newsobserver.com projects - Hunter Bacot - Comments

Re: Poll: Public wants health care reform

JohnLloydScharf — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 22:33:10 -0500

USPS/IRS Health Care

If health care is the problem, insurance is not the cause and government is not the answer.

Of those "50 million," that lack insurance there were 45,000 who died without health care.

WITH health care, 98,000 died FROM health care because of malpractice.
The question is do we want to trust that largest corporation in the world, the U.S. Government. Do not expect house calls anytime soon.

We have seen how well the government delivers on its promises and its bureaucracies pursue the money without giving us benefits on so many levels.

Imagine another 111 bureacracies that only ultimately must listen to the Secretary of the Treasury - another "service" of which is the IRS.

http://theprogressivecapitalist.blogspot.com/2009/10/affordable-health-care-for-america-act.html

That blog of mine above has several .pdf connections (HR. 3962 and two summaries, a few videos, and page references for new taxes and other mandates).

If you cannot use the link, google "Progressive Capitalist H.R. 3962."
If you believe the promises of this bill, you have to deal with the lie that it fosters competition with a government option called the "Public Option" and establishes the government as a monopoly making its own rules.
Don't worry. You'll run out of "rich" soon enough.

We have at least a $12 trillion economy of which at least $1.8 trillion is spent on health care.
If you read the bill, there are plenty of opportunities to soak the middle class, if you do not mind the 1.6 million made jobless.
REPUBLICAN Affordable Health Care For America Act MAKING HEALTH Care Affordable For EVERY AmeriCAN

http://thehill.com/images/stories/whitepapers/pdf/ainsfloor_01_xml.pdf

Re: Poll: Public wants health care reform

TOPASSISTANT — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:08:33 -0500

Those of you who are tired of Rep. Etheridge not responding to written questions, returning phone calls, spending our grandchildren’s wages even before that have earn them, join me if firing him. I asked him where in the Constitution I would find the amendment that gave him permission to mess with my health care, his response, the GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE. I asked him if he ever read Article I Section 8 of the Constitution that limited the authority of the federal government. He would not respond. Join me in the FIRE ETHERIDGE CAMPAIGN by e-mailing me at Smokey1977@att.net
We are already over $100 TRILLION dollars in debt with social security, Medicaid and Medicare. Illegal aliens ARE getting health care by just using someone’s social security number.

Re: Poll: Public wants health care reform

lefaim — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 13:09:51 -0500

What a bad poll question.

"State residents were even more divided on a national insurance plan in which the federal government pays most of the medical and hospital costs for all citizens with 47 percent favoring and 47 percent opposing it."

That would be a single payer system. While I am happy to see that almost half the state supports a single payer system, the public option would look significantly different from how it is phrased here.

Re: Poll: Public wants health care reform

PaulTerrell — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 11:38:44 -0500

A tele-townhall? Why is he afraid to get off his butt and meet both the voters in the 2nd district and many others. After all his vote affects everyone in this country. Either the Congressman supports the Left's radical positions or he supports this center-right country. And for the record I have met and talked with the Congressman one on one in quite a few different settings. He seems like a nice man but his votes are not.

Re: Poll: Half oppose constitutional ban

AdamFranklin — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 19:11:49 -0400

crosby, are you really that stupid? Can't be, but it is true. Your so called 'normal people' can get married if they want. The institution of marriage is created by law. People are entitled to the equal protection of the laws. Homosexuals are not allowed to marry. Therefore, homosexuals are not being allowed the equal protection of the laws. Simple logical chain. It is too much to expect that you could follow it though.

Re: Poll: Half oppose constitutional ban

fredharvey — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 09:40:17 -0400

Umbro, it is a favorite device of the fundamentalist/religionist, whether s/he be Christian, Muslim, or of any other "faith," to impute his own values to God. The terrorists do it to justify their murderous rampages. By imputing his or her own beliefs to God, s/he magically creates a higher "authority" that in turn imparts credibility to the person citing the beliefs of said deity. It's a circle from which no unthinking person ever escapes. In other words, Umbro, man creates God in his own image, just as you have. The god of the fundamentalist invariably reflects the bigotries and hatreds and all his or her other sacrosanct values as well, and of course that can even lead to murder in the name of God, just as it has for radical Muslim fundamentalists.

"Marriage" in the days of the Bible was very different than the marriage of today. In those days, the man owned his wife. Lot offered his own daughters up for rape. And if a "husband" wanted to offer his wife to a man who was a guest in his home, he could do that. Do you really find morality in any of those treasured Biblical traditions? The "marriage" of which you speak is a relatively recent invention and bears little resemblance to the marriages in the Bible that you value so highly.

To the extent that heterosexuals are made by God, gays are made by God. They have existed in every culture, from the most primitive to the most advanced, since the dawn of the human being. God made them. Just as he made you, if he did. And yet here you are publicly declaring a creation of God to be repugnant. Shame on you.

Ban Marriage Between Repugnant-CANTs, stop persecuting gays

Real_Americans_Think — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 02:01:55 -0400

I'd like to see a constitutional ban on Repugnant-CANTs getting married. Allowing Repugnant-CANTs to marry defiles the institution of marriage and is a threat to society, especially if they reproduce and create more deviant nay-sayer one-size-fits-all ("tax cuts") mindless blathering for yet another generation. Being a Repugnant-CANT is a lifestyle choice. We can love the sinner but hate the sin - which for Repugnant-CANTS is being selfish mean-spirited vindictive brainless wonders. Repugnant-CANTs can probably be reformed if they just repent from their stupidity and open their minds to reason. Let's "Pray Away the Repugnant-CANT." I would support any amendment that says that marriage between two Repugnant-CANTs is immoral and that their deviant lifestyle choice should not be allowed to destroy the institution of marriage. In the meantime, stop picking on gay people - it is not "special rights" that they should be allowed to marry, you pinheaded morons from the stone ages. They don't need your sanctimony, you mindless religious rightwing Repugs.

Re: Poll: Half oppose constitutional ban

mrcrosby — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 20:10:44 -0400

TooKatz, they have the same rights as normal people. no one has the right to get married, not even normal people. I am so sick of hearing about gay rights. Why would they get special rights. they have all the same rights as everyone else so why do they think they should have additional rights and why is anybody bothering to even talk to them about it?

Re: Poll: Half oppose constitutional ban

omegaman — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 20:09:58 -0400

Cornbread,

It was nice to read the full poll (again) but I didn't see any demogaphics!

Re: Poll: Half oppose constitutional ban

cornbread — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 19:21:01 -0400

Omegaman:

Full poll info is typically just a google search away.

Read and enjoy

http://www.elon.edu/docs/e-web/elonpoll/032309_ElonPollData.pdf

Re: Poll: Half oppose constitutional ban

TooKatz — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 19:20:59 -0400

peterlyon...nice try plugging your inane conspiracy theories, as usual (so tired), but this is about real people, EQUAL RIGHTS under the constitution and the SEPARATION of church and state. I'm fully confident that marriage equality will happen in my lifetime, as it should—it's only a matter of time. Cheers all...

Re: Poll: Half oppose constitutional ban

jayhurst — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:47:25 -0400

Suppose I don't believe God (by whatever name) forbids homosexual behavior, and that it is not an inviolate truth that one man-one woman equals marriage. Suppose I'm still a devout believer, that I still have faith, but suppose I believe the Bible is words from men, not from God Herself. Doesn't that negate the morality arguments that "aren't just for Christians," even though those arguments squarely argue fundamentalist Christian tenets (Episcopals and UCC members don't believe that, after all)? Or would that make me an infidel who will be smited?

Re: Poll: Half oppose constitutional ban

omegaman — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:17:41 -0400

Still wondering when the full demographics of an Elon College poll will be published with the results?

Re: Poll: Half oppose constitutional ban

cornbread — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:25:38 -0400

You may recall that the Sodomites were not people of faith.

You may recall that the Pharisees were people of faith.

Theocrats, ho!

Re: Poll: Half oppose constitutional ban

Umbro89 — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:21:39 -0400

Aftercancer, I have heard no one say love should be outlawed. To love another is a wonderful thing. I love my wife, my sons, my mother and others of both genders. However, what is both repugnant and morally wrong is the exercise of sexual behavior between two men or between two women. God means for us to love. But HE clealy prohibits sexual expression except in marriage between a man and woman. This is not a concept that is only for Christians, or only for those of faith. It is a truth that remains regardless of whether one accepts it or not. You may recall that the Sodomites were not people of faith.