(08-19-2009 11:44 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(08-19-2009 11:20 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  their next step was to try to marginalize things--astroturf, bought off by the insurance companies, lies, carrying swastikas and guns, nut cases who are going to kill someone, etc. By ratcheting up the hyperbole,

I guess here's where we disagree. I would argue that it's people carrying guns and swastikas, carrying pictures of Obama as Hitler who are ratcheting the hyberbole, not those complaining about it. And before you complain about generalizing from a few nutcases, let's remember Rush Limbaugh is comparing Obama to the Nazis, Palin is saying Obama wants to kill her baby, and Sen. Grassley is saying Obama "wants to pull the plug on Grandma". Are Republicans allowed to say crazy #$%* with impunity, but pointing out that it's crazy is "hyperbole"?

Of course Obama doesn't want any of those things to happen.

The problem is that rationed health care is a potential, ultimate consequence of using public funding to set up a system managed by a bureacracy. Some would say inevitable.

However, since we live in a time when even the Congressmen MAKING the laws don't bother to even READ what they're voting on, it is difficult to for people to sound a warning like:

"WHOA people, this sounds good, but what are the consequences 5, 10, 15 years down the road."

and expect to get any attention when our whole stinking society can tell you more about the latest reality show (Jon and Kate) than what Congress is doing.

Hence Hannity, Rush, etc, use hyperbole to try and get the public to sit up and take notice. Is that right, maybe not.

But frankly it's all some people react to.

The people who set up Social Security and Medicare didn't envision those institutions being broke one day, or everything that entails.

Rick,

I think you've touched on an important point.
Unfortunately, it's the wackos on both sides that get people's attention, not reasoned debate.

http://www.star-telegram.com/245/story/1544948.html

The most intriguing past of the story to me is this:

A recent Daily Mail editorial praised the NHS for its free care and universal availability, but then added, "Our survival rates for breast, prostate, ovarian and lung cancers are among the worst in Europe, despite huge additional expenditures." Free is nice, but best is better.

(08-19-2009 02:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Rick,

I think you've touched on an important point.
Unfortunately, it's the wackos on both sides that get people's attention, not reasoned debate.

Bottom line - If Congress can't be bothered to READ any legislation, why would anyone think they have the time or inclination to consider opposition (reasoned or otherwise) . . . .

And what would lead me to believe they are bothering to stop and consider what this all could morph into 5, 10 or 30 years down the road, when our deficits might be worse, our populaton doubled, and Social Security long bankrupt, but being subsidized by more taxes.

Maybe companies who operate with a profit motive can't be trusted completely.

But certainly politicians whose motives are to stay in power should be trusted even less.

(08-19-2009 12:22 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I would say that both sides are engaging in hyperbole. Unlike you, I'm not willing to give either side a pass simply because I agree with them. That may be easier for me because I don't really agree with either side.

Let me put it to you this way. I'm not carrying guns and swastikas, I'm not carrying a picture of Obama as Hitler, and for that matter I have said from the start of the whole birther thing that it was stupid because even if he was born in Kenya he's still a natural-born citizen. I haven't been bought off by any insurance company, nor have I received any astroturf literature. You can't marginalize me as belonging to any of the wacko groups. I oppose Obamacare, in any of the forms I have seen so far, because I believe it will do far more harm than good. I have even made it clear what specific approach I support, based generally upon what is considered the best health care system in the world, so you cannot marginalize me as just saying no.

Do you really believe that Obama or Reid or Pelosi or Frank is interested in having a serious, frank discussion with me about this issue? Any republican? You?

I guess I’m just not seeing something that the Dems have done that they need “a pass” on – the basic outlines of the reform program have been debated since the primaries, then the general election. (Clinton and Obama’s plans were very similar.) Obama/Dems won quite handily. They are now trying to implement policies they have been discussing for well over two years and with which they won an election. You may not like those policies, but I don’t see where the “ramming it down our throats” feeling comes from. The policies a government implements often reflect the policies the winning party ran on. That’s what’s happening. (Really, I think the bigger problem is when politicians DON’T do what they campaigned on.)

As far as policy - I haven’t tried to marginalize you for disagreeing with it, I’m not sure where that comes from. It’s not actually my preference either; I’d prefer either single-payer or something like the French system. This seems to me to be the Dems trying to do what’s feasible politically. I’d like to get rid of the employer based system, I think it’s highly inefficient and problematic. But getting rid of the employer based system is politically a non-starter, as is single-payer. I think something like the French system is also a non-starter, for the reasons I mentioned earlier. I think a robust public option could later be morphed into single-payer or something like the French system. Or alternatively, if no public option is included, later Medicare could be expanded to cover all, and those who want can get gap insurance a la France. I know you think the two (France and Canada) are vastly different, but to me the largest difference is the ease with which those with money can jump to the front of the queue or get better care. Part of me doesn’t like that, but if the “free” part is sufficient, I think there is some trickle down from the top notch care for the elite. They’ve struck a good balance.

I do actually think the French system is to the left of the Obama program and would be a much more radical departure. It provides universal basic care to everyone paid for by taxes. If that’s not socialism, what is? :) Unfortunately, I think that’s why the Republicans would oppose it just as strongly here.

Another reason it would meet opposition:
“To make all this affordable, France reimburses its doctors at a far lower rate than U.S. physicians would accept. However, French doctors don't have to pay back their crushing student loans because medical school is paid for by the state, and malpractice insurance premiums are a tiny fraction of the $55,000 a year and up that many U.S. doctors pay.”

Would American doctors accept having to drive Accords instead of Mercedes? : )

In any case it’s a good article from the Lefties at Businessweek.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/con...042070.htm

(08-19-2009 03:13 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I guess I’m just not seeing something that the Dems have done that they need “a pass” on – the basic outlines of the reform program have been debated since the primaries, then the general election. (Clinton and Obama’s plans were very similar.) Obama/Dems won quite handily. They are now trying to implement policies they have been discussing for well over two years and with which they won an election. You may not like those policies, but I don’t see where the “ramming it down our throats” feeling comes from. The policies a government implements often reflect the policies the winning party ran on. That’s what’s happening. (Really, I think the bigger problem is when politicians DON’T do what they campaigned on.)

Hmm?

1. Do you really believe the 2008 election was a referendum on health care?

I see the 2008 election factors as this, in no particular order:

1. Horrible economic news, likened by some to the Depression.
2. Historic candidacy by a charismatic, bright, young candidate
3. Aftertaste from 2003-2005 Iraq (i.e., so much negative press for so long, that improvements in the 2007-2008 time frame were immaterial)

But you do underscore the fear that people have over this, and this is what this whole thread started about.

This election was decided for many reasons, but policy implementation was not the deciding factor in any way shape or form.

Now that the election is over, the ramifications of the election are becoming clearer, and it's less about the historic candidacy or the economy, it's now about "the referendum we had on health care".

If it isn't clear I'll spell it out.

The left sees the election and their total control of Congress as a chance to declare "victory" and start implementing policy that obviously the conservatives don't want, but also that a large portion of the middle of the road Amercans never realized they were voting on.

They were voting on advertising ('change'), charisma, youth and 'anyone but Bush'.

And they could tell you Jon and Kate's kids names, but not one single stinking policy plank in the Democrats platform.

Do you understand why a lot of people are scared?

It's exactly what you just claimed in your post:

"We won, we have a majority, this is what you you wanted, get ready to accept it, ready or not".

Horse hockey, to coin a phrase.

There are any number of things that the democrats need "a pass" on--and if you had a shred of objectivity in your viewpoint you would see that. In the context of this discussion, the protesters at TEA parties and town halls have been grossly mischaracterized by Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Frank, and just about everyone else, in an obvious attempt to marginalize them in order to avoid having to address their legitimate criticisms. We could go on, but that will do for now.

Canada is a single-payer system. UK is a single-provider (NHS) system. Both of them are trying to get more free market elements back into their systems, because they have recognized there are places where the single-payer or single-provider approach simply doesn't work. France has essentially a universal system (99.9% coverage) but it is neither a single-payer nor a single-provider model. The French derisively refer to the UK and Canadian systems as--guess what--"socialized medicine."

Universal systems do a better job of delivering basic health care to a widespread population than does our current system.
Universal systems do a worse job of delivering more advanced and elective services to those who need them than does our current system.

The French use a universal model to deliver basic services and rely on a system similar to ours to provide more advanced and elective services. I would describe the French system as more of a free-market system than what we have. In particular, by getting supplemental health insurance away from the monopoly/monopsony situation imposed by employer-based health insurance, they create opportunities for more innovation and competition in the supplemental insurance market.

I agree that the employer-based scheme of providing health insurance is a bad one. Where we disagree is your apparent belief that government can do a better job than the private sector. I see no reason to believe that.

Unlike you, I believe it is a good thing for those who wish to spend their money on health care to be able to jump to the front of the queue. The alternative is "death panels," whether you want to believe that or not. You have to allocate scarce resources to maintain any control over cost; you can allocate by money or you can allocate by fiat. There simply isn't any other way. And I don't know about you, but if one means that I have to spend money on health care instead of something else that I wanted, and the other means that I have to suck Barney Frank's you-know-what to get onto the A list, I definitely go for the former.

As for French docs, my mom's surgeon drives a 450SEL and lives in a condo where the cheapest unit is 800,000 Euros, and her anasthesiologist is a 50-something woman that in two weeks I saw easily $20,000 worth of clothes on her. They're doing just fine, in part because the French have a much more logical approach to malpractice and medical education.

(08-19-2009 03:53 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  Hmm?

1. Do you really believe the 2008 election was a referendum on health care?

I see the 2008 election factors as this, in no particular order:

1. Horrible economic news, likened by some to the Depression.
2. Historic candidacy by a charismatic, bright, young candidate
3. Aftertaste from 2003-2005 Iraq (i.e., so much negative press for so long, that improvements in the 2007-2008 time frame were immaterial)

But you do underscore the fear that people have over this, and this is what this whole thread started about.

This election was decided for many reasons, but policy implementation was not the deciding factor in any way shape or form.

Now that the election is over, the ramifications of the election are becoming clearer, and it's less about the historic candidacy or the economy, it's now about "the referendum we had on health care".

If it isn't clear I'll spell it out.

The left sees the election and their total control of Congress as a chance to declare "victory" and start implementing policy that obviously the conservatives don't want, but also that a large portion of the middle of the road Amercans never realized they were voting on.

They were voting on advertising ('change'), charisma, youth and 'anyone but Bush'.

And they could tell you Jon and Kate's kids names, but not one single stinking policy plank in the Democrats platform.

Do you understand why a lot of people are scared?

It's exactly what you just claimed in your post:

"We won, we have a majority, this is what you you wanted, get ready to accept it, ready or not".

Horse hockey, to coin a phrase.

Interesting. So when W got into office based on a court decision after losing the popular vote and shifted at least as hard to to right as Obama is to the left (I'd argue much harder than Obama, but don't want to debate that here) that was OK, but when the Dems win in a landslide, it's not OK to implement a major cornerstone of their platform? And, yes it WAS a major cornerstone of his campaign.

Oh but wait, I see, the election shouldn’t count because us Obama supporters are just too stupid and ignorant to know what we actually voted for. We should let Republicans determine what we actually voted on. And then you guys complain about the tone of these discussions. Whatever.

In any case, the Dems have spent the last several months negotiating with Grassley, et al. only to have Grassley go out and claim Obama wants to pull the plug on grandma and then admit that he won’t vote for the bill *even if they give him all the concessions he’s asking for*. You can’t complain about lack of compromise when the R’s have determined that they will vote “No” no matter what. They will probably kill the public option and we’ll have modest health insurance reform, which will help some people but not get at the core problems.

You want to talk about people that are scared? I have a cousin with a pre-existing condition who can’t get health insurance, and she’s not even 30 yet. She’s considered leaving the country to one that won’t treat her like complete @#$%. Another family we know is facing bankruptcy because they have a sick child who needs special care. They are, sorry - were, a middle class family with health insurance but the company went under and they have to pay COBRA, which is more than they can handle. My wife and her friends have been doing bake sales and charity auctions for them to keep them from going under. Why do we need to treat people like that in the wealthiest nation on earth?

(08-19-2009 02:03 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-19-2009 10:10 AM)FDub Owl Wrote:  

(08-18-2009 11:09 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(08-18-2009 03:28 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-18-2009 02:31 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

(08-18-2009 02:07 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  I don't own a gun, but I don't presume that the mere presence of a gun would preclude civil debate. To some extent, I would hope that it would guarantee it.

wut?

I have been to poker games that had guns on the table, and many others where I knew that some players had guns either on their person or in their cars.

I have been to poker games that had people being rude to each other, agruing with each other and that eventually erupted in violence.

They were not the same games. Sometimes the presence of firearms restains people from extreme behavior. I think this is what Rick meant.

As for me, I would prefer that no firearms would be taken to a town hall meeting. If they are, i hope they are in the possesion of people licensed to carry them. I would worry more about any firearms in the possesion of Acorn/SEIU members.

thank you

Why are you worried about Acorn members with guns? Does the second amendment only apply to those that you agree with? Am I to understand that it is not the presence of guns that you feel would help civilize the debate, but rather the presence of guns held by the people you agree with? If a group of Black Panthers showed up at these protests armed with assault rifles, would Republicans feel that it helped keep the debate civil, or would they, like Reagan did in California in the 60's, support and sign a bill making such previously legal behavior, illegal.

In my opinion, the angry shouting by both sides, the Hitler posters and the threats, don't add much of anything to the debate. However, I would hope that we could all agree that persons showing up around town hall meetings with assault rifles does not help the discussion on what are very hot button topics. Showing up with a gun, in my opinion, is done for one reason and one reason only - intimidation (actually 2 reasons I guess, as it appears that one of the gun toters was sent as a radio prank). I don't remember the Republicans talking in terms of ensuring civilized discourse when the armed black panthers showed up at the polls in November to "ensure" voting rights were not being violated. In fact, they railed against it as an intimidation tactic, despite the fact that it was perfectly legal. For the record, I thought these actions were ridiculous and counter productive. I wouldn't propose to try to stop anybody from acting within the law, but, again, I would hope that people from both sides could agree that it is not adding positively to the discourse.

Let me add that I, in no way, believe that the actions of these people represent all of Republicans. I am a Democrat that has lived my entire life in Texas and support and vote for Republicans all the time. To use a worn out phrase, "hell, most of my best friends are Republican." What disappoints me, is not that I think it is representative of all Republicans, but rather the fact that many, many Republicans (elected officials, conservative media, and the general public) are not distancing from it, and in fact seem to be embracing it, celebrating it, and finding excuses for it. I know, I know, not the first time for either party, but disappointing none the less.

While I think this board is pretty good about disagreeing without being disagreeable, I do think, at times, some posters can come off as someone who just can't believe that someone who believes differently could be so damn stupid. I would hope that we could all agree that no matter how smart we think we are, there is always someone smarter on the other side who feels as strongly for the issue/policy/etc. as you do against it. And that should be enough to keep the debate civil and not dismissive.

First, I said would be MORE worried about ACORN members with guns. FTR, I am also MORE scared of ACORN/SEIU protesters without guns. Their vehemance for their side/against opposition is scary to me.
Second, I said I would prefer no firearms be taken to a town hall meeting. This statement was NOT abridged to say that I wanted only one side to have guns, and any reading of that that leads you to that conclusion springs from your own mind.
Third, I said that if guns are taken to these meetings I hope they would be carried by those licensed to do so, and once again, I did not limit this to one side (or the other), and any reading that that is what I meant once again springs from your own mind.
Fourth, i never advocated the bringing of assault rifles. Once again.. but maybe you get the picture.
Fifth, I said nothing of the Black Panthers. I hope this was not thrown in to make me a racist, (I really don't think it was, but why bring race into this at all?) but if so, it is not the first time that the Pro-healthcare advocates has tried to make it out that opponents are just a bunch of racists.
Sixth, my statement was that "sometimes the presence of firearms restains people from extreme behavior. A: "Sometimes" B: I gave examples from my own experience to support this. Where is my error?

I know people that have concealed carry permits, and when i meet them for coffee at a restaurant, the gun is not there for intimidation - it is there for self-protection and because it is always there. Once again, your interpretation of why a gun would be there comes from...you guessed it. You opinion is yours, and that is fine, but I can disagree and have disagreed, and that is my right, too. I don't think that you are one of those you mention who believes that someone who disagrees with you must be damn stupid, but I disagree, so draw your own conclusions.

I hope the "some posters" does not refer to me. If it does, let's meet for coffee and talk this out. (I live in your area). I don't have a CC permit and won't bring a gun, if that has you worried. If you have a CC permit, feel free to bring yours.

I agree that a lot things don't help the debate. Besides the things you listed, I would include statements about "undereducated" people, people who "just can't stand that a black man is in the White House", Astroturf, swastikas, and other demeaning statements. Unfortunately, many of these are coming from Pelosi, Maddow, Oberman, and top Obama officials and elected Democrats. Any statement that demonizes one side and angelicizes the other is very likely wrong. But that is what we are getting. The country is more polarized than i can remember since the 60's.

A great example of why I often read, but do not post in "The Quad". I'm not very good at it. Other than the comment about ACORN, my post was entirely meant to be a general post regarding the health care debate and political debate in general. It was not addressed to any one poster. I did a poor job of making that clear. If I mischaracterized your posts or implied that the rest of my post was directed at you or any other poster, I apologize.

I used your example of ACORN, because, frankly, it allowed me to discuss that much of the public outrage in today's world is driven by what side the protestor is on and not the specific issue (i.e. counting votes is only important if I feel that counting the votes will help my side win). My favorite example was during the Florida recount where the D's and the R's were using each other's arguments for/against absentee votes depending on whether the absentee ballets were from the military or from citizens living abroad. The exact same arguments, only switched depending on which group's votes they wanted counted or not counted. I used the examples of the 1960's black panthers and the 2008 black panthers as examples of when Republicans were outraged by the presence of guns brought to public meetings (I got a little kick out of the fact that it involved Reagon wanting to limit the gun rights of US citizens).

I have no doubt that you and the others on this board have numerous and legitimate issues with the proposed health care reform. I know this because I have numerous and legitimate issues with it as well, and I am of the opinion that the system is broken and needs to be overhauled. I do not have a problem with people disagreeing. My problem is with the people who manufacture outrage. This goes for both sides. I have grown tired of people being outraged for the sake of being outraged. My use of the black panthers was not trying to inject race into the issue, it was historical. It was two examples I could think of where the issue was flipped and the reaction was flipped. I am just as tired of Democrats feigning anger over the presence of the guns at these protests, when I have a strong suspicion that they would have been or were in full support of it when the shoe was on the other foot.

There are too many legitimate issues to be addressed to get sidetracked by the feigned, uniformed, or unreasonable outrage. Is it okay to be outraged that "obamacare", if implimented would fundamentally change the system in a way that someone feels would damage the United States? Absolutley. Is it reasonable to show that outrage by comparing the President to Hitler and stating that he is proposing "Death Panels"? In my opinion, no. It wasn't okay a year ago to compare Bush to Hitler and it's not okay now. As for the "Death Panels", I have a problem with Grassly voting for end of life counseling as part of Medicare, but now going out and campaigning against the bill because of similar legislation, only now they are "death panels"?

I made my post not trying to convince anyone I was right about the health care debate and that Republicans were wrong. Remember, I am a Democrat in Texas - I have already been told how wrong I usually am on these issues. My point was more about how we have, as a nation, been drawn offsides on these important issues, so that we end up debating the stuff that will polarize the population and will do nothing to actually come up with any solutions. I in no way am trying to keep people from posting opinions I disagree with. If I wasn't interested in opinions that I disagreed with, I would not read The Quad and would instead spend my time in the blogs of the left pinko communist websites. Of course I would probably not agree with them either.

I apologize in advance as I am sure that my poorly worded response unintentionally mischaracterized or wrongfully implied something that I did not intend for it to. Finally, I am not against guns. I own a few. However, I think, whether legal or not, there are proper purposes for guns and improper uses (at least according to my old Boy Scout Handbook) and I was only trying to get a consensus that the use of guns at a townhall meeting for the purpose of intimidation is not a proper use. In reading your response, it appears that, on that, we agree.

(08-19-2009 04:41 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Interesting. So when W got into office based on a court decision after losing the popular vote and shifted at least as hard to to right as Obama is to the left (I'd argue much harder than Obama, but don't want to debate that here) that was OK, but when the Dems win in a landslide, it's not OK to implement a major cornerstone of their platform? And, yes it WAS a major cornerstone of his campaign.
Oh but wait, I see, the election shouldn’t count because us Obama supporters are just too stupid and ignorant to know what we actually voted for. We should let Republicans determine what we actually voted on. And then you guys complain about the tone of these discussions. Whatever.
In any case, the Dems have spent the last several months negotiating with Grassley, et al. only to have Grassley go out and claim Obama wants to pull the plug on grandma and then admit that he won’t vote for the bill *even if they give him all the concessions he’s asking for*. You can’t complain about lack of compromise when the R’s have determined that they will vote “No” no matter what. They will probably kill the public option and we’ll have modest health insurance reform, which will help some people but not get at the core problems.
You want to talk about people that are scared? I have a cousin with a pre-existing condition who can’t get health insurance, and she’s not even 30 yet. She’s considered leaving the country to one that won’t treat her like complete @#$%. Another family we know is facing bankruptcy because they have a sick child who needs special care. They are, sorry - were, a middle class family with health insurance but the company went under and they have to pay COBRA, which is more than they can handle. My wife and her friends have been doing bake sales and charity auctions for them to keep them from going under. Why do we need to treat people like that in the wealthiest nation on earth?

I could take issue with any number of comments in your first three paragraphs, but that would lead down any number of rabbit trails so I won't except to say (1) that I do not concede the truth of anything you say in those paragraphs, and (2) that you have to apply whatever standard with equal vigor both ways, so either what the democrats did when Bush was in the white house was wrong, or what the republicans are doing now is okay. I happen to believe that both were okay, but you can go whichever way you want.

As for the anecdotal stories, you can find just as many just as bad about the UK and Canadian systems. I've never heard many bad stories about France, but I'm sure there are some.

At the end of the day, either you throw so many resources at health care that nobody ever goes wanting (and I think it's clear that we can't afford that), or you need some means to allocate scarce resources among those in need. There are basically two allocation methods--you go first if you pay more, or you go first based on some scheme established by fiat. Where the second is used, there has to be a "death panel" somewhere to make the decisions. If you know another way, then out with it, but so far I've not heard one.

Given a choice between pay-go or a death panel, I choose pay-go. At least with pay-go I can make the decision to forego something else to get health care, and when the actual user is on the hook for part of the cost, more effective control over costs results. I simply think pay-go is the fairer and more democratic alternative, given those two to choose from.

(08-19-2009 04:41 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(08-19-2009 03:53 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  Hmm?

1. Do you really believe the 2008 election was a referendum on health care?

I see the 2008 election factors as this, in no particular order:

1. Horrible economic news, likened by some to the Depression.
2. Historic candidacy by a charismatic, bright, young candidate
3. Aftertaste from 2003-2005 Iraq (i.e., so much negative press for so long, that improvements in the 2007-2008 time frame were immaterial)

But you do underscore the fear that people have over this, and this is what this whole thread started about.

This election was decided for many reasons, but policy implementation was not the deciding factor in any way shape or form.

Now that the election is over, the ramifications of the election are becoming clearer, and it's less about the historic candidacy or the economy, it's now about "the referendum we had on health care".

If it isn't clear I'll spell it out.

The left sees the election and their total control of Congress as a chance to declare "victory" and start implementing policy that obviously the conservatives don't want, but also that a large portion of the middle of the road Amercans never realized they were voting on.

They were voting on advertising ('change'), charisma, youth and 'anyone but Bush'.

And they could tell you Jon and Kate's kids names, but not one single stinking policy plank in the Democrats platform.

Do you understand why a lot of people are scared?

It's exactly what you just claimed in your post:

"We won, we have a majority, this is what you you wanted, get ready to accept it, ready or not".

Horse hockey, to coin a phrase.

Interesting. So when W got into office based on a court decision after losing the popular vote and shifted at least as hard to to right as Obama is to the left (I'd argue much harder than Obama, but don't want to debate that here) that was OK, but when the Dems win in a landslide, it's not OK to implement a major cornerstone of their platform? And, yes it WAS a major cornerstone of his campaign.

Oh but wait, I see, the election shouldn’t count because us Obama supporters are just too stupid and ignorant to know what we actually voted for. We should let Republicans determine what we actually voted on. And then you guys complain about the tone of these discussions. Whatever.

In any case, the Dems have spent the last several months negotiating with Grassley, et al. only to have Grassley go out and claim Obama wants to pull the plug on grandma and then admit that he won’t vote for the bill *even if they give him all the concessions he’s asking for*. You can’t complain about lack of compromise when the R’s have determined that they will vote “No” no matter what. They will probably kill the public option and we’ll have modest health insurance reform, which will help some people but not get at the core problems.

You want to talk about people that are scared? I have a cousin with a pre-existing condition who can’t get health insurance, and she’s not even 30 yet. She’s considered leaving the country to one that won’t treat her like complete @#$%. Another family we know is facing bankruptcy because they have a sick child who needs special care. They are, sorry - were, a middle class family with health insurance but the company went under and they have to pay COBRA, which is more than they can handle. My wife and her friends have been doing bake sales and charity auctions for them to keep them from going under. Why do we need to treat people like that in the wealthiest nation on earth?

My question was simply this: Did you really believe that the majority of the country viewed the 2008 election as a referendum on health care?

By your response, I'm guessing your answer is 'yes'.

I couldn't really understand the ending of your first paragraph (last sentence), specifically your use of the pronoun "his". You were talking about Bush, and I'm not sure what major cornerstone he implemented (with the help of a split Congress) . .. . . . . , but I think the last sentence actually "his" meant Obama's - - hard to follow, sorry.

In any event, my answer to my own simple question is: I don't believe that.

I suspect the shift in approval ratings and the polls on the subject are indicative that a lot of Obama's supporters were not necessarily voting on health care reform in November.

Incidentally, I never used the word 'stupid', etc. I simply said that Obama won largely due to factors unrelated to health care or the Democratic party platform. I never said any of their reasons for voting were not valid.

I'm saying that health care wasn't on many voter's radar.

If you wanted to do a non-scientific study here an now, we could ask all the people on this forum what they believe the order of importance of the factors in the election were out of:

horrendous economy
historic, bright, charismatic, young candidate
(i.e. would Michael Dukakis have won over McCain)
anyone but Bush
fear of the far right (anti-Palin crowd so to speak)
desire to go to government funded healthcare

That's not to say that for you and at least some others, the health care issue wasn't #1.

But that's not the same thing as calling the election in 2008 a referendum on health care.

I'm simply trying to explain what's going on in the country and why there's a backlash right now.

Those solidly on the left in the Democratic party probably see the 2008 elections as a gift from heaven. The problem is that Obama won with a lot of votes from the middle, and the members of the far left who are upset with his performance to date are evidence of his understanding that he has two choices:

a. govern from the middle
b. risk future elections by pressing his Congressional majority to implement change that is only completely supported by a minority of the country.

I think he understands this, and so do a number of Congressional Democrats, probably the majority of them.

I think the outcry on public health care (polls, etc, not the extremists with whom the left want to characterize everyone protesting the issue), is a vocalization of this reality from the people who voted in 2008, (with deference to those who voted purely on the Democratic platform here).

FDub, we do not have a problem. The coffee offer remains an open offer. I think you have been a fair and reasonable poster overall. I guess I reacted more to the second and third sentences.

I quite agree about how people on each side can be selectively for/against something. There is video of Pelosi and others applauding disruptive behavior - when it was directed against Bush or McCain or Palin or Republicans. Pelosi's snide, hypocritical remarks don't help. I don't think you are one of those selective people.

I think there is a heck of a story behind the phrase "a Democrat in Texas". Maybe someday you can tell it to me.

And please keep posting. I would like to hear your views and discuss them with you. In an agreeable way, of course. And you are certainly no more unclear in your posts than most of the rest of us.

(08-19-2009 04:51 PM)FDub Owl Wrote:  

(08-19-2009 02:03 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-19-2009 10:10 AM)FDub Owl Wrote:  

(08-18-2009 11:09 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(08-18-2009 03:28 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-18-2009 02:31 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

(08-18-2009 02:07 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  I don't own a gun, but I don't presume that the mere presence of a gun would preclude civil debate. To some extent, I would hope that it would guarantee it.

wut?

I have been to poker games that had guns on the table, and many others where I knew that some players had guns either on their person or in their cars.

I have been to poker games that had people being rude to each other, agruing with each other and that eventually erupted in violence.

They were not the same games. Sometimes the presence of firearms restains people from extreme behavior. I think this is what Rick meant.

As for me, I would prefer that no firearms would be taken to a town hall meeting. If they are, i hope they are in the possesion of people licensed to carry them. I would worry more about any firearms in the possesion of Acorn/SEIU members.

thank you

Why are you worried about Acorn members with guns? Does the second amendment only apply to those that you agree with? Am I to understand that it is not the presence of guns that you feel would help civilize the debate, but rather the presence of guns held by the people you agree with? If a group of Black Panthers showed up at these protests armed with assault rifles, would Republicans feel that it helped keep the debate civil, or would they, like Reagan did in California in the 60's, support and sign a bill making such previously legal behavior, illegal.

In my opinion, the angry shouting by both sides, the Hitler posters and the threats, don't add much of anything to the debate. However, I would hope that we could all agree that persons showing up around town hall meetings with assault rifles does not help the discussion on what are very hot button topics. Showing up with a gun, in my opinion, is done for one reason and one reason only - intimidation (actually 2 reasons I guess, as it appears that one of the gun toters was sent as a radio prank). I don't remember the Republicans talking in terms of ensuring civilized discourse when the armed black panthers showed up at the polls in November to "ensure" voting rights were not being violated. In fact, they railed against it as an intimidation tactic, despite the fact that it was perfectly legal. For the record, I thought these actions were ridiculous and counter productive. I wouldn't propose to try to stop anybody from acting within the law, but, again, I would hope that people from both sides could agree that it is not adding positively to the discourse.

Let me add that I, in no way, believe that the actions of these people represent all of Republicans. I am a Democrat that has lived my entire life in Texas and support and vote for Republicans all the time. To use a worn out phrase, "hell, most of my best friends are Republican." What disappoints me, is not that I think it is representative of all Republicans, but rather the fact that many, many Republicans (elected officials, conservative media, and the general public) are not distancing from it, and in fact seem to be embracing it, celebrating it, and finding excuses for it. I know, I know, not the first time for either party, but disappointing none the less.

While I think this board is pretty good about disagreeing without being disagreeable, I do think, at times, some posters can come off as someone who just can't believe that someone who believes differently could be so damn stupid. I would hope that we could all agree that no matter how smart we think we are, there is always someone smarter on the other side who feels as strongly for the issue/policy/etc. as you do against it. And that should be enough to keep the debate civil and not dismissive.

First, I said would be MORE worried about ACORN members with guns. FTR, I am also MORE scared of ACORN/SEIU protesters without guns. Their vehemance for their side/against opposition is scary to me.
Second, I said I would prefer no firearms be taken to a town hall meeting. This statement was NOT abridged to say that I wanted only one side to have guns, and any reading of that that leads you to that conclusion springs from your own mind.
Third, I said that if guns are taken to these meetings I hope they would be carried by those licensed to do so, and once again, I did not limit this to one side (or the other), and any reading that that is what I meant once again springs from your own mind.
Fourth, i never advocated the bringing of assault rifles. Once again.. but maybe you get the picture.
Fifth, I said nothing of the Black Panthers. I hope this was not thrown in to make me a racist, (I really don't think it was, but why bring race into this at all?) but if so, it is not the first time that the Pro-healthcare advocates has tried to make it out that opponents are just a bunch of racists.
Sixth, my statement was that "sometimes the presence of firearms restains people from extreme behavior. A: "Sometimes" B: I gave examples from my own experience to support this. Where is my error?

I know people that have concealed carry permits, and when i meet them for coffee at a restaurant, the gun is not there for intimidation - it is there for self-protection and because it is always there. Once again, your interpretation of why a gun would be there comes from...you guessed it. You opinion is yours, and that is fine, but I can disagree and have disagreed, and that is my right, too. I don't think that you are one of those you mention who believes that someone who disagrees with you must be damn stupid, but I disagree, so draw your own conclusions.

I hope the "some posters" does not refer to me. If it does, let's meet for coffee and talk this out. (I live in your area). I don't have a CC permit and won't bring a gun, if that has you worried. If you have a CC permit, feel free to bring yours.

I agree that a lot things don't help the debate. Besides the things you listed, I would include statements about "undereducated" people, people who "just can't stand that a black man is in the White House", Astroturf, swastikas, and other demeaning statements. Unfortunately, many of these are coming from Pelosi, Maddow, Oberman, and top Obama officials and elected Democrats. Any statement that demonizes one side and angelicizes the other is very likely wrong. But that is what we are getting. The country is more polarized than i can remember since the 60's.

A great example of why I often read, but do not post in "The Quad". I'm not very good at it. Other than the comment about ACORN, my post was entirely meant to be a general post regarding the health care debate and political debate in general. It was not addressed to any one poster. I did a poor job of making that clear. If I mischaracterized your posts or implied that the rest of my post was directed at you or any other poster, I apologize.

I used your example of ACORN, because, frankly, it allowed me to discuss that much of the public outrage in today's world is driven by what side the protestor is on and not the specific issue (i.e. counting votes is only important if I feel that counting the votes will help my side win). My favorite example was during the Florida recount where the D's and the R's were using each other's arguments for/against absentee votes depending on whether the absentee ballets were from the military or from citizens living abroad. The exact same arguments, only switched depending on which group's votes they wanted counted or not counted. I used the examples of the 1960's black panthers and the 2008 black panthers as examples of when Republicans were outraged by the presence of guns brought to public meetings (I got a little kick out of the fact that it involved Reagon wanting to limit the gun rights of US citizens).

I have no doubt that you and the others on this board have numerous and legitimate issues with the proposed health care reform. I know this because I have numerous and legitimate issues with it as well, and I am of the opinion that the system is broken and needs to be overhauled. I do not have a problem with people disagreeing. My problem is with the people who manufacture outrage. This goes for both sides. I have grown tired of people being outraged for the sake of being outraged. My use of the black panthers was not trying to inject race into the issue, it was historical. It was two examples I could think of where the issue was flipped and the reaction was flipped. I am just as tired of Democrats feigning anger over the presence of the guns at these protests, when I have a strong suspicion that they would have been or were in full support of it when the shoe was on the other foot.

There are too many legitimate issues to be addressed to get sidetracked by the feigned, uniformed, or unreasonable outrage. Is it okay to be outraged that "obamacare", if implimented would fundamentally change the system in a way that someone feels would damage the United States? Absolutley. Is it reasonable to show that outrage by comparing the President to Hitler and stating that he is proposing "Death Panels"? In my opinion, no. It wasn't okay a year ago to compare Bush to Hitler and it's not okay now. As for the "Death Panels", I have a problem with Grassly voting for end of life counseling as part of Medicare, but now going out and campaigning against the bill because of similar legislation, only now they are "death panels"?

I made my post not trying to convince anyone I was right about the health care debate and that Republicans were wrong. Remember, I am a Democrat in Texas - I have already been told how wrong I usually am on these issues. My point was more about how we have, as a nation, been drawn offsides on these important issues, so that we end up debating the stuff that will polarize the population and will do nothing to actually come up with any solutions. I in no way am trying to keep people from posting opinions I disagree with. If I wasn't interested in opinions that I disagreed with, I would not read The Quad and would instead spend my time in the blogs of the left pinko communist websites. Of course I would probably not agree with them either.

I apologize in advance as I am sure that my poorly worded response unintentionally mischaracterized or wrongfully implied something that I did not intend for it to. Finally, I am not against guns. I own a few. However, I think, whether legal or not, there are proper purposes for guns and improper uses (at least according to my old Boy Scout Handbook) and I was only trying to get a consensus that the use of guns at a townhall meeting for the purpose of intimidation is not a proper use. In reading your response, it appears that, on that, we agree.

Like I said in my post, I thought that a good majority of what you wrote was not directed in reference to Optimistic's (or my) posts.

I just wanted to answer because you posted directly in line with his and my post.

I would like very much for this area to get back to reasonable, intelligent conversation. The political waterfront has been taken over by talking points and hyperbolic, self-serving statements on both sides. This used to be a place where we could actually talk reasonably about issues, but too much of the talking points and hyperbole seems to be making its way into this board. Hopefully, we can get back to where we were.

Rice people are bright enough that if we put our best ideas together I am confident we could come up with something far superior to what we are seeing from either side.

(08-19-2009 04:41 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  You want to talk about people that are scared? I have a cousin with a pre-existing condition who can’t get health insurance, and she’s not even 30 yet. She’s considered leaving the country to one that won’t treat her like complete @#$%. Another family we know is facing bankruptcy because they have a sick child who needs special care. They are, sorry - were, a middle class family with health insurance but the company went under and they have to pay COBRA, which is more than they can handle. My wife and her friends have been doing bake sales and charity auctions for them to keep them from going under. Why do we need to treat people like that in the wealthiest nation on earth?

Well, JAAO, I also have a pre-existing condition (more than one, actually) and am uninsurable. I turned to the Texas High Risk Healthpool and subscribed to a high deductible policy. The benefit to that is that the insurance has negotiated lower rates for procedures. I am leaving in about 15 minutes for yet another test(i might have yet another pre-existing condition) and I have been told the negotiated cost is $397. I am guessing the basic charge before negotiation would be $1200-1500. So even though I paid insurance costs plus over $7000 out of pocket last year, it was worth it for me. Tell your cousin to look into it as an alternative. Unfortunately, when I reach medicare age, the THRP will not cover me, so I will have no choice but to take the government option, just at a time when Obama is talking about cutbacks to help fund the coverage for his plan. And if I try to find out how that would affect me, I am just mean-spirited, unamerican, gun-toting, undereducated...

Owl 69's statements about fiat are spot on. Decisions will have to be made. How and who are the questions. A good example is the current system for organ transplants. There is a limited supply of livers. So when one comes available, a decision must be made - does it go to the 64 year-old diabetic or the 25 year-old single mom? Or if you like,, does it go to someone like me or to someone like your cousin? You don't want people with money getting to the head of the line, so i guess if I had seniority on the waiting list it would be OK with you if i went ahead of your cousin. So should it just be seniority that decides who gets scarce resources? Seniority = waiting lines.

Obamacare is not the Nirvana of healthcare, if anything it is the anything-but-what-we-have-now version, and as the election shows that is a bad basis to make choices. The administration wanted these bills SIGNED and in effect by now. No debate, no discussion, no tranparency. They wanted it rushed through, they failed, and now when people want to know what what they say, they either don't know, won't tell, or tell us to shut up. I want to know. Nothing wrong with that. It's not unAmerican to want to know.

(08-20-2009 09:28 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-19-2009 04:41 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  You want to talk about people that are scared? I have a cousin with a pre-existing condition who can’t get health insurance, and she’s not even 30 yet. She’s considered leaving the country to one that won’t treat her like complete @#$%. Another family we know is facing bankruptcy because they have a sick child who needs special care. They are, sorry - were, a middle class family with health insurance but the company went under and they have to pay COBRA, which is more than they can handle. My wife and her friends have been doing bake sales and charity auctions for them to keep them from going under. Why do we need to treat people like that in the wealthiest nation on earth?

Well, JAAO, I also have a pre-existing condition (more than one, actually) and am uninsurable. I turned to the Texas High Risk Healthpool and subscribed to a high deductible policy. The benefit to that is that the insurance has negotiated lower rates for procedures. I am leaving in about 15 minutes for yet another test(i might have yet another pre-existing condition) and I have been told the negotiated cost is $397. I am guessing the basic charge before negotiation would be $1200-1500. So even though I paid insurance costs plus over $7000 out of pocket last year, it was worth it for me. Tell your cousin to look into it as an alternative. Unfortunately, when I reach medicare age, the THRP will not cover me, so I will have no choice but to take the government option, just at a time when Obama is talking about cutbacks to help fund the coverage for his plan. And if I try to find out how that would affect me, I am just mean-spirited, unamerican, gun-toting, undereducated...

Owl 69's statements about fiat are spot on. Decisions will have to be made. How and who are the questions. A good example is the current system for organ transplants. There is a limited supply of livers. So when one comes available, a decision must be made - does it go to the 64 year-old diabetic or the 25 year-old single mom? Or if you like,, does it go to someone like me or to someone like your cousin? You don't want people with money getting to the head of the line, so i guess if I had seniority on the waiting list it would be OK with you if i went ahead of your cousin. So should it just be seniority that decides who gets scarce resources? Seniority = waiting lines.

Obamacare is not the Nirvana of healthcare, if anything it is the anything-but-what-we-have-now version, and as the election shows that is a bad basis to make choices. The administration wanted these bills SIGNED and in effect by now. No debate, no discussion, no tranparency. They wanted it rushed through, they failed, and now when people want to know what what they say, they either don't know, won't tell, or tell us to shut up. I want to know. Nothing wrong with that. It's not unAmerican to want to know.

Do you really believe that the priority for rationing will not be affected by political donations or support for the party then in power??

(08-20-2009 02:36 PM)Ranger Wrote:  

(08-20-2009 09:28 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-19-2009 04:41 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  You want to talk about people that are scared? I have a cousin with a pre-existing condition who can’t get health insurance, and she’s not even 30 yet. She’s considered leaving the country to one that won’t treat her like complete @#$%. Another family we know is facing bankruptcy because they have a sick child who needs special care. They are, sorry - were, a middle class family with health insurance but the company went under and they have to pay COBRA, which is more than they can handle. My wife and her friends have been doing bake sales and charity auctions for them to keep them from going under. Why do we need to treat people like that in the wealthiest nation on earth?

Well, JAAO, I also have a pre-existing condition (more than one, actually) and am uninsurable. I turned to the Texas High Risk Healthpool and subscribed to a high deductible policy. The benefit to that is that the insurance has negotiated lower rates for procedures. I am leaving in about 15 minutes for yet another test(i might have yet another pre-existing condition) and I have been told the negotiated cost is $397. I am guessing the basic charge before negotiation would be $1200-1500. So even though I paid insurance costs plus over $7000 out of pocket last year, it was worth it for me. Tell your cousin to look into it as an alternative. Unfortunately, when I reach medicare age, the THRP will not cover me, so I will have no choice but to take the government option, just at a time when Obama is talking about cutbacks to help fund the coverage for his plan. And if I try to find out how that would affect me, I am just mean-spirited, unamerican, gun-toting, undereducated...

Owl 69's statements about fiat are spot on. Decisions will have to be made. How and who are the questions. A good example is the current system for organ transplants. There is a limited supply of livers. So when one comes available, a decision must be made - does it go to the 64 year-old diabetic or the 25 year-old single mom? Or if you like,, does it go to someone like me or to someone like your cousin? You don't want people with money getting to the head of the line, so i guess if I had seniority on the waiting list it would be OK with you if i went ahead of your cousin. So should it just be seniority that decides who gets scarce resources? Seniority = waiting lines.

Obamacare is not the Nirvana of healthcare, if anything it is the anything-but-what-we-have-now version, and as the election shows that is a bad basis to make choices. The administration wanted these bills SIGNED and in effect by now. No debate, no discussion, no tranparency. They wanted it rushed through, they failed, and now when people want to know what what they say, they either don't know, won't tell, or tell us to shut up. I want to know. Nothing wrong with that. It's not unAmerican to want to know.

Do you really believe that the priority for rationing will not be affected by political donations or support for the party then in power??

No, I don't believe that.

(08-20-2009 05:06 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-20-2009 02:36 PM)Ranger Wrote:  

(08-20-2009 09:28 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-19-2009 04:41 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  You want to talk about people that are scared? I have a cousin with a pre-existing condition who can’t get health insurance, and she’s not even 30 yet. She’s considered leaving the country to one that won’t treat her like complete @#$%. Another family we know is facing bankruptcy because they have a sick child who needs special care. They are, sorry - were, a middle class family with health insurance but the company went under and they have to pay COBRA, which is more than they can handle. My wife and her friends have been doing bake sales and charity auctions for them to keep them from going under. Why do we need to treat people like that in the wealthiest nation on earth?

Well, JAAO, I also have a pre-existing condition (more than one, actually) and am uninsurable. I turned to the Texas High Risk Healthpool and subscribed to a high deductible policy. The benefit to that is that the insurance has negotiated lower rates for procedures. I am leaving in about 15 minutes for yet another test(i might have yet another pre-existing condition) and I have been told the negotiated cost is $397. I am guessing the basic charge before negotiation would be $1200-1500. So even though I paid insurance costs plus over $7000 out of pocket last year, it was worth it for me. Tell your cousin to look into it as an alternative. Unfortunately, when I reach medicare age, the THRP will not cover me, so I will have no choice but to take the government option, just at a time when Obama is talking about cutbacks to help fund the coverage for his plan. And if I try to find out how that would affect me, I am just mean-spirited, unamerican, gun-toting, undereducated...

Owl 69's statements about fiat are spot on. Decisions will have to be made. How and who are the questions. A good example is the current system for organ transplants. There is a limited supply of livers. So when one comes available, a decision must be made - does it go to the 64 year-old diabetic or the 25 year-old single mom? Or if you like,, does it go to someone like me or to someone like your cousin? You don't want people with money getting to the head of the line, so i guess if I had seniority on the waiting list it would be OK with you if i went ahead of your cousin. So should it just be seniority that decides who gets scarce resources? Seniority = waiting lines.

Obamacare is not the Nirvana of healthcare, if anything it is the anything-but-what-we-have-now version, and as the election shows that is a bad basis to make choices. The administration wanted these bills SIGNED and in effect by now. No debate, no discussion, no tranparency. They wanted it rushed through, they failed, and now when people want to know what what they say, they either don't know, won't tell, or tell us to shut up. I want to know. Nothing wrong with that. It's not unAmerican to want to know.

Do you really believe that the priority for rationing will not be affected by political donations or support for the party then in power??

No, I don't believe that.

Hmmm. I think you will be surprised.

(08-20-2009 05:09 PM)Ranger Wrote:  

(08-20-2009 05:06 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-20-2009 02:36 PM)Ranger Wrote:  

(08-20-2009 09:28 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-19-2009 04:41 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  You want to talk about people that are scared? I have a cousin with a pre-existing condition who can’t get health insurance, and she’s not even 30 yet. She’s considered leaving the country to one that won’t treat her like complete @#$%. Another family we know is facing bankruptcy because they have a sick child who needs special care. They are, sorry - were, a middle class family with health insurance but the company went under and they have to pay COBRA, which is more than they can handle. My wife and her friends have been doing bake sales and charity auctions for them to keep them from going under. Why do we need to treat people like that in the wealthiest nation on earth?

Well, JAAO, I also have a pre-existing condition (more than one, actually) and am uninsurable. I turned to the Texas High Risk Healthpool and subscribed to a high deductible policy. The benefit to that is that the insurance has negotiated lower rates for procedures. I am leaving in about 15 minutes for yet another test(i might have yet another pre-existing condition) and I have been told the negotiated cost is $397. I am guessing the basic charge before negotiation would be $1200-1500. So even though I paid insurance costs plus over $7000 out of pocket last year, it was worth it for me. Tell your cousin to look into it as an alternative. Unfortunately, when I reach medicare age, the THRP will not cover me, so I will have no choice but to take the government option, just at a time when Obama is talking about cutbacks to help fund the coverage for his plan. And if I try to find out how that would affect me, I am just mean-spirited, unamerican, gun-toting, undereducated...

Owl 69's statements about fiat are spot on. Decisions will have to be made. How and who are the questions. A good example is the current system for organ transplants. There is a limited supply of livers. So when one comes available, a decision must be made - does it go to the 64 year-old diabetic or the 25 year-old single mom? Or if you like,, does it go to someone like me or to someone like your cousin? You don't want people with money getting to the head of the line, so i guess if I had seniority on the waiting list it would be OK with you if i went ahead of your cousin. So should it just be seniority that decides who gets scarce resources? Seniority = waiting lines.

Obamacare is not the Nirvana of healthcare, if anything it is the anything-but-what-we-have-now version, and as the election shows that is a bad basis to make choices. The administration wanted these bills SIGNED and in effect by now. No debate, no discussion, no tranparency. They wanted it rushed through, they failed, and now when people want to know what what they say, they either don't know, won't tell, or tell us to shut up. I want to know. Nothing wrong with that. It's not unAmerican to want to know.

Do you really believe that the priority for rationing will not be affected by political donations or support for the party then in power??

No, I don't believe that.

Hmmm. I think you will be surprised.

I think because you both had a negative (not/no) in your statements, what Optimistic was saying was that he did believe that rationing WOULD be (or at least COULD be) impacted by the whether or not you had the right connections. (and that he did not believe it would NOT be impacted, etc)

(08-19-2009 05:25 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  At the end of the day, either you throw so many resources at health care that nobody ever goes wanting (and I think it's clear that we can't afford that), or you need some means to allocate scarce resources among those in need. There are basically two allocation methods--you go first if you pay more, or you go first based on some scheme established by fiat. Where the second is used, there has to be a "death panel" somewhere to make the decisions. If you know another way, then out with it, but so far I've not heard one.

Given a choice between pay-go or a death panel, I choose pay-go. At least with pay-go I can make the decision to forego something else to get health care, and when the actual user is on the hook for part of the cost, more effective control over costs results. I simply think pay-go is the fairer and more democratic alternative, given those two to choose from.

JAAO, or others who support any of the Obamacare forms.

Please read the above and tell me where I am wrong. This is why I believe that the democrat proposals, any of them on the table right now, will inevitably lead to deteriorating care and death panels.