6
   

Why do YOU oppose a public option in the new healthcare bill?

 
 
Reply Mon 21 Sep, 2009 02:55 pm
Anyone here opposed to having a public option in the healthcare reform bill? If so, why?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 6 • Views: 2,418 • Replies: 13
No top replies

 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Sep, 2009 03:11 pm
@kickycan,
Quote:
Why do YOU oppose a public option in the new healthcare bill?


I most certainly DO NOT. Why would anyone?
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Sep, 2009 03:44 pm
@Merry Andrew,
Merry Andrew wrote:
Why would anyone?


That's what I've been asking myself. So I thought I could maybe get one of these non-teabagger conservatives to explain it to me. Maybe we don't have any rational conservatives around here though.
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Sep, 2009 04:00 pm
@kickycan,
I prefer a true single payer system.
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Sep, 2009 04:01 pm
@kickycan,
Or maybe all the rage over the public option is just horseshit, raised by a bunch of traitorous scumbags, and the conservatives on A2K are too smart to get involved with such selfish obstructionism.

Yeah, maybe that's it. I'd like to believe that.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Sep, 2009 04:04 pm
@ebrown p,
ebrown p wrote:

I prefer a true single payer system.



I agree. But that's not realistically possible. Does this mean that if there is a public option in the bill you are opposed to it?

I should have been more specific. I was looking for answers from the people on the right, if possible. But all opinions are obviously welcome.
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Sep, 2009 04:22 pm
@kickycan,
I agree the public option is the best realistic choice.

My brother, who works in health care, thinks the public option is a bad thing because isn't nearly enough to address the problems in health care, but will prolong the pain until we realize we need a single payer system.

He thinks we should do nothing and let the whole system collapse... then a single payer system will be possible.
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Sep, 2009 04:33 pm
@ebrown p,
I dunno, brownie. With all due respect to your brother, isn't that kind of like saying, "This ambulance is ready to break down. So we won't take it to the scene of the accident to save any lives. Let those people die and eventually they'll have to give us a new ambulance."

****, you use what you can get, that's all. The public option may not be the best or most preferable option, but it's a damn sight better than anything we've got now. I'll settle for second-best until we can get the top shelf.
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Sep, 2009 05:03 pm
@Merry Andrew,
You are using the wrong medical metaphor,

Someone in my family had a quite painful condition, the doctor refused to give pain medication until the diagnostic tests were finished. This was because getting rid of the symptoms could mask the underlying problem, meaning that the patient would end up worse as a result of the short term relief of pain.

If the public option ends up being having a narcotic effect-- temporarily curing the pain to the point that we aren't forced to deal with the underlying problem-- it could be far worse than letting the crises force us to come to our senses.

I am not sure I agree with my brother, but his argument is sound.


0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Sep, 2009 05:27 pm
I am not an opponent, but I think that I understand the opposition view. These folks are for limited government. They have different reasons for wanting government to be small, some of those reasons are irrational, and some are predatory (ie, they can get more loot for themselves with government out of the way), and some are rationally sound. They see government expanding in every way, into more things, using more money, having more employees, taking away rights of the individual by imposing legislation. They also see that even the GOP has become pro big government, even though they claim that they are not.

The last thing these folks want to see is government getting into something new. The only thing they want to hear is that government will back-off. They are sick of the government growth continuing, of being constantly lied to by the GOP, and to top things off large government has not been paid for. It is creating giant unfunded obligations, which is a danger to the republic and to the kids.

THe arguments for this new program don't matter, there is nothing that could possibly justify growing the government by moving the government into a new activity at this point. If the proponents think that this is such a great program then closing some other programs and moving the money and employees to this one may be OK. But, it is not the job of the right to figure out what to get rid of in order to pay for more government healthcare than we already have, and anyways those who want it are not volunteering to close anything out, so again, the real aim seems to be to grow government. After decades of growing government against the objections of the conservatives, any new growth as not going to be agreed to. It is line in the sand time.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Sep, 2009 05:38 pm
I'm not opposed to it, and I don't know much about the precise terms proposed, but I am a little leary of it. I think that it could be a wonderful thing or an absolutely horrid thing depending on how it was implemented, and I am not just stating a tautology. Sometimes national health care can turn into rationed health care, where you just have access to a waiting list. Also, we have to implement it in a way that isn't so expensive that it does great harm to the nation's economy or depends on much higher taxes. Furthermore, the citizens should have a few options and choices, e.g. of which doctor to see, and not have all decisions made for them.
slkshock7
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Sep, 2009 06:39 am
@Brandon9000,
I agree with Brandon. I oppose it because it will inevitably become another expensive government entitlement that will be have to be paid for by increasing the tax bill I pay each year. Obama is fooling himself thinking that this can be accomplished without adding a dime to the deficit. Like Social Security and Medicare it will be wildly popular but stunningly unsuccessful in operation. In a few years we'll have to look to a single payer option to cover demand and be burdened with yet another "third rail" entitlement that will further drain government coffers and our own wallets.

I'm less opposed to a very focused public option targeting only those who can't get health care by any other means. Much like qualifying for welfare, the applicant would need to prove need, and be required to give up the entitlement when another option (maybe from their employer) became available to them.
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Sep, 2009 07:41 am
@slkshock7,
Slkshock7 wrote:
In a few years we'll have to look to a single payer option t...


Wow! Such Optimism!

Your lips to God's ears Slkshock.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Sep, 2009 07:41 am
@Brandon9000,
Nearly every argument you have against national health care already exist under private care now. Furthermore, almost everything we do either raising taxes or deficits, at least let it be a good thing. As much as people talk about the failure of medicare and social security, I bet no one (or not too many people) presently getting it, want to give it up which should tell us something.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Why do YOU oppose a public option in the new healthcare bill?
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 11/29/2021 at 10:14:32