Obama gets caught on tape

Damocles said:
Bull-pucky. He talked bout how it can't be done all in one shot, how it would have to be done over time...

It's incrementalism, exactly what Onceler speaks about here on this board. He didn't change plans, he simply began implementing them.
Click to expand...

Yes, we hope it's an incremental step to single-payer. But that's not going to happen unless we get a liberal majority, in which case it would happen anyway.
 
meme said:
the fuss is we are not a Socialist country, and don't want to be..We don't want to become a slave to the Federal Government, especially this one..
what is so hard to understand about that..
Click to expand...

Yeah, having universal healthcare = slavery. Thanks.

You're going to be the insurance companies bitch anyway. The free market doesn't work in healthcare. If we don't pass this plans, medical costs will double over the next decade. I hope you love tapping your kids college fund to pay for your cancer treatment.
 
usaloyal2theend said:
Oh for crikey sakes! You don't even believe this steaming pile of bullshit!

The only thing he's leaning towards is a way to effect it the best possible way, while acquiescing it will not happen as soon as he wants it to.

You can stick a feather in its hat and call it macaroni, but it's his agenda he's been proselytizing about since he could get his chin up to the mike.
Click to expand...

Again, it can't happen without something happening that would mean it would happen anyway.
 
Damocles said:
You have a liberal majority.
Click to expand...

LOL.

We have a liberal/centrist coalition. About half the Democrats are liberals, and they dominate the leadership, but they need the votes of the Blue Dogs and the DLC, who hold the balance of power. I don't see there being a true liberal majority for a long time, because some of these Democrats are obviously going to have to win in suburbs and urban areas.

Also, proposing single payer would be horrendously unpopular. Obviously, if people elected a liberal majority there would be a rough majority of liberals in the population, and so the situation would change, but I don't see that happening decades, if ever.
 
Damocles said:
You have a liberal majority.
Click to expand...

That's not really true. Do you really think that if you removed conservative & moderate Dems, the libs would be in the majority?

Healthcare needs a revolution. You are making incrementalism sound like some sort of insidious thing; the fact is, changes HAVE to be made to the current system, at every level. But you can't change it overnight; just like you can't get off oil overnight.
 
meme said:
the fuss is we are not a Socialist country, and don't want to be..We don't want to become a slave to the Federal Government, especially this one..
what is so hard to understand about that..
Click to expand...

Where does the slave enter into it? One can still be free to choose.

Think of it like the school system. Everyone pays school taxes either directly or through land tax or general payroll taxes but they're still allowed to send their children to private schools or home school. It is better for society, on the whole, to have basic education for everyone.

The same applies to medical services. Healthy people are more productive. They are generally happier. It is a benefit to society.
 
Ice Dancer said:
ummmm, apple, the point was not that some countries have single payer systems.
Click to expand...

I thought the point was there wouldn't be private insurance companies if a single payer system was established. If so, such is not the case. Private insurance can pay for extras like a private room or a wheelchair or neck brace to take home, for example. Or blood tests at a private clinic.
 
Onceler said:
That's not really true. Do you really think that if you removed conservative & moderate Dems, the libs would be in the majority?

Healthcare needs a revolution. You are making incrementalism sound like some sort of insidious thing; the fact is, changes HAVE to be made to the current system, at every level. But you can't change it overnight; just like you can't get off oil overnight.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that there are more than 20 Conservative and Moderate democrat Senators that are against this?
 
Damocles said:
Are you saying that there are more than 20 Conservative and Moderate democrat Senators that are against this?
Click to expand...

Yes, because the moderate position is to be opposed to healthcare reform. Thanks. You have such unbiased views.

The liberals would support single payer. This bill was specifically designed to cater to the moderates.
 
Watermark said:
Yes, because the moderate position is to be opposed to healthcare reform. Thanks. You have such unbiased views.

The liberals would support single payer. This bill was specifically designed to cater to the moderates.
Click to expand...

The bill is specifically designed to cater to those who believe in the "Nanny State".
 
Watermark said:
Yes, because the moderate position is to be opposed to healthcare reform. Thanks. You have such unbiased views.

The liberals would support single payer. This bill was specifically designed to cater to the moderates.
Click to expand...
There are more than 20 Conservative and Moderate democrat Senators? Do you have a list? And every Moderate stands firmly against this? If that were the case there would be no argument, they would have squelched debate with a larger than 60 to 40 vote and we'd have little to worry about.

This isn't the case, and it is just ignorance to suggest it is.
 
Damocles said:
There are more than 20 Conservative and Moderate democrat Senators? Do you have a list? And every Moderate stands firmly against this? If that were the case there would be no argument, they would have squelched debate with a larger than 60 to 40 vote.
Click to expand...

There are two moderates Republicans and about 5-7 "moderate" Democrats in the senate. By "moderate" they really mean center-right (cus the only view the media gives in America is the right-wing view), but whatever.
 
Watermark said:
There are two moderates Republicans and about 5-7 "moderate" Democrats in the senate. By "moderate" they really mean center-right (cus the only view the media gives in America is the right-wing view), but whatever.
Click to expand...
I was asked, "If they took away all the moderate and conservative democrats do you really think the liberals would be in the majority?"

In order for them not to be, they would have to have more than 20 Senators in the Democratic party that were either Moderate or Conservative. Please tell me which 20 these are, and why if they are so dead set against this legislation it is still being discussed?
 
Watermark said:
Nope, nanny-staters like me would've got straight to single-payer. We wouldn't have bothered letting private insurers take any of the money.
Click to expand...

Like I said, if you mean liberals.
Nanny Staters are those who haven't grown up and want everyone else to take care of them.
They're still babies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top