Huh?
I'm talking about when the House and Senate vote on things.
For example if enough Republicans would have been in the House and the Senate Obamacare would not have passed.
toldailytopic: Election 2010: What candidates or issues to you feel passionately abou
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Huh?
I'm talking about when the House and Senate vote on things.
For example if enough Republicans would have been in the House and the Senate Obamacare would not have passed.
Buzzword
New member
The biggest issue in my neck of the woods seems to be the state education budget.
We've had several years of idiots who don't know how to manage any money not going into their own pockets, so they've manipulated the system to ensure most of the money goes there.
As a result, OK has been spending less money per child than almost any other state.
The current cry of Oklahoma's vox populi is to get rid of almost all of the incumbents (a few have actually tried to fix the system, but have been overwhelmed in the numbers department).
The main impediment to changing the budget setup is the voting setup.
Everyone who votes has to vote for the party they registered with, even if the guy from the other side of the aisle is more qualified for a particular job.
We've had several years of idiots who don't know how to manage any money not going into their own pockets, so they've manipulated the system to ensure most of the money goes there.
As a result, OK has been spending less money per child than almost any other state.
The current cry of Oklahoma's vox populi is to get rid of almost all of the incumbents (a few have actually tried to fix the system, but have been overwhelmed in the numbers department).
The main impediment to changing the budget setup is the voting setup.
Everyone who votes has to vote for the party they registered with, even if the guy from the other side of the aisle is more qualified for a particular job.
Republican Richard Nixon said:
Who put the "In God we trust" on your license plates? Was it a voter initiative or something?
Alate_One
Well-known member
We also shouldn't deny them health care. No one should be talking about repealing health reform because that means my son could be tagged with having a pre-existing condition. Albeit it is a minor one, but insurance companies love to deny coverage for one reason or another.
Why do you want to deny this guy a shot at affordable insurance?
Denying health insurance isn't denying health care.
Why should the government force one citizen to pay for another citizen's health care? You should pay for your own health care. If other folks (or your church) would like to voluntarily help you pay for health care that's fine, but forcing others to pick up your expenses is not fair.
Yet... saving kids from abortion is even more important because when you are brutally murdered in the womb you don't get the chance to need health care.
That depends. If Romney had been voted in and offered his plan, which is pretty much the same, then it would have passed.
:idunno:
I don't recall it being on the ballot.
" I have a dream that my four children, will one day live in a nation, where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
Since, in the last major election in this country we elected a man based upon the color of his skin, over the content of his character, I am hoping that people of character will be elected wherever they may be found. In Colorado where I live I consider a man like Tom Tancredo to have character, and I hope he overcomes the once insurmountable lead, of the "big" phony Hickenlooper.
I am hoping against hope that Amendment 62, which would eventually outlaw abortion in Colorado will pass. Then about 100 babies a day, in our state will have a chance to be born, [of any skin color] and develop their "character", instead of having it, and their lives snuuffed out.
Since, in the last major election in this country we elected a man based upon the color of his skin, over the content of his character, I am hoping that people of character will be elected wherever they may be found. In Colorado where I live I consider a man like Tom Tancredo to have character, and I hope he overcomes the once insurmountable lead, of the "big" phony Hickenlooper.
I am hoping against hope that Amendment 62, which would eventually outlaw abortion in Colorado will pass. Then about 100 babies a day, in our state will have a chance to be born, [of any skin color] and develop their "character", instead of having it, and their lives snuuffed out.
Alate_One
Well-known member
It is if you can't afford it. If you go bankrupt and lose your home over trying to pay for health care it is denial. Hospitals only pay for extreme emergency care and there are statistics showing the uninsured die earlier.
We CURRENTLY pay for other people's health care through increased insurance premiums or increased prices to the uninsured. Government intervention would reduce costs for all and improve health care outcomes. As it stands the US pays the most for the worst outcomes of developed nations.
This is actually a lot of what the legislation does. Forces people to pay for their costs ahead of time rather than letting them get away without paying by going bankrupt. Almost 50% of all personal bankruptcies are health care cost related. Most of these people are middle aged, middle or working class and a homeowner. Many "took their chances" by not buying insurance.
Guess who pays for their gamble . . . the rest of us. I'm tired of paying for other people's gambles which is part of the reason I am FOR reform since that will be stopped by the current reform law.
Know what the cost for just having a baby is these days? (and this is just the maternal part) $1000 WITH insurance, $5000 without. How many families can just fork that over without batting an eye? Think that plays into the abortion rate? I think so.
How many churches do you know can pay for tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills? How many can do it repeatedly?
I'm not sure I can state one is more important than another, lives are lives and people die either way. But no matter who wins any of these elections I can almost guarantee that nothing will be done on the abortion issue either way.
Oh my... you really are stupid. No offense... but you really are.
You don't seem to understand the difference between health care and health insurance.
Think of it this way...
Every single auto body shop in America will fix any car with a dent in it. But you have to pay the auto body shop for their service. With or without insurance you CAN get your dent fixed, just pay the auto body shop for their service. But if you don't have the money, nor have insurance you will have to find another solution (maybe ask for help from your family or friends). It isn't the Auto Body Shops responsibility to fix your dented car.
Now.... If you don't already have insurance you can't hardly ask a insurer to insure your car now can you? After all... you already have a dented car and have no investment in the insurance policy therefore it would be silly for an insurer to insure a car that is already damaged (insurance companies can't stay in business that way for obvious reasons).
You see... you are not being denied your car being fixed... instead you are being denied your car being fixed on OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY.
Based on your logic the insurance company should be forced to pay for the damages to your car even though you haven't paid a single premium, and since that obviously can't work you want all the rest of us to pay for the damages to your car.
You my friend.... are a moron.
Alate one ranks...down there with barbie and others.
Here is what I think. A whole lot of people get fired today (Tuesday). Including some Republicans, just like the incumbent liberal Republicans that lost in 2008 to Democrats that ran their campaign to the right. With the exception of hardcore neighborhoods, voters for "Obamacare" socialized medical practice, the "Stimulus", and the bailouts after the original TARP will all be out of a job.
Here is what I think. A whole lot of people get fired today (Tuesday). Including some Republicans, just like the incumbent liberal Republicans that lost in 2008 to Democrats that ran their campaign to the right. With the exception of hardcore neighborhoods, voters for "Obamacare" socialized medical practice, the "Stimulus", and the bailouts after the original TARP will all be out of a job.
Alate_One
Well-known member
No offense, but in my experience if the first response to an argument is "you're stupid", the person responding failed to understand the argument.
You're missing my point(s) entirely.
1. A person's health is not a normal good or service. If you don't get care in a timely fashion you may die or end up sicker than you would otherwise. This means if you don't have the money to pay for a procedure, its not a matter of "oh well", its a matter of oops your cancer went from stage 2 to stage 4.
2. Because of #1 hospitals are not ALLOWED to turn away people that turn up at the doorstep sick regardless of whether they can pay or not. (Name me ANY other business that MUST perform a service regardless of ability to pay) However, hospitals only provide the barest minimum of care under these circumstances.
3. Because of #2 hospitals are often having to eat bills where people cannot afford to pay them. This means they have to jack up the prices on everyone else to cover their losses. That also means that everyone else that uses hospital services and tests ALREADY pays for someone that can't pay the bills.
Essentially it is a tax on people that are sick and insured. People that are healthy and uninsured get away free without paying a dime until they get sick and suddenly can't pay, then instead of having paid over time into the system they suddenly default when they get bills of tens of thousands of dollars.
4. People that do not have much money tend to avoid preventative care. This means that illnesses that could have been treated cheaply go untreated until they are a "train wreck". This makes them more expensive and there is a higher likelihood the person will not be able to pay for expensive procedures. This also worsens health outcomes in general. (The US has an very high infant mortality rate and low life expectancy compared to other industrialized nations)
5. The health care overhaul addresses the issues above by forcing people to buy health insurance BEFORE they get sick. People are then paying into the system and thus will be more likely to get preventative care. The poor are subsidized to get health insurance which means they will also get preventative care and ultimately cost the rest of us less since they will no longer be showing up at hospitals half dead. People with preexisting conditions will be covered but since everyone is paying into the system, insurance companies won't go bankrupt covering them.
In short it is a reasonable if imperfect solution to a number (though certainly not all) of our health care problems.
Health Care isn't auto bodies. Hospitals are REQUIRED to treat people regardless of whether or not they can pay.
Nobody dies if their car isn't fixed. They do die if they don't get their cancer caught early enough because they didn't go to the doctor, because they couldn't afford it. If you can't afford to fix your car you drive with an ugly dent in it, which a lot of people do. You do that with a human body long enough and you get worse and die.
You utterly missed my logic/the logic of the health care overhaul. Everyone MUST buy insurance so that nobody shows up to the hospital without coverage. If EVERYONE is ensured, hospitals don't have to deal with unpaid bills and jack up prices on everyone else.
I'm not the one that can't tell the difference between the needs of a car and those of a human being.
Unfortunately, it's what we have due to our own lack of vigilance.
WizardofOz
New member
Strange response in light of the following questions.....
Does it?
and
does it make you
a
hypocrite?
In my U.S. Representative District, the Libertarian candidate is pro-life no exceptions and the Republican candidate is "except when the life of the woman is endangered". Neither stands a chance against the Democrat who's been in office since 1982, before I was even born! FWIW, he's as "pro-life" as your typical Texas Republican. I live in a very pro-life part of a very pro-life state.
Well, I didn't vote for any of the Republican or Democratic candidates for office. I voted either tea party or libertarian.
I voted against all of the amendments. Governance by amendment never seems to turn out well.
I voted against all of the amendments. Governance by amendment never seems to turn out well.
Right...like the conservatives utterly failed to do in Casey and are no more likely to do in the future, if you understand the law and the historical model of the Court.
Abortion is a house to house issue. You win hearts and minds and the legislators follow. So long as more Americans than not assert it as a legal right and aren't moved against it as a matter of conscience you can bet your bottom dollar no political movement or party will alter that landscape.
Oh, and there are pro life Democrats too. But then, you know that.
Back to topic...I'm excited by a few local things and less enthusiastic about the less than forthcoming candidates my state is offering. I'll probably do what I typically do, which is vote Republican in the judiciary (they field the best candidates here) and pick and choose among the remaining based on my assessment of their impact on the statee economy.
Last edited:
but we already know that if they do pass any law restricting abortion, the US Supreme Court will rule it unconstitutional
right?
This is going to take an amendment to the Constitution.
do you know how difficult that is?
Sure. Do you know how unlikely any other solution is? (which is my way of asking if you've read Casey yet)...
You think the 13th Amendment was easy? Worthwhile moral causes facing institutionalized evil are never easy marches or quick battles.
- Status