-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Democrats want to use reconciliation to pass healthcare legislation
Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
And this Xellos2099 is the answer that most Saddam/dictator apologists will give. Clearly it was "unfair" for the UN to "impose" sanctions and demand inspections... I mean he had an image to maintain in the region and had to be free to quell any uprisings(with gas).
Ooops - forgot this what a forced UHC thread.
Um, no he couldn't. The UN WMD inspectors were in the country in the middle of completing inspections when *Bush* said they needed to leave so he could invade.
Saddam had kicked them out years earlier under Clinton, but they went back in after Bush got his 'authorization of force resolution', hwih Bush said would *not* be used for war, but only to get the inspectors back in, unless Saddam still refused to let the inspectors back in. It worked, Saddam let them back in.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
:laugh: Can you not read? I didn't say YOU or anyone in this thread directly said that. However, I was mocking you Saddam/Dictator apologists that post crap like you did.
You said that my answer was the answer most apologists would give, then you drew a conclusion from that which by any normal usage of the English language would be clearly attributable to someone who held my views.
If that wasn't your intent that's fine, but that's what you did.
Xellos2099
Platinum Member
I was pretty sure the UN inspector were not allow into some area and then Bush pushed for war.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Yes, I mocked you apologists. Deal with it.
Do you really need to continue with the derailment?
frostedflakes
Diamond Member
You are a moron. Off the top of my head I know that Mexico has a socialized oil industry, and they probably have other government run industries. Most governments have socialist policies, because in some situations it works pretty well. I try not to get too hung up on ideology, I'm more of a pragmatist. If socialized medicine is better than the private system we have, I say bring it on.
That said, I of course have my doubts about how well the government could run health care. I also don't support it unless the feds are willing to raise taxes to actually pay for it. But like I said, if it can be paid for and done well, I'm all for it. The way I look at it, it all evens out -- you either have lower taxes and pay for private insurance, or have higher taxes but save money because you don't have to purchase private insurance. It would also take a large burden off corporations and especially small business, which could allow them to be more competitive internationally, lead to higher wages for workers, etc. The only people it hurts are those with large incomes who pay much more into the system than they use through government services. I do feel bad for them, but they are a few percent of the population at the most, and it's not like the rich haven't been getting screwed over for a long time anyways. They have always paid in more than they get back.
glenn1
Lifer
You're right - the middle class will pay for it, and in return get the government cheese class of healthcare. Those with means will continue to be able to purchase their high quality healthcare, and will continue to employ their (legal) means to minimize their tax burden, including direct payoffs to politicians. End result - the poor get marginally better care (if you want to consider a DMV level of service provision an "improvement), the middle class gets hosed, and the wealthy will continue to not give a sh!t about this issue.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
By all means then, lets pass something by ramming through Congress then...
Starbuck1975
Lifer
It was wrong when the Republicans did it...it is now wrong that the Democrats are doing the same thing.
However, I will always favor the government cutting taxes as opposed to creating bloated and bureaucratic programs that will inevitably require an increase in taxes.
Fix the corruption in the current system...don't invent a new government run system.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
:laugh: And here we have yet another great reason to ram it through Congress.... :roll: Puhfugginleeze - there is ZERO reason for this to be rammed through. IF(an unlikely proposition) the idea was properly put forth and had actual debate and input then fine but doing something this long-term and potentially damaging to multiple industries, family health, and the budget is just F'n stupid.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
First, I don't approve of ramming a piece of important legislation through without a chance to review every detail at length.
Second, the Saddam apologist thing is ridiculous. I couldn't stand the man, however I didn't wish to kill the Iraqis to get him. Considering that much of the "information" was bogus, it seems that the "apologists" lost to the bloodthirsty warmongers who to this day cannot point to any serious threat that Saddam posed IN FACT. Saddam insulted the US, and so we waged war on the Iraqis. If there is a Hell, there's a special place for Saddam and some of his most ardent opponents here. Satan's apologists.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
I don't see it that way. The "apologist" is meant for those like eskimospy who say and believe things like
- not everyone who didn't support our action there.
As to the "information" - I really don't care as I've stated for years - Saddam should have been removed back in '91. He basically got an extra decade of murderous rule because we lacked the stones to do the job the first time.
But anyway, this is still way off topic. 😛
If the Government implemented single payer and got the for-profit insurance companies out of the mix, it would let the Middle Class, the Poor, and their employers keep more of THEIR money. The amount of money your typical Middle Class type would save would be a hundred times their Bush tax cut.
Employers would be able to hire more employees and not worry about their health status. People could open small businesses without concern for their family's health insurance coverage.
It would be a huge improvement over the for-profit gouging that occurs now.
The money in spent in Iraq would be been better used as kindling. Then at least someone could have kept warm with it.
The Stimulus will create American jobs and improve infrastructure for American business. Much of it will come back in income and sales tax.
War is always a waste of money. Employing Americans provides a return.
nobodyknows
Diamond Member
There may be zero reason for you to ram this through congress, but I'm all for it.
I've been for affordable healthcare for everyone for some time now, it's part of having a real "civilization" in my opinion. You shouldn't be able to let people die from treatable health issues any more then you can let them starve to death.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
