There are lots of reasons to object to “government run health care.”
Since the Health Care Reform Act isn’t “government run health care,” are there reason to object to it other than Obama’s race/political orientation?
Single-payer was and is the ultimate goal. The current bill is merely a foot in the door. And, as I said to Senor Beef earlier today, you most certainly know that.
And what’s with this lumping of “race” with “political orientation”? Of course a lot of people object to the health care bill because of their political orientation. Their politics tell them that government run health care is a bad thing. It has absolutely nothong to do with race, and you know that too.
Or has the left been having such a hard time getting government health care off the ground the last five or six decades simply because the citizenry knew that someday a black president would favor it? :rolleyes:
Lots of reasons to object to single-payer health care, but you knew that.
Since the Health Care Reform Act isn’t “single-payer,” are there reason to object to it other than Obama’s race/political orientation?
You also object to lumping “race” with “political orientation”? Why do you insist on lumping HCR with single-payer or government run health care.
You know HCR isn’t government run health care, so why do you object? Because some day there “might” be single payer?
As el Señor has repeatedly pointed out, this is just slippery slope rhetoric. Not worth any more response than it takes to point that out.
Sure. Because that’s exactly what we said. Word-for-word. Verbatim:
“We think the ONLY reason anyone would object to government-run health care is Obama’s race.”
Yep. That’s it. What we’ve been saying all along.
You nailed it. You have our number!
:rolleyes:
Seriously, you conservative Dopers are the WORST people I’ve ever seen for the straw man fallacy. And I spend a lot of time arguing with creationists! It got so bad with Uzi a few pages back that I just had to give up. He was doing the fingers-in-ears “la-la-la-I-am-not-listening” thing.
Oh, that is pretty rich coming from ‘blind and deaf if I don’t like what I’m reading’, Cyningablod. Going to take your ball and go home now?
:rolleyes:
No one thinks you won. Everyone is crystal clear that you’re utterly irrational. Also, no one is going to ask you to the Straight Dope Prom.
Oh, but I did win. He was so busy accusing me of strawman arguments that he didn’t see the house of cards he’d made for himself.
And the logical thing to do when someone says something you don’t mean, or misrepresents your position is to clarify it. Which in this case, I did not as the person clearly meant for Canada’s system, or one similar to it, to be the end game for health care in the US. Someone even said that it would be in place right now if ‘real’ liberals were in place.
Or will you now argue that ‘similar’ but ‘substantially different’ makes any form of logical sense? There was no qualifier in the original sentence, it was only added later. If the person had clarified with the term ‘many similarities’ I’d have let it pass and gone on with my personal anecdote. Yet what they said was essentially ‘it looks like black, but is largely white’.
And yet, the idiot didn’t even ask if I was for public health care or he’d have understood that I am. I would like to see the best of both systems rather than a politically driven agenda which automatically throws out good ideas because they don’t fit the mold. No, he assumed I was against it and I was automatically one of ‘them’. He let his politics cloud his mind and consequently lost the argument.
I envy you the time you have on your hands to try to re-fight this little battle, Uzi.
They were, you continued to claim that we upheld the Canadian system as a “Utopia”.
Many, even me, clarified that this was not so, and yet here you are again. You only are a champ at showing all how you chew the cud after chewing the straw.
Oh, really. Do you deny that the goal is to introduce a system that is ‘similar’ to Canada in the US? What do you think a goal is? Something you don’t want to achieve? Or, in this case, an ideal you do want to achieve?
But then I’ve asked these questions earlier and clarified my position but it was ignored, so I expect the same this time, too.
Assuming it is used as a fallacious argument, which in this case it clearly is not. Many recognizing the reality of this situation know a real slippery slope when they see it.
Others may wave it away. Count yourself among them. :rolleyes:
As it was mentioned before, I think there are problems, and once again, you are really dumb by ignoring that we clarified that already. Looking for a similar solution is indeed not looking to wring the bad aspects of it as a goal. In fact I think the better solutions for the US would be closer to what Germany or Switzerland has. The point remains, if I only had a choice between the American system and the Canadian I would choose the Canadian, but luckily (and unfortunately for your chew cud points) there are other solutions to contemplate.
Actually your clarifications just demonstrated that you do continue to ignore that the posters here do not want to use some “features” that are in the Canadian health care.
You are the only person here who has said it is a “goal”. Post 203 summed it up rather well.
I’ve never heard our military referred to as an entitlement before.
Are you seriously stating that your words don’t mean that the goal of the ‘real’ left isn’t a health care system like Canada’s (and for the sake of argument, I’ll give you that it could be similar to other countries)? That if they were in power they would implement a health care system radically different than what currently exists just for shits and giggles? That it would be an accident? Why would they do this if it wasn’t their goal, their objective, their vision? And I’d have to assume that because this is their goal it is something they would want to achieve, a desired outcome. And while I agree ‘utopia’ is probably too strong a word to use, the achievement should have some value in its accomplishment. What the fuck else would they do it for! Just because the ‘real’ right doesn’t want it?
On a side note: can we use this to dismiss any and all legislation with regards to abortion? Where ultimately the end goes is to make it illegal?
Or this “logical” only applied to liberal policies?
I can haz late term abortion now?
One can find anecdotes praising the public health care systems in Canada, Britain or France, and one can find anecdotes denouncing them. At the end of the day one relies on clear statistics and facts. It is a fact that the U.S.A. has the world’s best health care for people who have good insurance or HMO and the worst health care in the developed world for the millions of Americans who cannot get or afford good insurance. It is a fact that the U.S.A. spends the most per capita on health care even when the population divisor used to prepare a “per capita” number includes those who lack health care.
Blah, blah, blah.
Did we come here to debate about health care, or to debate about debating? Neither, actually; the topic is What the Fuck is wrong with today’s American right-wingers? Let me address that question.
The problem with about 97.9% of American right-wingers is that they’re poorly informed or stupid. Let’s move on. The problem with about 2% of right-wingers (those we see at SDMB) is that they hold to their sincere, partly correct beliefs without understanding that their political organization (the Republican Party) is now controlled by evil billionaires (e.g. Koch brothers) almost reminiscent of the villains from James Bond movies.
The real problem today is the remaining 0.1% of right-wingers, the evil villains who’ve attained so much power in today’s America. Consider Rupert Murdoch for example: He controls the Wall Street Journal, other important newspapers, and the Fox network. Isn’t this too much power for one man? We had laws against such concentration but those laws have been over-turned by wrong-headed Congressional and Supreme Court actions.
Despite my hatred for the modern American right-wing, I find myself in agreement with many “conservative” views. For example, I agree that the Democrats have confused themselves about their own health care plan. I see some of the mandates as counter-productive and think the real problem – high costs – was not addressed. I’m afraid the right-wing hypocrites are secretly “laughing their way to the bank” over this plan: drug and insurance companies will get increased profits at taxpayer expense, and perceived plan failure will let them say “Told ya so!” Indeed (and this is a big reason to hate the right-wing), they’re doing all they can to sabotage this plan, as they do with much “liberal” agenda.
This is the point I came into the thread to ask. The ‘liberals’ nee Democrats had a majority and fucked it up. They had no one to blame but themselves. I’ve been told that the Democrats aren’t actually liberal, but right wing (compared to the rest of the western world). So, if almost everyone in the US is right wing then almost everyone is working against an effective public health care plan. What hope do you have?
Another anecdote that will be disbelieved about the Canadian system. I’ve been off sick with the flu the last couple of days and decided to call my doctor to get an appointment to get a note for my company in case I’ll be off sick for more than 5 days.
I called the number that I have (confirmed it on the web beforehand). No humans answer the phone. My options are to show up at the clinic and stand in line with everyone else (why have a family doctor if you have to go and stand in line at the clinic?) or leave a detailed message which says they will get back to me within 24 hours. Because of the shortage of doctors, I can’t just say screw him and go somewhere else, because it would take me a long time to find another doctor and he’d have a replacement patient within minutes. No reason to have any form of customer service like being able to talk to a human to book an appointment.
But who knows. Maybe it is the same in the US, too.