Bill Moyers And Healthcare

[Tsukiyumi]

Even if Obama gets to sign this into law in the fall, it still won't go into effect until 2013, with some of it taking until 2018, so it won't really matter to me for a while.

[sunnyside]

Frankly this just reeks of BS, the US can afford the Iraq War, the Afghanistan War, the bank bailouts but not this?

Well, I'm not endorsing any wars or how bailouts were done. Or even if we "could afford" them. Those are whole other discussions.

But the distinction is between a one time expenditure and perpetual overspending.

[Aaron]

Well, I'm not endorsing any wars or how bailouts were done. Or even if we "could afford" them. Those are whole other discussions.

But the distinction is between a one time expenditure and perpetual overspending.

Wasn't the whole idea of the proposed plan to make insurance mandatory, ie: you have to pay for it? I get that there will always be costs above that or people who simply can't pay but this is getting beyond silly. I'm sure Obama will fold on it though and the status quo will reassert itself.

[Mikey]

Wasn't the whole idea of the proposed plan to make insurance mandatory, ie: you have to pay for it?

That was the gist of the Schwarzenator's plan for California. It's also, IMHO, the best option for health care overhaul nationwide.

[Monroe]

Its depressing, for those of you with facebook they have polls and I just took two about health care. 74% or so are against it on facebook. I'm thinking facebook draws a lot of idiots as 47% are also creationists.

[sunnyside]

Its depressing, for those of you with facebook they have polls and I just took two about health care. 74% or so are against it on facebook.

Actually I would guess that's because people on facebook have both computer access and free time they choose to spend on facebook. Such people are probably already covered by a good insurance plan much more often than not, and so even the more idealistic ones figure they personally will come out worse, or at least not better, as a result of this stuff passing.

[Monroe]

Its depressing, for those of you with facebook they have polls and I just took two about health care. 74% or so are against it on facebook.

Actually I would guess that's because people on facebook have both computer access and free time they choose to spend on facebook. Such people are probably already covered by a good insurance plan much more often than not, and so even the more idealistic ones figure they personally will come out worse, or at least not better, as a result of this stuff passing.

Good point. I figure it like this, if someone is against health care then they're in favor of people dying because of lack of coverage. No offense.

[Aaron]

I saw this comment on a blog in regards to some very blatant lies told by Glenn Beck on health care and it just sums up the most visible conservatives so well, you know the guys like Rush and co.

I know nothing of Beck but suspect he promotes the "conservative" point of view, which, briefly stated, is that being rich should MEAN something. I am NOT a conservative, but my understanding is, conservatives are offended by the fact that poor people receive education, have food to eat, have housing, and receive medical care. Those things, according to this point of view, should be the exclusive prerogatives of the rich. The "C" word is just a fancy word for "mean spirited," in other words. There is no sense debating people like that because there is no intellectual content there to debate.

[Mikey]

That often seems to be the end result of many conservative programs, but to be fair there are (occasionally) conservatives who aren't assholes. I'd say those people believe, rather, in an extreme and alternate form of social Darwinism - that it would be better to say, rather than "poor people don't deserve such things," that these conservatves believe instead that "I shouldn't have to pay for those things for people other than my own family."

[Tyyr]

I saw this comment on a blog in regards to some very blatant lies told by Glenn Beck on health care and it just sums up the most visible conservatives so well, you know the guys like Rush and co.

I know nothing of Beck but suspect he promotes the "conservative" point of view, which, briefly stated, is that being rich should MEAN something. I am NOT a conservative, but my understanding is, conservatives are offended by the fact that poor people receive education, have food to eat, have housing, and receive medical care. Those things, according to this point of view, should be the exclusive prerogatives of the rich. The "C" word is just a fancy word for "mean spirited," in other words. There is no sense debating people like that because there is no intellectual content there to debate.

Proof that there are idiots on both sides if someone actually believes this.

[Aaron]

Proof that there are idiots on both sides if someone actually believes this.

You might think so but listening to the blowhards like Rush/Beck/that guy on CNN who starts with an O, some of this either holds true or their just full of shit. Which if they are, certainly doesn't speak well of their audience.

[Tyyr]

Proof that there are idiots on both sides if someone actually believes this.

You might think so but listening to the blowhards like Rush/Beck/that guy on CNN who starts with an O, some of this either holds true or their just full of s**t. Which if they are, certainly doesn't speak well of their audience.

Yet somehow I can listen to morons like Micheal Moore without automatically assuming all liberals are that idiotic. People with two braincells to rub together can recognize grandstanding attention whores and figure out they probably don't represent the majority.

[Aaron]

Yet somehow I can listen to morons like Micheal Moore without automatically assuming all liberals are that idiotic. People with two braincells to rub together can recognize grandstanding attention whores and figure out they probably don't represent the majority.

What the heck do you expect the average person to think when the conservative movement is represented by such? You and I realize that most likely aren't like that but the average Joe also likely has the education and reasoning ability of a turnip.

[Mikey]

The other problem is that influential Republicans endorse or embrace these frothing idiots such as Limbaugh and Coulter.

[sunnyside]

Ok. Two parts of that statement.

I know nothing of Beck but suspect he promotes the "conservative" point of view, which, briefly stated, is that being rich should MEAN something.

So, I suppose, yes to that. They aren't communists. Now people throw the term communist around a lot. But if being rich means nothing that's the situation. And I think pretty universally communism has failed, even countries like China that claim to be communistic simply aren't. I believe their official position is that they are striving to be properly communistic, but they need to grow their economy, so they aren't. Most of the country, besides the semi totalitarian rule, is economically similar to europe. With some select zones being more capitalistic than America as an experiment.

I am NOT a conservative, but my understanding is, conservatives are offended by the fact that poor people receive education, have food to eat, have housing, and receive medical care. Those things, according to this point of view, should be the exclusive prerogatives of the rich. The "C" word is just a fancy word for "mean spirited," in other words. There is no sense debating people like that because there is no intellectual content there to debate.

No. That's Libertarians.

And even they aren't offended by poor having those things. They just don't want to spend a single penny of their own possible gains to let someone else have those things if they couldn't afford them on their own.

Conservatives support providing a lot of that with their tax dollars. Education and support for kids in particular. Though they generally think people should have to work instead of having a free ride for life.

After that it's a blend of worry that the whole system will wind up tanking as did comunism, which makes things worse for everybody poor included. And, yes, wanting more for themselves.

Note that in any case it's ridiculous to say fiscal conservatives actively don't want poor people to not have all that stuff. Most simply don't want get bumped down from middle to lower class to support an illegal alien or so somebody else can buy a plasma TV instead of fitting an insurance policy into their budget.