Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RMF who wrote (69940)	8/5/2009 7:00:15 AM
From: Sedohr Nod	5 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 224713

WE'RE on the HOOK to pay for whatever happens to them Just WHO do you think will be on the hook for paying for whatever happens to them as we slide towards a single payer system? The money is not going to spring up from some magical pumpkin patch.

To: RMF who wrote (69940)	8/5/2009 9:01:49 AM
From: Little Joe	4 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 224713

"You and I are paying for those people's medical expenses. " We pay the medical expenses of illegal aliens. We pay the medical expnses for many young unwed mothers who irresponsibly have multiple children by different fathers. Why is it that we have to provide drug treatment for addicts, but we want to penalize people for being overweight. Why is paying for medical expenses of the uninsured such a problem, in view of the above. The fallacy of your argument is that it leads to loss of freedom for all of us in the end. There are few vchoices that any of us make that don't affect others in some way. lj

To: RMF who wrote (69940)	8/5/2009 10:43:38 AM
From: longnshort	4 Recommendations Respond to of 224713

I like to see those people go back to their own country

To: RMF who wrote (69940)	8/5/2009 3:17:26 PM
From: mph	7 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 224713

I'm not all over the board. I just don't believe a word that Obama and his henchmen/henchwomen have to say because they are pushing a radical left agenda, that I don't think is good for the country, and are doing it in a way that defeats public debate. If they thought their agenda could withstand scrutiny and debate, they wouldn't have insisted on a series of artificial deadlines and Obama wouldn't be out there making things up as he goes. You sound pretty naive to me. You think that requiring people to buy insurance makes it happen. Hello! Wanna guess how many illegal aliens frequent the L.A. freeways who never even heard of insurance? We even have a statute in CA that prevents a litigant from seeking pain and suffering damages in a car accident case unless he can prove that he carried liability insurance. We also have an assigned risk auto program that allows people with bad driving records to acquire liability coverge. Each carrier is required to take on some of that risk. A good percentage of the uninsured (health insurance) in this country are uninsured only because they're young and healthy, and choose to spend their money elsewhere. If we are to address the drain of the uninsured, we should be starting with getting illegal immigration under control. Why is Obama not going there first? Because he needs the illegal votes. That's ACORN's province. The bottom line is that we do not need government run health care. Medicare and Medicaid is bad enough. There are ways to improve our health care system, but the Obama way ain't it. As I said, you are really naive if you think that the amount you and I are forced to pay for the uninsured would go down if Obama gets his way. I don't believe it, but I don't believe Obama. He's one of those people who will say anything at any time and then deny he said it. That's why they've changed their tactics on pushing Obamacare. You must get some daily news letter with the Dem talking points since their latest ploy is that we need to keep people healthy instead of just caring for the sick.

To: RMF who wrote (69940)	8/5/2009 11:53:31 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224713

Jefferson could face 185 years in prison if convicted on the maximum for each of the guilty verdicts, but prosecutors refused to speculate on what sentence U.S. District T.S. Ellis III might impose. It took jurors five days to reach a decision after an eight-week trial. Most of the trial was government testimony. The defense wrapped up its case in a matter of hours. The defense argued that Jefferson was acting as a private business consultant in brokering the deals and that his actions did not constitute bribery under federal law. Prosecutors accused Jefferson of hiding bribes by funneling money disguised as consulting fees through sham companies controlled by his wife and brother. In one recording played by defense attorneys, Jefferson explained that he did not want his name on any of the deals to avoid an appearance of impropriety. “Congressman Jefferson has a compact with the citizens of Louisiana and the people of the United States, and he violated his trust and sold his office,” Dana Boente, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, told reporters outside the courthouse. “He used his office and his influence to enrich himself,” Boente said. “... No person, not even a congressman, is above the law.”