PDA

View Full Version : Do you agree with this statement?



Qtec
11-29-2011, 11:40 PM
Obama Nov 2002,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Some aspect of the working poor has to involve transfer of finances. To ask people in the lowest paying jobs to bear the full burden of their health insurance is just irrational, it’s not going to happen…One of my conclusions in the last six years, and looking at what our system is, unless you have 100 percent coverage, you can’t have the right preventive care and you can’t have a rational system. [...]

If I see someone who’s earning over $50,000 a year, who has made the calculated decision not to buy health insurance. I’m looking at someone who’s absolutely as irresponsible as anybody who is ever on welfare….I’m actually in favor of saying, whatever the appropriate income is, you ought to either have health insurance, or you ought to post a bond.<span style='font-size: 14pt'> But we have no room in this society to have a free rider approach if you’re well off economically to say we’ll cheat our neighbors.</span> </div></div>


Q /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Gayle in MD
11-30-2011, 04:26 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Obama Nov 2002,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Some aspect of the working poor has to involve transfer of finances. To ask people in the lowest paying jobs to bear the full burden of their health insurance is just irrational, it’s not going to happen…One of my conclusions in the last six years, and looking at what our system is, unless you have 100 percent coverage, you can’t have the right preventive care and you can’t have a rational system. [...]

If I see someone who’s earning over $50,000 a year, who has made the calculated decision not to buy health insurance. I’m looking at someone who’s absolutely as irresponsible as anybody who is ever on welfare….I’m actually in favor of saying, whatever the appropriate income is, you ought to either have health insurance, or you ought to post a bond.<span style='font-size: 14pt'> But we have no room in this society to have a free rider approach if you’re well off economically to say we’ll cheat our neighbors.</span> </div></div>


Q /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </div></div>

Absolutely.

Qtec
11-30-2011, 06:58 AM
Me too, 100% . Does that make me a republican? They keep saying everyone has to have 'skin in the game'.

Q

Gayle in MD
11-30-2011, 07:40 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Me too, 100% . Does that make me a republican? They keep saying everyone has to have 'skin in the game'.

Q </div></div>

No, you're not a Republican. You know how to think!

G.

llotter
11-30-2011, 07:55 AM
Leftist commies like The Moron and his fellow travelers on this site are never content to let people run their own lives and run their lives as they see fit. These 'do-gooders' never actually do any good but enjoy practicing their version of social engineering because they believe themselves to be so much smarter than the average Joe. Leftists equates freedom with becoming wards of the state where the citizen have neither any cares or responsibility, that freedom equals slavery.

Of course, they are not smarter and their social engineering has wrecked so much havoc that Western Civilization is on the verge of being destroyed at this very moment.

Gayle in MD
11-30-2011, 08:13 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Leftist commies like The Moron and his fellow travelers on this site are never content to let people run their own lives and run their lives as they see fit. These 'do-gooders' never actually do any good but enjoy practicing their version of social engineering because they believe themselves to be so much smarter than the average Joe. Leftists equates freedom with becoming wards of the state where the citizen have neither any cares or responsibility, that freedom equals slavery.

Of course, they are not smarter and their social engineering has wrecked so much havoc that Western Civilization is on the verge of being destroyed at this very moment. </div></div>

Gross misinterpretation of the facts.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">never content to let people run their own lives and run their lives as they see fit. </div></div>

That describes you, and the right perfectly.

Trying to destroy the rights of American workers, to negotiate for decent work environments, decent pay, decent retirement...Repiglican policies.

Trying to remove women's rights to control their own bodies...and make their own reproductive decisions, again, anti-constitutional, Repiglican policies.

Trying to intrude into personal, family decisions as in the Terry Schivo case...again, unconstitutional Repiglican policies.

Trying to remove the right to use birth control...., Again dictatorship style, Reiglican policies.

Trying to force people on welfare to take drug tests, so the crooked Florida Governor's corporations can make money off the poor and the hungry....Unconstitutional Repiglican policies.

Trying to spy on Americans, illegally....Unconstitutional Repiglican policies.

Lying the country into an Unconstitutional War, Repiglican policies.

Holding secret meetings with the energy polluting pigs, to provide them opportunities to destroy our water and our air, and use the tax payers money to subsidize their record breaking profits....corrupt Repiglican policies.

Looking the other way while Wall St. stole from Americans....Repiglican policies.




Giving the suffering, a hand, is not slavery.

Providing for the general welfare, is the American Way. It's in the Constitution, which you have no clue about.

Exploiting the disadvantaged, through corporate/government collusion, is fascism. Repiglican policies are fascist policies.

Wrapped in the flag, carrying the cross....

G.

eg8r
11-30-2011, 09:31 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: obama with foot in mouth</div><div class="ubbcode-body">One of my conclusions in the last six years, and looking at what our system is, unless you have 100 percent coverage, you can’t have the right preventive care and you can’t have a rational system. [...]
</div></div>So, before signing his HC bill into law he already stated it is not a rational system. Well duh, we already knew that. Instead he decided to shift more of the burden on the poor by forcing them to pay for his irrational bill.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
11-30-2011, 06:44 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Leftist commies like The Moron and his fellow travelers on this site are never content to let people run their own lives and run their lives as they see fit. These 'do-gooders' never actually do any good but enjoy practicing their version of social engineering because they believe themselves to be so much smarter than the average Joe. Leftists equates freedom with becoming wards of the state where the citizen have neither any cares or responsibility, that freedom equals slavery.

Of course, they are not smarter and their social engineering has wrecked so much havoc that Western Civilization is on the verge of being destroyed at this very moment. </div></div>

If that explains why Democrats pushed national health care (although they did not prefer an individual mandate, historically), what explains why the GOP INVENTED the individual mandate (well, adopted it from the Heritage Foundation right wing think tank), approved of it so much that a half-dozen of them in the Senate sponsored bills for that in the '90s, continued to support the individual mandate into mid-spring of 2009 (as a consensus among them!), and why both of the current leaders of the GOP field, Romney and Gingrich, also strongly supported the individual mandate?

Their stated argument was to prevent the moral hazard of free-riding the system, and forcing everyone else to pick up their bill when they needed medical care.

Do you think they were wrong about that position? Didn't believe it, and were simply lying for political reasons? Or do you credit their sincerity, but still consider them all RINOs?

Qtec
11-30-2011, 07:05 PM
I forgot to add a link to that quote. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif it wasn't Obama! (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/11/29/377684/in-2005-gingrich-called-for-transfer-of-finances-individual-mandate-to-achieve-universal-coverage/)

Q

Gayle in MD
11-30-2011, 07:31 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I forgot to add a link to that quote. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif it wasn't Obama! (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/11/29/377684/in-2005-gingrich-called-for-transfer-of-finances-individual-mandate-to-achieve-universal-coverage/)

Q </div></div>

Ha ha ha... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Guess we won't hear from Llotter or the Eg again....

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Soflasnapper
11-30-2011, 08:47 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I forgot to add a link to that quote. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif it wasn't Obama! (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/11/29/377684/in-2005-gingrich-called-for-transfer-of-finances-individual-mandate-to-achieve-universal-coverage/)

Q </div></div>

Gingrich??? The new frontrunner???!?!?! He's really a commie or com-symp fellow traveler of Democrats and Obama?

Quick, get the bp meds for lotter before the 'Scanners' head exploding thing!

Should have know this was a trick, since the year was off (O came to prominence in the Kerry convention as the key-noter in '04), plus as we may all remember, O always opposed the individual mandate, until the love the GOP had for the proposal probably influenced the direction of the legislative drafting, in a failed bid to win bipartisan support for it.

eg8r
11-30-2011, 08:47 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If that explains why Democrats pushed national health care (although they did not prefer an individual mandate, historically), what explains why the GOP INVENTED the individual mandate (well, adopted it from the Heritage Foundation right wing think tank), approved of it so much that a half-dozen of them in the Senate sponsored bills for that in the '90s, continued to support the individual mandate into mid-spring of 2009 (as a consensus among them!), and why both of the current leaders of the GOP field, Romney and Gingrich, also strongly supported the individual mandate?

Their stated argument was to prevent the moral hazard of free-riding the system, and forcing everyone else to pick up their bill when they needed medical care.

Do you think they were wrong about that position? </div></div>Yes I think they were wrong back then and they were unable to get it passed. I am glad they finally came to their senses. Too bad it was too late and the Dems pulled it off.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
11-30-2011, 10:59 PM
Yes I think they were wrong back then and they were unable to get it passed. I am glad they finally came to their senses. Too bad it was too late and the Dems pulled it off.

Back then, in <s>May</s> at least as of mid-June of **2009**, you mean?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Here’s one case for the individual mandate in the health care law boiled down to two sentences — both fairly elegant considering they were spoken extemporaneously.

“There isn’t anything wrong with it, except some people look at it as an infringement upon individual freedom. But when it comes to states requiring it for automobile insurance, the principle then ought to lie the same way for health insurance, because everybody has some health insurance costs, and if you aren’t insured, there’s no free lunch. Somebody else is paying for it.” — June 14, 2009

A corollary to that argument is that you can’t have a functioning private health care system that treats the sick unless it also draws money from the healthy. In this regard, the individual mandate actually marries two distinctly American priorities — an obsession with private markets, and the core belief that nobody should go without health care.

Considering just how cacophonous the health care debate has become, it might surprise you to learn that the mystery reformer quoted above is Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), the Republicans’ health care point man in the Senate who, during the same interview, with great authority, claimed “I believe that there is a bipartisan consensus to have individual mandates.” more (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/how-the-health-care-repeal-push-marks-the-end-of-the-universal-health-care-consensus.php) </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Two months later he threw in his lot with Sarah Palin (R-AK) and the Death Panelers. Now he claims — along with about half the attorneys general in the country — that the individual mandate is unconstitutional and, like the rest of the GOP, uses it as the foundation for a far-reaching political assault on the health care law.

Today, the public debate over the health care law is held on decidedly Republican-friendly terms: Did the Democrats violate the constitution? Did they encroach upon your liberty? Did they take over the health care system and place themselves between you and your doctor? </div></div>

Er, no, no, and no. See Sen. Charles Grassley's previous comments above.

Very likely they could have gotten their proposals to this effect passed in '93, except as a matter of politics, under the Bill Kristol doctrine, they all were forced to vote no on each and every bill. Kristol explained that if the Democrats ever got a national health care plan through to law, the GOP could well anticipate another 40 year Democratic lock on the House, as he said they gained from their passage of SS.

Sadly, there is no principle involved here except raw politics from the GOP. As the conservative DC area appellate court wrote, famed conservative icon Laurence Silberman as its author, this is plainly Constitutional and no credible argument to the contrary was made in the brief or at oral argument.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yesterday, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) admitted that he supported the individual mandate before he realized it was unconstitutional and now, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) has conceded that he too endorsed a policy that would have allowed the government “to tell you what you have to buy, even if you don’t want to buy it.” In 1993, Hatch, along with 20 other GOP senators — including Grassley, Bennett, and Bond — introduced a health care plan that would have required everyone to buy coverage, capped awards for medical malpractice lawsuits, established minimum benefit packages and invested in comparative effectiveness research. It was, in other words, a plan to “erode liberty.”

Last night, and then again this afternoon, Hatch was pressed on his past support for the 1993 proposal. What’s changed, CNN’s Campbell Brown and MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell both wanted to know. Like Grassley, Hatch couldn’t come up with a very good answer. In 1993, Republicans hastily proposed the unconstitutional measure to fend off HillaryCare; nobody even understood the implications of the alternative policy, Hatch explained:

HATCH: Well, it really wasn’t. We were fighting Hillarycare at that time. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>And I don’t think anyone centered on it, I certainly didn’t. That was 17 years ago. But since then, and with the advent of this particular bill</span>, really seeing how much they’re depending on an unconstitutional approach to it, yea, naturally I got into it, got into it on this issue. </div></div>

Qtec
12-01-2011, 02:35 AM
Ron Paul attack ad (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWKTOCP45zY&feature=player_embedded)

Q

eg8r
12-01-2011, 09:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sofla</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Back then, in May at least as of mid-June of **2009**, you mean?
</div></div>I figured you of all people would be able to keep track of the discussion...<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sofla</div><div class="ubbcode-body">approved of it so much that a half-dozen of them in the Senate sponsored bills for that in the '90s, continued to support the individual mandate into mid-spring of 2009 </div></div>Now considering I did not give a specific time frame yet quoted the entire time frame you have decided to talk about it seems to be common sense that it is not 2009 right now, so yes "back then" would include your timeframe of the 90s through mid-spring of 2009. I cannot explain this any clearer since I am not changing a single thing you posted. It almost seems like you are trying to talk me out of what I said due to the "nearness" in time in reference to your chosen period but that makes no sense. I have never supported all Republican agenda based on toeing the party line. I vote and support only the agenda and issues that I agree with. If any single member of any party decides to approve any form of government healthcare then I am against it. Plain and simple and that has nothing to do with the political party.

If there is one thing you are doing here that you did not suspect you would be capable of doing it is proving that my views are NOT partisan. You attempt to prove any part of the HC bill is actually a Rep idea is fine with me because I have been against it from day one.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
12-01-2011, 10:40 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Ron Paul attack ad (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWKTOCP45zY&feature=player_embedded)

Q </div></div>

LOL, good attack ad. Unfortunately, Libertarians like Paul, don't have any reasonable answers either. Libertarian views only make sense in a notebook, but never in practice.

The point is, the rising costs of health care, and HC Insurance costs, IOW, being gouged left and right, are unsustainable.

It took a man of principles, and intellect, to commit to solving the problem that Repiglicans have only given lip service to for deacades, even though they are the first ones to yap about Mmedicare costs, they refuse to actually take any action, for fear the powerful Medical contributors will cut off their contirbutions, same thing with energy, Insurance, big Pharma, the absurd defense contracting industry, ilitary Industrial/Corporate/Congressional/Copmplex....all of which are gouging Americans left and right.


Repigs won't do anything to address any of the corporate thievery which is draining this country, ever. they only give them more loopholes, more tax cuts, more of all of our money, and hence, we don't have enough consumers to keep this economy going.

Only Democratics, have the courage to address this problem of unsustainable Health, energy, Pharma, and insurance costs, and it has always been so, and will always be so, and the Repiglican obstructionism and lies of the last five years, prove that.

If their policies worked, we wouldn't be in this mess.

The debt went from five trillion, when Bush took over, to eleven trillion, before Bush crashed the economy, through Repiglican deregulatory policies, and failed, "Trickle Down" Voodoo Reaganomics.

What followed was a Wall St. Ponzi Scheme, covered up by Bush's Appointees, and flamed up by Greenspans irresponsibly low and ridiculous interest rates, for the Bush Ownership Society. Wall St. understood the signals all too well, and hence, we ended up on the brink of the Great Bush Depression.

Thank goodness, this president rescued us from that horrible fate, and had the good sense to save our automobile industry, and consistantly helped those victims of failed Repiglican policies, the best he could, from starving to death, and all in the face of unprecedented political Repiglican obstructionism, and irresponsibility, and incompetence, and all at a time of multiple Repiglican created, proven failed economic, domestic and foreign policy disastrous consequences and emergencies.

Hence, the vast majority of this country, Democratic, Independent, and Republican, all agree that it is long past time to raise taxes on the billionaires, and millionaires who do not create any jobs, and if those tax cuts and loopholes had created jobs, after eight plus years of the Grover Norquist/Bush/Cheney Muslim attack on America's future, we would have seen them, obviously, and obviously they never showed up.

Hard working Middle Class Americans, our teachers, our federal employees, our first responders, Firemen, teachers, policemen, our EPA, FDA, HLS, Fema, F & D Admins., all of whom have been robbed by corporate greed, and are the main targets of Repiglicans, who want only the wealthy to survive so that they can steal more from all of us another day, and failed Voodoo economics, incompetence, greed and corruption by the Repiglican Grand Oil Party, who pushed this class warfare themselves to the brink with their irrational policies, are not going to stand for more of the same redistribution of wealth to the top.

The Bush tax cuts did not pay for themselves, period. That is the Grand Lie of the Repiglican LIARS, IOW, all Repiglicans.

G.