Anyone Still Support Obama After Ndaa?

[BoTox]

BoTox, as you so pointed out, you are referring to the insurance system. The insurance system is not capitalism. What you described in your own words is closer to socialism. That does not matter though. What matters is how we can fix the system both in terms of getting people the health care they need while bringing down the percent of GDP we spend on health care each year. Of course, insurance is going to do what they do best, make a profit. That is true.

With the second and third sentence you state insurance is socialism and you then talk about the insurance company profits. You cannot deride insurance for two diametrically opposed items. You have contradicted yourself in the first paragraph. Your logic is flawed.

[Diapered Jason]

With the second and third sentence you state insurance is socialism and you then talk about the insurance company profits. You cannot deride insurance for two diametrically opposed items. You have contradicted yourself in the first paragraph. Your logic is flawed.

Ok, first is I am not really being derisive towards insurance companies because it is the current administration in congress and the presidency that is the enabler. Second, nothing survives without profit, at least not real long. All businesses seek to maximize profit. This is true in capitalism just as much as it is in communism. That never changes in any economic system. The difference between the economic systems is where the profit goes, but that is a different matter. I guess I should explain my earlier statement further. You said the insurance companies spread the risk to all subscribers. When you are paying for your insurance, you are giving money to the people who immediately need money for medical bills or car bills at that time depending on what kind of insurance it is. This is closer to socialism than just paying your own medical bills, which is true capitalism. To put it into perspective for you, what you described in your earlier post, does insurance sound similar to social security where you are give money to the government through a tax who then gives money to the senior or disabled citizens who need the money immediately?

[puffybedwetter]

Simple answer: NOPE!

[ForbiddenFruit]

In short, to refer to the OP question (as of now), yes, but predominately because if you enable Republicans and hardcore conservatism, we can look at social progress stagnancy, government-sponsored reality denial and (not any more, but if Bachmann were running), a president vouching for theocracy for the next four years.

[Kari]

Sorry, I keep my Diapers & Politics separate...

[Pampered_Cowboy]

I do not support that sorry person. He spend to much money and breaking several amendments of the constitution. he needs to be remove from office

[erevu]

Obamacare is designed to fail. They know this. It's meant only as a route to single payer. When it fails, they can argue for single payer as a solution.