| | DEMOCRATS SECRETLY END TWO PARTY SYSTEM
| SAY HELLO TO SOCIALISM
User ID: 585354
 United States
11/4/2009 1:49 PM
Report abusive post | DEMOCRATS SECRETLY END TWO PARTY SYSTEM
| Quote |
[link to thinkprogress.org]
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) repeated his concern that requiring Americans to purchase health insurance is unconstitutional. Hatch offered typical run-of-the-mill conservative arguments about “socialized medicine.” But at one point, he let it slip that the real reason he is trying to stop health care reform is that the American public might really like it and therefore vote for Democrats:
1 party system in the US: DEMOCRAT.
OBAMA and his supporters want to say FUCK YOU to all INDEPENDENTS , CONSERVATIVES, and WHATEVER.
FUTURE US DEMOCRAT = SOCIALISM.
YOU DO WHAT THEY SAY. YOUR VOTES AREN'T COUNTED.
CHECK OUT THE ARTICLE. IT'S SCARY. |
| SAY HELLO TO SOCIALISM
User ID: 585354 (OP)
United States
11/4/2009 1:51 PM | | locomotion
User ID: 810388
United States
11/4/2009 4:00 PM | | Re: DEMOCRATS SECRETLY END TWO PARTY SYSTEM | Quote |
We've had one party politics for quite some time now.
Unfortunately, WeThePeople didn't get invited to the party. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 585354 (OP)
United States
11/4/2009 4:17 PM | | Re: DEMOCRATS SECRETLY END TWO PARTY SYSTEM | Quote |
We've had one party politics for quite some time now.
Unfortunately, WeThePeople didn't get invited to the party. Quoting: locomotion 810388
I can't believe that we are becoming a communist country. So much for democracy. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 771079
United States
11/4/2009 4:22 PM | | Re: DEMOCRATS SECRETLY END TWO PARTY SYSTEM | Quote |
Imagine. we fought so much claiming communism was the devil. Did we win? No. Instead, we decide it is good. Or, um, the government did just as they used to decide it was bad. |
| Right Wing Moran
User ID: 810364
United States
11/4/2009 4:27 PM | | Re: DEMOCRATS SECRETLY END TWO PARTY SYSTEM | Quote |
Yeah, insuring that sick Americans won't be denied health care -- and no one can be denied coverage due to a pre-existing condition -- is pretty damn scary.
Actually, aren't health insurance execs who decide who gets coverage and who doesn't, the real death panels? |
| Enlilson
User ID: 808639
United States
11/4/2009 4:33 PM | | Re: DEMOCRATS SECRETLY END TWO PARTY SYSTEM | Quote |
We've had one party politics for quite some time now.
Unfortunately, WeThePeople didn't get invited to the party.
I can't believe that we are becoming a communist country. So much for democracy. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 585354
U do know that we are a republic right. As for two parties considering they are both financed by the same folks the only ones left that believe else wise are more then likely waitin for their shot.
' " "'
__O__
_/_\_____
" """""""""""""""""""""""""""
carvin across the face you call life settin up for the green rm. |
| locomotion
User ID: 498395
United States
11/4/2009 4:47 PM | | Re: DEMOCRATS SECRETLY END TWO PARTY SYSTEM | Quote |
We've had one party politics for quite some time now.
Unfortunately, WeThePeople didn't get invited to the party.
I can't believe that we are becoming a communist country. So much for democracy. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 585354
We've had a Democratic Republic up to the last few decades, sometimes for better, sometimes for worse.
Where we are headed now is uncharted territory, not necessarily Communism exactly. More like a Corporate State, with Gbmt and Corporations deciding what is best for them, packaged nicely and marketed to give the illusion that it is what is best for us.
Something like this: Government will be by edicts to WeThePeople, accompanied by thinly veiled Corporate threats of job/security loss to encourage our voluntary participation.
To perpetuate the illusion of Democracy, voting will become mandatory. You can choose Corp/Gov Shill A, or Corp/Gov Shill B, but you will choose.
When/if we grunt a little as we are bent over the bar, the newly militarized Police are there to strongarm us into compliance, if not total submission.
We're almost there now. |
| locomotion
User ID: 498395
United States
11/4/2009 4:58 PM | | Re: DEMOCRATS SECRETLY END TWO PARTY SYSTEM | Quote |
Yeah, insuring that sick Americans won't be denied health care -- and no one can be denied coverage due to a pre-existing condition -- is pretty damn scary.
Actually, aren't health insurance execs who decide who gets coverage and who doesn't, the real death panels? Quoting: Right Wing Moran 810364
There is no doubt the 'health care' system is broken.
Much of what is being proposed won't fix anything from the perspective of average Americans.
Extorting insurance premium payments and participation from people who either can't afford them now or have no interest in participating in a broken medical system is not the answer.
Be advised, I've taken over my own healthcare and that of my family in self-defense. Doctors don't know everything, they are fallible humans just like the rest of us but they are quite good at 'burying the bodies'.
Drugs don't fix every human ailment.
In an ideal world, tip top medical care would be available for everyone who wanted it.
We do not live in an ideal world. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 798166
United States
11/4/2009 5:03 PM | | Re: DEMOCRATS SECRETLY END TWO PARTY SYSTEM | Quote |
What two-party system? |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 798166
United States
11/4/2009 5:20 PM | | Re: DEMOCRATS SECRETLY END TWO PARTY SYSTEM | Quote |
Yeah, insuring that sick Americans won't be denied health care -- and no one can be denied coverage due to a pre-existing condition -- is pretty damn scary.
Actually, aren't health insurance execs who decide who gets coverage and who doesn't, the real death panels? Quoting: Right Wing Moran 810364
YES, but apparently a number of people would rather have private death panels than public ones.
NO, government should not be involved in regulating every aspect of our lives; but taxpayers already pay for the uninsured. Reigning in the exorbitant costs of health care, pharmaceuticals, etc. is important. So who's going to do this? The hospitals, insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies? The people? And which people have the most incentive to desire change? The wealthy? The upper middle class?
It almost seems like people want the system to break... |
| locomotion
User ID: 662258
United States
11/4/2009 6:17 PM | | Re: DEMOCRATS SECRETLY END TWO PARTY SYSTEM | Quote |
YES, but apparently a number of people would rather have private death panels than public ones.
NO, government should not be involved in regulating every aspect of our lives; but taxpayers already pay for the uninsured. Reigning in the exorbitant costs of health care, pharmaceuticals, etc. is important. So who's going to do this? The hospitals, insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies? The people? And which people have the most incentive to desire change? The wealthy? The upper middle class?
It almost seems like people want the system to break... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 798166
The system has been broken already for many of us.
Nobody 'in authority' had a problem with this broken system until it became apparent that it would fall down completely from the overload of greed from insurers, health care providers, patients who think they need to see a doctor for every little ache and pain, and lawyers.
When it became apparent that 'the end was nigh', NOW we have a problem that can only be fixed by roping in more participants, particularly the young who seldom need extensive medical treatments but will be paying into a system that subsidizes the desperately sick and the 'frequent flyers' of the system. Oh also, the uninsured most of whom take care of themselves because they want to be healthy and take steps to that end.
This is a pyramid scheme of the worst sort.
Let's be clear on this: Nobody pays for this 'uninsured' individual but me. When I go to see a doctor, dentist, or eye doctor I pay, or I don't go.
Same for our uninsured children. They pay or we pay for them, or they don't go.
As for the uninsured who are on public assistance of some sort, they would get treatment under their assistance plan anyway, so no need for a overreaching 'health care plan' that extorts our money to pad insurance company profits. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 798166
United States
11/4/2009 9:16 PM | | Re: DEMOCRATS SECRETLY END TWO PARTY SYSTEM | Quote |
Let's be clear on this: Nobody pays for this 'uninsured' individual but me. When I go to see a doctor, dentist, or eye doctor I pay, or I don't go.
Same for our uninsured children. They pay or we pay for them, or they don't go.
As for the uninsured who are on public assistance of some sort, they would get treatment under their assistance plan anyway, so no need for a overreaching 'health care plan' that extorts our money to pad insurance company profits. Quoting: locomotion 662258
Uninsured people in car accidents, acute illnesses, etc will be treated at hospital ERs at the taxpayer's expense. Many civilized, non-socialist countries have nationalized health care systems which work well, blending public and private sector.
Also, there is the issue of an unregulated free market health care system allowing pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies and hospitals to gauge patients, insured and otherwise, with inflated costs.
Just one counterpoint. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 798166
United States
11/4/2009 9:21 PM | | Re: DEMOCRATS SECRETLY END TWO PARTY SYSTEM | Quote |
If a public option can keep private sector costs in check, and provide a more affordable choice for those who work and make enough money to not qualify for free assistance, but who cannot afford private health care, then why not.
It's not as though public health care would be forced on everyone. People could still stay with private insurers, or opt to remain uncovered. If this were not the case, I could understand the "socialist, fascist" criticisms. |
| locomotion
User ID: 691171
United States
11/5/2009 2:22 PM | | Re: DEMOCRATS SECRETLY END TWO PARTY SYSTEM | Quote |
In response, first the full quote of my post.
The system has been broken already for many of us.
Nobody 'in authority' had a problem with this broken system until it became apparent that it would fall down completely from the overload of greed from insurers, health care providers, patients who think they need to see a doctor for every little ache and pain, and lawyers.
When it became apparent that 'the end was nigh', NOW we have a problem that can only be fixed by roping in more participants, particularly the young who seldom need extensive medical treatments but will be paying into a system that subsidizes the desperately sick and the 'frequent flyers' of the system. Oh also, the uninsured most of whom take care of themselves because they want to be healthy and take steps to that end.
This is a pyramid scheme of the worst sort.
Let's be clear on this: Nobody pays for this 'uninsured' individual but me. When I go to see a doctor, dentist, or eye doctor I pay, or I don't go.
Same for our uninsured children. They pay or we pay for them, or they don't go.
As for the uninsured who are on public assistance of some sort, they would get treatment under their assistance plan anyway, so no need for a overreaching 'health care plan' that extorts our money to pad insurance company profits. Quoting: locomotion 662258
<<Uninsured people in car accidents, acute illnesses, etc will be treated at hospital ERs at the taxpayer's expense.>>
Some will, and many are illegal immigrants, but not all.
“uninsured”? I have no health insurance but as an insured driver, paying extra premiums for others who are ‘uninsured or underinsured’, my medical treatment would be covered by my auto insurance, not the taxpayer. When hospitals serve the uninsured, generally it is the hospital that sucks up unpaid balances.. I personally have processed the write-offs of millions of uncollectible dollars for one hospital. Well over half of the personal bankruptcies in the US are prompted by astronomical medical costs that the bankruptcy filer cannot pay. Certainly when someone doesn’t pay, it comes back to those of us who do in one form or another, but not only the taxpayer.
As an uninsured, I pay FULL charges for any services I seek. There are no discounts because I belong to an HMO that demands and gets those discounts, nor any discounts because I went to a contracted ‘preferred provider’, or belong to XYZ Insurance Group, etc. So in reality, uninsured folks are subsidizing the insured people (read insurance companies) by paying higher fees and costs for the exact same services and products insureds receive.
<< Many civilized, non-socialist countries have nationalized health care systems which work well, blending public and private sector.>>
Very happy to hear that. Did they start from scratch to develop those working systems, or did they try to hybridize and bastardize an already broken system, making sure to maintain the profit margin for Big Players? There is only ONE way the current system can be converted to such a hybrid, and it requires enlarging the pool of insureds to the highest volume, thus the required participation of everyone.
<<Also, there is the issue of an unregulated free market health care system allowing pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies and hospitals to gauge patients, insured and otherwise, with inflated costs.
Just one counterpoint.>>
Which version of this health care bill serves to ‘regulate’ the industry? While there are apparently several versions being brought forward, I’m not aware of any provision that, for example, allows price negotiations for pharmaceuticals, just as the Medicare boondoggle a few years back did not allow for US to get the better prices citizens of other nations get on drugs. This little loophole greatly benefited the drug companies to the detriment of taxpayers and the elderly, and to my knowledge this newly packaged boondoggle bill has the same setup.
If Congress wishes to regulate an industry, there are legitimate legislative tools available to do so. Of course, that would require a front door approach, which would go on the record, rather than fabled back door ‘regulation’ through competition .
<<If a public option can keep private sector costs in check, and provide a more affordable choice for those who work and make enough money to not qualify for free assistance, but who cannot afford private health care, then why not.>>
The IF factor here is great. An old saying down south is If a frog had wings, he wouldn‘t bump his butt hopping.
However, IF a public option can keep costs in check, and IF it is truly affordable (definition of affordable varies by individual), and IF it is a CHOICE and not a mandate to join, then no objections here to a public option. We already have partially socialized medicine in the forms of Medicare for the very old and CHIPS programs for the very young, this Public Option might allow those in the middle paying out of both pockets already to access a little health care for themselves, IF they so desire.
<<It's not as though public health care would be forced on everyone. People could still stay with private insurers, or opt to remain uncovered. If this were not the case, I could understand the "socialist, fascist" criticisms.>>
People cannot ‘opt to remain uncovered’. The participation of everyone in some form or other is mandated, required, in every version of this bill I have seen, and required participation by ALL has been stated by its main authors (thanks again Max!) as a done deal, it will be there. It appears to be the most non-negotiable aspect of this plan, and reinforces my assessment that the main goal is to increase the pool of payers and players, making it the grandest of pyramid schemes and one that allows a broken system to continue when someone should for Pete’s Sake just put a silver bullet in it and start again.
If information to the contrary is there, please share. I would love to hear that our lawmakers understand the unconstitutional nature of requiring me to purchase health insurance I do not want and could not afford if I wanted it, insurance that looks for every loophole to deny paying claims, insurance that doesn‘t cover alternative forms of health care that may be more beneficial to me than allopathic medicine and pharmaceuticals.
No illusions here that the Repubs are balking on this bill from concern for our Constitutional right to choose how we spend what little is left of our paychecks. No illusions that the Dems are concerned about the millions that go without basic medical care each day. Where was this concern decades past? This is an important issue that is being used to its full political potential, once again separating WeThePeople from both our money and each other, while catering to corporate interests as usual.
It’s a callous, despicable game. There’s not a nickel’s worth of difference between the Offense and the Defense here, they both play for the same team.
A Party of One, and they ain’t no party. |
| |
|
