Get Insurance Or Pay The Us Gov't 1000$ +

[TheScotsman]

guess what? If GW would have taken out Afghanistan instead of concentrating on Iraq we'd be done by now there.
And no I know how budgets work. As a matter of fact I remember Clinton raking Newt Gingrinch and his cronies over the coals when they tried to shut down the government over it.
I don't remember any standoffs GW stood his ground? All but two were presented by repubs so not much going for that argument for ya.

And Freddie and Fannie is all the fault of one congressman. What a concept. Then again the entire post looks like a drunken rambling. Democrats invented the economic mess.
And republicans are against bigger government I guess? No wait, how big is the Dept. of Homeland Security?

Just because Rush spews that crap does not make it true bro Remember he's a dope addict

You really miss it with ruskie limbaugh stuff, I haven't had that jackass polluting my radio for as long as I remember. When he went on about taxes non stop while Desert Shield was winding up, I declared him out of touch with anything but what benefited himself. The repubs lost it years ago, hell, the last election my choices for senator were coleman or franken... I wrote in my cat.

One has to wonder though, when you see that Colin Powel (possibly the single bigest reason a lot of moderate conservatives/military personell voted for sotero) is now telling obummer to back the hell off with the spending.

Homeland security was possibly one of the biggest assaults on freedom in the USA, that is until obummer decided the gov't needs to own the banks, car companies, and control healthcare/setup rationing system. Want to know what Gov't healthcare is? Go check out a VA hospital! remember how well those are run?

The AIG office that got them into trouble was in no way ever under any obligation to USA law. The CDS's were primarily sold by Williams, Walsh, and De la Merced... all out of the LONDON (as in UK) office. Regulate all you want, but dispite their wishes they could do so, congress and the US president don't make the rules for the UK. But, ok, we can blame bush for not regulating the sales of an insurance policy in the UK. Bush derangement, again, dude!

I can agree Bush was a complete failure, and with him the party was shown to be what they are, a buch of progressive globalists. Glad they are gone. But to expect this curent admin to be some big saivour of the world is silly, What we have now isn't going to save the world from anything, except possibly having any money, and freedom.

[Dr. B]

The AIG office that got them into trouble was in no way ever under any obligation to USA law. The CDS's were primarily sold by Williams, Walsh, and De la Merced... all out of the LONDON (as in UK) office. Regulate all you want, but dispite their wishes they could do so, congress and the US president don't make the rules for the UK. But, ok, we can blame bush for not regulating the sales of an insurance policy in the UK. Bush derangement, again, dude!

I'm pretty sure the deregulation he was talking about was the revocation of the legislation making derivative assets noncontributory to a company's tier 1 ratio. Despite who did the trading, if the US companies were not allowed to claim derivative assets (CDS, MBS, etc) as receivables the public would have realized how insolvent the guilty firms were long before the collapse. This scenario happened before, culminating in 1913, and brought wall st. to its knees. The deregulation move in 2000-1, ushered in by republicans and the bush admin., effectively repeated history.

Good foresight, criticism justified.

For a quick overview: http://www.econstrat.org/index.php?option=...9&Itemid=46

[Scalliwag]

no single corporation or even industry should ever be able to get us by the shorthairs. AIG is the best example of that. They pay off politicians to relieve them of all the "over-reaching" regulation. Then when they get their way they break it off in our asses.
Guess what? If we evaluated every politicians record a axed the ones that have fought their asses off for deregulation th democrats would have a huge majority. Sure several of them would get kicked out but there would not be hardly any if any repubs.
They just need to rid themselves of the rest of their evil ilk. I was happy to see the door hit Tom DeLay and some of the other corporate criminal cronies hit them in the ass. Duke Cuntingham was another. How about all of Abramoff's (ya know the guy they said never came to the whitehouse, then a few times, then uh well, a shitload of times? Ken Lay went from GW calling him "Kenny Boy" and using his jets to really didn't know him very well. But Obama has a rogue preacher and all hell breaks loose.
The repubs are the ones palling around with the real terrorists. The ones hanging out at the golf courses and boardrooms looking more ways to screw us over.

[TheScotsman]

The AIG office that got them into trouble was in no way ever under any obligation to USA law. The CDS's were primarily sold by Williams, Walsh, and De la Merced... all out of the LONDON (as in UK) office. Regulate all you want, but dispite their wishes they could do so, congress and the US president don't make the rules for the UK. But, ok, we can blame bush for not regulating the sales of an insurance policy in the UK. Bush derangement, again, dude!

I'm pretty sure the deregulation he was talking about was the revocation of the legislation making derivative assets noncontributory to a company's tier 1 ratio. Despite who did the trading, if the US companies were not allowed to claim derivative assets (CDS, MBS, etc) as receivables the public would have realized how insolvent the guilty firms were long before the collapse. This scenario happened before, culminating in 1913, and brought wall st. to its knees. The deregulation move in 2000-1, ushered in by republicans and the bush admin., effectively repeated history.

Good foresight, criticism justified.

For a quick overview: http://www.econstrat.org/index.php?option=...9&Itemid=46

Good link. Easy to understand, and not so long winded it starts getting as boring as a tom clancey novel.

Yes, not much doubt that deregulation was a prime contributory factor, although the fact the vast majority of CDS's were setup by so few people tends to make me really think most of them knew they were working out of bounds. Regulations and people able/willing to enforce them are critical, yet both sides seem highly unwilling to regulate, rather choosing to allow continued abuses as long as they can either benefit from it, or blame it on the other side.

Scalli, finally something we agree on! (what is the world coming to?!) there is no such thing as too big to fail, but rather so big it needs to be broken. After all, how many times do we need to learn that same lesson! But as to who is hanging out with them... well, the 2 biggest government recipients of bucks (aka bribes) from AIG are Chriss Dodd, and barack heussein obama. Maybe the repubs are hanging out with them, but the dems are taking payola from them. Dems took campaign contribs from AIG at a rate of more than 2:1 over the repubs. Which is worse?

Next big one that is going to bite us will be GE.

[Scalliwag]

I would imagine they saw the writing on the wall that democrats were about to take things over and they had to try the only thing they knew how.
Every talking head from both sides agreed that AIG had us in one helluva bind with no simple way out. Until board of directors get a grip on bonuses they need some sort of regulation even there.

I think bonuses need to be deferred 5 years. Based on performance of say 2010 be paid out 2015 providing the direction the executives steered the companies did not cause an implosion down the road. A lot of executives are take the money and run types. They make short term decisions with long term negative impact. You wanna fix their ass, fix them there. Moderate base salaries with excellent bonuses based on excellent longterm performance. Edited July 7, 2009 by Scalliwag

[tinyj316]

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/watch2.html

I'll just leave this here....

[MN_Clouds]

[TheScotsman]

I would imagine they saw the writing on the wall that democrats were about to take things over and they had to try the only thing they knew how.
Every talking head from both sides agreed that AIG had us in one helluva bind with no simple way out. Until board of directors get a grip on bonuses they need some sort of regulation even there.

I think bonuses need to be deferred 5 years. Based on performance of say 2010 be paid out 2015 providing the direction the executives steered the companies did not cause an implosion down the road. A lot of executives are take the money and run types. They make short term decisions with long term negative impact. You wanna fix their ass, fix them there. Moderate base salaries with excellent bonuses based on excellent longterm performance.

Completely agreed.

I would add that performance judgments need to be based on a real-world performance value rather than the cooked-books so common of late.


PBS as a news source? Good gawd, youtube videos by 6th graders would be more informative with less bias.

The one thing the whole healthcare debate misses is cost controls, and fair/reasonable charges by hospitals. It doesn't matter who pays for it, a $12.00/ea tylenol, and 25$ band-aids are not fair & reasonable.

[tinyj316]

PBS as a news source? Good gawd, youtube videos by 6th graders would be more informative with less bias.

Apparently you didn't bother to look at the video at all. Yes, its from PBS, but the interview is with Wendell Potter, a former VP of Cigna. I know your Republican't bias might prevent you from wanting to hear something published by PBS, but before you bash the video, why not see what it actually is? Its a pretty straightforward interview.

Unless of course you won't believe, or listen to, anything unless Faux News breaks the story.

[Scalliwag]

I would imagine they saw the writing on the wall that democrats were about to take things over and they had to try the only thing they knew how.
Every talking head from both sides agreed that AIG had us in one helluva bind with no simple way out. Until board of directors get a grip on bonuses they need some sort of regulation even there.

I think bonuses need to be deferred 5 years. Based on performance of say 2010 be paid out 2015 providing the direction the executives steered the companies did not cause an implosion down the road. A lot of executives are take the money and run types. They make short term decisions with long term negative impact. You wanna fix their ass, fix them there. Moderate base salaries with excellent bonuses based on excellent longterm performance.

Completely agreed.

I would add that performance judgments need to be based on a real-world performance value rather than the cooked-books so common of late.


PBS as a news source? Good gawd, youtube videos by 6th graders would be more informative with less bias.

The one thing the whole healthcare debate misses is cost controls, and fair/reasonable charges by hospitals. It doesn't matter who pays for it, a $12.00/ea tylenol, and 25$ band-aids are not fair & reasonable.

I agree they need to get cost controlled as well. But they need to get a system in place and go from there. What we have right now is pathetic. Republicans have failed to do anything other than bitch about what others want to do.
They want to keep things like they are now just like they did in the 90's.
Tiny's right about the video. You must not have watched it. The guy is a former insurance exec.

[gordonee]

Well, that's a really complicated issue. I think it was time to reform the health system and also the insurance system. In my opinion, the idea is right but let's see if they manage to setup a working system. The health system in most European countries is quite good and I think we can learn a little from them. They also have a different car insurance system in Germany - I got to know it after I had had an accident there a few years ago. It's important that we're open to changes but they should make sense and help as many people as possible. The "fine" is somehow ridiculous and won't work anyhow.

[TheScotsman]

I would imagine they saw the writing on the wall that democrats were about to take things over and they had to try the only thing they knew how.
Every talking head from both sides agreed that AIG had us in one helluva bind with no simple way out. Until board of directors get a grip on bonuses they need some sort of regulation even there.

I think bonuses need to be deferred 5 years. Based on performance of say 2010 be paid out 2015 providing the direction the executives steered the companies did not cause an implosion down the road. A lot of executives are take the money and run types. They make short term decisions with long term negative impact. You wanna fix their ass, fix them there. Moderate base salaries with excellent bonuses based on excellent longterm performance.

Completely agreed.

I would add that performance judgments need to be based on a real-world performance value rather than the cooked-books so common of late.


PBS as a news source? Good gawd, youtube videos by 6th graders would be more informative with less bias.

The one thing the whole healthcare debate misses is cost controls, and fair/reasonable charges by hospitals. It doesn't matter who pays for it, a $12.00/ea tylenol, and 25$ band-aids are not fair & reasonable.

I agree they need to get cost controlled as well. But they need to get a system in place and go from there. What we have right now is pathetic. Republicans have failed to do anything other than bitch about what others want to do.
They want to keep things like they are now just like they did in the 90's.
Tiny's right about the video. You must not have watched it. The guy is a former insurance exec.

I watched it, but I don't believe half of it.
You can find an ex-executive to rail against about anything if you try. Who knows, without knowing exactly the truth behind why he is no longer working there, one must seriously question his factuality, and motivations. After all, what would an ex-girlfriend say after she got dumped? Same effect with a businessman.

Requiring insurance will not make it cheaper. That is a fantasy. Gov't running "insurance" as a GSE is really going to make a disaster of it, they have repeatedly proven that in other fields. Any change isn't a good thing, no matter how bad something is, it can always be worse. Insurance crooks vs. government jackboots, not much of a choice, they both suck equally.

At the chamber of commerce meeting for my county, last months meeting took a turn into the healthcare-destruction debate, and mandated insurance. It was nearly unanimous, 8% payroll tax, and everyone was going to dump their employer-sponsorship. After all, 8% of payroll is cheap! hell, 15% is still half of what I pay for decent coverage of 3 employees. Why would I (or any business) pay the gov't 8%, and still pay for insurance, not happening. It's a mess, I have no clue what would work, but nationalized healthcare will be worse. Mandating insurance under penalty, is only providing the insurance industry a whole lot more people to rape financially.

[Rani]

I'm listening to all the news reports about this and other issues such as the speech the President plans to make to children about the importance of education. The idea that a sitting president can't address children without being accused of using children to promote his personal agenda is ridiculous and the attitude of perple amazes me. Other presidents have done all that he's doing and didn't get all these attacks. Why him? There is only one thing that differentiates him from other presidents who have gone before hiim. He's black. I am honestly beginning to believe that there is still an enormous undercurrent of racism in this country and that the major mistrust is simply based on his skin color. Overt racism is obvious and embarrasing. But the molding of character due to the influence of racism is harder to spot - even in ourselves. This one man who differs from others who have gone before him in only one way is under constant attack and suspicion for everything he tries to do. And the accusations are beyond the scope of rational thought. I'm incredibly disappointed in what I'm hearing. I guess I was optimistically filled with hope about how far we've come past the racism of the past, but I'm seeing traces of it coloring the view of so many people and I find that so sad. When you deny the potential contribution to the future you shortchanage everyone, especially your own decendants who stand to inherit all we do now.

'Rani

[gaia.plateau]

Before I read any of the posts here, I'd be interested to know if there is any source for this outside of an obscure op ed piece in a local newspaper. The link to AP for "more info" at the end of the article is a ghost.

Based on what is so far available, it strikes me that this is based on an intentional or unintentional misinterpretation. Edited September 5, 2009 by gaia.plateau

[gaia.plateau]

Okay, wow. Did some extremely quick research into the author of the article in question, and I'd just like to post a few of his other opinions.

"Turning a capitalist democracy into a socialist autocracy is no easy task...the left may have tried to implement the final phase a decade or two too soon"
"Now the White House is staffed with people who openly supported communism not twenty years ago, but twenty weeks ago"

Again, haven't read through this rather dense thread, but have the subjective ramblings of someone who appears to genuinely believe that Obama is the next Hitler or Stalin really been taken seriously here? Is credence actually being given to the idea that universal healthcare is the final straw before the US becomes the USSR, that it works for dozens of other capitalist democracies in the world, but that ideas of freedom and democracy in the United States are so weak that they cannot abide it?

Anyway, yeah, I searched for anything relating to the original post in this thread in the mainstream international and US media, and found nothing. Post a link if you know of one? Edited September 5, 2009 by gaia.plateau

[TheScotsman]

Okay, wow. Did some extremely quick research into the author of the article in question, and I'd just like to post a few of his other opinions.

"Turning a capitalist democracy into a socialist autocracy is no easy task...the left may have tried to implement the final phase a decade or two too soon"
"Now the White House is staffed with people who openly supported communism not twenty years ago, but twenty weeks ago"

Again, haven't read through this rather dense thread, but have the subjective ramblings of someone who appears to genuinely believe that Obama is the next Hitler or Stalin really been taken seriously here? Is credence actually being given to the idea that universal healthcare is the final straw before the US becomes the USSR, that it works for dozens of other capitalist democracies in the world, but that ideas of freedom and democracy in the United States are so weak that they cannot abide it?

Anyway, yeah, I searched for anything relating to the original post in this thread in the mainstream international and US media, and found nothing. Post a link if you know of one?

The reason you don't find much about it is that polling, including an NBC's poll, shows support for any bill with a mandate falls to the 35% range. The public won't support such a bill. "mainstream" media has their noses so far up obummers bumm they are avoiding any coverage that may negatively impact the bill. (shockingly enough, since NBC is a GE puppet mouthpiece in service to the obummer admin.) Some states already have state's rights bills in progress to block any enforcement penalty.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/07/bu.../fi-healthcare7
http://www.kansascity.com/105/story/1419204.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...ST2009072103763
http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/...arepollmemo.pdf
http://www.smartmoney.com/personal-finance...y-up/?hpadref=1
http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/08/senator...-noncompliance/
http://www.openmarket.org/2009/08/25/obama...ting-taxpayers/

HR3200/page 167, begin quote at line 18

"(a) TAX IMPOSED.—In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of— (1) the taxpayer's modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over (2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer."

You gotta read the damn bill, not the BS in the liberal-biased, agenda-driven media, so obviously guilty of not reporting the whole truth. You don't read about it because it's simple, any tax penalty is a sure and sudden death for the bill in the eyes of the public, not to mention yet one more promise broken by Nobama.

The funny part, at least funny to me, since all the libs seem to be so adamant this is going to be insurance reform, is that the mandates/penalties are supported/lobbied for by the insurance industry! after all, forced-customers are as good as any customer!
http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/...E52P7MF20090327

Let's not hear about racism when the administration has a member making openly racist, lying statements, obviously condoned by the president, since the person is still working there. Just because someone doesn't like the policy, doesn't mean they are a racist. I hate tacos, and the like, does that make me an anti-Hispanic racist? How about if the taco is made by a Black Lady, and delivered by a Korean? Hell, then I must be a super-secret-chauvinist-anti-Asian-KKK member, right? That is stupid. The simple truth is I don't like cumin, it smells like armpits! Moreover, I think the public is starting to get sick of being called racists every time they disagree with a policy. Policies, bills, and ideas are not part of a race, until they are, opposing them is not racist. Loose the crutch, it's lame. (oops, I am now an anti-cripple-racist, sorry.)

Myself, I can't wait for gub'mint healthcare, I am headed to that ER for every damn stubbed toe, and sliver I get. Since it's a 50 mile drive, I might need an ambulance... I could feel disoriented... and you get to pay!!!! Sounds good! The same philosophy the left has used for years, overwhelm, and flood the system with people claiming every benefit they can. Must be time for me to join in!

As for the obambi school speech... I need to hear it to decide what I think of it. A worksheet asking how a student can serve the president is out of line though. It clearly violates 20 USC 3403 for the fed to even suggest participation by local schools. Laws are laws, onumbnuts can't violate a law just because he, or anyone in his office, thinks they have a good message. Citizens don't serve the president in a democratic republic, it is supposed to be the President serving the nation. I think he needs to write an essay how he will serve the nation, and the constitution he swore to uphold. Or he could just lie about it, seems he is good at that.

[gaia.plateau]

In your original post you made this sound like a penalty fine, when in fact it's simply a tax. Universal healthcare is universal.

Also: "liberal biased agenda-driven media"? What country are you referring to? Globally media invariably tends toward the conservative, and in the US hardly a quarter of the media can be considered to have a Liberal skew, with Fuck's News representing over 50% of television viewers.

You'll have to pay for ambulances as well, as far as I'm aware, every country on earth with subsidized/universal/socialized healthcare requires individuals to pay for ambulances. And for a stubbed toe in an emergency room you'll wait about 18 hours I'm happy to pay $.0001 cents a day for my fellow human to have that privilege, because a healthier population = a healthier economy, which means more freedom of enterprise and more commerce, which means that things are cheaper and you make more money and your country is more powerful (to appeal to realist senses).

Regarding racism: you're echoing Glenn Beck with tremendous precision... this may not bode well for your sanity.

Regarding shill slogans: "onumbnuts"? Is that a real thing? That's the worst thing I've ever heard. Stick with Obamanazis.

Regarding context: I'm really fucking drunk right now. Edited September 6, 2009 by gaia.plateau

[Rani]

In your original post you made this sound like a penalty fine, when in fact it's simply a tax. Universal healthcare is universal.

Also: "liberal biased agenda-driven media"? What country are you referring to? Globally media invariably tends toward the conservative, and in the US hardly a quarter of the media can be considered to have a Liberal skew, with Fuck's News representing over 50% of television viewers.

You'll have to pay for ambulances as well, as far as I'm aware, every country on earth with subsidized/universal/socialized healthcare requires individuals to pay for ambulances. And for a stubbed toe in an emergency room you'll wait about 18 hours I'm happy to pay $.0001 cents a day for my fellow human to have that privilege, because a healthier population = a healthier economy, which means more freedom of enterprise and more commerce, which means that things are cheaper and you make more money and your country is more powerful (to appeal to realist senses).

Regarding racism: you're echoing Glenn Beck with tremendous precision... this may not bode well for your sanity.

Regarding shill slogans: "onumbnuts"? Is that a real thing? That's the worst thing I've ever heard. Stick with Obamanazis.

Regarding context: I'm really fucking drunk right now.

He also totally missed what I was saying about the underlying current of racism that has molded or influenced our character and beliefs we hold. Not that it's unusual for Scotsman to miss what any other person is trying to say. It takes away from him listening to himself.

'Rani

[TheScotsman]

In your original post you made this sound like a penalty fine, when in fact it's simply a tax. Universal healthcare is universal.

Also: "liberal biased agenda-driven media"? What country are you referring to? Globally media invariably tends toward the conservative, and in the US hardly a quarter of the media can be considered to have a Liberal skew, with Fuck's News representing over 50% of television viewers.

You'll have to pay for ambulances as well, as far as I'm aware, every country on earth with subsidized/universal/socialized healthcare requires individuals to pay for ambulances. And for a stubbed toe in an emergency room you'll wait about 18 hours I'm happy to pay $.0001 cents a day for my fellow human to have that privilege, because a healthier population = a healthier economy, which means more freedom of enterprise and more commerce, which means that things are cheaper and you make more money and your country is more powerful (to appeal to realist senses).

Regarding racism: you're echoing Glenn Beck with tremendous precision... this may not bode well for your sanity.

Regarding shill slogans: "onumbnuts"? Is that a real thing? That's the worst thing I've ever heard. Stick with Obamanazis.

In the winter when biz is slow, I can shut off the heat, and sit in a nice warm waiting room. Sounds fine to me! Hope they have some good reading material.

Regarding context: I'm really fucking drunk right now.

It is a penalty, it may be masquerading under IRS code, but it's still a penalty for not purchasing insurance from a private insurance company.

1) you get jack for it. it doesn't provide you any insurance coverage and you will still get a bill from the insurance company

2) it is not applied equally across the board, but only to a select few that didn't follow the gov'ts forced mandate

3)it costs the victim money, and financial loss.

if that isn't a penalty, what is? The law charges a person 2.5% of their income for not having insurance coverage for a second at any point through the year, for no reason than you don't have insurance. Same as a speeding fine (er, got one of those today, let's not dwell on what 96 in a 55 is going to cost me in "tax") or any other fine. The fact the IRS is charging the penalty, does not make it less of a penalty, just more intrusive, and unavoidable. Unfortunately, universal is not used in the universal healthcare bill as written in HR 3200. Single payer universal with everyone on it, to include politicians, union members, the crazy lady with all the cats down the road, and even Rani on it would be a supportable measure. The fact is, that is NOT what they are trying to force down our throats.

I like obamanazis... I had never heard that one. Not sure what group of nutballs I will assign that moniker to, but I still like it.


Ya, I musta missed your point of racisim, I was reading it as you were saying the reason people were opposing allot of the proposed BS was that we had a Black president. I guess I still don't understand your point, but if I took it wrong, my mistake.


Now back to my Laphroaig, this typing is damaging the flavour of one of the worlds truly great scotch whiskys.

[gaia.plateau]

Single payer is what they started out trying to do, before their spines folded like slinkies under the pressure of the conservative minority and blue dogs. Then they were pushing "public option", but now it sounds like Obama is going to worm his way out of that one too.

Personally, I don't think Universal healthcare can work in the US, though the evidence that it could save your cancerous economy is overwhelming. I just think it's hilarious the way that all of you extreme neocons have taken this tremendous leap from the umpteenth socialist reform in your country over the past hundred years, to Stalinist purges. Anyone denying that it's 100% political must necessarily be completely and totally deluded.

If Obama had any balls or brains, he would have pushed the single-payer option through by force his first week in office. Then he would have been known as the leader who saved your economy and ended a six-year war, instead of the guy who was repeatedly bullied into inaction by a minority party.

Post-script: I don't even remember writing that reply last night. My blacked out, shitfaced subconscious strikes me as being quite succinct. Edited September 7, 2009 by gaia.plateau

[TheScotsman]

Single payer is what they started out trying to do, before their spines folded like slinkies under the pressure of the conservative minority and blue dogs. Then they were pushing "public option", but now it sounds like Obama is going to worm his way out of that one too.

Personally, I don't think Universal healthcare can work in the US, though the evidence that it could save your cancerous economy is overwhelming. I just think it's hilarious the way that all of you extreme neocons have taken this tremendous leap from the umpteenth socialist reform in your country over the past hundred years, to Stalinist purges. Anyone denying that it's 100% political must necessarily be completely and totally deluded.

If Obama had any balls or brains, he would have pushed the single-payer option through by force his first week in office. Then he would have been known as the leader who saved your economy and ended a six-year war, instead of the guy who was repeatedly bullied into inaction by a minority party.

Post-script: I don't even remember writing that reply last night. My blacked out, shitfaced subconscious strikes me as being quite succinct.

I am starting to see a familiar face poking through all that liberal BS. That should scare one of us an awful lot.

[gaia.plateau]

Single payer is what they started out trying to do, before their spines folded like slinkies under the pressure of the conservative minority and blue dogs. Then they were pushing "public option", but now it sounds like Obama is going to worm his way out of that one too.

Personally, I don't think Universal healthcare can work in the US, though the evidence that it could save your cancerous economy is overwhelming. I just think it's hilarious the way that all of you extreme neocons have taken this tremendous leap from the umpteenth socialist reform in your country over the past hundred years, to Stalinist purges. Anyone denying that it's 100% political must necessarily be completely and totally deluded.

If Obama had any balls or brains, he would have pushed the single-payer option through by force his first week in office. Then he would have been known as the leader who saved your economy and ended a six-year war, instead of the guy who was repeatedly bullied into inaction by a minority party.

Post-script: I don't even remember writing that reply last night. My blacked out, shitfaced subconscious strikes me as being quite succinct.

I am starting to see a familiar face poking through all that liberal BS. That should scare one of us an awful lot.

I've never subscribed to a political partisanship or ideology, including Liberalism. Understanding how universal healthcare benefits a region/country/population and its economy is a matter of common sense and pragmatism, not politics or morality. What should scare you is the transformation of the neoconservative party into the insanity party in your country over the past seven or eight years, leaving the liberal party to occasionally strike on rationality without competition.

[clibinarius]

Single payer is what they started out trying to do, before their spines folded like slinkies under the pressure of the conservative minority and blue dogs. Then they were pushing "public option", but now it sounds like Obama is going to worm his way out of that one too.

Personally, I don't think Universal healthcare can work in the US, though the evidence that it could save your cancerous economy is overwhelming. I just think it's hilarious the way that all of you extreme neocons have taken this tremendous leap from the umpteenth socialist reform in your country over the past hundred years, to Stalinist purges. Anyone denying that it's 100% political must necessarily be completely and totally deluded.

If Obama had any balls or brains, he would have pushed the single-payer option through by force his first week in office. Then he would have been known as the leader who saved your economy and ended a six-year war, instead of the guy who was repeatedly bullied into inaction by a minority party.

Post-script: I don't even remember writing that reply last night. My blacked out, shitfaced subconscious strikes me as being quite succinct.

I am starting to see a familiar face poking through all that liberal BS. That should scare one of us an awful lot.

I've never subscribed to a political partisanship or ideology, including Liberalism. Understanding how universal healthcare benefits a region/country/population and its economy is a matter of common sense and pragmatism, not politics or morality. What should scare you is the transformation of the neoconservative party into the insanity party in your country over the past seven or eight years, leaving the liberal party to occasionally strike on rationality without competition.

Scotsman, I'm not going to often agree with you and I know you're probably licking your chops at replying to this, but don't. Ignore Gaia here completely. You're not a Neo-Conservative, and anyone familiar with Neo-Conservatism could explain why. The GOP has NEVER been a Neo-Conservative party, though Neo-Conservatives did get jobs in DoD, their influence didn't extend outside of it. Either he has no clue what he's talking about when it comes to the slurs and understanding what's going on in the Republican Party, or worse. The difference between him and Scalli-why I don't mind arguing so much with Scalli-is Scalli is at least consistent in his thought; Scalli is defensive of Democrats and anti-Republicans, but isn't blaming all of the ills on the country on Neo-Conservatives because he understands-in my view-that people such as you and most Republicans are just opposed to what he thinks is right, regardless of the breed of conservative. This is a little different; someone's accusing Neo-Conservative as being outright insane and accusing people of being Neo-Conservatives who oppose something that Neo-Conservatives are much more liberal on than the rest of the conservative movement. Either Gaia is profoundly foolish of American Political philosophies and repeating bigoted code words, or he's simply a bigot.

[clibinarius]

For the record, I'm not convinced "Obama is a socialist" isn't racism driven rhetoric, and I don't really care for "Liberalism BS"-my comment in fact about Neo-Conservatism and Gaia, in fact, sort of makes me a little bit angered at the rhetoric, because things are becoming more and more implicitly racist all over it seems. I can picture the Van Jones thing right now: Obama makes a royal screwup picking Van Jones, and people use it as justification for why Obama's different: Obama's different because he's a socialist! Look at all the socialists around him.

Unfortunately, when you know about Paul Robeson and Peekskill, it all gets a little seedy. I'm surprised that famous people haven't gone on any really racist tirades in public yet against a minority group. It seems in this political climate someone's going to say something ridiculously insulting to some group, and the whole poisoned rhetoric (which seems to be anti-everybody) might get a lot blunter and more extreme.

I mean, am I wrong in believing that people calling Obama a socialist that don't know what socialism is...stinks of racism? What other explanation could there be in a lot of instances? Its like how blaming everything wrong on the country is somehow the fault of the Neo-Conservatives. Whether or not Obama IS a socialist matters little; what matters is if he is loyal to the country and rules like a socialist. By no standard, in my opinion, is he disloyal and I'm not convinced he is any more of a socialist than Bush, and if he is, I'm not sure many people who are worried about that know why they're worried. I'm not saying you're wrong in worrying, since you seem to know what socialism is. But you, Scots, know as well as I do that most people who have problems with people complain about things they don't understand. And you don't have to be politically correct either. That's not what this is. Political correctness is sort of poisoning the discourse here because people keep throwing codewords around to get their points across.