Thread: HealthCare Speech - What did you think?

Originally Posted by commiecat

I would offer an equally-sarcastic link for flights to countries that only offer corporate health care, but unfortunately the United States is the only industrialized nation with it.

Yeah, maybe the U.S. should also give up sovereignty like those other industrialized nations.

Originally Posted by honedright

Yeah, maybe the U.S. should also give up sovereignty like those other industrialized nations.

And what does that have to do with health care?

"My position is to keep things just the way they are and whoever disagrees should just leave this country!"

EDIT: Arguing about funding aside, do you have any issues with the principle of national health care and if so, why?

Originally Posted by commiecat

And what does that have to do with health care?

I thought by this:

Originally Posted by commiecat

I would offer an equally-sarcastic link for flights to countries that only offer corporate health care, but unfortunately the United States is the only industrialized nation with it.

...that you meant that the U.S. should follow in the footsteps of the rest of the industrialized world. As though somehow the rest of the world knows better. Maybe I misunderstood your post???

I think there is good reason that the U.S. has always been, and should always remain different.

Originally Posted by honedright

I thought by this:



...that you meant that the U.S. should follow in the footsteps of the rest of the industrialized world. As though somehow the rest of the world knows better. Maybe I misunderstood your post???

I think there is good reason that the U.S. has always been, and should always remain different.

I meant it strictly regarding health care and because it has worked, not just because other countries are doing it. I think there is something to be said when, out of the G8, the US spends the most per-capita for health care yet ranks last in life expectancy and last in infant mortality.

Originally Posted by commiecat

EDIT: Arguing about funding aside, do you have any issues with the principle of national health care and if so, why?

I think national health care is a horrible idea. I'll just say that, national defense issues aside, I am completely against any form of a nanny state that proposes to care for, or facilitate care for, individuals. I see too many problems and believe that once we go down that road, just like Social Security et al, we will never be able to go back.

Originally Posted by loueedacat

By weak president I mean abdicating his job - presenting a healthcare plan that is moderate - to Congress. He was "hired" to be a moderate, not to delegate to the left wing in Congress. He was too weak and inexperienced to seize the initiative on his own issue, left it to the Pelosi types, and now he's in a jam of his own making, trying to rescue a leftwing drafted reform package by trying to steer it to the middle, when he should have taken the initiative and presented a moderate package in the first place. That would have been strong. Delivering a nice speech isn't strong. He can speak - no one disputes that. Unfortunately, being a strong President requires more than delivering nice speeches, and he still doesn't get that. He thinks he's still a candidate.

I'm not averse to a more dramatic overhaul, but I think Obama correctly read that that just ain't happening, so no point dwelling on what might academically make more sense. And his point that whether we end up with public or private options is just a means to an end was dead on. The problem is he didn't focus on the "boring" stuff that really needs to be addressed, whether it's addressed with public options, private options or a mix.

But bottom line is he needs to lead on this, not just inspire, and he doesn't know the difference.

This kept switching back on itself until I think it sprained itself. You speak at two points at once here and no one can win with that kind of thinking.

At once you accuse him of being a zagger. Then say he zigged. But then you say he's zagging where you wanted him to be in the first place. He presents a reform bill and the republicans ( I only use a small "r" for them now, they have shown they don't deserve a big boy capital anymore with their temper tantrums) say he needs to reach out to them more. If he concedes anything to their wishes then he's weak and flip flopping.

Honestly in the republican mindset if Obama walked on water to meet their boat they would whine about all the wet footprints on the deck.

republicans have turned into nothing more than Acrimonicrats. Reacting to everything with outrageous anger to anything and everything.

Originally Posted by commiecat

I meant it strictly regarding health care and because it has worked, not just because other countries are doing it. I think there is something to be said when, out of the G8, the US spends the most per-capita for health care yet ranks last in life expectancy and last in infant mortality.

I've read up on those infant mortality stats. Have you? Doesn't it involve very isolated populations? I'm not convinced enough to change our entire health care system.

Originally Posted by honedright

I think national health care is a horrible idea. I'll just say that, national defense issues aside, I am completely against any form of a nanny state that proposes to care for, or facilitate care for, individuals. I see too many problems and believe that once we go down that road, just like Social Security et al, we will never be able to go back.

But the plan is to provide an affordable alternative. You can still use your private insurance and see specialists -- they will just have to compete against a public option. What sort of problems do you think will arise from competition?

Originally Posted by commiecat

But the plan is to provide an affordable alternative. You can still use your private insurance and see specialists -- they will just have to compete against a public option. What sort of problems do you think will arise from competition?

Competing against the organization that makes the rules is no competition, especially since that organization will not need to follow the same rules. Also when you are not required to make a profit there is no competition when the other party has to make a profit for their very survival.

Originally Posted by JMS

Competing against the organization that makes the rules is no competition, especially since that organization will not need to follow the same rules. Also when you are not required to make a profit there is no competition when the other party has to make a profit for their very survival.

Tell that to UPS and FedEx. To Notre Dame University and the University of Miami (FL).