Obama's Dukakis moment

[DarrinS]

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/06/25/obamas-michael-dukakis-moment/




Barack Obama got ABC to move their news division into the White House in order to make the big pitch for his egalitarian, everyone-gets-treated-equally ObamaCare push. Instead, Obama fumbled into a Michael Dukakis moment that exposed him as a hypocrite. ABC itself leads with Obama’s response that he wouldn’t stay within his own plan for his family:

President Obama struggled to explain today whether his health care reform proposals would force normal Americans to make sacrifices that wealthier, more powerful people — like the president himself — wouldn’t face.

The probing questions came from two skeptical neurologists during ABC News’ special on health care reform, “Questions for the President: Prescription for America,” anchored from the White House by Diane Sawyer and Charles Gibson.

Dr. Orrin Devinsky, a neurologist and researcher at the New York University Langone Medical Center, said that elites often propose health care solutions that limit options for the general public, secure in the knowledge that if they or their loves ones get sick, they will be able to afford the best care available, even if it’s not provided by insurance.

Devinsky asked the president pointedly if he would be willing to promise that he wouldn’t seek such extraordinary help for his wife or daughters if they became sick and the public plan he’s proposing limited the tests or treatment they can get.

The president refused to make such a pledge, though he allowed that if “it’s my family member, if it’s my wife, if it’s my children, if it’s my grandmother, I always want them to get the very best care.["]

Oopsie! So ObamaCare for thee, but not for me? Hope and change, baby!

In 1988, Michael Dukakis blew a question about the death penalty when asked about whether he’d want it if his wife Kitty had been raped and murdered. Dukakis said no, but addressed it clinical legalese rather than absorbing the opportunity to address the emotional impact of violent crime, and his candidacy cratered. In this case, Obama did a reverse Dukakis. He went with the emotional argument, and effectively rebutted his own proposal and its egalitarian purpose. It’s a moment of sheer hypocrisy, caught in the modern amber of video.

If ObamaCare isn’t good enough for Sasha, Malia, or Michelle, then it’s not good enough for America. Instead of fighting that impulse, Obama should be working to boost the private sector to encourage more care providers, less red tape and expense, and better care for everyone.

[clambake]

you are a dumbass.

[jman3000]

you are a dumbass.

At least try to mix in comments about the issues. No need for ad hominem right off the bat.

[Winehole23]

The ABC *infomercial* included adversarial questioning that caught the President out? This isn't the supine propagandizing you led us to expect.

I think you owe this board an apology for your earlier post, Darrin. You jumped to conclusions about the ABC News report before it aired. Now that it makes Obama look bad, you're a champion of it. A thin reed bends with the wind.

(Guess: Darrin will try to have it both ways by arguing that preemptive criticism forced ABC to be tough. In other words, he'll probably take credit himself for the scoop.)

[clambake]

At least try to mix in comments about the issues. No need for ad hominem right off the bat.

excuse me dear sir, but this is the forum where we cut our ad hominem teeth.

[jman3000]

The ABC *infomercial* included adversarial questioning that caught the President out? This isn't the supine propagandizing you led us to expect.

I think you owe this board an apology for your earlier post, Darrin. You jumped to conclusions about the ABC News before it aired. Now that it makes Obama look bad, you're a champion of it. A thin reed bends with the wind.

(Guess: Darrin will try to have it both ways by arguing that preemptive criticism forced ABC to be tough. In other words, he'll probably take credit himself for the scoop.)

Agreed. Except for the apology part. That's a bit weird.

[DarrinS]

The ABC *infomercial* included adversarial questioning that caught the President out? This isn't the supine propagandizing you led us to expect.

I think you owe this board an apology for your earlier post, Darrin. You jumped to conclusions about the ABC News before it aired. Now that it makes Obama look bad, you're a champion of it. A thin reed bends with the wind.

(Guess: Darrin will try to have it both ways by arguing that preemptive criticism forced ABC to be tough. In other words, he'll probably take credit himself for the scoop.)



Charles Gibson didn't pose the question -- a doctor did.

[Winehole23]

I don't really expect an apology. An acknowledgment of error would be nice though.

[Winehole23]

Charles Gibson didn't pose the question -- a doctor did.Whose decision was it to include the doctor, or not to leave his question on the editing room floor?

[jman3000]

Charles Gibson didn't pose the question -- a doctor did.

It was a town hall... that's what happens in a town hall...

[clambake]

first of all, who wouldn't seek a medical solution for a loved one that exceeds their primary policy?

[DarrinS]

Was this question posed during the 1st hour-long special? Or, was it posed during the 2nd hour-long Nightline special?

[clambake]

how is the question any different than what occurs with everybody's current medical plan?

[DarrinS]

how is the question any different than what occurs with everybody's current medical plan?

The question is analogous to asking Al Gore if he will drive a Toyota Prius. Sorry if it was lost on you.

[clambake]

The question is analogous to asking Al Gore if he will drive a Toyota Prius. Sorry if it was lost on you.

thanks for yet another stupid analogy.

[sam1617]

first of all, who wouldn't seek a medical solution for a loved one that exceeds their primary policy?

If Obama doesn't believe people are going to get high quality health care with his plan, then why do it?

[clambake]

If Obama doesn't believe people are going to get high quality health care with his plan, then why do it?

people need to look at their current plan to realize it works exactly the same way.

i'm just saying don't put this on obama when insurers have been doing exactly what darrins is bitching about. they've been doing it for decades.

[Winehole23]

thanks for yet another stupid analogy.I thought it was apt. It appears you've allowed your antipathy to get the better of you, clambake.

[101A]

first of all, who wouldn't seek a medical solution for a loved one that exceeds their primary policy?


Nothing, however, the fear is that after the government option has become the choice for the vast number of Americans, and we have a defacto single-payor system - that system will, as similar ones around the world have done, ration care and limit procedures/tests more dramatically than most insurance policies do today; meaning what IS covered now, or the equivalent in a few years, will not be covered. Obama has frankly hinted at this when discussing how we need to have a nationwide discussion about "end of life" procedures and decisions. What a beuracrat defines as an "end of life" decision might very well be heroic measures trying to save the life of a beloved spouse to the actual concerned party. Certainly insurance companies do have that power, to an extent, now. But insurance companies can be sued - and they know it; the government cannot.

[clambake]

Nothing, however, the fear is that after the government option has become the choice for the vast number of Americans, and we have a defacto single-payor system - that system will, as similar ones around the world have done, ration care and limit procedures/tests more dramatically than most insurance policies do today; meaning what IS covered now, or the equivalent in a few years, will not be covered. Obama has frankly hinted at this when discussing how we need to have a nationwide discussion about "end of life" procedures and decisions. What a beuracrat defines as an "end of life" decision might very well be heroic measures trying to save the life of a beloved spouse to the actual concerned party. Certainly insurance companies do have that power, to an extent, now. But insurance companies can be sued - and they know it; the government cannot.

you said it....right there..."the fear".

[clambake]

I thought it was apt. It appears you've allowed your antipathy to get the better of you, clambake.

so.....i guess obama should be forced to drive a prius because of this apt analogy?

[101A]

you said it....right there..."the fear".

Based on available evidence, including Obama's response, it is well-founded.

[clambake]

the available evidence is being prematurely criticized.

why don't we wait for some fine print?

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Why is half the thread people bashing on Darrin for his thoughts before and after the Ministry of Minsinformation's health care special?

The point should be about Obama's hypocrisy WRT his magic solution of health care for all.

There's also his hypocrisy in the fact that Obama says it's government's place to tell a woman that she can't kill the child growing inside her because she just doesn't want the child, but it IS the government's place to tell the 80 year old woman that she can't have a hip replacement because she's too old.

But that's not surprising, it's do as I say, not as a I do, when it comes to anything coming out of the Messiah's mouth.

[Winehole23]

so.....i guess obama should be forced to drive a prius because of this apt analogy?Short circuited. Analogy form runs thus -- A:B :: C:d.

The terms can't be switched around. It does not follow from *A is to B as C is to D* that *A is to D as C is to B*

[jman3000]

My POV is if you don't want to get the public health care... then don't get the public health care. If you have an elderly relative who you think is going to need substantial medical treatment in the near future... then get a policy which is gonna leave you covered and so be it.

If it's government run it's probably going to be run like a bureaucratic machine. It'll probably be popular with young people who can't afford health insurance as is and who will need it mostly for routine check ups and minor injuries.

This isn't, with a stroke of the pen, going to make it the only guy in town. Even if that's what a lot of people think.

[implacable44]

you said it....right there..."the fear".

the "fear" is reality -- look at Canada - England.. Hopefully you won't have to learn this lesson the hard way with personal experience, rather you can learn it with some reading on England- Canada and other countries and see how well this works there... Universal health Care scares me, but Cap and Tax scares the shiz out of me...

[jman3000]

And not to sound callous, but elderly people getting major treatment to extend their life a couple months is a pretty big problem. A lot of these people should have died a long time ago.

With that being said, if it were my grandma who had the possibility of living a bit longer with a procedure I'd be all for it. I suppose it's easier to sign somebody's death warrant when you're not personally invested.

[LnGrrrR]

If Obama doesn't believe people are going to get high quality health care with his plan, then why do it?

Man, Board repubs can be silly sometimes.

Has the Obama plan promised to take care of every procedure, bar none? I doubt it has.

[implacable44]

Man, Board repubs can be silly sometimes.

Has the Obama plan promised to take care of every procedure, bar none? I doubt it has.

man, board progressives can be stupid.

All it promises to do is make a nation more dependent on the government.

[LnGrrrR]

Here's what I don't get.

Right now, some people can't afford health care AT ALL. How are these people getting screwed over if they get health care?

Right now, some people can afford expensive health care. Will those health care coverage options disappear?

The same people who argue that national health care will be horrible, with long lines, are also the same ones saying that there's no way private health care will be able to compete with government health care. The two don't make sense put side by side.

[LnGrrrR]

man, board progressives can be stupid.

All it promises to do is make a nation more dependent on the government.

Wow, I'm sure all the people who are dying, and aren't dependent on the government, are really concerned about that.

In many different polls, the majority of people are vote some sort of universal health care.

We can argue whether it's right or wrong to do so, but let's not argue that the majority of people are going to be screwing themselves over with this. There's a large amount of people who aren't covered now that would love even some basic coverage.

Big surprise! People love (seemingly) free stuff!

[implacable44]

Wow, I'm sure all the people who are dying, and aren't dependent on the government, are really concerned about that.

In many different polls, the majority of people are vote some sort of universal health care.

We can argue whether it's right or wrong to do so, but let's not argue that the majority of people are going to be screwing themselves over with this. There's a large amount of people who aren't covered now that would love even some basic coverage.

Big surprise! People love (seemingly) free stuff!

they do ? What polls are those ? the ones like the NYT offered asking if the person wanted free healthcare ? Well it isnt free skippy... so the polls are useless. The majority of people will be screwing themselves over -- have you seen the cost ? and government healthcare will run most private healthcare our of business - as it has in Canada - England etc...

you are placing healthcare into the hands of politicians - and the language will be open-ended.. procedures will get denied - refusal to pay for things - it happens now in other countries and it will happen here.. we are being sold a bag of garbage.

[LnGrrrR]

they do ? What polls are those ? the ones like the NYT offered asking if the person wanted free healthcare ? Well it isnt free skippy... so the polls are useless. The majority of people will be screwing themselves over -- have you seen the cost ? and government healthcare will run most private healthcare our of business - as it has in Canada - England etc...

you are placing healthcare into the hands of politicians - and the language will be open-ended.. procedures will get denied - refusal to pay for things - it happens now in other countries and it will happen here.. we are being sold a bag of garbage.

Skippy? How old are you, 70?

Look, peope know it's not free, because everyone will pay taxes towards it. But they know it will cost them less than it does now. That's why they're for it.

And all this BS about Canada and England having horrible healthcare... give me a break. There's as much evidence to say it sucks as there is to say it's great.... which, surprise surprise! Is the same as America.

This belief that suddenly all private practices will go to India or someplace else is pretty ridiculous. Has government run police depts stopped private security agencies? Has the Federal Post Office trampled all over other private shipping companies?

[sam1617]

Skippy? How old are you, 70?

Look, peope know it's not free, because everyone will pay taxes towards it. But they know it will cost them less than it does now. That's why they're for it.

And all this BS about Canada and England having horrible healthcare... give me a break. There's as much evidence to say it sucks as there is to say it's great.... which, surprise surprise! Is the same as America.

This belief that suddenly all private practices will go to India or someplace else is pretty ridiculous. Has government run police depts stopped private security agencies? Has the Federal Post Office trampled all over other private shipping companies?


Don't lie. Not everyone will pay taxes for it and you know that. I will pay taxes for it. Likely, you will pay taxes for it. But not everyone.

[LnGrrrR]

Don't lie. Not everyone will pay taxes for it and you know that. I will pay taxes for it. Likely, you will pay taxes for it. But not everyone.

Yes, your'e right. But the point stands that a majority want it, so people arguing against it shouldn't use the argument that the new health care will be so horrible... because the majority of people supporting it probably A) can't afford it at all or B) can't afford good health care.

People need to find a better argument, like it's unfair, or it won't work for X documented reason. The fact is, other countries have universal health care and get good ratings from the people. (Switzerland is one of them, I believe.)

[Johnson]

you are a dumbass.
this coming from one of the biggest on the forum :rolleyes

[gtownspur]

clapbake at it's finest.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

My POV is if you don't want to get the public health care... then don't get the public health care.

The problem is, companies will just ditch their private plans they are paying for - it's good for their bottom line. Then many won't have a choice as to taking Obamacare.



This isn't, with a stroke of the pen, going to make it the only guy in town. Even if that's what a lot of people think.

Spoken like someone who has never been in the corporate world.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Oh, by the way, I don't see any of you Obamaniacs bitching about Obama's response last night that he wouldn't be okay with subjecting his family to the same standards that all regular Americans are going to be judged by as far as this plan goes.

Obamacare for you, rich elitist bastard care for his wife and kids.

[ChumpDumper]

So Obama is saying there will still be options for those who don't want government run health care.

Including richers.

I don't see the problem.

[sam1617]

So Obama is saying there will still be options for those who don't want government run health care.

Including richers.

I don't see the problem.

Yeah, except the "richers" will still have to pay for the shitty health care.

[LnGrrrR]

Oh, by the way, I don't see any of you Obamaniacs bitching about Obama's response last night that he wouldn't be okay with subjecting his family to the same standards that all regular Americans are going to be judged by as far as this plan goes.

Obamacare for you, rich elitist bastard care for his wife and kids.

Let me repeat it again for those who didn't get it the first time.

Universal health care will provide options for those who currently have none. Do you think people with NO health care are going to bitch about long lines?

If universal health care will be horrible, and have long lines and shoddy service as most boards Republicans say, then private practice should still be very viable due to the free market. Either government service will be efficient, and price out the private sector, or it will be inefficient and private service will still have relatively well-off people who don't want to wait in lines.

[LnGrrrR]

Yeah, except the "richers" will still have to pay for the shitty health care.

Yes, and I'm sure you can see why the majority of the populace with no or little coverage are probably going to have more votes than the minority of rich people who have no problem afforing coverage.

Politically speaking, a rally cry of "But the rich will pay more taxes!" probably isn't going to go over too well.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

If universal health care will be horrible, and have long lines and shoddy service as most boards Republicans say, then private practice should still be very viable due to the free market. Either government service will be efficient, and price out the private sector, or it will be inefficient and private service will still have relatively well-off people who don't want to wait in lines.

How does that work if the government forces the private sector to treat patients on the public plan?

[LnGrrrR]

How does that work if the government forces the private sector to treat patients on the public plan?

Show me where that's been said anywhere.

In fact, you just pointed out how Obama said he might look at other coverages.

I've seen nothing anywhere stating that the government would force private care doctors and physicians to work for the government.

[ChumpDumper]

Yeah, except the "richers" will still have to pay for the shitty health care.They, and we, already do. I prefer to do away with the shell game currently being played with health care costs, but I understand people like to pretend.

[101A]

So Obama is saying there will still be options for those who don't want government run health care.

Including richers.

I don't see the problem.


Competition - that's ALL govt. run health care is going to be, right - just to "keep the insurance companies honest" - because, apparently competing with each other doesn't do so? Then, shouldn't government have a player in every major industry (oops, looks like that's what's happening - nevermind).

Anyway, since this is a basketball board, why don't we try this analogy -

It's bad playing the Lakers in the playoff, we can all agree, they often get many favorable, even questionable calls that go there way. Some have argued that the Lakers have an unfair advantage - it's not true competition.

That is NOT what it would be like if the Obama scenario comes to pass -

ONLY if David Stern along with Joey Crawford, Dick Bavetta and the rest of the officials ACTUALLY owned the Lakers would the analogy be appropriate.

[101A]

Show me where that's been said anywhere.


So, you actually, BELIEVE what people promise in terms of what a govt. program is going to do/be/become? I get it. You might what to go back to 1962 - '64 and SEE what "they" were saying Medicare/Medicaid would NEVER become, or how expensive they would be. It's enlightening.

What Obama/Congress creates - future administrations will grow and make more onerous. Social Security, after all, began as a voluntary, 1% tax.

15% AND mandatory (and doomed to bankruptcy even at THAT) - you would have been called a bomb thrower, a reactionary, a right wing fear monger; but that is exactly where we are (and it's gonna get worse).

Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice - well, call me a liberal.

[implacable44]

Yes, your'e right. But the point stands that a majority want it, so people arguing against it shouldn't use the argument that the new health care will be so horrible... because the majority of people supporting it probably A) can't afford it at all or B) can't afford good health care.

People need to find a better argument, like it's unfair, or it won't work for X documented reason. The fact is, other countries have universal health care and get good ratings from the people. (Switzerland is one of them, I believe.)

Please show me where the majority want the health care plan proposed ....

[DarrinS]

Do you think people with NO health care are going to bitch about long lines?


Of course not. They will be the cause of the long lines.

[ChumpDumper]

Competition - that's ALL govt. run health care is going to be, right - just to "keep the insurance companies honest" - because, apparently competing with each other doesn't do so? Then, shouldn't government have a player in every major industry (oops, looks like that's what's happening - nevermind).

Anyway, since this is a basketball board, why don't we try this analogy -

It's bad playing the Lakers in the playoff, we can all agree, they often get many favorable, even questionable calls that go there way. Some have argued that the Lakers have an unfair advantage - it's not true competition.

That is NOT what it would be like if the Obama scenario comes to pass -

ONLY if David Stern along with Joey Crawford, Dick Bavetta and the rest of the officials ACTUALLY owned the Lakers would the analogy be appropriate.Ah, Laker conspiracy theories explain everything.

[LnGrrrR]

So, you actually, BELIEVE what people promise in terms of what a govt. program is going to do/be/become? I get it. You might what to go back to 1962 - '64 and SEE what "they" were saying Medicare/Medicaid would NEVER become, or how expensive they would be. It's enlightening.

What Obama/Congress creates - future administrations will grow and make more onerous. Social Security, after all, began as a voluntary, 1% tax.

15% AND mandatory (and doomed to bankruptcy even at THAT) - you would have been called a bomb thrower, a reactionary, a right wing fear monger; but that is exactly where we are (and it's gonna get worse).

Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice - well, call me a liberal.

Well, I'm only 27. I was negative 19 years old in 62...

Sorry I'm not haunted by the ghosts of liberal past, but I'm willing to give this a shot, and if it sucks, then call it out.

[sam1617]

They, and we, already do. I prefer to do away with the shell game currently being played with health care costs, but I understand people like to pretend.

I'm not saying the current system is good. I just don't think nationalized health care is better, and most likely worse.

[SonOfAGun]

Decreasing the quality and availability of my or my family's health care is not nice. This is as serious an infraction as you can get. Government better think twice before going down this road.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm not saying the current system is good. I just don't think nationalized health care is better, and most likely worse.So keep your private coverage.

[LnGrrrR]

Of course not. They will be the cause of the long lines.

Of course. But my point is, conservatives are never going to get anywhere with either of these two arguments:

1) The lines will be long! = Poor people don't care if lines are long, because they don't have health care now.

2) The rich have to pay for the poor = Poor people don't care if rich people have to pay for it.

The only way conservatives win this fight is if they convince the middle class that it's against the best interest.

It just annoys me to see people throw out the above 2 arguments, and think they're going to convince any people that aren't already on their side.

The only decent argument is the one about growing the government. You might convince enough voters that "extra taxes = bad!"

Even if, as ChumpDumper already said, these taxes are already coming out in the form of their insurance premiums when hospitals have to overcharge to make up for those who have no health insurance.

I guess you could also argue that hospitals should just turn away poor people or those with no insurance at the door.

[LnGrrrR]

Please show me where the majority want the health care plan proposed ....

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/01/opinion/polls/main2528357.shtml

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/01/washington/01cnd-poll.html

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/US/healthcare031020_poll.html

http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/2009/06/16/poll-americans-favor-universal-healthcare-just-not-for-illegal-immigrants.html

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/poll-americans-overwhelmingly-favor-universal-health-care----until-taxes-are-mentioned.php

http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/poll-shows-many-republicans-favor-universal-healthcare-gays-in-military-2007-06-28.html

[DarrinS]

Govt run enterprises work the best. Take education for example. Oh, wait.

[pkbpkb81]

I don’t want obamacare but if my company drops the plain we have than I will have no choice and that is the problem.

[sam1617]

So keep your private coverage.

I will still end up paying for government health care. Kinda like earlier mentioned where Social Security was intended to be voluntary. As soon as the Gov't realizes that they can't pay for their precious programs, they will do waht they have always done, and its not decrease spending... They are going to tax us more... And so I'm going to be stuck paying my private coverage, and your shitty gov't health care, until it gets to expensive, then I'm going to have to drop the private becuase I can't afford it, leaving me screwed with the crappy gov't health care...

[LnGrrrR]

Govt run enterprises work the best. Take education for example. Oh, wait.

If there were no public schools available, I'm guessing most people would want to change that as well.

Edit: Thanks for giving another example where a government run program did not make obsolete private practices! :tu

[coyotes_geek]

I will still end up paying for government health care. Kinda like earlier mentioned where Social Security was intended to be voluntary. As soon as the Gov't realizes that they can't pay for their precious programs, they will do waht they have always done, and its not decrease spending... They are going to tax us more... And so I'm going to be stuck paying my private coverage, and your shitty gov't health care, until it gets to expensive, then I'm going to have to drop the private becuase I can't afford it, leaving me screwed with the crappy gov't health care...

Bingo. The current plan sucks, but there are exactly zero reasons to believe the government can make it better. The governments track record is well established. They're completely incapable of managing large scale programs efficiently.

[LnGrrrR]

I will still end up paying for government health care. Kinda like earlier mentioned where Social Security was intended to be voluntary. As soon as the Gov't realizes that they can't pay for their precious programs, they will do waht they have always done, and its not decrease spending... They are going to tax us more... And so I'm going to be stuck paying my private coverage, and your shitty gov't health care, until it gets to expensive, then I'm going to have to drop the private becuase I can't afford it, leaving me screwed with the crappy gov't health care...

This is the best argument conservatives have. The biggest problem? The negatives don't take place until after the fact. Do you think people without coverage care that it will cost them more taxes 10, 20 or 30 years from now?

[DarrinS]

If there were no public schools available, I'm guessing most people would want to change that as well.

Edit: Thanks for giving another example where a government run program did not make obsolete private practices! :tu


What kind of school do Obama's kids attend?

[ChumpDumper]

I will still end up paying for government health care. Kinda like earlier mentioned where Social Security was intended to be voluntary. As soon as the Gov't realizes that they can't pay for their precious programs, they will do waht they have always done, and its not decrease spending... They are going to tax us more... And so I'm going to be stuck paying my private coverage, and your shitty gov't health care, until it gets to expensive, then I'm going to have to drop the private becuase I can't afford it, leaving me screwed with the crappy gov't health care...Are your health care costs going down because of market forces and competition?

Are you expecting them to go down if a government program is not established?

[ChumpDumper]

What kind of school do Obama's kids attend?Thanks for unwittingly proving his point.

[sam1617]

This is the best argument conservatives have. The biggest problem? The negatives don't take place until after the fact. Do you think people without coverage care that it will cost them more taxes 10, 20 or 30 years from now?

So, basically, even though most everyone knows its going to be a bad plan 30 years down the line, poli-fucking-ticians are going to do this shit anyways because they love power and know that the idiots who voted for them aren't smart enough to think longterm. Does that really make sense?

[DarrinS]

Thanks for unwittingly proving his point.


Which one? That it will lower the quality of care? Or that you'll have to pay through the nose to get the best?

[sam1617]

Are your health care costs going down because of market forces and competition?

Are you expecting them to go down if a government program is not established?


You are saying that we should scrap the old way because it costs too much, then replace it with a new way that will result in me paying more. Why does that make sense?

[101A]

Well, I'm only 27. I was negative 19 years old in 62...

Sorry I'm not haunted by the ghosts of liberal past, but I'm willing to give this a shot, and if it sucks, then call it out.

You don't give govt. programs a "shot". They never die. You bought it, you own it; FOREVER.

[ChumpDumper]

Which one? That it will lower the quality of care? Or that you'll have to pay through the nose to get the best?That public options do not necessarily eliminate public ones.

Do you have trouble remembering your own posts?

[ChumpDumper]

You are saying that we should scrap the old way because it costs too much, then replace it with a new way that will result in me paying more. Why does that make sense?Will you end up paying more?

Let me know what you personally are paying now and what you will pay if the plan passes.

Give me some numbers.

[coyotes_geek]

You don't give govt. programs a "shot". They never die. You bought it, you own it; FOREVER.

A-freaking-men! That's why social security and medicare are so fucked up. No politician has the balls to stand up and say "we gave it a shot and it didn't work". So those situations just keep getting worse and worse and worse. Now Obama wants to continue the trend of ignoring those boondoggles and wants to create a new boondoggle of his own. It's incredibly naive.

[101A]

Of course. But my point is, conservatives are never going to get anywhere with either of these two arguments:

1) The lines will be long! = Poor people don't care if lines are long, because they don't have health care now.

2) The rich have to pay for the poor = Poor people don't care if rich people have to pay for it.

The only way conservatives win this fight is if they convince the middle class that it's against the best interest.

It just annoys me to see people throw out the above 2 arguments, and think they're going to convince any people that aren't already on their side.

The only decent argument is the one about growing the government. You might convince enough voters that "extra taxes = bad!"


"Poor" people, or people without coverage aren't who's going to make this happen - it's fewer than 20% of the population. The battle is being argued/fought by people who all have insurance/coverage.

I have no problem with everybody having some kind of coverage - in fact, I think it is a something we ought to have in this country. Everyone is entitled to quality healthcare. My problem is with the government running it. The government sucks at everything it does. This will not be any different.

[clambake]

I don’t want obamacare but if my company drops the plain we have than I will have no choice and that is the problem.

to hell with your company plan. go get your own. or do you like this little dose of charity? because thats what it is, right? you understand that, don't you?

[Crookshanks]

The young people on this board will never get it - and they're a big part of why we're in this mess. They're too young to remember what happened when the gov't got involved in other areas, so they think it's okay to let these plans have a chance.

Us older people KNOW what happened in the past and are scared to death of Obamacare.

[101A]

to hell with your company plan. go get your own. or do you like this little dose of charity? because thats what it is, right? you understand that, don't you?

I pay for all of my employee's medical, dental, life and disability plans - and for most there dependents to participate in those that have that option. It IS NOT charity. They work for those benefits - and I earn a nice living and PROFIT from their work.

[ChumpDumper]

You don't give govt. programs a "shot". They never die. You bought it, you own it; FOREVER.Right. That's why I'm hoping to get a job with the CCC soon.

[ChumpDumper]

The young people on this board will never get it - and they're a big part of why we're in this mess. They're too young to remember what happened when the gov't got involved in other areas, so they think it's okay to let these plans have a chance.

Us older people KNOW what happened in the past and are scared to death of Obamacare.What happened, very old woman?

Tell us.

[clambake]

I pay for all of my employee's medical, dental, life and disability plans - and for most there dependents to participate in those that have that option. It IS NOT charity. They work for those benefits - and I earn a nice living and PROFIT from their work.

so what. you don't know what kind of worker HE is. hell, he's online fucking off right now.

are you going to dump your employees insurance?

[101A]

Right. That's why I'm hoping to get a job with the CCC soon.

WWII happened - real work, not make work. Now, we have a defacto CCC - govt. at all levels has grown to the point that it made continuing the program redundant. Props to you, though. You had to go back to the depression era, but you found a govt. program that doesn't exist anymore.

[101A]

so what. you don't know what kind of worker HE is. hell, he's online fucking off right now.

are you going to dump your employees insurance?


I'm on line fucking off right now - what kind of worker am I?

Don't police my employees; if they get the job done, I could give two shits how they spend their time.

[sam1617]

to hell with your company plan. go get your own. or do you like this little dose of charity? because thats what it is, right? you understand that, don't you?

You aren't the brightest fellow. Its not charity. Its a benefit, because healthy employees are productive employees, and it allows the company to remain competitive. I guarantee you that as soon as it becomes cost effective to drop, the company will.

[ChumpDumper]

WWII happened - real work, not make work. Now, we have a defacto CCC - govt. at all levels has grown to the point that it made continuing the program redundant. Props to you, though. You had to go back to the depression era, but you found a govt. program that doesn't exist anymore.That's the first one that came to mind.

There are probably others.

Props to you for admitting you were wrong.

[sam1617]

WWII happened - real work, not make work. Now, we have a defacto CCC - govt. at all levels has grown to the point that it made continuing the program redundant. Props to you, though. You had to go back to the depression era, but you found a govt. program that doesn't exist anymore.

Yeah, it doesn't exist, we replaced it with welfare systems that allow people to not even provide any service to society and receive benefits. Hurray...

[101A]

You aren't the brightest fellow. Its not charity. Its a benefit, because healthy employees are productive employees,

Actually, some of my most productive employees are sick as hell! Productive employees are productive employees. I've found there is no demographic that is universal. I provide the full boat package of benefits because it attracts very qualified employees - and at group rates I can provide them for much less than they would pay for those on an individually underwritten basis. It's symbiosis.

[101A]

Props to you for admitting you were wrong.

I always do.

[ChumpDumper]

You aren't the brightest fellow. Its not charity. Its a benefit, because healthy employees are productive employees, and it allows the company to remain competitive. I guarantee you that as soon as it becomes cost effective to drop, the company will.It's becoming cost effective now since companies are already decreasing or dropping health care for their employees.

[sam1617]

Actually, some of my most productive employees are sick as hell! Productive employees are productive employees. I've found there is no demographic that is universal. I provide the full boat package of benefits because it attracts very qualified employees - and at group rates I can provide them for much less than they would pay for those on an individually underwritten basis. It's symbiosis.

Out of curiosity, would you drop health care benefits if they were no longer required to be competitive in attracting quality employees and retaining the ones you had?

[sam1617]

It's becoming cost effective now since companies are already decreasing or dropping health care for their employees.

Naturally, a surplus of labor allows that to happen.

[101A]

It's becoming cost effective now since companies are already decreasing or dropping health care for their employees.

None of my clients have dropped coverage for their employees, however, many have had to raise deductibles, etc.

[ChumpDumper]

Naturally, a surplus of labor allows that to happen.So what do those out of coverage do now?


None of my clients have dropped coverage for their employees, however, many have had to raise deductibles, etc.Good for them. Doesn't mean it isn't happening elsewhere.

[clambake]

I'm on line fucking off right now - what kind of worker am I?
i own my businesses, too. part of OUR job is to surround OURSELVES with competent people. thats what they do that allows me to come online here after just getting back from a round of golf.


Don't police my employees; if they get the job done, I could give two shits how they spend their time.
i didn't realize the guy I"M talking about is your employee.

I"M GLAD that you will be paying for your employees and their extended families insurance regardless of what happens.

[101A]

Out of curiosity, would you drop health care benefits if they were no longer required to be competitive in attracting quality employees and retaining the ones you had?

I would assume that is because health care is being provided somewhere else? The government probably. If it was not helping me to attract and retain employees, then there must be something else out there that IS attracting them; higher salary, private massages, whatever. Whatever the market (employees) were demanding is what I would provide - otherwise I'd be a fool.

[clambake]

It's becoming cost effective now since companies are already decreasing or dropping health care for their employees.

exactly!!!!!!!!!!!

some people aren't bright enough to understand that.

[sam1617]

So what do those out of coverage do now?



I don't know and I don't care on a political level.

On an individual level, I will care for me and mine to the extent of my abilities. If I can't, I would go to my friends, family, neighbors and church, and ask them for help. Who better to help than those who know us best?

[101A]

i didn't realize the guy I"M talking about is your employee.



If he is, I promise you he is:

1. Very good at what he does.

2. Caught up on his work.

3. Paid well.

He can also go back to the kitchen and grab a beer, relax and drink it (something else I provide), then go home.

[sam1617]

I would assume that is because health care is being provided somewhere else? The government probably. If it was not helping me to attract and retain employees, then there must be something else out there that IS attracting them; higher salary, private massages, whatever. Whatever the market (employees) were demanding is what I would provide - otherwise I'd be a fool.

Exactly, which is why this government provided "volunteer" health care system will quickly become THE healthcare system.

BTW, have any of yall ever used military healthcare providers? Because as far as I know, thats the best example of the quality of care the gov't can provide, and last I heard, it was utterly terrible.

[ChumpDumper]

I don't know and I don't care on a political level.

On an individual level, I will care for me and mine to the extent of my abilities. If I can't, I would go to my friends, family, neighbors and church, and ask them for help. Who better to help than those who know us best?So if you get cancer and are uninsured, your friends and church will cover all the costs.

Who better?

[101A]

Exactly, which is why this government provided "volunteer" health care system will quickly become THE healthcare system.

BTW, have any of yall ever used military healthcare providers? Because as far as I know, thats the best example of the quality of care the gov't can provide, and last I heard, it was utterly terrible.

Military care is actually quite good; but not the right analogy. Medicare/Medicaid are much closer, because of the scope.

[sam1617]

Military care is actually quite good; but not the right analogy. Medicare/Medicaid are much closer, because of the scope.

I've heard very bad things about military care, mostly about efficiency and availability, not necessarily the quality once you get to see a doctor.

[sam1617]

So if you get cancer and are uninsured, your friends and church will cover all the costs.

Who better?

Better them than making all the Joe Schmoe's across the country pay for it. Unlike some people, I don't want to burden strangers with my expenses.

[101A]

So if you get cancer and are uninsured, your friends and church will cover all the costs.

Who better?

No. he'll get treated completely and absolutely. The Hospital and docs will right of most of the debt, and he will pay some token amount for a while. That is if he is truly poor, and cannot afford coverage. Happened to my Uncle and cousins. The eldest got pancreatic cancer, and had no insurance. Ran up $300K in charges in the 8 weeks he lived; hospital (University in San Antonio) did everything; chemo, radiation, the works - including providing hospice at the end. Uncle paid $50 a month for 5 years afterward. Now, they were a farming family of modest means - if they would have been white collar, with some $$$ and just didn't choose to pay for insurance? I assume the hospital might be tougher.

[LnGrrrR]

Actually, some of my most productive employees are sick as hell! Productive employees are productive employees. I've found there is no demographic that is universal. I provide the full boat package of benefits because it attracts very qualified employees - and at group rates I can provide them for much less than they would pay for those on an individually underwritten basis. It's symbiosis.

101A, I agree with you that if ANYBODY were to get screwed over by this, it's small business owners who provide health care.

That would be the best line of attack to push IMO, by FAR.

[ploto]

How does that work if the government forces the private sector to treat patients on the public plan?

Actually, Medicare is easier and more efficient to bill than the private insurers and less requirement to refile claims.

[101A]

101A, I agree with you that if ANYBODY were to get screwed over by this, it's small business owners who provide health care.



Especially small business owners that process medical claims for self-insured employers (like me).

I might not just get screwed by this, I could very well be put out of business.

[ChumpDumper]

No. he'll get treated completely and absolutely. The Hospital and docs will right of most of the debt, and he will pay some token amount for a while. That is if he is truly poor, and cannot afford coverage. Happened to my Uncle and cousins. The eldest got pancreatic cancer, and had no insurance. Ran up $300K in charges in the 8 weeks he lived; hospital (University in San Antonio) did everything; chemo, radiation, the works - including providing hospice at the end. Uncle paid $50 a month for 5 years afterward.The debt isn't written off -- it is transferred to the insured.

[101A]

Actually, Medicare is easier and more efficient to bill than the private insurers and less requirement to refile claims.

I'm tiny - pay claims for about 20,000 people. Most of the claims we receive are electronic, and are paid w/in 24 hours of coming in the "door". The person coding the claim does EXACTLY the same thing to bill us, as they do to bill Medicare. I guarantee when there is a problem, a doc can get a live person in my office eons before a Medicare payor picks up. Where do you get your info?

[101A]

The debt isn't written off -- it is transferred to the insured.

The debt IS written off.

Because of the amount of debt written off, however, the hospital/docs must charge their paying customers more.

[jman3000]

semantics.

[LnGrrrR]

Especially small business owners that process medical claims for self-insured employers (like me).

I might not just get screwed by this, I could very well be put out of business.

I could see that, and that does suck man.

See, why aren't Republicans making arguments like THIS against it? Perfectly understandable, doesn't resort to blatant fact misrepresentation, and isn't the usual "it's a Democrat idea so it must obviously suck!" logic.

[ploto]

Where do you get your info?

Ran a private medical practice.

[101A]

Ran a private medical practice.

Fair enough.