In watching the mindless babble of the talking heads on Sudnay morning and the Axlerod interview it cemented my long standing believe that this whole health care issue has little to do with providing health care to Americans and much to do awith grabbing power for the democrats in government. Axelrod's arguing that, as soon as the bill passes, Democrats can just frame every issue with their traditional trope: The evil Republicans want to take something away from you. In fairness to them, one can see how appealing the political vision might be to many Democrats; it's a simple way to try to maintain long-term dominance. After all, the demagoguing has pretty well worked with every Big Government program except welfare, hasn't it? And lets not forget about Miss Pelosi's comments: You’ve heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don’t know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention—it’s about diet, not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting. But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy. So my questiosn are this.... 1. If this health care for a healthier America is so good for the people why won't the congress, president or any other government officials be using the same care they are trying to force us to use? 2. Since the Obama adiministration has already racked up more national debt in the its first 18 months then GWBush racked up in his entire eight years....Who is going to pay for this boon doggle? 3. If everyone wants this bill and its so good for America then why does a congress and senate who is held by majority democrats going through so many hoops, back office deals and flat out bribery to get this thing passed? Some one ought to launch an ethics investigation as I am sure there are violations gallore to be found. My opinion is its a flat out power grab by a clueless, bunch of people who couldn't care less about America but rather are absorbed in their own self interests of maintaining their political power.
The care they are forcing you to use is private care. They already recognize it's highly efficient, but conservatives have limited their ability to go any further. Read the bill. The payment mechanisms are in there. The bill is deficit neutral (actually, it reduces the deficit). Because the GOP has filibuster power, preventing them from going the normal routes of House-Senate conference. The GOP has already quite publicly stated that they are going to oppose the bill no matter what, so there is no choice but to go through hoops. Part of those hoops are eliminating the backroom Senate deals. Probably so, if you consider a party completely abandoning the role of governing as an ethics violation. I think everyone knows your opinion. We also know it's based on a bunch of nonsense and garbage, as made clear by your comments in this thread alone. The fact that you don't even know "who's going to pay for it" means you don't even know what's in the bill - so its funny that you think your opinion is somehow relevant or useful in some way. It's just another example of the people opposed to something they know nothing about.
Because they have a much better form of socialized healthcare Please provide some resource that shows this to be true, but to answer your question, the bill is deficit neutral and will, in fact, lower the deficit approximately a 100 billion dollars over the next 10 years Because unfortunately a lot of these congressmen and women are more beholding to the insurance lobby and companies than they are their constituents.
It is pretty obvious from this question that you don't have any idea what is in the healthcare bill. There isn't anything about a public option in the Senate bill, which is the one they are pushing through, which means that they aren't forcing some particular plan on anyone. There is a mandate to buy health insurance, but that is to buy it from existing private insurance providers. The statement you made (about the debt) really has nothing to do with the question, but the Senate bill has its revenues spelled out. There are raised taxes on the ultra-rich as well as a surcharge on "Cadillac" health insurance plans. Hyperbole much? There are as many hoops and back office deals in this as are in any large government bill. If there are any actual bribes going on with regards to this bill, it looks more like it is the insurance companies bribing members of congress NOT to pass the bill. Pot, meet kettle. Both parties are just as absorbed in maintaining their political power as the other. I could make a much stronger case that the ones who care more about America (and Americans) are the ones who are trying to make sure that people in this country don't die for lack of health coverage.
This argument is used for every social program. And the answer is the same for each one. This is an inherent problem in our government. Much of the crap that gets passed never applies to our government. So much for us being a democracy. Who really cares? All that matters is that the government reassures us that [insert your fav. social program here] will pay for itself in one form or another. Never mind that the government rarely produces a program that actually takes care of itself. Even with the uproar of the deficit today, the reality is such that if I can still go home, turn on my tv, watch my favorite soap and cram McPoison down my throat, then America is still the greatest country in the world and all is well. Politics is like any other job. If you don't produce, you get fired. Politicians will throw voters under the bus to ensure they get another term. All they care about is their political career. Much like union workers, all they care about is how much they can squeeze from the company. They wake up one morning and find they can't squeeze another drop from the company. Then they get angry because they can't find comparable pay for their unskilled work. Social Justice is always great as long as you're on the receiving end.
(s)care. How clever. I wonder if Republicans have ever thought of using fear-based pandering as an entire mantra to keep their denizens in check? Oh thats right, that is pretty much the foundation of their existence.
Oddson, sincere question (and usually when I start this way, I never get a reply from someone, for some reason, but here goes): Your fundamental idea is that this is a power grab by democrats. How does this work for them? They can get voted out of office, especially if people hate the reforms, so what exactly would revised healthcare mean for the democratic party? I think you are: (a) giving them too much credit for a devious plan, and (b) using some sort of logic that I'm not following, about how this benefits one party. My ears are honestly open!
Others have answered your questions as well as I could but I have a question for you. Well first off most bills are about legislating for the future since its hard to retroactively legislate for the past but here is my question. What is wrong with prevention? Have you ever heard the saying "an ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure"?
OddsOn, I'd repped you if I could! BTW, do you know that time travel is possible now? If you buy a plane ticket to go to Greece you will see America in a few years from now.
LOL!!! via TPM -- Crazy Rhetorical Flourish Watch Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC): Nancy Pelosi has Democrats "all liquored up on sake" on a "suicide run." Always the joiner, Trent Lott invokes Ides of March in opposition to health care reform, too. If the increasingly over-the-top rhetoric coming from the GOP is any indication, health care reform may be in better shape than even many Democrats think.
When the intellectual reservoir runs dry, the name-calling begins. How many posts is that for you in this thread? One? I guess that was what we might call a quickie.
You get what you deserve. You've proven your intellectual dishonesty in countless threads in your short time here (under this name anyway). Why should I waste time on a serious reply to you when you've shown you won't respond in kind?
Sort of like the OP of this thread right? If the assclown who started the thread really wanted to have an honest discussion of healthcare reform, maybe he should start with the thread title
I used to work with this very conservative guy who I liked and respected alot on a personal level who recently left my company. I was telling him back last year about an Obama press conference where they asked Obama about his plan. Obama's like I don't know if you guys notice but I have a doctor following me around all the time. My co-worker was actually upset that Obama said that. I'm like, now you guys don't like when he tells the truth?
Great Scot! You've stumbled upon something here that has shattered my entire political paradigm. I'm so (s)cared!
I will say the same thing to you I said to Batman. When the intellectual reservoir runs dry, the name calling begins. And with you two guys, it frequently begins almost immediately. So then, what do the routine barrages of name-calling and personal attacks by you guys tell us? That you are intellectually out of gas and you have nothing better to offer to the discussion other than insults and rude comments. It is the kind of behavior that one would not be surprised to see from a fifteen year old high-school drop out. And the suggestion that anyone who offers comments that deviate from 'progressive' notions of political correctness is dishonest is just another instance of name calling. When you engage in this kind of conduct, it is a signal of open retreat, and a concession of surrender by you in response to the comments that have triggered this sort of juvenile behavior from you. Is that the best you have to offer? Since that is what you are offering, it certainly appears so. When you resort to name-calling and personal attacks, you lose. Whether you like it or not.
