Supporters of Obamacare

[Total_Blender]

Name me ONE government agency that is well run. You cant, so I most assuredly don't want them messing with health care. My tax dollars shouldn't pay for illegal immigrants.

What is your idea of a "well run organizataion"? You can't just ask something like that without defining parameters.

As far as illegal immigrants go, you also support them when you buy products made with illegal labor, or use services the use illegal labor. So you should probably just stop spending money all together to make sure none of it ends up in the hands of illegals. Just convert your money to Gold and keep it under your bed. I think thats what Glenn Beck, Alex Jones, and all the other right wing commentators are telling people to do now anyway, right?

[BanginJimmy]

Blender, since Tony has been unable to answer the simple question in my original post maybe you will try.

What provision of the house bill will actually lower costs for the insurers and therefore their customers?

[Danny]

Has the USPS put UPS and FedEx out of business? We all know the lesser quality that the USPS has but if you're cash strapped they get the job done.. the initiative is to get citizens who cannot afford health coverage to have it, not to line the profit margins of insurance companies.

Hmm i was under the impression the USPS is not supposed to be subsidized, trying to dig out how exactly they are funded now..hmm

[BanginJimmy]

Seems that a little more info on the Pelosi bill is coming out.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...publican-says/

[Total_Blender]

Seems that a little more info on the Pelosi bill is coming out.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...publican-says/

404 news not found

[tony]

On a lighter note, even through our political differences can I just say when it comes to Sarah Palin.. i would hit it without shame. Our differences would probably inspire me to hit it harder.

To be honest guys for some reason I just can't care about politics right now, everyone (even politicians.. yes Obama too) is going to do what is in their own interest and the 2 party system fucks up the process that much more. I consider myself Conservative but the current definition of it as well as the Republican stance on social issues doesn't allow me to align myself with them.

I hear the liberal side of things but you hardly hear that side preach about personal responsibility. The government cannot function as a sole entity for a disproportionate amount of responsibility in society, citizens are the driving force behind government and the more initiative the citizens have the more efficient government can be.

Both are pipe dreams so its whatever, my focus is to put myself in the best position to be successful and help out those in need.. whether it be educating them on the issues, donation of money, time, or even my service in the military. Everything else is a waste of time right now.

[bu villain]

Simple question.

How will Obamacare lower costs to private insurers and their customers?

I'm not sure what your definition of Obamacare is but I'll assume it's anything with a government option. Ill play devil's advocate and give you three answers since I don't see anyone else trying to answer it:

1. The government can set their prices to pressure insurers to lower theirs in order to remain competitive. The same end (lower prices through competition) could also be done by allowing other private companies to compete over state lines. This of course lowers costs only to customers, not to insurance companies.

2. By offering low cost care and expanding coverage for more preventative medicine, more costly procedures down the road can be prevented.

3. Having a cheap option for lower income and high risk people will cause many of them to switch from the private insurers to the government option. This will reduce some of the most costly people from the private insurance pool and thus everyone's rates can be lower. This could kinda be seen as a wash for customers since lower premiums might be offset by the larger required government spending.

[BanginJimmy]

I consider myself Conservative but the current definition of it as well as the Republican stance on social issues doesn't allow me to align myself with them.

After reading a great many of your posts on here I find it hard to believe you are anything but a hard leftist or worse. Nothing you have said in ANY thread points to conservatism.

I hear the liberal side of things but you hardly hear that side preach about personal responsibility.

Liberals are completely against any kind of person responsibility. Liberals want total govt control over everything.

[RedEj8]

45 million people without health insurance.

1/5 of them aren't even American
1/5 don't have health insurance but are covered by medicare
2/5 don't have heath insurance but also don't have home or life insurance. They are 23 and too healthy and busy to worry about health insurance.
1/5 are wealthy and don't have health insurance because they don't need it.

[tony]

After reading a great many of your posts on here I find it hard to believe you are anything but a hard leftist or worse. Nothing you have said in ANY thread points to conservatism.



Liberals are completely against any kind of person responsibility. Liberals want total govt control over everything.

Hey thats your opinion and you're entitled to that. Conservative does not equal purely capitalist though, I think what you're referring to is this misconstrued definition of Conservative aka Neo Conservatism.. where people like Sean Hannity or Limbaugh take the spotlight rather than those who understand and respect the core values. Lincoln created the Republican party, do you think if he was alive today he could say it is the same party he created? Doubt it, because it was started as very much a social movement as it was a Capitalist one. I tend to laugh at the state of the right wing today, when Sarah Palin is a viable candidate is says volume about where that party is headed.

[Total_Blender]

1. The government can set their prices to pressure insurers to lower theirs in order to remain competitive. The same end (lower prices through competition) could also be done by allowing other private companies to compete over state lines. This of course lowers costs only to customers, not to insurance companies.

I don't quite understand all I know about this one... most insurance companies employers have to choose from are already national, correct? We have a choice between Kaiser Permanente or Blue Cross/Blue Shield where I work. I assume they have those insurers in all 49 other states too. So is there not competition in the system already

I am sure there are probably smaller independents who operate on a regional basis, but I don't see what they would add to competition... its kinda like saying you're going to defeat Wal-Mart with your local chain of Mom & Pop stores.

2. By offering low cost care and expanding coverage for more preventative medicine, more costly procedures down the road can be prevented.

I've been saying this all along. Catching diseases like cancer early will do a lot to reduce costs. "23 and too busy to worry about health care" will eventually become "35 and denied for pre-existing condition".

3. Having a cheap option for lower income and high risk people will cause many of them to switch from the private insurers to the government option. This will reduce some of the most costly people from the private insurance pool and thus everyone's rates can be lower. This could kinda be seen as a wash for customers since lower premiums might be offset by the larger required government spending.

I agree with this, a public option will get all of those who just aren't working with private insurance out of private insurance, leaving the customers who are dedicated to it. Private insurance will lose a lot of the hard cases and be able to streamline.

[stretch]

You two are pretty smart so I would assume you understand the initiative under a Public Option is not to benefit private insurers. Simple competition, get basic coverage or pay more for extensive coverage.. at the end of the day what matters under a public option is that everyone is able to obtain the health coverage that they need, cost of plans that benefit private insurers is hardly a priority. Sorry.

i couldnt have said it better myself..

[zspeed24]

I don't quite understand all I know about this one... most insurance companies employers have to choose from are already national, correct? We have a choice between Kaiser Permanente or Blue Cross/Blue Shield where I work. I assume they have those insurers in all 49 other states too. So is there not competition in the system already

My wife's company is based out of SC and her employer offers Blue Cross Blue Shield of South Carolina, the plan to cover her and my son was 530 a month for the exact same plan with blue cross blue shield of Georgia it costs us 319 a month for all three of us, but people who live in SC cannot buy insurance with BCBS GA on an individual basis. This is why conservatives want it open to buy across state lines.

[Total_Blender]

My wife's company is based out of SC and her employer offers Blue Cross Blue Shield of South Carolina, the plan to cover her and my son was 530 a month for the exact same plan with blue cross blue shield of Georgia it costs us 319 a month for all three of us, but people who live in SC cannot buy insurance with BCBS GA on an individual basis. This is why conservatives want it open to buy across state lines.

I would imagine the difference in cost might have something to do with the statutes governing healthcare being different between the two states though, the demographics being different between the two areas, etc etc.

If I run a life insurance company out of Minneapolis, MN... I might have different criteria and a different system of rating customers than if I ran a life insurance company out of Baltimore or Detroit. Allowing insurance companies to do business across state lines might work well to reduce costs to some consumers, but in practice I imagine most insurers would want to stick to their bases and not take on added risk.

Also, Blue Cross, Kaiser and the other giants would probably just centralize their structure (no need for the overhead of 50 branches when one will do the job).

[bu villain]

Keep in mind too that in the real world the market doesn't behave exactly as in theory. If there are only a handful of choices, its much easier to keep prices higher than they really would be in a perfect market. The government could potentially break up and such unspoken collusion by setting prices closer to perfect market value. Now I'm not sure I trust them to do that but its possible in theory.

[BanginJimmy]

Hey thats your opinion and you're entitled to that. Conservative does not equal purely capitalist though, I think what you're referring to is this misconstrued definition of Conservative aka Neo Conservatism.. where people like Sean Hannity or Limbaugh take the spotlight rather than those who understand and respect the core values. Lincoln created the Republican party, do you think if he was alive today he could say it is the same party he created? Doubt it, because it was started as very much a social movement as it was a Capitalist one. I tend to laugh at the state of the right wing today, when Sarah Palin is a viable candidate is says volume about where that party is headed.

I'm very much conservative on economic issues, but not social issues, and I agree completely in substance to what you are saying. Republicans are not longer synonymous with conservative though. Conservatives SHOULD be for these things:

1. Small govt in general, but especially federal govt. Power should be carried by the states in any case that doesnt directly affect another state.

2. Low taxes. Smaller govt needs less money to operate.

3. Minimal govt interference in private business. This is pretty much the antithesis of what both sides of the aisle have done for the last 30+ years with VERY few exceptions.

4. Strong national security and border protection. Again, the antithesis of what the govt is actually doing.

5. Strong separation of church and state. Christians especially should be knowledgeable of the evils of church and state being too close. That is not to say that we should go overboard like liberals are and pretty much eliminating religion from public forums.

The current crop of so called conservatives and liberals are simply trying to act like they want to be as far from th other on political issues. Liberals have a clear view as to where they want to go, conservatives still dont as proven by the republican nomination in NY 23.

[Total_Blender]

5. Strong separation of church and state. Christians especially should be knowledgeable of the evils of church and state being too close. That is not to say that we should go overboard like liberals are and pretty much eliminating religion from public forums.
.

We agree on something, at least.

[preferredduck]

I'm sure eraser4g63 and BanginJimmy are not against a public option.

The problem is the plan itself, not the idea of a plan.

This one demands too much and provides too little. Its going to be impossible to fund. The literature makes it quite clear that private insurance will die quickly and we will all be left with one option.

there is too much money made in the insurance industry and they have funded like 75% of congress and prob put out a healthy contribution to obama, so they wont die they will wind up underwritting the claims and handle all the things they already do for medicare and medicaid. i worked in hospital billing and collections so i know the game very well and i "insure" you that the insurance companies have thier hands in the cookie jar and prob have for a while now.

Insurance reform is all it is not healthcare reform, so what if you cannot afford the public option, do you get fined or go to jail like they say. i have a feeling this is going to get messy fast.

[preferredduck]

The sad part is the system is soooo crappy that none of our beloved elected officials will have any of our health plans. They will all stay under the "better than the best" policy that they have now, never pay a premium, wait 6 mos for an MRI, or any of that. I say if we have to follow the insurance reform guidelines then so should obamamama and congress etc. get my point people.

[Total_Blender]

. I say if we have to follow the insurance reform guidelines then so should obamamama and congress etc. get my point people.

Congressmen are pretty loaded across the board, I think the poorest person in Congress (which used to be Joe Biden until he became VP) is still worth a couple million. With that kind of money you could just pay out of pocket. Also, most congressmen are vets so they would still have the VA. So its naive to think that requiring them to have the same public healthcare plan as everyone else would potentially effect the outcome.

[BanginJimmy]

Congressmen are pretty loaded across the board, I think the poorest person in Congress (which used to be Joe Biden until he became VP) is still worth a couple million. With that kind of money you could just pay out of pocket. Also, most congressmen are vets so they would still have the VA. So its naive to think that requiring them to have the same public healthcare plan as everyone else would potentially effect the outcome.

Actually the congressional plan is better than anything that most of us on here will ever get the opportunity to have, and its free to them. There was also an attempt by Phil Gingrey and a couple others to add an amendment to the House bill that would require congress to use the public option if it passed. Pelosi wouldnt let it come to a vote.

[BanginJimmy]

Bumping this up again to see if we will see a real answer. For all of you supporters out there, this should be a very simple question to answer. Dont try hiding, just answer. If you want to admit you are a socialist and you want a single payer system, then say that. It will show the true colors of Obama's supporters.

[MachNU]

Bumping this up again to see if we will see a real answer. For all of you supporters out there, this should be a very simple question to answer. Dont try hiding, just answer. If you want to admit you are a socialist and you want other things for free, then say that. It will show the true colors of Obama's supporters.

Fixed it for ya!

[BanginJimmy]

Since we have another new health care bill, I will bump this up again.


Simple question for the supporters. Name a single provision of the bill that will lower costs for your average health care consumer.

[Jaimecbr900]

I'm just subscribing cause I can.....


BTW, some of you guys don't understand how health INSURANCE (go look up the definition of that btw) works, i.e. the difference between a group plan, an individual plan, or a private plan. Until you do, you will keep believing what Pelosi wants you to believe because you're not smart enough to ask your employer the difference before you signed on that nifty dotted line when you got a job.

I could go on and on, but I'm not gonna right now. Jimmy and TRSW are handling things in this debate quite well anyway.

[BanginJimmy]

I'm just subscribing cause I can.....


BTW, some of you guys don't understand how health INSURANCE (go look up the definition of that btw) works, i.e. the difference between a group plan, an individual plan, or a private plan. Until you do, you will keep believing what Pelosi wants you to believe because you're not smart enough to ask your employer the difference before you signed on that nifty dotted line when you got a job.

I could go on and on, but I'm not gonna right now. Jimmy and TRSW are handling things in this debate quite well anyway.

If you took the time to read through this thread, you will see that the liberals have used a steady stream of attacks, but to this point, not a single provision that would reduce the cost of health care.

[Jaimecbr900]

If you took the time to read through this thread, you will see that the liberals have used a steady stream of attacks, but to this point, not a single provision that would reduce the cost of health care.

Are you back talking me young man?????

I did read it. Shook my head quite often, but since I wasn't involved since the beginning I'd feel replying to some of the utter ignorance posted on here would be useless at this point. Know what I mean?

Even though Mr. Tony's hat is tilted over to the left quite a bit, he's a good guy IMO. I don't know the others like that, so I can't say. But Tony, even though he never agrees with me, has always kept it civil with me through out our long winded debates in the past. I certainly don't agree with him here at all, but he's always been respectful to me before.

That said, he's still wrong......

[MachNU]

Well if you removed all of Total Benders post this would actually be a much better debate. That and the level of bullshit that is in here would be much lower.

[tony]

Are you back talking me young man?????

I did read it. Shook my head quite often, but since I wasn't involved since the beginning I'd feel replying to some of the utter ignorance posted on here would be useless at this point. Know what I mean?

Even though Mr. Tony's hat is tilted over to the left quite a bit, he's a good guy IMO. I don't know the others like that, so I can't say. But Tony, even though he never agrees with me, has always kept it civil with me through out our long winded debates in the past. I certainly don't agree with him here at all, but he's always been respectful to me before.

That said, he's still wrong......

I think someone else put it nicely here that if we all agreed this would be a boring place. I've aligned with both sides on various topics, my closest friend is deafening liberal and we argue constantly but at the end of the day I do lean left. I will say this though, regardless of who is in office I feel the political process cancels out anyone with truly good intentions, what you are left with.. politicians.

[blurred visions]

I'm not sure what your definition of Obamacare is but I'll assume it's anything with a government option. Ill play devil's advocate and give you three answers since I don't see anyone else trying to answer it:

1. The government can set their prices to pressure insurers to lower theirs in order to remain competitive. The same end (lower prices through competition) could also be done by allowing other private companies to compete over state lines. This of course lowers costs only to customers, not to insurance companies.

2. By offering low cost care and expanding coverage for more preventative medicine, more costly procedures down the road can be prevented.

3. Having a cheap option for lower income and high risk people will cause many of them to switch from the private insurers to the government option. This will reduce some of the most costly people from the private insurance pool and thus everyone's rates can be lower. This could kinda be seen as a wash for customers since lower premiums might be offset by the larger required government spending.

+1

If you took the time to read through this thread, you will see that the liberals have used a steady stream of attacks, but to this point, not a single provision that would reduce the cost of health care.

If you are looking for a provision, there simply isn't a provision clearly stated out. You can sit here and beat that dead horse, or you can look at bu villain's statements above, take them into account and tell me what you think. Or you can do just as you did after he posted these points, skip over them.

I've scrolled through this thread and all I can see from you BanginJimmy are stabs at liberals. Your comment about hinting to Socialism and a single-payer system speaks volumes about what outlets fill your head with talking points. It's not impressive and it is very demeaning.

[Vteckidd]

Has the USPS put UPS and FedEx out of business? We all know the lesser quality that the USPS has but if you're cash strapped they get the job done.. the initiative is to get citizens who cannot afford health coverage to have it, not to line the profit margins of insurance companies.

Usps is bankrupt , has terrible service, loses packages at a rate of 20% more than fedex and ups, etc

so no they didn't put ups or fedex out of business , but te real question is do you want healthcare system setup as well as usps?

Also the comparison is not accurate. Usps fedex and ups all have seperate equipment and transportation means. You pay for a package to be shipped by usps it gets shipped by usps employees. You don't pay usps prices and get fedex service.

Conversly, insurance works the opposite. "dr smith" accepts aetna, blue cross blue shield, kaiser etc. Now he will accept the govt pool aka govt option. He will have to. So now you will pay "usps" prices for the same level of care private insurers offer. That will put them out of business. So you'll have a few effects

1) massive layoffs and unemployment from those companies gping under
2) doctors being reimbursed less for their work meaning less pay to doctors
3) 20-30 million people getting healthcare from a system run as well as usps
4) the govt doesn't need to make a DIME. They can operate 11 trillion in the hole so no private company will be able to compete
5) 30 million new patients with an already short medical staff means longer wait times to get care
6) costs will continue to rise as this bill does nothing to address the COST issues , it only provides access by spending another trillion-2 trillion dollars

I've always said this "you will have healthcare at the cost of higher taxes and lack of a job"

expect inflation to wipe out any govt entitlement Obama passes as he spends us into oblivion.good luck America

[David88vert]

Usps is bankrupt , has terrible service, loses packages at a rate of 20% more than fedex and ups, etc

so no they didn't put ups or fedex out of business , but te real question is do you want healthcare system setup as well as usps?

Also the comparison is not accurate. Usps fedex and ups all have seperate equipment and transportation means. You pay for a package to be shipped by usps it gets shipped by usps employees. You don't pay usps prices and get fedex service.

Fact: USPS has posted net losses since 2007.
Fact: USPS posted a loss of $237 million for just the last quarter.
Fact: USPS projects a shprtfall of $238 billion by 2020.
Fact: USPS lost my latest paycheck, so I put through the paperwork to convert payroll to direct deposit.
Poor service equals lost customers.


Now let's look at the situation with healthcare.
Doctors are paid by insurance and Medicare for every patient they see according to why they see the patient, and what procedures they perform for the patient, and not by the amount of time they spend with the patient - patients can expect to spend no more than 10 to 16 minutes with their doctor, depending on the agreement with the insurance provider. It varies from insurance plan to insurance plan, or from Medicare or Medicaid. Bottom line - doctors are paid for the number of patients and number of procedures, and not how much time any of those take, there is a real incentive for the doctor to spend as little time as possible with each patient.
Now if Obama limits the amount allowed for procedures, what will doctors have to do?
Lower their standard of living? Drop their expensive malpractice insurance? Not pay back their massive student loans? Work more hours? No, they won't.
Time is constant. There are only 24 hours in a day. In order to make up for the lowered income, they will either have to cut expenses by firing employees (not an option with small offices), or will have to increase the amount of patients seen during the same amount of time. That means that they will spend even less time reviewing your records before prescribing you a "magic pill" - or worse, a procedure that you don't need, but pays a higher rate to them. This is generally considered a lowering of standards and quality. Is that what you want for your children's health -to lower the quality of care?

"In the United States, only about a third of our doctors are primary care and we've been seeing lately that there's actually been a growing disinterest in this field for many of our U.S. medical graduates. So we have created incentives in part through higher salary to specialists. We have many more of our students going into specialty care" - Dr. Andrew Bindman of the University of California, San Francisco

[Jaimecbr900]

Fact: USPS has posted net losses since 2007.
Fact: USPS posted a loss of $237 million for just the last quarter.
Fact: USPS projects a shprtfall of $238 billion by 2020.
Fact: USPS lost my latest paycheck, so I put through the paperwork to convert payroll to direct deposit.
Poor service equals lost customers.


Now let's look at the situation with healthcare.
Doctors are paid by insurance and Medicare for every patient they see according to why they see the patient, and what procedures they perform for the patient, and not by the amount of time they spend with the patient - patients can expect to spend no more than 10 to 16 minutes with their doctor, depending on the agreement with the insurance provider. It varies from insurance plan to insurance plan, or from Medicare or Medicaid. Bottom line - doctors are paid for the number of patients and number of procedures, and not how much time any of those take, there is a real incentive for the doctor to spend as little time as possible with each patient.
Now if Obama limits the amount allowed for procedures, what will doctors have to do?
Lower their standard of living? Drop their expensive malpractice insurance? Not pay back their massive student loans? Work more hours? No, they won't.
Time is constant. There are only 24 hours in a day. In order to make up for the lowered income, they will either have to cut expenses by firing employees (not an option with small offices), or will have to increase the amount of patients seen during the same amount of time. That means that they will spend even less time reviewing your records before prescribing you a "magic pill" - or worse, a procedure that you don't need, but pays a higher rate to them. This is generally considered a lowering of standards and quality. Is that what you want for your children's health -to lower the quality of care?

"In the United States, only about a third of our doctors are primary care and we've been seeing lately that there's actually been a growing disinterest in this field for many of our U.S. medical graduates. So we have created incentives in part through higher salary to specialists. We have many more of our students going into specialty care" - Dr. Andrew Bindman of the University of California, San Francisco

+1 million.

[BanginJimmy]

If you are looking for a provision, there simply isn't a provision clearly stated out. You can sit here and beat that dead horse, or you can look at bu villain's statements above, take them into account and tell me what you think. Or you can do just as you did after he posted these points, skip over them.

I didn't purposely skip over those comments as they are the only halfway intelligent posts by a liberal in this thread. I simply missed them and I will comment on them when I get to a computer.

I've scrolled through this thread and all I can see from you BanginJimmy are stabs at liberals. Your comment about hinting to Socialism and a single-payer system speaks volumes about what outlets fill your head with talking points. It's not impressive and it is very demeaning.

Obama has personally said he prefers a single payer so I see no reason to believe this horrible bill is nothintg more than a first step towards it.

Yes, I do take a lot of stabs at liberals, but not nearly as many attacks by liberals againt me or any other conservative.

I would love to hear what talking points are filling my head. The only ones I can think of are the common sense ones. I can see that Reid, Obama, Pelosi and MSNBC have you throughly corrputed, without offering a single realistic detail. You will simply follow the liberal/Obama line no matter what they say.

Who is it demeaning to? The people that faint at the sight of Obama? The people that take anything he says at face value then come back and say anything that GOP says is nothing more than rhetoric and lies? The people that ignore the fact that Obama is a hero to groups kike the Weather Underground and the NBPP? Those same people that ignore his ties to people like Dorn, Wright, Ayers, and Jones?

[David88vert]

+1 million.

CNN Money has an article on this today, written about Medicare payments about to be lowered, and how it affects primary care physicians.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/04/news...osts/index.htm

[Vteckidd]

I think it still goes back to people do not understand the issues and their consequences. Everyonehas tunnel vision they see "free healthcare" or "affordable healthcare" and wrongfully assume it will positively effect them. They think the standard of care given today will apply tomorrow after they kick out the evil insurance companies.

This issue is so overloaded with half truths and outright lies I'm surprised there isn't
more backlash against it.

[blurred visions]

I didn't purposely skip over those comments as they are the only halfway intelligent posts by a liberal in this thread. I simply missed them and I will comment on them when I get to a computer.

Of course, they are halfway intelligent because they are from a liberal. Liberal = Halfway intelligent. BanginJimmy = Fox Republican.

Obama has personally said he prefers a single payer so I see no reason to believe this horrible bill is nothintg more than a first step towards it.

Is this you or Glenn Beck talking?

Yes, I do take a lot of stabs at liberals, but not nearly as many attacks by liberals againt me or any other conservative.

You may be confusing stabs with constructive criticism. It's all about how you perceive it. For the most part, my criticism towards Conservatives is mostly because I'm recognizing problems that they may need to consider.

I would love to hear what talking points are filling my head. The only ones I can think of are the common sense ones. I can see that Reid, Obama, Pelosi and MSNBC have you throughly corrputed, without offering a single realistic detail. You will simply follow the liberal/Obama line no matter what they say.

This is exactly the Fox Conservative Republican mindset! "The common sense ones" is clearly your conservative nature. You never want to be wrong and you will most likely never take in opposing parties propositions. As I have said in another thread, I am not for a party, I vote based on who needs to be in office. I never watch MSNBC, just various worthy clips on youtube (on occasion). You Fox viewers believe that "the other team" is glued to MSNBC and building up their separate hatred towards Republicans.

Who is it demeaning to? The people that faint at the sight of Obama? The people that take anything he says at face value then come back and say anything that GOP says is nothing more than rhetoric and lies? The people that ignore the fact that Obama is a hero to groups kike the Weather Underground and the NBPP? Those same people that ignore his ties to people like Dorn, Wright, Ayers, and Jones?

Wow, if I wouldn't have known any better I would have thought that was straight from O'Reilly himself. Unless you go to Fox rehab, you will never really know how you are representing your party and yourself.

[Vteckidd]

The common liberal response is to blame a conservatives view on propaganda or that we are too stupid to make up our own minds.

This breed blames fox news or oreilly or beck. Oreilly is the most middle of the road reporter on tv today. But I suppose I think that cause im to dumb to know any better.

You can't argue the issues you can only blame why we think the way we do to make your views make sense in your head.

[Ziptied]

I think it's retarded, I lose because I can actually afford health insurance. Thanks Obama, you lying secretive bastard.

[BanginJimmy]

Of course, they are halfway intelligent because they are from a liberal. Liberal = Halfway intelligent. BanginJimmy = Fox Republican.

Actually not a republican, but I am a fiscal conservative.

Is this you or Glenn Beck talking?

Actually it is Obama speaking.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAya...layer_embedded

You may be confusing stabs with constructive criticism. It's all about how you perceive it. For the most part, my criticism towards Conservatives is mostly because I'm recognizing problems that they may need to consider.

I didnt say anyone particular, but if the shoe fits.

This is exactly the Fox Conservative Republican mindset! "The common sense ones" is clearly your conservative nature. You never want to be wrong and you will most likely never take in opposing parties propositions. As I have said in another thread, I am not for a party, I vote based on who needs to be in office. I never watch MSNBC, just various worthy clips on youtube (on occasion). You Fox viewers believe that "the other team" is glued to MSNBC and building up their separate hatred towards Republicans.

Common sense tells me that if you raise taxes on insurance companies, my premiums and/or co-pays go up. Common sense tells me that if the fed govt tells you it is going to cost 900B, it is really going to cost 3 or 4 or 5T.

I dont mind being wrong if I am proven wrong, that simply means I didnt look hard enough for the right answers. Its a learning experience for me. What I wont do is say I am wrong without something to prove I am wrong.

I never watch MSNBC, just various worthy clips on youtube (on occasion). You Fox viewers believe that "the other team" is glued to MSNBC and building up their separate hatred towards Republicans.

Funny, you did the exact same thing to me with your Beck comment. BTW, I have watched Beck 2 or 3 times in my life. The guy knows what he is talking about, but his presentation annoys the piss out of me.

Wow, if I wouldn't have known any better I would have thought that was straight from O'Reilly himself. Unless you go to Fox rehab, you will never really know how you are representing your party and yourself.

Hmmm, I guess you are no different than me. Since I know you watch him, what time does Chris Mathews come on? You and him can enjoy a tingling leg together while replaying Obama speeches.