Care to post the right fringe rumor rag conspiracy theory link

• US Election Code on certification of - POTUS and VPOTUS eligibility. sm
  • Obama has held public office since 1997. Why then - were there no challenges....sm
    • Read this again.............sm - m
      • Read this.... - sm
        • Yes he has what?? sm - m
          • Hello. He is on the ballot now....the ones we are all casting - early and on Tuesday....sm
            • And there is a petition that is out - middle class
              • Yes. There are a number of other lawsuits. - I have already stated that...sm
            • You stop and re-read my post....sm - m
              • It's like talking to a brick wall - why bother
              • I never said he was. What I am saying NOW - Obama's eligibility....sm
                • Yes you did - why bother
                  • What part of he has alrady been certified - US Sect of State do you not get?
                    • You're too busy trying to insult the posters - why bother
          • Exactly. Look at Governor Schwarzenegger. - middle class
            • You are correct..........sm - m
              • The good news is - Just me
  • So, in a best case scenario for the republicans - who insist on challenging Obama's BC...sm
    • Upholding the constitution is not frivolous - Kaydie
    • Just wish O would cough up BC and this would resolve EVERYTHING - middle class
      • Wouldn't matter - gourdpainter
      • The sister born 9 years later in Jakarta Indonesia? - Why would anyone expect her to know....sm
      • Exactly. That is all we are asking for - and he won't even comply - Kaydie
        • If he has been certified already by the Secy of State - and eligibility challenges....
          • Can you say................sm - m
            • Definition of impeccable timing - why bother
              • Obama's trip to Hawaii. - Been down that road a few days back...sm
            • So are you now saying that it is Obama's fault - that Berg the Boob....sm
              • Consider the following....sm - m
                • Care to post the right fringe rumor rag conspiracy theory link - where you found this incoherence? sm
                  • Like others have told me..........sm - m
        • O went to "visit grandma" in HI. Yeah, right. He - went there to have the Gov. seal his BC!.nm
          • No need for that. His eligibility has already been certified - repeatedly and so far....
          • Interesting how Grandma got sice.....sm - m
            • Rabid rants will not support your argument. - Dems don't have to come up.....sm
              • Lots of questions remain about Obama. - You dont care. We will get what we deserve.nm
                • Yes. He will be voted into office and be - a great leader. He deserves that chance....sm
            • sick....not sice..........duh! LOL nm - m

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

Author:  Taylor Caldwell

In The Captains and the Kings (1976) Caldwell takes on the global power brokers. In this book we find, running through the story line, a description of the way the international financiers and industrialists (all private consortiums owned by an elite of the world's richest families and persons) hijack governments around the globe; instigating wars and gaining control over the warring countries through manipulation of the enormous debts incurred during a war. Mentioned too is the Council on Foreign Relations; and while a disclaimer states that all persons portrayed in the book are fictional, it is clear that the Council on Foreign Relations, as well as another major organization of the globalists are both very real organizations. Also described is the idea that political systems everywhere, and certainly in the US, are almost totally dominated by the ruling elite; and that no one even gets into the running for a major political office unless the elite believes the person is under their control. It is explained that this can be direct control; e.g., the candidate takes a solemn oath to be true to that organization above all others; or indirect control: the candidate is known to have done something illegal or scandalous. The threat of public exposure can then be used to bend the person to the will of the elite. Politicians can also be compromised through a "set-up". When necessary the elite will play that hand (conform or be ruined by the controlled media). It is further explained that there have been a few who were not under the control of the elite (back in the 40s and 50s) and who had some success on their own. These individuals were not corruptible and in such cases very dirty tricks were employed against them. There is a figure in the book obviously symbolising JFK, who went along with the elitists (his father's cronies), but who once in power went his own way - resulting in his assassination.

Economic crisis well controlled so far, maybe to give the republicans a chance at winning and to keep Bush from being blamed.  Will they let the flood gates loose in January?  Let us go into full blown economic depression?  So far, they have only rescued themselves, not ordinary people.  Maybe there won't be anything left to help ordinary people?

Consider this post educational. This is a post, from someone who lives with a single-payer health care system in a social democracy, explaining why I believe that this is a good way to make sure that everyone can receive health care.

Health care stateside costs more than 2.8 trillion USD per year. More than HALF of that money is spent on clerical help, at the doctor's office, at the lab, at the hospital, at the insurer, by the insurer to deny coverage for whatever they can deny. The reason that 62% of bankruptcies every year are due to catastrophic medical emergencies and 78% of those emergencies are insured, including 60% who had private insurance, not medicaid.., is the profit motive and the incentive it provides to deny coverage (stats from recent Harvard study). The same study found that most of these bankruptcies were solidly middle-class people hit by an unexpected medical emergency. These are not the powerless of the world; these are the people that keep the economy running.

The US spends more per capita on health care than any other developed nation, for a lower standard of care and a poorer result.

For instance, Canada's lifetime risk of maternal death is 1 in 11,000; not as good as Austria and Norway, but in the top 11. The US risk is 1 in 4,800 about twice Canada's rate and close to Mauritius. (Stats from Unicef) If you look closer at rates by race, you find that white women have about the same risk as women in Canada; blacks and Hispanics make up the difference, and that was shocking to me. Another shock to me was to find that more than one woman had been denied maternity care, as it was a pre-existing condition. Oh yes, and that Viagra is covered, but birth control often is not.

As it stands now, the US government covers the elderly, infirm, disabled and the poor. The private insurers get their pick of those that remain, and insurance is tied to your employment, which means that you are liable to find yourself without insurance at the very point that you need it most. Insurance often covers a portion of prescriptions, vision care and dental, but only a portion and not always. The portion of coverage declines the more common the need is. There are no drug price caps; the US is practically the only nation in the world not to have them.

IF the government were to cover everyone via a single-payer system, the cost of insuring everyone would cost less, much less than that 2.8 trillion every year.

Single-payer is not socialized medicine. It is exactly what it says it is. The government acts as the main insurer. Doctors are mostly in private practice, although there are a few clinics, usually attached to hospitals. Hospitals tend to be run either by the province or as charitable or private entities, or a combination of both. The choice of doctor is left to the patient; truthfully, patients in Canada have a larger choice of doctors than patients in the US. One's insurer doesn't dictate one's health care provider. It is true that we do not, currently, have dental or prescription care provided by medicare. That is, as it is stateside, covered by a private insurer, if at all. On the other hand, medications here are 1/3 of the price, generally, that they are stateside.

Doctors are paid by the government, yes, but they are billed in the same way an insurer would be. They are paid for provision of services. The main difference is that the insurer is the government; that means that between 10 and 30% of the cost of providing the service is cut. The government doesn't take a profit, doesn't deny services, gives no bonuses for denying services, and has, in fact, no interest in denying services. This means that everyone, regardless of pre-existing conditions, is covered.

Malpractice suits are not as onerous here as there. There is a cost, of course, associated with lost wages, pain and suffering, punitive damages, lost companionship or a lost parent, but there is no cost associated with lifetime medical care, which is the biggest portion of the US awards. Since health care is taken care of by the government, there is no extra cost for this; the government won't deny coverage, which a private insurer will. It has nothing to do with the government restricting awards; it has everything to do with future health care being taken care of.

How is it paid for? At the beginning, it was paid for through a payment collected by your employer. If I recall correctly, it was $33.00 per person at the beginning. It worked, and well, but it became obvious that the cheapest way to provide healthcare was to charge everyone through taxes, which were progressive, as a flat charge was not. Taxes were charged on tobacco and alcohol to offset the social and medical costs of their use, and that's a fair way to deal with it. Are taxes higher here? Actually, not much.

That is, in part, due to a different set of priorities.

However, If you can find a trillion dollars in three or four days to keep a bloated and corrupt Wall Street afloat, and a couple of trillion dollars for the occupation of Iraq, shouldn't it be as easy to find cash to institute single payer health care in order to keep the population healthy and relieve the burden of increasing health care costs on business?

This is why people are voting for the O.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=381gFG4Crr8

but it didn't work.

Here it is, dated June 24, 2008, entitled "Terror Strike Would Help McCain, Top Adviser Says": 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/23/AR2008062301979.html

It's alive, it's alive..Why, Dr. Frankenstein, it's alive!

reply that I think got deleted.......not unjustly.  It was dripping in sarcasm.  LOL  I believe the article it is on Yahoo news though, my husband said something about it.  I didn't post a link to it, probably someone else.

We can all agree to disagree.  What I would like for everyone to do is research the facts for themselves.  I've always felt like you can belive nothing you hear and only half of what you see.

I'm not against immigration and I don't think Lou Dobbs is either. I'm all for LEGAL immigration.  I even researched Mexico's immigration requirements and that ought to be an eye-opener for anyone who wants to compare immigration policies.  I am dead set against ILLEGAL immigration.  What I don't understand is what about ILLEGAL do people not underestand.  AND both Obama and McCain are in favor of giving people who have broken the law a "path to citizenship" translated means amnesty.  That didn't work too well  under Reagan and it won't work now which is one thing I have against both candidates because the path to citizenship is one thing they agree on but you don't hear either one of them talking about it.  That's an issue to  me.  No need to worry about terrorists when our borders are wide open and terrorists could stroll right on across our borders any time they so desired and neither NEITHER of these candidates have anything to say about that.  Why?  I'll tell ya, they both don't want to offend the Latino vote and I don't think they care whether the voters are legal or not.

The Democratic National Convention in Chicago in 1968 was disrupted by Democrats. So what?  Events of newsworthy importance have always drawn the lunatic fringe. How do you know the people chanting were Republicans?  Did they wear a sign?  Did they say they were Republicans?  Did they not pass the sniff test to prove they were leftists?  What?  Do you NOT THINK there are Democrats who don't approve of Cindy Sheehan?  My, what a narrow world you live in.