2012 Official Preallo Political Discussion Thread

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Why does he have to notify schools or residency programs about his plans for private practice? Medical schools and hospitals are meant to equip us with the knowledge and training to provide quality healthcare. They are not designed to form us all into cogs in a massive bureaucratic machine. As an autonomous healthcare provider, he has full right to eschew government healthcare programs if he chooses, though it could be at his detriment depending upon what field of medicine and area of the country he chooses to practice.

Avoiding Medicare or Medicaid does not make one greedy or heartless either. Read this interesting story of a pediatrician in NYC who has opted for cash-only payment model via Paypal and online financial transactions and only makes house visits. He found this as the most viable option to repay his onerous student loan obligations without maintaining the expensive overhead associated with running a office.

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/135/the-doctor-of-the-future.html?page=0,1

It was sarcasm, but for the record I never stated or implied any of what you mentioned.

(sent on my phone - forgive typos/brevity)

Members don't see this ad.
 
It was sarcasm, but for the record I never stated or implied any of what you mentioned.

(sent on my phone - forgive typos/brevity)
Pardon me then. It seemed as if you were belittling his viewpoint, one shared by many practicing physicians. I guess that I meant to address the person with the Che Guevara avatar.
 
Ron Paul>Romney>Obama

Not that Romney is much better than Obama...but do you guys really believe the federal government can run healthcare? They can't even stop the post office from going bankrupt...
You think national health care is cheaper and better? I think not!
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Ron Paul>Romney>Obama

Not that Romney is much better than Obama...but do you guys really believe the federal government can run healthcare? They can't even stop the post office from going bankrupt...
You think national health care is cheaper and better? I think not!

we already have universal health care...it's called the emergency room, and everyone's taxes ends up supporting it one way or the other.
 
Ron Paul>Romney>Obama

Not that Romney is much better than Obama...but do you guys really believe the federal government can run healthcare? They can't even stop the post office from going bankrupt...
You think national health care is cheaper and better? I think not!

Agreed. I was wary about Ron Paul in the beginning of the primary season because of his foreign policy, but with Obama running $TRILLION deficits and Romney without a definitive plan on how to deal with the debt (though he'll be far more helpful than Obama IMO - businessmen love trimming the edges and streamlining) I wish Ron Paul were in a more competitive position.
 
Pardon me then. It seemed as if you were belittling his viewpoint, one shared by many practicing physicians. I guess that I meant to address the person with the Che Guevara avatar.

Yes, the inane implications of his comment did fit hand-in-hand with the Che avatar :laugh:
 
I think its interesting that any student would vote for Romney given that his Republican base is so interested in increasing federal loan interest rates. Good luck paying off your future debts, unless you're part of that 1% anyway... then the point is moot.
 
I guess clarification is in order: I will take as few patients who can only "pay" with those plans as possible. I don't "hate" the poor. But a great many doctors have limits on how many patients they can see (or they just schedule appointments for three months later). And if I can only see a certain number of patients, they may as well be well-paying customers. Aside from the reimbursement aspect, paperwork is...annoying.

Man you're a medical student and already have these opinions... that makes me sad for our profession as a whole.
 
Man you're a medical student and already have these opinions... that makes me sad for our profession as a whole.
I disagree. I personally know a doc who owns his own practice, takes patients that can pay but then subsequently spends every Thursday voluntarily treating patients at a free clinic from about 5:30PM to 11:00PM in a very shady area.

Just saying, do yourself right first, but then give back for all that you have in life.
 
i'm still on the fence. my problem with romney is that he will say anything to get elected and then afterwards will reset his views like an etch-a-sketch. i know politicians in general lie and make campaign promises that they won't keep (including obama of course) but mit takes it to a whole new level.
 
I think its interesting that any student would vote for Romney given that his Republican base is so interested in increasing federal loan interest rates. Good luck paying off your future debts, unless you're part of that 1% anyway... then the point is moot.

Given the fact that student debts are now a trillion dollar industry, and that the rate change is not even close to catastrophic, I think I can make do with a bit less money stolen from the taxpayers.
 
i'm still on the fence. my problem with romney is that he will say anything to get elected and then afterwards will reset his views like an etch-a-sketch. i know politicians in general lie and make campaign promises that they won't keep (including obama of course) but mit takes it to a whole new level.

Mitt doesn't hold a candle to Obama when it comes to flakiness. The difference is, Obama "evolves" (cough....BS!!!...cough...).
 
Man you're a medical student and already have these opinions... that makes me sad for our profession as a whole.

Since when is medicine about sacrificing your life? I decided to become a physician mostly because I believed the work would be interesting and exciting (and it is!). Yes, I'm pretty sensitive, and I feel great about the immense satisfaction of helping patients, but let's not forget this is a job and a career.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Since when is medicine about sacrificing your life? I decided to become a physician mostly because I believed the work would be interesting and exciting (and it is!). Yes, I'm pretty sensitive, and I feel great about the immense satisfaction of helping patients, but let's not forget this is a job and a career.

Most of the patients I see are Medicaid. I don't know what you are inferring, but you can't be speaking from experience, just assumptions.
 
Given the fact that student debts are now a trillion dollar industry, and that the rate change is not even close to catastrophic, I think I can make do with a bit less money stolen from the taxpayers.

A doubling of interest rates isn't catastrophic, given that lifetime payments to interest already are almost as big as the principal? So lifetime payments of 80K at 4% is just like 170K at 8%? Hmmm, ok.
 
Last edited:
They can't opt out if they want to do less then the mandate, only if they want to do more. If they want to fund medicaid at a lower reimbursement rate then medicare they can't do that anymore. If they don't want the massive expansion in the medicaid patient rolls ordered by the legislation they can't do that either. If they want to ignore the individual mandate they can't even do that. They can move to the left of the legislation, or they can implement the legislation, but they can't move to the right of it. That's not much of an option.

It was right-wing, Heritage Foundation legislation to begin with. What's the big deal?
 
A doubling of interest rates isn't catastrophic, given that lifetime payments to interest already are almost as big as the principal? So lifetime payments of 80K at 4% is just like 180K at 8%? Hmmm, ok.
The new legislation affects undergraduate loans only. Med school loans have been fixed at 6.8% for the past 4 years.
 
Ron Paul>Romney>Obama

Not that Romney is much better than Obama...but do you guys really believe the federal government can run healthcare? They can't even stop the post office from going bankrupt...
You think national health care is cheaper and better? I think not!

actually they're actively killing off the post office

also the president doesn't cut taxes. the president's budget is nothing more than a guideline, it's congressmen that are the ones holding the purse strings.
 
We'll be supporting Obama, definitely, for a variety of reasons. But as for health care, here's my two cents and anecdotes:

I grew up in the States, my family all live in Ohio. I married a Canadian (who is the one trying to get into medical school - I mostly just lurk here on the forums to gather useful info for him). If people ask me which health care system I prefer, I will, with zero hesitation, say CANADA'S!

Since moving here, the strangest thing is that I've never heard a single Canadian complain about UHC. I only ever hear (conservative) Americans complain about our system here, or tell some story about some terrible thing that happened to a friend of a friend in Canada.

Are there sometimes wait times for certain procedures? Yes, especially depending on where you live and how many of those specialists are practicing there. I've never encountered this problem myself, but it does happen sometimes. And we do have a shortage of family doctors (which, IMO, is directly related to the fact that we don't have enough medical schools to handle the number of qualified med applicants). This leaves some people, in some areas, going to walk-in clinics for their care until they can get a referral to a fam. doc.

But on the other hand, we don't have people wasting space in the E.R. because they don't have insurance. We don't have people putting off seeking treatment for themselves or their children because they can't pay for it. People are able to make health decisions based on their health needs, not their wallet.

Coverage varies from province to province. But I love my Alberta Health Care, and will miss it terribly when we move back to the US. Plus, there is something to say for knowing that not only is my family secure in our access to care, but it is also comforting knowing that our friends and neighbours are too. A nation that cares for all its people is, and I apologize for the saccharine statement, but it's heartwarming.

Seeing what my parents have gone through with coverage in Ohio, despite having done everything "right" (good career with benefits...until the company decided not to pay those retirement benefits after all), and how it affects the care of my mom's severe, progressive MS, I am staunchly supportive of any legislation that paves the way for a future of universal health insurance.

And having been Mormons for many years, members in good standing, and knowing everything the church teachers and knowing the secret, er, I mean "sacred" Temple ceremonies; I can confidently say that this is one of those times when it's not inappropriate to question someone's religion in relation to their ability to be a good leader of a secular nation.
 
If we gonna be physicians, voting for Obama is voting against our economic interest... As doctors, our average salary will be 250k+; therefore, we gonna have a huge tax cut with Romney. On the contrary, Obama promises tax cut for people making <250k+...I can be careless about any other issues; I care about my own pocket. VOTE FOR ROMNEY.

This. There's plenty of good reasons to go one way or the other on this. But in my opinion, if economic interest is deciding your vote, you're putting too much stock in your paycheck. Personally, if I'm making upwards of a quarter million a year, and the gov't wants to take a bigger fraction off the top to ease the load on the working class, I'm cool with it. I'm not saying physicians shouldn't be well compensated. They should, and they are. They invest a lot in their education and then work hard on top of that. But come on, there are plenty in the working class that work just as hard, and for them that difference in tax rate might mean being able to send a kid to college.

Just my two cents.
 
A doubling of interest rates isn't catastrophic, given that lifetime payments to interest already are almost as big as the principal? So lifetime payments of 80K at 4% is just like 170K at 8%? Hmmm, ok.

The fact that higher education is subsidized by the government has caused tuition to spike disproportionately to inflation. And so the fact that federal loans' rates were lowered helped fuel this bubble.

It's comical to witness the hand-wringing displayed in this debate, which is a blatant attempt by politicians to buy student votes. Take a look at this chart. http://www.finaid.org/loans/historicalrates.phtml
 
And having been Mormons for many years, members in good standing, and knowing everything the church teachers and knowing the secret, er, I mean "sacred" Temple ceremonies; I can confidently say that this is one of those times when it's not inappropriate to question someone's religion in relation to their ability to be a good leader of a secular nation.

Yes, yes, we're aware of the more, shall we say, controversial aspects of the Mormon faith. But this is absolute nonsense and bigotry. Mitt Romney has not been hampered in any way by his faith. He's got a beautiful family, gives a good deal of charity, and seems to be an all-around good chap, at the very least in private life. How exactly should his Mormonism be relevant to his ability to preside?

Concerning this issue, the fact that you were a Mormon means nothing.
 
Yes, yes, we're aware of the more, shall we say, controversial aspects of the Mormon faith. But this is absolute nonsense and bigotry. Mitt Romney has not been hampered in any way by his faith. He's got a beautiful family, gives a good deal of charity, and seems to be an all-around good chap, at the very least in private life. How exactly should his Mormonism be relevant to his ability to preside?

Concerning this issue, the fact that you were a Mormon means nothing.

Because the very teachings are ludicrous. It's an obvious scam contrived by a known fraud. Support of that sort of nonsense has no place in our government. Frankly, it makes us as a country look silly. If a physicist stated he still believes the earth to be flat, would you publish his papers? No, and it's equally obnoxious to hear. It's a lie to say one could ever fully remove their personal beliefs from their policy making.
 
Because the very teachings are ludicrous. It's an obvious scam contrived by a known fraud. Support of that sort of nonsense has no place in our government. Frankly, it makes us as a country look silly. If a physicist stated he still believes the earth to be flat, would you publish his papers? No, and it's equally obnoxious to hear. It's a lie to say one could ever fully remove their personal beliefs from their policy making.

I agree with this. However, I do not think that "real" Jews, Catholics, Muslims, or whatever else people believe out there, is any less ludicrous than what Mormons believe. I guess we should just get an atheist? Don't see it happening for a long while...
 
Because the very teachings are ludicrous. It's an obvious scam contrived by a known fraud. Support of that sort of nonsense has no place in our government. Frankly, it makes us as a country look silly. If a physicist stated he still believes the earth to be flat, would you publish his papers? No, and it's equally obnoxious to hear. It's a lie to say one could ever fully remove their personal beliefs from their policy making.

The reason your argument is nonsense is that we're all well-aware that even when someone belongs to a particular faith, he or she does not necessarily subscribe to every single facet endorsed by the official party line.

It does not make our country "look silly." When is the last time you heard Mitt Romney talking about the particulars of Mormonism in public?

He is not running for an office that has any relevance to his religion. Will his personal beliefs influence his decisions? Possibly, but with Mormonism's obvious positives, I don't think that's much of an issue. For example, Romney has a record of giving significant amounts of charity.

http://nation.foxnews.com/mitt-romney/2012/01/24/whos-greedy-obama-gave-1-charity-romney-gave-15
 
I agree with this. However, I do not think that "real" Jews, Catholics, Muslims, or whatever else people believe out there, is any less ludicrous than what Mormons believe. I guess we should just get an atheist? Don't see it happening for a long while...

We already have one. Not that I think it matters, but it's not like anyone is fooled.
 
I agree with this. However, I do not think that "real" Jews, Catholics, Muslims, or whatever else people believe out there, is any less ludicrous than what Mormons believe. I guess we should just get an atheist? Don't see it happening for a long while...

I give no free passes to any religion, trust me. I long for non-believers to speak up.

The reason your argument is nonsense is that we're all well-aware that even when someone belongs to a particular faith, he or she does not necessarily subscribe to every single facet endorsed by the official party line.

It does not make our country "look silly." When is the last time you heard Mitt Romney talking about the particulars of Mormonism in public?

He is not running for an office that has any relevance to his religion. Will his personal beliefs influence his decisions? Possibly, but with Mormonism's obvious positives, I don't think that's much of an issue. For example, Romney has a record of giving significant amounts of charity.

http://nation.foxnews.com/mitt-romney/2012/01/24/whos-greedy-obama-gave-1-charity-romney-gave-15

So if you must cherry pick your religion, why use it at all? It does make us look ridiculous making claims of absurd historical events as truth, with zero evidence. That is nonsense. You would not respect a scientist stating things as fact based only on "a real strong feeling," now would you?

Charity? Great - many people give to charities. Frat boys have a long history of philanthropy. Romney isn't special in this regard. He also has a history of running companies into the ground.

Use better sources than Fox...
 
So if you must cherry pick your religion, why use it at all? It does make us look ridiculous making claims of absurd historical events as truth, with zero evidence. That is nonsense. You would not respect a scientist stating things as fact based only on "a real strong feeling," now would you?

Nothing like missing the point. Did a pretty butterfly fly by as you were reading my post?

The President does not make decisions concerning religion, (s)he makes decisions concerning the duties of the Executive branch.

Charity? Great - many people give to charities. Frat boys have a long history of philanthropy. Romney isn't special in this regard. He also has a history of running companies into the ground.

Actually, he has a history of making businesses succeed. Nice try, Maddow.

Use better sources than Fox...

I guess Fox isn't such a bad source after all:

http://www.mittromney.com/learn/mitt/tax-return/2011/wmr-adr-return

http://www.mittromney.com/learn/mitt/tax-return/2010/wmr-adr-return
 
Nothing like missing the point. Did a pretty butterfly fly by as you were reading my post?

The President does not make decisions concerning religion, (s)he makes decisions concerning the duties of the Executive branch.



Actually, he has a history of making businesses succeed. Nice try, Maddow.



I guess Fox isn't such a bad source after all:

http://www.mittromney.com/learn/mitt/tax-return/2011/wmr-adr-return

http://www.mittromney.com/learn/mitt/tax-return/2010/wmr-adr-return

There's a difference between raising revenue and making a business succeed. For example, you might increase revenue by cutting the workforce and skimping on necessary technological upgrades but is that actually good for the business? The way Bain operated was to obtain as much profit in the short term as possible, while success is measured in the long term and many of their investments, such as GST Steel, did not last very long. Also, mittromney.com doesn't seem to be an ideal place to obtain unbiased information about Mitt Romney.
 
Because the very teachings are ludicrous. It's an obvious scam contrived by a known fraud. Support of that sort of nonsense has no place in our government. Frankly, it makes us as a country look silly. If a physicist stated he still believes the earth to be flat, would you publish his papers? No, and it's equally obnoxious to hear. It's a lie to say one could ever fully remove their personal beliefs from their policy making.

Wow. So, as a Jew, I guess I'm screwed at being a good doctor, right?

We all have beliefs, to some level. Just because they aren't yours doesn't mean they don't have validity. I'm not saying that your views are wrong - but you also need to respect those who believe as well.

What a bigot...seriously.
 
Yes, yes, we're aware of the more, shall we say, controversial aspects of the Mormon faith. But this is absolute nonsense and bigotry. Mitt Romney has not been hampered in any way by his faith. He's got a beautiful family, gives a good deal of charity, and seems to be an all-around good chap, at the very least in private life. How exactly should his Mormonism be relevant to his ability to preside?

Concerning this issue, the fact that you were a Mormon means nothing.

The individual may have been implying that his Mormonism itself is the reason Mitt Romney isn't suitable to be POTUS. I too am skeptical of anyone who has beliefs that aren't backed up by evidence. The claims made by Mormonism are verifiably false.
 
Yes, yes, we're aware of the more, shall we say, controversial aspects of the Mormon faith. But this is absolute nonsense and bigotry. Mitt Romney has not been hampered in any way by his faith. He's got a beautiful family, gives a good deal of charity, and seems to be an all-around good chap, at the very least in private life. How exactly should his Mormonism be relevant to his ability to preside?

Concerning this issue, the fact that you were a Mormon means nothing.

( typing on iPad so please excuse typos)

Just because he doesn't talk about his faith during his campaign doesn't mean he isn't influenced by it. He knows better than to bring too much attention to it.

The apparent positives of Mormonism to non-Mormons are heavily outweighed by the negatives. And my having been a devout member is relevant because I'm aware of what membership really means, and I'm willing to talk about the secret stuff and the negative stuff. A devout believer won't be caught dead criticizing the church.

Mitt Romney, as I understand it, was an ******* bishop (leader of a congregation). But that may have as much to do with his personal power tripping as anything.

When he did the temple ceremonies he swore to "God, angels, and witness" to pledge his time, talents, and anything with which the Lord has or will bless him to the church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints. This is a cult. This is not like the average Christian who spends an hour or two at church each Sunday. He also swore to never reveal any temple secrets upon penalty of slitting his own throat and belly and letting his innards spill upon the ground.

He was a faithful member during the period in which the church had institulanized racism (which the prophet conveniently had a revelation that god wanted that to suddenly end).

A Mormon woman vows in the temple to obey her husband.

So yeah, the idea of somebody who believes those things having influence over the laws of the land is very troubling to me, just like the idea of Santorum (a very devout and conservative Catholic) would have been equally troubling. There are very few Mormons who aren't true blue believers. Those who aren't tend to get the hell out, and with good reasons.

Why I don't think any supernatural beliefs are very rational, *****ism is one step above Scientology in its teachings. And they organization and culture of the church is such that it actually diminishes the ability to think logically. Pick up a copy of Standing for Something More by Lyndon Lamborn some time.

Mormons make great neighbors. They tend to be a very outwardly friendly and nice people.

But that is deliberate (and often related to efforts to convert as many people as possible). But until you've been an insider it's easy not to see the dark aspects. You only need to spend a little time with exMormon recovery groups to get an idea how damaging the religion is. Mormonism teaches people to not think because the thinking has already been done (actual words from a church leader). it teaches the members that a woman's worth lies in her ability to be a good wife and raise a brood of good Mormons (and that leadership is for men). It teaches that lying for the lord is ok. I don't want someone with that worldview as a world leader.

And while I'm not what you'd call a fan of the catholic church, I'll be the first to admit they are more credible, and do more good in this world. They're much more open with their financial information, and as far as I know, they're not building a 3-5 billion dollar mall in SLC while bleeding their members dry for tithing and unpaid work.

Not all criticism of religious belief is bigotry.
 
Let's not be unfair and forget Obama's very questionable religious affiliations.
 
I just want to see Ron Paul in the debates.if the gop isn't smart enough to nominate him then they should incur his wrath as a third party.
 
There's a difference between raising revenue and making a business succeed. For example, you might increase revenue by cutting the workforce and skimping on necessary technological upgrades but is that actually good for the business? The way Bain operated was to obtain as much profit in the short term as possible, while success is measured in the long term and many of their investments, such as GST Steel, did not last very long.

Mitt Romney was gone from Bain for 2 years when GST shut down. And it wasn't for lack of trying (7 years, to be exact)

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/299940/mitt-romney-vampire-rich-lowry

I'm waiting to hear you be fair and tout Bain's success in the case of Steel Dynamics.

Also, mittromney.com doesn't seem to be an ideal place to obtain unbiased information about Mitt Romney.

So, just to be clear, are you implying that mittromney.com may have faked those tax returns?
 
( typing on iPad so please excuse typos)

Just because he doesn't talk about his faith during his campaign doesn't mean he isn't influenced by it. He knows better than to bring too much attention to it.

The apparent positives of Mormonism to non-Mormons are heavily outweighed by the negatives. And my having been a devout member is relevant because I'm aware of what membership really means, and I'm willing to talk about the secret stuff and the negative stuff. A devout believer won't be caught dead criticizing the church.

Mitt Romney, as I understand it, was an ******* bishop (leader of a congregation). But that may have as much to do with his personal power tripping as anything.

When he did the temple ceremonies he swore to "God, angels, and witness" to pledge his time, talents, and anything with which the Lord has or will bless him to the church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints. This is a cult. This is not like the average Christian who spends an hour or two at church each Sunday. He also swore to never reveal any temple secrets upon penalty of slitting his own throat and belly and letting his innards spill upon the ground.

He was a faithful member during the period in which the church had institulanized racism (which the prophet conveniently had a revelation that god wanted that to suddenly end).

A Mormon woman vows in the temple to obey her husband.

So yeah, the idea of somebody who believes those things having influence over the laws of the land is very troubling to me, just like the idea of Santorum (a very devout and conservative Catholic) would have been equally troubling. There are very few Mormons who aren't true blue believers. Those who aren't tend to get the hell out, and with good reasons.

Why I don't think any supernatural beliefs are very rational, *****ism is one step above Scientology in its teachings. And they organization and culture of the church is such that it actually diminishes the ability to think logically. Pick up a copy of Standing for Something More by Lyndon Lamborn some time.

Mormons make great neighbors. They tend to be a very outwardly friendly and nice people.

But that is deliberate (and often related to efforts to convert as many people as possible). But until you've been an insider it's easy not to see the dark aspects. You only need to spend a little time with exMormon recovery groups to get an idea how damaging the religion is. Mormonism teaches people to not think because the thinking has already been done (actual words from a church leader). it teaches the members that a woman's worth lies in her ability to be a good wife and raise a brood of good Mormons (and that leadership is for men). It teaches that lying for the lord is ok. I don't want someone with that worldview as a world leader.

And while I'm not what you'd call a fan of the catholic church, I'll be the first to admit they are more credible, and do more good in this world. They're much more open with their financial information, and as far as I know, they're not building a 3-5 billion dollar mall in SLC while bleeding their members dry for tithing and unpaid work.

Not all criticism of religious belief is bigotry.

:sleep::sleep::sleep:

Still wondering what that has to do with coming up with a balanced budget or solving our foreign policy entanglements...
 
Let's not be unfair and forget Obama's very questionable religious affiliations.

Let's leave the candidates' religious affiliations out of this and have a grown up conversation about healthcare.


The fact that Romney wants to completely defund Planned Parenthood, despite the fact that only 2% of its operating budget goes toward providing abortions, tells me that his decisions are based on pure party ideology rather than pragmatic objectivity. Many lower income women depend on PP's family planning and STD screening services, and with the most pregnant teens in the Western world, now is not the time to defund Planned Parenthood. Obama certainly isn't perfect, but is Romney really presidential? I just get the feeling that he is reading from a script, saying what the Republican National Committee tells him to. At least with Obama I know he stands for something, like it or not.

Does anyone else remember the intense healthcare debates 2 summers ago? If the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is repealed (As Romney has vowed to do), we are back to square one, with insurance premiums skyrocketing with little oversight, and people being dropped for preexisting conditions. If a person loses her insurance coverage because she gets sick, what is the point of buying it in the first place? Like him or not, Bill Clinton's administration was one of the most successful in modern times, but even he couldn't pass healthcare reform, and if we repeal it now, who knows how long it will be until our do-nothing Congress can pass another healthcare overhaul. Our best path forward as a nation is to build on the strong parts of Obamacare (PPACA) and continue reforming the parts that don't work, maybe even the individual mandate. No one can truly predict the effect of reforming 15% of the GDP of the world's largest economy, it is going to take some time and some trial and error before we get it right. I'm certainly not as thrilled about voting for Obama as I was in 2008, but compared to the alternative, how can you not?
 
:rolleyes: Just saying that if the topic is discussed, then both sides should be presented.

And I'm just saying that if the topic is discussed here, it's irrelevant. Let's get back to the main point of this thread - healthcare reform.
 
And I'm just saying that if the topic is discussed here, it's irrelevant. Let's get back to the main point of this thread - healthcare reform.
Fair enough. Just didn't think it should of been directed towards me. :thumbup:
 
Let's leave the candidates' religious affiliations out of this and have a grown up conversation about healthcare.


The fact that Romney wants to completely defund Planned Parenthood, despite the fact that only 2% of its operating budget goes toward providing abortions, tells me that his decisions are based on pure party ideology rather than pragmatic objectivity. Many lower income women depend on PP's family planning and STD screening services, and with the most pregnant teens in the Western world, now is not the time to defund Planned Parenthood. Obama certainly isn't perfect, but is Romney really presidential? I just get the feeling that he is reading from a script, saying what the Republican National Committee tells him to. At least with Obama I know he stands for something, like it or not.

Especially on that individual mandate thingy.

:rofl: :lol:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FknJLMc84bo
 
I think future medical students have first hand experience on how everything government touches gets messed up. Look at medical school tuition and how much it has gone up. Don't expect ponies and rainbows with Obama's healthcare. This just means more government in my wallet nothing new. And as far as the wealthy go, I was born in a poor country and am in no way anywhere near wealthy. But I know fundamentally the United States is about equality so everyone should get taxed a single rate regardless of income.

Even if we did tax the rich more we could probably collect more from the hobos, in other words most politicians are interested in talking about the mice and not the elephants that exist in government. This is how media plays with people's heads the focus on dumb things, ever heard of public relations?
 
Romney.

The thing that really bothers me about what Obama has done during his time as the prez is that he...well let me have him explain it, he does a better job.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUPZJ...eature=related

"The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents -- #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back &#8212; $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That's irresponsible. It's unpatriotic." - Barack Obama, July 3, 2008

Debt Clock:
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
 
Anyone else want to talk about healthcare reform?
 
Romney.

The thing that really bothers me about what Obama has done during his time as the prez is that he...well let me have him explain it, he does a better job.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUPZJ...eature=related

"The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents -- #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That's irresponsible. It's unpatriotic." - Barack Obama, July 3, 2008

Debt Clock:
http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Bush and Obama did nothing different, as a matter of fact every single president I could think of has been the same. They all promise you the world and give you a rotten apple. It's almost like there is a higher power running the show.
 
I loathe politics and I don't vote, but I will say that Obama will obviously get re-elected. I think the Republicans dropped the ball with the candidates this time. But I guarantee you a republican will be in office when Obama has to leave, that' how it usually goes anyway.

And on the bit about universal healthcare, isn't America too big (population wise) for that to actually work and be successful? And too fat and unhealthy so costs would still be an issue? Plus politicians will shoot down anything "universal" as "socialism."
 
I loathe politics and I don't vote, but I will say that Obama will obviously get re-elected. I think the Republicans dropped the ball with the candidates this time. But I guarantee you a republican will be in office when Obama has to leave, that' how it usually goes anyway.

And on the bit about universal healthcare, isn't America too big (population wise) for that to actually work and be successful? And too fat and unhealthy so costs would still be an issue? Plus politicians will shoot down anything "universal" as "socialism."


I personally believe that any individual who makes a career out of politics and serves in the public sector will never understand how to govern according to constitutional law. My hats off to Mr. Ron Paul who stays true to his word. Too bad America will recognize he has been the only real choice once it in too late.
 
Top