McCain campaign promises to cut Medicare and Medicaid budgets by $1.3 TRILLION

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

No matter who wins, budgets will be cut and people will be uninsured. It's not the federal government's responsibility to fund such programs anyway and it really can't afford to anymore.

Sorry, Barry can't keep his ridiculous promises either. Americans and their government need to get past their attitude of entitlements. That jig is up.

So all the retirees and disabled who need healthcare the most should be dumped onto the street and told you are SOL without any way of getting a new healthcare policy... Perhaps that works in 3rd world countries, but not in 1st world. We are all ready a laughing stock, lets just add to it. It must be nice to be so completely self absorbed that you don't need to care about anyone else.

The self-absorbed are those who are always expecting for a handout from the taxpayers. and they come from all economic classes.

I demand a tax cut for those poor individuals who dont pay taxes! I WANT MINE DAMIT!

[IAMX 3,055]

Obama: focus == middle class and poor

You forgot one.

They paid for the DNC.

So all the retirees and disabled who need healthcare the most should be dumped onto the street and told you are SOL without any way of getting a new healthcare policy... Perhaps that works in 3rd world countries, but not in 1st world. We are all ready a laughing stock, lets just add to it. It must be nice to be so completely self absorbed that you don't need to care about anyone else.

Indeed. Those with such selfish and self-absorbed wants with no care for the rest of society which also dictates things like their health would be best suited to an island all by their own self. No point in reaping rewards from society while giving them the finger at the same time.

Edited October 7, 2008 by SRVT

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Obama: focus == middle class and poor

You forgot one.

They paid for the DNC.

So all the retirees and disabled who need healthcare the most should be dumped onto the street and told you are SOL without any way of getting a new healthcare policy... Perhaps that works in 3rd world countries, but not in 1st world. We are all ready a laughing stock, lets just add to it. It must be nice to be so completely self absorbed that you don't need to care about anyone else.

Indeed. Those with such selfish and self-absorbed wants with no care for the rest of society which also dictates things like their health would be best suited to an island all by their own self. No point in reaping rewards from society while giving them the finger at the same time.

Does the third party candidate you plan to vote for recommend continued sucking at the teet of the American taxpayer?

[IAMX 3,055]

Obama: focus == middle class and poor

You forgot one.

They paid for the DNC.

So all the retirees and disabled who need healthcare the most should be dumped onto the street and told you are SOL without any way of getting a new healthcare policy... Perhaps that works in 3rd world countries, but not in 1st world. We are all ready a laughing stock, lets just add to it. It must be nice to be so completely self absorbed that you don't need to care about anyone else.

Indeed. Those with such selfish and self-absorbed wants with no care for the rest of society which also dictates things like their health would be best suited to an island all by their own self. No point in reaping rewards from society while giving them the finger at the same time.

Does the third party candidate you plan to vote for recommend continued sucking at the teet of the American taxpayer?

Lets just say everyone getting healthcare not only heightens the chance of others being healthy, but also mends an obvious ensuing class warfare. If you don't like taxes, or universal healthcare, don't pay them (I'm not responsible for what happens though), or there are plenty of third world countries that espouse similar beliefs. You'll find the list of first world countries that agree with you pretty empty.

And yes, universal healthcare is a must for any party I vote for. Not the joke of one Obama is trying to push.

Edited October 7, 2008 by SRVT

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Who will administer universal health care?

[IAMX 3,055]

Who will administer universal health care?

She's got my vote:

[Peikko 1,575]

I always wonder when the 'suck at the teat of the government handout' people spout their mantra, what exactly they expect to happen should the government ever actually heed their words (Not going to happen, but let's just imagine for one moment) and closed all 'handout' programs? It's as if they imagine that all these people either suddenly cease to exist or that somehow they are going to magically transform themselves into people who have the $x to pay for whatever it happens to be that they recieve their 'handouts' for currently.

What everyone should strive for is to minimize the cost of the people who require 'handouts'. That can't be done by eliminating the programs, the cost will just be transfered somewhere else and at an even higher cost (unless of course America really does want to emulate 3rd world conditions and allow people to simply die in the streets if they are/become poor) In terms of health care, that means ensuring that everyone recieves primary health care (Prevention is a lot, lot cheaper than cure - ER rooms are not the cheapest end of patient care, not to mention if would be nice if ER rooms weren't cluttered with people who present with non emergency conditions).

I find it totally odd that people are so hell bent on meeting out retribution (as if it really is so simple that people who require handouts are all feckless good for nothings) that they are prepared to eliminate even those programs that do exist that even now save the tax payer money in real terms just so they can pat eath other on the back and say, well, at least no one is recieving something for nothing on our watch. All the while these people are now guarenteed a permanant place in poverty with any needs paid for in the most expensive fashion possible. Even if I didn't care about the recipiants, I would still want the programs and in the case of health care I would want them expanded albeit I would certainly demand a lot more accountability from those who administer the programs because I know that the alternatives are ridiculously more costly.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

There's a certain stupidity in the argument that the proponents of the status quo and those that favor further dismantling of whatever sorry excuse for a health care system the US has are making. These folks fail to recognize that the broken system costs far more than universal health care anywhere in the world and is far less efficient and costs far more than any government run health care program anywhere in the world (including the US) while excluding a huge chunk of the population from adequate access to health care. What the private industry has created in this country is the most red tape laden, wasteful, inefficient and ineffective health care system in the world. I don't understand how anyone with a sound mind can be this supportive of excessive red tape and waste.

Then they talk about "I don't want Washington bureaucrats to make my health care decisions" while totally ignoring the fact that, at present, some profit oriented private insurance bureaucrat makes their health care decisions for them. The suggestion that universal health care would change who makes health care decisions from the patient and doctor to the government is so dishonest that it hurts. Gotta hand it to the greedy profiteers of the broken system, they sure have hammered that silly message into quite a few heads.

[Reba 2]

.... That can't be done by eliminating the programs, the cost will just be transfered somewhere else and at an even higher cost

I suppose they could build some poor houses. Ah, the good ol' days!

[almaty 19]

.... That can't be done by eliminating the programs, the cost will just be transfered somewhere else and at an even higher cost

I suppose they could build some poor houses. Ah, the good ol' days!

under the GOP..work houses for the elderly

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Cutting back / abolishing benefit programs would not only lower living conditions across the board, but would likely raise the crime rate significantly as well.

Of course if we all want the US to emulate parts of Mexico or Brazil (where the gap between rich and poor is a gulf and the poor live in shanty towns built up around the gated off "rich areas") then this is probably a good idea.

[SpiritAlight 1]

There may be two things holding back universal health care in the U.S.

1. USians think socialist means communist....and they are frightened.

2. Money spent on "the war effort" (basically occupying various places on the planet to make sure it does what the U.S. wants/needs), can be allocated to healthcare for the people. USians think that that would "harm our freedoms" and so they are frightened.

"He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither."

Edited October 7, 2008 by SpiritAlight

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

There may be two things holding back universal health care in the U.S.

1. USians think socialist means communist....and they are frightened.

2. Money spent on "the war effort" (basically occupying various places on the planet to make sure it does what the U.S. wants/needs), can be allocated to healthcare for the people. The people think that that would "harm our freedoms" and so they are frightened.

"He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither."

Well its safe to say that we probably aren't going to get any sort of healthcare reform in the next term - with the economy the way it is, not to mention the expensive wars that we're still paying for, there's nothing left.

I suspect it may take one term of office (at the very least) to reverse some of the damage that the current administration has done.

[SpiritAlight 1]

There may be two things holding back universal health care in the U.S.

1. USians think socialist means communist....and they are frightened.

2. Money spent on "the war effort" (basically occupying various places on the planet to make sure it does what the U.S. wants/needs), can be allocated to healthcare for the people. The people think that that would "harm our freedoms" and so they are frightened.

"He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither."

Well its safe to say that we probably aren't going to get any sort of healthcare reform in the next term - with the economy the way it is, not to mention the expensive wars that we're still paying for, there's nothing left.

I suspect it may take one term of office (at the very least) to reverse some of the damage that the current administration has done.

It makes one want to cry doesn't it?

So close and yet so far.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

There may be two things holding back universal health care in the U.S.

1. USians think socialist means communist....and they are frightened.

2. Money spent on "the war effort" (basically occupying various places on the planet to make sure it does what the U.S. wants/needs), can be allocated to healthcare for the people. The people think that that would "harm our freedoms" and so they are frightened.

"He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither."

Well its safe to say that we probably aren't going to get any sort of healthcare reform in the next term - with the economy the way it is, not to mention the expensive wars that we're still paying for, there's nothing left.

I suspect it may take one term of office (at the very least) to reverse some of the damage that the current administration has done.

It makes one want to cry doesn't it?

So close and yet so far.

What we needed (and need) was a 21st century FDR. What we got was a total buffoon and incompetent (GWB).

I don't know if Obama will provide the sort of turnaround we need (I don't even think Clinton could have done to be honest) - in all seriousness he probably can't. And I think people like the idea of what Obama represents more than what he can realistically deliver (as Tony Blair did), but anything has to be better than more of the same.