Originally Posted By fkurucz <a href="http://www.aolnews.com/politics/article/repealing-obamacare-will-define-republicans-in-2011/19753936" target="_blank">http://www.aolnews.com/politic...19753936</a> This takes prority over everything else folks. Here's a little doozy from the article: "North Carolina's Renee Ellmers, a Palin protege, opposes requiring insurers to accept patients with pre-existing conditions -- including pregnancy. Austin Scott of Georgia, another House freshman, was asked if there was any part of the law he supported. He replied, "No, ma'am, there are not."" You just gotta love those pro family GOP legislators! And yet I have little doubt that the people who benefit the most by the law will be those who will support its repeal. Which brings me to a sad anecdote: Two days ago one of the moms from my son's soccer team passed away from cancer. It was breast cancer that claimed her and even though she was in the target group that should have been receiving mamograms, she did not because they were uninsured and couldn't afford to pay for mamograms out of their pocket. Amazingly, her surviving husband is opposed to any kind of socialized healthcare and thinks that the current system is just fine, even though it failed his wife horribly. That said, he is a protestant fundamentalist minister who is opposed to things that are "socialist" in nature (I am sure he will collect social security when he retires though). Canada is starting to look good.
Originally Posted By Donny As I agree that costs need to be brought down to reasonably amount but I am against telling the American people they have to buy health care.If the Government is so sure they can provide health insurance better then anyone else then create a entity much like the post office where if I the American tax payer see a benefit in having it I will voluntarily choose to purchase it the same way I purchase stamps.
Originally Posted By ecdc Attention Teabaggers: Words mean something. Communism and socialism are legitimate forms of political philosophy. You may disagree with them (I do) but there are certain criteria that must be met before someone is considered a socialist or a Communist. Do you really want to live in a world where words mean nothing because we just call people whatever we want even if they don't meet the criteria? Ironic coming from a group of people that hates being called racist....
Originally Posted By Donny ecdc said "Do you really want to live in a world where words mean nothing because we just call people whatever we want even if they don't meet the criteria?" No I dont but when the other side calls George Bush,Sarah Palin,John McCain names it really doesnt help
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>As I agree that costs need to be brought down to reasonably amount but I am against telling the American people they have to buy health care.<< Do yo have a problem with the government requiring drivers to pruchase auto insurance? It says a lot about the USA that we have assigned risk pools for auto insurance but nothing similar for health insurance, which goes to prove that in America we value property more than people.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "No I dont but when the other side calls George Bush,Sarah Palin,John McCain names it really doesnt help." Bush, Palin and McCain haven't helped in any sense of the word, either.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>No I dont but when the other side calls George Bush,Sarah Palin,John McCain names it really doesnt help<< The evidence continues to mount that false equivalency is the most insidious fallacy in American discourse. Calling someone names for humor's sake is a very different thing than genuinely believing, as the tea party and Glenn Beck, crazy person, do, that the President of the United States is a socialist.
Originally Posted By Lisann22 I guess I won't share this news with my employees who were overjoyed on Friday when I shared with them that due to "Obamacare" our premiums were NOT going up after 5 years of it doing so. That most of our preventative medical care is now free between our insurance benefits and Obamacare. When two of my working mom's with 6 kids between them; newborn to elementary school age realized school physicals and shots would no longer require a co-pay of $30 each and that they could go get a mammogram and pap smear for free burst into tears.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <If the Government is so sure they can provide health insurance better then anyone else then create a entity much like the post office where if I the American tax payer see a benefit in having it I will voluntarily choose to purchase it the same way I purchase stamps.> You pretty much just described the public option, which so many right-wingers described as unacceptably socialist. <When two of my working mom's with 6 kids between them; newborn to elementary school age realized school physicals and shots would no longer require a co-pay of $30 each and that they could go get a mammogram and pap smear for free burst into tears.> I think when more people understand what the health care bill actually WAS, as opposed to what it was described as being, this reaction will be duplicated all across the country. As post #1 shows, some people will continue to oppose it tooth and nail, no matter what, just because they're told to. But the great American middle will come to understand this was a good thing, and perhaps even demand that it be made better if the insurance companies continue to gouge.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>When two of my working mom's with 6 kids between them; newborn to elementary school age realized school physicals and shots would no longer require a co-pay of $30 each and that they could go get a mammogram and pap smear for free burst into tears.<< We can't have that Lisann, that's socialism! The American "free market" system is absolutely right in that those Americans who can least afford it should have to pay!
Originally Posted By ecdc >>You pretty much just described the public option, which so many right-wingers described as unacceptably socialist.<< That's because, as a new leaked memo shows, Fox News went out of their way to not call it the "public option." Instead they made sure it was labeled the "government option" or other ominous-sounding names.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>You pretty much just described the public option, which so many right-wingers described as unacceptably socialist.<< Correct. Corporate America hates competition, why is why there is a never ending campaign to disband the post office (as if UPS or FedEx would deliver mail for 50 cents a piece!). Now don't get me wrong, FedEx and UPS are good at what they do, but they could not replace the post office. But in many ways our byzantine health system does remind me of having UPS deliver the mail. Sure, they could do it, but with their cost structures it would be a lot more expensive than the post office. And yes, I know the Post Office is running a deficit these days. Unfortunately for them if they were to raise the rates enough to close the gap the public would screeam to high heaven, even though UPS and FedEx offer no alternative, and I doubt they could.
Originally Posted By fkurucz "As I agree that costs need to be brought down to reasonably" That is another issue Donny, and one I fully agree with you on. Funny though how the "free market" has utterly failed to address the cost issue.
Originally Posted By ecdc I really don't understand the faith people put in the so-called "free market." How is it not self-evident that it does not encourage competition and frequently does the exact opposite? I think people would be shocked if they learned how many industries have successfully lobbied for various laws to restrict competition with stuff like price protection, no international competition, etc.
Originally Posted By Longhorn12 Theodore Roosevelt made sure that we did NOT have a "free market" While I won't stand for everything the man did streamlining the manufacturing process was probably one of the best things he did.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>I just think it is wrong to force people to have health insurance.<< What about car insurance? We require car insurance so that if you cause an accident, another person isn't left footing an expensive bill. I really don't see how it's different here. If someone has no health insurance, it's going to cost you and I more money in the long run.
Originally Posted By fkurucz ^^^Agreed. As I've said before, the fact that we force people to buy car insurance and even offer "risk pools" so everyone can buy it goes to show that we value property over people in the USA. When I think about it makes me ashamed to be an American (well that and our wars af aggression).
Originally Posted By Longhorn12 >I just think it is wrong to force people to have health insurance.< This argument again? Really? REALLY?!?! I'm so tired of having people completely RESET the argument. This isn't a shot at you personally Donny, just the teaparty/republicans in general. Whenever Obamacare comes up they start off with "We don't want to force people to buy insurance" and the argument/discussion will start and eventually they will come back to "We don't want to force people to buy insurance" That is B.S. they don't want people to have to buy insurance that they CAN'T PROFIT FROM! They were perfectly fine with making people have to buy it without a public option.
