Do you apply this same level of concern with every president, and his proposed policies? Bush? Clinton? Bush? Reagan? Carter?
I’ll guess 15 minutes.
You’re like psychic, man.
Let me ask you this: why would an entitlement program, voted into law through a majority of duly-elected representatives, be curtailed? After all, the EPs only come about because a majority of people think they are a good idea, and obviously continue to think they are a good idea. Why would the good idea suddenly become a bad idea that had to be stopped?
Cooties?
The facts are clear. Government entitlement programs have a 100% success rate. Strong evidence that we should start another one.
Yes, the good people of the state of Texas simply must have the means to fight of Indian agressors: here
Corporations feed at the public trough too, you know. Your distaste for calling such programs entitlements doesn’t change the degree to which that is true.
So you and those like you are assaulting the rest of us by forcing us to use private health care? Or just suffer and die if we can’t. The side which is denying options to others is yours, not the pro-UHC people.
Of course; America is all about handing out goodies to those with money, at the expense of screwing everyone else.
That’s a silly question. By talking to Americans, by having American friends, by visiting America for other reasons. Canada isn’t some isolated valley in rural China; they are right next door. They even have Internet access! Shocking, I know; I bet you thought they got their news by courier moose.
YOU were the one who brought up the opinions of foreigners.
Because the system is designed to benefit the rich, and let the common people rot.
I didn’t see this line earlier.
So, you use this for yourself too, I hope? If Canadians aren’t allowed to comment on US health care, you aren’t allowed to comment on Canadian, right? You don’t get to have an opinion on Canadian or UK or Australian or Zimbabwean or Lunar or Andromedean health care, right?
So, if I say, “I want health care like Canada!” you can’t say anything bad or good about Canada’s health care. After all, you didn’t buy it. Yes?
The fact that Squink either cannot read for comprehension or does not know what an entitlement program is does not in any way mean that I moved the goal posts. I asked a straightfoward question and got an bad answer. **Squink **my think that the programs he mentioned are pork, unnecessary and are a form of welfare programs for certain states (and he may be correct), but they are not entitlement programs.
The question still stands.
Snowboarder Bo, there are a couple reasons to get rid of entitlement programs. The first, foremost and one that everyone wants to ignore is that they are going to eat the budget alive and sooner or later go broke. There are also negative effects of some programs, like welfare, where some of the recipients of the program are hurt in the long run by the program.
The argument put forth was that if Obamacare is passed and does not work it can be killed. I asked for a cite of that having occurred in the past. I do not believe that will happen because, as far as I can, tell no entitlement program that has been enacted has ever been killed even if there are serious negative consequences.
Upon preview:
Those programs may be pork, unnecessary, and better off dead but they ain’t entitlements. Read the definitionagain.
Slee
I think it’s pretty clear by now that, yes, Obamacare will lead to even greater government control over health care than Obama says it will.
It’s also clear that among the liberal contingent, this is just peachy…which of course comes as no surprise because they want the government to control everything: production, distribution, health care, salaries, etc., etc., ad infinitum.
After all, that’s the only way to ensure that everything’s “fair.” It’s hard to argue against people being entitled to money they earn through their own entreprenurial efforts, so the answer is for government to run everything and then no one will have an excuse for having more that anyone else. The country’s economy will then be just one big pie that everyone gets an equal slice of.
This approach has been tried before several times before and it has failed miserably without exception – condemning its citizenry to decades of misery, short supply, and a heavy-handed, oppressive, spying government in which children are encouraged to out their parents for comments disloyal to the state (forced submission and loyalty being of course the only way such governments can stand) but American liberals for some reason think it’s the route to paradise.
And we want the country to be overrun by Nazis riding dinosaurs. Don’t forget that part.
Holy cow, that’s a big heaping pile a stupid all wrapped up in a single smelly post. I’d ask for a cite for just about any of that, but expecting that would make me look even more stupid than your post.
Which only goes to show that I pay more attention to what gets said around here than you do.
The answer to the OP is there is no guarantee.
Now that that is answered, I have a question for the OP. If there was such a guarantee, would you support the plan? In other words, are you for the plan as laid out, as long as it stops there?
If the answer is yes, would you still be for the plan if maintaining the status quo was an option?
Holy shit. And I thought the OP was a silly slippery slope…
Don’t forget, kids. Socialized health care leads to your parents going to jail for being disloyal.
So, if your girlfriend drags you to a chick flick, you’re being assaulted?
Call the National Guard - there are a bunch of guys in Julie and Julia who need to be rescued!
Seriously is all you have against the plan that you don’t like it and some rich guys in Canada come here. Rich guys here won’t be affected at all, though there is some thought to taxing super plans. Nothing else?
The working poor who don’t get decent coverage and so go bankrupt if they get sick - there is assault for you.
Could you work me being able to torture Cheney somewhere in your paranoid fantasy? Thanks in advance.
Why don’t you read the definition again? (NOTE: this is not Ralf Rinkle’s 'Lectric Law Library)
So, a law is passed appropriating money for a corporation, provided they meet eligibility conditions (can they build this thing? do they drug screen their employees?)… and to you that’s not an entitlement. Seems to me that nearly everything government pays for is an entitlement.
Clearly the majority of the population doesn’t share your concerns or see things trending the way you do. And I think that after more than 50 years with most of these programs, its safe to say that they are being managed and funded well. People have been predicting gloom & doom about welfare, SS, Medicare, etc. since I was a kid, and I ain’t no spring chicken no more. The sky didn’t fall then, and it’s not falling now. Not even slowly.
IMO, people aren’t at all worried that there will be a financial disaster; they have other reasons for speaking out about (most) of these programs.
to paraphrase the real kernel of the conservative argument:
‘Private schemes can’t exist without all the uncontested gouging and cheating they currently engage in. A reasonably honest, efficient public alternative would therefore drive their cheating gouging asses out of town on a rail’
And they somehow see this as a bad thing.