Why do I have to name it? Did you not read the article? Do you think they made the whole thing up? Do you think illegal aliens pay little to no federal taxes?
Nope, I didn't read the whole story because it didn't seem credible on a general level. Illegals pay some taxes, but they generally cost more than they contribute. A U.S. citizen in the job awarded to the illegal generally will contribute more in taxes and none of the money will be sent out of the country. The emergency rooms would be less crowded and thus free to handle real emergencies rather than the flu. Leave the emotion out of this, and you might see the truth in my realism.
I know the immigration issue needs its' own thread, but I must ask how you would resolve the immigration problems this country faces?
BTW thumbs, you are one sick individual. Please don't email trash like that anymore. In fact, I'd appreciate it if you lost my email address. No wonder you didn't want to post what you sent me here. If that is what you truly believe, you need to seek help.
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/29232/americans_want_government_to_ensure_health_care If 2% of Americans are unhappy why does a majority want a single-payer type system? I don't have healthcare because I can't afford it (I'm overweight, a smoker, family history of cancer, diabetes, heart disease). Why the hell would I pay $50/month for an insurance plan which has a deductible of $10k? (that is the cheapest option available to me). It seems pointless.
No irony here. She has a private plan working with a public plan. As I said in another thread, I'm for public health care. However, I don't want "a" plan. I want Congress to pass a cost effective plan that works for the general populace -- Medicare for every U.S. citizen might be a solution. I don't know. Incidentally, federal Blue Cross Blue Shield is very similar to what the U.S. Congress has -- no wonder they don't want to lose the private insurance part of their plan. If her care were "rationed" -- not enough doctors and nurses to see everybody -- she would never have made 89. Most of the board is somewhere between 20 and 40 (my guesstimate). When you get to 50 or 60 you get more careful about your coverage, and that is what is driving the protestors. They don't want to jeopardize what works.
IMO HR 676 is the best solution to fix this crisis. Obama's bill is a) 1018 pages long, b) nowhere in the table of contents does it mention the overall cost and how it will be funded, c) does not insure all taxpayers yet all taxpayers will probably end up paying for it. I don't think it is a good plan. The same thing is not working in Massachusetts Meanwhile a single-payer (or similar) system like medicare (such as the one proposed in HR 676) has been proven to work in all other industrialized nations. And we are currently paying twice as much as any other industrialized nation on healthcare, HR 676 uses this funds plus other funds (top 5% income earners seeing an increase in personal income taxes, small payroll tax, small tax on all stocks/bonds) probably making it a far more effective system than any other industrialized nation (more money=better efficiency, basic logic)
My apologies. I thought you would find it as ridiculous as I did. I thought I conveyed that in my note. With sadness, I will comply.
The tactics were NOT identical, the protestors were NOT identical, the administration was different, the issue was different, the context was different, the motivations were different. Two WHOLLY DIFFERENT situations - you're behaving as if the people protesting now are just the mirror image of the people protesting then, and that is EXACTLY what I was taking issue with. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME. THERE IS NO EQUIVALENCE. The fact that there are two prominent opposing sides in this issue does not make those two sides EQUIVALENT. The media makes those two sides appear equivalent, because if the two sides are equivalent then no one can ever be right, and if no one can ever be right then the televised conflicts, the talking heads, will always have something to argue about, to make news-theater around, to get ratings from, to get advertising dollars from. But, in reality, and I mean real reality and not "cable news reality" these two issues are completely different, as are the people involved in most cases. Opposition does not make two sides equivalent.
You're equating the Klan with the Black Panthers? Are you on drugs? That's about as insulting as it gets right there.
This article, while sad, isn't necessarily an accurate portrayal. A good percentage of the work doctors do is at no cost - that is, it's good will. If you don't have insurance or money, a lot of times, you can still get treatment. Sometimes all you have to do it explain your situation and ask for help.
I think naivity is comparing the new Black Panthers to the KKK. Again, I haven't seen a pattern of murder, blowing up churches, burning crosses in whites yards, etc. Didn't someone say the new Black Panthers in that video were calling Obama an Uncle Tom, and saying things against him? As for the restaurant thing, it still isn't the same. The KKK weren't just making it unpleasant for people, they had the law behind them and the segregation was codified. There is nothing radical or prejudiced about ACORN. I have seen zero evidence of ACORN's so called strong arm tactics. I'm sorry, but there is no comparison between the new Black Panthers and the KKK during the 60's.
