Hope you don’t mean me in that second paragraph. I’ve discussed ad nauseum my view of poor people versus Der Trihs’s, and I very much want what I think is best for them. The only people I’ve ever expressed hostility towards is liberal douches, not poor people.
Dickweed? That’s a rather odd thing to say to a person whom you have engaged for the first time. The Gallup poll shows that 75% of Democrats support the presidents’s health care plan, while only 10% of Republicans do. That’s why the overall percentage is so low. The polls are wasting time asking Republicans what they think. And for your information, Gallup has been anti-Obama since the primaries, Rosebud.
The polls were already against the bill before Palin and the “death panels” thing, so you can’t blame it all on that. But, given the ingenuity of liberal douche SDMBers in finding “lies,” I’m sure someone will be along shortly to point out earlier ones.
Yes, by lying liars…who lie!
Either that, or just plain stupidity! Those are the only reasons why anyone could possibly disagree with me.
Arrogance, elitism and tunnel-vision, thy name be Blalron.
I don’t know, to be honest. Take Sam Stone as an example (I’ve been using him as an example a few times recently but really, how many non-dick non-partisan-hack conservatives are on this board?). He consistently advocates less government power and involvement pretty much across the board - and yet I’ve never had the impression from him that he disdains the less powerful. I’ve never had the impression that he had glee over the potential harm that would come from to people as a result of the positions he advocates.
I hope that I’m in the same boat.
Carol Stream seems clearly malicious. She gets off on seeing harm to others and seems proud of it. You and Crafter Man at times seem more fervently dedicated to an ideology than malicious - but there are times when I certainly get the impression that you’ll take some degree of satisfaction in the pain and death of those you believe to be inferior to you, because they’re poorer or dumber or less capable or less fortunate or have been fucked by the random bad shit stick in life.
Ah, the silly season.
Wake me up when Congress reconvenes.
Well, yeah, now. I’d be in the “disapprove” column if they’d ask me now, **because he’s caving.**You’d have to tease out how many think he goes too far from the "not far enough"s to really understand that little data point.
Actually, I think this is fantastic news. Obama should announce that due to the overwhelming public resistance to Health Care reform that instead he’s decided to dismantle the entire system. A bill to be entitled “The Republican Wet Dream Health Care Bill”. Complete deregulation of all health care in this country. Rush it through committee and dare the 'Pubs and Blue Dogs to vote against it.
Then use those votes and the natural outcome of the bill as campaign ads for the next several years.
I’d pay to see Army tanks rolling on Blue Cross Blue Shield HQ. 
Who cares what Democrats want? The issue is what Americans want, and a majority don’t want Congress to pass anything.
Which reminds me: if insurance company fraud and malfeasance are the reason Americans are dying in the streets, why is it necessary to have a government alternative or take over? Why can’t we simply pass laws regulating, outlawing, or stating in so many words exactly what it is that insurance companies must do under penalty of law?
Answer: Because it isn’t really about insurance companies. They’re just an excuse. What it’s really about is the liberal desire for a big daddy, nanny-state government (how’s that for a contradiction in terms? ;)) that will protect them from harm, provide for all their needs, and, perhaps most importantly, keep people with money from getting better care. (This last one really turns the crank of socialist wannabe’s. Such people believe government is the only way to make things fair, even if it means long waits, inferior care, and bringing high standards for most down to mediocrity for all.)
There are perfectly feasable ways to ensure health care for the entire populace without turning it over to the government, just like there are perfectly reasonable alternatives to Social Security for seeing to it that people are supported in their old age.
But, those alternatives are free (or mostly free) from government control, and if the government doesn’t control something, it can’t use it to leverage votes and/or grow it’s own scope and power – something which government is hard-wired to do and which it does as easily as most of us draw breath.
So insurance companies get villainized (and called “rackets” by the Senate Majority Leader) and people who value individual responsibility and who fear government intrusion and control over our lives get accused of wanting to see people die in the streets.
Sigh.
You’re not the only one sighing, cricetus.
So you’d be cheerleader for a federal law passed that, say, barred insurance companies from discriminating based on chronic conditions?
Then why is it that most countries with national health care systems also have optional private systems?
Yes, you do. Because that’s exactly what the government did when it agreed with you. You want to go back to the good old days where the government let the wealthy crush and exploit the common people with complete ruthlessness, and when the government reacted to any resistance by those people with screams of “Communism! Socialism!” and sent in cops and soldiers to assault and kill them. After all, those starving and oppressed people who want government aid and protection are just socialist thieves in your eyes.
I wonder if the board would indulge me in an experiment:
I can write a Der Trihs bot that simulates Der Trihs. The bot and the real thing could then post to threads. Below the name, there’d be a “Real Der Trihs or Bot?” link where people could vote on whether people think the post was made by the real thing or a simple computer program. I wonder what sort of accuracy the community would achieve.
Have the bot look for a few keywords and then spiel some random RICH PEOPLE EAT POOR BABIES stuff and I think you’d be hard pressed to tell the difference.
Yes, but with the proviso that rate increases would be needed in order to keep the insurance companies from going bankrupt. The same with pre-existing conditions. (My thinking here is that these rate increases would most likely be less or about the same as it would cost everyone to pay into a government health solution.)
Insurance companies cannot survive if they’re forced to give coverage worth tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to a huge influx of people who have only paid in a few hundred dollars.
Thus I would favor a system that allows people full coverage but also provides a long-term contract that would compel people to retain coverage, either with their current insurance company or a competing one, under severe penalty for early withdrawal. This so that insurance companies can provide everyone with the coverage they need but without going broke in the process, and it would allow for free market competition so that a person isn’t contractually bound to stay with a company they’ve grown unhappy with for some reason.
All this is off the top of my head and I’m sure such a system presents problems that would have to be ironed out, but it does give you an idea of how I’m thinking on the subject.
Canada, at least, forbids private systems from covering the same illnesses or treatments that its government provides. (Though wait times have become so egregious at times that Canada’s Supreme Court has ruled that private coverage is okay in the case of extremely long waits.) And while I’m not sure, I’m reasonably certain that most European countries with UHC have similar restrictions.
Yeah, because not doing anything is the American way.
The Beef speaks for me as well. I’d offer up Bricker and Mr Moto as other conservatives willing to engage in civil rational debate. Shodan too when he isn’t sufficiently irritated by snide one-liners to respond in kind. Such discussions are only beneficial. I don’t know mswas’s ideological stance, but he is capable of arguing a conservative viewpoint articulately, and does so from time to time.
Crafter Man makes valuable informational posts in GQ. But where politics is concerned, he seems to lose all the sense of clarity and ability to engage a topic meaningfully that are so clearly evident in his GQ posts. The same, alas, is true for Clothahump – the wit he brings to MPSIMS escapes him, and he turns to parroting misnformation from a right-wing commentator. And if RR or CS has contributed anything useful to the board, aside from snark, I must have missed it.