For the last time, Democrats are NOT Socialists... oh, wait, maybe they are

[BarneyFife]

Originally posted by: Ilmater

Originally posted by: BarneyFife

Originally posted by: jaeger66

Originally posted by: Ilmater
I sure hope Gephardt gets in. That would be swell. And maybe the whole country can start holding hands and feel better about themselves.

You know, that's a really good point. Any problem affecting a mere 41 million Americans probably isn't worth worrying about. Maybe they'll all just die and then we won't have to address it.

Those people have no heart or compassion for people. All they care about is money. Imagine one of them coming down with god forbid cancer and losing their job and then how are you going to pay your $500 a month premium? I'd bet they have a change of heart.

I do rather enjoy people dying of stomach cancer.

Come on. I don't want to get too personal with this, but you're a typical Democrat. The plan to universalize health care doesn't work! If you implemented it, millions would be without jobs. Compared to that one guy that doesn't die of cancer, I'll take the millions.

Think about what you're saying. You're calling me unsympathetic and cold-hearted because I don't agree with a plan that only sounds good, but wouldn't work well. That is exactly what I believe most Democrats do. They stand up for things that sound good more often than bothering to think about what works.

So, considering what I said I thought a Democrat was and what ____ said, my definition must have been WAAAAAAY off, eh Carbonyl?

Where did I say anything about universal health care? I said that this country should have a safety net for all with limited coverage. This is the richest country in the world, I'm sure they could offer safety nets for people instead of donating Billions of dollars to Israel and Egypt.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: BarneyFife
I'm talking about catastrophic coverage. For example if you have a heart attack and go the hospital etc.. I'm not talking about the eye doctor or dentist. I'm also saying that this could be a sort of barebones coverage which people that are unemployed for various reasons could have. Sort of like medicare and it could cover the whole family. I'm sure this could be done easily. That $100 billion to Iraq could have been used for such a proposal. Getting sick, with no job, and no health insurance basically screws you for life because of the enormous bills.

If someone in the government wants to know you history, they could find it. Really, what does it matter anyway? The most frightening thing is when corporations have your medical history and they can deny you employment because you could fall into that "risky hire" category.

You answered the whole question when you mentioned Medicare. Medicare is for those that aren't able to help themselves or are "downtrodden" or whatever the term is this week. Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs invented by our government were supposed to be the safety net for people not a way of life. (Just like Social Security )

Do we need to improve/restructure Medicade and other government assistance programs of that sort? You bet your ass we do! But it seems our Elected officials (all of them) are more interested in their pet causes and reelection than to actually deal with real reform. National health care is NOT the answer - it will fail just like medicade, medicare, and Social Security are.

What make you think that the gov't wouldn't use your med records in the same way you fear corporations would? The Government employs quite a few people

CkG

 

[LH]

The democrat party is 50% socialists(far left), 25% liberal, and 25% moderate. Sen Kerry is the Democrats only shot at the White House at this point. Lieberman is the closest person to being moderate that is running for the Dems. Its him, or left, left, far left, farther left, or moron.

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: BarneyFife

Originally posted by: Ilmater

Originally posted by: BarneyFife

Originally posted by: jaeger66

Originally posted by: Ilmater
I sure hope Gephardt gets in. That would be swell. And maybe the whole country can start holding hands and feel better about themselves.

You know, that's a really good point. Any problem affecting a mere 41 million Americans probably isn't worth worrying about. Maybe they'll all just die and then we won't have to address it.

Those people have no heart or compassion for people. All they care about is money. Imagine one of them coming down with god forbid cancer and losing their job and then how are you going to pay your $500 a month premium? I'd bet they have a change of heart.

I do rather enjoy people dying of stomach cancer.

Come on. I don't want to get too personal with this, but you're a typical Democrat. The plan to universalize health care doesn't work! If you implemented it, millions would be without jobs. Compared to that one guy that doesn't die of cancer, I'll take the millions.

Think about what you're saying. You're calling me unsympathetic and cold-hearted because I don't agree with a plan that only sounds good, but wouldn't work well. That is exactly what I believe most Democrats do. They stand up for things that sound good more often than bothering to think about what works.

So, considering what I said I thought a Democrat was and what ____ said, my definition must have been WAAAAAAY off, eh Carbonyl?

Where did I say anything about universal health care? I said that this country should have a safety net for all with limited coverage. This is the richest country in the world, I'm sure they could offer safety nets for people instead of donating Billions of dollars to Israel and Egypt.

I originally said that universal health care as proposed by Gephardt is extremely bad. Your response to that was:

Originally posted by: BarneyFife
It's real simple. When you offer health care, you can attract a better pool of potential employees. Nobody will take a job that doesn't offer health care benefits.

It sure sounded like you were advocating it to me.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: jaeger66

Originally posted by: Judgement
The U.S. gives its citizens every opportunity to be successful... all one has to do is put in the effort (besides the people with disabilities) to achieve the level of success needed to support themselves and get healthcare.

Tell it to the thousands of engineers who have been thrown out on the street in the last few years.

And are automatically covered under COBRA for 18 months. You left out that very important fact.

 

[RigorousT]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Why should we blow $100 Billion on a war, if we have a 300 Billion budget deficit and have 41 Million people uninsured?
you do realize that $100 Billion would be $2000+/uninsured person. So instead of bombing Iraq we could have everyone in the US insured for a couple of years.

[sarcasm]

I'm sticking with my idea of buying everyone a pony with that $100 Bil. I mean, spending billions on Iraq and tightening domestic security are bogus. Who cares about $2000 per person in insurance that you might not even need if you're the victim of terrorism and you don't live to enjoy your coverage. I mean, you could have a pony right now!

[/sarcasm]

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: RigorousT

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Why should we blow $100 Billion on a war, if we have a 300 Billion budget deficit and have 41 Million people uninsured?
you do realize that $100 Billion would be $2000+/uninsured person. So instead of bombing Iraq we could have everyone in the US insured for a couple of years.

[sarcasm]

I'm sticking with my idea of buying everyone a pony with that $100 Bil. I mean, spending billions on Iraq and tightening domestic security are bogus. Who cares about $2000 per person in insurance that you might not even need if you're the victim of terrorism and you don't live to enjoy your coverage. I mean, you could have a pony right now!

[/sarcasm]

Yes, we all know that if you have no health insurance, Iraq is the biggest threat you face.

Because we all know how many people in the US Iraq has killed.
It's a matter of opportunity costs, and setting priorities. A country that cannot even afford its own government should not be going out and governing a country half the world away.

 

[ConclamoLudus]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: RigorousT

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Why should we blow $100 Billion on a war, if we have a 300 Billion budget deficit and have 41 Million people uninsured?
you do realize that $100 Billion would be $2000+/uninsured person. So instead of bombing Iraq we could have everyone in the US insured for a couple of years.

[sarcasm]

I'm sticking with my idea of buying everyone a pony with that $100 Bil. I mean, spending billions on Iraq and tightening domestic security are bogus. Who cares about $2000 per person in insurance that you might not even need if you're the victim of terrorism and you don't live to enjoy your coverage. I mean, you could have a pony right now!

[/sarcasm]

Yes, we all know that if you have no health insurance, Iraq is the biggest threat you face.

Because we all know how many people in the US Iraq has killed.
It's a matter of opportunity costs, and setting priorities. A country that cannot even afford its own government should not be going out and governing a country half the world away.

I don't see how national security is a bad priority. Taking out Saddam Hussein is Health Insurance. And we ALL benefit.

 

[RigorousT]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Yes, we all know that if you have no health insurance, Iraq is the biggest threat you face.

Because we all know how many people in the US Iraq has killed.
It's a matter of opportunity costs, and setting priorities. A country that cannot even afford its own government should not be going out and governing a country half the world away.

What's the acceptable cut-off? During the orange alert, New York City was spending (and still is) in the millions daily to secure itself in fighting terrorism.. Let's say that was as low as $1 million... You could buld an orphanage and a hospital, agruably both excellent objectives to fund... So which is more important?

It's too early to say whether Iraq was or wasn't a threat. They haven't had the best track record, and I doubt you'd be comfortable if Saddam ever got his hands on a nuke. There'd be absolutely no bloodloss on his end in aiding the transfer of munitions and funds under the table to a number of terrorist groups that would act out against our interests.

 

[BarneyFife]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: jaeger66

Originally posted by: Judgement
The U.S. gives its citizens every opportunity to be successful... all one has to do is put in the effort (besides the people with disabilities) to achieve the level of success needed to support themselves and get healthcare.

Tell it to the thousands of engineers who have been thrown out on the street in the last few years.

And are automatically covered under COBRA for 18 months. You left out that very important fact.

Do you understand what COBRA is? If you did, I doubt you would have made this ridiculous statement.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: RigorousT

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Yes, we all know that if you have no health insurance, Iraq is the biggest threat you face.

Because we all know how many people in the US Iraq has killed.
It's a matter of opportunity costs, and setting priorities. A country that cannot even afford its own government should not be going out and governing a country half the world away.

What's the acceptable cut-off? During the orange alert, New York City was spending (and still is) in the millions daily to secure itself in fighting terrorism.. Let's say that was as low as $1 million... You could buld an orphanage and a hospital, agruably both excellent objectives to fund... So which is more important?

It's too early to say whether Iraq was or wasn't a threat. They haven't had the best track record, and I doubt you'd be comfortable if Saddam ever got his hands on a nuke. There'd be absolutely no bloodloss on his end in aiding the transfer of munitions and funds under the table to a number of terrorist groups that would act out against our interests.

Interests, schmitnerests The guy didn't even use WMD when we were in attacking his own country with nothing to lose.
And where would Saddam get a Nuke? You don't exactly make a nuke in your apartment. The Manhattan Project was one of the biggest and most expensive efforts ever undertaken. We would know it well in advance. It's really a remote possibility if at all. I mean anything could happen, but on the list of threats, Saddam is nowhere on the radar. It's just absurd that a dictator who cannot even control his own Kurds is a threat to anyone, especially the United States. Do you think Castro is a threat too?