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.

 

This is what a real politician who fights for the middle class and poor sounds like....

page: 2
14
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 22 2011 @ 02:22 PM
link   
The comparison Paul makes is BS.

Slaves?

Well I could easily make that comparison for every single AMERICAN WORKER.

I could easily make that comparison to all of us beholden to the corruption exploding in all of corporate America....which is making our government completely ineffective.

We need more doctors...unfortunately there are limits to how many can practice....Sanders actually EXTENDED that in the health care bill. Most of what was good in that bill was put in there by Sanders. I'm not saying Docs shouldn't be adequately compensated....they should be...i'm sure everyone agrees with that. I always thought people went into the medical field to actually help people however...not to just make aprofit. The academic costs to even become a doctor is absolutely ridiculous....Bernie has tried to fight that as well.

He is the one people we should be championing here...not Ron Paul nor his son....who despite their rhetoric of "Liberty"... their ideology would leave millions and millions of people in the slums. Being poor is not freedom. Being complete dependent on people who only purpose is to make a profit is not freedom. Despite what Ron Paul states about corporations...his policies still defend them.

And...btw...Benevolent Heretic is no where near the most far left person on this website....that was a complete falsehood.
edit on 22-5-2011 by David9176 because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 22 2011 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Follow the Money



May 18, 2011

A day after Big Oil won a Senate vote that let the five biggest U.S. oil companies keep $2 billion a year in tax breaks, the Senate debated a Republican bill to expand domestic oil production. Sen. Bernie Sanders sized up the situation in an interview with radio host Ed Schultz.

"Yesterday's vote tells us the power of big money is so extraordinary, especially on the Republican Party, that what these guys are prepared to do in the name of deficit reduction is to convert Medicare into a voucher program, slash Medicaid, slash education, slash environmental protection, slash nutrition programs for hungry people in this country, but when we ask them to do away with some tax breaks for the major oil companies who have made nearly a trillion dollars in profits over the last decade apparently they can't do that."

What do you think? Was Tuesday's vote to block repeal of oil tax breaks right or wrong?


sanders.senate.gov...

Obviously the words of an evil man!



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
Yeah I try to keep out of the healthcare debates, American members dont really want to hear from a Brit telling them the benefits of a universal health system. Our current government is proposing privatising certain parts of our NHS, needless to say these proposals are going down like a lead balloon with the British public


Oh, I think that's a bit hasty. Even being a serious Libertarian I find many anti-socialism folks in America talk a big game in the State's Rights department, but don't really mean it and don't have any idea what the benefit of it is.

As for Universal Healthcare, there are some serious problem in it's implementation here in America. The largest nation I know of with the program is Brazil with 180 or so million people. It has issues, although is generally fairly successful, with beds spilling to hallways, old or poorly functioning equipment, long lines, etc.

Adding that to America, over 300 million with new Latin American friends arriving daily, would be a much more daunting task.

I don't see the problem with allowing States to decide the level of government involvement in Health Care that the citizens of said State (or Commonwealth) desire, be it none to Universal. This would allow for all states to decide for themselves, promote freedom, and give us 50 examples of how it can be done and what works best.

Lastly, Americans are more weary of it simply because the Federal Government ruins almost everything it touches. In the past 50 years, Federal Government involvement in Healthcare directly has increased from almost none to providing 50% of all health coverage. In that time, even while tempered by the improvements made by the private sector, quality has gone down and price has gone through the roof.

I'm actually interested in the European models because one can always learn from the successes and failures of others. Don't sweat the Americans, you'll get those kinds who can't seem to have civil conversations, especially if it has the word Socialism in it. Chances are they enjoy the Socialistic endeavors that already exist in their own states and communities and wouldn't want to see them go away, so their objectivity is mostly shot anyway.

Peace
KJ



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by KrazyJethro
 





Lastly, Americans are more weary of it simply because the Federal Government ruins almost everything it touches.


Now that's a logical reason to be against government involvement in health care.

We don't even have to look as far as Europe though. I have many Canadian friends who seem to be quite happy with their health care.Of course there's some complaints, no system is perfect, but if you offer them the choice of our system or theirs, they'll be staying with theirs.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by KrazyJethro
 





In that time, even while tempered by the improvements made by the private sector, quality has gone down and price has gone through the roof.


Mostly because of deals made with the healthcare industry through our government...which benefit the corporations that control our healthcare. Obama cut deals with Big Pharma and the health insurance industry because he had to if he wanted to get more Americans covered. There weren't enough votes in the senate for a public option.

The insurance industry actually pushed for the mandates...yet they aren't demonized in the media...just government...when we all know that government is corrupted by the wealthy.
edit on 22-5-2011 by David9176 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by dazbog
Maybe it is a question of quality ? If that is the case, one usually gets what one pays for.

I frequently get the feeling that people think they will get the same attention to quality and CONVENIENCE that is reserved for the well to do.


So it is your position, then, that the health, well-being and lives of the wealthy people are more important than those of the poor/working economic class?



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic

Originally posted by dazbog
Maybe it is a question of quality ? If that is the case, one usually gets what one pays for.

I frequently get the feeling that people think they will get the same attention to quality and CONVENIENCE that is reserved for the well to do.


So it is your position, then, that the health, well-being and lives of the wealthy people are more important than those of the poor/working economic class?







I don't see how that would follow from my statement. Regardless of government health care programs ,the well to do will more frequently be treated better then the masses. "more important " is extremely subjective. It has been said that the only universally accepted crime in America is being poor. Please don't attempt to paint me as the boogyman when I am simply stating the obvious environment within which the majority of Americans reside.

Again, dirt poor or stupid rich, YOU WILL BE TREATED without any additional government intervention upon the private sector.

In theory all should have access to the very best health care. It is repugnant to imply otherwise. As we are all aware, this is not now, nor ever been, the way of the world.

With the exception of war. Government intervention more frequently then not makes matters less convenient and incredibly more complicated, as well as expensive.

If we can agree that people are currently being treated then it simply comes to comfort.

People with excellent health insurance or fat wallets ( Congress Cretins ) will experience a level of care far beyond that of Medicare.


So again, I honestly wonder what people think they will be getting, beyond what is currently offered.

Not my cause, hence I know little ,other then I would most often opt to keep the Federal government out of my affairs.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seiko
Now that's a logical reason to be against government involvement in health care.


I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not, so I'll trust you are being earnest.


We don't even have to look as far as Europe though. I have many Canadian friends who seem to be quite happy with their health care.Of course there's some complaints, no system is perfect, but if you offer them the choice of our system or theirs, they'll be staying with theirs.


I'm not against the idea, only it's implementation on a national level. Even if it was done on a national level, most of the people who would put it in place don't seem interested in some of the practical safeguards that many nations have in place (France, Brazil, Canada, etc) to protect the tax payer and the citizens. That worries me as the American government has done a terrible job for at least the last 100 years or so. There are some easy to create ways to fix the healthcare issue but no one talks about them and most of it pertains to the states rather than the federal government.

As for the Canadians, I have those type of friends too and am happy they are happy. I just feel there are more than a couple ways to deal with the issue but people only talk about a few and government is only going in one direction (bigger). Our government is broken, badly, and should be addressed before any increases happen that aren't dire.

Peace
KJ
Our system, at this point at least, is about as complex and ridiculous as our tax code (which borders on obscene both in scope and nuance). There really isn't any clear way to discuss the issue on a national level without deciding to strip the states of their rights to govern the companies that do business in their state.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by KrazyJethro
 


I was being quite honest in my comment. The fact that our government has such a lousy track record is a very valid argument against national health care. I don't see it as a reason to completely reject the idea though.

Looking at our current government, I'm very weary when the argument against it is an invasion of rights. Governmental control doesn't seem to be a problem for them on any other level or fact of my life. I see their reasoning to fail here. This is of course my opinion.

To me government works for the people, they are empowered by us. I expect the government to represent and to help the populace. This is obviously not happening.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 08:55 AM
link   
Seems like a decent enough bloke. America could do with more like him, although I can't see it happening considering the amount of people who still believe that Obama is a socialist.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1   >>

log in

join