Gov't Run Healthcare = Not Happening

bigbluepuma wrote:
Pres. Obama was just on the news, spinning Brown's election as being just more of the same reason that he was elected. Translation: FULL SPEED AHEAD!!!!! :skeptic: :bug: :roll: :~( :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry:

Good, that'll make the Dems defeat in NOV that much easier.

kitic77 wrote:

Pres. Obama was just on the news, spinning Brown's election as being just more of the same reason that he was elected. Translation: FULL SPEED AHEAD!!!!! :skeptic: :bug: :roll: :~( :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry:

Good, that'll make the Dems defeat in NOV that much easier.

Seriously, do these guys have any idea what Americans (not politicians and big business) really want?



Answer: to be left alone. Enough with the intrusive programs that keep getting thrown on us.



Keep your hand on that throttle Pres. Obama and it's not going to end pretty for your party.

My two years in Canada was MORE than enough to have me convinced for life that gov't run "free" healthcare sucks. The surprising part was that most people there hated it... I just don't think they realized it. They all moaned about how much they didn't trust the doctors, all the surgeries that had gone wrong, how all the best doctors and surgeons were leaving for the states, how they had to wait forever to get treatment... but then you ask them how they feel about their system and they "love it b/c it's free."



Then they turn around and complain about taxes being at 12%....

My cousin in Scotland was diagnosed with a brain tumor, and was referred to a specialist in Edinburgh (her only option). It took more than 6 months to get in. Luckily, the incompetent first diagnosis was wrong, because she would have been dead before she got in. That's what government run HC is good for.

kitic77 wrote:

Pres. Obama was just on the news, spinning Brown's election as being just more of the same reason that he was elected. Translation: FULL SPEED AHEAD!!!!! :skeptic: :bug: :roll: :~( :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry:

Good, that'll make the Dems defeat in NOV that much easier.

It is not the Dems we should be fighting but the Progressives, they mainly infect dems, but also many republicans.

BYUROCKS wrote:

bigbluepuma wrote:
Pres. Obama was just on the news, spinning Brown's election as being just more of the same reason that he was elected. Translation: FULL SPEED AHEAD!!!!! :skeptic: :bug: :roll: :~( :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry:

Good, that'll make the Dems defeat in NOV that much easier.

It is not the Dems we should be fighting but the Progressives, they mainly infect dems, but also many republicans.

We should be fighting any politician who puts party or personal agenda before his duty to the nation and his consituency, regardless of whatever -ism they cling to.

snoscythe wrote:

kitic77 wrote:

Pres. Obama was just on the news, spinning Brown's election as being just more of the same reason that he was elected. Translation: FULL SPEED AHEAD!!!!! :skeptic: :bug: :roll: :~( :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry:

Good, that'll make the Dems defeat in NOV that much easier.

It is not the Dems we should be fighting but the Progressives, they mainly infect dems, but also many republicans.

We should be fighting any politician who puts party or personal agenda before his duty to the nation and his consituency, regardless of whatever -ism they cling to.

Amen. As I mentioned before, this is a much deeper issue than simply dem vs rep. The 2 party system has many of us fighting the wrong people.



I love that Brown was voted in, now let's see if he turns into a "party" republican or an independent minded republican.

On a side note, here's one potential reform that I do agree with. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/20/source-obama-seek-greater-banking-limits/

No institution should be too big to fail. Or be so huge that they can completely effect the nation's economy to such an extent as has happened the last two years.

kitic77 wrote:
On a side note, here's one potential reform that I do agree with. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/20/source-obama-seek-greater-banking-limits/

No institution should be too big to fail. Or be so huge that they can completely effect the nation's economy to such an extent as has happened the last two years.

I think that's part of what anti-trust laws were all about. They worked well for a while, but as time passed, more and more was let past the laws until we have gotten many "too big to fail" companies.