He did compare health care reform to Nazism.
Give me the exact quote where he states that "attempts to reform healthcare equate to nazism". I've listened to the clip many times in the last few days and I've never heard what you claim is there.
He also claimed to be a disabled vet, which would have qualified him for government health care already, yet seemed to think that the government wanted to take his health care plan away from him.
Is the audio in the clip totally different on your computer?
Here's what he said:
"I also heard you say that you will
let us keep our health insurance, well
thank you! Its
not your right to decide whether or not I keep my healthcare insurance."
Nowhere in that statement does he seem 'to think that government wants to take his health care plan away from him', Mr. Hedrick is upset, and rightly so, that government portends to make ANY healthcare decisions for us and he's insulted, once again rightly so, that these politicians think we should be
appreciative that they are so
magnanimous as to
allow us to keep our current insurance. How big of them.
Aren't we fortunate to live in a "free" society where government "lets us" decide where we get our HC insurance? Do you really not see the arrogant elitism that oozes out of the mouths of these politicians?
He was the misinformed one, not me.
Unless you have different audio playing for the clip, it seems your interpretation of Mr. Hedricks statements are incredibly flawed and strangely in line with the Left Wing distortions.
What we need, though, is light rather than heat, fact rather than hype, pragmatism rather than ideology, and truth rather than lies.
I really don't know what your infatuation is with "pragmatism", the "whatever works" mentality is responsible for giving us the patchwork system of short-sighted quick fixes. Ideology uses a principled approach to problem solving while pragmatism is the wholesale rejection of principles.
Is that what health care reform is all about in your view, a redistribution of wealth?
Is there only one way to reform healthcare? The Progressive way is a continuation and expansion of the redistributive philosophy while the type of reform I support is based on Capitalist principles.
Right now we give away healthcare for "free" to those who can't afford it. The cost of that "free" healthcare is passed onto those who "can" afford it. This is a redistribution of wealth. Doing the same thing with healthcare insurance, via a public option subsidized by taxpayers, is also a redistributive system.
Or is it an attempt to rein in the out of control costs of health care?
Well if you're talking about creating a "Public Option" to "compete" (unfairly) against private insurance, then the "out of control costs" will get even farther out of control, and quickly.
I'm watching C-Span right now and (D) Jim Moran is speaking at a townhall in Virginia. Representative Moran explained the "Public Option" as an expansion of Medicare/Medicaid programs. If you think modeling our National HC plan after those bankrupt programs constitutes "reform" which is an "attempt to rein in the out of control costs", then we have an irreconcilable disagreement on appropriate reform and on what constitutes a redistribution of wealth.
As it is now, anyone can get health care, and the rest of us pay for it one way or another.
Do you think that is moral? I don't. Those who think they have a "moral obligation" to pay for other people to receive goods and services - at no charge - should be free to choose to donate to charities that perform these functions while those who do not feel it's their moral obligation to do so should be free to choose not to donate to such charity.
The same is true for HC insurance. If you think providing others with HC ins. is a moral obligation, then dig deep into your own wallet and make it happen by your own free will and by your own choice. What you should not do is utilize the governments monopoly on force to eliminate the free will and freedom of choice for others in order to force your morality onto them.
Reforming the system is not taking wealth away from one person to hand it to someone else.
Depends on who's reform you're looking at, doesn't it? The Progressive's proposed system of expanding Medicare/Medicaid is an expansion of the welfare state and an expansion of the redistributive philosophy that's bankrupting the country (fiscally and morally).
It is developing a real system rather than a patchwork of complicated plans that leave most of us with inadequate coverage and costs us double what the rest of the world has to pay.
That "patchwork" system was designed, implemented and is currently administrated by the government.
Why do you have faith that the same government who created the mess can effectively reform it? I'd rather have government get out of the HC business and let the free market work:
1. Remove gov. mandates on Ins. Companies that prevent them from offering affordable options, such as Catastrophic care.
2. Remove the burdensome regulations that prevent Ins. Companies from competing over state lines (the "public option" would "compete" with the Ins. Co. over state lines and not be held to the same rules and standards as the private Ins. Co.s.).
3. Tort Reform is also a badly needed reform but seeing as the trial lawyer lobby is currently the number one lobby group in Washington and they came in #2 in the 2008 election cycle (with 85% of their quarter Billion dollars worth of contributions going to Democrats), I don't see tort reform happening with the Democrats in control of Washington.
There are more but those are the top 3 reforms I'd suggest.
Yes, both "Nazism" and "fascism" are used to mean "undesirable", as are a whole lot of other misused terms. The word "socialism" comes to mind.
Capitalism too, look at how many of the small minded have drool running down their chin while blaming "unregulated" capitalism for our problems.
BTW, a "mixed" economy (our system) is a Fascist design, its the "third way" between Lassez Faire Capitalism and a Communist/Socialist style Command Economy. Under our system, the means of production are (for the most part, save some banks, ins. companies and auto makers) owned privately but regulated by the Gov. That is a Fascist economic model, adopted over a century ago before terms like Fascist and Dictator were seen in a negative light, and it was instituted by Progressives at the turn of the century.
No one is suggesting that we do nothing, but no one is suggesting an alternative to reforming the system...
Cmon... You can't be
that misinformed... That's a leftist talking point, pure propaganda, and not based on actual facts.
Right now, the only plan that has been written is HR 3200.
You should watch more C-Span:
Republicans Have Offered Three Alternative Health Care Reform Bills
I won't pretend to agree with all their ideas for reform but its a better direction than what the Democrats are offering.
If we don't want to debate and refine what is actually written in that plan, then it's time to write a new one.
If we allow the typical unprincipled approach of pragmatism to guide the reforms, we will find yet another square on the patchwork quilt that will require more patches to cover the holes it creates.
But, when hype, outright lies, half truths and ideology are keeping us from formulating any plan, then yes, the alternative is to do nothing.
Blaming Ideology? I just don't get that... Do you have any principles? Are those principles worth fighting for or do you just discard, or compromise, them when faced with opposition?
The opposition may not be saying, "Let's do nothing", but their actions are keeping anything meaningful from happening.
So you're totally misinformed... your news source didn't inform you that the Republicans have offered 3 HC alternatives since May and that same source is leading you to believe that the opposition that gets the most media coverage constitutes "the" opposition. (Spotlight fallacy)
