To tell the truth, right now I think the whole thing has been so castrated with concessions to the republicans and the private insurance industry that if given the choice I would probably vote against it in it's present form.
Printable View
To tell the truth, right now I think the whole thing has been so castrated with concessions to the republicans and the private insurance industry that if given the choice I would probably vote against it in it's present form.
You laughed and mentioned the messenger without any substantial response to the message.Quote:
Originally Posted by gerbick
I don't recall you making similar criticisms while Bush was in office.Quote:
Originally Posted by gerbick
I appreciate the comparison but I can't accept. I am no Charles Krauthammer when it comes to political commentary and wisdom.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
You seem to have misunderstood Krauthammer's argument. He isn't arguing against the legislation because it can be undone with more legislation. He's criticizing legislation that "triggers" future spending cuts because they are unspecific and depend entirely on unknown people agreeing with them at some uncertain point in the future. Also, there is a precedent for such triggers being completely meaningless, as he points out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
Participating in a National Health Insurance Exchange is not the same thing as buying private insurance as it is done now. Also, it would involve government subsidies for many participants.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
Care to elaborate on the "despicable levels" associated with this simple fact?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
Of course there is waste, fraud and abuse in medicare. It's a government entitlement program after all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
The problem is that you can't put a specific dollar amount on "waste, fraud and abuse" to balance a budget. In order to make budget cuts of specific value, you have to specify changes in spending.
Last time I checked, fraud and abuse of federal dollars is criminal and would fall under the jurisdiction of the executive branch of government to prevent, without needing further legislation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
Competition.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
Consumers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
If Amazon.com screws you do you go to court in your state or do you have to take them to court in the state where they are incorporated?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
What will keep every on-line retailer from closing their offices in every state except the one with the lowest standards... or God forbid, some US territory where there are no regulations at all?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
Did you really just equate healthcare insurance to buying a book from Amazon?
I've got a newsflash for you... if you get screwed by Amazon.com it doesn't mean you die.
Can someone please explain to me why Republicans only value life while it's still in the womb?!?
As for your other answers... Competition?... Consumers?
Believe me, I like a good fairy tale as much as the next person and I really wish there were unicorns, pots of leprechaun gold, princesses, ogre, and talking donkeys, but unfortunately we have to live in the real world where, in the absence of regulation, competition means seeing who can race to the bottom quickest (and China is winning that race in the retail market), and where big corporations have "risk managers" who's job it is to add up the numbers and see if it's more profitable to kill a few consumers and just pay the lawsuits or recall/fix dangerous products.
As far as I'm concerned, those old, recycled, and historically false answers show only that the insurance industry side really doesn't have any viable answers to the questions I posed.
As a matter of fact, those answers only prove that the questions are very real concerns.
As a practicing Christian perhaps you should read your Bible again, or go to biblegateway.com and do some keyword searches for "stranger" and "poor".Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
You may gain a little understanding about basic morality, compassion, and how your religion and savior direct you to treat strangers and the poor.
Even us atheists can agree with a lot of the teachings and philosophy of Jesus and what is the morally correct way to treat another human being even if we don't buy into the magical fairy tale bits.
The rabid-rightwing hatred and desire to cause harm (or allow harm) to your fellow man based on their citizenship is stomach-turning in itself even without the religious hypocrisy.
Besides that, the fact that CK would use an outright lie (or even a convoluted twisting of the facts) as a basis to deny healthcare for our own uninsured citizens is equaly despicable.
That depends, are we talking amazon sent me an item that was broken? They have a return policy and would send me a replacement. Or are we talking amazon wont sell me something because i was born with cancer? If thats the case i dont know what i would do, im sure i could sue them, but with all their money and lawyers they could probably keep the case in limbo till I'm dead.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
Why no, I did not. But, nice straw man.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
I was simply pointing out that every corporation in the country has to incorporate in a specific state and people seem to be able to sue any of them if needed. If someone could sue McDonald's over hot coffee, I'm fairly certain that someone else could sue an insurance company if they "screwed" them over.
Can someone please explain why Obama and other Democrats have to make up straw man arguments to knock down when their opposition have provided clear and substantial opposing arguments?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
I think that any criticism of free market principles that cites China as a negative example fits in the fantasy category.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
I believe that the logical fallacy you employ here is what is known as a bare assertion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
Perhaps you should go to biblegateway.com and discover whether or not "fabrication" is ever promoted? While you are there, you might discover some discussion about lying as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
There is nothing unsympathetic about simply acknowledging the fact that the current bill would benefit illegal immigrants at tax payer expense.
And since we are now making personal critiques about what we should know and believe, I suggest that you find a good source for practicing reading comprehension. You apparently didn't understand that my position on this point is that I don't object to illegal immigrants getting the same health options as everyone else but that Democrats should stop lying about whether or not they would under this bill. So, I figure you could afford to brush up on your reading technique there, Moses. :D
Thank you. You agree that you could sue them, contrary to LR's scare argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by silverx2
Is there a place online I can read a concise and rational list of reasons the Republicans oppose the current health care bill?
Different people are going to cite different arguments just like different Democrats cite different reasons for supporting the bill.Quote:
Originally Posted by jAQUAN
But, as a party, the platform on health care is made available here: http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/HealthCare.htm
They haven't had a concise or rational platform since Reagan. Not that the dems can get their act together much better. Both parties are fans of big government, as far as I can tell. Even the notion that the dems prefer an giant opaque bureaucracy while repubs want a giant opaque corporation running everything is frankly silly. Government is next to irrelevant. Obama, Bush, Clinton are basically the managers at McDonalds; they certainly don't take their marching orders from the customers.Quote:
Originally Posted by jAQUAN
And one unfortunate outcome has been that both parties have an interest in simplifying and dumbing down the debate on real issues in a race to the bottom to see who can quip the quickest soundbite. And soundbites on both sides abound; and they're false.
The healthcare debate isn't the biggest problem right now, either. I turned on a right-wing radio station the other day and heard the radio host accusing Obama of "tying our hand behind our back" while we fight in Afghanistan. His message was that the hand should be untied; unleash the dogs of war, and to hell with the consequences. So he got three hick -- theoretically right wing -- callers in a row telling him how much they agreed with him and loved him; we have no business over there; we should be out, it's not our problem. And he said "yes, yes, of course", even though they were completely missing his point; he wanted more forces there, not a withdrawal. But before hanging up on each of these callers, he whipped them up into an angry frenzy over how Obama created this problem.
After the third caller, he went to a break. And just before he did, he said (paraphrasing), "Obama is a murderer. He's a murderer of Americans. I don't know what else to call it."
Now: that's incitement to kill the president. If he's a murderer, someone should kill him, right? You don't call the American president a murderer on the radio. That's Rwanda stuff. The republicans -- regardless of what they're right or wrong about at this point -- have become so overwrought as the party of opposition that they are prepared now to completely ditch democracy and the will of the electorate and incite violence to overthrow the government. In combination with Bush's suspension of habeas corpus, his patriot act, his pre-emptive, unpopular wars... this tells us something about that party; specifically, that they're the liberals now, and the "progressives" like Obama are the real conservatives =)
Quote:
Originally Posted by jAQUAN
This is the most unintentionally funny post I have seen in a while.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
jAQUAN is drowning in a sea of political obfuscation and rhetoric and he gets thrown an anchor.
Too funny. :D
Oh, be careful. Laughing without a lengthy response is now considered an attack now.
I wouldn't go as far as to call it an anchor. If that truly is the official repub health care spec, I would definitely call it unintentionally funny if it weren't so damn depressing. Please keep in mind I don't affiliate with any party right, left, up, down, or cornflakes. But that link has to be one of the most ironic contradictory heartless defenses of greed I've ever read. Every line bleeds of a desire to create a bureaucratic noose that dwarfs the one they claim a universal plan would create. Either the gop truly intends on participating in a parade of golden chariots propped on the backs of our discords or they suffer from such a faith based syphilis that they are genetically incapable of comprehending the big picture.
A search for the word "doctor" finds 5. A search for "provider" returns 15. Both searches exclude the sidebar which I didn't read.
The first section and bullet list starts out quite agreeable. It accurately describes the problem and outlines a humanitarian list of goals. Then it immediately descends into a pit of rhetoric that better describes a pair of vice grips than plausible comprehensive repair.
IMHO, every problem, speedbump or strip of red tape they claim to understand would either dissolve, be absorbed or otherwise come out in the wash if the goals of the dnc could indeed be realized. Sadly for the gop, that means a lot of people feeding off the system would have to find legitimate lines of work and the rankest smell coming off this whole thing is that they just don't wanna.
Make no mistake, this is not a claim that obama's team has thought of everything either, but from a programmers point of view, it's all about achievable goals and concise mission statements. If your hearts in the right place and not compromised, you will have results. The gop plan suggests an army of untold numbers, the least of which are doctors, each with one wrench running around wildly tightening and loosening nuts with no cohesion. A poorly written app with an expensive call stack if you will. The dnc plan at least attempts to focus on one thing. Sick people get a doctors care. If only I had the time to graph out the current state of affairs, costs, time and goals I feel I could accurately illustrate the extracurricular waste that got us to this point.
Do you have any substantial arguments regarding the GOP platform or is it all ad hominem?
Why do you think it is funny?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
Oh,... you!Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
Haha. You almost had me going there for a minute.
lol
I gotta hand it to ya... you're a real comedian... that's rich!
I haven't laughed this hard in... in... uh... wait a minute...
You're being serious, aren't you?
Oh... damn...
Listen dude, just set the cup down, and back away slowly from the kool-aid.
Even I'm not so in the tank that I would send someone to the official party (or politician's) website for a simple, concise and rational distillation of the facts to cut through all the political double-speak and smokescreens that are the staple of American politics.
The GOP's (or DNC's for that matter) website is the pinacle of meaningless rhetoric and the height of talent for verbally skating around political issues without making a real stand or being able to be pinned down for any one position.
If you still can't see what I mean then just stop for a second and go read the "mission statements" on the DNC or Obama's websites and tell me how concise and rational you think they are. Mmmm-k?
I had to look up ad hominem hehe. I seem incapable of clarifying that I'm not out to kill the messenger but I will try to address specific pot-holes in a future post (not tonight). There were just too many self-serving pot/kettle statements to pin down in my initial reaction. Ah the wonderful tact of over complicating something simple. Some where a high-school forensics coach is beaming.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
I made no claim that the best arguments are on that site or that they reflect my own. He specifically asked for the Republican position on the subject:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
I even qualified my response with "different people are going to cite different arguments" in order to clarify further that the link represented the generic party position rather than individual positions which are obviously going to be more nuanced.Quote:
Is there a place online I can read a concise and rational list of reasons the Republicans oppose the current health care bill?
Fair enough. I'll be interested to learn where you are coming from when you have time to go into it.Quote:
Originally Posted by jAQUAN
So if I'm reading you right, the Republican party isn't united under its opposition nor offers opposing the proposed health care reform?Quote:
I even qualified my response with "different people are going to cite different arguments" in order to clarify further that the link represented the generic party position rather than individual positions which are obviously going to be more nuanced.
It's an honest question because... from what I gather in the media, it seems like there's an unified opposition but not an unified opposing proposal.
thats the thing. You shouldnt HAVE to sue them in the first place. the fact that they are currently able to do alot of the things they do is criminal in and of itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
healthcare is way past a red and blue Issue. The sooner people from both sides realize this the better we will be as a nation.
Yeah. I would agree with that. Though, I think that it's pretty common for people sharing a party and similar ideologies to still have varying takes on the same issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by gerbick
It's the same thing on the other side of this issue. The reason Obama is having trouble has a lot to do with Democrats who object to the plan.
You could say this about anything. Ideally, you shouldn't have to sue anyone for anything. Lawsuits against companies isn't something unique to the health care industry.Quote:
Originally Posted by silverx2
I agree that the issue doesn't need to be partisan. However, the proposed solutions, not surprisingly, are consistent with two different ideologies and attract people accordingly. Both parties want to do something about it. They just have different ideas about what needs to be done.
Video taken down.Quote:
Originally Posted by jAQUAN