START A RANT
SIGN UP / SIGN IN
GET PAID TO POST
FOLLOW ON TWITTER
START A RAVE
MY PROFILE
CONTACT US
ABOUT US
News & Politics

Rave

The Best Endorsement Of Obama's Health Care

Posted 26 months ago|63 comments|1,110 views
Written by
This is absolutely tooooooooooo good to be true.

On the following website:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Cuban-lead...

Obama's healthcare for the entire world law has received the ultimate endorsement.

Fidel Castro has given his endorsement for Obama's health care for the world reform law.

He says:

"It is really incredible that 234 years after the Declaration of Independence ... the government of that country has approved medical attention for the majority of its citizens, something that Cuba was able to do half a century ago,"

Holy Cow.

Now Al is going to start saying Cuba's healthcare system is far, far superior the United States of America.

Somebody needs to wake me up from this bad dream.
EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
26 months ago: That's just Castro's response to Obama's condemnation of Cube for treating its citizens with a "clenched fist" and for calling for "the immediate, unconditional release of all political prisoners in Cuba and for the respect for the basic rights of the Cuban people." He only endorsed it because he knew it was inflame the passions of conservatives against Obama and as expected, they swallowed it hook, line and sinker.
26 months ago: And it's Bush's fault to boot!
26 months ago: red, you lovable nut, at least you're consistent. In your mind, there's no such thing as an uninsured individual in the United States. There's no such thing as taxpayer costs associated with treating that person in emergency rooms. There's nothing wrong with our health insurance system whatsoever.

But more importantly, there's no such thing as Great Britain. Or France. Or Canada. Or Finland. Or the Netherlands. Or Italy. Or Israel.

Wait... Israel? Yes, Israel. They have universal health care, too.

The world is not divided into communist dictatorships with state-run medicine and capitalist countries with private insurance. You only ever want to talk about Cuba because it feeds into your line of thinking that only a communist could support the new health care law. But it's simply not so.
26 months ago: Heynnn.

I never said nobody was uninsured.

Basically, noone goes without medical care in America if they need it. Period.

Obama is a liar saying otherwise. (That means in is intentionally lying.)

And of course we end up paying for a lot of medical costs for those uninsured incur and do not pay. Something needed to be done about that. I agree; however, passing a law requiring every one in America to buy a canary under penalties of law is ASININE and not the solution.

Great Britain, France, Canada, Finland, the Netherlands, Italy or Israel DO NOT HAVE THE U.S. CONSTITUTION EITHER. Obviously, we don't anymore.

You are missing the LARGE problem.

Heynnnnnnnnnnnnnnn. Our US Constitution FORBIDS what you guys are doing!

PERIOD.
26 months ago: "Basically, noone goes without medical care in America if they need it. Period."

You just love burning money, don't you. Why should my tax dollars go to fund expensive visits to emergency rooms for non-emergency medical services? Especially when I can get way more bang for my buck getting people to general practitioners, and leave the emergency rooms for actual emergencies?

"Obama is a liar saying otherwise. (That means in is intentionally lying.)"

No, red, you're simply woefully misinformed. Many, many people who aren't insured put off medical services -- in some cases, resulting in their deaths -- because they don't want to go bankrupt. But you, you will never experience that kind of choice, because you're on government assistance for your medical care already.

Now it seems, based on the rest of your comment, that you don't actually have a problem with government-funded health insurance, except you think somehow it's unconstitutional. Can you please tell me which clause of the Constitution it violates? And can you tell me exactly which part of the new law violates that clause? Please be specific.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
26 months ago: Here's a list of countries with Universal Health Care - of the thirty-three developed nations, we were the lone exception.

http://truecostblog.com/2009/08/09/count...

And forget escaping to Australia - they have it too. Maybe Ethiopia?
26 months ago: Mark.

It's called the Constitution of the United States of America.

I don't care what Zimbabwe does.
26 months ago: Does that mean we can close all of our county health district clinics and hospitals because everyone will now be insured? Cha-Ching. My county just saved 300 + million per year treating illegals and po' folk. Not bad. How do you suppose those po' folk are going to get the money to buy in to this cluster bomb? What? Give them another tax credit / refund over what the paid in taxes?
26 months ago: Sorry, trump card...

The Commerce Clause is an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes".
scotmanster
scotmanster
26 months ago: "The world is not divided into communist dictatorships with state-run medicine and capitalist countries with private insurance. You only ever want to talk about Cuba because it feeds into your line of thinking that only a communist could support the new health care law. But it's simply not so."

HNN you should talk about logical inconsistencies, RSG was simply making an observation and gave an article to back it up, but then you jump to the conclusion that he always uses communist Cuba in his articles to support his point. I have only seen him refer to Cuba on a few occasions and that is when Castro decides to run his mouth. it just shows you that people have warped logic, look at Castro he thinks he is doing such a great job for his country. But then you have Obama shaking hands with him and chumming up. The guy is a murderous dictator.

Go ahead and champion all the health care systems around the world. The fact though that you don't comprehend is those systems are not quality system they are quantity systems. Plus Constitutionally the federal government can not force us to buy their health insurance, but what are they doing? If you don't buy the health insurance you will be fined..How far are they going to push this if someone refuses to pay the fine? Lock them up behind bars?
26 months ago: Right on Scott:

I swear this liberals are blinded by their socialist views.
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
26 months ago: OH NO...not the logically sound unstoppable rebuttal of RSG...Anything but the "your blind" argument...how will anyone ever refute that amazing display of intelligence???
scotmanster
scotmanster
Content Removed by scotmanster
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
26 months ago: OK Red I'll oblige you and say that in some respects Cuba's health care system is better than ours. Of course they can't afford the latest MRI or latest gadgets adn they have a shortage of medicines but considering what they have to work with they do pretty well.

If you did a cost benefit analysis I bet Cuba would top the rest of the world. "They live longer than almost anyone in Latin America. Far fewer babies die. Almost everyone has been vaccinated, and such scourges of the poor as parasites, TB, malaria, even HIV/AIDS are rare or non-existent. Anyone can see a doctor, at low cost, right in the neighborhood." See: http://www.yesmagazine.org/issues/latin-...

Cuba has good training for their many doctors that they send all over to help others. They were in Haiti long before American medical help arrived.

PS Red the individual mandate that you claim is unconstitutional was a Republican idea hatched as an alternative to Clinton's " Socialist Plan".
26 months ago: Al.

Are you denying you are a socialist?

Cuba's health system better than ours?

Al!?!?!!!!!!!????

How many republicans voted for the plan?
26 months ago: Red, he's completely right. The individual mandate was an alternative Republicans proposed in the early 1990s to the Clinton universal health care plan. Republicans derided that plan as socialism, and proposed individual mandates as a less socialistic alternative.

Sadly, it's also not as good as a universal plan, but it's way better than what we had until now.
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
26 months ago: I think the more important fact is that the United States is the wealthiest nation on earth...and does not have the best health care system on earth...that is confusing.
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
26 months ago: 37th in fact according to the WHO.
26 months ago: What does Roger Daltry know about health care?


Who..........are...you, who, who............who, who................
26 months ago: Yea right Perfect.

Hogwash.
26 months ago: Red, stop it. You disagree with him? PROVE HIM WRONG. Stating that something is hogwash doesn't make it hogwash. He provided a fact (the World Health Organization's health care system ratings). Now either disprove that fact, or concede the point.
scotmanster
scotmanster
26 months ago: Yea that would be great if they actually showed you the process of how they picked the people. It states out of 100,000 110 people died becuase they did not have Health care. What they don't tell is vast and wide. Like were in this USA was these stats taken from. Were they taken from a city that has a extremely low poverty level. Lots of factors can determine numbers but if you sit their and take these stats as golden then you also have to take the stats of global warming as golden. But then informed people busted open climate-gate and showed it to be completely over exaggerated farce; for the main purpose of liberals attempting to force their socialistic agendas on us. Wake up.
26 months ago: Okay Heynnnnn.

First, since when do I have to refute something he has no legitimate support for? No wait, I'm a conservative; therefore, I must be mistaken. Liberals CANNOT EVER BE WRONG.

Second, his source is flawed.
The World Health Organization is an arm of the United Nations, whose sole purpose is to fleece America.

The UN, a collection of dictators and thugs, sucks.

And I'm not going to believe our health care is the 37th best in the world because he or the UN says so.

I still do not understand why I have to disprove something he has not yet proven.
26 months ago: Here's some more proof.

I'm alive. If I was in the other 36 countries, by all counts, I should be dead.

My dad is alive. If he was in the other 36 countries, by all counts, he should be dead.

My mother in law is alive. If she.....................................

Want more proof? No wait, I'm a conservative. I'm an idiot. My word is automatically suspect.
scotmanster
scotmanster
26 months ago: Lets not stop there how in our stupid minds do we figure global warming equals socialism. Lets look at how they contend to combat global warming. Is it not true that Government has a carbon tax on industries now?

"BALI, Indonesia – A global tax on carbon dioxide emissions was urged to help save the Earth from catastrophic man-made global warming at the United Nations climate conference. A panel of UN participants on Thursday urged the adoption of a tax that would represent "a global burden sharing system, fair, with solidarity, and legally binding to all nations."

"Finally someone will pay for these [climate related] costs," Othmar Schwank, a global tax advocate, told Inhofe EPW Press Blog following the panel discussion titled "A Global CO2 Tax." Schwank is a consultant with the Switzerland based Mauch Consulting firm

Schwank said at least "$10-$40 billion dollars per year" could be generated by the tax, and wealthy nations like the U.S. would bear the biggest burden based on the "polluters pay principle."

The U.S. and other wealthy nations need to "contribute significantly more to this global fund," Schwank explained. He also added, "It is very essential to tax coal."

The UN was presented with a new report from the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment titled "Global Solidarity in Financing Adaptation." The report stated there was an "urgent need" for a global tax in order for "damages [from climate change] to be kept from growing to truly catastrophic levels, especially in vulnerable countries of the developing world."

The tens of billions of dollars per year generated by a global tax would "flow into a global Multilateral Adaptation Fund" to help nations cope with global warming, according to the report.

Schwank said a global carbon dioxide tax is an idea long overdue that is urgently needed to establish "a funding scheme which generates the resources required to address the dimension of challenge with regard to climate change costs."

'Diminish future prosperity'

However, ideas like a global tax and the overall UN climate agenda met strong opposition Thursday from a team of over 100 prominent international scientists who warned the UN that attempting to control the Earth's climate was "ultimately futile."

The scientists wrote, "The IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions." The scientists, many of whom are current or former members of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), sent the December 13 letter to the UN Secretary-General. (See: Over 100 Prominent Scientists Warn UN Against 'Futile' Climate Control Efforts – LINK)

'Redistribution of wealth'

The environmental group Friends of the Earth, in attendance in Bali, also advocated the transfer of money from rich to poor nations on Wednesday.

"A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources," said Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth. (LINK)

Calls for global regulations and taxes are not new at the UN. Former Vice President Al Gore, who arrived Thursday at the Bali conference, reiterated this week his call to place a price on carbon dioxide emissions. (LINK)

In 2000, then French President Jacques Chirac said the UN's Kyoto Protocol represented "the first component of an authentic global governance." Former EU Environment Minister Margot Wallstrom said, "Kyoto is about the economy, about leveling the playing field for big businesses worldwide." Canadian Prime Minster Stephen Harper once dismissed Kyoto as a "socialist scheme." (LINK)

'A bureaucrat's dream'

MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen warned about these types of carbon regulations ear
scotmanster
scotmanster
26 months ago: From wiki on how climategators think over population is the cause, I wonder how they propose to reduce the population?

"There is wide variability both in the definition and in the proposed size of the Earth's carrying capacity, with estimates ranging from 1 to 1000 billion.[22] Around two-thirds of the estimates fall in the range of 4 billion to 16 billion (with unspecified standard errors), with a median of about 10 billion.[23]

In a study titled Food, Land, Population and the U.S. Economy, David Pimentel, professor of ecology and agriculture at Cornell University, and Mario Giampietro, senior researcher at the US National Research Institute on Food and Nutrition (INRAN), estimate the maximum U.S. population for a sustainable economy at 200 million. According to this theory, in order to achieve a sustainable economy and avert disaster, the United States would have to reduce its population by at least one-third, and world population would have to be reduced by two-thirds.[24]

Steve Jones, head of the biology department at University College London, has said, "Humans are 10,000 times more common than we should be, according to the rules of the animal kingdom, and we have agriculture to thank for that. Without farming, the world population would probably have reached half a million by now." [25]

Some groups (for example, the World Wide Fund for Nature[26][27] and Global Footprint Network[28]) have stated that the carrying capacity for the human population has been exceeded as measured using the Ecological Footprint. In 2006, WWF's "Living Planet Report" stated that in order for all humans to live with the current consumpiton patterns of Europeans, we would be spending three times more than what the planet can renew.[29] Humanity as a whole was using, by 2006, 40 percent more than what Earth can regenerate. [30]"
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
26 months ago: Oh man...not the double whammy of "hogwash" and "wake up"...you have done it...you have converted us all to be right wing Christian extremists like you with your undeniable wit and strong arguments...damn, you win.

Why don't you try to make a real argument for once.
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
26 months ago: Actually it doesn't state that. They look at every single death, then measure how many of those could have been prevented. Thats why its stated as Preventable deaths PER 100,000. Every death, not just the ones in Detroit.
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
26 months ago: "I still do not understand why I have to disprove something he has not yet proven."

I made this argument 10000000 times with you about the existence of God...You said that this argument doesn't work.

The UN is trying to fleece the US? You really do have no clue how anything outside of your little conservative evangelical neighborhood works do you?

The study measured how many people out of all the deaths in the studied countries could have had their deaths prevented.
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
26 months ago: Why would you be dead if you lived in Switzerland or Japan or France or the United Kingdom?
26 months ago: Well regardless of what others say scotmanster I thought is was quite interesting.
scotmanster
scotmanster
26 months ago:
Steve Jones, head of the biology department at University College London, has said, "Humans are 10,000 times more common than we should be, according to the rules of the animal kingdom, and we have agriculture to thank for that. Without farming, the world population would probably have reached half a million by now.

Lets look at what Steven Jones said and what he proposes. First he states the population of man is 10,000 times higher than it should be. He then blames agriculture becuase of the "global crime" of man of reproducing.

Now lets look at what environmentalists are doing in California in San Joaquin Valley to agriculture crops. They literally shut off the water to thousands of agriculture farms becuase the fear of endangering a fish. I love fishing but I would not put a stress on the already stressed economy if I think that somehow what I am doing would endanger them. I would relocate the fish to another area so that farmers could water their crops. But what does the current federal government do? They order the water to be shutoff. This is simply an abuse of federal power. It shows you how any special interest group with a socialistic idea can influence the Federal Government.

But wait how can you say what is going on in California considered socialism.

According to wiki "Some socialists advocate complete nationalization of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy."

How would one go about instituting a social government is the question. They would purposely put a unwarranted stress on an already stressed economy as seen in Cali. This opens up the road for social legislation. That is not a jump in logic. It can be seen all around us. people bitter about the USA and promoting to change it, they are fed this through the msm and buy it hook line and sinker. I do not surmise it is a conspiracy but when you have a group of like minded people in power it attracts other like minded people to push their legislation through.

Me too thanks Jak. I think you do a better job in expressing your ideas though.
26 months ago: Thanks Scot, now they are going to blame over population on American agriculture. HNN and PH. We have the best health care system in the world. The problem is people like you refuse to pay your share and want everyone else to pick up the tab.
scotmanster
scotmanster
26 months ago: Your definition of the best health care system and our definition of the best Health Care system is night and day, that is were your confusion lays. We have very good health care now before the Bill passed, other citizens from other countries come to this great Nation to get the best care. We excel way past any country in the amount of of advanced medical equipment we use and our doctors come with over the bar credentials and you refuse to see that. If you infact did not have coverage no hospital could not deny you care.

So here you are slighting the whole system becuase everyone is not covered. It is not becuase Health Care as a whole is at fault it is becuase young people choose not to get coverage becuase the chances they will not get sick for the first 30 years of their life is highly likely. But you propose to assume those that are not covered were falling over like flies. Talk about a bunch of smoke and mirrors to pass your socialism. The fact of the matter is the Obama administration will not see another term will be plenty proof that no one wants your socialism and liberals around this country will have a very hard time holding an office especially with how they jammed through the legilation.

Your socialist minds are in tune with taking from one and giving it to another that equals socialism. Should I show you example of socialism around the world and compare your logic with it, it is exactly the same.
Perfect Horizon
Perfect Horizon
Chicago, IL
26 months ago: Still waiting for you to define the following and until you do I cannot respond because you still use 5 different terms that all have vastly different meanings

Socialist
Marxist
Communist
Progressive
Liberal
liberal
scotmanster
scotmanster
26 months ago: They are more alike then you are willing to admit. Might be easier to put them into a order I view them as stepping stones..

Communist, Marxist, Socialist, Liberal and Progressive
scotmanster
scotmanster
26 months ago: "It is not becuase Health Care as a whole is at fault it is becuase young people choose not to get coverage becuase the chances they will not get sick for the first 30 years of their life is highly likely."

But guess what no one can force me to buy a government car like they can not force you to shop at a certain store. When they start forcing you to buy coverage that they only offer that equates to socialism. If you do not know how a socialistic country runs please go do some research on it and find out.

"Vladimir Lenin, drawing on Karl Marx's ideas of "lower" and "upper" stages of socialism[12] defined socialism as a transitional stage between capitalism and communism"

So our stupid mindless ideologies are not some scare tactic to stop the socialism agenda they are real ideologies as stated in the above quote and are closely connected.
26 months ago: Pop economics quiz:

What phrase most accurately describes the economic systems in use today in the United Kingdom, France, and Canada?

a) Profit is outlawed. The government is the primary, if not the only employer, and the means of producing goods and services are almost entirely state-owned.

b) Profit is legal. Most employers are private companies, and the means of producing goods and services are almost entirely privately owned.

You have 1 hour, class.
26 months ago: Only 15 more minutes, class.
scotmanster
scotmanster
26 months ago: That question would be relevant if socialism was just limited to economics but their are ideals and theories behind it like anything else in this life. We formulate our ideals through with our experiences of day to day life.

"Marx wrote: "It is not the consciousness of [people] that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness.""
26 months ago: I'm going to translate that as "words don't have any meaning in my mind."

Look, in all seriousness... Words do have meaning. Distorting and ignoring their meanings is disrespectful to history itself. To use "Nazism," "communism," "socialism," and "liberalism" interchangeably, as you do, is to disregard facts in favor of rhetoric and distortion. And frankly, it's Orwellian. There's a passage in 1984 where one of the characters talks frankly about how newspeak is intentionally ridding the English language of differentiation in meaning. That's what you're doing when you deny, against all reason, that there is a difference in meaning between any of the words you use to describe people you disagree with.
scotmanster
scotmanster
26 months ago:
I'm going to translate that as "words don't have any meaning in my mind."

So let me get this right you are saying socialism is defined only as a economic system?

Here is a good Democratic Socailist piece of propaganda...

Democratic socialists believe that the individuality of each human being can only be developed in a society embodying the values of liberty, equality, and solidarity. These beliefs do not entail a crude conception of equality that conceives of human beings as equal in all respects. Rather, if human beings are to develop their distinct capacities they must be accorded equal respect and opportunities denied them by the inequalities of capitalist society, in which the life opportunities of a child born in the inner city are starkly less than that of a child born in an affluent suburb. A democratic community committed to the equal moral worth of each citizen will socially provide the cultural and economic necessities—food, housing, quality education, healthcare, childcare—for the development of human individuality.

Socialism is much more than an economic system...
scotmanster
scotmanster
26 months ago: Now when a Socialist acts out those beliefs and when the act out what they stand for it is called what? The are practicing Socialism or practicing Socialists.

Now to make this clear here is another example...

Now when a Catholic acts out their beliefs and when they act out what they stand for it is called what? They are practicing Catholicism or practicing Catholics.

Now do you see the similarity?
scotmanster
scotmanster
26 months ago: So the question is who's logic is more narrow. A person that reads the dictionary and says that is what the word means and only that or a person that reads the dictionary and compares it to the other facts of this world?

The dictionary is great I love using it, I even bought the Merriam Webster Dictionary program becuase I use it so much. But the dictionary falls short..somethings can not be describe in less than 20 words and just be done with it.

Lets not berate each other for the sake of berating.
26 months ago: scotmanster, that's the belief statement of a small fringe political party called the Democratic Socialists. Near as I can tell, they're taking the economic theory of socialism, amalgamating it with some pretty woo-woo societal theories, and regurgitating the mess as a political ideology.

That's not socialism. That's politics. And I have no idea why you're even mentioning it, since neither I, nor Obama, nor Pelosi, nor anyone else you disagree with in the government, is a member of the Democratic Socialist party.
Siempre Solo
Siempre Solo
Auburn, NY
26 months ago: The beauty of truth RSG is that anyone can say it and it doesn't change what it is. What if Rush Limbaugh had said the same words, then what? I suspect that Fidel Castro was taking advantage of an opportunity to make his failing crumbling government and economy look better than it actually is by stressing a truth that he hopes will cover his obvious short comings.
26 months ago: Siempre:

They're (Obama and Castro) both socialists.
26 months ago: Red, I admire you. I really do. It takes perseverance to continue misusing a word long after the proper meaning has been explained to you. Sure, if you wanted to accurately describe Obama's policies and legislative accomplishments, you'd have to use a lot of words, and that's hard work. But it seems to me that summarizing a complex man with one misused word over and over again, despite a torrent of information washing over you in a continuous rush, is its own kind of hard work.

There's a certain beauty to it. You're like a woefully misinformed candle in the wind. There's poetry in the vehemence with which you declare words to mean other than that which they truly mean.

You're still wrong, of course. Socialism, according to our good friends at Merriam-Webster, has three definitions. Let's look at each one:

1) Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.

I can't think of a modern politician short of the laughable ones who actually run in the Socialist policy who this would describe. Last I checked, government doesn't own or want to own factories, shoe stores, Mexican restaurants, or your local grocery store. At least not mine.

2)
a) A system of society or group living in which there is no private property.
b) A system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state.

Why, this definition matches Obama -- and everyone else in the U.S. government -- even less! No private property? Why, if what you said was true, I would expect Obama to be pushing through legislation to abolish private ownership! Instead, he pushed through legislation that helps people buy insurance. Hmm. However you feel about that, it's awful hard to say "make something easier to buy" equals "make it impossible to own anything."

3) A stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.

And this is the part where I joke about how we have that system now, except that the unequal pay vs. work done floats to the top, not the bottom. But seriously, this is what you're actually trying to accuse Obama of, right? The tertiary meaning of the word "socialism," an accusation conservatives have been leveling at Democrats for literally decades, despite no evidence whatsoever of any desire on the part of any Democrats to distribute "goods and pay" in an "unequal" way.

But red, I'd like you to ignore everything I just wrote, including the actual definition of socialism. I'd hate to deprive RantRave of your... er... ranting and raving.
26 months ago: Gah... Typing too quickly... When I said "Socialist policy" I meant "Socialist party."
scotmanster
scotmanster
26 months ago: You and your logical inconsistencies. Atleast you have part(very small part) of it right and I will finish the sentence for you.

HNN.. said Why, if what you said was true, I would expect Obama to be pushing through legislation to abolish private ownership! Instead, he pushed through legislation that helps people buy insurance.

HNN forgot to add...

In helping(forcing) people to buy insurance our Government will streamline affordable Health Insurance to the public. People will buy it on the cause of affordability and in turn it will eliminate private ownership that offers health care packages becuase private owners can not compete with a company(The Government) that has the power to set the rules.

This is what is called Socialism HNN! If you don't get it you should go back to grade school and learn the fundamentals of the different economic systems.
26 months ago: You can't make the charge of logical inconsistency without then explaining exactly what logical inconsistency you referred to. But eh, I'm honestly not expecting much else here.

1) No one's forced to buy health insurance. No one. No, not even you. If you choose not to buy health insurance, you pay slightly more in taxes unless you get a hardship waiver. If you choose to buy it, then you pay less. If you want it, but can't afford it, you can get assistance.

Like any other tax incentive, these are designed to convince people to do something, in this case purchase insurance. But if you don't want to, you don't have to.

2) Did you miss how the public option didn't get into the final bill? Because it didn't. Before last Sunday, you couldn't buy insurance from the government, but now... you still can't.

3) You just called tax incentives to buy from private companies "socialism." I will now giggle at you. Tee-hee, tee-hee, tee-hee. OK, I'm done. Sorry, I couldn't help it.

Now as many of you know, I'm actually a firm proponent of the public option, which really would be a somewhat socialistic enterprise, as opposed to the reform we got, which is mostly just a combined package of regulations (ban on "pre-existing conditions," insurers have to spend most of their money on, y'know, health care, etc.) and tax credits. As a proponent of a socialized service, I must ask you all what you have against the military, the police, fire and emergency services, food and drug safety inspections, FCC radio spectrum regulation, etc... Really, there are too many "socialized" services the government provides you, most of which you probably don't even think about on a daily basis.

The fact that the government owns and operates these social services has not destroyed capitalism. Private ownership and profits still exist. So really, what's your beef?
scotmanster
scotmanster
26 months ago: "No one's forced to buy health insurance. No one. No, not even you. If you choose not to buy health insurance, you pay slightly more in taxes unless you get a hardship waiver. If you choose to buy it, then you pay less. If you want it, but can't afford it, you can get assistance."

When the Government charges(fines) you becuase you don't pick up their health insurance then were do you suppose that money goes? This is not even taking into account you will be fined once but you will be fined yearly am I not right?
scotmanster
scotmanster
26 months ago: They are saying this is simply a stepping stone and by God all you liberals will be out of office by then. This country is changing and their will be a severe kick back once the tax increases comes. You can laugh all you want but the last laugh will be on you..
scotmanster
scotmanster
26 months ago:
I'm actually a firm proponent of the public option, which really would be a somewhat socialistic enterprise

I don't expect much from your mouth either especially seeing how you are quote on quote "educated"...
26 months ago: "When the Government charges(fines) you becuase you don't pick up their health insurance then were do you suppose that money goes?"

To pay for the health care of people who don't have insurance, of course.

"This is not even taking into account you will be fined once but you will be fined yearly am I not right?"

Are you "fined yearly" for not having kids? Adult heterosexual couples of childbearing age choose not to have kids all the time, despite the "fine" they pay in higher taxes every year.
26 months ago: Here's a pro tip: If you're going to mock someone else's education, make sure you've spelled everything correctly in the last few comments you've made. If you can't spell simple, common words like "because" (which you have consistently misspelled as "becuase"), then attempting to find fault in your debate opponent's education is likely to backfire.

To really rub it in, I'd also like to explain that you needn't include the words "quote-unquote" prior to a word you have placed in quotes. If you choose to do so anyway, then it's best not to spell them "quote on quote." And punctuation typically goes inside the quotes in standard American English.

Has this been embarrassing enough for you? Yes? Good. Maybe in the future, you can avoid embarrassing moments such as this by discussing the merits and flaws of my arguments, rather than trying to use "educated" as an epithet.
scotmanster
scotmanster
26 months ago: I could careless if you like my grammar. That is the great part about it.

Now back on topic..

"When the Government charges(fines) you becuase you don't pick up their health insurance then were do you suppose that money goes?"

To pay for the health care of people who don't have insurance, of course.

Now that makes complete sense. So that is why it will cost taxpayers a half a trillion dollars according to the latest CBO report. So I wonder who will pay for this all, I mean we have the biggest deficit in history. I know it will get paid like that other social system right? You know the one that is nearly bankrupt?

Lets face it liberalism and socialism has been proven not to work but here you are suggesting to institute it, thank God for the Constitution...see you in court.
26 months ago: So conservatives trust the CBO again? Awesome! Glad you're on board with the massive deficit reductions the CBO projects because of the new health insurance law.

Yes, it costs money. It also saves money. As far as the CBO estimate is concerned, it will save a hell of a lot more money than it will cost to implement it.

As for court, I'm afraid I have to giggle again. Tee-hee, tee-hee. OK, done. I'm not even going to bother arguing about this one, I'll just state this as fact: In a short time, all of the lawsuits will be thrown out. Every one. They've got about as much chance of undoing reform as "repeal and replace."

So tell me, scotmanster, are you on any sort of government-funded insurance?
scotmanster
scotmanster
26 months ago: I am not a conservative, when I re-register to vote seeings how I changed counties I will not be claiming a party line.

Nor do I trust CBO reports the true price will be much higher.

As for what type of insurance I carry to be honest is none of your damn business. I don't know you from atom....That is like asking about someones personal finances or referring to them to another person if they confided in you. My sister is the same way ..you know nosy..well me and her don't talk much.
26 months ago: Huh. You seemed to trust the CBO in your last comment, when you were quoting its cost estimate. Apparently, it's only trustworthy for the numbers you think reflect badly on the health care law.

As for the insurance question, I've met so many anti-government types who turned out to be complete hypocrites, taking assistance in various forms from the government, that these days I tend to assume that the loudest objections to the new law come from "keep your damn government hands off my Medicare" types. I'm sorry I came off as nosy, I just wanted to be clear on where you stand on the matter.
scotmanster
scotmanster
26 months ago: You speak bull**** Just becuase someone quotes something does not particularly mean they trust that source seeing how their are no other reports to quote what would you like me to quote for a estimated value? Please take the head out of your derriere.
26 months ago: Wait, wait, are you honestly defending quoting a source you claim you don't even trust?!? Why quote them at all if all their numbers are suspect? That's just silly.
26 months ago: Wait, wait, are you honestly over the age of 15?
scotmanster
scotmanster
26 months ago: The most mind numbing reality is guess what? Taxes..they are already talking about huge mammoth tax increases to support these socialistic programs because states are going bankrupt fast but hey guess what lets just add the biggest most expensive social program the United States has ever seen seeings how are other social programs are such a huge success and seeings how we have an unlimited supply of gravy train money! Down with the socialist hoards and down with the liberal professors teaching this idiocy to students for generations.

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.
All Categories | Arts & Entertainment  |  Culture & Lifestyle  |  Economy  |  Food  |  Health  |  News & Politics  |  Offbeat  |  People  |  Products  |  Science & Technology  |  Sports  |  Travel

Frequently Asked Questions  |  Community Guidelines  |  Editorial Reviews  |  Get Paid to Post  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use  |  Contact Us  |  Sitemap  |  Report Spam/Abuse

©2012 RantRave