Comments on: Another Spoof on the MoveOn/Will Ferrell Health Care Vid

By: buy just dance 2

buy just dance 2 — Fri, 26 Aug 2011 14:30:11 +0000

Recent Blogroll Additions……

[...]usually posts some very interesting stuff like this. If you’re new to this site[...]……

By: garment sales worldwide

garment sales worldwide — Fri, 19 Aug 2011 08:53:02 +0000

Recent Blogroll Additions……

[...]usually posts some very interesting stuff like this. If you’re new to this site[...]……

By: Glenn

Glenn — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 09:51:57 +0000

I am Catholic but why is everyone afraid of govt public option. We already allow elderly, disabled and some poor to have coverage. Many countries allow both private and public insurance – Austria, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Netherlands, Switzerland, etc and many have large % of their populations with private coverage despite universal coverage by the govt.

And everyone forgets US Bishops and Pope John Paul II wrote on the basic right for workers to have health care??

I don't get it. We are ending up debating sound bites and angry rhetoric – not looking at facts and rational thinking.

By: hannajo

hannajo — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 18:04:15 +0000

Duder wrote, "In my humble opinion, there is no difference between a private person paying for a doctor to visit a poor mother than the government paying for it. In the end, the woman still gets care."

There's a huge difference. In the first scenario the donor chooses to help the poor mother, but in the second scenario tax payers are forced to help the poor mother. If a private person pays, they either give money to the woman or to the doctor directly. Poor mother goes to doctor and gets treated. In this case both parties benefit from a stronger relationship. On the other hand, when tax payers pay (Government doesn't actually pay for anything. They are using the tax payers' money.), poor mother most likely has to go to a government office, stand in a long line, fill out a bunch of forms, wait to see if she qualifies, etc., etc… In this case, her only relationships involved are with government workers who may or may not be kind, courteous, and ultimately loving towards her.

I suppose I'm a little sensitive about this whole government lines thing since I've recently married and moved to another state. I calculated 4 hours of line-waiting just to make my car legal on the road. That was all before I stood in another line at the Social security office to change my name, and then another line at the post office to mail in my passport changes.

By: hannajo

hannajo — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 21:28:42 +0000

I agree with Darki. Jesus taught people the Truth, and then let them decide for themselves. I'm thinking of the rich young man who Jesus said he need to sell his possessions and give them to the poor if he wanted to follow Jesus (chapter and verse are escaping me right now.). When the rich young man walked away, Jesus did not go after Him. He just goes on with His preaching to those who choose to stay. Secondly, Jesus never commissioned forcing people to be charitable, which is exactly what socialism does. Jesus was not leftist because He wasn't political at all. Jesus' separation of Church and state message was, "Give to Ceasar what belongs to Ceasar and give to God what belongs to God." As a believer in separation of Church and state, I believe that taking care of the poor is the Church's job, not the states'. Not-so-coincidentally, the explosion of government run/taxpayer funded programs very closely coincides with the breakdown of the family and drop off in church going habits of Americans.

By: darski

darski — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 13:10:43 +0000

"Jesus was a leftist too"

this is absolutely not true. Jesus deals with each and every person individually and demands personal responsibility. Jesus was NOT a community Organizer – he was a rabbi/teacher.

By: AlistZ

AlistZ — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 05:51:44 +0000

We are much wose off. We are facing a liability of 70 trillion dollars in debt obligation due to these programs. Anyone living on a Social Security check is living in poverty. Social Security returns 2% on the money consfiscated. If each individual had that money * the time value of money our society would be so much better off.

Only a truly evil man would advocate for placing the future generation in poverty. What's that the bible said? Evil will come as a wolf dressed in lamb clothings? Begone Satan.

By: ToddM

ToddM — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 03:55:27 +0000

My friend, you're being hard on my friend. He knows not what he is talking about. He is totally clueless with the "facts" he's listed and sounds nearly incoherent in presenting them. When he said that he was thankful that we didn't have Reagan's tax rates, I knew he was clueless and was being spoonfed (mis)information from some liberal source.

By: ToddM

ToddM — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 03:32:18 +0000

Where do you get your information? Mars? Reagan signed budgets presented to him by Tip O'Neill (a Democrat) who said he would give Reagan tax cuts which increased revenues (look it up your facts are WRONG!!!!), and the promise to keep a handle on discretionary spending. Well, Tip O'Neill (a Democrat) lied and the spending he said he would keep a handle on? Went through the roof. Clinton would have ballooned the deficit if not for one thing, a Republican congress that made him keep a lid on spending. He was wanting to spend on healthcare, 1/7th of the US economy. He wasn't fiscally responsible, he was held in check by Newt Gingrich. Bush did add to the deficit, but Obama, in 8 months has beat out Bush's spending by 4x. Obama IS going to bankrupt us. He's projecting $1 trillion dollar deficits for as far as the eye can see. Dwarfing anything ANY president before him has done. ANY!!! Again, you're the kind of person that will aid in bankrupting our country and our children's future with your misinformation.

By: AlistZ

AlistZ — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 01:12:11 +0000

Despite what Obama said, the House bill would allow abortions to be covered by a federal plan and by federally subsidized private plans. http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/abortion-which-s... The democrats have prevented language that would explicitly excluded abortion from being funded in just this week past. The first thing Obama did as president was remove the Bush era restriction of US tax dollars going to abortion services and providers in foreigh aid. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pag... If the president would specifically change a rule to allow Tax money to be used for abortions overseas, its self-evident that he wouldn't be trying to restrict them here.