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

CTEd wrote:

<quoted text>
Don't disagree waste, pork, lobbyists, it all sucks.
A group of republicans is pusing another term limits bill - 12 years for senators, 6 for house. No way they'll get the 2/3 majority they need though. Sad.

Screw parties, two term max limits should be an across the board constitutional amendment for the House, Senate and White House.

No one is that good that they need more.

They could always shift between each house or branch and they'd win if they were good enough. If not. Retire.

Former Republican wrote:

<quoted text>
You got that right. Much of this is nothing more than political maneuvering to keep the ad money coming, on both sides. Meanwhile, the majority of us who want affordable healthcare are in the waiting room, waiting, waiting, waiting...

speak Spanish that usually works

independent voter Joliet wrote:

<quoted text>
And the government can't figure out how to get the 10% without insurance insured without taking down the 90% what a bunch of losers..

What health insurance company do you work for?

CTEd wrote:

<quoted text>
Don't disagree waste, pork, lobbyists, it all sucks.
A group of republicans is pusing another term limits bill - 12 years for senators, 6 for house. No way they'll get the 2/3 majority they need though. Sad.

Why don't they go for 100% publicly funded campaigns if they are so interested in having a better Congress? Instead, RepublicRats like those on the SC are working hard to let corporations give MORE money to purchase pols.

Get the money out of campaigns and you have a more responsive Congress. Otherwise, it is all just a bunch of garbage meant to disguise their true purpose. Sad is that you are buying it.

RepublicRats love having a bunch of extremist House members bought and paid for by corporations. They are a bunch of lackeys and nothing more.

Vance1 wrote:

The lazy and weak adore entitlements!!!!
and that is exactly who wants them... end of story

You mean like AIG, GM, and Chrysler?

CTEd wrote:

<quoted text>
Don't disagree waste, pork, lobbyists, it all sucks.
A group of republicans is pusing another term limits bill - 12 years for senators, 6 for house. No way they'll get the 2/3 majority they need though. Sad.

Term limist? Ask Bloomberg if he gave a shit about term limits.

Mykro wrote:

<quoted text>Term limist? Ask Bloomberg if he gave a shit about term limits.

Bloomberg is an independent, retard.

Former Republican wrote:

<quoted text>
Another interesting thing about Danish taxes. They tax almost double the percentage of GDP that we do--50% compared to our 28%--yet Denmark's investment markets have been outperforming ours for at least a decade, their currency is stronger than ours, their unemployment level is lower, their job security is better, and their healthcare is as good as ours yet far cheaper. And then there's the four weeks of vacation!
What's more, the Danes got smart after the Arab oil embargoes of the 1970s and invested in clean power. Now the country no longer imports a drop of oil.
We could do all that as well...except that, unlike the Danes, we allow unlimited televised political advertising, which means that everyone in national politics needs a huge TV ad budget to get elected and stay elected. So we have a government owned by our largest industries.
We could change that.

Let's see, you want to compare Denmark to the US, why not compare it to Texas. Texas is 16 times as large as Denmark with over 4 times the population. Texas is energy independent.
Texas produces onshore 1.09 million barrels of oil per day and has 31% of the nations wind power.

Four States (Texas, Alaska, California, and Louisiana) produced 52% of total U.S. crude oil production in 2007. About 25 percent was produced on Federal Offshore-leases in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM), and the remaining 23 percent was produced in 24 other States and on Federal leases off the Pacific Coast (mainly California).

Also, in 2004, 2005 and 2006 Denmark's unemployment was higher that that in the US.

ritedownthemiddle wrote:

<quoted text>Bloomberg is an independent, retard.

A lifelong Democrat before seeking elective office, Bloomberg switched his registration in 2001 and ran for mayor as a Republican, winning the election that year and a second term in 2005. He was frequently mentioned as a possible independent candidate for the 2008 presidential election and fueled that speculation when he left the Republican Party in June 2007 to become an independent.

Bloomberg doesn't know what he is!

A Nnoyed wrote:

Former Republican, they don't need a military because we spent decades protecting them from the triple-c-p and they don't need one now because we've got their back.
Maybe we shouldn't, but it's something you can't ignore in the discussion.

True enough, but conservatives tend to overstate the cost of our military, which accounts for only 4.8% of US GDP vs 2.2-2.6% in most European nations. In addition, most of our military spending of late has been wasted on Iraq. However you may feel about America's right to invade that country, or whatever benefits we derived from that ongoing occupation, one can't count that as needed military spending that underwrites Europeans.

More than once I've heard American conservatives sniff at the high economic performance of Europeans, Australians, Canadians and so on, saying that it's all due to our noble assumption of their defense. Nothing could be further from the truth.

However, consider this. While our nation spends an extra 2% of GDP on our military, we spend an extra 9% of GDP on our healthcare relative to those other countries. If you're looking for a reason that these nations have more to invest in capital and in their people, follow the money; you'll see that it leads straight to health care, not to the military.

Check out this video on healthcare reform: http://tinyurl.com/yl5d2ax

Robert Newell wrote:

<quoted text>
A lifelong Democrat before seeking elective office, Bloomberg switched his registration in 2001 and ran for mayor as a Republican, winning the election that year and a second term in 2005. He was frequently mentioned as a possible independent candidate for the 2008 presidential election and fueled that speculation when he left the Republican Party in June 2007 to become an independent.
Bloomberg doesn't know what he is!

Exactly. That was basically my point to the guy using him as an example.

Former Republican wrote:

<quoted text>

More than once I've heard American conservatives sniff at the high economic performance of Europeans

what high economic performance? double digit unemployment is considered normal in half of Europe.

It's like states. Some have great track records, some not so great. There isn't a whole lot of difference overall. I've lived in both and worked in both. Some things are better here, some there.

Europhiles are a strange bunch of navel gazers. The grass is always greener somewhere else. Until you move there at least.

A Nnoyed wrote:

<quoted text>
what high economic performance? double digit unemployment is considered normal in half of Europe.

Yes, economic outperformance. The Fidelity Nordic ETF (NASDAQ: FNORX) gained 3.12% over the past ten years. The US S&P 500 (NYSE: SPY) lost 21.5% over the same period.

During the same time, the dollar dropped about 30% in value against the Danish krone. Unemployment in the US is nearly double that of Denmark, and our unemployment rate has exceeded theirs for years. Furthermore, Danish unemployment is a breeze: benefits are 90% of pay for up to four years and include health care, compared to six months at 25% of pay here, without health care.

This isn’t to say Denmark is perfect, but it—and the rest of the shamelessly socialistic Nordic countries—show us that investing in people pays dividends. Giving the rich a free hand to pillage does not.

It's like states. Some have great track records, some not so great.

I'm sure you could find a couple of US states with growth rates and economic indicators to match or better that.

How about Spain? how they doing. Or the eastern european countries. Or England? France has race riots and a permanent unemployment problem.

Sorry but you're ridiculous.

Regardless we could never be like a tiny little country where issues are more easily dealt with. A state, yes. 50 states, ain't gonna happen.

We're the equivalent of Citigroup, too big to maneouver.

One day this entire situation, with all it's programs and those people who put these disastrous plans into action, will have it all, I mean the entire filthy stinking mess, explode in their faces. 75% will NOT be re-elected.

Oregon Is Disgusting wrote:

<quoted text>
What health insurance company do you work for?

none actually I am looking for a job however know of any that are hiring?? But than I think working at a Pharmaceutical or Hospital would pay much more since they make MORE profits than Insurance companies..However TOP JOB with all the BEST PERKS.. POLITICIAN.. 44% of Congress are MILLIONAIRES.. now how lucky is that?? the other 56% are the NEW BEES but well on their way..

Oregon Is Disgusting wrote:

<quoted text>
Why don't they go for 100% publicly funded campaigns if they are so interested in having a better Congress? Instead, RepublicRats like those on the SC are working hard to let corporations give MORE money to purchase pols.
Get the money out of campaigns and you have a more responsive Congress. Otherwise, it is all just a bunch of garbage meant to disguise their true purpose. Sad is that you are buying it.
RepublicRats love having a bunch of extremist House members bought and paid for by corporations. They are a bunch of lackeys and nothing more.

And the Republicans would come out ahead on this HOW?? Term limits AND public funding ONLY would be the best way to go.. hey they are all for leveling all the playing fields on us well maybe it's time to level it on them too.. come on folks you have to realize fair is fair..

Oregon Is Disgusting wrote:

<quoted text>
Why don't they go for 100% publicly funded campaigns if they are so interested in having a better Congress? Instead, RepublicRats like those on the SC are working hard to let corporations give MORE money to purchase pols.
Get the money out of campaigns and you have a more responsive Congress. Otherwise, it is all just a bunch of garbage meant to disguise their true purpose. Sad is that you are buying it.
RepublicRats love having a bunch of extremist House members bought and paid for by corporations. They are a bunch of lackeys and nothing more.

HUh? How am I buying it? Saying term limits is better than no term limits is somehowing buying into something. I don't get it.

Mykro wrote:

<quoted text>Term limist? Ask Bloomberg if he gave a shit about term limits.

This would be an amendment - harder to overturn that that. You don't think term limits is a good idea - youd' rather have no term limits at all than term limits that might someday be removed?

That makes no sense.