The Obamassiah says "Gather unto me the little children"

[Matt34]

You nailed it, a white president from any party would not be treated this way.

Seriously? Why is race always interjected by the left if one doesn't agree with BHO?

 

[tcarcio]

You nailed it, a white president from any party would not be treated this way.

Right, Because Bush was treated so good and with respect by liberals of all colors.........

 

[majorloser]

You nailed it, a white president from any party would not be treated this way.

You're kidding, right?

The parents of every inter-city public school would be up in arms if a "white president" was to force himself into the curriculum of every school in the nation and be directly involved with school assignments.

No politician needs to be directly involved with the instruction of this countries children. It's bad enough we have elected political "school boards" out there poorly running the public school systems in America.

Let's leave daily classroom curriculum up to the paid professionals.
Teachers

 

[highfigh]

I totally agree with you here Darien, the current health care system is broken and is in need of some major tort reform but Obama is pushing too hard for a plan that nobody really understands and will yet expand the fed government further into our lives. There are alternatives that need to be looked at, this is not something that should be rushed.

Problem is, he wants to ram everything through as fast as he can.

I just saw that 273,000 government jobs will be added in the next few years. They're already the single largest employer in the country, why not?

Go big, or go home.

 

[highfigh]

You nailed it, a white president from any party would not be treated this way.

They should if they're trying to undermine the Constitution the way he wants to. Speaking to school kids like he's their buddy is no different from any other kind of indoctrination. Trying to involve children in politics at such a young age is wrong, IMO. This is a far cry from Kennedy saying "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country".

 

[griffinconst]

Problem is, he wants to ram everything through as fast as he can.

I just saw that 273,000 government jobs will be added in the next few years. They're already the single largest employer in the country, why not?

Go big, or go home.

The average federal employee makes upwards of $75,000. They also won't get Obamacare forced on them. Neither will union members.

 

[avaserfi]

This is not a new thing. I remember having to watch Bush Jr. when I was in school and my sister watched Regan. Obama is just doing what previous presidents have done, big deal.

http://www.postonpolitics.com/2009/09/obamas-not-the-first-president-to-address-nations-schoolchildren-on-live-television/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/03/arne-duncan/barack-obama-not-first-president-address-school-ch/

 

[unreal.freak]

I totally agree with you here Darien, the current health care system is broken and is in need of some major tort reform but Obama is pushing too hard for a plan that nobody really understands and will yet expand the fed government further into our lives. There are alternatives that need to be looked at, this is not something that should be rushed.

Darien, I'm on board with needing change also. And like Matt said, it needs to be without .Gov controlling it. The problem most people are having with the current bill is, 1)its new 2) its full of .Gov control 3) its being pushed heavily by an administration who has sworn to being transparent, yet hasn't been in previous bills (stimulus). 4) This bill would make it cheaper for corporations and businesses to pay the tax penalties, rather than to continue to provide health care for their employees.

Other than that I'm for health care reform.

Peace,
Tommy

 

[Soundman]

I'm not about government stepping in and taking my rights away either. But you can't deny that there aren't instances when totally free capitalism, with no sort of limits, leads to greed and oppression. There needs to be a balance between freedom and doing what's right for society.

Spoken like a true liberal.This sounds like something out of the Communist Manifesto. Look, I know you don't want government coming in and taking away rights? Who does? But that's exactly what happens when you give government more control over your life. It happens every time. It's a gradual process that has been going on in this country for years. I've seen it first hand. One day we will look back and realized what we gave up. I believe many liberals are misled. They don't realize what is really happening. If they did, they would never agree with it. Now, your comments about capitalism leading to greed and oppression really is a Communistic idea. Capitalism is what made this country what it is today. Capitalism is what made this country prosper. Capitalism made this country the envy of the world. Capitalism tells you that if you are willing to work hard, put in the time, you will be rewarded for it. This issue is not about greed. It's what makes a thriving society- you work hard and you are rewarded. If you choose not to, no one is making you, you just wont reap the same rewards of those who choose to. It's the foundation of a free society. Whereas, Socialism puts limits on people and redistributes how the rulers of the land see a need. It discourages economic growth and is the root of the idea that the government somehow owes you something. The problem is that people should lead there own lives and the government should have a limited role and just stay out of it. With freedom comes responsibility. If you want the government to take care of it for you, there is a price to day. Nothing is truly free.

Let's talk about healthcare. It cracks me up when people scream and shout about being denied treatment under a government sponsored medical plan. They think this doesn't happen every day under the current system? Try to get medical coverage for any sort of "non-traditional" type of treatment. My mother has developed dermamyositis over the last few years, and her doctor's have basically done nothing for her. I know people that have gone to alternative medicine clinics and gotten relief. But they have to pay for this treatment out of their pocket. All doctor's want to do is put you on drugs for the rest of your life. I wonder why they do this? Could it have anything to do with the kickbacks they get from the multi-billion dollar a year pharmaceutical industry?

Something that you must consider first is that anytime government gets involved, it is a massive failure. Here's some examples: Social security- bankrupt, medicare- a disgrace. The public school system is pathetic. Freddie and Fannie- bankrupt. Hey, even the post office is bankrupt, but yet Fedex and UPS among others are going to make it work somehow. And this is the same government we want running our health care system!!!!???? Let me just warn you about this. This whole idea of government running these major parts of our lives is socialism at work. There is a reason people are worried about being denied treatment. Every place in the world where this has been tried, it has failed. Now, our system is not perfect. It has major problems, but these problems can be addressed in the private domain without government taking over. It has been proven time and time again that government is not nearly as capable as a private company. Why are these people from these other countries flocking to the US for treatment? It's because, even with our flaws, we have the best care in the world. Now listen to what I'm saying. I'm talking about superior care. I'm not talking about problems with some of the insurance companies. The insurance system can be improved, but in this country (contrary to your comments above), you cannot be denied services. You will be taken care of regardless of your ability to pay. I could list you horror stories of people under a universal health care system which Obama's plan is modeled after and it would make you sick. This is not the direction our country needs to go.

 

[Soundman]

I'm really skeptical about conservatives not wanting to control anyone...

Here is a quote from your constitution"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,
establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common
defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to
ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the
United States of America."

They wrote the constitution to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare and secure the Blessings of Liberty" and you think all this can be done without control? Please find where it says this in the constitution...

Are you a US citizen? Please forgive me if you are not, but, if so, does that not make it "your" Constitution as well. Also, keep in mind that I never suggested that there be no government, just that the government should be limited, the way it was designed to be. Remember, there was a time in this country when there weren't even income taxes. Think the government could be run that way today?!

 

[rnatalli]

Something that you must consider first is that anytime government gets involved, it is a massive failure. Here's some examples: Social security- bankrupt, medicare- a disgrace. The public school system is pathetic. Freddie and Fannie- bankrupt. Hey, even the post office is bankrupt, but yet Fedex and UPS among others are going to make it work somehow. And this is the same government we want running our health care system!!!!???? Let me just warn you about this. This whole idea of government running these major parts of our lives is socialism at work. There is a reason people are worried about being denied treatment. Every place in the world where this has been tried, it has failed. Now, our system is not perfect. It has major problems, but these problems can be addressed in the private domain without government taking over. It has been proven time and time again that government is not nearly as capable as a private company. Why are these people from these other countries flocking to the US for treatment? It's because, even with our flaws, we have the best care in the world. Now listen to what I'm saying. I'm talking about superior care. I'm not talking about problems with some of the insurance companies. The insurance system can be improved, but in this country (contrary to your comments above), you cannot be denied services. You will be taken care of regardless of your ability to pay. I could list you horror stories of people under a universal health care system which Obama's plan is modeled after and it would make you sick. This is not the direction our country needs to go.

Much of this is unfair. Although I agree there's much the government gets wrong, but there's much it gets right. I wouldn't want the military, the police departments, and the fire departments under private control. It also isn't true that the private sector always outperforms the government. Many private companies benefit from government works so their research costs are lower. Communications is a good example.

Many of the arguments against universal care are pretty weak. Some say that it will be abused. Our current system is abused so what's the difference. Some say most people will go with the public option. If they do, it's because the public option is less-expensive than the private alternatives. The U.S. doesn't have the worst healthcare, but it certainly isn't the best. I have just as many horror stories to tell from people within our own borders. What's sickening about our system is that not only is it not the best healthcare, it also costs the most. And lets not even get into dentistry as it flat out sucks in this country. If someone doesn't know that, they obviously have not spent serious time outside the U.S in a country that knows what to do with teeth.

As for Obama's speech, I don't like the idea of a politician speaking to children at this level, but at the same time, I doubt it'll be anything more than your typical stay in school or be all you can be message.

 

[rnatalli]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/09/04/MNVV19I64J.DTL

Liberals aren't the pansies so many believe

 

[Tomorrow]

Much of this is unfair. Although I agree there's much the government gets wrong, but there's much it gets right. I wouldn't want the military, the police departments, and the fire departments under private control. It also isn't true that the private sector always outperforms the government. Many private companies benefit from government works so their research costs are lower. Communications is a good example.

Many of the arguments against universal care are pretty weak. Some say that it will be abused. Our current system is abused so what's the difference. Some say most people will go with the public option. If they do, it's because the public option is less-expensive than the private alternatives. The U.S. doesn't have the worst healthcare, but it certainly isn't the best. I have just as many horror stories to tell from people within our own borders. What's sickening about our system is that not only is it not the best healthcare, it also costs the most. And lets not even get into dentistry as it flat out sucks in this country. If someone doesn't know that, they obviously have not spent serious time outside the U.S in a country that knows what to do with teeth.

As for Obama's speech, I don't like the idea of a politician speaking to children at this level, but at the same time, I doubt it'll be anything more than your typical stay in school or be all you can be message.

Since healthcare has been brought up...cost containment is THE issue. The single best answer....Tort Reform! (There are other good answers too, but the public 'option' is not one of them.)

All big bureaucracies are inefficient and therefore costly. Some large federal bureaus are necessary for the running of the nation, e.g. military. That doesn't mean they do things "right" or efficiently.

Subtle propaganda such as is going on in schools with this Obamaday most certainly does have an insidious effect.

 

[rnatalli]

Since healthcare has been brought up...cost containment is THE issue. The single best answer....Tort Reform! (There are other good answers too, but the public 'option' is not one of them.)

No argument that costs are the largest problem, but containing them is difficult. Expecting companies to do it on their own due to competition doesn't work as they simply collude with each other; and then you need government to stomp on them. Any way you slice it, government gets involved. But, I could be wrong. What do you feel is a good answer to skyrocketing costs?

 

[10010011]

Seriously? Why is race always interjected by the left if one doesn't agree with BHO?

Does anyone recall Bush 41 being charged with pushing a political agenda when he did the same thing?

You can deny it, but what else could it really be?

 

[Tomorrow]

Does anyone recall Bush 41 being charged with pushing a political agenda when he did the same thing?

You can deny it, but what else could it really be?

Who wants to deny it?! Both of these guys are travesties upon the land. Let's face it. We have an oligarchy running this country. We need to take the government back from the power brokers.

 

[Tomorrow]

No argument that costs are the largest problem, but containing them is difficult. Expecting companies to do it on their own due to competition doesn't work as they simply collude with each other; and then you need government to stomp on them. Any way you slice it, government gets involved. But, I could be wrong. What do you feel is a good answer to skyrocketing costs?

Sorry about the brief replies...I haven't much time this morning.

Tort reform is a must for reducing costs. As I mentioned elsewhere, malpractice insurance is killing everyone (financially speaking). Limits on insurers and pharmaceutical profits (perhaps via taxation) and lobbying would also help in many ways. But keep in mind, insurers may NOT be the culprit here. My insurer is a non-profit (BCBS).

Sorry for the off-topic.....

 

[rnatalli]

Subtle propaganda such as is going on in schools with this Obamaday most certainly does have an insidious effect.

The best thing the Obama administration can do is simply release a transcript of what he plans to say. Then people can decide for themselves if they want their children to hear it or not.

 

[rnatalli]

Tort reform is a must for reducing costs. As I mentioned elsewhere, malpractice insurance is killing everyone (financially speaking). Limits on insurers and pharmaceutical profits and lobbying would help.

I agree this should be done regardless of whether there's a public option or not. In an indirect way, the public option does this as it isn't easy to sue to government.

 

[Tomorrow]

I agree this should be done regardless of whether there's a public option or not. In an indirect way, the public option does this as it isn't easy to sue to government.

I have a little more time for a thoughtful reply, now.

I think we all agree that we cannot get along without a central government. I still feel the Constitution had it right when it vested the limited powers to that government...both in scope and in kind (matters affecting all states, such as defense, interstate commerce, etc.).

But (and I say this from years of experience) the inefficiency of a bureaucracy is directly related to the size of the bureaucracy. The U.S. government is by its very nature very inefficient and costly. That's the prinicple reason that a public healthcare insurance option is a bad one. And as I alluded to earlier, not-for-profit insurance companies can do a tremendously good job, providing there is competition. I sort of fibbed earlier, Blue Cross/Blue Shield is not a non-profit. It's allowed 1/2 of one percent of profit (which goes to useful/innovative things). So then why does the cost of insurers like BCBS keep skyrocketing? Malpractice insurance costs are passed along to them. Increased pharmaceutical costs, state-of-the-art medical equipment, and many other healthcare related items are passed along. Some of these items can be cost-controlled. Some cannot, unless indirectly through true competition. But tort reform takes care of a huge chunk of the cost of malpractice insurance.

Regulatory oversight is an important function of government. THAT's what they should be about with healthcare...not running it. To keep this post sort of on topic...I believe the same should be true of the education system. Schools should be privately run, monitored by the community and regulated by the states.

One more thing, regulatory commissions, when staffed appropriately using community members (not a bunch of lobbyists and politicians), can pay huge dividends in minimizing waste and fraud. But this issue alone is worth a 50 page discussion thread.