From ‘liquid biopsies’ to precision medicine, these five developments will change cancer care in the next decade. Learn more.

Reply
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
209
Views

Re: Obamacare - The UN-Affordable Care Act

209 Views
Message 1 of 25

@fangoh45 wrote:

@Olderscout66 wrote:

@NerdyMom wrote:

@Olderscout66 wrote:

The notion of "limited Government" was embodied in the Articles of Confederation, which proved grossly inadequate to Govern our  Nation in the 18th Century. Republicans try and pretend it will somehow work in the 21st Century, but their real objective is to remove our elected Government's ability to oppose their Corporate Masters.


Agreed. Our government is still limited by the specified powers outlined in the Constitution. But our founding fathers wanted a more powerful federal government. I think the word they used was "energetic." The Articles of Confederation were far too weak to help our country function properly. 

 

Limited powers just means not "all powerful," like a dictator. It does NOT mean federal government should be small, which is how I think many interpret it. When you've got 350 million people of hugely varied wealth and needs, spanning different geography/natural resources, you "need" a big centralized government to meet the needs of all Americans. 


Republicans ALL signed up for the Norquest Pledge, which wants Government "small enough that you could drown it in the bathtub", and the 40% of the GOP that are Teabaggers state repeatedly they favor replacing the Federeal Government with increased powers for the States, JUST LIKE THE CONFEDERACY HAD, and for the same reasons.


No, no. They want a government that stays within a budget. Just like any responsible family would do. If you make x amount of dollars, you don't spend x times 100.

Just like any responsible family, cuts are hard, but MUST be made.

 


No, no, fangoh45.  Cuts are not a MUST, at least not for essentials.  There is and always has been plenty of resources to provide for those essentials.  They just must be paid for by the entirety of the society in as fair a manner as is possible for we poor humans to devise and implement fairly. 

 

Your approach will not do that.  I doubt you will ever comprehend that...and that is truly sad.  Lacking that comprehension what you continually post will remain flawed and irrelevant.

 

We are a republic established by the People for the benefit of the People and paid for by the People in the final analysis. The People elect people from their ranks that are presumeably responsible and competent to do that work.  IF they do their work honorably, correctly and properly the People's interests will be served, not those of special interests, whoever or whatever that might be. 

 

I hate to be pedantic, but somebody has to say this. 

 

If you crawl into the pig-pen, you will come out smelling like the pigs inside....you won't change what they already are.

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
209
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
222
Views

Re: Obamacare - The UN-Affordable Care Act

222 Views
Message 2 of 25

@Olderscout66 wrote:

@NerdyMom wrote:

@Olderscout66 wrote:

The notion of "limited Government" was embodied in the Articles of Confederation, which proved grossly inadequate to Govern our  Nation in the 18th Century. Republicans try and pretend it will somehow work in the 21st Century, but their real objective is to remove our elected Government's ability to oppose their Corporate Masters.


Agreed. Our government is still limited by the specified powers outlined in the Constitution. But our founding fathers wanted a more powerful federal government. I think the word they used was "energetic." The Articles of Confederation were far too weak to help our country function properly. 

 

Limited powers just means not "all powerful," like a dictator. It does NOT mean federal government should be small, which is how I think many interpret it. When you've got 350 million people of hugely varied wealth and needs, spanning different geography/natural resources, you "need" a big centralized government to meet the needs of all Americans. 


Republicans ALL signed up for the Norquest Pledge, which wants Government "small enough that you could drown it in the bathtub", and the 40% of the GOP that are Teabaggers state repeatedly they favor replacing the Federeal Government with increased powers for the States, JUST LIKE THE CONFEDERACY HAD, and for the same reasons.


No, no. They want a government that stays within a budget. Just like any responsible family would do. If you make x amount of dollars, you don't spend x times 100.

Just like any responsible family, cuts are hard, but MUST be made.

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
222
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
237
Views

Re: Obamacare - The UN-Affordable Care Act

237 Views
Message 3 of 25

@Olderscout66 wrote:

@NerdyMom wrote:

@Olderscout66 wrote:

The notion of "limited Government" was embodied in the Articles of Confederation, which proved grossly inadequate to Govern our  Nation in the 18th Century. Republicans try and pretend it will somehow work in the 21st Century, but their real objective is to remove our elected Government's ability to oppose their Corporate Masters.


Agreed. Our government is still limited by the specified powers outlined in the Constitution. But our founding fathers wanted a more powerful federal government. I think the word they used was "energetic." The Articles of Confederation were far too weak to help our country function properly. 

 

Limited powers just means not "all powerful," like a dictator. It does NOT mean federal government should be small, which is how I think many interpret it. When you've got 350 million people of hugely varied wealth and needs, spanning different geography/natural resources, you "need" a big centralized government to meet the needs of all Americans. 


Republicans ALL signed up for the Norquest Pledge, which wants Government "small enough that you could drown it in the bathtub", and the 40% of the GOP that are Teabaggers state repeatedly they favor replacing the Federeal Government with increased powers for the States, JUST LIKE THE CONFEDERACY HAD, and for the same reasons.


Considering that the pledge is all about not increasing the federal (or if you prefer "Federeal") budget, you must think that the current budget must small enough to drown in a bath tub. Or....you were wrong. I'll let you determine which.

 

I have no idea who "Teabaggers" are but I can say that those to the right of Che Guevara would prefer to see the Constitutional approach to the separation of powers. There is no need to revive the Confederacy - the Constitution will do just fine.

 

As to "for the same reason", I can assure you that this "right of Che" guy has no interest in growing cotton if that is what you had in mind.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
237
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
260
Views

Re: Obamacare - The UN-Affordable Care Act

260 Views
Message 4 of 25

@NerdyMom wrote:

@Olderscout66 wrote:

The notion of "limited Government" was embodied in the Articles of Confederation, which proved grossly inadequate to Govern our  Nation in the 18th Century. Republicans try and pretend it will somehow work in the 21st Century, but their real objective is to remove our elected Government's ability to oppose their Corporate Masters.


Agreed. Our government is still limited by the specified powers outlined in the Constitution. But our founding fathers wanted a more powerful federal government. I think the word they used was "energetic." The Articles of Confederation were far too weak to help our country function properly. 

 

Limited powers just means not "all powerful," like a dictator. It does NOT mean federal government should be small, which is how I think many interpret it. When you've got 350 million people of hugely varied wealth and needs, spanning different geography/natural resources, you "need" a big centralized government to meet the needs of all Americans. 


Republicans ALL signed up for the Norquest Pledge, which wants Government "small enough that you could drown it in the bathtub", and the 40% of the GOP that are Teabaggers state repeatedly they favor replacing the Federeal Government with increased powers for the States, JUST LIKE THE CONFEDERACY HAD, and for the same reasons.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
260
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
263
Views

Re: Obamacare - The UN-Affordable Care Act

263 Views
Message 5 of 25

@Olderscout66 wrote:

The notion of "limited Government" was embodied in the Articles of Confederation, which proved grossly inadequate to Govern our  Nation in the 18th Century. Republicans try and pretend it will somehow work in the 21st Century, but their real objective is to remove our elected Government's ability to oppose their Corporate Masters.


Agreed. Our government is still limited by the specified powers outlined in the Constitution. But our founding fathers wanted a more powerful federal government. I think the word they used was "energetic." The Articles of Confederation were far too weak to help our country function properly. 

 

Limited powers just means not "all powerful," like a dictator. It does NOT mean federal government should be small, which is how I think many interpret it. When you've got 350 million people of hugely varied wealth and needs, spanning different geography/natural resources, you "need" a big centralized government to meet the needs of all Americans. 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
263
Views
Trusted Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
263
Views

Obamacare - The Affordable Care Act

263 Views
Message 6 of 25

1. Obamacare is NOT Socialsim. 100% of all insurance on the exchanges are provided by PRIVATE companies.

 

2. The big problem with Obamacare are the State Exchanges because in many smaller states there is little or no competition.

 

3. The solution to problem number 2 above is easy. Eliminate the State Exchanges, go with one National Exchange, and promote competition across state lines.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
263
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
272
Views

Re: Obamacare - The UN-Affordable Care Act

272 Views
Message 7 of 25

The notion of "limited Government" was embodied in the Articles of Confederation, which proved grossly inadequate to Govern our  Nation in the 18th Century. Republicans try and pretend it will somehow work in the 21st Century, but their real objective is to remove our elected Government's ability to oppose their Corporate Masters.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
272
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
273
Views

Re: Obamacare - The UN-Affordable Care Act

273 Views
Message 8 of 25

AARP defends PPACA because its best for Seniors and all Americans.

 

Since the ACA prevents the Insurance industry from screwing the American public, Republicans oppose it. The GOPer replacement is nothing but another scheme to give tax money to the wealthy by taking it from the poor and allowing the sale of worthless policies that ACA banned.

 

The figures from the CBO clearly demonstrate the inferiority of the Ryan plan for all but the wealthy.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
273
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
275
Views

Re: Obamacare - The UN-Affordable Care Act

275 Views
Message 9 of 25

My question is, as to why no one is actually considering the only thing that could provide 100% to all Americans> A single Payer, or Universal Care.
Why are so many still saying that Universal care is "socialism"  do they actually understand those words or they simply repeating them as a label?
So, we are going back to the samo samo.

Many will not have health insurance because it is their right to do so. but apparently it is also their right to go to a Emergency Room incurring  all kinds of costs and I as a tax payer be the one that pays for it.
I guess the people that want that to happen are the ones that have no intention on paying for anything in this country and having me to pay for their problems.
Those are the real mouchers of this country. Those are the ones that have no responsibilty of their actions or accountability. But, expect me to save their behind when they get into trouble.
Well,  will agree with this Health care if they assure me that no one that doesn't have any insurance will not be able to have any kind of medical attention until they bring their wallets with them

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
275
Views
Bronze Conversationalist
1
Kudos
280
Views

Re: Obamacare - The UN-Affordable Care Act

280 Views
Message 10 of 25

Why is AARP so vigourous in defense of socialism and Obama and his un-affordable care act?  Aside from advancing the lies of the "so-called Progressive narrative" could it be that AARP agressively defends Obama Care BECAUSE AARP is actually IN the insurance business and has a strong financial interest in perpetuating this fiscal disaster???

 

The talking points in response to my earlier post all a continuation of the Obama Administrations biased and untrue manipulation of so-called "facts" and statistics that were used and manipulated to advance this take-overe of 1/6 of the US economy and to exercise more - moving toward unfettered control over the lives of ordinary Americans.

 

AARP is neither unbiased nor non-partisan - clearly advocates for progressive Democratic Socialism...sad, very sad...

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
280
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Open Enrollment: Oct 15-Dec 7, 2019 Find resources to help you decide on the best healthcare insurance plans for you during Open Enrollment season

Top Authors