Are you referring to the video aghast posted? I'm not sure I agree with you. It serves to elucidate the uninformed nature of these protesters, ie: what is contributing in bogging down this entire process. Whether its fair to conclude that hers was a representative sample is yet to be seen, but this does at least disclose that the most vocal elements aren't really basing their opposition upon anything substantive (aside from the empty 'liberties' rhetoric, lol..)
Yeah, I realized that later. I had already seen her town hall meeting question and been properly shocked/amused/saddened, so I was pleasantly surprised by her relatively reasonable interview. I guess many people came into that clip seeing the question for the first time. I find it hard to blame her for this. I thought her answer to that question was appropriate. I know several people who didn't get into politics until recently, even though they have been old enough to vote for years. For a lot of Americans it is just not something to pay a lot of attention to. Whether it is the excitement of a minority president, or the horror of a minority president, or a myriad of other things, there are many reasons to suddenly get involved when you weren't before.
It is outrageous to think that the that a public plan can doom the private industry? It sounds like that is what most here want anyway... Is it just wacky to think that employers will drop private health insurance and put their employees into the public plan? Will the politicians stop asking for more? I think it is very possible this will lead to a complete government takeover of the industry. I see it as a progression.
Thanks, SS, seriously. That is closer to a logical set of questions and discussion (IMHO.) I think we all agree that some step needs to be taken. What would you most like to see? Personally, I would go for this as a step: (a) Modest plan to cut the number of uninsured in half. That could be an (I know, gasp) expansion of a Medicare type of program, OR something innovative, like many cities do in housing. Here's the analogy. In many cities, the cost of doing development business is that you have to build, say, a new condo project with 10% of the units ready to offer to low-income families only. The cost of being in the health insurance business could be very very similar. Their profits are huge, so why not make them have 5% of their clients be people who could not otherwise access health insurance? (b) Create a real systematic set of health incentives. Cut my taxes, for instance, if I hit certain health benchmarks in terms of weight, blood pressure, and sexual prowess.
I don't blame her but find her answer ironic and telling about her mindset considering why she was upset in the first place.
No, but how can you believe it is a bad thing if the insurance companies simply can't compete with a government that, by your accusations, couldn't possibly run anything right? Nice assumption, but I would rather that the health insurance companies figure this out, as should be the case if the market truly solved all the problems. The thing is, these companies will not do the things that need to be done absent legislation. Yes, especially right now, given what has actually been proposed. Besides, even if the employers do change insurance companies to the public option, they will still be paying premiums for their employees just as they do now. The difference is that it would cost the employers less once we take all of the bloated overhead out of the healthcare industry. If the politicians overreach, they will be replaced on election day. It will only progress as far as the public lets it. If the public option ends up providing superior care for less money, a government takeover of the industry would be a good thing, don't you think?
It wouldn't be outrageous if we knew for certain that a public option is in the bill and what that public option entails. I will say it is outrageous to start spouting about being imprisoned for not being fit.
In fairness, that's more a reaction to B-Bob's egging. He's started a new fitness routine and wants SouthernSelect to pay for his running tights and post pilates massage.
I don't disagree that opponents of health care reform have done a poor job of making clear their objections, and I even mentioned something similar in my earlier post to Southern Select. Yes, they consistently fail to explain that the claims of socialism, nationalized health care, death panels, and the rest are all just fears and that they aren't written into the bills. I agree with that criticism. And yes many people actually are using those things as scare tactics and strawmen. But not all of them are, and these fears are based on valid disagreements. So if you can, move past that for a minute and look at the better argument they are making. (And I started this post before a meeting so it's probably irrelevant now that the discussion is continuing.) Many people have a real fear that any step that contains more government intervention is a progression towards eventual government intrusion into things they hold sacred. You (and I) might wonder why that's such a bad thing, but that's only because we don't share the same fear. The desire to reduce the size and influence of government is a perfectly valid position to take, so in theory it is perfectly valid to want to avoid any step towards more government control of healthcare.
Totally agree. This is why I have such distaste for protestors in general. I know protesting is an inalienable right in this country and I glad it is. But it seems like 95% of the most vocal protestors in this country – whether it be anti-war, pro-war, anti-abortion, pro-abortion, anti-healthcare, pro-healthcare, etc – are just totally clueless as to what they’re actually protesting. It’s like they’re doing it just so they can make the scene or feel like they’re involved. Key word being “feel”. This lady is the perfect example. If you’re going to protest anything, PLEASE either do your homework on it or stay home.
Just remember the Government's handling of Katrina; that tells the whole story. After Katrina, I totally lost confidence in my Government's ability to do anything right other than military actions (which are often screwed up too) and build roads. Reduce healthcare costs, yes. Regulate insurance and drug companies for better pricing and availability, yes. Take over the whole system = nightmare of major proportions.
uolj - all those posts you quoted concerned SS's utterly insane accusation of jail-time for the non-healthy. The single payer issue has been debated earlier in this thread.
Tom Tomorrow's strategies for republican success #2: Highlight republican failures as validation of anti-government ideology. "Our staggeringly incompetent response to Katrina proves that Washington can't do anything right!"
Then you should be really relieved that none of the bills being debated come anywhere close to a government take over of the health care system.
Unfortunately, many times this belief is underscored by two complete misconceptions 1. that the government currently doesn't interfere with certain/all industries, when rather there's an incredible amount of direct or indirect government regulation ("socialism!") in every single industry and has been for hundreds of years. 2. that all markets are magically perfectly efficient when left to their own devices - that's simply not true and never has been, and never will be.
Will people's heads blow up when they realize that they are sending their kids to a socialist education system and driving on a socialist road network?
