|
|
Post by moritz on Apr 6, 2010 2:02:47 GMT -8
I understand your point but this was a nice part of town in Stutgartt, nothing at all like Compton.  I have a weakness for drastic comparisons ;D Yeah, I think many people think the quality of health care will go down the tubes because people will be seen as a number and not as a person. They fear that yes, everyone will get "care" but it won't be quality and thus might hurt them. The fear is understandable. And it is good that people publically display their fears. But it doesn't have to turn out the way people fear. I know that uhc doesn't equal uhc (hence comparisons with Germany might be lopsided). The devil is in the details after all. But I know that universal health care can work well in terms of quality treatment (look at Steve's testimony). Maybe people should relax a bit and see how it works instead of condemning it a priori. Time will tell if this bill is an improvement or not and if it isn't, then it has to be changed. It can be changed, can't it? |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Apr 6, 2010 9:21:14 GMT -8
I think there is a fear that when the government introduces a new "socialist" platform, such as Social Security, then it's here to stay whether it works or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by carebear on Apr 6, 2010 11:59:08 GMT -8
And for me, it's hard to trust a government with my healthcare when the majority of them believe killing babies in the womb is 'healthy'.
|
|
steve
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts: 93
|
Post by steve on Apr 7, 2010 12:52:52 GMT -8
Robin, when I said I had a hunch that many of the bills critics don't understand it, I certainly was not including you in that statement. From reading your posts, it is quite clear that you have a lucid grasp of the situation. This is no doubt complemented by your professional knowledge of the industry. So please don't think I was including you in on that.
However, it does not follow that because you, and your colleague are well informed, that the public also is also well informed.
I'm basing this suspicion (and that's all it is) on my occasional viewing of fox news and sporadic conversations with other americans. Either by artifice or chance, I've never managed to hear anybody actually talking about the bills content and not just blurping out some republican party talking point. You know... "shoving it down our throats....the nuclear option......death panel for grandma.
The tea party protesters covered on fox, have not done a very immaculate job of conveying their message. They would have done better to bring out specific point and their flaws rather then relying on sound bites. There may be a very good argument against this bill, but, in my opinion, it's not getting out there.
Your point about the bills cost, and the possible alternatives is the first constructive criticism I've heard.
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Apr 7, 2010 20:23:48 GMT -8
Hi Steve, I pray all is well with the new baby. Knowledge on the legislation is limited on both side. Many of those opposed to the legislation may not have intricate knowledge of what the bill is composed of, but neither do those who support the bill. I heard a story reported today that said insurance companies and brokers have been inundated with calls from people asking where they can sign up for the free or discounted Obamacare. They did not realize that much of the bill will not be implemented until 2014. Even then, there will be no Obamacare plan that people can sign up for at little to no cost. Those who supported the passing of this legislation will be very disappointed to find out that they will eventually be bound by law to purchase health care from a private insurance company. They will also be disappointed to find out that insurance rates are expected to continue to rise for a majority of Americans. By the way if you do not purchase health insurance the IRS come after you, and if you cannot pay the tax penalty you can be thrown in jail. I think it is a legitimate for those involved in the tea party movement to be upset with the way the health care plan was passed. Final language of the bill was not released until 3 day before the final vote. The bill numbered over 2400 pages  . Three days in not nearly enough time to consider, and debate any bill of this magnitude and importance. I believe that the president and his allies in congress abused the legislative process, and forced upon the country a bill that was not popular for a variety of reasons. This does not sit well with many Americans who are already skeptical of their government leaders. |
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Apr 8, 2010 6:06:42 GMT -8
And for me, it's hard to trust a government with my healthcare when the majority of them believe killing babies in the womb is 'healthy'. I would agree with you on this if your language wasn't so loaded. I'm against abortion but I'm not subscribing to the dupery pro-life propaganda.  |
|
|
|
Post by robin on Apr 8, 2010 8:30:22 GMT -8
And for me, it's hard to trust a government with my healthcare when the majority of them believe killing babies in the womb is 'healthy'. I would agree with you on this if your language wasn't so loaded. I'm against abortion but I'm not subscribing to the dupery pro-life propaganda. What propaganda are you referring to? I think its fair to say the majority party (Democrats) believe that abortion should be paid for by health plans because they see it as promoting health. Why else require it's inclusion in a health plan? I also think its fair to classify abortion as baby killing. Why water it down? Abortion is to intentional taking of baby's life. Pro-choice advocates object to this type of language because it is gruesome. Well thats too bad. Abortion is gruesome. |
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Apr 8, 2010 9:53:03 GMT -8
What propaganda are you referring to? I think its fair to say the majority party (Democrats) believe that abortion should be paid for by health plans because they see it as promoting health. Why else require it's inclusion in a health plan? I also think its fair to classify abortion as baby killing. Why water it down? Abortion is to intentional taking of baby's life. Pro-choice advocates object to this type of language because it is gruesome. Well thats too bad. Abortion is gruesome. Oh Robin...  And all that coming from you... what a surprise.  |
|
|
|
Post by carebear on Apr 8, 2010 10:18:07 GMT -8
I agree Robin. It may seem loaded, but it’s fact.
People like to say that's a loaded statement because of the word murder, but every knowledgeable conscious person knows deep down that life is being destroyed in abortion, and life destroyed is murder. Only the people in denial like to sugar-coat it. (Yes I think the way to help people stop performing abortions is to show them God's love, but sometimes they need to hear the truth too).
It's fact. It is a baby, no matter how small, so deliberately going in to destroy it is murder. Science proves that at conception it has its own DNA sequence that guides it's construction and physical processes. Whether it can survive on it's own outside of the mother at that point is mute.
It's a human at conception and the baby's heart is known to start beating by 22 days after conception. This is around the fifth week of the pregnancy. Who can deny a heartbeat is life?!
On the website of "Lovejoy" abortion Surgicenter in portland, oregon (they are so trying to force themselves into believing it is love and joy guiding them), it states that "Suction Aspiration is the abortion procedure most commonly used between 7 and 15 weeks gestation and that 89% of all abortions done are performed using suction, or vacuum, aspiration."
This means all these people who claim to fight for the 'little guy' and care for the social needs of all, intentionally and knowingly perform abortions on fetus' that have a heartbeat. This is conscious murder for most people getting and performing abortions.
Of course there is forgiveness for people who have performed or received abortions, but they’ve got to stop the abortions and start fighting for life at conception. (The pro-choice people cry out for tiny fish to not be killed, but they kill a tiny human with joy as a form of birth control---95% of abortion is just for birth control and only 5% of abortions are performed because of rape, incest, abnormalities or mother's life in danger).
Since 1973 4,000 abortions have been performed per day and 95% of all those were because a mama or papa or grandparent didn't want the baby around at that time. Too hard, no money, need to go to school, etc. Let's just line up the kids who are "in our way" right now and shoot them down like they did in the concentration camps.
Yeah, this was a thread about UHC, but abortion was brought up and facts are always useful for that huge and urgent issue…..life is at stake.
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Apr 8, 2010 11:22:17 GMT -8
Already this tiny fragment of a sentence reveals that you are lacking something I hold to be an important insight which is absolutely necessary in order to avoid fundamental misunderstandings between the two of us. Trying to explain what I mean here would take too long and would probably cause even more misunderstanding. So I'm not even going to try. But what I think I can explain in relative brevity, that I don't give a fig about political correctness. I have no problem with you or anybody calling abortion murder. You're seeing the world through your angle and that's just fine. But it's merely your opinion. And no matter what dramatic, martial language you choose to promote your view or what you perceive to be "facts", the core of your point remains the same and it doesn't get more impressive (well, for Foxnews watchers maybe). The trouble for me is, that the entire abortion debate - as so many other issues especially within the USA - is a politicum and both sides are using and abusing terms in order to get their message through. Pro-life and pro-choice positions are not limited to the question of abortion. They come with an entire worldview. But I'm a free thinker and I refuse to play that silly game. Life and choice are two good things and I don't feel compelled to turn my back on either of them because of having a decided opinion on the issue. That's idiotic. I'm against abortion and I think it is a mistake to include it on universal healthcare (although I'm sure that professional abortion is healthier than "do-it-yourself"-abortion). And I think it's very inappropriate (to the point of perverse, if you prefer heavy language) to make opponents of abortion (I deliberately abstain from using the term prolifers - not because of political correctness, but rather because I reclaim that term) pay for abortions. Hence I can certainly relate to your fury. But I disagree with you substantially on the question of why I'm against it and probably all the follow-up questions that arise. And that's about it. If you want to discuss abortion further, we can move to the abortion thread. But if we should decide to discuss it, let's try to leave the swizzle aside and stick to the matter. If you don't want to discuss abortion further with me, that's fine too. |
|
|
|
Post by carebear on Apr 8, 2010 11:41:48 GMT -8
I will gladly carry on the conversation on that thread. Hope it goes well. |
|
|
|
Post by rbbailey on Aug 2, 2010 8:00:38 GMT -8
We were promised that there would be no rationing. Now Obama is looking at creating a rationing czar...
Here's a question: why wouldn't nationalized health care require a Constitutional Amendment?
|
|
. Three days in not nearly enough time to consider, and debate any bill of this magnitude and importance. I believe that the president and his allies in congress abused the legislative process, and forced upon the country a bill that was not popular for a variety of reasons. This does not sit well with many Americans who are already skeptical of their government leaders. 
