Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
That's what I don't get. If socialism is so "evil" or ridden with "failure," then why is Canada's "socialized" banking system now the model for the world?
|
Man how can you even say that? Don't you know the US is number one in the world for everything? You need to watch more Fox News and listen to more talk radio. I'll go find you some links where you can stream them live on-line.
---------- Post added at 09:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:16 AM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by flstf
I agree with this, I don't like it, but it is necessary to make the numbers work in this bill. Republicans say they want to expand coverage by making healthcare cheaper. I was really hoping they had a way to do this and still allow for covering pre-conditions and 30+ million uninsured. The major things they offer are tort reform and state line competition but the estimated savings are not even close to accomplishing this. Once they actually published their counter bill they didn't even try to and would only cover 3 million uninsured and allow the insurance companies to continue denying coverage to those who have pre-conditions when they have lost their insurance because of job loss, etc...
|
I agree too. The problem is more complex then either side tries to make it sound. Everything these days has to fit into a sound bite to get people on board. Solutions to this problem, if they come, will come from policy wonks. Policy wonks are boring and people don't like boring they like simply, short and fast answers. And answer where they don't have to pay anything for the solutions are absolutely the best kind of answers. The parties (yes, both of them) make every attempt to hide the cost of things. Lot's of people on the right, as well as many on the left, thought Afghanistan and Iraq were great ideas. Very few wanted to pay for it, simple solution take the cost of the wars out of the budget and borrow the money to pay for them. Do it that way and you can not only go to war, you can cut taxes at the same time. Brilliant! Unless of course you're a member of the future generation left with the tab.
The health care bill will be the same if it's not a "pay as you go" thing. Which will be hard to do as many people have health care and are happy with it. A lot of those people have no interest in paying for someone else's treatment. I mean who wants to pay for the health care of some pot smoking, alcoholic person who eats at Burger King daily and weighs 450 lbs? I'm certainly not that thrilled about it. But I think for every person who fits that category there's likely eight to ten others who were hard working honest people who got cancer (or something like it) and exceeded their life time policy limit, lost their job and are now screwed. Those people I'm more then happy to pitch in for, how do you separate the two categories? I have no idea. I do know we can't keep doing what we did with the costs of the wars and keep going further and further into debt. I also don't think the current system is working for anyone other then the wealthy and the insurance companies.
The whole situation reminds me of a local debate in Oregon several years ago. The state voted for mandatory sentences for violent crimes and sex crimes, great idea. They even voted to build (and pay for) more prisons to house such inmates, another great idea. The debate started when the state decided to use land it owned to build those prisons. Turns out property owners near those selected sites were, let's say, less then thrilled. So after years of debates, town meetings and petitions. Most of the new prisons were built on land the state didn't own and so far away from the main population centers that transportation costs of inmates tripled. "We want to lock up violent criminals."... "HELL YES!"... "We want you to help pay the cost"... "Mmmm, okay. I guess if that's that it takes." "We want to build the new prisons near your community."... "FUCK YOU!"
And in that debate, same as the health care debate, both sides came up with ridicules claims to support their position. Just like the above "20 Ways ObamaCare Will Take Away Our Freedoms." Why be honest when your point can be made better by making shit up that many will swallow as truth and go to war with you as a result? And yes I firmly believe the left has done the same thing with this issue. Why? Because the truth is less appealing to both sides.