Bill,
If you are of the school that it was the sole act of greedy businessmen who caused this chaos then I can't help you. It is much too complicated for me to explain it all to you. Hopefully, you will take this response as a curiosity and go investigate a bit deeper.
Roscoe

No, it was not the sole act of the greedy, there were the politicians that sold there soles, and the stupid people getting in over there heads, I can blame the corporations, and the bankers, and most certainly the Wall Street types, you know I often hear about government workers that don't produce a thing, well here are the winners in that category, at least a government worker serves the public in some capacity, but these guys take the cake, and pay less taxes on top of that! And I can blame the politicians!
we are working on them but it will take a few election cycles to clean house there, you have to first start by cutting the head off the snake, we achieved that, but there's more work to do, its hard to blame people for being stupid, they can be led around all together too easily, and convinced they can afford a house that they in no way can,
it was not just the poor guilty of that.
So now here we are looking to clean this mess up and the most expensive drain on our society is healthcare, we either get it right or we continue down this path of blind stupidity, I choose to get it right, what we are doing now is wrong! And its a shame that all sides can't come together and solve this for the good of the country, so if you don't get what you think is the best system, blame your self, doing nothing is not an option, what does the party of NO have for ideas? Yeah! That's my point, and why we cut the head off the snake!

I said it before, and I'll say it again... The healthcare system needs REPAIRED, not REPLACED!

Bill, since you seem to think we need to replace the healthcare system because of infant mortality rates.. Might I ask you where the U.S. rates on Teen pregnancy?

c< >b,

WHO you blame is disgustingly obvious in your EVERY post. You blame ANYONE that is well to do. You have been totally BRAINWASHED to believe that to be rich is to be BAD.
The tiniest brush with reality with an open mind would show that your thinking is pure Anti-Americanism.

The rich provide and create jobs. The Government does not.
The rich provides and promotes growth. The Government does not.
The rich, or soon to be rich provide innovation. The Government does not.
The rich provide opportunity and money for workers. The Government does not.
The rich produce. The Government does not.
The rich SHOW the way to a better life. The Government does not.
The rich even provides for the government. The Government does not.
The rich provide GREED, an essential ingredient in a strong Nation. The Government does not, it provides fraud and corruption at the present time.

ALL Hail the NEW car Czar!! The old "Savior" is under suspicion of bribery.:D:3DSMILE::LOL: Way to GO! obummer. Another transparent crook in the white house hen house:JEKYLHYDE**):mad:.

And the new CZAR an ex. union boss. Knowledge of auto building??? ZERO! He oozes from our highly successful and GOVERNMENT PROTECTED Steel Industry.

Roscoe, Cobra (space) Bill works for the federal government - he's run a company into the ground if he had a chance. He only thinks liberal thoughts.

By the way, you can find his thinking on any one of the liberal sites: CNN, DailyKos, DemocratUnderground, Obama's books, etc.

SpaceBill

...not to mention that I may start moderating for really phuking bad spelling and grammer.

In the last few days, I've seen you use a variety of stuff instead of English, but in that last post you made a double score by using "there sole" instead of "their soul."

If you truly do work for the government...you should be fired for failing to meet the minimum schooling requirements that even Obama is requiring.

Start double-checking your typing before you hit the post button. A few typos are one thing, but you have engaged in consistent and habitual errors, and frankly, it is irritating.

You will be the first person to be banned for bad spelling/grammer, and it will be my honor to serve you.

From the web on this subject.....

A human right is a moral right of paramount importance applicable to every human being. There are several reasons why health care should not be considered a human right.
Firstly, health care is difficult to define. It clearly encompasses preventive care (for example, immunisation), public health measures, health promotion, and medical and surgical treatment of established illness. Is the so called human right to health care a right to basic provision of clean water and adequate food, or does everyone in the world have a right to organ transplantation, cosmetic surgery, infertility treatment, and the most expensive medicine? For something to count as a human right the minimum requirement should surely be that the right in question is capable of definition.

Secondly, all rights possessed by an individual imply a duty on the part of others. Thus the right to a fair trial imposes a duty on the prosecuting authority to be fair. On whom does the duty to provide health care to all the world’s citizens fall? Is it a duty on individual doctors, or hospital authorities, or governments, or only rich governments? It is difficult to see how any provision of benefits can be termed a human right (as opposed to a legal entitlement) when to meet such a requirement would impose an intolerable burden on others.

Thirdly, the philosophical basis of all human rights has always been shaky. Liberalism and humanism, the dominant philosophies of Western democracies, require human rights. Religion requires a God, but this is not in itself evidence of God’s existence. Most people can see some advantage in maintaining the concept of civil and political rights, but it is difficult to find any rational or utilitarian basis for viewing health care in the same way.

To propose that health care be considered a human right is not only wrong headed, it is unhelpful. Mature debate on the rationing and sharing of limited resources can hardly take place when citizens start from the premise that health care is their right, like a fair trial or the right to vote. I suspect that the proponents of the notion think that to claim health care as a human right adds some kind of weight or authority to the idea that health care, and by extension healthcare professionals, is important. A more humble approach would achieve more in the long run.

Thanks for noticing that, bud! It's very curious - not just typos, as they are human - but the use of words that simply don't fit, something aligned with street slang - and from a federal government worker who is nearing retirement - God Save America.

:LOL: Jamo that was hilarious

OH...that explains it. Thanks. Everything is perfectly clear now.

Roscoe

Oregon health plan covers assisted suicide, not drugs, for cancer patient

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=12857

Eugene, Ore., Jun 6, 2008 / 01:09 am (CNA).- An Oregon woman suffering from lung cancer was notified by the state-run Oregon Health Plan that their policy would not cover her life-extending cancer drug, telling her the health plan would cover doctor-assisted suicide instead.

Barbara Wagener discovered her lung cancer had recurred last month, the Register-Guard said. Her oncologist prescribed a drug called Tarceva, which could slow the cancer growth and extend her life.

The Oregon Health Plan notified Wagner that it would not cover the drug, but it would cover palliative care, which it said included assisted suicide.
____

Therein will be the future of Obama DeathCare if it passes into law......

[i]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cobra bill (Post 967219) Once again, scare tactics, it's OK for the republicans to borrow and spend but not for the democrats to Tax and spend Not when BHO wants to spend more than all the rest of the US Presidents...COMBINED (look it up!) the people have spoken, No..as of yet the politicians are speaking; let's see what the people say in 2010 and 2012! and force the insurance companies to take clients with pre-existing conditions, and not refuse to cover you because it's too expensive And of course when the companies go belly up...we can always let the government take them over! if you do not wish to contribute to the commons, then get the hell out, it's We the people, in order to from a more perfect union. And that's what we are doing! Either get on board or get out!

It seems as if you have read the Obama manifesto completely...why listen to reason, why encourage workers to work and earners to earn? Just tax everybody into poverty. Obamunism is trickle up poverty; nothing more. The man is an anti-American socialist hack, pure and simple. I just hope you live long enough in government healthcare to realize it.

See if you recoginize that this is the exact same vomit that you champion on this board.
All of the ignorant, brainwashed and stupid statements you make ARE contained within the following::

Synopsis of The Communist Manifesto

The Communist Manifesto is too long to be a concise declaration of principles and too short to be a book. It is composed of about 17,000 words including various introductions by Friedrich Engels. It is arranged, basically, in four sections. The first section introduces the Marxian idea of history as a class struggle. It juxtaposes the conditions and development of various strata of society, "freeman and slave, patrician and plebian, lord and serf...in a word, oppressor and oppressed." It hypothesizes how the development of each of these in history gave rise to the next step in an inevitable historical process culminating ultimately in the rise of one working class.
Marx and Engels put forward the notion that the working class is exploited by the bourgeoisie. Positing a labor theory of value where the value of goods and services is based strictly on the amount of labor that is put into them, The Manifesto, says that all the surplus that goes to the capitalist as profits is in reality the "property" of the working class who created that wealth.
The second section of the Communist Manifesto addresses the nature of the new working class which he calls the proletariate. He reviews its implications for the advancement of society, including the abolition of property and family. This section also stresses a kind of Utopia that can only be brought about by violence and conflict with the working class wresting power from the bourgeoisie (the owners of the means of production). This conflict is projected also to bring about the end of nation-states and, ultimately, all forms of government, resulting in a worker's paradise.


This is the future you seek, ALREADY proven to be unworkable.
RU nuts??

Cobra Bill; apparently the people ARE speaking:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_pl824

But a recent "poll of polls" by CNN shows that, on the key issue of health-care reform, the public's approval of his handling of the hot-button issue has plummeted below 50 percent for the first time.

By your advice previous, I just have one question.

ARE YOU PACKING YET?

Good question!

Workers...Rise up....You have nothing to lose but your chains!......or was it

You've got everything to lose but your chains...??.....

Roscoe

Ron,

It seems to me that requiring every person to have health insurance as not that big a problem. We already have extensive public health insurance whether we like it or not and it's not that bad. Police protection, fire protection and military are all examples of a form of social healthcare.

Police protection, fire protection and military are all examples of the ongoing process of socialism ...where "the government takes care of us". Whenever government provides for our care and protection, it is essentially socialism. We all pay for it and all reap it's benefits. There is a lot of running around claiming the sky may fall when it comes to taming corporate profits regarding the outlandish cost of healthcare in the USA. I say take it with a grain of salt. Two grains. Follow the money.

Speaking of "outlandish", I don't think it is such an "outlandish statement" to say this country was built with a measure of socialism. I didn't get to answer Razor the other day (had to work). As for his inquiry, "who, when, where", I think I just said it above. Basically any form of democracy is socialism itself, and America is thusly partially built on socialism. The alternative is less and less government ...until there is none at all ...with no restrictions on one another. Unmitigated free enterprise isn't all it is cracked up to be. Our prisons are full of "entrepreneurs" that just wanted a free hand in drug sales. Some things, including the cost of present US healthcare, are just plain immoral and the public has to step in. Of course unmitigated socialism is not the answer either, so watchdogs are a good thing.

I don't believe it's literally true that Obama has stated that Seniors are a drag to society and should just take the pain and not waste money on medical care. I suppose somebody took something out of context, again, for propoganda value. Same goes for Razors assertion that, " ...in England if over the age of 65 you do not get dialysis...". I wonder who made that up. Great scare tactic, anyway. Apparently English get that social benefit ...and a lot more.

Whatever increased public costs are associated with public health care will be more than saved by costs saved by reducing ever more corrupt private profit entities. Leave it to good spin doctors to come up with a sarcastic saying, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you." Now imagine, "I'm from the corporation and I'm here to help you." Hear it in a million corporate ads until people believe commercial advertising is really true, for every ad says exactly that. A bit illogical to say the least. Corporations are certainly, beyond doubt, For-Profit to help themselves. Government is for non-profit to help it's citizens, at least theoretically. I have to admit anything done by a committee of any kind is often a little flakey. Join a government committee; improve it. Most of us aren't, and never will be, allowed to join a corporate committee.

Another popular myth: The USSR and Cuba are socialist countries.
The USSR and Cuba aren't really socialist countries, although that was the revolutionary promise on their way to where they ended up. They are tyrannies, pure and simple. Nobody gets to share equally in anything there, unless you consider that official communist party members are more equal than others. They are single party systems, single ruling party systems. Not governments ...but tyrannical rulers. The tactical scare cry, "The communists are coming, the communists are coming!!", is getting old. Communism and socialism are not the same thing.

Not too surprisingly, the very term, "socialism" has taken on a sinister meaning, probably even before the era of McCarthyism. For the same reason as now ...those that had the gold back then wanted to write the rules that they may keep the gold ...without sharing one bit with the working folks they got it from in the first place. And public propoganda is the best way to achieve this, then as now. We are a long ways from becoming communists as long as we have two parties. It would be nice if they would bolster each other up rather than weaken us all from within.

I guess I can't blame anyone for assuming that socialism is the same as communism. Check out the modern definition of the word socialism.

When Thomas Paine said, "government at its best is a necessary evil" and Thomas Jefferson said, "The government that governs the best, governs the least", they were absolutely correct. Government stepping in to regulate ridiculous runaway healthcare is now the least necessary evil we can do, IMO.

Wes

...

Wes,
Your post was well thought out and written but is flawed. If you are concerned about costs; then the statement of the CBO that said the plan would raise them should be a major concern!

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/......tee-Rangel.pdf

Also, note in your synopsis on socialism that it is commented on as being the intermediary step to something far worse. I see what the government has done and is continuing to do (bailouts, banks, autos, ad nauseum) is a giant step in that direction. Already in the healthcare bill there are points of end of life counseling for seniors over 65, and now racial balance equations being played. When will it stop? When has the government efficiently and effectively delivered any resource to the people? VA Hospitals?? Welfare Programs?? Housing?? The government we have was set up to do some things effectively...military, trade, etc.. the over-arching concerns spelled out in the Constitution. Things went south (IMHO) when the government decided it knew better than anyone else how to be a balance in and on society; a time I trace back to Johnson and his 'Great Society'. To me, looking back thru the decades this was the single greatest blunder in American history, and we have not been able to shake it off. It seems to me that federal meddling is the cause of our troubles, not the cure!

Wes,

I was under the impression that the US was a Republic and is mistakenly called a Democracy. In fact, no where in the constituion does it state we are a democracy but it specifically states that we ARE a republic. If that basic premis is recognized then it should be obvious why the government should be limited and has no business involved in the operation of or in competition with private industry. Your thoughts?

427,

I have to admit that I do not know that costs will ultimately offset favorable to us, the public. Theoretically, it costs less when no profit is involved. Actually, I think VA Hospitals do pretty good with the meager funding vs medical load they get. But the worst possible combination exists when corrupt government officials and private interests work against us. I don't mind a little socialism-capitalism and/or government when the players are honest. Another reason I liked McCain; the greater separation between the two that he advocated.

Your link was broke. Click here.

===========

Balance_Point,

I believe you are correct. We are more a Republic, selecting representatives to make our decisions. We are partially a Democracy when we vote direct, one on one. At least I think that is how it technically works. When our representatives choose social measures and programs, it is still a form of socialism, though. That we do.

Wes

...