- Joined
- Jan 29, 2011
- Messages
- 11,265
- Reaction score
- 2,921
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
I pray your wife beats it. Your personal story, however, bears no weight in reegard to the millions of people who need medical treatment they can't afford.My wife has been battling cancer twice over the last three years and I couldn't be happier with the treatment she is getting. We don't need Obamacare and apparently neither do you.
How does UHC provide lower costs and better care than what you are getting right now. Please give me an example anywhere else in the world where UHC has been successful in improving healthcare and lowering costs?
Oh? Does this mean you've finally found someone who can beat Obama? :lamo
No, it's what I do when you lie. Stop lying and I'll have no reason to call you on it.
8 million jobs were lost in Bush's Great Recession. And his net gain was so poor, that the unemployment rate doubled on his watch. Unemployment was higher (and still growing) when Bush left office than every other president dating back to Herbert Hoover.
Whoooa, you're lying again. By your measure, it resulted in 3½ million jobs saved. A success since his stimulus targeted 3 million.
And yet his record on unemployment is better than every Republican president going back as far as the data allows. Guess that makes your standards even lower than mine.
Here's a list of presidents, along with the percentage of increase, or decrease, of the U3 unemployment rate after 30 months in office...
Nixon ............ +76%
Bush ............. +48%
Eisenhower ... +38%
Ford* ............. +36%
GHW Bush ..... +26%
Reagan ......... +25%
Obama .......... +17%
Kennedy ........ -15%
Clinton ........... -22%
Carter ............ -24%
Johnson ......... -33%
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
* = Ford served 29 months
uhhh just about every country has some form of UHC.....Singapore for example.
I pray your wife beats it. Your personal story, however, bears no weight in reegard to the millions of people who need medical treatment they can't afford.
Does Singapore have 310 million people spread out over the geography we have here?
I am proud to live in a country which takes care of those who are sick and too poor to afford adequate health care.When I was sitting in the ER carrying about 25 ponds of fluid in my ankles and legs and a panel of doctors in front of me said "Hello and welcome to the cardiac" about the last thing on my mind was ideological positions on the so called "nanny state."
I was pretty much dieing at that moment.
The one in whcih you can receive nothing more than emergency care if you don't have insurance, government assistance or can't afford to pay the doctor up front?Welcome to the best medical system in the world without Obamacare.
I am proud to live in a country which takes care of those who are sick and too poor to afford adequate health care.
Why does he need to? The GOP has yet to find someone who can beat Obama.Aw, wonderful, percentage change again. Let's pass that out to the 25 plus million unemployed and under Employed Americans today.
The one in whcih you can receive nothing more than emergency care if you don't have insurance, government assistance or can't afford to pay the doctor up front?
Why does he need to? The GOP has yet to find someone who can beat Obama.
And millions more aren't. The fact is, in America, the greatest country on this planet, the only people who receieve adequate medical care beyond emergency room are those who either have insurance (which many of those unemployed you feign concern over don't), are eligible for government assistance (which you are against), or can afford it (which only a relative few can afford a major operation), or beg for the money for medical treatment to be donated. That leaves a gap of millions who may need healthcare but beyond any emergency care they may be eligilble for, will not receive it. Try geting chemotherapy from an emergency room.Thank you for the prayers, millions of people who need medical treatment are getting it, that is a liberal strawman to expand control and power over the lives of others.
So you think when the field is narrowed down to two that the poll numbers will remain the same? Obama with the record he has doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell and will only get the ideologues like you voting for him. Not sure what you see in the guy but to each their own. I see a leftwing incompetent who lacks even basic leadership skills. Seems the results give that description credibility.
I wish you well also. It's one of the things that makes me a Liberal. I don't subscribe to the Conservative, "pull yourself up by your bootstraps," nonsense. I realize not everybody can. And living in a country which gave the people a Constitution which instructs the government to provide for the general welfare of this nation, people who can't shouldn't face dire life & death consequnces as a result.It is pretty hard to be extremely productive when your heart has an ejection fraction of 10%.
Normal is 58%
oh and this through no fault of my own. Mine is a congenital defect with a grim prognosis.
And millions more aren't. The fact is, in America, the greatest country on this planet, the only people who receieve adequate medical care beyond emergency room are those who either have insurance (which many of those unemployed you feign concern over don't), are eligible for government assistance (which you are against), or can afford it (which only a relative few can afford a major operation), or beg for the money for medical treatment to be donated. That leaves a gap of millions who may need healthcare but beyond any emergency care they may be eligilble for, will not receive it. Try geting chemotherapy from an emergency room.
I disagree. I see it as a federal issue falling under the general welfare clause.MA has universal healthcare and there aren't enough doctors to handle the demand thus ER usage is way up as are costs. That however is what the people there wanted and that is why healthcare is a state issue not a federal issue.
For the most part. You seem to think that people who would vote for Perry over Obama actually pick Obama because they are also asked about other candidates.So you think when the field is narrowed down to two that the poll numbers will remain the same?
It all depends on who the opponent is for Obama. In the end, the GOP simply cannot run a generic faceless and nameless blob on the ballot in a referendum which boils down to "do you like Obama?" As much as you would like that to happen, that is simply not the way presidential elections work.
The GOP will have a real flesh and blood candidate whose own record, whose own beliefs, whose own statements, whose own ideas will become just as big of an issue as anything else in the campaign. And it is that reality which you seem to be shrinking from.
For the most part. You seem to think that people who would vote for Perry over Obama actually pick Obama because they are also asked about other candidates.
They put up a moderate Republican in 2008 and got their shirt handed to them. This time, it looks like they're going to go far right with Perry. While that will appeal to the right , they will lose the middle which they boast Obama has lost.It all depends on who the opponent is for Obama. In the end, the GOP simply cannot run a generic faceless and nameless blob on the ballot in a referendum which boils down to "do you like Obama?" As much as you would like that to happen, that is simply not the way presidential elections work.
The GOP will have a real flesh and blood candidate whose own record, whose own beliefs, whose own statements, whose own ideas will become just as big of an issue as anything else in the campaign. And it is that reality which you seem to be shrinking from.
Keep believing the liberal rhetoric and ignoring the liberal results. We have had 2 1/2 years of Obamanomics and the people aren't buying it. Either Romney or Perry can beat Obama and will. You didn't vet Obama and bought what he was saying. Now he has a record to run on and it isn't pretty. The American people were fooled once but won't be fooled a second time.
They put up a moderate Republican in 2008 and got their shirt handed to them. This time, it looks like they're going to go far right with Perry. While that will appeal to the right , they will lose the middle which they boast Obama has lost.
What you don't understand is that the head-to-head polls are not mutually inclusive. People polled are not limited to one choice, which as you claim, they will switch to whomever gets the nod from the GOP. In these polls, they can pick every GOPer if they so choose. So no, I don't see narrowing the field to one candidate having much impact on those polls. It might to some degree pick someone they hadn't considered previously, thanks to the herd mentality, but I don't see that being enough to overcome the current numbers. It's my opinion the biggest factor which will move those numbers is that some of the candidates are not all that well known, which will change when there's one candidate. But even that can work against them as much as it can help them. Remains to be seen.Republican candidates for others will drop out and the support redistributed. Perry will get the Bachmann vote as well as the Cain vote.
They put up a moderate Republican in 2008 and got their shirt handed to them. This time, it looks like they're going to go far right with Perry. While that will appeal to the right , they will lose the middle which they boast Obama has lost.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?