The NHS & the United States of America

[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.