We need reform That is the only part of post #228 is all I can agree with.
Nialloh and Spidey's mom:
You've been swallowing the propaganda from the party representing big businesses, that lost the Presidential election in 2008. So sorry that happened. Please be a good sport about that election, read the Reform of health care and insurance Act, and form your own opinions based on truth, not conjecture.
That is the only part of post #228 is all I can agree with.
Nialloh and Spidey's mom:
You've been swallowing the propaganda from the party representing big businesses, that lost the Presidential election in 2008. So sorry that happened. Please be a good sport about that election, read the Reform of health care and insurance Act, and form your own opinions based on truth, not conjecture.
Lamazeteacher, I'm sorry to inform you that the Democrat party is the party that is bought and paid for. They receive more money from the insurance industry or Big Business (see Goldman Sacs). I also don't listen much to the Republicans as they are nearly as bad. Just not in this case.
As to reading that 2000 page monster of a bill, I don't think so. It is full of double talk and legalise that even lawyers have a hard time reading it. Instead of asking me to read it, why don't you ask congress and the president to read it. Most of them ARE lawyers, and they haven't read it. (If you did, I give you full credit for it)
As to my post #227 (your post is 228), please show me where I'm wrong. Calling me a propaganda swallower is not an argument or appropriate response. Instead of trying to insult me, why don't you point to where my post is wrong and discuss that. If I'm wrong I will happily admit it. I don't mind being corrected, I have learned a lot from being wrong. But don't say I'm wrong without backing it up.
I did write a very detailed response to your post # 227, but it got swallowed by the web monster, before I could submit itearlier (see reason for edits).
I'd reconstruct it, except it's clear to me that you have no knowledge of what you're talking/writing about. There are many summaries of the Reform of Health Care and Insurance Act, which you can find online.
I don't know who is feeding you the poison you regurgitate here. The Democrats are not in the employ of any big corporatioons, nor have they done business with pharmaceutical companies, that I know about. "Organising for America" is an offshoot of the volunteer organisation that got President Obama elected, and I'm actively involved in that, so I get my information from "the donkey's mouth". If you prefer elephants' bellowing nonsense, that's your problem.
I've watched many videos regarding the preparation, passing and proposed results of the Act, which have nothing to do with earning the "right" to have health care coverage. Read New York Times credible articles about the Act and you'll not only become better informed, you'll also see many opinions regarding it. I've written comments under the moniker "Wake up and smell the coffee" after some of them.
You don't have to read 2,000 pages to know what's in it."Grandstanding", done by Republicans who rebelled at the sight of a wad of paper which included indexes, references and side notes, as well as various full page headings, indicated their unwillingness to learn more about it, so you're not alone in staying misinformed.
In Canada, many people I know (as I'm from Toronto and went to school in Quebec, where the first stab at a health care program was started in 1962, and I worked in public health in Windsor, Ont. where 7 doctors started their health care program, at the same time) that people have no objections to others having the same health care as everyone else. In fact they are flabbergasted about Americans who think that by virtue of paying taxes, they have an excuse to not give a hoot about others' wellbeing.
I will not respond further until I can see that you know something about the Reform of Health Care that isn't Republican Party rhetoric and lobbyist inventions.
So you haven't read the bill either. You have read the Democrats summaries and watched their videos. You also call the New York Times a reliable source when it is one of the most biased papers around. The rest of the main street press is not far behind (with the exception of a few). As to Grandstanding Republicans, more of them have read the full bill then the Dems. You can see this when they are challenging each other, The Republicans know what they are talking about, The Dems don't. You talk about where you think I get my info and the Republican propaganda. You actually WORK on behalf of President Obama. So get off your high horse.
As for responding to post #227, you haven't answered any point. Not one. That post doesn't need to know what was in the bill. It wasn't what I was talking about. I was talking about the authority and power of the government. The bill is secondary.
I also am through responding to your posts as you are becoming snide and condescending. You normally have interesting and well thought out posts, and I have enjoyed them in the past. I'm sure I will again. I guess you are too close to this one.
Please take a second to vote on the poll, then leave your comments. It will be interesting to see what the allnurses.com membership thinks.
Please do not turn this thread into a Political discussion, argument or debate. It is just intended to poll our nursing audience on the question.
Feel free to leave civil comments and your opinion whether you agree or disagree, but please no arguing and fueding :)
If you want to discuss politics, please visit our US Politics forum over at allnurses Central where members can discuss non-nursing discussions
Disclaimer: This is by no means a scientific poll Just for entertainment purpose.
Thanks and have a great day!
This is the reason I've not weighed in much here except to remind folks once or twice . . .waaaay back in the beginning of this thread . . that this is simply a poll thread. Discussion was supposed to be on the linked forums.
For the past year, I've written about why I think Obamacare was a bad idea. At length. On the other forums.
I'd like to keep this poll going - the results are very interesting.
Lamaze - maybe start a more specific thread regarding the things that are bothering you.
So you haven't read the bill either. You have read the Democrats summaries and watched their videos.
Did you read her post?
She didn't say she didn't read it, she was addressing the fact that YOU didn't read it, and was offering you a summary in case the original was overwhelming to you.
You also call the New York Times a reliable source when it is one of the most biased papers around. The rest of the main street press is not far behind (with the exception of a few).
Not sure where you're from, but in our country and around the world, the NYT is considered one of the most reliable papers available.
As to Grandstanding Republicans, more of them have read the full bill then the Dems. You can see this when they are challenging each other, The Republicans know what they are talking about, The Dems don't.
Unless you have numbers of each part who have read the bill....this is basically your impression of who agrees with you. (ie the folks who agree with you must have read the bill). A worthless piece of information.
You talk about where you think I get my info and the Republican propaganda. You actually WORK on behalf of President Obama. So get off your high horse.
The term "work on behalf" implies that it is her paid position and a conflict of interest.
She volunteers for a not-for-profit civic organization that supports her beliefs. How is that a negative? We should all be giving our time to organizations we believe in. All LT was saying is that her source was legitimate....and not some random blogger.
As for responding to post #227, you haven't answered any point. Not one. That post doesn't need to know what was in the bill. It wasn't what I was talking about. I was talking about the authority and power of the government. The bill is secondary.
The bill is secondary? The bill is the point of the thread.
If you have authority issues with the government....seems like another thread is in order.
Unfortunately I don't have more time - the first link is a "dead link" but the report does exist.
According to a 2007 survey by Rasmussen Report of public perceptions of major media outlets, 40% believe The Times has a liberal slant and 11% believe it has a conservative slant
In December 2004 a University of California, Los Angeles study gave The Times a score of 73.7 on a 100 point scale, with 0 being most conservative and 100 being most liberal
THE PUBLIC EDITOR; Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?
"I'll get to the politics-and-policy issues this fall (I want to watch the campaign coverage before I conclude anything), but for now my concern is the flammable stuff that ignites the right. These are the social issues: gay rights, gun control, abortion and environmental regulation, among others. And if you think The Times plays it down the middle on any of them, you've been reading the paper with your eyes closed."
There IS a perception by many folks that the NYT's is liberal. Can you find me links that show there is NOT this perception?
elitist comment? how about logical comment. unless im in a fantasy world, children cost money. and they need health care. if you cannot provide it to your child, doesnt it seem irresponsible to have one? if you couldnt afford clothes for your child wouldnt it be considered irresponsible? there are things kids need. and not being able to provide that for them should be a concern for parents.
sure, it's a concern, but it doesn't mean they shouldn't have kids. lack of money (and no, i am not implying the homeless who can't afford to have children) should not be a consideration for having or not having children. why? because it is all transitory. money can be here today and gone tomorrow. hasn't this economy proven how you can feel comfortable, have money in savings, have money for retirement, and then poof, it is all gone? i worked in child welfare, so i have my own ideas about who shouldn't be having children, but that's a whole other discussion.
you dont have to make big bucks to afford children. im not sure where you are getting that from. but we do agree that citizens shouldnt have to pay for their care. but then you add community....why should a community provide for someone elses child if they are struggling to provide for their own? i agree family can help, but shouldnt they do that when its necessary and not feel obligated to do so?
the bucks required to afford children (i agree) are totally exaggerated. but back to the community question....immediate family comes first, then extended family, and then community. that's how the world is supposed to work. it also prevents government involvement. if those who are blessed with more wealth and abundance look out for others (set up organizations to provide services and assistance for those in need), and see it as their obligation to help those less fortunate, then it works. it is not mandated. some communities are star models of this type of system. i don't think people who get help from these type of places are leeches on the system or should not be having children. children are our contribution to the world (and it is our obligation to bring them up properly in order for them to contribute positively to the world).
immediate family comes first, then extended family, and then community. that's how the world is supposed to work. it also prevents government involvement. if those who are blessed with more wealth and abundance look out for others (set up organizations to provide services and assistance for those in need), and see it as their obligation to help those less fortunate, then it works. it is not mandated. some communities are star models of this type of system."
i agree totally. this is where in the past churches and other organizations have stepped up to help the poor and needy. anyone can become poor in the blink of an eye as this economy has proven. anyone can become a victim of identity theft, crime, accident, or even a medical procedure gone badly....if the churches in each community (and of course, the members of those churches) would step up we would not need any government involvement!!
. . that this is simply a poll thread. Discussion was supposed to be on the linked forums.
lamazeteacher
2,170 Posts
We need reform That is the only part of post #228 is all I can agree with.
Nialloh and Spidey's mom:
You've been swallowing the propaganda from the party representing big businesses, that lost the Presidential election in 2008. So sorry that happened. Please be a good sport about that election, read the Reform of health care and insurance Act, and form your own opinions based on truth, not conjecture.