"No He [Obama] Can't" by Anne Wortham

[BethFromVA 5]

plain I tried to post a link to "Conservatives for Patient's Rights" webpage. I don't know why it wouldn't transfer. Anyway, if you'd like to read a side by side comparison of 3 or 4 of the proposed plans, you can easily see how the things that people like Newt Gingrich are proposing empower the insurance companies and fall short of fixing the problems.

So... it sounds as if either the insurance companies get more powerful OR the governmet (in relation to insurance) does. Either way, I think the people are screwed. :sad:

[BJean 16]

Some of us would rather take a chance on being screwed by the government than being screwed to the wall by greedy insurance companies. I am all for the insurance companies making a profit, but it has gone way beyond that.

I know that a lot of people like to yell about how lousy the government is and how the government just screws things up, but there are many fabulous goverment programs and it's the goverment that runs this country, quite well in fact. We only hear about the bad programs and the bad politicians and the civil servants who blow the whistle on each other. The government isn't the boogey man. Although I readily admit that it is not perfect and needs constant oversight just as the companies that threaten our way of life do.

As for the health care industry, the insurance companies have changed my medical care: the way I get it, the quality of it and the type of medications they want me to use. I can't see how getting the government involved is going to make it worse at this point. If there's a chance it will give ME a little protection, that's what I want instead of making all the rules to be in favor of the insurance industry.

[BethFromVA 5]

Some of us would rather take a chance on being screwed by the government than being screwed to the wall by greedy insurance companies.

But that's the thing -- with the government involved, there is no "chance" you'll get screwed. If I had my druthers, I'd rather not get screwed at all. Not sure how to accomplish that, but there's got to be a better way than just these two options.

I know that a lot of people like to yell about how lousy the government is and how the government just screws things up, but there are many fabulous goverment programs

Honest question: Which ones can you name, that run WELL, run EFFICIENTLY, and run either under or at budgeet and not three times more than anticipated?

and it's the goverment that runs this country, quite well in fact.

Obviously we disagree here. First of all, it was always the average Joe who ran this country -- who made it prosper, who employed the masses, and who was the backbone of this country. The government feels ENTITLED to THINK they run the country -- and sadly little by little (and in much larger chunks in the last few months) -- they have succeeded in whittling free enterprise and capitalism away from the masses.

The government isn't the boogey man.

No, they are much, much worse. The boogey man was a figment of children's imaginations. This is all too real.

As for the health care industry, the insurance companies have changed my medical care: the way I get it, the quality of it and the type of medications they want me to use. I can't see how getting the government involved is going to make it worse at this point. If there's a chance it will give ME a little protection, that's what I want instead of making all the rules to be in favor of the insurance industry.

But that is the problem -- too many me, me, me's and the government feeds off that and says they have something that will work for you. Now don't get me wrong, we all have a self-preservation about us where we want what's best for us, but sometimes that isn't the best choice overall for the system.

I will end this all by saying it is my opinion, like I promised I would. :biggrin:

[BJean 16]

I will get back to you on the question you asked. I will check in with my DH when I can get him to stand still long enough. He is quite familiar with the workings of the government and can probably very quickly give me more to offer than just the random comment that we know that the government works well in some sectors.

Edited June 21, 2009 by BJean

[BethFromVA 5]

I will get back to you on the question you asked. I will check in with my DH when I can get him to stand still long enough. He is quite familiar with the workings of the government and can probably very quickly give me more to offer than just the random comment that we know that the government works well in some sectors.

Okay. Cuz believe it or not, if they really ARE doing something well, I'd love to see it. I just don't at this point, whether it's by choice or otherwise. :biggrin:

[plain 12]

plain I tried to post a link to "Conservatives for Patient's Rights" webpage. I don't know why it wouldn't transfer. Anyway, if you'd like to read a side by side comparison of 3 or 4 of the proposed plans, you can easily see how the things that people like Newt Gingrich are proposing empower the insurance companies and fall short of fixing the problems.

When I have more time I will check out your links. Thanks for doing your homework, if you links actually do that.

They do, and that's why I did a little commentary telling kinda what the article says and about how far down to look (in mind mind, I thought it might save somebody time). Well, they show that the information I stated is valid (single payer devouring private insurance). I wouldn't mind seeing a side by side comparison from the mind of Newt......but keep in mind Newt isn't employed by the government annymore. He might have an opinion, but it's not about to be voted on like Obama's plan is.

I know that a lot of people like to yell about how lousy the government is and how the government just screws things up, but there are many fabulous goverment programs and it's the goverment that runs this country, quite well in fact.

Name 3, lol

[pattygreen 5]

Off the topic a bit. Remember the $787 "stimulus" that Obama insisted be pork free, though "special appropriations" were OK? Among the many strips of bacon that ended up in the bill was the $1 billion earmark for FutureGen's proposed clean-coal power plant in Illinois. Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., listed that project among the 100 most wasteful "stimulus" projects and "the most expensive earmark in history." FutureGen, BTW, was a pet project of a former Democratic senator from Illinois named Barack Obama.

[plain 12]

Off the topic a bit. Remember the $787 "stimulus" that Obama insisted be pork free, though "special appropriations" were OK? Among the many strips of bacon that ended up in the bill was the $1 billion earmark for FutureGen's proposed clean-coal power plant in Illinois. Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., listed that project among the 100 most wasteful "stimulus" projects and "the most expensive earmark in history." FutureGen, BTW, was a pet project of a former Democratic senator from Illinois named Barack Obama.

Well, although President Obama specifically campaigned on a no-pork issue (remember going the budget "line by line"?), he's really not doing anything that every other president hasn't done. I think the real issue is the two party system. As long as we can only pick republican or democrat, we're pretty much screwed. Both parties love that pork.

[BethFromVA 5]

More like so long as we can only select Democrat (the once-long-ago republicans) or Socialist... sorry, I hadda. :blushing:

[BJean 16]

The Veteran's Administration

The FAA

Federal Student Loan program

The military

FAFSA

School Breakfast Program

Social Security

G.I. Bill

National Highway System

National Forest System & Parks

Which of these would you eliminate completely?

[pattygreen 5]

The Veteran's Administration

The FAA

Federal Student Loan program

The military

FAFSA

School Breakfast Program

Social Security

G.I. Bill

National Highway System

National Forest System & Parks

Which of these would you eliminate completely?

All of them except the military and their support. There should be no social funds going to anyone. This country should run on free enterprise. The government shouldn't help or support anyones aspirations or desires. This they should do on their own. No one should be expected to support or pay for anyone else unless they choose to do so through charity.

[BJean 16]

What country in the civilized world has a system like you propose? If you can name me one, I'd appreciate it. Otherwise, I have a feeling that your idea is sheer folly. Well there shouldn't be an "otherwise" caveat - what you propose is folly - period.

You've been listening to too many Reagan speeches. Even Reagan only talked the talk. He sure didn't abolish any of those programs. Same with Bush. Government's bad... deregulate everything... global warming is a myth... drill baby drill... blah, blah, blah.

Why can't we achieve some sort of intelligent compromise? No one wants a welfare state, but on the other hand, if we are going to have a great country, it can't be run on donations.

That's the trouble with the Republican party these days, all yapping, no substance.

[BethFromVA 5]

That's the trouble with the Republican party these days, all yapping, no substance.

And the liberal way of handling things is to spend us into oblivion and taxing the crap out of us. :smile2:

[pattygreen 5]

What country in the civilized world has a system like you propose? If you can name me one, I'd appreciate it. Otherwise, I have a feeling that your idea is sheer folly. Well there shouldn't be an "otherwise" caveat - what you propose is folly - period.

This country did. When our forefathers set it up. The first government didn't have any 'social' programs. No one gave tax money to the feds so they could give it away to whomever they deemed. The taxes went to support the military and the politicians that we had, and the protection of our freedoms and this country. Never did we hand out welfare or free medical care or retirement funds. We've come a long way to ruin. Such a shame.

You've been listening to too many Reagan speeches. Even Reagan only talked the talk. He sure didn't abolish any of those programs. Same with Bush. Government's bad... deregulate everything... global warming is a myth... drill baby drill... blah, blah, blah.

Maybe so, but you asked which programs the gov should eliminate and I believe it should be almost all of them, except the ones that are set up to protect and/or defend this country. They all just talk. I have to say that Obama is the biggest talker we've had yet. Practically everything he ever talked about during his campaign were lies. That man is going to be the end to end all. He's going to ruin us. If we thought we were down enough already, he's putting the final blow in the boat to sink us.

Why can't we achieve some sort of intelligent compromise? No one wants a welfare state, but on the other hand, if we are going to have a great country, it can't be run on donations.

Why not let each man support himself. If you don't work, you don't eat. It's that simple. You'd be surprised at what people would give if the gov. would stop taking so much from them.

That's the trouble with the Republican party these days, all yapping, no substance.

And the democratic party just spends, spends, spends and doesn't consider the after shock of it all. They give to this one and give to that one and they don't even think twice about the repercusssions of all these 'free' gifts. When people don't have to work for what they need, they won't. When it's handed to you, you'll take it. It's human nature.

................................................................

[plain 12]

The Veteran's Administration

The FAA

Federal Student Loan program

The military

FAFSA

School Breakfast Program

Social Security

G.I. Bill

National Highway System

National Forest System & Parks

Which of these would you eliminate completely?

I wouldn't eliminate any of these programs....but I don't think anybody would agree that these programs are "run quite well". If anything they all serve as a cautious reminder of how the government can screw up a good idea.