Obama Care Could Be Deadly

[quote name='dmaul1114']The problem isn't that politicians have too much power.

The problem is that they're controlled by corporate interests through campaign donations and lobbyists.[/quote]

The second part of this is what makes the first part bad.

IMO corporations should not be able to make donations to politicians, only individuals should. And the individual donations should be capped at a relatively low level--no more than a couple thousand per election.
Click to expand...

I can agree that "corporations" shouldn't be able to make donations. However, I'm not sure I can agree with a donation cap. So long as politicians are forced to disclose who the donation came from, I'd strongly prefer no caps than some kind of system where rich individuals play a shell game trying to get money to politicians, as you are proposing.
 
Doesn't have to be an either/or situation. Put a cap of a few thousand on donations and require them to be disclosed.

That cuts down on the amount of influence the wealthy had and prevents the shell game.

Also couple it with limits on how much of their own money candidates can spend on their campaign.

That will kill two birds with one stone. Cut down on the amount of power corporations and the rich have in politics, and cut down on the amount of money needed to campaign for federal office. Now one has to pretty much be wealthy on their own and able to raise a shit ton of donation money to campaign for federal office. With some exceptions for the house since districts are pretty smaller and easier to campaign than whole states.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Doesn't have to be an either/or situation. Put a cap of a few thousand on donations and require them to be disclosed.

That cuts down on the amount of influence the wealthy had and prevents the shell game.

Also couple it with limits on how much of their own money candidates can spend on their campaign.

That will kill two birds with one stone. Cut down on the amount of power corporations and the rich have in politics, and cut down on the amount of money needed to campaign for federal office. Now one has to pretty much be wealthy on their own and able to raise a shit ton of donation money to campaign for federal office. With some exceptions for the house since districts are pretty smaller and easier to campaign than whole states.[/QUOTE]

You forgot 2 very important parts.

1. No hidden donations. Everything should be public that way corporations and rich private citizens cant fund things in their interest in the shadows

2. Require that any ad list its primary donors or at least a website where the viewer/reader can go to see who is behind it.

These billion dollar interests wouldnt be able to do a lot of this if their donations were in the open.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Doesn't have to be an either/or situation. Put a cap of a few thousand on donations and require them to be disclosed.

That cuts down on the amount of influence the wealthy had and prevents the shell game.[/quote]

Corporations would still have sway by pressuring employees to donate to a certain candidate (or giving them money to donate etc.), running ads etc., but it would at least be better than the current system.
Click to expand...

Yeah, no shell game here.
 
I didn't forget number 1. That's what I meant by saying "require them to be disclosed."

Agree with number 2. Though the ads do at least say which organization sponsored it at the end, and I think that is a legal requirement. But I'd support requiring the organizations to list all their donors on their website as well.
 
Well, that type of shell game is just impossible to prevent.

There's always going to be crap like that going on. All we can do is try to minimize it. So I should have said "reduces the shell game" rather than prevents it.

You're idea of not having a cap would just make it worse as the corporations could give bigger sums of moneys to their employees to place donations with. With caps in place at least each individual can only give a few grand, whether it's their own money or money given to them by a corp. to donate.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Well, that type of shell game is just impossible to prevent.

There's always going to be crap like that going on. All we can do is try to minimize it. So I should have said "reduces the shell game" rather than prevents it.

You're idea of not having a cap would just make it worse as the corporations could give bigger sums of moneys to their employees to place donations with. With caps in place at least each individual can only give a few grand, whether it's their own money or money given to them by a corp. to donate.[/QUOTE]

If there's no cap, there's no need for the shell game.

But why go with a cap of "a few grand"? Why not put a cap of, say, $20 per individual per candidate? Wouldn't that do an even better job of everything you're trying to accomplish?
 
Yes, but if there's no cap then corporations still have too much influence, which is the major problem. That bothers me much more than the shell game.

And I'd be fine with a lower cap. Just threw out the cap of a few grand since that's the current individual cap.
 
if it's ridiculously low enough, more would be inspired to contribute, but there'd likely be less on the whole so you wouldn't have to hear accusations of centipedes lurking in vaginas.
 
Any thoughts on the administration forcing insurance companies to offer birth control & preventative screenings for free, sans copays? Outrage? Where's my free boner pills?
 
[quote name='IRHari']Any thoughts on the administration forcing insurance companies to offer birth control & preventative screenings for free, sans copays? Outrage? Where's my free boner pills?[/QUOTE]

I have seen conservatives go nuts over this because of the typical religious reasons. Funny thing is that you would think they would be for it since it will create a hell of a lot less welfare babies. It gives the poor much better access to BC which is an amazing amazing thing.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']I have seen conservatives go nuts over this because of the typical religious reasons. Funny thing is that you would think they would be for it since it will create a hell of a lot less welfare babies. It gives the poor much better access to BC which is an amazing amazing thing.[/QUOTE]
If I can't tap dance in a bathroom stall with a wide stance(to have sex with men) as a rich old white conservative god-fearing man(that's in the closet), then none of you whores can either!!!!:cool:
 
[quote name='IRHari']Any thoughts on the administration forcing insurance companies to offer birth control & preventative screenings for free, sans copays? Outrage? Where's my free boner pills?[/QUOTE]

As Magus said, theirs some outrage from the religious right, catholics etc. of course.

I think it's a fantastic idea. Having free birth control will cut down on unwanted pregnancies and all the problems those cause for society.

And any type of preventative screening is a good thing as a big problem with US public health is people don't do enough to prevent health problems from occurring/worsening and only go when they already have a major issue which is thus more expensive to treat.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']If the government forces us all to go on diets it means there is probably a reason. Now I am not saying I think the goverment should force people to go on diets. Just saying that it does seem to be a common fear of many people and other then how unreasonable and silly people are it also shows how far too many people are fat and unwilling to take any step to change that.

Note - Im a fat guy, im just a fat guy trying to change that. I went from 350 to 200 then meet my wife and over 7 years have went back to 300. So I am not sitting around as some skinny asshole without food issues telling others to try dieting.[/QUOTE]
It is ridiculous. There is no reason to believe it's true other than paranoia. Of course being fat is something to be proud of in the U.S. too it seems. I haven't heard any skinny people say they were afraid of that, and I'm no stick myself, but I wouldn't be scared of the government putting me on a diet.

Honestly, I find that paranoia seems to be a common trait among tea party types. They're always terrified the government will do "insert ridiculous statement here".
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']As Magus said, theirs some outrage from the religious right, catholics etc. of course.

I think it's a fantastic idea. Having free birth control will cut down on unwanted pregnancies and all the problems those cause for society.

And any type of preventative screening is a good thing as a big problem with US public health is people don't do enough to prevent health problems from occurring/worsening and only go when they already have a major issue which is thus more expensive to treat.[/QUOTE]

It also will reduce the number of STDs both through treatment and prevantion. Again something that is great for society both medically and in the cost savings sense.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']It also will reduce the number of STDs both through treatment and prevantion. Again something that is great for society both medically and in the cost savings sense.[/QUOTE]
As well as being profitable to Big Pharma and healthcare providers.;)
 
Which is fine. I have no problems with the drug companies and health care providers making more money as a result of people taking better care of themselves.

And honestly, that's not a sure thing. If you catch cancer early, it's going to be a shorter and cheaper course of treatment than if it was caught at a more advanced stage.

So it's possible that more screenings etc. could mean less money to health care providers and drug companies in the long run for some diseases by having more people deal with them before they get very advanced and require long and costly treatments (that still often result in the person dying as it was caught too late).
 
[quote name='dohdough']As well as being profitable to Big Pharma and healthcare providers.;)[/QUOTE]

Health care providers not as much I imagine. I pointed out to my wife that you would think they would have wanted to do this years ago since pregnancies must cost them a fortune. She said at the same time though every time someone gets pregnant all those tests they take the insurance companies make money off of as well vs just paying.

Really I guess at the end of the day all we should consider is what is best for society. We should do this first off just because its the right thing to do, but second because I guess corporations will find a way to make a buck on anything ;)
 
To be honest, I don't have a huge problem with them making a few bucks either and this is actually a good policy. Profit will be made, but I see also see it as a way to slightly disenfranchise Big Pharma and the insurance cartel.

I was just being a little obtuse earlier. :D
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']As Magus said, theirs some outrage from the religious right, catholics etc. of course.

I think it's a fantastic idea. Having free birth control will cut down on unwanted pregnancies and all the problems those cause for society.

And any type of preventative screening is a good thing as a big problem with US public health is people don't do enough to prevent health problems from occurring/worsening and only go when they already have a major issue which is thus more expensive to treat.[/QUOTE]

I'm certainly not a member of the religious right, but I'm not convinced that the new "no-copay on birth control" is a great idea. I don't understand why birth control must be completely free, but medicines that patients need still require a co-pay. I also don't understand why prescription birth control must be totally paid for by the insurers, but non-prescription forms of birth control have to be paid for by the consumer.

I definitely thnk that all health insurance plans need to cover prescription birth control, but I don't think it's a problem to charge a copay at the same level as other prescription drugs.
 
[quote name='chiwii']I'm certainly not a member of the religious right, but I'm not convinced that the new "no-copay on birth control" is a great idea. I don't understand why birth control must be completely free, but medicines that patients need still require a co-pay. I also don't understand why prescription birth control must be totally paid for by the insurers, but non-prescription forms of birth control have to be paid for by the consumer.

I definitely thnk that all health insurance plans need to cover prescription birth control, but I don't think it's a problem to charge a copay at the same level as other prescription drugs.[/QUOTE]
This is a pretty good point. I think it has more to do with patents and qualifications to go OTC(over the counter), which a lot of companies try to fight in the US. More profit is made at the prescription level than the consumer level. Also a lot of these drugs contain strictly controlled substances that have varying levels of damaging effects.
 
That is a fair point. I'm not opposed to a small co-pay on birth control with one stipulation.

There has to be a subsidy for low income women to get it for free. Unwanted pregnancies are concentrated in the lower class, and they thus need free access to birth control as many will not use it if there's a $5-10 copay every month to get it.

Personally, I support a 100% national health care system where there's no copay as everything is covered by our tax dollars. But that's a pipe dream in this country.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']That is a fair point. I'm not opposed to a small co-pay on birth control with one stipulation.

There has to be a subsidy for low income women to get it for free. Unwanted pregnancies are concentrated in the lower class, and they thus need free access to birth control as many will not use it if there's a $5-10 copay every month to get it.

Personally, I support a 100% national health care system where there's no copay as everything is covered by our tax dollars. But that's a pipe dream in this country.[/QUOTE]

I agree that low income women need free access to birth control. I wonder if Medicaid provides prescription birth control?

I support a national health care system, but I think that there should be a small copay for office visits, drugs, and maybe some tests. Just enough to make people realize that the care they receive isn't actually free, and they should think twice before running to the doctor for every cold or stomache.
 
The only problem I see with "Free Birth Control" is that we're not likely looking at condoms. Since condoms are virtually the only type of birth control that prevents STDs (including those super-nasty ones that you can't cure even if you 'catch it early'), I'd be concerned that individuals who normally rely on cheaper, easier to obtain condoms might switch to a different type of "free" birth control, ditch the condoms and then our health care system finds itself with a lot more cases of STDs.

Granted, that's a bunch of speculation...
 
True, but you can usually get free condoms and the local health department branch etc. But yeah, more outlets for free condoms would be a plus irrespective of free birth control pills.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']True, but you can usually get free condoms and the local health department branch etc. But yeah, more outlets for free condoms would be a plus irrespective of free birth control pills.[/QUOTE]

Also true. But the low-income folks who can't be bothered to get free hand-out condoms won't be bothered to get free hand-out birth control pills. I mean, free condoms, all you have to do is walk in and ask. Free birth control pills require you to go to a gyno and let them stick thinks up your hoo-hoo and such. Then, you have to go to a whole different place to actually get the prescription filled. And you have to wait there too.
 
I'll put that on gender. Getting condoms is usually the guy's task, and I think young males are embarrassed about getting condoms in general, much less going to the health department and asking for them.

I think women, who have more to lose in an unwanted pregnancy, would be less resistant to getting on freely provided birth control pills. Especially if they can get them through their regular doctor rather than the health clinic.

Pure conjecture though. Only research after free birth control is more widely available will tell us how many take advantage of it and if it has an impact on rates of unwanted pregnancies.
 
Women should be seeing gynos regardless of socio-economic status imo. Lady parts cancer and hpv don't really care about what race you are or how much money you have.

Your average std is still cheaper to deal with than a baby...justsayin

I also don't agree that going to the doctor for every cold or stomach ache is necessarily a bad thing and a poor argument. You can't tell if its going to be a major illness if you don't get it checked out.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I'll put that on gender. Getting condoms is usually the guy's task, and I think young males are embarrassed about getting condoms in general, much less going to the health department and asking for them.[/QUOTE]
Probably true, but I never quite understood why. As a teen, I had no problem going into any drug store and buying them, and in my twenties and beyond, I'd buy them at the grocery store (bread, milk...condoms).

As a comedian (don't recall his name) once said, "what better way to show the world you're gettin' some." :)
 
[quote name='chiwii']I'm certainly not a member of the religious right, but I'm not convinced that the new "no-copay on birth control" is a great idea. I don't understand why birth control must be completely free, but medicines that patients need still require a co-pay. I also don't understand why prescription birth control must be totally paid for by the insurers, but non-prescription forms of birth control have to be paid for by the consumer.

I definitely thnk that all health insurance plans need to cover prescription birth control, but I don't think it's a problem to charge a copay at the same level as other prescription drugs.[/QUOTE]

I think we need to get free birthcontrol out to poor women whether it be through insurance companies or the state.

Birth control is a drop-in-the-bucket compared to the staggering costs of an unwanted baby born into poverty.

Free birthcontrol to those who can't afford it is simply common sense.
 
[quote name='dohdough']
I also don't agree that going to the doctor for every cold or stomach ache is necessarily a bad thing and a poor argument. You can't tell if its going to be a major illness if you don't get it checked out.[/QUOTE]

Agreed. The only problem here is the absurd amount doctors bill insurance companies for simple sick visit. The doctor spends maybe 5 minutes with you, and the nurse less than that before hand taking your weight and temp etc., and they bill like $250.

The problem isn't people getting checked out for colds--that's a good thing as it's hard to tell a cold from the flu or a sinus infection or strep throat or anything else that needs meds on your own. The problem is health care costs have gotten out of hand and doctors over charge for everything and that runs of health insurance costs for everyone.

That's what needs to be dealt with. Not people going to the doctor too much. Again, people let a "cold" go and end up with pneumonia and a hospital stay etc. ends up costing the systems more than if they'd went and got on meds earlier in the illness.

[quote name='Allnatural']Probably true, but I never quite understood why. As a teen, I had no problem going into any drug store and buying them, and in my twenties and beyond, I'd buy them at the grocery store (bread, milk...condoms).[/QUOTE]

Maybe it was just a small town thing. I hated the dirty looks from the people at the counter, and you had to worry that someone who knew you/your parents would see you and call your parents etc.

I have no problem buying them now.
 
[quote name='dohdough']
I also don't agree that going to the doctor for every cold or stomach ache is necessarily a bad thing and a poor argument. You can't tell if its going to be a major illness if you don't get it checked out.[/QUOTE]

Yes, it is a bad thing. It would be absolutely irresponsible to use the finite health-care resources every time you feel ill. Doctors have guidelines on the symptoms that should trigger a call/visit to the office. Look at any of the major health-care information websites - they'll list conditions that can be treated at home and which symptoms require a trip to the doctor.

Also, doctors aren't going to waste their time looking for a major illness if a patient comes in complaining of simply having cold symptoms for a few days. They're going to tell them to go home take some OTC cold medicine, drink lots of water, and come back if they're not better in a week or so. The time the doctor wastes seeing this patient could have been spent on a patient that was really sick.
 
Well that's true. People shouldn't go to the doctor at the first sign of a cold.

But if it still getting worse after 3 or 4 days, and they have symptoms like a fever, severe sore throat that's not improving, yellow/green mucus, any type of tightness or wheezing in the chest etc. they should go to the doctor rather than waiting a weak or more and letting things worse.

I've learned that the hard way several times in the past myself. Most colds I get either turn into sinus infection, go into my chest and flair up asthma/pneumonia or both. So I give a cold 3 or 4 days and if those symptoms are emerging and I'm still feeling worse each day rather than better I get to the doctor and get some meds. Otherwise I end up feeling like shit for 2 or 3 weeks.

Too many people hate going to the doctor and wait until they're extremely ill before going and end up being sick longer and having to take more meds etc.
 
I don't waste time going to a doctor usually, if my throat is sore and head a little stuffed up, I'll give ti a day and no more. After countless respiratory infections I know the symptoms well enough. If i wake up fine the next day it was allergies, otherwise it's probably sinusitis.

You don't even need to see a doctor for something like that though, nurse practitioners can handle stuff like that easily. I see that as being a big part of the future of medical care in the U.S., as so many MDs prefer to specialize rather than just doing general practice since specialties pay more. Common stuff will probably be handled by nurse practitioners.
 
[quote name='Clak']I don't waste time going to a doctor usually, if my throat is sore and head a little stuffed up, I'll give ti a day and no more. After countless respiratory infections I know the symptoms well enough. If i wake up fine the next day it was allergies, otherwise it's probably sinusitis.

You don't even need to see a doctor for something like that though, nurse practitioners can handle stuff like that easily. I see that as being a big part of the future of medical care in the U.S., as so many MDs prefer to specialize rather than just doing general practice since specialties pay more. Common stuff will probably be handled by nurse practitioners.[/QUOTE]
That's interesting that you mention this scenario because big box stores have been looking into providing more medical care than just flu shots for a few years. They're using the same argument that you're using; that nurses can take care of it. On the otherhand, doctors have also been fighting this sentiment for years as well. I'm not saying that nurses aren't able to do a good portion of the job, but doctors have much more specialized knowledge and I'd wager that most are general practitioners. Would I be comfortable with a nurse? I guess for somethings, but I'd need a more convincing argument if I was going to throw my support behind it considering how it will most likely be implemented ie Walmart/Target Health Clinic.
 
Well it's a fact that there is a lack of general practitioners overall in the U.S. and some of that is because there is more money in specializing. So basically if they want to stop that from happening then more docs need to stay in general practice instead of specializing.

I've also noticed, at least with my doctor, that we seem to be sent to specialists much more often now than in the past. I mean when I had fluid trapped in my ear I was sent to a very expensive ENT specialist, who basically just told me to wait and see if it drained on it's own. The only thing they did that my doctor couldn't was give me a hearing test. I paid hundreds of dollars over the course of a few visits to be told to wait it out basically.
 
You should see an ENT Clak. I always got sinusitis and finally got it checked out last winter, I had a badly deviated septum and lots of blockages from polyps and scar tissue from 30 years of on and off sinus infections etc.

I had sinus surgery done in Februrary, and while recovery was a bitch it's helped a ton. I don't wake up stuffy every morning any more, I've had one cold since then and didn't get a sinus infection (though it did go to my chest and nearly got to pneumonia before I got to the doctor) etc.

That experience was another example of ridiculous medical charges though. Between the ENT and the hospital my insurance was billed around $27k. Of course they settled and paid well under half of that in actuality, but still absurd given it was an outpatient procedure where I was in the surgery center for 6 or 7 hours and in surgery for around 2 hours.

So definitely only do it if you have very good insurance. I had to fight with mine a bit, but ended up with only the $50 hospital copay.
 
Well like I said I'd seen an ENT for the ear thing and told him my whole history. I might get a sinus infection once or twice a year, usually goes away within a week of antibiotics, so I'm not that worried right now. If I had constant occurrences I know my doctor would have already said something about it anyway. He almost did once when I had a particularly hard to treat case, but that eventually was taken care of with the right medications as well.
 
Yeah, it's probably not worth it in that case. I was getting them a minimum of twice a year, and many times up to 4 or 5 times a year and taking 2-3 weeks to get over them each time.

Along with waking up stuffy pretty much every morning even when not sick etc. so I couldn't take it anymore and finally bit the bullet on the surgery (it was first recommended several years ago, but my insurance wasn't nearly as good then).
 
[quote name='Clak']Well like I said I'd seen an ENT for the ear thing and told him my whole history. I might get a sinus infection once or twice a year, usually goes away within a week of antibiotics, so I'm not that worried right now. If I had constant occurrences I know my doctor would have already said something about it anyway. He almost did once when I had a particularly hard to treat case, but that eventually was taken care of with the right medications as well.[/QUOTE]

I used to have the same thing and it turned out it was my diet. I cut out dairy products and I have had only one sinus infection since, and it's been about 6 years. If it bothers you or you have other non-specific health issues try changing up your diet.
 
They should be able to test you for that. There is a type of sinusitis that's caused by dietary allergies.

An easy way to rule it out is if your sinus infections only start as colds/bad seasonal allergies. i.e. you get a cold or have bad allergies and 3-5 or so days later you're all of a sudden fevered, super congested and blowing out green/yellow snot.

If that's the case then it's unlikely to be a food allergy problem, and more likely to be an issue with blockages like I had. In which case when you get a cold or allergy flare up, you get way more congested than the average person and that leads to bacterial infections.

If you're getting them more randomly without always having colds/allergies first, then a dietary allergy could well be behind it.
 
Just saw a breaking news blurb on CNN that a federal appeals court in Atlanta ruled the mandate requiring health care unconstitutional. It's on the top of cnn.com as well, but not story to link too yet.

Edit: Here's an article about it, or a short blurb anyway.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2011/08/12/business/AP-US-Health-Overhaul.html?_r=1&hp

ATLANTA (AP) — A federal appeals court has struck down the requirement in President Barack Obama's health care overhaul package that virtually all Americans must carry health insurance or face penalties.

A divided three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday struck down the so-called individual mandate, siding with 26 states that had sued to block the law.

But the decision didn't go as far as a lower court that had invalidated the entire overhaul as unconstitutional.

The states and other critics say the law violates people's rights. The Justice Department counters that the legislative branch was exercising a "quintessential" power.

An appeals court and three federal judges have upheld the law, and two have invalidated it. Experts say the debate ultimately will be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

And another one

(CNN) -- A federal appeals court Friday tossed out key provisions of the sweeping health care reform bill championed by President Obama, setting up a likely election-year showdown at the Supreme Court over the landmark legislation.

A divided 2-1 panel of the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Atlanta found the law's "individual mandate" section, requiring nearly all Americans to purchase health insurance by 2014 or face financial penalties -- to be an improper exercise of federal authority.

"The individual mandate exceeds Congress's enumerated commerce power and is unconstitutional," wrote Chief Judge Joel Dubina. "This economic mandate represents a wholly novel and potentially unbounded assertion of congressional authority: the ability to compel Americans to purchase an expensive health insurance product they have elected not to buy, and to make them re-purchase that insurance product every month for their entire lives."

Significantly, the court concluded even though that key section to be unconstitutional, the entire law need not be set aside.

In fact, the judges said the law's expansion of the federal Medicaid program was constitutional, since states-- which administer it -- would not bear "the costs of the program's amplified enrollments."

The ruling conflicts with another federal appeals court in Cincinnati, which found the "individual mandate" to be lawful. That conflicts sets up a final ruling on the matter from the Supreme Court in coming months.

The cases are State of Florida v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (11-11021, 11-11067).
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='KingBroly']Wait...

Run that by me again.

I really hope they don't split this thing.[/QUOTE]
Oh jeebus. That means that the federal government will provide funding to help the states bear the cost of increased enrollments. It's not like the states pay for their own roads on their own.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Oh jeebus. That means that the federal government will provide funding to help the states bear the cost of increased enrollments. It's not like the states pay for their own roads on their own.[/QUOTE]

And it's not like the Federal Government is 14 trillion in debt so they'll easily be able to afford it.

Oh wait...
 
[quote name='KingBroly']And it's not like the Federal Government is 14 trillion in debt so they'll easily be able to afford it.

Oh wait...[/QUOTE]
It's almost as if someone already answered this in another thread...

So what are you suggesting? That we simply allow insurance companies to run amok and allow anyone that can't afford medical care to be booted out of emergency rooms and/or hospitals?

Are you suggesting that we raise taxes on those that can afford it the most? Are you suggesting that we stop waging wars? Are you suggesting we give bigger tax breaks to those who need it least? Or maybe we should just let our roads crumble and our bridges collapse since we "can't afford it."

If we can find the money or go into debt to literally kill people for whatever reason; we should be able to find some money to make sure some people are able to live AND work. For an ideology that professes high morality, you sure do act in morally bankrupt ways.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']And it's not like the Federal Government is 14 trillion in debt so they'll easily be able to afford it.

Oh wait...[/QUOTE]

Why didn't we see statements like this being made when Bush kept increasing spending, despite the fact that we were also in debt at the time?

Oh wait...
 
[quote name='IRHari']Why didn't we see statements like this being made when Bush kept increasing spending, despite the fact that we were also in debt at the time?

Oh wait...[/QUOTE]

Keep playing partison games while the debt continues to skyrocket through control of both parties.
 
I don't mean to cross pollinate threads, but single payer healthcare is good old common sense.

So why aren't the usual suspects for it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top