No. of Recommendations: 7
Imagine where we could be as a nation if just ONCE, Washington politicians could be honorable statesmen & leaders, working together towards a common goal--making healthcare available, equitably affordable, and efficient!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
Imagine where we could be as a nation if just ONCE, Washington politicians could be honorable statesmen & leaders, working together towards a common goal--making healthcare available, equitably affordable, and efficient!
__________________________

Sadly, Barrack Obama had a chance to move things forward. Weilding his power to force both sides to come up with ideas that would incrementally move things forward.

He was a power hungry dweeb, with an agenda that he was going to ram through and no one was going to have any input. Sure as always he worked through someone who can take the blame.

This was a great opportunity wasted, by someone who wanted greatness, and refused to make things better.

What a waste.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
It's a fantasy, because government can't do any of the above.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"This was a great opportunity wasted, by someone who wanted greatness, and refused to make things better.

What a waste.
"

No. Anything other than leaving it to the private sector is and will be a disaster.

I am gad it was you say "waste" on the dims, because they will be held responsible for the certain failures of obamacare.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
working together towards a common goal--making healthcare available, equitably affordable, and efficient!

__________________

Why do you think that's a good goal? "Equitably affordable" means taking from the makers to give to the takers. How is that a good thing?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Equitably affordable" means taking from the makers to give to the takers.

Anyone else sick of this moronic "makers and takers" nonsense?

Everyone with a job or who does volunteer work is a "maker."

The overwhelming majority of "takers" are young children, the elderly and disabled. They're already on Medicaid and Medicare.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
The overwhelming majority of "takers" are young children, the elderly and disabled. They're already on Medicaid and Medicare.

____________

Yes, every policy is designed to help "children, the eldery, the sick"...nobody is gaining the system. There's no abled bodied people getting those perks.

Children should be taken care of by their parents, it's their parents who are the Takers. The elderly paid into the system when the were earning. The disabled...well, those who can't help themselves should be taken care of by the government.

If we limited Government assistance to those who can't take care of themselves instead of those who don't. We'd have a balanced budget in no time.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
The overwhelming majority of "takers" are young children, the elderly and disabled. They're already on Medicaid and Medicare.
___________

Yes, every policy is designed to help "children, the eldery, the sick"...nobody is gaining the system. There's no abled bodied people getting those perks.


I didn't say that. Try again.



If we limited Government assistance to those who can't take care of themselves instead of those who don't. We'd have a balanced budget in no time.

That is untrue, but we should do it anyway.


Myth number one: Welfare is way expensive.

Forty percent of Americans imagine that welfare costs more than national defense or social security. Yet the 1995 Statistical Abstract of the United States shows that the federal government spent $13.6 billion on AFDC in 1992--less than 5 percent of what it spent for the military ($282 billion) or social security ($296 billion).


http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/politics-the-welfare-fr...


Entitlement programs, from food stamps to Medicare, don't see unusually high cheating rates -- and the culprits are usually managers and executives, not "welfare queens."

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/08/just-how...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
That is untrue, but we should do it anyway.


____________

You're probably right, politicians would find a way to spend more. It's real easy to spend other people's money when there's no consquences for overspending. There's absolutely no reason to balance the budget when you get re-elected for giving the voters freebies.
Print the post Back To Top