US Presidential Election: Tuesday November 6th, 2012

Status
Not open for further replies.
Commadus said:
Would you consider it as a step in the right direction?

The problem I have with it is that it still maintains the hegemony of the insurers.
Click to expand...

The overall bill is fairly decent as long as cost containment measures are actually enforced. If (when) the republicans defund the enforcement and insurers take the piss again then it might be overall a bad bill. As long as enforcement of the caps on costs and % of revenue spent on medical spending are kept its a good step with the exception of the mandate, but that was part of the agreement with the insurers to allow them to make money from a broader base of customers rather than creaming off of the people they do have and refusing to pay up when they do get ill.

Even if there is defunding, then at least people 25 and younger can stay on their parents plans and coverage with pre-existing conditions is guarenteed.

As Red Dreams pointed out theres low odds that there will a full repeal, but Republicans are crafty and if they hold congress they can withhold funding and then turn around and say healthcare reforms sucked when it doesn't work. Don't think that isn't the plan. When the next round of cuts come in and they are looking for places to cut Republican eyes will be looking firmly at this bill as a major win when they fail to repeal it AND INSTEAD make it suck ass.
 
Drainy said:
well, you have more faith than I do that he can keep strong over that funding if shit hits the fan. Suppose his legacy depends on it.
Click to expand...

if he wins his second term, he will be there when the plan really kicks in 2014.

and repealing health care is not the top priority for these goons. They have many sources of revenue. Besides it will be interesting how many of these loons are still around next year.

people are sick of the tea party freaks.
 
Excal said:
Yeah, that sounds much scarier, doesn't it? That was, of course, absolute bullshit.

The actual portion of the bill that got twisted into "death panels" was simply that there was discussion of language requiring that insurers cover hospice care, which is so far removed from the "death panel" myth as to be ridiculous, (and, sadly, that language got dropped.)

I don't think I've ever been as incensed by anything in politics, given how incredibly beneficial my mother and I found hospice care as she was dealing with the stage IV breast cancer that eventually killed her. In an incredibly painful time of our lives, the people who worked to alleviate pain and suffering for my mother and others were among the few bright spots. I can't imagine how people can do that work, knowing that barring miracles, every patient they care for will die, and not only not be utterly cold bastards, but instead be some of the most empathetic people I've ever met.

Anyone taking that work and twisting it into "death panels" to score a political point is scum, and deserves to never have the benefit of the services of those people they so disgracefully condemned.
Click to expand...

I'm with you. I was mad as hell over the twisting of all this. It worked too. I've met a lot of people who ate it up and believed every single word. I met a lady in West Virginia who told me all the bad things in the UK where nobody gets any healthcare over 50 years old because it is too expensive. She also believed that because of socialism, English people had to collect rain water in plant pots for drinking water. I kid you not. The part the doom mongerers fail to mention
is that right now we have death panels. They are the share holders of the health insurance companies.

I thought this was a great opportunity in the US to put right a terrible wrong. Because the dems took their time they lost the ability to get the real plan through. Now we have a watered down plan that I fear will not work well.

Sorry to hear about your mother. You are right, they are amazing people that do that. I'm glad to hear that you and her were able to at least have people like them look after you at such a difficult time.
 
318366_2423452142247_1129785784_2808734_68295534_n.jpg
 
I believe in life from conception....I believe the govt shouldn't get into this....I believe if a woman is raped, whether she keeps it or not, is her choice....I believe there should be no abortion for Rape(add incest without prompting) and that there are other alternatives....


The random idiots clapping, and then being confused...then clapping anyways...haha
 
Cain is already starting to unravel. You could see it in the Vegas debate when the other candidates teamed up on him about 9-9-9 and he started to get a bit flustered. Another week of these youtube bloopers (Ukbekistan, 9-9-9, abortion, Afghanistan policy etc) and he'll swiftly return to fringe status. Romney is looking more solid by the day.
 
holdsteady said:


Yeah, but this proves he didn't think much about it
Click to expand...


Another republican who forgot there is TV and an internet that replays this stuff. Back in the day they'd say one thing to one crowd and then another thing to another crowd. Can't get away with that anymore. I don't see the extreme right liking what he says here, basically pro-choice (i.e. no government involvement).
 
senorgregster said:
Wow, just wow. Clearly hadn't thought of the issue and was trying to figure out in his head how to cause least damage.
Click to expand...

No I think he did think about the issue, but tried to be too clever.

He knew he would draw applause by saying he was anti-abortion, but then he also wanted to get kudos for saying Govt. shouldn't be in the business of telling private citizens what to do....again, something the republicans love.

But ended up making a horrible mess of things.
 
Cain Claims 999 Has A Secret Fix To Help The Poor: ‘I Just Haven’t Told The Public Or My Opponents About It Yet’

"The other thing that they try to say – 'well it’s going to be regressive on the poor.' No it’s not. We anticipated that attack, but I didn’t tell them how I was going to fix it yet." - Herman Cain, revealing yesterday that there is a secret part of his 9-9-9 plan that he has held back, to confound his critics.
Click to expand...

:lol:
 
So after Cain falls on his face, will it be Bachman again, or Romney? Bachman will shoot herself in the foot as many times it takes, and Romney as a Mormon, well, we've had 1 non-Protestant President and we killed him [Catholic Kennedy]. Hard to see that one from Republicans.

Which leaves Ron Paul. How long I wanted him to run, how much I thought I wanted him to win. But when I think about it really happening, well, then it's a little different.

Of course Paul won't just be able to create a Libertarian system overnight, Congress wouldn't let him do anything, but he could always use the 'emergency' powers that Bush set up to do whatever he wanted in the Patriot Act et al.

But then they'd just destroy him somehow, blackmail or whatever it took.

Anyway, it would sure be exciting theatre if he won.
 
gooDevil said:
So after Cain falls on his face, will it be Bachman again, or Romney? Bachman will shoot herself in the foot as many times it takes, and Romney as a Mormon, well, we've had 1 non-Protestant President and we killed him [Catholic Kennedy]. Hard to see that one from Republicans.

Which leaves Ron Paul. How long I wanted him to run, how much I thought I wanted him to win. But when I think about it really happening, well, then it's a little different.

Of course Paul won't just be able to create a Libertarian system overnight, Congress wouldn't let him do anything, but he could always use the 'emergency' powers that Bush set up to do whatever he wanted in the Patriot Act et al.

But then they'd just destroy him somehow, blackmail or whatever it took.

Anyway, it would sure be exciting theatre if he won.
Click to expand...

He scares the crap out of me. No regulations is a frightening thought. Thankfully, even if he gets in (which he can't) he'd be stopped.
 
mjs020294 said:
Actually there were some regulations that directly impacted the housing markets, and the consequent collapse.
Click to expand...

Between the regulation that said "You have to provide some home loan options for poor people, too" and the lack of regulation that allowed banks to "take worthless subprime mortgages and knowingly bundle them as 'mortgage derivatives' so they could be sold, re-bundled and resold to pension funds and banks around the world until, because this entire scheme was a castle made of sand and shit, it inevitably collapsed, annihilating $17 Trillion, national economies, centuries-old financial institutions, and the life savings of untold millions"*, anyone trying to blame the former for the recession needs to be tased.

*quote stolen from Colbert
 
mjs020294 said:
Actually there were some regulations that directly impacted the housing markets, and the consequent collapse.
Click to expand...
Well they were encouraged to lend to the less well-off to extend home ownership. That wasn't a signal to write batshit crazy loans and package them up as AAA instruments to sell to us poor bastards in Europe.
 
peterstorey said:
Well they were encouraged to lend to the less well-off to extend home ownership. That wasn't a signal to write batshit crazy loans and package them up as AAA instruments to sell to us poor bastards in Europe.
Click to expand...

the tragedy is that everyone who verified how 'safe' these loans were has got off scot free.

They should be drawn and quartered.
 
I actually believe that the 'regulation' that is supposed to have 'caused' this did have some impact, the federal government paying the deposit of poorer people's loans did aid the bubble. However, don't think it wasn't something the banks actually wanted or lobbied for. It just lubricated the process.

The banks wanted to expand their lending base and this was an obstacle that needed overcoming to reach that 'market'. What they did with that afterwards was disgusting, particularly how they captured the regulators and blackmailed them into giving AAA ratings and then knowingly and fraudulently passed it about until it blew up, laughing about it as they did it and taking ridiculous amounts of money out of the banks while destroying the shareholder's value and ruining the economy for all of the stakeholders.
 
Raoul said:
Because Paul is more of a Libertarian than a Republican.
Click to expand...

Doesn't the Tea Party pride itself as being a Libertarian movement? They don't seem to like Ron Paul much either....or is that because he doesn't like a good war?
 
RedKaos said:
Communism! Communism!
Click to expand...

they could have had a program where homeowners were allowed to pay loans based on their net incomes...a refinance of sorts.

Those who had several houses would only be able to do this with one house but with a ceiling.

Sure something could have been sorted if there was political will.

better than just giving money to the same scum who ruined the economy.

Once the situation had been stabilised, break up the large banks into smaller regional banks.

They took over GM...I know a little different... but GM is profitable now.
 
Red Dreams said:
for all those Pro Lifers...if they consider abortion murder, they should insist the laws that apply to murder apply to the woman and the doctor.

that goes especially for the clergy...bunch of hypocrites.
Click to expand...

The irony of the pro lifers is that most if not all are radical religious nuts who wouldnt think twice to bomb some middle east country and turn it into glass. Pro life my ass.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.