Republican Senator in Massachusetts?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

The first word in "illegal aliens" is "illegal". They are breaking the law coming here. Frankly, it's the liberal attitude over the years that is responsible for encouraging this. "Just get to America...they pay for everything."

It's time for the decision to break our laws to carry risk and consequences. Maybe eventually the advice from one would-be illegal to another will be more like, "Don't risk it. If you're an illegal alien in America, not only will they lock you up and deport you, but you won't be able to get medical care since you need to be a citizen at their hospitals."

Sure, people from other countries would like to be here since we have more opportunity and freedom than the rest of the world. But the way to do that is to legally apply and be accepted by the official departments regulating that. We won't continue to have freedoms if we bankrupt ourselves looking after other people who, since illegal, should not be here in the first place.

Use that bleeding heart attitude for the citizens first. Charity begins at home.

yes, it does. but it doesn't end there. i think if an illegal alien needs care, they should give it to them and then send them home. if they do things to keep them from even arriving, they have solved the problem. however, i will not agree that ignoring an emergency is the way to keep us solvent. solve the initial problem that is causing the ancillary issues. then you haven't gotten the various and sundry other issues to deal with.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Danzig

so is smoking, eating fried foods, red meat, not drinking enough milk, etc, etc. i'm not quite sure what a fat person has to do with your comments about letting people who are dying go without care so you don't have to pay. if everyone was insured, it would be the best way to handle medical treatment. that way, those of us with insurace wouldn't have to pay inflated prices to cover those who don't have insurance and have no way to pay. the question is, what is the best way to get everyone insured? the answer is not to completely lose our empathy towards others, and actually suggest letting people die by refusing treatment to save a buck. that's inhuman. do i think the current proposal in front on congress if the answer? no. but i find it disturbing that anyone would suggest turning a blind eye to someone in distress.
could we all do things to be healthier? sure. but i wouldn't suggest going thru the 'five guys burgers' thread to find people who practice bad eating habits and cancelling their coverage.

Thank YOU for that!

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Danzig

so is smoking, eating fried foods, red meat, not drinking enough milk, etc, etc. i'm not quite sure what a fat person has to do with your comments about letting people who are dying go without care so you don't have to pay. if everyone was insured, it would be the best way to handle medical treatment. that way, those of us with insurace wouldn't have to pay inflated prices to cover those who don't have insurance and have no way to pay. the question is, what is the best way to get everyone insured? the answer is not to completely lose our empathy towards others, and actually suggest letting people die by refusing treatment to save a buck. that's inhuman. do i think the current proposal in front on congress if the answer? no. but i find it disturbing that anyone would suggest turning a blind eye to someone in distress.
could we all do things to be healthier? sure. but i wouldn't suggest going thru the 'five guys burgers' thread to find people who practice bad eating habits and cancelling their coverage.

just as with auto insurance riskier clients (based mainly on driving history and age) pay more. Asking me to subsidize someone for bad health habits or for that matter me asking someone else to subsidize say my future liver damage is not fair. Then for 5 years collecting premiums before any coverage is started is PONZI-like. How many would go for Blue Cross marketing a plan where for five years you pay into to get insurance on your insurance in that it would be subsidized if it got too expensive to pay once the five years w/no coverage is completed. Of course still not given a quote on what the ultimate cost will be.

As far as illegals are concerned I'd think with the horrible, expensive health care system in the U.S. they'd go home for care or at least to Cuba.

[SOREHOOF]

[quote=Riot

Edit: and yeah, our rights are indeed "granted by our Government", within our Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc. And our government - usually - defends our intrinsic rights as citizens within this country.[/QUOTE]
My God Riot! Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence? Our rights are NOT "granted" by the Govt. here in America. We are "endowed by our Creator certain inalienable rights". "to secure these rights Governments are instituted among Men deriving their just powers from the Governed"
Let me help you out a little.
http://www.usconstitution.net/declar.html

[SOREHOOF]

Originally Posted by Riot

Ah, gotcha on the tax credit.

So you don't agree with taxing the bank bonuses as part of financial reform?

These Bank bonuses get the ever living crap taxed out of them here in N.Y. without the Feds even getting involved. The Feds get their cut out of that too, it is income. The State counts on the tax dollars from these bonuses to keep our entitlement driven State operating. The Wall Street slowdown hurts N.Y. more than it does other states. Just like the Govt. to paint someone as a bad guy when they get their piece of the action right off the top. I loved it when the oil companies were big villains over the price of gas when the Govt. was making more money off a gallon than the Oil companies were.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i'm not in favor of anything that will add to the taxpayers expense. they're trying to shut the barn door after the horse has been long gone. they should have gotten all this ironed out before handing over the money back when the banks came begging. if i thought the money would come from the ones they are trying to tax, i'd say go for it. but i just know that anything that adds to a businesses expense is going to get passed on to the customer.

The legal agreement the banks signed (under Bush) said they have to pay back the money. The small details of the technical "how" were left blank.

So are you then against any attempts at financial reform of Wall Street? Because they could pass on costs to customers?

Were you against the Consumer Credit Card Protection laws that were just passed?

[Riot]

Everyone paying for their own expenses is the best way to preserve our individual rights.

Which is exactly why I support healthcare reform, Joey. Because that is one of the main goals.

There is no reason to make the government, or any third party for that matter, a participant in the relationship between a patient and their doctor.

I think you do not realize how interactively insurance companies dictate your health care today, via what is "standard and usual", what they will pay for, or not.

Right now, insurance companies dictate, to your doctor (via what they will pay for), which drugs a doctor should use first, which treatments a doctor must try first, etc.

When you pay for your own, whether directly or through an insurance company of your choosing, others have nothing to say about it.

No. Insurance companies define the standard protocols of medical care. If a doctor wants to do something outside the "standard treatment" box, good luck. He can do it, but you'll have to pay for it, and then your insurance company can deny further coverage because your doc went outside the box.

For example, the "wear and tear" sore knee with some cartilage tear, effusion, etc. Insurance companies dictate (pay for) the common medical treatment protocol that steroid injections will be used before glucosaminogycan injections.

If you or your doctor decided a GAG injection would work, and you don't want to get a steroid injected into your knee because there's good medical evidence that it cuts pain, but may hasten degradation of the joint, you can pay for it yourself, as your insurance company will not. I know that it's $700, btw. For an injection I do to a horse or dog for $45.

At the pharmacy, your insurance company will pay for certain brands of drugs, but not others. The pharmacy will substitute (unless your doctor absolutely insists no) the drug your insurance company has approved for the script written. Because the insurance company has made a deal with the drug company, that all their patients will only use "X" antibiotic, not "Y", to keep the cost of "X" down for you.

But when you choose to go on any form of "public assistance", that's not the case. The difference is that the Democrats want everyone to be a ward of the state so they will shut up and let them "rule".

Joey - insurance companies you purchase dictate what they will pay for, just as public assistance dictates why they will pay for. And doctors follow that, if you want your insurance to pay for it. There isn't much difference at all.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

A fingerprint database linked to the one already used for "Social Security Numbers". That's a nonintrusive answer, and quite safe from identity theft concerns. Not many people would (or can) alter their fingerprints surgically, all ten of them, perfectly. Low risk.

I agree with the effectiveness and security, but again, I do NOT want to have to prove I am an American citizen as I go about my daily business living in America. I have to do that in some states now.

I do NOT want more government intrusion into my private life.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

riiiiiight

the reason the public option isnt in the senate bill is republicans fault. Though you had 60 democrats who could have put in a public option, though the smart ones didnt want it.

Yeah, right. Before you comment on my "agenda", you might know what you are talking about. You might notice where I said Coakely ran a bad campaign, Brown a good one; where in the past I've written I don't agree with much of the Dem platform (and what parts), where I said Obama should fire Geithner, I don't agree with taxing cadillac plans, etc.

The Senate wouldn't have passed a public option at all. 60 Dems couldn't have forced that through, because 60 Dems didn't want it.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

yes, it does. but it doesn't end there. i think if an illegal alien needs care, they should give it to them and then send them home.

I thought they did that now - if they (hospitals, etc) find out they are illegal, they call Border Patrol.

That is why illegals don't seek attention, let alone medical attention.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

The legal agreement the banks signed (under Bush) said they have to pay back the money. The small details of the technical "how" were left blank.

So are you then against any attempts at financial reform of Wall Street? Because they could pass on costs to customers?

Were you against the Consumer Credit Card Protection laws that were just passed?

honestly, i thought the article i read about the fed making a lot of money on their 'investments' was how the bailout would be paid back.
if obama and co want to tax the dog mess out of any bonuses paid to execs, i'm all for it.
as for the credit card companies-i know people like the characterize them as evil incarnate, but most people who owe money to visa and mastercard owe that for a reason, namely lack of self-control. i don't see anyone crying the blues when the credit card companies have to write off hundreds of thousands, if not millions, in unpaid balances and losses due to customers declaring bankruptcy. i don't wish to owe, so i have no credit cards. i paid them off years ago, and cut them all up. can i afford to have them? yes. but i choose not to-and anyone can choose to do the same. i don't have a lot of sympathy for those who run up balances, and then are upset because they can't pay the balance down. imo, many folks bring their debt woes onto themselves because they want it, they want it now. but people like to blame others for their troubles, and want someone to bail them out. companies do it, banks do it, individuals do it. it's too bad.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

I thought they did that now - if they (hospitals, etc) find out they are illegal, they call Border Patrol.

That is why illegals don't seek attention, let alone medical attention.

exactly. they aren't going to hospital unless it's an absolute dire emergency.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Rileyoriley

They want to hear about the issues.

The voters in Ma. voted for Obama by at least a 20% winning margin. This lady lost by about 5 %. That's at least a 25% change. Now, tell me how her positions differed from OBAMA'S. I'd like to know. To me, it's obvious that a state like this (where over 50% of the voters are registered Independents) is probably voting on personality etc. In other words, Teddy didn't take them for granted. He worked hard for their vote. I'm sure he was incorrect(too LIBERAL for a state where a majority are Independents) on the issues, but they weren't voting on the issues.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by gales0678

scuds you can paint it anyway you want , yesterday and the gov races in nov show the independents have given up on the dems for now

Wait 'til the Independents hear that the Conservatives on the Supreme Court just allowed companies to buy elections.

[Rileyoriley]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

The voters in Ma. voted for Obama by at least a 20% winning margin. This lady lost by about 5 %. That's at least a 25% change. Now, tell me how her positions differed from OBAMA'S. I'd like to know. To me, it's obvious that a state like this (where over 50% of the voters are registered Independents) is probably voting on personality etc. In other words, Teddy didn't take them for granted. He worked hard for their vote. I'm sure he was incorrect(too LIBERAL for a state where a majority are Independents) on the issues, but they weren't voting on the issues.

Obama brought out the minority vote. Coakley did not. As I pointed out in an earlier post, she insulted the hispanic community. Her whole platform was to blindly follow Obama. Obama promised transparency and to work across party lines. People aren't seeing that happen. To quote my extremely liberal nephew "he's just another politician".

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Rileyoriley

Obama brought out the minority vote. Coakley did not. As I pointed out in an earlier post, she insulted the hispanic community. Her whole platform was to blindly follow Obama. Obama promised transparency and to work across party lines. People aren't seeing that happen. To quote my extremely liberal nephew "he's just another politician".

Those are personality issues. There's no actual policy issues in that post. Work across party lines? Oh he tried. He's got more Republican ass on those lips than could ever be expected. They were the ones who refused to work across party lines. It got characterized the incorrect way, because Chowder Heads didn't take the time to look at who was willing to negotiate. They wouldn't budge, and Chowder Heads didn't bother to observe who wouldn't come across the aisle. Transparency? Maybe. Working across party lines? You got the wrong villain there. When you make someone get 60 %, you're gunna make people have to act like they're just another politician. Like I said, most of the complaints in that election came directly as a result of that 60% rule, but I doubt that issue was ever part of that election (other than one parasite feasting off the ugly results that rule will always produce.)

[SOREHOOF]

Believe me Scuds, You will come to appreciate that 60% rule.

[SOREHOOF]

Obama has no shortage of personality. He seems to be a very likeable person.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by SOREHOOF

Believe me Scuds, You will come to appreciate that 60% rule.

It does nothing, but turn people into whores n' parasites. If you do the math, it's actually at least a 65% requirement for Dems, and only a 55% requirement for Repubs. People talk about fairness, but that's the single most unfair rule in all our politics. When each state (regardless of population) gets the same # senators, it's the most unfair part of our system. This guy Brown interested in fairness etc.? How about the fact that people in big cities are treated like 2nd class citizens? How much more influence do you think some country trash from a small state has than someone from a state with a large population? That rule is a natural advantage for Country People. Whenever I hear anything about fairness in politics, this is the best example that people actually don't care at all about fairness in politics. This is what I mean when I say people are ignorant about the issues. This unfair pool (the Senate) is by it's very definition simple corruption. People in Rhode Island get as much say as the whole population of New York, or Texas. Who do you think will have an easier time getting 60%? Conservatives in a pool biased towards them, or Dems in a pool that's biased against them? Let me be clear...FK THAT 60% RULE, and nobody can call our sytem fair until each citizen gets the same amount of representation in that Senate. Period. 11-12% of the population of the country having only a 2% say is not Democracy. It's a scam. Any chance I get, I will vote to form a new country where every citizen is represented equally. Period. No extra influence for hillbilly populations getting double n' triple say in that Senate.

While having only a combined 8% say in the Senate..... Cali, Texas, New York, and Florida combine to make up a full third of the country's population. While Nelson's deal was unfair, when did Americans start caring about fairness? I'm giving you transparency: 33% get 8% representation. It's incredibly late for Americans to give a sht about fairness.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by gales0678
scuds you can paint it anyway you want , yesterday and the gov races in nov show the independents have given up on the dems for now

Rather than governors, what about New York, the Congressional race that went Dem for the first time in decades? Those voters spit out the tea-bag candidate.

Looks like one up for Congress for Dems, one up for Senate for GOP.

Edit: I don't think people know who they are voting for - other than anger at the status quo:

Reporting from Washington - Senator-elect Scott Brown -- the truck-driving, "tea party"-backed Republican who scored an upset victory in Massachusetts -- visited Capitol Hill on Thursday and quickly picked up a nickname: 41.

Brown, a state senator, is hardly a political novice. But he campaigned as an outsider, driving a pickup and portraying Democratic candidate Martha Coakley as a cog in the majority party's political machine.

His profile as a conservative firebrand was burnished by his supporters in the so-called tea party, the grass-roots movement that has challenged the credentials of establishment Republicans such as Dede Scozzafava, who dropped out of a special congressional election last year amid the criticism.

Yet an analysis of Brown's record by Boris Schor of the University of Chicago's public policy school found the senator-elect to be more liberal than Scozzafava. He has supported abortion rights and come out against a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage -- an issue he has said should be up to states to decide. As a state legislator, he also supported Massachusetts' groundbreaking legislation to provide universal healthcare.