The President setting the record straight.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x357222
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x357222
Right-Wing Says You'll Die If Health Care Passes
- Thread starter Friday on my mind
- Start date
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/health_care_reform_that_actual.html
BTW, if they jsut wanted to keep medical costs down, I've said it before but the FIRST step is not government control, it's tort reform. Texas did it and now more doctors are going there and because their insurance is cheaper.
Let's cut through the bullshit to the core of this debate. There are two questions you need to ask yourself:
(1) Is health care a "right" guaranteed by the US Constitution?
if yes, then:
(2) Can the US Federal government effectively run a giant program like this?
My personal opinion is no on both counts.
BTW, if they jsut wanted to keep medical costs down, I've said it before but the FIRST step is not government control, it's tort reform. Texas did it and now more doctors are going there and because their insurance is cheaper.
Let's cut through the bullshit to the core of this debate. There are two questions you need to ask yourself:
(1) Is health care a "right" guaranteed by the US Constitution?
if yes, then:
(2) Can the US Federal government effectively run a giant program like this?
My personal opinion is no on both counts.
That clip reminded me of a a joke I hear today...
That's the difference between Barack Obama and God?
God doesn't think he's Barack Obama. :rofl: Thought that was pretty funny
Answers: (1) Yes. In fact, we should add an Amendment spelling this out explicitly.
(2). The US Federal Gov't runs Medicare, the Post Office, the Military pretty well. Yes, the Gov't can/would run Healthcare effectively. A Gov't insurance option would *force* the Kaiser Permanentes, Blue Cross Blue Shields, whatever Insurance company, to remove "pre-existing condition" disqualifier clauses from their own plans. That alone would be a good thing for the consumer/patient, would it not?
1- Not every right has to be specifically spelled out.Is their a right not to starve in america,I think there is and most would agree with that.Some basic health care insurance is same type of thing.We don't need to amend the constitution to be decent people.
2- While I know you may not agree with this I think the part of health care the govt controls now is better run then the private insurance companies.For the amount of money we spend we should be covering everyone easily,the reason we don't is too much profit in the system and too many smaller, higher overhead, less efficent, more costly lol, seperate insurance companies(beauracracies).
A LOT of the people showing up at those town halls are people on meidcare/medicade worried that their benefits might be cut to pay for some of the new costs the govt would take on.Their yelling don't socialize medicine you might hurt MY socialized medicine.
Tort reform is just like the old "waste ,fraud,and abuse line.Sure maybe some reform is needed in that area but the savings aren't going to amount to making a significant difference IMO.You got numbers that say different?
I have said this about tort reform. It must be passed first and foremost.
And I say no on both counts also.
On #1 I agree, in that IF it's a "right," then it should require an amendment to the Constitution, ratified by 2/3 of the States. Personally, I don't think that's a right, and polls show the majority of Americans do not either. So why are the Dems trying to ram this down our throats?
Two of the three examples you mentioned are NOT success stories. The ONLY "program" the Feds do well is the military. Medicare is going busted again, and the Postal Service lost $2 billion last quarter alone!
john ,
in the parlance of my time ,
yakin to a wack job
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-20-2009/betsy-mccaughey-pt--2
honestly ...
in the parlance of my time ,
yakin to a wack job
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-20-2009/betsy-mccaughey-pt--2
honestly ...
om3ga
It's good to be the king...
Yep...I thought it was pathetic (and I've picked my words carefully)...
On #1 I agree, in that IF it's a "right," then it should require an amendment to the Constitution, ratified by 2/3 of the States. Personally, I don't think that's a right, and polls show the majority of Americans do not either. So why are the Dems trying to ram this down our throats?
Two of the three examples you mentioned are NOT success stories. The ONLY "program" the Feds do well is the military. Medicare is going busted again, and the Postal Service lost $2 billion last quarter alone!
Are you blaming people not mailing letters or companies and credit card companies not carpet-bombing our mailboxes with all sorts of throw-away shit ON the post office?
C'mon. You can't blame the Post Office for people not mailing anything anymore. A sensible solution for the Post Office is to cut Saturday service immediately. They should just raise the stamp cost to .50 cents. This single or double cent increase is annoying. The Military, the Post Office AND Medicare ARE run well. The USDA Food Inspectors are important people who do their job well. We just don't have enough of them. The National Park Service is another well-run Gov't Org. Same with the Smithsonian Institution.
I am cherry-picking the best of the best of the Gov't (which comes to the top of my mind at the moment). There are some Gov't Agencies which do not perform well. I would dismantle the Dept of Homeland Security, for starters.
The Dems are not "ramming" anything down our throats. That's the problem. They NEED TO BE!!!! The Republicans know how 'to get shit done' --it's awful, bad shit which harms the nation instead of helping the nation--but nobody can complain that the GOP doesn't know how to get stuff done. The Dems need to start USING their Congressional Muscle. Stop all this Townhall Bullshit for one thing. Townhalls are useful for elections but they are distractions during work time...
I am under the impression that medical lawsuits make up about 1.5% of the total. (Correct me if I am wrong.) I would think that it would make sense to address the problems in the 98.5% of the budget first.
Yes you are
The other 6,000+ programs are a waste of taxpayer money. And I do agree with your assessment of DHS, it was an over-reaction after 9/11.As for the Dems "ramming" this through, even if they get it done it will be political suicide. Most people are against it and will be utterly pissed if their elected officials go against their will.
As for alternatives, Tort Reform would only be a start. We KNOW that will have a modest impact in the positive column as far as health costs. I just don't understand why they want to completely overhaul the system instead of trying some proven reforms first. Putting the Federal government in charge of ANYTHING should ALWAYS be a last resort...
If it takes an Amendment to the Constitution to have a public option, then where is the amendment that deals with the Federal Highway system? Or any other Federal Program?
That's a VERY good question. My personal opinion is that a LOT of what the Federal government has taken control of over the last 50+ years is in fact unconstitutional. Politicians basically ignored constitutional Federalism (division of power among central, state, local levels) in order to garner more programs (and hence money/power) at the Federal level. They basically figured out that they could buy favors with programs by "bribing" the voting populous with their own money!
Here's a decent explanation on the subject with regards to heathcare, focusing on the "forgotten amendment", #10.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/introducing_the_tenth_amendmen.html
Why are these right wingers scared of competition for the insurance companies? I thought competition in the market was a good thing?
I think it's more about further expansion of Federal power, more tax burden and more debt (we're already broke now), and a pretty solid track record of poorly run programs.
Health care is a right without an amendment.We already have that established.You show up in need of care at a hospital they must give treatment ,correct? The issue is whether health insurance is a right.All the experts will tell ya that having all these uninsured who don't get care on a regular basis costs much more in long run.Were not doing them a favor as much as we are doing the sensible economically prudent thing by making sure all get to see a doctor regularly.
We provide health care now to the elderly via the govt,should we abolish that? Thats seems to be logic of some who oppose health care as a right.If its a right for retirees,why is not a right for all? This of course is the most expensive group needing the most care,no wonder they have costs problems.Need to get everybody into one common pool sharing the costs.
Unfortunately we aren't going to get that anytime soon.So the costs and the burden on our economy will just grow and grow.You ain't seen nothing yet in tax burdens if nothing is done.
We provide health care now to the elderly via the govt,should we abolish that? Thats seems to be logic of some who oppose health care as a right.If its a right for retirees,why is not a right for all? This of course is the most expensive group needing the most care,no wonder they have costs problems.Need to get everybody into one common pool sharing the costs.
Unfortunately we aren't going to get that anytime soon.So the costs and the burden on our economy will just grow and grow.You ain't seen nothing yet in tax burdens if nothing is done.
That was a well stated argument... you should email that to the White House because that's better than any of the mumbo jumbo I've heard from them.:thumbsup:
But, you can still get coverage for poor people without a government run option. Not to mention, I get the feeling that the people that work and pay for their own insurance are just getting fed up with paying for other people's "stuff" too...
Just to add this article I read today, interesting point-counter point to many of the "arguments" floating around out there. Enjoy.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/obamacarepoint_and_counterpoin.html
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/obamacarepoint_and_counterpoin.html
They have tried to say this but it has hard time getting through.Obama much to the chagrin of people on the left like me who want the single payer plan has taken a much more moderate middle of the road approach.And I very much understand the feeling of people not wanting to have to subsidize others.But again they already are paying for them.We pay too much now.It can't go on this way IMO and is not good for anyone.
This is another basically do nothing there is no crisis arguement.And then they say at the end which really just shows where they are coming from the following.
"Every point the president has made regarding his health plan is either a gross misrepresentation or an outright lie. The purpose of this plan is to ensure dependence on government and a financial windfall for his cronies, including trial lawyers, and has nothing to do with concern about the cost of medical care or about the health or lives of American citizens. "
This is just ridiculous lol.It's the current system which is a financial windfall for certain people.Just how would a public option be a financial windfall for lawyers more than doctors.Or are doctors one of Obama's cronies?
Does Obama really want control over people health care or does he think which I think is obvious and I agree with that it is a major problem that must be addressed.
Right now the only people I see possibly getting a financial windfall out of all this are the insurance companies and doctors.Thats the problem with his approach.He wants to provide everyone with coverage somehow while basically maintaining the current system.That means just feed more money into a system that takes too big a share of economy now.You would think conservatives even if they are against Obama's plan would be saying all this spending on health care private or public was not sustainable.What happened to being fiscally responsible?
I understand this is the best he thinks is politically possible which does not bode well for us as a country coming to grips with lots of fiscal problems the govt faces in the future.Health programs ,social security(no not privatization,need means testing) etc are going to be almost untouchable soon as the boomers are not going to allow anyone to mess with it later.Now is the time, actually years ago was the time to make some changes.
Similar threads
