Yup, anybody who takes their cues from clearly insane people like Glenn Beck, Limbaugh etc is pretty fanatical to me.
No, that's why I'm specifying. dude, it's pretty hard to rationalize with some moron who walks into a town hall meeting and says "Get your dirty government hands off my Medicare" (actual quote) Or to argue about "death panels" that don't exist. Or to even begin to argue about "socialism" and gov't regulated health care to somebody who doesn't understand what socialism is, or that the health care system we have now is already heavily regulated by the government. It's like arguing with the birthers (who these people are) - there's no point.
Far from the rosy picture painted by the original post the UK health system is actually a extremely wasteful and incompetent as shown by this absolutely accurate documentary below. <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/arCITMfxvEc&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/arCITMfxvEc&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> IS THIS THE TYPE OF CARE THAT YOU WANT?
I agree to the stipulation that at least some fraction of these people are lunatic fringe individuals. I disagree strongly with the idea that they all are, and I think the effort to brand everyone who is disagreeing with this policy as lunatics/idiots/morons/birthers/r****ds or whatever other endearing term you choose to you is weak sauce.
1) What does she fear about single-payer systems anyways? There are several functional examples in Australia, Canada and the UK that have consistently proven themselves to be better and more efficient then the current system. Yes, I consider the world's most expansive system per person a mediocre one. 2) Untrue, as the way the bill is currently written (not even talking about single-payer here), private insurance will still remain. In fact one could even say that there would be MORE options, as I understand it. And if private insurance is abolished through the choice of consumers, well, who do you have to blame but the mediocrity of the system in question? 3) Valid complaint. I also think Obama is passing way too much, but in acquiring some concessions from big pharma (which has avidly lined up behind his reform) and cutting some extraneous programs, the cost may not be as sky-high as it seems at first. 4) Does the American gouvernment happen to be particularly weak or mediocre or prone to corruption? Every other industrialized nation out there provides some form of universal health care and many developing nations do as well. 5) sigh...incorporating elements of socialism is inevitable. Any sensible economy out there is mixed to some degree including America; you can't just deny useful applications based on ideology, at least not if you're rational.
According to rhadamanthus, that is an incoherent list. National health care sounds great on paper, but so does communism. It still doesn't address how the upper end of the lower class is going to afford the insurance. Forcing people to get insurance is not a solution to the problem. I have yet seen a "coherent" answer on how we intend to find more doctors and keep the ones who are doctors solely for the purpose of the money, as this intends to double the people who will require medical care. Finally, I grow tired of people using Europe as an example. We are NOT europe. We are nothing like Europe.
I see the same crowds in those videos (armed this time! how quaint) that I see at the McCain Palin ralliles saying that Obama is a terrorist. Exact same demographic, exact same kind of rage. And it appears that they are being organized by the same grassroots level people (local tea partiers etc) and the same national opinion leaders (talk radio etc). Draw your own conclusion.
Every other industrialized nation became so becuase of us. They also prefer soccer over football. F them.
I appreciate your efforts with this post, but sadly she is gone for the day and won't be back until late next week. I can't answer any of the questions/challenges you offered because she isn't here.
LOL So now you are doing facial matching or what? Taking names? So, white and unhappy with government=fanatical racists to you. Got it. Maybe, maybe no. But being organized by people who may or may not be fanatical doesn't make you a fanatic, nor does it make you an idiot, nor does it necessarily make you wrong. Some of them clearly are crazy, a lot of them are disrespectful. I don't have anywhere near enough evidence of anything to draw any conclusions other than the single anecdotal evidence I've provided to disprove your theory.
Loudness + Obnoxiousness = Rational Debate Loudness + Obnoxiousness = Significant Percentage of the Population Loudness + Obnoxiousness = Reasoned response. I'm sure the "if you're not with us you're against us" crowd would take issue with this, but I don't consider myself a liberal. I'm far worse than a liberal. But all this idiotic garbage being spewed by mad Glenn Beckites and wingers of all stripes (if you don't think this is the case, watch the videos where the Shouters tell a Republican congressman that he should "listen to Glenn Beck") reminds me of a Nietzsche quotation that easily sums up the reasons I find myself opposing the whacked ideas of wingers: My first response is often to disagree with 'conservatives' and that occurs far more often than I find myself agreeing with 'liberals.'
National health care is a walking, talking, functioning reality in the following NON-EUROPEAN countries. (since we can't be seen as pansy europeans) India Israel Canada Brazil Argentina Australia New Zealand Japan South Korea Taiwan etc. etc. As for the question of keeping doctors, where are they going to go, Kenya? Or the Sudan? Because if they're in it for the money and not the whole helping people part, those strike me as an odd choices. I digress though. Tort reform strikes me as a powerful compromise that would not only offer more incentive to stay in the field...but would also encourage more people to become doctors once the high liability insurance premiums become almost non-existent.
The Japanese government regularly checks the waistlines of citizens over age 40. Anyone deemed too fat would be required to undergo diet counseling. Those who fail to lose sufficient weight could face further "reeducation" and their communities subject to stiff fines. In 2007, New Zealand banned Richie Trezise, a Welsh submarine cable specialist, from entering the country on the grounds that his obesity would "impose significant costs ... on New Zealand's health or special education services." Richie later lost weight and was allowed to immigrate, but his wife had trouble slimming and was kept home. http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Fitness/story?id=6614687&page=1
But please, please, enlighten me with more individual anecdotes that have little to nothing to do with the argument at hand.
I know it sounds crazy to you, but it's really not that hard for a local tea party/fringe libertarian group to get a few hundred like-minded (unemployed?) folks together in the middle of the day to shout about death panels and socialized medicne. That's why they did it, as documented in the article excerpt posted above.
No, that part doesn't sound crazy to me. I've already stipulated that I believe that is happening to an extent. What I am disputing is the idea that everyone at these events is a radical, that being against universal healthcare=Jim Crow advocate, etc.
