QueenZone discussion #1200448

YourValentine wrote: Yes, it's funny how people take to the streets because they do not want to pay for the health care of their nation's children but do not mind paying billions for two useless wars.

YourValentine wrote: Yes, it's funny how people take to the streets because they do not want to pay for the health care of their nation's children but do not mind paying billions for two useless wars.

YourValentine wrote: Yes, it's funny how people take to the streets because they do not want to pay for the health care of their nation's children but do not mind paying billions for two useless wars.

cacatua wrote: When I first got wind of Bush's intent to invade Iraq I couldn't believe it. And the Walk-in-the-Park speech he gave was just ridiculous. I was then corresponding with an Arabist diplomat named Antony Sullivan, whom I had met by virtue of being a camel owner (long story) and he was devastated, not only because he had many connections in the Middle East but because he knew full well about what course the whole thing would take. I and many others wrote letters to Bush and our government representatives, but it was like spitting into the wind, as although there was some voting and bullshit that went on it was obvious that Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz (the four horsemen of the apocolypse) had already made up their minds and anything else was a formality. Peace demonstrations that occurred were useless. Obama won because people were so fed-up with the Bush-Cheney conservative crowd that anyone of a more sane viewpoint would have likely won. And he is a very good speaker, and unruffled under stress, so those and other factors made him very popular. But I've never before seen the bitterness that exists between the polarized Left and Right that there is now. A lot of it is stirred up by the loud and unaccountable conservative talk show hosts like that bag of wind and shit, Rush Limbaugh, but he is not the only one. They have hijacked the Republican party to be something far more to the right than before and call anyone who would compromise a RINO - Republican in name only. RINOs are those like John McCain and Colin Powell. I call them reasonable people, though McCain moved far to the right of his usual positions when he ran for president, especially when he picked that loon, Palin for VP. Anyway, now the followers of Limbaugh and other far right wingers are stirring up anything they can to break Obama's presidency and get themselves back into power, so it is very hard to determine just who is really upset over the health care stuff and who is doing it due to ulterior motives. I've just washed my hands of it all as it seems so futile to get involved. One of my husband's cousins and I sometimes correspond by email, but I'm liberal and he is one of these far-right conservatives, and it is all that we can do to be civil about politics in spite of the fact that we like each other. It's horrible. He has the second amendment "Right to bear arms....." professionally painted onto the back of his truck, and I am in favor of gay rights, and never the twain shall meet!  :o) Anyway, this has poisoned the atmosphere to get anything done.

Yara wrote:

  cacatua wrote: When I first got wind of Bush's intent to invade Iraq I couldn't believe it. And the Walk-in-the-Park speech he gave was just ridiculous. I was then corresponding with an Arabist diplomat named Antony Sullivan, whom I had met by virtue of being a camel owner (long story) and he was devastated, not only because he had many connections in the Middle East but because he knew full well about what course the whole thing would take. I and many others wrote letters to Bush and our government representatives, but it was like spitting into the wind, as although there was some voting and bullshit that went on it was obvious that Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz (the four horsemen of the apocolypse) had already made up their minds and anything else was a formality. Peace demonstrations that occurred were useless. Obama won because people were so fed-up with the Bush-Cheney conservative crowd that anyone of a more sane viewpoint would have likely won. And he is a very good speaker, and unruffled under stress, so those and other factors made him very popular. But I've never before seen the bitterness that exists between the polarized Left and Right that there is now. A lot of it is stirred up by the loud and unaccountable conservative talk show hosts like that bag of wind and shit, Rush Limbaugh, but he is not the only one. They have hijacked the Republican party to be something far more to the right than before and call anyone who would compromise a RINO - Republican in name only. RINOs are those like John McCain and Colin Powell. I call them reasonable people, though McCain moved far to the right of his usual positions when he ran for president, especially when he picked that loon, Palin for VP. Anyway, now the followers of Limbaugh and other far right wingers are stirring up anything they can to break Obama's presidency and get themselves back into power, so it is very hard to determine just who is really upset over the health care stuff and who is doing it due to ulterior motives. I've just washed my hands of it all as it seems so futile to get involved. One of my husband's cousins and I sometimes correspond by email, but I'm liberal and he is one of these far-right conservatives, and it is all that we can do to be civil about politics in spite of the fact that we like each other. It's horrible. He has the second amendment "Right to bear arms....." professionally painted onto the back of his truck, and I am in favor of gay rights, and never the twain shall meet!  :o) Anyway, this has poisoned the atmosphere to get anything done.

I have been to the U.S quite often lately, much to my delight. I like your country, what can I do? ; -) Last time I was over there I felt that many people had legitimate reasons for taking exception to Obama and the Democrats. To be honest, he hasn't been, ever since the elections by the way, very clear about this and other issues. I read the papers, I like talking to people, and even so I was hard-pressed to find out where he actually stood on many issues. The contrast between what he promised in his campaign and what he's actually doing, and failing to do, does seem to upset people. What he was advocating in public back in July sounded nothing like the bill that Nancy Pelosy was announcing in Congress - his proposal was far more to the right, in fact, which made even some of his staunch supporters a bit angry. He promised a world of changes and hinted at numerous ruptures, and it's gradually dawning on people that there has been reluctancy in passing even gradual and small reforms.  Don't you think the lack of clarity in public discourse in general also helps fostering the kind of nonsensical opposition to any proposed health-care reform bill that magicalfreddie and you have pointed out? In fact, how many different bills dealing with the issue have been discussed lately in Congress? I was told that the most recent one put forth by the Democrats has more than 1000 pages!            

JoxerTheDeityPirate wrote: lets put this another way. If i lived in the US I'd probably be dead now due to their healthcare practises as they stand at the present [i would not be able to afford their insurance plans],thankfully i live in the UK  where i get FREE  NHS [national health service] healthcare and am able to get treated at home by nurses for my diabetes if it flares up without having to go to hospital. shouldnt every human being be entitled to free health care if it can be made available,it shouldnt come down to whether or not they can afford to be ill or not..?

Donna13 wrote: http://www.insurekidsnow.gov/ "Health Coverage Plans       A new bill signed into law by President Obama makes millions of children eligible to receive health insurance.       If your kids do not have health insurance, they are likely to be eligible, even if you are working and even if you have applied in the past and been turned down.       Your state (and every state) has its own program, with its own eligibility rules, but in many states, uninsured children 18 years old and younger, whose families earn up to $44,500 a year (for a family of four) are eligible for free or low-cost health insurance that pays for       Doctor visits, Dental care, Prescription medicines, Hospitalizations and much more."      

«¤~Mrš. BÃD GÛŸ~¤» wrote: Anyone see the movie "SICKO" by Michael Moore??? It tells it like it is!!

Holly2003 wrote: Daft thing for Jimmy Carter to say that this criticism is motivated by racism. All it would take to refute that is for Fox news to trot out a few black Repubicans to criticse Obama and Carter and the Dems will look very foolish. As for Govt. Health Care, my first kid was born in the UK, was 10 weeks premature and spent 6 weeks in intensive care. My wife had complications, and spent a fair amount of time in hospital afterwards, in a private room. It didn't cost us a penny. When I lived in the US, our second child was concieved. I was a student at the time, and my wife was working. She had company healthcare, but not complete coverage. We worked out that if the second child went through the same problems as the first -- as they often do -- we would have to pay $25,000. So we moved back to the UK :)  

Yara wrote: @ Catqueen I know things are not that simple. But in the main I fully agree with...Obama!  ;-))) “I, out of an effort to give Congress the ability to do their thing and not step on their toes, probably left too much ambiguity out there, which allowed the opponents of reform to come in and to fill up the airwaves with a lot of nonsense". (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/health/policy/10health.html) That is: I do think one of his main problems as a President is governing as if he were still a candidate, indulging himself in vagueness and amibiguity. This is a sign of weakness and lack of resolution - he was more or less forced to take a clearer stance on the issue of health-care because his popularity began to erode among his supporters.  @ Cacatua He's sure going to have a hard-time with this issue. From a quite decent review of his speech (link above): "To help raise revenues to offset the cost of overhauling health care, Mr. Obama took a stand on an issue about which he has equivocated for months. He endorsed the idea of imposing a fee, or tax, on health insurance companies for “their most expensive policies.” Proponents say the idea, which originated with Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, would encourage employers to buy cheaper, less generous coverage for employees, thereby reducing excessive use of medical services. But many House Democrats, labor unions and insurers have resisted those proposals, saying the tax would often be passed on to employers and to workers in the form of higher premiums. That suggested a problem for Mr. Obama in endorsing the fee: If it was drafted in a way that meant new costs for union workers with generous insurance policies, that could be seen as violating a campaign promise not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year."  Let's wait and see how it develops. The outline of his plan is still very vague and the problem of "how to" is being duly avoided in public discourse.  If Baucus' plan works just as he said it should work, then some of these problems may be avoided; on the other hand, a health-care plan which is "deficit neutral" risks falling short of its goals.  In a short time from now I may be in your country for good. I'll strike you with a deluxe edition of Tarás Bulba and send you to hospital to TEST THE SYSTEM.  ; -)))) Hehe.      

cacatua wrote:

«¤~Mrš. BÃD GÛŸ~¤» wrote: Anyone see the movie "SICKO" by Michael Moore??? It tells it like it is!!

Haven't actually seen it though I've heard about it a lot. It is the sort of thing that rings true to liberals and the right-wingers call MM a Nazi, disqualifying anything he has produced.

cacatua wrote:

  Yara wrote: @ Catqueen I know things are not that simple. But in the main I fully agree with...Obama!  ;-))) “I, out of an effort to give Congress the ability to do their thing and not step on their toes, probably left too much ambiguity out there, which allowed the opponents of reform to come in and to fill up the airwaves with a lot of nonsense". (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/health/policy/10health.html) That is: I do think one of his main problems as a President is governing as if he were still a candidate, indulging himself in vagueness and amibiguity. This is a sign of weakness and lack of resolution - he was more or less forced to take a clearer stance on the issue of health-care because his popularity began to erode among his supporters.  @ Cacatua He's sure going to have a hard-time with this issue. From a quite decent review of his speech (link above): "To help raise revenues to offset the cost of overhauling health care, Mr. Obama took a stand on an issue about which he has equivocated for months. He endorsed the idea of imposing a fee, or tax, on health insurance companies for “their most expensive policies.” Proponents say the idea, which originated with Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, would encourage employers to buy cheaper, less generous coverage for employees, thereby reducing excessive use of medical services. But many House Democrats, labor unions and insurers have resisted those proposals, saying the tax would often be passed on to employers and to workers in the form of higher premiums. That suggested a problem for Mr. Obama in endorsing the fee: If it was drafted in a way that meant new costs for union workers with generous insurance policies, that could be seen as violating a campaign promise not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year."  Let's wait and see how it develops. The outline of his plan is still very vague and the problem of "how to" is being duly avoided in public discourse.  If Baucus' plan works just as he said it should work, then some of these problems may be avoided; on the other hand, a health-care plan which is "deficit neutral" risks falling short of its goals.  In a short time from now I may be in your country for good. I'll strike you with a deluxe edition of Tarás Bulba and send you to hospital to TEST THE SYSTEM.  ; -)))) Hehe.      

I'll have you know that my spanking new hardbound Modern Library edition of Taras Bulba arrived just today!!   I have survived being kicked in the head by my former camel's two front feet, so it would take far more than this small Taras Bulba volume to put me in the hospital!  :oP)))))))))) Besides, I'll believe anything will change for the better as far as my insurance is concerned when I see it! I'll likely be on medicare myself before that ever happens. Condolences on coming to our screwy country. Watch out for the right-wingnuts - they may be trying to thump YOU over the head with a Bible!  Oh, and don't forget to pack your TCR album!  ;o)