Yup, support for Obamacare remains low.

[007]

In otherwords you got nothing!!!
When you are shown facts you rant about trolls?
Pathetic!!!
USA healthcare.
Best on earth!!!
BOOM!!!!!!!!!!!
THE BEST!!!!!!
BOOM!!!!!!!!

 

[007]

You can have opinion, belief, statistics and dogma( empiricism if you wish) but nothing can stand up to clear fact, reality wins!!!!!!

Healthcare in the USA is the best on earth!!!!
BOOM!!!!!
USA all the way!!!!
Get that?
BOOM!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Boo Radley]

In otherwords you got nothing!!!
When you are shown facts you rant about trolls?
Pathetic!!!
USA healthcare.
Best on earth!!!
BOOM!!!!!!!!!!!
THE BEST!!!!!!
BOOM!!!!!!!!

:2funny: You are going to be fun to watch.


Not.


:coffeepap

 

[Boo Radley]

I never wait, I attend the best hospitals and pay about ten bob more than I would under the uk NI Systems.
I am a British citizen, Paul scott, born on April 15 1970.
My UK NI number is NS 796760 A.
I now reside in Boston MA.
My SSN is 026743939!
Still doubt me?

Yep. I do, I really, really do. :coffeepap

 

[whysoserious]

Yep. I do, I really, really do. :coffeepap

You've been drinking enough coffee this morning. I don't want to see you start raging on people!

 

[Helix]

the starting point should have been UHC. that way the compromise would have at least been a public option to buy in to medicare. that solution might actually have been a legitimate step on the way to the single payer system that we need. instead, we got another private, for-profit boondoggle that won't work because health care is an essential service with inelastic demand.

what the health care bill did accomplish, however, is to wake many people up to the fact that the private system results in them paying more than anyone else in the world for health care that ranks 37th. if they're lucky enough to have a job and employer provided care.

at the very least, we need to untie coverage from employment. that's the most idiotic system imaginable. people change and lose jobs all of the time, and when they do, their entire plan changes or is eliminated. if health care was not tied to specific employment and someone argued that it should be, that person would be laughed out of the room.

 

[Boo Radley]

You've been drinking enough coffee this morning. I don't want to see you start raging on people!

Coffeeeeeee!!!!! Need . . . MORE . . . Coffee!!!!!!!

 

[007]

Still though!
If an able bodied individual refuses to get off his arse, get a job and pay his way, what right has he to demand that those of us who do all three pay for his extended luxury?

 

[imagep]

Still though!
If an able bodied individual refuses to get off his arse, get a job and pay his way, what right has he to demand that those of us who do all three pay for his extended luxury?

But what if he is not abled body. Or cant find a job, or temporarally is between jobs due to no fault of his own.

What if someone was dieing on your doorstep, maybe they were on fire. Would you not lift a finger to help save them? Would you not at least make an effort to douse them in water?

I get what you are saying, I don't like people who think they are entitled either. But I do have compassion towards all human beings, even if I hate to admit it. If its within my ability to save someones life or to save them from misery, its my duty as a human being to do so. Even if they are a sorry lazy sack of ****.

So since as a society we are not going to let people die on the hospitals doorstep, then we should give some consideration to offering some sort of health care to ALL Americans.

by the way, "all" means "all". it doesn't mean that we only offer benefits to certain groups such as the poor. Our government provides us with certain services and benefits, such as roads, police, courts, and military, there is no practical reason that our gov shouldn't offer some level of health care. but the issue with medicade and every other means tested give away is that the fact that they are only offered to poor people creates an incentive for the poor to remain poor and unproductive.

Im not a big fan of ANY welfare program, not foodstamps or AFWDC or WIC or free and reduced price lunch or medicade, but if we are going to offer such benefits, they should be offered to all citizens and not based upon means testing. by offering all benefits to all citizens we eleminate the incentive for being poor.

Although I am not a big fan of socializing healthcare, I see quite a few benefits in socializing health INSURANCE. Jeesh, our government already pays for half of all medical care in the US, but less than a third of Americans get that benefit. So why not have automatic insurance coverage for all Americans? We already spend enough to pay for it.

 

[Stewart]

But what if he is not abled body. Or cant find a job, or temporarally is between jobs due to no fault of his own.

What if someone was dieing on your doorstep, maybe they were on fire. Would you not lift a finger to help save them? Would you not at least make an effort to douse them in water?

I get what you are saying, I don't like people who think they are entitled either. But I do have compassion towards all human beings, even if I hate to admit it. If its within my ability to save someones life or to save them from misery, its my duty as a human being to do so. Even if they are a sorry lazy sack of ****.

So since as a society we are not going to let people die on the hospitals doorstep, then we should give some consideration to offering some sort of health care to ALL Americans.

by the way, "all" means "all". it doesn't mean that we only offer benefits to certain groups such as the poor. Our government provides us with certain services and benefits, such as roads, police, courts, and military, there is no practical reason that our gov shouldn't offer some level of health care. but the issue with medicade and every other means tested give away is that the fact that they are only offered to poor people creates an incentive for the poor to remain poor and unproductive.

Im not a big fan of ANY welfare program, not foodstamps or AFWDC or WIC or free and reduced price lunch or medicade, but if we are going to offer such benefits, they should be offered to all citizens and not based upon means testing. by offering all benefits to all citizens we eleminate the incentive for being poor.

Although I am not a big fan of socializing healthcare, I see quite a few benefits in socializing health INSURANCE. Jeesh, our government already pays for half of all medical care in the US, but less than a third of Americans get that benefit. So why not have automatic insurance coverage for all Americans? We already spend enough to pay for it.

Social welfare plays an importan role as a safety net, a backstop against unforseen circumstances. It's a integral part of society. We should try and reduce the people on it though and it should be allied equally of course.

I wouldn't worry about 007, he is being a troll

 

[Neomalthusian]

Social welfare plays an importan role as a safety net, a backstop against unforseen circumstances. It's a integral part of society. We should try and reduce the people on it though and it should be allied equally of course.

To say that welfare is "integral" and "plays an important role" in society is like saying an abusive parent is "integral" and "plays an important role" in his child's life.

True statement? Well yeah. Still a big problem? Undoubtedly.

It is not the fault of the poor they have become reliant on social welfare. The problem lies in the program itself. It is not the fault of the child he relies on the abusive parent. The problem lies with the abusive parent.

 

[007]

Social welfare plays an importan role as a safety net, a backstop against unforseen circumstances. It's a integral part of society. We should try and reduce the people on it though and it should be allied equally of course.

I wouldn't worry about 007, he is being a troll

That's a particulary nasty and vicious personal attack there boyo!!
Does a differing opinion upset your delicate self esteem so much to drive you to such vitriol?

Second time you made this horrific and vitriolic personal attack!!
Why not try DEBATING rather than ABUSING?

 

[007]

Socialised medicine........
The UKs NHS, a pretty horrific and frightening excuse for a healthcare system!!
I refer back to the RUBY OWEN case I documented some posts back.
Socialised medicine refused to treat her, declared her untreatable, Incurable and terminal.

She came to the USA (greatest nation on earth) was treated, cured,returned to the uk and remains alive today!!!
Proof positive that socialised medicine is pants!!!!!!

 

[Boo Radley]

To say that welfare is "integral" and "plays an important role" in society is like saying an abusive parent is "integral" and "plays an important role" in his child's life.

True statement? Well yeah. Still a big problem? Undoubtedly.

It is not the fault of the poor they have become reliant on social welfare. The problem lies in the program itself. It is not the fault of the child he relies on the abusive parent. The problem lies with the abusive parent.

I would disagree in this respect: We can aid those in need and not create reliance. In fact, many do work to get off, get help, and move on. We tend to look at the extremes in these types of situations. We will always have the extreme, so the question is how many move on and how many are the extreme.

 

[Neomalthusian]

I would disagree in this respect: We can aid those in need and not create reliance.

The only efficient way to accomplish this long term is to make sure WE are giving the aid. I think individuals, churches, partnerships, non-profits, businesses, neighborhoods, communities, municipalities, and even states can and should come up with their own ways to not simply neglect the needy, if that is what they determine is wise.

The worst possible idea when it comes to helping the needy is to throw the entire responsibility for the mission at the federal government.

 

[Stewart]

To say that welfare is "integral" and "plays an important role" in society is like saying an abusive parent is "integral" and "plays an important role" in his child's life.

True statement? Well yeah. Still a big problem? Undoubtedly.

It is not the fault of the poor they have become reliant on social welfare. The problem lies in the program itself. It is not the fault of the child he relies on the abusive parent. The problem lies with the abusive parent.

No, social welfare is like the government agency that comes in when the parent is absusive and cares for the child untill alternate caregivers are found. Without social welfare, returning to the workforce would be very,very difficult. Have you got any evidence that the 'poor' have become reliant on social welfare? Doesn't unemployment benefits run out ? Living alone on food stamps would be very hard.

 

[Neomalthusian]

No, social welfare is like the government agency that comes in when the parent is absusive and cares for the child untill alternate caregivers are found.

That's a single agency that helps uphold laws protecting the basic rights of children. I can agree that, relatively speaking, this is important. But most of the welfare system is not child protective services. Most of it is a distribution of money to parents or an excusal from paying for their own stuff. Various "income security" programs, Medicare, Medicaid, and social security. That's our entitlement problem. It's ginormous.

Without social welfare, returning to the workforce would be very,very difficult. Have you got any evidence that the 'poor' have become reliant on social welfare? Doesn't unemployment benefits run out ? Living alone on food stamps would be very hard.

Um. Ok?

Asking if I have evidence that welfare fosters reliance thereon is akin to asking if I have "evidence" that there's corruption in DC. Is it realy even in question? I can google what other people have written about it, or dig up past examples, but is that really necessary? It's self-evident.

Sending people on goose chases for "evidence" or "facts" about things no one really disputes in the first place is a waste of time and a distraction.

 

[Boo Radley]

The only efficient way to accomplish this long term is to make sure WE are giving the aid. I think individuals, churches, partnerships, non-profits, businesses, neighborhoods, communities, municipalities, and even states can and should come up with their own ways to not simply neglect the needy, if that is what they determine is wise.

The worst possible idea when it comes to helping the needy is to throw the entire responsibility for the mission at the federal government.

History shows us those agencies were inadequate. As I recall during the great depression baptist ministers begged the federal government to help. Too often the poor suffered greratly, and it did not result in a that job creating bonanza many conservatives feel it would. Often we get to a place because of events that led us there. Today, over all, people are far better off.

 

[coolwalker]

History shows us those agencies were inadequate. As I recall during the great depression baptist ministers begged the federal government to help. Too often the poor suffered greratly, and it did not result in a that job creating bonanza many conservatives feel it would. Often we get to a place because of events that led us there. Today, over all, people are far better off.

You recall...Lord, how old are you?

The Great depression came about by greed. Today's recession is also brought about by greed. Stupid people keep re-electing the same thieves time after time, then complain they are being robbed through taxes and the like. Wake up...re-elect no one, ever.

 

[Boo Radley]

You recall...Lord, how old are you?

The Great depression came about by greed. Today's recession is also brought about by greed. Stupid people keep re-electing the same thieves time after time, then complain they are being robbed through taxes and the like. Wake up...re-elect no one, ever.

53.

I recall studying the great depression. I did some study in the area.

The rest of what you wrote doesn't address what I said.