FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Discussions About Orson Scott Card » World Watch (Page 1)

  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: World Watch
jxs177
New Member
Member # 12188

 - posted      Profile for jxs177   Email jxs177         Edit/Delete Post 
I like reading Orson Scott Card's World Watch columns, mainly because I disagree with most of what he says, and I like the laugh I usually get.

I have read the latest installment, and while I normally don't engage in the public discourse, I thought that this time I had to say something, somehow.

In the latest post, OSC states of President Obama that "...all his promises - every one of them - were lies." While OSC has a right to his opinion, it would be nice if he had something to back it up. Why doesn't OSC give any examples? So far, Obama is trying to pass some form of health care, which was one of his campaign promises. That's not a lie. I'm not going to get into details, but there are plenty of independent websites tracking the president's campaign promises, and how far he's come to each of them. I encourage everyone to check that out.

OSC says that Bush never lied about anything. I think there are a lot of people who would disagree with that statement, and I again invite everyone to check out independent analysis of Bush's lies and misrepresentations.

OSC says Obama is incompetent. How exactly? He's had 9 months. People, it's going to take some time to turn things around. I'd like to remind OSC, if he reads this, that Mr. Bush left office with a good portion of New Orleans still destroyed almost 4 years after Katrina, with a hole at ground zero more than 7 years after 9/11, with two wars, with a skyrocketing deficit, with out-of-control national debt, with the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs every month, with the collapse of the financial industry, and with millions of foreclosures and hundreds of thousands going bankrupt because they couldn't pay for their medical bills. Mr. Bush left office with almost 45 million Americans with no health insurance. His TARP program, which he rushed to get through Congress, has done virtually nothing to get banks to lend money again.

Mr. Card states that it's the Left that's "calling us names if we disagree." Really, Mr. Card? What about all the Right Wing people comparing Obama to Hitler and carrying signs depicting him as some African witch doctor? What about Joe Wilson's famous "You lie!", even though Joe Wilson was wrong? What about that crazy birther movement?

Mr. Card has a column that a lot of people read. It's his responsibility to check his facts before he posts something. What we need right now is less of the Glenn Beck approach and more civil discussion. We don't need absolutes, like Mr. Card's column is full of. The truth is, there are crazies on both sides of all debates. While Fox News, Glenn Beck and Mr. Card pander to the fringe elements of the Right, and similar outlets pander to the fringe of the Left, the real debate is in the middle, with honest and civil dialogue. It's time to stop the name-calling, the bickering, and start doing something in this country. Mr. Card, you're free to join us any time, but leave your rhetoric at home.

Posts: 4 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Synesthesia
Member
Member # 4774

 - posted      Profile for Synesthesia   Email Synesthesia         Edit/Delete Post 
I agree dude
Which is why I tend to avoid reading OSC's columns
I don't walk away from them feeling intelligent and enlightened but annoyed and frustrated and ready to hammer nails into my brain from the sheer annoyance of OSC's over simplifying of complicated issues!
It's all black and white with him. No grey. No various colours.
GAH!

Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
I used to be frustrated with OSC's worldwatch stuff because he would basically pile on a handful of offhanded (rarely if ever qualified) assertions and then just sort of grind them through a sausage maker to produce little meat dumplings of offensive generalizations. And actually, he's still doing that, but now and, for I would say the past 18 months at least, he's just sort of floundering about casting aspersion on liberals for reasons he refuses to state, mainly because I think he's just tired of doing it. The whole experience created such a negative feedback loop with his fanbase, I wouldn't be surprised if this latest update is just the swan song- maybe a few more wallowing screeds, and then eventually he'll just give it up as good money after bad. He long since lost interest in discussing the actual issues, and moved on to partisan bickering and name calling several years ago, and I don't think there was any going back. I can't say that disappointments me- if he had never written such an article, I feel his world and this one might be a better place for all the good things he could have spent his time on.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
think I am going to cry. Before hes made at least SOME effort before... but now its like he just didn't care.

I'm going to go into my little corner and cry now, so much of it is just so wrong doesn't he ever watch The Daily Show with Jon Stewart?

Commences crying.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Matek
Member
Member # 9065

 - posted      Profile for Matek   Email Matek         Edit/Delete Post 
It sounds like most of his information comes from Fox news. Kinda sad...
Posts: 10 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dogbreath
Member
Member # 11879

 - posted      Profile for Dogbreath           Edit/Delete Post 
Didn't provoke a negative reaction for me - actually, it didn't provoke a reaction at all. It just read like mindless blathering to me. I'm a little disappointed aboutt that, I'm used to at least getting a little pissed off at World Watch. The past two haven't even made me so much as laugh.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
There's really nothing that funny about a crash and burn.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Parkour
Member
Member # 12078

 - posted      Profile for Parkour           Edit/Delete Post 
Wait a minute. First he castigates the president and his "chums" by pointing out that you get nowhere by insulting the people who disagree with you. Then he invites irony and hypocrisy by excusing his own insults and appraisal of the people he disagrees with, by saying that they're hopeless anyway.

I am absolutely startled that Card can be such a terrible columnist, but this is one of the shoddier, stupider rants I have ever read, left OR right. It reads like terse, emotionally-charged hackwork. What's happened to him?

Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
Classic card. At least he brought the funny.

As far as the midterms...solidly in Republican control after 2010? Doubtful. If they Democrats were smart they'd be able to peg a lack of progress on the Republicans and gain an even larger majority, but that won't happen. I think the GOP will be able to take back some of those moderate seats that Blue Dogs took in 2008, but they'll still be moderates. Either way, I'd actually be a little surprised if the GOP took back Congress, but I think they'll thin the edge in the House. Dems might actually be able to net a seat or two in the Senate.

I'm curious as to how he can prove Obama KNOWINGLY lied about any number of amorphous things that he doesn't specify. Proving that someone knowingly lied is incredibly difficult, as it requires you to more or less have the person in question admit it.

Other than that, the missile shield? Come on man. We've been talking missile defense for FIFTY YEARS! And after tens of billions of dollars it still DOESN'T WORK! And there's not even an encouraging sign that it will work in anything close to the near future! In exchange, we're going to get Russia to put the hammer to Iran, which is absolutely essential in any plan that makes sanctions viable. If the shield is specifically there to stop an Iranian Shahab, doesn't it make more sense to use the shield in any way necessary to stop the missiles? Even if that means not having the shield? Regardless, it was a shield that couldn't stop anything, and instead we're giving them mobile detection platforms in the form of Aegis Destroyers and future interceptor missiles that work even better than the non-existent missile shield, for less money, and don't piss off Russia. He could have handled it more diplomatically so Poland and the like didn't get burned in the process, but we aren't leaving them in the cold, we're making them safer.

As for Afghanistan, where did he get that, his crystal ball? He's put a crapload more focus on Afghanistan than Bush ever did, and he's said numerous times to unfriendly audiences that the struggle there still has a long way to go. Where does he get cutting and running from that?

The only thing I do agree on is that Obama actually has been shockingly awful at gathering support or leading in any meaningful way. I think thus far he's been along for the ride far more than he's been steering the ship.

I hope he gets everything he wants though, so American freedom as we know it can come to an end. As a liberal, I hate freedom, and want it to die.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DarkKnight
Member
Member # 7536

 - posted      Profile for DarkKnight   Email DarkKnight         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I'm curious as to how he can prove Obama KNOWINGLY lied about any number of amorphous things that he doesn't specify. Proving that someone knowingly lied is incredibly difficult, as it requires you to more or less have the person in question admit it.

Unless you are a Republican....like Bush.
I really love how we now need to change the tone since President Obama took office. I don't seem to recall the clamor for people to treat any other President more fairly. This is just a pathetic attempt to shutdown critiscm of Obama and the Democrats.
quote:
What about all the Right Wing people comparing Obama to Hitler and carrying signs depicting him as some African witch doctor?
What about the movies depicting the killing of President Bush? what about all the signs against President Bush? I am sure you were just as outraged then as you are now.
quote:
What about Joe Wilson's famous "You lie!", even though Joe Wilson was wrong?
Are illegal immigrants receiving health care now? How does President Obama's vague outline for health care reform prevent illegal immigrants from receiving health care in the future? Will President Obama demand that hospitals and emergency care clinics be forced by law to prove that a patient is a legal citizen before treatment begins?
quote:
What about that crazy birther movement?

I think the birther movement is the equivalent of the truther movement except the birthers are not claiming Bush killed 3000 people, or was it the Jews?
President Obama does not want to raise the bar of polite discussion, only stifle his critics.

Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DarkKnight
Member
Member # 7536

 - posted      Profile for DarkKnight   Email DarkKnight         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Regardless, it was a shield that couldn't stop anything, and instead we're giving them mobile detection platforms in the form of Aegis Destroyers and future interceptor missiles that work even better than the non-existent missile shield, for less money, and don't piss off Russia. He could have handled it more diplomatically so Poland and the like didn't get burned in the process, but we aren't leaving them in the cold, we're making them safer.
If you replace one system that may or may not work with another system that may or may not work...how does that make them safer?

[ October 05, 2009, 12:12 PM: Message edited by: DarkKnight ]

Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
from DK:
Unless you are a Republican....like Bush.
I really love how we now need to change the tone since President Obama took office. I don't seem to recall the clamor for people to treat any other President more fairly. This is just a pathetic attempt to shutdown critiscm of Obama and the Democrats.

You DO however recognize the methodological silliness of setting a standard and then violating it in next sentence don't you? You can't say "This is lying, and there's no proof!" and then say "this is lying, and I don't need proof, I just KNOW." He said/she said about Bush is irrelevant to the point. He's doing the exact same thing he accuses others of doing, and he's doing it in the same paragraph! He can call him a liar if he wants, but he can't dismiss the baseless claims of others and then front his own baseless claim in the same breath. It's ridiculous.

quote:
If you replace one system that may or may not work with another system that may or may not work...how does that make them safer?
Safer than if they had nothing at all, not necessarily safer than what was planned...though I do think one could still make that argument given the history of the missile shield. Do you have an opinion one way or the other?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jxs177
New Member
Member # 12188

 - posted      Profile for jxs177   Email jxs177         Edit/Delete Post 
I like DarkKnight's post, because it's just more of the same right-wing rhetoric we see on Fox News. Here we go:

1. It may be difficult to tell if someone knowingly lied. However, if you can document hundreds of lies and misrepresentations, then the conclusion would be that a) either that person is knowingly lying, or b) that person is an idiot. George Bush and Co. have been caught, by independent sources representing no major media outlet, in hundreds of lies and misrepresentations during his presidency. Now, I would say that all presidents lie, and all policitians have been guilty of misrepresenting the facts for political gain. My argument is that you cannot say that all of Obama's promises have been lies. There are going to be things he can pass, and things he can't do. Anybody here remember "No new taxes?" If the landscape changes while you're in office, do you think you should be held to the letter of whatever you said during your campaign?

2. The difference with the crazy right-wing group today with Obama and those crazy left-wing people with Bush is that you didn't have a major news outlet promoting it for the past 8 years. Now you've got Fox News sponsoring these tea-bagging fools, and you've got Glenn Beck talking about these "freedom-loving" people who want to take their country back from the fascists. That's not journalism with integrity. That's rhetoric designed specifically to cause rage, and the right-wing has perfected it. The fact is, there are many right-wingers who just can't stand that we have a black president. That get's to the heart of a lot of this.

3. Actually, the house bill proposed BEFORE Joe Wilson's flap reads as follows: "no federal payment for undocumented aliens." That's pretty clear, DarkKnight. Also, illegal immigrants already are treated in emergency rooms. Changing that requires a new law. Children of illegal immigrants that are born in the US are citizens, and are eligible for health care. Changing that requires a new law, too.

4. The birther movement is the direct result of the many rascists in the right-wing who can't stand having a black president. They will go to any lenghts, even forging false Kenyan birth certificates, to prove that Obama is not a US citizen. It's really sad that these people exist, and that they get so much coverage.

5. It's true that the missile defense shield has never worked and will probably never work. We've been trying this, through DARPA grants, in one form or another for close to 30 years. Trying a little diplomacy for once might yield great results. It's at least worth a try.

The problem with people like DarkKnight, just like Glenn Beck and the Fox News circus, is that they say anything to get a response or make their point. They don't care about those inconvenient facts. They feed on sensationalism and fear. They say the government is going to control our health care, even though Medicare is one of the most successful programs in history. How many seniors do you know who would be willing to give up their Medicare for private insurance?

They like to say that Obama is a socialist, yet how is allowing 1% of the population to control more wealth than 95% of the population helping the country? DarkKnight has no answer to this question, just like he has no response to my earlier statement that Bush left office with a huge deficit, huge debt, two wars, the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs every month, hundreds of thousands of foreclosures, health insurance that millions cannot afford. The right wing can only complain and yell; they have no ideas about how to fix anything. DarkKnight, if you have any ideas, I think everyone would love to hear it. Do you want to provide us with any constructive insight?

Posts: 4 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hobbes
Member
Member # 433

 - posted      Profile for Hobbes   Email Hobbes         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I like DarkKnight's post, because it's just more of the same right-wing rhetoric we see on Fox News.
Interesting, I wouldn't have pegged you as a Fox News fan from the rest of your post. Takes all kinds though I guess, right?

Hobbes [Smile]

Posts: 10602 | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DarkKnight
Member
Member # 7536

 - posted      Profile for DarkKnight   Email DarkKnight         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
You DO however recognize the methodological silliness of setting a standard and then violating it in next sentence don't you? You can't say "This is lying, and there's no proof!" and then say "this is lying, and I don't need proof, I just KNOW." He said/she said about Bush is irrelevant to the point. He's doing the exact same thing he accuses others of doing, and he's doing it in the same paragraph! He can call him a liar if he wants, but he can't dismiss the baseless claims of others and then front his own baseless claim in the same breath. It's ridiculous.
Is the 'He' you are referring to in your post Mr. Card? If so, then I do think Mr. Card would have been much better off responding with at least a list of lies Obama has told...No earmarks would be a good one although that is being spun as he didn't really say or mean NO earmarks, just less than others.
quote:
1. It may be difficult to tell if someone knowingly lied. However, if you can document hundreds of lies and misrepresentations, then the conclusion would be that a) either that person is knowingly lying, or b) that person is an idiot. George Bush and Co. have been caught, by independent sources representing no major media outlet, in hundreds of lies and misrepresentations during his presidency. Now, I would say that all presidents lie, and all policitians have been guilty of misrepresenting the facts for political gain.
So as the tally keeps increasing for Obama and his lies and misrepresentations will you say that Obama is a) knowingly lying or b) he is an idiot? What's the threshold?
quote:
2. The difference with the crazy right-wing group today with Obama and those crazy left-wing people with Bush is that you didn't have a major news outlet promoting it for the past 8 years.
Who would Cindy Sheehan be without wall to wall media coverage? We went through many years of major news outlets lying and misrepresentating the Bush Administration and now you are all upset because Fox chooses to cover stories that other networks will not cover? The Tea Parties are a great example of not covering an event for a political purpose. Yes, Fox news is biased and it's bias shows strongly when compared to the bias of other major news outlets. Dan Rather is a good example of Democrat bias.
quote:
3. Actually, the house bill proposed BEFORE Joe Wilson's flap reads as follows: "no federal payment for undocumented aliens." That's pretty clear, DarkKnight. Also, illegal immigrants already are treated in emergency rooms. Changing that requires a new law.
So Obama did knowingly lie because he knows that illegal immigrants will continue to be treated, or is an idiot?
quote:
Children of illegal immigrants that are born in the US are citizens, and are eligible for health care. Changing that requires a new law, too.

I'm not sure what you are going for here. Children born in the US are citizens, not illegal immigrants and have all the rights of any other US citizen.
quote:
4. The birther movement is the direct result of the many rascists in the right-wing who can't stand having a black president. They will go to any lenghts, even forging false Kenyan birth certificates, to prove that Obama is not a US citizen. It's really sad that these people exist, and that they get so much coverage.

and the truthers are....what? They are still out there claiming that it was an inside job. Are they racists or just idiots?
quote:
The problem with people like DarkKnight, just like Glenn Beck and the Fox News circus, is that they say anything to get a response or make their point. They don't care about those inconvenient facts. They feed on sensationalism and fear.
What facts have I misrepresented? Oh, this is just you projecting things onto someone else, regardless if they said them or not.
quote:
They say the government is going to control our health care, even though Medicare is one of the most successful programs in history.
You included me with those 'they', can you point to where I said that? I didn't. My opposition to the current health care has to do with the details of the plans, how things are paid for, the fines for non-compliance and so on. Here is a good place to recognize many of the lies and misrepresentations...or they could be idiots...of the Democrats writing the bills. Obama made the claim he can save hundreds of billions of dollars in fraud, waste, and abuse of Medicare...but wait, didn't you just say the Medicare is one of the most successful programs in history? Hard to swallow that one when Obama knows he can save hundreds of billions of dollars from such a corrupt program, unless you are claiming that successful means hundreds of billions of dollars are wasted...but I don't think you are saying that.
quote:
They like to say that Obama is a socialist, yet how is allowing 1% of the population to control more wealth than 95% of the population helping the country?
Let's turn this question around, are you proposing to redistribute the wealth of the country from those who have it to those who do not? My answer is that this is just more class warfare rhetoric from jealous angry people who want something for nothing. Those evil wealthy 1% are not preventing you from increasing your own personal wealth. You can become rich too. It's hard work, and risky, but you can do it.
quote:
Bush left office with a huge deficit, huge debt, two wars, the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs every month, hundreds of thousands of foreclosures, health insurance that millions cannot afford.
This would take more time than I currently have but I will say that Obama has vastly outspent Bush, has not created new jobs, and has done little, if anything, to improve our economy. GM too big to fail! Oops, failed anyway...That's just one example.
quote:
DarkKnight, if you have any ideas, I think everyone would love to hear it.
I suspect this is completely untrue. I have done so in the past only to be shouted down. But for the sake of trying...health care should NOT be done in a massive bill. We should take smaller steps. I fail to see what is wrong with making one bill for electronic records, spend the time to make that right, and passing it. Another bill can be giving hospitals incentives to find if their patients should be covered by Medicare. Millions of those uninsured are covered, they just never got the coverage. Make that a separate bill. Those two should easily pass. Another bill should be allowing the same health insurance tax breaks for self employed individuals that people who get their health insurance through their employers get. Too radical for you? How about NOT punishing an employer when their employees do not take the company's provided health care?
There are some ideas...feel free to misrepresent them...

Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
I might agree in principle.

However, there are a number of problems. One, passing legislation in bits and pieces means that there could be gaps and overlaps. It also means the most controversial pieces won't have a chance of passing. I suppose YOU don't care so much about that, but as a supporter of a lot of the ideas running around the liberal side of Washington, I don't want to see what I think are some of the most vital reforms fall by the wayside because Republicans are using parliamentary tricks to stonewall passage of anything that doesn't 100% conform to their demands.

Just passing the parts that both sides agree on is going to leave HUGE holes in health care. Dems don't want necessary tort reform, and Republicans refuse a public option. I think both are necessary, but outside of a comprehensive bill, i think neither will happen, and we'll all suffer.

quote:
Is the 'He' you are referring to in your post Mr. Card? If so, then I do think Mr. Card would have been much better off responding with at least a list of lies Obama has told...No earmarks would be a good one although that is being spun as he didn't really say or mean NO earmarks, just less than others.
Campaign promises? Really? You want to go there dovetailed to a Obama vs. Bush honesty discussion using campaign promises as a metric? Do you have a death wish? Bush wins from his second term, since we KNEW what we were getting, but if you want to compare first term Bush to candidate Bush in 2000, then you're going to get smoked.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DarkKnight
Member
Member # 7536

 - posted      Profile for DarkKnight   Email DarkKnight         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
One, passing legislation in bits and pieces means that there could be gaps and overlaps. It also means the most controversial pieces won't have a chance of passing. I suppose YOU don't care so much about that, but as a supporter of a lot of the ideas running around the liberal side of Washington, I don't want to see what I think are some of the most vital reforms fall by the wayside because Republicans are using parliamentary tricks to stonewall passage of anything that doesn't 100% conform to their demands.
Just like Democrats, and YOU, do not want to do anything but gain complete control over all aspects of health care so the Government will have power over our very lives. See how the useless rhetoric works both ways? Probably not. Or we could accurately say that Democrats, and YOU, do not want to pass health care reform unless they get every single liberal item 100% their way, there is no compromise! It's either their way, or no way. Again, this is as true as your statements are but not very helpful.
The items I mentioned (electronic records or ER, getting covered people into coverage, reducing the fraud and waste in Medicare) will NOT fix health care. They will help reduce some costs and provide better coverage for many but is NOT the total answer. We can work on those 3 ideas, and there are other items too while we continue to talk about a public option or whatever liberal idea it is YOU are pushing for. Even if YOU want a single payer system then you should still want to pass ER, better enrollment procedures, and reducing fraud and waste. All 3 of those can be helpful in a single payer system. But you would rather do nothing than achieve something that will only help you long term.
Imagine if President Obama were able to point to the successes of ER, of reducing the millions of uncovered, but eligible, Medicare recipients, and more. He would be able to correctly say that he is reforming health care. It would give him the political capital to do more during his next term.
I have a feeling this is totally wasted on you though. You are mad at Republicans because you claim they want 100% of their demands...and at the same time you want 100% of your demands. So they are wrong but somehow you are right?

Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geraine
Member
Member # 9913

 - posted      Profile for Geraine   Email Geraine         Edit/Delete Post 
I have my own political beliefs and think both parties have had their fair share of faults, however I have to agree with Dark Knight on his points.

I have had many concerns with the Bush Administration, and I have concerns with the Obama Administration.

I understand Obama wants to get as much done as he can in the next few years, but I think he needs to slow down a bit.

Blaming the previous administration is only going to last so long before people start to hold Obama responsible. It seems as though he is using this as an excuse to pass all of these bills. If something works, then Obama fixed it. If a program doesn't work, it is Bush's fault. Nevermind that the legislation had to be passed in Congress, and that the President was a member of that Congress at the time. Everytime I hear the president say something such as "We inherited this fromt he previous administation," the "Not Me" kid from the Family Circus comic strip pops into my head.

I wish the President, and congress on both sides of the isle would just buckle down and take responsibility for the economy instead of playing the blame game.

Personally I believe in the more money people have, the more money they have to spend. The more money businesses have, the more people they can hire.

Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post 
Great thread! [Roll Eyes]
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Or we could accurately say that Democrats, and YOU, do not want to pass health care reform unless they get every single liberal item 100% their way, there is no compromise! It's either their way, or no way. Again, this is as true as your statements are but not very helpful.
I wouldn't hem me in with Democrats. I agree with much of what they want, but not all of it, and I even think Republicans have a couple decent ideas that are being ignored or don't have much of a chance, the best of which is tort reform, which I think is absolutely essential.

quote:
But you would rather do nothing than achieve something that will only help you long term.
It's a calculated risk though. If I thought that honest and open discussion, negotiation and agreement would follow from passing all the agreed upon stuff now, I'd urge everyone to do it tomorrow. But I think passing those things would mean nothing else gets done. Both sides will pretend they've done something substantive, when in reality they'll have just put a band-aid on the problem. And then we have to wait another decade to fix it.

quote:
Imagine if President Obama were able to point to the successes of ER, of reducing the millions of uncovered, but eligible, Medicare recipients, and more. He would be able to correctly say that he is reforming health care. It would give him the political capital to do more during his next term.
His next term? Heh. First off, I don't think we should wait that long for practical reasons. Already the reforms we put in place now are going to take years to really take effect. Waiting another three or four years to do it just compounds the problem that much more. I don't necessarily agree with the Democrats rush rush rush mentality to push some thousand page monstrosity into law, but I don't think waiting a few more years is a good idea either. Second, while it's impossible to know what's to come, and Dems might even get the gift of Palin if she decides to run, I'm skeptical of him getting reelected. I don't mind a lot of what Republicans want to do, but it's the stuff they'll refuse to allow that makes me want to make sure it's passed during Obama's term, otherwise getting any sort of public health care will take decades, and things will get worse and worse in the mean time.

quote:
I have a feeling this is totally wasted on you though. You are mad at Republicans because you claim they want 100% of their demands...and at the same time you want 100% of your demands. So they are wrong but somehow you are right?
Where is the middle ground? The problem isn't that Democrats want A,B, and C and Republicans want X, Y and Z. It's that Democrats and Republicans both want A and B, and then Democrats want C and Republicans want Z, but C and Z aren't even somewhat related. (C, by the way, is public health care, and Z is tort reform). A perfect compromise is a public option for tort reform, and I'm absolutely on board with that. But where do you see room for a non-100% victory? If Republicans get the public option killed, they win, and if it goes through, Democrats win. When there are only two sides, it's hard to have anything short of a 100% win.

And of course I think I'm right and they're wrong. If I didn't, I'd agree with them wouldn't I? You seem to mean that strategically, as in, it's okay for me to want everything I want and wrong for them to want everything that they want, but we agree on so many things, it's really just down to a couple things of huge importance, as I explained above.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jxs177
New Member
Member # 12188

 - posted      Profile for jxs177   Email jxs177         Edit/Delete Post 
This discussion is getting all over the board. It seems that everyone has moved on to health care, with DarkKnight seeming to hang on to the normal GOP line that a government-run public option would be akin to a government takeover of health care.

Now, I think most people actually checking facts (instead of showing everyone that he knows how to type YOU a lot), would agree that this is just not the case. The whole idea of a public option is to give the general public an OPTION (my keyboard has a CAPS key, too) so that they don't have to buy private health insurance if they don't want to. Republicans and health insurance CEOs are worried that the public option will compete with private insurance. It is true that a public option will create competition for private insurance. However, how many times in history has competition actually been a bad thing? I can't think of any examples. Competition forces companies to lower prices while leading to innovation. If you don't provide a good product at a reasonable price, consumers go elsewhere. GM is the best example. They used to have a virtual stranglehold on the American automotive market, but years of sub-par products and inflated prices allowed the Japanese automakers to get a foot in the door, so to speak, in the market. GM wasn't able to produce quality cars at a price comparable to Honda and Toyota, and they failed to see the declining demand for large trucks and SUVs. Now look at them. Competition always helps the consumer. Always.

And just to leave everyone with another point (and hopefully to get back on track), a majority of the population, according to the latest polls, supports a public option of some sort. The New York Times poll suggests 65% of Americans want the public option. And just to debunk DarkKnight's inevitable claim that the NYT is part of the "liberal media," a similar poll conducted by the GOP-leaning Resurgent Republic suggests that 31% say the government should provide universal health coverage, while another 35% say the government should provide health coverage to those who cannot afford it. That's 66%, from a conservative polling institution, favoring some sort of public option.

Now, ladies and gentlemen, the last time I checked, our elected officials were supposed to speak for us in Congress. I fail to see why, if nearly two-thirds of Americans favor some form of a government-run public option, we should not do it.

Remember, this is the United States. It is unacceptable for so many of our friends and neighbors to be uninsured. It is unacceptable for someone to declare bankruptcy and lose his house because he got sick.

That's all I have to say on this matter.

Posts: 4 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
I think the line you're taking issue with is this:

quote:
Just like Democrats, and YOU, do not want to do anything but gain complete control over all aspects of health care so the Government will have power over our very lives. See how the useless rhetoric works both ways?
Note the part in bold at the end there. He was being hyperbolic on purpose to make a point. I disagree with Dark Knight a lot, but he's not a party hack. And even though I do disagree with him so often, I'm glad he continues to post despite the fact that he's generally a lone voice. Keeps me honest.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sean Monahan
Member
Member # 9334

 - posted      Profile for Sean Monahan   Email Sean Monahan         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by jxs177:
This discussion is getting all over the board.

You ain't seen nothing yet.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by DarkKnight:

I have a feeling this is totally wasted on you though. You are mad at Republicans because you claim they want 100% of their demands...and at the same time you want 100% of your demands. So they are wrong but somehow you are right?

DK, who in hell are you talking to? Who on this board has ever agreed 100% with anyone? Moreover, in what way is the current health care reform bill representative of a 100% liberal agenda? Because I don't see single-payer in there. Hell, I don't even see a public option being passed any time soon. So where is the lack of compromise exactly? Where have people failed to change their expectations to meet their real possibilities? Please, enlighten us, because from where I'm sitting, you're just spinning a web of crap that doesn't match a reasonable picture of events.

Lately this mantra has been reading more and more like the whining of a little boy who has walked into a store, and is now asking his mother to buy him every attractive item he sees, and becoming more and more agitated at each successive refusal, throwing items into the aisles and running his hands across everything, knocking it all out of place. "WE HAVE TO COMPROMISE!!!"

Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geraine
Member
Member # 9913

 - posted      Profile for Geraine   Email Geraine         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by jxs177:

And just to leave everyone with another point (and hopefully to get back on track), a majority of the population, according to the latest polls, supports a public option of some sort. The New York Times poll suggests 65% of Americans want the public option. And just to debunk DarkKnight's inevitable claim that the NYT is part of the "liberal media," a similar poll conducted by the GOP-leaning Resurgent Republic suggests that 31% say the government should provide universal health coverage, while another 35% say the government should provide health coverage to those who cannot afford it. That's 66%, from a conservative polling institution, favoring some sort of public option.


Careful with this. You are talking about 2 polls out of hundreds that are taking place on a weekly basis. The majority of the polls still show that that the amount that want government run health care is about 20 points below what you stated above.

You don't exactly know if these answers came from the same question either. Its possible 31% said they favored government run healthcare, and there could have been a second question about people that can't afford it.

I am not saying your information is wrong, just stating that polls, on both sides of the aisle, are often skewed. Just remember, according to polls John Kerry won a landslide victory in 2004 and Hillary was without a doubt the choice for the presidential election in 2008.

Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Just remember, according to polls John Kerry won a landslide victory in 2004 and Hillary was without a doubt the choice for the presidential election in 2008.
I was very carefully watching the electoral polling process for both of the events you describe.

"according to polls, John Kerry won a landslide victory" is completely false. Metadata on the polls suggested an overall electoral college tabulation that favored kerry but was decidedly within the margin of error.

"Hillary was without a doubt the choice for the presidential election in 2008" is also false.

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sterling
Member
Member # 8096

 - posted      Profile for Sterling   Email Sterling         Edit/Delete Post 
Every now and then I poke my head up and read one of the World Watches, and I always regret it.

What's particularly sad is there's just about enough anecdote to make a case about some of the more self-destructive tendencies of unions. And then he tries to push it into a blackwash of the usual suspects- the Democrats, the far left, the feminists, the gay-rights groups. And I go- doesn't he realize he's raving? Doesn't he realize that if this were a conversation, almost any rational second party would be walking away at this point?

It wouldn't actually surprise me if the GOP took back a number of seats in the next election. But to think it's because the country is tired of the Democratic platform is "because the real americans all think like me" nonsense. It's the same platform that got Obama into office with a greater margin and more votes than Bush had either time. (Including when he had a "mandate"... Okay, sorry, I'm getting snarky.) It has a lot more to do with that the Democrats lack the consensus that the so-called "supermajority" would suggest, and where they have concensus, they lack spine. When all else goes to heck, the electorate would generally prefer the candidates that appear strong, confident, and certain. If we get to the 2010 elections without accomplishing anything with the "supermajority", the public is going to be smelling fear.

Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DarkKnight
Member
Member # 7536

 - posted      Profile for DarkKnight   Email DarkKnight         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
DK, who in hell are you talking to?
Not you.
quote:
Who on this board has ever agreed 100% with anyone?
Thank your for once again misinterperting my responses and not reading what I posted.
quote:
Moreover, in what way is the current health care reform bill representative of a 100% liberal agenda?
Again, reading comprehension and following along with the conversation is key here. I would explain to you how that was in reference to what Lyrhawn was saying not liberals....but nevermind. You wanted to go on the attack with your normal rhetoric, so good job on that.
quote:
Please, enlighten us, because from where I'm sitting, you're just spinning a web of crap that doesn't match a reasonable picture of events.
Of course it doesn't match....because the crap you continue to attribute to me isn't what I said! You are very clueless. You have what you want to say and will say no matter if it fits or not. Please don't pay closer attention though, you amuse me.
quote:
Lately this mantra has been reading more and more like the whining of a little boy who has walked into a store, and is now asking his mother to buy him every attractive item he sees, and becoming more and more agitated at each successive refusal, throwing items into the aisles and running his hands across everything, knocking it all out of place. "WE HAVE TO COMPROMISE!!!"
Wow. Nice analogy. I wonder how that fits at all into the conversation? Oh, that's right. It doesn't. Not at all surprising coming from you though.

I stay around because of people like Lyrhawn who at least reads and thinks about what I post instead of just attack attack attack. I also read his (got it right this time:)) posts, think about them, and respond. At least he and I agree on a lot things, we disagree about other things.

quote:
This discussion is getting all over the board. It seems that everyone has moved on to health care, with DarkKnight seeming to hang on to the normal GOP line that a government-run public option would be akin to a government takeover of health care.
Huh? I said that? Really? Hmm. Oh wait, I didn't. I do believe that a government-run option would be very tricky and could (I said COULD Orincoro, not will, but COULD) lead to severe unintended consequences. The things I propose would lead to real improvements now. My ideas would begin to get millions of people who are eligible for coverage finally get covered now, and not waiting for another election cycle or however many years a lot of these policies will need to take effect.
I will definitely state again, EHR should be separate and be worked on by IT people, hospitals, insurance, government, and 'average citizens' in some kind of panel or research group to come up with EHR standards and best practices. I would not include EHR in the overall reform.
quote:
I wouldn't hem me in with Democrats. I agree with much of what they want, but not all of it, and I even think Republicans have a couple decent ideas that are being ignored or don't have much of a chance, the best of which is tort reform, which I think is absolutely essential.
This is why I continue to come here. Lyrhawn understands, has a differing viewpoint on some issues, yet still looks at both sides. Thank you, Lyrhawn.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
Mmm. Despite chopping my post up into parts in order to respond to each individually, you managed to be non responsive in every single reply.

But no, yeah, no, next time I say something you don't like, go back to your usual do-a-double-take-and-act-like-you-have-no-clue-what-I'm-talking-about routine. It's a great way to deal with criticism.

Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Matek
Member
Member # 9065

 - posted      Profile for Matek   Email Matek         Edit/Delete Post 
I'd like to make a follow up post in regards to the sadness I feel when people take Fox as a legitimate news network:

http://www.pensitoreview.com/2009/10/12/fox-admits-it-traffics-in-propaganda-not-news/

Posts: 10 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rr
Member
Member # 12198

 - posted      Profile for Rr           Edit/Delete Post 
This is my first time posting so please forgive any mistakes.

Quote from jfx177
" However, how many times in history has competition actually been a bad thing? I can't think of any examples. Competition forces companies to lower prices while leading to innovation. If you don't provide a good product at a reasonable price, consumers go elsewhere......Competition always helps the consumer. Always."

I respectfully disagree with this section. The conclusion that the public health option would create competition in the market is not entirely true. I say this because the premise that the public option would be a true competitor in the free market is false.

A public option sponsored by the government would have unfair advantages that no other company could possibly compete with. All these advantages ultimately come down to the fact that the government option in fact does not have to make money or break even. The government can always recoup losses by printing money (causing inflation), increasing taxes, or a multitude of different methods not available to the private sector. Thus, there could never be true competition between a public option and private insurers.

In addition, the inflation from printing money or tax increases would ultimately hurt the health care consumer, not benefit as jxs117 stated.

[ October 12, 2009, 07:41 PM: Message edited by: Rr ]

Posts: 7 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
*forgives Rr*
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
A public option sponsored by the government would have unfair advantages that no other company could possibly compete with. All these advantages ultimately come down to the fact that the government option in fact does not have to make money or break even. The government can always recoup losses by printing money (causing inflation), increasing taxes, or a multitude of different methods not available to the private sector. Thus, there could never be true competition between a public option and private insurers.
Well, the post office doesn't take special appropriations from the government, and yet they still manage to stay afloat and compete with UPS, FedEx and DHL. The public option would have two advantages over private enterprise that are touted: 1. They'd have a massive base of customers, similar to what Medicare has, that most private companies wouldn't be able to achieve, and thus they'd be able to leverage better rates. 2. Like you say, they don't have to turn a profit, they just need to break even.

The latest compromise measure being talked about is an opt-out, rather than an opt-in, method. If I thought they were going to use a government blank check, I wouldn't support it as much (though, I probably still would). Ultimately, when it comes to health care, I don't have huge concerns over the nature of capitalism. What do I want? Whatever system that makes the best quality health care the cheapest for the most people. Shouldn't that be our goal? Are we really, as a nation, willing to let millions suffer and die in debt-ridden poverty out of an adherence to capitalism that borders on religiosity?

Why can't they just include in the legislation that the private option isn't allowed to draw extra appropriations from Congress, and that they have to survive on their own? Government entities that compete with the private sector exist, and they continue to exist because they are successful, not because they're feeding off the federal money spigot. Why do we think this will be different? And for that matter, how else do we introduce serious competition?

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sterling
Member
Member # 8096

 - posted      Profile for Sterling   Email Sterling         Edit/Delete Post 
The easiest way to learn the quoting schematic, Rr, is to use the "full reply form" button and study what it does to the quoted message. On a basic level it's mostly putting things between bracketed commands, with <quote> marking the beginning of a quote and </quote> marking the end (substituting brackets for <>.)

Your point seems to assume that any government-funded health care option necessarily implies the government as providing an infinite purse, which is not at all necessarily the case. Certainly one of the biggest advantages of government-run health care is the face that such a system doesn't demand a 30% profit rate, but two points need to be made on that account: one, those who view the private sector as the cure for all ills generally imply that a free-market-driven company will almost always be leaner and more innovative than a government-driven bureaucracy; why is health care suddenly the exception? Two, part of the reason many favor a public health care option is that far too many cases get dropped onto the public system anyway: chronic conditions get excluded one way or another until their sufferer is so debilitated that they qualify for Medicare or Medicaid; people without insurance use the emergency room as their primary health care provider, and pass off the bill to everyone else. In many ways a public health care option is just demanding a genuine accounting for the costs of those who already squeeze through the cracks.

The bottom line is that whatever system we ultimately devise, it needs to provide health care. The current patchwork system is failing to do so in myriad and highly visible ways.

Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rr
Member
Member # 12198

 - posted      Profile for Rr           Edit/Delete Post 
Now my original point was that there is no real competition that would make the private sector "do better" in an attempt to compete with the public option because as you admitted, the public option does not need to turn a profit. What other company can do this?

As you brought up, I think the post office is a good example. They have no real competitors in basic mail services because they do it cheaper with no profit margin. The only competition is in premium mail services which, in my opinion, ups and fedex does a faster and more secure job of and are providing a different service altogether.

However, my response was mainly in regards to capitalism as you said and doesn't address the real Crux of my problem with the public option (and much of modern policy I guess). Can we ensure no taxpayers dollars will go into a public option and that only those who are buying the service pays for it? Because if not, why would all other citizens pay for something they are not using and gain no benefit from. I know people will respond with other cases where everyone is taxed/paying for things they do not directly benefit from, so to clear that argument, I believe that income tax is probably the least fair tax systems (especially our graduated tax brackets) and favor the revolkation of income tax altogether.

Thank you for your responses in advance.

Posts: 7 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rr
Member
Member # 12198

 - posted      Profile for Rr           Edit/Delete Post 
Also,


Quote lyrhawn:
"Why can't they just include in the legislation that the private option isn't allowed to draw extra appropriations from Congress, and that they have to survive on their own?"

iby 'private option' I assume you meant 'public option'. If so, I completely agree and would sign on to that provision anyday. But we'll have to see if it happens.

Posts: 7 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DarkKnight
Member
Member # 7536

 - posted      Profile for DarkKnight   Email DarkKnight         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Why can't they just include in the legislation that the private option isn't allowed to draw extra appropriations from Congress, and that they have to survive on their own?
I think this is a good start, but somehow the wording needs to be about Congress keeping their hands out of it to a bigger extent. It's not enough that they can't fund it from tax money but there needs to be some protection for potential 'profits' as well.
EDIT
quote:
And for that matter, how else do we introduce serious competition?
We can start by allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm all for allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines. I think that will bring the price of insurance down, and will make the reforms that Congress is going to mandate an easier pill to swallow for insurance companies, but I don't think it will be enough. Insurance at the moment is only getting more expensive. We need not only to halt the growth in cost, but to reverse it. I think that's going to demand something more dramatic.

I would also be in favor of language being added to the legislation that kept the budget of the public option and the general fund entirely separate. That way, Congress can't borrow from it the way they have from Social Security, and they can't use general funds to pay for it either. It will sink or swim on its own. If it really does end up turning a profit, the money can go back into the system in the form of decreased rates or maybe added coverage, like dental.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DarkKnight
Member
Member # 7536

 - posted      Profile for DarkKnight   Email DarkKnight         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I think that's going to demand something more dramatic.
At least we agree so far...what would be the more dramatic measure?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
A public option. I think it's vital.

A lot of the reforms being proposed are going to cut into the profit margins of insurance companies. If they can't deny claims, can't place restrictions on the amount of claims a person can make every day, can't drop people and can't deny people based on prior medical conditions, they'll have lost all their tools for taking our money and not giving us anything in return, which is essentially where the major moneymaking part of their scheme lives. Stuff like EMR, agreements with drug companies to lower prescription costs, and allowing companies to compete across state lines will help a bit. Electronic medical records will cut down on mistakes and probably cut down on costs for hospitals, but hospitals are already struggling. Those savings are likely going to take the edge off of rising costs rather than actually lowering them. Crossing state lines will provide some much needed competition in markets that are overwhelmingly dominated by a single choice, or perhaps two choices. But I think most insurance companies, faced with the prospect of this new legislation and a huge hit to their profit margins, are not going to make sweeping new competing offers to customers. They're used to huge profit margins, and lowering their price point while being legislatively forced to offer more coverage is going to be a hard pill to swallow.

A public option, which doesn't need to run any sort of profit, and which most every poll and study says will not have more than a fraction of the national population taking part in, will be necessary as a scare tactic to get private insurance to lower their expectations of what profits they can expect to enjoy, and will force them to become leaner, and provide better, more efficient services. I have no inherent problem with private insurance. I have no inherent love of government solutions. I do however have a deep seated mistrust of private insurance, and I don't think they'll do anything to help the health of the general population unless forced to do so.

As far as I'm concerned, the public option can be used as leverage to force lower prices out of them, and I wouldn't even care if only 1% of the population actually signed on to it, so long as the prices fall.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DarkKnight
Member
Member # 7536

 - posted      Profile for DarkKnight   Email DarkKnight         Edit/Delete Post 
Didn't Hawaii offer a program and it ended because of people dumping private insurance for the state option?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
Off the top of my head, I have no idea. I'd be interested in reading the material though if you come across it.

Why would they drop the plan if everyone bought into it though? And for that matter, doesn't the fact that everyone switched away from private insurance indicate some sort of flaw in the status quo?

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
Didn't Hawaii offer a program and it ended because of people dumping private insurance for the state option?

Do you still beat your wife?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Nobody learns from history -- isn't that sad? Now it's the extreme Left (the only kind that seems to exist any more)

...

The Left exposes its raw hatred of democracy whenever democracy threatens their hold on power.

Yeah, I'm now in agreement with the people who noticed that Card has just gotten sloppy. His last two World Watches have been caricatures of far-right whinging.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DarkKnight
Member
Member # 7536

 - posted      Profile for DarkKnight   Email DarkKnight         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Off the top of my head, I have no idea. I'd be interested in reading the material though if you come across it.
Fox News - Hawaii Ending Universal Child Health Care After 7 Mos
CBS news - Hawaii Ending Universal Child Health Care (pretty similar story)

Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Papa Janitor
Member
Member # 7795

 - posted      Profile for Papa Janitor           Edit/Delete Post 
Orincoro, please knock it off.
Posts: 441 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
It's a well known rhetorical question. Will I get you to pay attention when people insult me if I just whine about it? Is that what you're trying to tell me I should start doing?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Papa Janitor
Member
Member # 7795

 - posted      Profile for Papa Janitor           Edit/Delete Post 
You're welcome to whistle any post you feel it necessary to report, and I will endeavor to react appropriately and evenhandedly.
Posts: 441 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote:
Off the top of my head, I have no idea. I'd be interested in reading the material though if you come across it.
Fox News - Hawaii Ending Universal Child Health Care After 7 Mos
CBS news - Hawaii Ending Universal Child Health Care (pretty similar story)

Ohh, okay. I see what you're saying, but I think you're off the mark.

First off, that's not the type of health care being discussed by Congress with regards to a public option. That's an SCHIP program. The problem with the Hawaiian program was that it offered health insurance to child that didn't have it, so parents perfectly able to afford it dumped theirs and jumped on the gravy train.

Differences, at the very least, between that and what's being discussed now are: 1. If you join the public option, you pay more into it, just like you would a premium to any other health insurance provider, it's not a free program that you just sign up for and get access to. 2. When the SCHIP bill was passed in Congress, it didn't give ALL kids free health care, it pegged access to parental income, so upper middle and upper class parents couldn't get a freebie from the government, thus draining the funds too fast to be of use for their intended audience.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DarkKnight
Member
Member # 7536

 - posted      Profile for DarkKnight   Email DarkKnight         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Ohh, okay. I see what you're saying, but I think you're off the mark.
I am off the mark, unless the public option turns out to be cheaper than any private insurance can offer coverage.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2