Poll -- BO's Health Bill. Do you support it?

No

TheBigBean Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I know nothing about this, but am interested why > so many people oppose something so accepted across > most of the developed world. Is it: > - that universal health care is considered a good > thing, but that the current proposal is not liked? > In which case isnā€™t it better to have something > now and refine later? > - that compulsory insurance infringes some civil > liberty? But what about any taxation, such as > paying for the military? > > Any quick answers would be appreciated. The Republican party is no longer ā€œconservativeā€ in the usual sense of the word. Iā€™m not even sure how to describe them any more, and unfortunately, Iā€™ve got some family members who lean very strongly that way. I would like to point out to them that what is good for the News Corporation and Rush Limbaugh is not necessarily good for the United States, but I donā€™t think theyā€™d pay attention. Iā€™m a firm believer that a centrist government that combines the best parts of the left and the right, while doing away with the stupidities, is the best kind of government. I donā€™t know much about the minutiate of this bill, but I understand it to be pretty centrist. So I support the bill. And as an American, I find it appalling that a bill that would largely pay for itself and provide health insurance to millions of Americans is a tougher political challenge than clearing the way for a $1 trillion-plus war against a two-bit dictator based on the flimsiest of evidence. And as a financial analyst, itā€™s apparent which one has the highest NPV. But those are the times we live inā€¦

PtrainerNY Wrote: > The US system is (or as of today) the best in the > world. No one is denied care. Is it perfect? Noā€¦ > But what is perfect? Who told you that? Have you ever been outside the country? We are ranked 37th in healthcareā€¦just below Senegal. You may not be denied but will end up going broke. Oh BTW I would have much rather preferred a public option.

frisian Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > TheBigBean Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I know nothing about this, but am interested > why > > so many people oppose something so accepted > across > > most of the developed world. Is it: > > - that universal health care is considered a > good > > thing, but that the current proposal is not > liked? > > In which case isnā€™t it better to have something > > now and refine later? > > - that compulsory insurance infringes some > civil > > liberty? But what about any taxation, such as > > paying for the military? > > > > Any quick answers would be appreciated. > > > The Republican party is no longer ā€œconservativeā€ > in the usual sense of the word. Iā€™m not even sure > how to describe them any more, and unfortunately, > Iā€™ve got some family members who lean very > strongly that way. I would like to point out to > them that what is good for the News Corporation > and Rush Limbaugh is not necessarily good for the > United States, but I donā€™t think theyā€™d pay > attention. > > Iā€™m a firm believer that a centrist government > that combines the best parts of the left and the > right, while doing away with the stupidities, is > the best kind of government. I donā€™t know much > about the minutiate of this bill, but I understand > it to be pretty centrist. So I support the bill. > > And as an American, I find it appalling that a > bill that would largely pay for itself and provide > health insurance to millions of Americans is a > tougher political challenge than clearing the way > for a $1 trillion-plus war against a two-bit > dictator based on the flimsiest of evidence. And > as a financial analyst, itā€™s apparent which one > has the highest NPV. > > But those are the times we live inā€¦ x2ā€¦the media brainwashing is unbelievable. Murdoch has done a fine job perfecting propaganda to an art. I wonder if his mentor and idol was Goebbels?

Add me to the ā€œNOā€ list. Itā€™s just a step towards the ultimate goal of nationalized health care. Canā€™t wait for November.

I will make this easy: NO!!

No. Echoing the thoughts of steph96.

noā€¦

So whatā€™s wrong with nationalized healthcare? Sure beats the gouging thats going on right now. Yeah I canā€™t wait for Nov either.

NO

YES.

Yes.

marcus phoenix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > frisian Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > TheBigBean Wrote: > > > > > x2ā€¦the media brainwashing is unbelievable. > Murdoch has done a fine job perfecting propaganda > to an art. I wonder if his mentor and idol was > Goebbels? But what is the substance of the propoganda? It has to be more than ā€œan old lady once died of something somewhere in the rest of the world?ā€ There are too many lawyers in the US for that to be a serious issue. There surely has to be some sort of argument against.

Yes I am happy the bill passed, because if the government cannot address long term problems even with a total majority then there is little chance anything will ever get done. We need a functioning government that is able to look somewhat past the next election cycle in order to get anything done. The public at large always wants low taxes and no cuts in social services, and the politics of appeasing these unsustainable views has gone on long enough. I am actually happy to see an unpopular bill passed, because it means it can be done and somebody has the cojones to do it. Iā€™m independent, largely because I think the two partiesā€™ blind partisanship and sole focus on the next election is a big part of what is wrong with the system. To quote Ronald Reagan, ā€œDo we tell Americans to give up hope, that their ship of state lies dead in the water because those entrusted with manning that ship canā€™t agree on which sail to raise?ā€ Please everybody, whoever you vote for elect moderate in the next cycle. The US has a lot that needed to be done a long time ago and a refusal to compromise is not a sign of strength in this situation, it is the major problem with the way politics is conducted. I am glad the bill was passed, however ugly the process and end result, because it may signal that we are ready to at least start to address the financial state of the US. That means looking at the long term problems of social security, heath care costs/medicare, the national debt, etc. The wait and hope and do nothing BS has gone on long enough.

TheBigBean Wrote: > But what is the substance of the propoganda? It > has to be more than ā€œan old lady once died of > something somewhere in the rest of the world?ā€ > There are too many lawyers in the US for that to > be a serious issue. There surely has to be some > sort of argument against. Since when does propoganda have to have substance? Itā€™s all about using image and verbal repetition to inculcate a Pavlovian response among a set of people. The right wing media is very good at creating labels and pins them on anything it wants its adherents to attack. It used to be that ā€œliberalā€ was a dirty enough word to get the Republican base riled up, but theyā€™ve had to escalate with the emergence of Obama. Hence the repeated use of ā€œsocialismā€ and ā€œcommunismā€ with regard to what is a rather centrist bill.

Does anyone have a coles notes type of link that I can use to read up on this? Iā€™m an ignorant Canadian who doesnā€™t really follow American politics. Thanks in advance.

marcus phoenix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So whatā€™s wrong with nationalized healthcare? Sure > beats the gouging thats going on right now. Yeah I > canā€™t wait for Nov either. Yes, the current price gouging sucks. I donā€™t think anybody would argue that except for doctors and medical insurance professionals. However, the ā€œnewā€ health care plan is not going to do anything about that. It is just making coverage available to those who currently do not posses it and layer on layer upon layer of bureaucracy.

eureka Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes > > I am happy the bill passed, because if the > government cannot address long term problems even > with a total majority then there is little chance > anything will ever get done. We need a > functioning government that is able to look > somewhat past the next election cycle in order to > get anything done. The public at large always > wants low taxes and no cuts in social services, > and the politics of appeasing these unsustainable > views has gone on long enough. I am actually > happy to see an unpopular bill passed, because it > means it can be done and somebody has the cojones > to do it. Iā€™m independent, largely because I > think the two partiesā€™ blind partisanship and sole > focus on the next election is a big part of what > is wrong with the system. To quote Ronald Reagan, > ā€œDo we tell Americans to give up hope, that their > ship of state lies dead in the water because those > entrusted with manning that ship canā€™t agree on > which sail to raise?ā€ > > Please everybody, whoever you vote for elect > moderate in the next cycle. The US has a lot that > needed to be done a long time ago and a refusal to > compromise is not a sign of strength in this > situation, it is the major problem with the way > politics is conducted. I am glad the bill was > passed, however ugly the process and end result, > because it may signal that we are ready to at > least start to address the financial state of the > US. That means looking at the long term problems > of social security, heath care costs/medicare, the > national debt, etc. The wait and hope and do > nothing BS has gone on long enough. Bravo. I consider myself a centrist who votes Democratic out of intellectual self-defense. Nothing would make me happier than a bunch of moderate Republicans and moderate Democrats working together with the input of some serious policy experts (not lobbyists) to set a better course for this country. There are many, many tough decisions to be made, and they will need to be made by members of both parties. And FYI, I think Obama would love that too.

Score update: Yes=9 No=22

mep_cfaā€™10 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > marcus phoenix Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > So whatā€™s wrong with nationalized healthcare? > Sure > > beats the gouging thats going on right now. Yeah > I > > canā€™t wait for Nov either. > > > Yes, the current price gouging sucks. I donā€™t > think anybody would argue that except for doctors > and medical insurance professionals. However, the > ā€œnewā€ health care plan is not going to do anything > about that. It is just making coverage available > to those who currently do not posses it and layer > on layer upon layer of bureaucracy. I would have preferred a simple public option instead. At least removal of the pre-existing condition clause and prohibiting insurance companies from dropping sick people off their rolls and denying treatment is a step in the right direction.