Fox's Glenn Beck: President Obama is a racist
http://www.comcast.net/ar...eck.Obama/

The man whose staff is predominantly of a lighter skin tone hates "Whitey".



[This message has been edited by Kyle L. Varnell (7/28/2009)]

The title of this thread makes no sense.

Neither does Glenn, Brian

Solid! :fistbump:

Like I've said before, there's hope for you yet, Kyle.

Your english teacher would kick your butt for trying to use words like wisdom and Glenn Beck in the same sentence. Isn't he just the most pompous, sarcastic pr**k on TV these days?

He sounds like Sarah Palin. They both are becoming increasingly incoherent. I think they are both losing it. He keeps saying God has burdened him with this message he is required to give the world even though he does not want to do it. That sounds pretty nutty to me.

Your english teacher would kick your butt for trying to use words like wisdom and Glenn Beck in the same sentence. Isn't he just the most pompous, sarcastic pr**k on TV these days?

But he's a sensitive guy! Can't you tell by the crocodile tears? Why are you all so mean to him? He's a teddy bear!

I understand and even support that every subgroup deserves to be heard - even if that subgroup subscribes to ideas and beliefs that have no validity in the real world (flat earth society, fixed earth society, etc.). But why does a subgroup best described as "a bunch of whiny white old men and a few weird women" need Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly, Savage, etc. ad nauseum.

I mean, it seems to me that Limbaugh and Coulter should have been enough? All these other yayhoos just take up more time and space without adding any substance.

After all, 0x0=0, right? Always has and always will.

[This message has been edited by Steve Craddock (7/28/2009)]

Steve, just as there will always be junk food (and more and more different kinds of junk food), there will always be their equivalents in other realms. The media, MSM or otherwise, is no exception.

Brian - Do you realize how you just insulted junk food. I mean, junk food and Talking Hollowheads do share the common trait of offering absolutely zip-0 in the nutrition department, but at least consumers of junk food derive some pleasure and false sense of satisfaction from consuming it. On the other hand, Talking Hollowheads seem do nothing except accentuate the sense of false DISsatisfaction among their followers, and create true pain and misery for the rest of us as a meatless by-product.

In short (which unfortunately I never am), there isn't much in this world that makes junk food look good, but Rush and his lot somehow manage to do it.

[This message has been edited by Steve Craddock (7/28/2009)]

What you just posted made entirely too much sense, Steve. All I can do in response is to beg forgiveness for my transgressions against junk food.

That's OK, Brian. It's an easy mistake. You just needed to recalibrate your words a bit, and all's good.

Now, if I can just get Kyle to agree, we'll be all set. Say, why don't both you guys come over to my house for a beer this Thursday around 6:30....

I'd love to. But he's in Seattle and I'm in Billings.

Besides, if we were all in the same location, it would be far too easy for Jimbo to firebomb the place and eliminate us all at once.

Wait ... did I just inadvertently insult firebombers?

Dammit!

wheres all the liberal tolerance? If a conservative said these things about, say, Al Franken(before his radio show tanked) we are hateful and intolerant. Would be nice if you held yourselves to the same standards.
I listen to his radio show every day, and I have never heard him say that god has 'burdened him with this message' so I don't know where you got that Donna. And no Donna, I still don't think I should pay for your health care.
What does he say that does not make sense? Do you really want bigger govt? Do you really want them in every aspect of your life?

wheres all the liberal tolerance?

mhaus (lowercase) - here's the definition of "tolerance" to which I think you're trying to allude:

2 a: sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own b: the act of allowing something

Source: http://www.merriam-webste.../tolerance

Please note that nowhere within the excerpt - or the link provided - exists any variation of the term, "unblinkingly swallows bulls**t".

Beck is a Nut that is a fact, and I'll concede that to the left. Now in return I expect the left to consider the statement that Al Franken looks like an idiot at a carnival every time the I've seen him on camera this past week. Could Minnesota have found a bigger dipsh*t to represent the State? I don't see how. Quite obviously Minnesotans brains are frozen solid in November.

Shame on you Ole and Lena!

"Looks like an idiot"? Are you really willing to play that game Chuck? What should all our politicians look like? Ronald Reagan looked just like a caricature of the Big Boy hamburger dude. And Dick Cheney could pass for any run of the mill penguin. Dangerous game Chuck.

Don't forget Mr. Gettodachoppah in Cali, Matt.

mhaus - you ask "Where's all the liberal tolerance?"

It's an unfortunate fact that today's political discussions seem to always run into the old playground fingerpointing defense of "Well, he did it first!"

But, since you ask, here's the start of an answer.

Liberals have plenty of tolerance for people who look at the facts and come up with reasonable conclusions and opinions that are different from theirs. What Liberals cannot and will not ever tolerate are public figures and elected officials who twist facts to their advantage and wholly disregard irrefutable facts that run counter to their position on an issue. Liberal intolerance of leaders who build their careers on such practices is especially ardent when life and death issues are involved (e.g.; war, abortion, healthcare, capital punishment, human rights, etc.).

Personally it turns my stomach to listen to someone like Beck talk about racism, or Limbaugh talk about justice, or Gingrich talk about the sanctity of marriage, Palin talk about accuracy and fairness, or Cheney/Bush/Wolfowitz talk about military service. The list goes on and on.

I know you can list a bunch of Liberals you don't like, and I can "tolerate" that because I know there are a lot of Liberal jerks out there. For example, I happen to agree with Chuck that Al Franken was not a great choice for senator from MN (but he was better than the alternative -- sometimes you just have to settle). And I am not fond of Pelosi and I think Bill Clinton should have resigned when he lied to America.

BUT, that isn't the point. The ONE and ONLY reason I addressed this issue was to answer your question. I didn't ask "Where's all the Conservative tolerance?" I don't expect Conservatives to be tolerant of the things Liberals can't tolerate.

What I would like you and all other participants in public debates to do is please start focusing on and discussing the ISSUES - and stop avoiding them by asking rhetorical questions, twisting the facts, and creating red herrings like "where was Obama born?" or "is Obama a racist?" or "EEK - socialized medicine!!!"

If I have a question for you, it's this:
When are Conservatives going to start focusing on the important problems we face so we can start finding decent solutions?

[This message has been edited by Steve Craddock (7/29/2009)]

wheres all the liberal tolerance? If a conservative said these things about, say, Al Franken(before his radio show tanked) we are hateful and intolerant.

Ummmm....this makes absolutely no sense, whatsoever.

An equivalent statement would be Kanye West saying that George W. Bush hates black people after Hurricane Katrina. This statement was denounced universally by liberals and conservatives alike.

Why should a liberal, or a conservative, be tolerant of stupid people saying stupid things? Stupidity should be denounced by all sides.

Gunnar,
Whats Beck say that's so stupid?

Steve,
Your right, liberal, conservative alike here on mc.com should focus on the issues. I agree, where obama was born, its a dead horse that shouldn't be beaten. But I don't see how you can lump people that go on about where he was born in with people that don't want socialized medicine. How is socialized medicine a red herring? You speak as if its not a serious issue, and maybe its not to you, maybe you think its my responsibility to pay for your health care. I disagree, strongly.
The problem with disagreeing with someone on this board, for example, when I told Donna Kingsly that I don't feel that I should have to pay for her husbands treatment under universal health care, because their health is not my responsibility, and that I disagree strongly with her that paying for her health care is NOT the same as my taxes paying firefighters and policemen, and the response from people like Bob Netherton is 'mhaus makes a good point. I'd just assume the police and/or firemen NOT save him/her. Can I get a little of my money back?'(in reference to cops/firemen not saving me should I need it. Can you feel the caring on the compassion in that statement?
How can you expect constructive debate to come from that? When Bob cant raise a valid point in an argument, in my opinion he just goes right for the mean, hateful, spiteful, absolutely pointless attacks. Its very hard to have a debate about something when one side forgoes logic and fact in favor of hate and emotion.
How can you say that racism isn't an issue? I think the situation with Obama's buddy gates and the white cop should make us stop and question things. Did you know that obama and his administration want universities to get preferential treatment in relation to how many minorities it has enrolled? I.e. more minorities, more govt money. Do you want a doctor that got into medical school because he scored well on his mcats, or a doctor that got into medical school because of his skin color(where otherwise he would not have, due to low mcat scores) How is that not an issue?

Gunnar,
Whats Beck say that's so stupid?

Ummmm.....he said that President Obama has "a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture."

Are you even reading this thread?

Beck is a moran.

Here's some wingnut from the Bush administration arguing that the U.S. needs to suffer a catastrophic attack from Al Queda while Beck nods along in agreement. Sad.

This sums up Beck pretty nicely....It may seem biased but no more biased than beck himself:
http://www.dickipedia.org...Glenn_Beck

And here's Beck talking about health care in the US which he is currently defending against ANY change.
http://www.charlestoncity...hoid-rage/

Does any of this sound stupid to anyone?

[This message has been edited by Bob Netherton (7/29/2009)]

Gunnar,
So, because you disagree with him, that makes it stupid? I believe Obama is prejudice. Look at his reaction when he heard about gates, where he stated ' I believe they acted stupidly' about the cops - before he even had all the facts, he jumped on gates bandwagon of 'whitey is evil'.

Bob L,
I interpret that video as saying that they believe that at this point in time, another attack is what it would take to bring the country back together. I don't believe that they are advocating an attack. I would like to see the entire conversation, as I am sure that it lasted more than 1 min 11 sec, and by presenting just a sliver of the entire convo, it makes it quite easy to take it out of context. But if you want to believe they are saying that they want an attack on our country, you go right ahead, I wont stop you.

Bob N,
Whats wrong with not wanting health care to change? We have pretty damn good health care here in the US. In a country where illegals that don't speak any English can go to an emergency room with no intention of paying whatsoever, and get the health care they need( to including having a baby), that's not to bad is it? What I want to change is the govt involvement in health care. For example - do something about the interstate commerce laws that reduce competition among insurance companies - because it seems to me, that if the insurance companies had to work harder for our business, the consumers would benefit, as they would have a wider range of plans and companies to choose from. Is that stupid? Its not like there aren't any options for people - ever heard of COBRA? The govt can run the health care programs it has now, why would we want them to add universal health care to the already failing medicare and medicare? Obama has already stated, that in his vision of universal health, and her would recommend an old person take pain pills rather than receive treatment when they get sick. How would you like it if the govt told you that your mother/grandmother, wasn't worth treating because she is old, and not as valuable to society. You don't find that scary at all?

If you think Obama has a deep-seated hatred of white people, then yes, mhaus, I believe you are stupid, too.

To truly appreciate Glenn Beck in all his glory, I suggest you watch this.


http://www.youtube.com/wa...rzRhIiLQ08

mhaus:

Here's a link to the entire interview:

http://www.noquarterusa.n...-meltdown/

The discussion was about immigration. It moved into a discussion about how the Democrats don't care about our security re: immigration.

They are hoping there's a nuclear attack perpetrated by Al Queda in order to change our immigration policy.

Does this seem like rational thinking by Beck and the wingnut?

Listen to the entire interview. It has [b]nothing to do with "bringing the country back together."

Thanks for the nightmares, Wendy.

mhaus -

I'm really going to try to be brief because I only have 15 minutes left on my lunch hour...

You said: I don't see how you can lump people that go on about where he was born in with people that don't want socialized medicine. How is socialized medicine a red herring?

I say: The very word "socialized" is the red herring here. Having a discussion about health care is different than talking about socialized medicine. When an emotionally-loaded word like "socialized" is repeatedly injected into the debate, the discussion gets sidetracked and the value is lost.

You said: You speak as if its not a serious issue, and maybe its not to you, maybe you think its my responsibility to pay for your health care. I disagree, strongly.

I say: You're putting words into my mouth -- which is another way of completely diverting attention away from the main issue and pulling the plug on having a serious debate. The fact is that we are already paying for other peoples' health care - it's just that we don't see the cost itemized on our tax statements or hospital bills as "charity care" or "uncollected debt." The question of providing health care to less fortunate individuals is not an "either / or" issue --- it's an issue of "how do we do it in the most efficient, economical and equitable way?"

As for thinking you should NOT have to pay for anyone else's health care, bully for you. Stress on the "bully". I don't know how any American who enjoys a typical middle-class or better life-style can comfortably deny any responsibility to make a small contribution toward ensuring that those in poverty - especially children - have access to at least basic healthcare. Seems very selfish to me. If you're comfortable with that position, then all I can say - what I HAVE to say - is I not only disagree with your stance, I cannot even respect it.

You then ask a lot of questions that need to be addressed to the source of the issues - I don't speak for anyone but me.

You say: How can you say that racism isn't an issue? I think the situation with Obama's buddy gates and the white cop should make us stop and question things.

I say: I agree with you - and I think Obama does, too. We desperately need to talk about race and racism in America. But focusing on Obama's response or the Gates situation in particular is NOT a substitute for a discussion of race and racism. Those things are nothing more than a schoolyard brawl that makes for good headlines and snippets. Focusing on them endlessly does NOT lead to progress and resolution of the underlying issues. The whole media circus and political frenzy is ridiculous. Almost as bad as the month-long coverage of Michael Jackson's funeral.

Did you know that obama and his administration want universities to get preferential treatment in relation to how many minorities it has enrolled? I.e. more minorities, more govt money. Do you want a doctor that got into medical school because he scored well on his mcats, or a doctor that got into medical school because of his skin color(where otherwise he would not have, due to low mcat scores) How is that not an issue?

I say: Those aren't issues because they are oversimplifactions and fractional truths. John Henry Faulk once said, "Sometimes things can scare you so bad that you end up hurting yourself." The questions you've asked are slanted in such a way to make people immediately jump to an obvious answer - even though the questions themselves aren't accurate or honest.

This brings us to where we began: Your questions aren't focused on the real issues - they're designed to lure conversation away from the things that truly matter and could lead to real progress.

And now I have to hustle back to work.

Bob L,
I watched the video, twice, and failed to see where they stated that 'They are hoping there's a nuclear attack perpetrated by Al Queda in order to change our immigration policy.' please tell me what min:sec I should pay particular attention to, to see where 'They are hoping there's a nuclear attack perpetrated by Al Queda in order to change our immigration policy.'

Steve,
Your right - health care definitely has room to change. While I stand by my statement that we have a kick ass health care system, I do not deny that there is room for improvement, Yes, we are already paying for people that cant/wont pay their health care bills. But not all of it is lack of insurance - there are programs, such as cobra, that a person can use to get health care.
I don't see how my opinion that your health care is not my responsibility makes me a bully. How about some personal responsibility - you(and to be clear, this is a generic 'you', not you personally) quit/get laid off/get fired, and you decide not to get cobra to cover your health insurance needs until you find a new job with benefits, and you end up in the hospital. How is paying for that my responsibility, when you could have enrolled in cobra and been covered, but you made the choice not to enroll. So because your lack of planning bit you in the ass, now its my responsability?
I see your point about the term 'socialized health care' being a hot button issue. I don't see how universal health care can be anything but socialized health care. And, again, if the govt can't run the current health programs, I don't see how we can expect them to pile universal health care on top of that. The current health care reform that the govt wants is socialized health care, and I find that to be very scary.
I have nothing against programs for providing health care, but i think that the govt should stay out of it, but as it stands, they wont. For example, the drinking age in all 50 states is 21, because the federal govt said 'you make the age 21, or you wont get this money for your roads'. In my opinion, the same would be true for health care - the govt would provide money, then say 'I don't think you should treat this 60 year old woman for cancer - just give her some pain pills' If that was the case, my mom would have been dead 15 years ago.
Never once did I say that children don't deserve/need/etc health care. And to say I don't make a contribution - hello, I pay taxes just like you. Or do the taxes I pay somehow not count? Also, you have no idea how I may or may not contribute to those less fortunate than myself. How, or if I contribute, is my business, and my choice, not the govts, not yours. Are you saying that the govt should just make my contributions mandatory? So, you think they should legislate what should be my personal choice? That sounds and awful lot like legislating morality.
I don't agree with you that my statement regarding universities getting more money for more minorities is an over simplification or a fractional truth. Sure, what I said was simple - more minorities = more money. How is making choices based on skin color not racism? If I get a job/get accepted into a university/etc and the determining factor is that I am white, that's racism. If the guy next to me, all things being equal, gets it because hes brown, how is that not racism?

[This message has been edited by mhaus (7/29/2009)]

mhaus,

It's not unreasonable to believe that when someone is fired or laid off, he might not have the money to pay for COBRA coverage. Is it really a choice to be forced to choose between paying the rent or paying for COBRA?

As far as socialized medicine goes, you are already being forced to pay for a socialized program. It's called medicare/medicaid. And there are millions of people taking advantage of this program who yell about socialized medicine but who don't have a clue that they are already using it. These people would scream bloody murder if this program was dismantled but don't see the contradiction in their behavior. They are not deep thinkers. Don't fall into that trap.

"Obama has already stated, that in his vision of universal health, and her would recommend an old person take pain pills rather than receive treatment when they get sick."
Really, mhaus? Where'd you hear this? Glenn Beck? Rush? Newsmax? I'd really like to know. I can see the headline now: "Obama Wants Old Lady With Internal Injuries and Multiple Fractures To Shut Up and Take Pills". What a nightmare!

Bob N,
its at the end when obama says '...let the doctors know that maybe this isnt going to help. Maybe your better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller'

http://www.youtube.com/wa...-dQfb8WQvo

15 years ago, I dont know if my mom would have made the cut or not, but last summer I know she would not have. She was diagnosed with stage four cancer in her liver, and given a 10% chance of beating it, with an estimated 6 months to live.
She started chemo right away, and at first it worked, then when it stopped working, they changed to another type of chemo, and it worked at first, but her last cat scan, last month, revealed that 3 of her 4 tumors had doubled in size.
The doctor recommended hospice care. He said she could continue treatment, but didn't recommend it because he didn't think it would work. So my mom chose hospice care, and is currently dieing. We have no idea how long she has left, and while she still has her good days, she has more and more bad days.
I believe that last summer, she wouldn't have been allowed the chemo under obamas plan. And I think that's BS. It should be her choice, not the govts. Why should she be given painkillers rather than treatment, because its not cost effective? Its not a good investment?(btw - they gave her some heavy duty painkiller - a generic version of Oxycontin I believe, but it didn't work, she had to go thru some horrible pain. I dont know if that's common with terminal cancer, or rare)
No, the chemo didn't save her, but it gave me more time with her, 6 months more at this time. Maybe it will be 7 months, maybe 8, who knows, but it was worth it. Its not the govts business, its the patients and their families.

mhaus:

With 45 seconds left, crazy bearded guy says

"The only chance we have as a country is if Osama Bin Laden deploys and detonates a major weapon..."

What could he be referring to?

You have very limited cognitive abilities...no offense.

Bob L:
and how does that translate to them wanting a nuclear attack on the US? but fine, whatever. no offense, but your, well, whats the point. Your going to get whatever you want to get out of that video, so theres absolutely nothing I can do to change that, so Im not going to even waste my breath.

Deploy.

Detonate.

Major Weapon.



What do you, with your limited cognitive abilities, believe he is referring to?

A big firecracker?

Bob, your making it tough not to sink to your level. Im sorry that you feel the need to stamp your feet and call names and be generally nasty when people dont agree with you, but, for your sake - I know what the hell a nuke is. I dont know how I can make it any simpler than to say 'I dont take what he was saying as a wish for a nuclear attack on the US'
Thats pretty simple. If you cant figure that out(though I suspect its not that you cant figure it out, but rather that your an internet tough guy, one of the many that hides behind his keyboard to piss people off. Either way, I feel a little sorry for you.

So, mhaus

What does the gentleman mean by "detonate a major weapon?"

What do you think it means?

This is the last time Im going to say it Bob l. trying to make a point that you dont like, I might as well try to talk sense to a brick wall. Nowhere does he say 'I want them to attack the US' or anything like that. He says that 'the only chance the US has is for osama to detonate a major weapon'. I dont see how that infers that he wants osama to do that.
regardless, Im done responding to you on this. You are going to interpret what he says in a way that supports your argument, and I wont play along.

mhaus - Has it occurred to you yet that your defense of the "crazy bearded guy" can be applied directly to Obama's statements about health care? If it hasn't, I invite you to look very closely and compare the two situations.

The fact is that a lot of elective surgeries don't make things better, they make things worse. I know several people who have had surgeries for bad discs, blown knees, and stiff necks that wish they'd never done it. But many surgeons don't bother to inform their patients that effective alternatives to surgery exist. And guess what - they're cheaper, too. And guess what else - indirect expenses associated with unnecessary surgeries end up costing billions in terms of lost productivity and increased insurance premiums. And the final "guess what" is the best --- guess who ends up paying for "other peoples' medical costs"? You and I do. Oh oh -- sounds a lot like socialized medicine via the private sector/profit model.

BTW: You stated that you didn't want some anonymous bureaucrat making decisions about your medical coverage. Well, guess what? (sorry - I'm on a roll with that phrase). Some anonymous person is already making that decision for you - only it isn't a disinterested bureaucrat fairly applying a publicly adopted policy --- it's a very interested capitalist applying a private developed, often secret (oh, excuse me, a FINE PRINT) policy in a manner that is most likely to result in a profit for his employer so he can get the biggest bonus possible at the end of the quarter or year. Now, which one of these anonymous people do you want to decide whether you (or your daughter or son) actually get the treatment that your doctor has prescibed? The bureaucrat or the profiteer?

mhaus:

One more thing. From what you've written, your understanding of COBRA is far, far different than mine. Judging from your statements, you think COBRA is a government program to provide health insurance.

My understanding is that COBRA is a federal law that requires businesses who offer group health insurance to their employees to allow an employee (or certain family members) the option of continuing that coverage AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE for up to 18/24 months following a layoff, reduction of hours, or other allowable cause of termination. Also, the insurance is private, not government.

I'm pretty sure my understanding is fairly accurate as I had the privilege of using the COBRA option a few years ago when the small company I worked for in Texas laid off over 50% of its employees. I paid over $500 a month for coverage, only to find out too late that it wouldn't cover any of the $2,000 in medical expenses I incurred shortly after arriving in Montana because I was "out of the service area" (duh!) and hadn't met my $4,000 deductible yet.

Oh yeah - The CEO of that company made a multi-million dollar bonus that year. Judging from my experience, customer satisfaction obviously wasn't one of the criteria the Humana board used to judge his performance.

Steve,
Your right - a lot of times its a person working for the insurance company making those choices, where as with universal health care it would be someone in the govt. Lets face it - there is always going to be someone, somewhere, making those choices. I just don't want it to be the govt. But comparing someones elective surgery for a bad disk, to the potential for my mother(or others like her) to be denied chemo because they don't think it will cure the cancer, that's apples and oranges in my book. Regardless, its a persons individual choice, and if they have a bad disk, and they want to risk the elective surgery to possibly improve their condition, that's their choice, not the govt's.
I don't remember saying that cobra was a govt program, and if I inferred that it was, it was unintentional. All I know is that is is a program available to people. As for being bitten in the ass because of the fine print - well, that's something that's going to happen, regardless, and if you think that there wont be as much, if not more, BS from govt run health care, I would have to say that I believe you would be wrong. Ive said it before and I will say it again - the govt can run the health care it has now, why do people think they can put more health care on the govts plate and not have it end badly?
Personally, id prefer the govt butt out, and let the states govern themselves. We don't need the govt dictating our lives, forcing us to do what they deem best for the collective. Less federal govt, better state gov.
I have nothing against health care for everybody - I just don't like what they are proposing. I don't like universal health care. I don't like the fact that they are going to tax the rich to pay for this. I don't like that they are seriously considering taxing my employee health benefits to pay for this. Change the interstate commerce laws that create less competition for the insurance companies, therefore allowing us to have more options, to shop around for the best health care plan for us. Rather than increasing taxes to add another health care program to other failing health care programs, what about fixing the programs that are already there, and making them so that those that don't have health care are able to get it.
The way its going now, I would compare it to someone that buys a car, car starts running badly, and rather than fixing it, or getting rid of it and buying a better car, they just park it and go get another. Eventually you will just wind up with a whole bunch of useless scrap that does not do anyone any good.

mhaus said: I don't see how my opinion that your health care is not my responsibility makes me a bully.

Well, mhaus, let me first remind you of a few other things you've said:

you made the choice not to enroll. So because your lack of planning bit you in the ass, now its my responsability?

Never once did I say that children don't deserve/need/etc health care.

Given these and other statements you made, I am a bit confused since children don't purchase health insurance and they don't make plans. They rely on their parents to do those things.

Lots of parents cannot afford health insurance (even when given the opportunity thru COBRA), while many other parents don't even have the opportunity to purchase it under our current "kick ass" system (ask anyone who is diabetic or has had other health problems - they'll tell you whose ass is getting kicked by our current system).

When you stated emphatically that you shouldn't have to pay for health care for those who can't afford it or who failed to plan properly, you didn't make an exception for children. So, under your approach, it's fair to assume that children will also be forced to do without. In other words, under your approach children are unavoidably punished for the poverty, poor health, or poor planning of their fathers and mothers.

So here's the question: Isn't that something only a bully would do?

[This message has been edited by Steve Craddock (7/29/2009)]

Everyone is paying for the uninsured. Have been for years. Your bill is higher to cover the folks who can't pay. Providing insurance just makes the current system more efficient and less expensive.

Our health care system is lousy. We do NOT have the best health care in the world, not by a LONG shot. And if we don't do something major soon, our economy will never recover because so much of our GNP will go to paying for lousy healthcare.

It's practical. It's just numbers, folks. If everyone is in the pool, spreading the risk, the costs go down. Excluding millions of people who deserve to be excluded because they are poor or stupid or ineligible is bad math. Count them, spread the risk, COST GOES DOWN. Sure, it means everyone, even commies and children and sick people are covered but, in the long run, it is the financially responsible thing to do.

Compassion has nothing to do with it. Sick people deserve to be sick and suffer and every good Conservative knows that. Poor people deserve to be poor and not be able to afford health care. That's a given. But from a purely economic point of view, we need to provide health care to increase productivity (well poor people work harder than sick poor people) and reduce costs to rich folks.

No brainer in my book.

So let me get this straight.

The problem with the current system is the people who are unable to pay. But collectivising their care will magically just make health care cheaper for us all. Because the federal government will be paying for the people who can't pay now.

Makes sense.

But my favorite part is just listening to the self-contradiction. The guy who spent $40 million campaign dollars shrieking that his opponent was going to cut Medicare and tax health benefits is now ready to cut Medicare and tax health benefits.

Then we hear "We're not going to get between you and your doctor" followed by "But if your doctor wants your tonsils removed, we need to know about it and decide whether that's appropriate"

Amorette,
your argument makes about as much sense as saying 'drugs are out there, there's nothing we can do about it, we are already paying for the addicts etc, so lets just legislate them and that will take care of all the problems.
I can see that your a very bitter person(every good conservative knows sick people deserve to be sick, right?) what happened - mommy make you earn that toy you wanted, but you just couldn't be bothered with it?
Yes, bad stuff happens, beyond peoples control. But I don't think that will be the majority of the time. People get lazy, decide they don't want to be bothered with working or getting insurance. If that's what they ant, hey, go ahead, I don't mind. But I shouldn't be forced to pick up the tab. Again, your legislating my morality.
We need ti improve the health care so that people work harder? and what happens when those sick people you healed turn out to be lazy bastards who just didn't want to work in the first place?
That is where the health care rationing comes into play - you don't want to work? No cure or treatment for you.
steve,
I'm going to play devils advocate here. I dont want to pay for childrens health care. I don't want to pay for poor peoples health care. (oh, btw - I grew up very poor in a single parent household, so flap your gum all you want, Ive been there done that)
Its funny - when conservatives try to get a law passed that the left would consider 'legislating morality' its horrible horrible horrible - but here you are doing the same thing - trying to legislate my 'responsibility' to help out those less fortunate. That is my choice, not yours. Do you give panhandlers money every time you see them? I doubt it - and that's your choice. Similarly it should be my choice.
I will not let you legislate my morality. fix the system first.
and Steve, Id rather be a bully that a spineless liberal, afraid that if i don't please everybody, mommy wont love me. let people fend for them selves, we don't need nanny state. Well, you might, and there are a few across the pond that I am sure would be happy to have you. Just don't get to sick.

What Amorette is referring to the health care industry call cost shifting. In rural areas it can run as high as 1/3 of your bill. This is shifting the cost for uninsured or under insured, such as medicare, by raising the cost on all the bills so that those who can pay make up for those who can not. This is legal and all health care facilities do it. So you are all ready paying for a lot of people's heath care expenses in higher insurance payments and higher co-payments on your bigger bills. If laws can force coverage or pay these expenses your health care costs will go down.

Wow mhaus - I've been trying to have the kind of discussion with you that you said you wanted. I'm not sure why you're stooping to the kind of name-calling you claim to abhor.

As for being spineless, all I can say is that I'm not the one posting anonymously...

btw: I am sorry to hear about your mother's illness. I've had to walk that path, too, so I know it isn't easy.

Steve - where's your "liberal tolerance?"

This is the last time Im going to say it Bob l. trying to make a point that you dont like, I might as well try to talk sense to a brick wall. Nowhere does he say 'I want them to attack the US' or anything like that. He says that 'the only chance the US has is for osama to detonate a major weapon'. I dont see how that infers that he wants osama to do that.
regardless, Im done responding to you on this. You are going to interpret what he says in a way that supports your argument, and I wont play along.

-----

Oh, I get it! It's so clear to me now.

The gentleman says "the only chance the US has is for osama to detonate a major weapon".

That means the gentleman (crazy bearded guy) DOESN'T WANT THIS TO HAPPEN.

Wow, mhaus. You're not very bright.

I feel it's time for someone to steer this chat back to the point. So I will take charge.

Glenn Beck is a moran!

Glad to be of service.

Bob - where's YOUR "liberal tolerance?" Double

Matt - where in the name of breakfast is your "LIBERAL TOLERANCE!?"

:eyesrolluntilheadexplodes:

In a little box with all that conservative tolerance I never see. I only bring it out for special occasions. I doubt today is gonna be all that special. But it's early.

mhaus - First you say: Obama has already stated, that in his vision of universal health, and her(sic) would recommend an old person take pain pills rather than receive treatment when they get sick.

Essentially you are claiming Obama would refuse treatment to old folks except for "Pain pills"

Then you quote: Bob N,
its at the end when obama says '...let the doctors know that maybe this isnt going to help. Maybe your better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller'

I know you don't get it, but - What Obama is trying to say here is in certain cases, surgery is counterproductive and very costly and simply treating the pain without surgery is as cheap and as effective in some cases. Obama was not speaking in absolutes. He was speaking a very simple truth. Nice twist, mhaus. I hope you're scaring every senior citizen in the country with twisted crap like this - just like your hero...Glenn Beck.

"While I stand by my statement that we have a kick ass health care system, I do not deny that there is room for improvement"

Care to back up the first part with any statistics?

Also, I'd like to point out that the US has an AMAZING magical pony system. It totally rocks.

If we have such a kickass health care system then why do at least 20 countries have higher life expectancies than we do? Sure, lifestyle has something to do with that but even the U.K. has a higher life expectancy and they drink more, smoke more, and are catching up fast in the obesity department. And Qatar? Kuwait? Malta?

From what I understand (and I'm to busy now to find the statistics) the US spends more and has worse outcomes than any other industrialized country.

Harry and Louise warned us about the evil government coming in and creating a managed health care system - and then the benevolent and saintly insurance companies did it anyways.

But lets get back to talking about the Magical Pony System - I understand that Glenn puts on an absolutely amazing Magic Pony Show.

Ya just gotta believe, Bridgier.