ShortNews
+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
   
                 10/01/2014 07:58 AM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
   Top News Politics
Instagram Blocked in China
California Governor Signs "Yes Means Yes" Bill
Poll: 70 Percent of Troops Say No More Boots on the Ground in Iraq
Michele Bachmann Calls Gay Marriage "Boring"
Obama to Push New Climate Effort
more News
out of this Channel...
  ShortNews User Poll
Do you support stricter gun laws?
  Latest Events
10/01/2014 12:40 AM
edie receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'Arizona Cardinals Player Jonathan Dwyer Charged With Assaulting Wife'
10/01/2014 12:22 AM
edie receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'Chilean Porn Star Has 12-Hour Sex Marathon After Chile´s Soccer Team Beats Spain'
10/01/2014 12:22 AM
edie receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'Arizona Cardinals Player Jonathan Dwyer Charged With Assaulting Wife'
10/01/2014 12:22 AM
ichi receives 20 Points for Comment about 'Arizona Cardinals Player Jonathan Dwyer Charged With Assaulting Wife'
10/01/2014 12:19 AM
edie receives 10 Points for good Assessment of 'Child Among 15 People Shot at Miami Night Club'
10/01/2014 12:19 AM
ichi receives 20 Points for Comment about 'Child Among 15 People Shot at Miami Night Club'
09/30/2014 11:45 PM
edie receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'Study: Dolphins Have a Certain Magnetic Quality'
09/30/2014 11:45 PM
edie receives 10 Points for good Assessment of 'ATM Fees Rising'
09/30/2014 11:44 PM
edie receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'Arizona Cardinals Player Jonathan Dwyer Charged With Assaulting Wife'
09/30/2014 11:44 PM
edie receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'Rare $900,000 Porsche Spyder Burns Like a Crisp at Gas Station'
  2.849 Visits   2 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
02/09/2010 08:14 PM ID: 82829 Permalink   

´Tea Party´ Vs. Democrats and Republicans -- The Winner Is ...

 

Just days after the nation´s first Tea Party convention, Rasmussen Reports commissioned a poll to determine who would win on a generic (no-name) 2012 Congressional ballot between the Democrats, Republicans and the ´Tea Party.´

The Democrats were supported by 36 percent of respondents. The Republicans garnered 25 percent support, and the ´Tea Party´ came in last, with just 17 percent support. However, a full 23 percent of respondents were undecided.

About two months ago, the same poll showed more momentum for a theoretical ´Tea Party´ candidate, which finished second, ahead of the Republican Party, but still behind the first-place Democratic Party.

 
  Source: content.usatoday.com  
    WebReporter: Ben_Reilly Show Calling Card      
  Recommendation:  
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
   
  28 Comments
  
  So then....  
 
Has the Tea Party officially separated itself from both the Republican and the Democrat parties? Could we actually be looking at a 3-party system, instead of the lame-assed 2-party system we´ve had to deal with for the past 75 years or so? They never did seem to fit into either one, although it seems like a lot more Republicans than Democrats were attracted to it.

Personally, I´d like to see the Libertarian party gain some traction. I think that most people really don´t know anything about them because the media absolutely never reports anything about any of their candidates.
 
  by: WillyMaykett   02/09/2010 08:20 PM     
  @WillyMaykett  
 
"I think that most people really don´t know anything about them because the media absolutely never reports anything about any of their candidates." If that is true, and I know that it is, why do you suppose that the ignorant refer to the media as liberal?
 
  by: John E Angel     02/09/2010 09:33 PM     
  The "Tea Party" is the GOP  
 
Originally it was the Ron Paul wing of the republican party, but the neo-cons took it over about two years ago with a massive misinfo media compaign. (Virtually none of the original tea party members make up the current GOP run "Tea Party") So basically all three of these groups are big banking subsidiaries, so the choice makes no difference.
 
  by: Tetsuru Uzuki     02/09/2010 10:03 PM     
  If  
 
If the tea party movement can adopt into it all the ideologies under on ideological cause, while disbanding from the parties from whence they came, then they can truly unite themselves to be a third party option. Otherwise time could be their destruction.
 
  by: vhan     02/09/2010 10:07 PM     
  @Tetsuru Uzuki  
 
I concur. Though the campaign for liberty is still running strong for not being in the media spot light.
 
  by: vhan     02/09/2010 10:09 PM     
  n/t  
 
Well, the bottom line is that capitalistic lobbyists always win and the American people ALWAYS lose. I´m so sick of our broken society I could puke.
 
  by: Lurker     02/09/2010 10:36 PM     
  @John E Angel  
 
You raise a good point. I guess it´s because most of the media outlets (with the notable exception of Fox and others owned by Papa Rupert) praised Obama relentlessly, to the point where is was kind of sickening. Since the words Conservative and Republican can be interchanged, and the words Liberal and Democrat can be interchanged, it stands to reason that if the media outlets are backing a Democrat, they must be Liberal.

Personally, I don´t believe that the term ´Liberal´ fits most Democrats, since most of them seem to want more government programs, more government regulation, and therefore more government. This seems to be just the opposite of someone who wants ´liberty´ for people.

The word conservative does seem to describe the Republicans, both in spending habits and in the unwillingness to change.

This is what we are supposed to call balance, where no one party has carte blanche, and each of the two sides is checked by the other. It seems to me to be very dangerous when one side has the overwhelming majority, and therefore can force their ideals on the remaining minority, even though the difference in numbers between the majority and the minority is very minuscule.

Take the big health care debate that´s raging right now for example. If 80% of Americans wanted the government option, 15% objected to it, and 5% were undecided, then that would be an overwhelming majority of constituents that support it. But the truth of the numbers is that it´s closer to 47% for, 45% against, and 8% undecided. Just because a district voted in a Democrat, doesn´t mean that they support the health care bill, just the same as the Republican-voting districts would not necessarily oppose it. However, the vast majority of the House and the Senate seats are filled by Democrats at the moment, and this has somehow given them the belief that the vast majority of Americans want the government health care plan, when the polls obviously tell a different story.

I digressed a little from the main point there, but I think it´s all related. There are only two sides to choose from, if you want to be practical when you vote, and the only media outlet that seems to be able to report anything bad about the current administration is the one that´s self-labeled as Conservative, and claims to speak for Conservatives everywhere.

Personally, I don´t think the Tea Party has much of a chance in the political arena. All they seem to be good at is shouting down the other side. And while that can sometimes be the only way to be heard, they always seem to do it in a way that seems silly. They can take a perfectly good objection and turn it into something that´s able to be ridiculed by the people that they´re trying to make their points to. I´m also not entirely convinced that they could function at all without the guidance of their talk-show-host leaders. But, once again, since these people are considered to be Conservative, I guess it only follows that if someone is going to ridicule them, it will be their opposition, which by definition would be the Liberal side of the aisle. At the moment, the ones ridiculing them are are the mainstream media, so therefore the mainstream media must be Liberal. I guess if you´re going to try to protest something, you need to pick your enemies.

The Tea Party (as an event, not an actual political party) was originally a very good idea: protest the wrongs that you perceive in the government in a way that´s visible. But then something happened to the movement, and it became radical, opposing anything that the Liberals proposed, just on general principle. So at that point, I was really surprised that the Republicans didn´t distance themselves from the Tea Party movement. But now the Tea Party considers themselves to be separate, and they´re more than welcome to it, as far as I´m concerned. Once we can dismiss them, we can try to find a serious alternative to the regular R/D ticket, and maybe see if we can get someone in office who isn´t invested in a particular Conservative/Liberal standpoint.

Sorry about the long-winded response. I would be very glad to read your response to this, if you´d care to post it. Also, TaraB, if you have anything to comment, I´d love to hear that too.
 
  by: WillyMaykett   02/09/2010 10:44 PM     
  @Willy  
 
"praised Obama relentlessly" -- proof or it didn´t happen ...
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     02/10/2010 05:48 AM     
  @Ben_Reily  
 
Some us remember it, some of us don´t. I´m not going to spend the next 45 minutes digging up articles and videos dating back to May or June of 2008 just to get you to recall these things. Maybe if I get some time later on today, I´ll see if I can find you a couple of links. The problem with doing these old media clips is that a lot of it is opinion, and people can take what they want from it.

For example, I hear the phrase from a new anchor, "I Felt This Thrill Going Up My Leg", referring to an Obama speech, and I hear praise. What you heard may be entirely different (criticism, or loathing, maybe).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

This was a common kind of theme in the media in 2008. I guess some people have selective memories.
 
  by: WillyMaykett   02/10/2010 03:37 PM     
  So pretty much...  
 
The Tea Party is just making 2012 a sure thing for Obama?

Come on people, give this to Ron Paul. You can either let him reduce the government through controlled demolition, or you can vote Obama and watch it implode and go supernova when the money system collapses.
 
  by: DoubleTake   02/10/2010 05:46 PM     
  Tea Party Membership  
 
The day I see one sign at a tea party that supports Obama I´ll agree they aren´t all Republicans.
 
  by: Jim8   02/10/2010 05:59 PM     
  WillyMaykett  
 
Republicans are conservative in spending?

Starting a war without funding it is conservative? I remember absolutely zero Republicans protesting that little bit of financial underhanded dealing.
 
  by: Jim8   02/10/2010 06:02 PM     
  AT: willymaykett  
 
``Since the words Conservative and Republican can be interchanged, and the words Liberal and Democrat can be interchanged``

no they can`t on either account.

``Personally, I don´t believe that the term ´Liberal´ fits most Democrats, since most of them seem to want more government programs, more government regulation, and therefore more government. This seems to be just the opposite of someone who wants ´liberty´ for people.``

more programs to HELP people
more regulation to PROTECT people

that IS liberal.

but still they are not interchangable... its opart of their platform.

``The word conservative does seem to describe the Republicans, both in spending habits and in the unwillingness to change.``

like hell... there is NOTHING fiscally conservative about republicans... 85% of the debt THEY created....

the only way they are conservative is socially; like denying people rights... and at time being almost theocratic.

``This is what we are supposed to call balance,``

what balance... you have a FAR right party (republicans) a pro-business centrist party (democrats)... and if the TES party becomes a political party you`ll have a party even further to the right than republicans.

there is no balance in american politics. american politics is so far warped to the right that centrists are being called socialists and communists by those on the right.

`` But the truth of the numbers is that it´s closer to 47% for, 45% against, and 8% undecided... However, the vast majority of the House and the Senate seats are filled by Democrats at the moment, and this has somehow given them the belief that the vast majority of Americans want the government health care plan, when the polls obviously tell a different story.``

of course you pol doesn`t mention that most of those that don`t support the healthcare plan don`t because its not ``socialist`` enough... in sept 2005 75% support universal healthcare, in may 2007 73% percent of american supported universal healthcare, in may 2009 69% supported universal healthcare.

in reality the polls really say something completely different... american overwhelming want UNVIVERSAL health care... more than 2-1 infact.


`liberal media`

what a joke... the only thing liberal about the media is they tend to be closer to the center than the republican party, but they are a far cry from being liberal.

liberal in american has become a term to describe anyone to ther left of the republican party, as if the republican party was a centrist party and anything to the left of them was politically left (liberal), whereas even the democrats aren`t politically left, they are just the closest america has had to politically left.
 
  by: HAVOC666     02/10/2010 06:30 PM     
  @Willy  
 
You use a liberal pundit on a left-leaning network to "prove" that the media endlessly praised Obama? What a crock!

I could do the same thing with Sean Hannity and "prove" (I guess) that the media endlessly praised McCain, and especially Palin. And Hannity gets a *lot* more viewers than Chris Matthews´ Hardball does.
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     02/10/2010 07:32 PM     
  @Ben_Reily  
 
You´re right in the fact that it was only one example, but from what I understand, Chris Matthews isn´t just a pundit. He´s a news anchor. Hannity is just a talk-show host. To use your example of Fox News, I wonder how many examples we could find of a news anchor from that network saying something like that about McCain or Palin.

Just out of curiosity, just how many examples from how many different people, and from how many networks would it take to be proof enough for you? I´m guessing that the answer to that question is "no matter how much, it won´t be enough". I´ll bet that if i took the time to research it, I could find something very close to this attitude coming out of ABC, NBC, and CNN. On multiple occasions.
 
  by: WillyMaykett   02/10/2010 08:00 PM     
  i must admit  
 
that hearing Ron Paul speak about how f´d up this country is and why it´s f´d up and how to fix it has brought me to a tear more then once. i´m not balling the night away over it, but it truly does resonate with me. no other candidate has ever made me feel that way, obama kind of did, but that´s just cause everyone was so sick of bush and obama was saying all the right things. now it seems he´s no different, just an extension of the bush party. the tea party seems like sh!t wrapped in gold to me, like a 20 dollar bill wrapped around 30 1 dollar bills to make you look rich. they kind of get it right like Ron Paul does, but they way they are doing it and who backs them (glenn beck, fox news, murdoch) makes me just not trust them at all. it comes down to - who should i trust? a guy who´s been saying this stuff and fighting for us for 30 years, or sarah palin the circus monkey who spouts off insults more then she does campaign points?
 
  by: djskagnetti     02/11/2010 01:10 AM     
  @Willy  
 
Matthews is the host of Hardball. Occasionally he provides commentary on live news broadcasts, just like the commentators at Fox News do. He´s not a news anchor by any stretch -- MSNBC doesn´t really feature a primetime news show, it´s all commentary.
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     02/11/2010 01:51 AM     
  @Ben  
 
Absolutely right. And I´ve been losing a lot of respect for Matthews as of late, especially with his extremely ill-informed attack on Debra Medina, candidate for Governor of Texas. Not to mention his constant accusations of racism in political topics that have little or no relevance, just to force the viewer or guest to concede to his point of view.
 
  by: Illustro Malum   02/11/2010 03:07 AM     
  @All  
 
The Tea Party is forming into a PAC (Political Action Committee). Their intention isn´t to form a third-party. They realize that attempting such a thing would split the GOP/TP votes and guarantee a Democrat win --- something neither want to do.

Instead, they will actively promote candidates that demonstrate true Conservative values and principles.

So, look at the poll in the article and add the TP and Repub votes. This is how America will vote in 2010. Bye-bye Liberal rubbish and agendas!

"Tea party groups aim to form PAC"
"NASHVILLE - Organizers of the National Tea Party Convention said yesterday that participants would form a political action committee aimed at electing up to 20 candidates this fall who adhere to conservative principles embraced by the grass-roots movement."
http://www.boston.com/...
 
  by: CArnold     02/11/2010 07:37 AM     
  @CArnold  
 
So it will be kind of like a Republican version of moveon.org. I guess they kind of had to respond in some way.
 
  by: WillyMaykett   02/11/2010 02:26 PM     
  17%....  
 
I surprised there are that many white racists left in America. Why don´t they just get honest and call it the KKK party.
 
  by: valkyrie123     02/11/2010 03:52 PM     
  @carnold  
 
"Instead, they will actively promote candidates that demonstrate true Conservative values and principles."

true conservative values and principals... like driving up the national debt like a credit card?

true conservative values and principals like denying equal rights, oppression of citizen rights through legislation like thwe patriot act.

or true conservative values and principals like ALWAYS electing moron´s that know nothing about the economy or running a country, just because they tell their voters what they want to hear.

FYI, most people that call themselves conservative aren´t, they are simply republicans and the two ARE NOT interchangable despite what ignorant voters might think (infact only a few republicans can legitimently be called conservatives, ron paul being one of them), and for that matter democrats are not by defintion liberal (only moreso than republicans)... and above and beyond that nor is liberal by ANY STRETCH a bad thing. although consertvatism in the way republicans ACTUALLY are conservative (socially) IS a bad thing, and have as a result opressed MANY people.

"So, look at the poll in the article and add the TP and Repub votes. This is how America will vote in 2010. Bye-bye Liberal rubbish and agendas!"

and if true i got two einstein quotes for you

"The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits."

and...

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I´m not sure about the universe."

in short human stupidity is (observably) a constant downwards spiral to infinity.

and things like continuing to elect the same people that keep screwing of your country, or denying science that is unfavorable to your political stance
are everyday proof of exactly that.. and this is happening in more than just the US, but the US is certianly the most prominent example of it... we are entering a world of idiocracy... and you cheering it on certianly wont be helping anything except the downwards spiral to infinate stupity and repeative mistakes....

if you want to cheer conservatives don´t cheer reagan, the bush´s, or palin as you do... start cheering ron paul, for he in one of the ONLY conservative in your party, one of the only others being his son rand paul.

in terms of being fiscally conservative democrats have always been more conservative in the last 40 years than republicans... and no amount of ingorance can change that (as you´ve often denied DESPITE 85% of the debt being republican made, and much of the rest of the debt since then is democrats cleanup of republican messes, namely in the form of bailouts for a thrashed economy), but by all means continuing making the same mistakes over and over ad nauseum... just don´t expect to be seen as intelligent as a result.

unless the US can get a ron paul type conservative in the white house than bill clinton type (like obama is) is the best america can do and the closest thing to conservative that americans actually want, because they certianly aren´t getting behind anyone better; including ron paul.
 
  by: HAVOC666     02/11/2010 04:35 PM     
  @havoc666  
 
"and things like continuing to elect the same people that keep screwing of your country, or denying science that is unfavorable to your political stance"

I assume that you´re talking about the Kennedy legacy here (46 years). Or could it be the re-election time after time of Pelosi (23 years) or Reid (24 years)? Yep, you´re exactly correct. These people are career politicians, and the thing they care about most is keeping their jobs.

What would Nancy Pelosi do if she wasn´t re-elected? Would she take the Bob Dole route and start doing credit card commercials? My point here is that this is all she knows how to do. She knows, absolutely knows, that if she was ousted she wouldn´t stand a chance of finding anything else she was good at.

If, for some reason, the market for the jobs that most of us have fell through, most of us COULD dig ditches for a living. It wouldn´t be nice, and I´m sure most of us wouldn´t like it. But we COULD do it. I think it would be a toss-up for Harry Reid whether he took a manual-labor job or starved to death.

The problem with career politicians, though, is they are the very same people that would have to make the laws that limit their terms. So, maybe we could talk about a flying saucer tying a rope to the earth and hauling it off to a different galaxy, because that has about as much chance of happening as a Senator voting "YES" on limiting his own term. Wouldn´t it be nice if someone from an ordinary walk of life, someone who actually knows their constituents´ needs, could be elected, actually SERVE their constituents, then be forced to go back to their ordinary lives and actually have to live in the mess they created?

Take the health care bill. There were some good parts to it, and it might have accomplished some good things. There were also some very bad parts of it. These bad parts were so bad that every time a Senator or Congressman suggested that the Senators and Congressmen would also have to participate, it was IMMEDIATELY voted down. Why was this? It´s because they don´t want ANY part of it. They just want to make all of us participate and exclude themselves. Kind of brings to mind the mentality of the European nobility from the 1600´s. The king only made the laws, he didn´t have to abide by them.
 
  by: WillyMaykett   02/11/2010 05:31 PM     
  Media Probably did Praise Obama  
 
You have to remember who Obama was up against, McCain and what he brought to the stage, Sara Palin.

Obama shines compared to who the right brought us.

Sara reminds us of how inferior she is every time she speaks.
 
  by: Jim8   02/11/2010 05:56 PM     
  @willymaykett  
 
"I assume that you´re talking about the Kennedy legacy here (46 years). Or could it be the re-election time after time of Pelosi (23 years) or Reid (24 years)? Yep, you´re exactly correct. These people are career politicians, and the thing they care about most is keeping their jobs."

career politicans are certianly part of the problem but thats how what i said, not meant and you know it.... and it funny you ONLY mention democratic ones. and the former of which wasn´t even guilty of my claim (screwing the country up, namely economically, which might i had had been the republican motiff).

republicans destroying the economy was what i was talking about and that was quite clear in my post.

"If, for some reason, the market for the jobs that most of us have fell through, most of us COULD dig ditches for a living. It wouldn´t be nice, and I´m sure most of us wouldn´t like it."

oh i wish... that would be a step up from the temp. labor i´ve had to settle for... and probably pay twice as much two... where do i apply?

"So, maybe we could talk about a flying saucer tying a rope to the earth and hauling it off to a different galaxy, because that has about as much chance of happening as a Senator voting "YES" on limiting his own term."

i absolutely agree... however term limits are ALSO undemocratic as they limit people´s choices and hence their powere over government... though it also makes it harder to corrupt the government as they have to corrupt more politicans... though with the bank books involved thats irrelevent. if necessar they could buy the support of virtually every american (and republicans usually do try this via tax cuts with no plan to pay for them)

"Wouldn´t it be nice if someone from an ordinary walk of life, someone who actually knows their constituents´ needs, could be elected, actually SERVE their constituents, then be forced to go back to their ordinary lives and actually have to live in the mess they created?"

well it would be nice to have regular people dong the job THEY were intended to be doing in a democracy ESSPECIALLY in a democratic republic.

however if the people want to re-elect that person it should be their perogative... and in my opinion that same should apply for EVERY political position all the way up to president..

i think "term limits" should depend on when the voters get sick of said politician or want someone else instead.

the ONLY downside to this in reality is it means voters need to be MORE responsible, rather than increasing irresponsible.

but yes thats one of the major reason i like jesse ventura as a politician... he fully accepted not being a carrer politicans from day one, and morover he never wanted to be one.

"Take the health care bill. There were some good parts to it, and it might have accomplished some good things. There were also some very bad parts of it. These bad parts were so bad that every time a Senator or Congressman suggested that the Senators and Congressmen would also have to participate, it was IMMEDIATELY voted down. Why was this? It´s because they don´t want ANY part of it."

BECAUSE they ALREADY HAVE the equivelent of universal healthcare... infact, about 80-90 million americans already do, its the other 70% that are getting screwed and have been for decades. in short, it doesn´t benifit THEM PERSONALLY.

and FYI MOST american support healthcare form... though not the kind that being push right not, because its not strong enough... 7 out of 10 americans want UNIVERSAL healthcare (or single payer as americans call it), not "affordable" mandatory private insurance.

but listening to people on the right you´d swaer americans overwhelming want to keep their broken healthcare system, when thats just clearly not the case, more people would rather have this half-assed republican derived compermise (democrats wanted republican support so they abandonned universal healthcare for "affordable" mandatory private insurance) than nothing; which is what 40-45 million americans had, that bill will cover about 2/3rd of those people... whereas universal healthcare (what 69% [up to 75%]of americans want) would cover EVERYONE, even those that already have healthcare, because one day they might not have their job or wealth and hence not have their insurance either.

and BTW, arguing against univeral healthcare is as rediculas as arguing against public school, the benifits of these systems far, FAR outweigh the negatives... and moreover both are things that everyone should have the right to... not the priveledge of it,
if they can afford it... in many countries this would go without saying... but if it did in america, you guys would already have universal healthcare, like virtually every other developed country or even many undeveloped or partially-developed countries as well.

in my opinion, senators and congressman should have pay and benifits relative to the average person in their country.
 
  by: HAVOC666     02/11/2010 06:19 PM     
  or better yet  
 
average pay (roughly 700-750 a week,
they make 4.5 TIME thats much, or about 11-12 times more than minimum wage) and NO COVERAGE, let them buy their own or go without rather than the tax payers pay for theirs since they are so against the idea.

if they had to live like most people did, american´s would be living in a much better redition of their country, because then they´d want to improve THEIR standards as well, and if it was fixed to the average person or some percent/factor of minimum wage it would be default have to improve the lives of the average american as well.
 
  by: HAVOC666     02/11/2010 06:29 PM     
  @havoc666  
 
"BECAUSE they ALREADY HAVE the equivelent of universal healthcare"

Um. No. I have to disagree with you on this. They have a much, much, better insurance that almost anyone in America. Everything is paid for without them having to pay a premium (which we won´t have). Private rooms (which we won´t have). Personal physicians on call 24 hours (which we won´t have). In other words, they´re trying to drive Cadillacs while they´re trying to force the rest of us to drive Yugos. This is why they don´t want to include themselves in it. Universal health care is only good if everyone gets GOOD health care. Not if it lowers the standard for everyone that already has it. If they want to put us all on a health care plan, let us all get what they have, of let´s force them to take what they are trying to give us.
 
  by: WillyMaykett   02/11/2010 07:46 PM     
  @WillyMaykett  
 
"Um. No. I have to disagree with you on this. They have a much, much, better insurance that almost anyone in America. Everything is paid for without them having to pay a premium (which we won´t have)."

yeah actually you do have it... well THEY have it, not you... shouldn´t everyone though?, or at least some form of it... THAT´S my point... some people in american ALREADY have the equivelent of universal healthcare; in that the only payment they have to make is via taxes (assuming they pay those).

also medicare and medicaid is a form of universal healthcare, and they would let anyone dare take that away.

"Private rooms (which we won´t have). Personal physicians on call 24 hours (which we won´t have)."

the same would happen here in canada for our politicans.

"This is why they don´t want to include themselves in it. Universal health care is only good if everyone gets GOOD health care. Not if it lowers the standard for everyone that already has it. If they want to put us all on a health care plan, let us all get what they have, of let´s force them to take what they are trying to give us."

it wouldn´t lower their standard politicans always get preferential treatment...

the only difference is EVERYONE will be covered under the same system (though again certian people do get prefential treatment)...

and FYI, universal healthcare doesn´t mean you can´t have private insurance as well to garauntee all those frills they have, if you want to pay for it.
 
  by: HAVOC666     02/12/2010 04:00 AM     
 
 
Copyright ©2014 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: info@shortnews.com