This is why I hold you in the highest regard.
It seems to be very true by free market arguments.
Are they being forced to accept a job at a company with government healthcare, or prevented from seeking healthcare insurance on their own dime?
I’ve said this and other posters have repeated it: Americans will opt for public option only if its better than private insurance. It’s a truism that, unfortunately, is either conscientiously forgotten or lost to the annals of time. The Republicans believe that health care in the hands of the government will lead to"inefficiencies, long waiting periods, and often substandard health care." Why in the hell would an employer adopt a government plan that is inferior to the private plans? If UHC is destined to be terrible and inefficient, why do Republicans believe, so earnestly, that it’ll outcompete with private insurers? That’s analogous to believing that a government-sponsored program that hands out inferiorly-made condoms will shut outtrojan and other private condom manufacturers.
I suspect that what frustrates many Republicans is that the government has unequivocally decided that health care should be in reach for all American citizens. This means that health insurance is no longer luxury that’s constrained by the whims of the Free Market. (IMO) Except for the illegal aliens, everyone should have affordable, non-emergency care.
What saddens me about the debate about health care is that our government spends billions of dollars rebuild Iraq, to send the U.S Corp of Engineers to southern Israel to erect a defense system that won’t work, to build wells and HIV awareness in Africa; we gave 73 million dollars to in Zimbabwe despite that it’s less stable than three oxygen atoms coupled together. Don’t even get me started on how the U.S invested billions of dollars in Netherlands (which is one of the richest countries in Europe). We eagerly give our money to other countries but cry “PORK!” if we dare give a penny for ourselves. Damn you all for not wanting to see those dollars spent domestically, especially on an important issue such as healthcare. I’m glad Uncle Sam is spending money on the U.S.A - it’s about time.
- Honesty
Here’s an analogy: the 55 mile-per-hour speed limit.
If the President said, “The government won’t force you to drive 55. Your state can set any speed limit it likes,” that would be technically true. But since the government provides highway funds only to those states with a 55 mph maximum, the honest, actual effect is that the government is imposing the speed limit.
That’s the case here. The government won’t force anyone to switch. But by funding decisions, it creates an environment in which swtiching is inevitable. To fail to acknowledge that is dishonest.
A random sampling of 1,000 people asked this question in the context of Obama’s speech in which he answered his critics concerning the plan:
Do you believe you will be forced to take the government plan or will you be allowed to keep your current one?
It’s possible you’re not a free-market proponent because you don’t understand the free market theory.
As I’ve mentioned at least NINE times now, when the government funds an alternative, it’s no longer a freee market competition.
Based on that repetition, I wonder why you’d continue to offer this canard up as argument?
Hey I remember you. You still have that silly argument? That’s kinda weird dude. You called it violence last time.
Are public schools the use of force? The fire department? Are firemen agents of an absuive society? What about social security is that the use of force? What about medicare and medicare?
Is Canada an aggresive culture?
Many of us Americans who have dealt with HMO’s think that’s what they provide now, but far worse.
The Republicans’ plans might have a little more credibility if they included some actual numbers, btw.
Which answer would demonstrate that my theory is correct?
Ahem. Scroll up. I briefly summarized your disconnect with reality on that point.
When you say what’s wrong with that, in a logical way, it will be the FIRST time.:rolleyes:
BTW, this “16 of 20” shit is now well beyond pathetic. But not as much as your desperation in trying to prop up yet another silly Gotcha with this:
The issue for most participants here is whether UHC should be a right and, if so, how to best implement it. If the issue for you is instead, as you say, how to find a way to call Obama a liar in a way that 16 out of 20 people might not consider foolish, then you shouldn’t wonder at the lack of support you’re getting.
And of those 9 times you fail to specify, then defend why it’s a bad thing.
Say they can’t compete, what then? Will the sky fall down?
I can’t understand why any educated person would describe our government’s taxation and services as a use of force. Seriously, it’s ignorant, it’s inflammatory and it makes your associated arguments laughable.
Just because you hear an angry conservative talk-show host say it, doesn’t mean that it’s actually an intelligent or insightful idea. In fact, it’s probably closer to the opposite. 
Sure, all you need to do (and you seem quite willing to do so) is to omit certain words. Like force. That the government makes a decision which is may well be more attractive to some people isn’t the government forcing anything any more than running a sale on a car forces people to buy. It’s just one piece of information among many people will have to consider, and then choose. Maybe most of the employers in the U.S truly are republican, the aggressive, slow variety. Perhaps given that they will adamantly refuse to take advantage of the program out of some kind of ethics. Either way, they aren’t forced to do one or the other. They are simply allowed to make the choice.
No more so is it the case that an employee has to remain working anywhere. That someone’s employer switches insurance doesn’t seem to be a cited reason people leave their jobs. Perhaps some will, but again, they aren’t forced to. They choose it. Obama’s words are only able to be taken in your view by selectively reading out of it exactly what he put into it.
Granted, I’m not most people, but I’m capable of seeing the difference between necessary and sufficient. That the government’s plan might be more cost effective to some employers isn’t a necessary condition to them switching. Force would be a necessary condition. Making something less expensive can be a sufficient condition. Why can’t you make that very obvious discernment?
Yes, I would.
I may be operating under the Kael mindset, but I do think people are very used to being subject to their employers’ and insurance-carrier-of-the-moments’ whims when it comes to which doctors are covered for them. I don’t think that most people would misinterpret Obama’s words in the manner that you suggest.
In every plausible context I can think of, the utterance “No one’s going to X” means either “Someone’s doing X is such a ridiculous prospect we can bet on no one doing it” or else “No one who I/we have power over is going to do X.”
I immediately, without even thinking about it, understood Obama to mean the second.
Bricker, do you advocate private police departments?
Why shouldn’t only for profit companies like Xe provide security for those that can afford it? Why shouldn’t there only be private schools? Why shouldn’t there only be private libraries?
Does it sometimes happen that private companies and public companies exist along side and do similar work?
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I didn’t address it because it wasn’t germane to the OP of the thread, which is whether or not Obama was being dishonest in his speech. If the plan he’s offering is significantly better than private plans, people are more likely to switch to his plan. If you allow someone else to choose your plan for you, they might change your plan on your behalf. That’s the nature of employer health care, and I don’t think its necessary to explicitly state this for Obama’s speech to remain honest. Any unfair advantages Obama’s plan might have over private plans is entirely unrelated to the truth-value of the speech under discussion.
To be fair, every other board is experiencing the same.
Maybe it’s a good thing. The greatest thing in the world, perhaps. I don’t know and don’t care (for the purposes of this thread, anyway).
The point is it’s a DIFFERENT thing than merely having an employer choose between two or more private companies. So you cannot meaningfully say there’s no difference between an employer switching plans in the current environment and an employer switching plans based on the availablity of government-funded health care. We may say, if we wish, “Yeah, it’s different, but it’s better, so we’re all for it!”
But we cannot say, “It’s no different!”
Each of the nine (ten, now) times I’ve mentioned this, it was to rebut a claim that it’s just the same as having employers who switch coverage now. It may well be great, but it’s not the same.
Why would employers be forced to change or eliminate health care options? I’m assuming that it’s because they could see a drop in profits, or fewer customers, etc.
However, this type of thing happens all of the time in the private industry, even without government dipping its fingers into the pot. If two companies sell competing widgets, X and Y, both companies are going to employ tactics that will (hopefully) result in their turning a higher profit.
For example, one company might start selling widget X at a loss, with a strategy to make up the lost revenue in some other way. At this point, their competitor - who sells a similar widget, Y, now with a much higher price tag - needs to figure out how they can remain competitive. Perhaps they don’t have as much money as their competitor, and thus cannot use the same tactics (selling widgets at a loss). They need to come up with a plan, or start packing their corporate bags.
Using my example above, I believe you see the government in the role of the manufacturer of widget X, potentially driving the manufacturer of widgets Y out of business, due to some sort of advantage (whether or not that advantage is fair is a separate debate).
How can private industry possibly compete with something like that? Well, I’ve always been told that innovation overwhelmingly originates in the private industry, rather than in government programs. So, perhaps they need to manufacture a widget Y that completely blows away widget X, in spite of its price point.