Private Health Insurance the "Worst Product in American History": Former Industry Shill

CTEd wrote:

<quoted text>
Traslation:
"anyone who doesn't agree with my specific points of view on abortion, gays, minorities and my right to vioulate the free speech of others isn't a REAL AMERICAN."
Keep dreaming.

First, you need to agree on the points and views concerning yourself. "You are one, dumb, ignorant, SOB. Do you agree?

Dummies R Dummies wrote:

<quoted text>Is everyone from MA a Dummie, or is it just you? And Bawney Fwank...

I'm right on, and you all know its the truth. You people are so afraid and jealous of Obama, you are the dummies, not me. Dont equate me with franks I hate Homo's.

Mr_Bill wrote:

<quoted text>
What you say is normal, conventional wisdom.
But, in these troubles times, the GOP has been taken over by a gang of un-American crazies. The real republicans have been pushed out by lying neo-conservatives and Satanist 'religious rightists.'
Ther is no conventional wisdom for a party that only saya NO; and acts and votes against the National Interest, and the people.

Hey, all I want is at one of the 3 controlled by an opposition party to keep lunacy at bay. We had all one party through the 00s and it got nutso with tons of debt. We've got all one party now and it's been a freak show with projected doubling down of the debt.

There needs to be a natural brake because I don't think fillibuster (emergency brake) is the way forward. Compromise is the way to ensure the public gets a fair shake. They didn't under the last administration and the current one could care less about anyone but themselves.

CTEd wrote:

<quoted text>
the top 1 percent control over 80% of the wealth. How are we going to "Unite" with that kind of dispartiy?
are 80% of the country just welfare leeches rr perhaps are CEOs not really worth HUNDREDS of millions of dollars PER YEAR?
The middle class is getting screwed. Used to be you could have a stay at homs spouse and live ok. Now you can have a masters degree and good job and can't have two kids and stay at home wife and have any hope of putting those kids through college.
Productivity of the american worker is up 10 fold or more, while real purchasing power is DOWN since the 50's. Corprate american is screwing the middle class.
What is your vision of "uniting"

thank your government and your federal reserve.

CTEd wrote:

<quoted text>
What has obama done that is more divisive than Iraq, the patriot act, torture, imprisonment without trial, Sneak and peek searches, or gigantic financial bailouts?

he could put an end to all of them.
i'll hold my breath.

A Nnoyed wrote:

<quoted text>
There needs to be a natural brake because I don't think illibuster (emergency brake) is the way forward. Compromise is the way to ensure the public gets a fair shake. They didn't under the last administration and the current one could care less about anyone but themselves.

they compromised on the bailouts didn't they?
adherence to the constitution is the only way the public will get a fair shake.

partisan pukes wrote:

<quoted text>
they compromised on the bailouts didn't they?

Just like in the movies, it took a 5 mile wide meteor hurtling at the earth for people to come together. Or nasty aliens wanting to destroy us.

The only thing that did it was a situation where everyone was facing impending doom regardless of party.

Robert Newell wrote:

<quoted text>
Bill Clinton started with
4,188,092,107,183.60 not 5.4 trillion you can't start at the beginning of his second term, and then say he served two terms.
Bill Clinton didn't have 9-11 to pay for, or Katrina or two wars.<quoted text> Unemployment was at 4.4% in October 2006 before the Democrats passes a bill raising minimum wage 31% over two years. <quoted text>
But you sure are good at twisting numbers.
I used your source on debt and for unemployment I used:
http://www.miseryindex.us/urbymonth.asp
I'm sorry I don't have time to correct your misspellings.

Clinton averaged less than 200 Million over 8 years, the last 4 years, 1997 to 2001 there was zero budget deficits.

Over the first 4 years, the budget deficit averaged 400 Billion a year.

The total of debt in Clinton's 2 terms was 1.4 Trillion.

George Bush 2008-2009 Budget Deficit was 1.4 Trillion.

Bush put 4 Times the amount of debt on America as Clinton over the same period of time.

The Wars were unnecessary and all of the accounting has not been completed and there is a problem with accountability for the cost of the Wars, as already determined by the Department of Defense.

After 9/11 Bush created a mirage and employment seemed steady form seasonal jobs in construction and the huge Military Industrial Complex jobs build up, the war was profitable for Defense Contractors not that I would complain about that.

Credit was loosen to promote the Failed Consumer Economy, people were refinancing their homes, the Financial Services Industry was hiring to meet the demands, we all know that part of the Bush Policies involved reducing interest rates. As a result of promoting the Consumer Economy we all know how that ended.

The unemployment rate was 4.2% when he came into office and was over 8.0% when he left office, the Financial Services Industry was in a state of Collapes, the Country was Bankrupt. We went from 268,000 jobs created a month to loosing 750,000 jobs a month.

How you consider this with the aggregate of more than 7 million jobs in the private sector loss a success suggest we went to diffrent schools.

You consider that fudging the numbers? How? On top of that the House of Representatives where the Minimum Wage bill was initiated was pass inside of yet another Iraq Spending bill. The Republican fought against raising Minimum Wages in the Country, the bill would not pass the democrats had the measure included as a condition on voting to approve the Iraq Emergency spending proposal, that was a reward for the democrats.

If the economy was booming as you say what would have been the harm in raising the minimum wage from $4.25 an hour?

How many people do you know manage to sustain themselves off of $4.25 an hour? That isn't doable if a person had two jobs in America.

partisan pukes wrote:

<quoted text>
he could put an end to all of them.
i'll hold my breath.

He tried to close Gitmo. He can't just up and end Iraq overnight, and i'm not sure what he can do about TARP - it was passed and signed into law.

All of these require congress. I'd prefer he peldge not to use certain aspects of the patriot act, but I like the direction we're heading - if not getting their as fast as i'd prefer.

Chicago Guy wrote:

<quoted text>
And what about the 40 million who simply cannot afford insurance?
What about the people who lose their house and life savings because they get sick and the insurance company refuses a claim?
Let me guess. Not your problem, right?
Fits perfectly with my suggested motto for the modern GOP:
"Fuck You. I Got Mine."

Why not keep the old initiials, and use the term that best expresses the Republicans' attitudes toward the big insurance companies, corporations, and financial institutions: "Go On Profiteering."

A Nnoyed wrote:

<quoted text>
The only thing that did it was a situation where everyone was facing impending doom regardless of party.

proof?

CTEd wrote:

<quoted text>
He tried to close Gitmo. He can't just up and end Iraq overnight, and i'm not sure what he can do about TARP - it was passed and signed into law.
All of these require congress. I'd prefer he peldge not to use certain aspects of the patriot act, but I like the direction we're heading - if not getting their as fast as i'd prefer.

So glad to meet you on here. I find myself so often in a mdoerate center left part of the political spectrum - joining with any sort of commenter in the rational center, or on the left, in being against the ultra-right-wing extremists, but insisting that not all republicans or conservatives are terrible, and that some on the left are too way out.

I suspect that the varieties of views on the left need to be more accommodating to each other - the right-wing always seems to be able to get together - maybe because they share so much of a venomous attitude, in my view. There seems to be a greater difference in viewpoints between those of us in different parts of teh left, or different types of left - for example, I am anti-gay marriage because I am for separatio of church and state, and want the term civil union for all couples, and the term marriage to have no legal or governmental application. yet there are gay rights advocates who think that being deprived of teh wrod marriage is a terrible discrimination against them, and they want to get churches to accept them too. Whereas, I think if the church oes not accept them, why should they accept the church. I think there are endless qauibbles on the left, and we need to work out sensible compromises, based on rational middle positions, that do not violate anyone's most important principles.

partisan pukes wrote:

<quoted text>
proof?

Ask Henry Paulson, he was the one who said the sky was falling and only he could hold it up, and he had to be made economic dictator, with no oversight or court review. I'm guessing that was what you were discussing. What other disaster, if not?

It is amazing that the folks who complain about trusting government, are totally naive in trusting private enterprise.

Thanks Devin, again. appreciate the statistics and details, but most of all the point about unnecessary wars - did I interpret the use of the plural correctly?- are you opposed to escalation in Af-Pak, also?

partisan pukes wrote:

<quoted text>
they compromised on the bailouts didn't they?
adherence to the constitution is the only way the public will get a fair shake.

You want your interpretation of the Constitution. Some of us are opposed to the right-wing judicial activism - as in the Lily Ledbetter case, and others. But perhaps we would agree in supporting more emphasis on civil liberties, and on less usurpation of power by the Executive - especially under Bush and Cheney, most of all.

progressive wrote:

<quoted text> You want your interpretation of the Constitution. Some of us are opposed to the right-wing judicial activism - as in the Lily Ledbetter case, and others. But perhaps we would agree in supporting more emphasis on civil liberties, and on less usurpation of power by the Executive - especially under Bush and Cheney, most of all.

my "interpretation" of the constitution?
it's not in french. only those dismayed by the limits on power struggle with clearly written document. i am against judicial activism by either wing, as there is really only one party in this country.

progressive wrote:

I suspect that the varieties of views on the left need to be more accommodating to each other - the right-wing always seems to be able to get together - maybe because they share so much of a venomous attitude, in my view. There seems to be a greater difference in viewpoints between those of us in different parts of teh left, or different types of left - for example, I am anti-gay marriage because I am for separatio of church and state, and want the term civil union for all couples, and the term marriage to have no legal or governmental application. yet there are gay rights advocates who think that being deprived of teh wrod marriage is a terrible discrimination against them, and they want to get churches to accept them too. Whereas, I think if the church oes not accept them, why should they accept the church. I think there are endless qauibbles on the left, and we need to work out sensible compromises, based on rational middle positions, that do not violate anyone's most important principles.

I slightly disagree but this isn't a gay marraige forum - so I'll it let go but yes - everyone get civil unions - should have been that way from the start.

progressive wrote:

<quoted text> Ask Henry Paulson, he was the one who said the sky was falling and only he could hold it up, and he had to be made economic dictator, with no oversight or court review. I'm guessing that was what you were discussing. What other disaster, if not?

where's the proof?
you believe paulson? i don't either.
it wasn't just paulson. bush, reid, pelosi, mccain, obama all declared it necessary too. yet, now they fight an audit?(hr 1207)
and now we have paulsons lap dog, geithner. some change.
congress did not have to approve it, twice.