Orrin Hatch, R-Utah; David Vitter, R-La.; Jim Bunning, R-Ky.; Saxby Chambliss, Ga.; Johnny Isakson, R-Ga.; James Inhofe, R-Okla.; and Thad Cochran, R-Miss. -- urge the president to "abandon" what they say is a move to "unilaterally extend either deferred action or parole to millions of illegal aliens in the United States."

"Such a move would further erode the American public's confidence in the federal government and its commitment to securing the borders and enforcing the laws already on the books," they wrote.

Deferred action and parole, which give illegal immigrants the ability to seek a work permit and temporary legal status, are normally granted on a case-by-case basis. But the aide said the lawmakers have learned from "sources" that the administration is considering flexing its authority to grant the status on a mass basis.

Numbers USA, an organization that presses for lower immigration levels along with humanitarian treatment of illegal immigrants, has started a petition to the president expressing "outrage" at the alleged plan.

Rosemary Jenks, director of government relations with Numbers USA, said she's been hearing for weeks from "sources close to the Democratic leadership" in both chambers that administration officials are discussing whether the Department of Homeland Security could direct staff to grant "amnesty" for all illegal immigrants in the country.

"They're trying to figure out ways around a vote," she said.

"Any attempt to force an amnesty on the American people using this underhanded method smacks of despotism," reads the fax the group is urging supporters to sign.

The White House has not responded to a request for comment.

The Department of Homeland Security estimated last year that 10.8 million undocumented residents live in the United States; other estimates have ranged higher. Any move to grant blanket legal status, even temporary, would raise questions about how Homeland Security would be able to handle the caseload. Jenks said Congress certainly wouldn't grant the administration the funding for more caseworkers.

The purported discussions of a blanket amnesty come in the middle of several concurrent and heated debates over illegal immigration. The recently signed immigration law in Arizona has divided the country, with some states trying to replicate the state's tough legislation and other jurisdictions boycotting the state in protest. The Obama administration plans to file a court challenge.

Democrats, meanwhile, have been trying to round up support for an overhaul bill in Congress, and the Interior Department is facing renewed criticism from Republican lawmakers over restrictions it places on Border Patrol officers policing the border on federal lands. Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., shocked several Arizona residents last week when he told them that Obama had said he would not beef up border security because it would leave Republicans without an incentive to pass broader immigration reforms.

Jenks said the talks about Homeland Security allowing illegal immigrants to stay are "serious."

Under the law, immigration officials can grant deferred action to temporarily postpone removing an illegal immigrant from the country. That status does not offer a guarantee that they won't face deportation, but Jenks said illegal immigrants granted parole are often allowed to seek permanent legal status.

If a "Plan B" is being discussed, it's unclear how far along the talks might be. Another GOP Senate aide said the discussions started after Sens. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Richard Lugar, R-Ind., called on Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano in April to stop deportations of undocumented students who could earn legal status under a bill they introduced.

A Senate Democratic aide said the Obama administration never responded to the April letter.

The term "bigot" has been used way too freely, mostly by liberals by the way, to demagogue and beat down the people that disagree with them, to the point that the term has lost its real meaning and significance, and usefulness

I looked up the term "bigot," and no I do not fit the description. I do admit, proudly by the way, that I do have problems with some groups of people, such as criminals. Do I hate criminals, no I don't think so, but I condemn their actions that were criminal, and I believe they are wrong. Does that make me a bigot, no I don't think so. To a much lesser degree, I also disagree with the policies and beliefs of many people and groups of people, but it is not because of the color of their skin or anything like that, it is due to a disagreement of policy, especially if those policies affect me and everybody else, and it does not amount to hate.

Oh, as opposed to the oh-so-efficient system that private insurance has given us?

he companies with large interests (Insurers, Pharma) spend vast sums of money to corrupt our government and get the laws they want, passed; and the ones they don't, don't. Witness the stripping of the Public Option from the recent HC reform bill. These groups spent over a hundred million dollars lobbying against it, successfully, because they knew it would destroy their business models, which revolve around NOT paying for health care. The market is gigantically skewed by the gaming that large money interests participate in.