You should read the thread. He didn’t weasel at all. He said - and he said it before this - that he thinks that people should take care of themselves. Pretty much exactly what he said in this thread.
To his credit he did not say that charities should carry the load, since he might as well say that Jesus should swoop down and cure everyone. Not going to happen.
It is refreshing to see someone willing to admit the implications of a position, and not try to confuse the picture with extreme examples and implausible alternatives.
Now, if the Republicans came out and admitted that this was the root cause of their opposition, instead of ranting about death panels, socialized medicine, and killing granny, they’d get stomped. I’m talking of those smart enough to know better, and I’m not sure that includes Palin or not.
The reason the bill is in trouble is because most of America is against it (or at least a plurality, in the latest polls). I heard on the radio that it’s currently at 2700 pages, that will redefine American’s relationship with both their healthcare provider and the insurance provider. Remember, 85% of Americans have health insurance already, and 90% of them think that their coverage is either ‘excellent’ or ‘good’. Obama’s plan (or Obamacare, if you prefer) is guaranteed to mess with that. People on Medicare know that Obama wants to pull $500b out of that program; how can that not reduce the level of healthcare provided?
No wonder that some Dems are against it; a vote for it is a good way to get whacked this November. (Not that it will be much better if it doesn’t get passed - but the Dems handed the GOP this weapon, they have nobody to blame but themselves).
You like to blame Fox, Glen, talking points shows, as if Americans aren’t able to make a rational decision, economic man and freakanomics and so forth. That’s condescending in my opinion.
First off, most of the provisions in the bill are spread out over about four years. There are very few immediate effects. But there are some, mostly involving insurance for children, because not even the Pubbies dared to stand against health care for kiddies. But, of course, the people who benefit cannot vote, but their parents can. You think they will be grateful to the Dems for this benefit? I suspect so.
But there are few effects to react to, there is nothing that will cause immediate outrage save for the insistance that it should. Most people will keep the same employer based stuff they already have, so most people will not be affected one way or the other, at least not directly. So why are they going to be outraged and vote Republican? The Pubbies plan to run on Obama’s massive unpopularity? Yay! Goody gum drops!
This may add only a modest bump to Democrat voters. But they are already winning, aren’t they? Obama ran on his agenda, with health care reform at its center, and was swept into office. He had a plan, he took it to the Boss, and the Boss said “Yeah, go for it!”
I would just point out, in addition to emacknight’s comment, that this:
is a statement grounded in a moral framework, not the result of a pragmatic analysis.
And the arguments from the right have been overwhelmingly phrased in a moral tone (e.g., “no free healthcare for you!”, “socialism is evil”, “why should my money go to someone else?”), not an objective survey of hte predicted costs of various healthcare reform routes.
So, yes, most of the current opponents of the healthcare bill would indeed be hypocrites if they chose to take advantage of its benefits.
That’s my sentiments. I guess it would be communistic to suggest that maybe a society does have some obligations regarding the well being of its members? If society owes us nothing, then that would seem to prove there is no valid reason to belong, and the society had no reason to exist.
In that case, there is a phrase about “life, liberty and the pursuit of…” and various other laws against murder. I also have a “right by natural law”, meaning that neighbor better be fast enough strong enough, and clever enough to make sure I don’t “get” him first. It’s the law if tooth and claw, so to speak.
Most Americans are for the components of the bill when it is explained to them. Many are against it because the Republicans have been lying for over a year and a half about it. Every single Republican I’ve seen as a talking head has lied. Every single one. Government takeover, raise the deficit, raise insurance costs, these are lies. You have obviously been taken in along with millions of others. But you owe it to yourself to educate yourself on this issue, you’re spouting gibberish.
How many pages was the social security bill? Oh, you don’t know? I guess you’re not qualified to pass judgement on how many pages major legislation should be, right? The page source for the page I’m writing this on, right now is 2700 lines of HTML and CSS. How is that possible? The page I’m on isn’t 2700 lines long? Oh, right, it’s because the back end parts of complicated things sometimes are more complex than someone ignorant about the workings would guess.
If you had bothered to learn anything about the issue, you would know that most of our populace get coverage through the job. Most of our populace are insulated from the actual cost of HC insurance by the job picking up the lion’s share. But we still pay almost twice as much as anyone else in the world and have much, much worse results.
90% like their doctors. Their insurance sucks, whether they know it or not.
I most certainly do not, it sounds like a bullshit bumpersticker slogan a mental deficient came up with
Again, you don’t understand the issue. The current HCR bill will lower costs for everyone (except for the self-employed, because they usually buy bare bones horrible coverage), eliminate pre-existing conditions and lifetime and yearly maximums. It will make coverage for the vast majority of Americans better. If you don’t believe me, educate yourself and read the CBO report.
**You are being lied to and are repeating those lies.
**
Medicare Advantage is being cut. This is a private program that costs more than Medicare and has similar results. It is waste. It is being removed.
I would like to take the moment to note that you have been completely and utterly wrong thusfar.
If it doesn’t pass the lies will be assumed to be true. If it does pass, the morons who currently believe the lies will eventually pretend they weren’t actually against it.
Seeing as Glen and Fox have brainwashed you, I don’t much value your opinion.
Glen? As in Glen Beck? PLEASE tell me this guy (the anti health care guy) is joking. Glen Beck is the fount of all wisdom? Anyone who gets his “facts” from Beck is beyond redemption.
Republicans are more easily manipulated than Democrats, conservatives by their nature are more susceptible to to emotions than liberals. This is the reason why Democrats won’t get very far using the same lying and dirty tactics the Pubs use: liberals don’t fall for that kind of shit and find it distasteful.
Those in Congress, I suspect, know that the Pub’s arguments are shit, and their manipulation blatant. But the followers of the Becks and Limbaughs don’t know that because they’re idiots. It’s much easier to rouse them into a state of frenzy than explain to them the merits of a complicated health care system.
If the Pubs ever get in power and reform health care, they will simply pretend this time period never happened. They will use all of the language and arguments liberals are using now, only throw in some “…and you’re unpatriotic if you don’t support it” bullshit at the end of it.
So no, I don’t see it backfiring on them. Not unless the frothing masses who somehow hate health care die off and are replaced with average intelligence human beings
I think you underestimate the idiocy and evilness of the Pubs. Bush twice vetoed SCHIP. Sure, some of his dingbat Pubs in Congress supported it, but as we’ve seen with Bunning (“old people died but I missed my game!”), Pubs are eager to stick it to Dems at every opportunity. They’ll simply spin it as health care for illegal immigrant kids or another part of Obama’s socialist master plan
Yes. I have no problem with volunteering to help you and your family. I don’t want to be forced into it. And in my current situation, I volunteer to participate in a risk pool where everyone else is contributing the same amount to the pool that I am. I don’t want to be forced to participate in a giant, nation-wide risk pool where some members get the same benefits while not paying the same amount in.
The only component of the bill Americans are against is the cost, and the effect on the deficit.
On the other hand, government already pays about half, or a bit more, of the total spending on health care in America (cite).
Whereas, in taxpayer-funded health-care, they are insulated from the actual cost of HC by the taxpayer picking up the lion’s share.
I don’t believe you, and I have already read the report.
The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. Congress, whether controlled by Republicans or Democrats, has not made the cuts necessary to keep Medicare solvent. I (and a majority of the American public) do not believe they will do it now.
And your statement that Obamacare will reduce costs overall is false - a large tax increase is not a cost cut.
No. There is a difference between believing that a course of action is poor for the group to take, and believing that it’s wrong to participate with the group.
So a group of us get lost in the woods. You think we should try going left because you’re pretty sure you saw the lights of a town through the trees in that direction. I think we should go right because I think I saw lights that way. There is discussion amongst the group, and we agree to put it to a vote. The group votes to follow your suggestion, and starts off.
Then you notice I’m also turning left and shriek, “Hypocrite!! Hypocrite!!”
No, I’m not. I still think the best course would have been to turn right. But if the group has overruled me, deciding I’m going to stay with the group is not hypocrisy.
We don’t need Obamacare to make cuts in Medicare spending. And Obama is on record that the cuts necessary for his program not to balloon the deficit (even more than two trillion he has added to the deficit so far) are not intended to address all of the structural flaws of Medicare.
Obama wanted to model his version of UHC on Medicare - which is going bankrupt, and costs ten times more as projected. But when Obama says his program will reduce the deficit, we are supposed to believe him.
