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: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 07:53 AM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 


Thanks, my friend you understand exactly what is been done to us the consumer when corporate monopoly takes over.



Once the bill pass and people starts to wake up to exactly what is going on with the insurance companies then it will be too late.

Is not competition when something is mandatory, people have forgotten that the whole deal about health care reform was actually the choice of people to have a public run insurance for them to get away from the gouging private insurance, how making private insurance mandatory is going to make things cheaper and better.

[edit on 16-9-2009 by marg6043]




posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


I'm not saying that reform is not needed. But the government idea is a poorer option than what we already have.

This "cure" would be worse than the "disease."

This all goes back to whether or not it should be mandated that everyone have insurance in the first place. We have stopped thinking in those terms.

Why?

It is a noble ideal to make sure that everyone is happy and safe and healthy and secure.

But once we open the door to mandating insurance for all, what's next? Mandating houses for all? Mandating cars for all? Mandating food for all?

It all goes to whether you want a nanny state or not.

Personally, I don't. But that's just me. And to be branded as a racist because I don't want to go along with what the government wants is just further proof that this administration has another agenda, not the basic welfare of it's people.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by mikerussellus
 


I am sorry I didn't know that you knew what the whole deal is, yes I agree with you and you are not a racist, my friend.

I want reform but what looked like a noble thing in Washington in the beginning of the debate has turned into a mess and we the consumers are going to be the losers.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx


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]


THAT'S MY POINT, JIMMY.

You had the choice of three. In a country that has over 1,300 companies.

But because of the laws in place, you can't have access to them.

Thank you for proving my point.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx

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]



I am by no means opposed to holding doctors accountable. However, the level of accountability has to be reasonable. Juries awarding $100 million cash verdicts is excessive. They can simply award medical care for life and send all of the bills to a trustee. This cottage industry in the US has become nothing but a free for all for ambulance chasers.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 08:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Frogs
 


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.

What better way to make someone SHUT UP than to call them a racist? Seems to work pretty good for now, but I think people are getting really tired of that crap. There will come a time when folks have had all they are going to take and the results won't be pretty.

I have never been a racist, but am damn tired of people insinuating I am. If someone prefers to think I'm racist rather than seeing that I am against Obama's liberal policies, then THEY ARE STUPID. I don't give a darn anymore.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 08:02 AM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 



The sad fact is, regarless of what they do end up passing, we are all going to lose.

Government rarely enacts laws that limit their control. If fact, have they ever?

What it may end up being, is MORE government control, or LOTS more government control.

-now I'm depressed-



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by mikerussellus
 


Also don't forget that all those insurance companies, that now are available around the nation but that you can not get because control, are going to be reduced to just a few when big companies will buy into the Small ones.

That is where the private insurance monopoly will come into effect, it will be not boundaries anymore for the big to fail ones take over the small ones.

We the consumer will be stuck with private insurance mandatory under their monopoly.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikerussellus

Originally posted by jimmyx


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]


THAT'S MY POINT, JIMMY.

You had the choice of three. In a country that has over 1,300 companies.

But because of the laws in place, you can't have access to them.

Thank you for proving my point.


wow...hey mikerussellus, as soon as i finished posting my last post, my IE went crazy and opened up 53 home screens, i had to power down manually, wait 30 seconds and turn the power back on, had to do a quick clear and clean before i got back on!!....maybe chevron came in and saw something they didn't like



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


Not necessarily. If government controls loosen, then new companies can start. Other companies can start their own, and compete.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 08:21 AM
link   
When I read an article about this and watched the video clip of Carter opening his big yap, I just wanted to scream. I can't understand why Carter simply can't go away, stop opening his mouth, and leave us in peace. This man is the classic crap stirrer, this racist charge is just another way for progressives to control the country. I don't dislike Obama because he's half black...I can't stand him because he's a liar, keeps company with former domestic terrorists, oh ya and he brings in crazies like Van Jones and gives morons like this cushy czar positions. I could make a bigger list but you all get my drift, lol. Never in my life have I witnessed a President who is more arrogant, deceptive, and antagonistic against those who don't agree with him. It's sad, but I have found that the only thing he has said that I agree with was his comment about Kanye West being a "jack ass". Common Mr. President...you're not our savior...just a temporary occupant in the Whitehouse...and Mr. Carter...please just go away...you damage your image more each time you talk...I understand they are making real progress on those dementia drugs for the senile...please look into that will ya?



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 


It wasn't Chevron. It was Obama. He saw that you were actually debating the issue instead of following the party line and calling everyone racists.






posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 08:24 AM
link   
reply to post by mikerussellus
 


No in American when corporate monopoly runs rampant, remember everything in this nation is about how is the biggest and better profit making company.

We have an ugly and dirty history about that, from monopoly telephone companies to cable, financial institutions car insurance, big stores like wal-mart killing the mama and papa ones, you name it, is always a big guy that buys the small guy before it can become a problem on the big guys profits.



[edit on 16-9-2009 by marg6043]



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


Walmart thrives because of cheaper prices. If I wanted to start an insurance company, I might be able to do it cheaper BECAUSE I have smaller overhead, and lower operational costs of a larger company.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikerussellus
It is a noble ideal to make sure that everyone is happy and safe and healthy and secure.


I'm glad you see it this way. And I agree with you.


But once we open the door to mandating insurance for all, what's next? Mandating houses for all? Mandating cars for all? Mandating food for all?


What you just accomplished is an act of demagoguery known as "reductio ad absurdum". You could have added "mansions for all" to further this technique.

There is a big difference (and you must know it in your heart) between a nanny state and a state that tries to prevent starvation of people, or their death due to insufficient preventive care. I see taking care of that the mark of humans as distinct from animals. Sometimes we fail to maintain that mark.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 08:38 AM
link   
One would have to be utterly ignorant to believe that SOME of what we see and hear isn't racially motivated. There is and has been all along a chorus of racial vitriol from a very vocal group.

However, I'm absolutely certain that all this crap originates with a confederacy of right-wing groups. They have had a very long run controlling government through their allies mostly, although not exclusively, within the GOP. This process started as early as 1981 but truly took hold from 1995 until the 2006 mid-terms. Upon the election of a Democrat as President AND a solidly Democratically controlled House and Senate they were, for the first time in a LONG time, largely disconnected from their powerbase. They have openly said that they will do whatever it takes to 'take down Obama and the Democrats' and have proven as much.

So yea, there is most definitely an element of racism in all this. But the vast majority of the attacks and their motivation are puely political warfare. It's being waged by a desperate right-wing amalgamation of groups and people trying to re-establish their control over the country and its economy. Not becuase they believe they can do a better job for the American people but simply becuase they want to be the ones looting and pilaging. They couldn't give a rat's badonka about our lot.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muckster

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

[edit on 16-9-2009 by Muckster]


Of course it's racist. Every time white people oppose a black persons stance on anything it's racist. Surely the opposition couldn't be because of his policies, that would just be silly.

Here's a video of someone very outspoken who is probably a racist because he opposes Obama...


[edit on 16-9-2009 by SpacePunk]

[edit on 16-9-2009 by SpacePunk]



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


I have to disagree. In a nanny state, the government takes care of its people because they can't or won't take care of themselves.

Versus, a state that provides assistance that enables the INDIVIDUAL to succeed (or fail) on his/her own.

___________________________________________________________

And just to add, it's actual debate like this that makes Carters assertions wrong.

It is not race-based. Ideologies may differ, but to bring assuptions like that (race) into the mix is just wrong.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by jtma508
 


The issue of race has originated with the left. Not the right. It's only race-based because someone claimed it was. When the left stops accusing and the right stops responding . . .

And we can actually talk about the issues again, only then can we quit this silly diatribe about race.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikerussellus
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


I have to disagree. In a nanny state, the government takes care of its people because they can't or won't take care of themselves.


Apparently it's about the definition of "nanny state". You wrote yourself "people who can't take care of themselves". Do you therefore propose these people should be culled? Do you in fact advocate death panels?




top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join