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.

 

10+ Reasons Not To Re-Elect Obama

page: 10
41
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 04:51 PM
link   
I did such a list a while back (indefinite detentions)...but then listed all the negatives for Romney and realized that compared to that guy, he's actually not all that bad.

The "corporations are people my friend" guy isn't even an option, and nothing Obama did would make me vote for that corporate sock puppet...he's even more bought than Obama, and not even hiding it. He made his entire career on FIRING PEOPLE.

My key criticism for Obama? Not tough enough on financial reform and indefinite detentions.




posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 04:53 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by sageofmonticello
 



Considering that, who needs reform in the first place. i mean we spend the same amount on health care service, on average, that we spend on eating out yearly. It just makes no sense. Anybody who is intellectually honest and looks into the facts, can't support Obamacare.




You have shown your complete ignorance on the issue with the above statement...maybe you should stop talking about it.

Most of those that are against "Obamacare" at least have enough intelligence to know that "something" has to be down.

But you think everything is just fine, because you ONLY had to pay 3k for a kidney stone problem. You having kidney stones at such a young age does not bode well for your medical costs in the future...but I'm thinking you are going to find that out the hard way. Then you will come make a thread crying about how high medical costs are.



You go back and forth on what you are saying too much. Stick to one thing. Obama care is not about medican "costs". Its about getting healthcare to all of the "voters" that dont have it now and would like to stay on welfare and get free medical care. All the needed to do in the first place WAS figure out how to reduce the costs of all these procedures and then get people back to work so they had healthcare. And make no mistake, this is a capitalist society. If you want a job and want healthcare it is out there but you have to work for it. Nothing is free in this world and believe me. Obamacare is not free.. Its coming out of my paychecks.



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by TheTardis
 



All the needed to do in the first place WAS figure out how to reduce the costs of all these procedures and then get people back to work so they had healthcare. And make no mistake, this is a capitalist society. If you want a job and want healthcare it is out there but you have to work for it. Nothing is free in this world and believe me. Obamacare is not free.. Its coming out of my paychecks.


Oh, is that "all" they had to do...you make it sound so simple. So educate us all...how do you reduce medical costs (please God don't say TORT reform). Because you know what is one big cost of high medical costs.....yep....the uninsured. Because hospitals have to write all that off...so they have to charge a higher price for the services that they will be reimbursed for. Think of it as any other goods or service...if I am selling widgets and I know I have to sell the for X to make a profit, but I also know half of my widgets will be shoplifted....then guess what...I'm charging 2X.


And I love how you and others try to imply that just because me and others defend those that are less fortunate, you believe we don't work and that "your" taxes are paying for "our free stuff".




Oh, and please point out where I have gone back and forth on what I am saying....that will be interesting.
edit on 19-4-2012 by OutKast Searcher because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 05:09 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by sageofmonticello
 



Sorry about the quote issue. I agree it was difficult to read. I'm at work as well and didn't take the proper time.



I'm not sure what your statements about 28 million people with no insurance make over $75k and $50k?


My point is that they can afford health insurance, obviously, yet choose not to buy it.


That's a reach. Private insurance is extremely expensive and that's IF you can get it. I know COBRA through my company is $1500-$1900 per month for a family of 4. So if someone making $50k a year with a spouse and 2 kids has to pay about $20k a year for insurance, that's not exactly affordable.



Government forcing you to go a certain speed is one thing, government forcing you to buy a product you don't want is another.


My biggest issue with this part of the plan is that it's a give away to the insurance companies. That and Obama didn't put any protections in place in the 2 years between the mandate and when it actually goes into effect giving the insurance companies plenty of time to hike their rates. But that's why I would prefer a Medicare system for everyone




Morality is independent from an economic model and economic models are independent from morality.


Is it? I would argue that if our politicians weren't so corrupt, we wouldn't be in the economic mess that we're in now.



Well, that's very big of you.



That isn't necessary.


You're the one that set the tone here, Dude.



And there are plenty of people who visit the emergency room for medical care who are not illegals aliens.



Please quantify "plenty of people".


"New Data Say Uninsured Account for Nearly One-fifth of Emergency Room Visits" - from the US Dept of Health and Human Services Source



Yes, it does inflate costs, but as i already showed you, the cost of health care currently is about the same amount people spend eating out on average per year.


Assuming, as we discussed, that these people do have insurance. What I don't appreciate is that ALL OF US pay an inflated cost to cover those that do not have any insurance.




If those people were able to visit a doctor for preventive care, many wouldn't end up there in need of very expensive treatments. So yes, if everyone buys into the insurance pool, then neither you nor I would have to pay for their healthcare.




Possibly, but just as likely it could cost more because of all of the preventative care for aliments that aren't necessarily worth seeing a doctor over. The only example we have to see who is right would be Massachusetts. Lets see if it cost any less... here is a headline and subhead from the August 22, 2009, Boston Globe: “Bay State Premiums Highest in Country: Rein in healthcare costs, Massachusetts urged.” so it looks like I am actually right and costs go up. Obama himself said that the health care act was modeled from the Massachusetts plan.


I did a bit of research on this and it is possible that preventive care would be more costly . That said, using 1 example of a newspaper headline does not win an argument.

I look at it this way: I don't have kids but my taxes go to pay for public schools so other people's kids can (hopefully) get a modicum of education. I could argue that I chose not to have kids and therefore the government has no right to my money for that. But the truth of it is, I want my neighbor's children to be educated. Having an educated community leads to a better quality of life for all of us. And if they're in school, they're not hanging around the neighborhood waiting for me to leave for work so they can steal my stuff. I feel the same way about wanting to live in a healthy community. It's called living in a society. What you do does affect me and vice versa and trying to act like it doesn't is just living in denial.



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by sageofmonticello

#1
Obama has added $6 trillion to the national debt in his one term.


Not to get all factual on you, but the POTUS has not added 6 Trillion...more like 4.7 Trillion, you are citing projections...Obama has added 45% to the debt (3 years) Bush added 86% to the debt (8 yrs).


Originally posted by sageofmonticello
#2
NDAA. Indefinite military detention, no attorney, no trial. Nothing else needs to be said. He could of easily vetoed the bill and had it go through congress again with this section removed.


Also Bunk....He tried very hard to change that bill which was driven by Republicans and in the end issued a lengthy and detailed signing statement...

Excerpts..


Today I have signed into law H.R. 1540, the "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012." I have signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed. In hundreds of separate sections totaling over 500 pages, the Act also contains critical Administration initiatives to control the spiraling health care costs of the Department of Defense (DoD), to develop counterterrorism initiatives abroad, to build the security capacity of key partners, to modernize the force, and to boost the efficiency and effectiveness of military operations worldwide.

Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.

..............


My Administration has worked tirelessly to reform or remove the provisions described above in order to facilitate the enactment of this vital legislation, but certain provisions remain concerning. My Administration will aggressively seek to mitigate those concerns through the design of implementation procedures and other authorities available to me as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief, will oppose any attempt to extend or expand them in the future, and will seek the repeal of any provisions that undermine the policies and values that have guided my Administration throughout my time in office.

blogs.ajc.com...

It was a lot like the budget deal...no one was happy, but he needed to fund the troops, thier healthcare etc. and Congress would not send him a better bill, so he did what he could and issued a signing statement.

Now I can go on with you list, but you get it? Right? You are rrecycling a bot of political propaganda....Would Romney have tormented himself over the signing of this bill? Would he have issues a signing statement to try and box in any future Presidents opportunity for abuse? Would he have issued a signing statement prohibiting his adminstration from detaining US citizens? A signing statement limiting his own powers?

Just do a little research. I have no problem with folks not likeing Obama, but let's educate ourselves before aping what the left or right media tells us.


edit on 19-4-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by theplu
 





That's a reach. Private insurance is extremely expensive and that's IF you can get it. I know COBRA through my company is $1500-$1900 per month for a family of 4. So if someone making $50k a year with a spouse and 2 kids has to pay about $20k a year for insurance, that's not exactly affordable.


Yes.. that is ALOT. Of course COBRA is the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act and not health insurance. To have COBRA means you want to keep your health insurance that is provided by your employer despite them no longer paying for the majority of it and also not shop around for a cheaper alternative not meant to me subsidized through an employer. I realize that health insurance isn't perfect, the reason COBRA costs so much is because an employer is no longer subsidizing it as a perk of employment. Non employer subsidized insurance is nowhere near as costly and the benefits are comparable.

After I became unemployed, I shopped around for health insurance and found some alternatives within my price range that had decent benefits. i decided that I am healthy and at this point in my life the cost wasn't worth it. People with children will probably want to keep them insured and COBRA is meant to be a temporary option to keep the people insured while they find a new alternative either though a new job or with a private health insurance plan that is priced cheaper as it is marketed to individuals rather than employers.




My biggest issue with this part of the plan is that it's a give away to the insurance companies. That and Obama didn't put any protections in place in the 2 years between the mandate and when it actually goes into effect giving the insurance companies plenty of time to hike their rates. But that's why I would prefer a Medicare system for everyone


I can agree with that. My only problem is that I am forced to into buying something I have already decided that i don't want at this point in my life. I don't understand why it can't exist without the force. I would have no problem with the government providing health care freely or cheaply to those who want it. All I want is the right to choose my own fate... I don't think i am asking for to much. Don't force me to fund it and I won't force the government to pay for any future possible problems. I will sign any paper they want to make sure i can't get any benefits.




Is it? I would argue that if our politicians weren't so corrupt, we wouldn't be in the economic mess that we're in now.


Yes, I believe it is. I agree, if politicians weren't so corrupt, we wouldn't be in the mess we are now. Politicians being corrupt is exactly why I don't trust the government to fix anything let alone health care. It is the governments involvement in healthcare which has made it so expensive. Education, Energy, Health Care, this is where the government is most involved over the last 100 years and this is where the highest price inflation has occured over the last hundred years, i don't think it is a coincidence. Why anyone trust a corrupt government to solve our problems is beyond me... THEY cause the problems!




You're the one that set the tone here, Dude.


I get it, I did apologize, sortof... well I atleast tried to explain that I didn't ,mean anything in a rude way, just speaking frankly. Though let me go ahead and apologize, I didn't mean to sink to a level below acceptable polite dialogue. I am sorry.




"New Data Say Uninsured Account for Nearly One-fifth of Emergency Room Visits" - from the US Dept of Health and Human Services Source


Thanks for that, i will check it out and see what I make of it. Still though, I don't feel like it raises prices nearly as much as insurance itself does and the government. Also, Uninsured does not mean they don't pay the medical bill.




Assuming, as we discussed, that these people do have insurance. What I don't appreciate is that ALL OF US pay an inflated cost to cover those that do not have any insurance.


No assuming necessary, I was trying to explain that this lumped in both insured and uninsured.. it is an average of everybody. You do not pay an inflated cost for people that don't have insurance, you pay an inflated cost for people that don't have insurance AND also don't pay their bills, there is a difference as I don't have insurance or even a regular 40 hour a week job, yet i am paying my medical bills, mortgage and other bills. Not having insurance doesn't mean not paying medical bills.


continued...
edit on 19-4-2012 by sageofmonticello because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by theplu
 



continued...



I did a bit of research on this and it is possible that preventive care would be more costly . That said, using 1 example of a newspaper headline does not win an argument.


I understand that but like you said "preventive care would be more costly" or is at least possible. It simply is, I imagined that one source would be enough for you to verify this is true, you did verify it on your own and you can pick the source you deem worthy. I was just trying to plant a seed so you could decide on your own with a source you deem reliable.




I look at it this way: I don't have kids but my taxes go to pay for public schools so other people's kids can (hopefully) get a modicum of education. I could argue that I chose not to have kids and therefore the government has no right to my money for that. But the truth of it is, I want my neighbor's children to be educated. Having an educated community leads to a better quality of life for all of us. And if they're in school, they're not hanging around the neighborhood waiting for me to leave for work so they can steal my stuff. I feel the same way about wanting to live in a healthy community. It's called living in a society. What you do does affect me and vice versa and trying to act like it doesn't is just living in denial.


I understand what you are saying. My point of view is that society is just a fancy way of saying a collection of individuals. Individuals have different thoughts, feelings, ideas, etc.. since it is just a bunch of individuals, society doesn't really exist, people do and people don't agree on what is best for all people.

My problem is the force that is used. The force is not necessary. Like you said, you willingly pay for your neighbors education. government is force, nothing else. When the government uses force in order to bring about something good, it is the same as saying the ends justify the means. In a moral society, ends do not justify means.

Allow people to voluntarily do such things. Most people gladly would, those that don't are entitled not to. If you have kids, you should pay for the education, if you don't you should have the option. I can't raise my neighbors kids not to be little jack boot thugs so i shouldn't have to subsidize them either. Just the way I look at things. In a just society nobody would be forced for the good of the nation or not. Force is violent, immoral and should not be in practice.

I find it hard to justify any force being used on people, even the force of government for their own good. Free will is what makes us human.
edit on 19-4-2012 by sageofmonticello because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by sealing

I can answer all your reasons for not voting for Obama with 3 things.
1. He had to because Bush broke the world.


Had to? HAD TO? What was wrong with fixing what Bush broke rather than making it BROKER? What was wrong with at least keeping his campaign promises if he couldn't quite "fix" what Bush broke?



2. The pentagon is the real power.


Riiiight...
That's why they take their orders from DC... because they really have the power, and they just don't want DC to feel bad....



3. You have to purchase auto insurance .


No I don't. I don't have to purchase it, and I don't purchase it. There is no Federal mandate that I purchase auto insurance simply because I live. There is no state mandate - anywhere, that says I have to purchase auto insurance simply because I exist. I don't have to, and in fact I do not purchase it.



I'm not trying to discredit your work by any means,
but if you are going to vote, it's no contest.
Romney is terrible. He doesn't stand a chance.


Yes. Romney IS Obama, with a different paint job. There is no functional difference under the hood.



I'm really worried about what ALEC and the Oil comp
are going to do to ruin the US between now and Nov.
I think they can do some real damage with unlimited
cash and Black Water on speed dial.
Energy Comps know if Obama wins they are gonna pay
taxes for the first time ever. That makes them angry.
We wouldn't like them when they're angry.


YOU fear them if you feel you must. Blackwater sissies can bite me.

Yeah, I said that right out loud and in print. Come get me.



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrNotforhire
I wont be voting for Obama this year

I will be voting for Romney, since the third party will not win...


Not if Chicken Littles won't vote for it, it won't. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy promoted by the fearful.

Why vote for Romney over Obama? What perceived difference do you think you see there?



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 06:16 PM
link   
What worries me most about Obama and his ilk being re-elected? The possibility of him being able to stack the Supreme Court with another 1-2 judges. You will not even recognize the country you were born in.



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Most everyone will use the health services eventually...one of the flaws in life is that we eventually start breaking down...and when that happens, someone calls an ambulance.

Auto Insurance is required only if you plan on using the road...however, if you 'accidently" had to drive, your not exempt from requiring insurance...
People don't plan on getting sick...but people do, everyone does..not a single person has ever not gotten sick and ultimately died from it..batting 100% here. So, until such a time as disease, sickness, accidents, and death is overcome, then its fair to say there is a very high percent chance (like 99.99) that you, me, and everyone else will be using the hospitals, emergency rooms, etc.

So...insurance mandates seems to be very comparable to auto insurance mandates


Negative. I will not be patronizing hospitals, nor will I be purchasing "health care insurance", mandate or no. Not gonna happen. I can die in bed at home just as comfortably as I can die in bed in a hospital, and quite a bit less expensively.

Nope, I'm not participating in your "health care" lotto in any form.



edit on 2012/4/19 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkrunner
What worries me most about Obama and his ilk being re-elected? The possibility of him being able to stack the Supreme Court with another 1-2 judges. You will not even recognize the country you were born in.



Too late.

I already don't recognize the country I was born in.



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 



Negative. I will not be patronizing hospitals, nor will I be purchasing "health care insurance", mandate or no. Not gonna happen. I can die in bed at home just as comfortably as I can die in bed in a hospital, and quite a bit less expensively.

Nope, I'm not participating in your "health care" lotto in any form.


You get in a car accident, or are found unconsciouss anywhere....you will be participating in the hospital system.

You don't have a choice...sorry.



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by TheTardis
 


hence the obvious part, you cant put Obama's name in front of them
2nd



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Haha. Internet hero. Hardly. I know the type you speak of, but you mislabel me. I must confess, with or without National health care, i would prefer they leave me in the street. I don't have much trust in the medical industry, for starters. And aside from that, this world is not much worth fighting hard to stay in. When it's my turn to die, I'll be fine with that. I have not been to a doctor in at least 15 years.
As for mouthing off at police, no. That's usually a really stupid thing to do unless you just like having the book thrown at you or being beaten or tazered



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 06:33 PM
link   
The problem of high health care costs is a very easy one to solve.

I am sure that hardly anyone would like the solution though.



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


ROFL every time you have Debbie Wasserman Schultz talking about Obama she is just as bad as the shills on this site who praise King Obama...I just laugh at her...



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX

... created a improvement of healthcare (still incredibly and woefully short of anything sensible or effective mind you..damn republican plan of nothingness), ...



"Republican plan" my ass.

I detest what Republicans have become, but at least be honest and give them their due. In the house, exactly ONE Republican voted yea on it. ALL of the rest voted nay.

House Obamacare roll call vote

The disparity was even wider in the Senate, where NO Republicans voted for it, and ALL voted against it.

Senate Obamacare roll call vote

"Republican plan" my ass.




I agree there is no liberals up there to choose...but there is a difference...choose a centerist, or a fringe right puppet corporatist. But make no mistake, there is absolutely a difference in rule.



There may be a perceived difference in "rule" at the executive level, but there is no difference at all in the end result. The biggest difference in the parties is the label they apply to themselves in an attempt to fool the voters into thinking there is a difference at election time, which "difference" vanishes when they go to work.




top topics



 
41
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join