• 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!

White House appears ready to drop 'public option'

the appt of dr malthus to health adviser to the prez is positively BIZARRE

the father is merely fascinating
 
Don't Tase Me Bro said:
This is good news. This doesn't mean we put our guard down, though. They may still try and stick something in the final bill under the radar.
Click to expand...

Kudos for the Dems that opposed this bill.
They, along with the GOP, deserve the credit for its demise as the only way it could be stopped is for Dems to defect from The Obama.
 
It's demise? What about moving on to an option that works now? No one should be celebrating the stall in reform. It has so much more to do with beating the Dems than doing whats best for America.
 
JakeFromWI said:
It's demise? What about moving on to an option that works now? No one should be celebrating the stall in reform. It has so much more to do with beating the Dems than doing whats best for America.
Click to expand...

the proposed bill has nothing to do with whats best for america

celebrate in its death, even if they have now reversed course again
 
JakeFromWI said:
It's demise? What about moving on to an option that works now?
Click to expand...
How about leaving it alone?
The entire assumption that the government "must" do something is invalid.
 
Instead of a Government run 'public option' why don't they just offer start-up loans and tax incentives to not-for-profit and/or co-op health insurance providers?

There are several industries where new non-profit companies could flourish by providing the same level of service at a highly reduced cost. Running a non-profit takes a high level of expertise. I know several people who interned at non-profit corps while getting their MBA.

This new 'liberal' administration is still very much in bed with the same billion dollar corps that the previous one was. Re: the deal with PhARMA -- I get it, they were choosing their battles and didn't want to fight big insurance and big drug companies at the same time.

The insurance companies have a lot to lose if even 1/10 of their customer base goes for the public option.
 
YEAH! THE HEALTH CARE LOBBY IS WINNING! Oh man, we are so screwed. No public option means the Health Care industry has won and the right champions them at the expense of others. WOOHOO! Oh lord.
 
Goobieman said:
How about leaving it alone?
The entire assumption that the government "must" do something is invalid.
Click to expand...

"that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Yes, it is in fact, the goverments job to do something. That is not the preamble to corporate insurance companies policies.
 
formerroadie said:
YEAH! THE HEALTH CARE LOBBY IS WINNING! Oh man, we are so screwed. No public option means the Health Care industry has won and the right champions them at the expense of others. WOOHOO! Oh lord.
Click to expand...
I asked this before, but I dont recall yoru answer:

Regarding your avatar:
How does having the right to something equate to having other people provide you the means to exercise that right?
 
Last edited:
JakeFromWI said:
"that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Yes, it is in fact, the goverments job to do something. That is not the preamble to corporate insurance companies policies.
Click to expand...

Ummm . . . that quote is all about what people are entitled to do with their own lives, not what the government is supposed to do for you.
 
Goobieman said:
I asked this before, but I dont recall yoru answer:

Regarding your avatar:
How does having the right to something equate to having other people provide you the means to exercising that right?
Click to expand...

Good point! UNALENIABLE doesn't apply in regards to finacial capabilities...
 
JakeFromWI said:
"that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Yes, it is in fact, the goverments job to do something.
Click to expand...
OK, so I will ask you TWO questions:

-How is it the govenrment's job to ensure that you can afford to exercise your rights?
-How does having the right to something equate to having other people provide you the means to exercise that right?
 
If the gov't feels it has the duty to take away those rights with things like the penal system, the Patriot act (it's for our safety though!), and anti-marijuana legislation, it also has the duty to ensure the rights of people who still "deserve" them.

Goobieman, why not then push for the repeal of Medicaid, Social Security, Public Schools, infrastructure and legislation mandating a black person's right to vote. Wouldnt you be upset if highways were owned by corporations and you had to pay rediculous prices to use them? And thats not even regarding your own livelihood. Black people have the right to vote, but its not the gov'ts job to ensure that...
 
JakeFromWI said:
It's demise? What about moving on to an option that works now? No one should be celebrating the stall in reform. It has so much more to do with beating the Dems than doing whats best for America.
Click to expand...

with all due respect, you are in no position to question my motives

now that the public option has been pulled and after "end of life counseling" has been canned, there are still HUGE problems remaining

1. waxman/rangel in the house, the blueprint for discussions ongoing upstairs, still FINES individuals, as criminals, caught breathing without insurance

2. it therefore forces folks to finagle for themselves that which they can't afford in the first place, hardly the help they were promised

3. it contemplates massive CUTS TO MEDICARE and MEDICAID, rightfully outraging seniors, the same who swing every election in this country, the smartest, most resourced, most interested, most dedicated voting bloc in america

4. it includes coverage for illegals, per the voting down of the heller amendment in charlie rangel's ways and means, july 17

5. it generalizes the funding of abortion, bluedog bugaboo

6. it taxes small business 8% if they don't pay for coverage for their employees, sure to kill hundreds of thousands of companies currently struggling to meet payroll as is

7. it puts heavy "surcharges" on those over 250G, couples over 350---this may please you (i don't mean to presume), but it is a sizeable political problem for obamacare going forward

8. it looks too much to END OF LIFE COSTS for its savings, again, freaking out our parents, electoral suicide

9. it taxes med benefits, the mccain plan, which played a not small role in seeing that slightly doddering senator go down hard on nov 4

10. it bends the COST CURVE the wrong way, obama's raison d'etre

and its salesman in chief, THE CHIN, increasingly appears like a man who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about or what the heck he's doing

in grand junction on saturday, he actually said, concerning health care:

"i'm a reasonably dedicated student to this issue"

Obama gets personal during health care town hall in Colo. - USATODAY.com

LOL!

student?!

he's trying to reform 16% of the economy and take on the responsibility for the continued good health of MY aging SAINT of a mother!

and he's still STUDYING?!

LOLOLOL!

what an IDIOT

sorry, friend
 
JakeFromWI said:
If the gov't feels it has the duty to take away those rights with things like the penal system...it also has the duty to ensure the rights of people who still "deserve" them.
Click to expand...
First:
How does the latter necessarily follow from the former?
Second:
How does "the duty to ensure the rights of people" equate to providing the means to exercise those rights, or even ensuring that those people can afford to exercise them?
 
angrycarpenter said:
Posted this last night but everyone is still celebrating so I will post it again.

Administration Official: "Sebelius Misspoke." - The Atlantic Politics Channel

It was just a test to see who's head would explode and who would celebrate. The public option is not dead, far from it.
Click to expand...

sir, you don't seem to appreciate kent conrad's precise role in this, in committee

conrad, the guy who got elmendorf to testify to the wrong way bending of the COST CURVE in baucus' gateway, senate finance, on july 17, said yesterday on fns:

"we don't have the votes for the public option, we never had the votes for the public option"

TheHill.com - Conrad: Votes lacking to pass public-option healthcare

obama simply does not have the votes in the senate for the public option, i'm sorry

it's not even close
 
The insures those rights with the penal system. Why have a criminal system with ant-murder laws, if it is not the gov'ts job to ensure the right to live.

And like I said, if you beleive this, why not repeal SSI, Medicaid, Public Schools, Park Services, Infrastructure, food stamps, and everything else the govt provides then.
 
JakeFromWI said:
The insures those rights with the penal system. Why have a criminal system with ant-murder laws, if it is not the gov'ts job to ensure the right to live.
Click to expand...

Because it's there to make sure your right to life is unimpeded by other people.

Not too opaque of a concept, that.
 
JakeFromWI said:
The insures those rights with the penal system. Why have a criminal system with ant-murder laws, if it is not the gov'ts job to ensure the right to live.
Click to expand...
Criminal laws do not 'ensure' anyone's ability to do anything.
They 'ensure' that those that violate the rights of others will be punished.
In this, they -protect- the rights of the people, which differs from 'ensuring' or 'providing'.

So, I ask again:

How does the latter necessarily follow from the former?
Second:
How does "the duty to ensure the rights of people" equate to providing the means to exercise those rights, or even ensuring that those people can afford to exercise them?
 
............................................why not repeal SSI, Medicaid, Public Schools, Park Services, Infrastructure, food stamps, and everything else the govt provides then.
 
Laila said:
This is ridiculous.

If they go ahead with this, they are ignoring people and acting like they can do what they wish.
If Dems then revise their options in the face of a public backlash or dissatisfaction with what is being offered and seek to find a common ground. The Republicans and protestors were right. This move should be welcomed by those who opposed him previously.

In my view, this makes Obama even more likeable if he is willing to back down and change his stance. That is a quality found very rarely amongst politicans.
Click to expand...

Willing to back down? No, darling, he was FORCED to back down by a pissed off American public. Obama wanted to ram this bill through just like every other piece of garabage he's advocated. Once he and his devoted followers realized that - GASP! - not every American is a radical leftist he said to himself, "Mmmmmm, I might actually have to make health care reform a bipartisan effort because shutting half of the country out of the policy process is absolutely insane and insulting."

Screw him, he didn't even know what was in the bill and once again created a non-existent crisis in order to fear-monger and distort public opinion. There was so many things wrong with this bill that I don't even know where to start...just an awful, awful attempt by this administration to reform health care.
 
JakeFromWI said:
............................................why not repeal SSI, Medicaid, Public Schools, Park Services, Infrastructure, food stamps, and everything else the govt provides then.
Click to expand...

Sounds good to me. Let State and local governments provide those services if they wish...no need for the Federal government to involve itself.
 
JakeFromWI said:
............................................why not repeal SSI, Medicaid, Public Schools, Park Services, Infrastructure, food stamps, and everything else the govt provides then.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry -- we're discussing your stated posiiton and the arguments you tried to use to support it, not your red herrings...

So, I ask again:

How does the latter necessarily follow from the former?
Second:
How does "the duty to ensure the rights of people" equate to providing the means to exercise those rights, or even ensuring that those people can afford to exercise them?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom