Birthers

[Elderberry]

There are no "secrets" or "cloud of mystery" regarding Obama, his birth certificate or his early years. I have previously posted links to reputable sites that have debunked (thoroughly) all of these ridiculous suspicions.

[Elderberry]

I have no horse in this race,,,, dammit TS,,,, NOT RACISM!!!! sheeesh

Does it not make you wonder how someone who is born "Barack Hussein Obama II" in Hawaii U.S.A. becomes "Barry Soetoro" citizen of Indonesia without any documentation of his mother's divorce from his father, adoption papers to his step father and no change of name documents?

There is more documentation which demonstrates his Indonesian citizenship as Barry Soetoro than his U.S. citizenship. If his school records were released along with his credentials for getting into Columbia and Harvard would that not clear the debate? Why all the secrecy? Is it contrived to merely seed debate? Why are these things sealed from public knowledge? Where are all his writings which supposedly made him stand above the rest while in school? What essays did he write for The Harvard Law Revue? Is that not required to be the Editor?

So many questions without answers,,,, he could be purple for all I care,,,, there are simply many unknowns about the President's past.

Yup, you're right, no racism involved at all http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/04/25 ... ke-a-duck/

[ygmir]

I have no horse in this race,,,, dammit TS,,,, NOT RACISM!!!! sheeesh

Does it not make you wonder how someone who is born "Barack Hussein Obama II" in Hawaii U.S.A. becomes "Barry Soetoro" citizen of Indonesia without any documentation of his mother's divorce from his father, adoption papers to his step father and no change of name documents?

There is more documentation which demonstrates his Indonesian citizenship as Barry Soetoro than his U.S. citizenship. If his school records were released along with his credentials for getting into Columbia and Harvard would that not clear the debate? Why all the secrecy? Is it contrived to merely seed debate? Why are these things sealed from public knowledge? Where are all his writings which supposedly made him stand above the rest while in school? What essays did he write for The Harvard Law Revue? Is that not required to be the Editor?

So many questions without answers,,,, he could be purple for all I care,,,, there are simply many unknowns about the President's past.

Yup, you're right, no racism involved at all http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/04/25 ... ke-a-duck/

just for my own edification, JK:
If, a racist person, or racist agenda, were to prove a point, would it be invalid, because they were racist, or racially motivated?


I think this is a great, though undoubtedly moot, discussion.

[TomServo]

[youtube][/youtube]

[goathead]

yup, he's gotta be hiding something.........the question is:


What?

otherwise, as TnT says, all this stuff would be out on public display....or, at least, not hidden and secreted and locked away.
Who spends that kind of money, to do that?
I'd submit, not a person with nothing to hide.
I'd not even say, it a question of nationality. It may well be something different, or, personally embarrassing?

But, the point is, if there is nothing to hide, then "why hide this stuff"?

Hmmmmm, could be a fun, sick little game.
Reason not to release long form BC.


Maybe his father is not his father?
Maybe his mother is not his mother?
Maybe is he is not really a he?
Maybe he was cloned?
Maybe he is a robot?
Maybe he is from Krypton, and was born but arrived from space?
Maybe he is his own evil twin?

[goathead]

Yup, you're right, no racism involved at all http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/04/25 ... ke-a-duck/

It is easy to cherry pick assholes out of almost any group.

But should we judge all clowns by Pogo?

[Elderberry]

I have no horse in this race,,,, dammit TS,,,, NOT RACISM!!!! sheeesh

Does it not make you wonder how someone who is born "Barack Hussein Obama II" in Hawaii U.S.A. becomes "Barry Soetoro" citizen of Indonesia without any documentation of his mother's divorce from his father, adoption papers to his step father and no change of name documents?

There is more documentation which demonstrates his Indonesian citizenship as Barry Soetoro than his U.S. citizenship. If his school records were released along with his credentials for getting into Columbia and Harvard would that not clear the debate? Why all the secrecy? Is it contrived to merely seed debate? Why are these things sealed from public knowledge? Where are all his writings which supposedly made him stand above the rest while in school? What essays did he write for The Harvard Law Revue? Is that not required to be the Editor?

So many questions without answers,,,, he could be purple for all I care,,,, there are simply many unknowns about the President's past.

Yup, you're right, no racism involved at all http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/04/25 ... ke-a-duck/

just for my own edification, JK:
If, a racist person, or racist agenda, were to prove a point, would it be invalid, because they were racist, or racially motivated?


I think this is a great, though undoubtedly moot, discussion.

No. But it would certainly not be helpful to the person making said point. Communication is difficult enough without biasing an issue with inflammatory rhetoric.

[ygmir]

Yup, you're right, no racism involved at all http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/04/25 ... ke-a-duck/

just for my own edification, JK:
If, a racist person, or racist agenda, were to prove a point, would it be invalid, because they were racist, or racially motivated?


I think this is a great, though undoubtedly moot, discussion.

No. But it would certainly not be helpful to the person making said point. Communication is difficult enough without biasing an issue with inflammatory rhetoric.

totally agree.
I see, though, this as a method used by his supporters, to deflect any sort of questions, or, criticism.
So, just wondered your take.

[C187]

A little bit ago I went to the gas station to buy a pack of smokes. When I got into the store, a older man in line was chatting about how Obama wasn't born here with a older lady behind the counter. The lady was agreeing with him, and even stated he's a Muslim.

That lady happened to be the Philip Morris rep, on the clock, and working.

Now this isn't the first time I've overhead this kind of talk. But it is the first time I've heard it while someone was representing a company on the clock.

When the man left, I waited for the rep and the gas station clerk to finishing doing price checking of Marlboros. Then as the clerk turned around to grab me a pack of menthol's I spoke up. I asked the rep if she worked for the gas station, the clerk told me she worked for Philip Morris. As I walked to the door I informed the rep that I wouldn't be buying her brand anymore. She asked why, and I told her it was because of her comments as I opened the door. The rep and the clerk had a moment to connect the points as I opened the door. I only heard a mumble as I walked out.

I went to the local big box store and picked up some nicotine patches.
After getting home I had a polite conversation with a customer service lady from Philip Morris. She sounded slightly disgusted with the reps statements when I told her about them.

I see it like this, we should have a opinion about thing. We should debate them to the cows come home. But once someone shares an opinion while on the clock, representing the interests of a company. Then that opinion becomes a company opinion, and if I happen to disagree with it I can do so with purchasing power.

[wedeliver]

A little bit ago I went to the gas station to buy a pack of smokes. When I got into the store, a older man in line was chatting about how Obama wasn't born here with a older lady behind the counter. The lady was agreeing with him, and even stated he's a Muslim.

That lady happened to be the Philip Morris rep, on the clock, and working.

Now this isn't the first time I've overhead this kind of talk. But it is the first time I've heard it while someone was representing a company on the clock.

When the man left, I waited for the rep and the gas station clerk to finishing doing price checking of Marlboros. Then as the clerk turned around to grab me a pack of menthol's I spoke up. I asked the rep if she worked for the gas station, the clerk told me she worked for Philip Morris. As I walked to the door I informed the rep that I wouldn't be buying her brand anymore. She asked why, and I told her it was because of her comments as I opened the door. The rep and the clerk had a moment to connect the points as I opened the door. I only heard a mumble as I walked out.

I went to the local big box store and picked up some nicotine patches.
After getting home I had a polite conversation with a customer service lady from Philip Morris. She sounded slightly disgusted with the reps statements when I told her about them.

I see it like this, we should have a opinion about thing. We should debate them to the cows come home. But once someone shares an opinion while on the clock, representing the interests of a company. Then that opinion becomes a company opinion, and if I happen to disagree with it I can do so with purchasing power.

Hey C187, whatever it takes to help you stop smoking is a good thing. Good luck, you can do it. I found that it helped if I was not around people who smoked. Again, good luck!

[TomServo]

Drift.... Ive started smoking cigarettes 1/3 at a time. have gone from a pack and a half a day, to 3/4 pack a day. Good luck C187!

[JStep]

Hi, I'm late to the party!

I think this argument is getting over-simplified. I also think the Birther thing is a symptom of many white people who are *subconsciously* uncomfortable with a black president. The comparisons have been made and can be drawn till the cows come home, showing the contrast between the facts and how they are treated for any other politician vs how persistent they are and how much traction they get for Obama.

The Birthers don't *think* they're racist, they (mostly) aren't people that secretly hate him cause he's black. But, the Birthers, the Tea Baggers, etc... their arguments time and again come down having very little to do with the objective facts and seem to more and more boil down to "He's just not one of us."

The previous republican president is to blame for spending us into two unfunded wars, deregulating the markets and doling out tax breaks to the very wealthy. There was no Tea Party then... Seems rural white America was just fine with debt then... They had no protests against taxation, they didn't go on Fox news calling Bush a Marxist... Along comes a black president and all of a sudden debt is a dirty word, spending is out of control, the sky is falling and we need to break unions and tax teachers to fix what Obama hath wrought! Hmm... wonder what the difference could be that changed their minds about such fundamental issues of debt, taxation and spending... I mean it would have to be be pretty huge to change their whole political worldviews on these issues. You don't go from being completely apathetic over spending the treasury on unfunded wars and repealing taxes for the rich to being ready to protest and impeach the president over national debts and taxation for medical care over some small thing. Hmmm, what could the issue be?

I would bet the farm that if we were in exactly the same position now with no difference other than McCain was the one who was in office... there would be no Birthers, no Tea Baggers, no massive rural white indignation or media firestorms over debt and spending.

Edit: spelling

[Elderberry]

Hi, I'm late to the party!

I think this argument is getting over-simplified. I also think the Birther thing is a symptom of many white people who are *subconsciously* uncomfortable with a black president. The comparisons have been made and can be drawn till the cows come home, showing the contrast between the facts and how they are treated for any other politician vs how persistent they are and how much traction they get for Obama.

The Birthers don't *think* they're racist, they (mostly) aren't people that secretly hate him cause he's black. But, the Birthers, the Tea Baggers, etc... their arguments time and again come down having very little to do with the objective facts and seem to more and more boil down to "He's just not one of us."

The previous republican president is to blame for spending us into two unfunded wars, deregulating the markets and doling out tax breaks to the very wealthy. There was no Tea Party then... Seems rural white America was just fine with debt then... They had no protests against taxation, they didn't go on Fox news calling Bush a Marxist... Along comes a black president and all of a sudden debt is a dirty word, spending is out of control, the sky is falling and we need to break unions and tax teachers to fix what Obama hath wrought! Hmm... wonder what the difference could be that changed their minds about such fundamental issues of debt, taxation and spending... I mean it would have to be be pretty huge to change their whole political worldviews on these issues. You don't go from being completely apathetic over spending the treasury on unfunded wars and repealing taxes for the rich to being ready to protest and impeach the president over national debts and taxation for medical care over some small thing. Hmmm, what could the issue be?

I would bet the farm that if we were in exactly the same position now with no difference other than McCain was the one who was in office... there would be no Birthers, no Tea Baggers, no massive rural white indignation or media firestorms over debt and spending.

Edit: spelling

Would you make the same bet if Hillary Clinton was in the White House?

[JStep]

I'd make the same bet about the Birthers, but not the Tea Baggers. The Koch brothers would still have created that astro-turf movement if Billary were back in the oval office.

[Elderberry]

I'd make the same bet about the Birthers, but not the Tea Baggers. The Koch brothers would still have created that astro-turf movement if Billary were back in the oval office.

I agree.

[ygmir]

I think it's a stretch, to propose we'd be in the exact same position, had McCain won. Maybe better, maybe worse, but, not the same, I'd bet.

But, I disagree.
I think if McCain had done everything the same as Obama, and, as you say, we were in the same position, all the above would also apply and happen.

I bet the jokes would be how old McCain is, the lump on his neck, his inability to hitch-hike if his car broke......they'd be just as raw, just as hurtful.......prolly more so, in that Stewart et al would be totally gunning for him.

and, I'd totally bet that there would be "birthers"......maybe different people, but, the same arguments.........given, again, the same set of circumstances and secrecy.

[Elderberry]

The worst thing McCain could have done (for himself) was to run for President. He abandoned all of his principles and still lost, and I lost all respect for him.

[lucky420]

The worst thing McCain did was unleash lipstick pig sara palin on us...

[JStep]

I think it's a stretch, to propose we'd be in the exact same position, had McCain won. Maybe better, maybe worse, but, not the same, I'd bet.

But, I disagree.
I think if McCain had done everything the same as Obama, and, as you say, we were in the same position, all the above would also apply and happen.

I bet the jokes would be how old McCain is, the lump on his neck, his inability to hitch-hike if his car broke......they'd be just as raw, just as hurtful.......prolly more so, in that Stewart et al would be totally gunning for him.

and, I'd totally bet that there would be "birthers"......maybe different people, but, the same arguments.........given, again, the same set of circumstances and secrecy.

You misunderstood me, I didn't bet that we'd be in the same position had McCain won. I proposed that if we were in the same position and McCain had won that the Birther movement and the Tea Bagger phenomena never would have happened.

Your bet that there would still be an equivalent to what we see now with the Birthers isn't supported by the facts. There were Birthers before the election against Obama, none for McCain. Obama WAS born in the US, McCain wasn't. So if there HAD been an equivalent Birther movement against McCain they would have had a stronger case which is even more evidence to suppose that if they were going to exist then they should have existed. The fact is they didn't, and never will. Because rural white uneducated people don't instinctively look for far out reasons to deligitimize McCain, as they do with Obama. Why could that be? Oh I don't know... Maybe as Maher said, it's cause Obama is skinny and they're fat... yeah, that's got to be it...

Edit: spelling... again.

[TomServo]

Jstep +1000

[ygmir]

I think it's a stretch, to propose we'd be in the exact same position, had McCain won. Maybe better, maybe worse, but, not the same, I'd bet.

But, I disagree.
I think if McCain had done everything the same as Obama, and, as you say, we were in the same position, all the above would also apply and happen.

I bet the jokes would be how old McCain is, the lump on his neck, his inability to hitch-hike if his car broke......they'd be just as raw, just as hurtful.......prolly more so, in that Stewart et al would be totally gunning for him.

and, I'd totally bet that there would be "birthers"......maybe different people, but, the same arguments.........given, again, the same set of circumstances and secrecy.

You misunderstood me, I didn't bet that we'd be in the same position had McCain won. I proposed that if we were in the same position and McCain had won that the Birther movement and the Tea Bagger phenomena never would have happened.

Your bet that there would still be an equivalent to what we see now with the Birthers isn't supported by the facts. There were Birthers before the election against Obama, none for McCain. Obama WAS born in the US, McCain wasn't. So if there HAD been an equivalent Birther movement against McCain they would have had a stronger case which is even more evidence to suppose that if they were going to exist then they should have existed. The fact is they didn't, and never will. Because rural white uneducated people don't instinctively look for far out reasons to deligitimize McCain, as they do with Obama. Why could that be? Oh I don't know... Maybe as Maher said, it's cause Obama is skinny and they're fat... yeah, that's got to be it...

Edit: spelling... again.

yeah, I see what you say......but, I still believe, had McCain won, "birthers" of some sort would have evolved........hell, I'd probably be one, if there is question regarding legitimacy.
And I also think a Teaparty would have come out, had he performed as Obama.
But, that's just opinion, and, if you want, skewer it. I'll still believe as I do.

I'd like to think, people will rail against wrong, no matter which side it's coming from.



Yup, you can bet, there are racist rural white people
you can also bet, there are racist urban black people
and racist farm working brown people
and, racist, uuhh.......asians...
and on and on.
Hell, I remember my step dad ( a Swede) saying the Norwegians were no good........( I don't subscribe to that one, Elliot)..........

There is no monopoly on racism.
Sure, some folks get away with it, because they point at persecution or separation, or whatever. and, they "deserve" to favor their "own kind"..........because they gotta stick together, against "the man".

well, it's humanity, it has always existed, and always will
the thing is, we need to use intellect to overcome it.
name calling and stereotyping does not further this cause, IMHO.
Nor, does segregating one population, by color, and only pointing at them as "racist". As if, they are the only ones?
I see and read about all sorts of racism, between all colors of folks.

[FIGJAM]

The man = not me's

[TomServo]

I think it's a stretch, to propose we'd be in the exact same position, had McCain won. Maybe better, maybe worse, but, not the same, I'd bet.

But, I disagree.
I think if McCain had done everything the same as Obama, and, as you say, we were in the same position, all the above would also apply and happen.

I bet the jokes would be how old McCain is, the lump on his neck, his inability to hitch-hike if his car broke......they'd be just as raw, just as hurtful.......prolly more so, in that Stewart et al would be totally gunning for him.

and, I'd totally bet that there would be "birthers"......maybe different people, but, the same arguments.........given, again, the same set of circumstances and secrecy.

You misunderstood me, I didn't bet that we'd be in the same position had McCain won. I proposed that if we were in the same position and McCain had won that the Birther movement and the Tea Bagger phenomena never would have happened.

Your bet that there would still be an equivalent to what we see now with the Birthers isn't supported by the facts. There were Birthers before the election against Obama, none for McCain. Obama WAS born in the US, McCain wasn't. So if there HAD been an equivalent Birther movement against McCain they would have had a stronger case which is even more evidence to suppose that if they were going to exist then they should have existed. The fact is they didn't, and never will. Because rural white uneducated people don't instinctively look for far out reasons to deligitimize McCain, as they do with Obama. Why could that be? Oh I don't know... Maybe as Maher said, it's cause Obama is skinny and they're fat... yeah, that's got to be it...

Edit: spelling... again.

yeah, I see what you say......but, I still believe, had McCain won, "birthers" of some sort would have evolved........hell, I'd probably be one, if there is question regarding legitimacy.
And I also think a Teaparty would have come out, had he performed as Obama.
But, that's just opinion, and, if you want, skewer it. I'll still believe as I do.

I'd like to think, people will rail against wrong, no matter which side it's coming from.



Yup, you can bet, there are racist rural white people
you can also bet, there are racist urban black people
and racist farm working brown people
and, racist, uuhh.......asians...
and on and on.
Hell, I remember my step dad ( a Swede) saying the Norwegians were no good........( I don't subscribe to that one, Elliot)..........

There is no monopoly on racism.
Sure, some folks get away with it, because they point at persecution or separation, or whatever. and, they "deserve" to favor their "own kind"..........because they gotta stick together, against "the man".

well, it's humanity, it has always existed, and always will
the thing is, we need to use intellect to overcome it.
name calling and stereotyping does not further this cause, IMHO.
Nor, does segregating one population, by color, and only pointing at them as "racist". As if, they are the only ones?
I see and read about all sorts of racism, between all colors of folks.

Obama's election brought out the worst in people....I'd say racist. He's our elected president, and what the opposition has done is disgraceful! I was never that hard on Bush...until later! If you can't see it...I can. You don't attack a man of his intelligence without a reason!

[ygmir]

You misunderstood me, I didn't bet that we'd be in the same position had McCain won. I proposed that if we were in the same position and McCain had won that the Birther movement and the Tea Bagger phenomena never would have happened.

Your bet that there would still be an equivalent to what we see now with the Birthers isn't supported by the facts. There were Birthers before the election against Obama, none for McCain. Obama WAS born in the US, McCain wasn't. So if there HAD been an equivalent Birther movement against McCain they would have had a stronger case which is even more evidence to suppose that if they were going to exist then they should have existed. The fact is they didn't, and never will. Because rural white uneducated people don't instinctively look for far out reasons to deligitimize McCain, as they do with Obama. Why could that be? Oh I don't know... Maybe as Maher said, it's cause Obama is skinny and they're fat... yeah, that's got to be it...

Edit: spelling... again.

yeah, I see what you say......but, I still believe, had McCain won, "birthers" of some sort would have evolved........hell, I'd probably be one, if there is question regarding legitimacy.
And I also think a Teaparty would have come out, had he performed as Obama.
But, that's just opinion, and, if you want, skewer it. I'll still believe as I do.

I'd like to think, people will rail against wrong, no matter which side it's coming from.



Yup, you can bet, there are racist rural white people
you can also bet, there are racist urban black people
and racist farm working brown people
and, racist, uuhh.......asians...
and on and on.
Hell, I remember my step dad ( a Swede) saying the Norwegians were no good........( I don't subscribe to that one, Elliot)..........

There is no monopoly on racism.
Sure, some folks get away with it, because they point at persecution or separation, or whatever. and, they "deserve" to favor their "own kind"..........because they gotta stick together, against "the man".

well, it's humanity, it has always existed, and always will
the thing is, we need to use intellect to overcome it.
name calling and stereotyping does not further this cause, IMHO.
Nor, does segregating one population, by color, and only pointing at them as "racist". As if, they are the only ones?
I see and read about all sorts of racism, between all colors of folks.

Obama's election brought out the worst in people....I'd say racist. He's our elected president, and what the opposition has done is disgraceful! I was never that hard on Bush...until later! If you can't see it...I can. You don't attack a man of his intelligence without a reason!

and, there ya go, TS.........so, there is a timeline, arbitrary, and set by (whomever), as to when, to play "hardball"?
And, just because you agree with what he does, does not mean others do, or even should. And, they have the right to be just as "hard" on him, as anyone else has been on any other prez.

Also, sure, I'm sure he's smart......but, from what I've seen, no smarter than many, or even most, others.

I'd submit, for as against him and "one sided" as you claim others are, you are just as far, the opposite direction, in his defense.

Nothing wrong with that, just sayin it's the same coin, just the other side.

[littleflower]

The previous republican president is to blame for spending us into two unfunded wars, deregulating the markets and doling out tax breaks to the very wealthy. There was no Tea Party then... Seems rural white America was just fine with debt then... They had no protests against taxation, they didn't go on Fox news calling Bush a Marxist... Along comes a black president and all of a sudden debt is a dirty word, spending is out of control, the sky is falling and we need to break unions and tax teachers to fix what Obama hath wrought! Hmm... wonder what the difference could be that changed their minds about such fundamental issues of debt, taxation and spending... I mean it would have to be be pretty huge to change their whole political worldviews on these issues. You don't go from being completely apathetic over spending the treasury on unfunded wars and repealing taxes for the rich to being ready to protest and impeach the president over national debts and taxation for medical care over some small thing. Hmmm, what could the issue be?

Just a note from someone who actually knows a lot of conservatives:

i absolutely believe the tea party would have happened. They were NOT happy with Bush and his spending, and they complained constantly. a great many republicans and independents voted for Obama because he promised to deal with the deficit, something Clinton and democrats actually did before Bush ... how quickly we forget. But instead, Obama increased spending, increased the debt ... *anyone* who broke that promise would have found himself protested against, IMO.

taxation for medical care? jeez, talk about oversimplification .... the concern is as much about the likely quality of care, as it is about the cost ... and the fear that much of that money will just go to bureaucracy, as it always seems to do ...

tax breaks to the "very wealthy"??? the very wealthy were largely untouched by the tax breaks. i keep saying it, and will continue .... someone making $250K is not "very wealthy". in major cities, where these jobs exist, that's enough to buy a decent home .... no more ... ie, upper middle class. and that same law created tax cuts to the lowest earners as well. taxing the "very wealthy" is never even considered for some reason. raise taxes to those making $2.5M +?? why don't we ever hear that?? probably a power thing ..... keep the up and comers away from the truly powerful positions ... and punish small businesses, so they can't compete with larger companies.... ? this is a problem for both parties, but the democrats are worse, IMO.

i love rants like this, written by people who really don't understand conservatives, and don't even seem to care enough to try ... the tea party gang are just one piece of the right, but somehow they are the only righties we read about, and almost always in an oversimplified, negative light ....

race has nothing to do with it, for the most part, IMO. birthers are just silly, and there are boneheads everywhere .... ho hum.

[Elderberry]

And I love rants like this by people that really don't understand history. I'll only address Medicare and for-profit health care in this country.

First. The US ranks far behind most other developed countries in health outcomes for the general population.

Second. The US outspends every other developed country for these inferior outcomes.

Third. We are one of the few (if any?) countries that treate health care as a for-profit industry.

Fourth. It has not always been this way, but you are too young to remember when ALL health care in this country was strictly not-for-profit.

Fifth. It was the Republicans, who had the ear of the private sector that slowly was convinced that health care costs could be kept down if health care was converted to for-profit.

Sixth. The only people that have benefited with the conversion from nonprofit to for-profit have been large corporations and insurance companies, as costs were kept down at the expense of people being treated so that these corporations could reap huge profits.

The only vestige of nonprofit health care left in this country is now Medicare, Medicare and the Veterans health care system, and the Republicans are doing their best to try and privatize that too.

Any truly thinking and humanitarian person knows that health care should not be delivered as a for profit commodity or product and we need to get back to how we viewed health care back in the fifties.public and available to everyone.

I'll refrain on getting started defending Obama's spending other than to remind you to research just what that money was spent on and why. Hint: GWB's worst recession since the big one.

[Ugly Dougly]

The original Tea Party in Boston (ca. 1773) was a protest against corporate monopoly (East India Company).

[ygmir]

if healthcare tm became "not for profit" do you think we'd still get the "best and brightest" going into it?

do you think we'd still get the R and D that private companies put in, to develop a new drug or machine or procedure?

I think, a lot of that would suffer.
Because, people are not altruistic. They get into medicine, and, those related fields, to make money. And, the more, the better. (not saying there are no altruistic folks there, but, IMHO, they are a very small minority)

I'm not even necessarily arguing for "for profit" medicine......I'm just wondering, if we'd have the innovation and cutting edge stuff, we do, if there were not profit incentive.

I think it would change a lot.

[Donna Matrix]

FUCKING A people...

Nobody wants "Health Care" !!!!

We want Medical Coverage and Dental Coverage...


CHANGING it to "Health Care" is a mis-direction. Do you really want those fucktards telling you how to keep your health? Do you want to them to tell you what to eat?

We do NOT want the Federal Gov or State Gov or County Gov involved in our health.

We want Medical and Dental. Use the right words. Don't let the propaganda influence you.

[Elderberry]

if healthcare tm became "not for profit" do you think we'd still get the "best and brightest" going into it?

do you think we'd still get the R and D that private companies put in, to develop a new drug or machine or procedure?

I think, a lot of that would suffer.
Because, people are not altruistic. They get into medicine, and, those related fields, to make money. And, the more, the better. (not saying there are no altruistic folks there, but, IMHO, they are a very small minority)

I'm not even necessarily arguing for "for profit" medicine......I'm just wondering, if we'd have the innovation and cutting edge stuff, we do, if there were not profit incentive.

I think it would change a lot.

I disagree.

First, many of the advances made in medicine are by universities already funded by our tax dollars. If we had public health care, we could afford to give them additional funding.

Second, what good is being number one and having all the best if only the super rich can afford it? Which is what we have now.

Third, the for profit companies that are inventing all the new miracle medicines are artificially inflating prices in the US because of the way congress allows them to. The Canadians can buy the same drugs there, by the same US manufacturers here in america, that cost us here ten times as much. Is that fair?

Nobody's health should be dependent upon how much money they make, and no company should be allowed to profit from a persons health and well being.

Huge profits do not contribute to better medicine, quite the contrary, as corporations will only develop drugs and medical advances that they know will be mass marketable. Which means that many areas of medical research and advancement would be abandoned all together.