Bush vetoes expansion of kids' health insurance program.

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: teclis1023

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
I think it's really funny to analyse how this works, in the US you don't have universal healthcare because that would be "socialist" and yet you pay more via tax money per capita than the UK, Germany, France, hell take your pick, on top of that you got your employers paying for insurance, on top of that you get medications that cost up to 100x what i have to pay and that is without my government paying a pound for it.

In short, you pay more as a society, you pay more individually, you pay more for medication and still there are people who are uninsured.

QFT.

Not to mention the generally higher standards of living, longer vacations and more time spent with family, lower crime levels, lower poverty rates, better employee support, etc.

I certainly want that, and if it means altering our definition of who we are, I'm all for it. Progress sometimes dictates change, and I don't see why Socialism is such an ugly word. Take Denmark or Sweden, where you still have elections, free-trade, individual rights and ownership and free business. Those certainly seem like "American" qualities to me.

Move to Europe if that is what you want. Our ancestors left that continent decades ago to get away from that crap. Leave it on that side of the pond please.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: teclis1023

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
I think it's really funny to analyse how this works, in the US you don't have universal healthcare because that would be "socialist" and yet you pay more via tax money per capita than the UK, Germany, France, hell take your pick, on top of that you got your employers paying for insurance, on top of that you get medications that cost up to 100x what i have to pay and that is without my government paying a pound for it.

In short, you pay more as a society, you pay more individually, you pay more for medication and still there are people who are uninsured.

QFT.

Not to mention the generally higher standards of living, longer vacations and more time spent with family, lower crime levels, lower poverty rates, better employee support, etc.

I certainly want that, and if it means altering our definition of who we are, I'm all for it. Progress sometimes dictates change, and I don't see why Socialism is such an ugly word. Take Denmark or Sweden, where you still have elections, free-trade, individual rights and ownership and free business. Those certainly seem like "American" qualities to me.

Move to Europe if that is what you want. Our ancestors left that continent decades ago to get away from that crap. Leave it on that side of the pond please.

Maybe yours did, mine came over to take advantage of Native Americans.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: teclis1023

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
I think it's really funny to analyse how this works, in the US you don't have universal healthcare because that would be "socialist" and yet you pay more via tax money per capita than the UK, Germany, France, hell take your pick, on top of that you got your employers paying for insurance, on top of that you get medications that cost up to 100x what i have to pay and that is without my government paying a pound for it.

In short, you pay more as a society, you pay more individually, you pay more for medication and still there are people who are uninsured.

QFT.

Not to mention the generally higher standards of living, longer vacations and more time spent with family, lower crime levels, lower poverty rates, better employee support, etc.

I certainly want that, and if it means altering our definition of who we are, I'm all for it. Progress sometimes dictates change, and I don't see why Socialism is such an ugly word. Take Denmark or Sweden, where you still have elections, free-trade, individual rights and ownership and free business. Those certainly seem like "American" qualities to me.

Move to Europe if that is what you want. Our ancestors left that continent decades ago to get away from that crap. Leave it on that side of the pond please.

Maybe yours did, mine came over to take advantage of Native Americans.

Ouch, hit below the belt 😉

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: fortogether10
Hey, I?m actually doing some work on this with Families USA and I think its pretty sad this bill had such strong bipartisan support in Congress and yet Bush still vetoed it - turning his back on so many uninsured children and working families. We actually made a 30 second ad we?re using to pressure Congress to override the veto thats worth checking out over at FamiliesUSA. We're also starting up a petition so please sign up if you're really in favor of overturning this.

What left you expecting more from Bush?

Was it his dodging Viet Nam while demanding others go, was it his mocking of inmates to be executed as he reviewed their petitions, was it his willingness to completely sell out to the interests needed to get elected, was it his lack of concern with Katrina - the man is a sociopath, IMO. If the ideology and donors say veto it, he has little concern we can see.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: loki8481
is "socialist" the new "nazi" in terms of internet arguments?

Maybe to those who shy away from the term yet support/propose those types of policies.

but you keep using the "S" word like it's a bad thing 😕

it's odd that the party of jesus would be against this... he was a total commie.

Oh, look it's the Jesus card.

No, I'm using socialist as it is. A spade being a spade and all. IF people think it's derogatory that is their problem, just like people trying to call themselves "progressive" instead of "liberal". Own up to it and embrace your ideology. 🙂

And IMO Jesus has nothing to do with the Federal gov't (the "state") and healthcare. Jesus was about people willingly helping others. Being forced by the state(feds) to do it is a different beast.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: teclis1023

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
I think it's really funny to analyse how this works, in the US you don't have universal healthcare because that would be "socialist" and yet you pay more via tax money per capita than the UK, Germany, France, hell take your pick, on top of that you got your employers paying for insurance, on top of that you get medications that cost up to 100x what i have to pay and that is without my government paying a pound for it.

In short, you pay more as a society, you pay more individually, you pay more for medication and still there are people who are uninsured.

QFT.

Not to mention the generally higher standards of living, longer vacations and more time spent with family, lower crime levels, lower poverty rates, better employee support, etc.

I certainly want that, and if it means altering our definition of who we are, I'm all for it. Progress sometimes dictates change, and I don't see why Socialism is such an ugly word. Take Denmark or Sweden, where you still have elections, free-trade, individual rights and ownership and free business. Those certainly seem like "American" qualities to me.

See the problem is Americans want stuff but they dont want to pay the taxes for it.

You want Universical Healthcare? Well its going to cost a pretty penny. Who is going to pay for it? You and I?


Im sorry but its immoral towards this nation to propse universal healthcare, knowing full well we can even fund the healthcare for seniors. Universal healthcare, atleast as current proposed by the leading Dem candidates for President, do NOTHING but change the payor from a private entity to the government(though the person that ultimately pays for it stays the same for the vast majority of people, you and I). This would only further cause budgeting problems.

Medicare + SS = majority of budget as we speak. And projected to be 70% of the budget not to long from now.

See, that makes no sense since the US doesn't have universal healthcare and STILL more taxes per capita goes into the healthcare system while paying about twice that from insurance.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
don't you want children to be healthy?
Don't you want seniors to be healthy? etc etc etc.
It's as plain as day.

Yes it is "as plain as day" that Republicans want the young and old block that can't vote anyway, dead.

Very sad indeed for a once mighty and looked up to nation.

Uhhh yeah, that's it. :roll: I think we also eat babies...

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
This bill is incrementalism at its best.

We start with the ?it's a disgrace that in one of the richest nations in the world, any kid would have to go without health insurance for any reason? argument then after this bill it put in place we just slowly expand it outward.

How can anyone object to providing healthcare to old people?
How can anyone object to providing healthcare to poor people?
How can anyone object to providing healthcare to college kids?

Etc etc etc.

Good point, so let's apply it elsewhere.

Why have a tax deduction for blind people? It'll just expand until everyone gets it.

If we go to war for the liberation of some people, we'll have to go to war everywhere in the world there's any lack of freedom.

If you allow some consumer safety regulations, soon there'll be so many regulations you can't sell anything, so don't have any regulations.

If you let black people have equal rights to eat in the same restaurants as whites, soon you'll have to give back all the Native Americans their lands.

And so on - except that if you are right, spreading health care to everyone is a good thing, IMO.

 

[teclis1023]

Originally posted by: Wreckem
You want Universical Healthcare? Well its going to cost a pretty penny. Who is going to pay for it? You and I?

I would gladly pay higher taxes if it resulted in universal health care, better welfare and social support.

Move to Europe if that is what you want. Our ancestors left that continent decades ago to get away from that crap. Leave it on that side of the pond please.

Socialism didn't exist when America was formed; in fact, things were quite the opposite. People colonized North America for a huge variety of reasons, and a large portion of them remained loyal to their existing governments.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: fortogether10
Hey, I?m actually doing some work on this with Families USA and I think its pretty sad this bill had such strong bipartisan support in Congress and yet Bush still vetoed it - turning his back on so many uninsured children and working families. We actually made a 30 second ad we?re using to pressure Congress to override the veto thats worth checking out over at FamiliesUSA. We're also starting up a petition so please sign up if you're really in favor of overturning this.

What left you expecting more from Bush?

Was it his dodging Viet Nam while demanding others go, was it his mocking of inmates to be executed as he reviewed their petitions, was it his willingness to completely sell out to the interests needed to get elected, was it his lack of concern with Katrina - the man is a sociopath, IMO. If the ideology and donors say veto it, he has little concern we can see.

You forgot to add in something about Iraq in your rant.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
This bill is incrementalism at its best.

We start with the ?it's a disgrace that in one of the richest nations in the world, any kid would have to go without health insurance for any reason? argument then after this bill it put in place we just slowly expand it outward.

How can anyone object to providing healthcare to old people?
How can anyone object to providing healthcare to poor people?
How can anyone object to providing healthcare to college kids?

Etc etc etc.

the slippery slope argument is so old and retarded.

There was a day in this country in which the government provided healthcare for no one.

Did the system we now have in place jump into appearance in one day or did it take many years and many different programs for it to happen?

There was a day 90% of seniors lived in poverty, before social security reversed that to 90% not in poverty.

You seem to think that's an argument for repealing the improvement.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: fortogether10
Hey, I?m actually doing some work on this with Families USA and I think its pretty sad this bill had such strong bipartisan support in Congress and yet Bush still vetoed it - turning his back on so many uninsured children and working families. We actually made a 30 second ad we?re using to pressure Congress to override the veto thats worth checking out over at FamiliesUSA. We're also starting up a petition so please sign up if you're really in favor of overturning this.

What left you expecting more from Bush?

Was it his dodging Viet Nam while demanding others go, was it his mocking of inmates to be executed as he reviewed their petitions, was it his willingness to completely sell out to the interests needed to get elected, was it his lack of concern with Katrina - the man is a sociopath, IMO. If the ideology and donors say veto it, he has little concern we can see.

You forgot to add in something about Iraq in your rant.

You forgot to include something to say in your drivel.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: teclis1023

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
I think it's really funny to analyse how this works, in the US you don't have universal healthcare because that would be "socialist" and yet you pay more via tax money per capita than the UK, Germany, France, hell take your pick, on top of that you got your employers paying for insurance, on top of that you get medications that cost up to 100x what i have to pay and that is without my government paying a pound for it.

In short, you pay more as a society, you pay more individually, you pay more for medication and still there are people who are uninsured.

QFT.

Not to mention the generally higher standards of living, longer vacations and more time spent with family, lower crime levels, lower poverty rates, better employee support, etc.

I certainly want that, and if it means altering our definition of who we are, I'm all for it. Progress sometimes dictates change, and I don't see why Socialism is such an ugly word. Take Denmark or Sweden, where you still have elections, free-trade, individual rights and ownership and free business. Those certainly seem like "American" qualities to me.

Move to Europe if that is what you want. Our ancestors left that continent decades ago to get away from that crap. Leave it on that side of the pond please.

Well you really offered a lot of great arguments... as usual.

I'm glad you decided to join this discussion, you added so much to it.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: teclis1023

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
I think it's really funny to analyse how this works, in the US you don't have universal healthcare because that would be "socialist" and yet you pay more via tax money per capita than the UK, Germany, France, hell take your pick, on top of that you got your employers paying for insurance, on top of that you get medications that cost up to 100x what i have to pay and that is without my government paying a pound for it.

In short, you pay more as a society, you pay more individually, you pay more for medication and still there are people who are uninsured.

QFT.

Not to mention the generally higher standards of living, longer vacations and more time spent with family, lower crime levels, lower poverty rates, better employee support, etc.

I certainly want that, and if it means altering our definition of who we are, I'm all for it. Progress sometimes dictates change, and I don't see why Socialism is such an ugly word. Take Denmark or Sweden, where you still have elections, free-trade, individual rights and ownership and free business. Those certainly seem like "American" qualities to me.

Move to Europe if that is what you want. Our ancestors left that continent decades ago to get away from that crap. Leave it on that side of the pond please.

Well you really offered a lot of great arguments... as usual.

I'm glad you decided to join this discussion, you added so much to it.

Still bitter after all these years? 😀

What he said is true. This country was founded on freedom from a smoothering gov't. Europeans seem to still like it which is fine by me but please keep it over there, we prefer to keep our individualism here(atleast some of us do).

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

If taking care of the future for my country makes me a socialist, then i'm most definently a socialist.

People who don't give a crap, i wouldn't call them conservatives or capitalists, i'd call them egocentric pieces of shit.

I think it's really funny to analyse how this works, in the US you don't have universal healthcare because that would be "socialist" and yet you pay more via tax money per capita than the UK, Germany, France, hell take your pick, on top of that you got your employers paying for insurance, on top of that you get medications that cost up to 100x what i have to pay and that is without my government paying a pound for it.

In short, you pay more as a society, you pay more individually, you pay more for medication and still there are people who are uninsured.

Yeah, i'm pretty much as capitalistic as they come but looking towards the US system i don't see it as a good solution, i see it as a complete and utter failure.

Very odd thing about all of this is that this so called "conservative movement" that took control of the country was born via the religious sector of the country and the Corporations.

Churches are not normally for the death of children or the elderly so it is very apparent that the Corporate sector did this.

How is the religious sector of the country reacting to all of this lately?

I saw an article briefly a few days ago about the religious sector possibly putting thier votes behind an independent party candidate.

So basically they will be throwing away their votes? I find that hard to believe.

Unless they start a movement to vote me in.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Move to Europe if that is what you want. Our ancestors left that continent decades ago to get away from that crap. Leave it on that side of the pond please.

QFT. :thumbsup:

If you want breast to grave welfare and all the blessings of a socialist utopia, there are plenty of other countries to choose from.

 

[Capitalizt]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
This bill is incrementalism at its best.

We start with the ?it's a disgrace that in one of the richest nations in the world, any kid would have to go without health insurance for any reason? argument then after this bill it put in place we just slowly expand it outward.

How can anyone object to providing healthcare to old people?
How can anyone object to providing healthcare to poor people?
How can anyone object to providing healthcare to college kids?

Etc etc etc.

OMG Conspiracy!!! ..but what would be bad about those things?

To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical. ? Thomas Jefferson

 

[teclis1023]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Genx87
Move to Europe if that is what you want. Our ancestors left that continent decades ago to get away from that crap. Leave it on that side of the pond please.

QFT. :thumbsup:

If you want breast to grave welfare and all the blessings of a socialist utopia, there are plenty of other countries to choose from.

And if or when I move permanently to another country, I'll make sure to choose from one of them.

Until then, I'm here in America, and I will continue to believe what I believe is best for America. You seem to be arguing that America is the way it is, and has always been. This simply is not the case, as any historian will tell you. We're a country constantly in flux, and to suggest that alternative ideas to the current system are either unwelcome or unpatriotic is completely against the entire purpose of a "free nation."

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: teclis1023

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
I think it's really funny to analyse how this works, in the US you don't have universal healthcare because that would be "socialist" and yet you pay more via tax money per capita than the UK, Germany, France, hell take your pick, on top of that you got your employers paying for insurance, on top of that you get medications that cost up to 100x what i have to pay and that is without my government paying a pound for it.

In short, you pay more as a society, you pay more individually, you pay more for medication and still there are people who are uninsured.

QFT.

Not to mention the generally higher standards of living, longer vacations and more time spent with family, lower crime levels, lower poverty rates, better employee support, etc.

I certainly want that, and if it means altering our definition of who we are, I'm all for it. Progress sometimes dictates change, and I don't see why Socialism is such an ugly word. Take Denmark or Sweden, where you still have elections, free-trade, individual rights and ownership and free business. Those certainly seem like "American" qualities to me.

Move to Europe if that is what you want. Our ancestors left that continent decades ago to get away from that crap. Leave it on that side of the pond please.

Well you really offered a lot of great arguments... as usual.

I'm glad you decided to join this discussion, you added so much to it.

Still bitter after all these years? 😀

What he said is true. This country was founded on freedom from a smoothering gov't. Europeans seem to still like it which is fine by me but please keep it over there, we prefer to keep our individualism here(atleast some of us do).

After all these years?

What he said has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand and neither does your reply, you may consider this trolling funny but i really do not.

It doesn't add to the subject and it's not even a joke... or maybe it is?

 

[Starbuck1975]

it's odd that the party of jesus would be against this... he was a total commie.

Actually Jesus was a humanitarian...I don't think his teachings fit a particular political ideology.

I think it's really funny to analyse how this works, in the US you don't have universal healthcare because that would be "socialist" and yet you pay more via tax money per capita than the UK, Germany, France, hell take your pick, on top of that you got your employers paying for insurance, on top of that you get medications that cost up to 100x what i have to pay and that is without my government paying a pound for it.

This happens because our government cannot seem to make up its mind on the direction for this country...if the government would simply step aside and allow the free market to do its thing, we wouldn't have this escalation of costs.

the slippery slope argument is so old and retarded.

Then why are Democrat politicians so fond of it...to be fair, so are Republicans, but it is not a stretch to argue that some of these big government programs have a tendency to take on a life of their own, even if started with the best of intentions.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Capitalizt

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
This bill is incrementalism at its best.

We start with the ?it's a disgrace that in one of the richest nations in the world, any kid would have to go without health insurance for any reason? argument then after this bill it put in place we just slowly expand it outward.

How can anyone object to providing healthcare to old people?
How can anyone object to providing healthcare to poor people?
How can anyone object to providing healthcare to college kids?

Etc etc etc.

OMG Conspiracy!!! ..but what would be bad about those things?

To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical. ? Thomas Jefferson

A libertian quoting Ghandi... LMAO, this is just soooooo funny.

 

[Capitalizt]

I quote good thoughts, no matter where they come from 😉

 

[teclis1023]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

it's odd that the party of Jesus would be against this... he was a total commie.

Actually Jesus was a humanitarian...I don't think his teachings fit a particular political ideology.

No matter which party he would have chosen, anyone would find it a hard argument to make that Jesus would not have supported increased support and welfare for the poor, considering that Tzedekha (charity) was one of his main themes.

But religious is neither here nor there in politics....right?

 

[Capitalizt]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

A libertarian quoting Ghandi... LMAO, this is just soooooo funny.

Here's a nice quote many democrats and "liberals" would agree with today...

"We are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions."









--Adolf Hitler

(Speech of May 1, 1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: teclis1023

Originally posted by: Wreckem
You want Universical Healthcare? Well its going to cost a pretty penny. Who is going to pay for it? You and I?

I would gladly pay higher taxes if it resulted in universal health care, better welfare and social support.

[/quote]

That is fine, I however dont. Do dont think it is noble to tax me for your utopian dream of UHC

Move to Europe if that is what you want. Our ancestors left that continent decades ago to get away from that crap. Leave it on that side of the pond please.

Socialism didn't exist when America was formed; in fact, things were quite the opposite. People colonized North America for a huge variety of reasons, and a large portion of them remained loyal to their existing governments.

This country was founded on principals of limited govt. Because the founding fathers saw what an interventionalist govt can and will do in Europe. We wanted to break the bonds of oppression. This feeling and sentiment held strong until the 1930s when in a knee jerk reaction to the great depression we grew our federal govt and it hasnt stopped since.