What Health Care Reform Really Means to You

The quality of What care? If you don't have healthcare then there is NO quality. As for Illegals, NOTHING in any bill offered would give them anything. Sure they will go to the emergency rooms like they do now but we can't just turn people away. That issue has to be solved with tough immigration laws to send them back home.

That is why mass legalization of undocumented aliens will soon be coming to a progressive govnment near you.
You cannot let them open this door, and then expect them to close it.

So my suggestion of "Tough Immigration Laws" to you translates to "Mass Legalization of Undocumented Aliens"??? What language do you speak?
Part of the Healthcare solution needs to be the tightening of Immigration Employment laws which would help to discourage illegal immigration because the Illegals are a Massive strain on our system with or without health care reform!!!

you said "there is nothing in the bill giving illegals access to healthcare"
Im saying to you -- soon they wont be illegal.

That is a different issue which I think we actually agree at least a little on in the fact that we do need Major Immigration Reform, not to allow them a free pass, but to encourage them to go back home through tough Immigration Employment Laws.
But let's stick to the Healthcare issue shall we.

it is relevant, since they have pulled off this healthcare takeover scam -- we are going to see a flood of insane legislation very quickly.
Bank On It my friend.

I respectfully dissagree but that is just my opinion on the future of this path. I wonder what the Vegas odds would be on that?

What progressive government? Are we talking about Sweden now?

How is that possible without a super-majority and a disloyal opposition that only votes no in lockstep on everything. Can't imagine why you have your nuts in a knot.

Reconciliation is only allowed by Senate rules once per Congress on financial related bills.
Paranoid much?

Well CaptB, since you didn't answer any of my arguments at the other posting on health insurance (so-called) reform and since I call "bullshit" on the arguments you have given me (and I'm not a right-winger from Texass, I am a proud liberal from WV), I thought I'd bring my latest response here to you:

1) As I stated before, I pay for what I use. If I can't afford something I make a different plan. You don't know me, you don't know my lifestyle, you don't know how I treat my body and you especially don't know my interaction history with the medical establishment. Speaking of hubris, don't tell me what I WILL DO if and/or when a major illness or injury befalls me. Or do you propose some sort of "medical police" who will come and drag me out of my bed to force me into a hospital?

2) If my government is going to force me to throw my cash into the pot for the common good, fine and well. I pay my taxes. I'm not one of these Grover Norquist, drown-the-government yahoos. But don't force me to give my hard-earned cash to some private fuck who already makes way more money than he/she should and who only works to deny me any return on my investment. Fuck that, if you want me to act for the common good, then my money better damn well go to the commons and not some rich bastard's pocket.

3) Are you trying to tar me as some right-wing, tea-bagging goof with your references to Nascar, drunkenness and lawnmower racing? That's one big problem with the DLC crowd who support this lame bill, you just can't get over the fact that many of us on the left think it's trash,too. If the dems wanted backing from those of us who are truly on the left, they should have just rammed medicare E down the repugs throats. But no, they also sold out to big insurance, big pharma and the hospitals just like the old boss.

4) I've made this argument twice on current and I hate to repeat it again. Don't try to sell me something by saying that we'll "tweak it" later. Congress lies out of their asses every day. I do not trust them. Obama is a misleading bastard as well. You would never purchase a broken item from a salesman, even if he really promised to come back and fix it in a week. Why would you trust the salesman? Why would you purchase a broken item? There is no reason whatsoever why we can't drop this and come back with a proposal for medicare E. Don't give me that 60 vote bullshit, don't give me any blue dog bullshit, if you want me to support a healthcare bill then just quit fucking around and do it.

I agree with many of your points but the sad truth is that we only have 2 choices, there is No middle ground. You can do nothing and let the insurance companies continue with their game or you can do something Now and continue to try to improve it. Your choice, complete insurance company control or government interventions, which will it be?
I would like to have seen single payer government healthcare for ALL but that is not one of the choices that we have been given. Personally, I feel that doing Nothing is completely unacceptable, so I would vote for the reform that is offered and then go after the assholes that put in the “Bullshit” parts that just benefit certain people, groups, or companies and make them pay for their arrogance. These things will come to pass and how we respond to them will determine our success.

I don't buy that "only two choice" argument. They can start over right now and keep introducing bills for extended medicare. The more people permitted the choice to enter the medicare system, the more customers that the insurance ticks would lose. REAL COMPETITION Then they would either have to straighten their asses out or go under.

As far as having momentum right now, that's part of the illusion being used to push this piece of crap bill through. Now the dems are either working toward something for us or not. I tend to think not. But they still have the majority, they still have the power to push things through THAT THEY WANT to push through. I'm not lying down and accepting the false illusion that it's either this bill or nothing. They need to stand up and give something worth supporting.

This legislation sucks. It gives the insurance companies even more power over the people, not less. Why the hell do you think that Obama could even get the few little compromises he could get out of those fuckers, like the pre-existing condition stuff? Because he handed them the whole uninsured segment of this country over to them as new customers. That was in the deal from the first, no questions asked. That's the only reason they agreed to permit Washington to "reign" them in at all.

I'm sorry. I refuse to eat this plate of excrement under the threat that it's either this or nothing. You and others supporting this stinker try to sound optimistic about all of this "first step" baloney, but you're actually defeatists. We deserve a much better "first step" than this.

Sorry I didn't respond to your reply. I just linked my email to these responses, so I was able to find yours.

So you are from WV...seriously, you don't race lawnmowers at all? Just a little speeding? hahaha, just kidding. I do like your idea of the medical police.

This is the hard part of the HCR bill. Do we force people to pay for healthcare they will eventually need. Does someone have the right to hurt themselves or cause their body to get sick. In the form of overeating will cause diabetes, drugs will cause addiction and require a liver replacement or dialysis for the kidney, or smoking could potentially cause COPD or cancer. Does the govt have the right to impose their will and fine those that are not healthy enough?

What if it will cost the healthcare industry (govt) in the long run? Should we allow people to go without health insurance and possibly bankrupt our govt on its current path?

It is gray, it just so happens that my party (progressive dems) are in charge,and we are going to ram it down peoples throats. Just like the Repubs crammed the war and tax cuts down our throats.

We need a teeter totter where we have the right and the left take control so we dont go to far in either direction. Keep things moderate and on an even keel.

I totally agree with you as to what Needs to be done. I actually believe that since the Repugs will not give Any support to any Democratic bill that they should just go back to the original bill with the public option and “Ram” that one through. I just don't believe we have a third choice because too many Democrats are in the pockets of the insurance industry like their Repugnican constituents. It’s about the MONEY!
My hope is that after this bill is passed so many people will object to the provision of mandated insurance through civil disobedience by not purchasing the corporate insurance that they will be forced to change that part and put in the original Public Option. I also feel that the health insurance company promises of lower rates if everyone is in will be shown to be "BullShit". They will always have an excuse to raise rates for their company profits, ie; "The other companies are doing it so we have to do it to stay competitive." They are all a bunch of Vampires and should be eliminated.
You can call me a pessimist but I consider myself a realist. I believe in the total abolishment of drug prohibition but that does not mean that I would vote down a bill to give us Medical Cannabis. I will take what I can get then fight for the rest. (Let’s not get into a prohibition argument here, I am just making an example.)

Yeah, well for the past 30 years and up until I hit the courthouse in the morning, the democratic party has been my party also. The Obama administration may want to act like this is the dems shoving something progressive down the repug's throats, but in reality it's their buckling to corporate powers to shove a shitty piece of legislation down everyone's throat.

You may want to include yourself in the number of DLC dems who are pushing this crap, but as I said, it's my party too. I and many others who gave the party great support in the 2008 campaign and election didn't sign on to the shoving-down-the-throat of this garbage. This administration may be surprised to find that they don't have quite the groundswell of support that they think they will when this is all said and done. I, for one, know that as of tomorrow I will be a registered independent and none of these bastards will ever get my support again.

It's all good, not every facet of the democratic platform I agree with. We all have our own agendas and things that are important to each of us. For some it is abortion, God in schools and bringing Christian teachings back into school, evolution should be taken out of schools, the military needs another $400 billion in funding and we need to invade N. Korea, Pakistan, and Iran, or immigration control, or human trafficking, or the environment being filled with pesticides and cyanide in our rivers, or nuclear power plants, or gun control. The list is long.

This isn't the only issue, but it is an important one.

CaptB: I am a PROGRESSIVE, if you support this bill then you must be the corporatist. Why don't you try to be a little progressive instead of giving our money away to the big insurance industry?

I think we need to have some way to pay for all the healthcare that is being used. So we should all pay into the system and be forced to pay for insurance. Otherwise, our health system is going to crash and burn.

I think we are going to have you pay an extra dollar related to your attitude. Charge you more until you just given in and accept it, haha. Just kidding.

You will get used to it after awhile. You will be one of the ones demanding it and picketing with a sign for the govt to leave your health insurance alone.

I think you read too deep into my statement. I guess I could have been less profane and just said, I think "health insurance" is a scam. from what I've read here, I think we are both excited for what has happened in congress tonight. certainly a step in the right direction.

Side note: Native Oregonian.

hear hear!

For the last time you asshat, quit trying to portray me as a teabagger. You smug sonofabitch. I'm further to the left than you are you corporatist fucker. I hope you're all warm and fuzzy over the fact that the insurance industry is laughing all the way to the bank on this one. Why don't you get your head out of your ass and think about the circumstances instead of repeating your DLC talking points. You have so much in common with these teabaggers it isn't funny.

You're being purposely obtuse now. I can only believe, after all of your bs, that you must be paid to comment here by the insurance industry. That's all that makes sense because your arguments certainly don't.

Dear Mr. Teabagger, hahaha. Just kidding. The bill passed, I am happy. All is good now. The third largest social program America has seen has been passed. I am very happy indeed.

I do not work for the insurance agency. Although, if an insurance company can offer me a competing six figure salary I would be willing to do what it takes to work for them, hahaha.

The bill is going to do so much for so many, this is awesome. We should all be proud for electing this great president that is doing the will of the people.

your so naive, no scratch that --your downright stupid.
whats next, youll get your allotment of free obama cash. LoL.
We are bankrupt you idiot.
We got four states ready to sue in the morning.
Maybe there is some good to come of this, maybe the states will be finally forced to assert their sovereignty and they will put the federal govnment back into it's box.

My IQ is 137, which is nothing to be proud of, but enough to get me by and scrape by.

You probably have a higher IQ than I do, the God's know that there are many more people that are more intelligent than I am and have had more education than I have.

I guess you are right about the bankrupt issue, considering we are 12 trillion in debt now according to the debt clock. But we have been bankrupt (or in debt) into the Trillions of dollars since Reagans administration.

I am afraid unless we start cutting things like Clinton and come up with a surplus every year we will not be able to pay off the national debt. I think if we cut the military, NSA, homeland security, and alter social security along with a whole host of other things we should cut from our budget we are in trouble.

I am a fiscally responsible liberal, I can see you rolling your eyes because I supported this legislation. I think Clinton did amazing things with his surpluses and paying down the national debt. He did have to cut some things like welfare (more so than any other president), as well as the NSA and the military. Things not popular on either side of the aisle.

We are going to have to eventually raise taxes to pay it off. We should never spend more than we collect. I am hoping someone will get elected who passes that as a law. I think all states should follow what Arkansas did a few years ago and make it illegal to spend what they don't have.

California could learn from it too.

By the way, I already got my Obama payment...he wrote me an email and thanked me for making calls and sending emails to help in passing the healthcare legislation. That is payment enough for me. I have enough cash, I prefer altruism anymore to cash.

While it may be 'trash', as you can see, it's not exactly easy to pass anything in the current political environment that doesn't involve funding for Muslim genocide. the point is, it took 100 years to get health insurance reform passed and it is a base to build on. In the meantime, six months from now insurance companies will only be denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions outside the bounds of the law of the land. This means children born with disease won't have to suffer and die without at least having a shot at some medical care.

I don't agree with the thing neither but it's a starting point. If it wee not passed there would not be an opportunity to even address it again for at least a generation.
Ask Bernie Sanders or Dennis Kucinich and you'll get a similar response.

I have it on good authority from leading constitutional legal experts that not one lawsuit will get traction. Watch and learn.
The fiscal conservitard teabaggers are wasting money as usual.

im sorry too tell you -- they can still deny for preexisting conditions.

I get the newsletter from the aclj who are sueing, they are experts.
You are so wearisome with your constant telling me what bush did.
I don't care what bush did since he is not systematically taking over america.
obama and his band of marxist advisors are steering this train wreck.

Of course it is. I haven't missed more than 2 days of work in 21 years.
And not because I'm Kal El aka Superman. Hardly. It's mind over matter.
I went to work when I had bronchitis. I kept on walking even with a torn
muscle in my knee which needed surgery. Hey, if prehistoric humans
could do it, I can do it. Most people have come to the conclusion I'm
a lot tougher than I appear. Hardly again. As Thomas Edison once said:
" If most people actualy did all they are capable of doing, yet disbelieve
they can do, they would literaly astound themselves." I'm a case in point.

Are you an advocate of just sheer prayer instead of insurance? Or do you propose we just have doctors provide free medical care? Or, possibly going back to the barter system?

No insurance means people show up to ER's and drain our system of tax dollars. So explain to me how insurance is BS again?

Not everyone has a constitution such as you do. Also, the people that lived long ago rarely lived beyond 30-40 years. Unless you believe that people in the bible lived 1300 years, it depends on how you interpret 'Ages' in the old testament.

Eventually everyone will require some form of healthcare. We can't gamble our healthcare on the fact that you may not get injured at work or have a stroke, heart attack, embolism, burst appendix, etc.

We need a change in the system, and it is going to require everyone paying into a large pot so that our country as a whole can afford to keep on doing what we are doing.

but you already know health insurance is crap, you don't really need me to explain how bad it stinks or how it became such smelly crap in the first place, do you? and...
I just think calling it "health insurance" is funny. Health. Insurance. Health insurance. what are we insuring? That's right. Health.

Sorry about your grandfather by the way.

I have to politely disagree. I think that we all need a form of health insurance to not only protect us from bankruptcy when we get ill. Also to protect the govt from having to pay for people that DO NOT have health insurance and seek it when it need. Especially in the ER setting.

Only 5% of the population of the U.S. makes more than $250,000 a year (between 5-10%). Unless you are in that category, I think you need to purchase health insurance. If we all chip in it will make health insurance cheaper for all of us. Passing a proverbial hat around.

Otherwise, there will come a point where we will have to raise taxes to pay for our current system. We can't keep hoping that trickle down economics is going to have the rich pay the people (workers) more with their profits. The exact opposite has happened. In the last 30 years we have seen a disproportionate gap between the wealthy and the middleclass and poor. Meaning that the rich are not sharing like Reagan and the Bush's said they would. Tax cuts only went into the wealthy peoples coffers. We have seen the wealthy cut jobs and cut health insurance in fact. While the number of billionaires and millionaires has burgeoned like a mushroom cloud.

Yeah, "Trickle Down", what a joke. $.01 of every dollar is definitely a "Trickle". It is that type of “Trickle Down” economics that has led us to the bankrupt economy we have today.
Conservatives still think that it will work if just given some more time and de-regulation, how sad. “So how’s that “Reaganomics” workin’ for ya?”

reaganomics, if we only had it we wouldnt be in our current situation.
Everything trickles down if allowed to,, never trickles upward it has to be stolen and given to the elites.

In a perfect world I would wholeheartedly agree with you. But as I am the
longstanding victim of the Racketeering of corrupt FBI agents, having
been Felony Stalked off my jobs and nearly 3 times Murdered by their
crackhead vigilantee accomplices for the depraved amusement of Dan
the Scam Cumming's TV audience, I don't have any spare money to
allocate to health care insurance. The only insurance I've got is to be
mindful and careful to avoid sickness and injury. And yes, I do have a
high risk occupation. So what am I to do ? Ask a studio to star in a remake of
the Arnold Schwartzenegger's movie the Running Man ? This is a real life
Gummint agent Organized Crime story, not a Hollywood produced movie
Do you think they in Washington,D.C.,who have all their deluxe health care
covered, care if I can't pay ? They behave like a machine. To them, if I fall
between the cracks like some grain of sand, too bad. To most others, I'd
immagine they too are only concerned about themselves. So if the Gummint
comes up with some tyranical idea to have the IRS institute a proceeding in
U.S. Court to fine someone who can't pay...Who cares ? The IRS knows I
haven't legaly had to pay income taxes for many, many years. Kind of looks
like their health care bill is not as well thought out as its supporters assumed.

Thank you for your kindness. The GOD who knows the color of
every little flower, and has a perfect plan for all souls as if each
were HIS only child has long since kept my grandad in Heaven.
HE would not have allowed either my grandad or I to endure the
extreme hardships we have without some mysterious purpose in
mind. Love is the ultimate act of faith. We trust in God to know
what is in HIS best interest in us. I understand President Obama's
need for universal health care reform. And in principle, I support
it and him. I voted for him. Being a constant sort of man, I don't
change with the weather. No matter how irrelevant others may twist
and misconstrue my intent, and misrepresent me, they're nothing
and they know that. It's how this proposed law will be implemented
in practice that I'm concerned about. If they would cover those
who don't have the ability to pay, I would support it. But there's the rub.

It is like hedging your bets in case you get sick. Trust me when I say that you can't afford a six month stay in ICU without health insurance without going bankrupt. I am going out on a limb and guessing that you are not wealthy enough to pay cash for healthcare.

If we don't have healthinsurance the people that use the ER and get hospitalized will continue to bankrupt the system or the pot where the money comes from. So it is better we all pay in to the big pot.

I would rather we all pay than raise taxes across the board.

I think the trickle down theory did work, but in an unintended manner. The wealthy urinated on us, and hence the trickle down theory did work. As they were, "pissing" on us and taking all our money with the tax cuts they then put it all in their accounts.

They boon-doggled us!

its a nice theory of yours, but in reality they provided jobs -- until govnment greed and prohibitive union costs forced them to set up shop overseas.
The rich and the corps are the reason that even the poor in this country have cars, flat screens, cell phones, etc
The reason middle class family's were making up to 100g a year.
That was all pre 9/11 and before left wing crazies looted the people.

Bush was in charge during 9/11 and how did the left wing crazies loot anything? It was the greedy making risky investments with peoples money and allowing anyone to buy a home. Taking risks with peoples money and even betting against the same clients money they were investing. Unethical, but no regulation meant they could get away with it. Until it collapsed. Now we need regulation, everyone admits to that. Regulate it all.

does freddy and fanny ring a bell?
Yes this was lefty's and govnment regulation forcing banks to make high risk loans so they could live up to the progressive utopian failure.
Not only did they loot the money, they had to be bailed out twice.
Govment at its finest.

Crappy health insurance is bullshit. A comprehensive single payer health insurance solution is great. Ask the rest of the free world. The US is in the dark ages in that regard.

Wow, could you be more wrong? Fanny and Freddie reign of terror a direct result of conservitard deregulation policies. Try to keep up.

no actually -- regulation in the form of barney frank forcing banks to make bad loans.

silly graph since --Federal Government tax revenues did increase significantly following the tax cuts of the Reagan years; it was the dramatic increase in spending that produced the budget deficits of that era.
Spending on building up the military to stare down our enemies.
How be it that giving tax cuts could increase money to govnment coffers and lower unemployment?
Thank You ronaldus magnus

When you say the government is going to steal from you. Are you referring to taxes? You do know it is law that you pay taxes. You do know that the taxes that are mandated by law are already spread out to help with roads, public health, fire departments, FBI, CIA, and many other public things to help you.

So you are essentially saying that you want your tax dollars spent for only specific things, like national highways and parks or something that you benefit from? So when you say the government is stealing, do you believe you shouldn't pay any taxes at all? Or just taxes that support wars that you support? Or just the roads that you travel. Or the NIH (national institutes of health) do research on diseases that only you are concerned with? You want all the monies collected to only benefit you?

I was also wondering where you are able to measure how hard people work. I am assuming that you refer to hard working people as people who make more money than others? So a field worker doesn't make as much money and hence doesn't work hard as a manager at UPS or Wal-Mart? How do you measure if someone is a hard worker?

I propose that we all work hard, all races and vocations, but we receive different wages. So you want all your wages to be safe and not put into the pool to help America. You just want the lazy people (you will have to point them out to me) to pay their taxes?

Please Please Please explain.

"We wouldn't allow someone to have new clothes if it meant sacrificing toilet paper for the entire island."
It sounds like your little bit of selected "Socialism" is fine for you. So why is it that not letting someone, (Insurance Companies), have something, (Obscene Profits), that would cause others to loose a necessity, (Healthcare), the correct thing to do on your island but not for America?

You Obviously don’t understand “Socialism”. Not that I want a completely “Socialist” government in America, I do NOT, but in a “Socialist” system Everyone contributes Equally by law. Nobody is allowed to just sit on their Ass and do nothing. Everyone has something to do that is needed to be done for the good of the society.
Sounds a bit like what you described on “Your” island.
Selective Socialist Policies (Social Security, Police and Fire agencies, Healthcare, etc…) for the good of All the people does not equal complete Socialism. We have had many “Socialist” policies throughout our history and we are still a Democratic Republic, not a Socialist nation.

really, is that why union members and govnment workers wont have to pay the healthcare tax but all others will (except those who make special deals with the mob bosses).
Socialism is designed to implode on itself, that is what it is supposed to do.

I propose that they are as fair because they are the voice of the majority of the people that elected them. Albeit, not to all of our wishes at times when our candidate or party loses.

The toll roads are not a bad idea for specific thoroughfares. In the 1950's Eisenhower copied Germany and made a national interstate system that allowed us to connect all states together and major cities. Prior to that it was just small roads and sometimes dirt roads. So the govt has to pay for the upkeep of the roads. We can't possibly make every road in America a toll road.

I agree to an extent, the govt does not personally care about you. There are no hugs for every single person. The govt does care for us like a distant rich uncle, let's call him Uncle Sam. He needs to set down rules for us to follow (laws) that is best for us as a large group. We pay him money (taxes) and he takes care of our needs in a national and state sense. Natural disasters, law enforcement, fire houses, roads, medical care, military protection.

The govt does care, but they can't sit down and personally talk to you, protect you from people that are not enlightened on the island. For that I am sorry.

Again, what 'socialism'. Please be specific.

Are you referring to the Fox News polls as your statistics for the countries beliefs? Fox has used statistics and stated they are fact. When if you recall when Obama was trouncing McCain in the polls Fox stated that you can't trust the polls. Hmmmmmm.

Not now. Two days later, Dem's poll numbers, especially Obama's, are rising fast. LOL

I completely agree. Do people not understand what this plan really is, and what these lawmakers are doing to get to that crucial 216!

So, let me get this right. The same fools (Bush) who took away the govt control of Wall Street and the banks and allowed them to regulate themselves. Look where Bush took us on that one. He ruined our economy.

The health care reform bill is trying to help the poor and needy. If we don't regulate the insurance companies they will start denying people for pre-existing conditions. They will deny people health insurance for people that contract HIV for no other reason other than it will be a loss to their coffers.

So yes, we do need govt regulation to protect, "The People" of our nation from monopolies.

Or have you forgotten about AIG already? Do you remember what Bush had to do with the first bail out? I believe the first one was $800 billion?

OH, I understand what it is, and I am hoping they are willing to do anything to get it passed, haha. Bush said that since he was elected America had spoken, and that he was going to impose his beliefs and will as he saw fit. I hope Obama does the same in an effort to help the poor and needy.

****Bush didn't say those exact words, I paraphrased it so you would understand. Otherwise, I would have had misspellings and long pauses. It would have been a grammatical nightmare of sorts.

bush? you think this is about bush?
funny how you remember a.i.g (im against govnment bailouts) but you don't remember fanny and freddy.
You have bought this class warfare, hook line and sinker.
Look into history, this tactic was used by all the dictators in their grabs for power.
It is an old and well worn page in the progressive playbook -- find a victim, hold up that victim as justification for more government power, find an supposed evil villian and use the villian as justification for more govnment power -- in this manner progressives have step by step stolen the peoples prerogative to power and their freedom and have taken over nearly every industry in the market, including the market itself.
wise up man!
there is no industry that is unregulated by govnment, and most of the problems with the economy can be traced right back to govnment, unions, and progressives.

ROFL - You are the one that has swallowed the corporate worm; hook, line, and sinker.

Bush did accept Bernankes initial advice and enacted the first $800 billion bailout. Obama kept Bernanke on and he suggested the same bailout fund.

I am contending that Bush gave tax breaks and deregulated WallStreet to an extent that just allowed the free market to run amok. Got us into the financial situation we are in.

If nothing else, repubs have to admit that continual tax cuts are not the solution. I do agree that we need to be more fiscally responsible and not spend every penny we tax. We need to have a surplus.

Clinton had some successful years because the economy did so well. Clinton did de-regulate things to an extent, but nothing like baby Bush. He also cut the NSA and a lot of govt agencies. We need to cut the military back. We need to alter how SS works right now.

They didn't fall for anything. Lefties know Obama sold out to the insurers a long time ago and they're pissed. Yet, now that it;'s law, we'll build on it. That's how it works.
Single payer amendment after 2012. Don't tell anybody.

Total horseshit. Sounds like Gwenn Beck has been connecting your dots.

Fascism is inherently linked to nationalism, nativism, racism, and agressive war policy. I think you'll find the hitler mustache is on the other face.

Fascism is the opposite of what you just described. Fascism has nothing to do with government 'ruling' corps. For fuck sakes, man. Look it up.

OK, sit down and I'll bring you some coco and tell you a story:

When people hear the word “fascism” they naturally think of its ugly racism and anti-Semitism as practiced by the totalitarian regimes of Mussolini and Hitler. But there was also an economic policy component of fascism, known in Europe during the 1920s and ‘30s as “corporatism,” that was an essential ingredient of economic totalitarianism as practiced by Mussolini and Hitler. So-called corporatism was adopted in Italy and Germany during the 1930s and was held up as a “model” by quite a few intellectuals and policy makers in the United States and Europe. A version of economic fascism was in fact adopted in the United States in the 1930s and survives to this day. In the United States these policies were not called “fascism” but “planned capitalism.” The word fascism may no longer be politically acceptable, but its synonym “industrial policy” is as popular as ever.

Few Americans are aware of or can recall how so many Americans and Europeans viewed economic fascism as the wave of the future during the 1930s. The American Ambassador to Italy, Richard Washburn Child, was so impressed with “corporatism” that he wrote in the preface to Mussolini’s 1928 autobiography that “it may be shrewdly forecast that no man will exhibit dimensions of permanent greatness equal to Mussolini. . . . The Duce is now the greatest figure of this sphere and time.”[1] Winston Churchill wrote in 1927 that “If I had been an Italian I am sure I would have been entirely with you” and “don the Fascist black shirt.”[2] As late as 1940, Churchill was still describing Mussolini as “a great man.”

U.S. Congressman Sol Bloom, Chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee, said in 1926 that Mussolini “will be a great thing not only for Italy but for all of us if he succeeds. It is his inspiration, his determination, his constant toil that has literally rejuvenated Italy . .”[3]

One of the most outspoken American fascists was economist Lawrence Dennis. In his 1936 book, The Coming American Fascism, Dennis declared that defenders of “18th-century Americanism” were sure to become “the laughing stock of their own countrymen” and that the adoption of economic fascism would intensify “national spirit” and put it behind “the enterprises of public welfare and social control.” The big stumbling block to the development of economic fascism, Dennis bemoaned, was “liberal norms of law or constitutional guarantees of private rights.”

Certain British intellectuals were perhaps the most smitten of anyone by fascism. George Bernard Shaw announced in 1927 that his fellow “socialists should be delighted to find at last a socialist [Mussolini] who speaks and thinks as responsible rulers do.”[4] He helped form the British Union of Fascists whose “Outline of the Corporate State,” according to the organization’s founder, Sir Oswald Mosley, was “on the Italian Model.” While visiting England, the American author Ezra Pound declared that Mussolini was “continuing the task of Thomas Jefferson.”[5]

Thus, it is important to recognize that, as an economic system, fascism was widely accepted in the 1920s and ‘30s. The evil deeds of individual fascists were later condemned, but the practice of economic fascism never was. To this day, the historically uninformed continue to repeat the hoary slogan that, despite all his faults, Mussolini at least “made the trains run on time,” insinuating that his interventionist industrial policies were a success.**

Oh, I see you've nodded off.

Montesooma can't hear you, can't hear you, can't hear you, can't hear you, CAN'T HEAR YOU la la la la LALALALALALALA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Socialism and Naziism (AKA Fascism) are on opposite ends of the political spectrum... So who are the "smart ones" you're referring to again?

He's a Beck devotee. He plugged a widely and I do mean very widely discredited book by Jonah Goldberg that sought to use historical revisionism to make FDR into both a Stalinist and a fascist to remove the hatred that History levels at his conservative predecessor Hoover. It is nothing more than people displeased with the conduct of history attempting to rewrite it when faced with a historic parallel today. In this case its fear that a popular progressive agenda like the New Deal or Square Deal while initially contentious always result in a generational shift in public opinion towards Democrats as was seen in the Depression and years following WWII. It's possible to over reach as was seen in the fervor leveled at the Great Society programs but in the end Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, Social Security, and even COBRA have proven popular when implemented. Essentially these people have been trained to ignore facts and popular sentiment in favor of the promotion of their own ideology. It would be pitiable if it was not insulting to our national heritage.

Facts are not Monte's strong point. Didn't anyone tell you?

Couldn't be more wrong.

**Many conservatives accuse Hitler of being a leftist, on the grounds that his party was named "National Socialist."
But socialism requires worker ownership and control of the means of production. In Nazi Germany, private capitalist individuals owned the means of production, and they in turn were frequently controlled by the Nazi party and state.
True socialism does not advocate such economic dictatorship -- it can only be democratic. Hitler's other political beliefs place him almost always on the far right.
He advocated racism over racial tolerance, eugenics over freedom of reproduction, merit over equality, competition over cooperation, power politics and militarism over pacifism, dictatorship over democracy, capitalism over Marxism, realism over idealism, nationalism over internationalism, exclusiveness over inclusiveness, common sense over theory or science, pragmatism over principle, and even held friendly relations with the Church, even though he was an atheist.**

Doesn't sound like 'socialism' to me, but then I actually know what the word means, unlike yourself.

Everyone knows Hitler and the National Socialist German Workers' Party was on the Right... That doesn't negate that he was a Socialist...

Anyway you lost me when you started inferring Socialism was a good idea... I like liberty too much, to support Socialism... Socialism has never worked anyways so the point is kinda moot...

Even though people keep wanting to give it another try-sheesh-

socialism has several different meanings so you think you can muddy the waters by arguing the semantics of the word.
if we use your standard then we can say we've never had capitalism in america either.
How about we give capitalism a good try hmm, at least I know what it means.
Socialism is merely a stepping stone on the journey to marxism which is why the marxists in the govnment are trying to bring it about.

you said the operative word "step". This is just another step among many towards the progressive goal of total control. What exactly do think "transformation" means when it is uttered by your prezident?
You wrote :It defies the imagination that so called "Americans" have such a piss poor attitude about what we can and cannot accomplish here in America these days. It seems to me that we were once a nation of people that not only had faith in ourselves but knew that we could accomplish anything.
Americans have accomplished things never achieved by other peoples, but they did it thru their own dreams and sweat -- not by empowering a corrupt government that makes empty promises in order to hoodwink them out of their freedom.

Yes, yes they did. And do you know what the greatest dream they ever accomplished was? The triumph of a new form of government, a Democratic Republic. It was contentious, dozens of little uprisings were started for fear a Bill of Rights was somehow a Tyranny. Yes Americans are wary of power, yes Americans are skeptical of change, yes Americans defy the idea of representation without taxation. It is all these things that cobble together our wonderful democracy as it stands. The idea that we can govern ourselves and petition our government for a redress of grievances was the true shot heard round the world. But when that shot rang out, liberty was an idea not granted in equal measure. Progressives as a movement are the balm of democracy applied to the problems of the day. Redressing our grievances as a nation so that liberty is a gift applied in equal measure. There can be no right to life as enshrined in our founding documents while men are bound with no redress for the grievances of health care.

nice try but health care insurance is not a human right, it is a commodity and it's only redress is thru competition and market forces.
We need a redress of grievances that the progressives force on us and the insane policies they force everyone to endure.
Redress for the culture of corruption they bring to our representative process.
The bill of rights was put into place as a guarantee that the central government would not seek to userp powers that were given to the people and the states.
A well know progressive was secretly taped recently saying that they were entertaining the idea of changing the bill of rights with a simple majority up or down vote -- you are insane to think these people have benevolent motives.
Tell Chuck Schumer hands off the bill of rights scumbag!

Life is a human right. And all liberty is pursuant to the breath in your lungs. Without life there is no Liberty or any Happiness to pursue. It is that simple. all men are endowed with certain unalienable rights by their creator among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. There can be no clearer judgement from our founding onward. I am only asking my government to be protected from men like you. To be protected from those seeking to take away my right to life because I was born with a genetic ailment that odds hold one in any crowd of 100 also shares. And I am seeking to ensure that if misfortune of birth or trade befalls you or your family members that same protection is offered you, nothing short of the protection from death. You aren't just trying to take that right from me, but my voice as well. Only Death will silence it, and it has silenced too many thus far.

you're right; them damned Democrats- Bull Conner and George Wallace didn't like the civil rights legislation, it took Nixon to finally nail it down after the failed attempts by Johnson and Kennedy

Sheesh remember how the liberal Democrats fought for the right to own slaves here in the south...

no, your seeking my money to keep you alive.
God endowed you with the right to life, not me.
Well done trying to pervert the meaning of right to life.

nope, neither healthcare or marriage are rights, this is not what the framers had in mind and in no wise did they deem that the federal government should embark on a step by step to take over all.

The Civil rights ammendement was the greatest legacy of Lyndon Johnson. To pretend otherwise and credit a widely discredited figure such as Nixon is preposterous.