Please allow me to throw my opinion in the mix. I don't blindly follow either one of the two dominant parties in America, and I consider myself Libertarian/Conservative (more Libertarian) on many issues. That said, I am not opposed to supporting any legislation if I believe it improves American society, regardless of its origin.
I am a somewhat non-traditional college student with a pre-existing condition. I am 28 years old, in graduate school and my pre-existing condition has been with me since birth. I can't change it, there is no cure and I had no say (unfortunately) in getting it. I do my best to maintain my health and take regular meetings with my physician. Before the healthcare legislation was passed, I could not even purchase healthcare on my own at ANY price (believe me tried to get quotes from multiple companies, they wouldn't even quote a price). The insurance at university was good for everything but pre-existing conditions, as it exempted any cost associated with them.
So my annual/semi-annual appointments with my specialist would run $250 for the office visit and $150 for the bloodwork (no, I'm not exaggerating). I found it even more frustrating that my 5 minutes with the specialist costs almost twice as much as the lab work, but that's a different story. My prescription (only one) was not covered by my university insurance, as it was associated with the pre-existing condition. So I ordered them in 3 months supply from a Canadian pharmacy's website, which costs less than half of what they did in the United States, until the U.S. starting shutting down these operations (thanks Pharmaceutical industry/lobbyists).
So my high-blood pressure medication was over $100 a month, with no generics since the patent hadn't expired. I consulted my specialist for any alternative medication, but he stated there was nothing suitable for my treatment, which my own research had unfortunately shown the same results.
Fast forward about a year, because of certain components of the health care legislation, I was now eligible to purchase insurance through a high risk pool. To my great surprise, it is decent coverage that covers my pre-existing condition and costs around $170/month, which I will readily pay.
Why do I type all this? Because this has personally opened my eyes. I used to think everyone should take care of themselves in all circumstances, but life has taught me in some cases (like mine) it may not be possible to find any solution. I don't want my insurance for free, I just wanted insurance that would actually cover my healthcare. I am willing to pay for it. My wife and I both work (I work as a TA for the university, they don't provide insurance at either of our jobs), we don't have children and get all the tax credits that are associated with them, so I look at our situation as a fair-trade.
I am try to contribute to society by volunteering for non-profits, I enjoy teaching at the university, in short I want to "put in" what I "take out" (the healthcare insurance I get partially subsidized). Yes I know that many types of government provided services lend themselves to abuse, but there are ways to at least curb that practice. Ok, time to wrap it up, I have felt the benefits of this law and I am very thankful for the implementations (I can at least speak for those that directly affected me).
TL; DR: Certain provisions have directedly helped me, and I am thankful for all those in a similar situation that have been helped by the legislation.
On June 29 2012 04:41 TALegion wrote: As soon as a post uses the phrase, "Republicans," or, "Democrats," etc, without an adjective of quantity (i.e. "Most," "Some," "A lot of") before it, it loses all credibility. No, not all Republicans are selfish, white, rich, xenophobic, homophobic, militaristic Evangelicals. Likewise, not all Democrats are poor, lazy, pot smoking, hypocritical, pussified-Hippy socialists of foreign descent. Please, whether you are from here or not, or even if you're a government representative, don't think you're good enough to speak on behalf of millions of people.
We all have the same damn goals: Make the country better (Though some like to prefer thinking of making the whole world better). Some people like equality, some people like freedom. It basically comes down to that. You cannot have both, as they both are complete opposites in practice. Equality can only be achieved through enforced rules and regulations, because (I believe we can all agree...) we are not a perfect, tolerant, generous, peaceful species. Freedom is the lack of this political denial of a person's right to a private livelihood. I think it's kinda sad that, even though we have a common goal, we're so divided based on our means of accomplishing what we want.
Actually no, equality is quite objective measure, freedom is not. So it is quite easy to ensure good level of equality not violating freedom as that is subjective.
You are usually one of the most nonsensical posters around but this really takes the cake. Equality is just as subjective as freedom is. Just to remind you of what you have inexplicably somehow forgotten, the simplest example of how equality is subjective: the contrast between equality of outcome vs. equality of opportunity, and the disagreement between people who believe in the former and those who believe in the latter. Your reasoning is also atrocious. It is not quite easy to ensure a level of "equality" (whatever that means, as it is not objective) without violating freedom as freedom is subjective. How can you quite easily avoid violating freedom if you can't objectively measure it?
Good that we agree as I also consider your posts nonsensical.
Anyway I think you misunderstood. I was not objecting to his political statement. Of course it is hard/impossible not to violate someone's sense of freedom while ensuring equality. But they are not necessarily opposites in personal space. For me there is no problem with supporting measures to ensure equality and not have my freedom limited. For someone else it might not be true. But the point is they are not necessarily opposites.
As for the objectivity, notice I used qualifiers. Point was that measuring equality is much much easier than freedom. I would also argue that agreeing on common meaning of equality would be easier as the divide between equality of outcome and opportunity seems quite artificial.
On June 29 2012 04:35 ixi.genocide wrote: The cost of student loans is directly tied to the inflation of the US dollar and is not even a fair subject to talk about. I don't think forgiving student loans is acceptable but something should be done about public college tuition increasing like it has. Yeah, most 20 something vote democrat, simply by the discussion of ideas such as social justice and the motives behind actions.
I happen to think the cost of college tuition has more to do with the Federal Government getting involved in providing student loans than any effect inflation has had. A student with a bank account of $40,000 will be much more frugal in his buying habits than someone with a 'student loan' of $40,000. Therefore, students are willing to spend more for college tuition than they would have been before the government got into the student loan business. As a result, since colleges are businesses, with bills and salaries to pay, they increase tuition and pay professors more and more money. The voting segment of college students is 'educated' into the importance of a college degree and so the demand for college goes up. Another factor increase the cost of tuition. The fact of the matter is, the consumers, (students) are marketed a product ( college degree ) by the very institutions benefiting from these increased tuition dollars, that students will pay increasingly inflated tuition amounts, since they have 'student loans'. Fast forward to today, students realize they have been sold a bill of goods, they paid all this money to colleges and the value of the degree they received was inflated by the colleges themselves. Now, students are burdened with a bunch of debt that they probably (in many cases) shouldn't have taken out and paid to colleges and who's to blame ? Who else. Republicans, of course. Wall Street. Who do these OWS students vote for ? Democrats. Why ? Because they offer lower interest rate on the sucker (I mean, student) loans, so that these Democrats can keep pumping more money into student loans to suck the next generation of kids into massive debt, since now that everybody has a degree, they are mandatory, and you have no hope without one. So, they borrow and pay even more. Who benefits ? The only people benefiting are politicians and the colleges. They are a business and students are largely taken advantage of.
Want lower tuition ? Get the $$ coming from the federal government out of the business and since student will no longer be able to afford what the colleges want to charge, tuition rates will have to fall if they want any students in their classrooms.
But then, who am I but some ignorant, evil Republican who doesn't believe in educating our next generation...
The amount of disinformation and sheer nonsense that you spread on an otherwise serious discussion has gotten to the point that my brain is actually hurting.
Your pretense to knowledge is sickening. Have you ever even been to college? Do you even have a degree? I'm conservative and you're giving all of us a terrible rap with your pathetic dribble.
The more that I think about this ruling, the more that it looks like it might become a pyrrhic victory for democrats.
With regards to the ruling itself and the precedent that it sets, the most important thing to keep in mind is that it does not expand federal power one iota. In fact, it significantly limits federal power pursuant to the commerce clause, necessary and proper clause, and 10th Amendment. Contrary to what I've heard from some conservative commentators, the decision does not expand federal tax power. If you read the dissent, there isn't even a suggestion that the federal government does not have the power to pass the type of tax that the individual mandate is. The argument is strictly over whether the law should be considered a tax. Even so, the majority conditioned the constitutionality of the mandate upon the amount of the tax -- noting that there has to be a real option for individuals with regards to whether to take an action or pay a tax penalty for not taking that action. In summary, despite the fact that Obamacare was upheld, the Court erected significant barriers to new, potentially intrusive legislation and laid the foundation for expansion of these protective principals in future Court decisions. These are all very important long term considerations that conservatives should be happy about.
As for the short term, I get the sense that this decision has all but guaranteed that 2012 will be a repeat of 2010. Regardless of its constitutionality, Obamacare remains very unpopular. More importantly, it is the fuel upon which the Tea Party feeds. To whatever extent the Tea Party has gone dormant since 2010, that's over. Just look at how much money Romney is raising today. Moreover, now that we know that Obamacare is a massive tax hike, Obama is going to have a hard time explaining why this law was sold under false pretenses to the American public. I doubt that this will improve the inherent optics problems with Obamacare that make the law so unpopular.
All in all, I think that this is going to bite democrats in the ass big time.
Before the healthcare legislation was passed, I could not even purchase healthcare on my own at ANY price (believe me tried to get quotes from multiple companies, they wouldn't even quote a price).
This x 1000.
Some people on the right are trying to characterize the ACA as some kind of hand out for the poor. This simply isn't true. People seem to forget that before the ACA, there where people that were more than willing to pay for health insurance, but simply couldn't get coverage because there was no benefit for a health care provider to do so.
That's fucked up. The only reasonable solution for expanding coverage without skyrocketing cost was expanding the risk pool.
$170/month??? Wow... So people who are in high risk pools and have pre-existing conditions are actually paying less than people who are perfectly healthy and in great shape...
On June 29 2012 05:21 Defacer wrote: @Ldawg thanks for sharing.
Before the healthcare legislation was passed, I could not even purchase healthcare on my own at ANY price (believe me tried to get quotes from multiple companies, they wouldn't even quote a price).
This x 1000.
Some people on the right are trying to characterize the ACA as some kind of hand out for the poor. This simply isn't true. People seem to forget that before the ACA, there where people that were more than willing to pay for health insurance, but simply couldn't get coverage because there was no benefit for a health care provider to do so.
That's fucked up. The only reasonable solution for expanding coverage without skyrocketing cost was expanding the risk pool.
The problem is that you are confusing health INSURANCE with health CARE. You can't insure against something that has already occurred, it just doesn't make sense. Saying that they were willing to pay implies that they were willing to pay for the costs to treat them, which is quite obviously false. They are willing to pay what healthy people pay, basically. So yes it is quite clearly a hand out.
EDIT: Ok let me break this down as simple as I possibly can...
It is possible to state that something is a hand out without stating that you are against hand outs....
Hopefully that makes it crystal clear that I never even stated my opinion on the matter. Let me edit my original post so I don't get a fourth confused response.
On June 29 2012 04:35 ixi.genocide wrote: The cost of student loans is directly tied to the inflation of the US dollar and is not even a fair subject to talk about. I don't think forgiving student loans is acceptable but something should be done about public college tuition increasing like it has. Yeah, most 20 something vote democrat, simply by the discussion of ideas such as social justice and the motives behind actions.
Increase in cost of tuition is clearly not related to inflation, at least, not enough for inflation to be really relevant. The increases over the past 20 years have far outstripped inflation.
On June 29 2012 05:22 jdseemoreglass wrote: $170/month??? Wow... So people who are in high risk pools and have pre-existing conditions are actually paying less than people who are perfectly healthy and in great shape...
On June 29 2012 05:21 Defacer wrote: @Ldawg thanks for sharing.
Before the healthcare legislation was passed, I could not even purchase healthcare on my own at ANY price (believe me tried to get quotes from multiple companies, they wouldn't even quote a price).
This x 1000.
Some people on the right are trying to characterize the ACA as some kind of hand out for the poor. This simply isn't true. People seem to forget that before the ACA, there where people that were more than willing to pay for health insurance, but simply couldn't get coverage because there was no benefit for a health care provider to do so.
That's fucked up. The only reasonable solution for expanding coverage without skyrocketing cost was expanding the risk pool.
The problem is that you are confusing health INSURANCE with health CARE. You can't insure against something that has already occurred, it just doesn't make sense. Saying that they were willing to pay implies that they were willing to pay for the costs to treat them, which is quite obviously false. They are willing to pay what healthy people pay, basically.
It's due to govt subsidies. These are paid from the tax revenue of every other American.
On June 29 2012 05:21 xDaunt wrote: The more that I think about this ruling, the more that it looks like it might become a pyrrhic victory for democrats.
With regards to the ruling itself and the precedent that it sets, the most important thing to keep in mind is that it does not expand federal power one iota. In fact, it significantly limits federal power pursuant to the commerce clause, necessary and proper clause, and 10th Amendment. Contrary to what I've heard from some conservative commentators, the decision does not expand federal tax power. If you read the dissent, there isn't even a suggestion that the federal government does not have the power to pass the type of tax that the individual mandate is. The argument is strictly over whether the law should be considered a tax. Even so, the majority conditioned the constitutionality of the mandate upon the amount of the tax -- noting that there has to be a real option for individuals with regards to whether to take an action or pay a tax penalty for not taking that action. In summary, despite the fact that Obamacare was upheld, the Court erected significant barriers to new, potentially intrusive legislation and laid the foundation for expansion of these protective principals in future Court decisions. These are all very important long term considerations that conservatives should be happy about.
As for the short term, I get the sense that this decision has all but guaranteed that 2012 will be a repeat of 2010. Regardless of its constitutionality, Obamacare remains very unpopular. More importantly, it is the fuel upon which the Tea Party feeds. To whatever extent the Tea Party has gone dormant since 2010, that's over. Just look at how much money Romney is raising today. Moreover, now that we know that Obamacare is a massive tax hike, Obama is going to have a hard time explaining why this law was sold under false pretenses to the American public. I doubt that this will improve the inherent optics problems with Obamacare that make the law so unpopular.
All in all, I think that this is going to bite democrats in the ass big time.
It will make the US 2012 General Election thread a lot more interesting, that's for sure. It feels like the election is truly about something now.
On June 29 2012 04:35 ixi.genocide wrote: The cost of student loans is directly tied to the inflation of the US dollar and is not even a fair subject to talk about. I don't think forgiving student loans is acceptable but something should be done about public college tuition increasing like it has. Yeah, most 20 something vote democrat, simply by the discussion of ideas such as social justice and the motives behind actions.
I happen to think the cost of college tuition has more to do with the Federal Government getting involved in providing student loans than any effect inflation has had. A student with a bank account of $40,000 will be much more frugal in his buying habits than someone with a 'student loan' of $40,000. Therefore, students are willing to spend more for college tuition than they would have been before the government got into the student loan business. As a result, since colleges are businesses, with bills and salaries to pay, they increase tuition and pay professors more and more money. The voting segment of college students is 'educated' into the importance of a college degree and so the demand for college goes up. Another factor increase the cost of tuition. The fact of the matter is, the consumers, (students) are marketed a product ( college degree ) by the very institutions benefiting from these increased tuition dollars, that students will pay increasingly inflated tuition amounts, since they have 'student loans'. Fast forward to today, students realize they have been sold a bill of goods, they paid all this money to colleges and the value of the degree they received was inflated by the colleges themselves. Now, students are burdened with a bunch of debt that they probably (in many cases) shouldn't have taken out and paid to colleges and who's to blame ? Who else. Republicans, of course. Wall Street. Who do these OWS students vote for ? Democrats. Why ? Because they offer lower interest rate on the sucker (I mean, student) loans, so that these Democrats can keep pumping more money into student loans to suck the next generation of kids into massive debt, since now that everybody has a degree, they are mandatory, and you have no hope without one. So, they borrow and pay even more. Who benefits ? The only people benefiting are politicians and the colleges. They are a business and students are largely taken advantage of.
Want lower tuition ? Get the $$ coming from the federal government out of the business and since student will no longer be able to afford what the colleges want to charge, tuition rates will have to fall if they want any students in their classrooms.
But then, who am I but some ignorant, evil Republican who doesn't believe in educating our next generation...
The amount of disinformation and sheer nonsense that you spread on an otherwise serious discussion has gotten to the point that my brain is actually hurting.
Your pretense to knowledge is sickening. Have you ever even been to college? Do you even have a degree? I'm conservative and you're giving all of us a terrible rap with your pathetic dribble.
Sadly, I have to agree. While I don't think a degree is necessary for a discussion about this topic, you literally seem to be regurgitating the points that a political commentator would make and I don't think it is Rush.
On June 29 2012 04:35 ixi.genocide wrote: The cost of student loans is directly tied to the inflation of the US dollar and is not even a fair subject to talk about. I don't think forgiving student loans is acceptable but something should be done about public college tuition increasing like it has. Yeah, most 20 something vote democrat, simply by the discussion of ideas such as social justice and the motives behind actions.
Increase in cost of tuition is clearly not related to inflation, at least, not enough for inflation to be really relevant. The increases over the past 20 years have far outstripped inflation.
no they haven't.
Tuition and fees have risen faster than general inflation.
On June 29 2012 04:35 ixi.genocide wrote: The cost of student loans is directly tied to the inflation of the US dollar and is not even a fair subject to talk about. I don't think forgiving student loans is acceptable but something should be done about public college tuition increasing like it has. Yeah, most 20 something vote democrat, simply by the discussion of ideas such as social justice and the motives behind actions.
Increase in cost of tuition is clearly not related to inflation, at least, not enough for inflation to be really relevant. The increases over the past 20 years have far outstripped inflation.
no they haven't.
Where the hell did this idea that tuition increases were based off inflation come from? Tuition was kept artificially low by state governments pumping money into higher education. That's fine and good when the economy is strong but when budgets get tight that money dries up. Hence higher tuition and more fees.
On June 29 2012 05:16 Ldawg wrote: Please allow me to throw my opinion in the mix. I don't blindly follow either one of the two dominant parties in America, and I consider myself Libertarian/Conservative (more Libertarian) on many issues. That said, I am not opposed to supporting any legislation if I believe it improves American society, regardless of its origin.
I am a somewhat non-traditional college student with a pre-existing condition. I am 28 years old, in graduate school and my pre-existing condition has been with me since birth. I can't change it, there is no cure and I had no say (unfortunately) in getting it. I do my best to maintain my health and take regular meetings with my physician. Before the healthcare legislation was passed, I could not even purchase healthcare on my own at ANY price (believe me tried to get quotes from multiple companies, they wouldn't even quote a price). The insurance at university was good for everything but pre-existing conditions, as it exempted any cost associated with them.
So my annual/semi-annual appointments with my specialist would run $250 for the office visit and $150 for the bloodwork (no, I'm not exaggerating). I found it even more frustrating that my 5 minutes with the specialist costs almost twice as much as the lab work, but that's a different story. My prescription (only one) was not covered by my university insurance, as it was associated with the pre-existing condition. So I ordered them in 3 months supply from a Canadian pharmacy's website, which costs less than half of what they did in the United States, until the U.S. starting shutting down these operations (thanks Pharmaceutical industry/lobbyists).
So my high-blood pressure medication was over $100 a month, with no generics since the patent hadn't expired. I consulted my specialist for any alternative medication, but he stated there was nothing suitable for my treatment, which my own research had unfortunately shown the same results.
Fast forward about a year, because of certain components of the health care legislation, I was now eligible to purchase insurance through a high risk pool. To my great surprise, it is decent coverage that covers my pre-existing condition and costs around $170/month, which I will readily pay.
Why do I type all this? Because this has personally opened my eyes. I used to think everyone should take care of themselves in all circumstances, but life has taught me in some cases (like mine) it may not be possible to find any solution. I don't want my insurance for free, I just wanted insurance that would actually cover my healthcare. I am willing to pay for it. My wife and I both work (I work as a TA for the university, they don't provide insurance at either of our jobs), we don't have children and get all the tax credits that are associated with them, so I look at our situation as a fair-trade.
I am try to contribute to society by volunteering for non-profits, I enjoy teaching at the university, in short I want to "put in" what I "take out" (the healthcare insurance I get partially subsidized). Yes I know that many types of government provided services lend themselves to abuse, but there are ways to at least curb that practice. Ok, time to wrap it up, I have felt the benefits of this law and I am very thankful for the implementations (I can at least speak for those that directly affected me).
TL; DR: Certain provisions have directedly helped me, and I am thankful for all those in a similar situation that have been helped by the legislation.
This does seem to be the most important change that this legislation brings in, and it baffles the majority of the developed world that such a situation is possible in 2012 in the USA.
On June 29 2012 04:35 ixi.genocide wrote: The cost of student loans is directly tied to the inflation of the US dollar and is not even a fair subject to talk about. I don't think forgiving student loans is acceptable but something should be done about public college tuition increasing like it has. Yeah, most 20 something vote democrat, simply by the discussion of ideas such as social justice and the motives behind actions.
Increase in cost of tuition is clearly not related to inflation, at least, not enough for inflation to be really relevant. The increases over the past 20 years have far outstripped inflation.
no they haven't.
Where the hell did this idea that tuition increases were based off inflation come from? Tuition was kept artificially low by state governments pumping money into higher education. That's fine and good when the economy is strong but when budgets get tight that money dries up. Hence higher tuition and more fees.
regardless of government artificially lowering the price of tuition and it suddenly springing back up, public tuition has gone up by about 5x which is the same as inflation in the last 40 years.
On June 29 2012 05:22 jdseemoreglass wrote: $170/month??? Wow... So people who are in high risk pools and have pre-existing conditions are actually paying less than people who are perfectly healthy and in great shape...
On June 29 2012 05:21 Defacer wrote: @Ldawg thanks for sharing.
Before the healthcare legislation was passed, I could not even purchase healthcare on my own at ANY price (believe me tried to get quotes from multiple companies, they wouldn't even quote a price).
This x 1000.
Some people on the right are trying to characterize the ACA as some kind of hand out for the poor. This simply isn't true. People seem to forget that before the ACA, there where people that were more than willing to pay for health insurance, but simply couldn't get coverage because there was no benefit for a health care provider to do so.
That's fucked up. The only reasonable solution for expanding coverage without skyrocketing cost was expanding the risk pool.
The problem is that you are confusing health INSURANCE with health CARE. You can't insure against something that has already occurred, it just doesn't make sense. Saying that they were willing to pay implies that they were willing to pay for the costs to treat them, which is quite obviously false. They are willing to pay what healthy people pay, basically. So yes it is quite clearly a hand out.
So because someone is born with pre-existing conditions we should just say "Better luck next life!" and leave them in the dust...!?
On June 29 2012 04:41 TALegion wrote: As soon as a post uses the phrase, "Republicans," or, "Democrats," etc, without an adjective of quantity (i.e. "Most," "Some," "A lot of") before it, it loses all credibility. No, not all Republicans are selfish, white, rich, xenophobic, homophobic, militaristic Evangelicals. Likewise, not all Democrats are poor, lazy, pot smoking, hypocritical, pussified-Hippy socialists of foreign descent. Please, whether you are from here or not, or even if you're a government representative, don't think you're good enough to speak on behalf of millions of people.
We all have the same damn goals: Make the country better (Though some like to prefer thinking of making the whole world better). Some people like equality, some people like freedom. It basically comes down to that. You cannot have both, as they both are complete opposites in practice. Equality can only be achieved through enforced rules and regulations, because (I believe we can all agree...) we are not a perfect, tolerant, generous, peaceful species. Freedom is the lack of this political denial of a person's right to a private livelihood. I think it's kinda sad that, even though we have a common goal, we're so divided based on our means of accomplishing what we want.
Actually no, equality is quite objective measure, freedom is not. So it is quite easy to ensure good level of equality not violating freedom as that is subjective.
Well, when I mean equality, I mean in the measured sense (mostly economically, as it's hard to enforce social laws). It's nearly impossible to have actual equality in a legitimate, 100% capitalism/free environment. There will be rich people, and there will be poor, because the cold hard truth is that not everyone's born equal. So, if you value equality among the people of your nation more than you value their right to freedom of choice, it is likely that will support something where the government takes care of helpless people through force.
And I don't think freedom is too subjective. Of course it comes in varying amounts, but it is pretty easy to recognize something as making you more or less free. The first and 9th amendment probably explain it best, as they basically write out that anyone has the right to do whatever the fuck they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. This is not 100% upheld by the government, as it would be highly impracticle, but nonetheless outlines that the government will not become a totalitarian communist state.
Equality can only be achieved by force, so if you want it (which I would hope we all do...), you have to decide whether it's worth sacrificing personal freedoms for.
The formal definition of "freedom" is not too subjective, that is true. But what different people understand under that term varies quite a lot. For example I do not consider bans to limit my freedom if I never actually wanted to do the banned action. So more like a pragmatic definition of freedom. My freedom is only limited if something interferes with things that I plan to do. And I imagine other people have different opinions about the word. I think there are better and worse opinions on the subject, but that would be even more off-topic.
So yes, if you want to achieve equality you might need to sacrifice some people's notion of freedom, but not necessarily personal freedoms of others. My objection is just to people often assuming that freedom is such a clear cut word and the notion that any restriction of human behavior is limiting everyone's freedom.
Isn't the healthcare insurance issue similar to the fact that car insurance is mandated? If so, then why do people accept the mandated car insurance? Sure there's a few states that don't have mandated car insurance, but that's not much.
Personally I find insurance and health care to be one of the hardest issues to get my mind agreed on how it could/should be done. I think I'd tend to lean towards some sort of regulation on the pharmaceuticals and medical organizations, and no mandated insurance or health tax, but I still don't know what sort of regulations would be good.
On June 29 2012 04:43 Defacer wrote: Oh man, this video is just too funny.
Wow. Its essentially Romney making an argument in favor of exactly what Republicans are mad at Obama about. He even goes so far as to make the exact same arguments in favor of the mandate that Obama does. Maybe Romney as president wouldn't be so bad, as it seems like he actually agrees with Obama
Wow. Its essentially Romney making an argument in favor of exactly what Republicans are mad at Obama about. He even goes so far as to make the exact same arguments in favor of the mandate that Obama does. Maybe Romney as president wouldn't be so bad, as it seems like he actually agrees with Obama
No he's just covering his ass against the millions of poor that can vote.
EPT
