Can we all calm down and have a rational discussion on this issue? I understand why you all are so angry. Passions are running hot on this issue and people on both sides are terrified of what could happen. I made mistakes in this debate and will try my best to correct them. Something obviously has to be done about health care in this country. This could be the most important issue facing our country in the next ten years. Let's try to be rational and find the
best solution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by verklingen
WHAT HAS BEEN PROPOSED IS NOT A FEDERAL SINGLE-PAYER HEALTH CARE PROGRAM. it is a public insurance option that people lacking coverage can buy into according to their means. this is why i find it hard to remain calm. . . the same fallacious arguments have been made week after week after week.
i'm especially enraged by the "point" that it "will limit people's choices." i've given the example before of my privately insured, cancer ridden mother-in-law being denied treatments to elevate her red blood cell levels: i.e. the only thing that gave her the energy to do anything other than sit around the house. even with a doctor's recommendation, the treatments have been denied for these past couple months. WHAT CHOICE ARE PRIVATELY INSURED FOLK GIVEN THAT COULD POSSIBLE BE STRIPPED AWAY BY GIVING THE UNINSURED A PUBLIC OPTION?!?!?!?!?!
back to your question (well sort of, your question isn't based in reality), why does the solution NOT have to be a public option? why are government-run systems so taboo? what IS the solution? why has a comprehensive, alternative solution not been proposed? what do YOU propose? all i've heard is a lot of whining and disinformation, no answers whatsoever. if a public option can work it can work, and i haven't heard even a single argument pointing out why it cannot work. so again, what's with the stigma? show me how your misgivings are rational and i will kindly salute you for demonstrating something i haven't yet seen
and about the highway system. . . why is our transit dependent upon the federal government but THE DRIVING FORCE OF OUR ECONOMY (healthy workers willing to work) must remain sterile of government intrusion? this is all so ass-backwards and infuriating. i need to take a break from this shit
|
I apologize. You're right, the proposed solution is not a single-payer health care system. However, Democrats have said repeatedly that a single-payer system is their ultimate goal. The public option is just a temporary compromise solution until they can get what they really want.
As I said in my first post
I don't know if choices will be limited or not. It depends on how the program is run. I think it's possible because they will have to control costs at some point and limiting choice is one way they can do that. Whether they will or won't remains to be seen.
My problem with the currently proposed solution (whether it's single-payer, public option, or something else) is that it's a
federal solution. The federal government regularly looses money that it can't account for. It carries with it a lot of unnecessary red tape and bureaucracy. They will probably go with a single set of regulations and policies that all states have to follow. I'd rather have individual states set their own policies that they can tailor to meet their needs. If a state doesn't want or doesn't need a government run health care system, they won't have one, and those that do will be more efficient and less costly since the operation will be smaller and better designed to meet the needs of that state.
As for my solution, to be honest, I don't have one. As I've been describing, state solutions are a good possibility. We could regulate the health insurance industry so they can't refuse needed care or restrict what doctors or hospitals a patient can use, etc. We have an opportunity to do something
better than a federal program. Unfortunately, conservatives aren't taking the problem seriously (or blaming some vague "regulations" that they can't pin down) and liberals are too enamored with a federal solution to consider anything else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DdC
Once again, maybe you should ask before you assume things period. I copied your lame ass statement dude. You falsely claimed public option would cost tax payers more. No, thats JFQuerry's lobbyist bullshit, not reality. Reality the system is only broken for us paying for it. Those who profit and receive huge salaries want to keep it. As it is without preventive coverage people are forced into the ER's, at 10 times more cost. The poor have medicare. Its the workers paying for the rich we're bitching about and you and your glum bluck nazi's want to out shout because like drug worriers, you have no ass to back it. Stop repeating what the Neocons tell you to say and I might consider not calling you a Neocon.
All taxes aren't bad. If you don't know the difference, learn. Taxes sheltered by the Dick Armey's are paid by workers. Same as workers paying for the poor. Only paying for the poor at least brings some back to the community when they spend it. Not international insurance corporations. They just suck us dry and the deadbeats write off their responsibility in anti drug commercials or offshore bank accounts. All protecting the same corporations running the drug war. So you made a choice to go against the citizens and stand with the fascists. Your choice dude, don't get all huffy because we call you on it...
|
The only way we can pay for the public option is by raising taxes or by borrowing more money which means printing more money and putting a greater strain on the economy. Taxes will probably have to go up at some point. If not, how else are we going to pay for it? A government program might reduce health care costs overall, but it still has to be paid for.
I don't like the health insurance companies any more than you do, I just don't see a federal program as the best solution. Other countries with government run systems have efficiency problems that we should be learning from so we can develop a better solution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JcP
...stop. just stop. You're not addressing the point here. You decided to "attack the messenger" with my post by showing that you, a self described conservative, do not prescribe to the classic party line of "less government...unless you're gay or wanting an abortion." and suggesting that I "ask" before making assumptions.
What in God's name does WHY you spoke in generalities have anything to do with your sudden decision that speaking in generalities was unfair or not based in logic for people who disagree with you?
Terry spoke in "generalities", you responded with generalities, I responded with generalities, then you responded that generalities are wrong.
That's ridiculous. ANYWAY, back on topic...
|
I'm sorry. This was entirely my fault. I will try to be more careful in the future. I'm an atypical conservative and it drives me nuts when people assume I have beliefs I don't have just because I choose the conservative label.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JcP
I never like to say this, but based on your proposal above it seems extremely apt: I you don't think your rights are respected, you can go live in a country that more accurately reflects your views or you can attempt to change things in the country you already live in.
So your issue with the federal government is that changing things to fit your personal worldview is too hard? That you have to compete with the whole country?
|
Opinions vary so widely that the federal government can't accurately reflect everyone's opinions. People should have as much control over their lives as possible, and when governments are as local as possible, then individuals will have more control.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JcP
Without "forcing" one solution on everybody, I'd bet you good money the south would still be segregated. Using this not as an inflammatory example but a real life example that has merit. Sometimes the "will of the masses" is not the right thing. That's why we have a government. It's why we have a court system and a constitution. T.S. Mills wrote about the "tyranny of the majority." I find it ironic that conservatives (ON AVERAGE) supported the federal government for 8 years with Bush and Co. in charge...then the second a democrat gets in there it's suddenly back to the old catchphrases.
So I don't know what to say to you here.
|
Sometimes the federal government should interfere with states. Federal action to end segregation is one of the best examples of positive interference. That doesn't mean that state's rights should be overridden at every opportunity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JcP
THAT'S NOT THE PROPOSAL@!$#!$#@ AAAAHHH!!!!Good christ, this is why the healthcare debate (like global warming and evolution) becomes so emotional...because one side (apparently) doesn't even take the time to know what's actually TRUE.
The single payer health care program hasn't been on the table since like...the first week. We have a proposed ROBUST private sector marketplace where private companies can compete across the country, and we ALSO have a public OPTION to provide help and service to those who cannot afford the private options.
Perhaps this is a misunderstanding of terms you're using? Are you aware of what "single-payer healthcare program" actually means?
Outside of that whopper of a mistake, what is your proposed plan?
|
I'm sorry, I shouldn't have brought up a single-payer system since that isn't what's currently on the table. I still have a problem with a public option since everyone in the country will have to pay for it even if their state opts out, and it will carry with it the bureaucracy inherent in a federal program.