IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

More irrelevant and factually distorted nonsense from Advocate. Apparently he believes the majority of folks in this country, who don't want the Democrat plan or the massive public debt and government interference in their lives that go with it, are somehow delusional.

Could it be that it is Advocate who is delusional ?

The majority? You still casually flinging that term around?

What would you say if I were to present evidence showing that the majority of American DO want a system with a public option, ran by the government, in it?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Gosh, then what explains the general public disfavor for the proposed legislation?

Show me instead, evidence that the majority of Americans favor the specific legislation proposed by the House of Representatives, that does include a public option.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

I believe that dissatisfaction levels are high for two reasons: one, Conservative disdain for the whole idea, and two, Liberal anger that it isn't getting done/is getting watered down in the name of 'compromise.' However, when you look at the polls, you assume that all dissatisfaction is for the first reason, even though poll after poll shows that majorities of people support the individual elements of the plan.

I chose my wording carefully, for while there is a lot of polling on the public option, there is little polling on the House vs. Senate bill, because most people don't understand the differences in them. I can affirm for you, however, that several polls in the last month have shown clear majorities of Americans who favor the creation of a Public option, ran by the government; something that should not be able to happen if your theory - that the majority of people are against government intrusion into health care - holds true. Wouldn't you agree?

Cycloptichorn

3 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Where you go wrong at the start of figuring this out, cyclops, is the fact that the majority of Americans are satisfied with their current health insurance, and they simply don't want Obama, Pelosi, and Reid to screw it up, as they surely will if they get their way.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Where you go wrong at the start of figuring this out, cyclops, is the fact that the majority of Americans are satisfied with their current health insurance, and they simply don't want Obama, Pelosi, and Reid to screw it up, as they surely will if they get their way.

When are you going to figure out that your views, Okie, represent only a small part of Americans?

You are not mainstream. No matter how much you want to present yourself that way, you represent the right-wing of thought in a country which represents the right-wing of thought in the world.

I would also note that poll after poll shows that people trust Obama and Pelosi more with the health-care issue then they do any Republican. This is because people haven't forgotten what failures and fuckups the Republicans are when they get in power.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I chose my wording carefully, for while there is a lot of polling on the public option, there is little polling on the House vs. Senate bill, because most people don't understand the differences in them. I can affirm for you, however, that several polls in the last month have shown clear majorities of Americans who favor the creation of a Public option, ran by the government; something that should not be able to happen if your theory - that the majority of people are against government intrusion into health care - holds true. Wouldn't you agree?

Is the Senate bill available online? Does it include a public option?

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

No I would not agree. You are specifying what you suppose to be the objections of others ( BTW What does "distain for the whole idea" really mean?), and using very loosely worded poll data to "confirm" an outcome that is strangely at odds with the reality of the political result. Oddly, you appear to make no attempt to explain the contradiction that results. If your analysis is correct then the House version of the health care legislation should have sailed through. However, it has not. Why??????

It is entirely possible that many people may like the abstract idea of a public health care system, and at the same time doubt the ability (or inclination) of our government to run it well. Additionally some may think the outcome desirable for its own sake, but dread the likely outcome on our accumulating Federal debt. Some may be aware of the vast gulf between the fiscal promises that attended the initial passages of Medicare and Medicaid, and the political venality and fiscal mess that have actually resulted. These side effects are almost never included in the question being polled, and your use of the poll data to derive the conclusions you make is frankly silly and superficial.

Some may even be amazed at a President who can blandly acknowledge the fiscal mess of Medicare, and then go on to propose doubling down on the entitlement, oblivious to the likely outcome.

2 Replies

@Irishk,

Irishk wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
I chose my wording carefully, for while there is a lot of polling on the public option, there is little polling on the House vs. Senate bill, because most people don't understand the differences in them. I can affirm for you, however, that several polls in the last month have shown clear majorities of Americans who favor the creation of a Public option, ran by the government; something that should not be able to happen if your theory - that the majority of people are against government intrusion into health care - holds true. Wouldn't you agree?

Is the Senate bill available online? Does it include a public option?

Yes, and no - though Reid and others are talking about inserting language very similar to that with the Reconciliation fix that is currently being discussed.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Yes, it's available online?

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

No I would not agree. You are specifying what you suppose to be the objections of others ( BTW What does "distain for the whole idea" really mean?), and using very loosely worded poll data to "confirm" an outcome that is strangely at odds with the reality of the political result. Oddly, you appear to make no attempt to explain the contradiction that results. If your analysis is correct then the House version of the health care legislation should have sailed through. However, it has not. Why??????

Because, George, the Senate watered down and compromised what was a quite progressive bill into something much worse, in the name of getting Republicans on board - none of whom voted for the Senate bill anyway.

Christ, it's as if you know nothing about how the House and Senate work. Seriously. How long have you been studying this?

Quote:

It is entirely possible that many people may like the abstract idea of a public health care system, and at the same time doubt the ability (or inclination) of our government to run it well. Additionally some may think the outcome desirable for its own sake, but dread the likely outcome on our accumulating Federal debt. Some may be aware of the vast gulf between the fiscal promises that attended the initial passages of Medicare and Medicaid, and the political venality and fiscal mess that have actually resulted. These side effects are almost never included in the question being polled, and your use of the poll data to derive the conclusions you make is frankly silly and superficial.

Unless you have data to support your suppositions, I'm afraid I'm going to have to go with clearly asked questions over your guesses over what people's worries are.

Quote:

Some may even be amazed at a President who can blandly acknowledge the fiscal mess of Medicare, and then go on to propose doubling down on the entitlement, oblivious to the likely outcome.

I don't think you know what the likely outcome is, Kreskin; and I also think you are forgetting the fact that Medicare is extremely popular, to the point where YOUR own politicians are now defending it. If people truly don't want the government running health-care, and are worried about the fiscal impacts of them doing so, how could this be the case?

Your position is riddled with contradictions and assumptions.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Irishk,

Irishk wrote:

Yes, it's available online?

Yes it is -

http://democrats.senate.gov/reform/patient-protection-affordable-care-act-as-passed.pdf

Did you even look? I googled 'Senate health care bill text' and found it in about 10 seconds.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

I'm not sure that's the bill that will be voted on using reconciliation. Maybe they'll post an updated version.

1 Reply

@Irishk,

Irishk wrote:

I'm not sure that's the bill that will be voted on using reconciliation. Maybe they'll post an updated version.

This bill has already been passed by the Senate. Reconciliation will modify this passed legislation with new terms. You are correct that this is not the bill which is upcoming; this is the one which will be changed by the new bill, so that the House can agree to pass the Senate version.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Your position is riddled with contradictions and assumptions.
Cycloptichorn

No. Yours is though.

Consider that you are asking me for poll data to support a rather obvious set of observations on the limitations of polling and the questions employed.

Absurd.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Your position is riddled with contradictions and assumptions.
Cycloptichorn

No. Yours is though.

No. Yours is. So there.

Nice the level of argumentation you have devolved into. Perhaps next you will call me a poopy-head, or threaten to take your ball and go home.

Quote:

Consider that you are asking me for poll data to support a rather obvious set of observations

They are not obvious. This is a fundamental error on your part; you assume that your opinions are obvious ones and shared by others, based on your own internal logic, without data to back it up.

Quote:

on the limitations of polling and the questions employed.

Absurd.

A direct question in a poll, such as 'do you support the creation of a government-run Public Option to compete with insurance companies,' is not a limited or confusing question; and would you like to place a bet against my position, that polling shows majorities do want such an option? Somehow I doubt it. The most you can do is attack the polls, because they contradict your ideological position.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

By the way, check this out:

http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/posr022310nr.cfm

Kaiser's latest poll pretty much confirms my entire argument, and specifically demolishes large sections of yours, George.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

It is entirely possible that many people may like the abstract idea of a public health care system, and at the same time doubt the ability (or inclination) of our government to run it well.

This is my view, the bill that was passed was disgusting and horrible. I think they can do better (and I hope they do).

0 Replies

There have been many people on here that have pointed out that our health care system is broken, that countries like Canada have a better system of healthcare.

I dont know if thats true or not, but stories like this one really make me wonder if we want our healthcare system to be anything like Canada's.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5h0QC7bditrEb3wYz_6_b-gsGGDxA?lame

Quote:

An unapologetic Danny Williams says he was aware his trip to the United States for heart surgery earlier this month would spark outcry, but he concluded his personal health trumped any public fallout over the controversial decision.

Now note this line from the article...

Quote:

"I did not sign away my right to get the best possible health care for myself when I entered politics."

So I have to wonder, if the "best possible health care" is here in the US, why do so many people on here keep saying we need to become more like Canada when it comes to health care?

BTW, for those of you that dont know, Danny Williams is the Newfoundland and Labrador Premier.

2 Replies

@mysteryman,

I read his statement earlier today. He indicated that he knew he would be criticized regardless and he's probably right about that.

I don't think anyone has advocated for single payer here...could be wrong about that, though.

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

What's the problem, exactly? He wanted a type of surgery that isn't commonly practiced in CA and he didn't want to wait his turn in line like everyone else. This is a common problem for the rich.

From the same article:

Quote:

Williams said his decision to go to the U.S. did not reflect any lack of faith in his own province's health care system.

"I have the utmost confidence in our own health care system in Newfoundland and Labrador, but we are just over half a million people," he said.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know