Status Quo You Can Believe In
Is Obama scared of the free market or does he just not like it?
By Erick Posted in 2008 | Barack Obama | Healthcare | John McCain — Comments (23) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Obama claims to be the "change" candidate this year, but on healthcare he's offering more of the same failed policies voters have previously rejected while slamming McCain for bold initiatives that would actually, you know, reduce health care costs and improve health insurance portability in this country.
Obama said that McCain "wants to give you the failed Bush health care policies for another four years." He added that McCain would "shred" the employer-sponsored health care system and leave U.S. residents to "fend for yourself" in the free market.
More and more, I think, the GOP probably ought to just scrap the "small government" rhetoric that it so clearly does not believe in and voters no longer trust them on and make this an election about choices. They'll still be advocating smaller government, but with different language.
Obama wants you to have no choice in your healthcare and John McCain wants to provide you ample opportunity to chose your own healthcare. Obama does not want you to have the freedom to leave an employer because you are shackled to your health insurance. McCain wants to give you the freedom to leave one job for another.
Oh, and let's not forget this bit:
Pharmaceutical industry employees and PACs contributed $339,729 to Obama, $262,870 to Clinton and $74,850 to McCain during the same period.
Obama is not the candidate of hope and change. He's the candidate of the liberal status quo dressed up in PMS 285. And if you think you have problems with your health insurance now, just wait for President Obama.
Post Office + Passport Division = Obama Healthcare Plan.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | "If Iran Ever Tried to Pose A Serious Threat To Us . . ." — Comments (0) »
Status Quo You Can Believe In 23 Comments (0 topical, 23 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Where were you wrong? Starting with "I" and ending with "wrong".
All the Marxist, liberal philisophical fallacy in between is just pablum littered with propaganda.
But it was nice to have a communist perspective.
"Nec Aspera Terrent"
bene ambula et redambula
Contributor to The Minority Report
Well if Marx said it I will embrace my scumminess as for you I say you are the bottom feeder that eats the throwaway scum off of my scumminess....yes that is correct you are a lower life form than even I the scum class are.
"Liberals are very passionate".....
passionately stupid and in such unable to see the forest for the trees otherwise known as FACTS.
"Republicans are the virus in the American stomach, whom do not want change."...
I hope my virus is making you sick and CHANGE is not a political statement it is a lie...humans change every single day..the change you and your messiah want is change this great country can do without but hey go peddle your crap in the Middle East they CRAVE CHANGE...and than report back how that worked out for you.
Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom from Religion
Here is some logic for you. Try to follow.
My God doesn't punish. If your God punishes, then your God is not my God. Does your God punish?
The Constitution is my God given rights that cannot be taken away by government. Now, where does your punishing God’s thought stop and mine begin, I will tell you were, oppression stops with the Constitution. It is freedom from religion.
have I mentioned God in the post you responded to...if I read you correct I will have to say your logic is illogical and in such is filled with a STUPID screed!
Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom from Religion
So you are saying my belief about God is illogical, based on what. How can you tell me my God is illogical? I would think a God that punishes is emotional and illogical.
But, try to follow my point, Religion doesn't always mean God; it means to do something over and over again. Besides, what makes your God better than mine? The Constitution is my God given right, which makes it more powerful than government.
There needs to be a speration between Religion and government. Those forefathers were pretty smart.
Your god (note little 'g') doesn't punish? Then your god isn't my God....
My God is the God of the Bible, of "Abraham, Isaac and Jacob". My God does punish. Look at the Garden of Eden (they got kicked out), look at the Israelites (forced to wander in the wilderness for 40 years), and lastly, look at Jesus, who took God's complete and total wrath and punishment so that we don't have to.
Did your parents punish you? If so, does that mean they didn't love you? Because surely parents who punish their children don't love them, right?
As for "separation of church and state", I believe in it. Government does a good enough job of screwing up everything else they touch I don't want them near my faith. That does not, however, mean "let's take God out of everything that is remotely government-related" as the left seems to think. Much like "freedom of speech" is license to do whatever the bloody-heck the want.
And what dictionary defines religion as "doing the same thing over and over again"? Is it in the glossary of your Bible that has a god that doesn't punish? http://www.thefreedictionary.com/religion doesn't seem to have that definition at all.
Apologies for the off-topic comment....
Brian
You certain that was god punishing ? Seems more like Moses just wouldn't ask for directions.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Except:
1) with all those Israelite women behind him, you think they'd let him go 40 years without telling him how to get there? :) and 2) in Moses' defense, he *did* try to stop for directions, but all the gas stations were owned by Gentiles....
because yet again I am not talking about God at all and you are blathering about your God ergo you are being illogical..
Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom from Religion
I shouldn't dignify this with a reply, but I'd say, you were wrong right about the time you said, "Marx said...".
There's nothing more than Marxist-ranting here. You attempt to make baseless-arguments, presumably from your passionate feelings.
If your comment is any indication of the typical Marxist/liberal argument, then I can safely say that we Neo Cons and Social Conservatives will use silence in an argument because obviously, the more we let you talk, the more you end up making yourself look ridiculous.
Please keep arguing with your passionate emotions and feelings. I prefer to argue with Truth.
Brian
trolls and if you had a Monday like mine...it makes it all the more stress relieving :-) Those marxist wouldn't know dignity if it walked up and introduced itself.
Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom from Religion
Hope it's a little better now :)
Well for starters, "predominately" isn't a word. You mean "predominantly". Second, if "[h]omeless people need a change in beliefs", I don't see how "[g]iving religion money to perform social reform is insane." Religions are generally in the belief business, no?
Anyway, that was to answer the question you asked. It's an incomplete answer, but, eh, there it is. (For a more complete answer, we'd probably need to start with citing Karl Marx.)
But what I want to point out, to give a reply with roughly the same level of gravitas as the message inspiring it, is:
1. You're wrong.
2. Also, you smell bad.
3. And your mother dresses you funny.
4. You might be an idiot.
Do have a fine, lovely day, and don't let the door hit you on the way out.
--
This too shall pass.
I needed to vent some spleen, anyway.
--
This too shall pass.
A particularly good analogy for me. I just got mine Saturday. 2 HRs in line, 5 minutes at the desk.
McCain should produce a health care ad that shows the giants of American industry and innovation and free markets and contrast that with government ineptitude, long lines, mistakes, etc and end with "Who do you want in charge of your health care?"
And I think the Post Office/Passport analogy is brilliant. We should be pushing that angle...
The alleged "giants of American industry and innovation" innovated managed care--the for-profit HMO--as their approach to controlling health care costs.
There are lots of Americans (myself included) who have been the victim of some genuine horror stories involving HMO service representatives attempting to micro-manage our health care. My own medical specialists are so disgusted with having to argue with HMOs about referrals and coverage that they have told me that they are seriously thinking of retiring early.
Last year in California, it was revealed that some insurers were actually paying bonuses to their service representatives who could find reasons to deny coverage and claims to claimants.
The current system is nothing to be proud of. Conservatives need to offer their own solutions, NOT attempt to defend the current one or the industry that helped perpetuate the current one.
I'll say more about that in another post.
The failures of the Bush Administration highlighted a chronic weakness in conservative thinking: Conservatives are so dedicated to the Holy Grail of shrinking the size of government, that they're often uninterested in making government work better and more efficiently in the meantime. Why bother spending money to automate the Department of Education or Health and Human Services so it works more efficiently, if you're planning to get rid of it someday anyway?
Health care is a perfect example of this. The reflexive answer from many conservatives is to just say the Government should just butt out and leave the current system alone. Some conservatives are willing to provide tax incentives so that Americans can purchase their health care on their own.
But NONE of that addresses the basic insecurity that Americans have about health care: The ability of individual insurers to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions. There is simply no way to get such people into an insurance pool without a Government mandate of some kind, or Government subsidies of some kind, or both. Otherwise, to the insurer, a cancer patient is better off dead than filing insurance claims.
Even if the claimant already has coverage with one insurer, he is now locked into that insurer because he can't get new coverage from a new insurer, which defeats the whole purpose of free market choice. And if that insurer fails or is merged out of existence, he will be out of luck again.
A more modern way for conservatives to look at the health care issue, is to realize that removing this insecurity from American families is part of supporting the American family, a key goal of conservatives (especially social conservatives). A single person can take his chances without insurance coverage. But not a parent of small children. And that may well require a larger role for Government than traditional conservatives, and especially libertarians, would like.
you need to look at the Veteran's Administration.
You totally missed his point. I'm pretty sure he was arguing that passing legislation to fix the system we have is something that should be done rather than ignoring the problems.
I'm in NJ and we have a rule that says if you were covered by insurance within 90 days of applying for coverage with a different company then nothing can be considered a pre-existing condition by that company. Sounds terribly simply huh? That's how you get people to find the appropriate plan instead of facing HMOs deciding that your $80 a month prescription is for a pre existing condition and won't be covered for a year... Don't get me started on when HMO's decided pregnancy was a pre-existing condition and refused to cover it until laws got passed mandating they couldn't do that. THAT is what I believe the point was...
Oh, and for small business owners who aren't S-corps. You know the people we're supposed to be depending on for the health of the economy. Why the heck do I have to pay for individual insurance at some insane price when my previous S-corp with just 2 people got a much better deal? There should be a fixed price for a risk pool and companies shouldn't automatically get better pricing unless it's a large volume discount or something. As a note of interest, by LAW I can't buy health insurance with a group of people to try to get a discount. Wonder who got paid how much to write that law...
I should know this because I sell health insurance, savvy.
but my experience is exactly backwards of you Yil. From what I have seen, unless you are someone who has a pre-existing condition that leads to a significant rating, that most people who are in small groups (less than 10) actually save money by buying insurance on an individual basis.
But you are correct, there are lots of small legal changes that can be made to improve our current health care system. I like the 90 day rule. I've also thought that it would be helpful for the government to create tax incentives for some of these for-profit insurance companies to create secondary insurance pools on a not-for-profit basis (maybe allowing them to offset some of their losses against tax liability?)
Now also found at The Minority Report
I don't think Social Conservatives and Neo Cons can handle the truth. Regulate this.
Marx said conservatives were the scum class. They wait for society to change to change their position in society. The Social Conservative does not allow change to happen. Americans want to start living a new history instead of living a repeated history. The Democrat party is becoming a threat to the Republicans and Republicans are the scum class of America
"separation between Church (religion) and State.....", The Constitution does not say separation between God and State. Religion is a representation of church. Religion is predominately conservative, Social Conservative. Giving religion money to perform social reform is insane. Homeless people need a change in beliefs not the status quo. Conservative Faith base organizations should receive zero dollars to conduct Social reform programs (food banks are not Social reform programs) caring for the homeless is a Social reform program).
The greatest weapon a Republican- Neo Cons, Social conservatives- is silence and feelings. Liberals are very passionate. When I argue a point from an emotional point of view, I am giving power to others. I am trying to play by other people’s rules. Social Conservatives and Neo Cons do not have your feelings in interest. They only believe in taking as many resources as they can. If they can keep you in an emotional state, they do not have to argue the points. A Neo Con and Social Conservative will use silence during an argument to keep you talking, trying to prove your point. Silence is not always a bad thing. Don’t fight the Republicans, rewrite the rules! That is change!
Republicans will use micro management, Micro management is oppression, next time you talk to a Republican ask them why do they oppress. Republicans are the virus in the American stomach, whom do not want change.
Go ahead, tell me where I am WRONG!