elfs | Omaha asked nicely...

elfs

So I whipped out one of my many tools and put this together for her:

Pass. The. Damn. Bill. by ~elfsternberg on deviantART

Current Mood: amused

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

darrelx.livejournal.com

You do realize that only 31% of Americans are in support of the Health Care Reform bill as it stands today, don't you?

Maybe we (the other 69% of americans) don't want a bill forced down our throats by a party that won't compromise, doesn't listen to their constituents, and won't negotiate in a public forum when deals wtih the insurance lobbyists are involved.

Health Care reform needs to happen... but the goal should be to decrease the costs associated with health care, not nationalize it and institute government control over it.

Do you really want the same people who run the IRS running your Health Care?

From:

ben-raccoon.livejournal.com

You're right. The uncompromising bullshit that Republicans put forth has ruined an already poorly-thought-out bill. Everything you whine and piss and moan about? Is not happening. This bill will not make me a government employee. Instead, it's a huge corporatist clusterfuck which puts tax dollars directly into the hands of private corporations with very little oversight. Gee, sounds rather familiar. The problem with this is that Democrats are a heterogeneous mixture of barely-compatible ideals, facing the unified groupthink of the Republicans. The Party of No; the party of, "OMG, he asked for spicy mustard! Elitist! Arugula in his salad? Commie!" Quite frankly, it'd be stupid to compromise with the kind of people who come to work in a straightjacket, but they have. And that's why the bill is so unpopular.

Also, that tired, ridiculous talking point about the IRS is stupid and intellectually dishonest. The people who run the IRS are accountable to the will of the American public, and can be voted out of office. The unregulated private corporations that own your policy? Not so much.

Besides, the people who should be put in charge of this would be the same people who run Medicare. Also known as the insurance provider with the highest satisfaction rating of any provider, by a huge margin. A provider that, ironically, the majority of visible teabaggers are currently using.

So, no. Stop recycling the old talking points as given to you by Rush and Beck, and try researching for yourself. I am in no way about to become a government employee.

From: (Anonymous)

Even if the IRS comparison were valid, I'd rather put healthcare into the hands of a bloated bureaucracy that means well than a bloated bureaucracy that profits by denying coverage. It's not like private insurance companies are the model of efficiency (especially compared to, as you point out, Medicare).

And yes, the current bill's unpopularity stems from the left more than the right: people think it doesn't go far enough. The public option enjoyed strong popularity in polls right up until it was removed.

Number 127

From:

darrelx.livejournal.com

1) I don't listen to Rush or Beck. If you must know, I listen to Chip Franklin (a libertarian) on my ride into work in the mornings, Dennis Miller occasionally at lunchtime, and Roger Hedgecock in the rare evening when I'm heading home before 6pm. Occasionally, I will also listen to Jerry Doyle if I am driving somewhere after 9pm. I get my news reports by browsing headlines at news.google.com and read up on all sides of every story, regardless of the source.

Don't be so quick to dismiss my point of view as parroting someone's talking points.

2) I don't give much credit to the words of someone who resorts to immature name-calling. The Tea Party groups are a grass roots movement of people terrified that the current adminsitration is going to tax us to death. They are not "tea baggers" as you put it and parroting that idiotic MSNBC sandbox mentality only makes YOU look stupid.

3) You are the second person today who I've seen use the phrase "the Party of No"... and I had never heard that until today. Hmm... I wonder who is the one repeating talking points here?

4) There were 63 valid Health Care Reform bills proposed in 2009 by Republican representatives in the House and Senate. Not one of them were allowed on the floor by Pelosi or Reed. Since when does being the majority party mean that the minority doesn't get ANY voice?

5) Those "unregulated private corporations that own your policy", as you put it, are the ones who negotiated with Pelosi and Reid behind closed doors regarding the current Health Care bill. The same negotiations that Obama promised would be shown live on C-SPAN so that "Big Pharma wouldn't have all the seats at the table". He lied.

6) People vote with their wallet in a free enterprise system. If one health care provider is too expensive, you are free to find one that costs less. Companies that can't compete will either change their ways to be more competitive or go out of business. That's a much more honest system of "voting" them in or out of power than relying on false campaign promises and expensive government regulations.

[edited only to correct typo's]

Edited Date: 2010-01-27 09:30 pm (UTC)

From: (Anonymous)

3. You never heard Republicans called "the Party of No" until today? Seriously? It's been all over the news for months and months. You must not get your information from very diverse sources.

4. Please provides links to more information about these 63 valid Health Care Reform bills proposed in 2009. I want to see the bills, not just people saying there were 63 bills.

Also, it's easy to propose all kinds of nonsense when you know it's never going to be voted on. If Republicans were serious about healthcare reform, where were they in 2000-2006, when they controlled both chambers of Congress and the presidency, and were a lot more effective at getting their agenda through than the Democrats are? They did nothing.

5. I don't think anybody's sticking up for the Democratic leadership in Congress or Obama at this point, so attacking them is irrelevant.

6. It's hard to vote with your wallet in an antitrust-exempt industry. Get that fixed and then we can talk.

All of which has nothing to do with the single biggest problem with healthcare in America: pre-existing conditions. Those have to go -- there can be no meaningful reform without that. And that means you need some level of mandates.

Number 127

From:

ben-raccoon.livejournal.com

At the risk of looking like somebody responding to his own sockpuppet, I agree with pretty much everything you put in both comments.

From:

ben-raccoon.livejournal.com

1) So you listen to Rush's echo chamber. Big difference, there. Besides, every point you try to bring up is, in fact, a regurgitated talking point. I have seen them again and again, and I have seen them shot down again and again by arguments weak, strong, and indifferent. I get my news on Fark and waste entirely too much time involved in the discussions thereon. I can recognize a freeper when I see one.

2) The tea party (brought to you by NewsCorp) came up with 'teabaggers' all by themselves. Don't believe me? Go look it up. Besides, I don't watch MSNBC; the only TV news I watch is The Daily Show, and I'm intelligent enough to take that with a grain of salt. Y'know, them being a comedy show and all.

3) Really? This is the first you've heard? Shoot, there's been bumper stickers out! It's really quite simple, the word 'it', crossed out. "Whatever it is, we're against it!" I will cheerfully admit that I'm quoting that little phrase, because it's quite accurate.

4) Funny, you don't seem to have minded that arrangement when it was the case from 1994 to 2006. Any further reply to this would be repeating the anonymous point.

5) What, you think I'm going to disagree with you, here? I'm not a republican; I don't blindly support people just because of the letter after their name.

6) Too bad we don't have a free enterprise system. I don't really have an option outside the insurance provided by my employer; I make too much to be able to afford somebody else. The system you suggest is not the system we have, and never has been.

You also presume a sense of integrity and honesty in business at that level. No. Their first priority is profitability, and when you get large enough, it becomes easier and easier to make more and more unthinkable decisions. Regulations are a necessary evil, because companies are run by people; and people are inherently assholes, particularly when they think they can get away with it.

From:

http://users.livejournal.com/_candide_/

I find it soooo amusing when I hear someone claim that "only 31% support the healthcare bill." See, that's because no one is willing to do a survey asking if people would like some form of single-payer system. And single-payer does not mean single doctor, or even single insurer. It means that there's a single source of the money, not the few million payers we have now, called "employers", who are straining under the cost.

Afraid of "gubbmint-run" healthcare? No problem. We set up 2 not-for-profit corporations formed in the public interest, with a proviso for a 3rd. These 2 corporations would be the two, separate, competing administrators for the health plans of everyone who cannot afford or doesn't want private, for-profit insurance. If you don't like how administrator 'A' is working, switch to 'B'. If enough people move away from 'A', Congress starts up that 3rd not-for-profit, to provide a bit more competition. Then, if 'A' keeps lagging or otherwise screwing up, we shut it down, leaving 'B' and 'C' to take over. This would be a means of administrating healthcare in which We the People would have voting control, bot at the ballot box and with our wallets.