IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

Has anyone else . . . with the exceptions of okie and massagat who see things through the mirror darkly . . . noticed that the liberals/leftists are angry with the current health care bill because:

1.) It does not include a public option;
2.) It is an enlarged version of RomneyCare.

While right wingers are angry because:

1.) It eliminates the pre-existing condition clause of insurance companies, which means that thousands of children will now be covered . . . and they are not children born to parents in the top earning quintile;

2.) They see it as socialism, totally ignoring that is, indeed, RomneyCare;

3.) That it does cover more people, as the right is oligarchical;

4.) That they think it un-Constitutional, despite the opinion of many right-wing attorneys and former cabinet officials of a conservative stripe that it is not;

5.) That they think it will bankrupt the country in ways that having sick people untreated will not.

Liberals/leftists:
1) This is one of the reasons I'm angry with the bill

Right wingers:
1) Do you really think this? Honestly? If that really is your true opinion then I could not disagree more. I think most conservatives are in favor of this piece of regulation.

3) I don't think they're opposed to more people being covered....the opposition seems to be that the government should not be paying for it.

This is making the rounds:

NO SOCIALISM! SOCIALISM BAD! *Brad smash*Share
Tuesday, March 23, 2010 at 4:12pm

This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the US Department of Energy. I then took a shower in the clean water provided by the municipal water utility. After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC regulated channels to see what the National Weather Service of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric ADministration determined the weather was going to be like using satellites designed, built, and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. I watched this while eating my breakfast of US Department of Agriculture inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the Food & Drug Administration.

At the appropriate time as regulated by the US Congress and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards & Technology and the US Naval Observatory, I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety Administration approved automobile and set out to work on the roads built by the local, state, and federal departments of transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the Environmental Protection Agency, using legal tender issued by the Federal Reserve Bank. On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the US Postal Service and drop the kids off at the public school.

After work, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to a house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and the fire marshal's inspection, which has not been plundered of all its valuables thanks to the local police department.

I then log on to the internet which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration and post on freerepublic.com, Fox News forums, and intowncolumbus.com about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can't do anything right.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Source: Internet forum, with a hat tip to my friend Jason. Pass this along to everyone you think needs to read it.

The Republicans are mainly angry with the bill because it constitutes a victory, a major victory, for Obama. They can no longer say he hasn't accomplished anything, and that's driving them nuts. So now they carry on about his marching us to socialism and destroying our traditional values.

Of course, they are forgetting precisely why people elected Obama--it was because they wanted to see change. And most people wanted change in the health care system.

The Republicans also don't feel that any President, other than a Republican President, has a legitimate right to govern. They really don't consider Obama their President. By simply acting just like any other President, Obama is accused of abusing his power, and undermining the foundations of our democracy. Congress, following a perfectly lawful and democratic vote on the health care bill, is accused of "ramming a hugely unpopular bill down people's throats". Why? Because the Republicans lost the vote. Because they couldn't thwart the bill, they blame the other side for ramming it down their throats. And boy, are they sore losers. With a lot of blustering they now threaten to have the bill repealed--something they cannot do because President Obama has veto power. But reality doesn't matter. They will continue this rant because they don't like to lose, and can't accept that any bill passed by a Democratic majority, and signed by a Democratic President, has any legitimate authority, and actually represents the will of the American people as expressed through their elected representatives. Someone should also tell the Republicans that a majority of the American people are no longer opposed to this bill.

The Democrats in Congress who voted for the bill were representing their constituents, and what they felt was best for their districts--that's what they were elected to do. But now they are characterized as being part of a devious plot to expand big government and push us toward socialism. Well, the Republicans, under President Bush, also expanded government, and also drove our entire economy to the brink of collapse, so it's hard to see them as the true guardians of capitalism. I'd rather have a little socialism and a thriving economy.

I'm not entirely happy with the present bill. I strongly wanted a public option. I'm not thrilled with mandating people to buy private insurance and then having the government subsidize the premiums, or fining people for not obtaining insurance, because I think there are better ways of moving toward universal coverage. I think we have to put more curbs on insurance carriers and big pharma and the way they do business and directly and indirectly control medical care in this country.

But I'm happy enough with some things in the bill that will benefit millions of people. I see this bill as the initial step in moving toward universal health care, and I hope we will continue to see improvements and changes in health care delivery as time goes on. But we had to take this first step. Now that it has happened, everyone can get used to the idea of change and we can continue to further modify aspects of the new system and make it even better.

I recall hearing Senator Ted Kennedy say that, in retrospect, he realized he was wrong to immediately reject a health care proposal by President Nixon, because it wasn't exactly the model he wanted. Kennedy later realized it would have been better to take an imperfect plan, just to get some improvement in health care underway, because improvements and modifications could always be made later. The important thing is to take that first step and get some change underway. Kennedy was right.

And because it is a major loss for the country and its citizens that believe in freedom and liberty. A victory for Obama is a loss for the country, because Obama does not believe in freedom and liberty, the hallmark beliefs of America and the constitution.

No president has a legitimate right to govern contrary to the constitution, a document that he or she swears to uphold when they take the oath of office.

President Obama has been functioning in accord with his constitutional powers, and in accord with constitutional law.

He does have the power to sign bills into law.

So, being strapped with huge medical bills is a right? Putting off treatment is a right? Being exposed to communicable diseases because your kids' classmates and your coworkers can not afford health care is a right?

I agree with most of what you said here.

First of all, I do use satire and exaggeration in order to shake some of more irrational brethren into recognizing themselves. I honestly feel that one of the best services anyone can render is holding up a mirror to those whose behavior and philosophy are socially unacceptable or socially destructive.

I believe that the American right is a destructive force, despite the fact that I do believe in a sort of middle way.

However, I am not exaggerating here. . .or, at least not very much.

I am also involved in another forum . . . but I will soon disengage from it. I am not entirely certain that the argument about whether parents are going bankrupt because their children are not covered was here or on the other forum. I tend to think it was here.

It has been well known for many years that non-insurable medical expenses or the lack of health insurance by the self-employed is one of, if not the, leading cause(s) of bankruptcy.

While the argument was whether parents were being bankrupted by their kids' illnesses . . . the fact is that there are childhood illnesses that can not be covered because they are classified as pre-existing conditions.

As to the right's anger over people being covered . . . there is absolutely no exaggeration there. Given the history of the right, given the vehemence with which they denounce what they think is social welfare and the smugness they feel in re: the fact that real wages have remained static for nearly three decades, I think were you to get a right winger to be honest, they would admit that they do not want everyone covered.

I see the American right as a destructive, "immoral" force.

Being strapped with medical bills is a responsibility, as is being strapped with grocery bills, or house payments. Do the rest of us have to pay that stuff for you too, plus more? Being exposed to communicable diseases is a risk. You have a right to limit your risk by being immunized. Being run over by a truck is also a risk. Do you want trucks outlawed? Or maybe you think Obama needs truck safety legislation to outlaw any truck from driving on any street so that you could have a right not to be run over if you are too dumb to run out in front of one?

In short, are all the rest of us alive to simply support you and eliminate all of your risk, so that you have to do nothing?

Is dying a right? Are we supposed to prevent that too? It is a risk. In fact it is an assured event. It is a reality. Utopia does not exist. Obama is not God. He cannot solve every problem.

One more point. For a political party that acts like they care about life, about your health care and mine, yet they advocate killing the unborn, something is very very haywire about that. A contradiction like that can only come from twisted and confused minds.

It is not about health care. It is about them and their power, their ego, their twisted view of the world. Its about them.

What about you? I am certain that you destroy more than your share of the environment daily. You spread your hatred, negativity and ego. What a total waste.

Sugar, I work so much harder than you do. You couldn't keep up with me.

I suspect your gender is masculine because you are nasty in the way that men and not women are nasty. That does not mean you are a man . . . to be a man is to be an adult and you are no adult.

Just think of how many little sorority tarts would get drunk and frat parties during the fifties and sixties and pull a train of football players and cease to have periods. That was prior to Roe v Wade. What would happen to them? WHy their daddies would call the family lawyer who was on retainer and he would draw up a court order and she would get a perfectly safe and legal abortion in a hospital.

And, apparently, you do not read the papers or the internet news because then you would know just how many Democrats drew down the anger of lots of people because they took a stance against federal funding for abortions. What have they to lose if abortions cease to be legal and their own spoiled daughters end up in the family way? They can do what their granddaddies did for their aunts and their fathers for their older sisters.

You have no idea just how many of those right to lifers have had abortions but the percentage is high.

Remember that Kansas doctor who was shot by someone like you? Most of his cases involved babies who were encephalic . . . formed without complete skulls so that their incomplete brains were exposed. Such babies seldom live more than a few hours.

And you know that selfcentered little boys like you don't want to pay for "retarded kids" or for special education or for medical treatment that their parents can not afford because the bottom four quintiles -- a quintile is 20% -- have not seen their real wages increase in more than 30 years.

It is the hypocrites like you who care nothing for the living . . . who cheered as Congress failed to expand health coverage for children whose parents are stuck in low wage jobs without benefit . . . the working poor.

Sit there, in your mindless rage.

Your posts remind me of that old dance, the limbo. How low can his IQ go.

An example of a statement that is purely insulting and demeaning, not a statement to be made by a person of reason, and the remainder of your post is altogether as ridiculously based in nonsense and a weird state of liberal unreality. Your statement is not deserving of an answer, but I will try to suffice it with this short of one as possible to express my sentiments of trying to reason with you. Anyone that would shoot an abortion doctor merely lowers themselves to their level, a level to which I have no wish to go, any more than I wish to go to the level of supporting the murder of any human offspring.

What does that statement supposed to mean? Are you some kind of man hater or what? You sound like what Rush refers to as a Feminazi?

As I said, your IQ lowers with each statement you make. Men and women both are capable of nastiness, violence, cruelty but each has a different style. You are nasty as a man is nasty. Simple.

pom, not nasty, believe me, my neighbors, wife, children, and grandchildren love me, I harm nobody. I do admit to getting on a soapbox, and chastise those that criticize this country, because I love this country, I love the opportunity, the freedom and liberty, the opportunity afforded all of us here, and I am frankly tired of those that run it down, criticize it and apologize for it, and I resent political charlatans like Obama that have set about to change what past Americans have fought for and built in order to try to tear it down and change it into his image, simply because he wants to take from the haves to give to those that have not earned it and are his voters, mostly because he loves his power, its about him, and that applies to the entire Democratic Party, which has turned into an un-American rag tag group of ultra socialists and communist sympathizers.