Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Neurosurgeon: Obamacare Threatens Freedom


joc

Recommended Posts

I think if a country has the ability and the opportunity (the later is important) to correct a severe evil, then it has a moral responsibility to do so. Glib slogans like "we should not be the world's policeman" is merely a catch phrase to avoid that responsibility.

Except that we really don't have that ability any more. This war has nearly bankrupted us.And why is it our responsibility? I think trying to stop evil was what led us to war in your country as well
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except that we really don't have that ability any more. This war has nearly bankrupted us.And why is it our responsibility? I think trying to stop evil was what led us to war in your country as well

The American war (as we call it) was indeed an attempt to stop a perceived evil. In our case it worked out okay in the end, but just barely (remember Pol Pot) and after a lost generation. I hold no grudge against the States, and few Vietnamese do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The war hasn't bankrupted us...Barrack Obama has bankrupted us...He and his Chicago Thug Cohorts along with the ilk of Pelosi and Reid...two of the most notorious traitors in American History...

We spent more than 8 trillion on that war. Not to mention the dead marines.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

- post removed -

Now, now...is cyber-war really necessary...although...

...we do have a saying in Texas...okay, I , have a saying in Texas...Sticks and stones may break my bones...but names will get your ass whipped...

...but aren't we all a bit above all of that nonsense? Seriously...we are at war here...not with each other necessarily...but against Tyrannical control by an out of touch Federal Bureaucracy.

You have to understand the game and who is playing it. The game is: divide and conquer. Blacks against Whites. Poor against the Rich. and mostly, and the biggest one of all...Democrats against Republicans. Divide and Conquer...and while all the Democrats are whipped up into a rage against the Republicans...and while all the Republicans are up in arms against the Democrats...someone is stealing all the eggs in the chicken house.

...well? Who do you think the thieves are?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah it was W's unfunded war that got us this debt

None of which refutes what I said does it? Bush absolutely led us into an unnecessary war in Iraq without any thought of funding it except by borrowing money from China.

We spent more than 8 trillion on that war. Not to mention the dead marines.

Actually the Debt was not rising at any great rate from 2001 to 2008, so the Wars were not a major part of the Debt.

And these were Obama's wars as much as Bush's. Obama is the one that doubled down when he was completely capable of simply ending them and walking away. He took responsibility and owned those wars.

Look at the 2007 US Budget...

http://en.wikipedia...._federal_budget

$161 billion in Deficit. Which is comparable to 2005, 2004, 2003, and 2002. Which comes out to like adding about a trillion dollars approximately. I don't know where 8 trillion comes from when less then a trillion was added for the entire budget for those 5 war years. Do you have a resource/link to that 8 trillion dollar debt?

The Wars DID add to the Debt, and the Iraq war was Completely unnecessary, but they did not add a significant amount of debt when compared to the spending to "Fix" the economy since the end of 2008. Stimulous spending has been 90% of what Bush and Obama debts came from.

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And still no dental? Figures. Obviously everyone isn't going to need all those but I would assume packaging it all together as one deal should make it cheaper for everyone.

From what I've seen with my yearly Insurance enrollment documents, it is now illegal to do so. Dental and Optical both have to be offered, but must be seperate articles. Plans that last year had Optical and Dental inside them now do not, but Intel offers those to everyone as an option anyway.

At least that is how it seems from what I read with Blue Cross Blue Shield and Kieser Permenente and the others Intel offers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The real cause of the deficit was the recession with the drop in revenues and corresponding increase in transfer payments. America has figured out the technique of fighting ground wars on the cheap. Where the military consumes money is in its big projects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George Bush did it.

Seriously, well said and I feel for tehse people that are being abused by a political party that thinks only of its own power at every juncture. ACA is strctly about democrats remaining in power for teh next few decades as every election cycle we will hear the threat of the republicans want to take away your healthcare. Get them addicted then use that addiction as a hammer to stay in power. Disgusting and criminal.

So what you're saying is all the Republicans have to do to grow their own political power, an possibly regain the White House, is to adopt an ACA-like policy promise?

After all, if they did that, the Democrats wouldn't be able to state "they want to take away your healthcare" and be telling the truth, would they?

You suggest it is the behaviour of one party regarding healthcare reform that is "disgusting and criminal". Does that suggest you don't think healthcare reform is, itself, "disgusting and crimnal"?

And if healthcare reform is not "disgusting and criminal", then why should one party be lambasted for trying to implement reform, while the other party be lauded for trying to revoke it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it isn't the nature of insurance. I've heard this mentioned many time before, but insurance companies don't pay for the uninsured in any fashion...our taxes do. I wouldn't object to someone proving me wrong on that point because I've been wondering where that thought originated.

You are just absolutely wrong on that. Taxes cover SOME of the $50 billion in unpaid yearly medical bills, but those of use who have insurance cover the rest. Not directy, but indirectly. There is a reason that $75,000 surgery costs $300,000...the difference has to be made up somewhere. But guess what? If you were paying cash, they are going to charge you $75,000. The insured have been getting screwed for years by having to pay higher premiums to cover for the leeches of society that believe that they are young and healthy and that "nothing will ever happen to them".

http://www.whatcomalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Herald_06-14-05.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, you're brilliant!! Time to recap here. George W. Bush owned a a multimillion dollar baseball team, made millions in the oil industry, then, as Governor, ran one of the most prosperous states in the country, Texas and won reelection with 69% of the vote. He ran a state! Obama never ran more than a book club. He never even had a job!

Bush also flew fighter jets in the Texas ANG and actually married a beautiful woman, two things Obama was incapable of doing. He overcame an alcohol problem but Barry can't quit smoking liek he promised to and Bush never did cocaine like Barry. Word is he is still snorting.

Oh yeah, we got to see Bush's diplomas and transcripts etc. etc, yet I have never seen any of Obama's grades, papers, diplomas, people that attended school with him, nothing. Why? If he i so brilliant why not show some proof.

Back atcha! LMFAO

And the false left right paradigm rages on. Both Bush and 0bama are about the worst lieing murderous scum bags on this planet. No one has done more to destroy American principles, and freedoms then these 2 men. And the fact that we still have people pointing fingers at 'the other guy' means both Bush and 0bama have you right where they want you.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of which refutes what I said does it? Bush absolutely led us into an unnecessary war in Iraq without any thought of funding it except by borrowing money from China. Do you dispute this? I think you sound like the zealot, but then as you point out I'm not educated. Just a poor old country boy. But I do remember trillions we borrowed from China to pay for Bush and Cheney's war. Obama was saddled with this debt from the start and he is to blame for it? You are welcome to your own opinion but not to your own facts

You guys are both right, and wrong, all at the same time. Yes, Bush wasted lots of money on war. Even worse (way worse) he gave trillions to financial institutions robbing it all from present and future tax payers. Was 0bama responcible for any of that at the time? Well you could argue that he did indeed vote to continue funding the wars, and also voted in favor of the bail-outs. That alone might not make him as responcible as Bush, but what 0bama has done since taking the seat makes him at least as responcible. He has continued everything Bush did, and in most cases made it worse. In fact, 0bama has spent more money in his 5 years in office, then all other's before him combined.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys are both right, and wrong, all at the same time. Yes, Bush wasted lots of money on war. Even worse (way worse) he gave trillions to financial institutions robbing it all from present and future tax payers. Was 0bama responcible for any of that at the time? Well you could argue that he did indeed vote to continue funding the wars, and also voted in favor of the bail-outs. That alone might not make him as responcible as Bush, but what 0bama has done since taking the seat makes him at least as responcible. He has continued everything Bush did, and in most cases made it worse. In fact, 0bama has spent more money in his 5 years in office, then all other's before him combined.

That also doesn't tell the whole truth of why that money was spent, preacherman.

If someone in your family borrows $2000 and fails to pay it back, and you have the legal responsibility to ensure the money is paid back, then you will have to pay back more than $2000 - because of interest, penalties, etc.

In a similar way, Administrations become responsible for the profligacy of their predecessors so, yes Obama has spent a lot of money - but quite a bit of that he has had to spend because of what his predecessors did. For sure, some of his spending is on things he alone is responsible for, but blame must be applied to those who started the events which cost America so much money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That also doesn't tell the whole truth of why that money was spent, preacherman.

If someone in your family borrows $2000 and fails to pay it back, and you have the legal responsibility to ensure the money is paid back, then you will have to pay back more than $2000 - because of interest, penalties, etc.

In a similar way, Administrations become responsible for the profligacy of their predecessors so, yes Obama has spent a lot of money - but quite a bit of that he has had to spend because of what his predecessors did. For sure, some of his spending is on things he alone is responsible for, but blame must be applied to those who started the events which cost America so much money.

Im not buying it in the least bit Leo. What Bush did was criminal to the max. The man bailed out private for profit companies with tax payers money. If 0bama wasnt bought and paid for by the same people, he would have come in and refused to give any of those criminals another dime. He would have also put a end to the destruction of the dollar by no longer allowing the Fed to dump 85 billion dollars a month into off shore banks, otherwise known as QE. He didnt have to do anything, and by now we would have all been better off had he not.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did I say not to file?

No, but the question was about the Homeless, and very few of them file taxes....

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im not buying it in the least bit Leo. What Bush did was criminal to the max. The man bailed out private for profit companies with tax payers money. If 0bama wasnt bought and paid for by the same people, he would have come in and refused to give any of those criminals another dime. He would have also put a end to the destruction of the dollar by no longer allowing the Fed to dump 85 billion dollars a month into off shore banks, otherwise known as QE. He didnt have to do anything, and by now we would have all been better off had he not.

I'm not excusing Obama of spending money unnecessarily, preacherman. I only suggested that your sentence "Obama spent more in 5 years than all those prior to him combined" is misleading.

Quite a bit of the money that was spent during those 5 years had to be spent - no matter who was "in office". It gives a better picture to take away all this money that "has to be spent" (such as money that previous Administrations' actions necessitate is spent) and then comparing "who spent what". Of course, this would be very complicated, so people usually just blame the incumbent for all the spending.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personnally, I am not against Keynesian economics, but I'd just once like to see the flip side applied, where taxes are reduced and money banked, when times are good.

If there are no "Good Times" then Keynesian economics is going to fail.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I said Washington didn't I NNs? Why aren't you apologizing to the forum for all the misleading you have done over the last couple of years regarding the ACA? Everything I said would come true has, in spades and everything you promised was a lie? I'd like an apology now please and an admission that you screwed up and don't have a clue what you are talking about..

You first. I didn't "mislead" anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You first. I didn't "mislead" anything.

You told everyone healthcare.gov is up and running yesterday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charts: Bush Lowballed Us on Iraq by $6 Trillion

http://www.motherjon...s-cost-iraq-war

Yeah. Includes 50 years of interest.... Costs of Homeland security... Costs of VA expenses....

Basically a bunch of accounting, blah, blah, blah, meant to inflate the number to make it look scary.

Those Homeland security improvements were going to happen anyway. -$700 billion. The VA was going to have to support those soldiers anyway. -$500 billion. Interest on now much smaller expense... -3 trillion. Total amount not relevent -$4.2 billion.

Arguements could be made about Civilian spending in Iraq and Afghanistan, but that is AID spending, not WAR spending... technically.

Future interest is not spent yet is it? Or are you one of these Infinite Horizon guys?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's call Obama's Deficit spending for 2009 to 2012 about $4 trillion. Then using the ratio used in Ninja's article... ($6 trillion divided by $1.6 trillion = ratio of 3.75 (For 40 years of interst... up to 2053)) We get a total of 15 Trillion dollars. So, using the same logic as Ninja does, with just the interest applied to the Known deficit spending. We have Obama cost the American people $15 trillion dollars in 4 years. Almost $4 trillion per year.

Or, we can use that $4 trillion dollars and make some other assumptions. Like all the projects that the stimulous spending and deficit spending created, including paying entitlement programs, has to be supported in the future right? That is what he's arguing with the various Wars, right? So, just a guess but instead of $4 trillion, the number jumps to something like $10 trillion, and then with interest (3.75 ratio), we get 37 TRILLION DOLLARS that Obama spent.

$37 trillion dollars!! All of a sudden that Deficit Spending seems like a bad idea, right?

It is the same logic used in Ninja's article to inflate the various numbers. It is accounting tricks.

Edited by DieChecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the world's best doctor's is also one of the most outspoken critics of Obamacare.

"The freedom of Americans to control their own health care needs is being threatened by massive governmental interference," says neurosurgeon Ben Carson.

LINK

BenCarson_zpsc5740b9f.jpg

Thank goodness there isn't a strong element of race with this topic after you included the photo like that.

Good on Ben Carson for speaking out. I felt a hole in my heart when the federal govt started bombing Iraq in 2003, and here we are 10 years later, making another perfectly avoidable mess of this country. The nation and the world gets the best results when govt gets out of the way and is no longer allowed to control everything.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.