Titanic: Ballard sounds SOS

Titanic: Ballard sounds SOS

There are 52 comments on the New York Daily News story from Apr 8, 2012, titled Titanic: Ballard sounds SOS. In it, New York Daily News reports that:

Dr. Robert Ballard -- who discovered Titanic's resting place on the ocean floor in 1985 -- says the ship is in grave danger from overeager visitors.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at New York Daily News.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
Curtis Lowe

United States

#1 Apr 8, 2012
The Titanic sank in less than 3 hours. America lasted 3 years under Obama. I like to explore the America wreck and look at the animal life which has thrived since Obama took office. Weasels, leeches, and dung beetles never had it so good. She was majestic in her time though. Pity.

“Truth to Power!”

Since: Apr 07

Memphis, TN

#2 Apr 8, 2012
It's a ship wreck at the bottom of the ocean, who cares.
JBH

Richmond, Canada

#3 Apr 8, 2012
Do people think the election is all or in part about the economy?
How do you come up with that? What you are saying is that the job situations are good, then there is nothing else that matters at all. The election is in part about economic matters , not as exactly by using the label --the economy

The following are fundamental matters that are main issues in the election.

Obama had let the VP visitor (from whoever initiation is not known) from Communist China into the Pentagon---that means it is all over for Obama regardless the conditions of the economy. It means that there are many other matters, not just about foreign policy (it is another problem concerning what was heard about what he told the Russian president in South Korea), other matters such as womenís issues, health care, freedom rights, privacy , immigration , borders---all are in problematic messes . Does that mean that people will have to forget the messes by looking at just the economy?

But Obama ran the economy in the wrong direction because he increased too huge debts.
Unlike Bush, the economy should have been focused on not escalating debts, not keeping on borrowing and printing money, and cutting trade debts to China instead (too large and stunning), created by Bush, which is shocking.

WHEN SOME PARTS OF ELECTION ARE ABOUT the economy, they are the economic issues and matters which are stated as above, not based on employment picture and stock market for reviewing and assessing purpose..

It is not all that just about economy issues, for national security, the safety of freedom, and US stage around the world, immigration policy and many other matters are vitally important. Since the world is moving up with people gaining technology,, USA needs to face the competition, and come up with a set of crucial policy---such as Communists ( like from China) cannot come to USA for schooling---and there needs not ask why---simply Communists are Communists and that is the basic rule-of-thumb doctrine of stand (if people want students, the whole world has more than enough people you need as proper students, but not Communists.) That is all to it---because USA is a FREEDOM country as FREEDOM CULTURE PEOPLE, whereas must stand to deter and reject Communists, to stand for freedom cultures positions all the way---would have to do that from now on, as not according to the ways of Obama and Bush at all.

How does Obama come up with this scheme that his Obamacare is Mass. Care?
Does he mean he can admire and praise Romney handling the health care business that he has to use it? Obama, you donít have to do that from your admiration, Romney is going to run the whole country , including you and the health care, which is not the way as you think.
But pointing to Romney ís health care issue ( when saying molding into it, and yet criticizing the-it, but it is not really it of Romney way as a fact), does pose serious problems of Obamaís mind.

Since: Nov 08

Paris

#4 Apr 8, 2012
Davis, Sauls Alinsky and Bill Ayers all taught Obama the art of misdirection, diversions and his favorite and Hitlers to.......Tell a lie often enough and people will eventually believe it.

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#5 Apr 8, 2012
Le Jimbo wrote:
Davis, Sauls Alinsky and Bill Ayers all taught Obama the art of misdirection, diversions and his favorite and Hitlers to.......Tell a lie often enough and people will eventually believe it.
Obama and Captain Smith have a lot in common - Smith sailed the Titanic nearly full speed into an ice-field in spite of all the warnings and ended up sinking his ship and taking more than 2/3 of the passengers and crew to the bottom with her.
Obama is sailing the ship of state full speed into Socialism in spite of all the warnings and, like Smith, will end up sinking our great nation and taking more than 2/3 of the citizens (and illegals he's pandering to) to the Dark Ages (might as well be the bottom of the Atlantic for all the 'enlightenment' we'll get after that).
Anybody else see the parallels here?
Good morning, Le Jim. A pleasure to see you here and away from the Socialist dregs on the other thread - for now.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#6 Apr 8, 2012
lastoutlaw wrote:
<quoted text>Obama and Captain Smith have a lot in common - Smith sailed the Titanic nearly full speed into an ice-field in spite of all the warnings and ended up sinking his ship and taking more than 2/3 of the passengers and crew to the bottom with her.
Obama is sailing the ship of state full speed into Socialism in spite of all the warnings and, like Smith, will end up sinking our great nation and taking more than 2/3 of the citizens (and illegals he's pandering to) to the Dark Ages (might as well be the bottom of the Atlantic for all the 'enlightenment' we'll get after that).
Anybody else see the parallels here?
Good morning, Le Jim. A pleasure to see you here and away from the Socialist dregs on the other thread - for now.
It's sad that so few US citizens actually know the definition of socialism yet feel they can toss that word around as if they do....
Otis B Driftwood

Sayville, NY

#7 Apr 8, 2012
Obama the Marxist-Socialist wants to give all those in steerage the absolute right to mooch off the plates of the first class passengers.

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#8 Apr 8, 2012
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>It's sad that so few US citizens actually know the definition of socialism yet feel they can toss that word around as if they do....
Marx's 'Critique of the Gotha Program' describes it perfectly:
'From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!'
Which, by the way, strongly advocated Communism.
Socialism advocates Wealth Distribution, surrender of Private Property Ownership and converting it into public 'trust', eliminates class distinctions (except as directed by the state), eliminates incentives to excel and the rewards for hard work and diligence for personal gain, instills a totalitarian government (a 'Nanny' State) which micromanages all aspects of human existence, establishes goals and quotas irregardless of the technological or financial abilities to do so and basically causes stagnation in the name of 'General Will'; defined as 'what is good for the masses' while crushing individuality and personal satisfaction. Crushing of religious freedom (except as 'State Approved' as being in conflict with the state. A ruling elite exempt from the laws and programs imposed on the populace and nepotistic (advancing from within) in their hierarchy.
Cuba. USSR. North Korea. Cambodia. North Vietnam. Half of the African Continent. Much of South America. Portions of Europe to one degree or another. China. Socialism and Communism and Fascism being offshoots of the same basic theory. Total Government control and dominance over the masses. It makes all people subject to the elite 'equal'; but rather than raising the status of the 'lower classes'; it brings all down to the level of the 'lowest common demonimator'.
Much like the audience and 'guests' on Maury Povich or Jerry Springer.
That do it for you?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#9 Apr 8, 2012
lastoutlaw wrote:
<quoted text>Marx's 'Critique of the Gotha Program' describes it perfectly:
'From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!'
Which, by the way, strongly advocated Communism.
Socialism advocates Wealth Distribution, surrender of Private Property Ownership and converting it into public 'trust', eliminates class distinctions (except as directed by the state), eliminates incentives to excel and the rewards for hard work and diligence for personal gain, instills a totalitarian government (a 'Nanny' State) which micromanages all aspects of human existence, establishes goals and quotas irregardless of the technological or financial abilities to do so and basically causes stagnation in the name of 'General Will'; defined as 'what is good for the masses' while crushing individuality and personal satisfaction. Crushing of religious freedom (except as 'State Approved' as being in conflict with the state. A ruling elite exempt from the laws and programs imposed on the populace and nepotistic (advancing from within) in their hierarchy.
Cuba. USSR. North Korea. Cambodia. North Vietnam. Half of the African Continent. Much of South America. Portions of Europe to one degree or another. China. Socialism and Communism and Fascism being offshoots of the same basic theory. Total Government control and dominance over the masses. It makes all people subject to the elite 'equal'; but rather than raising the status of the 'lower classes'; it brings all down to the level of the 'lowest common demonimator'.
Much like the audience and 'guests' on Maury Povich or Jerry Springer.
That do it for you?
You confused socialism and communism in many of the examples, but a pretty good definition.

I am sure you can see how silly it is to compare any of that to Obama, as his policies are no more socialistic than his previous administrations.

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#10 Apr 8, 2012
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>You confused socialism and communism in many of the examples, but a pretty good definition.
I am sure you can see how silly it is to compare any of that to Obama, as his policies are no more socialistic than his previous administrations.
Socialism and Communism are two branches of the same tree, to wit: Government dominance; population control. And in the final sentences of my statement I pointed that out, though not in those words.
You say 'his policies are no more socialistic than his previous administrations'.
'His'.
I believe you made a typo and I know what your intent is - not 'his' but 'others'.
To a degree, you may be right. Yet Obama has taken things further than even FDR; who justified his near 'dictatorship' by claiming that you don't change leaders in a war - especially if you're winning.
Advice Lincoln was given and also heeded; the Union was losing after Antietam until he made General Grant (a choice he was advised not to take but he obviously knew his man) General In Chief in 1864 (though the direction was turning prior to that, the primary point being Gettysburg).
But Lincoln was no 'dictator' under the modern definition. His suspension of rights was due to a war being fought; those rights were restored at the conclusion. Today; the rights taken away by Bush through the Patriot Act were continued with the act's extension by Obama; though we're effectively out of Iraq and will be out of Afghanistan within the next two years or so. Further, the TSA; which appears to have immunity in it's violation of civil rights and rights to privacy; have gotten even more invasive and indiscriminate as time has gone on.
With all the talk of problems with the TSA; why is it Obama has done nothing; yet he continually claims to champion 'Human Rights' and dignity? He will inject himself into issues of 'Racial Discrimination' whether real or imagined (his infamous 'Beer Summit' an issue of 'imagined' racial discrimination) and the Treyvon Martin issue (investigation still ongoing; but the 'racial' aspect appears to also be a 'trumped-up' claim - again, all the facts aren't yet in; there appears to be a lot of provable untruths coming to light and I'll give no definitive opinion before then).
His Obamacare is the primary claim to his behaving as a 'Socialist'. Forcing upon a citizenry that overwhelmingly rejects the program as intrusive, invasive and 'unconstitutional'(the Supreme Court will make that determination soon)- a program that nobody had read prior to its passage, a program that was said would have its flaws fixed after passage - one wonders WHY that could not have been done with the existing system? Exchanging one flawed system for another in the name of 'General Will'- defined as what's best for the masses is not the way to endear the masses to its leaders.
Obamacare has many good points. Nobody says otherwise. It's the system as a whole; and the intricacy that makes it nearly impossible to alter any part without altering it all (that the Commerce Clause may invalidate the entire program is a perfect example of the intricacy). And, as shown in the debates before the passage; it is NOT a 'one size fits all'. Some parts cannot work in some areas of the country; parts that other areas of the country require aren't even in the program.
That's a LOT of 'fixing'.
Socialized Health Care is Socialistic. It should be a states issue, with minimum Federal Guidelines and oversight. NOT a full Federal Program. And NOT mandated. That's what Medicare is for, your taxes already pay that. Those same taxes also cover Emergency Care.
Should we be insured? Of course. Should it be mandated? No. Insurance should ALSO cover illnesses and injuries. NOT electives. You want a face-lift to 'feel better about yourself' or a gender change for the same reason?
Pay for it yourself. It's not an illness or injury; which is what insurance is supposed to cover. Like with your car.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#11 Apr 8, 2012
lastoutlaw wrote:
<quoted text>Socialism and Communism are two branches of the same tree, to wit: Government dominance; population control. And in the final sentences of my statement I pointed that out, though not in those words.
You say 'his policies are no more socialistic than his previous administrations'.
'His'.
I believe you made a typo and I know what your intent is - not 'his' but 'others'.
To a degree, you may be right. Yet Obama has taken things further than even FDR; who justified his near 'dictatorship' by claiming that you don't change leaders in a war - especially if you're winning.
Advice Lincoln was given and also heeded; the Union was losing after Antietam until he made General Grant (a choice he was advised not to take but he obviously knew his man) General In Chief in 1864 (though the direction was turning prior to that, the primary point being Gettysburg).
But Lincoln was no 'dictator' under the modern definition. His suspension of rights was due to a war being fought; those rights were restored at the conclusion. Today; the rights taken away by Bush through the Patriot Act were continued with the act's extension by Obama; though we're effectively out of Iraq and will be out of Afghanistan within the next two years or so. Further, the TSA; which appears to have immunity in it's violation of civil rights and rights to privacy; have gotten even more invasive and indiscriminate as time has gone on.
With all the talk of problems with the TSA; why is it Obama has done nothing; yet he continually claims to champion 'Human Rights' and dignity? He will inject himself into issues of 'Racial Discrimination' whether real or imagined (his infamous 'Beer Summit' an issue of 'imagined' racial discrimination) and the Treyvon Martin issue (investigation still ongoing; but the 'racial' aspect appears to also be a 'trumped-up' claim - again, all the facts aren't yet in; there appears to be a lot of provable untruths coming to light and I'll give no definitive opinion before then).
His Obamacare is the primary claim to his behaving as a 'Socialist'. Forcing upon a citizenry that overwhelmingly rejects the program as intrusive, invasive and 'unconstitutional'(the Supreme Court will make that determination soon)- a program that nobody had read prior to its passage, a program that was said would have its flaws fixed after passage - one wonders WHY that could not have been done with the existing system? Exchanging one flawed system for another in the name of 'General Will'- defined as what's best for the masses is not the way to endear the masses to its leaders.
Obamacare has many good points. Nobody says otherwise. It's the system as a whole; and the intricacy that makes it nearly impossible to alter any part without altering it all (that the Commerce Clause may invalidate the entire program is a perfect example of the intricacy). And, as shown in the debates before the passage; it is NOT a 'one size fits all'. Some parts cannot work in some areas of the country; parts that other areas of the country
Wow! That was a lot of reading for very little content. have you thought of organizing your thought previous to typing?

Obamacare, while maybe an overreaching of government power in forcing people to buy health care, is not socialistic in that it is forcing people to buy private companies health insurance policies. This fact was in all the papers, you must have heard about it....

How is the TSA violating your right to vountary fly on a private companies plane?

You really need to go back and review the definition of socialisma nd communism you must have copied from somewhere and decipher what they really mean, you are still not getting it.

Do not just parrot what he MSM tells you is Socialism and communism. Most of the people that write that crap do not know the definition themselves, or are relying on the fact that you do not understand it and will just parrot their words...

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#12 Apr 8, 2012
lastoutlaw wrote:
<quoted text>Socialism and Communism are two branches of the same tree, to wit: Government dominance; population control. And in the final sentences of my statement I pointed that out, though not in those words.
You say 'his policies are no more socialistic than his previous administrations'.
'His'.
I believe you made a typo and I know what your intent is - not 'his' but 'others'.
To a degree, you may be right. Yet Obama has taken things further than even FDR; who justified his near 'dictatorship' by claiming that you don't change leaders in a war - especially if you're winning.
Advice Lincoln was given and also heeded; the Union was losing after Antietam until he made General Grant (a choice he was advised not to take but he obviously knew his man) General In Chief in 1864 (though the direction was turning prior to that, the primary point being Gettysburg).
But Lincoln was no 'dictator' under the modern definition. His suspension of rights was due to a war being fought; those rights were restored at the conclusion. Today; the rights taken away by Bush through the Patriot Act were continued with the act's extension by Obama; though we're effectively out of Iraq and will be out of Afghanistan within the next two years or so. Further, the TSA; which appears to have immunity in it's violation of civil rights and rights to privacy; have gotten even more invasive and indiscriminate as time has gone on.
With all the talk of problems with the TSA; why is it Obama has done nothing; yet he continually claims to champion 'Human Rights' and dignity? He will inject himself into issues of 'Racial Discrimination' whether real or imagined (his infamous 'Beer Summit' an issue of 'imagined' racial discrimination) and the Treyvon Martin issue (investigation still ongoing; but the 'racial' aspect appears to also be a 'trumped-up' claim - again, all the facts aren't yet in; there appears to be a lot of provable untruths coming to light and I'll give no definitive opinion before then).
His Obamacare is the primary claim to his behaving as a 'Socialist'. Forcing upon a citizenry that overwhelmingly rejects the program as intrusive, invasive and 'unconstitutional'(the Supreme Court will make that determination soon)- a program that nobody had read prior to its passage, a program that was said would have its flaws fixed after passage - one wonders WHY that could not have been done with the existing system? Exchanging one flawed system for another in the name of 'General Will'- defined as what's best for the masses is not the way to endear the masses to its leaders.
Obamacare has many good points. Nobody says otherwise. It's the system as a whole; and the intricacy that makes it nearly impossible to alter any part without altering it all (that the Commerce Clause may invalidate the entire program is a perfect example of the intricacy). And, as shown in the debates before the passage; it is NOT a 'one size fits all'. Some parts cannot work in some areas of the country; parts that other areas of the country require aren't even in the program.
That's a LOT of 'fixing'.
Socialized Health Care is Socialistic. It should be a states issue, with minimum Federal Guidelines and oversight. NOT a full Federal Program. And NOT mandated. That's what Medicare is for, your taxes already pay that. Those same taxes also cover Emergency Care.
Should we be insured? Of course. Should it be mandated? No. Insurance should ALSO cover illnesses and injuries. NOT electives. You want a face-lift to 'feel better about yourself' or a gender change for the same reason?
Pay for it yourself. It's not an illne
So how do you want to pay for people to get the health care they need? We have already decided that we will provide treatment to those that need it. do you want to pay for it haphazardly and in the most expesive way as we are doing now or in a controlled way? or do you want to abondon this concept altogether?

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#13 Apr 8, 2012
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>Wow! That was a lot of reading for very little content. have you thought of organizing your thought previous to typing?
Obamacare, while maybe an overreaching of government power in forcing people to buy health care, is not socialistic in that it is forcing people to buy private companies health insurance policies. This fact was in all the papers, you must have heard about it....
How is the TSA violating your right to vountary fly on a private companies plane?
You really need to go back and review the definition of socialisma nd communism you must have copied from somewhere and decipher what they really mean, you are still not getting it.
Do not just parrot what he MSM tells you is Socialism and communism. Most of the people that write that crap do not know the definition themselves, or are relying on the fact that you do not understand it and will just parrot their words...
Ah, but it IS forcing people to buy Private Companies Health Insurance Polices - and making the IRS a Collection agency by fining (called 'Tax' or 'Penalty' by Obama's own lawyer in front of the Supreme Court) for not voluntarily purchasing insurance.
THAT was in all the papers as well.
TSA - in order to exercise your Constitutional right to travel; unless it is by car or charter craft (because passenger rail is being considered for TSA screening as well and major airlines are 'public') you are mandated to undergo TSA scrutiny - even if you're flying from someplace to someplace else in the same state. From something as minor as taking off your shoes to more invasive scanning and pat-downs, it's taking National Security overboard. And it's been made abundantly clear to all but the smallest airports - the Government controls the airspace over the United States. Thus, their playing field, their rules. They control the railways through commerce, and interstate travel is commerce. When they determine a way to control the interstate highways (checkpoints at the state borders), don't be surprised if they do; in the name of 'security'. After all, we don't want a terrorist to build a bomb in Kentucky and drive it across the state line into Indiana - do we?
I do not get my information from the MSM; only 'alerts' which I dig deeper into THEIR sources (when published) for better understanding. The initial MSM (no exceptions) is too one-sided to be taken at face value. My information is internet, several sources for thoroughness and an attempt to weed-out the 'extremism' for a clearer understanding. It wasn't copied. It was researched.
And while my above post 'might' lean towards the 'extreme' understand that the TSA was NEVER envisioned until after 9-11. Had it been, it would have been considered 'extreme'.
It's now a reality. And it's also a reality that the Department of Homeland Security has implemented TSA screenings for passenger rail.
http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/rail/index.shtm
It's not that much of a stretch to envision the same thing with highways; scanners at all the Greyhound Bus depots.
More control over the population in the name of 'security'. It's also been bandied about that book purchases be databased (much as your grocery purchases when you use a club card) for a better understanding by the government of who 'might' be a 'danger' to the 'established order' at some point in time. Socialist and Communist countries are expert at this. Thus far; public outcry has slowed that down; an invasion of privacy and interference with 'Freedom Of The Press'; which literature is covered under. But we're getting there.
And yet - we can't secure our nation's borders.
Why is that?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#14 Apr 8, 2012
lastoutlaw wrote:
<quoted text>Ah, but it IS forcing people to buy Private Companies Health Insurance Polices - and making the IRS a Collection agency by fining (called 'Tax' or 'Penalty' by Obama's own lawyer in front of the Supreme Court) for not voluntarily purchasing insurance.
THAT was in all the papers as well.
TSA - in order to exercise your Constitutional right to travel; unless it is by car or charter craft (because passenger rail is being considered for TSA screening as well and major airlines are 'public') you are mandated to undergo TSA scrutiny - even if you're flying from someplace to someplace else in the same state. From something as minor as taking off your shoes to more invasive scanning and pat-downs, it's taking National Security overboard. And it's been made abundantly clear to all but the smallest airports - the Government controls the airspace over the United States. Thus, their playing field, their rules. They control the railways through commerce, and interstate travel is commerce. When they determine a way to control the interstate highways (checkpoints at the state borders), don't be surprised if they do; in the name of 'security'. After all, we don't want a terrorist to build a bomb in Kentucky and drive it across the state line into Indiana - do we?
I do not get my information from the MSM; only 'alerts' which I dig deeper into THEIR sources (when published) for better understanding. The initial MSM (no exceptions) is too one-sided to be taken at face value. My information is internet, several sources for thoroughness and an attempt to weed-out the 'extremism' for a clearer understanding. It wasn't copied. It was researched.
And while my above post 'might' lean towards the 'extreme' understand that the TSA was NEVER envisioned until after 9-11. Had it been, it would have been considered 'extreme'.
It's now a reality. And it's also a reality that the Department of Homeland Security has implemented TSA screenings for passenger rail.
http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/rail/index.shtm
It's not that much of a stretch to envision the same thing with highways; scanners at all the Greyhound Bus depots.
More control over the population in the name of 'security'. It's also been bandied about that book purchases be databased (much as your grocery purchases when you use a club card) for a better understanding by the government of who 'might' be a 'danger' to the 'established order' at some point in time. Socialist and Communist countries are expert at this. Thus far; public outcry has slowed that down; an invasion of privacy and interference with 'Freedom Of The Press'; which literature is covered under. But we're getting there.
And yet - we can't secure our nation's borders.
Why is that?
thank you for proving my point, and disproving yours, that Obamacare is not socialism. Why did you suggest it was in the first place if you knew it , in reality was not?

Where is your constitutional right to travel stated? and how is it being prevented by you having to take your shoes off?

this is getting boring... do you have something better to offer in way of debate? I didn't know this was the kiddie table section of Topix...

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#15 Apr 8, 2012
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>So how do you want to pay for people to get the health care they need? We have already decided that we will provide treatment to those that need it. do you want to pay for it haphazardly and in the most expesive way as we are doing now or in a controlled way? or do you want to abondon this concept altogether?
We pay for it the way we've been doing - through the taxes collected and directed towards Medicare.
Haphazard is the determination of what will be covered. Sex change and Viagra for prisoners? Why? Why does somebody incarcerated need Viagra? And the sex change; could they get it as a free (as in 'not locked up for crimes against humanity') individual? Why should they get in behind bars?
Elective surgeries are the personal choice of the person requesting them. They should pay for them themselves. Insurance should be for unforeseen issues - illnesses. Accidents requiring medical care. Diseases.
It can be stretched into therapies (mental and physical). Reproductive deficiencies (inabilities to conceive as one example). Genetic or Birth Defects. Degeneration.
The government already, through Federal Law, requires Emergency Rooms to treat all comers - regardless of their ability to pay. That's covered through your tax dollars.
http://www.emtala.com/
The cost of pharmaceuticals is sky-high in this country. Why? Those same drugs from those same companies are triple in the country of origin than they cost other countries that they are exported to. And it's a Federal Crime to go to Canada for the same drug sold here and bring it back just because it's cheaper. I'm all for a company making a profit from their invention; and much of that profit goes right back into Research and Development for new drugs and treatments.
But WHY is the cost discrepancy so high?
And tort reform. Too many litigious cases looking at the medical profession as 'deep pocket set for life' sources. Mistakes should be rectified, but also understood that mistakes happen. Blatant carelessness should NEVER be explained or forgiven. But the two should also NEVER be considered one and the same. So malpractice insurance; both on the hospital and the doctor; is sky-high. And that cost is passed on to you, the patient. The government; in covering what they say SHOULD be the cost of medical care does not take this into consideration - intentionally. Yet THEY set the standards for the lawsuits. Reign in the fraud on both sides; the costs should go down.
Otherwise, keep paying for the $50 aspirin - and it's not even Bayer. It's generic.
There are problems. Absolutely. But does Obamacare fix them? No, it does not. It just 'replaces' them. We're required to 'fix' them later.
Why not fix the problems in the existing system? Why exchange one set for another set exactly like the first; but do it in a way that makes them 'new'?
They're NOT new. They're the same old problems with a different definition.
'Old' Healthcare Program replaced by 'New' National Health Care Program.
The only difference?
You're mandated to purchase coverage - or be fined ('Taxed' and 'Penalized' are the terms used by Obama's lawyer before the Supreme Court, to the amusement of the justices) and collected by the IRS.
All to 'lower' the cost for all?
But the problems that were 'supposedly' fixed are still there. Every one of them.
Largely because there's no tort reform and that's the biggest mistake of all. Because unnecessary electives are covered at the expense of basic necessities and that's the SECOND biggest mistake of all.
Insurance doesn't cover your car's paint unless it's damaged. You want a different color, you pay for it yourself, NOT your insurance company.
Same for elective procedures. You want it, you pay for it yourself. If it's an injury; it's not an elective. THAT is what insurance should be for.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#16 Apr 8, 2012
sorry to have wasted my time...bye

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#17 Apr 8, 2012
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>thank you for proving my point, and disproving yours, that Obamacare is not socialism. Why did you suggest it was in the first place if you knew it , in reality was not?
Where is your constitutional right to travel stated? and how is it being prevented by you having to take your shoes off?
this is getting boring... do you have something better to offer in way of debate? I didn't know this was the kiddie table section of Topix...
I did not say Obamacare was not Socialism. I said it had some very good points. Its being foisted upon an unaccepting public is Socialistic.
Constitutional Right To Travel is in the 1st Amendment - the right to 'Peaceably Assemble'. This require the ability to travel. Restricting travel restricts the right to assemble. It's not that much of a stretch.
Also, this:
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/print...
Based on the 'Privileges and Immunities Clause', Article 4, Section 2, Clause 1. It's a Commerce Clause and Travel is Commerce.
And you board a Commercial Air Transport (Jet Plane; United, American, Jet Blue, etc.); you are required by the TSA to take your shoes off and proceed in your stocking feet through the detector while your shoes take the conveyor.
You can that the 'Shoelace Bomber' for that one.
Boring -yes. You can research this stuff yourself. I'm going out and enjoy time with my family.
Have a good day.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#18 Apr 8, 2012
lastoutlaw wrote:
<quoted text>I did not say Obamacare was not Socialism. I said it had some very good points. Its being foisted upon an unaccepting public is Socialistic.
Constitutional Right To Travel is in the 1st Amendment - the right to 'Peaceably Assemble'. This require the ability to travel. Restricting travel restricts the right to assemble. It's not that much of a stretch.
Also, this:
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/print...
Based on the 'Privileges and Immunities Clause', Article 4, Section 2, Clause 1. It's a Commerce Clause and Travel is Commerce.
And you board a Commercial Air Transport (Jet Plane; United, American, Jet Blue, etc.); you are required by the TSA to take your shoes off and proceed in your stocking feet through the detector while your shoes take the conveyor.
You can that the 'Shoelace Bomber' for that one.
Boring -yes. You can research this stuff yourself. I'm going out and enjoy time with my family.
Have a good day.
Yes, in fact, you did point out that Obamacare is not socialistic. You may not have understood that you did this, but you did. this is why discussion with you is not very satisfying.

how is the TSA restricting you travel? See? you need to think these things out before you just parrot shit you here from lame media sources.

i hope this tutorial has helped you. you seem to be honestly in search of real answers, i hope you use your cognitive skills in more regard when looking for them in the future. check on better news referencesm the ones you seem ot be using are definitely not providing you with accurate information.

till late when you more informed comments...(hopefully)

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#19 Apr 8, 2012
Uh, this forum IS about the Titanic, isn't it? What did I miss in the article that brings on this Obama bashing?

Can't you people EVER stay on topic?
Forecaster

Rochester, KY

#20 Apr 8, 2012
Curtis Lowe wrote:
The Titanic sank in less than 3 hours. America lasted 3 years under Obama. I like to explore the America wreck and look at the animal life which has thrived since Obama took office. Weasels, leeches, and dung beetles never had it so good. She was majestic in her time though. Pity.
I hate you right-wing lying bitches. What caused the worst econmic collaspe in US history since 1929? The top 1% shipping all the jobs to China, the banks making bad loans because of reduction in regulations and the Bush American Dream Act, then Wall St selling the bad loans to the world. There are NO numbers since Obama took office that have not improved. DOW, oil production, exports, housing starts, unemployment rate and so on.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

John Kerry Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Kerry recalls Vietnam War's influence on his ca... Apr 28 FancyButtPirate 13
News Romney would rank among richest presidents ever (Jan '12) Mar '16 Traitors 166
News Who showed up at Scalia's funeral - and who didn't Feb '16 Golf Foxtrot Yankee 1
News Kerry used private email to send Clinton now cl... Feb '16 Ritual Habitual 1
News Kerry used private email to send Clinton now cl... Feb '16 Ritual Habitual 1
News Pope Francis acknowledges State of Palestine (May '14) Jan '16 swedenforever 183
News Massachusetts man freed by Iran back in the US ... Jan '16 Black Annie 1
More from around the web