or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Biggest Threat to Obama's Health Care "Reform" - Reality
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Biggest Threat to Obama's Health Care "Reform" - Reality - Page 24

post #921 of 2360
Fuck Obama -- AGAIN -- for pandering to the right. Obama just doesn't get it. Compromise accomplishes nothing with the Republicans. Obama could release a health care proposal that is exactly the same as the Republican proposals, and those fuckers would STILL vote against it simply because it's Obama's bill. Taking out the public option will not gain him one more vote than he would have gotten with it in.

The only way to work with the Republicans is to fight them, then if there aren't enough votes, appeal to the public that it's the Republicans' fault. Which it is.
post #922 of 2360
The American people just must be too stupid to understand, right? Let's force them to do something against their will. It's for their own good.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #923 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

The American people just must be too stupid to understand, right? Let's force them to do something against their will. It's for their own good.

The American people aren't voting "no" on health care reform. That would be the Republicans.

And yes, I understand the concept of a representative Democracy (Republic). In a Democracy, it would pass. Even in a true representative Democracy, it would pass. No... the reason we don't have health care reform has nothing to do with Democracy, and everything to do with partisan politics.
post #924 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

The American people aren't voting "no" on health care reform. That would be the Republicans.

And yes, I understand the concept of a representative Democracy (Republic). In a Democracy, it would pass. Even in a true representative Democracy, it would pass. No... the reason we don't have health care reform has nothing to do with Democracy, and everything to do with partisan politics.

You may have noticed that the Republicans didn't have an ability to block this law last year. Rather it was Democrats that couldn't get enough of their own members to go along with it absent the LA Purchase, Husker Kick Back and other now infamous back room deals.

Scott Brown ran as the one that would stop this bill. The people voted for that. Where does that leave Democracy? Pretty safe place I think.

This law failed because it was unpopular and people let their reps know it. The reason it was unpopular is because people understood it. Not because they were mislead by "special interest". Obama takes blame because he didn't explain it well enough. Of course he gave dozens and dozens of speeches about it and ... people still didn't like what they heard.

Democracy worked!
post #925 of 2360
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

The American people aren't voting "no" on health care reform. That would be the Republicans.

And yes, I understand the concept of a representative Democracy (Republic). In a Democracy, it would pass. Even in a true representative Democracy, it would pass. No... the reason we don't have health care reform has nothing to do with Democracy, and everything to do with partisan politics.

You aren't actually suggesting that people that disagree with the president and his plans aren't "the American people" are you?

That would be so ironic, my head would have to explode.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #926 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

And yes, I understand the concept of a representative Democracy (Republic). In a Democracy, it would pass. Even in a true representative Democracy, it would pass. No... the reason we don't have health care reform has nothing to do with Democracy, and everything to do with partisan politics.

I love examples of the "No true Scotsman" fallacy!
post #927 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

You may have noticed that the Republicans didn't have an ability to block this law last year. Rather it was Democrats that couldn't get enough of their own members to go along with it absent the LA Purchase, Husker Kick Back and other now infamous back room deals.

Scott Brown ran as the one that would stop this bill. The people voted for that. Where does that leave Democracy? Pretty safe place I think.

This law failed because it was unpopular and people let their reps know it. The reason it was unpopular is because people understood it. Not because they were mislead by "special interest". Obama takes blame because he didn't explain it well enough. Of course he gave dozens and dozens of speeches about it and ... people still didn't like what they heard.

Democracy worked!

Ya...he voted to stop the bill from a state that already fucking had healthcare reform. Great, thanks Scott. I'm glad you guys can have it but not the rest of us.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #928 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Ya...he voted to stop the bill from a state that already fucking had healthcare reform. Great, thanks Scott. I'm glad you guys can have it but not the rest of us.

You could have it in your state. What's stopping that from happening? Alternatively you could move to a state that does have it. What's stopping that from happening? You have that freedom. The issue is that some wish to impose their idea of ideal health care on everyone regardless of whether they want it or not. In other words they'd like to eliminate the freedom of living without this proposed health care structure.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #929 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Fuck Obama -- AGAIN -- for pandering to the right. Obama just doesn't get it. Compromise accomplishes nothing with the Republicans. Obama could release a health care proposal that is exactly the same as the Republican proposals, and those fuckers would STILL vote against it simply because it's Obama's bill. Taking out the public option will not gain him one more vote than he would have gotten with it in.

The only way to work with the Republicans is to fight them, then if there aren't enough votes, appeal to the public that it's the Republicans' fault. Which it is.

Pandering to the right? You honestly think that's what the health summit is? Not at all. He's pandering to the middle. He's making it appear he is open to suggestion and wants to portray the opposition as the the G-NO-P.

tonton, they already have the plan in place. They are approaching this saying "if you guys don't compromise (read: agree to government run plan) we'll ram this through on reconciliation. Now, who wants coffee?"

This entire summit is a media event designed to convince people that Obama is open minded, and Republicans are obstructionists who don't want reform. You've bought it..hook, line and sinker. Meanwhile, the GOP has proposed multiple forms that have been dismissed out of hand. Tort reform. Pre-existing conditions. Portability. Fraud reduction.
These things would ACTUALLY lower costs and create competition. But they're not a government plan, so game over.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #930 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Pandering to the right? You honestly think that's what the health summit is? Not at all. He's pandering to the middle. He's making it appear he is open to suggestion and wants to portray the opposition as the the G-NO-P.

tonton, they already have the plan in place. They are approaching this saying "if you guys don't compromise (read: agree to government run plan) we'll ram this through on reconciliation. Now, who wants coffee?"

This entire summit is a media event designed to convince people that Obama is open minded, and Republicans are obstructionists who don't want reform. You've bought it..hook, line and sinker. Meanwhile, the GOP has proposed multiple forms that have been dismissed out of hand. Tort reform. Pre-existing conditions. Portability. Fraud reduction.
These things would ACTUALLY lower costs and create competition. But they're not a government plan, so game over.

Obama took out the public option -- again. That's pandering.
post #931 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

You aren't actually suggesting that people that disagree with the president and his plans aren't "the American people" are you?

No, I'm not.

I'll try not to ad-hom on this one, though I'm seriously tempted because of the idiocy of the conclusion you just made (oops!).

I'm saying that in a Democracy, which is simple majority, the bill would pass. It's not rocket science.
post #932 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

You could have it in your state. What's stopping that from happening? Alternatively you could move to a state that does have it. What's stopping that from happening? You have that freedom. The issue is that some wish to impose their idea of ideal health care on everyone regardless of whether they want it or not. In other words they'd like to eliminate the freedom of living without this proposed health care structure.

I love how making sure everyone has access to health care is an imposition.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #933 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Obama took out the public option -- again. That's pandering.

No he didn't. He took out the words "public option." It's still a massive takeover. In fact, the new plan is worse than the last one.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #934 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I love how making sure everyone has access to health care is an imposition.

New definition of "Making Sure Everyone Has Access To Healthcare:"

A massive, trillion dollar takeover of healthcare by the Federal Government that A) Makes insurance companies regulated public utilities, B) Forces people to buy health insurance or be fined C) Does nothing to actually lower costs and D) Creates thousands of new bureaucrats that get to decide whether you live or die.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #935 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

New definition of "Making Sure Everyone Has Access To Healthcare:"

A massive, trillion dollar takeover of healthcare by the Federal Government that A) Makes insurance companies regulated public utilities, B) Forces people to buy health insurance or be fined C) Does nothing to actually lower costs and D) Creates thousands of new bureaucrats that get to decide whether you live or die.

Or... every single one of these things you claim is an unsubstantiated lie... hmm...
post #936 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

Scott Brown ran as the one that would stop this bill. The people voted for that. Where does that leave Democracy? Pretty safe place I think.

This Scott Brown?

The one conservatives are calling scum-sucking douchebag? The one whose daughter conservatives are now harassing on Facebook?

Conservatives expect party line 100%. When you don't follow that... look out!

For Conservatives, such as yourself, Mr. PHD... Democracy only works when it goes the way you want it to.
post #937 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

No he didn't. He took out the words "public option." It's still a massive takeover. In fact, the new plan is worse than the last one.

No. There's no subsidized access to health care for those people who choose not to have insurance. That's what a public option is. There is no public option in this bill.
post #938 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I love how making sure everyone has access to health care is an imposition.

Actually if it involves forcibly taking something from others, then it is an imposition on them.

I love how some can be completely oblivious to the aspects, consequences and side-effects of a proposed plan that detract from the outcomes they wish to happen.

I also love how direct and reasonable questions ("You could have it in your state. What's stopping that from happening? Alternatively you could move to a state that does have it. What's stopping that from happening?") can be conveniently and completely ignored.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #939 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Actually if it involves forcibly taking something from others, then it is an imposition on them.

Every law is an imposition. So? Are you saying we shouldn't have laws?

This happens to be one case where far more people will benefit than those who would be adversely affected, which is the source of BR's incredulity on the matter.
post #940 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Every law is an imposition. So? Are you saying we shouldn't have laws?

No, but thanks for the reductio ad absurdum.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

This happens to be one case where far more people will benefit than those who would be adversely affected...

Yes, that's the claim.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #941 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I also love how direct and reasonable questions ("You could have it in your state. What's stopping that from happening? Alternatively you could move to a state that does have it. What's stopping that from happening?") can be conveniently and completely ignored.

Once again, Conservatives only see things from rich people's perspective. The poor cannot just up and move to another state. And choice of state is not dependent on a single factor. Otherwise all the Conservatives would be living in Alaska which has the lowest taxes in the country. Would you like to move to Alaska, MJ?
post #942 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

No, but thanks for the reductio ad absurdum.

As a response to a misleading non-sequitur, it would be appropriate, methinks.
post #943 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Once again, Conservatives only see things from rich people's perspective.

I don't know if you are implying that I am a "conservative" or trying to paint me with some broad brush. If you wish to, I guess that's your prerogative. Either way, I actually don't only see things from rich people's point of view. I'm quite concerned with the poor in the U.S. and around the world and the manner in which government policies will affect them.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

The poor cannot just up and move to another state. And choice of state is not dependent on a single factor.

I agree. There are many factors one must consider when choosing where to live.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Would you like to move to Alaska, MJ?

No, I would not like to move to Alaska.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #944 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

As a response to a misleading non-sequitur, it would be appropriate, methinks.

I respectfully disagree both with the claim that I provided a a misleading non-sequitur and that your response was appropriate.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #945 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Or... every single one of these things you claim is an unsubstantiated lie... hmm...

1. It will cost $1 trillion, or damn close to it.

2. It will create new bureaucracy. Guaranteed.

3. Care WILL be rationed. It's impossible NOT to have rationed care.

4. It will impose new regulations on health insurers, ones that will cause costs to be passed on to consumers.

5. There will be fines for not carrying coverage.


Go ahead...tell me how these are "lies."
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #946 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I love how some can be completely oblivious to the aspects, consequences and side-effects of a proposed plan that detract from the outcomes they wish to happen.
.

These terrifying "aspects, consequences and side-effects of a proposed plan" of yours appear to belong to some hysterical propaganda manual from a steampunk comic. Really.

Every other prosperous, developed democracy in the world has a far-more extensive public healthcare system than the one proposed by the Democrats.

If you want private healthcare, go nuts. Buy your own hospital. No one's going to stop you. Private insurance is still going to exist. Private hospitals are still going to exist.

It's so, so annoying watching this debate from Europe. It's like watching people arguing over whether the fire department is a good idea or not.

"I don't want to have to PAY for other people's negligence. And what if I WANT to burn my house down? A TELEPHONE NUMBER YOU CAN RING? So we're all SPIES now??!?!?!?!?"

Wipe the froth of your chin and join the civilised world already. For fuck's sake.
post #947 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

This happens to be one case where far more people will benefit than those who would be adversely affected, which is the source of BR's incredulity on the matter.

Indubitably.

And props to Scott Brown and the other 4 republicans for actually voting with their constituents instead of with their party for once in quite a long time. Maybe Scott Brown's election isn't such a bad thing after all. Maybe it's the beginning of the end of the whackjob conservonuts. You know, the ones blathering like mad over Scott Brown's treason. If that malignant part of the party could be excised, we actually might have a shot at improving our country.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #948 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

1. It will cost $1 trillion, or damn close to it.

And it will eventually save just as much, just as is the case with any investment. Investment is not spending.
Quote:
2. It will create new bureaucracy. Guaranteed.

What you said was not "new bureaucracy". What you said was that the bureaucrats would "decide whether you live or die."
Quote:
3. Care WILL be rationed. It's impossible NOT to have rationed care.

That's why it's a public option. You don't like the option? Opt out and get private insurance. To say it's impossible NOT to have rationed care is a lie. Anyone who can pay for it can have unlimited care as much as they like. Just like they can today.
Quote:
4. It will impose new regulations on health insurers, ones that will cause costs to be passed on to consumers.

In the real world, where public health care is available, this has proven not to be the case. In fact the public option decreases the cost to the private insured, as the insurers now have to compete with the public option.
Quote:
5. There will be fines for not carrying coverage.

Just as there are for auto insurance. But with a "real" public option -- the one Obama in all his pandering wisdom did not include -- there would not be any fines whatsoever. But you oppose that option.
Quote:
Go ahead...tell me how these are "lies."

Did.
Now go ahead and deny my points one by one, which you will.
post #949 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

1. It will cost $1 trillion, or damn close to it.

2. It will create new bureaucracy. Guaranteed.

3. Care WILL be rationed. It's impossible NOT to have rationed care.

4. It will impose new regulations on health insurers, ones that will cause costs to be passed on to consumers.

5. There will be fines for not carrying coverage.


Go ahead...tell me how these are "lies."

Health insurance companies sure don't make enough money off sick people. Can't have their profits eaten into at all in order to make sure the sick aren't denied care when they need it most. That'd be unamerican.

I forgot that the "free" in Give us your poor, your tired, your huddled masses longing to be free meant freedom from giving two shits about your fellow countryman. My mistake.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #950 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I respectfully disagree both with the claim that I provided a a misleading non-sequitur and that your response was appropriate.

To say that public health care is imposing a choice on the public is a non-sequitur because every law is imposing a choice on the public.

Can I say having a publicly funded police force is imposing the choice on the public?
post #951 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

To say that public health care is imposing a choice on the public is a non-sequitur because every law is imposing a choice on the public.

Can I say having a publicly funded police force is imposing the choice on the public?

I think you may have misunderstood what I said.

I'm saying that the proposed health care restructuring risks creating an imposition (in the form of additional costs, taxes, restrictions, etc. not imposing a choice) onto some in the population (quite likely those are currently opposed to it).

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #952 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

These terrifying "aspects, consequences and side-effects of a proposed plan" of yours appear to belong to some hysterical propaganda manual from a steampunk comic. Really.

If you insist. You seem to be implying that there are no other aspects, consequences or side-effects besides the positive ones which you and others (including the proposers) imagine will occur. Is this true?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Every other prosperous, developed democracy in the world has a far-more extensive public healthcare system than the one proposed by the Democrats.

Unfortunately for you, that's not a very compelling or certainly not a complete argument for creating such a system in the U.S.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

It's like watching people arguing over whether the fire department is a good idea or not.

I have no doubt that some see it in those terms.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Wipe the froth of your chin and join the civilised world already. For fuck's sake.

There's no froth on my chin (though it sure looks like there might be on yours) and I have joined the civilized world. Gee, it your statement above looks like a perfect example of the condescending liberal attitude being discussion in another thread.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #953 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

If you insist. You seem to be implying that there are no other aspects, consequences or side-effects besides the positive ones which you and others (including the proposers) imagine will occur. Is this true?

No. I'm suggesting what I'm very clearly suggesting: that your objections are hysterical, ideological and not based in real-world consequences, which we can actually SEE by simply taking an aeroplane or using the internet.

And if you have to invent motives for me, or words I never said, in order to "win", it doesn't do you any favours.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Unfortunately for you, that's not a very compelling or certainly not a complete argument for creating such a system in the U.S.

Real men move to Nigeria when the government takes over their healthcare. Or ask them to pay taxes. Or to contribute to the common good in any way. Want small government? Nigeria. Or Somalia. You don't have to move there for good. Just... go on holiday. Take a look.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

There's no froth on my chin (though it sure looks like there might be on yours) and I have joined the civilized world. Gee, it your statement above looks like a perfect example of the condescending liberal attitude being discussion in another thread.

Your objections to this very mild healthcare reform proposal are hysterical. In the original meaning of the word: they seem to stem for some hysteria. There is no cause for the fear you seem to be experiencing. That is not a question of being 'condescending', it is in empirical truth.
post #954 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

your objections are hysterical, ideological and not based in real-world consequences, which we can actually SEE by simply taking an aeroplane or using the internet.

Really? Can you please be specific?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

And if you have to invent motives for me, or words I never said, in order to "win", it doesn't do you any favours.

I'm not doing any such thing. I simply stated what it seemed to me you were implying and asked if that was true.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Real men move to Nigeria when the government takes over their healthcare. Or ask them to pay taxes. Or to contribute to the common good in any way. Want small government? Nigeria. Or Somalia. You don't have to move there for good. Just... go on holiday. Take a look.

I love it when as argument for massive government I'm presented with the false dilemma of either living as you think I should live under the government structured as you think it should be or moving to a 3rd world nation. Is this like America love it or leave it?

I would argue that "real men" take a stand against actions their governments take when they believe them to be harmful and detrimental or, at the very least, beyond the scope for which the government has legitimate responsibility and authority.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Your objections to this very mild healthcare reform proposal are hysterical. In the original meaning of the word: they seem to stem for some hysteria. There is no cause for the fear you seem to be experiencing. That is not a question of being 'condescending', it is in empirical truth.

Now you're being hysterically funny! Now who's assigning motives to who? You crack me up.

Just for fun though, let's examine the definition of hysterical:

1 : a psychoneurosis marked by emotional excitability and disturbances of the psychic, sensory, vasomotor, and visceral functions
2 : behavior exhibiting overwhelming or unmanageable fear or emotional excess <political hysteria>

Sorry, but neither of those describe me, my actions, my posts or my thoughts.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #955 of 2360
Chart: Comparing Health Reform Bills: Democrats and Republicans 2009, Republicans 1993

Quote:
The proposal President Barack Obama unveiled on Monday is based largely on the bill passed by the Democratic Senate on Dec. 24, 2009, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. It has some similarities to a GOP proposal sponsored by Sen. John Chafee, R-R.I., during the Clinton presidency, the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993.

This chart compares those two bills with the Nov. 3, 2009 proposal from House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, the Common Sense Health Care Reform and Affordability Act.

Ah, hypocrisy...gotta love it!
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
post #956 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Health insurance companies sure don't make enough money off sick people. Can't have their profits eaten into at all in order to make sure the sick aren't denied care when they need it most. That'd be unamerican.

I forgot that the "free" in “Give us your poor, your tired, your huddled masses longing to be free…” meant freedom from giving two shits about your fellow countryman. My mistake.


This is exactly the kind of partisan, bleeding heart crap I've come to expect from you and your "side" of this debate in general. Should we make efforts to get more people coverage? Yes. Should we bring down costs? Yes. Should we address insurance companies turning people down for pre-existing conditions? Yes. Should we encourage competition, have tort reform and make insurance portable? Absolutely. But you simply will not see what I just wrote. Anyone that opposes government run health insurance hates his fellow man. It's universal coverage or bust for you. It's pure unadulterated ideology. Meanwhile, there are a lot of good ideas out there--many by conservatives--that would actually accomplish some of the things you CLAIM are your goals.

The fact is this isn't about health "reform." It never was. It was about advancing the progressive agenda for the country, not to mention enriching unions and trial lawyers. It's about "spreading the wealth." That's why real, common sense solutions are ignored and/or mocked, not to mention what is done to those that offer them.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #957 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by iPoster View Post

Chart: Comparing Health Reform Bills: Democrats and Republicans 2009, Republicans 1993



Ah, hypocrisy...gotta love it!

Here's some information that might be informative:

- I'm not sure I would call the plan proposed in 1993 was "The Republican's Plan", it was specifically proposed by Senator John Chaffee while it had 20 co-sponsors (including 2 Democrats) it's interesting to look at both Mr. Chaffee and the sponsors. Chaffee would be considered a moderate to liberal Republican (i.e., a "Republican-lite" or "Republican in Name Only") The list also includes a number of moderate to liberal Republicans. You could call the plan a bi-partisan compromise bill, but we'll never really know since it didn't get off the ground.

- Also, there are a few important differences between these two plans which are:
a) Medicaid Expansion
b) Medical Malpractice Reform
c) Prohibits Insurers From Setting Lifetime Spending Caps
d) Equalize Tax Treatment For Insurance Of Self-Employed
e) Extends Coverage To Dependents


Finally, a simple high-level bullet-point comparison chart of a bill that will be thousands of pages long and cost in the area of $1 trillion dollars likely contains significant differences in the details from what the 1993 bill proposed (if it even got that far).

So positioning this as: "See! We're simply proposing what the Republicans proposed back in '93 and they're still against it! They're nothing but hypocritical obstructionists!" is nothing more than naked and cynical partisan political ploy designed to daze, confuse and sway a superficially observant and gullible American public.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #958 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Here's some information that might be informative:

- I'm not sure I would call the plan proposed in 1993 was "The Republican's Plan", it was specifically proposed by Senator John Chaffee while it had 20 co-sponsors (including 2 Democrats) it's interesting to look at both Mr. Chaffee and the sponsors. Chaffee would be considered a moderate to liberal Republican (i.e., a "Republican-lite" or "Republican in Name Only") The list also includes a number of moderate to liberal Republicans. You could call the plan a bi-partisan compromise bill, but we'll never really know since it didn't get off the ground.

- Also, there are a few important differences between these two plans which are:
a) Medicaid Expansion
b) Medical Malpractice Reform
c) Prohibits Insurers From Setting Lifetime Spending Caps
d) Equalize Tax Treatment For Insurance Of Self-Employed
e) Extends Coverage To Dependents


Finally, a simple high-level bullet-point comparison chart of a bill that will be thousands of pages long and cost in the area of $1 trillion dollars likely contains significant differences in the details from what the 1993 bill proposed (if it even got that far).

So positioning this as: "See! We're simply proposing what the Republicans proposed back in '93 and they're still against it! They're nothing but hypocritical obstructionists!" is nothing more than naked and cynical partisan political ploy designed to daze, confuse and sway a superficially observant and gullible American public.

You beat me to it, and was a bit more in depth in your reply.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #959 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

This is exactly the kind of partisan, bleeding heart crap I've come to expect from you and your "side" of this debate in general. Should we make efforts to get more people coverage? Yes. Should we bring down costs? Yes. Should we address insurance companies turning people down for pre-existing conditions? Yes. Should we encourage competition, have tort reform and make insurance portable? Absolutely. But you simply will not see what I just wrote. Anyone that opposes government run health insurance hates his fellow man. It's universal coverage or bust for you. It's pure unadulterated ideology. Meanwhile, there are a lot of good ideas out there--many by conservatives--that would actually accomplish some of the things you CLAIM are your goals.

The fact is this isn't about health "reform." It never was. It was about advancing the progressive agenda for the country, not to mention enriching unions and trial lawyers. It's about "spreading the wealth." That's why real, common sense solutions are ignored and/or mocked, not to mention what is done to those that offer them.

When the argument boils down to: I don't want MY taxes to pay for OTHER people, I'm going to say that Republicans don't give two shits about their fellow countryman.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #960 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

When the argument boils down to: I don't want MY taxes to pay for OTHER people, I'm going to say that Republicans don't give two shits about their fellow countryman.

Really? What do you annually contribute to your fellow countryman's medical insurance? Or are you, as they say, "a sponger"?

In the meantime, I think the majority (far more than the Republicans) don't want to pay increased taxes to pay for other folks insurance, especially when they already pay a substantial amount for their own.

Or does this majority not deserve "two shits"?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Biggest Threat to Obama's Health Care "Reform" - Reality