Confused Briton seeks clarification from right -wing Americans

[Johnnyallstar]

I would say that they do have impact. Because some politicians actually care about their constituency, and the protests are loud and too large not to be ignored. There are a group of democrats called "blue dogs" that are fairly conservative, and have been balking at keeping lockstep with the president because they are afraid of losing the next election.

The protests may not have an extremely obvious effect, but they are.

 

[Dogstile]

heh, i would pay for public healthcare even if i was paying for private healthcare anyway

its just a nice thing to do, help thy neighbour and that

 

[cleverlymadeup]

Because some people are too shallow-minded to see the truth. It happens with just about everybody... well, here at least.

Its a power grab, and Orwellian is just a descriptive of how they are presenting itself. Doing a little research you will easily find that the president is back and forth on exactly what is in the bill (of which there are several different versions, not just one) and honestly if you take a historical, or definitive standpoint it is socialism.

Problem is, "socialism" has been so overused in the last 20 years, both correctly and incorrectly, that it has now become empty rhetoric. Nazi, likewise, but the terms are in essence the same, because Nazi stands for National Socialist. Just look at what socialist governments did in 1915-30 Russia and 1930-36 Germany and make the comparison of what the president is saying.

Also, "free" is not as free as you would expect. I don't want my neighbor paying for my health care because I don't want to pay for his. A tax increase is mandatory to be able to pay for it, so it's not "free." There is also going to be rationing within the bill, as it stands in each version, which is due to the fact that they cannot simply afford it for everyone, and the poor will lose out there still.

Also, I want MY CHOICES not the government choosing what health care I will be able to get. Within each version of the bill there are stipulations saying that all major decisions will be made by a government bureaucrat, which takes time that could, and will cause unnecessary mortality and morbidity, due to the lack of immediate on site decision making. I would rather have a doctor, not a politician, make recommendations and keep myself in charge, rather than have a corrupt power hungry politician in charge of my health.

Maybe I'm too much on the "self responsibility" thing because I'm not some mentally deficient, pathetic simpleton who requires the government to hold my hand for every little thing in the world.

i think you should actually pay attention to what their saying about the bill. you're listening to fox news and friends a bit too much

i live in Canada and i know most of what you're saying is wrong about what they're saying about the health care system

also having a politician, who was elected by the people, in charge is better than a corporation who wants to cut costs and keep profits high. you honestly think a corp cares about you? you're a dollar figure and an expense compared to the elected official who is only in office cause the people put them there

as for the topic on hand, the best debunking of this was done last night, aug 13, on the daily show. they used clips of Glen Beck today talking about how great the health care system is today and how it's the best and then used Glen Beck 16 months ago saying how crappy it was and how it's the worst thing in the world.

the US needs a public health care system, i mean Cuba has better health care than the US does

 

[Aur0ra145]

Why do you not want a free health service when the option for private care will still exist?

To answer shortly and quickly. If we have a state health care system everyone will be charge for it regardlessly, even if you choose to use private care doctors.

Then there is the economics side of it.

 

[Skutch]

I would say that they do have impact. Because some politicians actually care about their constituency, and the protests are loud and too large not to be ignored. There are a group of democrats called "blue dogs" that are fairly conservative, and have been balking at keeping lockstep with the president because they are afraid of losing the next election.

The protests may not have an extremely obvious effect, but they are.

For the sake of discussion, don't you think it's an odd coincidence that throughout their careers all of the "blue dog" Democrats have received massive campaign contributions from insurance and pharmaceutical companies (some in excess of a million dollars), and count on them as frequent and big donors for their election campaigns?

EDIT: Whoops, forgot to mention that some of them get their money from health care organizations as well.

 

[Squarez]

Why do you not want a free health service when the option for private care will still exist?

To answer shortly and quickly. If we have a state health care system everyone will be charge for it regardlessly, even if you choose to use private care doctors.

Then there is the economics side of it.

But surely, helping your fellow countrymen by (at least in part) paying for their healthcare as they are not a wealthy as you is the ultimate working in the best interests for your country. Which is what the opposite of many Republicans call those doing "unconstitutional" things.

 

[Johnnyallstar]

Because some people are too shallow-minded to see the truth. It happens with just about everybody... well, here at least.

Its a power grab, and Orwellian is just a descriptive of how they are presenting itself. Doing a little research you will easily find that the president is back and forth on exactly what is in the bill (of which there are several different versions, not just one) and honestly if you take a historical, or definitive standpoint it is socialism.

Problem is, "socialism" has been so overused in the last 20 years, both correctly and incorrectly, that it has now become empty rhetoric. Nazi, likewise, but the terms are in essence the same, because Nazi stands for National Socialist. Just look at what socialist governments did in 1915-30 Russia and 1930-36 Germany and make the comparison of what the president is saying.

Also, "free" is not as free as you would expect. I don't want my neighbor paying for my health care because I don't want to pay for his. A tax increase is mandatory to be able to pay for it, so it's not "free." There is also going to be rationing within the bill, as it stands in each version, which is due to the fact that they cannot simply afford it for everyone, and the poor will lose out there still.

Also, I want MY CHOICES not the government choosing what health care I will be able to get. Within each version of the bill there are stipulations saying that all major decisions will be made by a government bureaucrat, which takes time that could, and will cause unnecessary mortality and morbidity, due to the lack of immediate on site decision making. I would rather have a doctor, not a politician, make recommendations and keep myself in charge, rather than have a corrupt power hungry politician in charge of my health.

Maybe I'm too much on the "self responsibility" thing because I'm not some mentally deficient, pathetic simpleton who requires the government to hold my hand for every little thing in the world.

i think you should actually pay attention to what their saying about the bill. you're listening to fox news and friends a bit too much

i live in Canada and i know most of what you're saying is wrong about what they're saying about the health care system

also having a politician, who was elected by the people, in charge is better than a corporation who wants to cut costs and keep profits high. you honestly think a corp cares about you? you're a dollar figure and an expense compared to the elected official who is only in office cause the people put them there

as for the topic on hand, the best debunking of this was done last night, aug 13, on the daily show. they used clips of Glen Beck today talking about how great the health care system is today and how it's the best and then used Glen Beck 16 months ago saying how crappy it was and how it's the worst thing in the world.

the US needs a public health care system, i mean Cuba has better health care than the US does

I don't listen to Fox news, so empty rhetoric is empty I don't have the time to, being busy with work and school, so please please please don't insult my intelligence by assuming I don't know what I'm talking about.

I read one of the bills myself, skimmed through a second and both are ugly. Empty rhetoric is empty. And yeah, I can say it works for some people, but the way it will be implemented here is very bad juju, read it for yourself, there's corruption all throughout it, and I say we would be much better off without this piece of legislative power grabs.

 

[Johnnyallstar]

I would say that they do have impact. Because some politicians actually care about their constituency, and the protests are loud and too large not to be ignored. There are a group of democrats called "blue dogs" that are fairly conservative, and have been balking at keeping lockstep with the president because they are afraid of losing the next election.

The protests may not have an extremely obvious effect, but they are.

For the sake of discussion, don't you think it's an odd coincidence that throughout their careers all of the "blue dog" Democrats have received massive campaign contributions from insurance and pharmaceutical companies (some in excess of a million dollars), and count on them as frequent and big donors for their election campaigns?

EDIT: Whoops, forgot to mention that some of them get their money from health care organizations as well.

There's so much irony within donations towards congressmen that bite the hands that feed them that I don't even try to pay attention to it, because it would be so mind-boggling.

 

[Dudemeister]

Within each version of the bill there are stipulations saying that all major decisions will be made by a government bureaucrat, which takes time that could, and will cause unnecessary mortality and morbidity, due to the lack of immediate on site decision making. I would rather have a doctor, not a politician, make recommendations and keep myself in charge, rather than have a corrupt power hungry politician in charge of my health.

If you actua\lly took the time to read any of the bill, you'd see that this isn't true. Maybe you should try using some sources other than Fox News.

 

[Skizle]

i dont understand why some people are against this. someone at my job brought it up and complained that he didnt want to pay taxes for some dumbass loser hick that works at 7-11 for the rest of his life, my resonce was "so he would pay for your health care so why are your complaining". i guess the biggest worry would be the horror stories of long waiting times in the ER

 

[Johnnyallstar]

Within each version of the bill there are stipulations saying that all major decisions will be made by a government bureaucrat, which takes time that could, and will cause unnecessary mortality and morbidity, due to the lack of immediate on site decision making. I would rather have a doctor, not a politician, make recommendations and keep myself in charge, rather than have a corrupt power hungry politician in charge of my health.

If you actua\lly took the time to read any of the bill, you'd see that this isn't true. Maybe you should try using some sources other than Fox News.

^^ at my last post. I don't, but it seems that whenever anyone isn't a mindless follower of this white house they are obviously a mindless follower of fox news. I don't have the time, nor care, to pay that close attention to individual news stories, but I do to the sources. Your empty rhetoric saddens me because it's very patronizing, empty, and meaningless.

 

[Dudemeister]

Within each version of the bill there are stipulations saying that all major decisions will be made by a government bureaucrat, which takes time that could, and will cause unnecessary mortality and morbidity, due to the lack of immediate on site decision making. I would rather have a doctor, not a politician, make recommendations and keep myself in charge, rather than have a corrupt power hungry politician in charge of my health.

If you actua\lly took the time to read any of the bill, you'd see that this isn't true. Maybe you should try using some sources other than Fox News.

^^ at my last post. I don't, but it seems that whenever anyone isn't a mindless follower of this white house they are obviously a mindless follower of fox news. I don't have the time, nor care, to pay that close attention to individual news stories, but I do to the sources. Your empty rhetoric saddens me because it's very patronizing, empty, and meaningless.

Hmm, why is it that whenever someone agrees with anything Obama proposes, they are immediately called a 'mindless follower or 'sheep' by Republicans ?

 

[Johnnyallstar]

Within each version of the bill there are stipulations saying that all major decisions will be made by a government bureaucrat, which takes time that could, and will cause unnecessary mortality and morbidity, due to the lack of immediate on site decision making. I would rather have a doctor, not a politician, make recommendations and keep myself in charge, rather than have a corrupt power hungry politician in charge of my health.

If you actua\lly took the time to read any of the bill, you'd see that this isn't true. Maybe you should try using some sources other than Fox News.

^^ at my last post. I don't, but it seems that whenever anyone isn't a mindless follower of this white house they are obviously a mindless follower of fox news. I don't have the time, nor care, to pay that close attention to individual news stories, but I do to the sources. Your empty rhetoric saddens me because it's very patronizing, empty, and meaningless.

Hmm, why is it that whenever someone agrees with anything Obama proposes, they are immediately called a 'mindless follower or 'sheep' by Republicans ?

Same reason why whenever anyone disagrees with Obama's proposals they're called a mindless watcher of fox news. It's an empty insult which most people can't defend because it's absolutely meaningless, and completely unhelpful. Notice, though, that when this happens it is a total distraction to the original argument, so in essence, it is an attempt to destroy an opinion by discrediting, rather than winning in the field of thought.

 

[scotth266]

Mindless Anti-Republican/Anti-Conservative sentiments in a thread?

[HEADING=1]HOW SHOCKING.[/HEADING]

Republicans/Conservatives don't oppose national health care for no reason, you know: they oppose it because it will mean increased taxes and more government micromanaging, neither of which they like.

Somebody has to PAY for this service you know. It's not like the money for it will magically fall out of the air.

 

[cleverlymadeup]

I don't listen to Fox news, so empty rhetoric is empty I don't have the time to, being busy with work and school, so please please please don't insult my intelligence by assuming I don't know what I'm talking about.

I read one of the bills myself, skimmed through a second and both are ugly. Empty rhetoric is empty. And yeah, I can say it works for some people, but the way it will be implemented here is very bad juju, read it for yourself, there's corruption all throughout it, and I say we would be much better off without this piece of legislative power grabs.

really so you actually read well over 1000 pages of law? cause that's how long the bills are

as for you being better off, sorry look at your health care system as it is today, watch the movie Sicko if you really want to see how your great your health care system is. especially the private health care insurance companies, one of the inspectors was told by the company to find ways to deny coverage to people.

 

[Johnnyallstar]

I don't listen to Fox news, so empty rhetoric is empty I don't have the time to, being busy with work and school, so please please please don't insult my intelligence by assuming I don't know what I'm talking about.

I read one of the bills myself, skimmed through a second and both are ugly. Empty rhetoric is empty. And yeah, I can say it works for some people, but the way it will be implemented here is very bad juju, read it for yourself, there's corruption all throughout it, and I say we would be much better off without this piece of legislative power grabs.

really so you actually read well over 1000 pages of law? cause that's how long the bills are

as for you being better off, sorry look at your health care system as it is today, watch the movie Sicko if you really want to see how your great your health care system is. especially the private health care insurance companies, one of the inspectors was told by the company to find ways to deny coverage to people.

I read a lot, it's a personal hobby. And I didn't say that our current system was the best, but I don't want the government involved. And businesses (and the government when/if they get in charge) will always be trying to deny coverage because they don't want to pay for it, that's obvious. Assuming that the government will not do that is unfounded, because the government is notorious for denials.

If you have been denied by the business, then find a different business to work with. That's an option, which the current bills being passed through legislation won't allow. If you don't want to work with the government, too bad, you're S.O.L.

 

[obex]

Mindless Anti-Republican/Anti-Conservative sentiments in a thread?

[HEADING=1]HOW SHOCKING.[/HEADING]

Republicans/Conservatives don't oppose national health care for no reason, you know: they oppose it because it will mean increased taxes and more government micromanaging, neither of which they like.


Somebody has to PAY for this service you know. It's not like the money for it will magically fall out of the air.

But, don't you have to pay for private health care? At least this way everyone is covered.

 

[Skutch]

Mindless Anti-Republican/Anti-Conservative sentiments in a thread?

[HEADING=1]HOW SHOCKING.[/HEADING]

Republicans/Conservatives don't oppose national health care for no reason, you know: they oppose it because it will mean increased taxes and more government micromanaging, neither of which they like.

Somebody has to PAY for this service you know. It's not like the money for it will magically fall out of the air.

Taxpayers pay for the military. They pay for the police, and the fire department. That money doesn't just fall out of the air either. Is health care any less important than any of those things?

What you are failing to recognize is that we ALREADY pay for it. In fact, on average we pay more than every other major industrialized nation, and all for inferior care.