Beck is a nut job no doubt, O'Reilly is not as bad. That being said you are right, you have the Michael Moores & Glen Becks of the world sensationalizing this issue.
Sad truth is that if you ask any Republican why they oppose it they will say because of death panels (typical Palin idiocracy). My mom was in the hospital this year and she told me that it was good that she was in before Obama-care passed. The reality is that there are short and long term implications of this bill.
For the most part, the 55 and up crowd may be better off and people with prexisting conditions or even small business owners who have to buy their own healthcare. For the rest of us, nothing may change in the short term.
Long term people are scared about the government run option overtaking private healthcare, however this is not part of this bill. The other argument is that this means we'll pay for abortions, which I would be against personally. However the problem with this arguement is that we already pay for abortions as part of our insurance premiums. Last I checked United Healthcare & the like didn't offer a Catholic or pro-life version of their healthcare .
This goes back to the idea about having a Republic, when Democrats won election last year including 60% of the senate- this was the implications. I pretty much assumed some variety of nationalized healthcare would pass. This variety of it is not nearly as bad as the Hillary-care or as bad is it could of been so .
Michael Koby
· 1 month ago
Well said sir. While this post is about more than just the healthcare debate, you make some very valid points.
My issue with the healthcare issue is not necessarily socialized healthcare because I think we'll get there no matter what (I'm still against it because it increases the size of government), but its more that the terms "socialized healthcare" and "health insurance industry reform" have become almost synonymous. Our president has sold a large percentage of this nation that we can't get reform without the socialized healthcare, and that just isn't true.
Granted I don't have the answer, though my proposal is to regulate the industry into having to find ways to ensure everyone can get health care regardless of pre-exisiting conditions, age, and wage. There are other solutions than to bring socialized healthcare and by forcing compliance on the citizens by MAKING it a law that they have to have health coverage (what happened to personal choice?).
I think that everyone should be looking at all the issues and questioning their leaders. Bringing the issues to the front of the media. Making it known where we as the voters stand and what we will/won't tolerate.
scottwhite
· 1 month ago
agreed, Planet Money podcast (NPR) has had a great series on the cost of medicine and why it's so complicated. BTW I was wrong they passed a provision in the bill baring it from paying for abortions: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/09/us/politics/0...
All Comments
Sad truth is that if you ask any Republican why they oppose it they will say because of death panels (typical Palin idiocracy). My mom was in the hospital this year and she told me that it was good that she was in before Obama-care passed. The reality is that there are short and long term implications of this bill.
For the most part, the 55 and up crowd may be better off and people with prexisting conditions or even small business owners who have to buy their own healthcare. For the rest of us, nothing may change in the short term.
Long term people are scared about the government run option overtaking private healthcare, however this is not part of this bill. The other argument is that this means we'll pay for abortions, which I would be against personally. However the problem with this arguement is that we already pay for abortions as part of our insurance premiums. Last I checked United Healthcare & the like didn't offer a Catholic or pro-life version of their healthcare .
This goes back to the idea about having a Republic, when Democrats won election last year including 60% of the senate- this was the implications. I pretty much assumed some variety of nationalized healthcare would pass. This variety of it is not nearly as bad as the Hillary-care or as bad is it could of been so .
My issue with the healthcare issue is not necessarily socialized healthcare because I think we'll get there no matter what (I'm still against it because it increases the size of government), but its more that the terms "socialized healthcare" and "health insurance industry reform" have become almost synonymous. Our president has sold a large percentage of this nation that we can't get reform without the socialized healthcare, and that just isn't true.
Granted I don't have the answer, though my proposal is to regulate the industry into having to find ways to ensure everyone can get health care regardless of pre-exisiting conditions, age, and wage. There are other solutions than to bring socialized healthcare and by forcing compliance on the citizens by MAKING it a law that they have to have health coverage (what happened to personal choice?).
I think that everyone should be looking at all the issues and questioning their leaders. Bringing the issues to the front of the media. Making it known where we as the voters stand and what we will/won't tolerate.