The NHS & the United States of America

[Loyal Rogue]

I've answered many of your questions. Here's my challenge.

This, I believe, is a very good article on this subject. So good that I will post most of it. Without attacking the messenger, what is your counter-argument?

I can see why you would like that article.
On the surface it sounds reasonable and intelligent in a way that almost makes it seem like the points he makes are so obvious they must be right, much like your own writing.
However, once you dig beyond the compellingly simplistic language and start looking for facts it becomes apparent that it's devoid of any real substance other than... well, I think his own words say it best, "He implies, he misdirects, he misleads -- so fluidly and incessantly that he risks transmuting eloquence into mere slickness."... much like your own writing.

Let's look at his 3 points.

1) His first argument against the bill is that Obama can't make any promise about it because anything he promises can be undone by future congresses or Presidents.
On the surface that seems so obvious that it must be a great reason to oppose the bill.

However, ANY bill, law, legislation, executive order, whatever that the government passes including amendments to the Constitution can also be undone by any future congress, President, vote, election, etc.
It is an empty and foolish argument.
To use that as a basis to not pass a bill would mean that no bills would ever get passed now or in the future.

- - -

2) His second argument is that illegal immigrants will somehow benefit from Obama's plan because there is no provision to prevent them from participating in the insurance exchange.
Aha! He's right! There is no provision that specifically states that illegal immigrants are forbidden to buy insurance therefor his implications that they will benefit must be true, right?

Wrong.
There is no specific provision that prevents illegal immigrants from currently buying auto insurance, dental insurance, or health insurance now.
They pay full price for those policies without any subsidies, credits, or tax dollars from our government just the same as they would under any of the current bills before congress. Nothing changes for them.
Another completely empty and foolish argument bordering on outright deception.

His argument is the same as arguing against foodstamps because even though illegal immigrants are not eligible to receive or benefit from them, there is no specific provision in the foodstamp program that prevents illegals from purchasing groceries in general without foodstamps.

I just think that it's dishonest to try and claim that illegal immigrants wouldn't benefit from this plan.

Ha. In light of the facts, to try and claim that illegals WILL benefit from this plan is not only dishonest but dispicable on so many levels.

- - -

3) His third point is a little muddled in direction, but it just sounds darn good and righteous that it makes you feel that it must be right in some way because of how it plays on your emotions and biases.

Again however, once you get past the emotionally charged words and pitch for collective indignation of "insulting our intelligence" you really can't find any real meat in the argument... it just sort of goes wandering off like a confused old man with alzheimers who's upset about something but just can't figure out what it is.

Is he trying to say that there is not any amount of waste, fraud or abuse in the medicare system that can be fixed or eliminated?
Do you feel the same?
Do you think that medicare is so perfect now that there is no room for improvement?

Then he turns around and says if medicare has problems that needs to be fixed, then Obama shouldn't be wasting time starting to do something about it... No, instead he should be starting to do something about it! WTF?
I don't know what drugs Krauthammer is taking, but maybe if he shared with the rest of us his arguments might start to make sense.

At then end he makes some finally stab at "Obamacare" by, in his own words, gliding "from one dubious assertion to another" within 2 sentences mentioning that Obama once attributed troubles with energy, education, and healthcare (as well as many others which he glosses over) as contributing to America's debt and financial trouble, and then glides seemlessly into making the dubious assertion that Obama claims that the 2008 financial crisis was due to lack of universal healthcare and we're not stupid enough to believe him?!?

I'm sorry CK, but the truth is that most of us are not stupid enough to believe your delusions because... as you said it best, Charles Krauthammer "implies, he misdirects, he misleads -- so fluidly and incessantly that he risks transmuting eloquence into mere slickness."... and his followers, much like Limbaugh's, just love to eat it up.

[Loyal Rogue]

Looks like Obama is making more concessions to the right by giving the "tort reform" issue some very undeserved attention and $3 million in grants/research funds even though IMO this issue has been completely debunked.

Another issue I keep hearing from the rightwingers in the media (and FL has brought it up more than once) is the issue of increased competition in the market by letting insurance companies sell across state lines, meaning that since it's the states that regulate insurance, they can setup shop in a "big insurance friendly" state with very little regulation and then sell to other states while ignoring those other states' own regulations.
Right now I'm not onboard with this idea because I can see the potential for massive abuse.

Can someone (FL, TGLC, or any proponent of the idea) explain to me what will keep this from becoming a "race to the bottom" in the insurance industry?
Who will regulate interstate policies?
Are you proposing another massive Federal agency to take the place of all the states' agencies?
Who will enforce the regulations?
If your insurance company 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?
What will keep every insurance company 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?

If the right safeguards are in place I would be happy to agree to this but right now I can only see the ugly side of it, and from where I'm sitting it looks damn ugly.

[Frets]

That's the whole thing.

What little regulation is carried out by the states in regards to health insurance would be thrown out the window. There is a very good reason why some insurance companies can't operate in certain states. It's called lack of accountability.
Civil law suits have so far been proven unsuccessful in curbing insurance companies immoral denial of claims that have lead to amongst other things deaths.

[jAQUAN]

I would pay money to read a version of this thread with all of the bias, ego, desire to write the most compelling post in hopes of winning the booby prize replaced by selfless desire to upgrade the living conditions of absolutely everything that bleeds. But alas, instead it serves as yet another example why we, in our current state of enlightenment, are unworthy.

I dream of a day where social prejudices are not so ingrained that we can't even detect them in ourselves. It's sad that we should recognize the challenge as one of besting the previous post rather than defeating our own programming.

[Loyal Rogue]

Have at it, mang.
I'd like to read that also.

Feel free to dissect all of my posts and distill them down to the raw facts free from my personal bias and ego.
I get so wrapped up in the debate from one extreme (mine) to the other extreme (FL) that I'd like to see how someone like yourself views the issue and the spin.
Enlighten me.

[jAQUAN]

Wish I could, but I'm not excluded.

[Frets]

And there we have the inescapable truth. One cannot separate emotion from the issue. Either we are concerned for the physical well being of each other or we are concerned for retaining status quo. Either the U.S. passes a good law intended for the welfare of all of it's citizens or it does not and will allow (as I cited earlier) 40 odd thousand people to die needlessly so that a very few wealthy individuals attain greater wealth.

[jAQUAN]

It tears me down the middle. I don't think it's fair to take the patriotic donations (taxes) of devoted countrymen and hand it out sans preconditions to those who aren't. Public health care is not attractive if it sends the wrong message about accountability. On the other hand I don't think geographic origin should be punished with closed doors. While it's probably lacks insight to suggest a perfect equilibrium is the bridge, there's no landslide of evidence to the contrary. Which leads to my interest in social duality ie. paying for health care with fast food and soda taxes. Paying for cancer research (for real) with tobacco tax. Which ever is the greatest contributor/roadblock should be exploited to work towards a cure. I shun party affiliation in lieu of being an American and the only obvious problem with a balancing movement is starting 6 different organizations each with their own oversight for each problem. That kind of ruthless spending existed in every administration which is why none of the republican arguments make sense to me. If they just spend more wisely, all of their precious projects could exist AND we could repair bridges and medicate the elderly.

Programmers tend to follow a D.R.Y. principle which is a big reason why great apps don't crash.
In my humble point of view, it seems like Obama is at least trying to prevent our call stack from crashing too by reducing some redundancy. Debating what's fair is great for our country, rallying against efficiency just escapes me.

[Jujumon]

this also reminds me of that video codec issue with HTML5. Big players are not allowing it so everyone else is not getting it. On the other hand it is within their rights to do so. so that's a shame.

[gerbick]

Wow. Just saw Loyal Rogue's avatar...

[Loyal Rogue]

Amateurs. Until we get some people on Uncle Ruckus level, they're amateurs.

I felt obliged to elevate the racism to a "professional" level.

[gerbick]

Indeed. Still laughing. I know I'm probably wrong in so many ways, but I count Uncle Ruckus as one of the most cut and dry, best plot devices in a character in a long, long time. In an over-the-top way, he makes people see both sides of the fence.

Just my 2 cents. And yeah... he uses the n-word to excess. But you have to view "The Uncle Ruckus Show" parts 1-3 on Youtube.

[Loyal Rogue]

Still laughing. I know I'm probably wrong in so many ways...

Yeah, I'm going to hell for laughing at Uncle Ruckus, but there's a special place reserved for you there... I just hope for your sake they have good booze and loose women.



Maybe these last few posts should be moved to the right thread to avoid confusion.

[Frets]

It tears me down the middle. I don't think it's fair to take the patriotic donations (taxes) of devoted countrymen and hand it out sans preconditions to those who aren't. Public health care is not attractive if it sends the wrong message about accountability. On the other hand I don't think geographic origin should be punished with closed doors..

Okay lets set some ground rules. Under the current bill U.S. Citizens (those that contribute to the tax base) receive healthcare. How is this unfair?
I can see it as unfair if the for profit insurance companies deside what amount all citizens must contribute and receive but I am not seeing it in the current bill.

Please elaborate

[gerbick]

It's unfair because the Republicans have a much better plan that doesn't increase current costs.

[Frets]

Ah yes the subsidy plan where by any monies from the bailout would go directly to insurance companies to pay for the cost of insurance without any regulation. It's the public option without the public or oversight. Under the plan insurance companies could still deny treatment to anyone still charge the government and those pay for insurance any rate for any reason or no reason.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/...rmann#32960135
See GOP obstructs healthcare again.

[gerbick]

I'm quite sure that's not the plan I was referring to. The Gang of Six, for instance, have a better plan.

[Frets]

Michael Steele was right.
Take the G.O.P. out of the process and focus on the blue dog dems.


Let the blue dog dems know thier career in the democratic party is dependent on towing the line. There are plenty of democratic candidates from the democratic wing of the democratic party willing to step in.

[jAQUAN]

Okay lets set some ground rules. Under the current bill U.S. Citizens (those that contribute to the tax base) receive healthcare. How is this unfair?
I can see it as unfair if the for profit insurance companies deside what amount all citizens must contribute and receive but I am not seeing it in the current bill.

Please elaborate

Sorry, I speak too broadly and succinctly sometimes. I only meant free health care for those who don't pay into the system in some way isn't fair. At least that's what I think the right it *****ing about. At any rate, reduce redundancy, invest safely and imo no one would care that their tax dollars keep americans healthy.

[gerbick]

It won't happen unless they get the concessions they want first.