Free health care for Iraq but not US?

[Rokenn]

It seems part of the administrations plans for rebuilding Iraq are to provide free universal health care to all Iraqi citizens, and to keep the religious extremists from setting up private schools they are heavily funding a public, secular, school system.
Seems to beg the question, why can't we do that here? [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Do you think if California started a WOMD program we could get a deal like this too? [img]graemlins/laugh2.gif[/img]

[Timber Loftis]

Great. The ultimate in conservative trickery. We are tricked into supporting the war, but not supporting public welfare (such as healthcare) at home. Now, in a twist of fate, we are supporting public welfare for Iraqis. [img]graemlins/1pissed.gif[/img] I hope you conservatives appreciate the irony of this. Your tax dollars are buying Iraqi's good health while all those working class folks you convinced to vote for your big-business-loving politicians struggle with no healthcare.

It's the kind of thing that makes me want to find Rush Limbaugh and urinate on his shoes. [img]graemlins/1pissed.gif[/img]

And, it is not merely applicable to healthcare. There are dozens of ways which we will be rebuilding that country - when at home we can't be bothered to fix the exact same problems.

Oh, and don't get me started on the outright injustice involved when the men deciding to go to war are also those who profit from it. Either Halliburton should be ineligible for the contract it got, or Chaney should face the decision to give up Halliburton stock or resign. Personally profiting from the war? - - Even if there were no ill intentions, the conflict-of-interest alone demands to be addressed. [img]graemlins/1pissed.gif[/img]

[ 04-21-2003, 11:08 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Great. The ultimate in conservative trickery. We are tricked into supporting the war, but not supporting public welfare (such as healthcare) at home. Now, in a twist of fate, we are supporting public welfare for Iraqis. [img]graemlins/1pissed.gif[/img] I hope you conservatives appreciate the irony of this. Your tax dollars are buying Iraqi's good health while all those working class folks you convinced to vote for your big-business-loving politicians struggle with no healthcare. It's the kind of thing that makes me want to find Rush Limbaugh and urinate on his shoes. [img]graemlins/1pissed.gif[/img] Did Rush, say he was for setting this program up? Doesn't sound like something he would support. IS there a quote from him you could post perhaps? or do you just like to bash Rush? P.S. I never listen to Rush's show, since in our building we cannot receive radio, tv, pages, cell phone signals or any other electromagnetic transmissions unless it is over a wire...and they (network weenies) block the ports you need to listen to those kinds of things over the net. And, it is not merely applicable to healthcare. There are dozens of ways which we will be rebuilding that country - when at home we can't be bothered to fix the exact same problems. Oh, and don't get me started on the outright injustice involved when the men deciding to go to war are also those who profit from it. Either Halliburton should be ineligible for the contract it got, or Chaney should face the decision to give up Halliburton stock or resign. Personally profiting from the war? - - Even if there were no ill intentions, the conflict-of-interest alone demands to be addressed. [img]graemlins/1pissed.gif[/img]

I personally am against funding socialized medicne, but then again, I am not responsible for trying to create a moderate Iraq that will hopefully stabilize the region...Why don't all you smarty pants types send detailed documentation and plans for handeling the whole middle eastern situation, since you seem to be so much more informed than those running the show now [img]smile.gif[/img] I am sure they would appreciate any help.

Edit: Actually I seriously doubt you could do any worse than those in charge over the past 60 years [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 04-21-2003, 02:11 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Timber Loftis]

I'm not more informed. But, I am complaining about something we should have all seen coming. If you make war in a nation and intend to rebuild it, you are going to need to pump metric craploads of money into it. It just irks me to no end that they will get free medicine there whilst my grandmother has to get creative and send off to Mexico to afford her meds.

And, I'm not more informed, but I do know ethical conflicts, and Cheney should NOT be owning Halliburton stock. A congressman would be barred from owning stock in a company likely to benefit as a result of a bill in his committee - or he would recuse himself from decisions on that bill. SEC insider trading is obviously disallowed - hell, I have a list of over 300 companies that I have to request permission in writing to buy stock from because we advise them on the business side and don't want some pissant young attorney in the Env'l Dept. to accidently step in the poop and buy stock the day before a big SEC disclosure.

It ain't right. [img]graemlins/dontknowaboutyou.gif[/img]

[Davros]

What did I miss - I honestly thought the plan was to appropriate their oil and let it pay for all the free health care and schools and rebuilding that is needed in Iraq - why would this come out of our (the taxpayer's) pocket?

[Timber Loftis]

Can we do that?? Legally, doesn't the oil-for-food program and existing sanctions stand in the way??

[Reeka]

Well, where do the sanctions stand now that the war is over? Since the Saddam Hussein regime is gone will they become null and void? They seem rather pointless now, don't they?

[Masklinn]

The UN sanctions stand as long as the search for WOMD continue.

The sanctions will drop once the UN is sure that either Iraq do not have any WOMD or, in case there are some, they are all removed.

[Donut]

Originally posted by Reeka: Well, where do the sanctions stand now that the war is over? Since the Saddam Hussein regime is gone will they become null and void? They seem rather pointless now, don't they?

France and Russia will block removal of sanctions until Iraq is declared free of WoMD. The only authority they will accept for this declaration is the UN and Blix. The US don't want Blix back.

What a bizarre situation!

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: I'm not more informed. But, I am complaining about something we should have all seen coming. If you make war in a nation and intend to rebuild it, you are going to need to pump metric craploads of money into it. It just irks me to no end that they will get free medicine there whilst my grandmother has to get creative and send off to Mexico to afford her meds. Sorry if my post sounded more pointed than I ment it to [img]smile.gif[/img] I was in a fairly light hearted mood and was just goofing, didn't realize how it sounded till this morning. And, I'm not more informed, but I do know ethical conflicts, and Cheney should NOT be owning Halliburton stock. Cheny does not own Haliburton stock. The democrats forced him to sell it short. 18 months later Haliburton hit an all time record high in value, then a year after that it crashed and Cheney too shit for having stock...selling at the insistance of the Dems and then later being accused of insider trading when the stock tanked nearly 24 months later. He can't win no matter what with some people. A congressman would be barred from owning stock in a company likely to benefit as a result of a bill in his committee - or he would recuse himself from decisions on that bill. SEC insider trading is obviously disallowed - hell, I have a list of over 300 companies that I have to request permission in writing to buy stock from because we advise them on the business side and don't want some pissant young attorney in the Env'l Dept. to accidently step in the poop and buy stock the day before a big SEC disclosure. It ain't right. [img]graemlins/dontknowaboutyou.gif[/img]

As for Haliburton and Beghtal getting contracts [img]smile.gif[/img] I challenege anyone to find three other companies capable of the work on the same scope as these two companies are. They each have a very very limited number of competitors...I know for a fact that Haliburton doesnt have any direct competitors in the US, and there is ony one well known company that does the same thing that I am aware of...it is a french company... I don't think the US govt. will willing give contracts to them.


Anyway don't take the "Smarty Pants" comment too seriosuly [img]smile.gif[/img] I really was just goofing around, and I think you are probably smarter than I am any way [img]smile.gif[/img]