mccain's vp

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

You're unsatisfied each time with the candidates, and it's mainly because you aren't ever gunna get a candidate for President with your desired views on the issues. You're liberal socially, but don't believe in any kind of economic justice whatsoever. Then, you add in that you're against gun control. You seem to be a believer in keeping insurance companies involved in healthcare. I would say you're a Republican that's too liberal socially to ever be happy with their candidates. You're close to being an Orange County Republican, but they are still too conservative socially for you. You usually seem to go with the Republican candidate, because you love them guns so dearly.

actually, i've probably voted for more democrats over the years than republicans, since you have to consider state and local levels as well. i'm not quite sure what you mean about any kind of economic justice whatsoever-that could gover a myriad of topics. as for healthcare, i have no idea what system would work best. it's funny regarding healthcare in that when i hire people and mention the benefits package, they're gung ho about it. then when it's time at 90 days to fill out all the paperwork, the insurance is invariably turned down. why? it's not required, and they pay part of it. so, those who have it pay more (the more in the pool, the cheaper per person) and those who don't end up wishing they'd gotten it when they had the chance. because if you get it at 90 days, no waiting period, no preexisting conditions apply. i had a girl just toss the whole packet, which also includes short term disability. a few months later she found out she was pregnant, that part of the coverage would have paid her while she was off work once she had to take off, and until she came back.

i don't know why the employers ever became the ones to pick up most of the coverage. not sure how the system ever got to the point it has-but when you see the fraud, waste and abuse in our current govt handled programs, just how well would universal healthcare work?

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Put it to ya in a very basic way. If there was more economic justice(especially in your area of the country,) then they would gladly participate in getting the medical insurance they need. I would like this to be treated as a necessity, and not as something like a cable bill, or car insurance. You don't need cable or a car to survive, but medical care is a necessity. Notice how you don't complain about people not paying their police bill, their fire bill, or their national defense bill? To me it's a necessity like the police dept., the fire dept., and national defense. Most other countries treat medical care that way. We are unique in wanting a person's level of medical care to be linked to income. I think most things in life should be determined by ones income(type of housing, owning a car, the city you live in, whether you eat steak or not etc., etc. etc.) I just don't agree that one's level of medical care should have anything to do with their income or economic situation. That's one of the reasons I think it's so important to limit illegal immigration. The Democratic Party is dead wrong to encourage illegal immigration while demanding better healthcare for all citizens. We all know that the better healthcare won't be limited to just American Citizens. Their inconsistent on this. Do you think countries that have national healthcare just let anybody act as if they are citizens? They don't. It's not wrong or racist to control who is in our country. To me, medical care is one of the best investments a country can make. It's something people badly need, but they don't like to go use unless they have to. Most people don't enjoy going to get medical care. So, the abuse would be on the provider side, and that's a lot easier to control than on the user side.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

Put it to ya in a very basic way. If there was more economic justice(especially in your area of the country,) then they would gladly participate in getting the medical insurance they need. I would like this to be treated as a necessity, and not as something like a cable bill, or car insurance. You don't need cable or a car to survive, but medical care is a necessity. Notice how you don't complain about people not paying their police bill, their fire bill, or their national defense bill? To me it's a necessity like the police dept., the fire dept., and national defense. Most other countries treat medical care that way. We are unique in wanting a person's level of medical care to be linked to income. I think most things in life should be determined by ones income(type of housing, owning a car, the city you live in, whether you eat steak or not etc., etc. etc.) I just don't agree that one's level of medical care should have anything to do with their income or economic situation. That's one of the reasons I think it's so important to limit illegal immigration. The Democratic Party is dead wrong to encourage illegal immigration while demanding better healthcare for all citizens. We all know that the better healthcare won't be limited to just American Citizens. Their inconsistent on this. Do you think countries that have national healthcare just let anybody act as if they are citizens? They don't. It's not wrong or racist to control who is in our country. To me, medical care is one of the best investments a country can make. It's something people badly need, but they don't like to go use unless they have to. Most people don't enjoy going to get medical care. So, the abuse would be on the provider side, and that's a lot easier to control than on the user side.

again, not sure what you mean by economic justice. i know what my employees make, and i know what the company pays for their insurance, and frankly, there's no reason for them to turn it down. but they usually say 'i never get sick, why should i get it?' they don't see a need for it-then they have an illness or injury and the light comes on. then they get hit with a whopper of a bill, or hit with waiting 15 months because they opt down the road to get coverage, but pre-existing conditions come in to play. thing is, too many do treat it like it's just another bill-one that they can avoid. i've always treated it as an absolute necessity, and we've always had it. those in lower income familites, etc, already get coverage. between Arkids and the feds, people down here are fully covered. hell, those on the upper tier of arkids even get orthodontic treatment. i'm paying for other kids' braces, and my own insurance doesn't even cover it....

and i don't see how there wouldn't be abuse-look at your home state and the recent news about hospitals out there billing the state and federal medicaid and medical programs for health care that never happened. millions of dollars worth billed.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Danzig

again, not sure what you mean by economic justice. i know what my employees make, and i know what the company pays for their insurance, and frankly, there's no reason for them to turn it down. but they usually say 'i never get sick, why should i get it?' they don't see a need for it-then they have an illness or injury and the light comes on. then they get hit with a whopper of a bill, or hit with waiting 15 months because they opt down the road to get coverage, but pre-existing conditions come in to play. thing is, too many do treat it like it's just another bill-one that they can avoid. i've always treated it as an absolute necessity, and we've always had it. those in lower income familites, etc, already get coverage. between Arkids and the feds, people down here are fully covered. hell, those on the upper tier of arkids even get orthodontic treatment. i'm paying for other kids' braces, and my own insurance doesn't even cover it....

and i don't see how there wouldn't be abuse-look at your home state and the recent news about hospitals out there billing the state and federal medicaid and medical programs for health care that never happened. millions of dollars worth billed.

Economic justice is a fancy way of saying that the rich make too much and should be taxed to pay for the less fortunate. Socialism basically. It is always laughable when a Democrat talks about health care when they are so beholden to the trial lawyers who create far more damage to the country and the common person than any oil company does. Malpractice suits and excessive damage awards do as much damage to our health care system as anything. That is not saying that the other side has done much better either but certainly the Dems have little incentive to change the system.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Economic justice is a fancy way of saying that the rich make too much and should be taxed to pay for the less fortunate. Socialism basically. It is always laughable when a Democrat talks about health care when they are so beholden to the trial lawyers who create far more damage to the country and the common person than any oil company does. Malpractice suits and excessive damage awards do as much damage to our health care system as anything. That is not saying that the other side has done much better either but certainly the Dems have little incentive to change the system.

i take it you were as much a fan of edwards as me??

revenue redistribution is definitely one thing i don't go for on the liberal side of things. just a fancy way of saying taxes...or you have too much, that guy has too little, we're taking your stuff and give it to the other guy-you don't need it all, you greedy little thing, you. smile and be glad your govt is helping.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Economic justice is a fancy way of saying that the rich make too much and should be taxed to pay for the less fortunate. Socialism basically. It is always laughable when a Democrat talks about health care when they are so beholden to the trial lawyers who create far more damage to the country and the common person than any oil company does. Malpractice suits and excessive damage awards do as much damage to our health care system as anything. That is not saying that the other side has done much better either but certainly the Dems have little incentive to change the system.

[jwkniska]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

and who's the head of the trial lawyers against the medical companies/personnel that drove up the prices due to the ridiculous prices that medical personnel have to pay to have the insurance needed to work? ....... JOHN EDWARDS.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Economic justice is a fancy way of saying that the rich make too much and should be taxed to pay for the less fortunate. Socialism basically. It is always laughable when a Democrat talks about health care when they are so beholden to the trial lawyers who create far more damage to the country and the common person than any oil company does. Malpractice suits and excessive damage awards do as much damage to our health care system as anything. That is not saying that the other side has done much better either but certainly the Dems have little incentive to change the system.

http://www.osjspm.org/major_themes.aspx

SEE #2-#6 Don't attack just Democrats. They didn't dream it up. The Catholic Church teaches it, and they teach it because Christ taught it. Get mad at him. As far as the Malpractice suits go, I'd be thrilled to have Lawyers and Insurance companies kept far away from our healthcare dollars. As far as the oil companies go, if you don't mind giving them forty cents a gallon in profit, then what can I say? It's not a free market situation. That's all I'll say.

[dalakhani]

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i...jzf6QD932MU100

Fact Check: Palin and the Bridge to Nowhere
7 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — A new ad from John McCain's presidential campaign contends his running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, "stopped the Bridge to Nowhere." In fact, Palin was for the infamous bridge before she was against it

THE SPIN: Called "Original Mavericks," the ad asserts the Republican senator has fought pork-barrel spending, the drug industry and fellow Republicans, reforming Washington in the process, and credits Palin with similarly changing Alaska by taking on the oil industry, challenging her own party and ditching the bridge project that became a national symbol of wasteful spending.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton came back with fighting words. "Despite being discredited over and over again by numerous news organizations, the McCain campaign continues to repeat the lie that Sarah Palin stopped the Bridge to Nowhere," he said.

Burton said McCain would merely carry on supporting President Bush's economic, health, education, energy and foreign policies, and that means "anything but change."

THE FACTS: Palin did abandon plans to build the nearly $400 million bridge from Ketchikan to an island with 50 residents and an airport. But she made her decision after the project had become an embarrassment to the state, after federal dollars for the project were pulled back and diverted to other uses in Alaska, and after she had appeared to support the bridge during her campaign for governor.

McCain and Palin together have told a broader story about the bridge that is misleading. She is portrayed as a crusader for the thrifty use of tax dollars who turned down an offer from Washington to build an expensive bridge of little value to the state.

"I told the Congress 'thanks but no thanks' for that Bridge to Nowhere," she said in her convention speech last week.

That's not what she told Alaskans when she announced a year ago that she was ordering state transportation officials to ditch the project. Her explanation then was that it would be fruitless to try to persuade Congress to come up with the money.

"It's clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island," Palin said then.

Palin indicated during her 2006 campaign for governor that she supported the bridge, but was wishy-washy about it. She told local officials that money appropriated for the bridge "should remain available for a link, an access process as we continue to evaluate the scope and just how best to just get this done."

She vowed to defend Southeast Alaska "when proposals are on the table like the bridge and not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that's so negative" — something that McCain was busy doing at the time, as a fierce critic of the bridge.

Even so, she called the bridge design "grandiose" during her campaign and said something more modest might be appropriate.

Palin's reputation for standing up to entrenched interests in Alaska is genuine. Her self-description as a leader who "championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress" is harder to square with the facts.

The governor has cut back on pork-barrel project requests, but in her two years in office, Alaska has requested nearly $750 million in special federal spending, by far the largest per-capita request in the nation. And as mayor of Wasilla, Palin hired a lobbyist and traveled to Washington annually to support earmarks for the town totaling $27 million.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

http://www.osjspm.org/major_themes.aspx

SEE #2-#6 Don't attack just Democrats. They didn't dream it up. The Catholic Church teaches it, and they teach it because Christ taught it. Get mad at him. As far as the Malpractice suits go, I'd be thrilled to have Lawyers and Insurance companies kept far away from our healthcare dollars. As far as the oil companies go, if you don't mind giving them forty cents a gallon in profit, then what can I say? It's not a free market situation. That's all I'll say.

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

http://www.osjspm.org/major_themes.aspx

SEE #2-#6 Don't attack just Democrats. They didn't dream it up. The Catholic Church teaches it, and they teach it because Christ taught it. Get mad at him. As far as the Malpractice suits go, I'd be thrilled to have Lawyers and Insurance companies kept far away from our healthcare dollars. As far as the oil companies go, if you don't mind giving them forty cents a gallon in profit, then what can I say? It's not a free market situation. That's all I'll say.

Uh Oh.

Scuds is a what would Jesus say guy...?

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Uh Oh.

Scuds is a what would Jesus say guy...?

My problem with Christianity is not with what Jesus said. My point was that Canon is trying to make Economic Justice out to be a Democratic scheme. Christ started that. He should blame it on him. That guy started it.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

http://www.osjspm.org/major_themes.aspx

SEE #2-#6 Don't attack just Democrats. They didn't dream it up. The Catholic Church teaches it, and they teach it because Christ taught it. Get mad at him. As far as the Malpractice suits go, I'd be thrilled to have Lawyers and Insurance companies kept far away from our healthcare dollars. As far as the oil companies go, if you don't mind giving them forty cents a gallon in profit, then what can I say? It's not a free market situation. That's all I'll say.

Part of the theme of democratic propoganda is to preach to the 'poor' that the rich are holding them down. That they are being given a bad deal simply because they are poor without any personal responsibility. Where the theory comes from is immaterial. They subtly promote class envy and actively promote the GOP is for the rich and we are for the "middle class" and downtrodden when the fact is that it is simply a way to use emotions to win votes. The other side uses emotional religious and topics like abortion and gay rights in the same manner. It is all bs. The rich should be no more beholden to the poor as anyone else. A canidates views on abortion and religion should be immaterial.

Saying that you would be thrilled to have lawyers and insurance companies far away from healthcare and voting Democratic is basically punting on the issue.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Danzig

actually, i've probably voted for more democrats over the years than republicans, since you have to consider state and local levels as well. i'm not quite sure what you mean about any kind of economic justice whatsoever-that could gover a myriad of topics. as for healthcare, i have no idea what system would work best. it's funny regarding healthcare in that when i hire people and mention the benefits package, they're gung ho about it. then when it's time at 90 days to fill out all the paperwork, the insurance is invariably turned down. why? it's not required, and they pay part of it. so, those who have it pay more (the more in the pool, the cheaper per person) and those who don't end up wishing they'd gotten it when they had the chance. because if you get it at 90 days, no waiting period, no preexisting conditions apply. i had a girl just toss the whole packet, which also includes short term disability. a few months later she found out she was pregnant, that part of the coverage would have paid her while she was off work once she had to take off, and until she came back.

i don't know why the employers ever became the ones to pick up most of the coverage. not sure how the system ever got to the point it has-but when you see the fraud, waste and abuse in our current govt handled programs, just how well would universal healthcare work?

Universal healthcare would be the worse possible thing that our govnt could pass. It would be so bad I dont even want to think about it.. How would we pay for it.. only way to would be to raise taxes, significantly.

I've lived in two countries with socialized medicine... both places had the worst healthcare I've ever seen. I almost died in New Zealand cause my doc's were not that good. ALL the best doc's come to the great U S of A, because of the way our healthcare is set up.

Both countries also, (Ireland and New Zealand) tax them a WAY higher % of your salary compared to the US... and one of the main reason taxes are that high is because of socialized medicine.

Now I'm not saying that changes shouldnt be made... but Universal Healthcare would be very very bad.