Cleo's Mom

Originally Posted by Cleo's Mom I'm calling you out on this PG. I want you to cite specific language in any of the proposed healthcare reform bills where it says the plan was to have ONLY a government option and put all the other private plans out of business. This was not stated by anyone specifically, but it is what would have happened if there was a public option. Anyone can see that down the road. Really? I know that isn't going to happen. Just those who are opposed to Obama "saw" that!! So, that's hardly fact. Obama was NOT going to tell you that. Let's face it, if there is a public ins. plan out there that was not going to make a profit it would be the best plan at the lowest price. Well, there you've said it. The best plan at the lowest price. Who could oppose that? Oh, I know. Those who advocate for the insurance industry. That means: all of the republicans, Lieberman and the DINOS. It would not take long for all the people to get on it. This would leave all the other ins. companies with having to raise their premium fees in order to make a profit because now they have less people insured with them.Or here's a thought: Lower your premiums, offer better service and reduce your obscene profits. Also, what business would not choose the public option for their people if there was that choice? ALL businesses will try to save money if they can so that their own paychecks could grow. Again, sounds like a win-win situation to me!! Eventually, over time, the public option would push other ins. companies to go out of business and/or fail. First of all, that wouldn't happen. If we take the profit motive out of healthcare, which is what should happen, then insurance companies would have to compete or find another type of insurance to cheat people with: disability, long-term care, life, etc..Any number of types of insurances in which they can collect premiums and deny claims. Even Obama admitted, during his campaign, that this country would take a while to be able to achieve his goal of government HC for all.If you mean access to affordable healthcare for everyone, yes he said that. If you mean he said that he wanted the government to take over the healthcare in this country I WANT DOCUMENTATION OF THAT - A VIDEO WHERE HE SAYS THAT. It would start out as a 'choice'. He said," You can keep your ins. company if you like it." He said that because he knew that you could "at first". He didn't go on to tell you that eventually, though, all that will be available is the gov. plan to 'choose' from. Fact: The government already runs healthcare via medicaid and medicare. Neither one has put the private insurance companies out of business and medicare is very popular among the recipients. So, if they already had a plan set up for the poor and the elderly, why did they need a public option for the rest of Americans? How bogus. Just allow those without ins. to get on the plan that was already instated. They tried to have a medicare buy-in which was a good idea. Opposed by the republicans and the DINOS. Their procedures are corrupt and dishonest and costing the rest of us millions! Also, the Dems are pushing their agenda despite what the people want. It is clear that the majority didn't want the public option and still don't want the reform, but they are STILL pushing to get it. Even when they know full well, that it's not what we want. They are saying "We know the public doesn't want this, but we know what's best for these stupid people." Actually when the healthcare bill is explained to people they support it and most people supported the public option because they knew it was a cost cutting measure and would help to keep the greedy private insurance companies honest. People support not being denied coverage for pre-existing conditions, they support being able to keep your coverage from job to job, they support your not being able to be dropped if you get sick. I will say that those who support healthcare haven't done a good enough PR job. The party of no, though, has gotten out there with their lies and buzzwords, though.

Thank you. You do too. Your posts are well thought out and intellegently written. Those who don't have that ability (or the facts on their side) have to resort to broad generalizations, emotional buzzwords, being judgemental and lies.

I'm calling you out on this PG. I want you to cite specific language in any of the proposed healthcare reform bills where it says the plan was to have ONLY a government option and put all the other private plans out of business. If you say that it wasn't in the bill, but that was their intent, then it's just so much more BS. Fact: The public option was going to be available to those who were uninsured. That was about 5% of the people. Fact: The government already runs healthcare via medicaid and medicare. Neither one has put the private insurance companies out of business and medicare is very popular among the recipients. Fact: The republicans used every procedural roadblock at their disposal to stop this bill, causing delay after delay and requiring the 1AM senate vote in order to meet required timelines. Fact: The democrats are now using procedures at THEIR disposal to get this bill reconciled. Since the republicans have nothing to offer but obstructions, there is no need for them to be included. Fact: If you think that when the republicans were in the majority that they didn't execute behind door deals with special interest groups then you are beyond naive. All you needed to know about healthcare reform to be opposed to it was that it was supported by Pres. Obama and the democrats. Who are you trying to fool?

Actually, the 7-11 guy is more representative of those who think like you than you are willing to admit. I have yet to see one factual sign or statement coming from the protesting teabaggers concerning healthcare. All I have seen is emotional buzzwords meant to incite, inflame and distort. Words like: socialism, nazi, death panel, rationing, government take over, the "n" word, etc.. Of course there are no concrete citings of any of these things in the actual bill. There doesn't have to be. Just keep saying these things over and over, have the media report on them and stupid people will begin to believe them. Now, if you want a concrete case of the government coming between a person and their healthcare there isn't a more glaring example than the Terry Shiavo case. Across the country, everyday, people make the decision to take a family member off of life support. This is a difficult decision but it is made in private and without media attention. Not so with Terry Schiavo. When her husband tried to remove life support, the republicans in CONGRESS, flew back to D.C. for a SPECIAL SESSION to address this issue. Sen. Frist (a doctor) tried to diagnose Terry from afar, going so far as to say she could talk (no true), sing (not true) and move around (not true). They tried to stop her husband from removing the life support. When her autopsy was done, it showed that she had no brain activity and hadn't for a long time, something her doctors had said all along. But here is an example of the GOVERNMENT COMING BETWEEN A PERSON AND THEIR HEALTHCARE and where where all those teabaggers then protesting that? HMMM. Once again, I will say: If it weren't for hypocrisy, the republicans would have nothing.

To those who say we don't live in a secular society/government: Little-Known U.S. Document Signed by President Adams Proclaims America's Government Is Secular by Jim Walker A few Christian fundamentalists attempt to convince us to return to the Christianity of early America, yet according to the historian, Robert T. Handy, "No more than 10 percent-- probably less-- of Americans in 1800 were members of congregations." The Founding Fathers, also, rarely practiced Christian orthodoxy. Although they supported the free exercise of any religion, they understood the dangers of religion. Most of them believed in deism and attended Freemasonry lodges. According to John J. Robinson, "Freemasonry had been a powerful force for religious freedom." Freemasons took seriously the principle that men should worship according to their own conscience. Masonry welcomed anyone from any religion or non-religion, as long as they believed in a Supreme Being. Washington, Franklin, Hancock, Hamilton, Lafayette, and many others accepted Freemasonry. The Constitution reflects our founders views of a secular government, protecting the freedom of any belief or unbelief. The historian, Robert Middlekauff, observed, "the idea that the Constitution expressed a moral view seems absurd. There were no genuine evangelicals in the Convention, and there were no heated declarations of Christian piety." Treaty of Tripoli Unlike governments of the past, the American Fathers set up a government divorced from religion. The establishment of a secular government did not require a reflection to themselves about its origin; they knew this as an unspoken given. However, as the U.S. delved into international affairs, few foreign nations knew about the intentions of America. For this reason, an insight from at a little known but legal document written in the late 1700s explicitly reveals the secular nature of the United States to a foreign nation. Officially called the "Treaty of peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary," most refer to it as simply the Treaty of Tripoli. In Article 11, it states: Joel Barlow, U.S. Consul General of Algiers Copyright National Portait Gallery Smithsonian Institution/Art Resource NY "As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." The preliminary treaty began with a signing on 4 November, 1796 (the end of George Washington's last term as president). Joel Barlow, the American diplomat served as counsel to Algiers and held responsibility for the treaty negotiations. Barlow had once served under Washington as a chaplain in the revolutionary army. He became good friends with Paine, Jefferson, and read Enlightenment literature. Later he abandoned Christian orthodoxy for rationalism and became an advocate of secular government. Barlow, along with his associate, Captain Richard O'Brien, et al, translated and modified the Arabic version of the treaty into English. From this came the added Amendment 11. Barlow forwarded the treaty to U.S. legislators for approval in 1797. Timothy Pickering, the secretary of state, endorsed it and John Adams concurred (now during his presidency), sending the document on to the Senate. The Senate approved the treaty on June 7, 1797, and officially ratified by the Senate with John Adams signature on 10 June, 1797. All during this multi-review process, the wording of Article 11 never raised the slightest concern. The treaty even became public through its publication in The Philadelphia Gazette on 17 June 1797. So here we have a clear admission by the United States that our government did not found itself upon Christianity. Unlike the Declaration of Independence, this treaty represented U.S. law as all treaties do according to the Constitution (see Article VI, Sect. 2). Although the Christian exclusionary wording in the Treaty of Tripoli only lasted for eight years and no longer has legal status, it clearly represented the feelings of our Founding Fathers at the beginning of the U.S. government.

I went to the ER and spent the night in the hosptial in early December due to being stuck. I had a total unfill and have no plans to have any fills in the future. The band wasn't working the way it was supposed to anyway, so I will just continue with my good eating habits and willpower like I've had to do all along. The stuck pain was unbearable. I am sure getting shot in the stomach couldn't have hurt worse.

I agree, BJean.

It's not only that pattygreen believes HER interpretation of the bible is the correct one, and her beliefs are the right ones, it's that she wants this interpretation and these beliefs to be the basis of EVERYTHING our government does. I believe that is where those on the other side of this debate take exception. We do not believe that should be the case and I will fight to make sure that doesn't happen. And the rest of us can also make our own interpretation of the bible and can believe just as strongly that OUR interpretation is the right one.

PG: Obama's initial approval rating in his second year as president is among the lowest for elected presidents since Dwight Eisenhower. Only Ronald Reagan -- who, like Obama, took office during challenging economic times -- began his second year in office with a lower approval score (49%). However, Obama's disapproval rating is slightly higher than Reagan's was (44% vs. 40%). (Washington Post) :thumbup:

I wonder if those 85% that you so generously quote would agree with one of their fellow conservatives who sure speaks for many of them: WASHINGTON — The White House is firing back at Rush Limbaugh after the conservative talk radio host urged people not to donate to relief efforts in Haiti. Spokesman Robert Gibbs says there are always people who say "really stupid things" during a crisis. He says it's sad that Limbaugh would use the power of his pulpit to convince people not to assist those in need. Limbaugh said on his radio show Wednesday that he wouldn't trust that money donated to Haiti through the White House Web site would actually go to the relief efforts. He said Americans don't need to contribute to earthquake relief because they already donate to Haiti through their income taxes. If 85% of those who live in this country get their political views from their religious views (as you claim) and if limbaugh has 20 million listeners and they aren't liberals, then it stand to reason that they are these conservative christians. If he is their spokesperson (what else can he be called?) then it speaks volumes for the real moral compass of that religion.

He has an overall 50% approval, 42% disapproval. Not too bad considering all the tough problems he's had to tackle. He could have just ignored the problems, like bush did, but he didn't and I, for one, am glad. Reagan, at whose altar the conservatives worship, had a 49% approval rating going into his second year.

I watch MSNBC all day, including commentators Chris Matthews, Ed Shultz, Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow. Chris Matthews is probably the least liberal of these. The other ones call out those on the right who lie and they present the facts. Rachel just had one of "The Family" men from the secretive "C" street group with relation to their involvement with the bill in Uganda to kill gays. Despite the fact they they all came out publicly against it, they were responsible for sending speakers to Uganda who claim to convert gays and who blame a whole laundry list for causing homosexuality. She asked him if anything she had been saying on her show for weeks about this issue and "The Family" was innaccurate, and he said no. This shows that she presents the truth whether or not the republicans and right wing like it. He did not take exception to anything she had presented, he just tried to justify their group and what they do. You would never even hear about this group on Fox.

Hi Bob - yes, and not only that but you had the good sense to run away from my previous surgeon. I went with him (my mistake) and ended up having to change doctors and now go to Dr. Urbandt at West Penn. Give rush some time, he might yet say that while his listeners bob their ditto heads in agreement.

Maybe that it's neither fair nor balanced. Commentators throwing out the question asking if the fist bump Michelle Obama gave Pres. Obama when he got the nomination might be a terrorist gesture. Seriously? They let Dana Perino say on Hannity that there was no terrorist attack under bush and he didn't correct her (maybe because he believes it). They put out false pictures of teabagger crowds in DC (showing crowds from a previous gathering) trying to overplay the attendance and didn't correct themselves until called out by MSNBC. And the beat goes on......

First of all, I don't think anyone on this forum has said that they hate Sarah Palin. I think every person who has posted has given compelling reasons why they don't think she's qualified to be president or even lesser offices. I had never heard of her before McCain picked her and I am fairly politically astute and connected. When I started to hear her speak I knew that she was just another extreme right wing conservative, just with a prettier face than most of them have. I didn't know anything about her religious affiliation, so how could my opinion of her be based on that? It's just way too convenient for you to assume that those of us who don't support her views or believe she is smart enough to be president are basing that on her christianity. Have you read the posts about how dumb she is? How she didn't know why there was a north and south Korea? That she didn't know what papers she read? That WWI and WWII had to be explained to her? That she thought (and said) that we were fighting in Iraq because they caused 9/11. She can try to back pedal on any of these, but they're all on record. If it makes you feel better to think that those of us who do our homework and research people can make intelligent judgements, when your ONLY criteria is that someone be a born again christian, then do it.

When I saw Pres. Obama's response to the Haiti tragedy, I wondered how the right wing extremists (the ones who went nuts when Obama wanted to tell kids to stay in school and work hard) would criticize him for it. I was curious how they would turn something as a call to help these victims into something negative. I didn't have to wonder long. Here is rush limbaugh's take: Re: Limbaugh: Obama will use Haiti to boost credibility with blacks « Reply #1 on: Yesterday at 09:44:20 PM » (Jan. 13) – In the wake of Haiti's catastrophic earthquake, which claimed thousands of lives, including several Americans, radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh took aim at President Barack Obama for pledging aid so swiftly. On his radio show on Jan. 13, Limbaugh vented to listeners that Obama – who was on winter holiday in Hawaii when Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab tried but failed to bring down a U.S. airliner – took three days to address the nation on that subject. In contrast, and much to Limbaugh's ire, the president's remarks on the devastation in Haiti came just one day following the tragedy there. In the same program, Limbaugh suggested that Obama was happy for the quake in Haiti, as his administration will "use this to burnish their, shall we say, credibility with the black community, in the ... the both light-skinned and dark-skinned black community in this country. It's made to order for them." http://www.sphere.com/politics/article/rush-limbaugh-sees-red-over-obamas-response-to-haiti-earthquake/19315905 Here's President Obama speaking about Haiti this morning in Washington at the White House. He held a press conference. Now, I want you to remember, it took him three days to respond to the Christmas Day Fruit of Kaboom Bomber, three days. And when he came out after those three days, he was clearly irritated that he had to do it. He didn't want to do it. He comes out here in less than 24 hours to speak about Haiti. Yes, I think in the Haiti earthquake, ladies and gentlemen -- in the words of Rahm Emanuel -- we have another crisis simply too good to waste. This will play right into Obama's hands. He's humanitarian, compassionate. They'll use this to burnish their, shall we say, "credibility" with the black community -- in the both light-skinned and dark-skinned black community in this country. It's made-to-order for them. That's why he couldn't wait to get out there, could not wait to get out there File this under: 1) ridiculous criticism 2) selective amnesia 3) re-writing history Did this bloated windbag really forget bush's lack of response to Katrina? Did he also "forget" that bush didn't respond to Richard Reed (a/k/a shoe bomber) for TEN (10) days after the incident? And there are people, like Fox viewers, who listen to him. Just shows their stupidity.

But at least have the decency that if you preach against stealing, don't be a thief, if you preach against gays, then don't be trolling for men, if you preach against pediophilia, then don't look for little boys, if you preach about the sanctity of marriage, then don't have affairs, if you preach for abstinence only sex ed, don't have a daughter who has a baby out of wedlock. At least have the decency that if you are engaging in sinful behavior to refrain from preaching against it out in public. At least have the decency to just shut up about it. Much of what the hypocrites were engaged in was taking place while they were publicly against it.

I don't know a lot about MS but my understanding is that there is no one definitive test that shows, yes, this is MS. It's usually diagnosed based on symptoms and ruling out other conditions through testing. You should definitely tell your doctor about this and the lesion on your brain and your migrane. Any of this could affect your ability to have surgery and recover well. Good luck.

Didn't your principal ever hear of HIPPA? I mean, really, how did he get to that position without knowing about it? You should email your staff members and tell them what you stated in your original post. It was well said. Good luck with your lapband journey and when you do get back to work make sure you talk to this principal and explain your feelings and don't let him off the hook if he starts to say he had the best intentions...

Fox has always had more viewers than CNN or MSNBC but that does not translate into votes for the neocon candidates they support because in the 2008 presidential election several red states turned blue but not one blue state turned red. Where were all the fox news watchers? Therefore how many people watch fox news is irrelevant to american political opinion or election outcomes.

Source: Post-Gazette newspaper - a major american newspaper. Whether they donated the kill to food banks is irrelevant because if the goal is to help feed poor people there are less expensive ways to do so that to raise these poor animals and release them in expensive fenced in areas only to be shot by the rich and powerful to satisfy some political bonding experience.

Also, FOX is the #1 watched news station in America. More people watch that station then all 3 or 4 liberal, democratic, agenda run news stations put together. That tells us that they are in agreement with the stand that FOX holds. You, sir, are a minority in this country. Do you really think that your way of thinking concerning politics is the 'right' and 'most held' view? You are wrong. The American people are fed up with those who think the way you do. Just take a look at the close race in the Democratic run State of MA. Republicans are going to finally have a say in that state because the people are fed up with democrats and their Tax and Spend policies. They are fed up with their goal of socialism. Where people get their cable tv news does not translate into votes since Obama won in 2008. Why didn't the fox viewers candidates win? As I've posted elsewhere, don't read too much into the mid-term election results as history will show that the party in the white house always loses seats. Even that conservative windbag Pat Buchanan believes Coakley will win. And as far as your extreme and conservative religious and conservative views being representative of mainstream america - NO WAY. While most people will identify with being christian, YOU are in the minority with your extremist, narrow, judgemental, black & white and simplistic views.

You are only referring to those who watch cable TV news. Not the majority of voting America. Why would I watch news commentary that I don't agree with? Well, maybe to get a good laugh once in awhile. So you agree with Fox. There's a shock. If the majority of Americans agreed with Fox, Obama would not have been elected because the statistics you quote were true before the 2008 election. My daughter's fil watches Fox but votes democratic. So your conclusion is inaccurate. And don't read too much into the mid-term 2010 elections. Historically, the majority party always loses seats.