Point/Counterpoint
 

An interesting read in the local paper.

http://www.dailydem.com/articles/200...n/opinion1.txt

Helen is a lady (emphasis on lady) residing in an assisted living facility in Ft. Madison, in her mid 80's and a guest columnist for the paper. I realize that she is referencing a "Right Wing" website, so I thought I would throw this up here to get opinions from the other side of the fence.

I'm here to learn not judge, so "What say you"

Sorry Man, I tried. I didn't get far:

"Everyone agrees that we desperately need health care reform"

NOT TRUE: As I've built a case for here, Republicans *DON'T* want health care reform. They use this line as an opener, always followed by "but". It's a lame attempt to say "we want to help, but this is just not the right way". Bull shit. They want everything to stay exactly as it is.

"but" (see?) "our Government has proven that it can't run anything successfully."

Wrong again. Medicade works well. Our millitary is the best on Earth. Nasa sent a man to the moon. Etc. etc. etc. I'm not sure why patriotic Americans put up with this "America can't do anything" crap. As a citizen of this great nation I'm offended by this tired line.

"Therefore, Obama's government run health care plan is highly unpopular."

And for the hat trick, a third lie. When pollsters actually ask on the issues in Obama's plan, cutting past the misinformation campaign, the ideas are all very popular. Either way, even by conservative polls, it's a close call. To call it "highly unpopular" is just inaccurate.

Sorry, I didn't read any further. It's like starting an article with "We all know Republicans are smart and Democrats are dumb..." Not going to be worth my while to read much further.

Take care,

Ed

Well Iread the whole thing and decided to not even address it until you took the time to. It does not address health care at all, it simply using the term health care in order to confuse and distort the subject. That's why I did not even want to bother answering.


Getting health care right is not hard. The reason we are not getting it right is because it takes away income from the investor class. That is the long and the short of it. Twist in the wind all you want but the bottom line is that the good heartland folks are scared of change and the people in power know it.
They scare them in every possible way to keep their gravy train at full speed.
Just as the Bush folks used to laugh at the born agains, the corporate folks are laughing at the right behind closed doors.

The irony is incredible.

Buddy, they ain't laughin' at the right. They're all in the same room having a good laugh on all of us.

It is the well meaning scared of 2009 crowd that is their bitch.

Noon, could you define "Investor Class" as you use it?

My parents have reaped rather good return on their investments, helping to support their retirement. The wife and I have a small portfolio (got a lot smaller through recent years) but I continue to buy stocks every month. Yes, I do expect to make a profit on them, does that make us part of this class?

Some of these stocks are in the health care industry, as they were part of the wife's compensation package when she worked that industry. I read your signature line and say that makes sense, until I try to figure out how those of us invested in the industry will be compensated were we to take the profit out of health care?

I didn't address the article as I have not formulated an opinion yet. Call me ignorant, but I do not watch the news, or listen to talk radio, preferring to gather my info from citizens such as yourself. I do read 2 local papers, and my favorite section is the Opinion and Letters to the Editor section. You and others do not have to satisfy any clients, so your info is biased only by your personal feelings. This is much easier to contend with than those who let the almighty dollar determine what they have to say.

Personal experiance also influences my opinions, but I live soooo far below the radar, that I don't see much of the outside world. Fault that if you will, but that is my choice, and it harms no one.

Wouldn't it be great if the almighty dollar didn't determine what health care you get or what treatments get denied?

Well I read the whole thing, rolled on the floor llaughing my arse off knowing damn well the Shafly could not find hers with both hands and a flashlight. Ed covered all the salient points.

Just for giggles, I am certain many of you have worked for large corporations and small. Most of the small ones are good, then they get bought up by some large corporations and FUBAR'ed. So where are all the Enrons, etc. Private business eficciency? Don't make me laugh.

When did health care become a "right"?:confused:

I would say the day you were born, but most conservatives say it starts even before that. In fact, they insist on providing it for the unborn. It's just after they pop out they want to cut them lose. Hey, those babies should take some personal responsability!

So, who gives us that "right"?

I think health care and protection from being murdered by having a steel spike shoved your brain are two completely different things. Try to focus on just the one for a post or two.

My first answer would be to say common decency. If we have the ability to cure an illness, it seems like we should. But I know that's not what you’re looking for.

Okay, how about this. The Supreme Court has ruled that denying health care to prisoners is cruel and unusual punishment. In other words, prisoners have a right to health care. Wouldn't logic dictate that if the people who are incarcerated for breaking our laws have a right to health care, that right should be extended to law abiding citizens?

Prisoners for the most part are "imprisoned".;) That means we have taken away their ability to fend for themselves. That's why they call them wards of the state.

We've taken it away? They're victims? They don't have to take personal responsibility for their actions?

You could just as easily say they gave up their rights. And if that's the case, why do they get a right that the rest of us don't? Or if I lose my job, you could say my employer took away my ability to get health care. It's a game of semantics at that point.

Fact is, we say prisoners have a right to health care but the rest of us don't. Unless we're a fetus.

Eddie, Eddie, Eddie, I love ya like a brother man, but I know you are smarter than that. The only rights we as humans have, are the rights that God gives us. Man himself doesn't give rights. He neither has the ability or the desire. Man's basic instinct is to dominate and suppress. C'mon, this is first year liberal college stuff mang.

Oh good. I won't have to hear about this "right" to have guns. That was give to us by man, not God. Sure, you can say only God has the ability to give rights, but you'll have hard time taking all the others away. "Sorry man, no trial for you!"

No, the constitution (which men fought and died for) "guarantees" me certain "God Given" rights. I can find NO reference to health care in that document. Maybe you could point it out to me.

Posts #9 to #17 are getting down to it. Please carry on. This is good stuff, at last!

A couple of simple questions: is the right to bear arms a God given right? Is the right to a trial a God given right? Do I have the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty?

There's nothing in the Constitution about a right to a fair trial. Nothing about a right to get married. Nothing about a right to privacy.

You are right. There is nothing in the Constitution about health care- just like so many other rights we have. Rights given to us by men. Wise men who built a great democracy. Some of us feel that health care should be among those rights. And "not in the Constitution" is no better arguement against it than it would be for any of these other rights.

(source:http://atheism.about.com/od/churchst...nstitution.htm)

Sure.

Folks who live off corporate profits without ever producing a good or service.

Some more things that are "not in the Constitution".

http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html

You happy with how it worked out?

"From each, according to his ability, to each, according to his needs." isn't in the Constitution? Not even the Declaration of Independence, or the Bill of Rights?

Well, you could have fooled me.

But you have made your point. The United State of America has become no more than an exercise in gang warfare, The West Side Story run amok. Mao was right.

I'll never understand why people so love to have a Master.

Chas

It gives one a feeling of security which translates to survival for us and our off spring. It's all good, if indeed our "Master" has the good of the entire sociaty as his goal.

If he uses the group for his own tribe or personal gain, then it ain't so good.

We all have the instinct to band together behind the most powerful it's a matter of how we reason who or what is best for us.

I guess that's one of those "instincts" that never fully developed for me. Might be because when I look at my Masters, they look like they've been bought off, or worse.

Chas

It's developed in you. Look at the comfort you find in carrying a firearm and the support you have for those that continue to champion this against those who would change that.

Yeah you are cynical about our leaders but that's just because you have a keen reasoning mind and lots of life experience.

It is not necessarily a "right" but universal health care is simply good sense. Our greatest natural resource is our citizens, does it not simply make good sense to conserve that resource? We maintain our bridges and roads (well we used to until the GOP made us a third world country). Should we not also maintain our citizens.

It made good sense to the Conservative party in Canada, that is why they instituted the Single Payer plan.

What? Weren't we talking about health care reform? What master? The Insurance company? Or are you just saying "I can't think of anything to say so I'll change the subject"? Didn't we vote for every member of Congress and the President? Master? Call them what you like, but I love America. Is our system of government perfect? Far from it. But as they say, it's the worst system except for all the others.

I'm happy with the lively exchange of ideas. I/we can all learn by being exposed to different viewpoints. Sometimes I see things that I haven't taken into account. Sometimes it changes my mind and sometimes it re-enforces what I already thought. So I guess you could say that I am happy with the way it is working out. :)

This is a decent argument, and I would agree whole heartedly agree but for the fact that our government is a sick, twisted collection of power hungry, lieing, incompetent, fools. If I was foolish enough to think for one second that our government as it is could do a better job than the private sector, I'd say go for it. There is too much proof in the history that says otherwise (IMO).

Show me the bill that proposes a government run health care system that you would have to use. While, personally, I'm all for a single payer system that seems to work so well for so many other countries, I see no legislation proposed that would give us that.

So be against single payer if you like. But please consider supporting legislation that would prevent insurance companies dropping people if they get sick, prevent insurance companies from denying coverage for "pre-existing conditions" and allows people to keep their insurance if they lose their jobs. You know, since it has nothing to do with the concerns you are expressing.

Medicare is run more efficiently than any private plan, the overhead for Medicare is half that of the private plans. I would imagine that a Public Option would be run by some dedicated civil servants and certainly not by Congress.

The interstate highway system.
The CDC.
The space program.
Medicade.
The FAA.
The Millitary.
Social Security.
Postal Service.

Why do we continue to propogate the lie that the Governmet can't do anything? It's a slap in the face to every patriotic American. Canada can do health care but we can't? Nothing against Canada, but yeah, I think we can manage it. But I don't even have to look that far. Medicare provides health coverage that is less expensive than private insurance. I don't have to ask "can our government provide health care?" They're doing it. And it does work.

I should have said that! :)

This is exactly why private insurance is so scared of a public option. They KNOW the government will do it better and cheaper. They can see it being done already. And somehow they've brainwashed a lot of Americans into believeing that supporting their bottom line for inferior care is better. Better for the insurance industry, no doubt. Not better for America.

I think you ought to do some research.


I don't know anyone that wants to change Medicare. I know tons of folks who are very upset with their health care.

I just don't understand why folks are so determined to have other folks get rich keeping them healthy.

Take profit out of health care.

This is not a concern, this only happens to the other guy. Oh yeah, and me. :(

I know, I know!!!


Because it is in the best interest of corporate American to propagate that lie. :)

(really, that was an easy question);)

Are you making a case for my point, or trying to make one for yours?:confused:

A lot of costs of Medicare are off the books.

Pete

If you have issue, could you be more specific? Is there a more efficent way to get a letter across the country in the private sector than the postal service? Is there a private company in America doing a better job getting sattelites into orbit than NASA?