Your Government bought and sold by the Health Care industry (Democrats and Republicans)

[justscoreda100]

Oh, please. What your idol Keith Olbermann politely omitted out of that video is that democrats are actually receiving more money than Republicans. What youfailed to realize is that big medicine is playing both sides of the field because either way they still win. If you honestly think that the majority ofpoliticians on both sides have Americas best interest at heart your mistaken. There are ways to reform health care that would dramatically improve the qualityof health care in this country as well as lower the cost. Big medicine will never allow this. They would rather have a plan that would increase their profitsor keep the status quo.

Since Democrats took control of Congress in 2006, health care industry donors have been giving more campaign cash to Democrats than Republicans. Democrats have received about 63% of the health sector's donations so far this year. Overall, the industry appears to be on track to spend more on campaign contributions than in previous years, said David Levinthal, of the Center for Responsive Politics.
It's obvious that some regulations are needed to protect consumers from fraud that some companies may partake in. But history has also shownus that when government gets heavily involved in the private sector it causes bubbles and usually does more good than harm. Government has proved over and overthat when given more responsibility it fails miserably.

 

[essential1]

Originally Posted by JustScoreda100


Oh, please. What your idol Keith Olbermann politely omitted out of that video is that democrats are actually receiving more money than Republicans. What you failed to realize is that big medicine is playing both sides of the field because either way they still win. If you honestly think that the majority of politicians on both sides have Americas best interest at heart your mistaken. There are ways to reform health care that would dramatically improve the quality of health care in this country as well as lower the cost. Big medicine will never allow this. They would rather have a plan that would increase their profits or keep the status quo.

Since Democrats took control of Congress in 2006, health care industry donors have been giving more campaign cash to Democrats than Republicans. Democrats have received about 63% of the health sector's donations so far this year. Overall, the industry appears to be on track to spend more on campaign contributions than in previous years, said David Levinthal, of the Center for Responsive Politics.

It's obvious that some regulations are needed to protect consumers from fraud that some companies may partake in. But history has also shown us that when government gets heavily involved in the private sector it causes bubbles and usually does more good than harm. Government has proved over and over that when given more responsibility it fails miserably.
did you watch the video? He went after Democrats also. May seem like less because only 20 or so Democrats are holding this thing up and 100+Republicans.

Also you are not considering Democrats control about 60% of the Congress. So of course they will get 60% of the money from industry and Dems get paid morebecause they are less of a mouth piece for private insurance than the Corporate Party (republicans). Also

 

[duba169]

the federal government doesn't do an adequate job in regards to medicare, social security, FEMA, hell even the DMV....yet you want them to control yourhealthcare?

INSANITY

 

[justscoreda100]

Essential1 wrote:

---

JustScoreda100 wrote:

---

Oh, please. What your idol Keith Olbermann politely omitted out of that video is that democrats are actually receiving more money than Republicans. What you failed to realize is that big medicine is playing both sides of the field because either way they still win. If you honestly think that the majority of politicians on both sides have Americas best interest at heart your mistaken. There are ways to reform health care that would dramatically improve the quality of health care in this country as well as lower the cost. Big medicine will never allow this. They would rather have a plan that would increase their profits or keep the status quo.

Since Democrats took control of Congress in 2006, health care industry donors have been giving more campaign cash to Democrats than Republicans. Democrats have received about 63% of the health sector's donations so far this year. Overall, the industry appears to be on track to spend more on campaign contributions than in previous years, said David Levinthal, of the Center for Responsive Politics.
It's obvious that some regulations are needed to protect consumers from fraud that some companies may partake in. But history has also shown us that when government gets heavily involved in the private sector it causes bubbles and usually does more good than harm. Government has proved over and over that when given more responsibility it fails miserably.
did you watch the video? He went after Democrats also.

Also you are not considering Democrats control about 60% of the Congress. So of course they will get 60% of the money from industry and Dems get paid more because they are less of a mouth piece for private insurance than the Corporate Party (republicans)


I watched the video. Did you read the link? He only went after democrats who opposed Obama's health care bill. He didn't mention thedemocrats who recieve large campaign contributions from big medicine but still support Obama's plan.

What he's doing is obvious. He's trying to paint the opposition as people who are in the pockets of special interests when in reality most of congressis. You always seem to have an excuse to justify the behavior of democrats. Your no different then the countless republicans that blindly backed Bush for thepast 8 years.

 

[da703trailblaza]

Word^.

I love how Pelosi took $211,000 from the insurance industry and proceeds to call them villains.



but i guess its the same like Ron Paul taking money from stromfront people

 

[justscoreda100]

It proves that most politicians are lying sacks of %@!% that will take money from whoever is willing to give it.

 

[essential1]

Originally Posted by JustScoreda100

Essential1 wrote:

---

JustScoreda100 wrote:

---

Oh, please. What your idol Keith Olbermann politely omitted out of that video is that democrats are actually receiving more money than Republicans. What you failed to realize is that big medicine is playing both sides of the field because either way they still win. If you honestly think that the majority of politicians on both sides have Americas best interest at heart your mistaken. There are ways to reform health care that would dramatically improve the quality of health care in this country as well as lower the cost. Big medicine will never allow this. They would rather have a plan that would increase their profits or keep the status quo.

Since Democrats took control of Congress in 2006, health care industry donors have been giving more campaign cash to Democrats than Republicans. Democrats have received about 63% of the health sector's donations so far this year. Overall, the industry appears to be on track to spend more on campaign contributions than in previous years, said David Levinthal, of the Center for Responsive Politics.

It's obvious that some regulations are needed to protect consumers from fraud that some companies may partake in. But history has also shown us that when government gets heavily involved in the private sector it causes bubbles and usually does more good than harm. Government has proved over and over that when given more responsibility it fails miserably.
did you watch the video? He went after Democrats also.

Also you are not considering Democrats control about 60% of the Congress. So of course they will get 60% of the money from industry and Dems get paid more because they are less of a mouth piece for private insurance than the Corporate Party (republicans)


I watched the video. Did you read the link? He only went after democrats who opposed Obama's health care bill. He didn't mention the democrats who recieve large campaign contributions from big medicine but still support Obama's plan.

What he's doing is obvious. He's trying to paint the opposition as people who are in the pockets of special interests when in reality most of congress is. You always seem to have an excuse to justify the behavior of democrats. Your no different then the countless republicans that blindly backed Bush for the past 8 years.

And he didn't mention Obama himself in that piece because he did.

Yes of course Congress is out of pocket special interests in their own fields. Teddy Kennedy gets paid by health care would you say he is corrupted by them ifyou say so

. When it comes to each topic if they don't side withthe American people then call them out for what they did if they do what Americans wanted (Obama, Kennedy) then they gamed the system.


Oh please stop with the I'm no different than the countless Republicans who backed Bush for 8 years.. Make a topic about torture investigations. GLBTissues, indefinite detainment, the specifics of the bailout, regulations that need to re-established on the financial sector his caving on Gitmo even though hewants to close it. Until a thread like that is made and tells it both ways then don't call me out for something that is untrue.
I will contribute but until then do not

 

[essential1]

Originally Posted by da703trailblaza

Word^.

I love how Pelosi took $211,000 from the insurance industry and proceeds to call them villains.



but i guess its the same like Ron Paul taking money from stromfront people

Is it right? NO.. But this is politics and always will be politics. I was one of the few who really cared less about the Ron Paul situation, hecould have made better judgement but it was a mistake that I think is not indicative of his feelings.

There is a sense of hypocrisy from Pelosi's statement. But Pelosi also is going after them with Public Option.

What is worse (both are bad but out of the two)? 1. Yes I got money from Health Industry but I am going after them anyway because this is what America wants or2. Yes I got money from Health Industry and everything is great there is no need to reform it.

I say 2 is Much Much worse.

 

[essential1]

Originally Posted by JustScoreda100

It proves that most ALL politicians are lying sacks of %@!% that will take money from whoever is willing to give it.

change it to that and we are agreed because they take the money because if they want to stay in office they need that money to campaign. It isjust that some politicians on both sides of different issues can go against industries even after they receive the money which is great when it blows up in alobbyist's face however rare it happens.

 

[justscoreda100]

Think about the public option in a more broader sense. The Health care reform bill in the congress does not actually contain much reform. It is simply anexpansion of Medicare/Medicaid. There is a reason why a majority of americans support health care reform, but also do not support Obama's plan. This billdoes nothing to address the systemic issues within the nations Health care system. It is based solely under the assumption that more accesible Health care willcurve costs. While this may sound good in theory I doubt it will be as effective in practice.

You have to realize who stands to gain the most from an expansion of health coverage. It will not be the average american citizen because examples fromother countries as well as our governments history of performance speak volumes otherwise. Who stands to gain the most? Big Medicine. They are pouring moneyinto congress because congress is essentially pitching a plan that opens up a market of 47 million americans who are currently uninsured. They stand to makehuge profits off a single payer health care system in which their profits are baisically guarenteed by taxpayer money.

You talk about corporate greed and yet you cannot see the level of greed the medical industry is displaying within this bill. Americans want real reformthat reduces costs and increases quality, not just the profits of corporations.

It just seems that you are blindly guided by your liberal ideologies. That is why I compared you to Bush cronies because your doing the exact same thingjust on the opposite side of the spectrum. Of course bringing Health care to all American citizens is the compassionate and moral thing to do but is really thesmartest and most economically sound thing to do? Economics and money play an important role in life no matter what you believe. If this bill economicallyhurts America and lowers the standard of living for future generations, is the justification of free health care really worth it?

 

[craftsy21]

You talk about corporate greed and yet you cannot see the level of greed the medical industry is displaying within this bill. Americans want real reform that reduces costs and increases quality, not just the profits of corporations.

The medical industry is a bunch of corporations - i think everyone is referring to those companies in particular when they talk about "corporategreed" in this discussion.

so i'm not sure what you'redriving at, we're all aware that big medicine is working hard in congress.

Of course bringing Health care to all American citizens is the compassionate and moral thing to do but is really the smartest and most economically sound thing to do? Economics and money play an important role in life no matter what you believe. If this bill economically hurts America and lowers the standard of living for future generations, is the justification of free health care really worth it?
Where was that thinking when we went to war with Iraq and gave out home loans to anybody with a pulse? Quit making this a left and right thing,as you've correctly pointed out this is about the haves and the have-nots. The rich in this country are doing everything possible to eliminate all theircompetition through bills like these, making everybody but themselves and their closest relatives poor peasants.

It's time to cut the bi-partisan games they have us playing against each other and realize that it's all just a handful of huge, global corporationsmaking the wheels spin in washington, and we've got to ban together to take the country back somehow.

 

[duerr]

Originally Posted by da703trailblaza

Word^.

I love how Pelosi took $211,000 from the insurance industry and proceeds to call them villains.



but i guess its the same like Ron Paul taking money from stromfront people

To be fair, Ron Paul refused to return stormfront's money because he said that it would be an admission that any donations they make to hiscampaign would influence his decisions, which he stated that they would not.

I don't think I would have accepted the cash in the first place, but the reasoning for keeping it seems pretty sensible.

 

[rexanglorum]

da703trailblaza wrote:

---

Essential1 wrote:

---

Take a few minutes and read this.

Here's my take on it. They were elected to represent the people. And this current situation with the health care bill is the same with everything else. A big part of the reason why the financial crisis happened (they were paid to look the other way). Health Care (they are paid to kill the bill).. Employment (they are paid to kill any employee benefits bill). I will tell you where this came from. Politics has always been corrupt but in the modern times, Milton Friedman (the fraud of a economist) started the Greed is good movement and conservatives and business followed. When Greed and Capitalism are two completely different things and should be held as far apart away from each other. You know what happens when people become too greedy they get caught or they fail.


My jaw dropped at the bolded part and I stopped reading you're a %%@%%$# moron.

Essential is not a moron.

Essential, you are, however, lost. It is one thing to disagree with Milton Friedman if you understand what he actually argued but when you say that he saidthat greed is good, you clearly have only a very superficial understanding of what Free Enterprise's proponents say, in general, and what Friedman argued,in particular.

 

[wade3county]

the world is a crazy place man.. all this trouble over power, y not just help your fellow man wen he's ill or injured. this is the type of bullcrap thatholds us back from the next evolution of man... dammit now im pissed.

 

[kix4kix]

Originally Posted by Essential1

Actually Milton Friedman being a joke is more widespread than you think. His philosophy on economics is the same philosophy that bankers have used to decimate the financial sector.

Same basis used in the movie Wall Street where Michael Douglass coined the phrase Greed is good. And the same %#* backwards logic Reagan used in his economic policy.


So anyone who ever says what the bankers did was shady, or hated how Reagan treated the poor, or Bush's economic policy laugh at what I said but you agree if you think any of the previous things are true.

Greed and Business don't mix because greed either costs lives or costs businesses.

Come on man, have you ever even read Friedman?

 

[essential1]

Originally Posted by Rexanglorum


Essential is not a moron.

Essential, you are, however, lost. It is one thing to disagree with Milton Friedman if you understand what he actually argued but when you say that he said that greed is good, you clearly have only a very superficial understanding of what Free Enterprise's proponents say, in general, and what Friedman argued, in particular.

I believe in the Free Market (as much as possible. But I also believe that regulation is 100% needed to keep the best interests of both business and citizensin mind. If not one always gets the shaft and we all know who that is. I don't believe in Gov't putting in regulations that keep them from making agood profit and tie their hands so they just become an entity that exist and not a business.)

I don't believe Capitalism/Free Market/Free Enterprise has anything to do with Illegal practice, bribery and risk that is so much that even if you come outeven you ruined your company. I believe that risk is a necessary thing in economics. But there is also things called illegal risk, which is what bankers didwith the mix of bribery. The reason I called Milton Friedman a fraud not because of his certain economic stance that is fine everyone is allowed an opinion andI agree with a good % of what he says. BUT the reason I call him a fraud is what HE allowed his economic policy to become. Just lying, cheating, stealing. Payoff who you can when you can, don't follow laws, cut corners to give yourself as much of the profit you saved when that "profit" is detrimentalto your company. Or firing people because you want to control costs to get more money for yourself. That is where he is a fraud because where he allowed peopleto take it. I highly disagree with his policy on regulation because no regulation is a bad idea. I agree that minimum wage has not gone and may never fulfillits reason for implementation but without a min. wage retail jobs would plummet to 0 for Americans. As would restaurants, fast food, etc. I agree withMarijuana legalization.


I agree on somethings, half agree on others. And strongly disagree on half the things BUT the reason I call him a fraud is his philosophy has made a right handturn from just hands off Capitalism (which is a view point I disagree with because as stated before regulation is necessary but I can respect it) to some sortof cultish idea that justifies Wall Street Greed and is supposed to be the "best philosophy" for the poor but hurts the poor the most.

 

[elgrenas]

Originally Posted by Essential1

Originally Posted by Rexanglorum


Essential is not a moron.

Essential, you are, however, lost. It is one thing to disagree with Milton Friedman if you understand what he actually argued but when you say that he said that greed is good, you clearly have only a very superficial understanding of what Free Enterprise's proponents say, in general, and what Friedman argued, in particular.

I believe in the Free Market (as much as possible. But I also believe that regulation is 100% needed to keep the best interests of both business and citizens in mind. If not one always gets the shaft and we all know who that is. I don't believe in Gov't putting in regulations that keep them from making a good profit and tie their hands so they just become an entity that exist and not a business.)

I don't believe Capitalism/Free Market/Free Enterprise has anything to do with Illegal practice, bribery and risk that is so much that even if you come out even you ruined your company. I believe that risk is a necessary thing in economics. But there is also things called illegal risk, which is what bankers did with the mix of bribery. The reason I called Milton Friedman a fraud not because of his certain economic stance that is fine everyone is allowed an opinion and I agree with a good % of what he says. BUT the reason I call him a fraud is what HE allowed his economic policy to become. Just lying, cheating, stealing. Pay off who you can when you can, don't follow laws, cut corners to give yourself as much of the profit you saved when that "profit" is detrimental to your company. Or firing people because you want to control costs to get more money for yourself. That is where he is a fraud because where he allowed people to take it. I highly disagree with his policy on regulation because no regulation is a bad idea. I agree that minimum wage has not gone and may never fulfill its reason for implementation but without a min. wage retail jobs would plummet to 0 for Americans. As would restaurants, fast food, etc. I agree with Marijuana legalization.


I agree on somethings, half agree on others. And strongly disagree on half the things BUT the reason I call him a fraud is his philosophy has made a right hand turn from just hands off Capitalism (which is a view point I disagree with because as stated before regulation is necessary but I can respect it) to some sort of cultish idea that justifies Wall Street Greed and is supposed to be the "best philosophy" for the poor but hurts the poor the most.

Post from OFA Blog:

Message from the President: "This is the moment our movement was built for."
[table][tr][td]By Christopher Hass - Aug 5th, 2009 at 3:15 pm EDT[/td] [/tr][tr][td]Also listed in: Organizing for Health Care Blog[/td] [/tr][/table]
Comments | Mail to a Friend | Report Objectionable Content

Today, President Obama sent out a message to supporters asking them to get involved in the fight for health insurance reform this month:

This is the moment our movement was built for.

For one month, the fight for health insurance reform leaves the backrooms of Washington, D.C., and returns to communities across America. Throughout August, members of Congress are back home, where the hands they shake and the voices they hear will not belong to lobbyists, but to people like you.

Home is where we're strongest. We didn't win last year's election together at a committee hearing in D.C. We won it on the doorsteps and the phone lines, at the softball games and the town meetings, and in every part of this great country where people gather to talk about what matters most. And if you're willing to step up once again, that's exactly where we're going to win this historic campaign for the guaranteed, affordable health insurance that every American deserves.

There are those who profit from the status quo, or see this debate as a political game, and they will stop at nothing to block reform. They are filling the airwaves and the internet with outrageous falsehoods to scare people into opposing change. And some people, not surprisingly, are getting pretty nervous. So we've got to get out there, fight lies with truth, and set the record straight.

That's why Organizing for America is putting together thousands of events this month where you can reach out to neighbors, show your support, and make certain your members of Congress know that you're counting on them to act.

But these canvasses, town halls, and gatherings only make a difference if you turn up to knock on doors, share your views, and show your support. So here's what I need from you:

Can you commit to join at least one event in your community this month?

In politics, there's a rule that says when you ask people to get involved, always tell them it'll be easy. Well, let's be honest here: Passing comprehensive health insurance reform will not be easy. Every President since Harry Truman has talked about it, and the most powerful and experienced lobbyists in Washington stand in the way.

But every day we don't act, Americans watch their premiums rise three times faster than wages, small businesses and families are pushed towards bankruptcy, and 14,000 people lose their coverage entirely. The cost of inaction is simply too much for the people of this nation to bear.

So yes, fixing this crisis will not be easy. Our opponents will attack us every day for daring to try. It will require time, and hard work, and there will be days when we don't know if we have anything more to give. But there comes a moment when we all have to choose between doing what's easy, and doing what's right.

This is one of those times. And moments like this are what this movement was built for. So, are you ready?

Please commit now to taking at least one action in your community this month to build support for health insurance reform:

http://my.barackobama.com/CommitAugust

Let's seize this moment and win this historic victory for our economy, our health and our families.

Thank you,

President Barack Obama

here you go essential they might have an extra small brown shirt for you. also were is first born he might need a medium. you go bunch of drones. hahahaha the annointed one is feeling the heat from the right wing extremist as they labeled them. so he need the brown shirts to engage and move. its od that a person who did community organization in chicago, is gettin heated cause they are people standing to his sorry @ss.

 

[rexanglorum]

Essential1 wrote:

---

Originally Posted by Rexanglorum


Essential is not a moron.

Essential, you are, however, lost. It is one thing to disagree with Milton Friedman if you understand what he actually argued but when you say that he said that greed is good, you clearly have only a very superficial understanding of what Free Enterprise's proponents say, in general, and what Friedman argued, in particular.

I believe in the Free Market (as much as possible. But I also believe that regulation is 100% needed to keep the best interests of both business and citizens in mind. If not one always gets the shaft and we all know who that is. I don't believe in Gov't putting in regulations that keep them from making a good profit and tie their hands so they just become an entity that exist and not a business.)

I don't believe Capitalism/Free Market/Free Enterprise has anything to do with Illegal practice, bribery and risk that is so much that even if you come out even you ruined your company. I believe that risk is a necessary thing in economics. But there is also things called illegal risk, which is what bankers did with the mix of bribery. The reason I called Milton Friedman a fraud not because of his certain economic stance that is fine everyone is allowed an opinion and I agree with a good % of what he says. BUT the reason I call him a fraud is what HE allowed his economic policy to become. Just lying, cheating, stealing. Pay off who you can when you can, don't follow laws, cut corners to give yourself as much of the profit you saved when that "profit" is detrimental to your company. Or firing people because you want to control costs to get more money for yourself. That is where he is a fraud because where he allowed people to take it. I highly disagree with his policy on regulation because no regulation is a bad idea. I agree that minimum wage has not gone and may never fulfill its reason for implementation but without a min. wage retail jobs would plummet to 0 for Americans. As would restaurants, fast food, etc. I agree with Marijuana legalization.


I agree on somethings, half agree on others. And strongly disagree on half the things BUT the reason I call him a fraud is his philosophy has made a right hand turn from just hands off Capitalism (which is a view point I disagree with because as stated before regulation is necessary but I can respect it) to some sort of cultish idea that justifies Wall Street Greed and is supposed to be the "best philosophy" for the poor but hurts the poor the most.


I see what you are saying but let me address the three points that you bolded.

First, you cannot blame him for what politicians do. He never had an formal power in government, he could only advise. When he told Nixon not to implement wageand price controls, Nixon did so. When he told Reagan not impose new tariffs, Regan did so anyway. The only major policy shift to which Friedman gives himselfcredit is the abolition of the draft, that is it. It is true that he and others did present a viable alternative to the centrally planned economies andKeynsian monetary policies that predominated after WWII and when those systems began to collapse in the 1970's, 1980's and 1990's, Friedman'smarket oriented ideas formed the basis of the alternatives that supplanted those old policies. However, they were greatly perverted by the inherently corruptnature of the political process and Friedman's views, full of confidence in competition and free enterprise, were polluted by the terrible influences ofcorporatism.

Second, he never was opposed to any and all government and regulations. He emphatically said that freedom includes the freedom from being harmed againstone's will. He was weary of the ability of regulators to actually improve our lives, he saw them as very likely to be tainted by corruption and politicalpressures and that regulatory agencies would either be impotent or would actually reduce consumer choice and consumer welfare. He was right. he was neverphilosophically opposed to laws or the use of the courts to stop the imposition of an externality or fraud on the part of another party.

Third, he was against the minimum wage. It is very doubtful that wages would drop to zero. Babysitters and Illegal Aliens, who are day laborers and Nannies, donot receive a zero wage despite being beyond the jurisdiction of minimum wage laws. In some cases, where minimum is abolished, the wages would be lower amongthe unskilled, but unemployment would be lower as well. To address the fact that low wages do cause a hardship, he was in favor of a negative income tax thatwould not discourage against work like welfare currently does. Instead, it would help people to a degree that is based on how little he or she earns.

 

[justscoreda100]

Originally Posted by Craftsy21

You talk about corporate greed and yet you cannot see the level of greed the medical industry is displaying within this bill. Americans want real reform that reduces costs and increases quality, not just the profits of corporations.

The medical industry is a bunch of corporations - i think everyone is referring to those companies in particular when they talk about "corporate greed" in this discussion.

so i'm not sure what you're driving at, we're all aware that big medicine is working hard in congress.

Of course bringing Health care to all American citizens is the compassionate and moral thing to do but is really the smartest and most economically sound thing to do? Economics and money play an important role in life no matter what you believe. If this bill economically hurts America and lowers the standard of living for future generations, is the justification of free health care really worth it?
Where was that thinking when we went to war with Iraq and gave out home loans to anybody with a pulse? Quit making this a left and right thing, as you've correctly pointed out this is about the haves and the have-nots. The rich in this country are doing everything possible to eliminate all their competition through bills like these, making everybody but themselves and their closest relatives poor peasants.

It's time to cut the bi-partisan games they have us playing against each other and realize that it's all just a handful of huge, global corporations making the wheels spin in washington, and we've got to ban together to take the country back somehow.


That thinking, at least in my mind and the minds of most independents were exactly the same now as it was then. Why are you assuming that Isupported the war? I dont support massive government spending on any front. I wasn't making this a left vs right thing. If you actually read my posts youwould see that I have been only addressing what essentials story omitted.

You're correct about this being about the haves vs the have-nots. However, I do not believe that giving the government (which is known to be controlled bythe elite in this country) more of the have-nots income to mispend on wasteful programs and to be missaproiated on fraudulent back door contracts. Increasingtaxes actually help the ruling elite by taking more of their competitors income. I believe that when you give people more control of their income they are ableto use it on more efficent items that help improve their standard of life and help to elevate their economic standing.

 

[rillo561]

A public option is the way to go IMO. Competition is needed.

 

[rillo561]

Originally Posted by DubA169

the federal government doesn't do an adequate job in regards to medicare, social security, FEMA, hell even the DMV....yet you want them to control your healthcare?

INSANITY

FEMA was great in my area when a few hurricanes hit FL a couple years back(can't say the same about N.O., but that's a different story),the DMV in my area is ok too. My father and his brothers are all Vietnam vets, and they don't complain about the VA, also my late grandparents had noproblems with medicare/medicaid. Not every thing the government runs is crap, private insurance companies are crooks and competition is needed IMO.

 

[calikix88]

Originally Posted by kix4kix

Originally Posted by apassionforshoes23

^If people would stop eating CRAP then maybe we wouldn't need doctors. Food minus chemicals=Utopia

You joking dude, I hope you joking. Eating healthy is like being religious, nobody really knows if it helps, but it sure doesn't hurt.

You realize how many illnesses are not related to what we eat?

QFT

 

[da703trailblaza]

Rex, you're right and sorry essential. I just tend to exaggerate things on the internet. What you outlined about Friedman was very good.

I'll try to keep my outbursts under control

Actually Essential, I know you're firmly rooted in your beliefs but I would recommend that you at least look into F.A. Hayek's The Road to Serfdom. Iwould honestly be interested in seeing if it opened your eyes or changes the way you view anything.

 

[essential1]

da703trailblaza wrote:

---

Rex, you're right and sorry essential. I just tend to exaggerate things on the internet. What you outlined about Friedman was very good.

I'll try to keep my outbursts under control

Actually Essential, I know you're firmly rooted in your beliefs but I would recommend that you at least look into F.A. Hayek's The Road to Serfdom. I would honestly be interested in seeing if it opened your eyes or changes the way you view anything.
Naw it's cool man. I misstated myself to begin with. I do believe Friedman has his pros and cons which I have with everything as shouldeveryone (believe it or not Obama has his pros and cons to me. People are so quick to call me a sheep or a "brown shirt" because I agree with himmore than 75% of the time. It just so happens he believes in many of the same things as me. I believed what I believe today since I was able to grasp thesubjects before I even knew about Obama. But a sheep is a person who blindly follows a person. I know the issues, the other side, the pro/cons. If someonewanted to talk about state secrets and torture investigation or the way Obama has went about treating the gay community I am highly angry about it.. BUT evenwhen I disagree with him or a Conservative I can get the political reason of why someone does something.) The notion that I am some sort of sheep pisses me offbecause I agree with a majority of Obama's policies, if I came in with just Obama

in every Obama thread then it is a valid argument. But every thread I makesubstantive contribution and know the topic. That is not sheep. I will admit that each side has their sheep. Liberals have a lot of them when it comes to nonsocial issues because they are not interested in the subject. Conservatives have a lot of sheep also, I will not get into the arguments I have had withConservatives off the Internet. It's life people will never know everything. Obama had/has his sheep. McCain does. Even Bush did.

I will try to look at that book or the breakdown it will be hard to get to it because I have a book list the size of the stimulus but I will definitely look atthe breakdown. I am only deeply rooted in Liberalism in social/morality views. When it comes to war I am Moderate because on one side I do not say "Weshould never go to war" <= that is looney left and on the opposite end I do not think "We must defend America by attacking all who do not marchin lock step." I believe we should fight tactfully, not half #** fighting if we do. And not live by a good vs. evil compass because the world is much morecomplicated than good & evil.. I am a business major, so business I am a moderate. Regulations I am moderate. Economics during times of"normalcy" I am a moderate. Times of crisis I am a liberal in economic. I can concede that certain things of liberalism do not work in economics butneither does conservatism.

 

[rockybalboa25]

Essential1 wrote:

---

Take a few minutes and read this.

Here's my take on it. They were elected to represent the people. And this current situation with the health care bill is the same witheverything else. A big part of the reason why the financial crisis happened (they were paid to look the other way). Health Care (they are paid to kill thebill).. Employment (they are paid to kill any employee benefits bill). I will tell you where this came from. Politics has always been corrupt but in the moderntimes, Milton Friedman (the fraud of a economist) started the Greed is good movement and conservatives and business followed. When Greed and Capitalism are twocompletely different things and should be held as far apart away from each other. You know what happens when people become too greedy they get caught or theyfail. Enron, Lehman, Goldman Sachs, AIG, Citi, the list goes on. In capitalism you try to make as much money as possible BUT once you start cutting corners,and breaking rules that were meant to keep you from falling apart that is greed and that is when you lose.

I have no problem with getting the Campaign Contributions from Companies but the minute it affects your judgement which it 90% of the time does, Americanssuffer. Olbermann made the point of Obama getting 18mil from health care BUT this is not what they paid him for. He is representing the people. Teddy Kennedyprobably gets money from health care and he still went after them at every chance. They still do their job in this standpoint.

I am furious at these not "Blue Dogs" not "Conservative Democrats" but "Corporate Democrats" because they were elected to changethis *!%# hole this country was turned into and they are not doing it. I am angry at the republicans BUT I expect it because rarely are they on theside of the people.

---

I realize you don't think very high of Republicans but based on those two bolded statements, are you claiming that Republicans are so dumb that theyhelp to elect congressmen who aren't on their side and are actually working against them? I think the more realistic statement would be that republicansare rarely on YOUR side and that's based purely on your political views. The same could be said by a Republican about a Democrat congressman.

Essential1 wrote:

---

Stop with the fear mongering. To the second separated statement not one of those are true and is not even a possibility.

To the first statement we wouldn't need government to step in if private insurance did not screw up the system. So the only reason that private insurance can't compete IS because they are inefficient. Your comeback: You can't compete with government they have endless supply of money. My response: What do you say if I told you in other markets there is competition between gov't and private sector? USPS, UPS & Fedex. Private insurance dug their hole now the free market is going to correct it. If they can't compete it is because they offer insufficient goods at a awful price. 5 million have been dropped since Sept 08 from private insurance. Since 1999 health care costs have gone up 119%..

Who wants to do the same thing we did in 1993 and kill a health care bill and see if it turns out different? raise your hand, if that is you.

Also you complain about Medicare, Medicade, and the VA.. Like Rep. Weiner of NY said take it away try to vote to abolish it see where it gets you.. I will find the video in a sec.

---

I agree that there are sectors in which the government and private business do compete and it is effective. However, the way our government works, it could easily put a private company out of business. What if the government decided that USPS would ship everything and anything for free for a year. While the government would obviously lose money and go deeper into debt, it would successfully put the private companies out of business because no company could/would operate at such a large deficit. At that point, the government could either continue to operate at a loss or raise the prices now that the competition was gone. That example was extreme but it is possible and it illustrated how the government could put a private company out of business even when the private company doesn't have "insufficient goods at an awful price".

Essential1 wrote:

---

JustScoreda100 wrote:

---

Oh, please. What your idol Keith Olbermann politely omitted out of that video is that democrats are actually receiving more money than Republicans. What youfailed to realize is that big medicine is playing both sides of the field because either way they still win. If you honestly think that the majority ofpoliticians on both sides have Americas best interest at heart your mistaken. There are ways to reform health care that would dramatically improve the qualityof health care in this country as well as lower the cost. Big medicine will never allow this. They would rather have a plan that would increase their profitsor keep the status quo.

Since Democrats took control of Congress in 2006, health care industry donors have beengiving more campaign cash to Democrats than Republicans. Democrats have received about 63% of the health sector's donations so far this year. Overall, theindustry appears to be on track to spend more on campaign contributions than in previous years, said David Levinthal, of the Center for ResponsivePolitics.

It's obvious that some regulations are needed to protect consumers from fraud that some companies may partake in. But history has also shown us thatwhen government gets heavily involved in the private sector it causes bubbles and usually does more good than harm. Government has proved over and over thatwhen given more responsibility it fails miserably.

did you watch the video? He went after Democrats also. May seem like less because only 20 or so Democrats are holding this thing up and 100+ Republicans.

Also you are not considering Democrats control about 60% of the Congress. So of course they will get 60% of the money from industry and Dems get paid more because they are less of a mouth piece for private insurance than the Corporate Party (republicans). Also

---

You were almost logical with your 60% control vs 63% of campaign contributions idea but you failed to differentiate between campaign contributions and lobbying. Your idea makes sense for lobbying but campaign financing occurs before the election. More campaign money enables a candidate to do more and in close races, it could potentially give a candidate the extra boast to win the election.




rillo561 wrote:

---

FEMA was great in my area when a few hurricanes hit FL a couple years back(can't say the same about N.O., but that's a different story), the DMV in my area is ok too. My father and his brothers are all Vietnam vets, and they don't complain about the VA, also my late grandparents had no problems with medicare/medicaid. Not every thing the government runs is crap, private insurance companies are crooks and competition is needed IMO.

---

While your personal experiences are valid, those experiences are not the same for all Americans, life your example with FEMA. Even though not all of the government agencies are complete 'crap', I seriously doubt that any of them are run as efficiently and effectively as they could be.