gdi
Mentor
I went to a couple to take pictures - some signs were on the edge; predictable Communism, Socialism stuff mostly. Nothing approaching the derangement of the death-threat Bush signs coming out of the far left. The right wing is trailing far behind the left in the outrageous protest sign competition.
Here is some guy's blog with some samples - scroll down to see them:
http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=430256244&blogId=512281459
Last edited:
gb hill
Mentor
In actuality I went because I thought it would be interesting to photograph an event like this. There are some weird characters indeed. Even weirder than the zombies on your blog which look great I might add. I did meet alot of Americans of both Democratic & Republican who are tired of what both parties are doing in Washington. Time for reform.
gb hill
Mentor
Never heard of him either. I'll google it after while
gb hill
Mentor
Rick Waldroup
Well-known
Yep, can't argue with you there. However, a lot of folks were really upset with Bush because they considered him to be a murderer and a war criminal. Still, those signs are disturbing.
And for what it is worth, I am one of those who believe Bush and his pals should be sitting in jail for war crimes.
Rick Waldroup
Well-known
gb hill
Mentor
But your for Obama sending an additional 30 or more thousand troops to Afghanistan?
Rick Waldroup
Well-known
Since when is beating up an innocent person a non-issue? What exactly makes him a fruitcake?
It's ok to beat someone up as long as they disagree with government control? Is that what you are saying?
Compare and contrast the Gates issue and the ridiculous Beer Summit and all the media coverage of that, to all the non-coverage of the assault on a black conservative. Very striking, no pun intended.
Last edited by a moderator:
gb hill
Mentor
Oh yea! I remember the beating of Gladney by union thugs now. Just like I remember black panthers standing outside polling places in Philadelphia holding billy clubs! As long as it's for the good of the Democratic Party it's justified. BTW it's ironic Mr. Holder Attorny General dropped the charges against them.
gb hill
Mentor
Our pollitical views may differ but good photography should be praised! Thats what we're here for isn't it? The rest is just dribble in the wind.Thanks Greg, for the kind words about my zombie shots....
wgerrard
Mentor
I have no objection to allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines, especially if it coincides with the elimination of their exemption from antitrust legislation.
But I do not understand the right's fixation on this relatively minor change. What, exactly, is supposed to change as a result? Is Blue Cross of North Carolina going to insure people in South Carolina that it would not insure in its home state?
What you need to understand is that the health insurance corporations are not interested in competition and will do what needs to be done to avoid it. At best, interstate competition would only lead to single corporations dominating entire regions instead of single states.
Of course the bill is about power. It's about getting power away from corporations who are not held accountable for their behavior. The bottom line, that the right chooses to ignore, is that the the market system has failed to provide adequate health care for Americans. If it had, we wouldn't have tens of thousands dying because they lack coverage, we wouldn't have millions resorting to emergency rooms unnecessarily, and we'd have a million less people declaring bankruptcy each year.
The right opposes reform because it supports wealth and power and is indifferent about the welfare of the American people.
What this changes, is that consumers have a choice. Whether the companies don't want competition is irrelevant; they'll have it.
Since this is, as you say, a 'minor change' let's go ahead and do it and try that for the next few years, before we throw trillions down a big rathole and compromise quality.
I object to additional government power. Sorry. Power to the people.
Since this is, as you say, a 'minor change' let's go ahead and do it and try that for the next few years, before we throw trillions down a big rathole and compromise quality.
I object to additional government power. Sorry. Power to the people.
Rick Waldroup
Well-known
What this changes, is that consumers have a choice. Whether the companies don't want competition is irrelevant; they'll have it.
Since this is, as you say, a 'minor change' let's go ahead and do it and try that for the next few years, before we throw trillions down a big rathole and compromise quality.
I object to additional government power. Sorry. Power to the people.
EXACTLY.... If we get some type of universal health care for All of our citizens, we will have some form of Power to the People. At last....
And as far as Gladney is concerned, really, do yourself a favor and do a bit of research on the matter.
wgerrard
Mentor
To repeat, the market cannot -- not will not, but cannot -- provide either goods or services on which it can derive no profit. That's fundamental to the nature of a market. Health care must be provided to all Americans. A significant proportion of the care cannot be profitable. Profit cannot be derived from customers who need, for example, $500,000 worth of care but have an annual income of $25,000. It isn't going to happen, no matter what government does or does not do. Health care is not a discretionary purchase. Care must be provided to everyone who needs it, regardless of their ability to pay for it. For-profit corporations cannot do that and survive.
As for the bill, it brings in needed reforms like banning lifetime compensation limits, pre-existing coverage exceptions, etc. The almost invisible public option in the House bill is next to useless, and the Stupak amendment is a fundamental attack on human rights. The bill's mandates will transfer far too much wealth to the same greedy insurance corporations that are the root of the problem. The bill is a cautious and timid effort in times calling for bold action.
One efficient way to go would have been to simply lower the eligibility age for Medicare by intervals over a multi-decade period. For example, lower it to 50 to start, and then by 5 years at 3-year intervals until everyone is covered.
Health care is a fundamental right and, as such, should be removed from the vagaries of a system based on greed and avarice. Those who disagree are simply placing corporate wealth above the health of their fellow citizens.
Last edited:
wgerrard
Mentor
I object to additional government power. Sorry. Power to the people.
That's naive. Power won't remain with the people unless government is strong enough to stand between them and those few who want the power for themselves.
if the U.S. eventually has a single payer system, it will be because the people want it. European nations have their single payer systems because the people want them, and like them, not because they were forced on them by some Secret Socialist Cabal lurking in the sullied minds of fools like Beck and Limbaugh.
slm
Formerly nextreme
That's not how it works here. At all. Is it really being proposed that way in the US?
What this changes, is that consumers have a choice. Whether the companies don't want competition is irrelevant; they'll have it.
Since this is, as you say, a 'minor change' let's go ahead and do it and try that for the next few years, before we throw trillions down a big rathole and compromise quality.
I object to additional government power. Sorry. Power to the people.
The "compete across state lines" canard is silly, and people who believe it are silly. Sorry. Large, fat, inefficient oligopolies get that way and stay that way by implicit agreement (implicit, so that it can't be proved to be collusion) to not compete. This is the nature of the beast, and to think "they'll have competition whether they want it or not" is unfounded. It might work that way in industries where barriers to entry are low. Medical insurance has possibly the *highest* barriers to entry of any sector, barring perhaps large-scale silicon fabrication.
In fact, experience shows us that just the opposite tends to happen. Rather than competing, the Baby Bells (for example) simply bought each other up until they were two companies which make competing noises on things like wireless coverage but mysteriously, shockingly, have nearly identical prices--and nearly identical earnings and huge profits.
Of course not. It's a silly lie for the credulous. Who apparently would rather have a totally unaccountable monopoly corporate bureaucrat make that decision, which actually *does* happen in the current system.
It really is difficult to believe that people fall for this stuff, but there you go. A lot of people fell for National Socialism, phrenology, and Jimmy Swaggart too.
Yes, huge obscene profits. It's unimaginable! All those people employed to provide goods and services. It's a travesty!
Competition is a good thing...maybe if there were only one camera company owned by the state...hmm...they could copy old Leica and Zeiss designs...quality wouldn't matter...heh heh...oh yeah, that already happened...
Competition is a good thing...maybe if there were only one camera company owned by the state...hmm...they could copy old Leica and Zeiss designs...quality wouldn't matter...heh heh...oh yeah, that already happened...