70% being happy with the insurance they have now doesn’t mean they are oblivious of the problems.
Conservatives are interested in helping people and having a system that provides reasonable affordable health care. They are understandably skeptical of a government run system , especially if a significant part of that system means too many working people will get their health care paid for by other working people. THat’s how they see the liberal Democrats IMHO.
OTOH, there’s no reason to wait. Put a system in place and be willing to acknowledge problems and imperfections and address them. The public will respect a leader more who takes a stand.
Right. Tell it like it is. The Pubbies that want to actually get something done to help the American public can participate {I’m looking at you Ms Snowe} and deserve credit and accolades for doing so… Those that are determined to be obstructionists and will sacrifice the welfare of their constituents for political points can stand in the corner and bitch. The Dems should aggressively use the obstructionist angle.
Since our health care costs are doubling every decade and is being watered down more and more, it is hard to find a reasonable person who does not think it needs dramatic change. I have good coverage ,fuck you, does not solve the problem. Nor does it address the rising costs and lowering of coverage Families are losing their homes due to health coverage problems. Someone in the family gets sick and the result is bankruptcy and foreclosure. How can that be allowed?
This debate is revealing of the American character. Are we short term thinking selfish bastards who do not care about our fellow Americans? Can we just say tough shit, it isn’t my problem? Apparently many can. But it may well be your problem in the future. Perhaps you know you and your family will never get seriously ill. The rest of us are not so sure.
I just sat down with a conservative friend who is very libertarian. He’s concerned about personal responsibility and where that is going in this country. He could support single payer if the same thing was required from all citizens. His issue is him being required to pay more so that others can pay nothing. I see that quite a bit in hard working good conservatives. It’s not that they don’t want to help others.
It’s not I got mine and screw you for them. It’s I work hard for mine and I don’t mind sharing, but I want some reassurance that something is required of those I’m being told to share with. I don’t fault that attitude.
Well, I do. Why the presumption? Why the automatic presumption that the undeserving will gnaw upon them. Hell, the undeserving are already feasting upon us, they just happen to have nice suits and spreadsheets. I don’t much care for welfare queens in Cadillacs, either, and I would be really pissed if anyone could show me they actually exist.
But greedy corporados definitely do exist, and they are giving us all a jolly good rogering. What, in the name of bleeding Og, makes them so deserving of my generosity.
If we refuse progress because some asshole is going to take unfair advantage, we engage ourselves in a stunning, galactic hypocrisy. Come right down to it, I prefer the poor and disadvantaged dishonest asshole.
Greed and poverty both provoke unethical behavior. Difference is, we can fix poverty, but greed goes right to the bone.
“Which of the following three statements comes closest to expressing your overall view of the health care system in the United States? (1) On the whole, the health care system works pretty well and only minor changes are necessary to make it work better. OR, (2) There are some good things in our health care system, but fundamental changes are needed. OR, (3) Our health care system has so much wrong with it that we need to completely rebuild it.”
Minor changes: 19%
Fundamental Changes: 51%
Complete Overhaul: 27%
Unsure: 8%
So despite the number of people “satisifed” with their health care, a majority agree that we need at least fundamental changes and 78% believe we need fundamental or complete changes.
People also trust Obama over the GOP on health care by 25 points. Despite their confusion (59% say they are confused by proposed changes), the foundation is there – trust for the president and belief that we need fundamental changes. Shift those “Don’t know enough” to the “Support” (which already has a lead on Opposes) and you’re golden. Although I don’t think this will really be possible until a single bill starts to form up and the Democrats can say “This is what’s in the bill”.
You’re not operating on the same idea of “undeserving” that conservatives do. Big business deserves whatever profit it can make because it is in a position to invest back into the economy, create jobs, boost the market, etc. Whether it actually does these things is not relevant; they are in the position to do so, and so they deserve the profits - regardless of how responsible they are to society, or even to the economy.
I suspect that hands-off attitude comes in part from a Calvinist religious heritage, which teaches that fortunate people are already God’s favorites, and if you are less fortunate, it’s your own flawed soul that’s responsible. This very easily translates from “soul” to “character,” and can be used in politics without obvious religious overtones.
I agree with this sentiment, which is why I say that I lean Right. But, the truth of the matter is that nearly everyone works a 40 hour week. Nearly everyone who is unemployed is between jobs or actively looking for a new job. The number of people who truly are just living on handouts is statistically insignificant, so basing your policy around sticking it to them is really just bowing to a self-created straw man.
If Andrew makes more money than Bob, it’s not because Andrew works harder or longer hours, it’s generally because Andrew is smarter. He is able to utilize his time more wisely, and he is able to adapt to changing circumstances better.
Essentially, people who have a consistently low wage aren’t the sort to plan ahead and be prepared for emergencies. They spend their money on beer and porn instead of on health insurance. They are working and earning the money that should be used to keep them healthy, they’re just not using it for that. Personally, I’d rather enforce that they do pay their bit, taking it out of their wage before they spend it on beer, but that’s getting into government nannyism. So really the debate is about whether stupid people should be forced to do things in their own interest or left to screw themselves over. It’s not terribly clear that the price tag on either of those options is all that different, so it comes more down to ones level of cynicism.
Let’s forget about the Republicans for a minute. Is there a proposal that can muster a majority of Democratic Congresscritters’ votes? If so, does that plan really do very much?
Nonsense. Being smarter doesn’t mean you make more money. We do not live in some sort of intelligence based meritocracy.
And again one big sneer at the common people. It can’t possibly be that they just don’t have the money. It can’t be that they are denied due to “pre-existing conditions”. It can’t be because they are being “Screwed over” by someone else and not themselves. No, it’s because they are stupid and lazy.
I doubt it. As I said; they are spineless and corrupt. A useful plan would require them to stand up to the Republicans and the medical/insurance industry, and the Democrats don’t seem capable of that. They’ve pretty much demonstrated that they are incapable of accomplishing much even when handed an overwhelming advantage.
Hey, I’m arguing using the Democrats’ logic. You might not personally voice it in those terms, but that’s just being dishonest to yourself.
Conservative = People are lazy
Liberal = People are stupid
Centrist = People are stupid AND lazy
Let’s look at some numbers though. I can get, in Washington state, health insurance for $80 a month. I can get dental insurance for a further $15.
Average spending on alcohol, by the poor, is about $96.50 a month. Tap water is, comparatively, free. 1/3rd of the poor smoke, spending about another $100 per month on smoking. Not smoking is entirely free. The average poor person pays about $50 a month to gamble. Not gambling is also entirely free. Adding those up and you can easily afford health and dental insurance. Not just the entry level ones either.
I assume you have a cite about anyone, regardless of health, or age, being able to get health insurance for health plus dental for $95? You’ll provide a cite for this ya?
If it’s only the price for a few, and not the majority of poor, it’s a bullshit red herring.
I look forward to your cite, with baited breath.
Also 2/3 of poor don’t smoke, using your cite, and basic math.
Why do you think the minority represents the majority (for reference 2/3 >1/2)?
does your numbers include what percent of what poor drink what levels? I mean there’s lies, damned lies, and statistics. One dedicated wino could make 20 people who never touched a drop, look like they have a major drinking problem if you averaged them out for a month.
Same with gambling. I never gamble, waste of money. From your cite’s gambling section:
In other words Joe Factory who got a scratchier on payday for fun is being lumped in with Jack Vongamblingproblem down the street, and me who wouldn’t even have bought the scratchier.
Hmm so apparently that $50 quote isn’t reflective of most of the poor then, huh?
Nonsense. Liberals think that the common people are being victimized by the rich and powerful; not that they are stupid.
And the conservatives think that the common people are stupid, evil and lazy, and deserve to be exploited and punished. Unless they themselves are common people, in which case it’s the OTHER common people who are; they themselves aren’t, and would prosper if it wasn’t for the blacks/Jews/gays/hippies/Antichrist.
No idea. But theoretically people get health insurance when they are young and healthy, and simply keep it from then-on.
I don’t. What part of “1/3rd” was unclear? Why do you feel that the 1/3rd was necessary to my argument, assuming that you can add $96.50 and $50 just fine?
This is true, but it’s also true that some poor people have health insurance. It’s probably likely that the poor who drink and gamble more have less or no insurance. I doubt there is such a study as that, but for certain half of the poor are insured.
Dude, that planet you’re living on right now must be awful.
Here on Earth a gigantic majority of conservatives most strongly disagree with your statement. Most conservatives think that blacks/Jews/gays/hippies/Antichrist simply have to take personal responsibility, even when they (rightfully) need government help.
Most of the developed nations already have UHC, they still pay less per GDP than the US does. The savings do not happen immediately, they happen when one takes into account what would be paying if no change had taken place.
