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.

 

I love Nancy Pelosi...

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 07:48 AM
link   
... bashing

This was the most recent affront out of that mouth of hers



The Citizens Respond. Why is this thing Speaker of the House?











posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 08:25 AM
link   
There is a reason when cornered, some take flight while others fight.

Morse code lashes
Vs.
a bad case of dry eye
www.youtube.com...

How many blondes does it take to get an answer from pelosi that is not putid?

No...I mean true blondes....
There is no answer. There is no vure for chronic fabrication of fact.

But after watching sicko, the Michael Moore film,

I have decided that health care is not as good as it should be, and I am for free healthcare for all.

Many hyped up fear ads are to scare you from from leaving the private overcharging health and drug costs.

Insurance it a totally overcharged, under regulated cost and they have so many angles to srew you up from getting fair, reasonable rates, it's a good ol' boy Ouroborus, and there's no getting in, or out.

We need to flush the corrupt elite and give them picks and shovels,'form a chain gang

Vote yes for reform,get care when needed..



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by imd12c4funn
I have decided that health care is not as good as it should be, and I am for free healthcare for all.


You're kidding, right? Any thoughts on how the whole thing should be funded?



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrDesolate
You're kidding, right? Any thoughts on how the whole thing should be funded?

Shifting money away from killing people (two wars that never should have been) toward helping people (cost-effective national healthcare) is a logical place to begin. Tort reform is the next strategy for establishing a sustainable quality system that relies on federal funding.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by mister.old.school
 


I completely agree about tort reform and reform in general. My issue was with "free". There is no such thing. It has to be paid for by somebody some way. There are plenty of efficiencies to be found, plenty of better ways to go about doing what we're doing.

Hard costs, soft costs, hidden costs, startup costs, administrative costs, construction costs, personnel costs, infrastructure costs, R&D... We're beyond being able to pay for a good leeching from Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman with a basket of eggs. There are ways to reduce the costs significantly and spread the costs more equitably. But free? Is anything?



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 09:02 AM
link   
The funds would obviously come from more taxing and that is absolutely wrong. Why am I gonna pay for some one elses healthcare, some one who refuses to get a job, or refuses TO STOP HAVING KIDS! America is not totally socialist yet, and it never will be thanks to the freedoM Fighters.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrDesolate

Originally posted by imd12c4funn
I have decided that health care is not as good as it should be, and I am for free healthcare for all.


You're kidding, right? Any thoughts on how the whole thing should be funded?


Well, if those people (911 cleanup workers) that went to cuba could get an inhaler or whatever it was, for 5 cents and big pharma in the states commands 120 or so dollars for a 5 cent fix, then we start with non-profit or stricktly regulated profit. Just as Congress could mandate through (properly conducted sessions and voting)...click this link to read of improper session and vote...unethical, backstabbing, etc..., legislation the treasury coin money (interest free), click here for more info, now, just those two actions alone have about covered the cost.
Think of how much more revenues when pharma, oil, insurance, banks, are accountable for a large increase due to the slew of windfall taxes are enacted due to record high profits, (Some of biblical proportion), and if that's not enough, add attorney to the windfall group for all their thousand dollar enormous hourly rates plus expenses, and humungous tort proceeds.

Then we can go with import tariffs that would equalize the tilting of commerce towards the US as a consumer and exporting jobs to save big payroll, or save cash.

We are no longer a productive nation. We need to get rid of the parasitic bagage, like buying fiat notes with bonds. We should make both and let the Fed and world wide network of dead weight (with interest, mind you),
And the pharma-giganic prices should be reasonable. 1-3 cents for private deductable...not hundreds or thousands,

and if they don't like it?> get replacements that will be happy with 100's of millions rather than billions and trillions.

It's all broke.
Peace


[edit on 25-8-2009 by imd12c4funn]



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by imd12c4funn
 


But it's still not free. Someone has to pay for it. If Cuba's the model, that's not very reassuring.

There's only one way to make something "free" for somebody. Someone else is paying for it. Which means governmental forced redistribution of wealth on a scale way above and beyond anything that's going on right now.

We already don't trust them, so let's give them even more authority and power?

"Hey, you guys totally blew regulating Wall Street, the banks, the funds, the insurance companies, and everything else. How about you just take them over?" Oh, this'll work.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 09:30 AM
link   
I cannot even believe what I am reading!?
Did someone say "FREE"? There is no such thing as free - period! There is a cost to everything. The first cost is monetary, the second is in personal discretion, the third is in total freedom. Nope - sorry, but this is not a slippery slope that I am willing to invest in.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by kingoftheworld
The funds would obviously come from more taxing and that is absolutely wrong. Why am I gonna pay for some one elses healthcare, some one who refuses to get a job, or refuses TO STOP HAVING KIDS! America is not totally socialist yet, and it never will be thanks to the freedoM Fighters.


You already pay taxes for the benefit of someone else in one way or another for a variety of *socialist* things.It's called living in a society.

[edit on 25-8-2009 by Solomons]



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 10:12 AM
link   
I don't even know how this "free health care" thing even became a debate. Can anyone point me at a piece of legislation that attempts to setup a new "free" system of healthcare? Of course, other than those that already exist?

Recently, I've seen nothing in the bills that indicate that idea. The primary ideas are the choice of buying from private insurers that offer specific plans in a "pool", or buying from a public option.

I have not seen anything new that could be reasonably described as "free".



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by cranberrydork
 


That's my fault. I pulled one comment out of a post above and took it in that direction. The topic is bashing Nancy Pelosi, which I should've taken advantage of. There's sure plenty of material for that.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by VinceP1974
 


And the really scary thing is, she is only 2 heartbeats away from being president.

Perish the thought!



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by MrDesolate
 


The profit Halliburton made off the illegal and corrupt Iraq occupation could have funded FREE health care for every citizen of the United States. That is how we fund it.

When the nation values the health of every citizen more than it values the profits of the super wealthy, then we will have FREE health care.

Take out the corruption and the attitude of entitlement on the behalf of the health care industry. Let them make a million dollars every six months or so instead of every month.

Better yet, make doctors pay depend on their patients health. If a patient recovers fast, the doctor gets more money. If the patient dies, no money for the bad doctor.

QUIT PAYING DOCTORS TO "PERFORM PROCEDURES" AND START PAYING THEM TO HEAL PEOPLE!

In the real world people are paid for results, not for making an effort.




[edit on 8-25-2009 by groingrinder]



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrDesolate
My issue was with "free". There is no such thing. It has to be paid for by somebody some way.

I anticipate (hope?) those of us participating in a discussion such as this would be fully aware of the context of the "free" concept used here. Certainly, no thinking person has an expectation that something which is an import to society will be free in the broader sense of the word.

The reason we (society) first crafted the idea of "government" was to establish an entity which could resolve large-scale problems beyond the means of individuals, or groups of individuals. In the spirit of that purity of thought, providing for the well-being of citizens is among the most important obligations of such an entity. Currently, the entity of our "government" is engaged in supporting a system that undermines the well-being of citizens -- difficult to get and retain privatized assurance of medical treatment.

I, as a citizen of an important society, would be willing to see a portion of my earnings devoted to what would be interpreted as a "free" assurance of medical treatment. Because I, as a citizen of this society, understand the greater good such a idealistic system would be for myself, my loved ones, and the entire citizenry as a whole.

The contemporary politicized debate deflects our attention away from the ultimate goal -- a healthy stable society.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 11:35 AM
link   
Do politicians even think before they speak? She just says whatever she wants about people regardless of the the outcome. Ms. Pelosi is not the only one to speak out of turn and there are many other "so-called," luminaries in Washington that do the same. Apparently, Ms. Pelosi hasn't mastered the fine art of talking out of the side of her mouth; a prerequisite of any skilled politician. In other words, saying one thing and meaning something else without the listener being able to figure it out.

Words like her's will only lead to more derision and hostility regarding this debate. Or maybe, that is part of her strategy to get the news cycle focused on her for some time so that public is asleep as they ease this bill through the House and Senate? These outlandish words and debates may be something of a smoke screen to take the public's attention off the real tom-foolery happening in Washington. As everyone focuses on chaotic town hall meetings and Tea Parties; members of Congress and the Senate are free to partake in their mischief. Maybe this is a classic political diversion of sorts? Who really knows? However, a person of elevated stature, like the Speaker of House; should know better than to talk of the American people as being Nazis because they question government policy with fire and vigor. Get it together Madame Speaker!



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by groingrinder
The profit Halliburton made off the illegal and corrupt Iraq occupation could have funded FREE health care for every citizen of the United States. That is how we fund it.


I'd love to see those figures per annum: annual cost of health care in the US vs Halliburton's profits per annum off Iraq. Do you have those handy?


______________________________________________________________________
@ mister.old.school

I share your view of an ideal situation. We disagree about the possibility of it coming to fruition. Based upon everything I've seen happen historically, I believe it to be an unworkable model. Maybe if the federal government could demonstrably show some competence in the ability to administer a program that would deliver a satisfactory and affordable experience to the end user without doing immense damage to the economy as a whole, I'd consider it. Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are the first examples that come to mind.

If you were hiring someone to take over a program and Congress applied using those programs as accomplishments on their resume, and given the present state of those programs, would you hire them?

Maybe we agree that government today is a big part of the problem? I personally don't see how doing more of what got us into a mess gets us out of it.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrDesolate
Maybe we agree that government today is a big part of the problem?


The entity we currently refer to as the "government" today is the problem.

However, even a bumbling inept step in the proper direction is something to be preserved. It is our responsibility, as participants in society, to nurture that hapless step forward in the desired direction -- not punish the step backward with harsh words and vigorous lashes.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 12:57 PM
link   
Wrong thread



[edit on 8/25/2009 by yeahright]



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrDesolate
reply to post by cranberrydork
 


That's my fault. I pulled one comment out of a post above and took it in that direction. The topic is bashing Nancy Pelosi, which I should've taken advantage of. There's sure plenty of material for that.





I will never forgive you for what you have done.

Just j/k



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join