• 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!

Kucinich willing to cast the vote that kills health reform

RightinNYC said:
Her "liberal" use of those words is to indicate the fact that the science is not settled on this. See, rather than finding something that sounds good and asserting that it's the incontrovertible truth to the exclusion of everything else, most reasonable people look at situations like this with an open mind.

My conclusion is not that a lack of health insurance causes no excess deaths, although the most comprehensive study to date seems to indicate that. Nor is my conclusion that a lack of health insurance causes 10k/20k/45k excess deaths a year like some other studies claim. My conclusion is that it's unsettled, but there is strong evidence that the number is somewhat lower than traditionally thought. Regardless of all of that, it's indisputable that it's drastically lower than your bull**** "millions" figure.

If you want to make such broad pronouncements about a topic, try reading the article first.
Click to expand...

I did read the article, obviously, or I wouldn't know about her "liberal" use of certain words. Regardless, if it's not settled in your mind then why present it as evidence against, what you consider unsettled? Just to jump in on an discussion? I'm sure you can figure a better way into a discussion than that.
 
Middleground said:
Are you that partisan that you actually believe that Dubya was a successful/good/decent businessman?
Click to expand...
Nice try, but you fail as usual. Back to the basement with ya.
 
NoJingoLingo said:
I did read the article, obviously, or I wouldn't know about her "liberal" use of certain words. Regardless, if it's not settled in your mind then why present it as evidence against, what you consider unsettled? Just to jump in on an discussion? I'm sure you can figure a better way into a discussion than that.
Click to expand...

You made an obviously false statement. Someone else tried to correct you, but used numbers that I consider to be straining credulity. I offered that article as an explanation of why both numbers were flawed and as an interesting discussion point, as most people are under the mistaken assumption that it's a "fact" that some tens of thousands of people die each year from a lack of healthcare.
 
RightinNYC said:
Her "liberal" use of those words is to indicate the fact that the science is not settled on this. See, rather than finding something that sounds good and asserting that it's the incontrovertible truth to the exclusion of everything else, most reasonable people look at situations like this with an open mind.

My conclusion is not that a lack of health insurance causes no excess deaths, although the most comprehensive study to date seems to indicate that. Nor is my conclusion that a lack of health insurance causes 10k/20k/45k excess deaths a year like some other studies claim. My conclusion is that it's unsettled, but there is strong evidence that the number is somewhat lower than traditionally thought. Regardless of all of that, it's indisputable that it's drastically lower than your bull**** "millions" figure.

If you want to make such broad pronouncements about a topic, try reading the article first.
Click to expand...

Do you conclude that the number is Zero or Greater Than Zero?

It definitely is not millions. But it's also not zero.

So in the face of a study done, you read an article by some lady in an online magazine and conclude the study is just wrong. Based on what this lady says. She doesn't even cite any actual sources. She does say "according to some studies by ____" but doesn't actually link any studies.

So, I guess my question is, on what information do you base this conclusion?
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
Do you conclude that the number is Zero or Greater Than Zero?
Click to expand...

Probably greater than zero. Probably less than 45k, or 20k, or 10k.

It definitely is not millions. But it's also not zero.
Click to expand...

And I never claimed it was zero, whereas NoJingoLingo did claim it was millions. Not sure why you think that's a strike against my position.

So in the face of a study done, you read an article by some lady in an online magazine and conclude the study is just wrong. Based on what this lady says. She doesn't even cite any actual sources. She does say "according to some studies by ____" but doesn't actually link any studies.
Click to expand...

Last time I checked, not every single article posted online included full hyperlinks to every single source being referenced. Are you really trying to claim that because she didn't include a link (one which you could have found in 4 seconds of googling if you were truly interested), you will refuse to believe anything she says? I'll keep that in mind next time you refer to an article that isn't thoroughly footnoted.

I'm not here to walk anyone through every single study and explain the significance of each factor. I offered an article that referenced several scientific studies and discussed the impact of those results. All of the referenced results are easily obtainable for those who are truly curious. That's all I can do.
 
NoJingoLingo said:
Believe what you want but it's not true. Republicans oppose the Bill because they don't believe in reforming health insurance/care. Otherwise they would have attempted it in 2001, or 2002 or 2003 or 2004 or 2005 or 2006 or 2007 or 2008 or any time since the New Deal.
Click to expand...

That is crap......Most believe in health reform just not social Obama health care that will bankrupt this country..........
 
RightinNYC said:
You made an obviously false statement. Someone else tried to correct you, but used numbers that I consider to be straining credulity. I offered that article as an explanation of why both numbers were flawed and as an interesting discussion point, as most people are under the mistaken assumption that it's a "fact" that some tens of thousands of people die each year from a lack of healthcare.
Click to expand...
Fine. I don't believe the numbers you use and you don't believe mine. Further discussion between us on it is futile.
 
Navy Pride said:
That is crap......Most believe in health reform just not social Obama health care that will bankrupt this country..........
Click to expand...
And I PROVED you wrong in the very quote you used. :2wave:
 
Navy Pride said:
That is crap......Most believe in health reform just not social Obama health care that will bankrupt this country..........
Click to expand...

When was the last time Republicans proposed healthcare reform with any meaning? Nixon? That was around 30+ years ago. What were you? Like 70 then? Since then, what kind of meaningful healthcare reform have Republicans brought to the table? Now why don't you tell us about that time in the 1820s when you voted for a Democrat so we can all just get on with our day.
 
Last edited:
The Republicans had every chance to propose viable changes to health care.

All they wanted to do was protect doctors and insurance companies and make incremental changes which would have cost more in the long run than Obama's comprehensive change will.
 
CriticalThought said:
The Republicans had every chance to propose viable changes to health care.

All they wanted to do was protect doctors and insurance companies and make incremental changes which would have cost more in the long run than Obama's comprehensive change will.
Click to expand...
Bah, they didn't even want to do that, or they would have... I know, medicare part D, but wasn't that really just a giveaway to big pharma?
 
NoJingoLingo said:
Bah, they didn't even want to do that, or they would have... I know, medicare part D, but wasn't that really just a giveaway to big pharma?
Click to expand...

Moreso than the current proposal?

Part D was called a giveaway because it would be boosting consumption of prescription drugs. I don't see how the current proposals wouldn't have the same effect, but on steroids.
 
Deuce said:
Wait, so what you're saying is the Democrats knew the Republicans wouldn't vote for the bill, but gave into them repeatedly anyway because they didn't want sole responsibility for a disastrous bill.

But also that Democrats think it's the greatest thing ever and WOULD want sole credit.

I'm confused.

HR3200, the original bill with a public option, was decent. It wouldn't fix all of our problems, but it wouldn't cause many either. The latest one, I believe, just isn't going to accomplish its goals. Worse, it will probably make things harder for families in certain income bands.

But then again, I'm against this bill because it's too far to the right, not too far to the left. So take that as you will.

edit: And if this bill truly is "catastrophic," as you think it will be, it will be the noose that the Democratic Party hangs itself with regardless of the number of Republican votes. Do you really think two or three GOP votes is going to make people think this was a Republican bill that screwed things up? This is Obama's legacy, for good or for bad.
Click to expand...

Nope. Democrats have the votes to do what they want. They have no need for an opposition party to sign on. The problem they have right now is some of their own party are not willing to screw the american people.

If it was so great they would not have this issue.
 
CriticalThought said:
The Republicans had every chance to propose viable changes to health care.

All they wanted to do was protect doctors and insurance companies and make incremental changes which would have cost more in the long run than Obama's comprehensive change will.
Click to expand...

This tells me you did not see or hear or ignored the recent "healthcare summit". They came with their game on and eroded much of the uninformed support by simply reading whats in the current bill and proposing alternatives.
 
RightinNYC said:
Moreso than the current proposal?

Part D was called a giveaway because it would be boosting consumption of prescription drugs. I don't see how the current proposals wouldn't have the same effect, but on steroids.
Click to expand...
That's not the only reason it is a giveaway.
At least there is an attempt to pay for the current Bill. Medicare part D is a complete and total giveaway. So yes, more so than the current Bill. That's not to say that the mandate isn't a giveaway to insurance but I suspect that will be taken out or overturned...
 
akyron said:
Nope. Democrats have the votes to do what they want. They have no need for an opposition party to sign on. The problem they have right now is some of their own party are not willing to screw the american people.

If it was so great they would not have this issue.
Click to expand...
So you don't believe the fear-mongering by the repubs has anything to do with it? If it's not effective then why is fear-mongering used (by both parties)?

If you can scare the dems who got elected in conservative districts, and if those dems are more concerned with re-election in those districts than doing what's right then do you think that might have an impact on their vote for the Bill?
 
akyron said:
This tells me you did not see or hear or ignored the recent "healthcare summit". They came with their game on and eroded much of the uninformed support by simply reading whats in the current bill and proposing alternatives.
Click to expand...
And where the alternatives are reasonable they are being used but still no repubs...
 
*cough* PUBLIC OPTION NOW
 
NoJingoLingo said:
That's not the only reason it is a giveaway.
At least there is an attempt to pay for the current Bill. Medicare part D is a complete and total giveaway. So yes, more so than the current Bill.
Click to expand...

What does the question of whether a program is funded via general revenues have to do with the question of how much money it funnels to an industry? It's entirely irrelevant to whether the program is a "giveaway."

That's not to say that the mandate isn't a giveaway to insurance but I suspect that will be taken out or overturned...
Click to expand...

Why on earth would they remove one of the last few "cost containment" provisions in the bill? Unless progressives pick up another 50 seats and win the presidency, I don't see it happening.
 
Phantom said:
*cough* PUBLIC OPTION NOW
Click to expand...

Who do you think the public option would cover?

It's almost to the point that I'm hoping they pass a public option, just so they can suffer the inevitable backlash when 96% of people find out they're ineligible.
 
Watch Kucinich defend his position here.

I wanted to call in and complain to him that perfectionists like him will get 45,000 Americans dead before their time this year. And, next year, And, the year after next. Etc.

God save us from idealists in the Congress on both sides!
 
Chappy said:
Watch Kucinich defend his position here.

I wanted to call in and complain to him that perfectionists like him will get 45,000 Americans dead before their time this year. And, next year, And, the year after next. Etc.

God save us from idealists in the Congress on both sides!
Click to expand...

Did you miss the past 30 posts where we discussed how that 45,000 number is bull****?
 
RightinNYC said:
Did you miss the past 30 posts where we discussed how that 45,000 number is bull****?
Click to expand...

Bull****? You state it as fact? Yet, the article you cite actually doesn't go that far; e.g., “The possibility that no one risks death by going without health insurance may be startling, but some research supports it.”¹ It's just a possibility, not a fact fully established. The article challenges a peer reviewed analysis of mortality associated to the gaps in insurance coverage among the American public and calls for more research, i.e., delay. I fundamentally disagree: delay is not the right prescription for what ails the American health care system today.

At least, Kucinich thinks immediate action is required; he just doesn't think the current bill which, admittedly, gives the current, flawed, private insurance industry even more business is the way to go. No argument there, except the alternative is worse: no action whatsoever, effectively the Republican option.

Really, the only argument I have with Kucinich is, is no-action better than imperfect-action. The answer is no, some action is necessary and necessary now. I support the current bill and look forward to its passage.
 
Last edited:
Chappy said:
Bull****? You state it as fact? Yet, the article you cite actually doesn't go that far; e.g., “The possibility that no one risks death by going without health insurance may be startling, but some research supports it.”¹ It's just a possibility, not a fact fully established. The article challenges a peer reviewed analysis of mortality associated to the gaps in insurance coverage among the American public and calls for more research, i.e., delay. I fundamentally disagree: delay is not the right prescription for what ails the American health care system today.
Click to expand...

The study claiming 45,000 is substantially flawed, as the article notes. Even the other studies claiming 10 or 20k have the same flaws. The largest and best-conducted survey claiming no difference.

Despite that, I'm not claiming that zero is the factually true number, as it would be foolish to do so. You're claiming that 45,000 is true. See the problem with that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom