For what, exactly? Voting the in the hollow jackass with an R after their name, rather than the hollow jackass with the D after their name?
This election became rather high profile lately...so I checked in on both candidates. Both seemed like phony dolts with little insight.
This thread is precisely what is wrong with our political system ... you have two sides either celebrating or griping ... why? What exactly has happened? The R's beat the D's. The D lost. The R won. Let's put dancing green bananas up, because the jackass with the letter I like beat the jackass with the letter I don't like.
Look back at this last election ... you have morons dancing in the streets, thinking a utopia was coming because a D beat an R - a black D at that!
Five dancing bananas...for what? What is so great about Scott Brown? What do you like about him aside from the letter next to his name?
Country's still screwed, government is still corrupt, and is still wasting your money. But, hey, R beat a D. My guy won. In Massachusetts.
I will say I'm glad Coakley lost ... that woman was insufferable. But this thread is the very reason why our population is continually duped by our government ... because we prefer and champion one group to expand our government and waste our money over another group expanding our government and wasting our money ... folks get so excited about the 'win' that they type in all caps and use dancing banana icons and continue the same downward spiral our government has become.
I guess most would call me a supporter of Obama. But, I am too glad this happened. The health care bill currently going through did very little to fix the problems. It was just a bill that they wanted to pass to say they passed something it seemed. My belief is the country runs best with a conservative majority in the house and senate. And a liberal president...
I also do hope somebody takes this time of chaos and runs with it a bit to start a third party. But I'm not even sure how much that would help. We'd still have the huge problem of special interest groups swaying the votes. Until someone cleans out all of them... I don't think we'll ever have a government truly for the people.
"I'm a mog. Half man, half dog. I'm my own best friend."
You're a little too focused in on the anti-party rhetoric Phil.
Those of us are happy not because a 'R' beat a 'D", but because it represents the beginning death knell for that piece of crap ObamaCare legislation. Everything after that - it is what it is.... but to have Massachusetts elect a Republican to a seat held by a Kennedy is no small act, and it is one that should send a VERY clear message - we, The People, do NOT want this legislation.
Yes, nothing in the larger picture has changed - the Gov't is still corrupt, it is still wasting money, etc... but this IS a victory, albeit a small one.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
sometimes you vote for the jackass that promised to be the fillibuster in ObamaCare because the value is higher than the cost of most any other thing he might do. Regardless, she would have sealed the fate of the bill and he will be the vote that makes everything in those closed door meeting become public... the Bribes will stop and they will have to go to the drawing board to create a plan that will make both parties happy if not... it won't pass. So it is a value I am happy to do my nanner dance.
Besides---- if you read my comment... I'm an (R) however, I would have voted for Clinton.
Quote: They want that big ol' crap sandwich back that was handed to Obama when he came into office? OK. Come this time next year, it's on them. They seem to know what they don't want, they've mastered the self righteous indignation and loud exhortations of "no, No, NO!" Ok guys, it's on you, you want the crap sandwich back, enjoy.
So who is responsible? Congress or the President? You can't have it both ways, if it's the President then Republican's scaling back the Democrat power in the congress should be no big deal right? And if it's congress then I guess Bush was given the big crap sandwich by them then? I mean it was Democrat controlled for quite a few years now.
Quote: but we still need healthcare reform.. just not how it was being written.. just saying..
Yes we do. The problem is we will never pass common sense reform. Even if all the politicians agree on something they won't pass it because it doesn't fit their entire agenda. "All or Nothing" is their motto. The Dems could have passed some of their reforms very easily and made it impossible for Republicans to say no. Instead they fought with each other about how much to add to the bill. If those on the left would have just conceded the whole government run part they were pushing we would have had most of what they wanted done already.
In my opinion that would have been a huge victory. The Dems would have held onto absolute power and Obama's numbers would have gone up. They then could have attempted more change. Their stupidity cost them.
I am quite happy though. Not because Brown won, or because a Republican won. I am happy because there is now little chance this blue whale of an albatross that is this healthcare bill will pass. I am happy because now the Congress will be FORCED to work on a more bi-partisan bill if they want anything. Granted they still only need a few moderate leaning R's....but it is a start. I don't know who Brown is...I will look into him once given the chance.
Personally I think the Government needs a reboot. The memory is corrupted and needs a hard reboot to clear it out. We need a fresh Operating System to run on. You ever notice how fast and efficient your PC runs when you first get it....well the same goes for our Government...We have too much gunk in the pipes blocking the bandwidth. Too much corruption, too much complexity, too many programs in the system.....
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
Another fact that proves The Founding Fathers wanted to build some good control into the balance of power(s). Hey, it's since gone haywire, but that has nothing to do with the intent of "balance."
We'll soon see the PR attack on how the (R) party stacked the deck somehow in Massachusettes,....
Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said Coakley's loss won't deter his colleagues from continuing their practice of blaming George W. Bush's administration.
"President George W. Bush and House Republicans drove our economy into a ditch and tried to run away from the accident," he said. "President Obama and congressional Democrats have been focused repairing the damage to our economy."
Drove it into a ditch? Maybe he wasn't anywhere near lake Chappaquiddick to drive it into and "run away from the accident."
This dog doesn't hunt anymore. I recall the big "0" saying that the stimulus was a fiscal emergency and would keep unemployment under 8.7 percent, yet here we are over 10. I recall words "transparency", "elimination of special interests", "no more Washington as usual", "no tax increases for those under $250,000".
I don't recall hearing campaigning of government take overs of banks, car companies or doubling the debt in only 20 months! Hope and Change was ALL BS and it didn't take long for the people to smell it.
side note... What's funny is that both parties continuously do this. The country goes to one side and that side gets so arrogant and corrupt that they shoot themselves in the foot by forgetting that they are there to represent the people. The power gets to them. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. It happens over and over.
Quote: The whole healthcare system doesn't make sense.
Those of us who work for private companies are forced to get health insurance from a private health care provider. The health care provider is in business for the same reason as any other company - to make money.
How in the world can a money making enterprise be expected to act in the best interests of those who make the enterprise lose money?
I mean, think about it, any private health care provider is going to do everything they can to get your business and deny your claims.
Do they deny every claim? No. Do they look for reasons to deny cliams? Yes.
Again, of course they're going to look for reasons to deny claims. Claims mean less money for the health insurance provider. - This system doesn't make sense to me.
I'll gladly listen to anybody who can make sense of it.
Insurance companies are insurance companies.
If you are a driver, and you have had 5 tickets, 3 accidents, and 2 DUIs ... good luck finding an insurance policy for anythng short of the GDP of a small country. Insurace companies insure against risk, and in this example, the proposed insured is a poor risk.
If you own a home in tornado alley, you will pay a higher premium than someone living in an area less prone to being hit by tornados. Ditto for hurricanes ...... earthquakes ..... and/or the risk of breaking and entering, etc.
Insurance companies exist as companies. They exist to make money and remain in business. They are not charities.
Even the insurance company of the US Government, Medicare, can deny a claim. I would assume that Medicaid can as well ...... but I haven't heard of such a case, even though those ding nothing to pay into the system should be scrutinized the closest.
Do you propose allowing any and every claim to be accepted and paid without any examination whatsoever? Seems to me that this would be a recipe for fraud. What are your ideas for reform that will not penalize working people .. will not hurt job creation (My company is largely holding off hiring until we see what happens with this bill so we can rebalance our staffing vs cost requirements) .... and will not turn into some over priced, expensive, and wasteful government run debacle like damn near every other government run prgram, with layer upon layer of beauracracy and waste?
Whoa .... major run on sentence there .... but I am really interested as to how you see this problem being solved.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
Personally I think the Government needs a reboot. The memory is corrupted and needs a hard reboot to clear it out. We need a fresh Operating System to run on. You ever notice how fast and efficient your PC runs when you first get it....well the same goes for our Government...We have too much gunk in the pipes blocking the bandwidth. Too much corruption, too much complexity, too many programs in the system.....
Some might consider this a great movie line, borrowing the theme from another thread .....
This town needs an enema!
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
This dog doesn't hunt anymore. I recall the big "0" saying that the stimulus was a fiscal emergency and would keep unemployment under 8.7 percent, yet here we are over 10. I recall words "transparency", "elimination of special interests", "no more Washington as usual", "no tax increases for those under $250,000".
Funny you should say that: I just heard on the radio - and no, I don't have any links right now - but I just heard that the stimulus money that was needed "immediately".......well, 2/3 of it hasn't been spent yet.
ABC tells us that as of Sept. of 2009, only $159 billion of the $787 billion had been allocated. Granted, that's 3 months old.....
On a side note: Is it true that companies that received any "stimulus" money are now required to report as a "job saved or created" EVERY person they have employed? (in other words, company A employs 500 people, they got some money from the stimulus, and now employ 501 employees, but they are required to report it as "501 jobs saved or created"?)
Quote: (in other words, company A employs 500 people, they got some money from the stimulus, and now employ 501 employees, but they are required to report it as "501 jobs saved or created"?)
That would be my guess...that's how this government seems to be working. "Make crap up to pretend like you're doing something good." That should be their motto.
Quote: but we still need healthcare reform.. just not how it was being written.. just saying..
Yes we do. The problem is we will never pass common sense reform. Even if all the politicians agree on something they won't pass it because it doesn't fit their entire agenda. "All or Nothing" is their motto. The Dems could have passed some of their reforms very easily and made it impossible for Republicans to say no. Instead they fought with each other about how much to add to the bill. If those on the left would have just conceded the whole government run part they were pushing we would have had most of what they wanted done already.
In my opinion that would have been a huge victory. The Dems would have held onto absolute power and Obama's numbers would have gone up. They then could have attempted more change. Their stupidity cost them.
Absolutely! The egotistical politicians care more for their agendas than serving the people. Everyone I've talked to agrees health care in this country needs some reform but instead of acknowledging differences of opinion and taking what they could get they write a complicated monstrosity that they have to bribe their own people to vote for. Why the Dems chose the far left Pelosi and Reed to lead the party is a mystery to me.It must have been about money is all I can figure. I'm happy this bill won't pass but I'm disappointed that our government is so corrupt and ineffective that it can't advance even the most common sense proposals.
The problem is the republicans have the best proposals, but since the dems think it was their idea....and maybe it was...they feel like they have to go with their agenda.
Too bad it backfired and now the party is in serious trouble.
Ted Kennedy's seat being held by a republican is a bad sign for the Dems. If that seat, in that state can change hands, look out next year.
Over the next year you are going to see a lot of hard line liberals trying to look pretty moderate, if not down right conservative.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn.
Quote: Over the next year you are going to see a lot of hard line liberals trying to look pretty moderate, if not down right conservative.
I'm not so sure. Do you consider "progressives" and "hard line liberals" the same people? If so, then I I don't think they will. "Progressives" like Pelosi won't change, imho.
Example: Michael Moore - "To the Democrats in Congress who don't quite get it: I want to offer a personal pledge. I and a lot of other people have every intention of removing you from Congress in the next election if you stand in the way of health care legislation that the people want.... That is not a hollow or idle threat. We will come to your district and we will work against you. You think that we're just going to go along with you because you're Democrats? You should think again.... Because we'll find Republicans who are smart enough to realize that the majority of Americans want universal health care."
This is how these guys think. The election yesterday completely showed the negative sentiment for all the crap but the progressive mouthpieces will never accept it. There are good Democrats out there who get pulled down by these loons led by head loon, Nanci Pelosi.
I watched some of the talking heads from MSNBC last night to see if they were hanging from the rafters after that election. Some were convinced that the reason for that election result was due to the Dem party not holding to core progressive beliefs. They want even more separation of ideology! I've heard the same thing from the right in the past. They said that the reason they got thumped in the last election was that they came to far to the middle over the past years.
The last couple of elections, especially yesterday, should be taken as a message to both sides that the people are tired of the extremes. Stop saying bi-partisan and actually show us bi-partisan. The time might be right for the rise of the Independents.
Quote: better competition will help maybe.. but there is a problem with what happens to the people who cannot afford health coverage? or those with pre-exisiting conditions that insurance companies won't touch with a ten foot pole.. After all insurance companies are in it for money and not actually in it to make people live healthier...
Well gee...why don't we just let every insurance company go bankrupt and go out of business just so everyone can afford a cheap healthcare regardless of any pre-existing risks....
I agree there need to be some regulation or reform in the insurance industry...especially along the lines of increased competition, monitoring of business practices and such......But to hate on them for their reluctance to take on high risk people for peanuts????
This is not a charity. They often pay out far more than they take in in premiums for those patients, regardless of how high those premiums are. To do what you are implying would put these companies out of business within months. Forget profits or the greed most automatically point to....what about all of the jobs that would be lost that these companies provide? Progressive is one of the largest employers over here in North East Ohio....
We wouldn't force them to offer an incredibly low auto insurance rate to a person who has 6 crashes in the last 2 months and 12 over the past year...
Now like I said...I do think there needs to be some reform.....My mother in law is perfectly healthy. But due to a misdiagnosis that is a part of her permanent chart. She is considered a high risk for Heart Attack by the Insurance Industry. Which means she is paying loads of money every month in premium. Despite several doctors confirming after the fact that she is not high risk by any means and that the previous condition and diagnosis was in error...the Insurance industry does not budge. I think there is room for reform there. I think there is room for reform where a person has paid into an insurance plan for years and then is dropped because a condition arises. Well isn't that why they were paying into the plan all this time???
There are plenty more areas of reform....but you cannot just expect the insurance industry to become a charity organization and offer cheap insurance to every Tom, Dick, and Jane regardless of of any pre-existing conditions....
and where in there did I say that we should tell insurance companies to accept people with pre-existing conditions?
We shouldn't be putting life and death matters in the hands of people who are just in it for the business of making money. Your analogy of car insurance is off base because it is not a matter of life and death.
The fact of the matter is that we let businesses who are trying to make a buck decide who they want to cover or not.. There simply needs to be a better option for people without turning to a business who's opinion is based on how much money they can make if they decline someone or deny their claim. and I have doubts that the idiots in Washington can even draw up a good solutions.
"Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
jc... wanted to vote for Ron Paul over McCain last year. But we saw how that went in the primary. I didn't even get a chance when it went to PA cause he already dropped out due to hardly any votes. Why can't people seem to get behind this guy? Republicans hate him cause the terds on Fox call him crazy. Dems don't like him cause, well, he's not a Dem. My hope is people wake up next election and he or someone like him really gets a chance. Here's a video of him on the congress floor last year...
and a link that talks about recent events from cnn...
Health insurance for everyone would be great. However, it causes many, many problems, not the least of which is "who pays for it?".
Insurance companies are in the business to make money. Can't blame them. I work to make a profit - you do, we all do. No shame in that - heck, look at how many people are employed by insurance companies - without a profit, many of them are gone.
So we go the next step - insure everyone, but make the healthy pay extra for those that aren't healthy - thus insuring a profit for the company paying the bills. That works right up until the people with health insurance say "hey, why should I pay more for that guy/girl that doesn't have insurance? Why am I paying for them?"
We could go the gov't. route - gov't. pays - and that leads to the same problem - someone is paying for someone else and on top of everything else, some schmoe in DC is deciding what gets paid for....and what doesn't. None of us want that.
Do we make health care a non profit? Say goodbye to your current health care (which many would like, no doubt) and say hello to huge increases in premiums. Some people are not aware that increases in premiums WILL come out of their pocket - one way or another.
Do we add to medicare? They tell doctors and hospitals what they will pay - and currently, it's a win lose situation.....medicare wins, doctors and hospitals lose.
Perhaps we should let the gov't. pay the liability insurance for all doctors, nurses and hospitals. Guaranteeing liability insurance for all in the health care field..........oh, if we do that, taxes will go up unbelievably in order to cover the insurance costs.
Here's an idea - limit liability costs - maybe $500,000, tops - if someone dies from a misdiagnosis, or from a medical error. $500,000 tops - not a cent more. And take lawyers out of the picture for the most part. Doing that right there would decrease health care costs immensely!!!!
Do we need health care reform? Okay - I'll go with it.......but what we don't need is gov't. in charge of it. (and yes, I understand that if gov't. doesn't force it, it won't happen). But we need lawyer reform as well - liability reform. And what we DON'T need is congress FORCING a bill down our throats that no one even knows what all is entailed (like page 1002 of the senate bill - which basically says "once this is enacted, you can't change it")
Most people didn't get behind him because he seemed to "radical". But in recent months his ideas aren't seeming to bad and they are jumping on the ant-welfare-warfare state bandwagon.
Quote: Health insurance for everyone would be great. However, it causes many, many problems, not the least of which is "who pays for it?".
Insurance companies are in the business to make money. Can't blame them. I work to make a profit - you do, we all do. No shame in that - heck, look at how many people are employed by insurance companies - without a profit, many of them are gone.
So we go the next step - insure everyone, but make the healthy pay extra for those that aren't healthy - thus insuring a profit for the company paying the bills. That works right up until the people with health insurance say "hey, why should I pay more for that guy/girl that doesn't have insurance? Why am I paying for them?"
We could go the gov't. route - gov't. pays - and that leads to the same problem - someone is paying for someone else and on top of everything else, some schmoe in DC is deciding what gets paid for....and what doesn't. None of us want that.
Do we make health care a non profit? Say goodbye to your current health care (which many would like, no doubt) and say hello to huge increases in premiums. Some people are not aware that increases in premiums WILL come out of their pocket - one way or another.
Do we add to medicare? They tell doctors and hospitals what they will pay - and currently, it's a win lose situation.....medicare wins, doctors and hospitals lose.
Perhaps we should let the gov't. pay the liability insurance for all doctors, nurses and hospitals. Guaranteeing liability insurance for all in the health care field..........oh, if we do that, taxes will go up unbelievably in order to cover the insurance costs.
Here's an idea - limit liability costs - maybe $500,000, tops - if someone dies from a misdiagnosis, or from a medical error. $500,000 tops - not a cent more. And take lawyers out of the picture for the most part. Doing that right there would decrease health care costs immensely!!!!
Do we need health care reform? Okay - I'll go with it.......but what we don't need is gov't. in charge of it. (and yes, I understand that if gov't. doesn't force it, it won't happen). But we need lawyer reform as well - liability reform. And what we DON'T need is congress FORCING a bill down our throats that no one even knows what all is entailed (like page 1002 of the senate bill - which basically says "once this is enacted, you can't change it")
the problem is that you are already paying for those who don't have insurance and cannot afford healthcare.. either with higher costs at hospitals which are covered by your insurance which in turn lead to higher costs to get insurance in the first place.. or in some cases, the gov't pays for it anyways... and unfortunately some of those wait until the last minute to fix the problem rather than see a doctor beforehand which can lead to prevent it which would in most cases, costs less..
Last edited by ~TuX~; 01/20/1005:09 PM.
"Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
Well, if I'm already paying for it, why would we need a 10 year $1 trillion dollar bill to take care of it?
A bill that, by the way, is estimated at 1 trillion - so we know it will be at least twice that.
If I'm already paying for it, why do I need to pay extra for a bill that STILL leaves approximately 12 million without health care?
No, what this country needs is for a group of people to sit down and figure out how to cover everyone, without those that currently have insurance having their rates jacked up beyond belief. I know it's just wishful thinking on my part............
Quote: No, what this country needs is for a group of people to sit down and figure out how to cover everyone, without those that currently have insurance having their rates jacked up beyond belief. I know it's just wishful thinking on my part............
Tort Reform: Lowers Malpractice Insurance
National Policy requirements: Will allow cross state policies and open up free market bidding for your dollars. In turn will lower your premiums.
A bill that, by the way, is estimated at 1 trillion - so we know it will be at least twice that.
Is it really only estimated at $1 trillion?
Bush's Medicare Act was estimated at $100 billion...then $500 billion...then $1.2 trillion...and now, after almost seven years, it's cost about $7 trillion. (Interestingly enough, didn't hear the right complain about how communism was taking over or how the bill would ruin our country).
If this thing is estimating $1 trillion over ten...I can only imagine what it will cost. $1 trillion is the estimate? Ouch. What comes after a trillion?
Quote: For what, exactly? Voting the in the hollow jackass with an R after their name, rather than the hollow jackass with the D after their name?
Dear god no. A Washington politician is a Washington politician -- no one is jumping for joy because an elephant got voted in over a donkey. This:
Quote: Those of us are happy not because a 'R' beat a 'D", but because it represents the beginning death knell for that piece of crap ObamaCare legislation.
And this:
Quote: I am quite happy though. Not because Brown won, or because a Republican won. I am happy because there is now little chance this blue whale of an albatross that is this healthcare bill will pass.
If the health-care bill gets passed, then his election was in vain. Martha Coakley and Scott Brown become the same person.
Quote: jc... wanted to vote for Ron Paul over McCain last year. But we saw how that went in the primary. I didn't even get a chance when it went to PA cause he already dropped out due to hardly any votes. Why can't people seem to get behind this guy?
Because Ron Paul isn't charismatic enough. He's dull, boring and rational. He doesn't appeal to the MTV generation.
Quote: If the health-care bill gets passed, then his election was in vain. Martha Coakley and Scott Brown become the same person.
While the parties are similar, I hope you are joking. Scott Brown will not vote for Cap In Trade if that's brought up again either................ I bet he also won't go along with the tax on financial institutions that BO wants to do.
They are not the same people.
And I just found this video folks. I thought it was very funny, and to those critical of it, they are not making Obama and Hitler the same people. Hitler is just frustrated with Obama.
Anyway, it's Hitler's reaction to Scott Brown's victory. I'm sure at least Peen will get a kick out of it............ So this is for you Peenie and everyone else too.
Quote: While the parties are similar, I hope you are joking. Scott Brown will not vote for Cap In Trade if that's brought up again either................ I bet he also won't go along with the tax on financial institutions that BO wants to do.
They are not the same people.
I never said they were the same person, I said if, and only if x, they become the same person. Putting your hope into a politician's promises is risky.
"Now we know why Obama wouldn't release his grades. Bush got C's. Obama probably failed lunch!"
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](http://i.imgur.com/FUKyw.png)
![[Linked Image from mypsn.eu.playstation.com]](http://mypsn.eu.playstation.com/psn/profile/Letherface.png)
