Income inequality.....spread the wealth

Do you read over your stuff before hitting submit? It's Amazing how one-sided you sound.

Clinton did what Newt sent him so all good from him was because of Newt.
Bush inherited a recession from Clinton. I thought Newt did everything?
Financial crash under Bush was because of liberal policies (over 8 years ago).
No mention of the shambles Obama inherited which was way worse than what Bush got.

All Republican's awesome. All Democrats suck. A totally balanced look at things as usual from you man.

>>No mention of the shambles Obama inherited which was way worse than what Bush got.

"If I don't have this done in three years, then there's going to be a one-term proposition," the President said in an interview with NBC television broadcast on Monday.

                                         -Obama in 2009


>>Clinton did what Newt sent him so all good from him was because of Newt.

Absolute fact.  Newt sent Clinton a balanced budget, welfare reform, and a capital gains cut.  All of which Bill Clinton signed.

Right. The Republican cry that he is fixing things but not fast enough and how the recovery is slower than they want it to be.

The line he said was because he believed the hope/change message he was selling. Then he got the job and say how ass-backwards congress was to him as POTUS  and it didn't happen.

>>Absolute fact.  Newt sent Clinton a balanced budget, welfare reform, and a capital gains cut.  All of which Bill Clinton signed.

What was Clinton the president for then? Why wasn't Newt? Why not Newt this year? Oh yea, Everyone hates Newt, that's why. Why isn't Boehmer stepping up to save the country like Newt did?

Your side isn't ALWAYS right. Neither side is.

>>Then he got the job and say how ass-backwards congress was to him as POTUS  and it didn't happen.

He controlled everything for 2 YEARS.  Do you not understand that?  Please, acknowledge that Democrats controlled congress and the presidency for 2 YEARS.  Obama got everything he wanted.


>>Why isn't Boehmer stepping up to save the country like Newt did?

john boehner is dealing with a radical in the white house, whereas Bill Clinton was more reasonable.  Take for instance the healthcare "reform" - Democrats 100% shut out republicans in the process...100% SHUT REPUBLICANS OUT.  Obama is not willing to work with the other side.

>>The Republican cry that he is fixing things but not fast enough

"If I don't have this done in three years, then there's going to be a one-term proposition," the President said in an interview with NBC television broadcast on Monday.

-Obama in 2009


Obama said he could fix it in 3 years.  You can find him saying it on youtube.

>>He controlled everything for 2 YEARS.  Do you not understand that?  Please, acknowledge that Democrats controlled congress and the presidency for 2 YEARS.  Obama got everything he wanted.

I agree he did have those 2 years and he worked on his healthcare reform. The jobs bill he proposed after that was under the republican congress and got shot down.

>>john boehner is dealing with a radical in the white house, whereas Bill Clinton was more reasonable.

Maybe Newt was talking sense and was in line with what Clinton was doing. Perhaps Boehner is not and is opposite of what Obama is doing. I wasn't as interested in politics to know what was going on back in the Clinton era so really cannot say.

>>Democrats 100% shut out republicans in the process...100% SHUT REPUBLICANS OUT.  Obama is not willing to work with the other side.

Agree that sucked and I didn't like it. There wasn't going to be much the Republicans were going to do with it though other than get in the way as they hated the idea so I can understand it, though it still shouldn't have happened as it did.

>>Obama said he could fix it in 3 years.  You can find him saying it on youtube.

I know he said it. He was wrong. It doesn't mean he isn't still fixing it and just needs more time. Republicans keep saying the recovery is not fast enough. Most though do believe there is a recovery happening though. They just say they can do it faster. Kind of a hard thing to know honestly, and can never be proven so it's a good talking point for them.

>>I agree he did have those 2 years and he worked on his healthcare reform.

If the economy was so bad, why not focus on that FIRST?  Does he not care about those trying to pay their bills?



>>Maybe Newt was talking sense and was in line with what Clinton was doing.

The answer was Clinton was able to move to the middle.  Obama is not.


>>It doesn't mean he isn't still fixing it and just needs more time.

To add $12 trillion to the national debt?  Meaning all taxes go to pay mostly interest?  


>>Most though do believe there is a recovery happening though.

Hard to say when the economic news is bad each month.  More leave the workforce, unemployment over 8%, black unemployment around 15%.

No one can factually make an argument things are getting better.

>>If the economy was so bad, why not focus on that FIRST?  Does he not care about those trying to pay their bills?

Agree he should have worked on jobs before healthcare.

>>The answer was Clinton was able to move to the middle.  Obama is not.

Agree Clinton was more moderate.

>>To add $12 trillion to the national debt?  Meaning all taxes go to pay mostly interest?  

Not known that Republicans wouldn't have added to debt. Bush actually turned a surplus into a deficit.

>>Hard to say when the economic news is bad each month.  More leave the workforce, unemployment over 8%, black unemployment around 15%.

We've been down this road enough arguing over job numbers.

>>No one can factually make an argument things are getting better.

It depends on your definition of better honestly.

We'll AR, here's the bottom line.  You know what you're gonna get with Obama.  More gridlock, regardless of who is unwilling to work with who.  You've seen it the last two years.  And here's the real kick in tha ass, all the good stuff from the healthcare bill was front loaded, meaning we already have it....it was done that way on purpose, to make people feel like the bill wasn't so bad.  The bad stuff kicks in over the next 3 years after the election, do you really want gridlock?  Do you really believe a repub congress will work with Obama on Obamacare to make it better?  Not a chance.

A vote against Obama is not saying he is evil or anything, it's just saying he may not be the right guy at the right time.  But make no mistake, what we've seen the last 2 years is what we'll get if Obama gets re-elected and really at a time when we need to work together.  Think the repubs will lose the house?  Not a chance.

>>A vote against Obama is not saying he is evil or anything, it's just saying he may not be the right guy at the right time.

Putting this man back in office could be the dagger in the heart of the US.  He's the most radical president in US history and is bound on radically changing it forever.  

He's already going around congress and ignoring laws.  What would a second term with no reelection worries bring?!?!

Think about poor Israel.  They're fighting for their life and the community organizer won't even meet with them.  (BECAUSE HE'S GOING ON DAVID LETTERMAN)



>>It depends on your definition of better honestly.

The 23 million currently out of work have their own definition, I assume.

So bergertime, I should vote based on "Since the congress is full of idiots, I'll put in another idiot who could at least get idiot things done?"

This is if I would think of Romney as being an idiot. I think neither of them are idiots but are going in just different directions. Again, the republican chant that they are going to hold both houses is just that. Not something I believe will happen.

>>Putting this man back in office could be the dagger in the heart of the US.

I love how every election the opponents always act like the other guy is going to bring Armageddon.

>>He's already going around congress and ignoring laws.  What would a second term with no reelection worries bring?!?!

Maybe that will be the answer to bergertime's argument about gridlock. Obama will get things done and Romney would just get stuck in gridlock with the Senate.

>>The 23 million currently out of work have their own definition, I assume.

% of that wonderful unemployment metric including those 'leaving the job market' actually is better. We established that in the never-ending Janesville thread.

>>I love how every election the opponents always act like the other guy is going to bring Armageddon.

I'm just blown away how you could be so blinded by this man.  He has a record - everything is radical.   Debt, judges, policies....EVERYTHING.  Stop and think about it.  My gosh - i honestly wish we could you could extrapolate his policies and decide if that's the sort of country you wanna live in.


>>Maybe that will be the answer to bergertime's argument about gridlock.

That's called a ruler, not a president.

>>I'm just blown away how you could be so blinded by this man.

Didn't I just agree with a couple of points of yours up there? I never proclaimed this President is perfect. Not by a long shot. I just don't see the negative of everything he does as you do. I also see a lot of positives for Romney.

>>everything is radical.

con·serv·a·tive/k¿n's¿rv¿tiv/

Adjective:      
Holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in politics or religion.
Noun:      
A person who is averse to change and holds to traditional values and attitudes, typically in politics.

Since you so strongly oppose change, any change you see is radical. I'm not as adverse to change if I think the change is positive.

>>i honestly wish we could you could extrapolate his policies and decide if that's the sort of country you wanna live in.

I don't want to live in a country of either extreme. In many conservative views, that is where Obama is headed. Romney is headed towards the other extreme of changing nothing and all for themselves with a set of values and rules that were written in a different era for a different type of society than we have today. I don't want that either.

Unfortunately I'm not running so what I want isn't what is going to happen.

>>That's called a ruler, not a president.

Agree. And I don't like that either. I could easily see Romney as as ruler as well, though instead of just him, it will be the ultra-rich in the King's chambers.

>>I'm not as adverse to change

You wanna live in a country where you can't find a doctor because so many dropped out due to Obamacare?

You wanna live in a country where judges rule based on personal feelings as opposed to the Constitution or rule of law?

You wanna live in a country where the national debt is so high that the US can barely (or not at all) make payments on interest?

Where public unions bankrupt local governments?

Where investment in jobs has such a low return and too high a risk that innovation and job creation stop?

Where the government halts political opposition and free speech via the means of the IRS, FBI, FCC, or other government regulator?

>>You wanna live in a country where you can't find a doctor because so many dropped out due to Obamacare?

A future prediction. No way to know. And what is this based on?

>>You wanna live in a country where judges rule based on personal feelings as opposed to the Constitution or rule of law?

I have yet to see a judge rule without citing the law he is referring to in his rule. Interpretation of the laws may be based on feeling, but both liberal and conservative judges do this as they are all human.

>>You wanna live in a country where the national debt is so high that the US can barely (or not at all) make payments on interest?

There's a lot of evidence on both sides as to Bush spending more than Obama and who did what? Also the conservative fiscal way is good, but falls a lot to that "I got mine" philosophy.

>>Where public unions bankrupt local governments?

I never liked unions either public or private.

>>Where investment in jobs has such a low return and too high a risk that innovation and job creation stop?

Not likely. Tech is innovating all the time. Job creation stopping? More Armageddon worries.

>>Where the government halts political opposition and free speech via the means of the IRS, FBI, FCC, or other government regulator?

Both sides will do this. If you think Romney's administration will be more open on this idea than Obama's then you are in fantasy land.

>>A future prediction. No way to know. And what is this based on?

83 percent of doctors have considered quitting over Obamacare


>>I have yet to see a judge rule without citing the law he is referring to in his rule.

See Obamacare.  No way around it - unconstitutional.  See Obama's judge, Sotomayer, and her wise latina comment and that she said the courts are where policy is made.


>>Both sides will do this.

Not your both sides do it comments again!?!  Look up the fairness doctrine.  

And see this article where the feds harassed a 15 year old simply because he supports Ron Paul.

>>83 percent of doctors have considered quitting over Obamacare

This is your evidence of the future? A conservative piece that is quoting a survey where doctors said they ...have considered leaving their practices over President Barack Obama’s health care reform law". Like they are just going to throw away their 16 years of schooling and life's work? Let me know when they actually leave the profession. Then you may have something there.

Another crack survey apprently too: Physician Attitudes Survey - June 2012 | Doctor Patient Medical Association : http://www.doctorsandpatients.org/resources/85-physician-attitudes-survey-june-2012

The survey was conducted by fax and online from April 18 to May 22, 2012. DPMAF obtained the office fax numbers of 36,000 doctors in active clinical practice, and 16, 227 faxes were successfully delivered. Doctors were asked to return their completed surveys by fax, or online at a web address included in the faxed copy. Browser rules prevented doctors from filing duplicate surveys, and respondents were asked to provide personal identification for verification. The response rate was 4.3% for a total of 699 completed surveys.

700 out of over 50,000 doctors apparently cared enough to say they "have considered" leaving their profession due to ObamaCare. Thank you Nostradamus for this accurate portrayal of the future demise of the healthcare profession.

>>See Obamacare.

Your conservative judge is the one that passed it if I remember correctly. Apparently he did so for political reasons too and not because it was actually Constitutional. Sounds like a conservative judge isn't following the law and Constitution in this case.

>>Not your both sides do it comments again!?!

Not your 'my sides the good guys' comments again?

>>And see this article where the feds harassed a 15 year old simply because he supports Ron Paul.

Again, not a democratic issue but a government issue. Sucks but both sides will act this way.

NY Times....


Doctor Shortage Likely to Worsen With Health Law

RIVERSIDE, Calif. — In the Inland Empire, an economically depressed region in Southern California, President Obama’s health care law is expected to extend insurance coverage to more than 300,000 people by 2014. But coverage will not necessarily translate into care: Local health experts doubt there will be enough doctors to meet the area’s needs. There are not enough now.

Health reform to worsen doctor shortage: group

(Reuters) - The U.S. healthcare reform law will worsen a shortage of physicians as millions of newly insured patients seek care, the Association of American Medical Colleges said on Thursday.

WSJ...

As Ranks of Insured Expand, Nation Faces Shortage of 150,000 Doctors in 15 Years

Experts warn there won't be enough doctors to treat the millions of people newly insured under the law.

>>Local health experts doubt there will be enough doctors to meet the area’s needs. There are not enough now.

>>The U.S. healthcare reform law will worsen a shortage of physicians as millions of newly insured patients seek care, the Association of American Medical Colleges said on Thursday.

>>Experts warn there won't be enough doctors to treat the millions of people newly insured under the law.

None of these say doctors are leaving. They only say that in economically depressed regions there are not enough doctors now. The big problem is that there will be more patients because more people will be able to go to the doctor.

Again, more people will be able to go to the doctor!

This is not a bad thing. This doesn't deny one extra person care than if there is not ObamaCare. This just means that more people will actually go to a doctor rather than try to tie to sticks to their broken finger to heal it.

The worry is that the doctors will have to waste their time helping all these poor people they didn't help before.

More people will go where?  Won't be enough doctors to see them

>>More people will go where?  Won't be enough doctors to see them

So it is better that they just don't go to the doctor? Is that your method of crowd control? If you cannot afford insurance, you just stay home and fix your broken arm yourself so the rest of us with insurance don't have to wait longer in a line?

>>So it is better that they just don't go to the doctor?

In a lot of cases, yes!  What you'll have is more people with serious issues competing with those going in for stubbed toes.  There just won't be enough medical care.

I guarantee there will be a day when you look back and say, "WTF was I thinking supporting that inexperienced community organizer?"

It's laughable that people actually believed a f*ckin community organizer could fix the largest economy in the world.  How naive are people?

Here's what we get AFTER 4 YEARS OF OBAMA.

Rich-Poor Gap Widens to Most Since 1967 as Income Falls

The U.S. Census Bureau figures released yesterday underscored the struggles of American families in a sputtering economic recovery. The report also showed the income gap between rich and poor people grew to the widest in more than 40 years in 2011 as the poverty rate remained at almost a two-decade hig

>>In a lot of cases, yes!  What you'll have is more people with serious issues competing with those going in for stubbed toes.  There just won't be enough medical care.

Wait a second. We are talking about the sudden influx of people to the system that could not afford it before. So lower income people pretty much.

Your complaint is that there will be more people there with stubbed toes as opposed to serious issues? Does this mean that the richer people would only go to the doctor if it is serious, and the poorer people would be going if they have stubbed toes?

How do you know the rich aren't the ones clogging up the system with stubbed toes while a poor person is going because his appendix is about to burst? Anything you are basing this on?


>>Rich-Poor Gap Widens to Most Since 1967 as Income Falls

Americans blame Bush and Congress more than Obama for the decline in middle-class living standards over the past decade, according to a July 16-26 Pew Research Center poll. Among respondents who described themselves as middle class, 62 percent placed “a lot” of responsibility on Congress and 44 percent faulted Bush, compared with 34 percent who said Obama is culpable.

You really think this is helping your side? I told you already people believe the economy is because of the crappy Republicans in Congress.

>>How do you know the rich aren't the ones clogging up the system with stubbed toes while a poor person is going because his appendix is about to burst? Anything you are basing this on?

It's a math game.  With the increase in demand and no increase in supply of doctors, any econ 101 class will show you there will be a shortage.  Period.  



>>You really think this is helping your side?

4 years of Obama was meant to fix this.  Instead the poor are getting poorer, food stamps on the rise, millions unemployed.  And yet you want 4 more years of this?


>>I told you already people believe the economy is because of the crappy Republicans in Congress.

I've never seen a poll or anything indicating that.  Of course, Obama shifts blame constantly and the media never calls him out on anything.

Can you please answer the actual questions?

>>It's a math game.  With the increase in demand and no increase in supply of doctors, any econ 101 class will show you there will be a shortage.  Period.

You reiterated that there will be a shortage of doctors but I asked you how you came to the assumption that the influx of patients will be the ones that are there with the stubbed toe rather than the ones already there? What do you base this on?

>>4 years of Obama was meant to fix this.  Instead the poor are getting poorer, food stamps on the rise, millions unemployed.  And yet you want 4 more years of this?

You reiterated how this is all Obama's fault in your view but I asked you if you think this is actually helping your side when I quoted that most middle-income Americans blame Bush and the Republicans in Congress for the economy.

>>I've never seen a poll or anything indicating that.

Americans blame Bush and Congress more than Obama for the decline in middle-class living standards over the past decade, according to a July 16-26 Pew Research Center poll.

There's your poll. And it's a Pew Research Center poll. One of the 'good' ones that you say are never wrong.

>>You reiterated that there will be a shortage of doctors but I asked you how you came to the assumption that the influx of patients will be the ones that are there with the stubbed toe rather than the ones already there? What do you base this on?

Simple.  When things are perceived "free" people tend to use them more.  These same people are not short on medical treatment now - but they're selective in what they seek treatment for, given there's a cost associated with it.  



>>You reiterated how this is all Obama's fault in your view but I asked you if you think this is actually helping your sid

RASMUSSEN POLL: ROMNEY JUMPS BACK INTO LEA (9/13/2012)

R: 47%
O: 46%



>>Americans blame Bush

Bush has been out of office for 4 year and is not running again.  Obama now has a record...a failed one.

"Americans blame Bush and Congress more than Obama for the decline in middle-class living standards over the past decade, according to a July 16-26 Pew Research Center poll."

Latest Pew Poll, most people that blame Bush also get their news from Jon Stewart, not understanding the difference between news and satire.  

**Note the above is not meant to be a fact, it is simply satire based on the fact some people do get their news from Comedy Central.  

How about this.  Anyone know what the average unemployment rate was under Bush for 8 years and under Obama for 4?

>>How about this.  Anyone know what the average unemployment rate was under Bush for 8 years and under Obama for 4?

How loaded of a question is that man. You know the unemployment crashed right as Bush was leaving office.

>>Latest Pew Poll, most people that blame Bush also get their news from Jon Stewart, not understanding the difference between news and satire.  

But Eric always says that Rasmussen and Pew polls are solid accurate and as good as fact. If this was a satire board, as Jon Stewart is a satire show, you could get away with that statement of yours.

>>Bush has been out of office for 4 year and is not running again.  Obama now has a record...a failed one.

And yet still Americans still blame Bush and the Republicans in Congress in the ever-accurate Pew poll. I didn't say they were right. I am saying this is why Obama will win the election even if his record does suck. People don't blame him as much as Republicans.

>>R: 47%
O: 46%

An overwhelming landslide for Romney of course!

>>When things are perceived "free" people tend to use them more.

Both rich and poor people do this. Since rich people have had the insurance and this free healthcare, they are pretty trained to already run to the doctor with their stubbed toe too, so I can see how they can be the problem.

>>These same people are not short on medical treatment now - but they're selective in what they seek treatment for, given there's a cost associated with it.  

So the rich people aren't short on treatment now? They aren't at the doctor getting their stubbed toe looked at? Or are you saying it isn't free so they are selective? It's not free for the poor people either. They have a cost associated the same way the rich do. They now can just get actual coverage and the opportunity to pay that cost to have the insurance.

>>You know the unemployment crashed right as Bush was leaving office.

Exactly.  Bush had a great term until the point people couldn't pay their mortgages - which is the fault of those that pushed loans based on quotas (as opposed to ability to pay)


>>according to a July 16-26 Pew Research Center poll."

You'll have to post the poll.  Any negatives on Bush can be attributed to a relentless and dishonest media that pounds the Bush/Republican drum nonstop, all while ignoring Democrats.  

When does Anthony, the man himself, say enough of attributing to Bush - Obama has been president for 4 years?



>>An overwhelming landslide for Romney of course!

There are so many parallels to this election and Carter/Reagan.  People are only now starting to wake up and pay attention.  Landslide in November for Romney.



>>Both rich and poor people do this. Since rich people have had the insurance and this free healthcare, they are pretty trained to already run to the doctor with their stubbed toe too, so I can see how they can be the problem.

Can't break this down anymore.  There will be a doctor shortage.  End of story.  Read the NYTs article and you'll see why.  Insurance won't do much good if the wait time to get in is so long that you can no longer get in.

>>You'll have to post the poll.

It's from YOUR link. The one you posted above:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-12/u-s-poverty-rate-stays-at-almost-two-decade-high-income-falls.html

>>When does Anthony, the man himself, say enough of attributing to Bush

The only thing I said was attributed to Bush was the crash as it happened during his term. The economy being blamed on the Republicans in Congress is what the Pew poll said, and what I said most middle-income people think, which the all-knowing Pew poll confirms.

>>Landslide in November for Romney.

You do realize that you have been saying this for a year now and you just showed numbers of 47/46? How is a 1% lead a landslide, and has been for a year. By now he should be up 20% according to how long you have been saying "people are waking up". But it's still 1%, so maybe they aren't.

>>Insurance won't do much good if the wait time to get in is so long that you can no longer get in.

So if you had insurance, it suddenly will start to suck to have a line at the doctors office. If you didn't have insurance and couldn't go to a doctor anyway, the long wait in line is an improvement. So apparently the poor are going to have in improvement in their healthcare, and the rich are going to have a decrease in the ease of their healthcare.

Hey Eric. How about a new question about all the foreign policy current events going on?

"Hey Eric. How about a new question about all the foreign policy current events going on? "

I have one......why do we give billons of dollars away to countries that are neither freind no foe?

>>why do we give billons of dollars away to countries that are neither freind no foe?

Yes - I've been waiting for someone else to start asking questions.

>>why do we give billons of dollars away to countries that are neither freind no foe?

I have no idea and ask that lots of times myself.

>>Yes - I've been waiting for someone else to start asking questions.

I love answering questions on EE but hate asking them as their interface for it is mind numbingly slow and cumbersome. I only do so if I have a real stuck tech problem.

>>How is a 1% lead a landslide, and has been for a year

See Carter/Reagan


>>If you didn't have insurance and couldn't go to a doctor anyway, the long wait in line is an improvement.

You could ALWAYS go to a doctor.  There are those that CHOOSE not to carry insurance.  They're young and would rather roll the dice.  If they go to the doctor, it's for something important.  Now, they'll feel compelled to go to the doctor more, which increases demand but doctor supply will stay the same or possibly decline.

What's going to happen is the government will tell doctors what they can charge.  A lot of them will say phk it - i can't make what I'm worth becoming a doctor and will choose another profession.

>>I love answering questions on EE but hate asking them as their interface for it is mind numbingly slow and cumbersome. I only do so if I have a real stuck tech problem.

Can't hurt to throw out a political question every once in a while.  I just try to keep the dialogue going in this forum.  But certain people tend to take it too personally and stomp out mad.

>>Now, they'll feel compelled to go to the doctor more, which increases demand but doctor supply will stay the same or possibly decline.

Not likely. I have insurance but it is a High Deductible Health Plan with an associated Health Savings Account. If I don't go to the doctor for the stubbed toe then that is money that stays in my HSA, which becomes available to me after 65, kind of like a 401k would.

I however will be OK if I get hit by a car or something tragic happens that is very expensive. I have built up my HSA to cover medical expenses I need and after a certain deductible of a few thousand,, I pay no more medical.

Not all health insurance has to be Free to get your nose wiped. A plan such as mine will cover emergencies, but not overburden doctors. It is also A LOT cheaper than regular type of medical.

>>But certain people tend to take it too personally and stomp out mad.

Whoever heard of someone getting mad over talking politics. That's crazy talk and almost as odd as someone getting mad talking about religion.  :)

Can't personalize and say  that's what the vast majority will do.  I'm sure the NYTs and WSJ did a lot of research before reporting.

I'd like to see more minute clinics like CVS has.  I'd like to be able to buy a strep throat test from the drugstore as well - that way i don't waste time going to a doctor for a sore throat (something I just did).

>>Whoever heard of someone getting mad over talking politics. That's crazy talk and almost as odd as someone getting mad talking about religion.  :)

Leave the skirt at the door.

>>Can't personalize and say  that's what the vast majority will do.

It's cheaper (which will make it popular), and it encourages less doctor visits (which will make it more helpful).

>>I'd like to see more minute clinics like CVS has.

I agree. I'm sure CVS loves the idea.

>>I'd like to be able to buy a strep throat test from the drugstore as well - that way i don't waste time going to a doctor for a sore throat (something I just did).

You wouldn't have with an HSA.

>>You wouldn't have with an HSA.

I have an HSA.  I  just wanna be able to not have to get the test from my doctor.  I wanna buy it at the store and know if I have it.  If I do, THEN i make a doctor appointment.



>>It's cheaper (which will make it popular)

You think the poor are going to have to pay a deductible?  I personally know a medicaid patient that goes to the doctor every other day.  She does so because she doesn't have to pay for anything.  You and I are different - we DO have to pay something no matter.

>>we DO have to pay something no matter.

The added healthcare isn't all medicaid. A lot of it is just going to add people up to 26 staying on their parents (paid for) and pre-existing conditions being accepted (also paid for). That's the majority of it.

Your idea that it is just going to be free healthcare for everyone is a stereotype and the kind of thinking that way too many people that think they are going to be receiving free healthcare believe. They will be in for an awakening when they still don't get medicaid for free.

>>Your idea that it is just going to be free healthcare for everyone is a stereotype and the kind of thinking that way too many people that think they are going to be receiving free healthcare believe.

Not me.  It's the experts in the area.  Again, see WSJ and NYTs article.

You can't expect there NOT to be an increase.  Not logical.

>>You can't expect there NOT to be an increase.  Not logical.

Of course there will be, but it isn't going to be the Apocalypse that you are describing either.

>>Not me.  It's the experts in the area.  Again, see WSJ and NYTs article.

That's called sensationalist headlines and linkbait!

>>Of course there will be, but it isn't going to be the Apocalypse that you are describing either.

Parallel here to France and Britain ignoring the warnings from Hitler.  What's the worst that can happen, right?

Oddly enough, in drawing another parallel, this is also precisely what Obama is doing with Iran and Israel.  Apparently Obama would rather wait until either Iran has a nuke or Israel is a parking lot.

>>Apparently Obama would rather wait until either Iran has a nuke or Israel is a parking lot.

Switching to foreign policy mode:

So we should just start another war in Iran? You really think this time it will be better and they just will stop trying to make a nuke then? What's your endgame here. Eternal war?

Obama has got crippling sanctions on them now. The problem is that mostly it is hurting the Iranian citizens.

And what is Romney's solutions to anything? He keeps saying Obama is failing at all this foreign relations but has offered no alternative of how he will handle it.  Just like no details on his amazing tax plan. What loopholes is he going to close? No details until after the election, but it sounds like a good idea so that is what he says he is going to do.

Don't you get he is just saying what his base wants to hear and has no substance to it? Sounds like what the conservatives all say about Obama, but they let their guy get a pass on it.

I posted a question on foreign policy.

Blatant Republican Lying Crap! Try to explain to me please how this is not a total sham.

Obama Is Against Blowing a Bunch of Cash in Vegas, So the GOP Is for It - Conor Friedersdorf - The Atlantic : http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/obama-is-against-blowing-a-bunch-of-cash-in-vegas-so-the-gop-is-for-it/262356/

The Ad talks about Nevada troubles and shows a clip of Obama saying "You don't blow a bunch of cash in Vegas" like he is just abandoning the state.

"*In fact, this very ad misleads about what Obama actually said. His full statement: "You don't go buying a boat when you can barely pay your mortgage. You don't blow a bunch of cash in Vegas when you're trying to save for college. You prioritize. You make tough choices. And it's time your government did the same." In other words, a fiscally conservative message that every last Republican would totally agree with if they were presented with it in context rather than clipped. "

This is almost as bad as the stupid SuperPac that ran the Romney was responsible for that lady dying.

Just checked in, and only looked at 9/17/12 emails, after deleting the others.  I have nothing to add other than what has been said very early.

Yes. How about a new thread, like Romney campaign falling apart with him, or he and Ryan contributing to (and associating) with the wing-nut hate group-fest this last weekend.

Unsubscribing now.