Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Healthcare In The USA
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 16 of 72 (519501)
08-14-2009 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Blue Jay
08-13-2009 6:51 PM


There's private insurance everywhere!
Thus, the choices, in his mind, are to get the public insurance, or get his own private insurance, and pay for the public insurance anyway. Obviously, if these are the options, nobody is going to pick the latter option, so we'll end up with only one choice for insurance anyway.
If these are the options, lots of people are going to choose the latter option. We can assume this because Americans are not that different to the rest of the world's population, contrary to popular opinion, and this is the way things work in many different countries.
The British NHS provides many things free-of-charge, and much else at greatly subsidised rates. Everyone has to pay for the upkeep of this through taxes. Nevertheless, a substantial proportion of the population (about 10%, I think) also pays for a private health insurance plan. They do so in order to get services which the NHS won't provide due to being too expensive or of dubious efficacy; in order to get faster access to popular services with long waiting lists on the NHS and/or because they believe a particular private provider will offer a higher standard of care.
Here in the Czech Republic, I can go to a government run poliklinika and pay just 30 crowns for my checkup (free until recently, health care reform here means increasing government revenue by bringing in new charges). Alternatively, I could pay much more at a private clinic. Despite the cheaper government option, private clinics have no problem attracting customers by offering a more pleasant environment, additional services and either better care or the impression of better care.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Blue Jay, posted 08-13-2009 6:51 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Blue Jay, posted 08-14-2009 1:51 PM caffeine has replied

  
ooh-child
Member (Idle past 343 days)
Posts: 242
Joined: 04-10-2009


Message 17 of 72 (519513)
08-14-2009 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Straggler
08-14-2009 6:48 AM


Re: Welcome....
Thanks for the welcome, Straggler. I've been reading this site for several years now and learned a lot from everyone here - I'm glad I finally have an opportunity to jump in the water!
I guess what upsets me most about this debate is how conservatives have turned it into a 'left/right' issue. Partisan politics shouldn't be involved in health care in this country, but that's what it's devolved into.
For instance, politicians like Palin & Gingrich were all for end-of-life counseling just a few months ago. They are both on record as supporting this as a cost saving measure. But once they saw the opportunity to twist it into a wedge issue, they jumped on it like a duck on a junebug. All because the Democrats support it now, and they'll do anything to get back in power.
Obama needs to give up on the idea of bipartisan compromise - Republicans will only use it against him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Straggler, posted 08-14-2009 6:48 AM Straggler has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 18 of 72 (519530)
08-14-2009 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by caffeine
08-14-2009 9:27 AM


Re: There's private insurance everywhere!
Hi, Caffeine.
What you're saying makes sense (except "poliklinika" ---I assume that means "public clinic" or something like that).
So, the only difference will be that poor people who can't afford good healthcare will at least get some healthcare?
That doesn't sound bad.
Edited by Bluejay, : Minor adjustments

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by caffeine, posted 08-14-2009 9:27 AM caffeine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Rahvin, posted 08-14-2009 1:55 PM Blue Jay has not replied
 Message 45 by caffeine, posted 08-18-2009 5:37 AM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 19 of 72 (519531)
08-14-2009 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Taz
08-13-2009 10:18 PM


Hi, Taz.
Taz writes:
Two-thirds of the proposed program can already be paid by current budgets.
So, they just had some money sitting around somewhere?
What were those budgets doing before?

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Taz, posted 08-13-2009 10:18 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Taz, posted 08-14-2009 6:23 PM Blue Jay has not replied
 Message 51 by Perdition, posted 08-18-2009 1:56 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 20 of 72 (519532)
08-14-2009 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Blue Jay
08-14-2009 1:51 PM


Re: There's private insurance everywhere!
Hi, Caffeine.
What you're saying makes sense (except "poliklinika"---I assume that means "public clinic" or something like that ).
So, the only difference will be that poor people who can't afford good healthcare will at least get some healthcare?
That doesn't sound bad.
And people who lose their jobs won't lose their healthcare. And people with pre-existing conditions will get healthcare. My grandparents won't have to worry that they've lived longer than they planned and are now running low on money for healthcare when they need it most. Many people will likely switch voluntarily to a government-run option simply to have their health managed by an organization whose objective is to increase the well-being of the citizenry, as opposed to a corporation whose incentive is to profit regardless of the effect it has on their customers.
I've never heard anything "bad" about a public option that wasn't the result of outright lies, except for cost concerns.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Blue Jay, posted 08-14-2009 1:51 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 21 of 72 (519550)
08-14-2009 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Blue Jay
08-14-2009 1:52 PM


Bluejay writes:
So, they just had some money sitting around somewhere?
What were those budgets doing before?
Not sitting around. If you haven't noticed, in the past 8 years the previous president went on a spending spree. Just pulling the number of troops out of Iraq alone frees up god knows how many trillions of dollars.
Added by edit.
As we speak, programs that this administration thinks isn't worth the time and money are being eliminated.
Added by edit again.
For the record, I'm not a politician nor I'm some kind of political junky. I get my info from the same sources that are available to everyone: the news.
The two-thirds of the bill being paid for already by current budget is agreed by both dems and reps. Nobody is disputing that. What the main discussion that goes in congress is about how to pay for the remaining one-third. And again, nobody is disputing that... unless you want to call the president and every member of congress liars.
If you want to know the specifics, I'm sure there are better sources out there than me. I keep track of these things just enough to tell the difference between reality and lies. Being a social servant, I get literally 5 hours of sleep during a typical weekday and then collapse when Saturday comes. I really wish I have more time and will power to actually sit down and look more at the specifics.
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Blue Jay, posted 08-14-2009 1:52 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 22 of 72 (519551)
08-14-2009 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
08-13-2009 4:28 PM


Hi Straggler,
So what is going on? Who is pro? Who is against? What are the facts? What are the fictions?
As always, there's more to what's happening than just what the TV shows us. The health care lunacy on TV has nothing to do with the issues, it is, just like it always is when media coverage gets hyped up about a single topic, just a distraction to keep the public focused and entertained, while Big Business hashes out it's wants and needs with the White House.
And distracted it has kept us.
What am I talking about? Here: Source
quote:
The latest flare-up was sparked this week when the LA Times reported that the pharmaceutical industry’s top lobbyist, Billy Tauzin, was crowing about what Big Pharma had received in return for agreeing to $80 billion in cost savings plus the bankrolling of a pro-reform campaign:
Tauzin said he had not only received the White House pledge to forswear Medicare drug price bargaining, but also a separate promise not to pursue another proposal Obama supported during the campaign: importing cheaper drugs from Canada or Europe. Both proposals could cost the industry billions
Let the games begin...
quote:
The next day, The New York Times corroborated the deal:
...White House officials...assured drug makers that the administration stood by a behind-the-scenes deal to block any congressional effort to extract cost savings from them beyond an agreed-upon $80 billion
But then Congress weighed in...
quote:
From a Bloomberg article titled "Drugmakers May Have Trouble Enforcing Health Deal in Congress":
The bargain U.S. drugmakers struck with President Barack Obama...can’t be enforced on Congress, lawmakers say. Democratic lawmakers...including...Nancy Pelosi and...Henry Waxman have said Congress isn’t bound by the agreements...
On August 8, The New York Times ran this story, called "Obama Reverses Stand on Drug Industry Deal":
Caught between a pivotal industry ally and the protests of Congressional Democrats, the Obama administration backed away from what drug industry lobbyists had said was a firm White House promise to exclude from a proposed health care overhaul the possibility of allowing the government to negotiate lower drug prices under Medicare. Several Senate Democrats said White House officials had told them there was no such deal, sowing yet more confusion...
So now there is a bit of confusion as to which side is going to get what they want. This needs to get hashed out, behind closed doors.
Furthermore...
quote:
And on August 9, AP reported just how much support the pharmaceutical companies wereapparently stillwilling to pony up:
The nation's drugmakers stand ready to spend $150 million to help President Barack Obama overhaul health care this fall, a staggering sum that could dwarf attempts to derail his chief domestic priority.
So is it a deal or no deal? The New York Times reported that people involved in the original negotations said there had been "some ambiguity" in the discussions. Sounds like an understatement.
You figure for that kind of money they need to see some benefit to it, right?
Well...
quote:
Rep. Bernie Sanders may have summed up suspicions about dealing with the pharmaceutical industry when he said, "The drug companies form the most powerful lobby in Washington. They never lose."
But The New York Times also reports that although the pharmaceutical industry opposes a public insurance planone of Obama's top priorities"its lobbyists acknowledge privately that they have no intention of fighting it, in part because their agreement with the White House provides them other safeguards." And while longtime health-care reform advocates may see a poison pill in any deal involving the industry, the enrolling of tens of millions of currently uninsured people in new health plans could mean big profits to drug companies, while still putting them on the same side as the pro-reform crowd.
And here's the reason for the media hype...
quote:
High stakes and lots of buzz, which will only increase when Congress returns from recess.
Congress returns Sept 4th. Until then, nothing can be decided between the White House and the Pharm Industry until Congress weighs in on the matter. The Pharm Industry is NOT going to get screwed over, and the White House is going to make sure of that.
In the mean time, while they work out how much money everyone is going to make, the general public is kept distracted with town-hall stupidity and hyped up news coverage. We then get all worked up and begin to fight each other, adding more to the distraction propaganda. It then becomes a fight between the general public on itself, we turn on each other. FoxNews, CNN, MSNBC, etc, begin to take sides covering favorable stories to support whatever their individual audience supports.
In the end the only ones who will gain anything are the lobbyist, big business and specific White House officials. And the beauty of it is that it keeps the general public divided once again according to their individual parties. The dems fight the repubs and vice versa. We stay blind and big business continues to get richer.
Why do we have crazy town hall meetings and all this news coverage? It's a necessary distraction to keep us entertained, dude. It's nothing more than that.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little.
~George Carlin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 08-13-2009 4:28 PM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Taz, posted 08-14-2009 7:05 PM onifre has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 23 of 72 (519552)
08-14-2009 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by onifre
08-14-2009 6:50 PM


onifre writes:
Why do we have crazy town hall meetings and all this news coverage? It's a necessary distraction to keep us entertained, dude. It's nothing more than that.
Actually, I don't agree with this. Yes, the meetings are a distraction. But they could do just as much good as much harm. Congressmen want to get reelected. They're not going to wander too far off the map if it will mean political suicide.
The disinformation that are flying around act as a way for them to wander off the map without getting booted out of office.
In other words, these meetings are important.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by onifre, posted 08-14-2009 6:50 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by onifre, posted 08-14-2009 7:40 PM Taz has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 24 of 72 (519556)
08-14-2009 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Taz
08-14-2009 7:05 PM


Actually, I don't agree with this. Yes, the meetings are a distraction. But they could do just as much good as much harm. Congressmen want to get reelected. They're not going to wander too far off the map if it will mean political suicide.
The disinformation that are flying around act as a way for them to wander off the map without getting booted out of office.
In other words, these meetings are important.
Fair enough, I can agree that individual politicians are using this for their benefit in some way as well.
But my point was more toward, why the media coverage and the hype, with the town-hall meetings and with "death panels," etc? That's where I feel the disinformation is coming from, the mainstream media.
Here's an article if you care to read it that touches on this. Source
A few quotes for those who don't want to read the full article:
quote:
This basic truth must be kept in mind in understanding the health care debate. The debate has trailed off into loon tune land, and it's the media's fault.
The lunacy was most clearly in evidence in former Governor Sarah Palin's claim that President Obama's plan would force her to stand in front of a "death panel" to argue for the life of her baby with Down Syndrome. This "death panel" is a complete invention by Governor Palin. There is no twist or turn or contorted permutation of President Obama's plan that would prevent Ms. Palin from providing as much health care as she wants to her baby.
The media have allowed the politicians to turn life into death and night into day when it comes to the health care debate because they decided that anything said against President Obama's plan should be treated with respect, no matter how absurd it might be.
The media have the job of informing the public. They have the time and the resources to know that when opponents of President Obama's plan talk about rationing, they are not telling the truth (i.e. they are lying). If the media just pass these assertions on to the public without comment, then they are giving them credibility.
And if the opponents of health reform think they can get away with one really big lie, then why shouldn't they start moving forward with even bigger ones. It was only a matter of time before someone came up with Governor Palin's death panel line. For this we owe our thanks to the Washington Post and the rest of the mainstream media.
If the corporate mainstream media is responsible for the disinformation, then I think the big question is why? Why are they leading the campaign of misinforming the public?
Is it to draw viewers, or is there a bigger agenda focused on big business (Pharm Industry) and their wants and needs?
I think in your other thread I favored "to draw viewers," but having looked into this stuff a bit deeper and finding the articles on the Pharm Industry's agreement with the White House, I'd say it's the bigger agenda focused on big businesses wants and needs.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Taz, posted 08-14-2009 7:05 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Taz, posted 08-14-2009 7:47 PM onifre has replied
 Message 31 by purpledawn, posted 08-15-2009 7:53 AM onifre has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 25 of 72 (519557)
08-14-2009 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by onifre
08-14-2009 7:40 PM


onifre writes:
But my point was more toward, why the media coverage and the hype, with the town-hall meetings and with "death panels," etc? That's where I feel the disinformation is coming from, the mainstream media.
I guess you could say this from a certain perspective. It's Sarah Palin that used the words "death panels". That, to me, is disinformation. Am I correct to understand that you see the media reporting Sarah Palin saying "death panels" as the disinformation in all of this?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by onifre, posted 08-14-2009 7:40 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by onifre, posted 08-14-2009 10:20 PM Taz has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 72 (519564)
08-14-2009 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
08-13-2009 4:28 PM


Explanation
As a confused foreigner I want to know the "truth"........Please enlighten me.
Basically it breaks down like this:
There are two sides of the story, but both sides generally agree that there is a major problem with the health care system in the US, but they have opposing views on what would fix it.
People that lean to the Left (Democrats) want to socialize medicine as it is in your country, as they feel that the health care system in America is broken. They also feel that socializing medicine should be a fundamental right to all people, and that they shouldn't be burdened with having to purchase insurance to cover medical expenses. The Left feels that it places a higher emphasis and special interest in corporations over the common man who is in need.
People that lean to the Right (Republicans) agree that there is a problem, but that socializing medicine will inevitably lead to an exorbitant raising of taxes that will negatively affect its citizens in the long run, and that the quality of care will be stifled. They want to avoid the pitfalls of socialized medicine, leaning to the ideal that private business, learning from the economic principle of supply and demand, that private business is generally more efficient than when the government gets a hold of something.
Both sides obviously claim that their version better serves the needs of its people.
I see pro's and con's on both sides, but at the end of the day for me it boils down to a simple economic question. There is no nation that can stand without a strong economy. If a nation's economy is weak, which is is the oil that runs all the machines, every other system fails catastrophically. You can't have ANYTHING without an efficient economy.
If I were Obama, I would first tackle the debacle that is the economic crisis before I even attempted to undertake such a massive overhaul that would only further lead the nation in to an economic depression.
The US is the third most populace nation in the world. The supply and demand would be outrageous, so that even if well meaning, it ultimately ends up being in a worse condition.
From what I can tell, socialized medicine, wherever it is used, is barely sufficient, let alone efficient. And that has nothing to do with the capabilities of its doctors or quality of care, it boils down to dollars and cents. This misconception that socialized medicine is "free" is patently absurd. There is nothing free about it. Money needs to come from somewhere and quite frankly, either the taxes have to be raised to a ridiculous amount that will certainly enslave Americans even more than they are, or they have to make budget cuts which destroy other vital programs already in place.
That money has to come from somewhere, and the price tag would be so costly that I'm not sure that it is in the best interests for America to go down this path.
Medicade, Medicare, and Social Security are three examples of how the government simply can't supply the demand. Those programs are utter failures, and what ends up happening is that it was initially promised that Social Security would not be compulsory; that if you wanted in, you opted to buy in to the program. Now that thing leaches off of every American, most of whom will never see a dime reimbursed. We are paying in to a program that will be completely depleted in likely less than 10-20 years. We're forced by law to pay this huge percentage and of those who do receive it, it's not enough money to reasonably sustain people in need. It's a failure.

"I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death. " Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 08-13-2009 4:28 PM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by onifre, posted 08-14-2009 10:54 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 48 by Peg, posted 08-18-2009 7:30 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 27 of 72 (519565)
08-14-2009 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Taz
08-14-2009 7:47 PM


Am I correct to understand that you see the media reporting Sarah Palin saying "death panels" as the disinformation in all of this?
Yes, because they're where information comes from. Palin can say anything she wants, but only when broadcasted without questioning does it become "information" to us, and information that many people trust to be true. At the very least, they trust that it has been researched to some degree and not a complete and out right lie.
Like the article said, which I agree with:
quote:
The media have allowed the politicians to turn life into death and night into day when it comes to the health care debate because they decided that anything said against President Obama's plan should be treated with respect, no matter how absurd it might be.
The media have the job of informing the public. They have the time and the resources to know that when opponents of President Obama's plan talk about rationing, they are not telling the truth (i.e. they are lying). If the media just pass these assertions on to the public without comment, then they are giving them credibility.

The way the media portrays these politicians establishes their credibility. If they pass on the information to the general public, who isn't well educated in matters of health care, etc., then a majority of the public believes these assertions without questioning it because they trust the source. I know I do that a lot when it comes to issues related to science. I usually trust the source. Now imagine they just start letting anybody with any crazy theory get published in science journals. I, not being a scientist, then believe the crazy theory as truth because I trusted the source.
If this was the case in science we would be outraged. However, we allow the mainstream media to do just that.
IMO, the source of the disinformation is the mainstream media and the reason...well, that I just don't know. It could be ratings and advertisement, but since Glenn Beck's moronic "Obama is a racist" comment, I believe about 6 companies pulled their advertisement from his show. So I don't think that's the reason. This only leaves some bigger agenda as the reason, which we can then speculate on it being the Pharm Industry or someone like that.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Taz, posted 08-14-2009 7:47 PM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by anglagard, posted 08-16-2009 9:30 AM onifre has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 28 of 72 (519566)
08-14-2009 10:54 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Hyroglyphx
08-14-2009 10:10 PM


Re: Explanation
Hey Hyro,
People that lean to the Left (Democrats) want to socialize medicine as it is in your country
Can you provide the source where you heard or read this?
Obama's health care reform plan has NOTHING to do with socializing medicine, you know that, right?
They also feel that socializing medicine should be a fundamental right to all people,
Can you provide the source for this as well?
People that lean to the Right (Republicans) agree that there is a problem, but that socializing medicine will inevitably lead to an exorbitant raising of taxes that will negatively affect its citizens in the long run, and that the quality of care will be stifled.
The sad part about that is that they only feel that way because they have been lied to by the news sources that they trust. Another big mistake being made by the citizens who support the republican party is that they continue to believe that Obama's health care reform plan has something to do with socializing medicine. Well, it doesn't and they are being misinformed.
Both sides obviously claim that their version better serves the needs of its people.
Actually, to me it seems that both sides are just saying the other side sucks. Neither side has established anything in the form of an actual plan yet. The only agreement is that the current state of health care in America needs to be reformed to better assist those who can't afford it. And that is what Obama's health care plan is supposed to deal with. But of course people can't be properly educated on it when these idiots are out there on TV screaming "socialism" "death panels" "Hitler" and crap like that.
The fact of the matter is that the plan we are going to get is Obama's reform plan, period. So instead of claiming that they know what he's secretly trying to do, they should listen to what he has to say, to what the reform plan says and try to understand it because it is very important to all of us. And the media should cover just that, and not what Palin is spewing out of her stupid mouth.
From what I can tell, socialized medicine, wherever it is used, is barely sufficient, let alone efficient. And that has nothing to do with the capabilities of its doctors or quality of care, it boils down to dollars and cents. This misconception that socialized medicine is "free" is patently absurd. There is nothing free about it. Money needs to come from somewhere and quite frankly, either the taxes have to be raised to a ridiculous amount that will certainly enslave Americans even more than they are, or they have to make budget cuts which destroy other vital programs already in place.
This is irrelevant since Obama's reform plan has nothing to do with soocializing medicine.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-14-2009 10:10 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-14-2009 11:31 PM onifre has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 72 (519567)
08-14-2009 11:31 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by onifre
08-14-2009 10:54 PM


Re: Explanation
Obama's health care reform plan has NOTHING to do with socializing medicine, you know that, right?
That's what the plan is tantamount to at most or what it's leading up to in the least.
Can you provide the source for this as well?
Nobody in that administration would come out and use those words. Democrats aren't stupid, they don't want to come across as socialists in a country that is based on individual rights. If I were to source anyone using that term, it would come from a right-leaning pundit who only wants to unanimously demonize Obama. That doesn't do anyone any favors.
citizens who support the republican party is that they continue to believe that Obama's health care reform plan has something to do with socializing medicine. Well, it doesn't and they are being misinformed.
What then would you call it? It's a lot like why the housing market bubble burst. As soon as government made restrictions against private businesses, who are regulated by the people themselves, it forced banks to invest in risky loans in the interest of giving people affordable housing. Well, big surprise, those risky loans defaulted and you know how have EVERYONE suffering equally as a direct result. That's how it works, that's the reality of the situation. There's no denying that benevolent intentions are at hand, but if it leaves an entire economy deflated, then how is the latter better than the former?
Actually, to me it seems that both sides are just saying the other side sucks.
I think both sides suck too, but it is counterproductive.
The only agreement is that the current state of health care in America needs to be reformed to better assist those who can't afford it. And that is what Obama's health care plan is supposed to deal with.
Yep, but that's what was said about housing too... Look where we are now.
The fact of the matter is that the plan we are going to get is Obama's reform plan, period. So instead of claiming that they know what he's secretly trying to do, they should listen to what he has to say, to what the reform plan says and try to understand it because it is very important to all of us. And the media should cover just that, and not what Palin is spewing out of her stupid mouth.
Who cares about what Palin thinks? She's a dolt who is completely unqualified to run this country or even a nation the size of Luxemburg. She's completely partisan and aligns where her party aligns rather than thinking on her own. My concern is the cost to overhaul, how it will affect citizens pockets, where this money is going to come from, and whether or not it will be stripped from vital programs that barely have funding as it is.
This is irrelevant since Obama's reform plan has nothing to do with soocializing medicine.
You're going to have to read between the lines here. No one transitions from 0-100 in a second because it is too much of a shock to the system. It's a slow and methodical process.
You keep talking about propaganda... But you only see propaganda in one direction. Is it unimaginable that our president, like all presidents before him, is trying to sell you on an idea while actually trying to (in his words) Trojan Horse his true agenda?
Keep an open mind. And now they are frantically doing damage control calling it misrepresentation when all one has to do is listen to his own words. He indicts himself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbXrSK_VfME

"I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death. " Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by onifre, posted 08-14-2009 10:54 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by onifre, posted 08-15-2009 1:02 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 30 of 72 (519576)
08-15-2009 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Hyroglyphx
08-14-2009 11:31 PM


Re: Explanation
That's what the plan is tantamount to at most or what it's leading up to in the least.
Yes, but what are you using as evidence? Not that 1:52 video of sound bite, right?
I'm just asking for the evidence that lead you to this. Provide the media source, is what I'm asking.
Chopped up youtube clips are not enough. Who knows in what context things were said? What is in the actual health care reform PLAN? - The actual plan submitted to Congress, not in an Obama speech to rally supporters. - Is there anything better than the video as evidence?
The only thing in question here is his actual reform plan that he submitted to Congress. You need to show how the reform plan is leading to, or is itself, socilaizing health care. But you can't even reference the reform plan itself, so no one knows what it says. We get bits and pieces.
Right now there is a lot of bad information being passed around and no one knows what the actual plan says, yet what it says is more important than what people think or personally believe Obama's future plans may be. What it says is what affects us right now.
Democrats aren't stupid, they don't want to come across as socialists in a country that is based on individual rights.
But you'll need to provide the evidence that shows that the reform plan will lead to socialism, you have only conjecture here. These are currently just bare assertion on your part.
If I were to source anyone using that term, it would come from a right-leaning pundit who only wants to unanimously demonize Obama. That doesn't do anyone any favors.
Yea, lies don't cut it.
But I must still ask for physical evidence in the form of a reference to something in the actual reform plan that is leading to socialism.
I feel this socialism banter is just media propaganda that you've believed, dude.
I think both sides suck too, but it is counterproductive.
Well I was just refering to the health care plan, which the republicans aren't proposing one. So the democrats are, rather the Obama White House is, and we have vague information as to what it says because the media is busy covering bullshit town-hall meeting stories and what Palin said.
So we really don't know if Obama's health care reform plan is good.
My concern is the cost to overhaul, how it will affect citizens pockets, where this money is going to come from, and whether or not it will be stripped from vital programs that barely have funding as it is.
Then wouldn't you want to know what the reform plan says and not what is being proposed as Obama's secret mission, which is being hyped up by the mainstream media?
How does the reform plan "affect citizens pockets, where is this money going to come from, and will we be stripped from vital programs that barely have funding as it is?"
It seems like your opinion is being lead by media crap, Hyro.
You're going to have to read between the lines here. No one transitions from 0-100 in a second because it is too much of a shock to the system. It's a slow and methodical process.
Fair enough, and if anyone enjoys reading between the line, it's me. My question is, how has it taken it's first steps toward socialism, or socialized health care? What evidence do you have that shows that it has begun this "slow and methodical process?"
This socialism stuff is just media bullshit. It doesn't exist. The media created it out of thin air and have run a campaign to promote it. There is no basis for it. There is no evidence to support that assumtion (unless you can provide some outside of right wing media sources and 1:52 videos on youtube). For now, it's a lie conjured up by the media for a bigger purpose.
Now what that purpose is we can speculate on.
You keep talking about propaganda... But you only see propaganda in one direction. Is it unimaginable that our president, like all presidents before him, is trying to sell you on an idea while actually trying to (in his words) Trojan Horse his true agenda?
Keep an open mind.
I think you need to (1) get better evidence than a 1:52, chopped up, edited youtube video. And (2) I think you need to see the bigger picture and open your mind as well.
The president doesn't have an agenda that isn't controlled by a bigger entity than him.
I showed in Message 22 evidence that the White House and the Pharm companies are working together. Also, I showed that the Pharm Industry, which is who you are saying will take a big hit that will then burden us, is actually in favor of the plan.
quote:
The nation's drugmakers stand ready to spend $150 million to help President Barack Obama overhaul health care this fall, a staggering sum that could dwarf attempts to derail his chief domestic priority.
Why?
quote:
"its lobbyists acknowledge privately that they have no intention of fighting it, in part because their agreement with the White House provides them other safeguards." And while longtime health-care reform advocates may see a poison pill in any deal involving the industry, the enrolling of tens of millions of currently uninsured people in new health plans could mean big profits to drug companies, while still putting them on the same side as the pro-reform crowd.
So you see, the big picture is not about socializing health care, it's about the Pharm Industry, who is working with the Obama White House, gaining more drug users, and "because their agreement with the White House provides them other safeguards." - But mainly make more money! Lots of it! The corruption goes beyond Obama's agenda, he's just the face the public listens to. The Pharm Industry is leading this one.
And the beauty of it is that the Pharm Industry, which was using the republicans during the Bush admin to their benefit, is now using the democrats in the same way, to make bigger profits.
I was trying to explain once to Straggler on another thread how big business doesn't care which party is in charge, they find a way to manipulate both sides. Well, here's the example of just that, Straggler.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-14-2009 11:31 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024