Your original charge was that Mr. Hedrick was claiming ANY REFORM to healthcare was tantamount to Nazism and that claim was 100% fallacious. HR3200 with the Public Option will destroy the private insurance companies... Leaving only the Uber rich able to afford private insurance and the rest of us on the Public option.
Also, he was responding to Pelosi's charge that people like him were Nazi's for protesting against the proposed reform (HR3200). If she is going to call the protesters Nazi's, then she does need to remove the log from her own eye before complaining about a splinter in someone elses.
Do you honestly not see the very predictable negative results from a so called "public option"? As Obama himself has stated, such a bill wouldn't kill private insurance overnight, it would take 10-20 years to transform our private system into a single payer.
The above arguments are valid if the so called "public option" becomes law, and if it is so attractive that employers adopt it en masse. Further, even if we did have a single payer system, that still isn't the same as the government taking over the health care system.
And, regardless of who uses the Nazi card, it is tantamount to admitting that the user has no valid arguments. That applies to Pelosi, as well as to the ranter in the video we just saw. "You're a Nazi, no you are " is no intelligent debate.
When pushing for the Patriot Act, were there politicians out there admitting that the legislation would greatly infringe on our rights or were they telling you that such talk was nonsense, that "nobody has proposed to infringe upon your rights. No one."?
The proponents of the Patriot Act, as I recall said it wouldn't infringe on our rights. The opponents weren't so sure. Isn't that to be expected?
All that sentence tells me is that you have principles some of the time, other times you're willing to sell out your principles.
Ideology is not the same as principles.
Medicare is bankrupt. Its been bankrupt for decades. The system wasn't designed to be sustainable in realistic terms and the flaws in the system are snowballing the problem. People want to put a fresh coat of paint on the problem but its rotten at its core and we'd all be much better served phasing out such programs instead of adding to them.
Yes, and picking out Medicare and trying to reform it, without addressing the rest of the health care "system", if it can be called that, isn't going to solve the problem.
And what do you say of the Oregon state HC insurace plan that steers the terminally ill to commit suicide??
I thought the Oregonians voted that one down, didn't they?
If they have such a plan or practice in place, that is just as unacceptable as having insurance companies refuse to pay and leave people to die.
Is it really such a stretch to believe that something already happening in America, in a state funded "Public Option" administrated by the government, would eventually also happen under a federally funded "Public Option"?
No, not at all. Nor does it show that whatever health care reform is finally passed will do the same. So far, there is no plan, just a bill that hasn't been voted on.
Who disagrees that we need to rein in costs through reform? Nobody. Its just a Leftist talking point... which they usually follow up by fallaciously claiming, as you have, that the "opposition" is offering no alternatives.
Who indeed? Could it be the people who are sending up the smokescreens about killing off the old, about illegal aliens, about all sorts of things that haven't been proposed, let alone passed?
Sure, there are alternatives to HR3200. I understand the Senate has a proposition as well, but don't know much about it yet.
Will it be opposed by calling it Nazism, by saying it is a givaway to unions, by saying it proposes killing people off to save money? We'll see pretty soon. Will it be debated honestly and on its actual contents? We can only hope.
Can we afford to do the WRONG thing? If we choose incorrectly, we would have been better off to do nothing, that's why its imperitive that we get it right. Also, if we weren't in such a hurry to "Do Something!", and the Left wasn't so insistant on doing it ALL AT ONCE in one massive, complicated bill, we could actually make progress by doing reform piece by piece over time.
Of course, we can't afford to do the wrong thing. That is why it is essential to approach the problem using facts and logic, not hype and half truths.
It could perhaps be better done a little at a time. Of course, every time something passed, it's opponents would call it a slippery slope towards socialism, but we could perhaps just ignore them.
Are you one who's diluted into thinking we have to do it all at once in a "comprehensive" bill, or do you agree that a more measured approach of tackling specific problems one at a time would result in more progress?
No, I'm full strength, not diluted at all.
No, I don't see why we have to do everything all at once. I do think that it is time to start approaching the problem realistically.
Name one contentious issue where that hasn't taken place. Complaining about that is like complaining about your water being too wet or your ice being too cold.
So, you think fearmongering and telling outright lies is OK?
Somehow, I think it is counterproductive. Silly me, I suppose it is a necessary part of approaching any contentious issue.
I know, I know... You seem to think its name calling when we refer to a self avowed communist as a communist... Thats its tasteless to refer to someone who professes a keen interest in Marxism as a Marxist. And that any mention of Fascism is totally meritless, regardless of the actual facts being used to as the basis upon which the comparison is made.
Oh, no. It is perfectly OK to call any self avowed Nazis by that name, and to refer to self avowed Communists by their proper name as well. Let's see now, who are the self described Nazis and communists in our government again?
As for insurance companies being against the proposed "public option"... they are on board pushing for it. Its a financial boon to them for such an option to be available, they can unload all their high risk clients onto the government option and make even more profits by insuring only young, healthy individuals who don't cost the ins. companies massive amounts of money in claims.
Not if the public option is an individual choice, and if the insurance industry has new regulations requiring them to actually pay for health care of people that they insure.
Lastly, the law that says its illegal to refuse anyone healthcare because of their inability to pay is immoral and expanding that philosophy to a "public option" or a single payer system is equally immoral and therefore doomed to failure. Such "pragmatic" policies effectively chain all Americans to one another so that if a man falls, you have no choice but to drag him along. You don't have the option of reaching out, by choice, with a charitable hand to help the individual, you are chained together and are forced to "do the right thing" by dragging him with you.
So, that means that we'll continue to provide for the uninsured and indigent by charging more for the rest of us? Is that really a better solution?
Forced charity is tyranny and is immoral. So called "pragmatic" policies that have this effect lead to the destruction of individual rights and liberties. Since you have chained yourself to your neighbors wallet, he now feels he has a right to dictate how you live your life. He doesn't want to pay for your lung cancer, so he demands laws that prevent you from smoking. He doesn't want to pay for complications arrising from obesity, so he demands laws that eliminate your freedom to eat what you please. By convincing Americans to chain themselves to one another, government doesn't have to force a 1984 style big brother government upon us, we will demand it.
Does that mean you're ready to deny health care to people who can't pay for it under the current system?
Or, are you really in favor of forced charity?
Is there a third option?
