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

Originally Posted by jazzguru

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.

Originally Posted by tonton

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.

Originally Posted by tonton

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.

Originally Posted by FloorJack

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!

Originally Posted by BR

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.

Originally Posted by tonton

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.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

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.

Originally Posted by trumptman

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

Originally Posted by MJ1970

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.

Originally Posted by tonton

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

Originally Posted by BR

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

Originally Posted by SDW2001

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.

Originally Posted by FloorJack

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.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

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.

Originally Posted by BR

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

Originally Posted by MJ1970

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

Originally Posted by tonton

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

Originally Posted by tonton

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

Originally Posted by MJ1970

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.

Originally Posted by MJ1970

No, but thanks for the reductio ad absurdum.

Originally Posted by tonton

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

Originally Posted by tonton

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

Originally Posted by tonton

Would you like to move to Alaska, MJ?

Originally Posted by tonton

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

Originally Posted by tonton

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

Originally Posted by MJ1970

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.
.

Originally Posted by tonton

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.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

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."

Originally Posted by SDW2001

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."

Originally Posted by MJ1970

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

Originally Posted by tonton

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?

Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo

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.

Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo

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

Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo

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

Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo

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

Originally Posted by MJ1970

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?

Originally Posted by MJ1970

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

Originally Posted by MJ1970

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.

Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo

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.

Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo

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.

Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo

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.

Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo

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.

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.

Originally Posted by BR

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.

Originally Posted by iPoster

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



Ah, hypocrisy...gotta love it!

Originally Posted by MJ1970

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.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

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.

Originally Posted by BR

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.