CONGRATS! US HEALTHCARE REFORM PASSES!

[FreakyLocz14]

It's not a product. It's a necessary service.

You can't always keep your house from catching fire no matter how careful you are. That's why there's the fire department you pay to keep running. You can't always avoid fender benders no matter how good a driver you are. That's why you need to buy insurance. You can't always keep yourself well no matter how healthy you are. That's why health care for everyone is necessary.

If you don't have insurance you're putting yourself and other people at risk. Imagine if people were able to opt out of having the fire department come to their house in exchange for paying fewer taxes. What happens if your house catches fire? The firefighters can either let your house burn because you didn't pay and put your neighbors at risk your neighbors' houses or they can protect everyone and save your house even though you didn't pay and everyone else had to pick up the slack.

If you get sick with something contagious you're more than likely going to get someone else sick and cause them to take time off from work or a trip to the drugstore/hospital. You've caused them financial trouble and you have to pay for it. Since you can never know who infects who the only way to make things fair is for everyone to share in the costs of keeping society as a whole healthy.

In conclusion: it's not a product; it's a responsibility of anyone living in a civilized society.

I understand your agrument relating to fire department services, but this bill is nothing like that. You're thinking of a socialized health care system where people would pay taxes into a single-payer system. There is no single-payer or public option at all in the bill that passed. This is more like there is no fire department, everyone just has to buy private fire insurance. While I oppose both single-payer and this bill, I think single-payer is the lesser of two evils here because it is less intrusive on individual rights.

Remember that the greatest right American citizens enjoy is the right to be left alone by the government. This is why American criminal law is so restricting on how the government can deal with citizens they believe commited a crime. Most social services (save things like Social Security), are voluntary transactions between citizens and their government. People apply for things like housing assistance, food stamps, cash aid, and forms of government health care we have now such as Medicaid; the government does not force citizens to have these services.

I would support the individual mandate if the penalty paid funded some sort of temporary public health system that covers medical emergencies for people who did not follow the mandate, assuming they did so because they couldn't afford private care. I'm all for having a safety net for people down on their luck I just believe that it should be the last resort in order to restrict the size of government.

 

[PokemonLeagueChamp]

Scarf, if you believe health care costs too much, don't blame the insurance companies. It's the pharmaceutical companies that make the medicines. The pharmaceutical companies that jack up prices because they can. The pharmaceutical companies that are UNTOUCHED by this bill.

 

[Prince_of_Light]

It's not a product. It's a necessary service.

You can't always keep your house from catching fire no matter how careful you are. That's why there's the fire department you pay to keep running. You can't always avoid fender benders no matter how good a driver you are. That's why you need to buy insurance. You can't always keep yourself well no matter how healthy you are. That's why health care for everyone is necessary.

If you don't have insurance you're putting yourself and other people at risk. Imagine if people were able to opt out of having the fire department come to their house in exchange for paying fewer taxes. What happens if your house catches fire? The firefighters can either let your house burn because you didn't pay and put your neighbors at risk your neighbors' houses or they can protect everyone and save your house even though you didn't pay and everyone else had to pick up the slack.

This is the worst analogy I have ever seen. The fire department is a PREVENTATIVE BODY. They stop the fire as soon as they can before the damage overtakes it, this is akin to prevention; they prevent the damages from occurring. This DOES NOT mean the fire department is obligated in any way to pay for the damages to the house. That is what fire INSURANCE is for, which must be purchased by the homeowner prior to the fire taking place. By your direct comparison of the fire department to universal health care, you are alleging that fire departments would not only be charged with preventing damages, but paying for the damages as well. As pokemonleaguechamp said above me, the fire department would be best compared to the preventative examples he gave; eating healthy, washing hands, etc. HOWEVER. This is exactly the same backward thinking applied in universal health care. You got sick/your house caught fire, so you have to pay to make yourself better/fix the damages with medical/fire insurance that YOU ALREADY PAID FOR TO PROTECT YOURSELF IN THE EVENT OF DAMAGE.

Note that damage prevention is already in place; by law you must be given emergency care to stop any further damage from occurring, much like the fire department is required to stop the fire to keep more damage from occurring. But as for the damage that has already occurred before the emergency services could stop it, who must pay for it? The fire department? I think not. If the taxpayers don't have to pay for THE DAMAGES caused by your house burning, then why should we have to pay for THE DAMAGES you sustained from your health condition?

No one else has anything other than a moral obligation to nurse you back to health or rebuild your house. In other words, I'm not your freaking mommy, and even then your mommy isn't shackled by law to help you unless you're a minor. But if you ASK me for help, I would help you because I'm a nice guy. That doesn't mean you have the right to force me to help you by paying to fix your problems. It's in the hands of each one of us to protect ourselves from catastrophe, and nothing more than the goodness in someone's heart should compel them to help you. Forced payment is slavery just as much as forced labor is, because the money one earns is the fruit of his labor.

When people are in need, the other people will come forth with noble charity to help one another. STOP relying on government and for once, TRUST THE PEOPLE.

 

[bmah]

No one else has anything other than a moral obligation to nurse you back to health or rebuild your house. In other words, I'm not your freaking mommy, and even then your mommy isn't shackled by law to help you unless you're a minor. But if you ASK me for help, I would help you because I'm a nice guy. That doesn't mean you have the right to force me to help you by paying to fix your problems.

If everyone was morally sound, then there shouldn't be any issue in paying up then, should there? i.e. If you knew that it was the right thing to pay for universal health care, wouldn't this override any irks that may arise from thinking of the concept of apparent gov't force?
The concept of "force" itself isn't something that I like at all, but on the other hand, it's scary to think of the people who would truly lack a moral compass. Perhaps it's a conceptual hurdle that gets to a lot of people.

When people are in need, the other people will come forth with noble charity to help one another. STOP relying on government and for once, TRUST THE PEOPLE.

Before this amount of government control struct people's nerves, how WAS the economy and society in the US doing? How did so many unfortunate people end up the way they did? DID the trust and participation of the people really fixed the kinks if so many people are in need? In other words, if you look at the issues that concern us today, and judge society's responsiveness/awareness to similar situations from past experience, how much trust can you really invest in hoping that people will do the right thing?

Would it be a safe bet to hope someone would come to my rescue if I required a $30k surgery? If there are also many other people in the same situation, that wouldn't make my case any more special than theirs, and then that'd probably further drop potential for people's will to help "a person in need".

 

[PokemonLeagueChamp]

So we NEED the government to do everything for us?
Tell me, how'd that work over in Russia? It didn't. More people starved, more people died. Government run health care is 100% not free. Frankly, if I had an extreme allergic reaction right now, the only people I'd expect to pay the costs are my parents, because I'm 15. Not some anonymous taxpayer out in Iowa. And besides, there's a difference between morality and stupidity. Many taxpayers have families. They take care of them. If people had actual DECENT families, and kid's parents weren't divorced or murdered, then they should be covering each other. Orphans, paying their coverage I have no problem with, until they get a job. And I don't want hear the whole "you're rich, they may not be" argument because I am certainly NOT rich, I am lower middle class, and if your solution is to spread wealth around equally, no one will have much of anything.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Spreading wealth around is another failed tennet of Soviet Russia. People work hard and earn their wealth, or they inherit it from relatives that work hard for it. The American system is a system that allows people to be the masters of their own destiny. We should be giving people a hand-up, not a hand-out. Give them educational and job oppurtunities to better themselves but don't try and say people hard-earned money has to take care of their every whim.

 

[Prince_of_Light]

If everyone was morally sound, then there shouldn't be any issue in paying up then, should there? i.e. If you knew that it was the right thing to pay for universal health care, wouldn't this override any irks that may arise from thinking of the concept of apparent gov't force?
The concept of "force" itself isn't something that I like at all, but on the other hand, it's scary to think of the people who would truly lack a moral compass. Perhaps it's a conceptual hurdle that gets to a lot of people.




Before this amount of government control struct people's nerves, how WAS the economy and society in the US doing? How did so many unfortunate people end up the way they did? DID the trust and participation of the people really fixed the kinks if so many people are in need? In other words, if you look at the issues that concern us today, and judge society's responsiveness/awareness to similar situations from past experience, how much trust can you really invest in hoping that people will do the right thing?

Would it be a safe bet to hope someone would come to my rescue if I required a $30k surgery? If there are also many other people in the same situation, that wouldn't make my case any more special than theirs, and then that'd probably further drop potential for people's will to help "a person in need".

Way to only attack the ethical portion of my argument. Whether or not I thought it was the "right thing to do" to pay for someone else's health insurance bill is irrelevant. It still isn't the government's place to be forcing me to, even if I agreed. This is why we have a CONSTITUTION, so people can't force their will on everyone else. And it's not the right thing to make someone pay for something they don't want. Need I remind you 60% of the American people DON'T WANT THIS BILL. And apparently you didn't watch the link, either. Charities WILL help those in need who seek it. Not to mention if Medicaid were restructured as a medical savings account similar to the one Whole Foods implements, the people who really need the care would be able to get it. But no, instead of restructuring Medicaid the dems just force another few million people onto it when it's already losing money. We ALREADY HAVE safety nets for the poor in place. If they were maintained and utilized honestly and properly, we wouldn't be having this problem. We still don't need this bill.

 

[Yuoaman]

It's nice to see that the US government is taking some steps to improve their country. Not to say that these changes are perfect, there will probably be many changes needed in coming years, but it's a step in the right direction.

 

[Prince_of_Light]

It's nice to see that the US government is taking some steps to improve their country. Not to say that these changes are perfect, there will probably be many changes needed in coming years, but it's a step in the right direction.

Read the bill and you just might change your mind. Reform is necessary, but not like this. I've said it before and I'll gladly say it again.

https://www.pokecommunity.com/showpost.php?p=5644052&postcount=47

 

[SBaby]

It's not a product. It's a necessary service.

You can't always keep your house from catching fire no matter how careful you are. That's why there's the fire department you pay to keep running. You can't always avoid fender benders no matter how good a driver you are. That's why you need to buy insurance. You can't always keep yourself well no matter how healthy you are. That's why health care for everyone is necessary.

Again, you are misconstruing facts and twisting things around to better suit your argument and rationalize Socialism. Comparing Health Care to a Fire Department is like comparing apples to oranges. Two different things. And really, you aren't making a very good case if that's all you can muster in the bill's defense.

I'll say once again: MISINFORMATION IS MORE HARMFUL THAN HELPFUL.

 

[Prince_of_Light]

Again, you are misconstruing facts and twisting things around to better suit your argument and rationalize Socialism. Comparing Health Care to a Fire Department is like comparing apples to oranges. Two different things. And really, you aren't making a very good case if that's all you can muster in the bill's defense.

I'll say once again: MISINFORMATION IS MORE HARMFUL THAN HELPFUL.

lol check out my reply to that stupid analogy. Expands on your argument quite well. =P

 

[bmah]

So we NEED the government to do everything for us?
Tell me, how'd that work over in Russia? It didn't. More people starved, more people died.

Thing is, Russia was far more communist than something like this bill ever could be. The comparison of the bill to actual socialism is an overstatement of people so ingrained into capitalism. This kind of far-right thinking is really just as bad as far-left thinking that so many people are against in the US. The bill really doesn't go very far left - it's just shocking unfamiliarity to the US.

I'm suggesting more of a moderate description of running the economy - neither too far left or right. I'd see that as satisfying more people than going full out Adam Smith style. And this bill really doesn't go very far left - it's just shocking unfamiliarity to the US.

Whether or not I thought it was the "right thing to do" to pay for someone else's health insurance bill is irrelevant. It still isn't the government's place to be forcing me to, even if I agreed. This is why we have a CONSTITUTION, so people can't force their will on everyone else. And it's not the right thing to make someone pay for something they don't want.

I understand where you're coming from. But I'm fairly sure you're getting wrapped up in the semantics of the definition of "constitution". You may be thinking that "IF the majority of people accepted this bill and qualms were few, the government may see this as an opportunity to continue introducing intervention in other aspects of the economy." I can understand that as well. I really have little to comment on this other than people are too quick to judge.

Need I remind you 60% of the American people DON'T WANT THIS BILL.

Need I remind you that probably 60% of Americans probably have no real insight on the bill's final outlook either. Along the lines of:

I'll say once again: MISINFORMATION IS MORE HARMFUL THAN HELPFUL.

This very much applies to both parties. A great chunk of people who "don't want the bill" also have no clue.

"There has been so much intentional misinformation over the course of this conversation, I'm anxious to get to the point where we can tell people what the bill does and what it doesn't."

- Kathleen Sebelius (Sec. of Health and Humanity Services)

Actually, let's see things on a broader scope. I think people just need to be patient, and let events roll out the way they are. I'm sure there are surprises that you nor I would have anticipated, both that can go in favor of either of our viewpoints. We're already judging before half of the stuff becomes implemented. Save yourself the forehead wrinkles. So many of these arguments go under this "quick to judge" category. You might think this is an easy way for me to wriggle out of an argument, but I honestly think you can only go so far in predicting this kind of event.

And apparently you didn't watch the link, either. Charities WILL help those in need who seek it.

We ALREADY HAVE safety nets for the poor in place. If they were maintained and utilized honestly and properly, we wouldn't be having this problem.

But IMO, the already-present safety nets are insufficient, and as you said, the overstaffed Medicaid needs to have an overhaul - which this bill is planning to do, but not immediately. I'm cautious in accepting your absolute certainty that charities are sufficient. I do agree that alternatives to reaching the same solution is certainly preferable though. Once again, we're far from the point in time to judge this bill sufficiently.

I initially had the same degree of certainty in my arguments that you have. But after reading so many arguments, I think there is legit concern on both sides. Alternatives to the bill may certainly be better...time is by far the best determinator. The rest of the babble-rousing is 90% trying to voice yourself the loudest. I already see a ton of hypocrisies and miscontruing facts that it's not really worth trying to make a statement anymore. Overall, I think it's worth revisiting the subject after the bill is allotted some more time.

 

[Yuukihime]

Lovely, now he can get to the other things he promised he'd do in his term as President. :>

 

[Prince_of_Light]

For the record, bold = me.

Thing is, Russia was far more communist than something like this bill ever could be. The comparison of the bill to actual socialism is an overstatement of people so ingrained into capitalism. This kind of far-right thinking is really just as bad as far-left thinking that so many people are against in the US. The bill really doesn't go very far left - it's just shocking unfamiliarity to the US.

The individual mandate isn't far left or communist? Sounds pretty totalitarian to me, to be forcing people to purchase health insurance that they might not want or need, and threatening fines or jail time.

I'm suggesting more of a moderate description of running the economy - neither too far left or right. I'd see that as satisfying more people than going full out Adam Smith style. And this bill really doesn't go very far left - it's just shocking unfamiliarity to the US.

It's fine the way it is. People bash businesses but they forget the hand that feeds them. And yeah, it does go pretty far left when you have the government taking steps to control one sixth of the GDP. Socialist corporatist cronyism anyone? We aren't living under real capitalism anymore.

I understand where you're coming from. But I'm fairly sure you're getting wrapped up in the semantics of the definition of "constitution". You may be thinking that "IF the majority of people accepted this bill and qualms were few, the government may see this as an opportunity to continue introducing intervention in other aspects of the economy." I can understand that as well. I really have little to comment on this other than people are too quick to judge.

That isn't what I think. I've said it a hundred times and I will continue to say it. No matter the public opinion on this bill it is still unconstitutional in many aspects, the most glaring being the individual mandate. And quite frankly it obviously doesn't matter what the people think, the liberals will continue to force down legislation as much as they want, constitutional or no. Why do you think they passed this thing when 60% of Americans don't want it? They don't care about their jobs or our opinions, only about committing political suicide to rape the constitution.

Need I remind you that probably 60% of Americans probably have no real insight on the bill's final outlook either. Along the lines of:

This very much applies to both parties. A great chunk of people who "don't want the bill" also have no clue.

"There has been so much intentional misinformation over the course of this conversation, I'm anxious to get to the point where we can tell people what the bill does and what it doesn't."

- Kathleen Sebelius (Sec. of Health and Humanity Services)

Really now? This is coming from the same person (Sebelius) who insists the economy is getting better despite the fact that unemployment is still hanging at 9.7%, closer to 20% when you factor in people who gave up looking and dropped out of the unemployment system. As for your baseless charge that people aren't educated about this bill, I'll link you to a small list of just a few of the problem sections citizens like you and I are debating over.

https://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=1871361

To mindlessly and baselessly allege that people who don't support this bill are uninformed is both insulting and arrogant. I'm not going to tolerate it. I've done my homework, don't accuse me of being uneducated. To further bring home my point, there was a recent poll that said the Tea Party movement was more informed about these issues and more in sync with the pulse of the rest of the people than the Democrats in Congress.

https://jammiewearingfool.blogspot.com/2010/03/grim-news-majority-says-tea-party-more.html

Not to mention you have House Democrats blatantly and shamelessly admitting they don't give a rat's behind about the Constitution.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8aWmJQd49k

Actually, let's see things on a broader scope. I think people just need to be patient, and let events roll out the way they are. I'm sure there are surprises that you nor I would have anticipated, both that can go in favor of either of our viewpoints. We're already judging before half of the stuff becomes implemented. Save yourself the forehead wrinkles. So many of these arguments go under this "quick to judge" category. You might think this is an easy way for me to wriggle out of an argument, but I honestly think you can only go so far in predicting this kind of event.

Quick to judge? Really? Why is it so "quick to judge" when we FINALLY have the bill passed and in front of us to read (after Nancy Pelosi tried to get away with saying the bill had to pass before we could see what it said) and analyze to our hearts' content? Don't be ridiculous. It's all laid out in the bill exactly what is intended to be done. Even if you're right and exactly what is intended to be done probably won't happen, it still shines a strong light on the kind of debt machine the liberals want to put in place. Your argument is empty because even if the bill doesn't do everything it says, it still shows the glaring socialism both in the bill and in the hearts of our progressive congressmen.

But IMO, the already-present safety nets are insufficient, and as you said, the overstaffed Medicaid needs to have an overhaul - which this bill is planning to do, but not immediately. I'm cautious in accepting your absolute certainty that charities are sufficient. I do agree that alternatives to reaching the same solution is certainly preferable though. Once again, we're far from the point in time to judge this bill sufficiently.

If you agree with me, then why are you arguing with me about what this bill will do? If it's preferable to have Medicare/aid reform than this bill, why aren't you dumping this bill and only supporting that and the few tenets in this bill that are good for the country like I myself do? This bill does have good things. I've repeated THAT many times as well. It's just that the rest of it is 2,695 pages of trash. I don't have absolute certainty that charities will be sufficient, only faith and trust in the good nature of the American people that they will give and the people who don't really truly need won't take. But if it didn't fail back when Grover Cleveland struck down that entitlement as unconstitutional, why would it fail now? And don't tell me we're far from being able to judge this bill sufficiently. If something isn't done to stop this juggernaut now, based on what we KNOW will hurt our economy like the added 1 trillion in taxes and debt, it will never be killed.

I initially had the same degree of certainty in my arguments that you have. But after reading so many arguments, I think there is legit concern on both sides. Alternatives to the bill may certainly be better...time is by far the best determinator. The rest of the babble-rousing is 90% trying to voice yourself the loudest. I already see a ton of hypocrisies and miscontruing facts that it's not really worth trying to make a statement anymore. Overall, I think it's worth revisiting the subject after the bill is allotted some more time.

I agree with this. I have said from the start in my earlier posts that there are things we all can agree on like covering people with pre-existing conditions and taking comprehensive action to lower costs. But my problem lies with this bill. There are many blatantly unconstitutional portions of it, and it lays the foundation for the almighty unconstitutional single-payer plan. This is a step toward that. Not to mention we can't afford the new taxes which will drive businesses into the ground and jack up our debt past 12 trillion. And don't forget that the cost of Medicare and Medicaid has increased nine-fold from original projections when they were passed. This entitlement will act in the same way. We're going to be slaves to China at this rate. I have stated many arguments of my own where cost could be greatly reduced by methods that wouldn't affect taxpayers at all. The republicans have been plastering these same common sense ideas in their own dialogue. But given the totalitarian socialist nature of the liberals in power, the republicans AND the press were shut out completely while the original Senate bill was crafted. Anyone who has paid attention to what's been going on in Congress these past few months knows this. The only real screen time the Republicans got was with the big old debate a couple weeks ago, and that was after the Senate bill had been voted through by the Senate AND after the President had made amendments.

I also agree that there is a slight amount of partisan hypocrisy on my side of the aisle going on because of what Bush did with legislation such as Medicare part D and No Child Left Behind. I will have you know that the current conservative movement does not support that legislation and most never have. Not only that, but our current President and many of the democrats still in power in the legislative branch lauded president Bush for his efforts with that legislation.

For my ideas on what to do, read these two posts, then come back and critique them. I and the other conservatives are proud to offer effective alternatives to this bill. I always thought reform was necessary, just not in the shape the Democrats want to mutate it into.

https://www.pokecommunity.com/showpost.php?p=5646888&postcount=166

https://www.pokecommunity.com/showpost.php?p=5644052&postcount=47

And to go along with the tort reform argument, here are some figures in this article:

https://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/87901-tort-reform-key-to-cutting-soaring-healthcare-costs

 

[lx_theo]

For the record, bold = me.

Are you one of those people that think Fox News is actually giving honest and fair opinions? Because its starting to seem like it, with you linking to the blatantly Republican biased Hannity and Fox News in general.

 

[Prince_of_Light]

Are you one of those people that think Fox News is actually giving honest and fair opinions? Because its starting to seem like it, with you linking to the blatantly Republican biased Hannity and Fox News in general.

The video speaks for itself. The guy said what he said. How can Fox lie when it's on tape? Plus the guy completely discredits himself by attributing a phrase from the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution.

Secondly, you obviously didn't read my post because my use of the Hannity link wasn't to supplement myself with information, it was merely an aesthetic tool to point out that there are REAL people who are informed and debating.

Thirdly, I would argue the other networks are biased as well. There's no getting around bias in every network. Each network puts its own spin on the same information. It's up to us to pay attention to them all so we can formulate what's actually going on and choose from the views and perceptions presented to us.

Have you even seen the kinds of vitriol commentators like Chris Matthews or Keith Olbermann spew? The allegation that Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly and the like are guilty of any inflammatory rhetoric is quickly dwarfed by what these two demagogues say. I listen to Sean Hannity quite often and I can say that he is very courteous and doesn't attack anyone personally, even though he never pulls punches on actions or policies he feels are stupid. He may throw around jokes once in a while, but just as Glenn Beck laughs at himself, I laugh at the jokes thrown around by both the left and the right. It's only comedy. They're just jokes. But when you have people calling Michelle Malkin "a bag of ground meat with lipstick", it's not even jokeworthy. It's a straight-up insult. Not to mention the liberals are now concerned about Sarah Palin's "incendiary language" by targeting vulnerable congressional districts. Even though that particular term gets used in every election cycle, "targeted districts", as John McCain pointed out in an interview with Ann Curry. Just sayin'.

 

[lx_theo]

The video speaks for itself. The guy said what he said. How can Fox lie when it's on tape? Plus the guy completely discredits himself by attributing a phrase from the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution.

Secondly, you obviously didn't read my post because my use of the Hannity link wasn't to supplement myself with information, it was merely an aesthetic tool to point out that there are REAL people who are informed and debating.

Thirdly, I would argue the other networks are biased as well. There's no getting around bias in every network. Each network puts its own spin on the same information. It's up to us to pay attention to them all so we can formulate what's actually going on and choose from the views and perceptions presented to us.

Have you even seen the kinds of vitriol commentators like Chris Matthews or Keith Olbermann spew? The allegation that Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly and the like are guilty of any inflammatory rhetoric is quickly dwarfed by what these two demagogues say. I listen to Sean Hannity quite often and I can say that he is very courteous and doesn't attack anyone personally, even though he never pulls punches on actions or policies he feels are stupid. He may throw around jokes once in a while, but as Glenn Beck does, I laugh at the jokes thrown around by both the left and the right. It's only comedy. They're just jokes. But when you have people calling Michelle Malkin "a bag of ground meat with lipstick", it's not even jokeworthy. It's a straight-up insult.

So the answer is essentially yes

And I'm sure its a "Joke"

Its a great tool to make those they are "joking about" seem much worse subconsciously than in reality. Most Americans who hear whats in the bill support it. Most of the rest either emphasize priorities different enough to disagree with it (easily a minority of the rest) or just are not informed and will go either way on supporting it based on random other things (majority of the rest). I saw a clip recently showing a Republican saying, "...we thought Fox News worked for us..." I don't care enough to go find it, but it does exist.

And I also believe the rest are biased too, but Fox News is just something else. I personally go to the bystander news site of the BBC news to get the info rather than things like Glenn Beck's or Shaun Hannity's opinion programming (stated to be so by Fox News).

You can't really on charities to do anything, though helpful they are like the stock market in the sense that they can be unpredictable in how much money there is or used to actually help the people who need i

And like I said before, they can say whatever they want because their most influencing programs, Beck and Hannity, are opinion programs, not actual news. They become a LOT more biased than anyone else on the network who still are obviously biased.

And yes its quick to judge, because parts of the bill are set up to be started over time. In fact, many believe the 'repeal and replace' strategy taken by the Republicans is futile, because by the time they could even have a chance, the American people will be too attached to the upsides of the bill.

And you are completely blatantly as biased as a bit of Fox News. Totalitarian Socialists? Wow. Have you noticed Obama is actually much closer to middle ground than any of that? He supports the Afgan War, he's done the offshore drilling. Yes he's on the liberal side, but he's no communists as you are implying. The health care bill is even the same ideas as introduced by a Republican in his state not to long ago! I'm more liberal than Obama, and I'm not that liberal.

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

Yay. This makes me happy. Now I don't have to worry about losing everything after leaving college.

Well, one way, at least. :p

The video speaks for itself. The guy said what he said. How can Fox lie when it's on tape? Plus the guy completely discredits himself by attributing a phrase from the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution.

Secondly, you obviously didn't read my post because my use of the Hannity link wasn't to supplement myself with information, it was merely an aesthetic tool to point out that there are REAL people who are informed and debating.

Thirdly, I would argue the other networks are biased as well. There's no getting around bias in every network. Each network puts its own spin on the same information. It's up to us to pay attention to them all so we can formulate what's actually going on and choose from the views and perceptions presented to us.

Have you even seen the kinds of vitriol commentators like Chris Matthews or Keith Olbermann spew? The allegation that Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly and the like are guilty of any inflammatory rhetoric is quickly dwarfed by what these two demagogues say. I listen to Sean Hannity quite often and I can say that he is very courteous and doesn't attack anyone personally, even though he never pulls punches on actions or policies he feels are stupid. He may throw around jokes once in a while, but just as Glenn Beck laughs at himself, I laugh at the jokes thrown around by both the left and the right. It's only comedy. They're just jokes. But when you have people calling Michelle Malkin "a bag of ground meat with lipstick", it's not even jokeworthy. It's a straight-up insult. Not to mention the liberals are now concerned about Sarah Palin's "incendiary language" by targeting vulnerable congressional districts. Even though that particular term gets used in every election cycle, "targeted districts", as John McCain pointed out in an interview with Ann Curry. Just sayin'.

...Fox News talks out of its biased ass. You'd be better staying away from them. MSNBC isn't much better either.

 

[Prince_of_Light]

Again, bold is used for my replies.

So the answer is essentially yes

And I'm sure its a "Joke"

Its a great tool to make those they are "joking about" seem much worse subconsciously than in reality. Most Americans who hear whats in the bill support it. Most of the rest either emphasize priorities different enough to disagree with it (easily a minority of the rest) or just are not informed and will go either way on supporting it based on random other things (majority of the rest). I saw a clip recently showing a Republican saying, "...we thought Fox News worked for us..." I don't care enough to go find it, but it does exist.

Anyone shallow minded to believe a joke as fact needs to get their head checked. Find me an example of a Hannity listener who is a mindless lemming like you are describing, please. Most Americans DON'T support the bill. Your facts are flawed.

https://www.rasmussenreports.com/pu.../healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform

You're right about Fox News attacking Republicans. That's because Fox News never was tied to the party. I'm not sure how you were trying to construe that video you were mentioning as negative toward Fox News, but that's unimportant. You proved by your own evidence that Fox isn't partisan, even if they may be ideological.

And I also believe the rest are biased too, but Fox News is just something else. I personally go to the bystander news site of the BBC news to get the info rather than things like Glenn Beck's or Shaun Hannity's opinion programming (stated to be so by Fox News).

What's wrong with opinion programming? It's just like reading an essay or article. The sources are cited and you can go read them for yourself after you see the analysis of the commentator. If it weren't for analysis of facts besides just presenting facts, people would never be enlightened about anything.

You can't really on charities to do anything, though helpful they are like the stock market in the sense that they can be unpredictable in how much money there is or used to actually help the people who need i

I believe you meant rely, instead of really. Not trying to insult you though, just trying to figure out that's what you meant to say. I feel that charities are underrated and would help people more effectively than government programs if they were sought out. We need to stop making the government the poster child for welfare. If you do research on private charity, you can find out many times they are much more efficient. If more people knew how to give to big effective empirical charities that have a wide reach, it would unburden the taxpayers and welfare could be handled that way. Honestly I just think people aren't informed enough about good charities, so they're reluctant to give up their money.

And like I said before, they can say whatever they want because their most influencing programs, Beck and Hannity, are opinion programs, not actual news. They become a LOT more biased than anyone else on the network who still are obviously biased.

Remember that bias is inherent with commentary programming. Every major news network I know of has some form of commentary and analysis. The real judge for bias is shown in the reporting and interviewing. I admit Fox News is conservative-leaning in their reporting, but you must also admit that Fox reports a lot of things that the other networks blatantly neglect. You may not be aware, but on a lot of these same commentary programs you speak about on Fox News there is always one or two liberal commentators and there is a real debate going on. Bob Beckel is a frequent liberal voice on Fox News, and Alan Colmes was during the time he worked with Fox. If you watch the Chris Matthews or Keith Olbermann shows you will see that it is either a monologue or the only guests on the shows are liberal analysts.

And yes its quick to judge, because parts of the bill are set up to be started over time. In fact, many believe the 'repeal and replace' strategy taken by the Republicans is futile, because by the time they could even have a chance, the American people will be too attached to the upsides of the bill.

I disagree completely. The taxes are the only things that will start immediately. It's now coming out that the promises made about the first few provisions can't happen because of a loophole in the bill.

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/29/health/policy/29health.html

I do feel that kids with pre-existing conditions need coverage, but unfortunately since the language is unclear that might not happen so soon.

And you are completely blatantly as biased as a bit of Fox News. Totalitarian Socialists? Wow. Have you noticed Obama is actually much closer to middle ground than any of that? He supports the Afgan War, he's done the offshore drilling. Yes he's on the liberal side, but he's no communists as you are implying. The health care bill is even the same ideas as introduced by a Republican in his state not to long ago! I'm more liberal than Obama, and I'm not that liberal.

I'm biased in my ideology? Sure, but so are you.

Obama is a totalitarian socialist, you bet your life on it. While everyone on the left insisted to ignore his past, conservative commentators and others were highlighting it. He still supports the single-payer plan, he was quoted a while back saying that if he were in office "that is what [he] would like to see". The only reason he hasn't pulled out of Afghanistan is to save his political behind with the independents. Need I recall a few months ago when General McChristal requested troops he could only give a quarter of what the general said was needed?

He is supporting offshore drilling, but at the same time under the table he's talking about cutting drilling in Alaska. It won't have much of an effect. this is just another political promise to appease reluctant independents that propbably won't be followed through on. Just like he promised how health care would be debated on C-Span and that never happened.

The health care bill is incredibly liberal. Just because a Republican supported it does not mean that that Republican isn't liberal or that the legislation isn't liberal. I believe you're talking about Massachusetts's universal plan which is also failing.

 

[lx_theo]

Again, bold is used for my replies.

Well it seems to be no point in arguing with you. You are obvious oblivious to the fact that the Republicans are following the most radical voice possible. Even Republicans have said it.