posted August 04, 2008 11:49 AM            

I think someone needs to let some air out of O'Bomber's head.

'Change' and hot-air politics'

posted August 12, 2008 10:08 PM            

I need some Democrat to come fill my tires properly...

posted August 13, 2008 12:52 PM            

I nominate Algore to fill your tires. He's full of hot air..and he's a democrat.

posted August 13, 2008 04:04 PM            

I did my tires an hour ago!!!! It was hard. I am so proud of myself. Those Democrats... SAY they wanna help people, but never around when you need 'em... Al has done wonders with the weather though. It's so cool and refreshing. I might like Global Warming... feels like Fall outside. La lala lala

So, I saw this Oprah re-run yesterday...
(deep breaths, deep breaths...)
and it had Michael Moore
(I know... calm down, it will all be over soon)
and they were talking about his movie Sicko
(like you've watched it, right?)
and there was the head of the insurance monopoly public relations or somesuch to argue the other side
(sorry, that's as specific as I can get)
and ANYWAY... they talked about congress trying to pass some bill that would help out the children of working class families get health care
(and it actually sounded reasonable to both sides and they agreed it was a good thing)
and then at the end of the show, they show that white writing with a black background that says "Since the show aired..." blah blah blah and it said that George Bush had vetoed the bill twice. I was wondering what had become of that (thought if anyone knew, it would be you) and what you thought about all of it.

posted August 14, 2008 12:02 PM            

Recognizing your time is more valuable than my time, I decided to search back on this forum to find some of the threads for you.

First and foremost, there is a difference between health care and health insurance. It is violation of law for anyone to be refused treatment for an injury or disease in the United States. That's the law and it doesn't make an iota of difference whether the patient can pay, has insurance or not or even whether or not the patient is in the United States legally.

Socialist health care systems are failing or have already failed in every nation where they were instituted. Exploding costs, long waiting lists for treatment or even examinations, shortages of doctors and other medical staff and equipment are common place.

As for Michael Moore, I'd love to ship his sorry ass straight to Cuba to be treated in the third tier of their health care system where those who are not politically or government connected get treatment; those making 60 cents per day in wages...not 60 cents per hour. There's no medicines, no bandages not even antibiotics for them yet, this bloated moron touts the Cuban system as one the US should adopt. I noted that when El Supremo needed surgery, his Cuban surgeons botched the job three times and finally had to call in a Spanish specialist.

When Canada has a critical time sensitive patient they can't get treated in one of their hospitals because of long waiting lists, they send those patients to the United States and pay for their treatment.

Socialist health care is an ideologically driven idea whose time should never have come...anyplace. None for me thanks. I'll hang on to the best health care system in the world.
http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/003641.html

http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/000568.html

http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/003195.html

http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/002897.html

http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/001136.html

posted August 14, 2008 06:03 PM            

I heard the whole debate in brief on "socialist" health care etc right there on Oprah, I thought it was pretty interesting/intelligent and it was the main reason I thought of you. I was saying that at the end of it all the Mike Moore group AND big business insurance posse both agreed that the bill coming up (that would offer state benefits to working class people's children) was a good idea all around. Big insurance lady even told the "Oprah" audience to call congress etc etc and then at the end of the show it said that "since the taping" the bill had tried to pass twice and George ed it both times.

I just asked you your opinion on that particular circumstance/bill because I have this idea that you are the go-to guy on any political issue and you would know exactly what I was talking about and would have a firm opinion on it that you would be happy to share. Me, on the other hand... I just thought about it for 45 minutes or so during Oprah and then went on with my chosen 'head in the sand oblivion' to most political matters...

Now that you've wasted your time finding the links I might have to click on a couple of them some time this week and READ part of one. SHEEESH! Don't do that again!!!!!

posted August 14, 2008 09:25 PM            

I don't know that any nationwide socialist health care bill has gone to Bush but if there was one and he vetoed it or them then bravo for Bush.

The very last thing the US needs is another economy bankrupting social spending bill.

Well MM, if someday you have some time in your otherwise busy schedule or can squeeze in 60 seconds or so to read a few words from one of those past threads; you might find out just how happy citizens of other nations are with their socialist health care systems.

posted August 15, 2008 05:13 PM            

Since any minute now I sense you are going to grab my dolly and threaten to tear her head off, I'm a little scared, but I want to let you know that they did discuss the waiting time for medical care and the difference between research in other countries etc and I totally got that point of view and saw the absolute logic and agreed. Being a Libra I was also swayed by Mike's comment that the reason for the wait was the 50 thousand or so people ahead of you in other countries that our system has chosen to abandon for shorter wait times. I don't know the facts on all of that, of course, so I didn't bother bringing any of that up to you.
I wanted to bring up the bill that offered health care to children who otherwise would have none... children of working class families. MY child HAS health care, because I'm a single mother going to school, which is why I'm staying in school until I get a Master's... because if I get a job as a janitor or something equivalent somewhere, she won't have any health care because I wouldn't be able to afford it even if I worked full time plus overtime. So, it just seems reasonable to me that people who work full time jobs deserve health care for their children. I guess I was thinking you had the same opinion and there was some good reason that Bush vetoed the bills and you would be able to shed some light on it for me. I was kind of thinking that Oprah was using a smarmy tactic by posting that little "bit" at the end and I thought you might be like, "Well, yeah, Mel, but the REASON he vetoed those bills was because they were trying to sneak in this additional bit that had nothing to do with the Kid's health care so he had to veto it until they sent the bill with that stuff not on it."
I see now you are saying that you would agree to reject it on just the principal of it (seems "socialist") so I would assume that the reason he rejected it is because that is what those he represents would want him to do (following the political philosophy that he was elected to follow). So now I just wonder what could be so bad about extending some benefits to those who work full time but are not paid enough to take advantage of our superior health care system... and how that would change our health care for the worse... but maybe it would be what he said... putting that many more people in line ahead of those who CAN PAY for it.

That doesn't settle well in my heart and soul. I was actually hoping that was wrong.

posted August 15, 2008 06:48 PM            

Just between you and me MM, I believe most Americans would go ballistic if they knew democrats had proposed to government insure kids whose parents earned up to $83,000 per year. Ditto insuring adults in a so called poor children's program or proposing a bill where people who are covered by private insurance through their employers would be able to drop that coverage for government insurance.

Here's something else. I doubt there are many families in America who are either poor, unemployed, laid off, students, underemployed, even temporarily who are not already eligible for either Medicaid, SCHIP or Social Security Disability..if disabled or a child in the family is disabled.

There is no magic number of 6.6 million the SCHIP program was set up to insure. There was an amount of money allocated by legislation passed by Congress..and an estimate as to how many children that would cover; but those who are eligible must take the initiative to sign up for the program...or at least make the effort to find out what the program eligibility entails. No one in government is psychic so they don't know what the health care costs of children insured under the SCHIP program is going to average.

So, Bush did not veto a health care program for children. That program was and is in full force and Bush actually proposed an additional $5,000,000,000 to fund health care under SCHIP for children of poor families.

"I just vetoed a bill today, and I want to explain to you why. It's called SCHIP, children's health insurance policy," Bush told the Lancaster Chamber of Commerce and Industry. "The intent of the program was to focus on poorer children, not adults or families earning up to $83,000 a year. It is estimated that if this program were to become law, one out of every three person(s) that would subscribe to the new expanded SCHIP would leave private insurance. The policies of the government ought to be to help poor children and to focus on poor children."

"The president has said that the 61-cent tax on each pack of cigarettes to pay for the measure is regressive, and the government should not be providing health care to families whose income is as much as $80,000 a year. He also expressed concern that the offer of low-cost, government-provided health care will encourage many people who already are covered by private insurance to switch, adding considerable strain to the government system."

"Bush had requested $5 billion more for the program over five years."

"Under the vetoed plan, government-sponsored health coverage would have been expanded from 6.6 million people, mostly children, to include an additional 4 million kids and 700,000 adults. Currently, 9 percent, or 6 million, of the 43 million uninsured Americans are children under 18. SCHIP is available to people who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid, but are not able to afford private insurance."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299129,00.html

Oh, Dork as a term of endearment. Well MM, I started out as a Geek, was promoted to Nerd and thought I'd finally been promoted to Dork

posted August 19, 2008 03:13 PM            

Sorry you're feeling yuckkkky.