• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

2010 Midterm Results Discussion

Boo Radley said:
As I've told you before, you overstate that problem. We'll adjust fine. Had we adopted a universal payer, we'd have cut some 160 million from the deficit in paper work alone. We'd ahve done well with a public option. But evenw ith what we did, we'll still do better in terms of acess than we were doing. hopefully, we can improve the problems and move forward. But, you're skipping the conversation we're having to bring a realatively minor problem.
Click to expand...

That is your opinion and theory. History doesn't show that the govt. single payer program which is Medicare hasn't worked real well at all and cost how many times more than was intended? Why are you so naive when it comes to govt. run anything?
 
Conservative said:
That is your opinion and theory. History doesn't show that the govt. single payer program which is Medicare hasn't worked real well at all and cost how many times more than was intended? Why are you so naive when it comes to govt. run anything?
Click to expand...

Actually, they work quite well, often doing more then they were originally intended to do. You shold stop with overgenralizing and seek to actually have a thought outside partisan talking points. Just saying . . .;)
 
Boo Radley said:
Actually, they work quite well, often doing more then they were originally intended to do. You shold stop with overgenralizing and seek to actually have a thought outside partisan talking points. Just saying . . .;)
Click to expand...

Yes, like all liberal programs Medicare costs billions more than intended but since you don't apparently see the cost you ignore them.
 
canada's infamous WAIT TIME ALLIANCE's report card, february, 2009:

MEDIAN wait time for corneal transplant: 636 days, 91% of patients wait more than 18 weeks

MEDIAN wait time for "abnormal premenopausal uterine bleeding:" 164 days, 62% required to bleed more than 18 weeks

chronic diarrhea or constipation: 260 days, 75%

hip arthroplasty: 173 days, 59%

http://www.waittimealliance.ca/June2009/Report-card-June2009_e.pdf

etc

there's lots and lots and lots more, the alliance is always very busy and always has been since it was first formed ten years ago, one can only imagine under what political pressure, to address the woeful lack of treatment for maple leafers overpromised and undertreated

Canadian Wait Times Alliance Urges Speed in Reducing Health Care Wait Times in Canada

there's also the famous doctor shortage that contributes directly to the painful wait time problem

Study: Major doctor shortage in rural Canada

Canada's Doctor Shortage Worsening - The Canadian Encyclopedia

CBC News - Health - Canada's doctor shortage to worsen without changes: Fraser report

the same concern, of course, worries the analyses of AMERICANS a lot more thoughtful than chatroomers who so cavalierly click "submit"

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/health/policy/27care.html

Health care reform hampered by shortage of primary care doctors | Minnesota Public Radio News

Primary-Care Doctor Shortage May Undermine Health Reform Efforts - washingtonpost.com

and, of course, the situation is exacerbating

Texas doctors fleeing Medicare in droves | Houston & Texas News | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

the nyt famously reported on the refusal of medics below the 49th parallel to take on new medicare patients first in 2002

the lady followed up, again, notedly, in april of 2009

the links are posted in the puffed up pages of misspelled platonism above

google---canadian health care wait times alliance, there are literally hundreds of hits

google---canadian health care doctor shortage cbc or canadian health care doctor shortage canadaonline

learn something

there really should be a dp directive, for the good of the order---for every ten thousand posts any member "submits," there must be at least ONE link

LOL!
 
The Prof said:
canada's infamous WAIT TIME ALLIANCE's report card, february, 2009:

MEDIAN wait time for corneal transplant: 636 days, 91% of patients wait more than 18 weeks

MEDIAN wait time for "abnormal premenopausal uterine bleeding:" 164 days, 62% required to bleed more than 18 weeks

chronic diarrhea or constipation: 260 days, 75%

hip arthroplasty: 173 days, 59%

http://www.waittimealliance.ca/June2009/Report-card-June2009_e.pdf

etc

there's lots and lots and lots more, the alliance is always very busy and always has been since it was first formed ten years ago, one can only imagine under what political pressure, to address the woeful lack of treatment for maple leafers overpromised and undertreated

Canadian Wait Times Alliance Urges Speed in Reducing Health Care Wait Times in Canada

there's also the famous doctor shortage that contributes directly to the painful wait time problem

Study: Major doctor shortage in rural Canada

Canada's Doctor Shortage Worsening - The Canadian Encyclopedia

CBC News - Health - Canada's doctor shortage to worsen without changes: Fraser report

the same concern, of course, worries the analyses of AMERICANS a lot more thoughtful than chatroomers who so cavalierly click "submit"

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/health/policy/27care.html

Health care reform hampered by shortage of primary care doctors | Minnesota Public Radio News

Primary-Care Doctor Shortage May Undermine Health Reform Efforts - washingtonpost.com

and, of course, the situation is exacerbating

Texas doctors fleeing Medicare in droves | Houston & Texas News | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

the nyt famously reported on the refusal of medics below the 49th parallel to take on new medicare patients first in 2002

the lady followed up, again, notedly, in april of 2009

the links are posted in the puffed up pages of misspelled platonism above

google---canadian health care wait times alliance, there are literally hundreds of hits

google---canadian health care doctor shortage cbc or canadian health care doctor shortage canadaonline

learn something

there really should be a dp directive, for the good of the order---for every ten thousand posts any member "submits," there must be at least ONE link

LOL!
Click to expand...

This is utopia in Boo's world! How anyone can support this type healthcare here is absolutely incredible and certainly out of touch with the facts. I have all the confidence in the world that the House will defund Obamacare so Boo will be waiting a long, long time for implementation.
 
meanwhile, back in the raunchy world of reality, progressive prospects for 2012 were this week dealt a devastating ELECTORAL setback

Republicans' Historic Win in State Legislatures -- Vote 2010 Election Results - ABC News

GOP statehouse gains set to pay off - Richard E. Cohen - POLITICO.com

republicans won brand new control of 19 state houses, giving my side complete, uncontested control of GERRYMANDERING, more politely termed, redistricting

the gop now operates UNOPPOSED the state govt's of key battlegrounders such as FLORIDA, PENNSYLVANIA, OHIO, MICHIGAN, WISCONSIN, INDIANA, IOWA, MAINE and NORTH CAROLINA

that means you can say goodbye in 2012 to a three termer like JOE DONNELLY in indiana 2, who beat jackie walorski tuesday by 2500 votes

donnelly was the first incumbent dem to run an anti nancy ad, he promised to dispute the "pelosi energy tax"

it means anti obamacare campaigner MARK CRITZ in pa12, johnstown, jack murtha's old district, is gonna get squeezed

it means a good TWO DOZEN dems nationally are gonna have just that much more to overcome

also, due to the 2010 census megastates TEXAS and FLORIDA have been ceded FOUR and TWO new reps, respectively, for guess-which-party to allocate according to its wingnut whim

remember tom delay's redrawing of texas ten years ago?

we're gonna PACK houston and orlando, concentrate all the dems in 5 or 6 districts, allowing us to spread out our support in the other 45

you simply must force yourself to learn to LOOK AHEAD

it also means MY SIDE controls DISTRICTS as well as capitols, counties, ELECTION COMMISSIONERS

we're gonna see some TWO DOZEN retirements, in addition, based on historical happenings, giving gop plum OPPORTUNITY in a replete pail full of OPEN's

these are huge political ADVANTAGES

i assume you all are sufficiently sophisticated to appreciate the profound part GOVERNORSHIPS play in presidentials

all told, we reprobate republicans picked up MORE THAN FIVE HUNDRED state positions nation wide

worry
 
The Prof said:
meanwhile, back in the raunchy world of reality, progressive prospects for 2012 were this week dealt a devastating ELECTORAL setback

Republicans' Historic Win in State Legislatures -- Vote 2010 Election Results - ABC News

GOP statehouse gains set to pay off - Richard E. Cohen - POLITICO.com

republicans won brand new control of 19 state houses, giving my side complete, uncontested control of GERRYMANDERING, more politely termed, redistricting

the gop now operates UNOPPOSED the state govt's of key battlegrounders such as FLORIDA, PENNSYLVANIA, OHIO, MICHIGAN, WISCONSIN, INDIANA, IOWA, MAINE and NORTH CAROLINA

that means you can say goodbye in 2012 to a three termer like JOE DONNELLY in indiana 2, who beat jackie walorski tuesday by 2500 votes

donnelly was the first incumbent dem to run an anti nancy ad, he promised to dispute the "pelosi energy tax"

it means anti obamacare campaigner MARK CRITZ in pa12, johnstown, jack murtha's old district, is gonna get squeezed

it means a good TWO DOZEN dems nationally are gonna have just that much more to overcome

also, due to the 2010 census megastates TEXAS and FLORIDA have been ceded FOUR and TWO new reps, respectively, for guess-which-party to allocate according to its wingnut whim

remember tom delay's redrawing of texas ten years ago?

we're gonna PACK houston and orlando, concentrate all the dems in 5 or 6 districts, allowing us to spread out our support in the other 45

you simply must force yourself to learn to LOOK AHEAD

it also means MY SIDE controls DISTRICTS as well as capitols, counties, ELECTION COMMISSIONERS

we're gonna see some TWO DOZEN retirements, in addition, based on historical happenings, giving gop plum OPPORTUNITY in a replete pail full of OPEN's

these are huge political ADVANTAGES

i assume you all are sufficiently sophisticated to appreciate the profound part GOVERNORSHIPS play in presidentials

all told, we reprobate republicans picked up MORE THAN FIVE HUNDRED state positions nation wide

worry
Click to expand...

Great post, one that has to make our liberal "friends" sick. I believe the actual number is 628 state offices nationwide, a true tidal wave that our "deaf" Democrats still haven't heard.
 
Amazing though isn't it.

Dems win vast majorities in both houses.

Conservatives: Not a mandate to push their evil Agenda.

Republicans win a significant victory, fail to take back the senate though.

Conservatives: Mandate to repeal EVERYTHING.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Amazing though isn't it.

Dems win vast majorities in both houses.

Conservatives: Not a mandate to push their evil Agenda.

Republicans win a significant victory, fail to take back the senate though.

Conservatives: Mandate to repeal EVERYTHING.
Click to expand...

Did you get the election results in your country? Republicans captured 628 state wide offices and 65 House seats, historic by any standards! I suggest better research on your part to actually find out what happened in this country on Tuesday night. The state elections show the will of the people and yet you don't call it a mandate?
 
Last edited:
Jetboogieman said:
Amazing though isn't it.

Dems win vast majorities in both houses.

Conservatives: Not a mandate to push their evil Agenda.

Republicans win a significant victory, fail to take back the senate though.

Conservatives: Mandate to repeal EVERYTHING.
Click to expand...

I see strawmen walking

The GOP is better off having the dems running the senate

a GOP senate cannot pass stuff over an Obama Veto

A Dem senate cannot pass stuff over a GOP filibuster

GOP can run against Dingy Hairy and the underqualified Boy wonder in 2012
 
what's next:

the bush tax cuts

they expire FOR EVERYONE in about FIFTY days, january 1

the party STILL in power is on record a thousand times---america CANNOT AFFORD to raise taxes on the middle class IN TIMES LIKE THESE

the point---the party STILL in power is COMPELLED to act, it CAN'T punt this troublesome topic to the NEW house majority, tho the congressional cowards would like to, because of the JANUARY ONE deadline

so, what's it gonna be, progressives?

tax cuts for SOME or ALL?

in other words, are you gonna TAX THE RICH, your raison d'etre, or NOT?

well, it's quite clear, for those who can see a future as foreseeable as december cold, that the LOWER HOUSE, with FORTY SEVEN dems on record in favor of extending the tax cuts to ALL americans, afraid to raise the excise on ANYONE, will work in accord with the solid republican rump to keep the lower rates for EVERYONE

there are FIVE dem senators on record---jiltin joe lieberman, stiffneck ben nelson, bye bye evan bayh, bluedog byron dorgan and BUDGET CHAIR kent conrad (the gatekeeper's right hand man)---insistent on NOT raising taxes a PENNY on a SINGLE american citizen

y'know, IN TIMES LIKE THESE

so, there ya go, as transparent as tomorrow

the house and senate in LAME DUCK must MOVE to extend em all

and it will then go to obnoxious obama's office

whatcha think the presidential putz is gonna do?

LOL!

hey, if YOU can't see two moves ahead, that's one thing

but when the obnoxious obama is EQUALLY obtuse and oblivious, well, that's quite ANOTHER
 
Jetboogieman said:
Amazing though isn't it.

Dems win vast majorities in both houses.

Conservatives: Not a mandate to push their evil Agenda.

Republicans win a significant victory, fail to take back the senate though.

Conservatives: Mandate to repeal EVERYTHING.
Click to expand...

19 state houses swung Republican in this election.

You're either being obtuse, or you just don't get it.

There was a mandate, alright. There was a mandate to chill with the Liberal, Socialist bull****.

I don't know if you noticed, or not, but more than 75% of Americans opposed Obamacare. The mandate was out there, long before this election took place.

But, you're not an American, so we don't expect you to understand.
 
apdst said:
19 state houses swung Republican in this election.

You're either being obtuse, or you just don't get it.

There was a mandate, alright. There was a mandate to chill with the Liberal, Socialist bull****.

I don't know if you noticed, or not, but more than 75% of Americans opposed Obamacare. The mandate was out there, long before this election took place.

But, you're not an American, so we don't expect you to understand.
Click to expand...

Context is everything.

Some people oppose it because it didn't go FAR ENOUGH.

I'm not American. So I can actually look at things objectively and not get caught up in your rediculous partisan hackery. Which you excel at by the way.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Context is everything.

Some people oppose it because it didn't go FAR ENOUGH.
Click to expand...

Most people oppose it outright, period, end of story. Do you honestly think that the Dems were voted out, because people who thought that Obamacare didn't go far enough believed that the Republicans would take it as far as they want it to go? Get real!!

I'm not American. So I can actually look at things objectively and not get caught up in your rediculous partisan hackery. Which you excel at by the way.
Click to expand...

Well, unfortunately, that isn't reality. I've yet to see you take an objective stance on anything.

How can anyone that supports a bill, that authorizes the president to form his own private army, with zero congressional oversight, call himself, "objective"?
 
I wonder if these ****ers are still struttin' around with those **** eatin' grins.

pg.jpg
 
apdst said:
Most people oppose it outright, period, end of story/
Click to expand...

That is false:

A new AP poll finds that Americans who think the law should have done more outnumber those who think the government should stay out of health care by 2-to-1
Click to expand...

The poll found that about four in 10 adults think the new law did not go far enough to change the health care system, regardless of whether they support the law, oppose it or remain neutral. On the other side, about one in five say they oppose the law because they think the federal government should not be involved in health care at all.
Click to expand...
Source: Raw Story

You also assume singular issues like a lack of getting the HC you wanted led to the results on Nov. 2nd, and nothing could be further from the truth. The top 2 issues are the economy and unemployment, and it's my opinion that waiting 2 more years to hope that you put a Republican in the White House won't be a winning strategy come 2012 (once those top 2 issues are considered). Americans are upset, but they want results. Being told to wait 2 years that maybe something will happen sounds rather ...well.... "hopey changey".
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
Most people oppose it outright, period, end of story/
Click to expand...
E_Pluribus_Venom said:
That is false:

Source: Raw Story
A new AP poll finds that Americans who think the law should have done more outnumber those who think the government should stay out of health care by 2-to-1
Click to expand...

The poll found that about four in 10 adults think the new law did not go far enough to change the health care system, regardless of whether they support the law, oppose it or remain neutral. On the other side, about one in five say they oppose the law because they think the federal government should not be involved in health care at all.
Click to expand...

You also assume singular issues like a lack of getting the HC you wanted led to the results on Nov. 2nd, and nothing could be further from the truth. The top 2 issues are the economy and unemployment, and it's my opinion that waiting 2 more years to hope that you put a Republican in the White House won't be a winning strategy come 2012 (once those top 2 issues are considered). Americans are upset, but they want results. Being told to wait 2 years that maybe something will happen sounds rather ...well.... "hopey changey".
Click to expand...
so, 4 in 10 adults think the new law did not go far enough to change the health care system, regardless of whether they support the law, oppose it or remain neutral. Meaning you don't know which of those three groups the 4 comes from.

1 in 5 oppose the law because they think the federal government should not be involved in health care at all. That leaves the other 5, who oppose it and want it repealed. So, 6 in 10 either don't want goverment invovled and want it repealed or simply don't want it and want it repealed. Last time I checked, 6 was more than 4.
 
apdst said:
Most people oppose it outright, period, end of story. Do you honestly think that the Dems were voted out, because people who thought that Obamacare didn't go far enough believed that the Republicans would take it as far as they want it to go? Get real!!
Click to expand...

No, but some of the people who wanted it to be larger didn't turn out at all, hence the enthusiasm gap.

apdst said:
How can anyone that supports a bill, that authorizes the president to form his own private army, with zero congressional oversight, call himself, "objective"?
Click to expand...

What in the holy mother of **** are you talking about
 
E_Pluribus_Venom said:
That is false:



Source: Raw Story

You also assume singular issues like a lack of getting the HC you wanted led to the results on Nov. 2nd, and nothing could be further from the truth. The top 2 issues are the economy and unemployment, and it's my opinion that waiting 2 more years to hope that you put a Republican in the White House won't be a winning strategy come 2012 (once those top 2 issues are considered). Americans are upset, but they want results. Being told to wait 2 years that maybe something will happen sounds rather ...well.... "hopey changey".
Click to expand...

Raw story falls into the Blog catagory, this is the main stream media.
 
Whovian said:
so, 4 in 10 adults think the new law did not go far enough to change the health care system, regardless of whether they support the law, oppose it or remain neutral. Meaning you don't know which of those three groups the 4 comes from.

1 in 5 oppose the law because they think the federal government should not be involved in health care at all. That leaves the other 5, who oppose it and want it repealed. So, 6 in 10 either don't want goverment invovled and want it repealed or simply don't want it and want it repealed. Last time I checked, 6 was more than 4.
Click to expand...

Umm I'm a bit confused by your math.

40% wanted a stronger health care law.
20% wanted the government out entirely.
That leaves 40% who either think the law was about right, or who wanted SOME reform albeit smaller.

Not exactly a stinging rejection of health care reform.
 
Kandahar said:
Umm I'm a bit confused by your math.

40% wanted a stronger health care law.
20% wanted the government out entirely.
That leaves 40% who either think the law was about right, or who wanted SOME reform albeit smaller.

Not exactly a stinging rejection of health care reform.
Click to expand...

Ok, let's try this...
Health Care Law - Rasmussen Reports™
Just before midterm congressional elections in which the new national health care law has been a major issue, 58% of Likely U.S. Voters favor repeal of the measure, including 45% who Strongly Favor it. That’s the highest overall level of support for repeal since mid-September.
58% is pretty close to my 6 in 10 number.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only 36% of voters oppose repeal of the health care law, with 27% who are Strongly Opposed.
Again, pretty close to 4 in 10 (giving you the benefit of rounding up, too)
Click to expand...
 
Whovian said:
Ok, let's try this...
Health Care Law - Rasmussen Reports™
Click to expand...

Even 58% is hardly overwhelming for a specific policy item. Furthermore, it still didn't break it down by WHY they oppose it. Don't assume that all of them support repealing it with no alternate plan (or just a few small token gestures) for reform.

EDIT: According to a CBS exit poll which DID break the opposition down into its various components. 48% of voters on Tuesday wanted to repeal it, 31% wanted to expand it, and 16% were satisfied with it the way it was. And these were just the voters who turned out on Tuesday, who were more conservative than the electorate usually is. At the very least, this indicates to me that the voters are no more predisposed to Republican health care plans than to the health care reform law that passed last spring.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20021540-503544.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom