Jeez you guys are a bit on the feisty side todayCol Hogan wrote:I figured if he didn't get that...what's the use...AZGrizFan wrote:
The error in Cleets argument is that the Military are GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES. Low income/elderly/uninsured are not.
That's fine, if you're ready to reinstitute the draft....because you can't sucker in people without that carrot.Cleets Part 2 wrote:Jeez you guys are a bit on the feisty side todayCol Hogan wrote:
I figured if he didn't get that...what's the use...
I'm referring to retired military health care benefits - if you want the Feds out of Health Care then they should get out of health care - unless of course the rules are different for some folks..?
What IS it with donks hatred of white men?TwinTownBisonFan wrote:one thing i've learned during a career in politics... no use in trying to convince middle-aged white men of anything...TheDancinMonarch wrote:
This attitude will certainly draw more support to your side of the issue.
AZGrizFan wrote:That's fine, if you're ready to reinstitute the draft....because you can't sucker in people without that carrot.Cleets Part 2 wrote:
Jeez you guys are a bit on the feisty side today
I'm referring to retired military health care benefits - if you want the Feds out of Health Care then they should get out of health care - unless of course the rules are different for some folks..?
Not to be redundant, but providing a military is a constitutional requirement. Providing healthcare for seniors isn't. You got a beef with that, take it up with one of the 55 drafters.Cleets Part 2 wrote:AZGrizFan wrote:
That's fine, if you're ready to reinstitute the draft....because you can't sucker in people without that carrot.
But but but... That's Federal intervention into health care..?
Where do we draw the line..?
Sure it's easy to drop low income support - it's easy to hate the poor and tell them to fuck off
but using carrots to prop up the military seems a bit like a double standard (no..?)
There are participants, and in no insignificant percentage, that are just plain angry that we have a darkie as POTUS. 
Elitist BastardCleets Part 2 wrote:What are the angry people really angry about..?
What questions are they asking..?
Where are they getting their information..?
Answer:
He's not quite sure what he's angry about, but he knows he's angry. One of the chants at the town hall events was, "No national health care!" but no one has proposed such a thing.
They have been manipulated into arguing - and don't know why...
To be sure:
This isn't about health insurance. It isn't even about health care. This is about the sinking feeling in their stomach that they are losing power in this country
One guy shouted:
"Keep your government hands off my Medicare."
Obviously the larger point here is they don't care about the logic of the issue at hand - they don't even care what the issue is. it's just: Pure unadulterated fear. Who is stoking these irrational fires of hatred and fear..?
Answer:
Conservative talk show hosts all across the country (this is not rocket science)
Key Point:
Who's the beneficiary of all this outrage and mass confusion..?
Special interest groups funded by the health care industry who are hell bent in their effort to kill health care reform. They're telling us the proper response is anger - don't listen to the congressman - don't try to understand the issues... just Shout - Be angry - Obama is taking this country away from you...
The woman who now famously stood up in a Delaware town hall and demanded that her congressman recognize the illegitimacy of Barack Obama's birth certificate, said something telling in her rant. She said, "I want my country back!"
We're a stupid country - filled with stupid people...
That's a bold statement... prove me wrong
Not redundant, good point. It is required by the constitution to maintain the operations and equipment of the military... I know you have to get some interpretation in there, but I'm pretty sure in order to have an "operational" military, they would need to maintain the health of those that are serving.AZGrizFan wrote: Not to be redundant, but providing a military is a constitutional requirement. Providing healthcare for seniors isn't. You got a beef with that, take it up with one of the 55 drafters.
Yes, good point. What is it the Constitution says about standing armies?JMU DJ wrote:Not redundant, good point. It is required by the constitution to maintain the operations and equipment of the military... I know you have to get some interpretation in there, but I'm pretty sure in order to have an "operational" military, they would need to maintain the health of those that are serving.AZGrizFan wrote: Not to be redundant, but providing a military is a constitutional requirement. Providing healthcare for seniors isn't. You got a beef with that, take it up with one of the 55 drafters.
AZGrizFan wrote:Not to be redundant, but providing a military is a constitutional requirement. Providing healthcare for seniors isn't. You got a beef with that, take it up with one of the 55 drafters.Cleets Part 2 wrote:
But but but... That's Federal intervention into health care..?
Where do we draw the line..?
Sure it's easy to drop low income support - it's easy to hate the poor and tell them to fuck off
but using carrots to prop up the military seems a bit like a double standard (no..?)
Double the insult. Now I'm really willing to see things your way. And for the record I am a 60+ year old female.TwinTownBisonFan wrote:one thing i've learned during a career in politics... no use in trying to convince middle-aged white men of anything...TheDancinMonarch wrote:
This attitude will certainly draw more support to your side of the issue.
It's federally funded healthcare that's part of the carrot for getting people to enlist. If you want to take that carrot away, you'd (as stated earlier) better be prepared to begin conscription again.Cleets Part 2 wrote:AZGrizFan wrote:
Not to be redundant, but providing a military is a constitutional requirement. Providing healthcare for seniors isn't. You got a beef with that, take it up with one of the 55 drafters.
I never said take the military away...
I asked why we don't take away retired military funded health care - after all it's Federally funded health care
houndawg wrote:
Yes, good point. What is it the Constitution says about standing armies?
Nothing
Where is the double standard...recruiters (corporate, military, it don't matter which) go out and get the work force necessary to meet a mission statement...Cleets Part 2 wrote:AZGrizFan wrote:
That's fine, if you're ready to reinstitute the draft....because you can't sucker in people without that carrot.
But but but... That's Federal intervention into health care..?
Where do we draw the line..?
Sure it's easy to drop low income support - it's easy to hate the poor and tell them to **** off
but using carrots to prop up the military seems a bit like a double standard (no..?)
From a preparedness standpoint, it's been determined that some portion (albeit less and less these days) of the military must be retained on a permanent basis, while another (growing) portion can e maintained in a reserve capacity. That model is still evolving, but we're seeing the impact of this transition today as reservists are stretched to the hilt while the government attempts to meet ALL its obligations in far off lands. Of course, none of that is directly addressed in the Constitution, but I can't find anywhere in the constitution where healthcareis addressed either, directly OR indirectly.JMU DJ wrote:houndawg wrote:
Yes, good point. What is it the Constitution says about standing armies?
It's weird wording... some wanted a standing army, some didn't want an army at all but instead wanted militias that could be called upon. In the Second Article congress has the power to raise an Army/Navy... but is also commissioned to maintain "Militia" which has been interpreted by many in modern times to mean "Army".
So you do agree with federally supported Health Care...Col Hogan wrote:Where is the double standard...recruiters (corporate, military, it don't matter which) go out and get the work force necessary to meet a mission statement...Cleets Part 2 wrote:
But but but... That's Federal intervention into health care..?
Where do we draw the line..?
Sure it's easy to drop low income support - it's easy to hate the poor and tell them to **** off
but using carrots to prop up the military seems a bit like a double standard (no..?)
To do that, benefits are offered...
One military benefit is Tricare For Life...it's a medical insurance plan, with yearly payments...co-pays...deductibles...in the private sector or at a military health care facility...
If a company...or the military...takes away benefits...they lose people...
So, where, my friend, is the double standard....I haven't heard you call for taking medical benefits away from retired civil servants...or from the private sector folks who have them...
The difference is between earned and unearned entitlements.Cleets Part 2 wrote:So you do agree with federally supported Health Care...Col Hogan wrote:
Where is the double standard...recruiters (corporate, military, it don't matter which) go out and get the work force necessary to meet a mission statement...
To do that, benefits are offered...
One military benefit is Tricare For Life...it's a medical insurance plan, with yearly payments...co-pays...deductibles...in the private sector or at a military health care facility...
If a company...or the military...takes away benefits...they lose people...
So, where, my friend, is the double standard....I haven't heard you call for taking medical benefits away from retired civil servants...or from the private sector folks who have them...
as long as it's used as bribery
I'm just asking for the Federal government to do exactly what the RETARDS in the Town Hall meetings are asking for... No FEDERALLY funded health care... not "some" or "carrots for service" or a little as "bribery..."
I'm talking ZERO - every man woman and child is 100% responsible for themselves
Now that's free market capitalism
Anything other than that is a compromise in American Standards
We're Americans and we won't accept anything FREE...
Blah blah blah...
I actually don't really care, because non of this really applies to me - but it is fun to watch people scream at the top of their lungs - and have no idea what they are talking about - These are the same 36% of Americans who still believe that Saddam was involved in 9/11... Good Times
:****:
I did not know employment benefits were called bribery...Cleets Part 2 wrote:So you do agree with federally supported Health Care...Col Hogan wrote:
Where is the double standard...recruiters (corporate, military, it don't matter which) go out and get the work force necessary to meet a mission statement...
To do that, benefits are offered...
One military benefit is Tricare For Life...it's a medical insurance plan, with yearly payments...co-pays...deductibles...in the private sector or at a military health care facility...
If a company...or the military...takes away benefits...they lose people...
So, where, my friend, is the double standard....I haven't heard you call for taking medical benefits away from retired civil servants...or from the private sector folks who have them...
as long as it's used as bribery
I'm just asking for the Federal government to do exactly what the RETARDS in the Town Hall meetings are asking for... No FEDERALLY funded health care... not "some" or "carrots for service" or a little as "bribery..."
I'm talking ZERO - every man woman and child is 100% responsible for themselves
Now that's free market capitalism
Anything other than that is a compromise in American Standards
We're Americans and we won't accept anything FREE...
Blah blah blah...
I actually don't really care, because non of this really applies to me - but it is fun to watch people scream at the top of their lungs - and have no idea what they are talking about - These are the same 36% of Americans who still believe that Saddam was involved in 9/11... Good Times
:****:
So just by being old you've earned it..?native wrote:
The difference is between earned and unearned entitlements.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/08/14/br ... index.htmlBritons pour love on 'evil' healthcare system
Britons including Prime Minister Gordon Brown have leapt to the defense of their creaking healthcare service after President Barack Obama's plans for a similar system in the United States were branded "evil" by Republicans.
Tens of thousands of people have joined a Twitter group expressing pride in the UK's National Health Service (NHS), which offers free taxpayer-funded medical care to all British residents, while leading politicians have spoken out in support.
Republican former vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin earlier this week condemned Obama's plans to introduce a public heath insurance scheme as an "evil" move that would result in "death panels" deciding who would live or die.
Her criticism has been echoed by fellow Republicans in direct attacks on Britain's NHS. In an article, Former House of Representatives Speaker Newt Gingrich said British healthcare was run by "Orwellian" bureaucrats who put a price tag on life.
The comments caused a storm of protest in the United Kingdom, with Prime Minister Brown wading into the argument via micro-blogging site Twitter, where a conversation chain, "#welovetheNHS", is generating huge online traffic. Video Britons react to the U.S. healthcare debate »
A posting on the 10 Downing Street Twitter site on Wednesday read: "PM: NHS often makes the difference between pain and comfort, despair and hope, life and death. Thanks for always being there."
The message was followed by another, from Brown's wife Sarah, adding: "#welovetheNHS -- more than words can say."
Professor Stephen Hawking, author of "A Brief History of Time", also spoke out in favor of the British system, telling the Guardian newspaper that he owes his life to NHS treatment for the neuro-muscular dystrophy he has suffered from for 40 years.
"I wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS," he said. "I have received a large amount of high-quality treatment without which I would not have survived."
Despite the support, the 51-year-old NHS is regularly the target of criticism at home, with opposition politicians accusing Brown's government of mismanagement resulting in long waiting lists and a "lottery" in deciding who gets life-saving drugs and surgery.
Nevertheless, opposition Conservative Party leader David Cameron also added his voice to the defense campaign with a posting on his party's Web site.
" Millions of people are grateful for the care they have received from the NHS -- including my own family.
advertisement
"One of the wonderful things about living in this country is that the moment you're injured or fall ill -- no matter who you are, where you are from, or how much money you've got -- you know that the NHS will look after you."
....remembering, of course, that these people have NEVER KNOWN ANYTHING DIFFERENT.Mountaineer wrote:The Brits are stepping up to defend the NHS.
I particularly find the comments from Brits and Canadians in the comment sections interesting. Mostly universal praise for their evil, socialist, wealth-spreading, death panel-enabling health care model.
That's true Z.AZGrizFan wrote:
....remembering, of course, that these people have NEVER KNOWN ANYTHING DIFFERENT.
But from all accounts what they do have seems to work pretty well. And they're also free to buy private insurance if they feel the NHS isn't on par.
We have a winner here.Wedgebuster wrote:
Somebody stole their Americadbackjon wrote:We have a winner here.Wedgebuster wrote:
And most of the rest are just mad there is a Democrat in office, but they don't know why they are mad, just that the elitist, rich, white men that run talk radio told them to be.
I say again, WHY does the democratic party hate the white man so?dbackjon wrote:We have a winner here.Wedgebuster wrote:
And most of the rest are just mad there is a Democrat in office, but they don't know why they are mad, just that the elitist, rich, white men that run talk radio told them to be.
