Democrats Hid Damning Health Care Report From Public Until A Month After Vote

page: 5
62
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by WhiteDevil013
 


Seriously if I see the media is controlled by the left I am going to lose my mind. If you want to know who controls the media look at the corporations that own all of the major media outlets. I do believe when you consider who makes the money on the media, you will find a large group of right wing corporate management controlling the message in this country.

Since the Media Reform of the 90's it has become increasingly evident the idea of left control of the media is a straw dog. It is put into place by continued harping by Beck, Limbaugh, O'Reilly and their ilk. Then when a factual story is reported that doesn't agree with their right wing world view, it is just the left wing media at it again.




posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by joemac1114
 


Look deeper because you have been fooled. Look at the individuals and the foundations behind these corporations.

Take Viacom:

Viacom is one of America's largest media conglomerates. It owns the CBS and UPN broadcast networks, Simon & Schuster publishing, Paramount Studios, and more than 200 radio and television stations, including many in major markets. It also controls a sizeable share of the talk radio business.

Among Viacom's many media holdings on cable television are VH1 and MTV. It owns Nickelodeon and Noggin for children, Black Entertainment Television (BET), Showtime, the Movie Channel, Spike TV for men (formerly TNN), Comedy Central, and Country Music Television (CMT).

Most of these outlets favor the Democratic Party. MTV sponsored the liberal "Rock the Vote" voter-registration drive. In 2004 CMT continued to promote the left activist band the Dixie Chicks as they toured to raise money for Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry; by contrast, the network refused to air a patriotic song by the Charlie Daniels Band. Each weeknight Comedy Central airs The Daily Show, a popular satiric newscast anchored by comic Jon Stewart, who interviews usually progressive political guests and ridicules conservatives and Republicans...

One hallmark of Viacom management has been the promotion of political ideology so leftward that one critic described the company's executives as "Viacommies." In February 2001 two Viacom executives -- the President and Chief Executive Officer of CBS Les Moonves and CEO of MTV Tom Freston -- were in Havana for a private dinner and meeting with Communist dictator Fidel Castro.

Viacom Chairman Sumner Redstone, who turned 70 in 2004, has described himself as a "liberal Democrat" and has been a major financial contributor to Democrats, as are eight other members of Viacom's Board of Directors. (Two Viacom Board members served in President Bill Clinton's Cabinet.)


ABC

In 1996 the Walt Disney Company purchased Capital Cities/ABC for $18.5 billion. At that point, ABC's politics shifted noticeably to the left. Whereas during the Vietnam War era the station had sometimes been disparaged by the anti-war left as the "Silent Majority Network" because its coverage was often more positive and patriotic than that aired by NBC and CBS, ABC became more leftist than the others in tone and content following its acquisition by Disney.

The host chosen in June 2002 to anchor ABC's Sunday news program "This Week" after the departure of broadcasting icon David Brinkley was George Stephanopoulos, a left Democratic partisan who served as Senior Advisor and Press Secretary in President Bill Clinton's White House. This show remains home to one of ABC's only two identified personalities on the political right -- Washington Post columnist George Will. (The other is John Stossel, an anchor of "20/20," who is a Libertarian.) Will used to appear as the principal commentator on "This Week," but with Stephanopoulos in control Will's role has been greatly diminished.


Now ABC is down to One token conservative, George Will. John Stossel left to join Fox News.

www.discoverthenetworks.org...



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by maybereal11

Originally posted by nenothtu


Just how hot does the water have to get in which this frog boils before you announce that it's soup? A "few socialist-esque laws"? How many does it take? What is your personal cutoff line, before you admit the obvious?


You are right. We were destined for Socialism soon after we instituted fire and police protection and levied taxes against the public to pay for it.

[edit on 28-4-2010 by maybereal11]


I'm sorry, I don't think I heard you correctly. Obviously, I'm not quite grasping your meaning.

How is it, precisely, that you equate my local law enforcement and fire departments, paid out of local coffers, with the centralization of power in DC that comes with the socialist tendencies of our federal government that we've seen increasing these last 30 years?


Oh, I am sorry I did not realize that your defintion of socialism was contingent on geography and scale.

That is a bit confusing to me.."socialism" is not "socialism" if it is at the state level? Hmmm...

I think you are taking a states-rights position and spinning in socialism because...well I am not sure why...maybe because some talking head told you to? Please explain the whole concept of how something cannot be "socialist" if it is at the state-level.



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa

Originally posted by nenothtu
[

I'm sorry, I don't think I heard you correctly. Obviously, I'm not quite grasping your meaning.

How is it, precisely, that you equate my local law enforcement and fire departments, paid out of local coffers, with the centralization of power in DC that comes with the socialist tendencies of our federal government that we've seen increasing these last 30 years?


Those local law enforcement and fire departments receive federal funds to subsidize equipment and training, and they are required to follow certain federally mandated guidelines.


I don't recall the 'federally mandated guidelines', unless you're saying they have to abide by federal law. Well, that's not entirely true - the one guideline I Do recall is that locals are not to enforce federal law. Out of jurisdiction is the word handed down.

Now as for the training and equipment, that may be so in your locality, but federal funds coming in here are mighty sparse if they exist at all. For example, I had to buy my own kevlar vest. No funds for issue.

Can't say about the fire department, I'll have to check with them.

Maybe they're getting ALL the federal money?



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 09:18 PM
link   
Does anyone have the link to the actual report?

The guy who analyzed the report got his info from FOX News. Not saying he's wrong, but I'd rather have a look at the actual report myself. After all, we've had death panels and "forced to get chiped" misinformation before



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by maybereal11

Oh, I am sorry I did not realize that your defintion of socialism was contingent on geography and scale.


Nope. It's contingent on centralization of power, centralized planning, and eradication of individuality, making the individual property of the state. That's what happens in the real world with socialism, as opposed to theory taught in schools that so many become enamored of. Hard to concentrate power and centralize planning at the national level when localities take care of the bulk of their own business.



That is a bit confusing to me.."socialism" is not "socialism" if it is at the state level? Hmmm...

I think you are taking a states-rights position and spinning in socialism because...well I am not sure why...maybe because some talking head told you to? Please explain the whole concept of how something cannot be "socialist" if it is at the state-level.


I can't really say what the 'talking heads' are talking about these days, since I have no cable, or indeed even a tv.

I didn't say something can't be socialist at the state level. After all, a nation is nothing more than a bigger state. The problem arises when the national government goes towards socialism, when it drags all the states with it. When the majority of control resides at state level, as the country was founded, or even better, at the local level, as has not been seen for a very long time, then pockets of socialistic tendency can be isolated to their own community, where they're happy with it. A lot less tension that way. If, for example, Maryland decides to go socialist, well, the people in Ohio don't have to worry about that. They don't have to live with it.

To me, the point is really only academic though in regard to the 'health care' under discussion. I'll not be participating in that little fiasco anyhow.



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Here you go. I posted this further up the thread.
www.politico.com...



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by piddles
reply to post by jdub297
 

yeah this reform is going to destroy everything because the system we have now works pretty well

A flippant acquiescence in the pathetic doesn't really make much of an endorsement. You accept the "reforms" as the best we can do.

How sad.

The "system we have now" is Obama's. The prior one was almost as bad.

Taking the consumer out of the equation is a recipe for disaster. Only a consumer-driven health care delivery system will lower costs and increase efficiency, and we haven't had that since your parents were kids.

Ask a grownup what it's like when they make their own decisions and use their own money in a transaction. THEY are in control; never otherwise.

deny ignorance

jw



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 11:18 PM
link   
The rising costs of healthcare is in no way any surprise considering the system utilized.

First, I'll lay out the distinction between a health care provider (hospitals, clinics), health care worker (doctor, nurses) and health care insurer (who foots the bill).

In a situation where there is an excess of health care providers and workers, then they have incentive to lower prices and costs, where they are competing for health care insurers buisness/money. This is an ideal system for the end user (the insured), because they can get quality health care for a cheaper price.

The current situation represents and excess of demand for health care services while the health care providers and workers are in heavy demand. Thus, prices go up and those with the most money are given first preference for services.

So, thats sorted, now, what is a tax? A tax in our current political system is money taken from the individual when they pay for services or products and a portion of their income. This is taken (or is meant to) for the purposes of providing a vital service to the society and invidual. We can all agree that health care is a vital service for all individuals, because a preventable death is unacceptable. Something almost everyone is willing to pay for it they are capable .

So, health care insurance, whether it is provided by the government or a private company is a tax. The cost of this insurance will inevitably increase as prices are pushed higher and higher, especially as population grows and providers do not keep up.

With private health care insurance in countries with a public provider (eg Australia), very often the public health care providers are underfunded, because the insurance companies (taking a tax from individuals) will put their money into private providers, attracting quality workers away from the public system. Often the private system workers are underutilized, due to the excess payment the providers receive.

Private providers in collusion with private insurers, will allow the speedy enactment of elective surgery, despite any overflow or long waits that exist in the public health care provider and insurer system. This pushes prices higher and higher for vital health care services, pushing up the cost of private and public health care insurance. Thus in reaction, people seek out private health care to access these better services, increasing the cost of private health care services, decreasing the amount of people private insurance can provide for.

If we could remove the multiple health care insurers, we could create a single payer, eliminating the artificial increase in costs because there is no longer competition.

In the end, whether you are paying a public or private tax, you still have to pay money to get it. Under a single public payer system, we can bring down costs for essential surgery/treatment, while the prices for elective surgery can decrease because private health care providers. However, if you look at projections for health care insurance costs in the coming decades in america, paying for elective surgery with your own money (rather than getting the insurer too) won't be more expensive overall.

Under this system, everyone is guaranteed quality health care with a probable decrease in overall cost. Isn't it about time we started caring for our fellow human beings and guarantee at least this basic human right?

Obamas plan is limited, because there is such extreme opposition (public & private) to a single payer system, thus he must try and work around the private health care insurance industry, which is headed towards ruin. Why not stop now, before it's too late and try and improve things for your country and your children's future? Minimal government is a great idea for small societies with excess resources and land, but for somewhere as overcrowded as America, it is entirely inappropriat

[edit on 28-4-2010 by klaybient]



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 01:09 AM
link   
A video clip from Lindsey Williams DVD set : The Elites Speak 02.2010

Health Care Bill Is Total Government Take Over


 


(click to open player in new window)

 


I didn't say it...

Lindsey Williams claims that it came from the 87 year old elite.



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by klaybient

So, health care insurance, whether it is provided by the government or a private company is a tax.


No. A tax is paid to government. A voluntary transaction with a company is not a tax. When I draw a paycheck, I am not taxing my employer. When I fix someone's computer and am paid for it, I am not taxing that person. If I choose to pay an insurance company a premium, it's not a tax.



In the end, whether you are paying a public or private tax, you still have to pay money to get it.


There is a third choice you haven't covered. I can chose not to pay anything at all, neither tax nor premium, and forego the ponzi scheme of health insurance altogether. That is, in fact, the choice I have made. This "health care" charade doesn't change that choice for me at all.



Obamas plan is limited, because there is such extreme opposition (public & private) to a single payer system, thus he must try and work around the private health care insurance industry, which is headed towards ruin.


No it isn't. Obamacare has guaranteed the insurance scammers a windfall. That's what it was all about to begin with, in my opinion. They are in no way 'headed towards ruin', quite the contrary, they've been guaranteed a substantial income increase, courtesy of mafia-like government enforcers in, of all places, the IRS.

As if the IRS has any business forcing individual people to buy a service from private insurers. I was under the impression they were collection agents for the government, rather than enforcers for businesses.



Why not stop now, before it's too late and try and improve things for your country and your children's future?


That's what I 'm doing by railing against this travesty that lends government agents to private industry, undercutting the Mafia's traditional role of extortion. I mean to preserve the rights of my children and their children to choose for themselves.



Minimal government is a great idea for small societies with excess resources and land, but for somewhere as overcrowded as America, it is entirely inappropriat

[edit on 28-4-2010 by klaybient]


Minimal government is a great idea for ANY society where individuals are determined to follow their own destinies, rather than following the crowd.

When did America become overcrowded? It wasn't in that state when I woke up this morning. Must have happened around lunchtime, but I was busy and didn't notice the overcrowding.



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 04:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by piddles
great another "DO WHAT WE DO OR GIT DA HELL OUT" asshole who thinks he's the sum of America's opinion while exaggerating something that couldn't even be the truth to begin with.

fyi a few socialist-esque laws is not a socialist dictatorship but as long we're out of sync with what is actual reality, let's just tell everyone our current system is fine and the US wasn't having any problems until the socialist muslim moved in (lol)


Thank you very much for the insult... it does shows your mental state and that all you have to offer are insults....

First, and who in the heck makes you, and the few other "Socialist-esque" people like you the voice of America?.... Have you ever heard of the U.S. Constitution?.... that's what made the Republic of the United States great, and that's the only thing that can bring it back on track if enough Americans wake up and put themselves to work to make the aholes in office defend, and uphold the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights within it, or fire them if they don't....

"Socialist-esque" laws DO NOT MAKE AMERICA..... The U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights as well as the Delcaration of Independence among other documents does....

Have you ever in your life heard of any of those documents?.... It appears you haven't, and much less read them...

BTW, do tell us your knowledge about Socialism....

"a few socialist-esque laws is not a socialist dictatorship..."


Right... and if something quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, and looks like a duck I gues it doesn't make it a duck according to you.....


Several other members and myself have pointed out the laws being passed by your Communist, forgive me, your "Progressive" masters and your savior....

BTW... where in the world did I claim the U.S. was fine before Obama got in office?.... I might have agreed with "some" of the things the Bush administration did, but I also voiced my opinion many times on many things they shouldn't have done, just like I have voice my opinion against Republicans in power passing laws, and doing things which should not exist in the Republic...

BTW, why the heck do you need the U.S. to become another Socilaist dictatorship for?.... There are plenty of Socialist dictatorships out there, and don't give me that crap that we are like some European countries because that will show you have no idea what you are talking about...

I lived in Europe for almost 10 years since I was 8 until I was 17 and I don't remember there being any laws to FORCE children from primary, or secondary school and up to college to do Community Service, and much less for free...

The only countries where children are forced to work for free for the state and claim that the children are "paying for their education this way" are Communist dictatorships and I lived in one...

A country becomes Socialist when the president takes over the largest auto company and gives government control over it....and this is only the start they will continue doing this as their "made up crisis" gets worse, and it will get a lot worse because it is what they want...

A country becomes Socialist when there is "Socialized healthcare" and people are FORCED to buy the insurance that THE GOVERNMENT WANTS YOU TO HAVE....

The laws have not been put in effect yet, but they have been signed as laws by Obama and his administration among many others, and yes it does make the country into another Socialist dictatorship more so when people are FORCED...

But apparently someone like you doesn't know the difference between FREEDOM of choice and being FORCED to do what the goverment wants you to do in every aspect of your life, or our children's lives....




[edit on 29-4-2010 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 06:35 AM
link   
reply to post by jibeho
 


I now know why we in UK are so proud of our National Health Service. At least we are aware of it‘s faults and the government and all the political parties know their would be right rumpus if they try to cut frontline services. Why in the US do you allow insurance companies to take profits for such an appearing inefficient system? . At least we have only manipulating pharmaceutical companies to deal with but I hope there are people on their case.



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 09:12 AM
link   
The guys who say they love the 3rd HC option of not getting insurance at all...you're egoistic dicks. The economic crisis got even worse thanks to people like you because they lost their house or couldn't pay off their debt because they got sick and couldn't pay their healthcare bills (or use all their funds to do so). It's one of the major causes of foreclosures, and it hurt the other citizens of the US...so if someone forces you to pay for HC insurance...I say, GOOD!



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
The guys who say they love the 3rd HC option of not getting insurance at all...you're egoistic dicks. The economic crisis got even worse thanks to people like you because they lost their house or couldn't pay off their debt because they got sick and couldn't pay their healthcare bills (or use all their funds to do so). It's one of the major causes of foreclosures, and it hurt the other citizens of the US...so if someone forces you to pay for HC insurance...I say, GOOD!


Thanks for the compliment! I think the word you were grasping for was 'egotistical'. Always a pleasure when a poster can discuss issues on an adult level!


I didn't damage your economy. I don't make debts I can't pay, and rarely ever go into debt at all. I take care of my own health, and don't need insurance, Uncle Sam, or you to do it for me. The scenario you lay out would be laughable if it weren't such a stretch, cooked up solely for you to try to make a point, and fail epically. You think government should force me to pay a private company for health insurance that they won't pay out of and I can't use so that I can go into debt just to buy another house that I couldn't live in ? Remember, you can only live in one house at a time. My property is already paid for, in full. I worked under sometimes less than optimal conditions to accomplish that, but managed to survive.

As for your second point, they will ATTEMPT to force me to pay a private company for an unusable product. They will fail, miserably, because I refuse to do so. It's not going to happen. I have better things to do with my money. Maybe I'll take your advice and buy another house.... NAAHHH.

Not going to pay their silly-assed penalty tax, either. Looks like it should be quite the exciting life for a while, eh? If you harbor any doubts at all that I mean what I say, then you just know nothing about me.

But you've demonstrated that well enough already, haven't you? Here's a hint: I've done well enough so far by doing it my way - I don't think I'll take your advice and switch to your way anytime soon.



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by klaybient

So, health care insurance, whether it is provided by the government or a private company is a tax.


No. A tax is paid to government. A voluntary transaction with a company is not a tax.


There is nothing volountary about cancer or a heart-attack or trips to the emergency room.

If cancer, car accidents, disease etc. obeyed the rules of capitalism and free markets...somehow struck only those who could afford it, when they could afford it then you might have a case.

Disease has not correlation to capitlaisitic mechanisms. From the begining if time every tribe that gathered to form a community understood this and cared for there sick rather than drag them off into the bushes to die.

Americans were just too greedy to not try and make it a for-profit equation and in the recent decades we reached a climax of greed and expense to the consumer as the corporations leveraged the inate dissconnect between the capitalisitc model and healthcare.

insurance companies and medical providers know that the family with the child with cancer...does not have a free market option, they simply will give everything penny they have, sell thier home, car, everything to save thier child.

Disease does not obey and supply and demand equation, price elasticity, profit and loss etc. etc. it could care less.

as the price of a candy bar or a car goes up...what does demand for that item do?

as the price of healthcare goes up...what does the demand for healthcare do?? Disease doesn't care...get it? Insurance companies sure do.

Disease fits nowhere in the capitalisitc equation. That is the irony. It was never meant to be a capitalistic enterprise to begin with...by objective analysis the state of our healthcare in this country was more of a massive shake-down operation and criminal in nature. Socialism has nothing to do with it either.

FYI I am not socialist...I absolutely love capitalism and I know whereof I speak having a degree in economics...

But healthcare has no healthcare has no appropriate or neccessary linkage to a capitalistic system...It does not respond to market forces...and that very fact is exploited on a regular basis by corporations to the detriment of us all.

[edit on 29-4-2010 by maybereal11]



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


So just because you were lucky and didn't get seriously ill, and because you don't have debt means the whole accusation is hogwash? Look it up, people not being able to cover medical bills was one of the prime reasons for foreclosures.

I'm happy you're healthy, but the idiot down the street who isn't insured and smokes 2 packs a day probably isn't. And when he can't pay his medical bills should he get cancer (and I don't wish that on anyone), his house will be foreclosed. That'll put more pressure on the housing market and the economy as a whole. If the economy does badly, people lose jobs...yes, people like me and you.

Thinking only about yourself in today's world is incredibly egotistical, everything's connected economically, and if someone screws up, it harms others.

Looking forward to your not paying strategy though...whatever you do, don't pick up the soap!



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Sometimes I'm just amazed at the thinking on ATS. The 'rightwing" thinking comes out & then it's denied as "critical thinking" You guys had your chance to change anything you wanted with your 8yrs & chose entropy. Now you want the next President to do what your guys did, NOTHING. Well step aside, you're going to be run over by progress!
Poet1b has it right when saying:

"Got a reliable source to back up your claim?
BigGovernment.com is just a fake website putting our right wing propaganda.
This thread should go in the hoax bin."

But some of you will present anything that backs your view point. A Rightwing CANADIAN website? Have you just quit thinking for yourself all together?
Well, stand back because Obama's going to use EVERY tool to get America back on track. With the Insurance Companies STILL in charge of our health care you should be ashamed of your education for calling it "socialism" really. Socialist? He gave the banks the bailout but he's a socialist? Educate yourself, you look foolish or maybe you don't mind looking foolish if you can convince a few that you are right. YOUR commentator Glenn Beck calls the Progessive Party, Nazis. Follow his logic now (just because you call something a name doesn't make it so) GB calls GWB a progressive but in the 8 years he was Pres. GB could have spoke out against the NAZIS tendacies & Fascism of GWB but he remained silent. Why? The 8 years the "Tea Party" could have spoken out against: Losing Osama in Pakistan, torture, wire tapping, illegal wars & arrests/imprisonment, rescuing Louisianna, they stayed silent until someone they simply can't stand for is President THEN they get "radical".
There is nothing more Fascist in America than requiring it's citizens to "show us your papers" you would thing the freedom loving Tea Partiers would be all over that bit of blantant UNAMERICAN law! NO! Obama is the fascist! Your logic is incomprehensable! Never before in the history of America could a group gain support against a Fascist government that most of the country could get behind and WIN against but instead it was a Us(rightwing diehards) vs Them(the whole leftwing) what did you choose to do? Call anyone who disagreed with you(GWB) UNAMERICAN!
NOW you're the minority in this great country and should be treated as such. Only 31% of REPUBLICANS will admit they are Republicans, you are shrinking because MOST of America are NOT racists AND are not Republican/rightwing/ignorers of truth. Step aside and watch how it's done. Republicans know how to win elections but CAN'T governor for s#!t and your gang knows it. But like every group of immature kids you can't stand NOT to have your way so you scream louder and scream birther, HC, and socialistic LIES hoping the rest of your ilk will ignore the truth & join you. You lost, get over it, watch how it's done.
You have plenty of voices & outlets to scream your view point but realize you don't have enough numbers to make the rest of us believe you especially after the Fascism you just supported & we just witnessed.
Glenn Beck calling Bush a progressive + calling progressives Nazis= GWB was a Nazi in GB's eyes but only with a Leftwing President does he speak out. You have to ask yourself who exactly are yopu following in this? Or are you just gravitating towards what reinforces your rightwing view point? The majority of Americans have figured you out & ignore your party of NO. Now know your roll (the minority of the population) & present PROOF or you will shrink into the racist party the rest of us know you to be. Now step aside, Progress will NOT be stopped by the minority!!!
What you believe as truth doesn't change what truth is!



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by maybereal11

There is nothing volountary about cancer or a heart-attack or trips to the emergency room.



Nor have I said anywhere that those things ARE voluntary. What I said, and what you have attempted to twist per your own agenda, is that buying a service is is a voluntary act (up until now, that is).



If cancer, car accidents, disease etc. obeyed the rules of capitalism and free markets...somehow struck only those who could afford it, when they could afford it then you might have a case.


I have a case anyhow. There is no provision in a free society for forcing someone to make a particular purchase from a private company. That's pretty simple, isn't it?



Disease has not correlation to capitlaisitic mechanisms. From the begining if time every tribe that gathered to form a community understood this and cared for there sick rather than drag them off into the bushes to die.


I may have issues with your broad generalization of 'every tribe', but that really doesn't matter, since I don't happen to live in 'every tribe'. How they run their own societies is none of my concern.




Disease fits nowhere in the capitalisitc equation. That is the irony. It was never meant to be a capitalistic enterprise to begin with...by objective analysis the state of our healthcare in this country was more of a massive shake-down operation and criminal in nature. Socialism has nothing to do with it either.


True enough, insurance coverage is a shakedown, a scam. Governmental enforcement of it doesn't change that at all, it just makes the government complicit with the insurance companies in the shakedown.

The socialist aspect enters in with the centralization of power and planning in this fiasco.



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

So just because you were lucky and didn't get seriously ill, and because you don't have debt means the whole accusation is hogwash? Look it up, people not being able to cover medical bills was one of the prime reasons for foreclosures.


That puts the cart before the horse. They would not have had to default on housing had they not overextended themselves in the first place. I'm a firm believer in allowing people to reap what they sew, to live with the results of their own decisions whether good or bad.



I'm happy you're healthy,


I'm sorry for not being clear, resulting in your misunderstanding here. I didn't say I was healthy, I said that I handled it myself, in my own way, and didn't rely on insurance payouts. To be sure, I CARRIED insurance for a number of years, but, since I could never convince them to provide service for monies rendered, I stopped feeding that particular beast, and am not going to resume, governmental mandate or no.



but the idiot down the street who isn't insured and smokes 2 packs a day probably isn't. And when he can't pay his medical bills should he get cancer (and I don't wish that on anyone), his house will be foreclosed. That'll put more pressure on the housing market and the economy as a whole. If the economy does badly, people lose jobs...yes, people like me and you.


It's disingenuous, to say the least, to blame a bad economy on illness and let the bankers who promoted the initial irresponsible behavior to begin with go unpunished. Once again, you appear to be advocating punishment for 'the little guy' and letting the masters off the hook.



Thinking only about yourself in today's world is incredibly egotistical, everything's connected economically, and if someone screws up, it harms others.


I don't think of just my self, I have a particular sphere of responsibility, which does not include all of US society, much less the entire world. Nor will I allow that sort of recklessness to be forced upon me.



Looking forward to your not paying strategy though...whatever you do, don't pick up the soap!


I assure you, I will never spend a single day behind bars due to my strategy. They can reserve my space for one of the other estimated 23 million americans who will remain uninsured. With that many, it sure sounds like they'll need the space!


[edit on 2010/4/29 by nenothtu]





new topics
top topics
 
62
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join