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.

 

Jimmy Carter vitriol against President Barack Obama's health reforms is

page: 1
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 06:03 AM
link   
Jimmy Carter vitriol against President Barack Obama's health reforms is "based on racism".

news.bbc.co.uk...

Now, while i am an outsider to American politics, (i am British) and i do not understand all the intricacies of American politics, i must admit that it does seem like many people where gunning for President Obama, even before the health care reforms, with much more passion than what you would normally expect for a newly elected president.

Questioning his place of birth, his religion, his, if you like, Americanism?!?!

Even President Bush had to go to war before being open to anywhere near this level of criticism and personal attack.

But hey... I’m not American so I guess I don’t really understand... but from where I am it seems Racist.

And as for the health care reforms... is it really that bad?

Again, I don’t understand all the intricacies of it but I do know of stories of people being left on the streets to die because they do not have health insurance etc...

Are these story’s true... because if they are then it sounds like you need a NHS style system.

Then there is this story...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Wouldn’t a NHS style system have saved this boy...

I am not suggesting that anyone who disagrees with President Obama is racist... but personally I believe that some of the personal attacks on him are provoked by some people not being able to except a mixed race president...

Sad





Sorry but I’m not sure if this is in the correct area... Mod please move if it is incorrect and except my apology.

Thanks


[edit on 16-9-2009 by Muckster]




posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 06:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Muckster
 


As a former brit and an american citizen, let me help you out.

Obama does not want to reform healthcare.

The biggest issue has been cost. If Obama really wanted to help the americans with the cost of healthcare, he would have initiated tort reform, and initiated interstate insurance coverage.

In other words, tort reform would mean, lawyers not longer set amounts for malpractice insurance. Doctors/medical companies would pay less, therefore charging less.

Interstate insurance. Right now, our congress made a law that state insurance can't go across state lines.

ie; A company in East Anglia could not do business in London.

So congress would have to reverse a law THEY MADE to allow more insurance companies to participate, thus lowering costs.

Obama is a liberal democrat. He is an uber Gordon Brown. He does not want to help anyone out. It's all about government control.

In my humble opinion, of course. . . . .

Hope this helped you out.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikerussellus
reply to post by Muckster
 


Obama does not want to reform healthcare.

The biggest issue has been cost. If Obama really wanted to help the americans with the cost of healthcare, he would have initiated tort reform, and initiated interstate insurance coverage.

Obama is a liberal democrat. He is an uber Gordon Brown. He does not want to help anyone out. It's all about government control.



Well said Mikerussellus, I couldn't agree more. It's as simple as you
stated it. Tort refom and competetition.

The current attempt to paint the anti-obama effort as racism is a
cheap ploy to discount any opposition to his policies.

Americans don't want more socialist policies - we cannot fund the
ones we already have. What he is doing is throwing gas on a fire
in an attempt to put it out.

If they continue to belittle the opinions of mainstream america they
will have prodded the sleeping elephant into a rage. Just watch and
see what happens.


Oh, and yes, he IS a liar since he has reversed his positions on
everything he promised before he got elected. OOooOOh he's a....
......Reneger!
Racism! Racism! Quick! Get Al Sharpton !!



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 07:03 AM
link   
Being racist may play a part in the views of people on Obama. I happen to think that Bush did so many bad things, that toward the end of Bushes Presidency, the people started paying more attention, and now that the "new guy" is in, people are still paying attention and they don’t like what they are seeing.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 07:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Asktheanimals
 

This is what blows my mind about all of this. If they really wanted reform, libs and republicans, then it would take a day, two at the most.
One vote, -bam- it's done.

But nooooooooooooooooo, they have to spend all our damn money with this garbage.

Washington has become a septic tank where the rest of the country flushes the things/people they don't want.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 07:04 AM
link   
Carter is so guilt ridden over his family's past that he just can't keep his mouth shut. His family owned slaves in Georgia and his ancestors fought for the CSA (Confederate States of America). He will never get over it, so he now feels obligated to jump on every race bandwagon that sets its wheels in motion.

As for what is happening to Rep. Wilson... It is a pathetic political stunt that will do way more harm to the Dems. than they could ever imagine. This is a clear illustration of the hypocrisy of the Democratic Party and our system as a whole. What Wilson said pales in comparison to the comments that Bush faced from his opposition during sessions of the House and Senate.

So now these idiots have nothing better to do than to make an example out of Wilson while Obama flies around the country giving Obamacare speeches to his supporters in the AFL CIO. Ckufing Pathetic.

If Obama wanted bipartisan support for his healthcare plan perhaps he could start by inviting the GOP to his closed door meetings with Dem. leaders. The GOP last attended one of these gatherings back in April.

Our nation is broke and cannot afford to finance Obama's fantasies. Furthermore, the bulk of what Obama says in his speeches isn't even in the legislation. It is all fluff. Oh yeah, we still have not seen a Senate version of Obamacare yet.

The solution to our problems does not need to buried in 1000 pages of Bull %$#@.


[edit on 16-9-2009 by jibeho]



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikerussellus
reply to post by Muckster
 


As a former brit and an american citizen, let me help you out.

Obama does not want to reform healthcare.

The biggest issue has been cost. If Obama really wanted to help the americans with the cost of healthcare, he would have initiated tort reform, and initiated interstate insurance coverage.

In other words, tort reform would mean, lawyers not longer set amounts for malpractice insurance. Doctors/medical companies would pay less, therefore charging less.

Interstate insurance. Right now, our congress made a law that state insurance can't go across state lines.

ie; A company in East Anglia could not do business in London.

So congress would have to reverse a law THEY MADE to allow more insurance companies to participate, thus lowering costs.

Obama is a liberal democrat. He is an uber Gordon Brown. He does not want to help anyone out. It's all about government control.

In my humble opinion, of course. . . . .

Hope this helped you out.



tort reform would not lower insurance costs unless it was mandated by law.

tort reform only, would make the cost of mistakes by doctors, who maim and kill patients, an acceptable cost of doing business.
tort reform only, would limit the payout by insurance companies, even if said payout was so low that it actually ended up killing the patient.

there now is no limit on patients payments to insurance companies.
there is now no law against dropping patients, once they file a medical claim.
there is now no law about how long a insurance company can wait before they pay on a claim, even if the patient needs the claim money to pay for a life-saving procedure.
there is no law that says insurance companies HAVE to be competative. they can simply be within a few dollars of the highest insurance in that area
there is no law on how much a company can raise payments on a yearly, quarterly, or monthly basis.
there is no law to stop an insurance company from forcing a patient to go to the insurance companies own doctor or the insurance companies own hospital
there is no law forcing the insurance company to pay for medicines the doctor prescribes for the patient, even if it is life-saving.
there is no law forcing the insurance company to pay for a doctor ordered operation, even if it is life-saving.

[edit on 16-9-2009 by jimmyx]



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 07:12 AM
link   
reply to post by jibeho
 


Disagree.

Tort reform would lower costs. OBGYN docs pay 250K to 500K /year just for INSURANCE.

And opening up interstate insurance would allow for competition. It would make them lower costs in order to survive.

edit to add; this was meant to be a response to Jimmy. Sorry.

[edit on 16-9-2009 by mikerussellus]



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 07:25 AM
link   
Tort reform passed in Texas in 2003 and insurance premiums went down by 30%. My uncle, a retired surgeon in Dallas, was paying 100k+ in premiums before he retired in 1990. Hell, he was named in lawsuits from patients that he never saw just because he was a department officer. He bore the full burden of his own legal fees for no reason.

Tort reform also passed in California and they realized a 40% drop in premiums.

Tort reform is especially beneficial to obstetricians who face monumental premiums due to the actions of trial lawyers like John Edwards. Tort reform will result in more doctors wanting to enter such risky practices. We need the doctors in fields where trial lawyers have chased them away.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikerussellus
reply to post by jibeho
 


Disagree.

Tort reform would lower costs. OBGYN docs pay 250K to 500K /year just for INSURANCE.

And opening up interstate insurance would allow for competition. It would make them lower costs in order to survive.

edit to add; this was meant to be a response to Jimmy. Sorry.


[edit on 16-9-2009 by mikerussellus]


opening up interstate insurance does not guarentee competition. it means many companies can come in and do business.
example: shell oil, chevron oil, BP oil, valero oil...have gasoline stations and are in competition with each other...all of them are at exactly the same price down to the penny, or in a different part of the town, you will see a couple of cents difference. there is no competative pricing, even when the cost structure of a company is completely different.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by jibeho
Tort reform passed in Texas in 2003 and insurance premiums went down by 30%. My uncle, a retired surgeon in Dallas, was paying 100k+ in premiums before he retired in 1990. Hell, he was named in lawsuits from patients that he never saw just because he was a department officer. He bore the full burden of his own legal fees for no reason.

Tort reform also passed in California and they realized a 40% drop in premiums.

Tort reform is especially beneficial to obstetricians who face monumental premiums due to the actions of trial lawyers like John Edwards. Tort reform will result in more doctors wanting to enter such risky practices. We need the doctors in fields where trial lawyers have chased them away.


i live in california and the 40% drop in premiums were not passed on to the consumer. please show the 40% drop to patients healthcare insurance.

question for you... if a doctors mistake put your healthy child in a coma or caused life-long medical care...would you simply accept his apology, while you go bankrupt paying for your childs care, or would you want to make sure the doctor pays for your childs medical care?

[edit on 16-9-2009 by jimmyx]



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 07:33 AM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 


Actually you bring up an interesting point. They (the gas companies) all are at the same price BECAUSE of interference of government. There is a law in place that states that gas companies cannot undercut others. More stupid control by those nimrods in DC.



Laws in several states require gasoline retailers to set gasoline prices at minimum levels, thus artificially inflating the price at the pump.

from
www.homelandstupidity.us...



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 07:36 AM
link   
reply to post by mikerussellus
 


Wrong, without Public option it will be nothing more than the biggest bailout to the health insurance business in the nation to eventually have the big to fail ones absorb the small insurance cementing the biggest monopoly like the banking system have.

The only way to ensure competition is with public option, this bill is not about government running health care is about private insurance having a money gravy train of consumers by government mandate to enrich their pocket while they still control insurance prices.

This nothing more than another bill to model the America car insurance business that is also mandatory.

Wake up people we have been deceived



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 07:36 AM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 


Ask your state why. They (greed heads) who kept the money are the ones who need to answer those questions.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


I have to disagree, Marg. If the public option is initiated, then we are all ultimately looking at being on the government plan. Then there will be zero checks and balances.
It will be all controlled under one entity.

Which is just as bad as one insurance company running everything.

No competition, no control.

The idea that including government options in with insurance options is a misnomer. Especially when the same government will dictate what the insurance companies have to do, in order to stay in business.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 07:44 AM
link   
Well - to the topic of the OP. The way I see it - it is possible that race may be a factor in some criticisms of Obama by some individuals - but certainly not in all criticisms of Obama regardless of who makes them.

The dangerous path that is being trod is that some are quick to label most any criticism, disagreement or questioning of Obama as racist and that is attempting to be used to stifle any questioning of him or his policies.

To think of it another way. The OP mentioned he is British. I've agreed up to a point - but have presented another opinion. Does that make me anti-British?

In doing so I've also disagreed with former Pres. Carter. Does that make me anti-Southerner?

Do you see the point I'm trying to make? I think that sometimes that accusation is put forth simply in an effort to stop questioning.




[edit on 16-9-2009 by Frogs]



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 07:44 AM
link   
Just to add, the idea of MORE governemnt control to make something better, has NEVER worked.

More governemnt, just means more bureaucracy.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 07:47 AM
link   
reply to post by mikerussellus
 


That is the misconception and what the private insurance has done very well with their propaganda against the public option.

The whole reform is about public choice not private as they has been around gouging the public for far too long.

How can no having public choice is going to make more competitive the private insurance business, They don't have nothing to compete for because it will be mandatory, meaning you have to get private insurance or pay penalties.

That is not competition for private insurance that is a way to monopolize the insurance business as the big companies will start buying the smaller insurance companies for more control.

Remember is nothing done in this nation that is not for the benefit of the tax payer at all.

If the bailout to the banking system has not rang a bell on you by now on how corporate takes over government in this nation then I guess you have missed the entire deal that is been going behind our backs by the big to fail now insurance business.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 07:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Frogs
 


Abso-frogging-lutely.


When the discussion becomes one where the items cannot be argued, throw the race card.

A weak, and already over-used, tactic that this administration and its supporters have used too frequently.

What is sad, is that there might be a time or issue that is racist. When they then accuse someone of that, it'll become diluted because of its over use.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikerussellus
reply to post by jimmyx
 


Actually you bring up an interesting point. They (the gas companies) all are at the same price BECAUSE of interference of government. There is a law in place that states that gas companies cannot undercut others. More stupid control by those nimrods in DC.



Laws in several states require gasoline retailers to set gasoline prices at minimum levels, thus artificially inflating the price at the pump.

from
www.homelandstupidity.us...




in california, we had ARCO who mainly got their oil from domestic sources, and their gas was always 8 to 12 cents a gallon cheaper than other gas stations...british petroleum bought them out, and now the gas price per gallon is the same as everybody elses... they did not pass on the savings, they kept it for themselves...this is called a monopoly

when my wife retired, we had the "choice" of three health care companies, they were all with 10 to 15 dollars a month of each other for our premium payments. this is not competition. this is called a monopoly.
[edit on 16-9-2009 by jimmyx]

[edit on 16-9-2009 by jimmyx]




top topics



 
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join