• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Palin says Obama's health care plan is 'evil'

goldendog said:
Man it didn't take the irrelvant quitter long to show her true colors with this "Death panel" fearmonger scare tatic crap...along with again using her child as a prop to rile the any scared mob with the trash.

She is now she is backtracking....what a trash talking hussy failure. What a Mavrick.

She deserves no more comment...
Click to expand...

I'll hold you to it.
 
goldendog said:
Man it didn't take the irrelvant quitter long to show her true colors with this "Death panel" fearmonger scare tatic crap...along with again using her child as a prop to rile the any scared mob with the trash.

She is now she is backtracking....what a trash talking hussy failure. What a Mavrick.

She deserves no more comment...
Click to expand...

RightinNYC said:
I'll hold you to it.
Click to expand...

Me too. :2razz:
 
Truth Detector said:
But this isn't true. But alas, if you are a gullible willing supplicant of Government largess, then I can see how you would desperately argue to become a ward of the State.

The REALITY is that UHC does indeed limit what is covered under the plan and their decisions result in less specialization, doctor shortages and long waiting lists for specialized care and operations.

The reasons are OBVIOUS only to those who do not desperately cling to the fantasy that Governments are well managed cost effective systems that are better equipped to decide what is best for its citizens.

Isn’t it funny how under Bush many Liberals where highly skeptical of Government and anti-Government now wish to suggest that Government is the best source to handle our healthcare needs and should be trusted?
Click to expand...

Actually, I do agree with you. I don't think I could live under a 100% government run healthcare system. With the possible exception of the French system, which despite some flaws, is one of the best I've seen.

The ideal UHC system to me is the one we have here in Switzerland. I strongly believe this is the only system that would work well in the US too. It's the perfect compromise between the government's ideal of covering everyone and the people's need to handle their own healthcare privately.

The only drawback is that it's a lot more expensive than your average UHC, since it's based on private healthcare. If you guys can do a better job at controlling the rising costs of healthcare than we do, then you might have a winner.
 
Arcana XV said:
Actually, I do agree with you. I don't think I could live under a 100% government run healthcare system. With the possible exception of the French system, which despite some flaws, is one of the best I've seen.

The ideal UHC system to me is the one we have here in Switzerland. I strongly believe this is the only system that would work well in the US too. It's the perfect compromise between the government's ideal of covering everyone and the people's need to handle their own healthcare privately.

The only drawback is that it's a lot more expensive than your average UHC, since it's based on private healthcare. If you guys can do a better job at controlling the rising costs of healthcare than we do, then you might have a winner.
Click to expand...

The Swiss system is plagued by some of the same problems as the US system. Private insurance companies have way higher administrative costs and costs in general, pushing up prices. On top of that the big pharma and insurance lobbies are prevent any reforms that might hurt their bottom line and are pretty much allowed to set their own prices. This in all makes the Swiss system the second most expensive in the world, and by far the most expensive in Europe. I read not long ago, that the big insurance companies and big pharma had successfully blocked a referendum to abandon the present system in favour of a public option.. now that is power.

The only good thing about the Swiss system is that is a UHC system.. you cant not have healthcare insurance of some sort. Another good thing is that unlike the US system, the Swiss actually in many areas get "bang for the buck" as seen via health statistics.

For me the best system is a public system with an alternative private system. This creates competition and cost comparison.
 
You know what you are fighting against but what are you fighting for? This vid is an interview with Wendell Potter who was head of PR for cigna for many years. Take 37 minutes and watch it.



[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QwX_soZ1GI"]YouTube - BILL MOYERS JOURNAL | Wendell Potter | PBS[/ame]



He goes into the PR blitz he and others put together to discredit SICKO and how they put pressure on ALL congressmen to ignore the public outcry that followed. For extra credit the entire movie is here.

[ame=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6646340600856118396]Sicko.avi[/ame]
 
PeteEU said:
The Swiss system is plagued by some of the same problems as the US system. Private insurance companies have way higher administrative costs and costs in general, pushing up prices. On top of that the big pharma and insurance lobbies are prevent any reforms that might hurt their bottom line and are pretty much allowed to set their own prices. This in all makes the Swiss system the second most expensive in the world, and by far the most expensive in Europe. I read not long ago, that the big insurance companies and big pharma had successfully blocked a referendum to abandon the present system in favour of a public option.. now that is power.

The only good thing about the Swiss system is that is a UHC system.. you cant not have healthcare insurance of some sort. Another good thing is that unlike the US system, the Swiss actually in many areas get "bang for the buck" as seen via health statistics.

For me the best system is a public system with an alternative private system. This creates competition and cost comparison.
Click to expand...


Oh, it definitely is expensive. But the Swiss, like many Americans, do not trust government and do not want a government run healthcare system. What we have is the best system for this country and one that is acceptable to the population's tendency to keep government out of their lives as much as possible. I'm willing to entertain the idea of a dual system, public and private, but I'm not sure it would change anything in terms of lowering the costs here.

I just think our system would be a good option for the US, at least as a transitional phase.
 
RightinNYC said:
No, it's not.

Setting aside the fact that viewership among a small segment is a poor proxy for support, a large part of the reason why Fox is more popular than the other networks is because it has a larger share of its target market, while the other networks are forced to split theirs.

Imagine a town that likes ice cream. 70% like vanilla and 30% like chocolate. Now imagine that there is only one supplier of chocolate ice cream, but 5 suppliers of vanilla, each of whom controls 10-20% of the 70% share of vanilla.

The supplier of chocolate ice cream will be the largest supplier in the town. Does that mean that the majority of the town likes chocolate?
Click to expand...

This is a good point. However, I have a hard time thinking of a right leaning news source that makes an attempt at objectivity and open discussion instead of propaganda. Can you think of one. Ideally, a good news source would not be identifiable as having any political leaning, but I'm not that optimistic.

Regardless, my main concern is that the current state of the news in this country is pitiful. Reading these forums it is clear that many people turn to Olbermann or Glenn Beck for information and believe them. Others believe FOX (or MSNBC) is the only place to find the truth. I find that horrifying. Think about what that means for America. A multi-million dollar propaganda company is who much of the voting public turn to for information. I mean, a lot of these "Newscasters" don't just spin, the flat out lie. And there seems to be no consequences for their actions. It’s like a big portion of the American public enjoys being lied to, and the sport of “our side vs. their side” is more important than truly understanding issues. Politics should require more intellectual investment than being a fan of a college football team.
 
HematomaJoe said:
This is a good point. However, I have a hard time thinking of a right leaning news source that makes an attempt at objectivity and open discussion instead of propaganda. Can you think of one. Ideally, a good news source would not be identifiable as having any political leaning, but I'm not that optimistic.
Click to expand...

I don't think that any source that leans any direction is particularly trustworthy. Accordingly, I don't trust much of anything.

Regardless, my main concern is that the current state of the news in this country is pitiful. Reading these forums it is clear that many people turn to Olbermann or Glenn Beck for information and believe them. Others believe FOX (or MSNBC) is the only place to find the truth. I find that horrifying. Think about what that means for America. A multi-million dollar propaganda company is who much of the voting public turn to for information. I mean, a lot of these "Newscasters" don't just spin, the flat out lie. And there seems to be no consequences for their actions. It’s like a big portion of the American public enjoys being lied to, and the sport of “our side vs. their side” is more important than truly understanding issues. Politics should require more intellectual investment than being a fan of a college football team.
Click to expand...

I've never understood how people can stand to get their news from the TV. Even setting aside the blowhards on all the channels, it's just so slow. When you watch news on the TV, you're getting maybe 5-10 stories in the span of a half-hour, all of which are picked by someone else. In that same time, I can read 20-30 news stories that I find interesting and relevant, some from liberal sources, others from conservative.

In a normal day, I'll check NYT, Drudge, WaPo, WSJ, Google News, LAT, and Politico. If I have time, I'll check instapundit and kos. Between that, I see the same story from 2 or 3 perspectives and catch half a dozen stories that are exclusive to one source or another.
 
Arcana XV said:
wtf? :confused: What does she mean by that? Under UHC everyone is worthy of health care. That's the whole point of UHC.
Click to expand...

All UHC systems ration health care in some manner or another.
 
Truth Detector said:
If you think that it can't happen you are drinking the kool-aid. :2wave:
Click to expand...

It can't. Sorry.

I can pretty much guarantee that national health care or otherwise, the government will not be forcing women to have abortions against their will.
 
Ethereal said:
All UHC systems ration health care in some manner or another.
Click to expand...

And you can of course provide evidence of this of course...

And there is of course no "rationing" in your own system... not a all... :roll:
 
RightinNYC said:
It can't. Sorry.

I can pretty much guarantee that national health care or otherwise, the government will not be forcing women to have abortions against their will.
Click to expand...

Not without much greater changes to the country than are even remotely likely the next few years. If democrats tried something like that, it would spell the end of the party.
 
Redress said:
Not without much greater changes to the country than are even remotely likely the next few years. If democrats tried something like that, it would spell the end of the party.
Click to expand...

It's absurd to think that democrats would ever want to "try something like that". It's like saying "If republicans start eating babies in public, it would spell the end of the party".
 
RightinNYC said:
I don't think that any source that leans any direction is particularly trustworthy. Accordingly, I don't trust much of anything.



I've never understood how people can stand to get their news from the TV.
In a normal day, I'll check NYT, Drudge, WaPo, WSJ, Google News, LAT, and Politico. If I have time, I'll check instapundit and kos. Between that, I see the same story from 2 or 3 perspectives and catch half a dozen stories that are exclusive to one source or another.
Click to expand...

I'm with you RINYC, unfortunately a lot of people do.
 
PeteEU said:
And you can of course provide evidence of this of course...

And there is of course no "rationing" in your own system... not a all... :roll:
Click to expand...

The physical impossibility of providing everyone with the "health care" they desire is evidence enough. If one person in every UHC country was denied even the simplest procedure that means they ration health care in some manner. I wasn't making an argument, I was simply stating a fact. Health care is not infinite in supply.
 
HematomaJoe said:
It's absurd to think that democrats would ever want to "try something like that". It's like saying "If republicans start eating babies in public, it would spell the end of the party".
Click to expand...

That would be my point, yes.
 
RightinNYC said:
It can't. Sorry.

I can pretty much guarantee that national health care or otherwise, the government will not be forcing women to have abortions against their will.
Click to expand...

Fascinating, yet no one made this argument. We were talking about denying care. :2wave:
 
Truth Detector said:
who here thinks that if someone is diagnosed with Downs syndrome which after birth will become a life long burden on the "Government Health Care System", the decision would be to recommend and force an abortion rather than permitting the person to give birth to someone with a known birth defect
Click to expand...

rightinnyc said:
the government will not be forcing women to have abortions
Click to expand...

Truth Detector said:
Fascinating, yet no one made this argument. We were talking about denying care. :2wave:
Click to expand...

.............
 
Truth Detector said:
The word "forcing" is not taken in the literal sense; but of course you know this and prefer to dwell in childish semantics; by denying the care, one is forced to alternatives.

Carry on. :2wave:
Click to expand...

No, I'm pretty sure it was meant in a literal sense. That's exactly what Palin was saying, and I don't see anywhere where you explained the nuances.

Do you care to explain how the government "death panel" is going to "force" abortions without actually "forcing" them?
 
RightinNYC said:
No, I'm pretty sure it was meant in a literal sense. That's exactly what Palin was saying, and I don't see anywhere where you explained the nuances.

Do you care to explain how the government "death panel" is going to "force" abortions without actually "forcing" them?
Click to expand...

I think Palin's point was that they will decide that the system cannot be burdened by such babies and therefore deny them care; the alternative would be to either abort, or go to another country to have the birth; of course that wont be possible because their systems are equally overwhelmed.

The term "death panel" was also not intended to be taken literally, but of course this suits your purpose by attempting to make light of a serious issue raised by Palin which is; Government bureaucrats making health care decisions for all of us and Obama's comments that providing care to those of us who are going to die anyway is not the most efficient use of scarce resources.

But what really amazes me is that when Obama makes such comments, you gloss over them and make light of them, when Palin does you all become fanatics.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rin4h4cRs6Y"]YouTube - Obama's Health Care Solution for Elderly - Just take a Pill[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCanWwW6gxg"]YouTube - Ex Clinton member Dick Morris Obama's Health Care Will Kill Elderly[/ame]
 
Smoke[MaxX] said:
And Palin wonders why people attack her family. She's abusing her family for political gains. I'm glad that she's proud of her child for what he or she is (is Trig a boy or a girl? Trig seems like a unisex name), but putting your family into every conversation? Every picture? Every opportunity?

In addition, I'm sure Palin knows what evil is since...

YouTube - Palin Witchcraft
Click to expand...

I do not see many people "attacking" her family but you are right on target that she has been using her family for political purposes. She has done that in spades. As far as the name of her son Trig I feel sorry for the kid considering the type of mother that he has. Regarding the odd name it is not the fault of the poor child it is the faught of the idiot mother.
 
Truth Detector said:
I think Palin's point was that they will decide that the system cannot be burdened by such babies and therefore deny them care; the alternative would be to either abort, or go to another country to have the birth; of course that wont be possible because their systems are equally overwhelmed.
Click to expand...

Yes, I understand. That's a pretty stupid point.

The term "death panel" was also not intended to be taken literally, but of course this suits your purpose by attempting to make light of a serious issue raised by Palin which is; Government bureaucrats making health care decisions for all of us and Obama's comments that providing care to those of us who are going to die anyway is not the most efficient use of scarce resources.
Click to expand...

Holy ****, how hard is this to understand - Government bureaucrats will be making health care decisions for the programs that they provide, much like they do now. You're still free to do whatever the **** you want with your own money.

But what really amazes me is that when Obama makes such comments, you gloss over them and make light of them, when Palin does you all become fanatics.
Click to expand...

Obama has a knack for not saying as many retarded things.
 
Obama Death Panels? False. Is this the answer of some crazed Liberal? No, it is the answer from Georgia Republican Senator Johnny Issakson, who called Sarah Palin nuts. And, BTW, the end of life planning provision in the bill was an amendment from Issakson, a REPUBLICAN.

Here is the interview.

Sheesh. My only question is this: When the hell are Republicans going to attack the real red meat, instead of just making stuff up, while handing their asses to the Democrats again in 2010?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom