IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

@Debra Law,

Debra Law wrote:

Okie is still demonizing Alinsky for his radical faith in democracy. .

Alinsky demonized himself by praising communists and working with them. The guy is essentially a Marxist I believe. This is the man that wrote "Rules for Radicals," which Obama used and taught.

Which brings up a question again, I think I asked you once, I don't think you answered, do you believe in Marxism, Debra? One of the things I think we need here is honesty, so an honest answer would be appreciated. After all, if you admire Alinsky, then you are already a suspect Marxist sympathizer in my opinion, but of course I am the loony right wing I suppose according to you. I suppose Alinsky would have viewed me the same way, perhaps even Obama considers me the same?

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

This is what we call Appealing to Extremes, George. You are attacking the most extreme version of my argument, instead of dealing with the actual version. The truth is that a wide variety of countries across the world put forth this argument to a much lesser degree than the USSR did, and have enjoyed a high level of success in doing so - at the expense of the super-rich, primarily.

I think you overlooked my second paragraph. here it is again;

Quote:

More or less the same argument was put forward by those who proposed to end social inequity and crate a "new socialist man" in the USSR. They did end social inequity - for all but themselves - by reducing the population to socialist serfdom and drab poverty and establishing an ever-worsening tyranny over all.

Not all such efforts end up that way, but almost all have at least strangled the economies of the nations that did so to a large extent. In almost all cases significant retrenchment was required to restore economic activity that benefitted everyone. In particular, I don't think the character of our nation and the more or less unique cultural mix we have and attract makes this approach very suitable for us.

Despite the popularity, to which you referred, of both Social Security and Medicare, both already face serious financial problems. Neither is actuarily sound under their current tax & benefit regimes. Of course we could continue to fund them out of general government revenues, however, that would violate the rationales used in designing and authorizing them. It would also lead to continued growth of the national debt relative to GDP, with its known adverse consequences. So far we haven't proven ourselves very capable of dealing politically with the underlying issues - under either Republican or Democrat governments. Why should we think that we can add significantly to such entitlements without making an already serious problem much worse?

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

That's one of my biggest concerns about ObamaCare. We still don't have enough information on cost and how to pay; not just the short-term, but for the lifetime of the program. If they treat health care like they've treated social security and Medicare, it only adds more to the federal deficit that will result in inflation. They must learn to live within their means; not keep adding stuff that they can't tie down its cost.

That said, our health care must be revamped, because the increasing costs are becoming untenable to our economy and affordability.

To make it universal, they must have different levels of insurance; from the basic plans for the poor and middle class to the cadillac plans for the rich and famous. Some kind of fee structure must be in place to prevent abuse of the system. The system must also prevent fraud and other abuses like they are experiencing in Massachusetts where people buy insurance to have major surgery done, then opt out.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

I saw the second paragraph, but that was a mealy-mouthed way of attempting to moderate the first one, which was more your real point. Otherwise, why even bring it up? So I didn't address it.

Quote:

Neither is actuarily sound under their current tax & benefit regimes.

Neither is National Defense, but we keep payin' for that anyways. Health care is as important. But, you are correct; we will have to address the programs in order to keep them functional, until technological or societal changes bring about a situation in which we can fundamentally change or abandon them. Probably a slight reduction of benefits and a similar increase in taxes - including a lift on the cap for SS taxes accrued.

There is a great deal of evidence that Health Care reform will be a net savings for our society. It is not just SS and Medicare which is moving in a non-sound direction; our current health care system is doing the exact same thing. Reforming it now, and replacing it with an option that does not rely upon the profit motive, will save us a considerable amount of money in the long run. Every time you bunch bitch about how much taxes would go up, or how evil a single-payer system is, you never mention - not even a bit - how much is currently spent by citizens on health care and health insurance.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I am NOT a fan of Rush, but in this one instance he seems to have been prophetic.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203706604574376483996132554.html

Quote:

Back in March, the Democratic National Committee was indignant: "Today Rush Limbaugh yet again crossed the line saying: by the time the debate on President Obama's health care plan is over, 'it'll be called the Ted Kennedy Memorial Health Care bill.' It is outrageous to demonize a patriotic Senator who has spent his life fighting so that every person has the opportunity to live the American dream."

"Tell Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele to denounce Rush Limbaugh once and for all," the DNC urged its followers. It's not clear what it means to "denounce" someone "once and for all," but whatever.

We're guessing Limbaugh's prediction (which you can hear courtesy of MediaMutters) was intended in a jocular vein, but it is now coming true, as Politico reports:

Ailing Senator Robert Byrd, one of only two to have served longer than Kennedy, suggests in an emotional statement renaming the pending health care legislation for the late Massachusetts Senator:
"In his honor and as a tribute to his commitment to his ideals, let us stop the shouting and name calling and have a civilized debate on health care reform which I hope, when legislation has been signed into law, will bear his name for his commitment to insuring the health of every American."

Now I dont really agree with the authors premise in the rest of the article, but even those that hate Rush must admit that in this one instance he was correct.

0 Replies

This will surely convince them to change their position.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9ABB88O1&show_article=1

Quote:

WASHINGTON (AP) - A key House liberal suggested Thursday that party moderates who've pushed for changes in health care legislation are "brain dead" and out for insurance company campaign donations.
Moderate Blue Dog Democrats "just want to cause trouble," said Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., who heads the health subcommittee on the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee.

"They're for the most part, I hate to say, brain dead, but they're just looking to raise money from insurance companies and promote a right-wing agenda that is not really very useful in this whole process," Stark told reporters on a conference call.

A spokeswoman for the Blue Dog caucus did not immediately respond to an e-mail request for comment.

Thursday's call was being hosted by the liberal group Campaign for America's Future to release a report making the case for a strong new public health insurance plan to compete with private insurers as part of any health overhaul legislation.

So now dems are calling other dems names because they disagree with parts of the bill.
That shows real party unity and a real spirit of working together, doesnt it.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

So now dems are calling other dems names because they disagree with parts of the bill.
That shows real party unity and a real spirit of working together, doesnt it.

No, it sure doesn't.

I think the whole political process just stinks to high heaven; but I'm glad that the blue dogs are there for some diversity of thought. They are going to end up doing for Obama's presidency, what the Republicans did for Clinton's (if they don't run them out of the congress in 2010, not that they can).

3 Replies

@maporsche,

I'm calling bullshit here.

Damned if the dems do, damned if they don't.

If they are all in, they aren't being critical.
If they take time to argue, then they should be all in?

How do they have to do this so you'll approve? Town hall meetings didn't NEED to happen, and they caused a lot of stir. The Dems did it anyways to involve people and calm their fears by all the BS out there. Would you be happier if the Dems didn't debate amongst themselves? Isn't one of the Right's biggest charges that the leftists are disregarding dissent?

The Dems have tried hard to extend a lot offers for input and compromise, perhaps more than they should have. That's a pretty small fault, considering the alternative we had for the previous administration and the the republican congress. Probably the most non stinky thing to come out of our government in a while was bringing people into the fold on things like this.

I think your political expectations are sometimes unreasonable. Careful what you complain about.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@maporsche,

i don't mind diversity of thought in the dem party. or the republican party either, for that matter. but at some point somebody has to be the boss and say "okay. no more talk. now we do".

i'm not seeing it and it's really starting to piss me off.

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

I think most of the bullshit here was in your post.

Town hall meetings are standard fare for legislators of both parties during Congressional recess periods. There was nothing unusual in them except the notable reactions concerning the several draft health care laws wending their ways through the House and Senate. In the main - as has since become clear - it was the Presidents vague claims of "reforming" the practice of medicine and of harvesting huge (but poorly defined) savings from Medicare, that so aroused the suspicions and hostility of the electorate. That and growing concerns about the cumulative effects on the national debt have continued and grown. The outrage has persisted because the Democrats had no answer except to demonize their political opponents and insurance companies - as well as a little double talk.

I would appreciate at least some anecdotal evidence of, "The Dems have tried hard to extend a lot offers for input and compromise, perhaps more than they should have...". The fact is it has been politics as usual in the various House and Senate Committees responsible for reviewing the draft legislation - which was prepared exclusively by Democrats and their advisors. If there has been any compromise on any aspect of the proposed legislation, I am unaware of it. On the contrary, we are entertained with threats by senior Democrat legislators to simply ram the legislation through the House and later get it through the Senate by misusing a procedure designed only for the reconciliation of budget bills to avoid the 2/3rds voting requirement. Indeed you even ended your screed with a thinly veiled reference to this threat.

The truth is there is a real likelihood that this effort will become a debacle for the Democrats and the Admininstration, perhaps leading to significant changes in the political landscape.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
So now dems are calling other dems names because they disagree with parts of the bill.
That shows real party unity and a real spirit of working together, doesnt it.

No, it sure doesn't.

I think the whole political process just stinks to high heaven; but I'm glad that the blue dogs are there for some diversity of thought. They are going to end up doing for Obama's presidency, what the Republicans did for Clinton's (if they don't run them out of the congress in 2010, not that they can).

maporsche, compliments to you. I think the radical left is trying to run the Democratic Party, and it depends upon independent minded folks like you to try to bring the Democrats back to a reasonable policy that is good for America, not some radical agenda. I think also that many of the posters here are radical leftists, not typical of America. Knowing this is a comfort here as I come and read the remarks posted. It is up to you and people like you to continue to think for yourself. If you are not in favor of policies driven by radicals, such as Saul Alinsky or Jeremiah Wright, I think you may be waking up to it, but if not I am suggesting these guys are not atypical of the things that Obama believes as well. We as middle of the road Americans have to step to the plate to stop the radical left agenda.

You have stated that you think Obama lies alot. I agree, and speaking for myself, if I do not trust anyone, I would not buy anything from them at all. So I think the issue is really Obama, not Obamacare or any other of his proposals and policies. I have arrived at the point of just not even wanting to debate the proposal anymore, it is so fraught with lies and inconsistencies, Obama is not trustworthy, and so I want no part of it. And I think the percentage of people that feel that way is becoming very substantial, as Rasmussen has 40% of the voters "strongly disapproving" of Obama.

2 Replies

@DontTreadOnMe,

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

i don't mind diversity of thought in the dem party. or the republican party either, for that matter. but at some point somebody has to be the boss and say "okay. no more talk. now we do".

i'm not seeing it and it's really starting to piss me off.

So you want stuff rammed down peoples throats by a minority of the representatives in Congress? DTOM, people will not stand for that. We are not yet run by dictators, yet. You have the closest thing to it with Emanuel doing the arm twisting. If he can't threaten and intimidate enough people to get the agenda passed, it has no merits at all.

0 Replies

@okie,

How do you define a 'radical leftist?'

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

In the main - as has since become clear - it was the Presidents vague claims of "reforming" the practice of medicine and of harvesting huge (but poorly defined) savings from Medicare, that so aroused the suspicions and hostility of the electorate.

Bullshit; it was primarily fearmongering by your party, about 'death panels' and forced 'government run healthcare,' that riled people up. A mixture of that, birtherism, anti-abortion sentiment, and downright militant behavior on the part of a bunch of the gun-toting morons who support the Republican party, organized by Glenn Beck and Dick Armey, led to the scenes that Fox News parroted over and over on TV.

Quote:

On the contrary, we are entertained with threats by senior Democrat legislators to simply ram the legislation through the House and later get it through the Senate by misusing a procedure designed only for the reconciliation of budget bills to avoid the 2/3rds voting requirement. Indeed you even ended your screed with a thinly veiled reference to this threat.

I wonder if you have any memory at all, of the Republicans using this process to pass Bush's tax cuts - and Reagan's, if I remember correctly. It isn't as if your side hasn't pulled this trick many times.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Death Panels are real.

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/e357e52d41/death-panel-advisors

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

It is up to you and people like you to continue to think for yourself.

No. We are absolutely against thinking for ourselves. We want to be exactly like mindless rightwing radicals, i.e., okie, and spew talking points that have been spoon fed to us by special interest groups and a 1.5 million dollar a day misinformation campaign. Only then will there be true equality in America.

2 Replies

@Debra Law,

Debra Law wrote:

okie wrote:
It is up to you and people like you to continue to think for yourself.

No. We are absolutely against thinking for ourselves.

QFT

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

Debra Law wrote:

okie wrote:
It is up to you and people like you to continue to think for yourself.

No. We are absolutely against thinking for ourselves.

QFT

Ever hear of sarcasm? Guess not.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Dr. Tom Coburn tells the wife of brain-injury patient needing therapy to suck it up.

http://www.slate.com/id/2226623?wpisrc=newsletter

1 Reply

@Advocate,

Isn't that the most ridiculous response by the American public? It really seems to me like they live on another planet.

Are they really Americans?

0 Replies

IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know