looks more like his point at the last adminstrationa and pointing out thay couldnt be trusted. reminds me of the magic GOP proof. goverment cant be trusted to work. the GOP admistration dosent work. proof prostive that goverment dosent work.
sept that it can, and dose. massive change is thin at the present, so, if you'll humor me, ill go back a good 50 years and use the labour goverment of 1945 to 1950. in five years, thay started demoblistion, helped put germany to terms and mainted order in there sector of the country, and an enacted a plan for change that made the lives of everyone beter, giving every person free helth care, building millions of houses, clearing slums and chasing the atom bomb that was rightfuly the uk's, but was denined by the us nuclear crazy. thay balanced a runied economy, and manged to start pushing ahead.
in five years, after a war witch nearly bancrupted the nation. by all rights i would trust that goverment with my money, and my country. goverment can work, if you give it a chance. this is one such chance, to improve the lot of millions, and bost the us econmey by dropping helth care costs, witch in some cases rose 40% last year. helth insrunce indestury is going crazy, and need reinging in. if not the goverment, then who? if not now, then when?
I am kind of looking forward to the next time a Republican is president. That is the day they will magically stop caring about 'big government' and deficits again.
Then government can go back to its true priorities... military occupations, endless tax cuts, and forcing feeding tubes into brain-dead ladies.
all those filthy poor people who are hungry, if thay want to eat, thay just need to be brain dead. and if thay wont do that, then clearly, there not dedcated to finding food, and can go hungry for it.
I really hope that we do see some sort of nationalized health care. Then we can all look forward to waiting for months in line to see a doctor. (http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE56M14E20090723) It's the perfect cure for overpopulation!
If health insurance becomes required for all Americans, as some lawmakers desire, expect these waiting lists to grow.
Exactly. So imagine how much worse it will be if Obamacare goes through.
In all seriousness, I'm not opposed to some form of nationalized healthcare. There are some good reasons why such is desirable, even from a conservative point of view. First, it would take the onus off of employers, who could then use those resources to expand other areas of the business. Second, it would encourage would-be entrepreneurs to take more risks without worrying about losing their health care coverage.
But to really reform the system, we should first explore tort reform, and pass legislation limiting awards from malpractice suits. That, and we should overhaul the AMA and FDA, to allow more doctors to be accredited and to encourage generic versions of medication to be produced and distributed. That would be real Change!
That, and we should overhaul the AMA and FDA, to allow more doctors to be accredited and to encourage generic versions of medication to be produced and distributed.
mabby im missing the point, but im sure in the us there are a lot of people who would love to have the insrunce to alowe them to be able to wait for a doctor.
further, your arguemnt, whilst logical, isnt at all moral. yes, waiting lists will go up for things if everyone is covered. but to object to it on that frount is redculses. there are people who are unable to get on a waiting list, who are literly dieing for the chance. waiting is the least of there worrys.
Understood, which is why I would be in favor of some sort of tiered nationalized health care system. Where, say, those who could afford to pay would get in at the front of the line, so to speak, while those who couldn't would still have to wait months to see a doctor, but at least they wouldn't have to mortgage the house to pay for it when they do.
Whoever drew that cartoon has no clue about what constitutes money in our economy and how it is created. Of course that only puts the artist in the same class as about 90% of the public. Paul Warburg (http://www.frugalfun.com/jekylisland.html) is laughing in Hell.
no subject
Date: 2009-07-23 04:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-23 04:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-23 04:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-23 04:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-23 04:39 pm (UTC)I like this one better.
no subject
Date: 2009-07-23 04:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-23 04:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-23 06:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-23 06:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-23 08:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-23 09:17 pm (UTC)sept that it can, and dose. massive change is thin at the present, so, if you'll humor me, ill go back a good 50 years and use the labour goverment of 1945 to 1950. in five years, thay started demoblistion, helped put germany to terms and mainted order in there sector of the country, and an enacted a plan for change that made the lives of everyone beter, giving every person free helth care, building millions of houses, clearing slums and chasing the atom bomb that was rightfuly the uk's, but was denined by the us nuclear crazy. thay balanced a runied economy, and manged to start pushing ahead.
in five years, after a war witch nearly bancrupted the nation. by all rights i would trust that goverment with my money, and my country. goverment can work, if you give it a chance. this is one such chance, to improve the lot of millions, and bost the us econmey by dropping helth care costs, witch in some cases rose 40% last year. helth insrunce indestury is going crazy, and need reinging in. if not the goverment, then who? if not now, then when?
no subject
Date: 2009-07-23 11:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-23 11:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-24 06:18 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-26 12:29 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-23 04:41 pm (UTC)Then government can go back to its true priorities... military occupations, endless tax cuts, and forcing feeding tubes into brain-dead ladies.
no subject
Date: 2009-07-23 09:18 pm (UTC)all those filthy poor people who are hungry, if thay want to eat, thay just need to be brain dead. and if thay wont do that, then clearly, there not dedcated to finding food, and can go hungry for it.
no subject
Date: 2009-07-23 04:45 pm (UTC)Which is it, emptying the treasury, or not emptying the treasury?
no subject
Date: 2009-07-23 04:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-23 05:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-23 05:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-23 05:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-23 06:09 pm (UTC)Exactly. So imagine how much worse it will be if Obamacare goes through.
In all seriousness, I'm not opposed to some form of nationalized healthcare. There are some good reasons why such is desirable, even from a conservative point of view. First, it would take the onus off of employers, who could then use those resources to expand other areas of the business. Second, it would encourage would-be entrepreneurs to take more risks without worrying about losing their health care coverage.
But to really reform the system, we should first explore tort reform, and pass legislation limiting awards from malpractice suits. That, and we should overhaul the AMA and FDA, to allow more doctors to be accredited and to encourage generic versions of medication to be produced and distributed. That would be real Change!
no subject
Date: 2009-07-24 10:22 am (UTC)This.
no subject
Date: 2009-07-23 06:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-24 12:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-23 08:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-23 09:23 pm (UTC)further, your arguemnt, whilst logical, isnt at all moral. yes, waiting lists will go up for things if everyone is covered. but to object to it on that frount is redculses. there are people who are unable to get on a waiting list, who are literly dieing for the chance. waiting is the least of there worrys.
no subject
Date: 2009-07-23 10:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-23 10:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-24 10:23 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-23 10:40 pm (UTC)