The NHS & the United States of America

[joshstrike]

True.. but the U.S. isn't New Zealand.

Yeah, but we should try to be more like New Zealand. That country is something to aspire to. I mean, they're an island in the middle of nowhere with an economy mostly based on sheep, and yet it's the cleanest most modern place I've ever seen (that wasn't a dictatorship). There's virtually no crime; one or two muggings in central Auckland is an out-of-control crime spree by their standards. There's accountability in government. There's a lot of personal space and freedom. Yes, people pay relatively high taxes, but they get a lot for their money. The trains and buses are clean and run on time, not filthy and late like they are here. There's good nightlife and good local beer. The scenic beauty of the country is well-preserved. And it's free to go to a doctor.

If they can do it, and Sweden can do it, why can't we? Is it that Americans are somehow inferior to Kiwis or Swedes? Or is it that our country is broken because we've allowed monopolistic practices to take hold? I'm all for trying a free market approach to health care if it's truly a free market... but as soon as the government starts limiting how many players can be in the field, or a few enormous companies take over the system, you have something worse than a government monopoly; you have a for-profit monopoly, that's even less transparent and less accountable than an equally monolithic government-run bureaucracy doing the same thing. And that's what we have here now, and these corporations have a stranglehold on the US, right down to controlling and degrading the character of public debate on the subject.

I'm leaving the country again, soon, thankfully. But being here and watching this all go down, it's hard not to just throw up my hands and wonder what the heck is wrong with people here, that they're so terrified by the word "socialism" that they can't see that it's just not feasible, it just doesn't work, to run a modern society with opportunity for all on this ridiculous disneyesque simulacrum of frontier individualism and corporate unaccountability, with the occasional outburst of barnyard justice. The underlying belief that the American dream is still alive, that you can make something out of nothing here, is fundamentally bankrupt because the government is too busy protecting the big boys to give a damn about the individual; but people here by and large still buy into the platitudes and the slogans. So what we've ended up with is modern America, limping along like a second-world nation, with this enormous gap between rich and poor, white collar and blue collar, when we should be a settled, socialized democracy by now like the rest of the first world. It's the outcome of being what Hunter Thompson said we were... "America...just a nation of two hundred million used car salesmen with all the money we need to buy guns and no qualms about killing anybody else in the world who tries to make us uncomfortable."

[Frets]

I think Gerbs summed it up awhile back. The protests aren't about taxes, it's not about how socialist as a nation we view ourselves and it's not about Obama's nationality, and not about illegal immigration. It's about change in status quo The nation was in transition long before Obama was elected president. (anyone remember the mid-term elections) The few loud and well funded don't like the change. They aren't interested in truth. They just don't want their status to change for whatever they see their status as.

What continues to amaze me is the convienent lack of knowledge the hannity's of the word have when they question the constitutionality of such a law.
They either haven't read the preamble to the constitution or have a secret constitution they are quoting from that no one knows about.



http://The Constitution of the Unite... Transcription

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

For those who may have difficulty with the word.

welfare
A noun
1 social welfare, welfare
governmental provision of economic assistance to persons in need
Category Tree:
act; human action; human activity
╚activity
╚aid; assist; assistance; help
╚financial aid
╚social welfare, welfare
╚dole; pogy; pogey
╚relief
╚social insurance
2 benefit, welfare
something that aids or promotes well-being; "for the common good"
Category Tree:
abstraction
╚attribute
╚quality
╚good; goodness
╚benefit, welfare
╚sake; interest
╚advantage; reward
3 wellbeing, well-being, welfare, upbeat, eudaemonia, eudaimonia
a contented state of being happy and healthy and prosperous; "the town was finally on the upbeat after our recent troubles"

[TallGuyLittleCar]

Only interested in the constitution and law when it serves your purpose?

There is a fairly long running debate about not only the meaning of the verbiage but also about its authority. The preamble in and of its self is not a law, but "guidance" for the amendments.

[Frets]

I'm always interested in the constitution. How dare you make that assertion.

Amendments are amendable that's why they are amendments. There is a means to rescind an amendment. It's been used in the past very effectively.

The preamble is not an amendment. It is not a suggestion. A nation is not forged on a suggestion.

The preamble is not a suggestion and not retractable. It is not a reflection of an ideal it is the ideal. It wasn't placed at the beginning of the document as a crib note. It was placed at the beginning of the document to emphasize the core role of the government in a society.

[FlashLackey]

Why does it seem that all these protesters and politicians against the healthcare reform can't use any truth in their arguments?
If their position is valid in any way then why do they have to rely on all the lies and scare tactics?

I respect that you meant well to get this thread on track. But, I think your premise is flawed. The idea that those who oppose healthcare haven't provided rational criticism supported by facts, figures and economics regarding healthcare is nothing but Democrat flavored kool-aid.

Obama cites growing costs as one of the main reasons why we need his reform. However, the CBO projects that his plan will cost us trillions of dollars more. You can't say that we have an unsustainable system that you will fix by adding additional costs. Clearly, it is Obama who is lacking in facts that support his assertion that his plan will cut costs. It's an empty promise that he can't seriously believe himself.

What's up with all of these goddamn labels? birther, truther... stupider.

I agree. I haven't typically been a fan of that type of politics, even though I fell to temptation and used one of them here recently.

Your all ****ing twisting everything around, turning what should be a simple this is good this is bad into a ****ing maze of lies, rumors, slander and bull****.

It really is not a simple subject. Believing that it should be is a good way to get snowed over what should be done about it.

Case in point, FlashLackey. I hate to point fingers, but he absolutely believes what he believes, and is quite inflexible. He will not yield, probably sees it as a position or weakness - that's merely speculation - but as far as it goes, has not compelled me to see his point in any regard other than one thing. He will oppose anything and everything that comes down the pipe from this Democrat mostly government and had relative ease accepting what came down from the Republican mostly government these last 12 years years. Sure, he can pinpoint what he didn't like before; but still accepted it.

I appreciate your post and many of the points you made. But, I would like to clarify myself in response.

I don't think that I am any more inflexible than anyone else here. I just have a high tolerance for debate. I'm willing to pursue an issue past the point where many people begin to take it personally that I don't just let it go. My hope is that, even those who disagree with me frequently can appreciate that, at worst, it's an opportunity for them to test and examine how they present their own ideas. And thus possibly learn how to make them sharper and more articulate.

That's how I see it. It's a win-win. Either I can be convinced to change my mind (has happened). Or, I test the way I present my positions and learn what aspects those who disagree are concerned about, etc.

I do think it's likely that I will oppose most of what this president proposes. That's because I'm a conservative and he is the most left-leaning president in our history. He has clearly demonstrated that he wishes to pursue leftist approaches to every problem our country has. In your terms, Obama recognizes no middle ground. He routinely dismisses the large and growing number of Americans (that he is supposed to represent) that are interested in more moderate or conservative solutions.

Both people have merits in their conversation; yet there's no middle ground. Just the same way I have no middle ground with the current surge of people taking to YouTube, Twitter, and these so-called Tea Bag Parties because I disagree with people that compare our president to Hitler. I can't even call those people "human" and sadly enough, the conservatives are warming up to those people for one single reason - they're not stopping it.

After years of protests against Bush and comparisons to Hitler, monkeys and anything and everything in between, I don't know how there really is any room to call foul about Obama/Hitler comparisons or protests against Obama.

Public option is frowned upon by conservatives because they... well, they really enjoy smoking cigars (Limbaugh) or drinking (Beck) or money (Madoff). And liberals are for public option because it gives people that don't have a voice or coverage the ability to get it, meanwhile they're equally as avarice and are stuffing their pockets from the insurance lobbyists (Pelosi) and thus are equally at fault imho.

I disagree. Public opinion frequently favors conservatives in this country. Rather than responding to the voices of the Americans they are supposed to represent, Democrats regularly make excuses for why their ideas have been rejected. It's always some boogeymans fault (unspecific "lies", unspecific accusations "insurance industry manipulation", mischaracterization of a lost debate "smear campaign"). It's never simply that many Americans were asked and most of them don't like the Democrats idea on the issue.

The people in that video amazed me that they're willing to give up their time to go protest and march with no real understanding of the issues, the facts, and can't even verbalize what they're opposed to.

I don't see anything remarkable or productive about seeking out the worst arguments and statements you can find and editing them together. A number of these videos were made from liberal responses at anti-Bush rallies as well.

I'm scared of getting sick here in the US. I have some of the most expensive private coverage money can buy here, and it's still worthless...

To be perfectly honest, I don't believe your story.

We can get into anecdotal comparisons of our personal experiences with health care. But, to cut to the chase, the fact is that a very high percentage of Americans rate their quality of health care good to excellent. So, there are relatively very few people who share your fear.

And, no health care is ever free. You shouldn't describe it that way.

Wow. I don't know where you live, but that's pretty cheap.

It's really not cheap. It's at or close to the usual ambulance fee for most average health plans (mine is also $200). Which is one of the reasons why I doubt the story you posted.

Really?!?
You don't know anyone who's claim has been denied or given the runaround by their insurance company???

I don't either. Just the opposite, there have been a number of times that we have been surprised by what was included (new pair of designer prescription glasses per year, flu shots without meeting deductable, etc.).

Yeah, but we should try to be more like New Zealand. That country is something to aspire to. I mean, they're an island in the middle of nowhere with an economy mostly based on sheep, and yet it's the cleanest most modern place I've ever seen (that wasn't a dictatorship). There's virtually no crime; one or two muggings in central Auckland is an out-of-control crime spree by their standards. There's accountability in government. There's a lot of personal space and freedom. Yes, people pay relatively high taxes, but they get a lot for their money. The trains and buses are clean and run on time, not filthy and late like they are here. There's good nightlife and good local beer. The scenic beauty of the country is well-preserved. And it's free to go to a doctor.

Again. Not free to go to a doctor. It's just added to their tax bill.

I'm sure that New Zealand is a great place. I'd like to visit there myself. But, your premise does not support your argument. That New Zealand is a small island country based on a sheep economy means that administering any kind of public plan is going to be much easier to do than in a much larger country with a massive, complex economy.

I'm all for trying a free market approach to health care if it's truly a free market... but as soon as the government starts limiting how many players can be in the field, or a few enormous companies take over the system, you have something worse than a government monopoly; you have a for-profit monopoly, that's even less transparent and less accountable than an equally monolithic government-run bureaucracy doing the same thing. And that's what we have here now, and these corporations have a stranglehold on the US, right down to controlling and degrading the character of public debate on the subject.

The for-profit monopoly you describe is more effective than any government monopoly. So, it works for us in that way. It's just more expensive than it needs to be. Which we could fix with legislation allowing cross-state competition, removing employer health insurance subsidies and tort reform. Universal coverage could be accomplished by a simple voucher system.

The underlying belief that the American dream is still alive, that you can make something out of nothing here, is fundamentally bankrupt because the government is too busy protecting the big boys to give a damn about the individual; but people here by and large still buy into the platitudes and the slogans.

This isn't true and I am a living example.

So what we've ended up with is modern America, limping along like a second-world nation, with this enormous gap between rich and poor, white collar and blue collar, when we should be a settled, socialized democracy by now like the rest of the first world.

Our limp is most peoples light-speed. Just the amount that our GDP grows, on average, is greater than many nations entire GDP.

As long as there is good economic mobility, arguments about gaps between rich and poor are fundamentally flawed. It is a positive thing when the gap a person jumps from their college job to their professional career is large.

[silverx2]

It really is not a simple subject. Believing that it should be is a good way to get snowed over what should be done about it.

It would be made a lot more easy if people like you didnt try to twist everything around and make it more complicated because your afraid of simple answers.

Go back a page i listed 7 points Obama discussed during his speech, please choose either good or bad for each item. Id like to see personally how you feel about the 7 items.

[Jujumon]

I do think it's likely that I will oppose most of what this president proposes. That's because I'm a conservative and he is the most left-leaning president in our history. He has clearly demonstrated that he wishes to pursue leftist approaches to every problem our country has. In your terms, Obama recognizes no middle ground. He routinely dismisses the large and growing number of Americans (that he is supposed to represent) that are interested in more moderate or conservative solutions.

couldnt help but just to chip in a bit,

i read this comment and i wonder why you have this idea. As it has been shown, your president stated that there will be private insurance as you normally have now, as well as public insurance. So the current system stays in place, doesnt this mean he is compromising? He isnt getting rid of it. If you say that more people are happy with current system then you have nothing to worry about, right!!??

Also, i read something about Obama will continue the patriot act. I dont know much about the act but i read 'his supporters' are not happy. So in that sense, isnt he compromising his position in some ways?

[Loyal Rogue]

The idea that those who oppose healthcare haven't provided rational criticism supported by facts, figures and economics regarding healthcare is nothing but Democrat flavored kool-aid.

Really? Because I have yet to see any politician or individual try to make an argument against healthcare reform without using falsehoods and outright lies.
Death panels, rationing, kill granny, illegal immigrants, "You Lie!", abortion, government takeover, Nazi Germany, socialism/communism, DMV, etc., and the list just keeps repeating ad nauseum with every Republican interview, TV ad, townhall, and teabagger I see.

To correct your statement, the idea that those who oppose healthcare have provided rational criticism supported by facts, figures and economics regarding healthcare is nothing but Republican flavored kool-aid.

Obama cites growing costs as one of the main reasons why we need his reform. However, the CBO projects that his plan will cost us trillions of dollars more. You can't say that we have an unsustainable system that you will fix by adding additional costs. Clearly, it is Obama who is lacking in facts that support his assertion that his plan will cut costs. It's an empty promise that he can't seriously believe himself.

I have to agree that any change to a system so deeply broken and embedded in society will require some major spending to fix, and I really am pissed at Obama for trying to use "creative math" to lie about that.

The facts cannot be denied that if we were to replace our current healthcare system with any other modern system in the world we would cut our costs by half or more.
This is the basic premise behind reforming our system based on reducing costs... in the long run. Emphasis mine.

Our healthcare system is like a giant, gus guzzling 20yr old SUV that needs repairs every month.
Yeah it gets you from point A to point B, but costs a fortune to keep running.
If you want to do a major overhaul on it or replace it with a newer, more efficient model that's going to cost less to maintain in the long run, you're not going to be able to do it without spending some cash up front first.

It really is not a simple subject. Believing that it should be is a good way to get snowed over what should be done about it.

I respectfully disagree.
I think that it is a lot simpler a subject then it's being turned into with the addition of all the false propaganda and distractions.
If both sides would stick to the facts then a lot less people would be getting "snowed over" right now.

I don't think that I am any more inflexible than anyone else here. I just have a high tolerance for debate. I'm willing to pursue an issue past the point where many people begin to take it personally that I don't just let it go.

The following acronyms come to mind: LOL, ROTFL, ROTFLMAO

Actually, I think Gerbs has an uncanny knack for pegging people accurately and honestly on both their good and bad points... as much as I hate to admit it.
Although it's a shame that talent doesn't seem to extend to potential girlfriends.

I do think it's likely that I will oppose most of what this president proposes. That's because I'm a conservative and he is the most left-leaning president in our history. He has clearly demonstrated that he wishes to pursue leftist approaches to every problem our country has. In your terms, Obama recognizes no middle ground. He routinely dismisses the large and growing number of Americans (that he is supposed to represent) that are interested in more moderate or conservative solutions.

The new fad seems to be branding every Democratic candidate and President with that label. It's gotten old very quick and it's starting to sound ridiculous.

I don't see how you can say that Obama recognizes no middle ground when he's routinely pissing off the liberal base that got him elected by backing down and making concessions to the right.
Even some of the life-long Republican conservative retirees that I talk to have admitted that he's much more moderate then they had originally feared.

He ran and was elected on a platform of CHANGE by a majority of the country and now that he's trying to implement those changes a very vocal minority is trying to throw a monkeywrench into the works.

I have had a lot of conversations lately about healthcare with people from all sides of the political spectrum, and in almost every case of an individual who was against the healthcare reform, they cited at least one of the debunked "scare tactic" lies as their reason.
This is no different then the same tactics that were used against the country to gin-up support for the Iraq invasion by invoking "mushroom clouds" over American cities, or Bush repeating "Saddam-Iraq-9/11" so many times that 75% of FOX viewers were convinced that Iraqi hijackers attacked us on 9/11.
I'm sorry, but a majority of the American public just don't have the time or the intellectual curiosity to learn the facts, and just end up believing whatever is screamed at them the loudest and repeated the most often no matter how false it may be.

When people are treated to calm, rational debates, discussions, and reports we become educated and act more like rational, intelligent adults.
When we get treated to over-the-top 24/7 scare tactics, fear-mongering, hate speech, and so many lies that the truth gets completely buried under the avalanche, we turn into a bunch of panicked, irrational children who can't get along or make an intelligent decision.
Unfortunately some political groups have recognized that fact and actively use it to their advantage.

I disagree. Public opinion frequently favors conservatives in this country.

See statement above.

Rather than responding to the voices of the Americans they are supposed to represent, Democrats regularly make excuses for why their ideas have been rejected. It's always some boogeymans fault (unspecific "lies", unspecific accusations "insurance industry manipulation", mischaracterization of a lost debate "smear campaign"). It's never simply that many Americans were asked and most of them don't like the Democrats idea on the issue.

Especially since those Democratic candidates weren't elected overwhelmingly on those issues that Americans don't like... oh wait...

Universal coverage could be accomplished by a simple voucher system.

Or a simple form of single-payer public option like every other modern country which runs more effectively, more efficiently, and with less cost than our own.

As long as there is good economic mobility, arguments about gaps between rich and poor are fundamentally flawed.

The only thing "fundamentally flawed" is that statement.

It is a positive thing when the gap a person jumps from their college job to their professional career is large.

I agree, just like it's a positive thing when a person buys that winning lottery ticket... however, how that benefits the millions that don't buy the winning ticket... well let's just say it is a negative thing when so few actually make that jump.

[Loyal Rogue]

...i read 'his supporters' are not happy. So in that sense, isnt he compromising his position in some ways?

You are absolutely right, Jujumon.
I am one of his supporters on the left that is not happy about his move to the right.
Making compromises and concessions to the group that got our country into such a huge cluster**** is NOT the reason I voted for him or worked to get him elected.

[Jujumon]

i'd just guess that since there are so many important issues for him to deal with (economy, healthcare, war,..etc) it's kinda impossible for him to tackle all at once.

[TallGuyLittleCar]

You are absolutely right, Jujumon.
I am one of his supporters on the left that is not happy about his move to the right.
Making compromises and concessions to the group that got our country into such a huge cluster**** is NOT the reason I voted for him or worked to get him elected.

both you and flash lackey are pretty far outside the mainstream and average though.

[gerbick]

both you and flash lackey are pretty far outside the mainstream and average though.

I think that's the biggest problem. The people in the middle are being unnaturally pulled in one direction or another and ultimately they will lose everything.

This honestly a case of the "haves versus the have nots"...

Actually, I think Gerbs has an uncanny knack for pegging people accurately and honestly on both their good and bad points... as much as I hate to admit it.
Although it's a shame that talent doesn't seem to extend to potential girlfriends.

Haha! I've been doing good for the last couple of years, the last year has been with the same one for the most part... except the milf episode. And that was to show somebody that I could pull one out of boredom.

Nothing beats the fact that they dropped the prices on background checks in SC...

[FlashLackey]

It would be made a lot more easy if people like you didnt try to twist everything around and make it more complicated because your afraid of simple answers.

Do you see the irony of this statement? Accusing me of twisting everything and then characterizing my arguments on this subject as being afraid of simple answers. At least try and take a breath before contradicting yourself.

Go back a page i listed 7 points Obama discussed during his speech, please choose either good or bad for each item. Id like to see personally how you feel about the 7 items.

I feel that your 7 items are a rather amaturish list of false dilemma, loaded arguments that don't address the criticisms of Obama's health care plan. It would be a waste of time to explain how I feel to someone who is pre-determined to reach one conclusion.

i read this comment and i wonder why you have this idea. As it has been shown, your president stated that there will be private insurance as you normally have now, as well as public insurance. So the current system stays in place, doesnt this mean he is compromising? He isnt getting rid of it. If you say that more people are happy with current system then you have nothing to worry about, right!!??

It wouldn't be health care reform if it left the current system in place. One (of many) things to worry about in the plan is the trillions of dollars in increased cost to our economy.

You can't give Obama compromise points for not abolishing private insurance. If we're looking at reforming the system, whatever you add or subtract from it is presumably your idea of how to fix it. He has not addressed the criticisms of his proposals and he has not compromised by including any of the solutions presented by the right (tort reform, cross-border competition, etc.).

Another curious point about his plan. He tried to rush the bill through and constantly says that this is an emergency. Yet, his proposal doesn't kick in until after the next election. Just something to mull over a little.

Also, i read something about Obama will continue the patriot act. I dont know much about the act but i read 'his supporters' are not happy. So in that sense, isnt he compromising his position in some ways?

That's assuming that his position is the same as his supporters. It's not a compromise if he already thinks the patriot act is a good thing to keep.

Really? Because I have yet to see any politician or individual try to make an argument against healthcare reform without using falsehoods and outright lies.
Death panels, rationing, kill granny, illegal immigrants, "You Lie!", abortion, government takeover, Nazi Germany, socialism/communism, DMV, etc., and the list just keeps repeating ad nauseum with every Republican interview, TV ad, townhall, and teabagger I see.

Did the CBO project that Obama's plan would substantially increase our health care spending, or not? You admit in this same post that Obama is lying about the cost issue. So, isn't it then valid for those who are concerned about the economy to criticize the plan on this point?

The facts cannot be denied that if we were to replace our current healthcare system with any other modern system in the world we would cut our costs by half or more.
This is the basic premise behind reforming our system based on reducing costs... in the long run. Emphasis mine.

And this leads to another valid criticism that many people have. This reform plan is not intended to fix our problem. It's intended to gain ground toward the single payer system that the left wants. Thus, it is valid for critics to argue against features of single payer systems, even if they aren't part of this initial stepping-stone reform.

To try and say that people can't be concerned about single payer features because "that's not what's in this bill!" is like arguing that they must allow the wool to go over their eyes.

I respectfully disagree.
I think that it is a lot simpler a subject then it's being turned into with the addition of all the false propaganda and distractions.
If both sides would stick to the facts then a lot less people would be getting "snowed over" right now.

I think it would be a lot easier for Obama to push this horrible legislation through if everyone bought that all it did was give something to somebody for free.

However, the study of economics is largely interested in understanding the consequential, long-term effects of policy rather than simply the immediate, short-term effects. What Obama is proposing involves reforming a very significant portion of our economy. Therefore, any serious economic study of the issue must consider the long-term consequences. That is a complex matter to understand.

It is further complicated by the fact that the problems cited (high cost, availability, maintaining quality) have multiple proposed solutions. So, an honest debate should compare and address at least the most prominent solutions. Of course, Obama is not interested in some of the solutions because they would not serve to increase power for his political party. So, instead of saying one word to debate the merits of those solutions, he chooses to dismiss all opposition as being manipulation, lies, etc.

Actually, I think Gerbs has an uncanny knack for pegging people accurately and honestly on both their good and bad points... as much as I hate to admit it.

It sounds like he may have hit the nail on the head in your case. Not in mine.

The new fad seems to be branding every Democratic candidate and President with that label. It's gotten old very quick and it's starting to sound ridiculous.

I don't see how you can say that Obama recognizes no middle ground when he's routinely pissing off the liberal base that got him elected by backing down and making concessions to the right.
Even some of the life-long Republican conservative retirees that I talk to have admitted that he's much more moderate then they had originally feared.

He's pissing off the left because he's not going far enough for them. Not because he's sticking to middle ground.

He ran and was elected on a platform of CHANGE by a majority of the country and now that he's trying to implement those changes a very vocal minority is trying to throw a monkeywrench into the works.

He ran and was elected on a platform that was anti-Bush. Now that people see Bush as irrelevant, they're starting to realize that the "change" part isn't what they want.

Again, blame it on a boogeyman, but not all of Obama's proposals have popular support. His failure to recognize that and adjust is costing the Democratic party and is starting to look like it will ultimately be his downfall. Too much ego to just do the job he swore to do; represent the actual people (not his personal manifesto).

I have had a lot of conversations lately about healthcare with people from all sides of the political spectrum, and in almost every case of an individual who was against the healthcare reform, they cited at least one of the debunked "scare tactic" lies as their reason.

Take a step back from yourself for a moment and listen to how that sounds. Do you think you are more intelligent than every one of those people?

Perhaps they disagree that the issue has been debunked and have a different perspective than you. If they had the privilege of being able to represent themselves here, do you think they would agree with your condescending characterization of them?

Or a simple form of single-payer public option like every other modern country which runs more effectively, more efficiently, and with less cost than our own.

The evidence shows that those systems do not run more effectively than ours. But, you're right that they are cheaper. When it comes to health, I believe that it's worth a higher cost to maintain higher quality.

The only thing "fundamentally flawed" is that statement.

Prove it.

I agree, just like it's a positive thing when a person buys that winning lottery ticket... however, how that benefits the millions that don't buy the winning ticket... well let's just say it is a negative thing when so few actually make that jump.

That would be unfortunate if that were the case. Fortunately, we track these things and can know that more people move from the lower 20% to the upper 20% in income during their lifetimes than those that don't.

both you and flash lackey are pretty far outside the mainstream and average though.

If I'm not mistaken, the demographic that considers themselves independent or moderate is actually small.

[silverx2]

I feel that your 7 items are a rather amaturish list of false dilemma, loaded arguments that don't address the criticisms of Obama's health care plan. It would be a waste of time to explain how I feel to someone who is pre-determined to reach one conclusion.

What are your criticisms of obamas plan.

List them out, Make it simple for people.

here ill demonstrate

[In Obama's people with insurance will continue to be able to go see the same doctors, and keep the same insurance they currently have

I think this is good because i already have health insurance and i am happy with it.

Do something like that.

I'm actually curious what your issues with it are, but you seem to spend so much time building up walls around problems that you wont discuss that none of us have a ****ing clue what the **** you are talking about. all you do is post giant walls of text replies which to be honest im not reading because its all replies to **** i don't care about.

So please for everyones sake tell us what is wrong with his plan, and why.

[david petley]

This reform plan is not intended to fix our problem. It's intended to gain ground toward the single payer system that the left wants.

I will quote you on this one ....prove it.

davidp

[silverx2]

here is what i currently have to go on:

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/09/oba...h-care-speech/

would you left and right fellas say thats biased one side or the other? I want to know if im a sheep, and if i am a sheep i want to know which side is ****ing me.

[gerbick]

here is what i currently have to go on:

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/09/oba...h-care-speech/

would you left and right fellas say thats biased one side or the other? I want to know if im a sheep, and if i am a sheep i want to know which side is ****ing me.

I can almost guess one answer...

"It comes from a liberal media fed website, I have links to other websites that say otherwise... starting <insert conservative media link here>"

[TallGuyLittleCar]

I can almost guess one answer...

"It comes from a liberal media fed website, I have links to other websites that say otherwise... starting <insert conservative media link here>"

on another board a persons rebuttal was "where does get factcheck get their funding anyway?"

But anyway.. a speech isn't a bill. Obama can influence reps(his bipartisan appeal gives him enormous influence), but the only direct thing he has to do with the healthcare bill is his signature.

[gerbick]

I've said it before... pull a Bush move.

Make the bill, shove it through Congress and then seek approval after the fact. Label it "it helps against terror" and people will rush to support it.

On the other side of the this, I personally would love it if the people with such an emotional investment in this whole ordeal honestly would say not what they're up against, but what they would rather happen.

They can still buy guns, they can still say stupid things, they still can march, and they still can complain ad nauseum. And they say rights are taken away from them?

[silverx2]

if bush was proposing the same exact bill would you feel the same way?