Obama Care Could Be Deadly

[quote name='perdition(troy']wtf does that have to do with healthcare?[/QUOTE]

Making more prisoners while giving them less care? Sorry to be slightly on topic...
 
Two unrelated numbers. If 150,000 persons are added to the payroll every month, unemployment rates stay the same.

So you're not disputing her point, really. You're trying to, but it just makes you look like someone who doesn't understand how to deal with BLS data.
 
Been meaning to post an example of how "awful" national health care is. I spent 3 weeks in Taiwan last month and unfortunately go pretty sick while there. Awful sore throat (made worse by having to give a 90 minute lecture) followed by a chest cold with a lot of coughing and hacking and my asthma flaring up.

Got worse on a Saturday so my girlfriend, who is a Taiwan citizen, had to take me to the ER. I had a 20 minute wait before being seen, and saw an actual doctor no an RN etc. I got a chest x-ray right away, put on an IV of antiinflammatories as my tonsils were very swollen and got a breathing treatment. Then he sent me home with a ton of medicine (antibiotic, 2 inhalers, anti inflammatories, a mucus thinner and a bunch of other stuff I didn't really use like pain killers and cough syrup etc.).

Total cost for all that, for me as a non-citizen? $120 US dollars.

Who wants that kind of system here. No wonder people are so opposed to it! ;)
 
You're correct! How could we have been so wrong all along!
Nationalized health care will totally change the entire culture/society of the US so that drugs (prescription and OTC) are cheaper, wait times at hospitals will be shorter, staff will be friendlier, there will be less paperwork involved, less covering one's self for lawsuits, etc., etc.

You've made me see the light.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Been meaning to post an example of how "awful" national health care is. I spent 3 weeks in Taiwan last month and unfortunately go pretty sick while there. Awful sore throat (made worse by having to give a 90 minute lecture) followed by a chest cold with a lot of coughing and hacking and my asthma flaring up.

Got worse on a Saturday so my girlfriend, who is a Taiwan citizen, had to take me to the ER. I had a 20 minute wait before being seen, and saw an actual doctor no an RN etc. I got a chest x-ray right away, put on an IV of antiinflammatories as my tonsils were very swollen and got a breathing treatment. Then he sent me home with a ton of medicine (antibiotic, 2 inhalers, anti inflammatories, a mucus thinner and a bunch of other stuff I didn't really use like pain killers and cough syrup etc.).

Total cost for all that, for me as a non-citizen? $120 US dollars.

Who wants that kind of system here. No wonder people are so opposed to it! ;)[/QUOTE]

Some people in this country would rather spend more in this country (and even risk being thrown to the wolves themselves) than see someone else get something.

The little thrill knowing they have access to the healthcare system while others don't must make it worth it to them.
 
I'm not saying just going to nationalized health care would solve all the problems. Just saying it can work much better than what we here if properly implemented and the necessary changes are made.

But it wouldn't happen over night. Frankly the US sucks donkey balls compared to a lot of other countries in a lot of ways--and especially on things like education, diet, and focus on preventive health care etc.
 
dmaul, I remember there were people who, during the healthcare debate, would salivate every time they posted another story that showed how gov't run hcare (medicare/medicaid) had failed someone, or had some kind of fraud involved with it.

So having at least one story that shows someones good experience with that type of system isn't unwelcome.
 
Love, just love it. I swear it's like republicans think this is one big game of chicken with no real consequences.
 
[quote name='Clak']Love, just love it. I swear it's like republicans think this is one big game of chicken with no real consequences.[/QUOTE]

What consequences are there for Republicans?

1) Public sentiment has always shown, time and time again, that "throw the bums out" trumps "man, those people really are evil fuckheads, aren't they?"
2) Historically, "throw the bums out" = "throw the majority party out," and not "throw the incumbents out."
3) Obama is more conservative than Nixon, has proven that he's willing to roll over and give the GOP what they want without demanding anything from them (hello, rich tax cut extension).
4) We know Obama's political advisers are incorrectly informing him that he must triangulate (i.e., start negotiating from the center and move to the right from there) in order to win 2012.
5) Progressives and liberals are furious with Obama's conservative policies and refusal to stand up for what he campaigned on or for progressive principles. He's a pushover who has seemingly been on a permanent vacation since passing the Romneycare bill. What does this mean w/r/t no GOP consequences? Well, progressives aren't going to vote for a Republican candidate, but we are increasingly willing to stay at home on election day 2012. I count myself among them.

There truly are no consequences for the Republicans. Particularly since they know Obama will blink before we default. He'll trade $6T in spending cuts and zero tax raises (and zero tax loophole closures) for $1T in an increased debt cap, so we'll revisit this issue next year again.

and be taken for a ride...again.
 
Well from what I've read most people actually see the GOP as standing in the way of getting this finished, to the point that if it didn't pass, they'd get the majority of the hate for it. But if they're betting on Obama just caving, which he very well may, then they probably aren't worried.

But no, when I said consequences I meant for the country, not them in particular.
 
Here in Ohio we have it on the ballot to put it in our constitution that the goverment can not force you to buy health care. On a local show they had a debate between the Tea Party head here who pushed the bill and a rep from a think tank who is against it. I think that this video perfectly sums up the debate across the nation. The Tea Party guy talks for awhile uninterupted but the second the liberal starts talking the Tea Party guy jumps in. From there the liberal guy goes through history and facts compared to the Tea Party guys rhetoric. At one point I swear to god the Tea Party guy actually says "Dale is a smart guy, he understand all the ins and outs of insurance companies and the medical system. All I know though is that we believe that health care is between you and your Dr!".

So basically you have one guy saying look what do you propose to do about the fact that we pay for the uninsured under the current system, the Tea Party guy saying the free market will sort it out, the liberal explains that what we currently have IS a free market system and its not working...the tea party then guy responds your a smart guy and you understand the system but all I know is....

Seriously...this is the perfect summary of the health care debate between libs and conservatives. Facts vs hype. Intelligence vs Fear.
http://www.npr.org/rss/podcast/podcast_detail.php?siteId=102429314
 
Sadly the guy from Innovation Ohio(the liberal)does get a bit snippy and dickish for a minute or so at the halfway mark. Too bad too because up to that point he had destroyed the Tea Party guy soley on facts, he did not need to bring the childish rhetoric in to it(even if what he said was correct).
 
You don't win friends with salad. You don't change minds with facts. The sooner liberals figure that out the better off we'll be. I hate it too, believe me, but if that's what it takes to change minds, then so be it. Rev up the rhetoric machine, get those eyes tearing up, time to get folksy.

Oh, and when shit like that happens, I think you could replace the conservative with Foghorn Leghorn and it would make no difference. Because that's what I think of when I hear "Well you might have all the facts but....".
 
[quote name='Clak']You don't win friends with salad. You don't change minds with facts. The sooner liberals figure that out the better off we'll be. I hate it too, believe me, but if that's what it takes to change minds, then so be it. Rev up the rhetoric machine, get those eyes tearing up, time to get folksy.[/QUOTE]

Actually I do believe that most people are smart enough to understand the facts. The problem is that it needs to be presented in the right way...and even more difficult you have to get their attention. Yes there are people like Knoell out there and DohDoh who are just so far removed that they can never believe anything outside of their bubble, but I honestly do not think that is the vast majority of people. That said dont get me wrong I also think the vast majority of people are ignorant as shit as I attested to in my Question to Democrats topic.

Do I think this will ever be done? Probaly not, not enough people have the fire in the belly over facts to present them to the American people in a game changing way. But I personally in my own life will keep trying online and offline with friends and family to win people over with the truth vs rhetoric.
 
If someone cared about the facts they'd listen to someone who has them or read them for themselves, that's all it should take. You shouldn't have to be some carney up on the stage trying to get the rubes to listen. Unfortunately that's not the case, and conservatives seem to simply have the better barker to lure folks in.
 
[quote name='Clak']If someone cared about the facts they'd listen to someone who has them or read them for themselves, that's all it should take. You shouldn't have to be some carney up on the stage trying to get the rubes to listen. Unfortunately that's not the case, and conservatives seem to simply have the better barker to lure folks in.[/QUOTE]

Yep. Most people don't even read newspapers, much less really take the time to be informed on the issues.

Rhetoric is what drives voting unfortunately. And that's true of both sides. And you're right that the right is much better currently and putting out rhetoric to rile up the base.

That said, polls show Republicans rating lower on these debt talks that Obama or democrats (though all are unfavorable) so Dems are missing a real chance to rile people up here.

Though I did see an add on TV the other day with 3 seniors talking about cuts to medicare and social security and bashing congress for it. Didn't catch who it was funded by though.
 
[quote name='Clak']If someone cared about the facts they'd listen to someone who has them or read them for themselves, that's all it should take. You shouldn't have to be some carney up on the stage trying to get the rubes to listen. Unfortunately that's not the case, and conservatives seem to simply have the better barker to lure folks in.[/QUOTE]

Again I disagree. I think the problem is that people are LAZY. People dont mind being ignorant because it means more time to read celebrity gossip, watch TV or go to a baseball game. However if you actually can get the ear of most people then without tons of rhetoric you can indeed change their mind. I had quite a few members of my family that have been against public health care or quite a few other issues that have changed their mind after talking. They are against these things because of the great Republican Barker louring people to the Fool Fair. However they are still smart enough that when you sit down and go over the Republican rhetoric that they can change their mind. It helps that I use the stupiest members of my family as examples. I explained to my cousin that was against the public option how he was paying for the health care of our other stupid cousin who refuses to buy health insurance yet drops kids and gets sick like a fucking puppy. I also used my brother who refuses to buy health insurance but used to go out and get in a motorcycle crash every 2 or three months as an example. After I explained to him that the way the free market system works is that we are stuck paying for him anyways, but that if he was forced to get insurance or given it by the public option that we would pay significantly less he was all for it. He was smart enough to see what was good for him, he was just too freaking ignorant to know he was already paying for jackass brother and worthless cousin.

People will listen to facts just as readily as rhetoric...again its just difficult to get their ear and they have to respect you. Funny thing is that just because I keep up on politics, social issues, the economy etc etc my family thinks I am some kind of fucking genius and changes their views to whatever I tell them to. Honestly at this point I think that just because I read the paper I could tell half my family that we were set to inhabit the sun 2 years from now and they would believe me.
 
I don't think there's any disagreement Magus.

We're just saying the problem is that people are lazy and you can't get their ear and have that chance to inform them and change their mind very easily. At least not on a large enough scale to turn elections etc.

Thus in politics today, rheotric=reality.

But I do disagree that people will listen to facts as readily as rhetoric. There's a growing trend of anti-intellectualism in this country and many people will toss aside facts as being biased information from "intellectual elitists" etc.

Rhetoric from the right has devalued evidence, science and facts to a large swath of the population.
 
But you can't sit down and personally talk to everyone in the country. On television facts don't come across as well as they might coming from family or friends. That's why facts take a back seat to emotion in televised debates like that. Cause emotion actually does come across fairly well on a screen.

But I don't disagree, people are lazy, too lazy to actually listen to someone telling them facts and then go to check them. If they did then bullshit rhetoric wouldn't have as much an impact.

Then there's the fact that, lets be honest, some people in this country just hate smart people. The folksy dude from the heartland is going to have a bigger impact on them.
 
Facts might be the beginning of a debate or issue but aren't the end.

It's fact that the sun is harmful to your skin. So should we make laws only allowing a certain amount of exposure so we don't have to pay for as much skin cancer or should we leave it up to people to decide how much exposure/risk they want?

It's a fact that that more and more small children drown in shallow water every year. Does that mean we should we make it illegal to immerse babies in water until a certain age or try other means of educating parents on the dangers and leave it up to them?

It's a fact that people will drain the economy without paying for their own healthcare. Does that mean we should pass laws making it illegal not to? Or do you believe it's fundamentally wrong to force people to buy any good or service regardless of any fact?

Let's keep some perspective here. Facts about problems don't lead to the same conclusions. Just because people disagree with you doesn't mean it's because they ignore facts. It's sometimes because they envision a different society than you do or have come to different conclusions from the facts than you did.
 
If those laws were effective and the negative externality costs didnt sink the equation, sure. I would have laws limiting sun exposure and regulating shallow water pools. I'd be monitoring the amount of water you had in your tub. You'd have to show an ID to buy one of those large office water containers.

Of course, the premise of the hypothetical, the sum effectiveness of the laws is suspect. The additional costs of taxing the court/police systems would by itself would make it a net negative. We see it with drug policy. The laws make things worse, and they cost a lot. But if they did work and they didnt cost a lot, sure. But we're talking useless scenarios here.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Facts might be the beginning of a debate or issue but aren't the end.

[/QUOTE]
They should be.
 
Well, whether facts are the end of a debate depends on the question being debated. If it's an empirical question, then facts are the only thing that matters. If it's something related to morals, values or beliefs, then facts are only part of the question.

For example.

1. "Will Obamacare save money with the way it reforms health care?
2. "Do people have a right to health care and we should do what we can to give eveyone access.?

The first is a purely empirical question and can be answered with facts--though its really only one that can be answered after the plan is fully implemented and we have hard data to analyze.

The second is morals/beliefs issue and facts are only going to be part of what one considers in forming an opinion.

So like most things, it's not an either/or situation--it depends on the topic at hand. But even for the morals/values issues people should look at all the facts before forming their opinion rather than having opinions that run counter to the factual evidence.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Well, whether facts are the end of a debate depends on the question being debated. If it's an empirical question, then facts are the only thing that matters. If it's something related to morals, values or beliefs, then facts are only part of the question.

For example.

1. "Will Obamacare save money with the way it reforms health care?
2. "Do people have a right to health care and we should do what we can to give eveyone access.?

The first is a purely empirical question and can be answered with facts--though its really only one that can be answered after the plan is fully implemented and we have hard data to analyze.

The second is morals/beliefs issue and facts are only going to be part of what one considers in forming an opinion.

So like most things, it's not an either/or situation--it depends on the topic at hand. But even for the morals/values issues people should look at all the facts before forming their opinion rather than having opinions that run counter to the factual evidence.[/QUOTE]

I don't know why the American HS don't teach a philosophy 101 course. So much debate time is wasted because people don't understand the fundamentals.

Scratch that, I know why. The cirriculum teaches civics because politicians and school admins want good little citizens. They don't want kids to start thinking independently on the state's dime, the kids might start asking important questions like "Where did all the grant money go?", "Why don't we have afterschool programs?", and "Why do we allow education to get fucked up by bullshit politics?"
 
My issue with the debate is that conservatives never have an alternative. Everything is no, no no and never "interesting plan, we disagree, here is why and here is what we would do to solve the problem at hand". If conservatives could actually do that, well then id gladly listen and consider their argument with an open mind. The problem is that the answer to health care is the same as with our jobless problem, welfare and pretty much everything else. Let the free market do its job! This is simply not a solution since the free market has not worked for decades and thus has proven it is the problem.

Honestly the Republican answer to health care is the equivalent of telling someone that suffers from aids to inject themselves with HIV. Anything wrong with American can be solved by the problem itself!
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Well, whether facts are the end of a debate depends on the question being debated. If it's an empirical question, then facts are the only thing that matters. If it's something related to morals, values or beliefs, then facts are only part of the question.

For example.

1. "Will Obamacare save money with the way it reforms health care?
2. "Do people have a right to health care and we should do what we can to give eveyone access.?

The first is a purely empirical question and can be answered with facts--though its really only one that can be answered after the plan is fully implemented and we have hard data to analyze.

The second is morals/beliefs issue and facts are only going to be part of what one considers in forming an opinion.

So like most things, it's not an either/or situation--it depends on the topic at hand. But even for the morals/values issues people should look at all the facts before forming their opinion rather than having opinions that run counter to the factual evidence.[/QUOTE]
Take your fancy pants book learnin and GTFO:twoguns:
 
On this episode of...Inside the Mind of a Teetotaler, I was told that government health care is a bad idea because then the gubment will force us all to go on diets.
 
[quote name='Clak']On this episode of...Inside the Mind of a Teetotaler, I was told that government health care is a bad idea because then the gubment will force us all to go on diets.[/QUOTE]

If the government forces us all to go on diets it means there is probably a reason. Now I am not saying I think the goverment should force people to go on diets. Just saying that it does seem to be a common fear of many people and other then how unreasonable and silly people are it also shows how far too many people are fat and unwilling to take any step to change that.

Note - Im a fat guy, im just a fat guy trying to change that. I went from 350 to 200 then meet my wife and over 7 years have went back to 300. So I am not sitting around as some skinny asshole without food issues telling others to try dieting.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']This is simply not a solution since the free market has not worked for decades and thus has proven it is the problem.
[/QUOTE]

While everything else you said may have some truth to it, I take issue with this statement whenever I hear it. We haven't had a real free market system in our lifetimes - probably not even in the last century (maybe ever).

Washington and corporations have been deeply in bed together for decades. Cronyism and corporatocracy is the antithesis of a free market system, but those on the left would try to convince you that IS the free market system.

Since you like analogies-
It's like you save up and buy a race car to enter a race, only to soon realize that all the other drivers work for the people that built the racetrack and wrote the rules of the race specifically for their cars (and can change them whenever they feel like it). You lose the race. Some try to tell you it just proves that racing is inherently unfair and needs to be abolished; but really it just needs to be made fair.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']While everything else you said may have some truth to it, I take issue with this statement whenever I hear it. We haven't had a real free market system in our lifetimes - probably not even in the last century (maybe ever).

Washington and corporations have been deeply in bed together for decades. Cronyism and corporatocracy is the antithesis of a free market system, but those on the left would try to convince you that IS the free market system.

Since you like analogies-
It's like you save up and buy a race car to enter a race, only to soon realize that all the other drivers work for the people that built the racetrack and wrote the rules of the race specifically for their cars (and can change them whenever they feel like it). You lose the race. Some try to tell you it just proves that racing is inherently unfair and needs to be abolished; but really it just needs to be made fair.[/QUOTE]

No analogy needed, I could easily agree with your statement. The thing is that there never really will be a free market. Corporations and politicians will always abuse it, they have far too much power. The only way to stop this from happening is regulation, but if you regulate the market then its not truly a free market now is it?

My original point stands though. Republicans say the solution to everything from making our food healthy again to pollution to health care is a free market. But you yourself just admitted at best thats lip service. So again the point that conservatives have no solution stands.
 
I admit I don't follow this subject enough to really be able to say who has offered what.

The way I see it, Republicans don't believe the health care problem is the same problem the Democrats believe it is. They can't even agree on what the problem is.

The Democrats have been far better at "framing" their version of the problem to the public, so it's been much easier to sell them a solution as well.

Republicans have mostly failed at framing the problem as they see it, so at this point any solution offered that is not some flavor of "government must run healthcare" - won't be seen as a solution.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']Corporations and politicians will always abuse it, they have far too much power. The only way to stop this from happening is by giving the politicians (who I just said will always abuse it) even more power[/QUOTE]

ftfy.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']The Democrats have been far better at "framing" their version of the problem to the public[/QUOTE]

Nonsense. Seriously; when have the left ever been able to organize and frame an issue better than the right?

This is just an issue that's so fundamentally important that the right haven't been able to convince enough of the plebians to vote against their self interest for some free-market-fairy that will fix costs of care.

They tried with the "socialist" stuff, and it stuck with some people - convincing a potion of the public that a President who starts in the center of issues and negotiates to the right from there is actually a secret member of the Kremlin.

They tried by outright lying about CBO data.

They tried by lying about the quality of care.

They tried by lying about death panels.

But you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

What *was* the Democrats' framing, here, anyway? "Hey, who wants to have health care?"
 
[quote name='camoor']Do you understand about different branches of the govt? Or did your homeschooling bump that for populism 101?[/QUOTE]

I'm curious... which branch of the government isn't often found in bed with corporate interests?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I'm curious... which branch of the government isn't often found in bed with corporate interests?[/QUOTE]

I think the legislative branch is more corrupted by corporate interests then the executive branch, especially after the disastrous "campaign donations are free speech" ruling.
 
The problem isn't that politicians have too much power.

The problem is that they're controlled by corporate interests through campaign donations and lobbyists.

IMO corporations should not be able to make donations to politicians, only individuals should. And the individual donations should be capped at a relatively low level--no more than a couple thousand per election.

Corporations would still have sway by pressuring employees to donate to a certain candidate (or giving them money to donate etc.), running ads etc., but it would at least be better than the current system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top