Yeah...since the first day they convened a Democrat congress....they are so fucking corrupt, its beyond belief....and with "in your face" arrogance....
How far up you anus must your head go to not see it...?
APP - Harkin says bribes are just "small stuff"
- Thread starter tinfoil
- Start date
Yeah...since the first day they convened a Democrat congress....they are so fucking corrupt, its beyond belief....and with "in your face" arrogance....
How far up you anus must your head go to not see it...?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
This is the problem with you liberals. you are so damned and determined to force people to live life according to your own wants or needs, that you don't give a damn about anyone elses choices if they dont align with yours. THAT is not freedom. What you're doing is taking away peoples freedom.
Keep it up, this is what I say.
Squeeze, baby. Squeeze.
apple0154
MEOW
Of course they're working towards that. It has been proven the world over it is a superior arrangement and people pay according to what taxes they can pay.
It's no different than the military or Police protecting the citizens. People are not protected according to the amount they pay in taxes. They are all protected.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
how many people die because the police didn't get there on time. how many people die because the police use excessive and deadly force?
bad analogy if you're trying to equate police protection with universal health care.
There ain't a diagram in the world that's big enough to sketch your lard ass you latent wussie whiney biatch.
You are so tough here Zapless. You'd probably mess your elastic waisted sweat pants if you ever had to put your money where your fat stuffed mouth is.
You are a perfect example of the Pussy Boys that jumped up and down and yelled and taunted from the sidelines at a school fight. As soon as the fight got too close to you, you screamed like a girl and ran away all sweaty and hysterical, you pathetic joke!
apple0154
MEOW
They had over 60 years to discuss and negotiate and come up with something. Over those years country by country have adopted universal plans. The need was always apparent but nothing was done. A consensus can never be reached if one side doesn't want/believe in what the consensus is concerning.
Senator Harkin expressed it perfectly when he said, "We have to keep our eyes on what we're trying to do here. We're trying to cross a demarcation line. On one side is health care as a privilege, on the other side is health care as a right. With these votes, with the vote that we'll take before Christmas, we will cross that line finally and say that health care is a right of all Americans."
Until that line is crossed there can't be any consensus, let alone anything incredible, because the two sides are not aiming for the same result. It's like two people trying to agree on the best route to take when they have different destinations in mind. There will never be a consensus. It's impossible.
All I can say to soothe the fears of others is there isn't one country that has changed to a universal plan and their citizens have regretted it. Not one country. The odds of the US government not being able to ensure adequate medical care for it's citizens is not a reasonable concern.
apple0154
MEOW
How is ensuring a person has the right to health care denying them freedom? It doesn't make any sense.
No one is compelled to receive health care. Universal health care allows the freedom to choose.
apple0154
MEOW
How many people advocate getting rid of the Police?
You have a right to health care the same way you have a right to a plasma TV.....you take your money and go pay for it....its you right to buy what you need.....its not your right to have me buy you what you need....
apple0154
MEOW
Not to interject but I have to say I have watched the occasional cat fight that left me sweaty.
apple0154
MEOW
I think you're forgetting that universal health care plans cost about half per capita of what the US spends. That means there will be people, many people, paying less than they currently do.
Think of it this way. For every $1000.00 you currently spend you may end up spending $500.00 with $400.00 being for you and $100.00 going towards helping someone else. Isn't that a better deal or are you against spending $100.00 for someone else regardless of your savings?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
Last edited:
apple0154
MEOW
SmarterthanYou
rebel
that's actually a link to an article. I've got to remember to underline my links.
I'll go out on a limb and guess you believe GW is gonna melt the ice and Hawaii and is going to be submerged too....and I don't even wanna get into Santa and Easter bunny....ignorance is not bliss...ignorance is dangerous
Good Luck
New member
Right. You do understand, do you not, that the piece of shit they are fucking us with bears the same resemblance to universal care as cow dung resembles a traditional holiday dinner?
And speaking of lies, the OFFICIAL position is they are not trying to force universal care on us. Yet you fully admit that universal care is the ultimate goal, and this is a first step in that direction - which is what opposition has been saying all along, and being called liars for it. Does that not make your side as big of liars, if not more so?
But I should know better to say anything to you. You have proven yourself multiple times to have your head permanently implanted up the donkey's ass. Do you let the DNC tell you what to have for breakfast, too?
As for universal care being the best way to go, when you can point out how the U.S. is like any other country in size, population, diversity, economy, etc. etc. etc., THEN you can point out why what works (kind of) for others will automatically work for us.
apple0154
MEOW
Yes, ignorance is dangerous.
Surely you know how to Google. Google countries with universal plans and check the costs. See how many have lower costs.
Try it. You might like it.
apple0154
MEOW
As Senator Harkin said, "We're trying to cross a demarcation line." Is health care a privilege or a right?
I and the civilized world believe it's a right. Call it a universal plan. A government plan. A government rebate. A one payer system. A co-pay system based on ones ability to pay. The point is everyone is entitled to medical care.
As I mentioned before there are a number of ways that could be accomplished. We could keep the present system and if a member of ones community is unable to pay for their medical care the town simply levies a surtax on property the following year and that money is used to pay the medical bill. Everyone keeps their own plan. Everything stays the same. Would that be acceptable?
It has little to do with government control of medical care, of limited choices, of rationed care. That's the lie. Why don't the opponents just come out and say they don't give a damn about others and don't want to help them. Then, at least we could have an honest discussion.
As for the US being unlike any other country that argument doesn't work. Universal plans have been implemented in countries with large and small populations, large and small land sizes, large populations with a small land size and small populations with a large land size and everything in between.
Rich and poor countries. Mixed populations. Countries with one official language and countries with two official languages. Countries with populations holding differing customs and cultures and religions.
Each country fine tuned their plans but the bottom line is all those countries have successfully implemented plans.
Finding a suitable plan is not going to happen until the people agree a plan is necessary and that can only happen by putting out some sort of plan and letting the people experience it. We'll see if the people want the plan adjusted or scrapped altogether but reality has shown that once a country adopts a plan the citizens prefer to keep it and adjust it rather than scrap it.
That's why this fight has been so virulent. It has nothing to do with the efficiency of such plans.The opponents know the people will never want to change back to the old way of doing things once they get used to having a plan.
There's not one country that reverted to the old way. Not one. The opponents know that. Whether it's a small step or a giant leap towards comprehensive medical care once it starts that's the end of the old ways. If that wasn't the case the opponents would just revert the next time they're elected but they know, just as every politician in every country with a universal plan knows, the population will not tolerate that. They will insist on improving the current plan rather than scrapping it.
That has been shown to be case the world over.
Change. It's long overdue.
cawacko
Well-known member
In other words by any means necessary.
apple0154
MEOW
Unfortunately, it's pretty much come to that. It took 20 years, from 1940s to the '60s, to get medicare for the old folks. From what I've seen they like their medicare.
It's over 40 years later. It's stretches credulity to suggest anything is going to happen by sitting down and chatting about it. I'm sure even Job would have run out of patience.