Non-Americans : Please Discuss Your Healthcare

[Kurosawa]

The independents are growing very rapidly. Soon, a majority will say enough is enough and hopefully a third party will start to make a serious bid.

If there is any issue the GOP and Dems can work together on, it is keeping any other parties from getting a piece of their pie.

 

[Hound55]

I don't think he has. I support the man, I think he'd be a great president if he got his head out of his ass for a minute and invoked a lot of the things Clinton did during his two terms.

Instead of cutting the deficit and focusing on revitalizing our economy, he's throwing money we don't have at projects that won't get built fast enough to fix our problems. And as the economy tanks, he's trying to pass one of the most expensive bills in history which will cost even more once it goes into effect because it will require a reorganization of several major agencies.

He needs to take it slow. Health care reform may have been better served for a second term, if he got there.

Your health care system is dsgusting and has needed help for a long time, though.

It is difficult to justify not providing a decent level of health care after recently bailing out large institutions who have largely been the cause of their own problems (though I agree that what they're doing - for Keynesian economics reasons - has to be done). Yes its the worst possible time to be passing expensive bills (not that the Republicans seemed overly worried when they spent billions upon billions upon billions on defence driving the deficit to pretty much the point its at) but its been a long time coming.

I've also heard Obama has a lot of the money required to put it into effect gathered and noted due to past deals with companies.

 

[Hound55]

I am insured though. With great health insurance too. I worked through college and started having health problems and realized that I needed insurance on my own. I didn't whine about it or blame the government for my problems. It's an extra $115 a month for me.

Why is it that someone like me, who worked two jobs while taking a full course load in college, can afford health insurance but people who work full time, 40 hours a week, can't?

It's all perplexing to me.

Its a democracy... bills don't have to suit everyone. It may be that this proposal doesn't suit you, that'll happen. You probably fall into the cracks where this doesn't benefit you just as the current health system is less suitable to a vast number of people in the US.

I will say this though... a lot of those who are underinsured aren't aware of it until they really need it...

 

[moraldeficiency]

Behold, the greatness that is America: We know things such as smoking and fatty foods are bad for us, but we have the CHOICE to consume those things.

It is our very essence as a country which allows us the freedom to live however we want to.

As far as taxes go, I have to wonder, why should my taxes go up so I can pay for some deadbeat, jobless loser to get free medical care from the government? Why should my hard-earned tax dollars reward other peoples' failures?

Let's see, first point isn't true. The gov. has always told us what we can and cannot consume after the lobbists tell them of course. See drugs (and not just the illegal types) for more on this.

Second point, also not true. We've got these things called laws that limit your actions or your ass goes to jail. Trust me if these were wild west rules, I'd be having a lot more fun and probably be emperor of the US by now.

Third point: Those damn deadbeats! Like single mothers working multiple jobs cause their husband's ditched. Oh, or how about a kid that gets cancer early and can't get healthcare. ****ing deadbeats. I love how people only think of the parasites when they consider this stuff and disregard or pretend that there aren't actual people, decent people, in need that are in situations that you or I couldn't fathom (please don't tell me your hard luck story, unless your a single mother supporting a family completely by yourself that's always lived in poverty or a kid dignosed with cancer at about age two with poor parents, you aren't as bad off and I don't care).

It's very easy when you think of it in terms of these lazy asshats taking from your hard earned money but you have to maintain that illusion constantly to make it work. Here's the truth: Parasites have and will always exist by living off of you and me, nothing can really be done about them. Some live off welfare, some sue for a living, but the worst the ones that do the most damage and make all the others seem like nothing are the rich madoff types. There will also always be people that are in truely hard positions in life cause of where, how, why they were born that desperately need our help and when you try and punish the bottom feeders they are the ones that get hurt the worst. The bottom feeders just move to the next scam.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

The concept of healthier eating...is impossible, I think.

Just is.

The only way it'd work, is if you force it. And I'm not for that. I don't think too many people are, really.

 

[moraldeficiency]

Healthy eating is hard cause that food sucks. I eat crap all the time, but I work out plenty so it doesn't really rip me. I think focusing of physical fitness might be an easier goal, but for that health and PE would need to stop being jokes.

 

[Tally Man]

Obviously this debate isn't going anywhere. You're fine being an elitist who thinks the government should make decisions for its citizens, and that our freedom to decide what to consume in a capitalist market is less important than the government's own interests.

Believe me if I knew you were going to go all Glenn Beck on me I would have just stayed out of the thread in the first place. Thanks for completely mislabeling the position I've taken and the points I've made. I wish I could say its been real...

To answer your question at the end of your post: I don't know. I used to think it would. But then I read the bill, heard some of the politicians debate this, and realized that government is really only interested in serving itself rather than giving citizens the ability to choose what kind of care, if any, they want.

My question wasn't in regards to the current bill. My question was to the government providing health care in general for its citizens regardless of the methods it uses to do so. Still not giving straight answers either...

The Democrat congress and white house has shown that it has no problems passing a bill which limits choice and erodes choice in our free market system.

Yes just like how you were right about people not being able to choose where to send their kids to school (Oh wait you aren't) or the bans on guns (oh wait once again you aren't). The health care debate would be alot better if people could stop with the slippery slopes and the cries of socialism. But unfortunately it doesn't benefit certain people to keep the debate honest.

 

[Kelly]

Its a democracy... bills don't have to suit everyone. It may be that this proposal doesn't suit you, that'll happen. You probably fall into the cracks where this doesn't benefit you just as the current health system is less suitable to a vast number of people in the US.

I will say this though... a lot of those who are underinsured aren't aware of it until they really need it...

But if the vast MAJORITY, not vast NUMBER do not want the major changes this bill holds, where does Democracy stand in that?

 

[Tally Man]

But if the vast MAJORITY, not vast NUMBER do not want the major changes this bill holds, where does Democracy stand in that?

It depends on how one views what is in the bill. For instance if one was to consider health care to be a right then vast majority would be out of luck. If not then the vast majority can proceed to either vote out the legislators in favor of ones that will rewrite the laws or they can challenge it in court. That's the way we've been doing things for a long time in the U.S. and it hasn't really seemed to be all that bad yet.

 

[Kelly]

Or the representatives can listen to the people that voted them into office....OR, understanding the bill enough to be able to answer specific questions from their constituents about the bill that they are going to vote on.....instead they read from bullets on a memo that answers nothing as far as the questions being asked. They aren't really asking for much, except answers. No one seems to be able to do that except to say.....

"The slight majority voted Obama into office on the premise of change, so shut the hell up and let him change things because he has the mandate of that landslide of win back in 2008."

Here's the thing, there is a good number of people, like myself, that voted for him and simply have a problem with "the change" he seems to want to instill.....pretty simple.

 

[Tally Man]

Or the representatives can listen to the people that voted them into office....OR, understanding the bill enough to be able to answer specific questions from their constituents about the bill that they are going to vote on.....instead they read from bullets on a memo that answers nothing as far as the questions being asked. They aren't really asking for much, except answers. No one seems to be able to do that except to say.....

"The slight majority voted Obama into office on the premise of change, so shut the hell up and let him change things because he has the mandate of that landslide of win back in 2008."

Here's the thing, there is a good number of people, like myself, that voted for him and simply have a problem with "the change" he seems to want to instill.....pretty simple.

Well since the representatives were elected by in large from the democrat party which has a platform of reforming health care in such a way and as such they are trying to reform health care based on the platform that they used and that people voted for them on. Its not like they are doing this completely out of the blue.

And for the second part I'd have to say that you seem to be implying that when a government passes legislation which seems to be vastly unpopular it goes against the very nature of a democracy. I'm not sure if that is what you are really going for but if it is I'd just like to say that in a democracy not everyone is going to be happy with a legislative outcome. But that does not mean said outcome is not democratic. The fact that the health care legislation could be repealed by a different congress elected after this one or that it could be rendered unconstitutional by a court decision means that if the majority is unhappy with the legislation they still have the power to deal with it through the system itself.

 

[Marlboro Man]

Believe me if I knew you were going to go all Glenn Beck on me I would have just stayed out of the thread in the first place. Thanks for completely mislabeling the position I've taken and the points I've made. I wish I could say its been real...

LOL. So everyone who disagrees with you is now a Glenn Beck wannabe?

My question wasn't in regards to the current bill. My question was to the government providing health care in general for its citizens regardless of the methods it uses to do so. Still not giving straight answers either...

I know what you're reeling for.

You want me to say that the government should provide health care for its citizens, so you can turn around and say you've won the debate and that automatically means we should have a public option.

Of course, it would be nice if the government could provide a public health care option.

In reality, it can't without dumping us deeper into debt and passing a greater tax burden on to the American public. And as it stands right now, the government is showing that it has no real interest in providing a public option and that it is more interested in shoving whatever plan it has down our throats.

So my answer is, it's not feasible now.

 

[Tally Man]

LOL. So everyone who disagrees with you is now a Glenn Beck wannabe?

Nope. I can accept that people will hold differing opinions than me and I go out of my way to understand other people's opinions. However when people exaggerate, make deliberate misinterpretations of positions or say things which are completely wrong then I tend to stay away from discussing things with them. It is one thing to have an actual discussion on health care. It is a whole different situation however when you get into Glenn Beck territory.

I know what you're reeling for.

You want me to say that the government should provide health care for its citizens, so you can turn around and say you've won the debate and that automatically means we should have a public option.

Of course, it would be nice if the government could provide a public health care option.

In reality, it can't without dumping us deeper into debt and passing a greater tax burden on to the American public. And as it stands right now, the government is showing that it has no real interest in providing a public option and that it is more interested in shoving whatever plan it has down our throats.

So my answer is, it's not feasible now.

My question does not have anything to do with whether the government should provide health care or how it should do so. My question is simply do you think that the government providing health care to its citizens would be something which benefits the general public/public good.

I have no problem with people having objections to the current health care proposal. There are legitimate issues that need to be debated such as costs, and the specifics of the proposals. But I have no tolerance for the arguments that public health care is some how going to lead us towards some totalitarian government that will remove all of our freedoms. We already have government institutions which compete with public institutions and our freedoms haven't been usurped in those areas. That type of argument is on the same level as the death panel arguments and should not be given the time of day.

 

[Marlboro Man]

Nope. I can accept that people will hold differing opinions than me and I go out of my way to understand other people's opinions. However when people exaggerate, make deliberate misinterpretations of positions or say things which are completely wrong then I tend to stay away from discussing things with them. It is one thing to have an actual discussion on health care. It is a whole different situation however when you get into Glenn Beck territory.

How am I getting into "Glenn Beck territory"?

Because I have a problem with the government taking things away from me in the name of the "public good," when taking those things away don't change the situations these politicians naively think will change?

My question does not have anything to do with whether the government should provide health care or how it should do so. My question is simply do you think that the government providing health care to its citizens would be something which benefits the general public/public good.

I have no problem with people having objections to the current health care proposal. There are legitimate issues that need to be debated such as costs, and the specifics of the proposals. But I have no tolerance for the arguments that public health care is some how going to lead us towards some totalitarian government that will remove all of our freedoms. We already have government institutions which compete with public institutions and our freedoms haven't been usurped in those areas. That type of argument is on the same level as the death panel arguments and should not be given the time of day.

Read the bill.

Have you done it?

I suggest you do if you haven't.

It says, right there in black and white, that the government wants health insurance companies to abide by terms set by the government, or else they will no longer be able to provide care. That makes it difficult for me to keep my private insurance.

I'm all in favor of helping the little guy. But not when I'm forced to make sacrifices to help them.

 

[Tally Man]

How am I getting into "Glenn Beck territory"?

Because I have a problem with the government taking things away from me in the name of the "public good," when taking those things away don't change the situations these politicians naively think will change?

You are getting into Glenn Beck territory because you are making ridiculous statements about things such as gun rights and the right for parents to choose their education along with the smoking issue which are not true. This whole government taking your freedom stuff simply is not true and is up there with the death panel arguments.

Read the bill.

Have you done it?

I suggest you do if you haven't.

It says, right there in black and white, that the government wants health insurance companies to abide by terms set by the government, or else they will no longer be able to provide care. That makes it difficult for me to keep my private insurance.

I'm all in favor of helping the little guy. But not when I'm forced to make sacrifices to help them.

You know what I find is truly funny here. The fact that every single business today is forced to set by terms set by the government or else they can no longer operate. Don't pay minimum wage you can kiss your business good buy. Don't meet health standards or safety standards they'll shut you down. And yet the U.S. still stands and freedom still exists. Government regulations of business practices are nothing new and do not mean that our government is not a democracy/capitalist society and it does not cause every private business to shut down. Once again we enter death panel territory.

Also way to not answer the question...

 

[Marlboro Man]

You are getting into Glenn Beck territory because you are making ridiculous statements about things such as gun rights and the right for parents to choose their education along with the smoking issue which are not true. This whole government taking your freedom stuff simply is not true and is up there with the death panel arguments.

They're not even close to the same thing.

The government HAS passed laws to take away guns, prevent choice in schooling options, and ban tobacco products.

As far as gun laws and tobacco laws go, they are always passed at the expense of those who use the products responsibly. They ignore the fact that we have a choice in how we live our lives, and think that government intervention is better for us because... well, it just is.

So naturally I have a problem with the government's current position on health care reform. I have a problem with Congressmen saying that they're going to vote against the wishes of their constituents to pass this bill with a public option, because they feel the government knows better than the average citizen.

I know that I don't want to pay for health care I don't want. So do a majority of Americans if you look at the polls.

**** what Sarah Palin or any far-right ******* like Beck has to say. I'm speaking as an independent American who thinks it is wrong for the government to make decisions for me. Which is ultimately what it wants to do with health care.

You know what I find is truly funny here. The fact that every single business today is forced to set by terms set by the government or else they can no longer operate. Don't pay minimum wage you can kiss your business good buy. Don't meet health standards or safety standards they'll shut you down. And yet the U.S. still stands and freedom still exists. Government regulations of business practices are nothing new and do not mean that our government is not a democracy. Once again we enter death panel territory.

Great points. Except, you leave out the part where the government doesn't force consumers to buy a product or face a penalty. With health care, the government is forcing coverage on to those who don't want it. They're forcing a public plan on to the American public, who doesn't want it.

This isn't the same as minimum wage or health and safety standards in the workplace. This is about forcing the public to accept a plan it doesn't want. It is about forcing people who choose not to have health insurance to have health insurance. This is a debate that will affect every single American citizen, and the government is blinded by its own self-righteousness to see that this plan is going to be a financial disaster and an even bigger pain in the ass to average Americans.

 

[Tally Man]

They're not even close to the same thing.

The government HAS passed laws to take away guns, prevent choice in schooling options, and ban tobacco products.

As far as gun laws and tobacco laws go, they are always passed at the expense of those who use the products responsibly. They ignore the fact that we have a choice in how we live our lives, and think that government intervention is better for us because... well, it just is.

The government has passed laws restricting the use of guns, the sale of guns, etc cetera. The government does not go into homes and take all the guns away because it can. Once again the whole gun control = loss of liberty thing is wrong especially considering the recent court trends and recent legislative trends. If anything the government has moved to be less restrictive on guns in recent times.

The government cannot force kids to go to public schools. Parents have the right to chose where they want to send their children for education purposes such as private school, homeschooling or if they so choose a public school.

We definately do have a choice in how to live our lives but at the same time the government has the ability to create laws regulating products, services and in some cases behaviors. Its what governments do and to think otherwise flys in the face of reality.

So naturally I have a problem with the government's current position on health care reform. I have a problem with Congressmen saying that they're going to vote against the wishes of their constituents to pass this bill with a public option, because they feel the government knows better than the average citizen

I know that I don't want to pay for health care I don't want. So do a majority of Americans if you look at the polls.

Kind of hard to say that when these people made it known in their platforms this was the kind of thing they were for. I don't have any sympathy for people who voted for Democrats thinking they would not do this when it was one of their main platforms. This hasn't been a big bait and switch on everybody. They said they were going to do health care reform and people voted for them. So its kind of hard for them to not do heatlh care reform when it was one of the issues which put them in office.

**** what Sarah Palin or any far-right ******* like Beck has to say. I'm speaking as an independent American who thinks it is wrong for the government to make decisions for me. Which is ultimately what it wants to do with health care.

This bill choses what health care you will get about as much as a public mail system chooses how you are going to send your mail or the public education system makes you educate your kid. A public option does not mean you can't still use a private one and this is where the whole government making decisions for you thing falls apart.

Great points. Except, you leave out the part where the government doesn't force consumers to buy a product or face a penalty. With health care, the government is forcing coverage on to those who don't want it. They're forcing a public plan on to the American public, who doesn't want it.

This isn't the same as minimum wage or health and safety standards in the workplace. This is about forcing the public to accept a plan it doesn't want. It is about forcing people who choose not to have health insurance to have health insurance. This is a debate that will affect every single American citizen, and the government is blinded by its own self-righteousness to see that this plan is going to be a financial disaster and an even bigger pain in the ass to average Americans.

The minimum wage and health and safety standards were in response to your assertion that the private health care industry would have to start doing what the government set as standards. They absolutely deal with your assertion there. The part about a public option is immaterial to that argument which you just made about the regulations. Face it government regulations are a fact of life. But that does not mean we are part of a government which doesn't value liberty.

Now as to your second point this whole debate is about the rising health costs, the lack of coverage people have, and the issues with the current health system. We may differ on the ways we see to fix these things but I'm pretty sure everyone at this point agrees there has to be health reform. What you are doing is labeling the debate in partisan terms which does not help at all. You have issues with the cost? Great because so do I and many other people. Its an increadibly valid part of this debate. But to sit here and try to act as if the government is usurping our freedoms and leading us down some toltatlitarian path or are self-righteous is just plan old ridiculous. Have legitimate reasons why such things should or should not be passed and we can address these issues in a much better way then saying the government is becoming socialist or they are trying to kill grandma.

 

[Marlboro Man]

The government has passed laws restricting the use of guns, the sale of guns, etc cetera. The government does not go into homes and take all the guns away because it can. Once again the whole gun control = loss of liberty thing is wrong especially considering the recent court trends and recent legislative trends. If anything the government has moved to be less restrictive on guns in recent times.

President Obama has stated that he supports reauthorizing the assault weapons ban and the Department of Justice has signaled its support for it. Considering Congress is controlled by a bunch of far-left Democrats, I'm under the impression that the federal government is going to try really hard to make owning an assault weapon illegal.

Also, take the condescending liberal attitude and shove it. Nowhere did I say that the government is plotting to steal or take away guns. I said they're restricting what we can buy and own and punishing responsible gun owners as a result. Which has been fairly accurate in waves over the past thirty-forty years.

The government cannot force kids to go to public schools. Parents have the right to chose where they want to send their children for education purposes such as private school, homeschooling or if they so choose a public school.

My argument is about public school choice. Parents have to send their kids to a public school or else pay for a private education.

If I'm a parent and my kid goes to a crappy public school, why can't I send my kid to a public school in a nearby district without paying thousands of dollars in tuition expenses?

We definately do have a choice in how to live our lives but at the same time the government has the ability to create laws regulating products, services and in some cases behaviors. Its what governments do and to think otherwise flys in the face of reality.

The government shouldn't be in the business of regulating behavior if it doesn't harm anyone. My smoking habits don't harm anyone. My ownership of a firearm doesn't harm anyone.

Hell, by that logic, you would agree that the government has a right to say blacks should have separate facilities and that homosexuality should be punishable by prison.

Oh wait, regulating those things are bad. But smokers and gun owners and people who prefer a private approach to health care reform are stupid toothless anti-government hicks who deserve to have the government come down hard on them.

Kind of hard to say that when these people made it known in their platforms this was the kind of thing they were for. I don't have any sympathy for people who voted for Democrats thinking they would not do this when it was one of their main platforms. This hasn't been a big bait and switch on everybody. They said they were going to do health care reform and people voted for them. So its kind of hard for them to not do heatlh care reform when it was one of the issues which put them in office.

I voted for a Democrat who didn't support the public plan. A Democrat who, to this day, has maintained a hard stance against the public option.

I voted for someone based on their individual ideals. I didn't vote for the party as a whole because I agreed with the party's whole message.

If that's how I should vote, party over person, then maybe next time I'll vote for a Republican. Hell, it's moderate Democrats like my Congressmen that got the Democrats a solid majority in the house. And its voters like me who will evaluate their progress and determine whether or not they deserve to keep their majority.

I've never thought about voting for the other party. I can't stand Republicans and in Alabama it's like voting for the Devil. But lately the arrogance of the Democratic Party, particularly its liberal members, is making me think hard about the 2010 elections.

This bill choses what health care you will get about as much as a public mail system chooses how you are going to send your mail or the public education system makes you educate your kid. A public option does not mean you can't still use a private one and this is where the whole government making decisions for you thing falls apart.

The bill says that private insurers have to abide by standards set forth in the public option, or else customers won't be able to have that insurance anymore. Basically it's strong-arming companies into modeling their plans after the public option.

The minimum wage and health and safety standards were in response to your assertion that the private health care industry would have to start doing what the government set as standards. They absolutely deal with your assertion there. The part about a public option is immaterial to that argument which you just made about the regulations. Face it government regulations are a fact of life. But that does not mean we are part of a government which doesn't value liberty.

Except as I stated above, minimum wage is different in the sense that it doesn't directly involve itself in my decision making processes. It doesn't force me into being a consumer of a product or service at the expense of a government sanction.

Now as to your second point this whole debate is about the rising health costs, the lack of coverage people have, and the issues with the current health system. We may differ on the ways we see to fix these things but I'm pretty sure everyone at this point agrees there has to be health reform. What you are doing is labeling the debate in partisan terms which does not help at all. You have issues with the cost? Great because so do I and many other people. Its an increadibly valid part of this debate. But to sit here and try to act as if the government is usurping our freedoms and leading us down some toltatlitarian path or are self-righteous is just plan old ridiculous. Have legitimate reasons why such things should or should not be passed and we can address these issues in a much better way then saying the government is becoming socialist or they are trying to kill grandma.

Okay. So I have to see this debate through your eyes and agree with you on every point, or else I'm a partisan hack who has visions of Glenn Beck in my sleep.

Gotcha.

 

[Tally Man]

President Obama has stated that he supports reauthorizing the assault weapons ban and the Department of Justice has signaled its support for it. Considering Congress is controlled by a bunch of far-left Democrats, I'm under the impression that the federal government is going to try really hard to make owning an assault weapon illegal.

Also, take the condescending liberal attitude and shove it. Nowhere did I say that the government is plotting to steal or take away guns. I said they're restricting what we can buy and own and punishing responsible gun owners as a result. Which has been fairly accurate in waves over the past thirty-forty years.

Sorry to be the bringer of bad news but the right to own a gun, much like the right to free speech, is not absolute. The government can impose regulations on such. Whether or not a ban on assault weapons would stand up to a challenge in court would depend on the level of scrutiny the judges apply. You may not like it but that's the way it is.

Also my current attitude is not a "liberal" attitude considering I am an independent. My current attitude is a dissatisfaction at the continued misrepresentations which apply such as the one below.

My argument is about public school choice. Parents have to send their kids to a public school or else pay for a private education.

You forgot about home schooling as well. But really that is neither here nor there when you fail to realize that Parent's have the right to determine where they want to send their kids. Public education for kids might be mandatory and I don't think any one would disagree that it is a good thing, but where parents can send their kids ultimately rests with them. Your argument holds no water.

If I'm a parent and my kid goes to a crappy public school, why can't I send my kid to a public school in a nearby district without paying thousands of dollars in tuition expenses?

I'm pretty sure this has to do with population distribution and potential overcrowding in schools. It is true that there is a disparity in the public education system as to the equality of schools because of funding, but that doesn't mean that the government is restricting your choice as to where to send your kids.

The government shouldn't be in the business of regulating behavior if it doesn't harm anyone. My smoking habits don't harm anyone. My ownership of a firearm doesn't harm anyone.

Well in terms of smoking you have to deal with the second hand smoke issue and the health problems so you do present harm to others if you are in a public place, hence the current legislation to remove smoking from restaurants and the like.

As for your gun ownership, unless the courts consider it a fundamental right the government does not need a reason of immediate harm to others to regulate it. If the courts use a rational basis review or intermediate scrutiny the government has the ability to regulate it as long as they can abide by the limits set forth in those two areas. Whether or not you think the government should be in the business of regulating that is immaterial to the fact that it legally can.

Hell, by that logic, you would agree that the government has a right to say blacks should have separate facilities and that homosexuality should be punishable by prison.

Except the courts have said they can't do those things and that is entirely consistent with my last statement. I've never said that the government has absolute power in this area, just that it has the ability to regulate certain things which falls under its purview. And drugs and firearms happen to be two things which do in fact fall under the federal governments ability to govern.

Oh wait, regulating those things are bad. But smokers and gun owners and people who prefer a private approach to health care reform are stupid toothless anti-government hicks who deserve to have the government come down hard on them.

Remember the whole Glenn Beck comment from before. This is what I'm talking about. If you can't debate this issue without resorting to strawmen and exaggerations I'm sorry but you fall into Glenn Beck territory for me.

I voted for a Democrat who didn't support the public plan. A Democrat who, to this day, has maintained a hard stance against the public option.

I voted for someone based on their individual ideals. I didn't vote for the party as a whole because I agreed with the party's whole message.

Well then you are going to have to take that issue up with said Democrat if they are backpedaling on said issue. However given the stance of numerous other Democrats their stance on this is not a surprise and this health care reform did not come out of left field. People may not like the approach they are going with but they absolutely knew that this was one of the things they were going to tackle.

If that's how I should vote, party over person, then maybe next time I'll vote for a Republican. Hell, it's moderate Democrats like my Congressmen that got the Democrats a solid majority in the house. And its voters like me who will evaluate their progress and determine whether or not they deserve to keep their majority.

Hate to break it to you but Republicans are even worse than Democrats when it comes to party politics. I still remember one of the jokes I heard in DC was that the 11th commandment for Republicans was "Thou shalt not speak badly of another Republican." Republicans know how to keep to the party line which is a big problem for Democrats right now. So I don't think your going to be any happier voting for a Republican than a Democrat if you want an independent politician.

I've never thought about voting for the other party. I can't stand Republicans and in Alabama it's like voting for the Devil. But lately the arrogance of the Democratic Party, particularly its liberal members, is making me think hard about the 2010 elections.

Well that is your priority and certainly if you feel that way you will have every option to express yourself at the voting booth. It is one of the great freedoms afforded to us in this nation of ours.

The bill says that private insurers have to abide by standards set forth in the public option, or else customers won't be able to have that insurance anymore. Basically it's strong-arming companies into modeling their plans after the public option.

Once again the government has always had the ability to regulate businesses. The fact that they can do so to insurance companies is nothing new and it does not mean they are taking away our freedoms. Our freedoms have survived public education and a public mail system along with a federal bank. A public option along side private ones will not be a radical step that has never been done before.

Except as I stated above, minimum wage is different in the sense that it doesn't directly involve itself in my decision making processes. It doesn't force me into being a consumer of a product or service at the expense of a government sanction.

Except we are talking about the regulations that the government puts on a company here. They can legally set a standard by which businesses must operate and force them to do so in certain circumstances. The fact that the government is making them follow a model which they created has nothing to do with your decision making process as to which model you want to take.

Okay. So I have to see this debate through your eyes and agree with you on every point, or else I'm a partisan hack who has visions of Glenn Beck in my sleep.

Gotcha.

Nope. I am just saying the whole freedom/choice argument you have brought up is on the level of the death panel argument in that it completely obscures the reasons why health care reform is really being sought. Saying things like the government is trying to take away our choice is not even true in this debate. Of course people will have choices and they alone will be the ones who ultimately determine what health care they want if said health care reform passes. All this seems to do is detract away from important areas such as the costs for health care reform or the steps which they should take to reform it.

 

[Marlboro Man]

Remember the whole Glenn Beck comment from before. This is what I'm talking about. If you can't debate this issue without resorting to strawmen and exaggerations I'm sorry but you fall into Glenn Beck territory for me.

I fall into Glenn Beck territory because I pointed out a flaw in your argument?

Face it, in your opinion, the government should only regulate behaviors you deem as unacceptable. You think smokers are bad people and a cancer to society, so they deserve to have their habits regulated. You think gun owners only buy guns to break the law, so they deserve to be told which firearms they should be allowed to purchase.

Well then you are going to have to take that issue up with said Democrat if they are backpedaling on said issue. However given the stance of numerous other Democrats their stance on this is not a surprise and this health care reform did not come out of left field. People may not like the approach they are going with but they absolutely knew that this was one of the things they were going to tackle.

And what a surprise, the Democrats are tackling this issue the wrong way and are losing support from the public as a result.

Once again the government has always had the ability to regulate businesses. The fact that they can do so to insurance companies is nothing new and it does not mean they are taking away our freedoms. Our freedoms have survived public education and a public mail system along with a federal bank. A public option along side private ones will not be a radical step that has never been done before.

Ugh.

I'm not forced to use the post office. I'm not forced to use any mail service at all, actually. If I wanted to drop off a letter to someone in-person, I'm allowed to do that. If I want to use email, I can do that too.

I will be forced to have health insurance though. Millions of Americans who do not want health insurance will be forced to have it. Free-thinking adults who should be capable of making their own decisions about their health will be prevented from deciding whether or not they want health insurance. The government mandates health care for everybody in this bill.

There's no choice in this bill. It's either have private health insurance if the health insurance companies walk in lockstep behind the government's plan, have a public plan, or face some sort of penalty from the government for not being insured. Sounds really free and just to me.

Except we are talking about the regulations that the government puts on a company here. They can legally set a standard by which businesses must operate and force them to do so in certain circumstances. The fact that the government is making them follow a model which they created has nothing to do with your decision making process as to which model you want to take.

What if I don't want health insurance?

 

[Tally Man]

I fall into Glenn Beck territory because I pointed out a flaw in your argument?

So then where is your paragraph on what I just said was wrong? You haven't pointed out any flaw in my argument.

Face it, in your opinion, the government should only regulate behaviors you deem as unacceptable. You think smokers are bad people and a cancer to society, so they deserve to have their habits regulated. You think gun owners only buy guns to break the law, so they deserve to be told which firearms they should be allowed to purchase.

Umm nope I think cigarettes should be regulated because they are a harmful product which causes cancer, and where the manufacturer deliberately lied about the deadly nature of the product. I personally have no problems with smokers and was one until I quit.

I think there is certainly a right to own firearms as set forth in the second amendment but I do not think that right is unlimited. As such the government has the ability to regulate said commercial product much like it regulates other ones.

Seriously stop with the misrepresentations of my positions. If you can't help but strawmen my arguments please don't even bother to respond to my posts.

And what a surprise, the Democrats are tackling this issue the wrong way and are losing support from the public as a result.

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man. -The Dude

Ugh.

I'm not forced to use the post office. I'm not forced to use any mail service at all, actually. If I wanted to drop off a letter to someone in-person, I'm allowed to do that. If I want to use email, I can do that too.

I will be forced to have health insurance though. Millions of Americans who do not want health insurance will be forced to have it. Free-thinking adults who should be capable of making their own decisions about their health will be prevented from deciding whether or not they want health insurance. The government mandates health care for everybody in this bill.

Sorry but you get your mail from the U.S. Postal department man. You don't get a choice to not have a mailing address. Much in the same way people here will have to have insurance, but ultimately the choice is theirs as to what insurance they want. Hence the fact that they have a choice.

Also where are you getting this millions of Americans wanting to not have health insurance?

There's no choice in this bill. It's either have private health insurance if the health insurance companies walk in lockstep behind the government's plan, have a public plan, or face some sort of penalty from the government for not being insured. Sounds really free and just to me.

I'm sorry but the fact that you have a choice in this very paragraph negates your argument that there is no choice in this bill. If I have the choice between a public plan, private plan A, or private plan B then that is by its very nature a choice.

What if I don't want health insurance?

Why wouldn't you want health insurance?

 

[Marlboro Man]

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man. -The Dude

It's also the opinion of a majority of Americans.

Sorry but you get your mail from the U.S. Postal department man. You don't get a choice to not have a mailing address. Much in the same way people here will have to have insurance, but ultimately the choice is theirs as to what insurance they want. Hence the fact that they have a choice.

So you agree that the government is forcing Americans to have health insurance, and that they don't have a choice in the matter? Sounds pretty tyrannical to me.

Also where are you getting this millions of Americans wanting to not have health insurance?

Where are you getting statistics that says everyone who doesn't have health insurance can't afford it?

You can't tell me that everyone who doesn't have health insurance wants it but cannot afford it. Out of 40 million people who don't have health insurance, logic says a sizeable number - perhaps not a majority, but a sizeable number none the less - choose not to have insurance because they don't want it.

I'm sorry but the fact that you have a choice in this very paragraph negates your argument that there is no choice in this bill. If I have the choice between a public plan, private plan A, or private plan B then that is by its very nature a choice.

What about the fourth choice? To not have health insurance at all?

Why do we have to have insurance? Why can't we pay for health expenses out of pocket if we choose to?

By forcing us to have health insurance, the government eliminates our ability to choose whether we even want health care coverage in the first place. Therefore the government is imposing its will on us.

Why wouldn't you want health insurance?

Some people don't want health insurance.

Why should they be forced to have insurance?

 

[Tally Man]

It's also the opinion of a majority of Americans.

So because a majority of people think something it means they are right? These polls are people's opinions and the Democrats can listen to the polls or they can go with the fact that they were elected by people who knew this is what they wanted to do and still voted for them.

So you agree that the government is forcing Americans to have health insurance, and that they don't have a choice in the matter? Sounds pretty tyrannical to me.

If the government says they want to insure everyone and gives you x options to chose from that seems like a choice to me. Its no more tyrannical than the government having mandatory education for kids from certain grades up until the college level. And I'm also pretty sure that the founding fathers are rolling over in their graves to hear that the government making sure everyone is insured is tyrannical.

Where are you getting statistics that says everyone who doesn't have health insurance can't afford it?

Where did I say that everyone who doesn't have health insurance cannot afford it?

You can't tell me that everyone who doesn't have health insurance wants it but cannot afford it. Out of 40 million people who don't have health insurance, logic says a sizeable number - perhaps not a majority, but a sizeable number none the less - choose not to have insurance because they don't want it.

Sorry but unless you have numbers to back up that assertion saying that logic says means absolutely nothing. Also once again where did I say that people who do not have health insurance cannot afford it?

What about the fourth choice? To not have health insurance at all?

Why do we have to have insurance? Why can't we pay for health expenses out of pocket if we choose to?

Why would you want to pay for health expenses out of pocket if you could afford insurance?

By forcing us to have health insurance, the government eliminates our ability to choose whether we even want health care coverage in the first place. Therefore the government is imposing its will on us.

Once again the government can create regulations as to how people act or things they can purchase. They do not have absolute authority to dictate how we live our lives, but there are certain things they can regulate such as drug use or crimes against people like making murder a crime. They also have us do things like wearing seat belts, you have to go to school until a certain age, etc. for the public good. This doesn't mean we aren't free, it just means that the government sets out a codified set of laws and regulations to ensure social stability/law and order, etc. Your argument here just states the obvious that the government makes laws. That doesn't mean the government is tyrannical or removing our freedoms.

Some people don't want health insurance.

Why should they be forced to have insurance?

Once again why would someone not want health insurance?

 

[Marlboro Man]

So because a majority of people think something it means they are right? These polls are people's opinions and the Democrats can listen to the polls or they can go with the fact that they were elected by people who knew this is what they wanted to do and still voted for them.

What makes them wrong? If a majority of Americans disagree with this bill as it stands, then it is in the Democrats' best interests to fix the bill or vote against it. Otherwise they won't be in power very long.

If the government says they want to insure everyone and gives you x options to chose from that seems like a choice to me. Its no more tyrannical than the government having mandatory education for kids from certain grades up until the college level. And I'm also pretty sure that the founding fathers are rolling over in their graves to hear that the government making sure everyone is insured is tyrannical.

Yeah it sounds nice when you say "the government is making sure everyone is insured."

Except, the founding fathers would probably be rolling over in the graves once they realized the federal government was imposing a system on the general public without the choice to not have it.

The government is interfering with a free market system, taking that system out of the free market, and forcing every citizen to buy into that system.

It's like putting a gun to someone's head and forcing them to buy either product A or product B, or face severe consequences for not choosing either product.

There only choice in the matter is whether you want health insurer A or health insurer B. There's no choice not to have health insurance in the first place.

Where did I say that everyone who doesn't have health insurance cannot afford it?

Sorry but unless you have numbers to back up that assertion saying that logic says means absolutely nothing. Also once again where did I say that people who do not have health insurance cannot afford it?

Do you have numbers to prove me wrong?

I know statistics. I know that there's a high likelihood that millions of people out of a 40 million pool choose not to have health insurance on their own.

Why would you want to pay for health expenses out of pocket if you could afford insurance?

Does it matter?

Once again the government can and does force regulations on people. Laws do this all the time. You have to wear seatbelts, you have to go to school until a certain age, etc. This doesn't mean we aren't free, it just means that the government sets out a codified set of laws and regulations to ensure social stability/law and order, etc. Your argument here just states the obvious that the government makes laws. That doesn't mean the government is tyrannical or removing our freedoms.

By forcing us to pay for health care coverage we might not want, the government is going much farther than it does by forcing us to wear seat belts.

Once again why would someone not want health insurance?

And once again, does it matter?

Shouldn't people be able to choose whether they want to pay for a service or good in a free-market system? Instead of having it shoved down their throats by the government?

 

[Tally Man]

What makes them wrong? If a majority of Americans disagree with this bill as it stands, then it is in the Democrats' best interests to fix the bill or vote against it. Otherwise they won't be in power very long.

Funny how public opinion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is not all that high yet we still do them. The popularity of a government's action while a concern is not the end all be all as to why politicians do things.

Yeah it sounds nice when you say "the government is making sure everyone is insured."

Sounds about the same as saying the government is making sure all children receive an education to me. You don't think public education is a bad thing for the government to provide do you?

Except, the founding fathers would probably be rolling over in the graves once they realized the federal government was imposing a system on the general public without the choice to not have it.

Are children not free because they have to attend schools until a certain age?

The government is interfering with a free market system, taking that system out of the free market, and forcing every citizen to buy into that system.

Hate to break it to you but the government has been interfering with the "free market" for a long time. We don't just let the market do what it wants, we've had regulations, tariffs and plenty of other measures in place all the way from the time the country was founded to the present.

It's like putting a gun to someone's head and forcing them to buy either product A or product B, or face severe consequences for not choosing either product.

There only choice in the matter is whether you want health insurer A or health insurer B. There's no choice not to have health insurance in the first place.

So you are equating a government law on something to putting a gun to someone's head? Is the government putting a gun to are head and removing all liberty when it makes speed limits, forces us to wear seat belts, or tons of other regulations they have? Once again this is not something new. Regulations such as this have existed for a long time.

Do you have numbers to prove me wrong?

Since when am I required to provide the very numbers which I am asking you for to prove the statement you said?

I know statistics. I know that there's a high likelihood that millions of people out of a 40 million pool choose not to have health insurance on their own.

Based on what statistically? Either provide the stats or don't. But don't sit here making unfounded statements and not expect to be called on it.

Does it matter?

In terms of your question yes it does. Once again why would someone want to pay for health insurance out of their own pocket when they could afford a private insurance plan?

By forcing us to pay for health care coverage we might not want, the government is going much farther than it does by forcing us to wear seat belts.

No its really not. It is "forcing" us to commit to a behavior much in the same way it is "forcing" us to get insurance. These are both government laws which require citizens to abide by a certain set of rules. If the government can make us wear seat belts for the public good then why can't it provide health care to all of us for the public good?

And once again, does it matter?

Shouldn't people be able to choose whether they want to pay for a service or good in a free-market system? Instead of having it shoved down their throats by the government?

It does matter if you are presenting an unrealistic scenario. You sit here and say that the government is removing a choice. I want to know how many people are making the choice you are claiming they are taking away and why they are doing so? Because if the majority of people are uninsured because they cannot afford it then your argument that they are forcing people who are making some sort of "choice" goes out the window.