[Fandrew]

Please stay on topic.

This thread is asking your opinion on Democrats and the current health care bill. I would like you to limit the scope of your health care arguments.

-Moderator

[nolidad]

Well I will apologize for straying off topic on this thread- it is hard when it is the only thread dealing with the health care bill.

Well they are completely behind this bill as evidenced by the votes in the house and Senate--eventhough nearly all of them do not even know the ramifications of what they are supporting because they don't even know what is ini their respective bills.

I remember candidate Obama and his promises on the trail to have these talks open, honest and fully accessible to the citizenry.

Breitbart.tv » The C-SPAN Lie? See Eight Clips of Obama Promising Televised Healthcare Negotiations

No wonder why the people are so against liberal health care reform-- lied to again so Washington is SNAFU.

[JerryLove]

Well. I see a claim that congress doesn't know what's in its bill. I don't see any proof.
I also see a claim that Obama is running an opaque government. I see no proof of that either.

Just rhetoric.

[metropolis4]

Originally Posted by nolidad

Well I will apologize for straying off topic on this thread- it is hard when it is the only thread dealing with the health care bill.

Well they are completely behind this bill as evidenced by the votes in the house and Senate--eventhough nearly all of them do not even know the ramifications of what they are supporting because they don't even know what is ini their respective bills.

I remember candidate Obama and his promises on the trail to have these talks open, honest and fully accessible to the citizenry.

Breitbart.tv » The C-SPAN Lie? See Eight Clips of Obama Promising Televised Healthcare Negotiations

No wonder why the people are so against liberal health care reform-- lied to again so Washington is SNAFU.

Actually, it's not too hard. You just answer the question asked at the beginning and restrain yourself from adding frivolous rantings on top of it.

The question wasn't are they behind it, but should they be behind a bill that doesn't include a public option or more controls over the industry? Or should they sink the bill and try again with something more potent? Or is this at least a step in the right direction and therefore worth supporting? I would really love to hear your response to those questions (minus the unnecessary additions)

[nolidad]

Originally Posted by metropolis4

Actually, it's not too hard. You just answer the question asked at the beginning and restrain yourself from adding frivolous rantings on top of it.

The question wasn't are they behind it, but should they be behind a bill that doesn't include a public option or more controls over the industry? Or should they sink the bill and try again with something more potent? Or is this at least a step in the right direction and therefore worth supporting? I would really love to hear your response to those questions (minus the unnecessary additions)

Well lets give it a try:

Personally- I don't think they should support a bill that federalizes teh health care system.

More potent in my thinking is to empower the uninsured who cannot qualify for insurance by nned or by illness and give them a voucher to purchase insurance in the marketplace.

To the uninsurable- bring them in vias medicare or medicaid and have them pay on a income based need.

Based on the ruin the politicians have made of medicare- any step towards placing more of the health care system in their hands is a most unwelcome desire. So no federalization is not a step in the right direction.

[nolidad]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Well. I see a claim that congress doesn't know what's in its bill. I don't see any proof.
I also see a claim that Obama is running an opaque government. I see no proof of that either.

Just rhetoric.

Well start a new thread ands I will respond there.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by nolidad

Personally- I don't think they should support a bill that federalizes teh health care system.

THat's nice... but what about the bill we are discussing.

More potent in my thinking is to empower the uninsured who cannot qualify for insurance by nned or by illness and give them a voucher to purchase insurance in the marketplace.

To the uninsurable- bring them in vias medicare or medicaid and have them pay on a income based need.

So government helathcare is good enough for the most needy, but not good enough for the more healthy? That makes no sense. Why give the profit to one group and the burden to another?

Based on the ruin the politicians have made of medicare- any step towards placing more of the health care system in their hands is a most unwelcome desire. So no federalization is not a step in the right direction.

Based on the ruin private companies have made of medicine: not placing more in the hands of the government is a most unwelcome desire.

But your objection, in addition to being rather fallacious, comes from a delibertely right-wing set of assumptions.

Why should someone who supports government health-insurance support or oppose this particular bill? That's the topic.

[nolidad]

So government helathcare is good enough for the most needy, but not good enough for the more healthy? That makes no sense. Why give the profit to one group and the burden to another?

Because under the system of govt. that was established in America- public assistance is the aid of last resort- not first resort.

Based on the ruin private companies have made of medicine: not placing more in the hands of the government is a most unwelcome desire.

Tell that to teh 85% of Americanswho are satisfied with health care and see need for just tweaking- not massive overhauling. It still is the world class system where it counts the most- making sick people well.

[tlj009]

So government helathcare is good enough for the most needy, but not good enough for the more healthy? That makes no sense. Why give the profit to one group and the burden to another?

Isn't that what all social programs do...including healthcare?

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by tlj009

Isn't that what all social programs do...including healthcare?

currently, in America, yes. But that doesn't mean it has to. In most of the western world, everybody gets the benefit.

[tlj009]

currently, in America, yes. But that doesn't mean it has to. In most of the western world, everybody gets the benefit.

How? The way that my health insurance works today is because everyone pays in without everyone receiving the same benefits. Social Security works because everyone pays in but not everyone benefits. The rich gives more in taxes and because of that the poor receive the benefits without paying in. In order for the poor to receive help, the people who have must give to those who have not.

[metropolis4]

Originally Posted by tlj009

In order for the poor to receive help, the people who have must give to those who have not.

And that's... bad?

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by nolidad

Because under the system of govt. that was established in America- public assistance is the aid of last resort- not first resort.

You mean like the police, Coast Guard, Fire Department, etc?

Tell that to teh 85% of Americanswho are satisfied with health care and see need for just tweaking- not massive overhauling. It still is the world class system where it counts the most- making sick people well.

Tell that to the elderly who don't want to give up their Medicare. (though you are just inventing your numbers regardless).

So since you didn't actually address what I said (that the private system has created the worlds most expensive, but far from most effective healthcare), I'll assume you agree that your argument had no merit. Now if you can just either tell me why a Democrat should support or not support this bill (or say you don't know), we can move on.