EnlightenedMessiah

So let's be consistent and get rid of social security and Medicare as well. You might be fine, but the vast majority of the country will not.

You said the Republicans should have offered an alternative and I disagree, no alternative, no counter offer for obamacare was needed.
 
If the Democrats said we should provide everyone with a new Lexus, the right response is no one gets a new car, not that we should provide a Honda instead.
 
Some things are not the business of the fed gov...that is if you still want to go by the Constitution and not consider it a charter of negative liberties.

Should we go back to delivering all communication by horses? I feel like half this board is still stuck in the 1850s.

They should have thought about that before putting everything on computers.........Please name me one American who has been killed by cyberterrorism........

You need to stop making broad generalizations, not once have I ever said government is always the answer.

Maybe because many believe there should't be an alternative...the fed gov has no business involving themselves in health care.
 
You and many others need to stop seeing the fed gov as the answer to all ills.

Then it can be used for a major talking point in 2016. not trying to bash republicans but even throughout the pushing of obamacare I didn't see them suggest any alternative (other than the "my insurance is fine, therefore healthcare insurance isn't an issue") rhetoric

Not really a fair observation or proposal......The President will probably veto anything they run across his desk. No way will he let a viable solution replace his baby.....

Let's see what the republican controlled congress can put together in the next two years

I don't see medicare/medicade going away. If Obamacare does go away, it will have to be replaced with something, no way the left will rest with no public health care.
 
Why not reform the medicare system......

Cyberterrorism is actually a pretty big issue these days

Having terrorists call me names on the internet just doesn't strike fear into my heart........ :P
 
I don't recall our country having been attacked by this bunch.......correct me if I'm wrong......

Maybe the government did this to protect us from terrorists! And defending the country is in the CONSTITUTION!

Surely you'd support it then right? Gotta defend this country from those darn terrorists.

Ever heard of the "Fairness Doctrine".....what do you think the fascists are going to do now?? You don't think they are going to stop HERE do you??? When has government EVER stopped a power grab once it has begun????

Which is why I said in post #6, the consumer gets screwed either way. This isn't a black and white issue. Kudos to the guys willing/capable of using their brains rather than scanning article headlines for key words and choosing their stance on the spot.

The article describes how the big bad businesses will pick and choose content, and says that the government will not allow this. What's to stop the government from picking and choosing content through regulation. When a business engages in this practice, a consumer can simply drop them and choose another ISP. (The article failed to mention that DishNet and DirecTV are available just about anywhere. Their services have limitations and we definitely need more competition.) But if government starts engaging in this practice (and they will), then the consumer loses. I think the best route would be to keep ISPs from throttling, but not to put the internet under Title II. Once under Title II, the internet belongs to the government. Don't get me wrong. I don't think that all of a sudden the internet in the US will resemble China, but a totally free and open internet will be something we can only tell our grandchildren about.

In this situation, yes. I don't see Texas doing anything to help out its own taxpayers

And the only possible answer is the fed gov, right?

This looks like it'll be one of those issues we just fundamentally disagree with.

I beleive grandma Beth should have a basic insurance safety net and shouldn't have to sell her house and move in with her kids to pay for her hip replacement.

On the retirement savings, sure. That's easy to save for retirement. Insurance when you're older is a bit more tricky and unpredictable.

Don't need luck...I have worked hard all my life to be secure when I retire.

Should we get rid of Medicare then? How are our elderly going to pay for their exponentially increasing healthcare costs? Remember, the average American is a complete idiot.

The same way they pay for it now..... they don't. That is why most doctors do not and will not accept Medicare. They do a procedure that costs the average person and insurance company $200 but the federal government sends them $35 and says take it or leave it.
 
It is that kind of short changing that will end medicine as we know it. It is like a person going to Saltgrass restaurant and running up a $150 bill but only paying $25 at the register and expecting them to stay open at the same quality of service. That is also why medicine in many cases charges such high fees for those of us that actually have to pay for services rendered. It is to pay for those that will not pay which includes the federal government.

You are a confirmed low information voter, please stop making stuff up.

EM, for someone that claims to be a manager of billions, I find it odd that you have so much confidence in the fed gov, who has proven repeatedly to be one of the most pathetic money managers ever.

Same way it's payed for now?

And how are you going to pay for this communist pipe dream????

You have fun trying to afford health insurance when you're 70 years old and your body is increasingly falling apart. Good luck.

If medicare and SS went away tomorrow I would be a happy camper.
I would give up all the years I have paid in if I could stop paying right now.
I can provide my own social security and my own medical care...no fed gov needed.
I am sure that is a concept you won't understand.

??

Sure, Medicare should be expanded to all age ranges. If you're not happy with your services then you can purchase additional insurance.

Tough concept to understand, but I believe in you.
 

So you want single payer...100% fed gov healthcare?

Exactly! Do you not know what expanding the age range for Medicare or single payer system means?

You do know medicare and SS are paid for by the recipients and the fed gov is simply giving them back THEIR money, right?

Lets get rid of Medicare and social security then. Oh wait that's different, you probably have older family members that depend on that. Obviously because they're too stupid to plan ahead, right?

Once again...a fed gov fix.

Not necessarily, just obamacare. A simpler fix to our healthcare cost issues would've been going to a single payer system like Canada. Or just expanding the age range for Medicare.

then your tiebreaker should be ....anything government controled ..sucks....which ultimately means government growth..... also sucks. ... just like the NEW Healthcare.... really really sucks

Your mph example isn't the greatest. Just because we're both getting shorthanded doesn't make it okay.

Yes, costs will probably increase. But it always has and always will, just like healthcare. Thats why I'm on the fence about this issue.

This is hardly a "help the poor people who can't afford Internet" topic. It's more like.. I already pay $150/month for cable/internet at X speeds. When i open Netflix, I better be getting X speeds making my movie in HD (as intended) rather than 420p and constant buffering. ISPs do this on purpose.

You paid for a service. You deserve the right to this service.

I'm not a fan of equal. .. just to be equal. I don't mind paying for what I get/have and don't think in the name of fairness that others. ...who can't afford. ... for whatever reason. ... should be able to. .. just get. ... what I've worked hard and made good choices to have....I do understand that sometimes it means I pay what some think is outrageous for these privileges. .... but that's OK with me. ...but I can see. .. and understand why Obama is a supporter of this. ... and why conservatives are not. .. not to mention just the fact that government is getting involved. .... like someone else said. ... even in the name of good. ... government involvement will turn out bad.

Everyone on here should check out speedtest.net to check their current download/upload speeds, then compare it to what speeds they're actually paying for (ie. 20mb down/2mb up). I'm willing to bet it's maybe half.

Also look at it from a monopolistic perspective. Say TWC/Comcast start up their own video streaming service and decide to charge current customers $200 extra to access Netflix. Guess who becomes the next top dog in the online tv/movie streaming business? TWC/Comcast since they essentially create a barrier to entry for Netflix since they are not an ISP. Or maybe one day google decides to pay an ISP $1 billion dollars for the ISP to block access to Fox News or yahoo, etc.

Net neutrality is the principal that all Internet traffic should be treated equally, instead of ISPs deciding to limit your bandwidth usage for a certain website or service (because that website hasn't paid some arbitrary cost or whatever), despite you already paying out the ass for your internet connection.

It's somewhat of an overexagerion, but Internet package will eventually turn into this without net neutrality.[attachment=349:image.jpg]

I'm on the fence about this topic.