The NHS & the United States of America

[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.