Australian voters would deliver Obama landslide victory

Judged:

1

1

Gottaliv wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes well, Doctor's here who Bulk Bill Medicare are pretty hard to find these days and much has now got to be paid for when using the Public Hospital system too. Queensland used to have the absolute best Hospital service of any of the States (that's if you didn't die on the waiting list first) but since Labour got its hands on us we've gone down the drain and out to sea. It throws a bit of token money at a few Hospitals to improve the buildings but the staffing problem is huge. Labour only delegates a certain amount of positions for Doctors and Nurses to be trained in Australia and gets real busy importing foreign staff (mostly Indians who can't diagnose and who we can't understand)...
What Labour is doing now, it's promising billions of dollars ($180b +++) it doesn't have, towards a Disability Insurance scheme and a Dental scheme... making them look like a 'caring' government - thus, when it gets ousted next year (which it will and it knows it will) it will leave Tony Abbott with a hugely massive debt which he won't be able to correct without causing us much much much (in fact a bloody helluv a lot) of pain... and people being the brain-dead morons they are will then blame Abbott for cutting back on everything. It will take decades to get back in the black - if ever!

Judged:

2

2

2

Teaman wrote:

<quoted text>
"Full of fraud and waste?
Can you be specific?"
http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2...
The federal government only has an overworked FBI to combat fraud. Most states already have insurance fraud units due to car insurance fraud.
"I googled and, and found NOTHING of this...can you provide the link?"
Here's one. One cannot rely on medicare alone.@05 will come out of pocket through a private supplementary plan. When you are on medicare you will also be collecting social security. A portion of you pension will be taken to help pay for the medicare coverage.
http://www.ussa.us.com/medicare-info

Judged:

2

1

1

Snow Bunny_ wrote:

<quoted text>
1. Fraud accounts for less then 3%
Did you miss that part?
2. You 80% is only on part B, not part A, D or C!
So, 80% of part B is covered!
That is not medcaid in general!
MOSTLY, this is why we need universal style heath care!
3. It's voluntary to get the extra insurance!

Judged:

1

1

1

Snow Bunny_ wrote:

<quoted text>
1. Fraud accounts for less then 3%
Did you miss that part?
2. You 80% is only on part B, not part A, D or C!
So, 80% of part B is covered!
That is not medcaid in general!
MOSTLY, this is why we need universal style heath care!
3. It's voluntary to get the extra insurance!

Gottaliv wrote:

<quoted text>
It's voluntary here too but Labour's bought in that if you don't have Private Insurance you will pay even more in extra tax.. even though our taxes are already paying for the Public Health scheme!
That old saying "The poor man always pays twice" sort of comes to mind...

Judged:

1

1

spud the gringo wrote:

<quoted text>Just imagine how good you could make yourself look if you could barrow 2 trillion dollars a year and spend it on all kinds of freebies that people love. The bigger question is how long can you do that before your currency becomes worthless, your pension obligations become unpayable and people start rioting in the streets for what they have been promised? What is happening in Greece can happen in the US.

Teaman wrote:

<quoted text>
Sometimes you confuse me, Ahomana. You trash Julia Gillard, but her policies are in line with Obama. They are two peas in a pod. All of the carbon tax and other issues you're against is supported by Obama.
The money for car companies went right into union pension funds. The union turns around and donates to Obama's campaign. GM ended up filing bankruptcy in the end anyway after all of that money spent which is what Romney was calling for at the time. Chrysler secured a private loan after partnering with Fiat and paid the government back. Ford never took a government bailout.
No question a lot of problems were dumped in his lap. The point is he didn't do anything about it but cry baby about Bush. We don't like cry babies. The unemployment is higher now than when he took office. He is in way over his head.

Judged:

1

Ahomana wrote:

<quoted text>
I trash Gillard because she conspired to oust her leader in his first term, she was in his office lying to his face just hours before both she and his treasure and so called loyal collegues blindsided him...I was brought up to be loyal to my mates and to let them know what is coming...She showed him no loyalty. We don't chose the leader of the party what we do, do is see them put someone up as leader to win favour with the people and Rudd did this he won the 2007 election with and overwhelming majority the biggest in history he didn't deserve to be treated like that....yes we have always had leaders challenged during their terms in office and they know it is happening.....none of this dumping of My mate Kevvy followed this decent and honest course...he didn't even know it was coming.....that is bad form and anyone who participated in such a decietful act against our PM when both him and his office should be treated with more respect by their own parties on behalf of the people......
Then we have a carbon tax that she clearly stated she wouldn't introduce...she comitted fraud against the Australian public by renigging on a promise made to get her into office. And to be truthful I am just as critical of the Libs....but they are not in government they can not and do not do anything but what they should do at the moment and that is opose....Don't forget we overwhelmingly voted against the Howard government for their lies and deciet, seems that Labor didn't learn from Howards mistakes...I don't care if my PM is male or female white or black left or right but I do expect a sense of truth and decency and that has been sadly sliding down the sewer tube for decades...and it needs to be righted and Gillard is and has added to those lies and denegrated her office...so I want her and anyone like her out...and she is on her way....

Teaman wrote:

<quoted text>
I see, I didn't know that could be done. How can a publicly elected official and leader be ousted by a party caucus? I would like to be educated in this area not being familiar with that form of government. It seems the party elected someone over the will of the public. That can be done here, but the speaker of the house has no power beyond the house. He was elected leader of the house by the majority of his party members.

Judged:

2

2

1

Ahomana wrote:

<quoted text>
Well it certainly can and has been done to My mate Kev.....the party chooses who they want to lead them and then go to the polls with that person as the one most likely to apeal to both the party and the public....we then vote on the party we wan't where more often than not the voter is swayed by the persona of the party leader but the party alones has the power to change the leader as they see fit.
In the case of my mate though he was not pre warned nor had any othe PM been dumped in their first term ever, which rather negated the voters preference and genuine like for Kevvy, this caused a backlash against those who decietfully ousted him and his second in command (Gillard) who proceeded to take on his job. People although they know they don't vote for the PM directly as leader, felt disgusted at the way he and the office of PM was treated by those who wanted him to get them in, and then change to their internal choice of leader that didn't have the charrisma that Rudd had at the time....She has since been challenged by Rudd inside the party for leader and up against the same crew voting that ousted him in the first place, so was never going to be successful....He is now relegated to the back of the class and wheeled out everytime they need someone to help them improve their bad PR.

Ahomana wrote:

<quoted text>
Well it certainly can and has been done to My mate Kev.....the party chooses who they want to lead them and then go to the polls with that person as the one most likely to apeal to both the party and the public....we then vote on the party we wan't where more often than not the voter is swayed by the persona of the party leader but the party alones has the power to change the leader as they see fit.
In the case of my mate though he was not pre warned nor had any othe PM been dumped in their first term ever, which rather negated the voters preference and genuine like for Kevvy, this caused a backlash against those who decietfully ousted him and his second in command (Gillard) who proceeded to take on his job. People although they know they don't vote for the PM directly as leader, felt disgusted at the way he and the office of PM was treated by those who wanted him to get them in, and then change to their internal choice of leader that didn't have the charrisma that Rudd had at the time....She has since been challenged by Rudd inside the party for leader and up against the same crew voting that ousted him in the first place, so was never going to be successful....He is now relegated to the back of the class and wheeled out everytime they need someone to help them improve their bad PR.

Teaman wrote:

<quoted text>
So the majority of the lower house elects the prime minister and effectively runs the country. Does the minority party have any say in government? The minority party here can use a filibuster as long as the majority has less than a two thirds majority. It takes two thirds to end a filibuster. I'm assuming all of the parliament members represent districts in the country and are voted in by the people.
I know your system is constructed very close to ours. The senate or upper house represent the states as ours do or is supposed to and your states have their own governments as do ours. Can they change a law passed by the lower house? The election of just one man in our senate changed the outcome of the healthcare bill.
Does the Governor General have any power? Can she override the parliament?

Judged:

1

1

1

Ahomana wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes I get your point, Obama and his government with the approval of your congress has spent a lot of money.
How much did Bush waste on a war that should never have happened....how much did he clock up when in government and don't forget the sub prime was in full gear under his watch? Put things into perspective you have millions of people out of work, and you are recovering (hopefully) from one of the worst events in history....mistakes will be made and money will be wasted simply trying to find ways of reinventing yourself.
Greece can happen anywhere the only difference between them and the US is that Greece does not have much industry they don't have the kind of mineral wealth of the US and it doesn't have people who will work for(almost nothing in some cases) anything other than a decent wage,......they joined a market that they couldn't afford to be in.

Judged:

1

1

1

Gottaliv wrote:

<quoted text>
if you don't have Private Insurance you will pay even more in extra tax.. even though our taxes are already paying for the Public Health scheme!
That old saying "The poor man always pays twice" sort of comes to mind...

Judged:

1

1

1

Teaman wrote:

<quoted text>
Of course it's voluntary.

Teaman wrote:

<quoted text>
The point is you need it unless you want 1950's medicine..

Teaman wrote:

<quoted text>
Obamacare is going to be more of the same thing.

Teaman wrote:

<quoted text>
That's why AARP is behind Obamacare. They stand to make a lot of money with supplementary plans.

Teaman wrote:

<quoted text>
Part B is where Obama robbed 700 billion dollars from.

Teaman wrote:

<quoted text>
More out of pocket expenses.

Teaman wrote:

<quoted text>
The other plans you definatly need to buy a supplementary plan because they cover even less. That's a voluntary need. You're crazy not to.

over it wrote:

<quoted text>
the GG dismissed the PM of australia in 1975.
http://australia.gov.au/about-australia/austr...

Snow Bunny_ wrote:

<quoted text>I know:)
<quoted text>LIE!
Scare tactics propaganda!
....proof please?
I'll be waiting!
<quoted text>Proof please?
No?
<quoted text>Proof please:)
<quoted text>The 700 billion REDUCTION is NOT a cut, but a REDUCTION over a ten year span!
Which leads me to ask....what do you think of Ryan's plan to CUT 700 billion directly from medicaid himself, immediately, and not over a ten year span?
Hypocritical....eh?
<quoted text>LIE!
Proof please:)
<quoted text>LIE!!!
Do you realize everything you posted is propaganda!?
Come back with a RELIABLE unbiased source...then I'll take you seriously. Until then, you're just flapping gums.

Judged:

2

2

spud the gringo wrote:

<quoted text>Bush was an idiot too. It seems like you have to be an idiot and a yes man for the media to recognize you as a viable candidate these days. Good guys with good ideas like Ron Paul scare the media. He threatened their flow of corrupt, easy money. It's no wonder they went out of their way to marginalize his candidacy.

Philth wrote:

<quoted text>
Fark off d1ckhead and stop talking about things you know fark all about, are the aborigines being ignored when they get given free housing, medical, education, tax free royalties, aboriginal only land where everyone else needs a permit to access, jobs for aboriginals only to apply? Fark off d1ckhead and go shoot up a batman movie coz you are a no friends loser as well