Quote:
Originally Posted by Mavdog
parsing sentences does not convey the reality of what someone says, they lose the context. it is typically done to alter people's remarks in a way that suits the person doing the editing.
that's from 2003 I believe....and in 2008, he said this: “If I were designing a system from scratch, I would probably go ahead with a single-payer system,” Obama told some 1,800 people at a town-hall style meeting on the economy.
"Given that a lot of people work for insurance companies, a lot of people work for HMOs. You’ve got a whole system of institutions that have been set up,” he said at a roundtable discussion with women Monday morning after a voter asked, “Why not single payer?”
“People don’t have time to wait,” Obama said. “They need relief now. So my attitude is let’s build up the system we got, let’s make it more efficient, we may be over time—as we make the system more efficient and everybody’s covered—decide that there are other ways for us to provide care more effectively.” the point is look at the proposal, look at the bill, and make critical remarks about that specific program. do not attempt to make claims about the program that are not accurate as to what the program itself says.
those who are trying to attack the program are doing so not in that manner, but rather by suggesting that there is some conspiracy to do a bait and switch.
stay with the facts, stay with what the program itself says, not demonizing the person who is proposing the program or trying thru innuendo to make the program out to be something it isn't.
it isn't a single payer system, it does not take over the role of private insurance. period. |
Mavdog,
You typically are a classy voice, although with an opposing view as mine. I respect that view, but to ignore video proof of what Obama is doing is at the least disappointing. Not that you'd care...but I just suppose I anticipated better from you.
My distaste for Obama is very clear, and its all rooted in the Democrat/Liberal ideology that is being pushed. Such is the case and the consequences of America getting what it voted for...although I have and had serious reservations about McCain...but that was the only opposition at the time.
Clearly we are seeing a serious divide amongst Americans and it appears as though depending on who's elected and who has the power of the Congress, we will either hate or love our elected officials.
It's a shame that we no longer see politicians whe aspire to Serve, but rather we are seeing career lawyers who appear to be more into politics to further their own cause.
At this point, I would be in favor of the following:
Term limits of no more than 10 years on the National level, with an exception if any politicians move from Senate/House to the Presidency.
No benefits after leaving office, with exception of the security and certain support to Ex-Presidents.
Serious cuts in terms of benefits to members of congress.
Basically setting it up so that people who serve are doing so because they want to serve the people, not because of any power, financial or other gains one can have from being a politician.
I'ld also put a 30 year limit on receiving "Gifts", "Bonuses" or other compensation from private companies who had ties/connections to issues that you had influence or decision making capability while in office.
I'm sure there are other items we can put in place to restrict the special benefits that these politicians gain from their time in office.
This plays into the big Defense contracts that some believe benefited Dick Cheney, or the various Housing loans that benefited Franks and others currently in office...just to site 2 examples.
I would also establish rules that would restrict funds to -0- for organizations that officials were a part of prior to getting into office, essentially the example here is the money going to ACORN. Under my plan, once Obama became and was elected into political office, then no government funds would be allowed to go to that organization.
As it stands today, there are far too many smoking guns regarding both Republicans and Democrats and the blur between private sector and public sector is darker than shark infested waters. The perceptions of our political officials is the worst that it has ever been and it is time that they be held to a squeaky clean standard.
It's a sad day in our democracy, that the general feeling in America is that we can't trust our elected officials, regardless of which side of the aisle they are on.
Back to the topic discussed...we see that Obama and those campaigning on the Left's behalf in regards to the Health Coverage initiative have a clear agenda. They have even spelled out how they will get to the final goal, giving themselves a target of 15-20 years to reach it.
It's like the old parable of the Frog in the Pot of cold water...the frog swims and is happy as can be...then someone turns the burner on...but the frog is completely naive and thinks the water is safe. Time elapses and the water gradually gets hotter and hotter, to the point of boiling and killing the frog before he realizes he's in danger. The key is that the frong should never have gotten into the pot of water to begin with.
Folks, we should not get into this Healthcare bill to begin with...actually we are perhaps already too deep into Liberalism and now the heat is nearing the boiling point. But we are not frogs, we are people who have free thought, free speech and free will. We can make a difference and bring solutions to America that protect the very freedoms passed on from our founding fathers. It is up to us to stop and change this Liberalism/Socialism that is slowly deteriating the principles of this great land.
So be classy, continue to debate, continue to voice your views, and be prepared to vote for solutions for a free Ameria in 2010.