Badmovies.org Forum

Movies => Press Releases and Film News => Topic started by: Jim H on January 19, 2010, 11:02:16 PM



Title: Republican Scott Brown defeats Coakley in Massachusetts
Post by: Jim H on January 19, 2010, 11:02:16 PM
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_MASSACHUSETTS_SENATE?SITE=VTBEN&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_MASSACHUSETTS_SENATE?SITE=VTBEN&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT)
Quote
In epic upset, GOP's Brown wins Mass. Senate race

Quote
BOSTON (AP) -- In an epic upset in liberal Massachusetts, Republican Scott Brown rode a wave of voter anger to win the U.S. Senate seat held by the late Edward M. Kennedy for nearly half a century, leaving President Barack Obama's health care overhaul in doubt and marring the end of his first year in office.

The loss by the once-favored Democrat Martha Coakley in the Democratic stronghold was a stunning embarrassment for the White House after Obama rushed to Boston on Sunday to try to save the foundering candidate. Her defeat on Tuesday signaled big political problems for the president's party this fall when House, Senate and gubernatorial candidates are on the ballot nationwide.

"I have no interest in sugarcoating what happened in Massachusetts," said Sen. Robert Menendez, the head of the Senate Democrats' campaign committee. "There is a lot of anxiety in the country right now. Americans are understandably impatient."

Brown will become the 41st Republican in the 100-member Senate, which could allow the GOP to block the president's health care legislation and the rest of his agenda. Democrats needed Coakley to win for a 60th vote to thwart Republican filibusters.

The Republican will finish Kennedy's unexpired term, facing re-election in 2012.


Regardless of your views on health care, something has to be done for it.  From what I've seen of the Republicans on this, they have no real idea what to do except to prevent the democracts from doing anything (all the republican ideas are scattered and there's no unity, which makes them utterly useless as anything besides obstacles).  There's not even an attempt to reach a compromise from them on anything.  So, I find it pretty sad that the democrats have lost their filibuster proof majority on this. 

It's equally sad that Kennedy's death leads to the situation, considering what he tried to do with the large majority of his career.  No matter what else you may think of the man, he certainly tried hard for health care reform long before it was such a hot button issue.


Title: Re: Republican Scott Brown defeats Coakley in Massachusetts
Post by: indianasmith on January 19, 2010, 11:16:42 PM
As a staunch opponent of socialized medicine, I take the opposite view.  the Democrats brought this on themselves through their arrogance and sense of entitlement, and Brown ran a magnificent campaign.  I have a feeling the Dems are going to get a 1994-style "woodshedding" this fall and I am thrilled at the prospect!

At the same time, if this issue means a lot to you, I can sympathize with what it feels like for the guys you support to get slammed at the polls.  It's happened to me in the last two election cycles.

In summation, you have my sympathy on a personal level, but I think this outcome is best for the country as a whole.  I don't believe socialized medicine is good for America, and the current "health care" bill is the worst of both worlds - it doesn't really extend coverage to that many more Americans, and it will drive many private insurers out of business.


Title: Re: Republican Scott Brown defeats Coakley in Massachusetts
Post by: 3mnkids on January 20, 2010, 12:02:43 AM
Its unfortunate that he won but the democrats didnt use the gift of a filibuster majority anyway. They cowed down, kissed ass, and played nice when they should have done what the republicans would have.. said eff you! we are passing it.

The republicans dont have a plan, other than too obstruct the process.   In the long run I dont believe this one election matters. Its not like everyone is going to vote republican.. Coakley was a sorry candidate.

Im not a fan of the heath care bill as it stands now but do believe we need something. To many people are dying while insurance companies get rich. enough.


Title: Re: Republican Scott Brown defeats Coakley in Massachusetts
Post by: Jim H on January 20, 2010, 12:06:48 AM
The current plan isn't socialized medicine (especially not with the dropped public option), and it isn't fantastic.  But it's still better than nothing.  We're not going to get nothing even with the lost seat, since there are still ways for the democrats to get this passed if they wish.  But, with the way politics are right now, when the two sides are quite close in the senate, it just means we get NOTHING AT ALL, or bills watered down so much they're virtually worthless.  Not to say the democrats would be leaning way over the aisle if they were the minority either.  The republicans now sure aren't, though.

And with the republicans scattered with no clear direction at all, and no real plans for health care, I'd rather the democrats be leading right now.  I don't really know what is the best system, I just know the health care industry is incredibly inefficient and makes ridiculous profits.  I think I like the German idea of forcing them to be non-profit.  Their health care system is great, is far cheaper than ours, and isn't socialized.  

On another note, I keep hearing the republicans complaining the public option would kill off private insurers because...  It'd have a larger pool, and thereby be cheaper.  With or without huge government subsidy.  Shouldn't the democrats be making this argument?




....I think what we need right now is a constitutional amendment banning political parties.  How 'bout it?   :tongueout:


Title: Re: Republican Scott Brown defeats Coakley in Massachusetts
Post by: indianasmith on January 20, 2010, 12:21:37 AM
they would just re-emerge under another name.  It is the nature of like-minded people to  band together, since the days of Jefferson and Hamilton.


Title: Re: Republican Scott Brown defeats Coakley in Massachusetts
Post by: flackbait on January 20, 2010, 12:48:29 AM
Of course one should note that just becuase there are 41 republican seats doesn't mean that all of them are going to vote down the bill, just as all of the 59 democrats might not vote for the bill. Also sometimes senators don't vote! A good example would be the senate motion condeming McCarthy in the 50s the vote was 65-22 that only is 87 votes, which leaves over ten senators unaccounted for (I can't remember how many states there where at this time so there might have been less than 100 senators)!


Title: Re: Republican Scott Brown defeats Coakley in Massachusetts
Post by: Allhallowsday on January 20, 2010, 01:22:48 AM
Of course one should note that just becuase there are 41 republican seats doesn't mean that all of them are going to vote down the bill, just as all of the 59 democrats might not vote for the bill. Also sometimes senators don't vote! A good example would be the senate motion condeming McCarthy in the 50s the vote was 65-22 that only is 87 votes, which leaves over ten senators unaccounted for (I can't remember how many states there where at this time so there might have been less than 100 senators)!
There were 48 states at that time, and for a long time prior.


Title: Re: Republican Scott Brown defeats Coakley in Massachusetts
Post by: trekgeezer on January 20, 2010, 08:45:01 AM
it just means we get NOTHING AT ALL,



....I think what we need right now is a constitutional amendment banning political parties.  How 'bout it?   :tongueout:


I'm with you Jim , you hit the nail on the head.  This is the Democrats fault though.  They should've said to hell with bipartisanship pushed their agenda through.  We're going to have nothing now but the same old bickering.

 


Title: Re: Republican Scott Brown defeats Coakley in Massachusetts
Post by: Skull on January 20, 2010, 12:38:33 PM
If the "Health Care" plan is so dam good then whats with the back door deals? Why is it so necessary to push the bill into law and the "Health Care Plan" will not be activated until after 2012, yet people will be paying taxes on the bill as early as this year!

The idea stinks and I'm very happy that the American People told Obama "STOP!"

The point of this election is a stepping stone... American People are not taking this crap any more and most importantly is telling the dems and those working with Obama's Health Care plan, the Global Warming Hoax and the Trillion Dollar Bill that their days are numbered.

Today... Obama is a Lame Duck President!


Title: Re: Republican Scott Brown defeats Coakley in Massachusetts
Post by: Rev. Powell on January 20, 2010, 01:23:46 PM
The particular hot button issue of health care aside, I don't think it's healthy for our political system for one party to hold a large legislative majority, epecially when they also control the White House.  Fortunately, things always seem to return to an equilibrium whenever one party gets too much power.


Title: Re: Republican Scott Brown defeats Coakley in Massachusetts
Post by: Skull on January 20, 2010, 03:41:00 PM
The particular hot button issue of health care aside, I don't think it's healthy for our political system for one party to hold a large legislative majority, epecially when they also control the White House.  Fortunately, things always seem to return to an equilibrium whenever one party gets too much power.

Health Care wouldnt be such a hot button issue if its about Health Care for the poor, like they keep saying...

But the reality is the proposed plan is not targeted for the poor but its subjected into lumping everybody (black, white, green aliens, etc.) into two categories... Those that work for the government (which gets a better deal with the Health Care package) and those that dont (who would end up getting the general plan). In theory (dirty secret here) is those working for the government would become part of the new election machine and they are likely to keep voting for the party that supports their current lifestyle, while thoes getting the general plan are subjected to restrictions and must pay for the taxes...

after all the government doesnt make any money they just take money from those that do and somebody has to pay for their cherry health care plan.

Is single party control a bad thing? It only becomes a bad when the single party isnt listening to the American People.

The problem with our government is not the parties but the system and we need to fix the following:

Term limits... There is no F'n reason for Ted Kennedy to be a sitting Senator 47 years. Our founding fathers wanted a country that is ruled by the people not by a stinking king and all elected government fractions should be subjected to term limits.

Photo ID's required for voting... Here is a silly question, Why not? If I need a beer I need to show an ID. I'm getting tired of hearing about voter fraud, Acorn, the Dead voters, Micky Mouse, "Vote early and vote often", etc... If a photo ID's were used then maybe Ted Kennedy wouldnt be Senator for 47 years...

No Political Campaign Fundraising is needed... Most of the corruption starts here! Political Campaign Fundraising seems like a payoff at times and although it does cost money to pay for posters and people to knock door to door but it hardly necessry needed to raise thousands/millions of dollars, also I dont see a problem for those running for government can use the campaign as a tax deduction (although I'd wouldnt be surprise if its currently is). I also think the internet is a wounderful tool.

All elected officals should only get a buck a year and no Pension... crap, there are elected government officals that are recieving 2 or more pensions... and I'm not talking about small change either. Also there is no reason for the elected offical to live like a king, unless they had money before they get into office.

Double the criminal sentence if an elected offical was found guilty for a crime. Enough of the fun, games and the Corruption.


:)







Title: Re: Republican Scott Brown defeats Coakley in Massachusetts
Post by: Jim H on January 20, 2010, 04:56:11 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100120/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100120/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul)

Looking at what Obama is trying to do with the health care bill, it's now going to be almost entirely a waste of time.  Great.  Well, the pre-existing condition bit is good, at least.

The republicans will never make any real effort to improve the situation, as near as I can tell.  The republican plan being "Don't get sick" seems pretty accurate.  Seriously.  Regardless of what you think of socialized medicine or the democratic plans, it's at least an attempt.  The republicans have not done anything even close in any recent timeframe, and none of the occasional ideas tossed out are broadly supported by the party.  So we've got a situation that causes thousands to die annually and millions to declare bankruptcy, and the Republicans have evidently decided this status quo is acceptable.  What am I to make of such people?

Quote
But the reality is the proposed plan is not targeted for the poor but its subjected into lumping everybody (black, white, green aliens, etc.) into two categories... Those that work for the government (which gets a better deal with the Health Care package) and those that dont (who would end up getting the general plan). In theory (dirty secret here) is those working for the government would become part of the new election machine and they are likely to keep voting for the party that supports their current lifestyle, while thoes getting the general plan are subjected to restrictions and must pay for the taxes...


What are you talking about?  Have you actually looked at the bill in question?  I might also add the number of government employees is not significant enough to keep anyone in power - it's less than 1% of the population.  


Title: Re: Republican Scott Brown defeats Coakley in Massachusetts
Post by: akiratubo on January 20, 2010, 05:06:19 PM
The particular hot button issue of health care aside, I don't think it's healthy for our political system for one party to hold a large legislative majority, epecially when they also control the White House.  Fortunately, things always seem to return to an equilibrium whenever one party gets too much power.

We need a viable third party for sure.


Title: Re: Republican Scott Brown defeats Coakley in Massachusetts
Post by: InformationGeek on January 20, 2010, 05:39:29 PM
I really don't have much of an opinion on the whole situation.  All I know is that this Health Care Bill or whatever isn't coming for a long time. 


Title: Re: Republican Scott Brown defeats Coakley in Massachusetts
Post by: Skull on January 20, 2010, 06:00:27 PM

What are you talking about?  Have you actually looked at the bill in question?  I might also add the number of government employees is not significant enough to keep anyone in power - it's less than 1% of the population.  


hehehe... I guess you dont live in Chicago... There is a reason why its called the Chicago Democratic Machine...


Your also not factoring those that depend on the government, currently we have 10% (maybe more) unemployment and the millions collecting goverment aid becaue they are poor. And lets not forget the back door deals.


Like I said...

If the "Health Care" plan is so dam good then whats with the back door deals? Why is it so necessary to push the bill into law and the "Health Care Plan" will not be activated until after 2012, yet people will be paying taxes on the bill as early as this year!



Title: Re: Republican Scott Brown defeats Coakley in Massachusetts
Post by: Jim H on January 20, 2010, 11:18:37 PM

What are you talking about?  Have you actually looked at the bill in question?  I might also add the number of government employees is not significant enough to keep anyone in power - it's less than 1% of the population.  


hehehe... I guess you dont live in Chicago... There is a reason why its called the Chicago Democratic Machine...


Your also not factoring those that depend on the government, currently we have 10% (maybe more) unemployment and the millions collecting goverment aid becaue they are poor. And lets not forget the back door deals.
Quote

So, people on unemployment/collecting government aid will be able to use government insurance?  That's what you're implying, and I'm pretty sure that's simply wrong.  I also don't follow your logic on the employees, since government health care is ALREADY good, and isn't going away in any case.

Quote
Like I said...

If the "Health Care" plan is so dam good then whats with the back door deals? Why is it so necessary to push the bill into law and the "Health Care Plan" will not be activated until after 2012, yet people will be paying taxes on the bill as early as this year!

Which deals are you referring to?  You should also realize that no matter how great a legislative move is, there's an awful lot of scum in the capitol who will take advantage of it in anyway they can.  There doesn't have to be an overarching conspiracy.


Title: Re: Republican Scott Brown defeats Coakley in Massachusetts
Post by: SPazzo on January 20, 2010, 11:36:17 PM
I really don't have much of an opinion on the whole situation.  All I know is that this Health Care Bill or whatever isn't coming for a long time. 

Come to Canada!  We've got it, and we love it.  I think the reason that some people don't want it is because they don't want to have to pay for other people's health care bill, even indirectly.  It's their money, why should it go to other people?  It's just friggin greed.  :lookingup:
[/rant]


Title: Re: Republican Scott Brown defeats Coakley in Massachusetts
Post by: indianasmith on January 20, 2010, 11:57:33 PM
I don't care for that point of view.  I donate several thousand each year to various missions and charities.  The government takes about a third of what I make in taxes.  This bill will increase that percentage significantly, while limiting my own choices in health care providers and treatments.

I think the ills of private health insurance are relentlessly exaggerated by those who want to see a government takeover of the whole industry.  It's not a perfect system, but it isn't nearly as bad as some make it out to be.


Title: Re: Republican Scott Brown defeats Coakley in Massachusetts
Post by: SPazzo on January 21, 2010, 12:27:49 AM
The government takes about a third of what I make in taxes.  This bill will increase that percentage significantly, while limiting my own choices in health care providers and treatments.

Maybe if the government didn't spend so much in defense they wouldn't have to.


Title: Re: Republican Scott Brown defeats Coakley in Massachusetts
Post by: Skull on January 21, 2010, 01:10:53 AM

So, people on unemployment/collecting government aid will be able to use government insurance?  That's what you're implying, and I'm pretty sure that's simply wrong.  I also don't follow your logic on the employees, since government health care is ALREADY good, and isn't going away in any case.


Sorry, its really hard to explain within a few lines...

First, the rise of unemployment was the plan into getting the American People into supporting government programs. The sound of Heath Care seems like a good idea when your not able to get a job or your working with a pay cut. Yep, Obama is intentionally causing the high unemployment by saying things like "new taxes are on the way!" this forces people not to hire more workers because they dont know what is going to happen within a few months.

Second, you have a sloth factor... These are the people that Obama/government wants... They Need Government and will vote for those supporting them with free programs.

Third, you are givin the illusion that everybody has the same Health Care Plan (General Health Care Plan ~ category 1) So the Sloths and those stuck at hardtimes will accept the "high demands" on Health Care because the Rich is stuck with the same plan. They will likely vote to keep the system going. (Look at social security everytime a republican runs for office somebody starts shouting "He/She is going to kill social security)

Forth, Special groups (the back room dealings), Government has a better Health Care Plan (category 2) they will do almost anything to keep their cherry plan.




Quote
Which deals are you referring to?


Hmmmmm... do I really need to list them? It the "dealing" they made so they can get the vote...

Quote
You should also realize that no matter how great a legislative move is, there's an awful lot of scum in the capitol who will take advantage of it in anyway they can.

Are you suggesting that the dealings are necessary to move legislation?  Really? I'd wonder what deals were made to push Civil Rights... [If its good legislation then there is no dealing needed, otherwise its junk!]

Quote
There doesn't have to be an overarching conspiracy.

Agree... but the Current Health Care plan sucks because its about everything but "Health Care"

If you ask those rep/sen that voted on the "Health Care Plan" if they read the bill they are likey to say "no!" (We are talking about legislation that effects everybody in the US and they didnt read the bill they are voting on... And if they say they did they are lying, there is no way they can read and check the materials of a few thousand pages printed a day before the voting.)

Talk about conspiracies...

Sure I'm assuming a theory thats the Health Care Plan is a doorway into creating a New Democratic Machine but its the only one that does make sense... I personally dont think Obama wants to tell the American People (for example) we are banning "pop" because the sugar causes people to get fat and they are likely to get diabetes and its a strain on our HEALTH CARE PLAN. [although the power from the Health care plan can give the government the authority to tell people how to live based on the cost]



Title: Re: Republican Scott Brown defeats Coakley in Massachusetts
Post by: Skull on January 21, 2010, 01:18:06 AM
The government takes about a third of what I make in taxes.  This bill will increase that percentage significantly, while limiting my own choices in health care providers and treatments.

Maybe if the government didn't spend so much in defense they wouldn't have to.

Defense is necessary... If there is no America then there is no FREE WORLD. Its that simple.

Maybe if the government can stop acting like children in a candy store...


Title: Re: Republican Scott Brown defeats Coakley in Massachusetts
Post by: Pennywise on January 21, 2010, 02:29:22 AM
It would have been a more meaningful victory if a third party candidate had run and won. I don't see how electing a Republican would solve any problems after watching the stuff Republicans have been doing over the last nine years. Revenge is petty and never really pays off in the long run, expecially in an election.


Title: Re: Republican Scott Brown defeats Coakley in Massachusetts
Post by: Allhallowsday on January 22, 2010, 11:00:37 PM
I don't care for that point of view.  I donate several thousand each year to various missions and charities.  The government takes about a third of what I make in taxes.  This bill will increase that percentage significantly, while limiting my own choices in health care providers and treatments.

I think the ills of private health insurance are relentlessly exaggerated by those who want to see a government takeover of the whole industry.  It's not a perfect system, but it isn't nearly as bad as some make it out to be.
Have you ever been ill?  Have you ever had to use your insurance?  Does your employer pay all or a portion of your health insurance?  If not, do you pay for your own family policy?  How many individuals in your family are being covered by your policy?  Are both you and your spouse working?  And if so, earning insurance coverage?  How would your choices for health care providers and/or treatments be effected by the Health Care Bill? 


Title: Re: Republican Scott Brown defeats Coakley in Massachusetts
Post by: Skull on January 23, 2010, 09:22:56 AM
I don't care for that point of view.  I donate several thousand each year to various missions and charities.  The government takes about a third of what I make in taxes.  This bill will increase that percentage significantly, while limiting my own choices in health care providers and treatments.

I think the ills of private health insurance are relentlessly exaggerated by those who want to see a government takeover of the whole industry.  It's not a perfect system, but it isn't nearly as bad as some make it out to be.
Have you ever been ill?  Have you ever had to use your insurance?  Does your employer pay all or a portion of your health insurance?  If not, do you pay for your own family policy?  How many individuals in your family are being covered by your policy?  Are both you and your spouse working?  And if so, earning insurance coverage?  How would your choices for health care providers and/or treatments be effected by the Health Care Bill? 

The fear is the supply vs the demand...

1st... Government doesnt make any money they take money from TAXES. If People are not working then where does Government get their taxes?

2nd... when government sets up a program they interlock it with several other programs to make it work and when they end the program the interlocking system is still active.

Example story (typical and true)

Once upon a time the government had a vast scrap yard in the middle of a
desert.  Congress said, "Someone may steal from it at night."  So they
created a night watchman position and hired a person at $18,000.00 a year
for the job.

Then Congress said, "How does the watchman do his job without instruction?"
So they created a planning department and hired two people, one person to
write the instructions for $22,000.00, and one person to do time studies for
an additional $22,000.00 per year.

Then Congress said, "How will we know the night watchman is doing  the tasks
correctly?" So they created a Quality Control department and hired two
people. One to do the studies for $31,000.00 and one to write the reports
for an additional $31,000.00 per year.

Then Congress said, "How are these people going to get paid?"
So they created the following positions, a time keeper for  $35,000.00
annual salary, and a payroll officer for an additional $35,000.00, then
hired two people.

Then Congress said, "Who will be accountable for all of these  people?"  So
they created an administrative section and hired three people, an
Administrative Officer at $155,000.00 per year, Assistant Administrative
Officer $125,000.00, and a Legal Secretary for an additional $100,000.00 per
year.

Then Congress said, "We have had this operating for one year with a budget
cost of $574,000.00 and we are $18,000 over budget. We must cutback overall
cost."

So they laid off the night watchman.

3rd... Government makes no money so they never worrie about profit so how can other non-government health care providers compete? Also, the Government can issue stiff fines like Jail Time for non-payment (Its in the Bill) vs non-government health care providers would be shafted if the bill isnt paid.

4th... Some doctors are still waiting for their medicare payments sometimes it takes 6 months, sometimes a year and sometimes longer... Why? Because government cannot afford the payments currently. So what makes you think that government controlled health care will work when they cannot afford the other government controlled systems.

5th... Obama thinks doctors will cut a persons leg for the money... Really? Oh, really??? I tosses this in because the current president is talking out of his ass!

6th... Obama said... If your old and you need bypass surgery I say you should take the pill... Oh, we elected a KING... Let them eat cake. Who the F*** is Obama.

This is why nobody wants the Health Care Plan!


Title: Re: Republican Scott Brown defeats Coakley in Massachusetts
Post by: Allhallowsday on January 23, 2010, 01:22:03 PM
I don't care for that point of view.  I donate several thousand each year to various missions and charities.  The government takes about a third of what I make in taxes.  This bill will increase that percentage significantly, while limiting my own choices in health care providers and treatments.  
I think the ills of private health insurance are relentlessly exaggerated by those who want to see a government takeover of the whole industry.  It's not a perfect system, but it isn't nearly as bad as some make it out to be.
Have you ever been ill?  Have you ever had to use your insurance?  Does your employer pay all or a portion of your health insurance?  If not, do you pay for your own family policy?  How many individuals in your family are being covered by your policy?  Are both you and your spouse working?  And if so, earning insurance coverage?  How would your choices for health care providers and/or treatments be effected by the Health Care Bill?  
The fear is the supply vs the demand...
1st... Government doesnt make any money they take money from TAXES. If People are not working then where does Government get their taxes?  2nd... when government sets up a program they interlock it with several other programs to make it work and when they end the program the interlocking system is still active.  Example story (typical and true)  Once upon a time the government had a vast scrap yard in the middle of a desert.  Congress said, "Someone may steal from it at night."  So they created a night watchman position and hired a person at $18,000.00 a year for the job.  Then Congress said, "How does the watchman do his job without instruction?"  So they created a planning department and hired two people, one person to write the instructions for $22,000.00, and one person to do time studies for an additional $22,000.00 per year.  Then Congress said, "How will we know the night watchman is doing  the tasks correctly?" So they created a Quality Control department and hired two people. One to do the studies for $31,000.00 and one to write the reports for an additional $31,000.00 per year.  Then Congress said, "How are these people going to get paid?" So they created the following positions, a time keeper for  $35,000.00 annual salary, and a payroll officer for an additional $35,000.00, then hired two people.  Then Congress said, "Who will be accountable for all of these  people?"  So they created an administrative section and hired three people, an Administrative Officer at $155,000.00 per year, Assistant Administrative Officer $125,000.00, and a Legal Secretary for an additional $100,000.00 per year.  Then Congress said, "We have had this operating for one year with a budget cost of $574,000.00 and we are $18,000 over budget. We must cutback overall cost."  So they laid off the night watchman.  3rd... Government makes no money so they never worrie about profit so how can other non-government health care providers compete? Also, the Government can issue stiff fines like Jail Time for non-payment (Its in the Bill) vs non-government health care providers would be shafted if the bill isnt paid.  4th... Some doctors are still waiting for their medicare payments sometimes it takes 6 months, sometimes a year and sometimes longer... Why? Because government cannot afford the payments currently. So what makes you think that government controlled health care will work when they cannot afford the other government controlled systems.  5th... Obama thinks doctors will cut a persons leg for the money... Really? Oh, really??? I tosses this in because the current president is talking out of his ass!  6th... Obama said... If your old and you need bypass surgery I say you should take the pill... Oh, we elected a KING... Let them eat cake. Who the F*** is Obama.  This is why nobody wants the Health Care Plan!
This long winded and factual tirade seems to have the semblance of a response to me, but my questions weren't directed at you, Skull.  


Title: Re: Republican Scott Brown defeats Coakley in Massachusetts
Post by: Skull on January 23, 2010, 01:53:34 PM
Quote
This long winded and factual tirade seems to have the semblance of a response to me, but my questions weren't directed at you, Skull.

Not really long winded... my answer directed to you is:

The fear is the supply vs the demand...

The rest is directed to those that still dont get it :)


Title: Re: Republican Scott Brown defeats Coakley in Massachusetts
Post by: wickednick on January 23, 2010, 04:39:30 PM
Im not for socialized medicine I think there are plenty of government run health programs to do the job, I do like the pre-exesting conditions part of the bill. But really what the republicans are doing is the same thing the democrats did when Bush wanted to reform Social Security, they stonewalled it for as long as they could with out offering a better alternative. If the republicans hate this bill so much why don't they come up with a better plan.
I consider my self a republican but the way these two parties work I really don't want to be a part of either one.


Title: Re: Republican Scott Brown defeats Coakley in Massachusetts
Post by: Jim H on January 24, 2010, 04:02:32 PM
Quote
Example story (typical and true)]Example story (typical and true)

Source?  Sounds an awful lot like the false story about the Astronaut pen.

Skull, I might add you're pretty much putting yourself in line with 9/11 Truthers with some of your mass conspiracy theory statements.  Maybe that doesn't bother you, but it would me.

Quote
Also, the Government can issue stiff fines like Jail Time for non-payment

Yeah, for not paying taxes.  They can already do that if you avoid taxes.  Remember Al Capone's 11 years?


Title: Re: Republican Scott Brown defeats Coakley in Massachusetts
Post by: Pennywise on January 24, 2010, 05:45:28 PM
So has this Scott Brown guy proven in the past that he's got any kind of leadership skill?


Title: Re: Republican Scott Brown defeats Coakley in Massachusetts
Post by: indianasmith on January 24, 2010, 05:59:06 PM
AHD - in answer to your question -
While I have never been seriously ill beyond the occasional bout with the flu, both my children have struggled with various health problems, including one daughter with chronic headaches.  We have excellent coverage through my wife's job (Blue Cross Blue Shield) which her employer pays half of and we the other half.  We more than get back what we put into the premiums in prescription meds alone each year.  However, about three years ago we were withoug coverage for several months while my wife changed jobs and sure enough, Rachel had to have a CAT scan.  We had to scrape a bit, but I paid cash for it.

My specific fear is that having a government insurance program whose premiums will be taken out of our tax dollars, and whose costs will never be allowed to increase signficantly, will drive private insurers out of business, and I will have trade the excellent coverage we have now for a federal bureaucracy with the efficiency of the Post Office and the compassion of the IRS.


Title: Re: Republican Scott Brown defeats Coakley in Massachusetts
Post by: 3mnkids on January 24, 2010, 07:07:04 PM
I don't think it will drive insurance companies out of business. Insurance companies have been living high on the hog for decades. Taking in premiums and then not paying out. A government plan will give them some competition and maybe (hopefully) make them better.

I think I have said it before but I have heath insurance through my husbands employer.. family plan paid 100% by employer. Heath, dental and vision. We are very, very fortunate. If this goes through and his employer decides to let his employees go it alone and pay for their own insurance we will deal with it. Like I said, we are lucky and I will not be one to stand in the way of another getting good, affordable heath insurance. I just cant do the eff you! I got mine. That statement only applies to those who have the audacity to get medicaid or medicare and want to b***h about "socialized" heath care.    :teddyr:


Title: Re: Republican Scott Brown defeats Coakley in Massachusetts
Post by: Jim H on January 24, 2010, 07:23:20 PM
AHD - in answer to your question -
While I have never been seriously ill beyond the occasional bout with the flu, both my children have struggled with various health problems, including one daughter with chronic headaches.  We have excellent coverage through my wife's job (Blue Cross Blue Shield) which her employer pays half of and we the other half.  We more than get back what we put into the premiums in prescription meds alone each year.  However, about three years ago we were withoug coverage for several months while my wife changed jobs and sure enough, Rachel had to have a CAT scan.  We had to scrape a bit, but I paid cash for it.

My specific fear is that having a government insurance program whose premiums will be taken out of our tax dollars, and whose costs will never be allowed to increase signficantly, will drive private insurers out of business, and I will have trade the excellent coverage we have now for a federal bureaucracy with the efficiency of the Post Office and the compassion of the IRS.

I don't know what your qualms are with the post office.  I've always found them to be an excellent organization.  They deliver letters across the country for less than half a dollar.  The major things the other shippers provide is inferior service (fewer days delivered) and worse treatment of employees (Postal employees are treated very well).  The Post Office is also generally cheaper for small packages.

In any case, private insurers are known to be inefficient (which is why part of the original health care bill was restrictions on percentage of profit from premiums), and if anyone has less of a heart than the private insurance companies, I'd be interested to hear about it.  If there was socialized medicine, we'd be switching from insurance middle men to government middle men.  I prefer the one that DOESN'T have an incentive to deny my claims.


Title: Re: Republican Scott Brown defeats Coakley in Massachusetts
Post by: indianasmith on January 24, 2010, 09:02:28 PM
You think government care won't be rationed?

It is in every single country that has socialized medicine.   That's why the wealthy Brits and Canadians come to America for elective surgeries and cancer treatments.

I think that socialism in all its forms slowly erodes personal freedoms and liberties, entrenches bureacracies, and subsidizes mediocrity in all things.  Our members from Canada and Britain may enjoy the system they have, but it is the only system they have ever known, so I think it safe to say that they don't really have a fair basis of comparison.


Liberty is a dangerous thing.  It involves risk, especially the risk of failure, both economic and personal.  But that being said, I prefer my liberty with its risks to any kind of soul-sucking, benevolent despotism.  I give a third of my income to the government every year as it is.  They say this program won't increase taxes.  I flat out don't believe that.  Every entitlement every created has cost more than projected.  And the true horror of all entitlements is that, once created, they can not only never be gotten rid of - they can never be reduced!  No matter how much they cost, once the government starts "giving away" something, the public will demand more and more and vote for those who promise them more because they are simply too dumb to realize that the government can never give you anything without first taking it away from someone else - and one day there will not be enough taxpayers to support the entitlements.  Then the whole system will collapse under its own weight. 

Far better to live in liberty to begin with, paying for the treatment your own illnesses, helping those in need as you can, and keeping the wherewithal to do so out of the hands of government bureacrats..


Title: Re: Republican Scott Brown defeats Coakley in Massachusetts
Post by: Dude on January 24, 2010, 09:49:19 PM
Freedom is poor people dying in the street, because it's their own fault they got sick.


Title: Re: Republican Scott Brown defeats Coakley in Massachusetts
Post by: indianasmith on January 24, 2010, 10:16:40 PM
BULL!

Freedom is private citizens having the means to help those less fortunate without some bureaucrat stealing their hard-earned dollars in order to waste three quarters of it and then give what's left to the poor.

That is such leftist BS, and it drives me nuts!  Just because you resent the intrusive power of the state forcing you to surrender what you worked a whole life to achieve, you must be a cruel, ruthless SOB who hates all poor people.

Government is the LEAST effective administrator of benevolence.  That's why America has spent some five trillion dollars since the 1960's in a "war on poverty", only to have the poverty level remain remarkably stable the whole time.

Incidentally, did you happen to know that it is ILLEGAL for emergency rooms to deny treatment to any ill patient, regardless of his ability to pay?

Sorry, sir, your scenario does not work, and I frankly resent its implications.


Title: Re: Republican Scott Brown defeats Coakley in Massachusetts
Post by: Newt on January 24, 2010, 10:50:21 PM
 If there was socialized medicine, we'd be switching from insurance middle men to government middle men.  I prefer the one that DOESN'T have an incentive to deny my claims.

What on Earth makes you think a government-run health care system would not have an incentive to deny claims?  The system has to be run according to a business model: the incentive is to minimize costs to the system.  My own family physician here in Canada has consistently actively discouraged me from pursuing treatment - or even diagnosis - of any condition that will not KILL me.  I had a 'frozen shoulder' which prevented me from using my left arm.  I could not work, and it was painful, but my doctor blew it off until I was very insistent, whereupon she got huffy with me and referred me to an orthopaedic surgeon - who examined, diagnosed and prescribed treatment.  Diagnosis and treatment I would  not have got had I not demanded it. (And treatment that I PAID cash for BTW: the ortho advised me that the physio that my gov't coverage would provide - at the local hospital - would not follow his instructions and likely would not be as effective as a result.  So I opted for a private physio and was functional again in record time.)


There was a news story on tonight about a child from Vietnam who came to Toronto's Sick Children's Hospital for treatment (removal) of a huge tumor on his face.  The surgeons there refused to treat him, saying that the tumor was not life-threatening.  (Hospital policy?) The child was taken to Boston where he was operated upon.  Paid for by donations as I understand it.

You think government care won't be rationed?

It is in every single country that has socialized medicine.
Indeed it is.  Our system is cash-starved and seeks to minimize costs every way it can, even if in some cases patient care is compromised.

Our members from Canada and Britain may enjoy the system they have, but it is the only system they have ever known, so I think it safe to say that they don't really have a fair basis of comparison.
I may well be the exception given my age, but it is not the only system I have known.  I well remember when our current system started up: my father was a country family physician and he was appallled at the guidelines he was given pertaining to such things as how much time he was allowed to spend on each patient and how many he was allowed to see in a day.  Basically it came down to ensuring each Dr was getting a similar income per unit of time.  Putting them on the same salary.  My father had been charging people according to their ability to pay: chickens, hams, turkeys, sacks of potatoes and baskets of vegetables used to show up at our back door when he had chosen *not* to charge certain patients.  With the advent of socialized medicine this option was taken out of his hands: He HAD TO charge each and every patient he saw.  The system required it of him.  Dad finally moved to the U.S. so he could practice medicine the way be felt he should.  Did he make more money in the States? Yes. Was that why he moved? No.  He objected to being hindered in delivering patient care: he did not feel bureaucrats had any place making judgement calls in medicine.


Title: Re: Republican Scott Brown defeats Coakley in Massachusetts
Post by: Jim H on January 24, 2010, 11:08:37 PM
Quote
What on Earth makes you think a government-run health care system would not have an incentive to deny claims?  The system has to be run according to a business model: the incentive is to minimize costs to the system.  My own family physician here in Canada has consistently actively discouraged me from pursuing treatment - or even diagnosis - of any condition that will not KILL me.

Fair enough on that end.

BULL!

Freedom is private citizens having the means to help those less fortunate without some bureaucrat stealing their hard-earned dollars in order to waste three quarters of it and then give what's left to the poor.

That is such leftist BS, and it drives me nuts!  Just because you resent the intrusive power of the state forcing you to surrender what you worked a whole life to achieve, you must be a cruel, ruthless SOB who hates all poor people.

Government is the LEAST effective administrator of benevolence.  That's why America has spent some five trillion dollars since the 1960's in a "war on poverty", only to have the poverty level remain remarkably stable the whole time.

Incidentally, did you happen to know that it is ILLEGAL for emergency rooms to deny treatment to any ill patient, regardless of his ability to pay?

Sorry, sir, your scenario does not work, and I frankly resent its implications.

People certainly die due to a lack of health care - often because they delay treatment due to costs (or can't get screenings and treatments that prevent disease), or because they die young or younger due to an inability to pay for certain procedures that are not related to something immediately life threatening.  Estimates vary considerably on that, with the high figure being in excess of 40,000 a year.  You might put more stock in the low figure - something like 20,000 a year.

You'd be right that nobody dies due to a lack of emergency treatment - but often, that's not soon enough.

Quote
And the true horror of all entitlements is that, once created, they can not only never be gotten rid of - they can never be reduced!

Well, that's certainly proven to NOT be the case.  Many forms of welfare were quite significantly reduced in 1996.  Millions fewer people are on welfare now than before the reforms of that year.  It's also worth noting that socialized medicine has been cut back in various ways in some countries (UK and Canada included, IIRC), usually due to rising costs.

Overall though, indy, I can respect your position on this.  There are some other issues I have a similar viewpoint on.  I think I can state safely that, even if socialized medicine could somehow be proven that if implemented in the USA, it would be better in almost every way than our current system, you'd still be against it, right?


Title: Re: Republican Scott Brown defeats Coakley in Massachusetts
Post by: indianasmith on January 25, 2010, 12:09:04 AM
I simply don't believe it would be better, and I suspect it would be unconstitutional.  So yes, I would most likely oppose it regardless of whatever rosy forecast they had for it.

I appreciate your respect of my position.

And if some people are dying for lack of certain kinds of preventive care under our system, is there any way to guarantee they won'd die because care is rationed under a government system?

I have heard that cancer deaths in the UK are about 15% or so higher than in the U.S. because expensive treatment options are not pursued.


Title: Re: Republican Scott Brown defeats Coakley in Massachusetts
Post by: Dude on January 25, 2010, 02:23:46 AM
BULL!

Freedom is private citizens having the means to help those less fortunate without some bureaucrat stealing their hard-earned dollars in order to waste three quarters of it and then give what's left to the poor.

That is such leftist BS, and it drives me nuts!  Just because you resent the intrusive power of the state forcing you to surrender what you worked a whole life to achieve, you must be a cruel, ruthless SOB who hates all poor people.

Government is the LEAST effective administrator of benevolence.  That's why America has spent some five trillion dollars since the 1960's in a "war on poverty", only to have the poverty level remain remarkably stable the whole time.

Incidentally, did you happen to know that it is ILLEGAL for emergency rooms to deny treatment to any ill patient, regardless of his ability to pay?

Sorry, sir, your scenario does not work, and I frankly resent its implications.

HA!  You seriously think private companies don't ration care in order to maximize profits.  If you hate the American government so bad move to France.


Title: Re: Republican Scott Brown defeats Coakley in Massachusetts
Post by: Skull on January 25, 2010, 07:20:38 AM
Quote
Example story (typical and true)]Example story (typical and true)

Source?  Sounds an awful lot like the false story about the Astronaut pen.

Its called Bureaucracy... The story is a joke about how government create jobs (which is often true).

Next time listen to the government when they talk about cutting corners to make the budget, they are always saying they need to lay off the police, the fireman, helpful services (aka the night watchman) but you never hear about the cutting or reducing the interlocking Bureaucracy.

Quote
Skull, I might add you're pretty much putting yourself in line with 9/11 Truthers with some of your mass conspiracy theory statements.  Maybe that doesn't bother you, but it would me.

Its all about motive. And the reason behind the health care bill is all about personal survival, an attempt to lock the party into power for another 40 years. The only reason why its not working is Obama's mouth, the rep/sen dumping thousands of pages into the bill days before its voted on (Nobody knows whats inside and yet they are voting for it) and the back room dealings to get the bill pushed.


Quote
Quote
Also, the Government can issue stiff fines like Jail Time for non-payment

Yeah, for not paying taxes.  They can already do that if you avoid taxes.  Remember Al Capone's 11 years?

The idea behind of paying your taxes is so government can function and not paying your taxes is preventing government to function.

Personally, I always thought it was a BS reason to put Al Capone away... But they did, although it seems that nobody cares about Tax Evasion today (otherwise some of Obama's cabinet members should be seving 11 years too...)


Title: Re: Republican Scott Brown defeats Coakley in Massachusetts
Post by: indianasmith on January 25, 2010, 07:53:55 AM
You know, "Dude", that is a very old and jejune debating technique, but in this case, it is also just flat out illogical.  Why would I protest socialism in the U.S. by moving to a country where it has completely taken over?

I mean, if I said, "If you hate liberty so much, why don't you move to North Korea?" that would make sense, because there is no liberty whatsoever there.

Private companies do ration care to some extent, however, competition between them insures that eventually, the customer will find a provider to pay for what he wants. And there is always the option, for those who can afford it, of paying for it yourself.

American health care, in overall quality, is the finest in the world.  We lead the world in the discovery of new medicines and new treatments precisely because we have a private, for-profit system.

No, I don't hate our governmnet.  I recognize that, in their own big, clumsy, Federal way, they are trying to help.  But they are woefully inept and have an incredibly high propensity for waste.

Also, we cannot pay for the entitlements we already have.  Creating more is simply going to bankrupt the entire country, and then ALL government benefits will be lost.

As Margaret Thatcher said, "The problem with socialism is that, eventually, you run out of other people's money."


Title: Re: Republican Scott Brown defeats Coakley in Massachusetts
Post by: Skull on January 25, 2010, 08:24:26 AM
BULL!

Freedom is private citizens having the means to help those less fortunate without some bureaucrat stealing their hard-earned dollars in order to waste three quarters of it and then give what's left to the poor.

That is such leftist BS, and it drives me nuts!  Just because you resent the intrusive power of the state forcing you to surrender what you worked a whole life to achieve, you must be a cruel, ruthless SOB who hates all poor people.

Government is the LEAST effective administrator of benevolence.  That's why America has spent some five trillion dollars since the 1960's in a "war on poverty", only to have the poverty level remain remarkably stable the whole time.

Incidentally, did you happen to know that it is ILLEGAL for emergency rooms to deny treatment to any ill patient, regardless of his ability to pay?

Sorry, sir, your scenario does not work, and I frankly resent its implications.

HA!  You seriously think private companies don't ration care in order to maximize profits.  If you hate the American government so bad move to France.

You do know the constitution was created by the founding fathers to protect the citizens from government... (it tells what government cannot do)

We dont hate the American Government... We just dont trust them!

There is a reason why our founding fathers gave us the right to firearms and its not for criminal protection and hunting, its in case government decides to go against the American people...

Actually, if government did decided to prevent Scott Brown to take his senate seat (as they threaten) and push the health care bill anyway, you might of seen Americans taking their guns to Washington DC.


Title: Re: Republican Scott Brown defeats Coakley in Massachusetts
Post by: Skull on January 25, 2010, 10:23:45 AM
I simply don't believe it would be better, and I suspect it would be unconstitutional.  So yes, I would most likely oppose it regardless of whatever rosy forecast they had for it.

I appreciate your respect of my position.

And if some people are dying for lack of certain kinds of preventive care under our system, is there any way to guarantee they won'd die because care is rationed under a government system?

I have heard that cancer deaths in the UK are about 15% or so higher than in the U.S. because expensive treatment options are not pursued.

Funny, I keep hearing Obama and the Dems keep saying that people are dying in America because they dont have Health Care... Obama and the Dems: If thats true please source it?

Also if its SO necessary to push the Health Care to save those dying people then why the Health Care Program will not be active until after 2012? [What's the point of the rush?]

Also if its SO necessary to push the Health Care to save those dying people (again) then why are they stoping the push on Health Care because one man prevents the "super majority" [So its gets Filibuster... if the bill is so FREAKN good then they could try to pass it... The problem about the Filibuster it opens a debate to the bill, it doesnt kill the bill but it informs the public whats INSIDE the bill and that is why they are not pushing the Health Care bill, because they dont want US (the American People) to know what's inside the bill.... Oh, those poor dying Americans how they are easly forgotten after one month.]


Also the Health Care Bill is unconstitutional.


Title: Re: Republican Scott Brown defeats Coakley in Massachusetts
Post by: Allhallowsday on January 25, 2010, 11:08:33 AM
BULL!

Freedom is private citizens having the means to help those less fortunate without some bureaucrat stealing their hard-earned dollars in order to waste three quarters of it and then give what's left to the poor.
Freedom is private citizens having the means to help those less fortunate... and choosing not to.   :lookingup: 

C'mon now man let's be honest, you're the one who pointed out "wealthy" Brits and Canadians coming to the USA for treatments.   I think it's ironic that "wealthy" Americans go to Germany and Switzerland.   :lookingup:


Title: Re: Republican Scott Brown defeats Coakley in Massachusetts
Post by: Skull on January 25, 2010, 11:56:37 AM
BULL!

Freedom is private citizens having the means to help those less fortunate without some bureaucrat stealing their hard-earned dollars in order to waste three quarters of it and then give what's left to the poor.
Freedom is private citizens having the means to help those less fortunate... and choosing not to.   :lookingup: 

But its a freedom for us to choose.

Quote
C'mon now man let's be honest, you're the one who pointed out "wealthy" Brits and Canadians coming to the USA for treatments.   I think it's ironic that "wealthy" Americans go to Germany and Switzerland.   :lookingup:

Hehe because the German and the Swiss has the "best" health care... [ok i'm being sarcastic]

I'm not sure (and I'm not going to ask you to source it) but I'm going to take a wild guess based on the nature of the beast... It's because Germany and Switzerland has a different FDA regulations compaired to America and people are willing to pay for the "risk" when it comes to life and death. The same is true when "wealthy" people go to Mexico for treatments.

It doesnt mean the German, the Swiss and Mexico has a better system, its just their testing regulations is much different and people are willing to take the risk when it comes to life or death.


Title: Re: Republican Scott Brown defeats Coakley in Massachusetts
Post by: 3mnkids on January 25, 2010, 12:14:13 PM
BULL!

Freedom is private citizens having the means to help those less fortunate without some bureaucrat stealing their hard-earned dollars in order to waste three quarters of it and then give what's left to the poor.

That is such leftist BS, and it drives me nuts!  Just because you resent the intrusive power of the state forcing you to surrender what you worked a whole life to achieve, you must be a cruel, ruthless SOB who hates all poor people.

Government is the LEAST effective administrator of benevolence.  That's why America has spent some five trillion dollars since the 1960's in a "war on poverty", only to have the poverty level remain remarkably stable the whole time.

Incidentally, did you happen to know that it is ILLEGAL for emergency rooms to deny treatment to any ill patient, regardless of his ability to pay?

Sorry, sir, your scenario does not work, and I frankly resent its implications.

HA!  You seriously think private companies don't ration care in order to maximize profits.  If you hate the American government so bad move to France.

You do know the constitution was created by the founding fathers to protect the citizens from government... (it tells what government cannot do)

We dont hate the American Government... We just dont trust them!

There is a reason why our founding fathers gave us the right to firearms and its not for criminal protection and hunting, its in case government decides to go against the American people...

Actually, if government did decided to prevent Scott Brown to take his senate seat (as they threaten) and push the health care bill anyway, you might of seen Americans taking their guns to Washington DC.

Which members of the government were trying to prevent seating Brown? Do you have a link?

What is taking your gun to Washington going to do? 


Title: Re: Republican Scott Brown defeats Coakley in Massachusetts
Post by: Pennywise on January 25, 2010, 12:29:03 PM
So has this Scott Brown guy proven in the past that he's got any kind of leadership skill?

I'm just going to post that again since no one bothered to try answering it because they were so wrapped up in the health care reform debate.


Title: Re: Republican Scott Brown defeats Coakley in Massachusetts
Post by: Dude on January 25, 2010, 12:43:38 PM
BULL!

Freedom is private citizens having the means to help those less fortunate without some bureaucrat stealing their hard-earned dollars in order to waste three quarters of it and then give what's left to the poor.

That is such leftist BS, and it drives me nuts!  Just because you resent the intrusive power of the state forcing you to surrender what you worked a whole life to achieve, you must be a cruel, ruthless SOB who hates all poor people.

Government is the LEAST effective administrator of benevolence.  That's why America has spent some five trillion dollars since the 1960's in a "war on poverty", only to have the poverty level remain remarkably stable the whole time.

Incidentally, did you happen to know that it is ILLEGAL for emergency rooms to deny treatment to any ill patient, regardless of his ability to pay?

Sorry, sir, your scenario does not work, and I frankly resent its implications.

HA!  You seriously think private companies don't ration care in order to maximize profits.  If you hate the American government so bad move to France.

You do know the constitution was created by the founding fathers to protect the citizens from government... (it tells what government cannot do)

We dont hate the American Government... We just dont trust them!

There is a reason why our founding fathers gave us the right to firearms and its not for criminal protection and hunting, its in case government decides to go against the American people...

Actually, if government did decided to prevent Scott Brown to take his senate seat (as they threaten) and push the health care bill anyway, you might of seen Americans taking their guns to Washington DC.

You claim to love America yet are eager to storm Washington and go shooting, especially over made up claims.   That's called treason.


Also the Health Care Bill is unconstitutional.

Article 1, Section 8.  There's more to the Constitution than the Second Amendment, maybe you should read the rest of it sometime when you're not cleaning your guns for the "coming revolution" and carrying "Obongo must go!" signs at your tea parties (where were you when Bush was spending all the money?  That's right, calling everyone unpatriotic for not wanting to bomb brown people!)


Let me guess, you are on Social Security or Medicare of VA benefits as well, but still don't want that dangerous "socialism"

Get out of America if you hate it so much, traitors!


Title: Re: Republican Scott Brown defeats Coakley in Massachusetts
Post by: Nukie 2 on January 25, 2010, 01:05:16 PM
I think everyone should be denied health care, and the healthiest will survive.
Why should any of you continue to exist?
Were all just made of  stardust, were insignificant to the rest of the cosmos.
There's nothing that proves our majesty over everything in the universe.

 :bouncegiggle:Just kidding :bouncegiggle:


Title: Re: Republican Scott Brown defeats Coakley in Massachusetts
Post by: Skull on January 25, 2010, 01:18:16 PM

Which members of the government were trying to prevent seating Brown? Do you have a link?


There has been several messages passed around the internet during the 2 weeks before the election when the Dems realized that Scott Brown could win and their plan into pushing the Health Care Bill. [I'm not good in finding all this government source material and if anybody else been following the election could spot more source information.]

One such example I could find:

Massachusetts Democrats plan to get creative with election law if Scott Brown wins

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/massachusetts-democrats-plan-to-get-creative-with-election-law-if-scott-brown-wins/blog-233171/


Quote
What is taking your gun to Washington going to do? 


Hmmmmm... If the Government isnt going to listen to the TEA PARTIES or the VOTE! Then we would be forced to use our GUNS!

I hope to God we never use our GUNS but I'd never thought I would see the American Government working against the PEOPLE.



Title: Re: Republican Scott Brown defeats Coakley in Massachusetts
Post by: Skull on January 25, 2010, 01:46:31 PM
Quote
You claim to love America yet are eager to storm Washington and go shooting, especially over made up claims.   That's called treason.


OMG...


If the government decides assume full control over the people without listening to the people is called... Tyranny.


Quote

Article 1, Section 8. 


Health Care Billís Individual Mandate Is Unconstitutional, Conservative Group Argues

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/58900

Quote
Let me guess, you are on Social Security or Medicare of VA benefits as well, but still don't want that dangerous "socialism"

Get out of America if you hate it so much, traitors!


Sorry I'm paying for Social Security... although its assumed I will not collect it when I reach an old age since its bankrupt!

Also when government created Social Secruity at the time it was assumed that the person would "die" by the time that person is ready to collect, but because of our current health care system and development, people have been living on social security for 10, 20 and 30 years.



Also stop your traitor argument its childish...


Title: Re: Republican Scott Brown defeats Coakley in Massachusetts
Post by: Skull on January 25, 2010, 02:19:32 PM
So has this Scott Brown guy proven in the past that he's got any kind of leadership skill?

I'm just going to post that again since no one bothered to try answering it because they were so wrapped up in the health care reform debate.

Saddly the election has nothing to do about Scott Brown leadership. He won based on telling Massachusetts that he's going to be the 41st vote against the Health Care Bill.

The number of people flocking to vote for Scott Brown was a message to Obama and the Dems... :)


Title: Re: Republican Scott Brown defeats Coakley in Massachusetts
Post by: Dude on January 25, 2010, 02:23:34 PM


Also stop your traitor argument its childish...

Sorry, after 8 years of your "OMG you traitors! Support the President!!" crap, you don't get to decide what is childish.

BTW, I reported your calls for going to the capitol with guns to the FBI.


Title: Re: Republican Scott Brown defeats Coakley in Massachusetts
Post by: Skull on January 25, 2010, 02:32:48 PM

Sorry, after 8 years of your "OMG you traitors! Support the President!!" crap, you don't get to decide what is childish.


Hmmmmm... I never realized I was talking to you for 8 years... although I've been hearing that we have the 8 worst years in our life during the Bush Presidency...Oddy unemployment is 3 times more during Obama's first year. [how's that hope and change?]

Quote
BTW, I reported your calls for going to the capitol with guns to the FBI.

For saying: Actually, if government did decided to prevent Scott Brown to take his senate seat (as they threaten) and push the health care bill anyway, you might of seen Americans taking their guns to Washington DC.

Your classic...


Title: Re: Republican Scott Brown defeats Coakley in Massachusetts
Post by: Rev. Powell on January 25, 2010, 02:33:56 PM

BTW, I reported your calls for going to the capitol with guns to the FBI.

 :lookingup:

If this is true, you shouldn't be wasting the FBI's valuable time. You may get in trouble, or get thrown into their crank file.  If you can't see that these statements were hypotheticals---somewhat outlandish hypotheticals, I agree, but not credible incitements to violence---then you should probably stay out of debates on the Internet.  People say all kinds of crazy things in online political debates they don't literally mean.  Yourself included.  

Please everyone, try to be civil and keep this argument on the policies involved and not on the personalities.  

Frankly, I believe this thread has become totally unproductive.  
 


Title: Re: Republican Scott Brown defeats Coakley in Massachusetts
Post by: 3mnkids on January 25, 2010, 03:02:19 PM

Which members of the government were trying to prevent seating Brown? Do you have a link?


There has been several messages passed around the internet during the 2 weeks before the election when the Dems realized that Scott Brown could win and their plan into pushing the Health Care Bill. [I'm not good in finding all this government source material and if anybody else been following the election could spot more source information.]

One such example I could find:

Massachusetts Democrats plan to get creative with election law if Scott Brown wins

[url]http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/massachusetts-democrats-plan-to-get-creative-with-election-law-if-scott-brown-wins/blog-233171/[/url]


Quote
What is taking your gun to Washington going to do? 


Hmmmmm... If the Government isnt going to listen to the TEA PARTIES or the VOTE! Then we would be forced to use our GUNS!

I hope to God we never use our GUNS but I'd never thought I would see the American Government working against the PEOPLE.




Rumor and opinion only. That is not evidence that the Democrats were threatening anything.

No offense but I find it disingenuous at best that the teabaggers are yelling and screaming about their rights being taken away, their freedoms being taken away... where they hell have they been? Were they sleeping during bush administration?

Now they want to revolt? Now they want to arm themselves and do what... shoot people. ridiculous. 

Yes, violence is always the way too go.  :lookingup:


Title: Re: Republican Scott Brown defeats Coakley in Massachusetts
Post by: Skull on January 25, 2010, 03:34:06 PM
3mnkids...

I agree with you on this :)

I was told the longer a lie linger without any attempt to prove its wrong the more it looks like the truth...


Bush and the republican party only fault was not pointing out the lies and soon many Americans started to believe the lies... after all we had 8 years of press saying we are in a Recession when we were not in a Recession.


I think the teabaggers was always around, they wanted change and voted for Obama thinking we would get out of this 8 year old Recession, stop Bush's war (another lie ~ Saddam Hussein kept screwing around with the UN Inspectors, he had the "burden of proof" not Bush.), etc, etc...

McCain also help Obama by siding with the lie and not playing to win [I'm not sure why McCain was running for president]... Although I think his intent in picking Sarah Palin was design to make the conservative republicans an extreame hack in the party and using palin as the fall guy if he loses... Although, I think this backfired when people were seeing Sarah Palin.

But once Obama Signs Stimulus Into Law and the American people realized that the bill wasnt design to stimulus anything they started to protest it... And the Tea Party was born.


Title: Re: Republican Scott Brown defeats Coakley in Massachusetts
Post by: Pennywise on January 25, 2010, 07:02:48 PM
Saddly the election has nothing to do about Scott Brown leadership. He won based on telling Massachusetts that he's going to be the 41st vote against the Health Care Bill.

The number of people flocking to vote for Scott Brown was a message to Obama and the Dems... :)

Then it's important to remember the old proverb about revenge: "First, dig two graves."

If there's one thing that Republicans are good at it's getting elected by using animosity to Democratic ideas, then running states into the ground due to a lack of leadership skills. Here in Nevada Gov. Jim Gibbons (R) was elected mostly by rural Nevadans and now after years of vetoing lots and lots of bills (many of which were overturned) and refusing to raise any taxes at all he faces an extremely low approval rating and most likely will not be re-elected.


Good luck, Massachusetts. You'll need it once this health care reform thing is passed.


Title: Re: Republican Scott Brown defeats Coakley in Massachusetts
Post by: Dude on January 25, 2010, 09:14:35 PM


For saying: Actually, if government did decided to prevent Scott Brown to take his senate seat (as they threaten) and push the health care bill anyway, you might of seen Americans taking their guns to Washington DC.

Your classic...

Gee, you also forgot
Quote
Hmmmmm... If the Government isnt going to listen to the TEA PARTIES or the VOTE! Then we would be forced to use our GUNS!
but I guess being personally responsible for your treasonous statements is something you can't be bothered with (which is odd, because one of the main arguments your side uses on health care is those without it are irresponsible...I guess conservatives are too good to be responsible for their own actions!)

You should thank me for reporting you, now the government can come to you and your guns, you can use the gas money you saved for the increase in private company health insurance premiums you will likely need once the FBI is done with you.


Title: Re: Republican Scott Brown defeats Coakley in Massachusetts
Post by: Skull on January 25, 2010, 09:39:23 PM


For saying: Actually, if government did decided to prevent Scott Brown to take his senate seat (as they threaten) and push the health care bill anyway, you might of seen Americans taking their guns to Washington DC.

Your classic...

Gee, you also forgot
Quote
Hmmmmm... If the Government isnt going to listen to the TEA PARTIES or the VOTE! Then we would be forced to use our GUNS!
but I guess being personally responsible for your treasonous statements is something you can't be bothered with (which is odd, because one of the main arguments your side uses on health care is those without it are irresponsible...I guess conservatives are too good to be responsible for their own actions!)

You should thank me for reporting you, now the government can come to you and your guns, you can use the gas money you saved for the increase in private company health insurance premiums you will likely need once the FBI is done with you.

Classic... Now your grasping at straws :)


Title: Re: Republican Scott Brown defeats Coakley in Massachusetts
Post by: indianasmith on January 25, 2010, 10:50:44 PM
"Treason shall consist in levying war against the United States, or adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort . . . "

DUDE - I teach U.S. government and read the constitution two or three times a year.
Your arguments have thus far been specious and rude, and I resent your throwing down the T word without any justification whatsoever, especially at me.

DISSENT IS NOT TREASON.

If it were, Michael Moore, Joe Biden, half of Hollywood, and most of the Senate would have been jailed in the Bush years, and Clinton would have had Newt Gingrich shot.

Do me a favor and start arguing on an adult level, or simply go away.


Title: Re: Republican Scott Brown defeats Coakley in Massachusetts
Post by: Skull on January 26, 2010, 07:51:52 AM
indianasmith ~ He is trying to devert the issue into a personal name calling war.

As for the issues its really hard not to talk about the problems within our government, the tea parties, Health Care, President Obama [not KING Obama] and the possibility of a Civil War (if the government decides to go against the VOTE) since Scott Brown election is actually based on the disaproval of Obama and Health Care.

3mnkids, could be correct that about the Rumor and Opinions, but its really hard to say since the senators did vote on the Health Care Bill during the dark of night and the wee hours before Christmas. The NEWS is too busy reporting Propaganda and all we have is the internet for information (although the sources are sometimes questionable). But if the Rumor is true then government has denied the Rights of the American People (or the Rights of the People in Massachusetts) with the ability to VOTE! And I would suspect a civil war with the Tea Parties would soon start.

Although we dont know if it would happen since the senators quickly open their arms and welcomed Scott Brown in... It also could mean that they had a sudden realization that a riots could break out if they acted upon the rumors.


As for the Tea Parties I really believe they are the poduct of the growing lies from the 8 years of President Bush [especially the lie that Bush stole second term]. I think most of the Tea Parties members are the very same people that did the "Na Na Hey Hey Kiss Him Goodbye" song when President Bush left office. So you could imagine their feelings with the sudden realization that they had voted for a man [Obama] that wants to change America into a 3rd world nation.

This election is History in the making :)





Title: Re: Republican Scott Brown defeats Coakley in Massachusetts
Post by: Andrew on January 26, 2010, 08:26:43 AM
but I guess being personally responsible for your treasonous statements is something you can't be bothered with (which is odd, because one of the main arguments your side uses on health care is those without it are irresponsible...I guess conservatives are too good to be responsible for their own actions!)

You should thank me for reporting you, now the government can come to you and your guns, you can use the gas money you saved for the increase in private company health insurance premiums you will likely need once the FBI is done with you.

This is your one and only warning.  If you want to debate your side of the issue of this thread then do so.  Any personal attacks or any more idiocy about reporting someone to the FBI and I will remove your posts and ban you.