Thousands, "up to a million" march to US Capitol against 'Obama the socialist' Watch

ozmas12
Badges: 0
#141
Report 9 years ago
#141
Seriously need to educate some people, worries me how much some americans don't understand but seriously think they do!
0
reply
CandyFlipper
Badges: 13
#142
Report 9 years ago
#142
(Original post by burningnun)
Oh, OK. I see. So what is it about the government that puts it in a position to be able to offer cheaper healthcare than private companies?
Well exactly, thats what I'm saying. I'm a pro free-market right-winger and I'm saying that I don't believe people will like the public option that much anyway, it wont be widely used.

The reason for it being part of the plan at all appears to be that it will prevent cartels forming, it will keep prices low and offer more competition and force private insurance companies to also lower prices and improve standards.
reply
Terrorfication
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#143
Report 9 years ago
#143
This is brilliant, people will finally start struggling to think of any reasons why obama is a good president and whether he deserved all the bum licking he got. George Bush had higher approval ratings within this time space into his presidency. Barack Obama has no core values, George Bush is about the sternest and most fitting president you could have. Maybe not all decisions were well executed but he sure had his head screwed on the right way, as opposed to Barack Obama, who on the other hand is a lunatic. I mean, who the **** proposes negotiations with Iran and governments that are willing to wipe you off the face of the Earth? I challenge you guys to find two good and explained reasons as to why Barack Obama is "better" than George Bush. And the reasons have to be for Barack Obama rather than rants at George Bush.
0
reply
XYYZ
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#144
Report 9 years ago
#144
I don't understand. The Americans voted for Obama and the Democratic Party, who are left-wing and therefore socialist. So surely they're just getting what they voted for? Or no?
0
reply
mipegg
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#145
Report 9 years ago
#145
I find the combination of over whelming left wing-ism combined with snootiness about them being American funny
0
reply
amandacalifornia
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#146
Report 9 years ago
#146
(Original post by XYYZ)
I don't understand. The Americans voted for Obama and the Democratic Party, who are left-wing and therefore socialist. So surely they're just getting what they voted for? Or no?
They did. 60-70,000 people in a country of 300 million are not "the Americans."
I know I read a poll fairly recently that said a comfortable majority of Americans are for universal health care. But there will always be some resistance to change. It's human nature.
0
reply
Made in the USA
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#147
Report 9 years ago
#147
(Original post by amandacalifornia)
That doesn't make any sense. First of all, Democrats controlled Congress when Clinton's presidency started. The Deficit Reduction Act of 1993 was passed through Congress without a single Republican vote, and was key to balancing the budget. The only thing he couldn't get Congress to pass during his presidency was health care reform.
It was the 1997 Balanced Budget Act that effectively balanced the budget. Newt Gingrich and the republicans balanced the budget, and Clinton signed off on it. All the good things that happened when Clinton was president happened because the republican congress forced his hand. Welfare reform, balancing the budget, the lowering capital gains tax that led to the explosion in the stock market growth...many of these things were republican ideas that Clinton initially resisted but now takes credit for.
(Original post by amandacalifornia)
Secondly, why would Republicans only uphold fiscal conservatism when a Democrat was president? Wouldn't having someone who shares their values in the White House mean that they'd have an easier time upholding those values?
I think the congress just got fat and lazy. They came to washington to change washington and instead became a part of it. The same thing is happening all over again to the congress we have now. This time the democrats have control and but it's the same story. They are spending in ways that are making those republicans who were thrown out in 2006 look like fiscal conservatives. Polls are showing there will be a MAJOR change in 2010. The current congress has some record low approval numbers and I think republicans will get their majorities back.
0
reply
Made in the USA
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#148
Report 9 years ago
#148
(Original post by amandacalifornia)
They did. 60-70,000 people in a country of 300 million are not "the Americans."
I know I read a poll fairly recently that said a comfortable majority of Americans are for universal health care. But there will always be some resistance to change. It's human nature.
Obama disapproval on health care is up to 52 percent.
0
reply
joneal
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#149
Report 9 years ago
#149
(Original post by Made in the USA)
It is the end of private insurance because no private insurer would be able to compete with the government. Insurance companies are at a huge disadvantage and won't be able to compete because they have to run their businesses legally or they go under. They can't print money, can't force non-policyholders to subsidize the people covered under their plan, can't raise taxes, and can't run up trillion dollar deficits the way government can. The studies show that employers would drop coverage and push everyone into the public program.
So should they be allowed to run their business illegally? Just continue with nefarious practices like refusing coverage to those with preexisting conditions or dropping coverage when people need it the most?
0
reply
AutVinceriAutMori
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#150
Report 9 years ago
#150
(Original post by joneal)
So should they be allowed to run their business illegally? Just continue with nefarious practices like refusing coverage to those with preexisting conditions or dropping coverage when people need it the most?
But that would keep them from evil clutches of socialism :rolleyes: :p:
0
reply
Made in the USA
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#151
Report 9 years ago
#151
(Original post by XYYZ)
I don't understand. The Americans voted for Obama and the Democratic Party, who are left-wing and therefore socialist. So surely they're just getting what they voted for? Or no?
A lot of misguided Americans were tired of the excessive spending and the wars and thought changing parties was the solution. Unfortunately, the democrat party throughout American history has been the more warmongering party, and they are much worse with spending. A lot of americans are too young to remember what is is like to have overwhelming majorities of democrats in all three branches of government. We haven't had that since Jimmy Carter....and we all know how well Carter's presidency turned out :yep:
0
reply
Made in the USA
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#152
Report 9 years ago
#152
(Original post by joneal)
So should they be allowed to run their business illegally? Just continue with nefarious practices like refusing coverage to those with preexisting conditions or dropping coverage when people need it the most?
I think there should be laws passed that don't let them turn down people with pre-existing conditions. There are a lot of ways the system could be fixed with some minor tweaking. We don't need to scrap everything like Obama wants to do.
0
reply
amandacalifornia
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#153
Report 9 years ago
#153
(Original post by Made in the USA)
It was the 1997 Balanced Budget Act that effectively balanced the budget.
Oh, come on. http://www.factcheck.org/askfactchec...e_federal.html
"The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year..."
And in Clinton's final state of the union, he said the country should continue to balance the budget and pay off all of the debt. Bush didn't.

I think the congress just got fat and lazy. They came to washington to change washington and instead became a part of it. The same thing is happening all over again to the congress we have now. This time the democrats have control and but it's the same story.
When? Under Reagan, Bush senior AND Bush junior? Every time the Republicans just got fat and lazy? Let me tell you, my parents are fiscal conservatives and they have pretty much written off the Republicans and the neo-cons who've gotten a hold of it.

They are spending in ways that are making those republicans who were thrown out in 2006 look like fiscal conservatives. Polls are showing there will be a MAJOR change in 2010. The current congress has some record low approval numbers and I think republicans will get their majorities back.
The reason why approval numbers are so low is because the federal government still has not done anything they were elected for. Democrats, quite frankly, are being pushovers.
Americans are sick and tired of getting their grandchildren into major debt to stick our fingers where they don't belong in the Middle East. Just look at the polls. If the government's going to spend that kind of money, I'd much rather they do it here instead of policing other countries halfway across the planet. Now may not be the best time for it, but most Americans are for universal health care. Just done correctly and at the right time.

(Original post by Made in the USA)
Obama disapproval on health care is up to 52 percent.
"The poll also indicates that Americans remain split on the president's plans on health care reform, with 51 percent favoring Obama's proposals and 46 percent opposed."
"Probably the public's biggest concern is the effect of Obama's plan on federal spending. Although Obama sought to reassure Americans in his speech, three-quarters of those polled said they think his plan will lead to an increase in the federal deficit."
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...th-care-plans/

Polls about universal healthcare or healthcare reform in general are different questions and have different results, anyway.
http://www.usnews.com/articles/opini...mmigrants.html ("Poll: Americans Favor Universal Healthcare, Just Not for Illegal Immigrants")
0
reply
joneal
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#154
Report 9 years ago
#154
(Original post by Made in the USA)
The Capps Amendment to HR 3200 has a Section 4B: "Abortions for Which Public Funding Is Allowed. -- The services described in this subparagraph are abortions for which the expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is permitted."

Even the Washington Times said "You can't get more explicit than that" and FactCheck.org said "Despite what Obama said, the House bill would allow abortions to be covered by a federal plan and by federally subsidized private plans."

He lied in the speech, pure and simple. He lied when he said " "Don't pay attention to those scary stories about how your benefits will be cut...That will never happen on my watch. I will protect Medicare."

The Washington Post reported on August 9th, 2009 that Obama proposes "to squeeze more than $500 billion out of the growth of Medicare over the next decade....[which has] fueled fears that his effort to expand coverage to millions of younger, uninsured Americans will damage elder care. As a result, barely one-third of seniors support a health-care overhaul, several polls found." Washington Post is a left wing paper and even they admit he is lying.
I’m not sure if you have read the current plan or the amendment you cited but only the ‘public option’ would cover abortions in cases of rape, incest or threat to the life of the mother and could cover all abortions if the administration chooses. This part of the amendment is nothing new as it’s generally the same as the Hyde amendment which is apart of the current Medicaid system. Under the amendment adopted by the House committee, abortions would be paid for by the ‘public option’ only with money collected from policyholders in the form of premiums, not with money collected from taxpayers. Furthermore, the subsidy you speak of doesn’t go towards abortions unless those that receive it choose a private policy that covers abortions. So does federal money go directly to abortion… no, perhaps indirectly.

You cited factcheck.org incorrectly and it also disproves your next point that medicare benefits will be cut.

The truth is that the pending House bill extracts $500 billion from projected Medicare spending over 10 years, as scored by the Congressional Budget Office, by doing such things as trimming projected increases in the program’s payments for medical services, not including physicians. Increases in other areas, such as payments to doctors, bring the net savings down to less than half that amount. But none of the predicted savings*–*or cuts, depending on one’s perspective*– come from*reducing current or future benefits for seniors.

Even AARP agrees that the bill shouldn’t affect medicare.

(Original post by Made in the USA)
I think there should be laws passed that don't let them turn down people with pre-existing conditions. There are a lot of ways the system could be fixed with some minor tweaking. We don't need to scrap everything like Obama wants to do.
The bill also aims to fix those problems I said before. btw I support the economist's view that we should keep the public option as a threat: to set up a formal provision in the bill whereby a public plan would be introduced in, say, five years’ time if certain targets were not met. apologies for the incredibly long post.
0
reply
Made in the USA
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#155
Report 9 years ago
#155
(Original post by amandacalifornia)
When? Under Reagan, Bush senior AND Bush junior? Every time the Republicans just got fat and lazy? Let me tell you, my parents are fiscal conservatives and they have pretty much written off the Republicans and the neo-cons who've gotten a hold of it.
Genius, the republicans didn't have a majority under Reagan and Bush senior.
0
reply
Collingwood
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#156
Report 9 years ago
#156
(Original post by Complex Simplicity)
Why can't you use facts as simply that facts,do they not speak for themselves? The fact that you have decided to take a guideline and turn it into a 'death panel' speaks for itself. I am highlighting that regardless of your political views it is rather unnecessary to demonise the nhs. The simple fact is the nhs has finite resources and as a result has to consider each individual case carefully if it affects the lives of many others hence: Guideline.
The NHS is a political organisation; I can bloody well demonise it if I want to. Indeed, it has a lot that is worthy of demonisation. But I did not coin the phrase "death panel" (Palin did I believe), nor would I probably use it myself, however it is not a "lie" or a "distortion" as was implied - it is perfectly true that the state decides the cost at which it will no longer support your life in this country, something you seem to admit.

(Original post by Aphotic Cosmos)
And do you think insurers will pay out more than $45,000 [£30,000] per person for drugs? They are companies, and healthcare is an expensive business. You'd be lucky to get £30K worth of medical treatment INCLUDING drugs in the US under most insurers, should you need it, without having to foot a substantial bill at some point.
On what basis do you make this claim? The US spends a lot more per capita on healthcare than the UK does - 3-4 times as much. A typical insurance plan offers several million dollars of total coverage. Take this as an example - http://www.hsaconnect.com/california...individual/epo (random google search, don't know if it's indicative). $5,000,000 is presently about £3m, or 100 years of maximum NHS coverage. The vast majority of people won't even live for 100 years let alone require maximum NHS coverage in every year, so I would say the US insurance companies probably do offer greater coverage than the NHS.

I don't know if you've actually been following the US debate, but a major argument advanced by Obama is that state healthcare will be cheaper by allowing the government cut off supposedly needless or marginal care.

God help you if you have a serious heart attack or a stroke and need an expensive operation. These companies are not interested in your health - they're interested in your wallet.
So are, say, supermarkets. It's for precisely this reason that they don't fill their bread with sawdust - people will not pay for shoddy products.

That £30K figure isn't overall medical care - which is theoretically limitless and often runs into the millions for seriously ill patients without them having to pay a penny more - it's simply for drugs treatments. People can and DO petition NICE - the board that authorises drugs treatments based on clinical results and cost - for drugs to be made available on the NHS that weren't previously, whilst the vast majority of drugs here in the UK are readily available on the NHS.
From what I have read, the QALY is not just used for drugs but for all treatments, and for some it's even lower, at around £20k. The wiki article on this is well presented and sourced, but if you have a bit more patience you could try navigating their site. Treatment costs certainly can run into millions, I agree. Eg. a treatment that saves a baby's life could potentially net several decades of QALYs, thus justifying a million £+ expenditure by NICE's criteria, but the NHS will not simply give you as much care as it possibly can regardless of the expense, no.
0
reply
amandacalifornia
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#157
Report 9 years ago
#157
(Original post by Made in the USA)
Genius, the republicans didn't have a majority under Reagan and Bush senior.
So? Your point is Republicans are only good if they're just in the legislature with a Democratic president? What a vote of confidence. And Republicans controlled the Senate for nearly all of Reagan's presidency.

My point is that modern Republicans are not fiscally conservative. They still spend a lot, just irresponsibly.
0
reply
Made in the USA
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#158
Report 9 years ago
#158
(Original post by amandacalifornia)
So? Your point is Republicans are only good if they're just in the legislature with a Democratic president? What a vote of confidence. And Republicans controlled the Senate for nearly all of Reagan's presidency.

My point is that modern Republicans are not fiscally conservative. They still spend a lot, just irresponsibly.
And the democrats we have now are far worse. They've tripled and will soon quadruple the deficit. :eek3:
0
reply
joneal
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#159
Report 9 years ago
#159
(Original post by Made in the USA)
And the democrats we have now are far worse. They've tripled and will soon quadruple the deficit. :eek3:
check the statistics for the growth rate of the deficit over time in relation to GDP. you'll find that there were times when the deficit was something like 120% of GDP (WWII). The projected deficit and GDP for this fiscal year would make the deficit something a little less than 9% of GDP. It's difficult to point to one party or another when it comes to spending. Typically you see large increases in growth of the deficit during recessions and decreases in times of prosperity. In fact the growth rate decreased during the clinton admin and increased in Bush's and into Obama's. Also, if I'm not mistaken, the only time national debt was zero was during the jackson admin (democrat). tbh both parties are guilty of spending through out history and imo the deficit is only a concern if it continues to grow for an extended period. i'm certainly no expert but that's how i interpret the statistics (though i did go to school for economics).
0
reply
amenhotep
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#160
Report 9 years ago
#160
One of the few songs of Razorlight's that normal people will be aware of.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (211)
39.59%
No - but I will (35)
6.57%
No - I don't want to (36)
6.75%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (251)
47.09%

Watched Threads

View All