Amsterdam Coffeeshop Directory Forums

DazedandConfusedinOR wrote:Well, it would be Congress who would have to attempt reconciliation, not Obama per se. Republicans and Democrats have both used the reconciliation process. For example, between 1981 and 2009 there have been 22 reconciliation bills - 14 by the Republicans and 8 by the Democrats, so both parties have utilized the process. However, reconciliation is typically used to balance budget bills - things that are simply too important to be in a perpetual state of limbo. Also, many reconciliation bills enjoyed bipartisan support. The current healthcare bill certainly doesn't fit this description. It is split along party lines and, what's more, a majority of Americans do not support the current health care bill. If the Dems were to force through their version of the bill, I can guarantee you Obama would not win a second term. Furthermore, many Democrats are going to be in for the fight of their political lives in upcoming mid-term elections and I promise you many are not going to risk upsetting their constituents to the point where it will cost them an election!

Edit: And yes, if you saw a healthcare bill that was 1,017 pages instead of 2,700 then it was most certainly not the current bill. I was watching C-SPAN and the current version is indeed 2,700 pages. I'm not saying it needs to be 10 pages, but what about a few hundred??

No worries man i'll try and find an up to date version.

The American support for this process i find a bit strange. There's polls showing it swinging it both ways being reported by various sources.

This reform, imo, is an necessity to America. A much forgotten aspect of this is in economic terms is that people are much more productive when healthy.

It'll be interesting to see what happens next that's for sure.

Sir Niall of Essex-sire wrote:

DazedandConfusedinOR wrote:Well, it would be Congress who would have to attempt reconciliation, not Obama per se. Republicans and Democrats have both used the reconciliation process. For example, between 1981 and 2009 there have been 22 reconciliation bills - 14 by the Republicans and 8 by the Democrats, so both parties have utilized the process. However, reconciliation is typically used to balance budget bills - things that are simply too important to be in a perpetual state of limbo. Also, many reconciliation bills enjoyed bipartisan support. The current healthcare bill certainly doesn't fit this description. It is split along party lines and, what's more, a majority of Americans do not support the current health care bill. If the Dems were to force through their version of the bill, I can guarantee you Obama would not win a second term. Furthermore, many Democrats are going to be in for the fight of their political lives in upcoming mid-term elections and I promise you many are not going to risk upsetting their constituents to the point where it will cost them an election!

Edit: And yes, if you saw a healthcare bill that was 1,017 pages instead of 2,700 then it was most certainly not the current bill. I was watching C-SPAN and the current version is indeed 2,700 pages. I'm not saying it needs to be 10 pages, but what about a few hundred??

No worries man i'll try and find an up to date version.

The American support for this process i find a bit strange. There's polls showing it swinging it both ways being reported by various sources.

This reform, imo, is an necessity to America. A much forgotten aspect of this is in economic terms is that people are much more productive when healthy.

It'll be interesting to see what happens next that's for sure.

the rightys will tell you that the polls supporting it are from "biased" news networks like cnn. and the same people who say that will also tell you fox news isn't biased.

DazedandConfusedinOR wrote:

Dirty Uncle Ron wrote:When in history has it been cool for...the working class, to be well read and current in local, national, and international affairs?The answer is obvious, never.

Wow, I resent that. I put myself through college and graduated at 38 with a degree in history. I think it's a bit unfair to generalize. Not all Republicans are tea-baggers just as all Muslims aren't extremists. Maybe it would help to keep an open mind.
The simple fact is Obama hasn't lived up to his campaign promises. Americans want change; we want action, not words. It's easy to make promises, much harder to keep them.
And why bother to sign your posts with "peace"? I've read many of your rants. There's nothing peaceful about your demeanor at all.

My comments weren't directed at the Republican party as much as it was directed against a splinter group known as the Tea Bagger Movement. Notice when rereading my comments that I stated that any responsible Republican is distancing themselves from this movement?

President Obama, or any President that does not have a favorable and supportive majority in Congress will never truly succeed in fulfilling promises. How many Presidents have made promises only to fail, with some or all promises made? Most if not all Presidents. So why are people making this out to be some new revelation when it is and has been a fact of Presidential history? Racism? (The top just flew off the can of worms). All one has to do is a little reading and discover for themselves the truth, the whole truth.
Democrat or Republican, if a President sucks, I say he or she sucks. I am not totally blinded by party loyalty as is the norm in US politics.
In the last three decades, Reagan was a god, Bush 41 lame, Clinton was ok, and Bush 43 was a disaster.

You resent me stating that in no time in history has it been considered cool by the young and (under) working class to be well read and current in local, national, and international affairs? The operative word was COOL, meaning popular. I knew members of the debate team who thought it was cool, but they represented about 2% of my schools population. Remember the operative word being cool, and that we are referring to an entire group of 18-25 year old's with the average attention span of a wrench. To state for the record, I don't think all 18-25's are this lost, just the majority.
I would however understand the resentment had I stated or even implied that the young and (under) working class were NOT well read and current in local, national, and international affairs. Remember the operative word was cool.
Do you even know which social group I am referring to when I use the term "(under) working class"? You seemed to have left out the (under) when quoting me.

Lastly, I use Peace because I believe in Peace and want the last word that is read from me to be Peace. When reading some of my posts, one could conclude that I seem somewhat aggressive in my opinions. In fact, and something that was recently pointed out, is that I should make it known when my views are that of a Devils Advocate, adding aggressive counter-arguments to clarify the talking points from the other side.

It is better to know ones enemy before declaring war than after.
-This is meant more for a war of words and social change than physical violence.

Peace.

Dirty Uncle Ron wrote: Reagan was a god, ... Clinton was ok

I think you're are confusing the two presidents. Anyone who gets head from his secretary in the oval office has achieved god status in my book.

Dirty Uncle Ron wrote:

President Obama, or any President that does not have a favorable and supportive majority in Congress will never truly succeed in fulfilling promises...
...Reagan was a god, Bush 41 lame, Clinton was ok, and Bush 43 was a disaster.



Peace.

Obama inherited a multitude of disasters amid a cesspool of special interest influence. He could be not be faulted for opting for 1 term and retire.
Peace.

[quote="Dirty Uncle Ron"][/quote]
^^^Some avatars and forum names creepy stuff! (UGH)^^^

DazedandConfusedinOR wrote:

Marco wrote:A vast majority of Americans are stupid and mis-informed, so their 'desire' to die without healthcare needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

American's do want healthcare, just not Obamacare. The problem with Obama's plan is that it is too costly and will result in higher taxes. What we need is more affordable health care. Just about anything the government gets involved with results in more bureaucracy and red tape, which ends up resulting in higher costs than anticipated.

And trust me, there are stupid people in every country!

What exactly is Obamacare? Please provide specific facts and not conjecture, thank you.
I will agree that historically, when the federal government gets involved, there tends to be a lot of bureaucracy and red tape, and it also costs more than anticipated. So, with that said, what are the excuses of the Insurance Companies spending more than 25% of revenue on administrative costs? Sound familiar, like big government perhaps? Sound a little like higher cost of doing business than anticipated?

What's wrong with a single payer program, a program where everyone pays one entity and that entity pays the bills? I still see the doctor of my choosing, so what is the problem? I still receive medical care when needed or wanted, so....?

Medicare For All. Works for those over 65, why shouldn't it work for everyone? Those who would CHOOSE this type of coverage would pay for it just like those who pay premiums to Insurance Companies. No additional taxes. If one chooses not to go with the Medicare For All option, they should have to wait until 65 to be eligible for Medicare, sort of like it is now.

Funniest sign I have seen on TV in the last year:
"Keep your government hands off my Medicare"
Someone forgot to tell these idiots that Medicare is a government run program. Without the government, this program would not exist. Total fail.

Peace.

Dirty Uncle Ron wrote: "Keep your government hands off my Medicare"
Someone forgot to tell these idiots that Medicare is a government run program. Without the government, this program would not exist. Total fail.

Definitely fits the description of a tea bagger sign. Watch the tea bagger video I posted earlier in the thread for more comical signage.

DazedandConfusedinOR wrote: The problem is nothing costs what the government says it going to cost. Obama says it's going to cost $950 billion over 10 years, but I guarantee it would end up costing much more than that.

The figures President Obama uses are from the Congressional Budget Office, a non-partisan committee.
I agree that it will cost more. Always does....

DazedandConfusedinOR wrote: It's not that American's don't want health care, it's just that many are against governent involvement in the healthcare system any more than already exists.

I agree to a point. I am against government involvement unless it's in the best interest of the American People. Unfortunately the government failed by deregulating the banking industry. This is also another sore topic of conversation amongst us Americans. I won't get started on the latest disaster by one of our branches of government, the Judicial Branch, more specifically, The US Supreme Court.

DazedandConfusedinOR wrote: There ought to be incentives to businesses to provide health care to their employees through tax breaks, credits, etc.

What happened to wanting less government involvement? You suggest the government give breaks, why? Does the term "something for nothing" fit in this example? Since no government involvement is wanted, then why ask for it?
In a capitalist society, shouldn't businesses be expected to generate sufficient revenue to support their operating costs and stockholder expectations; or should businesses rely on government subsidies in the form of tax incentives and breaks in order to not only survive, but succeed? Where is the much demanded separation from government influence?
Again, something for nothing, and at taxpayers expense. Do we give all businesses incentives or can we cherry pick them, like charities? There are many organizations that I would rather not see receiving my tax dollars.

DazedandConfusedinOR wrote: As an American, I think there are more pressing matters than healthcare at this moment in time, namely the economy.

Dude, seriously, the economy is a more pressing matter than health care? I dare you, I double dare you, I even triple dare you to say this in the face of those who lost a loved one or friend because they couldn't afford basic health care. Recent reports indicate that approximately 125 people die every day because they can't afford the cost of basic health care. Consider yourself blessed, lucky, fortunate, or whatever that you won't be one of the 125, or will you?
The economy isn't a direct cause of death, but a lack of medical care is, and I should know. I was an Army Medic for 8 years and a few more working in hospitals as a civilian. I have seen more than my fair share of patients (specifically Vets) who died because they couldn't afford basic medical coverage.
As Americans (why not simply as humans?), nothing should be more pressing than fixing our broken health care system. Not one American should go without health care, especially children. The humanitarian in me extends my hope for universal health coverage to all people in the world, and add animals to the mix for good measure. ':)'

Peace.
The greater the doubt, the greater the awakening. Einstein

DazedandConfusedinOR wrote: Edit: And yes, if you saw a healthcare bill that was 1,017 pages instead of 2,700 then it was most certainly not the current bill. I was watching C-SPAN and the current version is indeed 2,700 pages. I'm not saying it needs to be 10 pages, but what about a few hundred??

This is what happens when lawyers get involved. Hey, I think I just figured out the problem with government, too many lawyers.
Damn, Shakespeare('s King Henry VI) was right, "The first thing we must do is kill all the lawyers,"

Peace

Stanky Danky wrote:

Dirty Uncle Ron wrote: Reagan was a god, ... Clinton was ok

I think you're are confusing the two presidents. Anyone who gets head from his secretary in the oval office has achieved god status in my book.

So freakin' right. I missed that, bet Clinton does too. ':)'

Peace.

ed the head wrote:Obama inherited a multitude of disasters amid a cesspool of special interest influence. He could be not be faulted for opting for 1 term and retire.
Peace.

The first part he made crystal clear to everyone during his State Of The Union Address last month. He did inherit a mess, and quite a few who were responsible were sitting in the very same chambers in which he gave his address. Not all Bush 43's fault, not even close. Plenty of blame to go around on both sides of the isle.

Peace.

What exactly is Obamacare?

I think that is where Obama personally does the surgery.

The US is the only industrialised country that does NOT have universal healthcare! AND it is the richest country in the world, so no excuses there.

To the teabaggers all I can say is WTF is wrong with you people?
I heard some really funny shit those retards were saying about the "death machines" and so on in the Canadian, European "commie-style" free healthcare systems.

Ingwey Gooblebogger wrote: The US is the only industrialised country that does NOT have universal healthcare! AND it is the richest country in the world, so no excuses there.

Yes, we are the richest country in the world. This is why we have the most expensive healthcare system in the world, just not the best. Actually, the US isn't even close to the best, not even Top 10, as some have already mentioned. We are like 29th or something. Sad. And yet Americans continue to criticize European countries for their style of medical coverage, especially those who are ranked higher. WTF?

Yes, we are the only industrialized country that does not have universal healthcare. Wait, let's call it what it is, socialized medicine. I for one am not afraid to say the word socialist. Just because it's called socialized medicine does not mean in any way that the US is turning into a socialist-based society and government. But anti-healthcare reformers would have the stupid and uninformed believe that any type of healthcare system other that what is currently in place is socialistic. Remember, these are the same lot that wants government out of Medicare. (They still don't realize that Medicare is a government run program.)
Before joining Faux News, Glenn Beck had anal surgery (I think) and a short stay in a hospital. He did a Heraldo Rivera-type report slamming the state of our health care system, going as far as stating that if one can, avoid going to the hospital. He also stated that he was surprised at how bad the care was especially since CEO's of major corporations apparently had used the same hospital that he was in at the time.
Just a short two years later, after having been hired by Faux, he rants and raves how the American healthcare system is the greatest in the world. When asked to comment about the blatant hypocrisy, he walked away and hasn't looked back since.
Shouldn't his followers, er, viewers be questioning how our healthcare system went from the worst to the best in less than two years? Again, the ignorant, stupid, and uninformed are his most staunch supporters.

Peace.

Dirty Uncle Ron wrote: Wait, let's call it what it is, socialized medicine.

Please no, not the dreaded s word. Fox Noise has trained me to fear that word. I'm an ignorant tea bagger who can't even name one socialist program in America. I'm too dumb to realize my kids public school education is being paid for by socialism. I'm so ignorant I don't even know the police, fire department, and post office are all socialist programs. Anything but socialism. What's next a czar? I don't want my family living in Russia.