posted on March 26, 2004 10:39:27 AM new
In the total scheme of things, with the never ending war, the billion dollar deficit and the economy screwed, this issue, which has been debated for a generation is not a hot topic. Americans are keeping their eyes on the ball and this is not an issue that will contribute to Bush's reelection. The state of the economy and the safety of our country and the world will be the deciding factors in this election. John Kerry will be the next president.
posted on March 26, 2004 10:48:18 AM new
LOL...now you're deciding what topics/issues are important to others? LOL Who put you in charge of making decisions for everyone?
Imo, you couldn't be more wrong. It's been said on previous posts that between 75% - 85% of American's claim to be Christians. I believe this further erosion of removing anything "God" related is a VERY important issue to those who will be voting. And they deserve to know where kerry stands on it.
It is interesting to me that kerry shrinks away from answering the devisive questions. Don't think people aren't noticing he's developing a pattern of doing just that.
posted on March 26, 2004 11:03:52 AM new
Most Americans, whether Christian or not, will base their votes on more important issues other than whether or not "under God" is included in the pledge. As I said, it's silly to rate this issue as more important at this time than the economy, health care, the budget deficit, millions without jobs, and a never ending war. Get your priorities in order. The situation in this country is not "LOL" funny, linda...just as George Bush found when he joked and laughed about the fact that no WMD were found without consideration of the fact that almost 600 US soldiers have been killed in his search for them.
posted on March 26, 2004 11:56:37 AM new
Helen you only heard part of that speech. It's known as tunnel vision. Of course you can be offended as people do but when he ended his speech he said some heartwarming things. Go back and read his speech, all of it...
Now you mention health care. Do you as a health care worker think you were paid fairly for hours worked?
When they got rid of the law "No duplicate Services" that was the beginning of rising health care. A MRI on every corner, CT, sometimes two in every hospital. Heart hospitals being built next to each other. That is the rising cost of health care. I can tell you I was not paid according to my Healh Care job. Of course it was a good wage but it should have been better.
The reasons that Canadians can afford to have health care is that there are no uplicating of services, If you need an MRI or CT you Wait. Here you can have it the next hour it is ordered. We as americans are crying for lower health care but the Hospitals are not conforming. We have two different Health organizations in our 85,000 population. 3 Hospitals. 1 across the street from another. All 3 hospital have Heart Hospitals. 3x the money. All of CT's, MRI's. Across the street from the two hospitals is an outpatient radiology Dept. Tell me how we can reduce health care.
posted on March 26, 2004 11:57:12 AM new
Twelvepole,
As I said, in the total scheme of things with 2.8 million jobs lost since Bush was elected and 3 million jobs sent overseas most people are going to consider the economy more important than marriage and gender issues.
The few people who have found a job find themselves working for much less. Many who lost jobs with a salary of 42,000, for example had to take jobs making 28,000.
Without health care for so many, just basic economic and survival issues will prevail in this election.
It's standard fare humor. Bush says he is preparing for a tough election fight; then on the large video screens a picture flashes showing him wearing a boxing robe while sitting at his desk. Bush notes he spends "a lot of time on the phone listening to our European allies." Then we see a photo of him on the phone with a finger in his ear. There were funny bits about Skull and Bones, his mother, and Dick Cheney. But at one point, Bush showed a photo of himself looking for something out a window in the Oval Office, and he said, "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere."
The audience laughed. I grimaced. But that wasn't the end of it. After a few more slides, there was a shot of Bush looking under furniture in the Oval Office. "Nope," he said. "No weapons over there." More laughter. Then another picture of Bush searching in his office: "Maybe under here." Laughter again.
Disapproval must have registered upon my face, for one of my tablemates said, "Come on, David, this is funny." I wanted to reply, Over 500 Americans and literally countless Iraqis are dead because of a war that was supposedly fought to find weapons of mass destruction, and Bush is joking about it. Instead, I took a long drink of the lovely white wine that had come with our dinner. It's not as if I was in the middle of a talk-show debate and had to respond. This was certainly one of those occasions in which you either get it or don't. And I wasn't getting it. Or maybe my neighbor wasn't.
At the end of the slide show, Bush displayed two pictures of himself with troops and noted these were his favorites. The final photograph was a shot of special forces soldiers--with their faces blurred to protect their identities--who were posing in Afghanistan where they had buried a piece of 9/11 debris in a spot that had once been an al Qaeda camp. Bush spoke about the prayer the commander had said during the burial ceremony and noted he had this photograph hanging in his private study.
So what's wrong with this picture? Bush was somber about the sacrifice being made by U.S. troops overseas. But he obviously considered it fine to make fun of the reason he cited for sending Americans to war and to death. What an act of audacious spin. One poll recently showed that most Americans believe he either lied about Iraq's WMDs or deliberately exaggerated the case to justify the war. And it is undeniable that in seeking public support for the war he made many false assertions that went beyond quoting intelligence that turned out to be wrong. (I've written about this in many other places. If you still don't believe Bush mugged the truth, check out this short guide.) As the crowd was digesting the delicious surf-and-turf meal, Bush was transforming serious scandal into rim-shot comedy.
posted on March 26, 2004 12:03:51 PM new
[note to self] I must remember if an issue is not judged to be important by helen....then no one should even *need* an explanation from their candidate on any of their concerns.
-------
twelve - This was taken from the Washington Times yesterday....where they spoke of the Culture Wars' in this election. Hummmm so they must matter to some....especially the Republicans.
[i]"The Democrats' position on almost all of these issues is anti-majoritarian," said a senior campaign official. "Their position is: Because we don't trust the majorities in defining marriage, or in establishing appropriate laws in their states on things like abortion or on so many other fronts, we need to step in and have an elite group of people who share our values tell the majority what to do."
posted on March 26, 2004 12:20:27 PM new
Libra - you asked helen: Now you mention health care. Do you as a health care worker think you were paid fairly for hours worked?
What gave you the impression she's a health care worker?
----------------------
Helen is one of those who complain about the poor people who have no health insurance coverage. BUT she doesn't choose to go out and get a job in order to have access to health care; she chooses not to pay for it out of her own pocket either. Her priorities are to get someone else to pay for it for her - ie: National Health Care.
posted on March 26, 2004 12:33:36 PM new
Well, here we go with personal attacks again, linda. I'm surprised only that you failed to laugh like a hyena.
Actually, I thought Libra was addressing someone else with that comment. No, I am not a health worker.
Linda says....
"Helen is one of those who complain about the poor people who have no health insurance coverage. BUT she doesn't choose to go out and get a job in order to have access to health care; she chooses not to pay for it out of her own pocket either. Her priorities are to get someone else to pay for it for her - ie: National Health Care."
Good Lord!
How on earth have you come to those conclusions? I have had a job all my life and have always paid for my own health care either through my job or personally. But unfortunately there are millions of people in this country not so fortunate. To ignore so many people is scandalous.
posted on March 26, 2004 12:46:48 PM new
Helen - Every statement I just made comes from a post or multi posts you have made right here on these boards.
Are you now saying they're not true? If so...which ones do you now claim are untrue?
I stand by my above summation of your past posts.
And if you've been on these boards almos 24/7 for years....how did you old down that job in that same time frame?
posted on March 26, 2004 12:55:33 PM new
Linda, you carry on with your bitter biddy attack...I really don't care. But I'm not discussing my personal circumstances. Suffice it to say that I can afford insurance premiums but I choose not to. I can also afford to pay for my own health care. So let's discuss those people who cannot.
You say, "she chooses not to pay for it out of her own pocket either" I have never said that I choose not to pay for my health care. I have said that I choose not to pay health insurance premiums and I can afford to do that.
Get back on topic. You are making a fool of yourself trying to discredit me when the fault lies in your wrong interpretation of what I have said.
posted on March 26, 2004 01:25:59 PM new
helenjw - posted on December 13, 2003 11:11:43 AM
Actually, I would like to see the Canadian health care system here. I don't have health insurance -- along with 44 million other Americans. Although I've heard complaints about wait times in Canada, at least there is some care which is not the case here. By the time I'm old enough for Medicare, it will be abolished.
posted on March 26, 2004 01:38:53 PM new
This is exactly what I said and I meant every word of it.
Actually, I would like to see the Canadian health care system here. I don't have health insurance -- along with 44 million other Americans. Although I've heard complaints about wait times in Canada, at least there is some care which is not the case here. By the time I'm old enough for Medicare, it will be abolished.
Aren't you concerned about the fact that so many people in this country have no health care? Countries in Europe and Canada and Mexico have national health care programs. Why can't this country?
posted on March 26, 2004 02:07:44 PM new
Here's another one where we discussed this same 'free-loader choice' again.
helenjw - posted on December 13, 2003 09:35:47 PM
MY POST ---Proving you are wrong again, linda.
RE: U.S. Medical System 2002-10-30 05:56:40
..... Instead of paying the astronomical insurance premiums that would cover only 'some' problems, I put that money in the bank.
I said that I CHOSE not to afford it Linda.
Helen
Re-elect President Bush!!
edited to add:
Linda_K - posted on December 13, 2003 10:06:06 PM edit
LOL helen - Why don't you post the one where you said it would cost you the amounts I quoted?
But...the point is you have NO insurance. You want some form of National Health Care....that would make you insured. Since you don't work..YOU wouldn't be paying for your NEW insurance coverage.
Admit it...you want to be a 'free-loader'.
-------------
And pre 10-30-2002 you made statements about how much insurance would cost for yourself and you're weren't going to pay for it yourself. You'd just take good care of your self instead.
So...I'm done now. My point has been made. You have no health insurance, you choose not to pay for any and you are constantly calling for/supporting a National Health Care Plan .....which would give you coverage.
There are many just like yourself who CHOOSE not to have/pay for/earn medical insurance coverage. And that's their choice as it is yours. But when you scream about all those who are un-insured....just remember they too may very well be making the same choice you have. The very poor can get medical care they need.
posted on March 26, 2004 02:13:37 PM new
How do you interpret that as a free-loader statement, linda?...I can afford to take care of any medical expense that I might have.
I have a suggestion, linda.
Either discuss this topic or get the hell out of this thread and start one entitled "My Personal Vendetta Against Helen". Nobody but you gives a dam about what I have said about health care over the past three years. You are wasting your time scratching around looking for statements that I have made about health insurance that will indicate that I am a free-loader. That's only comical.
posted on March 26, 2004 03:23:20 PM new
Linda, why do you think my wish for universal health insurance is a selfish one...especially when I can manage by myself. I have been concerned about this issue for years. Unlike you, I don't dwell in an ivory tower. I have added these few quotes to indicate my interest and concern not for myself but for the country and for everyone. I could add many more but I would like to put an end to this one with you attacking my character instead of the topic
http://www.vendio.com/mesg/read.html?num=28&thread=197929&id=197950
Health care is a very basic need and so vital that we are providing it to the people in Iraq. We should recognize that need here and do the same for the people of our country. It's not acceptable to have over 43 million people without health insurance.
http://www.vendio.com/mesg/read.html?num=28&thread=197929&id=197950
Providing health care for all people becomes the responsibility of government when such care becomes unaffordable. That's not "hand feeding" by any stretch of the imagination. Remember that the function and power of our government is derived from the people. You seem to think that governments should not be responsive to people's needs.
http://www.vendio.com/mesg/read.html?num=28&thread=195493&id=195548
You are always bringing up personal issues to discuss any topic. I have already stated that I have no need of anyone's money. On the other hand, there are poor people in this country through no fault of their own who can't afford health care. Medicaid helps some but does not cover all such situations. How can you can make fun of poor families with children and call the government their nanny? How mean and uncaring can you be.
posted on March 26, 2004 04:23:30 PM new
If the US gets a National Health Care it will be a whole lot different than the Canadian one where government has total control. In the States there is no government control now since they band the no duplication of services. It is going to be difficult and something that will take years to perfect. It is not an overnight achievement. It will take both parties and also independents to perfect it and then it will have a lot of problems. In fact I think it has to be a non political group to try and see what they can do. I don't see it in my life time. When Hospitals can open and purchase any thing they want without control is the first problem. When Hospitals can build new ones when the older one is capabicle of handling the population is wrong. The Hospital or Hospital Association that makes the most money has the best equipment and has Hospitals finally destroy the other. I am sorry for people who don't have health care. When working I never received free health insurance in fact I had to pay half of a Family Plan and there was only two in my family. I paid the same as a family of 5. I didn't complain. We did get free health care if we went to the hospital where we worked. Well not free but discounted the amount left after the bill was paid.
I am sorry Helen I thought in an earlier thread you said you were a nurse.
just for you.