Health Care Passes... We are all screwed.O

[chevysoldier]

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=370668318969

527,327 members, 1,000,000+ wanted. See the people DID want this to pass. Right JRM?

[Disclaimer]

1) Public opinion doesn't matter, Cheney said so.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/03/22/democracy

2) Some people don't think the bill was LIBERAL enough.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/poll-americas-opinion-of-health-care-reform-is.php

3) That's Facebook. The same place that has a fanpage on "This pickle has more fans than Nickelback" (not verbatim, but something to that effect)

Edited March 23, 2010 by JRMMiii

[chevysoldier]

1) Public opinion doesn't matter, Cheney said so.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/03/22/democracy

2) Some people don't think the bill was LIBERAL enough.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/poll-americas-opinion-of-health-care-reform-is.php

3) That's Facebook. The same place that has a fanpage on "This pickle has more fans than Nickelback" (not verbatim, but something to that effect)

Well he did it so it's gotta be okay? And even if many people didn't want it because it wasn't liberal enough, they failed to listen to their constituents, the people that elected them.

Minority Leader John Boehner mourned: "We have failed to listen to America. And we have failed to reflect the will of our constituents. And when we fail to reflect that will -- we fail ourselves and we fail our country.

So you can therefore figure, liberals are even worse than conservatives because they knew what Cheney did was wrong by not listening, and now they did the same thing and have failed to correct that problem. Bravo.

[Casper]

1) Public opinion doesn't matter, Cheney said so.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/03/22/democracy

2) Some people don't think the bill was LIBERAL enough.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/poll-americas-opinion-of-health-care-reform-is.php

3) That's Facebook. The same place that has a fanpage on "This pickle has more fans than Nickelback" (not verbatim, but something to that effect)

I bet a pickle could get more fans than Obama also.

[magley64]

http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/pages/One-Million-Pages-regarding-the-health-care-bill/107185665971821?ref=ts

[wrillo]

I bet a pickle could get more fans than Obama also.

[fusion]

527,327 members, 1,000,000+ wanted. See the people DID want this to pass. Right JRM?

So to play devil's advocate. 567,327 out of the 22,000,000 US Facebooks users of voting age? So if that is a valid measure then you are saying the people really wanted it and that sample merely indicates only 2.5 percent of US Facebook users don't want it.

[Disclaimer]

Well he did it so it's gotta be okay?

Two wrongs don't make a right, but sometimes you gotta fight fire with fire.

The difference is Health care will HELP people, versus sending them into combat to potentially die.

Some more interesting links:

Scary New GOP Poll

http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailybeast/20100323/ts_dailybeast/7269_scarynewgoppoll

Fear strikes out

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/22/opinion/22krugman.html

[Casper]

Two wrongs don't make a right, but sometimes you gotta fight fire with fire.

The difference is Health care will HELP people, versus sending them into combat to potentially die.

Some more interesting links:

Scary New GOP Poll

http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailybeast/20100323/ts_dailybeast/7269_scarynewgoppoll

Fear strikes out

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/22/opinion/22krugman.html

...and 24 percent say "he may be the Antichrist."

Stupid republicans.... the Antichrist can't be black.

[fusion]

Stupid republicans.... the Antichrist can't be black.

[Kosmo]

hello uncle punky...... yee haw....

[chevysoldier]

So to play devil's advocate. 567,327 out of the 22,000,000 US Facebooks users of voting age? So if that is a valid measure then you are saying the people really wanted it and that sample merely indicates only 2.5 percent of US Facebook users don't want it.

Yeah because only stupid, rich, white conservatives have the internet.

Two wrongs don't make a right, but sometimes you gotta fight fire with fire.

The difference is Health care will HELP people, versus sending them into combat to potentially die.

Some more interesting links:

Scary New GOP Poll

http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailybeast/20100323/ts_dailybeast/7269_scarynewgoppoll

Fear strikes out

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/22/opinion/22krugman.html

First off, were you sent off to possibly die? No you weren't. The ones who were was because they willingly signed up knowing the risks. I guess when they attacked Pearl Harbor we shouldn't have gone after them either, I mean we just lost lives that way. There's no way we saved any lives.

Why don't we pass legislation that says 95% of everyones paycheck is taken by the government until the national debt is paid off. We would become financially independent and get all those other countries off our backs. You'd agree to that one right? I mean the means do justify the ends ?

I'm also confused on your republican poll. Why is it those people believe what they do? Is it because they are right-wing? Do they see something in Obama the left refuses to acknowledge because of party affiliation?

[fusion]

Yeah because only stupid, rich, white conservatives have the internet.

[chevysoldier]

Yeah me too after re-reading it, I forget where I wanted to go with that. lol

[fusion]

Yeah me too after re-reading it, I forget where I wanted to go with that. lol

lol

[Disclaimer]

I guess when they attacked Pearl Harbor we shouldn't have gone after them either, I mean we just lost lives that way. There's no way we saved any lives.

Yea, because preemptive invasion of a country is the same as retaliation for getting sucker punched by Japan.

Why don't we pass legislation that says 95% of everyones paycheck is taken by the government until the national debt is paid off. We would become financially independent and get all those other countries off our backs. You'd agree to that one right? I mean the means do justify the ends ?

Now you're just being silly and extremist... Funny how you forget that Clinton balanced the budget and left a surplus in office. We didn't have a debt until we waged this war under false pretenses. We didn't even focus on the right country and there's people that STILL believe, to this day, almost a decade later that Iraq was behind 9/11.

I'm also confused on your republican poll. Why is it those people believe what they do? Is it because they are right-wing? Do they see something in Obama the left refuses to acknowledge because of party affiliation?

Umm, no. It's usually people refusing to face fact, and general ignorance and lack of education that skews peoples views on issues. (say that three times fast)

[chevysoldier]

Yea, because preemptive invasion of a country is the same as retaliation for getting sucker punched by Japan.

Oh yeah I forgot. 9/11 wasn't a sucker punch at all...they just knocked on our front door...

Now you're just being silly and extremist... Funny how you forget that Clinton balanced the budget and left a surplus in office. We didn't have a debt until we waged this war under false pretenses. We didn't even focus on the right country and there's people that STILL believe, to this day, almost a decade later that Iraq was behind 9/11.

Oh but fighting fire with fire is okay for the HC bill. But waging this war under false pretenses is is wrong, even though all the good we have done for Iraq and to protect our country.

We had debt with Clinton, we didn't have a deficit.

Umm, no. It's usually people refusing to face fact, and general ignorance and lack of education that skews peoples views on issues. (say that three times fast)

Anything to prove that? Or are you guessing?

[Disclaimer]

Oh yeah I forgot. 9/11 wasn't a sucker punch at all...they just knocked on our front door...

You still don't get it. Attacking Iraq because of Al Qaeda is like punching your sister because you got hit by your weird uncle.

Oh but fighting fire with fire is okay for the HC bill. But waging this war under false pretenses is is wrong, even though all the good we have done for Iraq and to protect our country.

YES, waging war under false pretenses is WRONG no matter how you slice it. I have no clue how you're connecting health care and helping people(helping our own), to a war we got mired into under false information to liberate a country that didn't ask for it.

We had debt with Clinton, we didn't have a deficit.

What's the 'so what', of that statement? All presidents have debt, that's just a financial instrument and means nothing if you pay off your obligations. A deficit is a snapshot of your fiscal (ir)responsibility in time. I'll let you take a guess at which one is more important to future generations.

Anything to prove that? Or are you guessing?

Yea, from my first link you didn't bother to read

The poll, which surveyed 2,230 people right at the height of the health-care reform debate, also clearly shows that education is a barrier to extremism. Respondents without a college education are vastly more likely to believe such claims, while Americans with college degrees or better are less easily duped. It's a reminder of what the 19th-century educator Horace Mann once too-loftily said: "Ignorance breeds monsters to fill up the vacancies of the soul that are unoccupied by the verities of knowledge."

Edited March 24, 2010 by JRMMiii

[chevysoldier]

You still don't get it. Attacking Iraq because of Al Qaeda is like punching your sister because you got hit by your weird uncle.

you have way too much time on your hands.

YES, waging war under false pretenses is WRONG no matter how you slice it. I have no clue how you're connecting health care and helping people(helping our own), to a war we got mired into under false information to liberate a country that didn't ask for it.

So waging war under false pretenses is wrong, but the dems fighting fire with fire isnt?

You brought up the sending people to combat to die. I highly doubt had we done nothing after the attack they would have just stopped attacks. And we didn't go there to help them, that was more of a byproduct to us being there. We demolished most of the country, so we helped to rebuild it and help relations to find terrorists. False pretenses? Maybe, I was in HS and didn't much care. I do vaguely remember us giving a time frame warning to Iraq before we went in. Did they move WMDs? I dunno.

We had debt with Clinton, we didn't have a deficit.

What's the 'so what', of that statement? All presidents have debt, that's just a financial instrument and means nothing if you pay off your obligations. A deficit is a snapshot of your fiscal (ir)responsibility in time. I'll let you take a guess at which one is more important to future generations.

Just pointing out you said "no debt", thats misleading.

Yea, from my first link you didn't both to read

I did miss that.

[Disclaimer]

So waging war under false pretenses is wrong, but the dems fighting fire with fire isnt?

You're going beyond the scope of the original application when I said that. Fighting fire with fire may not have been the appropriate cliche, maybe it would've been better if I said 'what's good for the goose is good for the gander' - I only meant it was applicable to ignoring public opinion on policy. If its OK for Cheney and Bush, it's OK for Obama and Pelosi.

I also said "two wrongs don't make a right", but there's only so many times that you can let your opposition make 'errors in judgment' and then turn around and have them expect you to 'turn the other cheek' and let the GOP slide in how they run things, but expect the Dems to still take the high road. Besides, I thought it was the 'religious right' for a reason, they should be the one turning the other cheek. Regardless, both parties are hypocritical in that respect. The debate is over what context are they hypocritical and what is the gravity of the situation.

You brought up the sending people to combat to die. I highly doubt had we done nothing after the attack they would have just stopped attacks. And we didn't go there to help them, that was more of a byproduct to us being there. We demolished most of the country, so we helped to rebuild it and help relations to find terrorists. False pretenses? Maybe, I was in HS and didn't much care. I do vaguely remember us giving a time frame warning to Iraq before we went in. Did they move WMDs? I dunno.

We've kinda taken this off topic, but you know why terrorism works? Because it creates fear. This is also why the Republicans were so good at pushing their unregulated agendas because fear is such a powerful motivator. Luckily now, some people are starting to realize that fear is a political tactic and 'wolf' can only be cried so many times before it loses it's effect.

I'm no expert in psychological warfare, but can you definitively say we were better off attacking Iraq and starting this war on terror? I wonder sometimes how it would've played out if we would've stood as a country in the face of such tragedy and bravely rebuilt those towers, at a record pace, in defiance of such cowardly terror. I think doing that, US on the world stage, would show a lot more strength and character than spending billions upon billions to fight this war (attacking the wrong country for false reasons). We would still beef up our security in/out of the country, but we wouldn't have had to endure the cost of this war, or lose the lives of so many of our men and women.

I mean, what's the cost/benefit? We lost how many civilian lives? How many military lives? We still haven't caught Bin Laden, and the terrorism still hasn't stopped (and it never will, until people give up religion and just fight over tangible things). So, are you happy with the 'bang for the buck' we got? I'm not. Costs FAR outweigh the benefits.

/end rant

[ReconRat]

since this news is suppressed, lost in the hysteria of the media, I'm going to tell you.

There are thirteen states suing the federal government on the issue of federal health care.

There will probably be more. It's only been one or two days so far.

edit: argh, possible repost, Casper saw it also, and has it posted on Facebook...

Edited March 24, 2010 by ReconRat

[dmagicglock]

since this news is suppressed, lost in the hysteria of the media, I'm going to tell you.

There are thirteen states suing the federal government on the issue of federal health care.

There will probably be more. It's only been one or two days so far.

you get out of here with your onion news network fabrications, this bill is what the american people want!

on a related note, did you see Harry Reid's favorability rating was 8% and nancy pelosi's is 11% while congress hovers at 16% overall... great work

[Disclaimer]

since this news is suppressed, lost in the hysteria of the media, I'm going to tell you.

There are thirteen states suing the federal government on the issue of federal health care.

There will probably be more. It's only been one or two days so far.

edit: argh, possible repost, Casper saw it also, and has it posted on Facebook...

yea, it's been going around. And I know IP preaches the States rights vs. Federal rights (States have power to do anything that the Feds aren't explicitly written to do in the Constitution). But, you also have Fed law trumping State law. So you can argue that to you're blue in the face, but regarding health care... what grounds to the states have? I guess my question is, what's the difference between this and Medicare/Medicaid? You're forced to pay for that, and I've been since I started in the workforce... if that's legal (or if it's not, we've had decades to challenge it, and it's still successfully in place), why isn't this healthcare bill?

[dmagicglock]

Here's a good article about the cost that is shifted to the states in this medical expansion with medicaid. You can argue about the ambiguity of the commerce clause all day long, but at the end of the day, many states aren't going to be able to absorb the cost of this bill so I think thats motivation for suing as well.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=adgxwrGbvNUU

*also, paying into the government for the FICA tax might be different than the government requiring you to purchase something from a private entity (i.e. an insurance company in the private marketplace). They're forcing you to participate in commerce. If you don't want to pay FICA, you don't have to work. But in this bill, you're required to purchase insurance regardless.

Edited March 24, 2010 by dmagicglock

[Paul2280]

Dear Employees:

As the CEO of this organization, I have resigned myself to the fact that Barrack Obama is our President and that our taxes and government fees will increase in a BIG way..

To compensate for these increases, our prices would have to increase by about 10%. But since we cannot increase our prices right now due to the dismal state of the economy, we will have to lay off sixty of our employees instead.

This has really been bothering me since I believe we are family here and I didn't know how to choose who would have to go.

So, this is what I did. I walked through our parking lots and found sixty 'Obama' bumper stickers on our employees' cars and have decided these folks will be the ones to let go. I can't think of a more fair way to approach this problem. They voted for change...... I gave it to them.

I will see the rest of you at the annual company picnic.

THE BOSS