President Obama Healthcare Speech

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Professor S

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]

Originally Posted by TheGame

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]

Originally Posted by Professor S

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]

Originally Posted by TheGame

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.