Obama ruining the country?

[quote author="Look4house" date=1249736239][quote author="bltserv" date=1249691393]The fact is that some form of Healthcare reform WILL HAPPEN. </blockquote>
Nobody knows whether reform will happen. We have been talking about healthcare reform every elections. Healthcare reform SHOULD happen.



[quote author="bltserv" date=1249691393]We worry about our country being attacked by terrorists.</blockquote>
Why didn't you tell the President that he is stupid to keep the Department of Homeland Security. Fire half of the staff and save us some tax money.



[quote author="bltserv" date=1249691393] But we cant all get together and pool our insurance money in a not for profit

national health insurance fund ? What makes this so hard to understand ?</blockquote>
It is very hard to understand how the government can run a national health care system when our social security is approaching bankruptcy. Medicare funding could be exhausted by 2017. The government inefficiencies and bureaucracy will create more frustration, driving up cost and most likely, decrease quality of care.



[quote author="bltserv" date=1249691393]Why has the entire modern world embraced this reality and not the United States ?

Again. NAME A MODERN DEVELOPED COUNTRY THAT DOES NOT HAVE NATIONALIZED HEALTH CARE ?</blockquote>
Entire modern world embraced nationalized healthcare? China is not considered a modern developed country? How is health care in China with 1.3 billion people? Nationalized health care is almost impossible to be successful in such a diverse and populated country like the United States. Is it easier to mange 10 people effectively than managing 100 people? There are many countries with nationalized health care that fail.</blockquote>


So let me get this straight and make sure I understand. You think we should have a Health Care Plan like China ? Why China is a socialist republic (specifically a people's democratic dictatorship).



"With economic reform after 1978, the health of the Chinese public improved rapidly because of better nutrition despite the disappearance, along with the People's Communes, of much of the free public health services provided in the countryside. Health care in China became largely private fee-for-service. This was widely criticised by the Islamic Hui populations of the North West, who were often unable to obtain medical support in their remote communities. By 2000, when the World Health Organization made a large study of public health systems throughout the world, The World Health Report 2000 Health Systems: Improving Performance the Chinese public health system ranked 144 of the 191 UN member states ranked".



Look4house. Your broken down old way of looking at the world is finished. Just pull over and watch as we pass your old broken down lies aside.

Your finished. Just like Sarah Palin.
 
[quote author="bltserv" date=1249738539]

So let me get this straight and make sure I understand. You think we should have a Health Care Plan like China ? Why China is a socialist republic (specifically a people's democratic dictatorship).



"With economic reform after 1978, the health of the Chinese public improved rapidly because of better nutrition despite the disappearance, along with the People's Communes, of much of the free public health services provided in the countryside. Health care in China became largely private fee-for-service. This was widely criticised by the Islamic Hui populations of the North West, who were often unable to obtain medical support in their remote communities. By 2000, when the World Health Organization made a large study of public health systems throughout the world, The World Health Report 2000 Health Systems: Improving Performance the Chinese public health system ranked 144 of the 191 UN member states ranked".



Look4house. Your broken down old way of looking at the world is finished. Just pull over and watch as we pass your old broken down lies aside.

Your finished. Just like Sarah Palin.</blockquote>


Discuss politics with you is like teaching a 3 year-old how to do algebra. It's almost not worth it. Unlike you, I have never accuse people of telling lies. I am giving you an example that China don't have nationalized healthcare when you said the entire modernized world is adopting the model. You didn't know what you said showed you have zero clue about healthcare. Have you have read what I think healthcare should be? Did I say I want our healthcare to be like China? Go back and read what I said if you still don't understand. You are the best at calling me names with baseless accusations because you can't find anything meaningful to argue.
 
[quote author="Look4house" date=1249741509] I am giving you an example that China don't have nationalized healthcare when you said <strong>the entire modernized world </strong>is adopting the model.</blockquote>


<a href="http://www.chinasavvy.com/services/china-facts.php">http://www.chinasavvy.com/services/china-facts.php</a>



<blockquote>The average annual income per capita differs enormously between urban and rural areas. For 2003 the urban figure was RMB 8,472 (US$ 1,058) while the same figure for rural areas was RMB 2,622 (US$ 328)</blockquote>


<a href="http://www.china-profile.com/data/tab_rurpop_1.htm">http://www.china-profile.com/data/tab_rurpop_1.htm</a>



From the above cite, somewhere between 782 million or 935 million Chinese live in rural areas - on less than a dollar a day, mostly as subsistance farmers. Great example of "the entire modernized world".
 
[quote author="Look4house" date=1249734087][quote author="no_vaseline" date=1249726064]I don't know where to post this, so I'll post it here. Sarah Palin chimes in on the upcoming Obama "Death Panel".



<a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g426GkD-vTsEj6z5wZHcBngGbjvgD99UDEJG0">http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g426GkD-vTsEj6z5wZHcBngGbjvgD99UDEJG0</a>



<blockquote>"The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's <strong>'death panel' </strong>so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil," Palin wrote.



</blockquote>


Who are they paying to come up with this garbage?</blockquote>


If you think what she said is "garbage", please tell us why? Please tell me what you know about Obama's health plan that is so brilliant. On the other hand, if you don't know anything about healthcare or Obama's proposal, please don't say others are talking garbage.</blockquote>


Do you have a cite for the "death panel"? Neither does she - somebody made it up because it isn't true.



<a href="http://www.factcheck.org/2009/07/false-euthanasia-claims/">http://www.factcheck.org/2009/07/false-euthanasia-claims/</a>



<blockquote>False Euthanasia Claims

<strong>The claim that the House health care bill pushes suicide is nonsense. </strong>



On former Sen. Fred Thompson?s radio show, former lieutenant governor of New York Betsy McCaughey said that the House?s proposed health care bill contained a provision that would institute mandatory counseling sessions telling seniors how "to do what?s in society?s best interest ? and cut your life short." House Minority Leader John Boehner made a slightly more measured statement, warning that the same provision "may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia if enacted into law."



In truth, that section of the bill would require Medicare to pay for voluntary counseling sessions helping seniors to plan for end-of-life medical care, including designating a health care proxy, choosing a hospice and making decisions about life-sustaining treatment. It would not require doctors to counsel that their patients refuse medical intervention.

</blockquote>
 
Sigh. I knew I shouldn't have browsed into the politics section.



First a disclaimer: I believe in God Almighty. I've been a republican all of my adult life. At the same time, I've also grown completely disenchanted with our government. I voted for Mr. Bush (and his father). I regret voting for "W". In this last election, I voted all Republican with the exception of Barak Obama and my local congressman (I vowed never to vote for Campbell after receiving his response to my e-mail pleading with him to vote against the bailout).



You can now fire at will and accuse me of being a "wacko fundamentalist", a "traitor Republican", or a "wannabe Democrat". I am an enemy of Look4House because I don't hate Mr. Obama. I am an enemy of all the Democrats, because I think very little of the Democrat agenda and even less of Democrat arguments for the Democrat agenda. What I know is this: I believe in truth, justice, and wisdom, and I see little of it in the world today.



I voted for Mr. Obama because I thought he might bring some change in the way our government is operating.



Do you see how naive that sounds? Remember, the President can sign laws that have already made it through Congress, or the President can veto such laws. Other than that, we've got a figure head who can inspire us or embarrass us.



We can hope that he has some pull with Congress to demand legislation or sway the vote, but the truth is that our laws are created by 441 knuckleheads, 100 fat cats, a zillion staff members and these laws can be overturned by 9 old fogeys. These congressional dimwits are completely outnumbered by lobbyists and special interests groups. They often leave loopholes in tax code legislation and can be counted on to spend large amounts of money on very narrow goals.



So, it is very narrow-minded to blame a single man for our ills. A political party on the other hand may be a fair target. If it wasn't apparent, the George W. Bush administration suffered from a lot of cronyism and corruption. I would say the GOP has a "Good 'Ol Boys" component. It is difficult to talk about the Democratic party because any honest assessment results in politically incorrect speech.



That said, of the things that can be personally attributed to Mr. Obama (or his immediate team), I can say that I was incredibly pleased with the way he handled the vetting of appointments. This is probably old news to Democrats and surely did not appear on the Republican radar, but I recall that after he won the election there were naturally a lot of people looking to be appointed to government positions. I'm not a political science major, but it appears this is the "divvying of the loot" part after the conquest, so the major players in Mr. Obama's campaign line up to get the rewards they earned.



Thing is, just because somebody helps you get elected in a key state, does not mean they are qualified to run FEMA. And as you might imagine, some of these characters might be just a little bit corrupt (after all, they are certainly expecting tit for tat). So I was just really amazed that Mr. Obama came up with that hyper-investigative vetting process where applicants needed to disclose financial and criminal history information. Suddenly Vinnie (with certain family ties) has decided he doesn't want to run FEMA after all and silently withdraws his name. This led me to believe the Obama team might be able to bring some integrity to the governing process.



As for the bailout, it began with the last team. It would have been nice to see Mr. Obama disagree with The Fed and Congress and suggest a restoring of a free marketplace with all its risks and warts (and let the markets freefall into oblivion), but again, I'm not sure he actually has power to overrule the practices and policies of The Federal Reserve.



It seems his economic appointments were well received. It can't hurt to have economic advisers with economic and market experience. It may not be enough, but I consider these logical appointments versus the appointments I could imagine if say Jesse Jackson were president.



This thing with having the professor and the cop over for a beer. Well, it's a nice image. It suggests a figure head who would like to see us all get along. He didn't have to do it. Did this seriously offend anybody?



Where he will lose my trust is with advancing the agenda. I know he can't help it. The Democrats have wanted control of the ball for a long time now, and they are going to do as much as they can with the time they've got. But does it mean the end of the United States? I don't think so. The Republicans had the ball for awhile and we're all still here.



Look4House, it seems like you want this thread to continue, but at the same time you have made it clear that opposing viewpoints are not welcome. All the while, you haven't really suggested what exactly about our country Mr. Obama has personally ruined or alternatives you'd like to see. You mentioned the following in your initial post:



>Massive economic stimulus plan without results

>Cash for Clunkers program

>Healthcare overhaul

>Some public services will likely be cut

>Taxes will increase



All of these involve Congress. So maybe you were just sort of generalizing by focusing on Mr. Obama. As has been mentioned, the healthcare overhaul hasn't even been roughed out yet. Taxes probably will increase. If you don't like it, you have representation in Congress to whom you can address your concerns. Like me, I'm sure you'll get a nice note that reveals your representation is strongly aligned with his/her political party regardless of whatever your particular concerns are.



When I look at your initial post, I think you are venting some rage because you have anger about the injustice. Am I assuming too much? Perhaps you consider it your duty to patrol the thread and keep those people in line. Do you want to elaborate?



I thought this thread died with the onslought of namecalling and president-blaming. Then no_vaseline capped it all off with some imagery I could do without. And yet Look4House still wants to argue.



So if it were possible to redeem this thread, I would suggest we could discuss:



-The stated (and non-stated) agendas of the two major political parties (as seen from both proponents and opponents)

-The failure in the design of our government (the election process and how it ensures a two-party system).

-What government should really be and really do.

-How can government support a capitalistic free market without introducing systemic risk?

-Why is a flat 10% tax on everybody unfair?



I said that I would suggest these topics, except I won't because there doesn't appear to be enough intelligent, civil participants to warrant such discussion.
 
[quote author="trrenter" date=1249685577]

That was a quick discussion anyone else got another topic.</blockquote>


How about a Republican telling you why Republicans <b>should</b> be for socialized medicine. True Socialized medicine like the UK and not the subsidy mini-insurance program.
 
I want to thank you for spending so much time expressing your views.



[quote author="WaitingToBuyByAndBy" date=1249754169]Sigh. I knew I shouldn't have browsed into the politics section.



You can now fire at will and accuse me of being a "wacko fundamentalist", a "traitor Republican", or a "wannabe Democrat". </blockquote>
Many others on this board like to use baseless accusations, I don't do it to anyone agreeing or disagreeing with me.



[quote author="WaitingToBuyByAndBy" date=1249754169]So, it is very narrow-minded to blame a single man for our ills. </blockquote>
I don't know who you are referring to. I did not blame anyone yet. But you know the Obama's worshippers have consistently bring up a single individual for our"ills'



[quote author="WaitingToBuyByAndBy" date=1249754169]So I was just really amazed that Mr. Obama came up with that hyper-investigative vetting process where applicants needed to disclose financial and criminal history information.</blockquote>
Corruption happens everywhere, Republicans or Democrats. Did you remember Tom Dashle? He received persistent support from the President despite his tax history was exposed.



[quote author="WaitingToBuyByAndBy" date=1249754169]It seems his economic appointments were well received. It can't hurt to have economic advisers with economic and market experience.</blockquote>
Assuming it is true. I think we should take the words of his Treasury secretary and National Economic Council Director seriously. They said there is no guarantee taxes won't go up despite Obama repeatedly denied he will raise taxes.



[quote author="WaitingToBuyByAndBy" date=1249754169]

but at the same time you have made it clear that opposing viewpoints are not welcome. All the while, you haven't really suggested what exactly about our country Mr. Obama has personally ruined or alternatives you'd like to see. </blockquote>
??. If you misunderstand, opposing viewpoints are welcome when they counter with reasons and what I said is incorrect. You need to go back and look at what people are saying. They tell me to shut up, liar, posting pictures that doesn't mean anything because they can't come up with a logical argument. When they post comments somewhat worthy of responding, I have given them my opinions.



[quote author="WaitingToBuyByAndBy" date=1249754169]<strong>All of these involve Congress.</strong> So maybe you were just sort of generalizing by focusing on Mr. Obama. As has been mentioned, the healthcare overhaul hasn't even been roughed out yet. Taxes probably will increase. If you don't like it, you have representation in Congress to whom you can address your concerns. Like me, I'm sure you'll get a nice note that reveals your representation is strongly aligned with his/her political party regardless of whatever your particular concerns are.</blockquote>
Healthcare overhaul hasn't been roughed out? So, you are disagreeing with the President? Do you know the President wanted to pass his Healthcare Reform before the Congress go to recess this month. Yes, I don't like our taxes to go up and we can write to our congressmen. But we can certainly discuss why we will need to pay so much more taxes?



[quote author="WaitingToBuyByAndBy" date=1249754169]When I look at your initial post, I think you are venting some rage because you have anger about the injustice. Am I assuming too much? </blockquote>
Rage? I am always staying under control. I am unhappy when people don't try to discuss the policies and topics at hand I proposed. I think you will find many people that have been venting rage at our last President though.



[quote author="WaitingToBuyByAndBy" date=1249754169]I thought this thread died with the onslought of namecalling and president-blaming. Then no_vaseline capped it all off with some imagery I could do without. </blockquote>
If you are unhappy about it. I absolutely agree with you. It is <strong>disgusting</strong>.



[quote author="WaitingToBuyByAndBy" date=1249754169]And yet Look4House still wants to argue.</blockquote>
I argue with explanations and to prevent people from posting useless information.



[quote author="WaitingToBuyByAndBy" date=1249754169]

-The stated (and non-stated) agendas of the two major political parties (as seen from both proponents and opponents)

-The failure in the design of our government (the election process and how it ensures a two-party system).

-What government should really be and really do.

-How can government support a capitalistic free market without introducing systemic risk?

-Why is a flat 10% tax on everybody unfair?



I said that I would suggest these topics, except I won't because there doesn't appear to be enough intelligent, civil participants to warrant such discussion.</blockquote>


Most civil intelligent participants cannot provide good answers for these questions. I doubt politicians can give you answers you like to hear either. I don't think I want to try.
 
[quote author="No_Such_Reality" date=1249766432][quote author="trrenter" date=1249685577]

That was a quick discussion anyone else got another topic.</blockquote>


How about a Republican telling you why Republicans <b>should</b> be for socialized medicine. True Socialized medicine like the UK and not the subsidy mini-insurance program.</blockquote>


43% of UK citizens are happy with their healthcare. Average wait time for hip replacement-1 year. 5-year relative survival rate of prostate cancer-71%; U.S.-100%. Another country in mind?
 
[quote author="no_vaseline" date=1249746986]

From the above cite, somewhere between 782 million or 935 million Chinese live in rural areas - on less than a dollar a day, mostly as subsistance farmers. Great example of "the entire modernized world".</blockquote>


It's almost not worth it. Many people who lives in poverty in China does not mean a country is not modernized. What's the percentage of people live in poverty in China vs U.S.? Please read up on what modernized mean. A country that is going to be the next economic superpower is not modernized?
 
US Percentage in Poverty About 12-17% Family of 4 under $ 22,000

China Percentage in Poverty 10%. Measured by the world bank at $ 1.25 per day or below.

I think we can call these statistics apples and oranges. China is modern if you consider $ 500.00 a year as liveable.



"It's not a bad idea for the government to provide health insurance for the population, so people don't have to save as much money for the rainy days. They feel that they are taken care of. So they'd be more willing to spend the money and stimulate the economy," said Hong Kong-based Tai Fook Research analyst Paul Lee"



<a href="http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/22/china-health-care-markets-econ-cx_twdd_0122markets04.html">http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/22/china-health-care-markets-econ-cx_twdd_0122markets04.html</a>



Looks to me like China is going to Nationalized Health Care in the near future as well.



Come on lookforhouse. Lets try another country shall we. Maybe try one of the poor Central American Countries or Indonesia.



The United States has the highest costs in the world for Health Care.

We spend almost $ 4271.00 per year per capita on Health Care. And almost 18% of us are without coverage. Switzerland is closest at $ 3800.00 per Capita. But 100% are covered.
 
Since the self appointed speakers for both political parties have called those that disagree with them Nazis, can we invoke Godwin's rule and end their threads?
 
[quote author="No_Such_Reality" date=1249815328]Since the self appointed speakers for both political parties have called those that disagree with them Nazis, can we invoke Godwin's rule and end their threads?</blockquote>


Since both sides are doing it, no. But are both sides doing it?
 
[quote author="WaitingToBuyByAndBy" date=1249754169]Sigh. I knew I shouldn't have browsed into the politics section.</blockquote>


No... no... it is great you browsed the politics section! What you said was the most intelligent, factual, and reasonable response from someone on the right since Skek retired. I really hope you post more often, we need more people who can actually think and understand politics, not just regurgitate what they got from faux news or Rush. I miss the smack downs from Skek, and I nominate you to replace him. Although... I doubt you are as ugly as he is, that is tough to do.
 
[quote author="Look4house" date=1249734087][quote author="no_vaseline" date=1249726064]I don't know where to post this, so I'll post it here. Sarah Palin chimes in on the upcoming Obama "Death Panel".



<a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g426GkD-vTsEj6z5wZHcBngGbjvgD99UDEJG0">http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g426GkD-vTsEj6z5wZHcBngGbjvgD99UDEJG0</a>



<blockquote>"The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's <strong>'death panel' </strong>so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil," Palin wrote.



</blockquote>


Who are they paying to come up with this garbage?</blockquote>


If you think what she said is "garbage", please tell us why? Please tell me what you know about Obama's health plan that is so brilliant. On the other hand, if you don't know anything about healthcare or Obama's proposal, please don't say others are talking garbage.</blockquote>


Earlier this morning, David Brooks commented on Meet the Press it was "crazy".



<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Brooks_(journalist)">David Brooks bio. Former editor of The Weekly Standard David Brooks. </a>



<blockquote>On "Meet the Press" this morning, David Brooks called Palin's attack "crazy," adding that "the crazies are attacking the plan because it will cut off granny. That is simply not true, that simply is not going to happen."</blockquote>


<a href="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_08/019420.php">http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_08/019420.php</a>



Is "crazy" preferable to "garbage"?
 
[quote author="no_vaseline" date=1249825665][quote author="No_Such_Reality" date=1249815328]Since the self appointed speakers for both political parties have called those that disagree with them Nazis, can we invoke Godwin's rule and end their threads?</blockquote>


Since both sides are doing it, no. But are both sides doing it?</blockquote>


I mean Pelosi, Rush, Palin, et al.



Whether they are, are not, or merely distorting mis-reported information, or who knows, but obviously few if any in the political arena are actually dealing with discourse and facts.



Frankly, the scariest thing I've seen isn't Rush running with the drivel distortion of the Nazi healthcare logo, or Palin's "death panel", but that there is a fairly large group out there that are actually swayed by such and 'see' the resemblence. The fact that such diatribe's don't immediately result in a marginalization of the commentor is highly disturbing.
 
[quote author="No_Such_Reality" date=1249876364][quote author="no_vaseline" date=1249825665][quote author="No_Such_Reality" date=1249815328]Since the self appointed speakers for both political parties have called those that disagree with them Nazis, can we invoke Godwin's rule and end their threads?</blockquote>


Since both sides are doing it, no. But are both sides doing it?</blockquote>


I mean Pelosi, Rush, Palin, et al.



Whether they are, are not, or merely distorting mis-reported information, or who knows, but obviously few if any in the political arena are actually dealing with discourse and facts.



Frankly, the scariest thing I've seen isn't Rush running with the drivel distortion of the Nazi healthcare logo, or Palin's "death panel", but that there is a fairly large group out there that are actually swayed by such and 'see' the resemblence. The fact that such diatribe's don't immediately result in a marginalization of the commentor is highly disturbing.</blockquote>


What Pelosi was talking about:



<img src="http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/97283/thumbs/s-FTCOLLINS-large.jpg" alt="" />



What Rush et al is talking about:



<img src="http://www.doheth.co.uk/funny/gallery/signs/Land_Of_Make_Believe.jpg" alt="" />



And that's the difference. The Pelosi sign exists. Palin's "Death Panel" and Rush's Nazi comparisons are, well, make believe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top