Non-Americans : Please Discuss Your Healthcare

[Tally Man]

And how does the government show people the benefits of exercise and staying physically active aside from airing Ads? How can they legally educate the public? Because ads aren't really doing it.

We already throw money at educational campaigns in schools, and they haven't had any effect. So what do we do? Why are we really wasting money on it?

Well to address your question on the ads part I mentioned education, they have things such as the FDA which regulate what goes into foods, etc. The government isn't just going to toss up an ad on TV and say their job is done.

As to your second question I'd say its because much like the sex ed program it isn't up to snuff as it can be. And while there can be room for improvement it does not mean the government should toss out something useful which does help people.

Too damn bad. Minors have been smuggling cigarettes from their parents or older kids for years. This law makes no rational sense.

Actually it makes perfect sense. Keeping children from using a harmful substance which will contribute to significant health problems if they continue use seems like a perfectly rational reason to keep them out of the hands of kids.

By banning these cigarettes, the government assumes that a) minors are going into stores and requesting these cigarettes, which automatically shows that the problem isn't the cigarette companies but the storeowners who hand cigarettes over to kids, or be b) by automatically banning these cigarettes kids are going to stop smoking immediately.

I've got news for the people in Washington: If kids want to smoke, they'll smoke. It doesn't matter what flavor the cigarette is or what's on the box.

Just because people break laws doesn't mean we scrap them. Plenty of underage kids drink alcohol but that doesn't invalidate the reasons such as the health risks or the drinking and driving issue which form the basis of said law. If you can come up with a legitimate argument against those reasons you've got something, but saying people break a law isn't a legitimate argument against it.

Meanwhile, if I enjoyed a flavored cigar every now and again, I am now unable to exercise my right to smoke responsibly because the government wants to be ban-happy with cigarettes. And yet, kids still smoke...

So there is no right to healthcare but there is a right to smoke?

 

[Kelly]

I'm hoping that since people are going to speed anyway, the speed limits will become "null and void"....

 

[Marlboro Man]

Well to address your question on the ads part I mentioned education, they have things such as the FDA which regulate what goes into foods, etc. The government isn't just going to toss up an ad on TV and say their job is done.

At what point does the FDA start regulating trans fats, sodium, sugar, etc. though? At what point are people forced into eating healthy?

The government really shouldn't be in the business of telling us what we can and cannot eat. That should be left up to our doctors. And wouldn't you know, focusing on preventative care is one of the main arguments have brought up in the health care debate... and the government doesn't need to be the ones in charge of that...

As to your second question I'd say its because much like sex ed the program isn't up to snuff as it can be. And while there can be room for improvement it does not mean the government should toss out something useful which does help people.

We waste all this money on these programs and few people seem to be effected by it. It's an issue of cost effectiveness. Should we really pour millions, maybe even billions, of dollars into ads and programs if they aren't working on the whole?

Actually it makes perfect sense. Keeping children from using a harmful substance which will contribute to significant health problems if they continue use seems like a perfectly rational reason to keep them out of the hands of kids.

Yeah... so the flavored cigarettes stay out of the hands of kids... and the ones who want to smoke will start smoking regular cigarettes instead. Meanwhile people who smoked these cigarettes well aware of the health risks are told they can't smoke them anymore because kids might choose to smoke them on their own. Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense at all.

I've got an idea: Let's ban all cigarettes! Smokers are evil, disgusting people anyway. Let's just ban them so no one gets sick! Let's punish people for choosing how to live their lives, and close down all the tobacco plants in the south! Yeah, the economic success of some states will be hindered... but by golly, everyone will be healthy and make healthy choices because the government tells us to!

Just because people break laws doesn't mean we scrap them. Plenty of underage kids drink alcohol but that doesn't invalidate the reasons such as the health risks or the drinking and driving issue which form the basis of said law. If you can come up with a legitimate argument against those reasons you've got something, but saying people break a law isn't a legitimate argument against it.

I've got a legitimate reason: It prevents MY ability as a free-thinking American citizen to choose to smoke. It prevents MY ability to pay for a service I have used full aware of the health risks associated with it. The government shouldn't tell me how to live. And they shouldn't prevent me from smoking a vanilla-flavored cigar because some kid might smoke it.

So there is no right to healthcare but there is a right to smoke?

No, there's a right to CHOOSE how to LIVE.

The government is making these decisions for us.

The healthcare bill will FORCE us to get government insurance if we don't already have insurance. Or else it will FORCE us to choose government insurance over private insurance if the private insurers don't meet the government's standards.

The government is forfeiting our ability to make decisions on our OWN, through tobacco bans, fat taxes, and this health care bill.

I want to CHOOSE how to live MY life. I don't want the government interfering with my ability to make decisions for MYSELF, for the sake of "protecting the children" whose parents ought to be the ones protecting them from the evils of smoking in the first place.

 

[Tally Man]

At what point does the FDA start regulating trans fats, sodium, sugar, etc. though? At what point are people forced into eating healthy?

The government really shouldn't be in the business of telling us what we can and cannot eat. That should be left up to our doctors. And wouldn't you know, focusing on preventative care is one of the main arguments have brought up in the health care debate... and the government doesn't need to be the ones in charge of that...

This is getting a bit into slippery slope territory man. The government has a legitimate interest in promoting a healthy lifestyle for people. It can't tell us what we can and cannot eat, but it definitely can tell us the pros and cons, make sure the food we eat won't kill us, and provide information to the public. Some fear of the government becoming some totalitarian police state when it comes to food doesn't negate that.

We waste all this money on these programs and few people seem to be effected by it. It's an issue of cost effectiveness. Should we really pour millions, maybe even billions, of dollars into ads and programs if they aren't working on the whole?

You could say the same thing about sex ed but I doubt you'd find anyone here who'd say we should can that. Instead we should think of ways to improve something which is grounded in solid reasoning.

Yeah... so the flavored cigarettes stay out of the hands of kids... and the ones who want to smoke will start smoking regular cigarettes instead. Meanwhile people who smoked these cigarettes well aware of the health risks are told they can't smoke them anymore because kids might choose to smoke them on their own. Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense at all.

I've got an idea: Let's ban all cigarettes! Smokers are evil, disgusting people anyway. Let's just ban them so no one gets sick! Let's punish people for choosing how to live their lives, and close down all the tobacco plants in the south! Yeah, the economic success of some states will be hindered... but by golly, everyone will be healthy and make healthy choices because the government tells us to!

Once again they have a legitimate reason to ban something which is targeted towards younger people in an effort to get them to smoke. It makes perfect sense to stop the production of something which targets kids which possesses such significant health risks. Especially considering the fact that there is no right to smoke.

I've got a legitimate reason: It prevents MY ability as a free-thinking American citizen to choose to smoke. It prevents MY ability to pay for a service I have used full aware of the health risks associated with it. The government shouldn't tell me how to live. And they shouldn't prevent me from smoking a vanilla-flavored cigar because some kid might smoke it.

Sorry but the government does have a legitimate stake in preventing kids from getting such health issues from smoking. You don't have a right to smoke any more than I have a right to drive a car. Smoking is something which the government can regulate. It has seen fit to tax for certain reasons and to eliminate in this specific case.

No, there's a right to CHOOSE how to LIVE.

The government is making these decisions for us.

The healthcare bill will FORCE us to get government insurance if we don't already have insurance. Or else it will FORCE us to choose government insurance over private insurance if the private insurers don't meet the government's standards.

The government is forfeiting our ability to make decisions on our OWN, through tobacco bans, fat taxes, and this health care bill.

I want to CHOOSE how to live MY life. I don't want the government interfering with my ability to make decisions for MYSELF.

I find it funny that when people say there is a right to health care certain people are quick to deny it and say that the benefits associated with such do not apply. And yet here you are claiming a right to smoke trying to protect something which clearly has no legal basis. If you are so quick to deny people the benefits which would come from a right which there is controversy over to as to whether it exists then why do you claim such benefits for a right to smoke which clearly doesn't exist?

 

[Marlboro Man]

Once again they have a legitimate reason to ban something which is targeted towards younger people in an effort to get them to smoke. It makes perfect sense to stop the production of something which targets kids which possesses such significant health risks. Especially considering the fact that there is no right to smoke.

You're right, we should ban everything that poses a health risk to the public. We should ban cars, because car accidents account for a significant number of deaths among young people. We should ban guns, because no one can use a gun responsibly and anyone who owns one is going to kill their neighbor. We should ban milkshakes and fast food because they have a high calorie count and can contribute to heart disease and high colesterol.

It's not like people are able to make responsible choices in life.

Sorry but the government does have a legitimate stake in preventing kids from getting such health issues from smoking. You don't have a right to smoke any more than I have a right to drive a car. Smoking is something which the government can regulate. It has seen fit to tax for certain reasons and to eliminate in this specific case.

Why should the government regulate cigarrettes though?

Why should I be prevented from making a choice to smoke?

I know the health risks. I know what might happen. Why should I have to pay $8 a pack in some states and not be able to smoke certain brands?

Do you honestly think that banning certain brands of cigarettes is going to prevent kids from smoking?

It's faulty logic. So kids can't smoke apple-flavored cigarettes. Woopidy doo, now they'll just smoke regular filtered cigarettes instead. See how this is faulty? There are still age restrictions on cigarette sales, and yet, kids still smoke. Banning a certain brand of cigarette isn't going to solve the problem of preventing kids from smoking. All it does is punish those who are adults and legally allowed to choose to smoke.

I find it funny that when people say there is a right to health care certain people are quick to deny it and say that the benefits associated with such do not apply. And yet here you are claiming a right to smoke trying to protect something which clearly has no legal basis. If you are so quick to deny people the benefits which would come from a right which there is controversy over to as to whether it exists then why do you claim such benefits for a right to smoke which clearly doesn't exist?

No, you're right, I don't have a right to smoke. I have a right to CHOOSE to smoke.

I have the right to CHOOSE how to live MY life.

I CHOOSE to smoke. Why does the government feel it is necessary to tell me that I can't smoke?

Why does the government feel it is necessary to tell me that I MUST have health care? Why does it feel the need to FORCE me to pay for health care I DON'T WANT?

 

[Tally Man]

You're right, we should ban everything that poses a health risk to the public. We should ban cars, because car accidents account for a significant number of deaths among young people. We should ban guns, because no one can use a gun responsibly and anyone who owns one is going to kill their neighbor. We should ban milkshakes and fast food because they have a high calorie count and can contribute to heart disease and high colesterol.

The government doesn't ban things just because they are unhealthy. They can ban things which are shown to have a lethal effect on people such as faulty products, chemicals in foods or in this case cancer causing products targeting kids.

But hey since your exaggerating I guess I can to. Lets take away all the government regulation of food and let all these evil companies poison are families. See how little that adds to the discussion. Its not useful and is best left for to political commentators.

Why should the government regulate cigarrettes though?

Why should I be prevented from making a choice to smoke?

I know the health risks. I know what might happen. Why should I have to pay $8 a pack in some states and not be able to smoke certain brands?

Do you honestly think that banning certain brands of cigarettes is going to prevent kids from smoking?

Same reason the government is allowed to regulate alcohol. Because of public health issues as well as the detrimental effects it can cause which go above and beyond something like a candy bar or a soda.

It's faulty logic. So kids can't smoke apple-flavored cigarettes. Woopidy doo, now they'll just smoke regular filtered cigarettes instead. See how this is faulty? There are still age restrictions on cigarette sales, and yet, kids still smoke. Banning a certain brand of cigarette isn't going to solve the problem of preventing kids from smoking. All it does is punish those who are adults and legally allowed to choose to smoke.

There are age restrictions on all cigarettes. However flavored cigarettes were targeted at those who were specifically younger than said legal age to entice them to start smoking. Hence the reason why the government removed them. Its not faulty logic at all.

No, you're right, I don't have a right to smoke. I have a right to CHOOSE to smoke.

I have the right to CHOOSE how to live MY life.

I CHOOSE to smoke. Why does the government feel it is necessary to tell me that I can't smoke?

Why does the government feel it is necessary to tell me that I MUST have health care? Why does it feel the need to FORCE me to pay for health care I DON'T WANT?

Umm not having a right to smoke sort of entails the whole prospects of chosing to or not to. Hence why the government is able to keep minors from smoking. So once again your asserting a ficticious right here in some attempt to say that the government is forcing you to do something when it is clearly in the governments power to regulate said product.

In the end why the government chooses to get involved in issues such as smoking, education and is trying to get involved in health care is that there is some public good to be served by it. You may not agree with the way they want to do it but you have to agree in terms of the health care debate a government trying to make sure its citizens have health care is something which benefits the general public.

 

[Marlboro Man]

The government doesn't ban things just because they are unhealthy. They can ban things which are shown to have a lethal effect on people such as faulty products, chemicals in foods or in this case cancer causing products targeting kids.

But hey since your exaggerating I guess I can to. Lets take away all the government regulation of food and let all these evil companies poison are families. See how little that adds to the discussion. Its not useful so please lets keep it out of said debate.

First of all, you're talking about two completely different things. Cigarettes are essentially a drug. A legal drug we are allowed to use. A legal drug whose health detriments have long been dissected by society.

The food industry is different. Food is essential to life. One screw up in the meat processing plant, and thousands of people could be sick and face immediate life-threatening illnesses.

No one has ever died because they smoked ONE cigarette. Cigarettes have prolonged, possible health consequences.

I could smoke a pack a day for the rest of my life and not die from cigarette-related illnesses.

Also, way to pass the blame on tobacco companies for kids' smoking. Because tobacco companies go around handing cigarettes to kids. It's not like parents have any responsibility to raise their children and monitor their habits.

Same reason the government is allowed to regulate alcohol. Because of public health issues as well as the detrimental effects it can cause which go above and beyond something like a candy bar or a soda.

Yeah, I remember when the government regulated alcohol by banning it. Strange, because that's the road we're headed down in regards to cigarettes. First we start banning certain brands of cigarettes, then we ban the whole thing because people just can't make decisions about their health on their own without the government stepping in and telling us how to live our lives.

There are age restrictions on all cigarettes. However flavored cigarettes were targeted at those who were specifically younger than said legal age to entice them to start smoking. Hence the reason why the government removed them. Its not faulty logic at all.

I'm calling ******** on that.

Show me an ad for a flavored cigarette explicitly targeting kids. Show me a cigarette brand that explicitly targets children.

Because I'm pretty sure regulations prevent cigarette companies from advertising directly to children.

Umm not having a right to smoke sort of entails the whole prospects of chosing to or not to. Hence why the government is able to keep minors from smoking. So once again your asserting a ficticious right here in some attempt to say that the government is forcing you to do something when it is clearly in the governments power to regulate said product.

The government is making decisions for me.

It is basically saying, "hey, Eddy, you can't smoke these cigarettes because they're bad for you. So we've decided that, for your own good, we're going to ban them even though you were fully aware of the health risks."

I'm not a minor who chooses to smoke. I'm not a storeowner selling cigarettes to children. I'm not a parent who can't rear my children enough to prevent them from smoking.

I'm a free-thinking adult who is no longer allowed to make a decision about my consumption habits, because the government thinks it knows better than me.

In the end why the government chooses to get involved in issues such as smoking, education and is trying to get involved in health care is that there is some public good to be served by it. You may not agree with the way they want to do it but you have to agree in terms of the health care debate a government trying to make sure its citizens have healt care is something which benefits the general public.

Yeah, and what's the cost of this government intervention? It is our ability to make decisions for ourselves which we fell best benefits us. REGARDLESS of what experts or the government says.

Parents aren't allowed to choose where to send their kids in public schools, they're forced to enroll them in crappy public school districts because the government tells them they have no choice in the matter. I'm not allowed to own an assault rifle in some states because that automatically means I'm a villain who will gun down pedestrians in the eyes of the government.

Soon, I won't be able to choose whether or not I want health insurance, because the government wants to force its will upon me and tell me how to live my life and manage my own health.

Never mind that I have health insurance I like. No, I won't be able to have that soon, because the government also wants to make it so my insurer has to do exactly what the government tells it to do or else it will be forced out of business.

So then I'll be forced to have crappy government-run care. Hooray!

The government needs to be a little less self-righteous and handing out free services to gain votes rather than pretending it cares about the welfare of its citizens. Because if the government really cared, they'd take a look at some of these opinion polls, pull their heads out of their asses, and start to actually reform health care in a way that won't conflict with our liberty.

 

[dnno1]

I hear about Americans going to Canada and Mexico for cheap drugs. But, I hear about Canadians coming down here for serious health care. The US is also at the forefront of medical advances. The US has the best quality and the best responsiveness of any other country. I don't think the 37th ranking of health care here is warranted...

How much of that myth is just due in part to the fact that some Canadians go to the U.S. for medical treatment due the their proximity to facilities there? Certainly the number of Canadians visiting the U. S. for that reason is small compared to the total number of Candians you use their own health care system. In addition, many Canadian provences are now discouraging travel to the U.S. for medical treatment by limiting payments for out of the country care.

We do have a large number of uninsured and that needs to change but it doesn't reflect the quality of health care here...

The U.S. might get high marks for health care, but there are still many health disparities among many demographics. A lot of it has to do with the complex interaction among inadequate access to care, genetic variations, substandard quality of care, social-determinants of health, and specific health behaviors of the American populace.

When a doctor is under a private system, he works harder and gives better care to his patients because of competition than those that work under universal healthcare....

Where did you get that from? There is no proof of that.

Also...how does an American get Canadian health care when he has no card????

They get a card. Many Americans have transplanted or visted Canada for medical care. That has been a published fact for years.

 

[Tally Man]

First of all, you're talking about two completely different things. Cigarettes are essentially a drug. A legal drug we are allowed to use. A legal drug whose health detriments have long been dissected by society.

The food industry is different. Food is essential to life. One screw up in the meat processing plant, and thousands of people could be sick and face immediate life-threatening illnesses.

And yet they still fall under the same government administration and have to deal with its regulations. The Food and Drug Administration regulates these things because it is in the interest of the public to do so.

No one has ever died because they smoked ONE cigarette. Cigarettes have prolonged, possible health consequences.

I could smoke a pack a day for the rest of my life and not die from cigarette-related illnesses.

Whether or not it kills you in one instance or over a prolonged period of time is irrelevant as long as it still has health consequences. It would be like saying because people can work with asbestos for a day and not get cancer or work with it for a long time and not be guaranteed to get cancer means it should not be regulated.

Also, way to pass the blame on tobacco companies for kids' smoking. Because tobacco companies go around handing cigarettes to kids. It's not like parents have any responsibility to raise their children and monitor their habits.

How does this have anything to do with the governments stake in regulating said public health issue? I don't care if the parents choose to give the kids a box of smokes a month, its still going to fall within the purview of the government to deal with it.

Yeah, I remember when the government regulated alcohol by banning it. Strange, because that's the road we're headed down in regards to cigarettes. First we start banning certain brands of cigarettes, then we ban the whole thing because people just can't make decisions about their health on their own without the government stepping in and telling us how to live our lives.

They aren't going to ban cigarettes any time soon. States make far too much money on the taxes and what not. That and tobacco farms are still a fairly big deal in certain states.

I'm calling ******** on that.

Show me an ad for a flavored cigarette explicitly targeting kids. Show me a cigarette brand that explicitly targets children.

Because I'm pretty sure regulations prevent cigarette companies from advertising directly to children.

They prevent said advertising but who do you think flavored items like gum or fruit are directed to? These were things which were smoked by the young smokers and to think that such things weren't created to get kids to smoke is ludicrous.

The government is making decisions for me.

It is basically saying, "hey, Eddy, you can't smoke these cigarettes because they're bad for you. So we've decided that, for your own good, we're going to ban them even though you were fully aware of the health risks."

I'm not a minor who chooses to smoke. I'm not a storeowner selling cigarettes to children. I'm not a parent who can't rear my children enough to prevent them from smoking.

I'm a free-thinking adult who is no longer allowed to make a decision about my consumption habits, because the government thinks it knows better than me.

Yeah, and what's the cost of this government intervention? It is our ability to make decisions for ourselves which we fell best benefits us. REGARDLESS of what experts or the government says.

Parents aren't allowed to choose where to send their kids in public schools, they're forced to enroll them in crappy public school districts because the government tells them they have no choice in the matter. I'm not allowed to own an assault rifle in some states because that automatically means I'm a villain who will gun down pedestrians in the eyes of the government.

Soon, I won't be able to choose whether or not I want health insurance, because the government wants to force its will upon me and tell me how to live my life and manage my own health.

Never mind that I have health insurance I like. No, I won't be able to have that soon, because the government also wants to make it so my insurer has to do exactly what the government tells it to do or else it will be forced out of business.

So then I'll be forced to have crappy government-run care. Hooray!

The government needs to be a little less self-righteous and handing out free services to gain votes rather than pretending it cares about the welfare of its citizens. Because if the government really cared, they'd take a look at some of these opinion polls, pull their heads out of their asses, and start to actually reform health care in a way that won't conflict with our liberty.

You have no right to smoke. To sit here and try to say that the government is becoming some totalitarian force because it regulates something which it has a legal right to is completely ridiculous. The fact that your descending into such exaggerations trying to compare the right to bear arms or right to decide their child's education (Pierce v. Society of Sisters, its a Supreme Court case which shoots down the forcing kids to schools argument you've presented) to something like government regulation of smoking is crazy.

Seriously why do you think the government is taking over when its regulating something which you have no right to do? I mean it would be like a kid saying the government is eroding our liberties because it will not let me get a drivers license because I am under 12. They don't have a right to drive and don't have a leg to stand on. It is the same when it comes to smoking.

Once again I'll ask you that regardless of the methods being used currently would you agree that the government providing health care to the public is something that would benefit the public good?

 

[Marlboro Man]

Obviously this debate isn't going anywhere. You're fine being an elitist who thinks the government should make decisions for its citizens, and that our freedom to decide what to consume in a capitalist market is less important than the government's own interests.

To answer your question at the end of your post: I don't know. I used to think it would. But then I read the bill, heard some of the politicians debate this, and realized that government is really only interested in serving itself rather than giving citizens the ability to choose what kind of care, if any, they want.

The Democrat congress and white house has shown that it has no problems passing a bill which limits choice and erodes choice in our free market system.

 

[chaseter]

Sorry dnno, you are on the two person list of people I got tired of debating with because you dodge questions.

Anyways, I thank Star and Hound for shedding light on their systems and whoever else posted in here and I only remember those two because Star is a girl and Hound yelled at me.

 

[Hound55]

While I think doctor's should promote healthy living and give good advice, the government has no business telling me what I can or cannot eat. That is up to me, not the government.

Ultimately, yes.

But it's in the government's best interests to promote healthy living... that's not the same as telling you what you can and can't eat.

 

[dnno1]

Sorry dnno, you are on the two person list of people I got tired of debating with because you dodge questions.

Anyways, I thank Star and Hound for shedding light on their systems and whoever else posted in here and I only remember those two because Star is a girl and Hound yelled at me.

That was because you had no rebuttal.

 

[chaseter]

Ultimately, yes.

But it's in the government's best interests to promote healthy living... that's not the same as telling you what you can and can't eat.

Information through education is different than taxation of what you deem as a "sin tax" to provide better overall health.

Inform the people, don't make them do what you want through under the table moves.

 

[Hound55]

What you view as a "sin tax" I view as people paying additionally for the unnecessary pressure they put on the health system...

Why should my taxes go up because some dick wants to smoke and kill himself..? He can pay more for the right to kill himself.

When it comes to public health half of the people opposing it are all "I don't see why I should be expected to pay for their health care" but an increase on taxes on items proven to put a strain on people's health and all of a sudden its "making under the table moves"..?

People know that that ****'s not good for them, the information is out there. They just do it anyway.

Unless despite all of my cynicism I still underestimate the stupidity of people... which is a horror I just don't want to think about.

People who do this put a strain on the health system regardless because your ER's can't turn them away... all taxing these products is going to do is hold these main offenders more accountable for their actions.

That's not a bad thing...

 

[Marlboro Man]

Behold, the greatness that is America: We know things such as smoking and fatty foods are bad for us, but we have the CHOICE to consume those things.

It is our very essence as a country which allows us the freedom to live however we want to.

As far as taxes go, I have to wonder, why should my taxes go up so I can pay for some deadbeat, jobless loser to get free medical care from the government? Why should my hard-earned tax dollars reward other peoples' failures?

 

[Hound55]

Behold, the greatness that is America: We know things such as smoking and fatty foods are bad for us, but we have the CHOICE to consume those things.

You do, providing you can pay for them and are of an age to be legally able to smoke.

It is our very essence as a country which allows us the freedom to live however we want to.

As far as taxes go, I have to wonder, why should my taxes go up so I can pay for some deadbeat, jobless loser to get free medical care from the government? Why should my hard-earned tax dollars reward other peoples' failures?

Why should everybody else's taxes go up to prop you up should you be uninsured or underinsured and wind up needing to go to an ER due to your own lifestyle choices..?

 

[chaseter]

Democrats reward failure and punish success while Republicans reward success and punish failure. But, some people need a little help to become successful and it isn't everyone's fault that they fail. We kind of need to meet in the middle but it will never happen.

 

[Hound55]

Democrats reward failure and punish success while Republicans reward success and punish failure. But, some people need a little help to become successful and it isn't everyone's fault that they fail. We kind of need to meet in the middle but it will never happen.

Especially not when people oppose positive legislature purely based on the fear of what they presume the current government MAY do afterwards...

Again, if he proposes universal medicine and TRUE socialized health care... kick up merry hell, but at the moment you seem to be opposed to it purely on the fear of what you PRESUME Obama's going to do.

For all we know he's had a major reality check since coming into office...

 

[Marlboro Man]

You do, providing you can pay for them and are of an age to be legally able to smoke.


Why should everybody else's taxes go up to prop you up should you be uninsured or underinsured and wind up needing to go to an ER due to your own lifestyle choices..?

I am insured though. With great health insurance too. I worked through college and started having health problems and realized that I needed insurance on my own. I didn't whine about it or blame the government for my problems. It's an extra $115 a month for me.

Why is it that someone like me, who worked two jobs while taking a full course load in college, can afford health insurance but people who work full time, 40 hours a week, can't?

It's all perplexing to me.

 

[Marlboro Man]

For all we know he's had a major reality check since coming into office...

I don't think he has. I support the man, I think he'd be a great president if he got his head out of his ass for a minute and invoked a lot of the things Clinton did during his two terms.

Instead of cutting the deficit and focusing on revitalizing our economy, he's throwing money we don't have at projects that won't get built fast enough to fix our problems. And as the economy tanks, he's trying to pass one of the most expensive bills in history which will cost even more once it goes into effect because it will require a reorganization of several major agencies.

He needs to take it slow. Health care reform may have been better served for a second term, if he got there.

 

[Kurosawa]

Democrats reward failure and punish success while Republicans reward success and punish failure. But, some people need a little help to become successful and it isn't everyone's fault that they fail. We kind of need to meet in the middle but it will never happen.

Complete ********.

 

[chaseter]

I think a third party has a real chance on winning in about 2016 or 2020. If they don't get close, then I will be saddened

 

[Marlboro Man]

Third parties have to win state and local elections before they can win the presidency. I have a hard time believing someone like Ross Perot will win.

 

[chaseter]

The independents are growing very rapidly. Soon, a majority will say enough is enough and hopefully a third party will start to make a serious bid.