For those who think Bush is the problem...read.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kristjan

That's one way of putting it. Another is that we contribute to Western security in the hope that the favour will be returned, if ever necessary.

---

Only Eki would treat being in NATO as being involved with the Mob.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

Only Eki would treat being in NATO as being involved with the Mob.

---

I think the analogy is not entirely incorrect, though. Russian conventional forces are not as strong as you might think. (Finland and Poland could probably put up a very good fight.) But currently way stronger than those in the Baltics. Yes, we need a "roof". If we didn't have a Western one, we'd be in danger of getting an Eastern one... Just look at Georgia.

But NATO is obviously not like the Mob. It's the voluntary defence alliance of the democratic, Western world. An august institution. It's a privilege to be a part of it.

And coming back to the topic of this thread: the moral clarity that the Bush administration had about the Baltics certainly contributed very positively to peace and stability in our region. No, he wasn't all bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

Only Eki would treat being in NATO as being involved with the Mob.

---

If the Warsaw Pact were still alive and kicking, how would you describe it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Pact

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

Didn't he accomplish some sort of health care thingy?

---

It has had no benefits and if it is not repealed citizens will be paying for for YEARS BEFORE any part takes effect.
NO, it is not an accomplishment, especially as the majority of voters are against it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

It has had no benefits and if it is not repealed citizens will be paying for for YEARS BEFORE any part takes effect.
NO, it is not an accomplishment, especially as the majority of voters are against it.

---

The majority of voters may be stupid or otherwise wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

The majority of voters may be stupid or otherwise wrong.

---

Why, the governent has NO money, they take it from the voters by force if necessary (Those without health care face fines, or jail, for not having health care) but then
you seem to believe those in government, who have benefits and powers the working citizens do not or ever will have, are some sort of all-knowing, all-seeing gods!

Stalins, Hitlers, Obamas etc. of the world love/d people like you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

Why, the governent has NO money,

---

That's much because Bush and his gang wasted billions on unnecessary warfare. And Obama had to pick up where they left. On the plus side, people save because they don't need expensive insurances and private health care, so they have more money to pay taxes. Well, of course there will be some rich and stupid people like here in Finland who pay for their health care twice by insisting to use private health care after they have already paid for public healthcare and don't use it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

That's much because Bush and his gang wasted billions on unnecessary warfare. And Obama had to pick up where they left. On the plus side, people save because they don't need expensive insurances and private health care, so they have more money to pay taxes. Well, of course there will be some rich and stupid people like here in Finland who pay for their health care twice by insisting to use private health care after they have already paid for public healthcare and don't use it.

---

So Bush spent Billions he didn't have, and that was bad. Obama spends Trillions he doesn't have, and that's good? What kind of stupid logic is that? I'll be the first to line up with you and call Bush out for spending too much. But then to defend Obama with the defense of "Bush did it too" ... man you just can't stand Bush at all can you?

People won't save with this. The insurance companies are now required to take on people no matter what, people that they normally reject because they are going to loose money on them. So now they have to make up that lost money somewhere. Where do you think that will be? That's right from those of us who are suckers and actually pay their bills.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

So Bush spent Billions he didn't have, and that was bad. Obama spends Trillions he doesn't have, and that's good? What kind of stupid logic is that? I'll be the first to line up with you and call Bush out for spending too much. But then to defend Obama with the defense of "Bush did it too" ... man you just can't stand Bush at all can you?

People won't save with this. The insurance companies are now required to take on people no matter what, people that they normally reject because they are going to loose money on them. So now they have to make up that lost money somewhere. Where do you think that will be? That's right from those of us who are suckers and actually pay their bills.

---

The insurance companies could try to find real jobs instead of feeding from peoples' misfortunes.

Today, I was at a private dentist. The dentist bills the city on her own rate and the city bills me on their own cheaper rate. The tax payers (me included) pay the gap. No need for insurance companies to skim money from the middle. The city acts as an insurance company, but they don't expect any profit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

That's much because Bush and his gang wasted billions on unnecessary warfare. And Obama had to pick up where they left. On the plus side, people save because they don't need expensive insurances and private health care, so they have more money to pay taxes. Well, of course there will be some rich and stupid people like here in Finland who pay for their health care twice by insisting to use private health care after they have already paid for public healthcare and don't use it.

---

The insurance companies are the ones the gov. says you MUST have a policy with or you go to jail; as Chuck said, to cover those without money, the Ins. will raise rates on those who can.

One good, kinda-sorta, thing is, the fines are less than a ins. policy, SO, one can simply not pay for one, THEN- when one does get sick, quickly get a policy for as long as necessary to cover what ever disease one got by living like a fool, then simply do not pay and the tax payers will pay it for you.

You seem to have no idea of what has transpired here.