It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why Republicans Are Truly Against the Healthcare Bill

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 05:51 PM
link   
Healthcare for Americans should be a no-brainer no matter what Political Party you belong to. However, the Republican Party has been steadfast against the Healthcare Bill currently before Congress. Other than it being sponsored by the Democrats and not wanting them to get all the credit, there hasn't been any good reasons why they would be against it.

So, enter U.S. Representative Thaddeus McCotter (R-Michigan) and H.R.3501 (also known as the HAPPY Act). Although he is strongly against Health Care Reform, H.R.3501 that he drafted and introduced would amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a deduction for pet care expenses, allowing veterinarian bills and pet food to be tax deductible, up to $3500 per filer, per year.

Vote Republican, because they care about you and your pets. Your beloved pets deserve the very best health care the government can afford, even if the Republicans don't think that you deserve that same level of health care for yourself.

McCotter wants Healthcare for your pets

Tax Deductions for Pet Care Expenses Proposed

[edit on 7-8-2009 by fraterormus]




posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by fraterormus
 


Both GOP and DNC are in the pockets of the Big Pharma and Insurance Companies! It's all again calling Healthcare reform when it is all a distraction period. It's not reform, it's rebuilding it all together. Both parties suck, we do need real reform but neither party will do anything to fix it.



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by fraterormus
 


I would think Republicans are against nationalized health care, because they are generally supposed to be against big government and government intrusion into our private lives, but I will give you that they have kind of sucked at that lately. I guess when you have a nation full of whiners that want the government to hand them everything you have to adapt to the times if you want to get elected.



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 06:21 PM
link   
Oh yes those evil republicans They don't care about the children.


The reason why a bunch of the current crop of republicans are against universal health care is because it goes against what he people believe that keep voting them into office.

Likewise the reason why a bunch of democrats are for universal health care is because the people that vote for them want big brother to take care of them, or so they think anyway.

The reason why both parties are in the dumps is because people just want the straight up honest truth and want the reps they voted for vote in their best interest, not the reps best interest.

Either way I think a lot of people are waking up to the fact that both of them are working to the same goal.

It is the analogy that is used quiet a lot on this board, if you heat the pot up slowly with the frog in it the frog will be cooked with it out ever knowing it. If you turn the pot to a boil quickly the frog is going to jump out.

Well Obama and the dems got in power and they turned the pot to a boil too quickly and hopefully people have woken up to the game of charades the both are playing.



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 06:27 PM
link   
It's simply not just the republicans that smell the stink on the current proposal on heathcare.

Last time I checked, 42 house democrats are also holding-up the bill, despite Pelosi's bold statment stating there are enough votes on the floor already to pass....

The details of the bill are not being discussed enough, and some members of the house at least recognize this.

As far as the 'pet deduction'...I'll take it IF it makes it through. Why not? I spend my money much more wisely than the US Government. The less I pay the less they can continue to waste.

mg



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 08:22 PM
link   
This more than a Democrat-Republican issue. The majority of independents are against this. The bill is nothing but gobbledegook that even the ones that wrote don't understand.
I want to know one thing. What's the rush? Why can't congress just take their time? Not just with healthcare, but with everything.
This is the tipping point!
We, the citizens of this country, are tired of having our rights stripped away. We now intend to take those rights back.



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 08:42 PM
link   
I am Independent, and the government can go die in a fire.

Don't pull this partisan BS on me. You want Cuba's health system . . . move there.

The government can't even take care of what's on its plate, and they want to add this monster?



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
 


As you know the United States is the only developed nation in the world without a healthcare system.

It is not a matter of political ideology it is a simple matter of human priorities.

Not to mention how fast a "personal responsibility" libertarian would run for assistance if he or his loved ones got gravely ill without insurance.

And no thanks, but this American citizen does not wish to move to Cuba or anywhere else.
Doing the right thing right here will be just fine.



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 08:56 PM
link   
I am on neither side of the false left vs right paradigm.
I am against it because I actually READ it, unlike the vast majority of those who support it and those who don't, including those tasked with voting on it.
It is so full of dictates and mandates only tangentially, if at all, related to health care, that reading it is just plain frightening.
Not even Hitler could have devised a better fascist dictatorship. It would even give the staunch socialist pause, as it's mandates and control go so far out of the bounds of socialism, that it would truly end freedom in America.

I strongly urge any who wish to debate the issue to drop their particular political leaders talking points, and READ the proposal, ALL 100+ pages of it.
Calling it a "health care bill" is misdirection, as only a portion of it socializes health care, doctors, and hospitals. The rest of it puts control of all the other facets of your life firmly in the hand and control of our "loving government".



posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 08:59 PM
link   
If government is supposed to totally control healthcare and our lives, our founding fathers with all their wisdom would have put this provision into the Constitution. Or this would have been mentioned in the Bill of Rights or even in one of the Amendments to the Constitution.

It would have fit nicely next to the right of free speech and religion and the right to bear arms. But for some reason I don't see the right to free nationalized healthcare. Hmm.....


But the Bill of Rights and Constitution only mentions the rights of the people to have individual freedom and the right to NOT have the government involved in our business. How problematic for all you socialists out there.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by WhatTheory
If government is supposed to totally control healthcare and our lives, our founding fathers with all their wisdom would have put this provision into the Constitution. Or this would have been mentioned in the Bill of Rights or even in one of the Amendments to the Constitution.





That's like saying if God wanted us to use cellphones they would have been mentioned in the bible.

Why didn't the founding fathers foresee the digital age?

There are lots of things the founders didn't put in the Constitution, and they understood things would change in ways they couldn't forsee. So they made a system by which future generations can make these changes.

As SD points out, we are the last of the industrialized nations to not have one. It's pretty much a matter of human priorities.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 06:39 AM
link   
Off Topic: The so called "mobs" are actually succeding at least on ATS and hopefully with the government in time. It is amazing how many posters on here who were calling anyone who objected to something Obama wants racist who are now WILLING to talk politely now and perhaps LISTEN!

Almost everyone I know, Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, or Independant, is FOR Health Care. That is NOT what was offered or rather DEMANDED by Obama. What was being shoved down our throats was over a 1000 pages of legalese that most lawyers could not understand let alone the average citizen, and it was DEMANDED that we SHUT UP and go along with it because Obama, who had not even read it just like our representitives, said so and it had to be done NOW because Obama said so. The citizens in this country have been forced to buy so many pigs in a poke, meaning agreeing to bills that we do not know what is in them, that they have had enough.

According to memory, about 30 years ago, there was a bill in Congress that would require ALL LAWS AND BILLS be written in language that the common citizen could understand. It was VOTED DOWN. You are free to draw from that what you will.

If you really want to fix health care I think almost ANY citizen would be for it but when you come up with almost 1000 pages of legalize, give our representitives no time to read it let alone US the citizens who will have to pay for it, DEMAND that we go along with it or you will demonize us as racists, nazi's, terrorists, choose your own label, than send in union leg-breakers, than you are lucky if so called mobs is all you get. Put it in simple language people understand, give people time to read and debate it, and quit demonizing those that have questions about it, instead clarify so people can understand, than the health care in this country MIGHT get fixed.

The President of the United States is elected to LEAD, not dictate to or threaten the citizens of the United States, regardless if it is Bush OR Obama. The statements of "WE won, get over it" do not apply to an election except maybe to say the election is over. It is something a man with a gun to your head might say not those who are REALLY trying to bring people together or fix a problem. Most citizens of ANY stripe will find that objectionable.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 07:09 AM
link   
I am all in favor of heath care reform...it should have been done when Truman started pushing for it in the early 50's...

...WHAT I don't want though is big heath...be it the hospitals...the drug companies or the insurance companies dictating what THEY will accept.

It is their greedy behavior that is one of the prime reasons our system is such a mess as it is...they could not be allowed to dominate the discourse any longer...any more than the banks should be allowed to dictate regulations.

The simpliest approach is as far as I am concerned is to extend the VA type of coverage that already exists to the general population and then give veterans extra coverage in compensation.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by missed_gear
The details of the bill are not being discussed enough, and some members of the house at least recognize this.
mg


Neither was the first Trillion dollar bail out, yet it passed, so what did the average taxpayer get? nothing. Your current system has failed, it was propped up and failed again. All under Bush. Your country voted for a change, now you complain, you cannot have cake and expect to eat the plates.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
That's like saying if God wanted us to use cellphones they would have been mentioned in the bible.

That must be the dumbest analogy in history.

Makes no sense and is not relevant to this situation. Good grief!
Hey, but if it helps you feel better.....


Why didn't the founding fathers foresee the digital age?

Huh? What?

What does this have to do with the price of cheese?
What does them having seen the digital age have to do with anything.

You are a pro at making no sense and spewing useless analogies.


There are lots of things the founders didn't put in the Constitution, and they understood things would change in ways they couldn't forsee. So they made a system by which future generations can make these changes.
You totally don't get it.

You are acting like people did not need healthcare back then. If they wanted us to have government run healthcare they would have said so. You are acting like people needing a doctor is some sort of a recent breakthrough.


When they were discussing basic human rights, don't you think somebody would have mentioned healthcare? Of course they would.

You are also missing the point that the Constitution was established to keep the government OUT of our lives and limit there intrusion.


[edit on 8/8/2009 by WhatTheory]



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 08:22 AM
link   
I don't think I would mind nationalized healthcare if not for two reasons.

1. We simply cannot afford to implement it right now. I know Obama says that in 10 years we will be in 7 trillion in debt if we pass the bill and 9 trillion if we don't. What is 2 trillion when we are in debt that much? Can't he try and come up with a way of reducing our debt instead of inflating it and then reducing a small fraction of what he accumulated? Hell, he won't even be in office to see if he was right.

2. President Obama is pushing this thing waaaay to hard. Everytime he speakes it is about how his healthcare bill has to be passed now (we have all heard him say that before about another bill). It has my mind wondering about the reason he is pushing it so hard. Other then his Gates snafu, he hasn't talked about anything else for a couple of months.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 08:36 AM
link   
Has anyone here for this particular health care bill actually read it?

I suppose page 22 on the HC bill which MANDATES the govt will audit the books of ALL employers that self insure isn't a cause for concern?

What about page 24 section on 116 which limits private health insurance prices? No concern there?

Is this American health care? If so where's the restriction on illegal immigrants, or is America's wealthy suppose to pay for them too?

SEC. 163. ADMINISTRATIVE SIMPLIFICATION.

‘‘(6) IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT.— Not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of this section, the Secretary shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a plan for the implementation and enforcement, by not later than 5 years after such date of enactment, of the standards under this section. Such plan shall include—

‘‘(E) an estimate of total funds needed to ensure timely completion of the implementation plan; and


With this bill Congress has NO CLUE what electronic medical records will cost. Yeah, that's something smart to leave out in an downward economy.


Why do groups like ACORN and Americorp get to work on signing people up for govt health care? Is there actually people out here who trust these organizations?

Why does the bill protect govt health care and not private? Why does the bill protect the govt from any judicial action from price fixing? So they can price fix private insurance right out of the market?

So you see there is much concern with this bill rather then simply wanting to screw the children. It's a bill designed to wipe out private health care insurance.

The new America: Gimme what I want and have someone else pay for it.



[edit on 8-8-2009 by Xtinguish]



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by fraterormus
 


And to be honest...

Twice the amount of Americans today are on Anti-depressants thanks to our current wonderful system of health.

Let's just dope everyone up eh?

I mean.. if it works for Rush Limbaugh it must be ok right?

Not to mention now there are ads for supplemental anti-depressants to catch the depression that zoloft, lexapro, paxil, prozac etc don't catch.

WHAT GIVES? WHY ARE THE HEALTHCARE PEOPLE TODAY DRUGGING OUR CHILDREN!

Oh.. I guess everything is just peachy with our current healthcare plan eh republicans?

[edit on 8-8-2009 by HunkaHunka]



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by grover
 


That is what is so amusing. the right throws around their usual smear and fear words like socialism, death, and big government.


But what do they propose? Other then scare tactics. All I hear is the usual rhetoric that got us into the current state of affairs, that is it is all just fine.




Yet it is perfectly ok to have healthcare run by big companies, that have absolutley no personal interesting in our health, only as long as it is good and they don't have to cover us.


I find that prospect very scarey.
Much less then the gov't running it.

My personal experience with it was/is just fine.

Funny how the GOP touts that it will kill you, but they don't approach the subject of the 18k people a year who die just because they don't have insurance.

If socialist medicine is so bad, why aren't there hordes of British, French, and Norwegians moving here to take advantage of our system?

The fact that Americans have to go to Mexico of all places to get affordable medication is just downright sad.



posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by WhatTheory
 


Actually it allows for congress to pass laws benefiting the general welfare of the people of the united States.

Also, you might want to ease up on the ancestor worship a bit. The founding fathers weren't "founding fathers" because they were wise. They were founders because they were the most wealthy men in America. The constitution reflects this.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join