National Health Care

[andrewclunn]

Sorry.  What I'm saying is that who lobbies for what has no effect on my personal opinion.  What 70% of the American people want has no effect on my opinion.  Those are just meta-debates (debating the debate rather than the topic of the debate.)  All that matters are the actual plans and the facts.  Not the facts about opinions.  i don't care about polls.  more than 70% of the American people believe in God, and that doesn't mean anything to me.  When LoneMateria stated that he might change his opinion merely because of lobbying (not any revealed evidence about the plan(s) themselves) that frustrates me, because it doesn't reflect critical thought.  it's reactionary emotional appeals.

[McQ]

Sorry.  What I'm saying is that who lobbies for what has no effect on my personal opinion.  What 70% of the American people want has no effect on my opinion.  Those are just meta-debates (debating the debate rather than the topic of the debate.)  All that matters are the actual plans and the facts.  Not the facts about opinions.  i don't care about polls.  more than 70% of the American people believe in God, and that doesn't mean anything to me.  When LoneMateria stated that he might change his opinion merely because of lobbying (not any revealed evidence about the plan(s) themselves) that frustrates me, because it doesn't reflect critical thought.  it's reactionary emotional appeals.

Those are good points. Very good points.

[iNow]

Indeed.  That is much more clear, and makes good sense.  It seems that you misused the label of strawman in the previous post, but I do appreciate you coming back to clarify.


As to Lone Materia's position, I can't help but to understand where he's coming from.  Many people were uncertain about healthcare reform... sitting on the proverbial fence... Then, after witnessing what has been done to stop legislation, and what is motivating it (summarized here as lies and money), it's not hard to understand someone getting fed up and saying, "enough is enough, let's make this happen.  it's important that we don't let those bastards screw us yet again."

[andrewclunn]

Yeah well, if you tend to lean to the right (as I do) then you also tend to be under the impression that 'those bastards' only get to screw us over more and more the larger the role of government becomes in our economy.

[iNow]

Yes, I know.  You've firmly established yourself as the type of person who does not think that Medicare should exist at all.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009 ... hp?ref=fpc


Or that providing adequate care in a compassionate manner for all citizens will lead us to tyranny.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Coffee_Cup


I find those ideas myopic, and I completely disagree since they try to treat the system in isolation, thus removing their actual bases in reality.


I look at it this way.  You're okay with government handling security, but not much else.  I simply class protection from bankruptcy resulting from unpreventable illness and having access to quality medical care regardless of income level to be another form of security, and hence worth my governments time and attention.

[andrewclunn]

But isn't that too much of an ideological divide?  I mean by saying it that way haven't we already made it out so that we disagree on the very nature of government, and therefore can't agree on anything regarding health care?  I mean, it's true what you're saying, but shouldn't we both still care whether the particular plans presented will work and what they do?  I mean you want government health care and I don't, but what sort of health care and how?  Just because you're very unlikely to win me over doesn't mean that you should support any plan just because it is some sort of plan.  The details are important.  Saying WHY one is for or against government health care is only part f it.  Because even though I do not want government run health care I certainly like certain government health related laws.  That's part of the reason I was so angry in the post I made 4 pages back or so (When releasing the bill to be seen by the public online was voted down.)  I may not be happy from an ideological point of view with any government run health care, but that is because I am not convinced that government run health care will work in this country.  If you want to sway people like me, then show us that your plan will work.  Present exactly what that plan is.  And if the plan put forth by our politicians turns out to be crap, then it's not hypocrisy for you to oppose it.  If it's bad legislation then you should oppose it, even if you agree with the idea of government run health care in principle.  But when I hear the justification for doing something, anything, being that if we don't then we're screwed, it frustrates me.  Because the system we have is not perfect.  And no it's not what I want (I'm frustrated as hell about health insurance being tied to employment), and so I would be in favor of health care reform, but ti's very different reform than what is being proposed.  I want to be shown that it will work, and how it will work and I want to see the bill.  I'll read it.  But unless I'm shown that we have a real plan that will work, I can't put my support behind anything.  End stream-of-consciousness-like rant.

[iNow]

Okay, I'm going to dissect your wall of text a bit...  I hope you don't mind.

I mean by saying it that way haven't we already made it out so that we disagree on the very nature of government, and therefore can't agree on anything regarding health care?

As I stated above, we really don't disagree on the nature of government.  We disagree on what constitutes security.  Your view is much narrower than mine.

I mean, it's true what you're saying, but shouldn't we both still care whether the particular plans presented will work and what they do?  I mean you want government health care and I don't, but what sort of health care and how?

I see no disagreement between us here.  I do... very much... care about the particulars, which is why I've been paying such close attention to the process these last several months.

 

Just because you're very unlikely to win me over doesn't mean that you should support any plan just because it is some sort of plan.  The details are important.

You must be confusing me with someone else, or with another thread at another forum (like you did regarding the Obama speech to school children issue).  I don't support any plan just because it's a plan, nor have I anywhere even once suggested, implied, nor expressly stated that details are unimportant.  You mentioned strawmen a few posts back... Let's please make sure that you too avoid them.

I may not be happy from an ideological point of view with any government run health care, but that is because I am not convinced that government run health care will work in this country.  If you want to sway people like me, then show us that your plan will work.  

I don't have a proposal going through Congress.  Since when is this "my" plan?  For the record, what's coming out of the Senate right now won't work IMO, but I will refrain from passing final judgment on the reform in general until it's done with reconciliation (as the House bill had a lot going for it, and I'm curious what compromises will be made before it's sent for signature).

Also, for examples on ideas which we should be leveraging, I highly suggest this special to see how it's done in five other nations already:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... ntinuous=1

And if the plan put forth by our politicians turns out to be crap, then it's not hypocrisy for you to oppose it.  If it's bad legislation then you should oppose it, even if you agree with the idea of government run health care in principle.

Again, you appear to be confusing me with someone else.  We have no disagreement here.

But when I hear the justification for doing something, anything, being that if we don't then we're screwed, it frustrates me.  

Another strawman.  Nobody has said this.  What WAS said is that the amount of money being spent to screw us makes some people more supportive of any change.  That's not being presented as some justification for doing something.  It is being presented as an explanation of what is motivating people to move past their complacency.

So... be frustrated... I don't care.  Feelings of frustration are precisely what you're choosing to rail against right now.

Because the system we have is not perfect.  

I agree.  I'd actually go so far as to call it rather broken.

And no it's not what I want (I'm frustrated as hell about health insurance being tied to employment), and so I would be in favor of health care reform, but ti's very different reform than what is being proposed.

Well, since a single payer system was taken off the table all negotiations have been in context of how to improve the employer based system.  So, with that said, I really don't understand what and how you'd personally like to see reform made.  You've already openly stated that you completely are against the three main approaches available to us (government based, employer based, or a hybrid of the two).

I want to be shown that it will work, and how it will work

And I want an Aston Martin, and for religion to be eradicated from the face of the planet for the cancer it is on the minds of otherwise intelligent people.  It's not gonna happen.  We can simply do our best, and improve it as we go (exactly as happened in Australia when they implemented their universal health care system).

But unless I'm shown that we have a real plan that will work, I can't put my support behind anything.

But, you can support certain principles, which you have... despite not having a bill to read.  Most other people are simply doing the same thing.

I contend that... despite your claims to the contrary... this has nothing to do with the absence of a final draft bill at your fingertips to read, and has everything to do with you not agreeing with the principles underlying the current discussion.

The principles are open for debate, and don't require existing legislation to discuss.

[LoneMateria]

Andrew I realize that we haven't had much discussion between us yet so let me be clear.  Belittling me for not sharing the same opinion isn't going to motivate me to change my mind.  I'm still undecided about this topic and I've read most of this thread.  Each side makes valid points and I can neither support nor denounce this bill based on my current understanding of things.  I'm sure as atheists this attitude can be appreciated.  I found the link via reddit and it did exactly what it was supposed to, it pissed me off so I posted it.  I'm not going to make up my mind solely on this one bit of information.  However this article does put into perspective certain aspects of this bill that doesn't seem to be explored.  Why is it that companies are funneling money into getting this bill rejected?  How can these companies justify this investment when they are on the verge of asking for a government handout?  

I'm sure there is personal motivation for people on both side don't get me wrong.  But i'm not in favor of letting these companies funnel all this money into opposing a bill (or anything for that matter) when their companies are failing financially and are expecting a government handout to stay afloat.  Essentially they are using taxpayer money to oppose something they don't like.  That really pisses me off.  When I do make a decision about this healthcare reform this will help affect my final outcome no matter if i'm for this or against it.  I hope we can have a less emotional disagreement in the future ^_^.

[andrewclunn]

Just to be clear, I was using the term 'you' (in my last post) as someone might use the term 'one' (I simply chose to word it in the second person.)  It was not meant directly at anyone and I was not implying that any one person here held those views.  I was speaking to the type of "us and them" mentality that seems to be arising here, and was attempting to show the inner workings of my emotional reactions to this topic so that people would be clear as to where I'm coming from.  I was not pointing at anyone in particular, and am very sorry if it was taken that way.

[McQ]

I'll say it again. Reasoned debate. I'm not just asking one person here. Don't try to push other peoples' buttons, folks. This is not directed at any one person.

[andrewclunn]

That being said.  The poll at the top does not say "Do you support government run health care?"  It also does not say, "Do you support single payer health care reform?" or "Do you support health care reform?"  It asks if you support Obama's plan for health care reform.  Now I voted "not sure" initially, though I would now change my vote to no, since congress voted specifically to keep the bill from being released online.  I can certainly understand that we have differing views on what health care plan is ideal, but I'm just at a loss for how anyone can reasonably support a plan that they can not possible know anything about (Well anything other than the vague generalizations in political promises?)  In order to support this plan you must either:

A) Put your faith and trust Obama and Congress to do the right thing.
B) Want change in some form regardless of what it is.
C) Not feel that the details are really that important.
D) Support Obama's plan for some reason other than wanting a working health care system.
or
E) I'm totally missing something.

I just want to know what it is.  Because (like I said) I voted "not sure" because I was waiting to read the bill, and it's only since congress made it so I couldn't and wouldn't be able to become informed as to the details of the plan that I have come out against it.  So please explain to me (the over 50% of you who voted yes) how using rational critical analysis we can support the plan under A, B, C or D.  Or if it's E, then please enlighten me as to what I'm missing.

[iNow]

The thing you are missing, Andrew, is this...

F) There is more in the plans with which we agree than parts with which we disagree, so we stand in support because... although it's not perfect (nothing ever is)... it contains some rather important improvements to the existing system.

I refer to things like nondiscrimination over preexisting conditions; eliminating yearly or lifetime payout ceilings and caps; making illegal the rationing of care and droppage of coverage when it's most needed; guarantees for coverage of preventative care and early diagnostics; provision of security and stability when people lose their jobs or transfer to other employers; and the list goes on.

For you to dismiss peoples support the way you have with your choices A through D above does not help us to have a quality discussion.  You've done nothing more than disparage those with whom you disagree, and shown how difficult it is for you to think outside of your own ideological box.

Let's avoid creating false dichotomies, okay?  (Errr... I suppose it would actually be a quadchotomy, but it's still a false description of the actual underlying reasoning all the same).

[andrewclunn]

But how do you know those things are there in ways that will work?  How can you know when congress isn't letting us see the bill?  Those things you've said are vague, they have to be implemented in some way.  How do you know that they are being put into law in a way that isn't riddled with loopholes if you can't see the bill?  Why are you just trusting that the result of all this will be what you've stated when you aren't allowed to see it?  (You clearly fall into category A)

[iNow]

I'm done talking to you.  Besides the fact that you keep moving the goalposts, it's as if you're intentionally misrepresenting me, disparaging my position by equating it with faith, and ignoring my actual points.

[Will]

Chillax, folks.

We don't know what the final bill will look like in its final incarnation... or even if there will be a public option in the bill. When the thing finally gets out of committee, I'll grab a copy and post the link here so we can wade through it. It's probably going to look like the HR 3200 that we saw before, only with lobbyist interference. What level of interference will there be? We don't know yet. President Obama, if I'm remembering correctly, said that he will veto this if it doesn't have the public option.

Remember, if your congressman or congresswoman is obviously feeding from the healthcare lobbyist trough, you can vote for someone else or even run yourself next time around. In fact, I'd highly recommend it, as regardless of whether you're on board with the idea of universal healthcare, lobbyist control over your representative is absolutely unacceptable. That's one constant across the whole ideological spectrum from the most strident libertarian to the most committed collectivist.