Lucky...

To me, this would be wrong. EVERY American should have the best care we can give them, regardless of their social, economic, or military status. There are many other ways in which we can and should reward military service. You're such a Socialist, real Americans want everyone to have just what they can afford; can't afford, no get.

Well, he certainly fits the definition of "stupid": adj., -er, -est. 1. Slow to learn or understand; obtuse. 2. Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes. 3. Marked by a lack of intelligence or care; foolish or careless: a stupid mistake. 4. Dazed, stunned, or stupefied. 5. Pointless; worthless: a stupid job. n. A stupid or foolish person. He satisfies most of the criteria ... I would at least give him a 70% on the test. Wow, it does fit him to a tee. He really isn't totally a bad guy, that was Cheeny, but GWB was just dumb and think he started to grow a conscience 1/2 way thru his 2nd term. Bush fully showed how dumb he was/is after his first 2-3 years in office, really sooner, so what does that say of his electorate? Can you say ideologue.

Fair enough, not trying to nitpick ya. Thx. We can attach a defining word to a specific ideology and when we have 2 concurrent systems, what do we call it? A hybrid? Who cares? We currently have attributes of Capitalism, Socialism and even scant Communism in the US. Is it working? No. So in order to not be insane, we can't keep doing the same thing claiming it works alright, agreed? So which way do we change? Do we do the Libertarian thing and lower taxes to 10%? Or have we learned thru history that tax cuts lead to disaster? What do we do? So far Obama's plan is working well, I'd like to see a faster turnaround in real GDP in history. It may exist, I just don't know of it. And the market, look at it fly. See, in teh US, we need to resort the rich and make them millionaires/billionaires before we get the people back to work again; just the lovely way we roll with our Capitalism. So what's left, unemployment? OK, give it a year, guarantee we'll be under 7%, probably 5-6%. What will you say then? It cost too much? You can't have it both ways and this way gets things together faster. Did you have a hard time admitting Clinton's fiscalplan was golden? How about agreeing the Reagan/GWB (same plan) was and is a dissaster? If we do this, we have a hard timing saying, "tax cuts my friends." That's fine, but I have defined how Obama's plan has worked well in under a year, you refuse to explain how it isn't, what would be better or anything contrary. It's your right, but do you expect anyone reading this to agree with you when you have no explanation for your beliefs? Most people are ideologues. That's obviously when a person sticks with an ideology whether it's positive or not. I view most contemporary Republicans as ideologues, as they refuse to understand new ideas, which is why you call the other end, progressives. The Republicans were the progressives in 1860, they held that for 50-60 years and then became the ideologically regressive party. The term neo-con was coined in 1921 as I read in one article, most, including me, thought it was a Reagan thing. Tax cuts, my friends is pure poison. The Republican Party lost it's way as they went into the 1920's and have only had 2 honorable WH representatives since; Eisenhower and GHWB - no honorable ones are in sight. The most blatant example of an ideological culture was with Hitler, many of the German Workers' Party, then later named by Hitler the National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nazi for short) electorate went to their graves defending him. We look now and ask how that could be, but once people become ideologues they are hard to change, even with loads of empirical data. I feel most contmporary Republicans are in that ilk. I mean, do you think the National Socialist German Workers' Party electorate did anything but deny or justify the atrocities of Hitler and the Nazi Party? Do you think they discussed the elements or just dismissed it and called outsiders a bunch of terrorists, or their equivalent for that day? I listened to one German lady speaking, she was a citizen under Hitler, she spoke of Nationalism, bilnd Nationalism. This is the element neccessary for a corrupt regime and so far that's mostly what I see from current Republicans. Not trying to anger you and I'm not calling you any names, just look at it, if you can't honestly define the acts of the system you subscribe to, then maybe it's time to rethink your positions on things. This is why I ask everyone to show me a major Fed Tax cut that has resulted in bliss, or the opposite, a major Fed tax incr that has turned to shit. I'd love to read either of those and/or explain how Obama is going the wrong way, what he should do, etc.

I didn't extend it to you but I would like that. Just address issues and no pettiness. 1) I believe it's income-based, altho that wouldn't be a problem now, it could be. 2) As well, I'm not a selfish American, I truly want HC for all Americans. I expect the rich to pay more in taxes, but I don;t care if they tack a few 100 billion onto the debt to provide basic HC for all. Also, as I said, I would donate twice a year if we go to a comprehensive HC plan; I think it s/b compulsory for all who receive HC plan benefits. Of course I think military service s/b too, but the elitist rich would never go for that. I'm for more compulsory involvement into government by all, rather than selfish regard for one's own wants.

Umm...I'm gonna need to see a list of 3rd world countries that have UHC. Umm...I'm gonna need to see a list of 3rd world countries that have UHC. I wrote that, " We don't have some form of HC for all, ..." I didn't state that explicitly we don't or 3rd world countries do have universal healthcare. But I will research to see which countries have HC of some sort. http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/third_world.htm It's actually difficult to find a list of 3rd world countries, period. It's an ambiguous term and people draw the line at diff places. So here is how they also break categories down as well: Below Third World Countries by various categories: - Third World Countries in terms of Political Rights and Civil Liberties. - Third World Countries in terms of their Gross National Income (GNI) - Third World Countries in Terms of their Human Development - Third World Countries in Terms of Poverty - Third World Countries in Terms of Press Freedom So if I go thru and compile all the 3rd world countries I have this: Burma (Myanmar) Cuba http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Cuba The Cuban government operates a national health system and assumes fiscal and administrative responsibility for the health care of all its citizens.[1] No private hospitals or clinics are permitted.[citation needed] The present Minister for Public Health is José Ramón Balaguer. Libya http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_in_Libya Basic health care is provided to all citizens. Health, training, rehabilitation, education, housing, family issues, and disability and old-age benefits are all regulated by “Decision No. 111” (dated December 9, 1999) of the General People’s Committee on the Promulgation of the By-Law Enforcement Law No. 20 of 1998 on the Social Care Fund. The health care system is not purely state-run but rather a mixed system of public and private care. North Korea http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea#Health_care North Korea has a national medical service and health insurance system. Somalia Sudan Turkmenistan Uzbekistan Chechnya (Russia) Tibet Belarus China Cote d’Ivoire Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Laos Saudi Arabia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_in_Saudi_Arabia The healthcare system in Saudi Arabia can be classified as a national health care system in which the government provides health care services through a number of government agencies. In the meantime, there is a growing role and increased participation from the private sector in the provision of health care services. Syria Zimbabwe Timor-Leste Malawi Somalia Democratic Republic of the Congo Tanzania Yemen Burundi Afghanistan Guinea-Bissau Ethiopia Niger Liberia Sierra Leone Madagascar Zambia Eritrea Senegal Rwanda Guinea Benin Tanzania Angola Chad Central African Rep. Ethiopia Mozambique Guinea-Bissau Burundi Mali Burkina Faso Sierra Leone There may be duplicates in the list. Also, I didn't include 3rd world countries by way of media suppression, that wasn't in the reasonable criteria. Here's a good read for what is a 3rd world nation: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/General/ThirdWorld_def.html So I picked a few and posted links. It would take all day to do a comprehensive, detailed list and analysis, but I showed how even very broke, destitute countries provide SOME FORM of HC for all, even with limited resource; that was my point.

Some people seem to INCORRECTLY assume that "public option" means the ONLY option. THIS IS FALSE, and therefore the poll is bogus as there is not a single option which "every other American" would use. There are and going to be multiple options, and people will choose between them depending on their priorities. As with everything else in DC the public option might start out small... Like the military? I just don't hear ya bitchin about that.

Is this Ron? You back peddler you . 3rd worlds = 3rd world countries. So now address it: We don't have some form of HC for all, that relegates us to below some 3rd worlds Maybe war vets, but I don't want to stratify Americans, that causes the division Repubs relish. We're all Americans, let's pull together and not be elitist. Yep, but many Americans are for this public option HC abolition drive. I'm not gonna sit here and try to ween out the good guys from teh bad, until we get some kind of reasonable HC guaranteed I would never donate. I want to, but I also want to live in a nation that has basic guarantees. Actually you brought the term in in post 75: No, I guess you don't know what the word volunteer means, I didn't "have" to do anything, it was a choice to help others. My question is what are you doing to help your country? What I wrote was this: I'm not saying you personally have to do a thing, I'm saying in order for more people to get HC then some people need to volunteer, whereas civilized countries don't require volunteerism for basic needs. By that I mean if people don't volunteer then it won't get done. I'm not advocating that people volunteer, I'm advicating that we not be compelled to volunteer in order to get HC to all. Volunteerism is great, hats off, but the gov s/b compelled to guarantee basic HC to all.

So your saying due to me being a vet I have benefits? I've never applied to the VA for that, just my VA loan qual years ago. I don't know that they accept everyone and they can deny based upon income, etc. A lifer has comprehensive benefits for life, a 1-termer I don't think does and they can be limited. And let's take the spotlight offf of me, I want all Americans to have HC regardless of vet status. So now you doubt my vet status. OMG, as if a 4-year stint in the military is a big accomplishment . If I were gonna lie, I could do better than that. You must not be a vet, a 1-termer doesn't have the golden slipper for lifetime HC. Again, even if I did, explain how the other non-vets get covered. See, your example illustrates my point that conservatives are just worried about themselves, I want all Americcans to have HC regardless of anything.

Because our assumptions are based on logic and reality, rather than hope and utopian ideals. So in order to decieve, you post a partial and don't, "..." it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as "contextomy" or "quote mining", is a logical fallacy and type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning. I wrote in full: Certain things in life shouldn't be profit-driven like HC. Other things should be provit-driven as in engineering and manufacturing; why is it some people can't see this? HC should not be profit-driven, manufacturing s/b; that was my point with a follow-up of wondering why some people can't see this. The rest of the world does, so the 2% of neo-con Americans must be right while the other 89% wrong. So who has ideals based upon utopia (everyone can afford barely regulated HC) and who's are not (HC must be guaranteed in some sort and regulated, esp if private)? I see your MO is based upon grammatical dishonesty.

Actually I should amend that to state the nutty conservatives, not teh nutty right. Altho it might be somehat the same, not to be confused with the original Republican Party, which was very liberal until the early 1900's. That's your incorrect extrapolation. Conservatives today pretend the salvery period didn't happen and cling to this pseudo, patriotic-driven version of events and beliefs. Conservatives then (Dems) thought it was normal to enalve and hell, A black person was 3/5 of a white one. No where did I say that only righties see those national monuments as monikers of freedom, I said that only righties tie the foundation of slavery, rape and chauvenism to freedom and liberty under the guise of bad memories. Your post verifies that assesrtion.

Your argument is based on the fallacy that the public government option will somehow be competitive with the private insurers, despite the fact that it derives a part of it's funding by levying taxes on those very same companies, in addition to having the ability to "regulate" them. Let's say 1% of people that have private insurance switch to the "public option". The government now has to not only pay for that 1%'s health care, they have to deal with the reduced tax income from the insurance company they left. What do they do? Raise those taxes, which in turn causes the private insurer to raise their rates, sending another 1% of people to the public option. Should we talk about how the increased fees on the drug companies are going to raise insurers' costs also? Since it eliminates the pre-existing condition issue, what motive is there to keep people from waiting until they get sick/injured to buy coverage? The tax you have to pay for not having it? So long as paying that tax is cheaper than the insurance, it's still cheaper not to get insurance. Yep, the massses will likely revert to the unrestrictive gov plan and leave overpriced private plans that selectively cover and look for reasons to deny. Certain things in life shouldn't be profit-driven like HC. Other things should be provit-driven as in engineering and manufacturing; why is it some people can't see this?

So you want them to be guaranteed of basic HC at reasonable prices w/o conditions? Good, I see we're on the same page.

So you want socialism or communism imposed? Shall we take other millionaires sign up too? This is extremely contradictory for you to want upper-class people to have to submit to sameness. I realize you're posturing, but literally speaking you're petitioning for socialism to communism somewhere.

The debt was 900B as Reagan took office, please tell me all the Dem fuck ups since then. They were minimized a lot of Reagan's terms and virtually all of GWB's terms, which is where the damage was done, so I don't seee how they were responsible. The healing from Reagan took place from 90 to 93 with the tax incease and spending cuts and congress was Dem controlled then. I just don't seee how the Dems had a measurable part in this financial mess. Good to see an R admit the obvious. We need heavy taxc increases then. That's true, the seniors can wait after all. Dude, some things you just have to do no matter what. This is the greatest generation who were elderly in the timeframe to which you refer, yet fuck em???? I won't get an answer, but tell me what he spent on and what he should have done instead. What the results are now and what they would be if your plan was in effect. BTW, I;m still waiting for your plan. You read like a Heritage Foundation article. What special interest BS? What waste? What has Obama spent on that you think was a bad idea? I asked before, lay out your Jan 20, 2009 plan considering all attributes to the economy. Shall we abolish government? EXACTLY WHICH ONES CAN YOU BLAME OBAMA FOR? Really? - Market (DJIA) was 7950 and freefalling as he took office, now it's 10,400+. - GDP was in it's 4th of 5 neg Q's, it has moved + 10 points since then, probably unprecedented GDP recovery, if not, damn near. So come again, less than a year and an amazing recovery so far, quite a way to go, but digging in and making ground. So again, how is he not helping them? What exactly is his fault? BTW, I don't expect answers.

I think it's one in the same. In reality this is in its infancy with diff versions, so we really don't know. And hey, if you have ins now and plan to keep it, this can only help you.

Pertains to larger corps and may be hacked. OK, what does that have to do with, "And when has my employer ever been penalized for not providing me with a house?" Yep, we're all hurting, big and small, way more small, however. Yep, furlow. 1) This won't take effect for years most likely and the economy will be recovered. 2) How is it that other countries can provide this via employer or increaed payroll / income taxes, etc and be beating our currency and overall economy? You're a true American tho, I'll give ya that; money before people. Point is, I don't give a fuck how or where, it's pathetic that the US doesn't find a way.

See if ya can follow along: - Cut taxes = debt increases - Cut taxes = wealth disparity speads as with the late 1920's where the top .01% held asset equal to that of the bottom 40%. Cutting taxes sucks for most, rocks for a very few. Or both. In fact GHWB and Clinton did both and look at what happened. Why do we have to be so simplistic as in 1 or the other? Of course your heroes did neither and the debt is 12T due to that.

Perhaps you're not following it very well, but that is the plan.

And this is where the RW needs to go fuck themselves. They waive around freeloaders and ask if you want to pay for them. They've done it for years with all kinds of social benefits, throw in a twist of racism and do you really want to pay for that N***** to have 20 babies to grow up and murder you? This is why we need a public option if not a single payer plan. My GF has Crohn's, has worked at the same county job for 29 years and can't retire due to pre-existings. I guess she's lazy too. The RW just needs to roll up and fucking go away. Love teh young voters, love the minority voters; keep the Nazis out of the WH / congress! Just as with the death penalty and many things. Yep, well, ignorance breeds fear and that's why it is the way it is. We're not ignorant? Explain how GWB got even 20% of the popular vote.

Yea, $95 the first year and it goes up a little after that. Well, now I can see why you keep saying you can't afford healthcare, if you're only making $3800/year (penalty tax is 2.5%). Actually it's not that simple, we're probably both wrong. http://www.factcheck.org/2009/11/imprisoned-for-not-having-health-care/ the House-passed bill. That mandate requires people to have health insurance, unless they are below a certain income threshold ($9,350 for singles, $18,700 for couples in 2009). Those who don’t get coverage will be subject to a tax of 2.5 percent of their adjusted income beyond that threshold, up to the cost of the average national premium. So it's gross adjusted, far diff from gross as you exemplified. These are not sections of the House bill itself. Rather, they are sections of the current Internal Revenue Code, laying out the consequences of willful tax nonpayment. (Here’s section 7203, section 7201, and an additional section that sets a higher fine than 7201, as noted in the letter’s footnotes.) Thee's the IRS code. In the Senate, the Finance Committee’s health care bill was amended to nullify the possibility of jail time for not paying the penalty tax. It stipulates that in the case of nonpayment, "such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure." Instead, the Senate measure would allow the government to collect the tax by deducting it from any IRS tax-refund checks or other government payments. Should the full Senate approve that language, a House-Senate conference committee would have to wrestle with the question of whether or not a person who refuses to obtain coverage and refuses to pay the penalty can be charged with criminal tax evasion. So there are diff versions, it's way early to see what the truth may be. Here's where I got my number: http://www.thepowerofa.org/2009/11/summary-of-merged-senate-health-care-bill/ - The bill contains a requirement that individuals have insurance coverage. The penalties for not having insurance begin in 2014 with a $95 fine, and scales up to $750 by 2016. So that's why I said it started with a $95 fine. I dunno, it's way to ambiguous with way too many diffs now to really say.

No, not at all. I own my home and don't have a mortgage or debt. I live within my means. I only have one credit card and that is so I can rent cars when I travel. So my statement stands, I don't pay less income tax because I own a home. Your situation is unusual, most people have heavy notes that they writeoff.

We don't have some form of HC for all, that relegates us to below some 3rd worlds. I think all Americans should. Get my way? No, to donate blood so some fucking corporation can profit 1000% from it; fuck that. Here, give us your blood so we can deny you care. What kind of idiot would do that? The position of HC for *some* is selfish at the very least is not saddistic. How am I punishing them, by not giving blood? Why are people with your position punishing people like me? This is not a matter of 99% of the people wanting HC, there are a lot of people in the lower middle / middle pulling for the abolition of HC, so this is and has been a very divided nation at all levels. Bizzare to me why you wouldn't want to basic form of HC to all.

I'd like to see evidence of that.

And the debt was 900B as Reagan took office, do you think he was a visionary? Oh wait, he couldn't have been, he pussied out of the war due to to ALLEGED bad eyesight. But of course this is a partisan argument to you, so there will be no blame for the right.

It doesn't matter; the firetrucks will have a very hard time making it past the roadblocks and the land mines that the Republicans have been placing ever since Ronald Regan was appointed. Please elaborate these specific road blocks and landmines you are referring to? - Trippled the debt - Cut taxes from 70% to 50%, 50% to 38%, and 38% to 28%. This drove up the debt to tripple, in spite of increased revenues. Taxes have never even been 40% since crappy drawers and these have been the worst finacial times as a whole since Reagan took office. Under Clinton they flourished, but that was in spite of low taxes. - Busted labor - Overbuilt a military when it wasn't needed