Obama

[dairygirl4u2c]

im mostly concerned with how many conservatives here reconcile the liberal sounding popes that i always quote, and the conservative sounding ones. as far as the 'eerie silence' of the nonresponses go. (and prefereably how those reconciliations would play out in practice, in terms of actual policy or if no policy consequence in the real world. though saying 'it's all charities duty' pretty much addresses the consequences, even if it's not keen on pointing out that many people will die, and many people will suffer, as should be done in the interest of full disclosure and intellectual honesty

[Winchester]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1285891356' post='2177109']
i do wonder if insurance companies, when forced to take on preexisting conditions, would find a way to do it cheap. cause at the most fundamental level, it's not hard to cover by far most patients, it's simply a matter of care- people who are smart and knowledgeable along with medicatinos that aren't expensive except in at most their 'demand' and what htey are able to charge (eg two cent pills that are jacked up to hundreds of dollars). sure, we have jacked up doctor and medicine costs, but there's ways to do it cheap, at the most fundamental level.
[/quote]
I don't disagree that there's probably ways to reduce costs.

Companies will figure it out--they will charge more and squeeze doctors.

One of the problems is government itself. Government social programs do not pay full price for their services.

The real cost of an item involves more than production, and people with a cause are wont to leave out costs, just as automakers left out real facts about union wages and the amount of money cost of labor accounted for in vehicle prices. Unions did the same with their rhetoric, I'm sure. Nobody's honest.

I'd say sitting in a tiny room with some arse portal with strep is deserving of hazard pay.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i see how you are framing 'entitlements'. it's more broad than just 'those who abuse and neglect themselves shouldn't get hand outs', but encompasses everybody. i simply disagree, and would say the rights are in fact entitlements, at least for the fundamentals for good faith people who are marginalized by 'the system'.
i would bolster my arguments by the liberal sounding popes. i would then question how the conservatives her,e and those who make simmilar rigts v. entitlement distinctions, wouuld reconcile the 'liberal' and 'conservative' sounding popes. all i see or hear is an eerie silence.

[quote]the CC hasn't condemned 'minimal socialism'. and it's obviously given what hte popes promote, 'access to the earth as a guaranteed right' 'luxury taxes', 'fair wage', 'minimum wage
"government should be involved in these efforts", something that needs dealt with by conservatives here.[/quote]

Edited October 1, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[Sarah147]

I was rooting for Paulin and McCain. As far as I've seen, it's the Republican, Right-Wing, Conservative, that's more Catholic.

My main reason for being against Obama is the fact that he is pro-abortion, flat out and obessively.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]olberman on glenn beck

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#39429906

"beck's show is known in the TV sales world as 'empty calories', meaning he draws great ratings but is toxic for ad sales"
along with more great analysis on beck's joke of a show[/quote]

only posted cause there's probably many a beck supporter here.

[Winchester]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1285894192' post='2177129']
only posted cause there's probably many a beck supporter here.
[/quote]
Stereotypes are a real timesaver.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i think the world is catching on to beck's lunacy. objective evidence is supporting it. eg, 'high ratings, yet not good for sales'. other news folks dont encounter that. it's not cause beck is so full of the truth that the world can't hack it. there's plenty of decent conservatives and even pundits who dont get the same controversy, eg, the ratings and sales issues.
(there's also a reason he teams up with the likes of sarah palin. these people are media dinosaurs primarily, substance very little. sorta like hollyward stars, all flash. that's not to say there's not good and decent conservative stars out there.
i could give lots of examples to bolster my position that beck is a joke. but, i choose to approach it from a different way.

Edited October 1, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

"just this month alone, 296 advertisers have requested that their commercials not be shown on beck's show"

said by a dude at fox news, and echoed by advertisers, "beck's inflammatory rhetoric is making it difficult for Fox news to present itself as a legitimate news agency" (as if it didnt have that problem already)

Edited October 1, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1285892374' post='2177121']
i see how you are framing 'entitlements'. it's more broad than just 'those who abuse and neglect themselves shouldn't get hand outs', but encompasses everybody. i simply disagree, and would say the rights are in fact entitlements, at least for the fundamentals for good faith people who are marginalized by 'the system'.
i would bolster my arguments by the liberal sounding popes. i would then question how the conservatives her,e and those who make simmilar rigts v. entitlement distinctions, wouuld reconcile the 'liberal' and 'conservative' sounding popes. all i see or hear is an eerie silence.
[/quote]

and dont forget popes saying, 'the right to private property is not absolute- and must be subject to the right of access to the earth (resources)"

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]Lifestyles: The painful truth about Obamacare
By Bruce Watson
Published on October 01, 2010
Last week, six months after the last shot was fired over the president's Health Care bill, several provisions went into effect.


What's in it for me, you might wonder? As a public service, here are some FAQs (and some CEOs, SOBs, and one or two RIPs) regarding this life-saving plan passed over the dead bodies of Republicans and outraged Americans who always enjoyed having their insurance cut off without notice and their premiums double every four years.

Q. What restrictions does Obamacare place on insurance companies?

A. As of last week, health insurance companies will no longer be allowed to A) throw sick toddlers and their parents off the roofs of their buildings; B) routinely deny insurance to people who can't spell diphtheria; C) bury flu patients in paperwork and leave them for dead; D) cut off coverage for clients who violated insurance contracts by getting sick.

Q. But how does this new system differ from the old? I mean, really.

A. Under the old system, 20 million Americans lacked health insurance. Most waited till they got sick, then showed up at the Emergency Room. About half fainted when they got the bill, then were re-admitted for a battery of tests, got another bill and declared bankruptcy. But under Obamacare, when these Americans get sick, they'll go to a clinic where, with other patients, they'll curse Obama until they develop hypertension and ulcers. Then they'll bill their insurance company, which will pass the costs on through skyrocketing premiums, which patients will have to pay until they declare bankruptcy.

Q. I'm 42. Never been sick a day in my life. Never had health insurance, pal. So, under this new plan, I gotta buy it? What gives? Is this a free country or what?

A. No, this is not a free country. Everything is for sale, including your lungs, liver, and spleen.

Q. What benefits will the average American gain under the new laws? (cough)

A. The average American now has the right to A) shop for insurance from among the 19,352 providers on his/her block; B) pay skyrocketing insurance premiums with one simple direct deposit through the nose; C) [b]gaze longingly at single-payer plans in several countries whose life expectancy makes America look like some Third World fiefdom;[/b] d) die at the private home of his/her choice. Hey, you ought to have that cough checked out.

Q. Well, I would have it checked out (COUGHHHH) but I lost my insurance when I lost my job. Any help in that bill for me? (Chrrrrrrmmmmkkkhhh)

A. Woo, that's no ordinary cold. Fortunately under Obamacare, the unemployed are eligible to receive $50 vouchers for bus tickets to Canada, where prescription drugs are sold at a third of what they cost here.

Q. I've heard so much about the death panels in Obama's plan. (CHRRRMMKKKHHH!!) When do they kick in?

A. From the sound of that cough, in about an hour. But if Canada's drugs don't cure you, the government will soon refer your case to a Death Panel Advisory Committee. The committee will either recommend further treatment or send you to visit your Congressman who will painlessly talk you to death.

Q. Republicans say they plan to repeal this bill. Any chance of that?

A. Despite the current rage, the GOP will only chip away at the bill. During the next session of Congress, watch for Republicans to propose a new bill declaring death patriotic. Plans are also underway to send all supporters of health care reform to France. If these efforts fail, American troops will invade Canada to establish a "health care democracy" there.

And if we all survive until the election, more FAQs are on the way.[/quote]

i like the 'single payer' reference, among other things.
socialism sure would make it all a lot easier. not that it's the solutition, or that single payer, or its variations particularly, is socialism. the lack of an easy road is the price we pay for accountability in government to tax payers.

[Winchester]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1285896254' post='2177145']
and dont forget popes saying, 'the right to private property is not absolute- and must be subject to the right of access to the earth (resources)"
[/quote]
Still not socialism.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1285891778' post='2177114']
Companies will figure it out--they will charge more and squeeze doctors.
[/quote]

Or, in my worst-case scenario, they will say "I'm not going to buy a claim" and high-tail it out of that market, and thus Americans will be forced into the government-run programs. If you want to see a foretaste of this scenario starting to play out, last week several big insurers have already said they will stop selling children's-only insurance:

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/21/business/la-fi-kids-health-insurance-20100921

This is in response to a provision of the health-care law that said children could not be denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions.

I've seen it happen before in the 90's when some states said that insurers could not test for HIV.

Edited October 1, 2010 by Norseman82

[ardillacid]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1285891356' post='2177109']
(eg two cent pills that are jacked up to hundreds of dollars).
[/quote]
Just wondering if I can get an example of this...

[Winchester]

[quote name='Norseman82' timestamp='1285906766' post='2177191']
Or, in my worst-case scenario, they will say "I'm not going to buy a claim" and high-tail it out of that market, and thus Americans will be forced into the government-run programs. If you want to see a foretaste of this scenario starting to play out, last week several big insurers have already said they will stop selling children's-only insurance:

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/21/business/la-fi-kids-health-insurance-20100921

This is in response to a provision of the health-care law that said children could not be denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions.

I've seen it happen before in the 90's when some states said that insurers could not test for HIV.
[/quote]
If the government didn't step in with programs, the market would adjust. Some people would probably die, but in the long run the system that came out would be natural as opposed to some clumsy croutons upheld by legislation. The desire to preserve society from harm is admirable, but suffering and death is part of life and we have to accept that at some point.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='notardillacid' timestamp='1285907626' post='2177195']
Just wondering if I can get an example of this...
[/quote]

i was mostly just making a point. canada drugs cost at least a third of what htey cost here. walmart drugs are only a few cents, literally, that's how they can sell them so cheap. even canada and most drugs... the insurance companies make money merely because they can, because that's what demand dictates. that does't represent that actual cost to make the drug etc. maybe it's a few dollars, for some drugs... but you see my point, for most drugs.
they may have to pay people to make the drugs etc, but the actual cost is very low.
they spend like less than 15% on research and development. they spend a whole lot more on advertising and lobbying. the government is usually who subsidizes the creation of new drugs, and they pass the profit onto medicine companies. to say they need more money to create more drugs or to sustain themselves is mostly a facade.

Edited October 1, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c