In the corporate world takeovers and mergers are common place. Companies look to combine thier assets to gain market share. Some look to sell or merge with other, more viable entities. Some use the leverage of stock buyouts to take over companies that weren't looking to sell or merge. In the corporate world the latter happens all the time. It is not out of the ordinary (see Anhueiser-Busch) for an outside company to go to the shareholders with monetary offers much more than thier stock returns in order to purchase enough shares to gain control of the company. It is called, in most instances, a 'hostile' takeover.
In the business world and on Wall St. it is part of the evolutionary chain. Well run companies with strong balance sheets survive. Poorly run companies either survive by joining with the well run ones, or they stay on the path they are on and fail. But what happens if the rules of the game change? What happens when a poorly run company with a balance sheet that doens't only lean to the side of debt but is entrentched there, begins a hostile takeover of financial and industrial sectors? Can it work? Can the poorly run company steeped in debt actually make the right decisions to help those companies it is taking over when it can't even get it's own house in order? The answers to these questions will become clear in the very near future, for the company I am referring to is the United States government.
The credit and lending crunch opened the door for the government to sweep in and help 'bailout' those who were in trouble. The housing bubble had burst and the lenient lending practices the government had forced on the banks had left many people who couldn't afford the loans in the first place, unable to repay them. Mortgage lenders and financial institutions who were over exerted needed help and they received it via TARP funds from the federal government. OK, fine. They needed the assistance or many good loans would have had no backing due to the bad ones. But the government went further and gave TARP funds to banks and financial institutions who didn't ask for it nor needed it. Why would you do this do you ask? To gain control over the entire sector. When a company receives 'stimulus' or TARP funds, they do so under a certain set of rules. The government oversees the usage of the funds and can step in at any time and take over if they deem the company is not doing the right thing. Mind you this is whether or not you asked for or wanted the money in the first place.
AIG - government appointed CEO. General Motors - soon to be government appointed CEO. Chrysler - soon to be forced to merge by the government with Italian based Fiat or have a government appointed CEO. Fannie and Freddie - government run. This group is not all encompassing, it is merely the largest of the large. Take a look at who else received 'stimulus' for a better idea of how this works. Oh, yes...and let's not forget the states that also took money. Guess if your state government isn't doing the job the fed could step in there as well and appoint a new Governor. Some of us can only wish.
There are many issues that led to the economic crisis we are in now. There were poor choices by not only those in the private sectors, but those in the public sector of government as well. The government, no matter what party was in power, has never been a pillar of excellence in running itself. Do we trust them to run more and more of our lives as they are attempting to do? Our government, that is representative of us. But that was the old government. The old government that was by the people and for the people. This is the new government. Government Inc. For itself, by itself.
|
|
| |
|
|
The PRESIDENT has forced a CEO of a company to resign and put in place it's own leader. The PRESIDENT is now putting up a personal guarantee that the GOVERNMENT will back your warranties. The GOVERNMENT just told Chrysler it HAD to sell to Fiat. But they have no intention of running the auto industry....I call bullshit. Regardless of what side of the aisle you are on, this is a corporate takeover and nothing more.
The government cannot be trusted to handle anything but government work ... the private sector is the private sector period ... government is the cause of the crisis we are in
huh?
Do not they do not,more like retarded and fucked-up in the head!
Libby and love do not belong in the same sentence.
I wonder how expensive healthcare will become when everone has the "right" to it. Even though there is no right for that in the constitution, I am sure Libby and his lib buddies will find away to change that sacred document millions find dear. (I mean that with love libby)
Smashey is right however people come down from Canada all the time for surgeries that they would normally wait for up in Canada. In a 2005 decision
striking down part of Quebec’s universal care
law, Canadian Supreme Court Chief Justice
Beverly McLachlin wrote that it was undisputed
that many Canadians waiting for treatment
suffer chronic pain and that “patients die while
on the waiting
list.”31
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-613.pdf
Libby is in la la land.
This was just tooo goood to pass up
"Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it."
--BARACK OBAMA
HEY JACKASS in Switzerland, when the government started negotiating lower prices for drugs, the companies cut their marketing budgets and STILL maintained the level of R&D. Damn you're a dumbass!
I rested my case Libby. Until you can show where socialism on its own has succeeded without the use of the drugs, equipment and techniques developed by capitalism, then socialism is just a parasite - not an alternative.
You really need to learn Mdummy, our health care system is too expensive and inefficient and we can't afford it anymore. It's a big competitive disadvantage for the U.S. industry. Second, MOST Americans are too decent and too generous EXCEPT FOR YOU) to accept a system that leaves tens of millions of our fellow citizens without access to health care. According to the Institute of Medicine, about 18,000 Americans die each year because they can't get the medical treatment that would save their lives. That's morally unacceptable JACKASS!!! SO yes in America YOU CAN DIE due to lack of treatment!
Greenspan was a part of the illusion. The Fed Reserve is a bogus, unconstitutional entity. The Fed's constant tinkering with interest rates is anything but free-market.
Libby, whenever anyone shows me socialism developing life saving drugs or medical technology or a socialist medical system that can effectively treat people without relying on medicines and technology developed by capitalists - then I will listen to your argument. Until that day comes (which I doubt it ever will), socialism is just a parasite on the capitalist system - spewing propaganda but entirely dependent on the advances and wealth created by capitalism in order to survive.
Mdummy market fundamentalism to which you've adhered for the past 30 years has totally failed! Even Alan Greenspan proclaimed himself "shocked" that "the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders' equity" proved to be an illusion!
And drug costs would be a lot lower if it wasn't for government intervention. On average, it costs almost a billion dollars to get a drug approved by the FDA, It costs over $250,000 to get a degree in medicine. Malpractice insurance is over $250,000/year in many states and is mandated for all doctors who wish to practice medicine.
Marijuana has medicinal values and cost less than pharmaceutical drugs. People should decide the type of medicine they can afford.
Oh so, Barny Frank's Fannie May and Freddie Mac - the basically government mortgage companies that failed are the fault of Wall Street and not the losers in government who ran them into the ground while paying out huge bribes, er..campaign contributions?
I meant to say you can smoke crack and go to prison for decades yet Madoffs or other white collar asshole's might do jail time!
is that the best you can come back with? You can go to prison for decades yet the obvious super greedy thieves who get caught and MIGHT go to prison. Conservative bankers and Wall Street moguls turned out to be reckless radicals who played fast and loose with other people’s money. The rest of the country is paying a terrible price..JACKASS!!
So, are you willing to say that the members of the British government funded their holidays, office furnishing and transportation by denying cancer patients life extending drugs? You said that of American companies who deny life-extending dialysis. Surely the same wild hyperbole should be applied to those evil government pigs.
blah, blah, blah Libby. If they hate it here so much, why aren't they fleeing to the socialist nations? Why? Because even on our worst day, we're better and have more than the people in the socialist countries do on their best day.
Some of these drugs can run $50,000 a year jackass, can you afford that and by the way even here in America public payers are increasingly resistant to paying for effective new uses of cancer drugs!
tell that to the millions of Americans who have lost their 401k's due to wallstreets greed!! I am sure they are thrilled about free market capitialism!
No, jackass - try reading the news once in
awhile.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article
-1159506/Life-prolonging-cancer-drugs-banned-cost-
much.html
The drugs were approved for use, but deemed too expensive and so were denied for patients deemed terminal even though it would extend their lives. We're all terminal from birth, so denying time based on being 'terminal' is bullshit.
Fraud is a crime, whether in a free market or a socialism economy. Where was your regulatory buddies when Madoff was reported to the SEC for his Ponzi scheme in 2003?
that it once again bullshit! British drug regulators simply do not allow new medicines to reach patients until government negotiators have extracted a favorable price from sponsors, nice try jackass!
For all its flaws, capitalism has done more for the benefit of the world in a single decade than socialism has in its entire existence.
You idiots have short memories. When Russia and its state socialism collapsed, the promoters of capitalism hooted and hollered. But years later, in the Bush years, ENRON, a super giant corporation got caught cooking its books to disguise the real state of its operations. It defrauded its stockholders and ripped off California taxpayers. ENRON colluded with a major accounting firm, Arthur Anderson. WorldCom and Adelphia went through similar versions of this corporate hanky panky, pre-dating the later banking and insurance horrors. So don't tell me about the wonders of capitialism!!
Libby, and now that the British government has declined cancer drugs to patients they deem doomed - did that supply the MPs with their holiday pay?
Government mandating the loaning of money to unqualified homebuyers created the housing bubble and the failure of the banks. However that has nothing to do with the failure of socialism to produce anything more than propaganda while capitalism has produced all the medical and technological advances that save and enhance lives.
Socialism doesn't work without money...
Did you know Mdummy that if Aetna or United Health declines to pay for somebody's dialysis, the money saved is used for dividends to the stockholders or bonuses for the executives. That's a little harder to swallow for the relatives of the sick patient. So fuck' your greedy capitialism!!
really? So socialism is to blame for our economy today? I didn't think so!!
So Libby, what life saving drugs were discovered in Cuba, the USSR, China, etc.? What great advances in medicine did the socialists achieve? How many more people would be dead if not for the evil greedy capitalists who developed AIDS medications, cancer treatments and so many other medicines? How many more people would be dead if not for the evil greedy capitalists who developed the imagining equipment and high-tech medical procedures that turn previously fatal conditions into out-patient procedures? FUCK SOCIALISM! It hasn't done anything but smugly sponge off the ideas and wealth created by capitalism.
25,000 people died from preventable deaths in hospitals in 2007. This only counts for people who had a way to pay for medical treatment. Why would anybody want to mandate a system with 25,000 preventable deaths a year?
MD, the problem is capitalism, plain and simple. Prices go up anyway because capitalism is unplanned. Capitalism inevitably creates shortages at some points and gluts elsewhere. Firms go bust and workers lose their jobs because that’s how capitalist ‘competition’ works. SO I SAY Let’s kill it!!!
What is bullshit, Imagine? Are you saying those who need emergency care are being turned away at Emergency Rooms? Are you saying those who need life-saving prescriptions they can't afford are being denied by the pharmaceutical companies? Just who is being left to die who has sought treatment?
MDUMMY getting sick is not a choice!! You asshole! Again let me say this, in the wealthiest county on earth, America is the only country where you can go bankrupt due to illness!! That has nothing to do with personal responsibility you dick!
Libby, I vehemently opposed all the bailouts, the stimulus bill and the uncontrolled spending in the omnibus budget. Bush was wrong and Obama is as well. The bad companies should have failed and been bought at fire sale prices by the more responsible ones and we'd be out of this by now.
Duminiak, I can conced a point, or agree to disagree but I'm losing respect for you because thats bullshit and you know it.
Anyone can get emergency medical care at any emergency room. Anyone who dies for lack of medical care has only himself to blame. Those who can't afford life-saving medicine can get it from the manufacturers at little or no cost if they apply. Those who die for lack of medication have only themselves to blame. Changing our entire system so that it is less for the vast majority of Americans so that a few can be spoon fed the help that is already available if they seek it is stupid.
They are all interlinked.
I'm talkign health insurance, if you couldn't tell.
Nothing in particular I am pointing out insurances that are forced by the government
I am a socialist and what happened to our economy is nothing less then a damning indictment of capitalism. For those republicans and conservaturds who preached the virtues of the free market had to swallow their words and were forced to turn to the government, namely tax-payers’ money to bail their greedy asses out. All of those apologists of capitalism who said profits were a reward for risk taking were totally silent as the government stepped into rescue the system from collapse. They had no money for welfare or health, but when needed, they had plenty of money to bailout Wall Street! And you clowns still want to debate universal healthcare? No wonder republicans continue to lose elections!
Whats your problem with the FDIC?
I forgot FDIC,and loan insurance
Ok, Duminiak. And that still justifies 22,000 people dying every year due to a lack healthcare how? I don't favor UHC because of my setiment about the private sector or the government. I support it because too many people go bankrupt, suffer and even die because they don't have healthcare.
No, let me give you a few examples
Auto, minimum health, buisness,Liability construction, Liability heating systems repairs,...........
MM it is painfully obvious you have no idea what you're talking about. America uses 4 healthcare models, for treating veterans, we're Britain or Cuba. For Americans over the age of 65 on Medicare, we're Canada. For working Americans who get insurance on the job, we're Germany and for the poor we are india or cambodia! Not cool for the wealthist country on earth!
No, imagine. Where was the health care crisis before the government created the HMOs? Anyone could afford to go to the GP and now without insurance no one can. Insurance companies had been around for a long time and health costs rose with inflation and technology. It wasn't until government introduced programs that paid less than the full bill that the actual cost and the billed cost of health care became disconnected. Now the bill bears no resemblance to the actual cost because the doctor can only get the actual cost by overbilling so that the fraction paid covers the actual cost. The wild inflation in the cost of medical care isn't the fault of the insurance companies - it is a fault of the attempt by government to "lower costs" by creating 'negotiated' fractional payments. Further our heathcare doesn't suck. It is very good and even people with no coverage at all without a valid ID can get care at emergency rooms for free, which many do (clogging up emergency rooms with non-emergency patients and driving up costs). Every time government sticks its fat fingers into something, it gets worse.
What do you mean a great portion of insurance is government mandated? Am i missing something? Are you talking about SCHIP and such that only the poorest cant get?
Kemp when government is the only port in the storm, what does this say about free markets? You need to realise that capitalism had failed. And this was not a failure, as some ignorant apologists say, a failure of regulation, but of the system itself. The market economy could not restore the equilibrium needed. The banks and credit institutions were paralysed, like rabbits caught in headlights and Boom has turned to bust.
Wrong again imagine, a great portion of insurance is government mandated, when the government says you HAVE to buy insurance I guarantee you the government is profiting from it.
mduminiak, i can usually respect your points even though I usally don't agree, but I'm calling you on this bullshit. Healthcare sucks because insurance companies and such are privatley owned.
Arjay/Imagine.......A majority of the private sector happens to make a profit. It is accountable for the greatest creation and spreading of wealth in mankind. Contrary to the collapse of several institutions, the private sector, including the millions of small businesses in America, are quite effective and succesful. Yet it is the government that operates such failed institutions as the postal service. And much like the publicized actions of some greedy corporate interests, the federal government provided the operators of the postal service with millions of dollars for running an operation that lost money, year after year. And un like the private sector, the federal governments postal service is a monopoly and they still can't turn a profit.
So no, the private sector,is not the last institution to be trusted to coordinate or organize any effort. The varied interests in the private sector are the key to our nations wealth and the prosperity of our people.
That is something which people like yourself will not accept until the economy has contracted so much, under government control, that there is no wealth left to go around.
Jimmy Carter and the days of malaise comes to mind. But some need to relive history to believe it.
Libby, health care is the mess it is today BECAUSE of government action. It was government action that caused medicare/medicaid and the formation of HMOs which only pay a fraction of the charged cost. Therefore, since the whole cost must be paid, they just jacked up the bill so that the fraction covered the real cost. Add to that the government requirement that all people be treated at emergency rooms regardless of ability to pay - an unfunded mandate - and all costs had to go up to cover the expense of that mandate. Then add to that the rising cost of malpractice insurance due to the permitting of outrageous lawsuits. Medical school is now more expensive due to all the additional costs and so doctors come out with more debt and higher malpractice insurance bills which must be covered by the patients and since only a fraction of services are paid by the HMOs the government created and by the government programs, the poor guy with no insurance ends up paying many times more than he used to all because government took short-sighted action which drove up prices.
then the two of you won't mind having 53% of your paycheck gone for taxes will you?
amen Imagine!!! We see what the "free market" did, it was free to ass' rape main street!!!
Actually no, because in America can you go bankrupt due to illness! And that simply won't fly anymore. It is long overdue for insurance companies to not allowed to make a profit on basic care and be prohibited from cherry-picking only young and healthy applicants
No, Kemp. The government is the second to last. The last is private sector of multi-billionaires.
Maditude, as you know, aside from making it possible for them to receive pay raises, the bureaucracy of government is the last institution to be trusted to coordinate or organize any effort.
Libby, why are you so afraid of attempting to amend the Constitution to specifically allow for national health care? Is it because you know such an attempt would fail? Shouldn't that tell you something?
Name one thing government does efficiently.
It is a living document but its meaning does not change unless it is amended. The fact that some choose to interpret the constitution erroneously and change its definitions is not what makes it a living document. That is just what makes it a victim of liberal abuse.
If constitution does not prohibit government from creating a healthcare system, we should be able to decide democratically.
Slavery was once considered constitutional. Health care used to be affordable.
And the constitution is a living document!! This is the 21st century and we can use COMMON FUCKING' sense!!! Conservatives need to get out of the dark ages!!
The court isn't always right. I think you and I both know of plenty of examples where that is true.
no it doesn't, only to crazies like yourself. Medicaid was ruled constitutional by way of the SSA ruling, not rocket science Mdummy!
I stated my anger many times Libby. What does that have to do with the topic that providing health care is not an enumerated power and thus the 10th Amendment disallows the national government to provide it?
If you knew me- you would know that I disliked Bush allllot....All of these Liberalpublicans will be purged from the conservative landscape forever starting 2010, then 2012
you mean the constituion that George W Bush and Republicans stomped all over? Where was your anger then?
Me too. Too many debates here are just a waste of time anymore.
I'm doing well. I just have been avoiding the old arguments for several months. With the election over, some of the hyperbole has lessened and I am more actively debating.
hey MD long time no see. How are ya?
Libby seems to be under the mistaken impression that a Presidential election and a Constitutional Amendment are the same thing. If that is the level of ignorance from which he makes his comments, then there is little point in holding a debate on the issues as reality is absent.
oh yea...That is the other pistol in the other hand of the gov't pointing at the head of the people of this great country.
not to mention the astronomical taxes you have to pay in Canada FOR that UHC
also, what if UHC gets passed- why should I pay when I can get it for free? I can tell you I won't and i'll just sign up. I wuld love to have $500 more per month to pass on to a conservative cause of my choice.
why should the other 85% of people pay for other people's responsibility? I know we as a country pay for people's homes, MCD, food, rides, etc. I thought I was paying for other people's health care with my high insurance deductible? I can tell you first hand of people and Canada waiting 6 months to a year for CAT scans when the have a tumor. The government running anything is scary, let alone health care.
My point libby is that you used the UK as an example,I have personally read many accounts of the failure of said system. When the system overloads it failures are dismal the system doesn't work very well. I will post a few of the storys on your comments page tomorrow for you to peruse OK?
MM here is the cold hard truth, for the 15% of the population in America who have no health insurance, the United States healthcare is Cambodia, Africa or rural India, with access to a doctor available if you can pay the bill out of pocket at the time of treatment or if you're sick enough to be admitted to the emergency ward at the public hospital.
The United States is unlike every other country because it maintains so many separate systems for separate classes of people...... All the other countries have settled on one model for everybody. This is much simpler than the U.S. system, it's fairer and cheaper, too....PERIOD!
I said it woorrrrks on paper, but not in real life and I stand by that.
you aren't calling ME a liar libby your calling a London newspaper a liar. I don't take offence. I believe it was about 18 months ago in the aftermath of a multicar crackup.
then take The Swiss, their System shows that universal coverage is possible, even in a highly capitalist nation with powerful insurance and pharmaceutical industries. Why? Because Insurance companies are not allowed to make a profit on basic care and are prohibited from cherry-picking only young and healthy applicants. They can make money on supplemental insurance, however. As in Germany, the insurers negotiate with providers to set standard prices for services, but drug prices are set by the government.
Take Japan which today boasts some of the best health statistics in the world, Unlike the U.K., there are no gatekeepers; the Japanese can go to any specialist when and as often as they like. Every two years the Ministry of Health negotiates with physicians to set the price for every procedure. This helps keeps costs down.
MM you too are totally full of shit' so again please post a link. Damn you republicans just love to make shit' up!
the people did vote mdummy, Barack said during the campaign that he would make healthcare available to everyone, because healthcare is not just a priviledge it is a right!
The system does not work well on anything but paper.
Due to the laws, many patients are left inside the ambulances to die. Once a patient physicly enters the hospital he /she must be seen within a certain ammount of time or else the doctor and the establishment are in violation. When multipal accedents occur and the hospital is unable to handle the patient they are relegated to the ambulance.
If Canada's health care is so good, then why was Natasha Richardson airlifted from Montreal to New York?
Government has no Constitutional right to be involved in health care. If you want nationalized health care, then do the right thing: amend the Constitution to permit it. I have a very strong feeling that the People would not ratify such an amendment. Maybe that is why politicians won't put it up to the People for a vote.
If Canada's health care, then why was Natasha Richardson airlifted from Montreal to New York?
I will repost this just for Smashey!!!!
What are the concerns for Englands Healthcare system? The stereotype of soci
alized medicine, long waits and limited choice, still has some truth. In response, the British government has instituted reforms to help make care more competitive and give patients more choice. Hospitals now compete for NHS funds distributed by local Primary Care Trusts, and starting in April 2008 patients are able to choose where they want to be treated for many procedures.
So once again you are totally full of shit' when you say England wants to drop out of their HC System!!
Here are the facts about England's healthcare system.......Percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) spent on health care: 8.3
Average family premium: None; funded by taxation.
Co-payments: None for most services; some co-pays for dental care, eyeglasses and 5 percent of prescriptions. Young people and the elderly are exempt from all drug co-pays.
What is it? The British system is "socialized medicine" because the government both provides and pays for health care. Britons pay taxes for health care, and the government-run National Health Service (NHS) distributes those funds to health care providers. Hospital doctors are paid salaries. General practitioners (GPs), who run private practices, are paid based on the number of patients they see. A small number of specialists work outside the NHS and see private-pay patients.
How does it work? Because the system is funded through taxes, administrative costs are low; there are no bills to collect or claims to review. Patients have a "medical home" in their GP, who also serves as a gatekeeper to the rest of the system; patients must see their GP before going to a specialist. GPs, who are paid extra for keeping their patients healthy, are instrumental in preventive care, an area in which Britain is a world leader.
What are the concerns? The stereotype of soci
alized medicine, long waits and limited choice, still has some truth. In response, the British government has instituted reforms to help make care more competitive and give patients more choice. Hospitals now compete for NHS funds distributed by local Primary Care Trusts, and starting in April 2008 patients are able to choose where they want to be treated for many procedures.
Dude are you crazy, you said, "Maybe thats why Canada and England are looking to get out of that very system." Which after your last comment means you're full of shit'. Typical Republican liar.
If you want great info about healthcare systems go to
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaround
theworld/
Now i really am going to eat before the kitchen burns down.
I didn't say I could find where they are proposing a plan. There is no plan proposed because the system is too backed up. The only plan would be to cut off care to those who have been waiting and they aren't going to do that. It doesn't mean they don't see the issues and want out. It just means they can't get out right now. And you don't have to prove a negative. Just show me where they aren't rationing care and where there aren't waiting lists for care and i'll yield. Until then I stand by my statement that you can't defend your point.
Smashey I can't prove a negative dipshit'! You are simply full of shit' and I am calling you out! Nowhere will you find Canada or England proposing a plan to drop universal healthcare!
My pizza is done. I'll come back later for what i'm sure will be an elightening response full of curse words and name calling.
Typical Libby. Can't respond with anything debunking me so he asks for a link. I happen to know people who live in those systems. They are so backed up the government would have to plainly cut millions off. They aren't thinking about it libby because they won't cut off the millions waiting. They do however want out. They are so far into it however, a way out may not be in order for a while. If you want to prove points, dis-prove where they aren't rationing care in those systems? Dis-prove that rationing healthcare leads to some people going without care anyway. Dis-prove people from Canada aren't coming across the border to get care quicker because of waiting lists. It doesn't work where it is and it won't work here either.
Switzerland, where the president of the country tells Reid it would be a "huge scandal" if someone were to go bankrupt from medical bills.
In Germany, health plan premiums are based on income and everyone has access to medical care—including the unemployed. Watch "Sick Around the World," April 15, 2008 on PBS and online at
http://www.pbs.org/frontline/sickaroudtheworld
FRONTLINE teams up with T.R. Reid, a veteran foreign correspondent for "The Washington Post," to find out how five other capitalist democracies--United Kingdom, Japan, Germany, Taiwan and Switzerland--deliver health care and what the United States might learn from their successes and their failures.
Reid turns up remarkable differences in how these countries handle health care--from Japan, where a night in a hospital can cost as little as $10, to
Switzerland, where the president of the country tells Reid it would be a "huge scandal" if someone were to go bankrupt from medical bills.
Hawaii had universal health care for children. That lasted seven months.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-10-17-haw
aii-health-care_N.htm
you're so full of shit' smashey. And where did you get that information? Please post a link that states England and Canada are thinking about dropping universal healthcare? I will be waiting!
When you have more people taking out of the system than putting into it the entire thing goes bankrupt. Maybe thats why Canada and England are looking to get out of that very system. Too many hands in the cookie jar and not enough people putting cookies in it. That leads to rationing care. Rationing care could kill you. Bankruptcy will not.
What happens in a socialized economy when we elect a leader who doesn't understand how the economy works?
and then when you can't pay for it, you can go bankrupt!! Because only in America can you go bankrupt for getting sick! WOW, what a fucking' amazing healthcare idea!!
We have nationalized healthcare. Medicaid and Medicare. Systems that allow the government to dictate what care you receive and don't receive. No thanks. I'll let a qualified medical professional make those choices for me.
that victim mentality is what got us in this way of thinking in the first place. I believe we must set up safety nets for our elderly and children, but when it comes to able body adults...work and work...I pay over $500/ month on my wife and I for health coverage and I love knowing I can choose my MD and not havemy services stopped because I ran out of my insurance allotion.
Hey ask the government why they didnt read the bill before allowing the bonuses. And I don't trust the government to fix healthcare.
I know firsthand that the VA isn'r run well, but I am in favor of single payer healthcare. I'm a fulltime student. I work 30 hours a week at just over minimum wage. They took my healthcare bnecause I make too much money. Fuck them. Its a goddam crime that AIG can take 165 million is bonuses for failing and therev are people without healthcare. I'm sick of hearing that we can't afford UHC. Yes we can.
* later. LOL
Late guys. Lunch time. have a good one.
he reminds me of Lee Harvey Oswald- Pazzi
Yes it is. The poor sap at AIG was appointed by Obama to run AIG after the bailout for $1 a year. He pays bonuses that the administration wrote into the contracts, and them gets his ass grilled by everyone and thier dog when he pays them. Can you say 'scapegoat'?
banks no, healthcare no, and states and federal prisons should be seperate. Now on healthcare I dont mind having help for the most needy people. But why should everyone fall under some government plan? And I say that as someone with out healthcare. I would also point to the crappy VA system where you are bogged down in red tape.
and you lost me there imagine...lol
Somethings just need to be natioanlized, i.e. healtchare, banks, prisons.
"Not a play on words Rob, I actually believe it. He is building a corporation through takeovers under the guise of TARP funds. Ask the CEO of GM if he would take the money now knowing the President of the US could fire him? He should have been fired the second he opted not to file chapter 11 by the board of directors. How do we get to a place in this country where the Pres. can fire private sector CEO's??
the same CEO's that support him in the first place...The democrats gave them those bonuses to give Obama this power to rightfully fire CEO's- Ironice isn't
What they are doing is playing marionette. The 'private' sector will still exist, but the government will be pulling the strings.
Yea but education is key to everything.
O please in all but name the Nazis did the same thing they helped out the big business and sent the SA packing. but that didnt mean they had any less power. They had lots of power over who got contracts and who didnt.
Yes erock, but that money is limited to education or roadways. The stimulus funds are there to use as they wish. Anything they use it on will now fall under the guideline of fed control also.
Believe me, if Obama was actually nationalizing, I would be singing his praises. What he's doing is hooking capitalism up to life support.
States that take Highway money from the Feds or money for education already pretty much are doing what the government says. The stimuls money just highlights that fact.
Not a play on words Rob, I actually believe it. He is building a corporation through takeovers under the guise of TARP funds. Ask the CEO of GM if he would take the money now knowing the President of the US could fire him? He should have been fired the second he opted not to file chapter 11 by the board of directors. How do we get to a place in this country where the Pres. can fire private sector CEO's?
Its interesting that the Nazi party was a socialist group.
I don't think anyone is against the government. I am against the government being in charge of every aspect of life. They never seem to do a fantastic job regardless of who is in charge of running themselves. I sure as hell don't want them running me any more than necessary.
nice play on words Smashey...Hiter wasn't a Nazi either, just a dictator that loved blonde hair and blue eyes allllottt
Imagine I am not 100% against our government but I am against giving our government any more power then they already have. The police can be easily turned against the people. I am not pitting myself against the government but I do think we need to say enough is enough with government expansion.
Nice, Smashey. haha.
I agree with those that say Obama is not a socialist. He is not a socialist. He is a corporatist that wants to make the US government the largest corporation in the world with China as our primary stockholder.
The police that protect and serve, that's the government. The post office is the government. The guys that insure your money in the bank, thats your government. Believe me, I'm no loyalist to whoever happens to eb in charge at the time, but I do not think we should be completley turned against our government. Not yet anyway. Once Hitler takes over, sure. But as our democracy stands right now, we should perhaps distrust them, but not be pitted against them.
The government is tyranny. how much do we really know about the laws that they pass? or the back room deals they get? And the government gets bailed out every single day that they collect taxes and borrow from China. The government when it becomes larger is tyranny. You can not control a large government how can you?
No they wouldn't. They would've got bailed out and used the money to give bonuses. I don't know why the majority is affraid to let go of the free market. The free market privdes freedom to the few and tyranny to the many,
You mean like the Government which has run up a 11 trillion dollars in debt? If they where a private sector company they would out of buiness along time ago. And what about greed in government?
I dislike this notion that we just can't trust the tovernment to run busniesses, we have to leave them to the private sector. It was the private sector that ran these companies into the ground. The only thing worse than nationalizing these industries is leaving in control a private sector that is far to greedy, and irresponsible to be trusted with them. To paraphrase the thoughts I heard someone else express, Why would I want to government to take voer these busniesses? Do I want them to look like the post office? Yes, actuallty. The post office can take my letter from here in Pittsburgh to my cousin in LA in 3 days for 42 cents. I would be thrilled if the healthcare system, the banks and all of these other companies were nearly as funtional as the government run post office. Stop deffending the private sector by saying the government will ruin everything. Its the private sector that ran AIG into the ground. Not the government.
|
<< Home