1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Something for everyone to hate

Discussion in 'U.S. Politics' started by Dr.Who, Aug 13, 2009.

  1. Dr.Who

    Dr.Who Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2007
    Messages:
    6,776
    Likes Received:
    251
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Horse Country
    OK we have been debating the House version of the health care bill for a while now. I have seen lists of about 15 or 20 major complaints. Some lists might go on for 30 or 40 but they are being pretty picky.

    And yes not all the complaints are based on a completely accurate understanding of what is in the bill. (which is why one of the complaints is that the bill is not written so that people can understand it.)

    Btw,

    "The internal effects of a mutable policy are [...] calamitous.
    It poisons the blessings of liberty itself. It will be of little avail
    to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice,
    if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read,
    or so incoherent that they cannot be understood;
    if they be repealed before they are promulgated,
    or undergo such incessant changes that no man who knows
    what the law is today can guess what it will be tomorrow."

    Anyway back to the point:

    Then after the complaints have been made the other side comes and makes their counterpoints. Some of the counterpoints are good. Some of the counterpoints don't address all the points, and all the parts of the points are not addressed (only the obvious errors) and some of the points that are addressed were not even made by those making the points.

    So it is true that the bill does not mandate death counseling for everyone. It does mandate it once a discussion has been begun and it does encourage doctors to start one. Why would someone bother to complain that the point does not mandate counseling when it comes so close?

    And it is true that the death panel is not purposed to kill people. It is purposed to make the decisions for people about what life or death care they will or will not get. Semantics. Why dispute semantics?

    But what about the parts of those points that are very true and what about all the other points that have not even been touched.

    Even if one were to concede that the points have flaws and if one were to completely throw out the points that have been addressed that still leaves plenty to hate about the bill.

    Why have the counterpointers chosen not to address all the points, and instead to call the pointers racists, and bigots, and astroturf, and teabaggers? The congressmen call town hall meetings to listen but clearly some spend all their time trying to persuade people that a bill they claim they don't yet support is worth supporting. And then the congressmen are surprised when the people openly state that they don't trust them.

    Anyway when all is said and done there is plenty for all to hate in the bill. The most important thing being that it is a blatant attempt to usher in socialized health care. That is the desire of the proponents of the bill. And if all the negative paragraphs were removed from the bill the motives of those who write it would still remain unchanged. Nooo, we can trust no bill that comes from these people. A socialist will not be writing bills to strengthen capitalism - the American way!
     
  2. TheFranklinParty

    TheFranklinParty New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2009
    Messages:
    470
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Tampa, FL
    The convoluted and vague language is what is feeding all of the hallucinations of what is really meant by the bill on many of the hot topics. It was my understanding that the reason we need a new Healthcare plan is:
    • Coverage*
    • Quality
    • Cost
    The clear point is that there has been no real data to prove that all three of these will be satisfied by any version of the bill.
    • If we cover the 47M people without coverage, how will it impact quality or the cost of overall services?
    • Is there anything in the bill that insures improved quality?
    • Finally, how will the cost of healthcare be reduced, and if it is, how will it impact coverage and quality?
    Until these questions are answered it is hard to have any positive feelings about any version of this bill.

    * This needs to take into account any reduction in coverage to current citizens in trade for covering the 47M uninsured.
     
  3. Dr.Who

    Dr.Who Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2007
    Messages:
    6,776
    Likes Received:
    251
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Horse Country
    If the stated purpose of the bill is to improve coverage, quality and cost yet a strong case can be made that it does none of these could it be that the real purpose of the bill is really what the bill would accomplish instead?

    "I happen to be a proponent of single-payer [socialism], universal health care coverage." Obama

    “To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets.[]" Obama.
     
  4. TheFranklinParty

    TheFranklinParty New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2009
    Messages:
    470
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Tampa, FL
    Not disagreeing with you...I just have a hard time laying this all at the feet of Pres. Obama when Pelosi, Frank, Boxer, Clinton, Kennedy...etc...have been the ones driving the bus. I would like to stop focusing on the President, who is with us for 3.5 more years and focus on the others who we can get rid of much sooner.
     
  5. Dr.Who

    Dr.Who Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2007
    Messages:
    6,776
    Likes Received:
    251
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Horse Country
    That is a good point. P. Obama is not the only liberal with strong allegiance to socialist principles.
     
Loading...

Share This Page