President Obama Healthcare Speech [Archive]

TheGame

09-09-2009, 03:13 PM

I'm somewhere in the middle. Basically I want details on a plan that will make everyone have health insurance but at the same time not completely hose those who have it now, and also reduce costs.

I think that's what everyone wants, but all signs point to that not happening.

As for the topic, I'm not a firm supporter of Obama, so I guess the second question fits me better.

If you are not a supporter, what does he need to say/do to convince you his solution is the best or good enough to approve?

This speech won't really convince me either way, actions speak louder then words. There's only one thing he could do that'd make me approve of him at this point:

Explain to people how his idea for healthcare reform will both increase coverage and lower costs. I will not accept one without the other.

Plus he needs to explain to people how much of their tax dollars are being spent on healthcare. Explain to them that when a person goes to the doctor without insurance and gets those ridiculous bills that they can't pay off, that tax dollars ends up taking the tab. Explain that when someone goes bankrupt because of health issues that tax dollars get wasted too.

He needs to explain WHY healthcare reform is needed even from a financial standpoint, and how his plan will result in lower taxes in the long run.

He also needs to draw a line in the sand, there's been enough time debating. He should mention that he'd veto any bill that doesn't increase coverage and lower costs. Reassure people that he's not going to pass anything that's not real healthcare reform.

That's just what I think he should do. Its hard to say what he's really going to do though, he's not stupid enough to duck his head and just say no more public option.. but.. I'm about 99% sure the public option is not happening.

Vampyr

09-09-2009, 03:21 PM

I'm going to be pretty disappointed if a public option is not pushed for.

Anything less will be unsatisfactory - although I guess it could be made up for if strict enough regulations on private health care companies are enforced.

He should also spend some time dispelling the rampant myths about a public option that have people so terrified of it.

TheGame

09-09-2009, 03:36 PM

Oh speaking of the public option...

More than three out of every four Americans feel it is important to have a "choice" between a government-run health care insurance option and private coverage, according to a public opinion poll released on Thursday.

A new study by SurveyUSA puts support for a public option at a robust 77 percent, one percentage point higher than where it stood in June.

But the numbers tell another story, as well.

Earlier in the week, after pollsters for NBC dropped the word "choice" from their question on a public option, they found that only 43 percent of the public were in favor of "creating a public health care plan administered by the federal government that would compete directly with private health insurance companies."

Opponents of the president's agenda jumped on the findings as evidence that backing for the public option was dropping. Proponents responded by arguing that NBC's tinkering with the language of the question (which it had also done in its July survey) had contributed to the drop in favorability for a public plan.

SurveyUSA's poll, which was commissioned by the progressive group MoveOn.org, a proponent of the public plan, gives credence to those critiques. While arguments about what type of language best describe the public option persist --"choice" is considered a trigger word that everyone naturally supports -- it seems clear that the framing of the provision goes a long way toward determining its popularity.

In asking its question SurveyUSA used the same exact words that NBC/Wall Street Journal had used when conducting its June 2009 survey. That one that found 76 percent approval for the public option: "In any health care proposal, how important do you feel it is to give people a choice of both a public plan administered by the federal government and a private plan for their health insurance--extremely important, quite important, not that important, or not at all important?"

To ensure that its respondent pool was composed of people from similar demographics and political mindsets, SurveyUSA asked respondents a question pulled directly from NBC's August survey. The results were nearly identical.

Read a description of the president's health care plan, 51 percent of Survey USA respondents said they "favored" the approach, while 43 percent opposed it. In the NBC poll, 53 percent of respondents said they favored the president's plan, 43 percent said they opposed it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/20/new-poll-77-percent-suppo_n_264375.html

I don't think Obama will waste time dispeling the myths of the public option because I don't think he wants it to pass. But I'll stick at my 99% chance.. meaning there is some hope!

Bond

09-09-2009, 03:50 PM

He'll mention a public option to appease the progressives, but he won't make it a requirement. A bill with a public option would never get through the house with Conservative Democratic and Republican opposition, and the White House is quite knowledgeable of this. Pres. Obama needs some kind (any kind) of bill more than he needs the approval of the left-wing of his party.

Professor S

09-09-2009, 07:50 PM

As for the topic, I'm not a firm supporter of Obama, so I guess the second question fits me better.

Sorry for the confusion, but the support part of my a questions was about government health care, not President Obama approval.

Also, I won't be watching the address tonight so I'll abstain from comment until I catch a replay.

TheGame

09-09-2009, 07:55 PM

Sorry for the confusion, but the support part of my a questions was about government health care, not President Obama approval.

Oh, well then you already know how I feel about that. I support a public option for healthcare insurance, as long as its an option and not manditory.

Professor S

09-09-2009, 08:07 PM

Oh, well then you already know how I feel about that. I support a public option for healthcare insurance, as long as its an option and not manditory.

The question was as follows:

If you are a firm supporter, what does he need to say to convince an unconvinced and somewhat angry/distrustful populace?

I agree with Bond, though, it doesn't look like he's going to take a stand on a government option. But the problem is, if he's not going to take a stand on a specific type of plan, how is he going to lend specifics to paying for health care, etc. like his administration officials have been saying he would?

I fear this will 45 minutes of the same rhetoric of generalities (lower costs, cover more people, increase competition) that he's been saying for months, as if to say to everyone that they simply haven't been paying attention, and I don't think anyone on either side of the issue want to see that.

If he breaks out personal anecdotes of people suffering in the current environment, I think we can be confident he really misunderstands the current discussion. It's not about whether or not to address health care; all sides agree it needs to be addressed. It's about how to go about addressing it and if his comments are "pull on the heart strings" I think he will cause more frustration and exasperation as he'll show himself to be behind the curve.

Once again, we'll see.

TheGame

09-09-2009, 08:12 PM

If you are a firm supporter, what does he need to say to convince an unconvinced and somewhat angry/distrustful populace?

My reply would be the same.

Explain to people how his idea for healthcare reform will both increase coverage and lower costs. I will not accept one without the other.

Plus he needs to explain to people how much of their tax dollars are being spent on healthcare. Explain to them that when a person goes to the doctor without insurance and gets those ridiculous bills that they can't pay off, that tax dollars ends up taking the tab. Explain that when someone goes bankrupt because of health issues that tax dollars get wasted too.

He needs to explain WHY healthcare reform is needed even from a financial standpoint, and how his plan will result in lower taxes in the long run.

He also needs to draw a line in the sand, there's been enough time debating. He should mention that he'd veto any bill that doesn't increase coverage and lower costs. Reassure people that he's not going to pass anything that's not real healthcare reform.

TheGame

09-09-2009, 09:38 PM

Once again, it was a very good speech. (In my opinion) He did everything I requested, on some level or another. However, as I said before, actions speak louder then words.. So lets see what really happens.

Vampyr

09-09-2009, 11:04 PM

Missed everything but the last 15 minutes, so I have no idea what he really talked about. Just came into him saying medicare wouldn't go away. Going to have to find a replay somewhere.

Did he push for a public option of some sort? Most of what I heard had to do with helping families who already have health insurance have more reliable and affordable coverage, helping people with pre existing conditions, and helping people not go bankrupt if something serious happens.

These are all really good things, but the part I saw didn't mention anything about people who can't afford health care at all.

Republican response was ok, but a little pretentious, and this guy did that same thing that Bobby Jindal did where they talk to you like you're a 5 year old. 3 out of their 4 points were good, but they quickly glazed over the 3rd point where they said "everyone should be able to afford health care."

How do they plan on doing that? No matter how much you increase competition and decrease malpractice claims, there will always be people who simply cannot pay for health insurance without jeopardizing another part of their life, unless government aide is available.

TheGame

09-09-2009, 11:25 PM

Vamp you missed the majority of the Speech, he touched on the public option in a strong way, and talked about people who couldn't afford healthcare. go to www.msnbc.com it should have the full video there.

Professor S

09-09-2009, 11:29 PM

I haven't seen the whole speech yet, only the highlights from each major news network, but if what I saw is a microcosm of his whole speech I'd say it's the least successful of any speech he's made to date. He had an opportunity to come across professorial, which he is very good at, but instead he took the route of the patronizing school marm lecturing those who "just won't listen". And from what I saw, the reasoning behind the existing bills were simply repeated, and not expanded on or clarified, especially when it comes how to REALLY pay for it. The efficiency/cost reduction thing is not a new argument, nor has it been a convincing one. Also, I HATE the idea of forcing people to get healthcare who do not want it, and that would be a deal breaker for me as I find that a bit too Orwellian for my tastes.

I was happy to see the idea of tort reform addressed though, however briefly. And I think he mentioned opening up national competition, which would be a GREAT thing, but I only heard that in pundit recap, not from the horse's mouth.

But from what I saw, his answer still remains to hamstring private care with added regulations/mandates overall... and then compete with it, and I think that's rife with opportunities for abuse and quickly regulating private care into extinction.

But then again, that's just from what I saw in the highlight reels. I'll add more thoughts as I find the entire speech later this week.

I didn't see the Republican response, but I'm sure it was condescending, if recent history is any indicator. I prefer John McCain's overall healthcare response, converting the contentious un-insurable via government organized, but not funded, risk pools to sell to private insurance to reduce their risk by injecting volume into the equation and lower costs overall. That would 100% necessitate nationwide competition, though, if we wanted it to work. Personally, I think his plan driven organically by market forces is as comprehensive as I've seen and borderline brilliant.

BreakABone

09-09-2009, 11:53 PM

My biggest gripe is payment.

He says, he will cut costs and overhead, but if that's happening.. shouldn't it be cut now... and then work into payment.

Anyhow, the man delivers a great speech, but I need some tangible words to actually digest it all, it was a 45 minute speech and all.

TheGame

09-10-2009, 12:16 AM

All I'll say is, media will twist things as they please. You should listen to the whole speech for yourself and judge it.

I would call it his most sucsessful speech in a very long time personally.

KillerGremlin

09-10-2009, 03:31 AM

Joe Wilson is a vagoo and I am going to enjoy watching his career blow up in his face like the orgasm that Michael Duvall gave to his two mistresses.

Stay classy politicians.

Professor S

09-10-2009, 08:25 AM

Joe Wilson is a vagoo and I am going to enjoy watching his career blow up in his face like the orgasm that Michael Duvall gave to his two mistresses.

Stay classy politicians.

I agree his venue was inappropriate and shameful, but his point was not. Those pushing government care constantly point to "48 million uninsured"... the problem is the census says 9+ million of them of them are illegal aliens. Now perhaps President Obama clarified that last night in saying no illegals will get coverage... but then they have to stop using the 48 million number in their arguments...

So one way or another, there is a lie in there somewhere.

EDIT: Also, for the record there is no mechanism in the current plans to actually check for citizenship, and an amendment to verify citizenship before care is given was voted down on party lines. So in the end under current plans there is no need to state "we cover illegals". We will by default.

I'm going to see whether or not I can see the whole speech during lunch today, and offer my full thoughts.

Vampyr

09-10-2009, 08:26 AM

I didn't see the Republican response, but I'm sure it was condescending, if recent history is any indicator. I prefer John McCain's overall healthcare response, converting the contentious un-insurable via government organized, but not funded, risk pools to sell to private insurance to reduce their risk by injecting volume into the equation and lower costs overall. That would 100% necessitate nationwide competition, though, if we wanted it to work. Personally, I think his plan driven organically by market forces is as comprehensive as I've seen and borderline brilliant.

It does sound like a good plan. I'm just very skeptical since the free market has failed epically thus far, and would prefer something that has a more concrete set of results.

Like, what if we do that and it doesn't reduce costs like we thought it would? Or if the costs are reduced, but not as significantly as we needed them to be for the plan to be successful? And who gets to define what the word "uninsurable" means? I have a very bad feeling it would work along the same lines as the "expected family contribution" for sending a kid to college.

If you've ever looked at those, they are hilariously high, and not at all what a family can reasonably afford without selling their home or something.

Vampyr

09-10-2009, 08:35 AM

Professor S

09-10-2009, 09:03 AM

It does sound like a good plan. I'm just very skeptical since the free market has failed epically thus far, and would prefer something that has a more concrete set of results.

I would say that we haven't had a real free market in a very long time in terms of healthcare. Not allowing companies to compete with one another outside of state lines is not competition, it's regulation impeding competition. Curently, the healthcare industry is one of the most heavily regulated in the entire country, outside of financial industry.

So we've seen two industries have significant difficulty/failure, healthcare and financial, they are are the two most heavily regulated in the country...

Meanwhile things like food (beyond the FDA) and especially clothing (items everyone needs) have been the some of the least regulated in the country and we've seen their prices remain relatively cheap and accessible over very long periods of time. (I'm not comparing their complexity, only their oversight and government intervention relating to success and affordability.)

Like, what if we do that and it doesn't reduce costs like we thought it would? Or if the costs are reduced, but not as significantly as we needed them to be for the plan to be successful? And who gets to define what the word "uninsurable" means? I have a very bad feeling it would work along the same lines as the "expected family contribution" for sending a kid to college.

I don't see how a government option automatically answers any of those questions either. If the government option doesn't reduce costs, and the CBO says it won't reduce costs but increase them even more, will we switch to a free market system after spending an estimate $1 Trillion to establish the government program?

How will the government defined the uninsured? How will they define who gets treatment, especially if we see a continued drop in the number of available doctors? What if survivability odds for life threatening diseases drop to levels we see in other socialized nations? Will that be a failure, or deemed acceptable? If we don't like any of these things that government healthcare imposes, will we even have a choice or an alternative anymore or will our only recourse left be to petition our government to change it?

Here's a great question: If the government really wants competition, why will they only fine company's without insurance 8% of their revenue, when companies pay FAR more than that in providing healthcare to employees? Isn't that encouraging companies to drop care to save costs? Isn't it easier to do so when there is a government option waiting to gobble up their employees?

If you've ever looked at those, they are hilariously high, and not at all what a family can reasonably afford without selling their home or something.

I don't disagree with the problem, and quite honestly this debate is beyond recognition of the problem. It's the solution that is causing the divide.

TheGame

09-10-2009, 09:45 AM

I don't see how a government option automatically answers any of those questions either. If the government option doesn't reduce costs, and the CBO says it won't reduce costs but increase them even more, will we switch to a free market system after spending an estimate $1 Trillion to establish the government program?

The problem is, if we switch to a free market first, there's no telling what the results will be. Giving companies more freedom and money doesn't nessicarily mean they'd use it to the greater good of the country. Ask George W. Bush.

I'd rather see more controlled and planned out results, then just taking the leash off of private insurers.

Professor S

09-10-2009, 09:58 AM

The problem is, if we switch to a free market first, there's no telling what the results will be.

And we know what the results of a government run plan will be? Every question we can ask of private solutions we can easily ask of government solutions.

If we wat to make judgments based history and evidence there is far more failure shown in government run entitlements than privately run businesses. At least private business has examples of reducing costs and increasing efficiency. I have yet to see a government entitlement that does this and I'd honestly love to know of one if anyone can point one out. Perhaps I'm simply ignorant on the subject. Medicare is bleeding money like crazy, social security is on the road to death and our public schools spend more per student than any other country per for mediocre results (and for the record I'm a public school supporter, but the system needs to be blown up).

But most importantly a system based on free markets (not 100% free market, as that has as many pitfalls as 100% government) is a REVERSIBLE path if it doesn't work. The current bills are essentially designed to overcome the speed-bump that is private care, and once government care is the norm, it will be virtually impossible to reverse, and we'll simply tolerate failure. Entitlements don't go away, and they are rarely improved when they prove to be at best inefficient and wasteful, regardless of how poorly they run or how much everyone recognizes the problem.

I'll choose the option that is reversible first, rather than the entitlement that in practice will likely not be.

TheGame

09-10-2009, 11:07 AM

Professor S

09-10-2009, 11:18 AM

I don't think either option is reverseable. Its not like they can open up the market 5 years and say "Oops, that didn't work.. everyone drop your national insurance, we're going back to the old way!". In both cases, the only thing they can do is build onto the ideas that they had offered if it fails.

I think in one option you trust that private insurance companies will lower the rates, and in the other option you trust that the government will lower rates. But neither way is really reverseable.

That may be your opinion, and you're entitled to it, but I don't see any truth in it as I can't think of any evidence to support it. The discussion we're having right now is about a change that would literally "reverse" a private system.

We have a long history in this country of "reversing" private systems to government run ones. For examples just see the failing entitlements I posted above. We don't have any history of reversing government entitlements, not even social security could get changed and that program virtually a corpse. Once again, if you know of any national entitlements that have been dropped in favor of private systems/business, please let me know. I'm trying to think of one and I can't.

EDIT: Thinking even harder, I can think of times when Reagan and Bush Sr. and Jr. deregulated to an extent, but even they weren't able to eliminate entitlements to my knowledge.

BreakABone

09-10-2009, 12:01 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xboKq4rzYZg

The Republican Response if anyone wants to check it out.

Professor S

09-10-2009, 12:17 PM

Here is the response without having to sit through Keith Olberman's nonsense at the end. :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAuPB54ObU8

TheGame

09-10-2009, 12:31 PM

That may be your opinion, and you're entitled to it, but I don't see any truth in it as I can't think of any evidence to support it. The discussion we're having right now is about a change that would literally "reverse" a private system.

Ok, lets say the government reversed free market things that are happening now. Lets say car insurance no longer could be sold accross state lines, lets say that banks can't function accross state lines. Or, lets say they made it no longer illegal to drive without car insurance..Honestly, do you know what kind of uproar that would cause?

So if they changed insurance to working accross state lines, then there is no going back. They would only be able to implement ideas to make it work more efficiently across state lines, but there will be no REVERSING what they did.

Same goes with the public option, there would be no reversing it. Once its there they can add regulations and make changes to it, but its not going away completly.

We have a long history in this country of "reversing" private systems to government run ones. For examples just see the failing entitlements I posted above. We don't have any history of reversing government entitlements, not even social security could get changed and that program virtually a corpse. Once again, if you know of any national entitlements that have been dropped in favor of private systems/business, please let me know. I'm trying to think of one and I can't.

I don't see any examples of the government dropping such a huge regulation on a private sector industry and then re adding it. Do you think NAFTA will be reversed any time soon? :lol:

Professor S

09-10-2009, 02:31 PM

Ok, lets say the government reversed free market things that are happening now. Lets say car insurance no longer could be sold accross state lines, lets say that banks can't function accross state lines. Or, lets say they made it no longer illegal to drive without car insurance..Honestly, do you know what kind of uproar that would cause?

So if they changed insurance to working accross state lines, then there is no going back. They would only be able to implement ideas to make it work more efficiently across state lines, but there will be no REVERSING what they did.

Sure you could reverse it: A government plan covering everyone, exactly what they're pushing right now all things considered. There is no uproar over state lines or what have you when there is no competition to roar.

I don't see any examples of the government dropping such a huge regulation on a private sector industry and then re adding it. Do you think NAFTA will be reversed any time soon? :lol:

We're not talking about regulation, we're talking about government run and operated entitlements. They are very different. NAFTA is not an entitlement that feeds, cares or pays people, it's a trade agreement aimed at industry.

I have given several examples of systems that the government has taken over that used to be supplied by private industry, can you name any entitlements that the private sector has replaced?

Vampyr

09-10-2009, 02:55 PM

Professor S

09-10-2009, 03:08 PM

I'm assuming that a public option, universal health care system will work based on the fact that it has had moderate to great success in every other developed country. Certainly better than what our health care system is now. What other examples do we have to say that a free market and private health care system can work the way it needs to? What other examples do we have that tell us this will insure that EVERYONE has health insurance?

That's an interesting way to ignore my challenge. I don't accept the basis of your question in the "success" of other countries for reasons we've debated ad nauseum, such as the definition of success and the heady logistics of those policies in America. Also, don't mistake that the burden of proof in the argument is on the private system. The current American healthcare system is a known entity. The government run is the unknown, with the only relevant evidence to support it being Medicare and Medicaid, and they make a very poor case.

The bottom line is we can find the perfect government run system in some other country, and that would still have zero relevance to an American system working or the existing legislation. Such evidence would be equal to making a decision based on conjecture and "hey, if they did it...".

My questions and assertions in this conversation are based on the current American legislation, American experience with American entitlements, and the American economy.

TheGame

09-10-2009, 05:22 PM

Prof I think you're a bit confused about my arguement.

If the public option is created, it cannot be reversed. If it has problems, then there will be changes made to it over time to correct the new problems it presents.

And at the same time, if the limitation for companies to insure people across state lines is dropped, it also cannot be reversed. If it has problems, then there will be changes made to it over time to correct the new problems it presents, but its argueably as hard or harder to change then a government run insurance option.

I disagree with your logic that such a major change to such a major industry can be reversed. Which is why I brought of NAFTA as an example. It dropped a limitation on where industry can operate. It litterally cannot be reversed now because too much of industry has moved outside of the united states.

Professor S

09-10-2009, 06:20 PM

Prof I think you're a bit confused about my arguement.

No, I understood it completely. My argument is that your opinion on deregulation as being irreversible is moot, because to reverse it is as easy passing a universal government plan if the free market plan doesn't work. There is no reason to reinstate regulations on private care if there is no private care to regulate.

History has shown that it is far easier to install entitlements than end them. So far it's been impossible to end entitlements, and we're currently talking about CREATING another one right now.

Therefore, these two concepts combined = a free market plan being reversible if it fails, and a government plan being irreversible, IMO.

TheGame

09-10-2009, 07:47 PM

No, I understood it completely. My argument is that your opinion on deregulation as being irreversible is moot, because to reverse it is as easy passing a universal government plan if the free market plan doesn't work. There is no reason to reinstate regulations on private care if there is no private care to regulate.

History has shown that it is far easier to install entitlements than end them. So far it's been impossible to end entitlements, and we're currently talking about CREATING another one right now.

Therefore, these two concepts combined = a free market plan being reversible if it fails, and a government plan being irreversible, IMO.

I guess that depends on your definition of 'reversible' is. If reversible is making future changes that counter the affect of the changes that are made now.. then they're both reversible in my book. If reversable is adding regulations back on or flipping some switch that magically takes us back to the time before the changes were made.. then no, neither of them are reversible.

And honestly, how many government entitlements has anyone seriously considered reversing? How many of them really failed to cover the group that it was meant to? I know you mentioned that you had given examples before, but I don't see them..

Professor S

09-10-2009, 08:58 PM

I guess that depends on your definition of 'reversible' is. If reversible is making future changes that counter the affect of the changes that are made now.. then they're both reversible in my book. If reversable is adding regulations back on or flipping some switch that magically takes us back to the time before the changes were made.. then no, neither of them are reversible.

And honestly, how many government entitlements has anyone seriously considered reversing? How many of them really failed to cover the group that it was meant to? I know you mentioned that you had given examples before, but I don't see them..

I have absolutely no idea what in the world you're talking about in your first paragraph. It makes no sense at all. By "reversible" I mean that it's easily "reversed" to the alternative, and my brain hurts that I feel I actually have to actually explain that.

As for reversing entitlements? As I mentioned earlier, social security just recently. But I'm sure you'll argue what "reversing" means in that sense as well, as if the act of arguing the definition of "reverse" enlightens this discussion at all.

TheGame

09-10-2009, 09:29 PM

I have absolutely no idea what in the world you're talking about in your first paragraph. It makes no sense at all. By "reversible" I mean that it's easily "reversed" to the alternative, and my brain hurts that I feel I actually have to actually explain that.

I wouldn't call that "reversed".. Bad choice of wording on your part.

If you're saying it would be possible to drop the restriction on insurance across state lines first, then put in the public option later.. but not possible to do the public option first, and then deregulate the private insurance companies later.. Then I agree.. to an extent. I agree that it wouldn't be as practical but I don't think that'd it'd be impossible.

But neither change is really reversible.. You can just over ride one idea with another after a period of time.

As for reversing entitlements? As I mentioned earlier, social security. But I'm sure you'll argue what "reversing" means in that sense as well, as if the act of argue the definition of "reverse" enlightens this discussion at all. I hate semantic games...

Its not my fault that you aren't clear about the intent in the use of your words.

So really, are people putting towards a big effort to get rid of social security? I wasn't aware of that, last I checked both sides were trying to "protect" it. Its not perfect, but it covers who it is meant to.

I think government programs are reversible, but I think that for the most part they all work.. so there is no incentive to try and get rid of them. The most people will try to do is fix their flaws, but its good enough to where the concept of government run progams will never be dropped. IMO

Professor S

09-11-2009, 12:03 AM

To reverse is to go in the opposite direction of where you were going.

Logic dictates that if you are moving towards a private solution, to reverse would be to go towards a public solution.

This is not hard, but by God you make it hard.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/WAOxY_nHdew&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/WAOxY_nHdew&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

And with that I'm leaving this conversation before you give me brain cancer.

TheGame

09-11-2009, 01:27 AM

TheGame

09-16-2009, 11:40 AM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32872749/ns/politics-health_care_reform/

I hope democrats grow some balls and vote against this. From how I read it, this bill will lower the costs for healthcare for the government, and extend coverage... (Which will likely result in lower taxes in the end) but It will also likely make the prices rise for people who already have health insurance and force people who don't have it to get it, and it will funnel the money right into the private insurer's pockets..

Bond

09-16-2009, 12:00 PM

The bill was proposed by Max Baucus, a Democrat from Montana. Voting against your own party's bill with a 60-seat majority would be quite interesting.

Vampyr

09-16-2009, 12:43 PM

It's hard to say without reading the actual bill, but this bill sounds like it sucks.

Not carrying insurance could result in a steep fine, as much as $3,800 per family, or $950 for an individual. People who can't afford their premiums would be exempted from the fine.

What the hell?

1. I'm all for making people have health insurance...but only through taxes that fund a pubic option - not forcing them to give money to for-profit organizations.

2. A fine if you don't pay, but only for people who could afford to pay? First of all, this bill makes mention of people who can't afford premiums. I thought our health care reform was supposed to make sure EVERYONE can have health insurance. According to this language, there will still be a group of people who just don't have health insurance.

3. How do they calculate if you "can't afford the premiums"? Shouldn't this be an individual's decision? This scare's me quit a bit, since it's the government who decides how much a family can contribute to paying for someone's college, and they grossly overestimate that. I don't expect them to be any more lenient on this.

They need to stop trying compromise on this. By trying to be too moderate they are compromising themselves into a bill which will only change the way we do things, and not necessarily improve them by any significant amount. It's not worth changing something this complex unless you're actually going to take a big step forward. This is expensive lateral movement at best, and expensive downward movement at worst.

TheGame

09-16-2009, 01:18 PM

The bill was proposed by Max Baucus, a Democrat from Montana. Voting against your own party's bill with a 60-seat majority would be quite interesting.

Well its a double edged sword with democrats, the party is split. If they included the public option it would be daring the "conservative democrats" to vote against it, and with it not including the public option it is daring the "progressive democrats" to vote against it... So it is quiite interesting.

To me, the most important thing.. is that no matter what republicans will vote against it. So I agree with Vamp, they need to stop compromising on this bill.. As I posted earlier in the thread, 77% of people are in favor of the public option on average between the two polls. They should just do what the people want instead of bowing down to the minority.

We need campaign finance reform more then anything..

Professor S

09-16-2009, 03:08 PM

As I posted earlier in the thread, 77% of people are in favor of the public option on average between the two polls.

Keep in mind those numbers reflect whether or not people favor a public option, not necessarily any public option plan we've seen or that has been presented. These polls examione people's openess to the idea/concept, not the reality.

IMO the current climate reflect's people's reaction to practical application of that idea/concept.

TheGame

09-16-2009, 03:28 PM

That'll circle us back to a debate about why things are changing. I'll agree with you on the first sentance of what you wrote.. But I don't think its "the people" who are killing or watering down healthcare reform, its the people who are paying the politicians who are killing and watering it down.

Professor S

09-16-2009, 03:54 PM

TheGame

09-16-2009, 04:20 PM

Or it could be all the raucus town hall meetings and the thousands that showed up at the Capital over the weekend to protest... unless you think they're all employees of the healthcare companies and pharma companies (most that now support a public option, for the record).

But thats a difference of opinion and as you said, we'd be retreading old arguments.

I think that those outbursts at townhalls, and the 9-12 people are a very small and loud minority.

I'd really hope that this isn't a big portion of americans, or even a big part of the republican party..

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/UASS1qFAIQ8&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/UASS1qFAIQ8&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

(Read the guy's sign in the part at 3:03-3:19)

KillerGremlin

09-16-2009, 07:09 PM

I'm certainly not qualified to make political discussion concerning Socialism vs. Capitalism (I mean I have some idea...) but holy fuck these people are morons:

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/lUPMjC9mq5Y&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/lUPMjC9mq5Y&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

There are good arguments about having concern for socialized health care, but these people are a mindless mob. What happened to mobs who were passionate for their cause and loved what they are fighting for? This is just a mob that has hatred towards Obama. You can't reach goals if you platform on hate and don't love the cause you are fighting for.

On a lighter note, many of these people look like they would be right at home at Walmart. :D

Teuthida

09-16-2009, 07:21 PM

^ Saw that earlier today. When the interviewer called them out and actually explained the terms to them it made me realize they're not bad people; just really stupid and misinformed folks who are force fed lies which they eat with gusto.

Professor S

09-16-2009, 07:30 PM

And I'm quite sure only the most scholarly and well spoken opponents were chosen to be included in those videos...

KillerGremlin

09-16-2009, 07:49 PM

And I'm quite sure only the most scholarly and well spoken opponents were chosen to be included in those videos...

But what is the point of the rally? To offer a humane and logical alternative to socialized health care or to chastise Obama? It seems like most of the opposition in this rally is towards Obama and the current administration rather than actual policty. You and Bond have both made valid arguments concerning big Government controlling health care. And there is a lot to be said about Big Pharma's role and failed programs like Medicare and Medicaid. The Socialist ideal is NOT Hitler nor is it communism. Nor is Obama trying to make America a socialist country...health care reform is a logical step in the progress of humanity.

I realize this interviewer probably cherry picked the dumbest of the dumb, but why show up to a rally if you don't have any idea what you are rallying about?

KillerGremlin

09-16-2009, 08:07 PM

Before this erupts into a passionate discussion I just want to say something about rallies and protests. Rallies and protests are supposed to inspire OTHER people as well as to make a statement and a stand. I look at the Civil Rights rallies or the Feminist rallies or the anti-Vietnam protests or the LBGT protests and I think...."wow...look at those brave people standing up for major injustice. Look at those people stand up for the struggling, suffering people out there."

When I look at these tea party rallies I think, "Wow...a bunch of dumb rednecks don't care about health care reform (they don't care about the millions of people with no health care) and they don't know the difference between political terms most people should have learned in 5th grade. And look! They think Obama is the anti-Christ! Because it says it in the Bible! Oh man...as a Catholic who has gone to church for 20 years, I bet big money that guy hasn't even read the Bible!"

If this rally was supposed to inspire me then I must confess I am quite flaccid. On the other hand, I have enjoyed the discussions here between Prof S and TheGame, you guys are quite entertaining. :p And Bond's maturity is perhaps a little too sobering for my tastes at times, but he makes some valid points. And Earl dresses up like Batman every night. So it's a win win.

TheGame

09-16-2009, 08:59 PM

And I'm quite sure only the most scholarly and well spoken opponents were chosen to be included in those videos...

A scholarly and well spoken person probably wouldn't support the 9-12 deal, and probably woulnd't yell out like a moron at a town hall meeting.

Vampyr

09-16-2009, 09:18 PM

A scholarly and well spoken person probably wouldn't support the 9-12 deal, and probably woulnd't yell out like a moron at a town hall meeting.

YOU LIE.

TheGame

09-16-2009, 09:48 PM

YOU LIE.

Haha.. damn you got me there... though I wouldn't call the guy who yelled that well spoken.

Professor S

09-16-2009, 10:44 PM

Bond

09-16-2009, 11:45 PM

Okay, first of all, no one serious holds the views depicted in that video. The United States is a very, very populous country. We have plenty of room for misguided souls. I am confident the persons depicted in the video represent an extreme minority.

So, why do they receive so much attention? Because of this:
You and Bond have both made valid arguments concerning big Government controlling health care.
Right, but does anyone on TV want to see someone like me bring out charts and bar graphs to demonstrate economic forces behind health care changes? I doubt it. On the other hand, who wants to see someone dumber than them make a fool of themselves on national TV? Lots of people!

I don't think we should be so much angry at these protestors for holding their views, but rather try to understand why they believe it to be so?

TheGame

09-17-2009, 01:21 AM

Professor, the part in the speech where it was inturrupted by a "you lie" shout.. was Obama lying? To me the racism doesn't come in what is being argued, its how its being argued. Its being led by a lot of misguided hate and fear mongering.

Where were all the animated protests when Dick Cheny famously said "deficits don't matter"? Where were the congressmen yelling out "you lie" when Bush was linking Iraq to 9-11? Why weren't people standing outside of Bush town halls with their guns? Why is Obama constantly called a racist?

And Bond, I think its cheap to blame the media for the faults of the people who are actually making fools of themselves. The media would have no Ammo to play such "entertaining" opposition to the president if conservative talk show hosts, republican congressmen, and misguided Glen Beck followers didn't GIVE them the ammo to begin with. The media didn't make anyone blurt out "you lie" in an extremely disrespectful manner, a republican representative did it on his own.

Unless he's in on the media conspiracy too... :ohreilly:

-EDIT-

Just to add to the last point a little. Do you think the Media should have congradulated or focused on all the other republican congressmen for staying quiet and not blurting out anything? Really?

Professor S

09-17-2009, 09:45 AM

Professor, the part in the speech where it was inturrupted by a "you lie" shout.. was Obama lying? To me the racism doesn't come in what is being argued, its how its being argued. Its being led by a lot of misguided hate and fear mongering.

Was he technically lying? No. Was he either ignorant of deceitful in the realities of the HR 3200, which I assume was what he was referring to since it was the only bill that passed anything at that point, YES. And I explained how earlier, but I'll do so again.

While the bill states that no healthcare can be provided to illegals, there is no policing in place, and when amendments to the bill were introduced to police the policy they were shot down.

So according to HR 3200, it's basically a don't ask/don't tell policy that says one thing but refuses to enforce it making the "ban" worthless and ineffective. The fact that efforts to enforce the ban were shot down on multiple occassions leads us to the obvious conclusion that it is intentionally worthless and ineffective

It's this type of intellectual dishonesty that makes people yell things at inappropriate times...

Where were all the animated protests when Dick Cheny famously said "deficits don't matter"? Where were the congressmen yelling out "you lie" when Bush was linking Iraq to 9-11? Why weren't people standing outside of Bush town halls with their guns? Why is Obama constantly called a racist?

Ok, there is a lot in there, most of it a bit rediculous, but I'll take them one at a time.

1) Deficits - To compare the Bush deficits to the Obama deficits is the equivalent of comparing Pike's Peak to Mount Everest. Look at the numbers. In any case, I think Cheney was wrong and there has always been conservative resistance to spending, just not Republican party resistance, and that was a big mistake on their part because they valued pork/re-election instead of doing the right thing. You've certainly never heard me say that spending isn't a problem. Spending was a huge problem when the Republicans were in control under Bush, and is 10 times the problem now under the democrats.

Is there some hipocrisy from Repubs on spending, absolutley, but I would chalk that up to political gamemanship rather than "racism".

2) The "You lie" fiasco was a violation of protocol, not message. I remember a TON of Dems calling Bush a liar throughout his 8 years with even less to go on than Wilson did. They just never made the mistake of doing so in session. So were they racists as well, or does being member of the Democrat party absolve one of racist belief? So do you think it's the location of the accusation that is racist? If so, what locations are racist locations to voice dissent?

3) Town halls and guns - If you want to concentrate on the handful of unfortunate protesters who brought weapons, feel free, and by the way one of the people mentioned in those reports was a black man, but how is that necessarily racist? Are guns racist? Do guns hate black people? Could they have been reacting more to policy they hate? These are wild, illogical leaps you are making.

4) Obama is constantly called a racist? I remember Glenn Beck saying that once (maybe Rush but I'm not sure as I don't listen to him and rarely to Glenn), but constantly? And by who besides Glenn/Rush? Has a former president called Obama a racist, like Carter called the opposition? At best I'd say that the left and right are tied in the racism accusation competition, if that.

Looking at your comments, I'll just assume that now that Democrats are in power you view dissent as racism. It's a lazy and stupid argument and honestly you're better than that.

As for the media, where were they with the whole ACORN issue? You have days of filmed proof that a publicly funded community organization group is teaching people to avoid taxes and break the law in outrageous ways... and only FoxNews carries it? Regardless of political opinion or who broke the story, wasn't that news worthy of broadcast? Where was NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, etc.?

No. They were too busy concentrating on Joe Wilson breaking protocol (regardless of the apology or the fact Pres. Obama accepted it) to cover real news.

There is no such thing s journalism anymore, at least not how it was taught to me in school. If you want the truth, find it yourself and question everything.

EDIT: Looking back on this thread, I see exactly how effective the race card can be. Are we talking about Healthcare reform anymore and it's merits/pitfalls? No. Instead we're talking about whether or not people's motives are racist and attacking PEOPLE instead of discussing IDEAS. It's called "ad hominem". Objective achieved, I guess. So much for honest public discourse. Socrates is rolling over in the his grave right about now (and Saul Alinski is cheering wildly)...

manasecret

09-17-2009, 10:54 AM

As for the media, where were they with the whole ACORN issue? You have days of filmed proof that a publicly funded community organization group is teaching people to avoid taxes and break the law in outrageous ways... and only FoxNews carries it? Regardless of political opinion or who broke the story, wasn't that news worthy of broadcast? Where was NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, etc.?

Just to comment on something I happen to know about, NPR ran a piece on the ACORN issue. They played the clip, and explained what happened.

But as you mentioned about the video from the D.C. rallies, the guys who made the ACORN video also only showed the worst example. It turns out they got lots more hidden camera footage of ACORN employees from other locations calling the cops on the supposed pimps. And yet none of those videos were included, only the worst example. Where's the journalistic integrity there?

EDIT: Not to mention it's on the front page of CNN.com right now.

Professor S

09-17-2009, 12:17 PM

Just to comment on something I happen to know about, NPR ran a piece on the ACORN issue. They played the clip, and explained what happened.

But as you mentioned about the video from the D.C. rallies, the guys who made the ACORN video also only showed the worst example. It turns out they got lots more hidden camera footage of ACORN employees from other locations calling the cops on the supposed pimps. And yet none of those videos were included, only the worst example. Where's the journalistic integrity there?

EDIT: Not to mention it's on the front page of CNN.com right now.

There is one majory difference between comparing the ACORN and 9/12 issues, not that I agree with many 9/12'ers on many of their assertions or their methods.

ACORN takes public money. 9/12'ers don't.

As for those that threw them out, you don't get credit for doing what you're obviouly supposed to do. Now if the filmmaker were asked if anyone threw them out and they said no, then I think we could question their integrity, but the story is in the gross misconduct not whether or not some people behaved properly. I will agree that the journalist should have volunteered that some offices did not help them, but it should have beenno more than a disclosure.

The fact that it happened once is bad enough and should have been major news across the board, much less multiple times in several offices in several cities. I know that CNN and other places are covering it now, but thats because they are at the point they had to. It took them days to cover any of it, so I give them little to no credit.

EDIT: I found the ACORN artile on CNN... at the bottom after scrolling for a bit, and it concentrates on new training for employees, which I hope is a good thing and they really follo through on the promise.

Add to that how Van Jones was never really looked into, and they spent more time covering the fact he called Republicans "assholes" than the fact that he is a 9/11 truther and at least formerly a communist. Once again, both of these things are legitimate news items regardless of idealogy and they were largely ignored until immedacy forced their recognition.

I give credit to NPR for carrying it, and I never include them in my thoughts on journalistic corruption. They might be one of the last remaining bastions of journalistic integrity.

TheGame

09-17-2009, 12:25 PM

Prof, I agree with you mostly on the things you have said. But your points don't address what racism really is to begin with.. With that said, in your opinion, what is racism?

Let me give an example...

A cop is sitting on a corner behind a sign. The speed limit is 50MPH and he is checking how fast people are going... A white guy rolls past the sign at 70MPH, and the cop shrugs him off. A black guy goes past the sign at 60MPH and the cop takes off quick and pulls the black guy over.

If you consider race relevant in this situation, then it can be percieved to be racist since he let the white guy go, and he pulled over the black guy. However, if you want to dismiss race from this scenario, the fact is that the black guy was pulled over because he was speeding. If he wouldn't have been speeding, he wouldn't have been pulled over, right? Or maybe the first guy just happend to be going fast enough that the cop didn't think he could catch up.. right?

With that said, I'm not going to waste my time argueing the fact that Obama has done some things that are not agreeable to a group of people. However, I will argue that when he does anything, he gets a worse reaction then when a white president does the same thing.

For example.. Gitmo. When Bush wanted to close it, people respected his decision to want to close it. Even though some may have got on his case for using it in the first place, generally nobody wanted to talk him down when he wanted to close it. Then, when Obama wants to do the same thing, all of a sudden its a big discussion, and people even come out in support of gitmo and torture.

Another example, when Bush talked about getting troops out of Iraq, nobody argued with him. They understood that its the right thing to do. When Obama talks about it, his motives are questioned, and its a discussion again. Some politicians come out and say that we should be in Iraq as long as it takes to reach the impossible goal...

I think the outbursts at Obama for pushing for some of the same things as his predecessors can easily be seen as racist. While I agree, the bottom line is that they're fighting the policy, just like the bottom line is that the black man was speeding in my first example.

KillerGremlin

09-17-2009, 12:25 PM

All I can argue is my view point on the issue, which I've done many times and I think quite effectively. Regardless of whether or not you want to dismiss the opposition, you can't ignore it's size and effect on the discussion going on right now, even if you really really want to... and it seems like many of you really really want to.

Didn't the South use this argument before the Civil War? :p I kid, I kid....there's always two sides to every argument. It's my opinion that there hasn't been a ton of intelligible arguments on the News or TV or at these rallies. Most of the intelligent discussion is happening under the radar or perhaps in Congress? That's just what I see.

So does anyone else have anything to add other than grand generalizations and insults?

My home state of New Jersey is one crazy place, according to the new survey of the state by Public Policy Polling (D).

Dave Weigel points out that one out of every three New Jersey conservatives think that Obama could be the anti-Christ. To be precise, 18% of self-identified conservatives affirmatively say that Obama is the anti-Christ, with 17% not sure. Among the self-identified Republican label, it's 14% who say Obama has the number 666 hidden underneath his hair, plus 15% who aren't sure.

But oh it gets even worse on some other questions -- among both the right and the left.

It turns out that 33% of New Jersey Republicans say that Obama was not born in the United States, plus 19% in the Birther-Curious undecided category.

But Democrats shouldn't be too eager to laugh at this. On the other side of the political spectrum, there's some significant 9/11 Trutherism among Dem voters. We've got 32% of Jersey Democrats who say that George W. Bush had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks. In addition, another 19% of Jersey Dems are Truther-Curious, in the undecided column.

So that's only 48% of Jersey Republicans who definitively are not Birthers, and 49% of Dems who are officially not Truthers. Don't you just love our polarized politics?

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/new-jersey-poll-birthers-truthers-and-the-anti-christ----oh-my.php
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_NJ_916.pdf

manasecret

09-17-2009, 03:17 PM

There is one majory difference between comparing the ACORN and 9/12 issues, not that I agree with many 9/12'ers on many of their assertions or their methods.

ACORN takes public money. 9/12'ers don't.

As for those that threw them out, you don't get credit for doing what you're obviouly supposed to do. Now if the filmmaker were asked if anyone threw them out and they said no, then I think we could question their integrity, but the story is in the gross misconduct not whether or not some people behaved properly. I will agree that the journalist should have volunteered that some offices did not help them, but it should have beenno more than a disclosure.

The fact that it happened once is bad enough and should have been major news across the board, much less multiple times in several offices in several cities. I know that CNN and other places are covering it now, but thats because they are at the point they had to. It took them days to cover any of it, so I give them little to no credit.

EDIT: I found the ACORN artile on CNN... at the bottom after scrolling for a bit, and it concentrates on new training for employees, which I hope is a good thing and they really follo through on the promise.

Add to that how Van Jones was never really looked into, and they spent more time covering the fact he called Republicans "assholes" than the fact that he is a 9/11 truther and at least formerly a communist. Once again, both of these things are legitimate news items regardless of idealogy and they were largely ignored until immedacy forced their recognition.

I give credit to NPR for carrying it, and I never include them in my thoughts on journalistic corruption. They might be one of the last remaining bastions of journalistic integrity.

Fair assertions methinks. And you're right, I didn't hear anything about it on CNN.com until today (though it was in their top headlines when I checked earlier), while I heard it on NPR I believe either Monday or Tuesday this week. I almost never check any other news sources so I can't say for them.

I didn't know that the ACORN problems happened in multiple cities until today. I don't condone it whatsoever, and as NPR said in their piece the employees were immediately fired and more training is being done which I hope helps. While not exactly an excuse, it also sounds like ACORN is run mostly by volunteers so I wouldn't expect all of them to know immediately what to do in such situations without some formal training.

But the point I was making about only showing the bad examples is, what if they did 300 videos and then only five of them were bad examples? Certainly that makes it seem like just a few bad apples and not a systemic problem. I mean, in any organization you can't expect perfection. On the other hand, if they did 10 videos and five of them were bad examples, that would be a systemic problem. The numbers ought to be disclosed.

EDIT: Because of how you worded your reply, I'm not sure you were clear on what I meant. I wasn't trying to compare the 9/12 and ACORN issues, just the videos about them.

Professor S

09-17-2009, 07:16 PM

Didn't the South use this argument before the Civil War? :p I kid, I kid....there's always two sides to every argument. It's my opinion that there hasn't been a ton of intelligible arguments on the News or TV or at these rallies. Most of the intelligent discussion is happening under the radar or perhaps in Congress? That's just what I see.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/new-jersey-poll-birthers-truthers-and-the-anti-christ----oh-my.php
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_NJ_916.pdf

KG, I read the article and the poll... and the article tales a few liberties with the results.

There is nothing in that poll that states 1/3 of Conservatives think Obama is a the anti-Christ. I saw that 18% did, but then again in the same poll 5% of Liberals aren't sure if he is or isn't, and 10% of those that voted for him think he is or aren't sure.

Overall, those poll numbers are plain weird. I think people from both sides are losing their minds over all of this stuff.

Well...it is Jersey for Christ's (or the anti-Christ's) sake. :p

EDIT: Oh, and Corzine is screwedin his election. What a complete and utter failure.

KillerGremlin

09-17-2009, 07:21 PM

KG, I read the article and the poll... and the article tales a few liberties with the results.

There is nothing in that poll that states 1/3 of Conservatives think Obama is a the anti-Christ. I saw that 18% did, but then again in the same poll 5% of Liberals aren't sure if he is or isn't, and 10% of those that voted for him think he is or aren't sure.

Overall, those poll numbers are plain weird. I think people from both sides are losing their minds over all of this stuff.

Well...it is Jersey for Christ's (or the anti-Christ's) sake. :p

Hehe...I'm glad you saw the humor in the poll. I posted it for the LOLs, not for any serious discussion. I think the bottom line is there are idiots on both side of the spectrum. This country boggles the mind sometime. On the other hand, we have the women with the biggest breasts, the burgers with the most beef, and the biggest nukes. God bless America! :D

Anyway...onward with the Health Care Reform discussion!

TheGame

09-17-2009, 10:21 PM

Professor S

09-17-2009, 10:37 PM

O'Reilly has been pro reform from the beginning. And for the record, I agree with many of his thoughts on healthcare reform. He's along the same lines as McCain in his views on the subject.

TheGame

09-17-2009, 10:41 PM

I've never seen him say anything remotely in favor of the government creating a low priced health insurance option. But admittedly, I don't watch his show..

So, once again.. wtf

Bond

09-18-2009, 12:54 AM

Not entirely surprising, considering O'Reilly's background. He is a very independent traditionalist.

TheGame

09-19-2009, 11:41 PM

Professor S

09-20-2009, 07:25 AM

So, I'm bored with the forum being dead so I'm gonna toss in another poll here... As my first poll showed, 77% of Americans on AVERAGE between polls would prefer that there were a choice between private run health insurance and government ran insurance.

So what do doctors think about this?

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE58F3VJ20090916
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/14/majority-of-doctors-back_n_286352.html

63% for a public healthcare option alongside private, and 73% of doctors against having private insurance companies exclusively. From these polls, its safe to say that either the center is in favor of a public option, or there's bipartisan support by the people for this reform.

So why are our leaders backpeddaling on the idea? Once again, I think it comes down to who pays them.

Game, my answer to this poll is the exact same to the answer to the poll of average citizens...

Keep in mind those numbers reflect whether or not people favor a public option, not necessarily any public option plan we've seen or that has been presented. These polls examine people's openness to the idea/concept, not the reality.

IMO the current climate reflects people's reaction to practical application of that idea/concept.

In fact, to further illustrate tis point, another recent poll showed 56% being against THIS current plan (if you can really call it one).

Fifty-six percent (56%) of voters nationwide now oppose the health care reform proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s the highest level of opposition yet measured and includes 44% who are Strongly Opposed.

Just 43% now favor the proposal, including 24% who Strongly Favor it.

But the overall picture remains one of stability. While the numbers have bounced a bit following nationally televised appearances by the president to promote the plan, opposition has generally stayed above 50% since early July. Support has been in the low to mid 40s...

...While many credit or blame the town hall protests for building opposition to the plan, it appears they were simply a reflection of public opinion rather than a creator of it. This sense is confirmed by the fact that Obama’s approval ratings fell more in June and July before stabilizing in August.

One thing that did change during the month of August is that public perception of the protesters improved. after the initial shock wore off. Most voters came to believe that the purpose of the town hall meetings was for members of Congress to listen rather than speak.

I hope that answers your question.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform

TheGame

09-20-2009, 09:46 AM

Professor S

09-20-2009, 11:16 AM

Of course people are against THIS current plan, because this one doesn't include the public option. So its not relevant to the discussion on if people are in favor or against the public option. I've already said on more then one occasion that the reason his approval ratings are dropping is because he's backing away from the public option. His base is going to disaprove of his actions and click that they're against it on all those polls until he strongly backs it.

Game, the polls have reflected these numbers since July, and the article I cited backs that up. Your gamesmanship when it comes to debate is not effective nor appreciated. It's what makes having any kind of respectful debate with you impossible at times.

At this point, I have to assume you are just willfully ignorant and refuse to acknowledge any reality outside of your worldview when it comes to health-care. Create whatever fiction you like, but I'll not continue to give you opportunities to spread them.

Babble to yourself if you like. I'm no longer listening.

TheGame

09-20-2009, 01:08 PM

Yet you aren't argueing anything I said, and have no point.

When did the Dems start bending over for the GOP? I'm pretty sure that started earlier then July. Dems have been reaching out to the republicans for months now, just to never get one voice of support. And in your own mind you want to make it seem like the democrats were not playing ball with the republicans whatsoever.

Every legitamate poll made in the last year showed that american people and doctors are in favor of the idea of having both public and private health insurance. (Including that little poll that happend in 2008) The reason that less and less people are supporting the "reform" now is because dems have been watering down healthcare for months to try and appeal to republicans (or using the republicans as an excuse to water it down and appeal to the people who pay them). That's just the reality of the situation.

Babble to yourself if you like. I'm no longer listening.

You never were listening, which is why we can't really have a debate. You spent a long time calling me out on racism, and I gave you a reply that took an objective look at the situation.. but you'd rather chose ignorance and not take into account anything that doesn't fit your own view.

Ric

09-20-2009, 05:46 PM

Ok I have not really kept up with what has been discussed so far but I just wanted to offer my opinion on the whole thing.

Bare in mind I am living in England and have had what I would call 'the luxury' of the National Health Service (NHS) my entire life. Despite all its misgivings it is a good thing.

This could only stand to benefit the US. Whatever the cost, in the long run it would be worth it, It will take substantial initial setup cost yes but then after that it will work itself out. The cost in tax that you pay will be far less that what you will pay for private medical insurance.

It's not good to have a situation for example like the one I witnessed in Germany. My colleuge had an epileptic fit and needed an ambulance and the paramedics would not take him because he did not have his medical insurance card.

Under a national health service this would not matter and the private hospital would be able to charge a national health hospital for services rendered so to speak.

I personally support President Obama in his pledge to reform health care and I sincerely hope it successfully integrates itself into US society. One day you will wonder what you would ever have done without it ;)

Bond

09-29-2009, 07:42 PM

The Senate Finance Committee rejected the public option today.

magus113

09-29-2009, 11:20 PM

Am I surprised? No.

Am I pissed? You bet your ass.

KillerGremlin

09-30-2009, 02:42 AM

A disappointing moral loss?

I haven't had time to follow this, but where will it go from here?

TheGame

09-30-2009, 02:52 AM

I'm not suprised either. There needs to be reform to campaign financing before the public option would ever get passed. I'd be very shocked if it won out in the end.

A disappointing moral loss?

I haven't had time to follow this, but where will it go from here?

Still a lot of discussing to be done. They're looking into ways to extend coverage and lower costs.. however, it looks like if there's no public option.. they're going to extend coverage and do nothing about costs.

Professor S

09-30-2009, 09:07 AM

They couldn't convince the American people that their version of a government run healthcare would work, and then they couldn't even backdoor it in committee with a large majority (never mind the bill wouldn't pass if the amendment was attached).

Meanwhile, the progressive caucus is looking to destroy any bill that doesn't have government run healthcare included, and moderate democrats won't vote for any bill with government healthcare included.

Wow, with all this in-fighting you'd think they were the Republican party... and like with social security reform the likelihood is nothing will get accomplished if the current climate persists.

TheGame

09-30-2009, 11:54 AM

They couldn't convince the American people that their version of a government run healthcare would work

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/19/opinion/polls/main5098517.shtml

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112818960

We can speculate about if people are against how the healthcare change is being handled now because of the public option, or because it won't include the public option all day. But the fact of the matter is 'the people' and 'the doctors' want a public option for health insurance. Poll after poll after poll shows this.

If the public option doesn't pass, its not because the people didn't want it, its because the influences in washington didn't want it.

magus113

09-30-2009, 12:03 PM

Everyone's got the hands in the pot up on Capitol Hill and it's really disappointing to see people more concerned about profits over the people.

It really is a sad state of affairs. I have medical conditions that REQUIRE health insurance, so now I HAVE to find a job that will have health insurance and benefits that will be able to cover the costs, or at least cover them well enough.

Personally I don't see this happening, but all I know is that as soon as I'm 23 I'm gonna be in big trouble. I was SERIOUSLY hoping this would happen.

So here's to my health insurance co.,Cigna. You greedy bastards.

Professor S

09-30-2009, 12:14 PM

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/19/opinion/polls/main5098517.shtml

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112818960.

We can speculate about if people are against how the healthcare change is being handled now because of the public option, or because it won't include the public option all day. But the fact of the matter is 'the people' and 'the doctors' want a public option for health insurance. Poll after poll after poll shows this.

If the public option doesn't pass, its not because the people didn't want it, its because the influences in washington didn't want it.

Game, I don't feel like dancing this same tired dance again (we can both read it in previous posts in this thread). I'll just end my side of the argument (again) by restating the obvious:

Are people in favor of a government run option? Yes. You may as well ask people if they are in favor of free sandwiches. Who doesn't want a free sandwich?

Have people been in favor of any government run option that has been presented to them by their government? No, because when people look at the reality of government run healthcare they don't like what they see. Thats why every poll since JULY that has asked opinions on the CURRENT government run healthcare bills has shown that a majority of people don't favor that specific legislation. If anyone would like to page back a few they'll see the polls and reports that reflect this FACT, but honestly if you didn't bother to read it and process it the first time I doubt you will the second.

People don't want the free sandwich anymore when they find out it's filled with razor blades. The idea of the free sandwich is wonderful, but once they take a bite they want to spit it out.

TheGame

09-30-2009, 12:53 PM

Professor S

09-30-2009, 01:27 PM

Oh trust me Prof, I understand your side. That's why I threw in "We can speculate about if people are against how the healthcare change is being handled now because of the public option, or because it won't include the public option all day."

I'm just pointing out the fact that the majority of people are in favor of having a public option. Therefore, imo, it makes more sense that Obama's losing support because he's not strongly backing it anymore.

Except if you look at the Rasmussen numbers I posted earlier and read the whole article where they basically reiterate my points.

I may as well ask, because I'm curious. What part of the concept of the public option are people fighting against? (And I mean someone who would say they want a public option in a poll, but who is against the public option concept as-is now.) And what evidence do you have to support this?

Once again, look at the Rasmussen report I posted. It's based on months of poll numbers.

As for what people are fighting against: They have made themselves quite clear and we've posted the arguments against the government run option (HR 3200) many times.

EDIT: I'll add a new one. People want their representatives to actually read the bill before voting on it, and the people themselves would like a chance to read it and understand it before a vote takes place..

TheGame

09-30-2009, 02:10 PM

Except if you look at the Rasmussen numbers I posted earlier and read the whole article where they basically reiterate my points.

Once again, look at the Rasmussen report I posted. It's based on months of poll numbers.

I've looked at those links before, and I don't see a poll where its specifically asked if people are in favor of having a public option or not. Most of their questions are based on the performance of the government now, and the numbers keep falling more and more as the government's support for the public option drops.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/august_2009/without_public_option_enthusiasm_for_health_care_reform_especially_among_democrats_collapses

Also I notice they tend to push the terms "single payer" and "governemnt run healthcare" moreso then "public option for insurance". I may be overlooking it, though.. I've just spent 20 minutes searchign for a poll in which they asked people specifically if they want a public option for healthcare insurance or not.

EDIT: I'll add a new one. People want their representatives to actually read the bill before voting on it, and the people themselves would like a chance to read it and understand it before a vote takes place..

I could agree to that, also we shouldn't add one penny to the deficit.. because no good president would do that, right?

Professor S

09-30-2009, 02:28 PM

Game, the semantic games played in the first part of your post aren't appreciated.

The overall picture remains one of stability. Today’s record low support for the plan of 41% is just a point lower than the results found twice before. With the exception of a slight bounce earlier this month following the president’s nationally televised speech to Congress to promote the plan, support for it has remained in the low-to-mid 40s since early July. During that same time period, opposition has generally stayed in the low-to-mid 50s.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform

I could agree to that, also we shouldn't add one penny to the deficit.. because no good president would do that, right?

Well by your standard "good" Pres. Obama is 20 times worse than Bush and is by far the worst President ever!

http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/wapoobamabudget1.jpg

But thats off topic, isn't it :D

TheGame

09-30-2009, 03:54 PM

Game, the semantic games played in the first part of your post aren't appreciated.

Nor are the semantic games played on those polls. There's no direct mention of people's support for the public option for healthcare insurance. While I'd agree that support for the plans in washington have lowered, I just disagree with the reasons.

Bond

09-30-2009, 11:03 PM

The reality is that the Democrats have a 60 seat majority in the Senate. 60 seats! They should be able to ram through any kind of legislation they please through multiple different tactics, but they couldn't pass the public option.

Either the party is incompetent, or it is simply not its will to pass the public option. I would side with the latter.

The unfortunate thing is meaningful reform may not be passed.

TheGame

10-01-2009, 03:39 AM

The reality is that the Democrats have a 60 seat majority in the Senate. 60 seats! They should be able to ram through any kind of legislation they please through multiple different tactics, but they couldn't pass the public option.

It boils down to them not wanting to fight against companies who pay them. That's why there's a civil war in the democratic party right now... Its good politics that the american people want vs good campaign donations. And as long as the republican party keeps looking and acting like morons in this situation, they're not scared of losing votes to them.. However, losing campaign contributions by going against private insurers is a bigger threat.

Professor S

10-01-2009, 08:53 AM

Nor are the semantic games played on those polls. There's no direct mention of people's support for the public option for healthcare insurance. While I'd agree that support for the plans in washington have lowered, I just disagree with the reasons.

The Rasmussen article you posted even disagrees with your assessment.

Last week, Rasmussen Reports tracking found that support for the Congressional plan was at 42%.

While the tracking question did not specifically mention the public option, it referred to the bill proposed by the president and congressional Democrats now working its way through Congress.

The fact is that bill included a "public option" as it's central building block at the time, amongst other unpalatable items, and everyone knew it.

The fact remains that while people want A public option, once they see the details of what it means to them and healthcare in general, support PLUMMETS.

These numbers continue to support the same rational conlcusion that Rasmussen, the professionals in this venue, came to in September.

The overall picture remains one of stability. Today’s record low support for the plan of 41% is just a point lower than the results found twice before. With the exception of a slight bounce earlier this month following the president’s nationally televised speech to Congress to promote the plan, support for it has remained in the low-to-mid 40s since early July. During that same time period, opposition has generally stayed in the low-to-mid 50s.

If the Rasmussen numbers going back to July don't reflect people's dislike of the "public option", what do they reflect dislike of? Remember, the public option wasn't off the table until early September, I believe (or late August).

And you keep going back to special interests, but to be honest there has never been as much special interest SUPPORT for a government run healthcare option. Even the Pharma companies are now supporting it.

A day after the U.S. Chamber of Commerce launched a multi-million TV ad warning against the Obama administration's healthcare plan, the American Medical Association and the Service Employees International Union on Thursday began a blitz of their own, with the support of pharmaceutical companies and the Federation of American Hospitals.

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7016090716

As Bond said, the bottom line is they can't get it done. If there was overwhelming support for these plans, they would get done regardless because politicians need to get elected and to do that they need votes. It's simple. People make it complicated.

TheGame

10-01-2009, 11:18 AM

If the Rasmussen numbers going back to July don't reflect people's dislike of the "public option", what do they reflect dislike of? Remember, the public option wasn't off the table until early September, I believe (or late August).

Dislike of reaching out to republicans on something they'd never approve of. The public option has been off the table as long as Obama has felt it nessicary for republicans to agree with healthcare reform.

So once again, those polls don't directly ask people if they want a public option for healthcare or not. They're asking people what they think of how the white house is handling things now. Two completly different questions.

As Bond said, the bottom line is they can't get it done. If there was overwhelming support for these plans, they would get done regardless because politicians need to get elected and to do that they need votes. It's simple. People make it complicated.

The problem is that the republicans have went of the deep end so bad, that democrats don't think its nessicary to make a public option to hold onto votes. Just like they don't think its nessicary to make gay marriage legal to hold onto votes. Because the people they're screwing will vote for them anyway.

You can either vote for the person who supports your ideas but doesn't really push for them.. or the person who fights against your ideas.

Professor S

10-01-2009, 11:52 AM

Dislike of reaching out to republicans on something they'd never approve of. The public option has been off the table as long as Obama has felt it nessicary for republicans to agree with healthcare reform.

So once again, those polls don't directly ask people if they want a public option for healthcare or not. They're asking people what they think of how the white house is handling things now. Two completly different questions.

Once again, Rasmussen disagrees with your assessment of their polls.

Last week, Rasmussen Reports tracking found that support for the Congressional plan was at 42%.

While the tracking question did not specifically mention the public option, it referred to the bill proposed by the president and congressional Democrats now working its way through Congress.

The problem is that the republicans have went of the deep end so bad, that democrats don't think its nessicary to make a public option to hold onto votes. Just like they don't think its nessicary to make gay marriage legal to hold onto votes. Because the people they're screwing will vote for them anyway.

Ok, so now it IS about winning votes, and therefore a reflection of the will of the people? Then we have nothing to disagree on. I thought it was about special interest interference. By the way, it's spelled "necessary".

You can either vote for the person who supports your ideas but doesn't really push for them.. or the person who fights against your ideas.

Ok, but I fail to see how this is relevant to the discussion at hand. Either way, you've basically conceded the point and agree that the main force in this issue IS the will of the people, unless I've completely misread your post.

TheGame

10-01-2009, 01:32 PM

Either way, you've basically conceded the point and agree that the main force in this issue IS the will of the people, unless I've completely misread your post.

Completly missed the point and misread the post.

Here are the people's choices. a) Vote for the group that says they want a public option, but who doesn't really push for one collectively. or b) Vote for the group that's pushing to kill the public option and any type of healthcare reform that our current president suggests.

Lets say my polls are more valid, and the majority of people are in favor ofthe public option... who would you expect them to vote for, option A or option B?

Lets say you are right, and the majority of people are against having a public option... who would you expect them to vote for, option A or option B?

And also, can you understand why a person for the public option would see both option A & B in a negative light?

In this case, democrats don't have to appeal to the people, because the only other option the people are given, appeal to them even less. Which is why, dispite the fact that the majority of people want a public option... democrats will not pass it so that they can hold on to their bribes, because voters won't switch sides no matter what the dems do at this point.

Oh, did I say bribes? I meant their campaign donations. Sorry.

So, as I've said in many threads before... we'll see what happens in 2010 and 2012.

Professor S

10-01-2009, 02:08 PM

...

What?

So suddenly incorporating your false assumption (the Dems are against the bill because of special interests not public opinion of the REAL legislation) into a question makes it legitimate? The very nature of the question in "option A" is false, and in fact its that nature that we've been debating! Sorry, this additional semantic game didn't work, try again. Lets try to focus this time and not attempt to change the subject.

The overall picture remains one of stability. Today’s record low support for the plan of 41% is just a point lower than the results found twice before. With the exception of a slight bounce earlier this month following the president’s nationally televised speech to Congress to promote the plan, support for it has remained in the low-to-mid 40s since early July. During that same time period, opposition has generally stayed in the low-to-mid 50s.

Last week, Rasmussen Reports tracking found that support for the Congressional plan was at 42%.

While the tracking question did not specifically mention the public option, it referred to the bill proposed by the president and congressional Democrats now working its way through Congress.

TheGame

10-01-2009, 02:12 PM

Uh, once again, no.

They're not refering directly to support of having a public option for health insurance. You can quote the same thing over and over as many times as you'd like, but its not going to change what it says.

And.. Option A is true. There are democrats against the public option, and Obama himself supported a plan that didn't have the public option from Max Baucus.

Professor S

10-01-2009, 02:19 PM

Uh, once again, no.

They're not refering directly to support of having a public option for health insurance. You can quote the same thing over and over as many times as you'd like, but its not going to change what it says.

Really?

Last week, Rasmussen Reports tracking found that support for the Congressional plan was at 42%.

While the tracking question did not specifically mention the public option, it referred to the bill proposed by the president and congressional Democrats now working its way through Congress.

How is this not specific enough for you? They say EXACTLY what the poll refers to, and that is THE BILL WITH THE PUBLIC OPTION AS IT'S CENTERPIECE. There is NO AMBIGUITY IN THIS STATEMENT.

The reason I continue to re-post the obvious is that you refuse to acknowledge the obvious and instead spread nonsense. Also, you have yet to form a decent reponse to these reports, instead you create this hypothetical self-question and answering session built to give answers you'd like to hear. I will continue to re-post reason until you A) stop spreading falsehoods or B) actually accept reality.

My bet is on the former, not the latter.

TheGame

10-01-2009, 02:25 PM

How is this not specific enough for you? They say EXACTLY what the poll refers to, and that is THE BILL WITH THE PUBLIC OPTION AS IT'S CENTERPIECE. There is NO AMBIGUITY IN THIS STATEMENT.

The reason I continue to re-post the obvious is that you refuse to acknowledge the obvious and instead spread nonsense. I will continue to re-post reason until you A) stop spreading falsehoods or B) actually accept reality.

My bet is on the former, not the latter.

This poll did not directly mention or ask people if they directly supported the idea of a public option, it asked what people thought of how washington is handling it now. This is simply a fact, I can repeat it 50 more times if you wish.

Professor S

10-01-2009, 02:41 PM

This poll did not directly mention or ask people if they directly supported the idea of a public option, it asked what people thought of how washington is handling it now. This is simply a fact, I can repeat it 50 more times if you wish.

Ok, so the poll didn't refer specifically to a A public option, but instead specifically to the BILL WITH THE PUBLIC OPTION INCLUDED AS THE CENTERPIECE.

And you think that makes the poll invalid?

So you're literally arguing that the myth is more important than the reality. This is an amazing conversation that I don't want to stop. The farther we get into this the more insane the argument becomes.

Last week, Rasmussen Reports tracking found that support for the Congressional plan was at 42%.

While the tracking question did not specifically mention the public option, it referred to the bill proposed by the president and congressional Democrats now working its way through Congress. All of the congressional committees that had passed reform legislation included a government health insurance plan.

As for your continued claim that the question is about "how washington is handling it" please supply proof of the question. So far all I've found is evidence from Rasmussen that directly contradicts your assertion. The quote above is quite clear. That said, I haven't been able to find the exact questions asked. You seem sure about the questions, so please provide a link.

TheGame

10-01-2009, 02:49 PM

Ok, so the poll didn't refer specifically to a A public option, but instead specifically to the BILL WITH THE PUBLIC OPTION INCLUDED AS THE CENTERPIECE.

And you think that makes the poll invalid?

Did I say the poll is invalid? No. I said that the poll did not directly mention or ask people if they directly supported the idea of a public option, it asked what people thought of how washington is handling it now. Which, once again.. is a fact.

As for your continued claim that the question is about "how washington is handling it" please supply proof of the question. So far all I've found is evidnce from Rasmussen that directly contradicts your assertion. Link please.

Did this poll ask people if they'd like a public option, or did this poll ask if people support a bill that was already made? My assertion is that the majority of people are in favor of having a public option, however they're not in favor of how washington is currently handling it. If the poll asked directly if the people (or doctors) would prefer to have a public option, as I posted before, the majority of people would say yes.

However, since the question is refering to a bill that had already been compromised on, and that Obama was offering to butcher to gain support from republicans.. the poll is going to yield bad results.

Once again, we'll see if 'the people' are really opposed to the public option when the only poll that matters happens again.

Professor S

10-01-2009, 03:03 PM

Did I say the poll is invalid? No. I said that the poll did not directly mention or ask people if they directly supported the idea of a public option, it asked what people thought of how washington is handling it now. Which, once again.. is a fact.

No, so far this is fact:

Last week, Rasmussen Reports tracking found that support for the Congressional plan was at 42%.

While the tracking question did not specifically mention the public option, it referred to the bill proposed by the president and congressional Democrats now working its way through Congress. All of the congressional committees that had passed reform legislation included a government health insurance plan.

Until you prove otherwise. Please provide the link the question that asked about "how washington is handling it". I have yet to see this mysterious question.

Did this poll ask people if they'd like a public option, or did this poll ask if people support a bill that was already made?

... with a public option as it's centerpiece... it's amazing that you're continuing with this, truly.

My assertion is that the majority of people are in favor of having a public option, however they're not in favor of how washington is currently handling it. If the poll asked directly if the people (or doctors) would prefer to have a public option, as I posted before, the majority of people would say yes.

Yes, and I said they support the IDEA of a public option, they just dislike the REALITY of the public option. The dislike the actual bill... the actual legislation... the reality. Once again, you are arguing the myth against the reality.

However, since the question is refering to a bill that had already been compromised on, and that Obama was offering to butcher to gain support from republicans.. the poll is going to yield bad results.

1) They don't need support from Republicans because the DEms have a 60 vote majority. They need it from Democrats.

2) This poll refers to the bill as of early August, not the one without the public option. That has been made quite clear. Nothing we are discussing right now has anything to do with the optionless plan.

Try again. This is fun.

Last week, Rasmussen Reports tracking found that support for the Congressional plan was at 42%.

While the tracking question did not specifically mention the public option, it referred to the bill proposed by the president and congressional Democrats now working its way through Congress. All of the congressional committees that had passed reform legislation included a government health insurance plan.

TheGame

10-01-2009, 03:40 PM

Did I say the poll is invalid? No. I said that the poll did not directly mention or ask people if they directly supported the idea of a public option, it asked what people thought of how washington is handling it now. Which, once again.. is a fact.

your own quote:

While the tracking question did not specifically mention the public option, it referred to the bill proposed by the president and congressional Democrats now working its way through Congress. All of the congressional committees that had passed reform legislation included a government health insurance plan.

Or to break it down:

I said
I said that the poll did not directly mention or ask people if they directly supported the idea of a public option

Your quote:
While the tracking question did not specifically mention the public option

*coughs*

The second part of my quote:
it asked what people thought of how washington is handling it now.

The second part of your quote:
it referred to the bill proposed by the president and congressional Democrats now working its way through Congress.

So once again:

I said that the poll did not directly mention or ask people if they directly supported the idea of a public option, it asked what people thought of how washington is handling it now. Which, once again.. is a fact.

So you can keep argueing against the facts all you want.

Yes, and I said they support the IDEA of a public option, they just dislike the REALITY of the public option. The dislike the actual bill... the actual legislation... the reality. Once again, you are arguing the myth against the reality.

The REALITY of the bill is that the public option was being, and still is being comprimised out of it. Which is why support for it is getting lower and lower.

1) They don't need support from Republicans because the DEms have a 60 vote majority. They need it from Democrats.

Exactly, which is why I said:
It boils down to them not wanting to fight against companies who pay them. That's why there's a civil war in the democratic party right now... Its good politics that the american people want vs good campaign donations. And as long as the republican party keeps looking and acting like morons in this situation, they're not scared of losing votes to them.. However, losing campaign contributions by going against private insurers is a bigger threat

and finally

2) This poll refers to the bill as of early August, not the one without the public option. That has been made quite clear. Nothing we are discussing right now has anything to do with the optionless plan.

once again

I said that the poll did not directly mention or ask people if they directly supported the idea of a public option, it asked what people thought of how washington is handling it now. Which, once again.. is a fact.

You're trying to make the connection that people are voting directly for if they would like to have a public option or not, which isn't the case in this poll. It wasn't the question that was asked, nor is it getting the same results it would have if the question didn't reference the weak sauce that has been being pulled over the last 5+ months.

It'd be like polling NBA fans on if they liked the washington wizards in the early 2000's vs asking if they liked Michael Jordan. And then turning around and saying "But Michael Jordan is the centerpiece of that team!!!!. You're manipulating the poll to fit your own definition.

It did not ask directly if people would like the public option. No matter how much you would like to twist the meaning.

Professor S

10-01-2009, 04:03 PM

The BILL does not translate to "how washington is handling it". The bill is the reality of the public option in all it's form, substance and glory.

Your public option is a ghost. A mythical conceit without form or substance. It's a public option that has no downside because it's the perfection of the mind and doesn't care about the real world or unintended consequences. It is impossible to argue against such a beast, so I refuse to do so. I argue REALITY.

I am arguing reality and information based on people's reaction to that reality. You are arguing something that does not exist. You literally have no argument because you have nothing to argue besides an idea of what something SHOULD be but ISN'T.

Hence, people like the idea of "A" public option, the mythological ideal, but not "THE" public option, the reality of what it means once the ideal is attempted to be made reality.

This is REALITY

Last week, Rasmussen Reports tracking found that support for the Congressional plan was at 42%.

While the tracking question did not specifically mention the public option, it referred to the bill proposed by the president and congressional Democrats now working its way through Congress. All of the congressional committees that had passed reform legislation included a government health insurance plan.

The overall picture remains one of stability. Today’s record low support for the plan of 41% is just a point lower than the results found twice before. With the exception of a slight bounce earlier this month following the president’s nationally televised speech to Congress to promote the plan, support for it has remained in the low-to-mid 40s since early July. During that same time period, opposition has generally stayed in the low-to-mid 50s.

You're refusal to accept it does not invalidate it. It just makes you seem unhinged.

TheGame

10-01-2009, 04:41 PM

The BILL does not translate to "how washington is handling it". The bill is the reality of the public option in all it's form, substance and glory.

The public option is just one part of the bill that can be (was being, and has been) compromised. Therefore that question isn't asking if people want a public option or not. How hard is that to understand?

"Do you support this bill" =\= "Do you want a public option to be passed"

Professor S

10-01-2009, 05:20 PM

The public option is just one part of the bill that can be (was being, and has been) compromised. Therefore that question isn't asking if people want a public option or not. How hard is that to understand?

Ok, so in your definition, what exactly were people against when it comes to the public option legislation that has been proposed? No generalizations... specifics. What exactly did people not like about it?

TheGame

10-02-2009, 09:31 AM

Ok, so in your definition, what exactly were people against when it comes to the public option legislation that has been proposed? No generalizations... specifics. What exactly did people not like about it?

Good question... but before I answer I have to give a disclaimer, and restate my point. The people are for having a public option if it lowers their healthcare costs, helps heal the out of control deficit, and increases coverage. Which is exatly what it is meant to, and will do.

People were against that particular bill because dems were coming on TV basically begging for it to be compromised. They continuiously acted like the public option was something that could be removed, and they didn't back it. Plus they claimed they needed republican's support even though they didn't.. and republican's stance was "We won't even have a discussion unless there's no public option".. which translates to "We won't have a discussion unless you do exactly what I want you to do".

Plus. since dems didn't want it to pass really, they would not go on TV and combat the right's claims that this would add to the deficit instead of healing the out of control costs in the system as is now. They even allowed lies like "Death pannels" to run the air waves without calling out a single person's BS.

To Obama's credit, when he did the speech it did boost morale for the healthcare reform bill, however less then a month later he got his first taste of boos when he mentioned Max Baucus' bill, and likely just killed support for what they're trying to pass again. (And in the same speech got a standing ovation when he mentioned the public option)

But with all that said, it doesn't kill the underlying fact that the majority of people want to have a public option. The reason people were and are against what's being pushed through now, is because it is and was too open to compromise.

And since the republicans are pushing for the exact opposite of what the majority of people want. Their arguement in this debate is not going to help them get votes, its just going to further push them into being a minority. While Dems teasing people with the idea won't directly cost them votes (to the opposition anyway, maybe people won't vote at all), its going to kill their approval ratings.

Professor S

10-02-2009, 09:55 AM

Good question... but before I answer I have to give a disclaimer, and restate my point. The people are for having a public option if it lowers their healthcare costs, helps heal the out of control deficit, and increases coverage. Which is exatly what it is meant to, and will do.

What public option are you talking about? What bill? What legislation? What proposal? Is the ANYTHING you've seen on paper that would even sniff at meeting your lofty goals that you think are so achievable?

If there is none, please explain how you know better than the experts and professionals who are trying to put this together now. Please explain your perfect public option that adds 40 million people to a system, centraizes it and then manages to increase service and cut costs... Details. I want details of this perfect dream you've imagined for yourself.

As for the rest of your post, besides the "death panels" mention (and forgot to mention REAL issues like huge deficits, the reality of rationing service, legitimate alternatives instead of government centered "options", etc.) you refused to answer my question and did exactly what I asked you NOT to do, which is retreat to broad generalizations.

TheGame

10-02-2009, 11:29 AM

What public option are you talking about? What bill? What legislation? What proposal? Is the ANYTHING you've seen on paper that would even sniff at meeting your lofty goals that you think are so achievable?

If there is none, please explain how you know better than the experts and professionals who are trying to put this together now. Please explain your perfect public option that adds 40 million people to a system, centraizes it and then manages to increase service and cut costs... Details. I want details of this perfect dream you've imagined for yourself.

Go watch Obama's early september speech again. There's a difference between the concept of a public option, and what was actually being pushed.

As for the rest of your post, besides the "death panels" mention (and forgot to mention REAL issues like huge deficits, the reality of rationing service, legitimate alternatives instead of government centered "options", etc.) you refused to answer my question and did exactly what I asked you NOT to do, which is retreat to broad generalizations.

I gave clear reasons why people voted the way they did. How many people who voted in that poll do you belive sat down and read the bill? How many people who voted gets their news from the internet or main stream media? People base their opinions on legislation through the filter of members of congress talking about it to media.

Professor S

10-02-2009, 12:57 PM

Go watch Obama's early september speech again. There's a difference between the concept of a public option, and what was actually being pushed.

Obama's speech was a set of general guidelines, not a workable plan by any stretch of the imagination. It's one thing to have goals. Anyone can have goals. It's another thing to have a workable plan to achieve those goals. To date there has not been a single plan, bill, proposal or piece of legislation that would even begin to meet these goals.

Once again, it's fantasy vs. reality. These lofty ambitions running headlong into the harsh realities of implementing them.

I gave clear reasons why people voted the way they did. How many people who voted in that poll do you belive sat down and read the bill? How many people who voted gets their news from the internet or main stream media? People base their opinions on legislation through the filter of members of congress talking about it to media.

So where do you get your opinions if not the main stream media or internet? So far you've basically reiterarted Pres. Obama's speech word for word, and you even indicated as much. Thats not an opinion, that is parroting another person's opinion. Its ceasing to think independently about rhetoric and the unintended consequences of that rhetoric.

All these legitimate (death panels not withstanding) questions we've seen in opposition are based on people not repeating the soundbites of those in power, but questioning them. I won't go over the legitmacy of the arguments, we've argued them to death, but the reasons are mulifaceted and numerous. To me the proof of legitimacy is a basic as seeing the polls show more opposition over time and exposure to the realities of public option healthcare bills. Hell, it's even been abandoned because of how unpopular they've been.

This is why I asked you to express details on how it would work. How these lofty goals could be made reality. If you don't have anything in that area except for a speech Obama made over a month ago, much less any actual legislation, then you have failed to ask questions and instead have become a sycophant.

If you can't answer why or HOW a public option would work as mandated by the President, and no one else has ben able to do so either, then you have your answer as to why there is opposition. It's that simple.