|
|
Post by Radiation on Nov 11, 2009 12:41:12 GMT -5
I was discussing this with my Spanish classmates yesterday and one woman has a husband in the military, apparently said husband stated that with this new health care reform those in the military are going to have their health coverage dropped.
Now I don't know the truth about this but the women I was talking to are against the health care reform and basically repeat the right-wing hyperbole that socialised medicine will make things worse, run us into a bad deficit, and that the things that Obama said about not letting illegal immigrants get coverage, etc. are basically lies, that the government is not telling us everything.
|
|
|
|
Post by perv on Nov 11, 2009 14:21:00 GMT -5
And yet, somewhere, there are a group of self-styled "progressives" who are just as butthurt as the GOP right now because it's not enough for them. Because it's not progressive, it's regressive. It's a huge handout to insurance companies. Don't you think all industries wish they could get law passed saying you have to buy their products? That would be pretty sweet for them, but not so great for us. Admittedly it's partially mitigated by the public option. But it's still a horrible "solution". |
|
|
|
Post by mrsyoungie on Nov 11, 2009 14:22:00 GMT -5
I'll just clear up a few things here: First of all it's Mrs. Youngie - so don't call me "CancerBoy". I'll take "CancerLadySupreme" thanks.
Pierre Trudeau never spoke to me in grade school. I'm a bit older than that. But I did have the priviledge to hear Tommy Douglas speak when I was a kid. He was the true father of medicare here. Also he was a former Baptist minister. It amused him no end when Conservatives here would try to paint him as "Godless".
Anyway, I wonder what all the fundies are going to do when the world doesn't end just because they have health coverage? Probably just move on to some other doom and gloom prediction. Back to demonizing birth control?
|
|
|
|
Post by discoberry on Nov 11, 2009 16:48:38 GMT -5
Wasn't he Keifer Sutherland's grandfather?
|
|
|
|
Post by mrsyoungie on Nov 11, 2009 16:51:54 GMT -5
Wasn't he Keifer Sutherland's grandfather? He surely was. Father of Shirley Douglas, FIL to Donald Sutherland. And voted "Greatest Canadian" on a recent CBC special. |
|
|
|
Post by szaleniec on Nov 11, 2009 17:08:49 GMT -5
If $15k is 2.5% of your income, you're not getting any sympathy from me.
|
|
|
|
Post by A. Sapien on Nov 11, 2009 21:43:17 GMT -5
And yet, somewhere, there are a group of self-styled "progressives" who are just as butthurt as the GOP right now because it's not enough for them. Because it's not progressive, it's regressive. It's a huge handout to insurance companies. Don't you think all industries wish they could get law passed saying you have to buy their products? That would be pretty sweet for them, but not so great for us. Admittedly it's partially mitigated by the public option. But it's still a horrible "solution". Do you honestly think we're going to get any better starting point anytime within the next 50 years? We have to start somewhere. |
|
|
|
Post by scienceisgreen on Nov 11, 2009 23:00:14 GMT -5
Because it's not progressive, it's regressive. It's a huge handout to insurance companies. Don't you think all industries wish they could get law passed saying you have to buy their products? That would be pretty sweet for them, but not so great for us. Admittedly it's partially mitigated by the public option. But it's still a horrible "solution". Do you honestly think we're going to get any better starting point anytime within the next 50 years? We have to start somewhere. Exactly, and despite what was said about regressive in some areas it's better than no bill at all or heaven forbid the senate Finance committee's bill being the one being put through everything. Everytime in our history we have pushed for this and failed it has taken long periods to get it back on the table it seems. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Nov 11, 2009 23:56:17 GMT -5
Do you honestly think we're going to get any better starting point anytime within the next 50 years? Yes. Obama could have got a proper public option with Roe vs Wade still intact if he'd fought a little harder. All they needed was 60 votes for cloture- not even for the bill. And if they'd had to fight for them, all the better. An opportunity to discipline the Blue Dog scum into line. This is a defeat. Democrats were negotiating with themselves and lost. |
|
|
|
Post by A. Sapien on Nov 12, 2009 3:36:37 GMT -5
Do you honestly think we're going to get any better starting point anytime within the next 50 years? Yes. Obama could have got a proper public option with Roe vs Wade still intact if he'd fought a little harder. All they needed was 60 votes for cloture- not even for the bill. And if they'd had to fight for them, all the better. An opportunity to discipline the Blue Dog scum into line. This is a defeat. Democrats were negotiating with themselves and lost. All they needed was 60 votes for cloture. With Joe. And Blue Dogs. You can't honestly believe they could have gotten that. How exactly would they have forced Joe or the Blue Dogs to be 'disciplined into line'? I think the fight that happened with even a bill this compromised proves that would have been impossible. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Nov 12, 2009 5:14:25 GMT -5
Yes. Obama could have got a proper public option with Roe vs Wade still intact if he'd fought a little harder. All they needed was 60 votes for cloture- not even for the bill. And if they'd had to fight for them, all the better. An opportunity to discipline the Blue Dog scum into line. This is a defeat. Democrats were negotiating with themselves and lost. All they needed was 60 votes for cloture. With Joe. And Blue Dogs. You can't honestly believe they could have gotten that. How exactly would they have forced Joe or the Blue Dogs to be 'disciplined into line'? I think the fight that happened with even a bill this compromised proves that would have been impossible. Holy Joe has a set of bills he'd liked passed. He wants an escalation of the war in Afghanistan, and money set aside for that purpose, for instance. He wants continued grants to the Israeli Army. The White House could make very clear that any and all legislation with his name so much as mentioned in the same sentence would be blocked in comitte, filibustered in congress and vetoed by the white house until he voted for cloture. They could make clear that he'd never see a dime of DNC money for reelection, Joe would be evicted from all comittees and so on. At the very worst, he wouldn't be allowed to caucus democrat any more. And you do not want to be a minority of any kind in this Republican Party. And so on. It's a tried and true strategy. LBJ got Civil Rights passed without 60 votes- and he was fighting actual members of the KKK. |
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Nov 12, 2009 7:42:24 GMT -5
Fred, you don't think moves like that would only strengthen people's negative reaction against the White House? You have him acting like a dictator!
There are lots of things that I'm not happy about with this bill. But, it's something. Once it's passed in whatever form, then the fight becomes infinitely easier -- because you'll be fighting to fix parts of it, change parts of it, improve parts of it. But you won't be starting from scratch! It's easier to wage a campaign to fix a part of it once it's established than it is to wage a campaign for the concept itself in a country that has never experienced this before!
|
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Nov 12, 2009 12:20:29 GMT -5
ltfred, let me say something to you.
"He who chases two hares catches neither."
It's a huge step in the right direction. We can build off of that. If you want too much too soon, though, you won't get it.
Also, there's almost half as much fearmongering in this thread as there is in Rapture Ready. That's not a good thing. This bill will NOT overturn Roe v. Wade. It's talking about how much the government will cover. Regular insurance companies still might support abortions outside of emergencies.
|
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 12, 2009 12:36:10 GMT -5
Also, there's almost half as much fearmongering in this thread as there is in Rapture Ready. That's not a good thing. This bill will NOT overturn Roe v. Wade. It's talking about how much the government will cover. Regular insurance companies still might support abortions outside of emergencies. Yes, there is a big difference between something being legal and being paid for with tax money. To me outside of emergencies and a few other situations it is an elective procedure. Oh, and Fred. The Bluedog Dems are not scum. They are filling the role that intelligent opposition should. It is not the Bluedog dems that are threating to filibuster. That would be the GOP and the few independents. If the Dems start to kick people from the center out we will become the GOP. |
|
|
|
Post by A. Sapien on Nov 12, 2009 12:36:34 GMT -5
Fred, you don't think moves like that would only strengthen people's negative reaction against the White House? You have him acting like a dictator! You'd see public support for the public option dry up, and wither away, I'd imagine. Exactly, healthcare is much more easily compared to social security than civil rights, and I already pointed out how badly flawed that was in the beginning. I'll be blunt, the whole 'revolution' over 'evolution' angle being played is much more likely to kill healthcare for another generation than anything else. |
|
