Stuck in my old ways of thinking

[Mr VJP]

"So in this country we have the liberals -- the  progressives -- and their new ideas to change the country and lead us  forward. And not just lead us forward, but win the future.  Their obstacles are the conservatives who are scared of change and stuck  in their old ways of thinking. ... At least that's the conventional  wisdom.... Which leads me to what seems to be a really obvious question:  What, if any, of the ideas of liberals these days are new? ... With the  economy hurting and people crying out for change, what brand new  revolutionary idea did they get to first? Have the government spend lots  of money.

I'll let that sink in for a moment. It's a really new idea;  it might take some time to comprehend a concept so novel and  revolutionary as that one. I mean, it's not like it's the same solution  the Democrats have had for everything for the past one hundred years.  Maybe we should tell Europe about this brand new idea; let's get this  revolution of government spending lots of money to really spread.

And  that wasn't the only new idea the liberals had. They also had another  innovative idea to save the failing car companies and fix health care.  What was it? Well hold on to your hats, because it's pretty crazy and  fresh: The government could take over private industry. What a new idea!  What a groundbreaking way of looking at things! ... But the new ideas  don't stop there.

Have you heard of President Obama's latest idea to  really get the economy going? Build fast trains. What an insane new  idea! I mean, it's totally something innovative that will 'win the  future' and not an economic solution that would seem more in place in  the late 1800s.

Some of you may have been confused by those last few  paragraphs; what I was doing was being insincere in a humorous way. It's  a brand new thing called 'sarcasm' -- just as new as all those  liberal ideas. Seriously, though, shouldn't 'liberal' or 'progressive,'  when used to describe the left, be in scare quotes, because what  exactly are they pushing that isn't some old, failed idea of the last  century?" --humor columnist Frank J. Fleming

[virgil]

Your statement about the government 'taking over' healthcare has absolutely no basis in fact.  More propapanda.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Your statement about the government 'taking over' healthcare has absolutely no basis in fact.  More propapanda.

Take your blinders off Virgil....it was a column that was written...not VJP's statement.

I think that since the govt can't even run the post office as a breakeven proposition I certainly do not want their fingers in health care at all.

How about Social Security...another glowing light for the Govt's resume.

[SplitG2]

How about Social Security...another glowing light for the Govt's resume.

[/quote

Talk about the biggest Pyramid scheme!  New money comes in to pay older payers!

[Culvercreek hunt club]

How about Social Security...another glowing light for the Govt's resume.

[/quote

Talk about the biggest Pyramid scheme!  New money comes in to pay older payers!

LOL...If we pulled crap like that in a business....They would be tossing our butts in jail

[G-Man]

ssi is so twisted from what it was started for supplimental income for war widows.... fact is nothing will change as long as we have career politions they are the root cause behind everthing why should they care about the laws they create if not subject to them?. and yes its our fault for keep voting them in...

[virgil]

Culver, whether it was his quote or someone else's, he obviously posted it to make a point, right?  I'm not sure why you think i have blinders on for pointing out that part of his post was inaccurate.  If you post it, you take responsibility for it. 

[Dave]

Culver, whether it was his quote or someone else's, he obviously posted it to make a point, right?  I'm not sure why you think i have blinders on for pointing out that part of his post was inaccurate.  If you post it, you take responsibility for it.

Virgil, name me one federal program that ever came in on budget, just one. Just think about it, there are penalties to pay if you don't provide health care that is less than the premiums employers pay. See any problem with this not to mention all the exemptions given to the those who voted for the healthcare program. Think again you vote for it but you are exempt from it. DAH

Dave

[virgil]

  Virgil, name me one federal program that ever came in on budget, just one. Just think about it, there are penalties to pay if you don't provide health care that is less than the premiums employers pay. See any problem with this not to mention all the exemptions given to the those who voted for the healthcare program. Think again you vote for it but you are exempt from it. DAH

Dave

i'm not following you here.  why are you asking me to defend the budgets of any federal programs?  my comment was specifically in regard to the false statement claiming that the government is 'taking over' healthcare.

[MuzzyLoader]

HUMOR columnist Frank J. Fleming

Dang... here we go again.  It was written by a Humorist folks... a Humorist!!!  Can't anyone post even articles of humor on here without getting criticized?

Some members appear to be wound pretty tight...  :-\

[Culvercreek hunt club]

  Virgil, name me one federal program that ever came in on budget, just one. Just think about it, there are penalties to pay if you don't provide health care that is less than the premiums employers pay. See any problem with this not to mention all the exemptions given to the those who voted for the healthcare program. Think again you vote for it but you are exempt from it. DAH

Dave

i'm not following you here.  why are you asking me to defend the budgets of any federal programs?  my comment was specifically in regard to the false statement claiming that the government is 'taking over' healthcare.

Let me try this.

The fines to an employeer for NOT providing a specified level of health care is less than the cost to provide it in many cases. Employeers are going to opt to pay the fine because it is more cost effective. the uncovered employees would then fall int to the govt program to assure everyone has coverage. This is a rather back door way to move this forward into a full govt run one payer system.

[Dave]

  Virgil, name me one federal program that ever came in on budget, just one. Just think about it, there are penalties to pay if you don't provide health care that is less than the premiums employers pay. See any problem with this not to mention all the exemptions given to the those who voted for the healthcare program. Think again you vote for it but you are exempt from it. DAH

Dave

i'm not following you here.  why are you asking me to defend the budgets of any federal programs?  my comment was specifically in regard to the false statement claiming that the government is 'taking over' healthcare.

Let me try this.

The fines to an employeer for NOT providing a specified level of health care is less than the cost to provide it in many cases. Employeers are going to opt to pay the fine because it is more cost effective. the uncovered employees would then fall int to the govt program to assure everyone has coverage. This is a rather back door way to move this forward into a full govt run one payer system.

Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now isn't that a gov't take over?

[virgil]

      Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now isn't that a gov't take over?

In what way do you see this as a 'takeover'?  Looks to me as a means for the government to help cover the cost of healthcare.  but, the term 'takeover' implies that the government would be in charge of providing the care.

[Dave]

Sorry you can't figure it out, didn't think it was too tough. Employers don't provide healthcare anymore so the gov't moves in with the single payer system.

Dave

[MuzzyLoader]

      Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now isn't that a gov't take over?

In what way do you see this as a 'takeover'?  Looks to me as a means for the government to help cover the cost of healthcare.  but, the term 'takeover' implies that the government would be in charge of providing the care.

Virgil... you just don't get it do you!!!???

[Culvercreek hunt club]

the Govt did not build the cars when GM had their bail out but it damn sure held the purse strings and got thier noses in the operation there.

[virgil]

In what way do you see this as a 'takeover'?  Looks to me as a means for the government to help cover the cost of healthcare.  but, the term 'takeover' implies that the government would be in charge of providing the care.

     

Virgil... you just don't get it do you!!!???

Instead of trying to insult me, why not address my question, if you can.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

In what way do you see this as a 'takeover'?  Looks to me as a means for the government to help cover the cost of healthcare.  but, the term 'takeover' implies that the government would be in charge of providing the care.

   

Virgil... you just don't get it do you!!!???

Instead of trying to insult me, why not address my question, if you can.

Aren't the ones that control the purse strings the ones that are in charge?

[virgil]

Aren't the ones that control the purse strings the ones that are in charge?

In most cases, probably.  But, not necessarily.  I work with a number of donor funded programs where the donors themselves are not involved at all in operatiions.  To me, when you say that they'd be in charge, you're implying that they'd be making clinical decisions, and that's simply not the case.  That's where that 'death panel' nonsense came from- the people who started using that term knew that they were making false claims, but did it anyway just to rile up their base.  Just propaganda.

[Mr VJP]

      Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now isn't that a gov't take over?

In what way do you see this as a 'takeover'?  Looks to me as a means for the government to help cover the cost of healthcare.  but, the term 'takeover' implies that the government would be in charge of providing the care.

Not true at all.  The US doesn't have to employ the healthcare providers to take over the system.

A government takeover of the American healthcare system is exactly what Obamacare is.  The government will now force everyone into the US healthcare system, decide what the costs of all medical procedures will be, decide what insurance companies will exist and what they can charge, decide what procedures you will be entitled to regardless of what your Doctor says, decide how much the doctor gets paid, decide who gets money to go to medical school, decide what you will practice when you get out of medical school, decide who will get donated organs, who will get end of life care and who will not, decide how much prescription drugs will be, etc., etc., etc.

The government will also decide who gets FREE medical coverage (at taxpayers expense) like illegal aliens, the poor, criminals, unemployed, homeless and welfare recipients.  It will also decide who is exempt from the system.  Muslims are exempt on religious reasons because insurance is gambling to them and forbidden by Islam.  Many thousands of businesses have been granted waivers and will be allowed to opt out of the system.

This is just some of what the bill says.

There is not one single area of the American healthcare system left untouched or unregulated by Obamacare.  How can anyone even remotely schooled in this bill believe it isn't a take over of the American healthcare system by the government?

[virgil]

A government takeover of the American healthcare sysytem is exactly what Obamacare is.  The government will now force everyone into the US healthcare system, decide what the costs of all medical procedures will be, decide what insurance companies will exist and what they can charge, decide what procedures you will be entitled to regardless of what your Doctor says, decide how much the doctor gets paid, decide who gets money to go to medical school, decide what you will practice when you get out of medical school, decide who will get donated organs, who will get end of life care and who will not, decide how much prescription drugs will be, etc., etc., etc.

All complete and utter nonsense- pure propaganda with zero basis in fact.  On other issues, you obviously do your homework.  on this one, you're just repeating what you've been fed.  it's simply not true.

[Mr VJP]

And you will enumerate the facts for us so we can all learn how you come to such a ludicrous conclusion?

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/examiner-editorial-obamacare-even-worse-critics-thought

http://blogs.investors.com/capitalhill/index.php/home/35-politicsinvesting/1563-20-ways-obamacare-will-take-away-our-freedoms

You claim I'm not citing facts, which I am, but I don't see anything in your posts but opinion.

[Mr VJP]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/28/tawdry-details-of-obamacare-420960137/

http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/BadMedicineWP.pdf

[virgil]

  And you will enumerate the facts for us so we can all learn how you come to such a ludicrous conclusion?

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/examiner-editorial-obamacare-even-worse-critics-thought

http://blogs.investors.com/capitalhill/index.php/home/35-politicsinvesting/1563-20-ways-obamacare-will-take-away-our-freedoms

You claim I'm not citing facts, which I am, but I don't see anything in your posts but opinion.

  An editorial from a conservative tabloid, and a blog by David Hogberg, contributor to the American Spectator, another conservative paper, do not provide facts.  They provide opinions.  This is the problem as i see it- you see any opinion similar to your own as a fact.  A fact is something that can be or has been proven- these examples are biased speculation at best.

[virgil]

would you ever even pretend to cite an unbiased, non-partisan source?