BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Mar 10 - 01:03 AM

Insurance companies are experiencing record profits. They're hardly bankrupt.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Mar 10 - 01:01 AM

It's worse in New Brunswick than in other provinces, though, isn't it gnu? I understand that the premier of your province has set things up in a way that discourages doctors from practicing there. In provinces where my relatives live, they haven't had to wait any longer than people do here in the US (people with good insurance, that is).

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: ichMael
Date: 22 Mar 10 - 11:09 PM

They didn't try to "defeat" it, Bobert. That was just sleight of hand for the masses. Pro rasslin. Don't throw me in the briar patch.

And it's not a free country. We've been taken over by bankers. Insurance companies are essentially banks. Banks own this country. The outright banks got their turn at the trough with Bush's bailout and Obama's stimulus, and now it's the insurance companies' turn.

And the insurance companies don't have the feds in their hair, they're MERGING with the feds. Fascism--government/business merging. The government and the insurance companies will now work together to strongarm Americans into buying "insurance." You've probably seen the mafia movies that revolve around this theme. The people have to buy "protection" so they don't get blown up. That's what the mafioso government is doing with this.

And yes, DougR, suits are going to be filed, but I expect the corrupt supreme court will find in favor of the feds. That's why state sovereignty resolutions are so important. I guess this week or next I'll start contacting my state rep and state senator about this. The states have the final say over this kind of garbage. Within a year I expect upwards of 10 states will nullify this unconstitutional action within their borders. Hope so, at least.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: DougR
Date: 22 Mar 10 - 10:23 PM

Several state AGs are filing law suits against the federal government due to the mandates in the Bill, chiefly, requiring that every citizen in the U.S. purchase health insurance. If one cannot afford it, the government will provide a subsidy to help purchase it. If the subsidy is not enough, the citizen will be fined for not adhering to the law.

The law suits will claim that it is unconstitutional to require citizens to purchase anything. I believe they may be successful.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Mar 10 - 10:17 PM

Well, if the insurance companies wrote this bill then why did they spend so much effort trying to defeat it???

We got some serious fuzzy math goin' on here...

I mean, if the insurance companies wanted to quit the practices that this bill now makes illegeal why didn't they just do it???

If the insurance companies wanted to have to pay out "x percent" of premiums on health care why didn't they just do it???

Hey, it's a free country... They could have just done alot of this stuff and prevented all this...

I don't buy the argument that this is the insurance companies bill... Yeah, they got a few things, including 30,000,000 new customers... That ain't chump change... But they are now under the scruntiny of the feds... They didn't want that... Thay didn't wnat to have to spend "x percent" on health care... They don't ewant the feds in their hair... Now they have the feds in their hair... There's gonna be a lot more regs...

Nah, ichM-zer, me thinks that you ain't using critical thinking but listenin' to some talkin' points by folks who stand to lose and who want very much for all this to just go away... Lotta politics being played here but when you follow the money you usually find the truth... The insurance lobbiest have spent hundreds of million$$$$$ trying to stop what has just occured... Don't think there's too many campaign corks being popped in their circle tonight...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: ichMael
Date: 22 Mar 10 - 09:43 PM

Bobert--the insurance companies WROTE this bill. The insurance companies BENEFIT from this bill. We will have a group of insurance companies that are government-approved. You will have to buy insurance from one of them or face prison time.

But on the bright side, we'll now see the states' Tenth Amendment Resolutions kick in around the U.S. The federal government can't FORCE you to buy health insurance. If they can do that, then next month they can force you to buy green Levis. I expect my state will nullify it.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Mar 10 - 09:35 PM

Oh??? The insurance industry is bankrupt???

Something doesn't add up here, doesn't pass the smell test, doesn't cut the mustard, is void of critical thinking...

If the friggin' insurance companies were so bankrupt where did they come up with the hundreds of millions they spent on lobbiest and negative ads against this bill and...

...why didn't the Repubs get on board to save their buddies in the insurance industry...

This is some seriously flawed thinking here...

(But, Boberdz... This is the new 'n improved Republican lie... Obama is in bed with the insurance industry... Over the next couple of days the Repubs will offer all kinds of "liberal" ammendments in the reconciliation in the Senate... Heck, they might even propose single payer, who knows???? No matter, at the end of the day the Repubs will try anything... They will say that Obama bailed out the insurance industry because their *control group* studies have found that ignorant voters don't like the term "bailout"... Yeah, Boberdz... Just hang on there, son... Yer gonna love the Repubs actin' like commies fir a a weekend...)

Okay, bring them on... I am loving this... Repubs trying to distance themselves from reform because it was all just a socialist plot to help the insurance industry???

Beam me up, Scottie... It's getting too funny down here...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: ichMael
Date: 22 Mar 10 - 09:13 PM

Have any of you read this bill? I haven't looked at this latest version but isn't it 2,300+ pages? It probably encompasses all that the earlier version did, and more.

And in the earlier version, it was mentioned that payment would also be accepted in "other forms than cash." So this is the government/insurance mob going after your PROPERTY. When you go in for treatment and say you don't have money, they'll look at the tax records to see whether you rent or own.

This bill is a bailout for the bankrupt insurance industry. It's broke. The insurance companies invested their money in worthless derivatives, lost their money, and now they need a cash infusion. The government proposes to give it to them by strongarming taxpayers.

Fascism.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Mar 10 - 08:43 PM

Yeah, I think I may have seen at least one of those interviews. Whenever Michael Moore said anything that Bill O'Reilly didn't like (which was about every time he opened his mouth), O'Reilly responded with, "Shut up! Shut up! I don't want to hear it! Shut up!!!"

Example of O'Reilly in action:    CLICKY.

One tends not to hear much rational discussion on Fox News.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Mar 10 - 08:16 PM

Yo, Doug... First of all, I am very rarely wrong!!! No brag, just pure fact!!!

Second of all, great that FOX has Michael Moore on... FOX, I'll have to admit, is something I know very little about... Every time I have attempted to watch it I immediately see that it has nothing to do with reporting facts or news and everything to do with whipping Redneck Nation into a lather...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Mar 10 - 07:56 PM

Congratulations, with reservations,

to modify how Cliff Richard might sing it...

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Mar 10 - 07:46 PM

Yep... I saw those... Michael Moore is known for WANTING to talk directly to the opposition. He relishes the opportunities..

(I DO see what's going on at Fox... I just take their stuff with 2-3 grains of salt.)

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: DougR
Date: 22 Mar 10 - 07:27 PM

As is so often the case, Bobert, you are wrong. Michael Moore has been on Fox News Channel and I saw at least one interview with Bill O'Reilly, perhaps two. He and Bill had a lively and interesting debate. Of course, since you probably never watch Fox News you probably just weren't aware if it.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 22 Mar 10 - 06:38 PM

"Even a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step."

Perhaps the only sensible "Thought" Chairman Mao ever had, and it applies here.

Now the Democrats need to get behind it and shove...HARD!

This isn't what was required, and it doesn't come close to average, let alone perfect, but it is a start.

The trick is to watch the road ahead carefully, and avoid the inevitable ambushes by the thick and stupid.

Above all there needs to be a constant refutation of the crap spouted by self centred dickheads like Ichmael (Yecchmael?), and the media who would make more money selling their rags if people kept on dying.

Remember the vested interests of the Media..... "Good news is NO news"!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: gnu
Date: 22 Mar 10 - 05:19 PM

Barden.... Canada here... I have been waiting for an appointment with an ENT since July 13, 2009. That is a little too conservative for me. Don't get me wrong... if it's an emergency, you get cared for reasonably quickly. However, if not, you may not get cared for until it's an emergency. It's not so cut and dried.... here.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Mar 10 - 04:14 PM

Looks as if the country is in for a long slobberknocker over not only health care reform but just basic sane policies... No matter how intellegent and sane the policies that the Dems come up with the Repubs are going to say "no"... But it's beyond just Congress here in that the Repubs have their *perfect storm* of a suprme court which will turn back one of the main parts of the health care reform bill in requiring people to participate... That alone will so cripple the system that the rest of the stuff will more than likely not make up for losing the "mandate"...

The progblem is even bigger than just losing the mandate portion because once the Radical-Roberts/Alito court turns down the mandate portion the Repubs will follow up with cases agaisnt Social Security, soemthing that the Repubs have hated for 7 decades... And they will use the mandate precidence to argue that people shouldn't be required to give the government money for their retirements... And once they rid the country of Social Security, it'll be Medicare and then the biggie: income tax!!!

This is not at all far fetched, folks...

B~

BTW, I enjoyed Michael Moore's letter... Too bad FOX has no interest in having him on their shows...

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: katlaughing
Date: 22 Mar 10 - 02:04 PM

Fuck, of course the Republicans are at it...ten States are going to challenge it as unconstitutional...without even seeing how it works..they do not give a damn about any of us.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Mar 10 - 12:46 PM

Never mind. Found it myself.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Mar 10 - 12:46 PM

When I try to open the letter from Moore, it takes me to Moore's website, but it says, "The page you were looking for could not be found." Can someone post a little bit of the text so I can do a search on that?

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Mar 10 - 12:24 PM

Good letter by Michael Moore.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: freda underhill
Date: 22 Mar 10 - 08:45 AM

V Tam, I came back in, read your post, and then found your thread about Andie and her life. I've just finished reading it, what a wonderful, vibrant girl, and such a great loss to you.

I hope you made it through the day ok.

all my best wishes

amalina

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: freda underhill
Date: 22 Mar 10 - 04:35 AM

Congratulations. he's done it. now here's Michael Moore's open letter to Republicans.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 22 Mar 10 - 03:52 AM

Well I broke down and wept with rage (for Andie) and relief (for every one else) this morning.

Wonder how I am going to make it through work today. Everyone will be talking about it. I think Americans would be surprised how much this has been wished for by our UK cousins.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 22 Mar 10 - 03:00 AM

Hooray! It's about time that bill passed! Now my kids will have insurance.

My wife said there was a dignified, capable black woman presiding over the proceedings in the House today. Anybody know who that would be?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Mar 10 - 01:28 AM

The Senate still has to vote on the reconciliation. So we're not quite there yet, but even if that doesn't pass, we still have the bill that was passed today.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: katlaughing
Date: 22 Mar 10 - 12:32 AM

We shall see now, won't we! Yes! They did it!! The day when Dems grew a backbone, again!

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 01:33 AM

McIntyre is useless. I hope we get a viable candidate to oppose him in his next primary. I've been calling him, but in light of the kinds of ads he was airing in the run-up to the vote on the house bill, I don't hold out much hope. I don't think his office will take anyone who isn't in his district very seriously, though, because last time I called, they asked for my name and address.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Janie
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 12:44 AM

According to CNN, 3 Democratic House members from North Carolina have indicated they will vote a firm NO. Very concerning to me. The Representative from my District, David Price, will vote for the bill. I am wondering if there is any possible benefit to me contacting representatives outside of my district to urge them to vote For.

The bill is not good. But it inches us in the proper direction. As it is implemented, our citizenry will see that the sky is not falling. If it fails, it will be a huge step back.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Mar 10 - 12:23 AM

What we have now is deathcare, ichMael. 45,000 people die each year because of lack of access to health care, and that number is going to drastically rise in the coming years if we don't get this bill passed, because more and more people are going to lose the coverage they have now.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: ichMael
Date: 16 Mar 10 - 11:53 PM

No, Medicare will be eliminated. No need for it anymore once Obamacare kicks in.

Insurance companies have become banks. This is just some more of the Bush/Obama giveaway to banks. But this is an especially big one. The healthcare industry in the U.S. accounts for about 1/6 of our economy, when it's all totaled up. And Obama wants to give that to the big insurance companies. That's more money than the entire GNP of the next largest financial power after the U.S. This is a continuance of the looting of the U.S. Treasury and the middle class in America. And you will end up having less coverage under this plan than you would under Medicaire. There is nothing good about this plan unless you work for an insurance company.

I need to do a search for "eugenics" and see if that's been addressed here. The stuff's called Deathcare for a reason.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Mar 10 - 11:03 PM

I don't agree with that at all. But even if it were gone, we would at least have some insurance, which we don't have now.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: ichMael
Date: 16 Mar 10 - 10:35 PM

If you mean Medicaire, that stuff will be GONE if this passes. That's a competing system and won't be allowed.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Mar 10 - 10:29 PM

Four years is better than 11, in my case, and 13 in the case of my husband, which is how long we will have to wait to get access to health care if the bill doesn't pass - if we live that long, which is doubtful without access to health care.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: ichMael
Date: 16 Mar 10 - 10:19 PM

From what Obama's offering, we'll ALL have to wait. Pre-existing conditions aren't covered for four years.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Mar 10 - 10:07 PM

Michael Moore has access to health care, as does Dennis Kucinich. They can afford to wait.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: ichMael
Date: 16 Mar 10 - 10:05 PM

Michael Moore agrees with Dennis Kucinich that Obama's Deathcare is bad, bad, bad:

"If I drove up an old AMC Pacer here tonight and said 'here, Larry, I'm giving you a free car,' I don't think you'd say 'get the hell, get that out of here.' I think you'd say 'well, that's nice, Mike' and maybe you've got a sixteen-year-old you'd give it to."

"So that's what this bill is," Moore continues. "It's the AMC Pacer. It runs. But it really doesn't take care of the main problem which is the profit motive will still dictate everything. The insurance companies will still be in charge...."

http://rawstory.com/2010/03/michael-moore-rep-kucinich-one-vote-435-standing-300-million-sad-that/

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 01:02 AM

It is from my perspective, since I don't have any health insurance.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 12:58 AM

Well, any improvement is better than no improvement.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 12:46 AM

It's definitely a big giveaway to the insurance industry. But until we fix what's wrong with our campaign and election process, it's probably the best we're going to get. And it's still a far sight better than what we have now. Although I still hold some hope that we might be able to get a public option, which would be bit less of a handout to the insurance companies.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Mar 10 - 12:35 AM

Yup, McGrath. Same basic thing in Canada. Genuine nationalized health care is the only sane way to go.

What is being proposed by the Obama administration doesn't appear to be anything like genuine nationalized health care to me...it appears to be a way of legally forcing people to buy private health insurance! (is that correct?) If so, it is just a big giveaway to the private health insurance industry...which suggests to me that they are the real architects of the bill, not Obama or the Democratic Party.

I suspect the Republicans are just mad because it isn't their bill. ;-) They're looking ahead to the midterm elections, and they want the Democrats to be seen to fail in passing major legislation.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 08:19 PM

Yesterday afternoon I started to feel a bit ill - pain in my right lower quadrant, and sweating. About eight o'clock it seemed to be getting worse, and I started worrying about possible appendicitis, so we phoned the out-of-hours health line. They set up an appointment for me to see a doctor at our local walk-in health centre at 8.45.

Driven up there by my son. Ten minutes wait and then I was seen by the very friendly and efficient doctor on duty, who gave me a check-over and did some tests - no, it wasn't appendiciries, it was an acute urinary infection. So he gave me a prescription for a strong antibiotic, which I took to the private chemist across the road - no payment for the prescription because I'm over 60 (if I'd had to pay it woudl have been £7.20). Woke up next mornibng right as rain.

That's "Nationalized Healthcare" for you.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 08:16 PM

It is a mischaracterization because you are framing his lack of understanding of auto insurance in the present tense. You may think we're to stupid to tell the difference, but we're not. And as someone who doesn't have any access to medical care myself, I support his efforts on my behalf. But the fact is, it's the Congress who will make the decisions about what happens with health care, and not Obama, so trying to frame it as if his knowledge or lack of knowledge of the insurance industry has any effect on what happens with health care reform is also very dishonest.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: ichMael
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 08:03 PM

lol. What's to mischaracterize? Those are his words.

But personalities aside, Democrats wouldn't have put up with Bush tampering with Medicaire and Social Security, so what makes it okay for a know-nothing like Obama to do it? Like Little Hawk was talking about, it's a game and they keep rotating the teams. But I don't like Obama's team. I didn't like Bush's team. It's a rigged game.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 07:54 PM

He's recollecting how he saw things when he was much younger. You really don't help your cause by investing yourself heavily in this mischaracterization of what he said.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 07:41 PM

They divide and conquer for a very simple reason, Don. They need something for the public to focus on and more importantly, believe in.

Thus...the 2 party system, which works exactly like 2 football or baseball teams, bitter rivals who meet after a hard-fought season, and battle for the cup.

Both football teams work to keep the league in business, but they play against each other tooth and nail to win the cup. They will cheat, injure opposing players, do anything they can as long as they can win that cup. It doesn't matter much to the owners of the league which team wins as long as the public keeps attending the game (stayin interested and voting) and buying the tickets (paying their taxes).

But it's essential that the public be excited about the whole process...otherwise they wouldn't be willing to buy tickets and attend the game. Thus the public must be made to become "fans" of either one team or the other by every possible strategem...and that involves a lot of propaganda, raving on by talking heads, etc.

That results in a permanently divided public who end up detesting each other just as much as they detest the "visiting" team. For a Democrat, the Republicans are the "visiting team". For a Republican it's the other way around. They both regard the other as interlopers and enemies.

The rivalry never ceases, and it gets passed down in families from parents to the next generation, and the game goes on.

It's a divide-and-conquer game because the owners of the league always win and they keep the game going by keeping the public divided over the 2 teams.

The 2 teams both genuinely desire to win the cup, for a number of reasons...financial gain, glory, promotions, etc. So the frenzy of competition between them is quite real...but it doesn't change the fact that the league owns those 2 teams and controls the whole situation from off the field, back at head office.

The public doesn't focus on the league, because they don't see it. They focus on the teams. They vote for the teams. They expect the teams to solve their problems....but that's a pipedream. The 2 teams are not there to solve the public's problems, they are there to 1. Keep the public entertained and distracted. 2. WIN the game! and 3. Do what the league tells them they can do, because the league is their employer.

And who is the "league"? Well, the league is the biggest controlling financial entities of this society which means: the major banks and insurance companies and the biggest corporations. And what is their objective, both individually and collectively? To each make more money than they did last year and control more stuff than they did last year.

And so it goes.

The public must be kept mesmerized by the partisan game or they might start to notice what's really happening, in which case they might get truly angry at the league itself and stop believing in the 2 teams, and then anything could happen.

But as long as one half of the public can be kept angry at the other half of the public through team partisanship instead of ALL the public getting angry at the league itself, then the league remains pretty much unnoticed and the great game goes on.

It's smoke and mirrors, Don. Mostly just about money.

Now, before you say it....NO, I do not think there is no difference at all between the 2 parties. I think one can definitely be worse than the other at any given time, depending on a number of factors. But they both work for the league that employs them, not for the public.

It's vital to keep the public distracted by means of bought political parties and paid-for elections and the facade of what is assumed to be real democracy....and that is why you have the old divide-and-conquer scenario playing itself out over and over again.

It's a very, very clever system...in the sense of perpetuating itself and creating the illusion of free choice. It's an insane system in the sense of being unable to secure a prosperous, healthy, and viable future for the nation it rules over.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: ichMael
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 07:35 PM

"When I was young, just got out of college, I had to buy auto insurance. I had a beat-up old car. And I won't name the name of the insurance company, but there was a company — let's call it Acme Insurance in Illinois. And I was paying my premiums every month. After about six months I got rear-ended and I called up Acme and said, I'd like to see if I can get my car repaired, and they laughed at me over the phone because really this was set up not to actually provide insurance; what it was set up was to meet the legal requirements. But it really wasn't serious insurance. Now, it's one thing if you've got an old beat-up car that you can't get fixed. It's another thing if your kid is sick, or you've got breast cancer."

I didn't shovel those words into his mouth. He's a verbal stumblebum when he's not scripted. OR, maybe he's not. Notice how he says liability insurance isn't "serious insurance." Hmmm. So, are the feds now going to mandate that we all carry FULL AUTO COVERAGE? Bottom line, you can't trust someone like that to make insurance decisions for you. The guy's threatening you with prison if you don't buy health insurance from one of the government-approved insurance companies. Fascism.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 05 Mar 10 - 07:00 PM

Not wishing to appear pedantic, or sceptical, LH, but if your "no difference whoever gets in" scenario is correct, who do they need to divide and conquer, and why?

Either way they win, so why draw attention?

If you are right, of course.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 07:28 PM

Quite possibly. After all, to sew division, resentment, and bitter partisan rivalry can only work to better serve their primary purpose, to divide and conquer.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 07:09 PM

I don't disagree, LH. But I find that a lot of the time, when people spread misinformation (like for instance, saying that Obama doesn't understand car insurance), they are actually doing it in service to the corporatocracy (whether they realize it or not), rather than in opposition to it.

Subject: RE: BS: Nationalized Healthcare, good? bad?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Mar 10 - 06:42 PM

I pretty much see it that way too, Carol (as ichMael has said)...whichever group of politicians get elected, they seem to end up serving the very same consortium of huge banking/insurance company interests.

I would assume that it is for the obvious reason: the major banks fund the system that gets politicians elected, therefore the system does what the banks want it to no matter who gets elected, and the game goes on.

Given the fact that the game is really a gigantic pyramid scheme which enriches a very few while impoverishing the many, I see no good end in sight for it.

Abraham Lincoln warned against this happening. He was assassinated not too long after that. I think there could be a connection...not saying there had to be, by any means...but there could have been.

I honestly believe that if Obama tried to take on the banks and insurance companies and break their stranglehold on the political and financial agenda of his nation, that his life wouldn't be worth a plugged nickel, and I bet he knows it too. So, he's basically doing what he thinks he must in order to survive his term in office. That would be my guess.