I know that some of you read other boards

One has invited me to join and I am being open about it here because I want no misunderstanding.

I am and will always be a Progressive. I am the far left of the Democratic party. I am the base. But I am being called an "Obama Hater" by some on this board because I disagree with the health care bills now before Congress. I will still remain on DU because I think the Democratic party needs its base to keep its moral compass, and I know there are a lot of progressives on this board who are with me on this. I also know that there are some centrist partisans who are not, and that's ok.

I have recently posted on that other board, and for those of you who know where it is, you may feel free to look. I have nothing to hide. I am not an Obama hater, I am still a Democrat, and I am always a progressive.

And I still think the current healthcare bills are totally wrong headed. Here is what I see happening with the healthcare debacle:

The public option, whatever it is, will be a fig leaf to cover up what is essentially a Federally enforced purchase of an inferior product, which does not guarantee excellent health care but does guarantee excellent profits for insurance companies. We're being made to pay corporations for our very existence on this earth. I think there will be more bills along these lines.

For those who are indigent or uninsurable, the government (ie, our taxes) will pay the insurance companies. And it's the middle class and working classes who really pay the taxes in this country, not the wealthy, and it is these classes that will be paying the taxes to support the public option for indigent and uninsurable. So in the end, the full cost of healthcare for everyone is being carried by the middle and working classes who will also have to pay the insurance companies. Since healthcare must be "self-sustaining" (i.e., not cause debt, unlike wars and Wall Street bailouts), it has to be paid for up front. Much of that is coming from US, the taxpayer, and some is coming from Medicare cuts, even though the Democrats are not really talking about that. My gut instinct is that Medicare will eventually be transferred to this new system, so that we will be paying insurance companies until we die. And the health insurance company death panels will continue to exist.

One can't really talk about this on DU because the partisans will call you names or throw bullshit quotes at you that you have to refute one by one. But the truth is the truth. This health care scheme involves:

1. Mandates, especially for the young (18-30 year olds) who don't get sick much. Their premiums will support the the care of everyone else: the old, those with pre-existing conditions, and the like. Wait until those young Obama voters who call me an "Obama hater" realize that they will have to spend their own money buying insurance, unless their employer carries it for them.

2. Taxes on the middle and working classes for a "public option" so that the hospitals don't lose so much money to charity cases.

3. No real cost controls. The public option is not real competition since most Americans won't be eligible for it.

The key is the mandates. Without them, the whole scheme falls apart. Without the buy-in of the young and healthy, insurance companies can't afford (so they say) to insure older and sicker people and still make a profit. This is why Obama had to be either misinformed or lying when he said no mandates (except on children) and no new taxes if you make under $250K.


This is not healthcare reform, and it is not merely rearranging chairs on the Titanic. It is making us all pay for tickets on the Titanic, and then saying that we're all saved.

..

Since you seem to know that there will be mandates even though they're not likely to survive the conference committee, and since you seem to already know all about the way the public option is going to turn out despite it apparently going in a different direction.

Seriously, the reason so many of us get tired of this is because of strident paranoid types who think that they know what's going on better than, you know, REALITY does.

The mandates have to be there or the whole scheme falls apart. Remember, it has to be "self sustaining" and not require borrowing, like Medicare does.

threatening to pull out and not cooperate if there are not mandates.

Pure and simple the Insurance Industry see this bill as a windfall
of new customers. If the people are not mandated, their windfall
falls short.

I wish I could rec your post. :)

As the Billionaires For Wealthcare sing.... "It's a cor-por-ate give-a-way"

:)

People said there was no chance the public option would pass. Now it's going to be in both the House and Senate bills, and it's going to be law. And with the way things are tilting, the amendment to strip their anti-trust exemptions may well pass too.

unless you include the "trigger" which is ridiculous because it is the equivelent of nothing.

the only way a universal healthcare system would work is if everyone has to pay into it. That was true when Obama was against it, and it's still true now that he's for it.

The same would hold true for a single payer system.

---------

If you've got a link supporting your assertion that "mandates won't survive the conference committee", I'd be really interested in seeing it.

you will be demanding that those you have slammed so hard vote the way you want them to.

Look in the mirror and look at your own hostile attitude toward those who basically agree with you.

Congress is already using fuzzy math
10 years of revenue vs 4 years of expenses to keep it "balanced".

They could pay for it with a substantial rise in income tax but they don't have the courage for that.

Mandates will happen. Even if nothing else happens the mandates portion will. Mandates don't cost Congress anything.
Either you pay of insurance = no cost to Congress
OR
You get a fine/tax = revenue for Congress

win-win /sarcasm

Us paranoid types would love to see how the cheerleader types are assured that they have the correct version of reality as well.

from an Obama hater (tend to cut him slack at times when I probably shouldn't). If people want to call me that, that's okay.

Speaking for myself, I want people like you around to help me see what's really going on behind the placating promises we get. I don't want to become like a freeper, believing whatever I'm told, and seeing these discussions played out helps me to make a better judgment for myself.

So keep 'em comin'!

:hi:

But I'm quite disappointed in where this is all headed. I will put up a major mea culpa thread if we get single payer or if Obama takes the troops out of Afghanistan.

opinion will put up some major mea culpas as well. I hope you're wrong, of course, but if you're not I swear my mantra will be come "Nikki Stone1 told us this would happen..." :hi:

LOL! :D

:7

I guess.

The unrec'ers are really at work today. I make them very mad. :)

K&R.

Good post. Got to keep the dialogue going.

Just a normal morning at DU.

"Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me‹and I welcome their hatred.

"I should like to have it said of my first Administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match. I should like to have it said of my second Administration that in it these forces met their master."

FDR, Oct. 31, 1936
http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/text/us/fdr1936.html

It's just very sad that we are having to say this about our own PARTY, for crying in a bucket!

Wouldn't that be de-lish?!

there that constanlty live their livesin fear. We left once, we can't abondon them now. If we leave, Taliban will return and so will return al quaeda who will work fiercely to destroy us.

Go read your history.

a playbook!

Let me guess... you're a 60s-type Dem, right? :hi:

"This is not healthcare reform, and it is not merely rearranging chairs on the Titanic. It is making us all pay for tickets on the Titanic, and then saying that we're all saved."

I'll have to remember this one!


You're one of my favorite posters btw, and I hope you will continue to post here! :yourock:

And feel free to use the metaphor. :)

Lots of them. :)

the various health care proposals, I can really appreciate a well thought out post such as this one. Thanks for this.

Oh, and to counter one of the unrecs, here's a rec

I appreciate it. :)

"One can't really talk about this on DU because the partisans will call you names or throw bullshit quotes at you that you have to refute one by one. But the truth is the truth."

I see many, many threads putting forth various perspectives on health care reform and vigorous debate happening on them with calls to back up the various positions being put forth yet you feel you "can't really talk about this in DU"? Your OP IS "talking about" it, putting forth your opinion, your perspective on the issue. Is it your expectation that one should be able to post their perspective, their opinion and no one should challenge yours and if they do that means "One can't really talk about this on DU"?

As to belong to more than one site, I doubt anyone has a problem with that. There certainly are sites whose posters spend a fair amount of time slagging DU and DUers who don't have opinions in tandem with them, who no longer donate to DU, not due to financial difficulty but, rather, because DU is not meeting their perceived needs yet some of those same posters have no problem continuing to use DU's bandwidth to espouse their views. That, I believe, is disingenuous and hypocritical on their part, imo. I hope the site you now belong to is not one of those!

Maybe this is just my experience.

Note that I didn't say you couldn't talk about it at all. I said you couldn't about it without being attacked. And that has been my experience.

and when posting one's opinion/perspective on a 'hot topic' such as health care reform and what it should/shouldn't look like, one should expect a vigorous response which is not always polite.

I have noticed two 'turns of phrase' that are used on DU that certainly might be considered attacks and they are: Obama hater and Obama cheerleader/bot but, beyond that, it seems to me the debate does center more around the the opinion/perspective being put forward which, imo, is what debate is for. The language used might not be examples Miss Manners would use, true, but, then again, political debate is not for the faint-hearted at any time.

And if you notice, I am neither leaving nor changing my handle for that other board. (You can IM me and check it if you want.) I'm made of steel, hon. But that doesn't mean I don't recognize what is unfair to us all.

I do find your use of the extraneous word "hon" to be somewhat ironic given your OP but be that as it may, I will still contend you are putting forth an opinion/perspective and trying to sell it as "fact" and seem to take umbrage when it is debated as an opinion/perspective instead of being merely accepted as "fact".

My feelings aren't hurt and I'm "taking umbrage". I'm just stating a fact.

You clearly have an odd picture in your head about me. But hey, I don't know you either, really. :)

Peace.

which, to me, is used as either affectionately, if one truly does know the person, or as an attempted put-down which, given you don't know me, is why I referred to your use of "hon" as ironic when your OP is all about perceived "attacks" on you.

They called everybody "hon." I'll try not to channel them anymore. They were friendly types.

This whole attempt to marginalize and demean those of us who see things differently is destructive.

Good luck getting people to vote "your way" next November with this kind of approach.

I would say my rec count would actually be doubled without the unrecs. Some people unrec as cowardly attacks.

So much for the "cowardice" angle, huh?

Actually I was considering Unrec'ing because of the drama aspect, but this last post sealed it.

But I'll accept a latecomer.

And if this is drama to you, you need to get cable. ;)

It's to allow a comment on how good a thread is *without* kicking it - which would make it look as if it's more important. It's not 'cowardly' to unrec something without leaving a comment, and it's unreasonable of you to attack anyone for doing so.

No one did a thing about it. That Duer was accused of "disloyalty" (for lack of a better word) because she posted on another board. The posts were viscous and personal. No mod did a thing. Obviously lies and abuse weren't enough to get a mod to take action.

But to say it's cowardly to unrec without leaving a comment warrants the attention of moderator?

Interesting.

And now you will probably tell me that if I have a complaint with a mod, I should email them. Or you will erase my post. Just for the record, I contacted you 4 or 5 times this weekend on the same thread. Nothing was done. So if you erase this post, at least take the message to heart.

Nikki

Many DUers have pointed this out about unrecs, most of them not moderators, in reply to other DUers, but it would appear you've never seen it as a reply before. So it seems worth telling you.

FWIW, the right thing to to if you're unhappy with moderators' actions is to contact admin.

Please note that calling DUers 'cowardly' may be regarded as insulting them, and so may get a post deleted. This is not aimed at just you, but at anyone who thinks that calling someone a coward isn't insulting them.

I am going to refrain from laughing my ass off here. But this response deserves it.

You don't listen to alerts or emails to moderators. You have a select group of people you like and you listen to them. Any small complaint they have is taken care of. As to the rest of us, we're ignored.

If you really are a decent human, then please internalize this response instead of scolding me for saying someone is a coward. I have seen a lot worse on this board, a lot worse. And so have you, I'll bet. And I've seen moderators completely ignore the rules when a perpetrator with a nasty post is someone they like.

so what you have written is just guesses. You have no idea who alerts, apart from yourself, or how often. Moderators do look at all alerts, though there is not always consensus on acting with the wishes of the alerter. My fellow moderators are, as a group, the most fair-minded and reasonable group of people I've run across anywhere on the internet. That moderators are accused of bias, from all sides, tend to confirm my opinion that the care taken to be even-handed (in the context of a Democratic party-supporting forum - we're not even handed with people who are anti-Democrat) is worth it.

I too have seen a lot worse on the board than calling someone a coward. And if I thought the insults were really bad, then I might have alerted on it. But, instead, I though it worthwhile to point out to you, and to other DUers, that using 'unrec' is not cowardly, and no DUers should claim it is. You muddy your own thread by sidetracking yourself into noting each unrec as if there's something wrong with using a normal DU facility. And attacking other DUers, even mildly, is not going to get them to like you or your threads more.

I watch that sort of thing carefully. Pardon me if I really don't believe you.

However, it's a private board and you all are free to do what you like. My only defense is to call'm like I see'm.

is, imo, the epitome of an attack. It is disgusting.

:)

#1. I called some DUers on their tendency to attack because they do. No decrying. No outrage. Just a reminder.

#2. If a moderator comes on line to scold me over calling secret unrec'ers cowards, I get to defend myself. It's only fair.

#3. You need a drink, sweetie. :)

:toast:

And if you think your OP ain't drama queen bullshit, you need to get *rid* of cable.

:rofl:

:rofl:

:toast:

:toast:

It keeps me sane.

:toast:

which is what the unrec/rec option affects. Your OP was misleading, imo, in that it stated "One can't really talk about this on DU..." and then you continued to just what you said you could not do which is to talk about "this", the health care reform issue.

just makes you look silly. :)

take note of the unrecs. Given that post, I felt it necessitated a response informing you of my unrec. as opposed to ignoring your post or leaving the impression I disagreed with your OP receiving unrecs or, for that matter, recs. I felt no need to begin my original post to you with notification I had unrec'd your thread as it only affects whether the OP goes to the Greatest or not and nothing to do with the substance of either your OP or my response to it.

It's unfortunate you take that as being "silly" but so be it, it is your opinion.

:)

Go ahead and try - see what happens.

"One can't really talk about this on DU because the partisans will call you names or throw bullshit quotes at you that you have to refute one by one. But the truth is the truth."

The main substance of the OP was not about "the other board" but, rather, the issue I quoted above and then the OP continuing on to provide their perspective on the current health reform issues.

My perspective on the point about belonging to other sites was stated quite clearly in the original post to which you responded but for simplicity I will repeat it here:

"As to belong (typo on my part, should have been belonging) to more than one site, I doubt anyone has a problem with that. There certainly are sites whose posters spend a fair amount of time slagging DU and DUers who don't have opinions in tandem with them, who no longer donate to DU, not due to financial difficulty but, rather, because DU is not meeting their perceived needs yet some of those same posters have no problem continuing to use DU's bandwidth to espouse their views. That, I believe, is disingenuous and hypocritical on their part, imo. I hope the site you now belong to is not one of those!"

and that is exactly what is wrong with this society, and why it's becoming more and more sociopathic all the time.

If we *really* want to create a new society, it must start with us.... and it won't be created by being just as tough and hard and unfeeling as the corporate bots who are running the show now.

If that is "being attacked" then I think the civility problem is irresolvable.

No one is preventing you from expressing your opinion. No one is insulating you from disagreement either.

Taxes aren't being collected to implement the public option. Taxes will be raised to provide subsidies to those with low-to-middle incomes, to purchase whichever plan they wish.

The public option is not the subsidizing of working class people to buy private insurance. That's something different. The public option is for the uninsurable and the indigent and will be administered by a private insurer and operate somewhat like Medicare, but not totally:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6848641

The public option is simply another insurance policy offered within the exchange, for the purpose of keeping insurers honest.

In the short term, that insurance exchange is open to the uninsured and small employers. Over time, larger employers will be able to shop group coverage at the exchange too.

Any low-to-middle income individuals who purchase coverage from the exchange will be eligible for a subsidy. That subsidy pertains regardless of your choice of a public or private policy.

In fact, with the exception of the initial seed capital, the public option is explicitly designed to not require tax revenue to operate.

The public option is not an insurer of last resort. Anyone eligible to purchase coverage from the exchange (meaning anyone who doesn't already have employer-based coverage) can choose either a private or the public policy.

http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090714/hr3200_summary.pdf

That's why it's the most important.

Once the Senate has a bill, the House will have to push for the smallest and least objectionable public options it can.

Remember all these bill have to be reconciled.

what if your 'employer based' coverage absolutely sucks the big one?! What do you do then? What if 'catastrophic coverage' is good enough to qualify as insurance?

It needs to be available TO EVERYONE. Regardless of whether they already have coverage or not. Period. And it needs to be run BY THE GOVERNMENT, not by a private insurance company (wasn't that the whole point?).

:(

And people won't really have a choice to get away from it for a public option.

What you've said is obvious to most all of us, but I am too lazy to waste my effort on "just another disgruntled DUer" who's lost all perspective and has made it "about them".

:toast:

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I've on boards since BBS's and before the general population knew what the internet was..I still dont see how someone I don't know posting,would affect me that much..I don't give the the power to..:shrug:

I will look into your posting history, to make sure you're being accurate.

But as I said before, it doesn't hurt my feelings, it's just a fact. That's all. :)

just saying anytime you let strangers hiding behind an IP dictate how you feel or react - then you give them the power to determine how you feel..

That's interesting.

I appreciate your openness and honesty! I ,too. post on another board because feel I discouraged to debate here. I feel that if mandates are necessary for us to achieve Universal Health Care, while I am not crazy about the concept, I could go along with them as a necessary evil. However mandates without universal coverage is NOT acceptable.

Maybe Alan Grayson will pick it up. ;)

And without price controls, this bill is a nightmare. Imagine if your rent went up every 6 months. How are you going to plan your budget? And how much more can Americans cut out of it?

Feinstein proposed limiting their overhead costs on executive compensation, profits, advertising, etc. I don't know if it will make it into any of the bills.

The first time she's said anything I remotely agree with. (OK that's an exaggeration, but you get the point.)

as a threat to the middle class.

That will be unusual for me. It's usually Boxer I'm thanking. :)

the guy on the phone didn't know.

Rachel Maddow proved my point tonight BTW, the smaller the public option the less ability it has to do anything to hold down costs. She did a show with props which worked to really explain it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show#33486747

as a threat to the middle class.

But, really, quit attempting prognostication in the viscera of a bill yet unborn.

The only perfect bill is the one unwritten, unpassed, and unthought of.

First we pass a bill...

Then, Obama signs the bill...

So we can go to work to improve the bill.

Perfection is beyond our reach but not beyond or grasp.

A serious one. And I am hoping I lose, but I'm pretty certain I won't.

that were greatly improved later in their existence. SChip was written by Republicans to be a give away for insurance and something to run on against liberals.

I think that is the fate of current Health Care Bill. They are not going to get it right, but it can continue to evolve over time.

But that is me. I always did tend to look for a pony when I saw a load of horse crap.

And I will gladly bet you a cup of coffee to be redeemed at some future date. I'm unemployed at the moment, so a postage stamp and a gift card to a coffee shop of your choice would be all the market can manage.

And I hope it's me that's buying because the country will be better off for it.

into their post intelligently and without being deleted is all there. A belated welcome to DU....

I just have to say as one of the few people who really actually DO deal in horse shit on a daily basis, I'm skeptical there's a pony buried anywhere within 500 miles of DC.

While I admire your excellent positivity (is there such a word? it's late and I'm tired), I'm offering to bolster the "coffee shop gift card" $$ that Nikki's sending (maybe).

:hi:

:donut:

As I said, I hope I am wrong and am the one sending the coffee. :) I'll be really happy to send it too. :)

Which?

If posters are posting logical fallacies, you should point the fallacies out, because logical fallacies are contrary to critical thinking.

Example:
"You are an Obama hater!"

"You are using a logical fallacy. This is not about me, this is about health care reform."

I am in a position to do this from time to time here on DU.

:hi:

:)

... which sounds odd, given the surface implication of the site's name ... but the fact is there are many posters here who out-right-wing other notorious RWers I'm aware of posting at a few other forums I frequent.

Plus the formatting of DU's forums sucks.

IM me if you like.

I'm keeping count on every thread.

Interesting.

But God Fucking Damn it!

"Error: you can only recommend threads which were started in the past 24 hours"


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

You give me the impression you have a terribly fragile ego.

Just to make your record keeping more thorough, I unrecc'd this thread about 30 minutes ago because I don't think it warrants placement on the greatest threads page.

You may wonder why.

I'll tell you.

BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING GREAT ABOUT YOUR ORIGINAL POST. PERIOD.

The fact that you've been invited to join another board is about as banal a news item as one could possibly imagine.

What's next? The vibrant colors of your cats latest horked up hairball?

Get over yourself, Nikki. Not everything you type warrants everyone falling all over themselves to give you praise.

That's all

:)

Your need to respond to it is interesting. Perhaps you need attention?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=greatest_threads&topten=1

Look at that! You're in the lead by 31 points!

:party:

having the temerity to unrec your threads?


:nopity:

:loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya:

Sid

You're one of the five or six that I actually know by name! :)

I find it hilarious that you, and others, are so worried about whether posters agree with your opinion.



Sid

:wtf:

It's certainly possible.

But that doesn't make it unsuky.

Just mentally add a rec, 'K?

(OH... and if they are still allowing unrecs and disallowing recs, then that is diabolical.)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6858220&mesg_id=6858220

And it's just a few hours older than yours.... :wtf:

HEY, YOU... did you steal my login and rec it *for* me?

:rofl:

:D

:rofl:

As my generation used to say.."Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you!"

:toast:

WAHHHHHH!

Where the hell is that foot-stomping emoticon when you so badly need it????!!!!

:wtf:

Thanks. :)

:)

assailed by those who feel that Obama walks on water. I feel as you do. I do not hate him, but I don't understand why he does so little to promote his own causes. I admired his potential, but I think he is spending it on a mess of pottage.

I have had discussions with OPs who want to try to tell me that if I disagree with Obama I hate him or I am a bad Democrat. I always tell them that it is not their place to tell me what I think. They can ask me and I will tell them, as I just have. The only people who don't question leaders are people who are blind to the need for change instead of hero worship. We need change desperately. If Obama will not work for us, then we have to try to find someone who will.

If they don't like what I say, I advise them not to read it. It is not going to change just because they want it to. They are free to have their opinions and I am free to have mine. Anyway, I hope you keep a steady presence here. As one poster said succinctly a few weeks ago, this is a political board not an Obama board.

Since you have been unrec'd for saying so well what I and many others are also saying and thinking, here is my rec to put something back. You are a very good Democrat. You care about all of the people and not just one who is in a position to do much for all of us, but for whatever reason does nothing for us.

:toast:

I'm neither as nice nor as polite as you are, but I respect both of these in your post. And I feel the same way. Sometimes, I worry that fascism could easily take root in people who are so eager to believe without critical thought.

Peace to you, and thank you for a lovely post.

Nikki

But I belong to the democratic wing of the democratic party and I won't budge. They will have to kick me out. A couple of times, I actually left, and stayed gone for months, but no more. I like what you have to say, and I hope that you do stay and post often.

Joe

So I guess neither of us is budging. :)

:toast:

Remember that the "keepers of the faith" have another name... zealots.

Both parties have them, as do all points of the political compass.

And just because they are loud and rude, does not make them correct.

:loveya:

:hi:

And I love that comic! It's just perfect.

18-30 yr olds don't need health insurance? I know a lot of them "think" they're invunerable, but they get sick and have to go to the doctor, too. And what about accidents? "Universal" means them, too. And Edwards and Hillary were right - the only way to ensure universal coverage is to mandate it. I'm glad that Obama has come around to understand that.

As for the raising of taxes on the mid and working classes, I don't see that happening. It's not in any of the bills under debate.

I agree that I would like to see the PO open to more, but I think it can still be effective. Perhaps not effective as it could be, but effective. And I believe there will be other cost control measures as well. Some of them - such as electronic records - have already been implemented.

No, I won't call you an Obama hater for stating your opinion, and I don't want you to leave. We need healthy debate. What irks me are the "Obama is a traitor and has sold us down the river" posts. That isn't healthy debate, it's just plain bashing.

I'll admit that I have grown tired of many of the threads here on DU because so many of them have degenerated to just name-calling on both sides instead of rational discussion and debate. And I'll even admit that there have been times when I have gotten so frustrated that I have been guilty of it on occasion.

If you feel you must leave, then do what you feel you must do. But please don't.

But, I really don't like the mandate. What I wonder is why health insurance companies haven't done more to attract young people. Credit card companies always seem to be able to get to the young, but health insurance is kind of AWOL. And of the two, health insurance marketing is far less objectionable.

I appreciate your sincere post, by the way. It's really nice to read. I am not leaving, but I really wish that the knee-jerk "Obama hater" response didn't stifle some debate. I have been getting PMs from progressives today telling me how uncomfortable they feel and how they don't want to post anymore. I was surprised that people really felt that badly.

But your post was very nice, and thank you for your civility.

As far as the CC companies "getting to" the young when the health insurance companies don't, you have to consider what they are selling. CC companies are offering instant gratification - buy anything you want now and you don't have to pay for it until later. Health insurance companies are asking for payment for something that most young people think they don't need. When I was young I'll admit I was guilty of that attitude. I'm lucky that I didn't have any major accidents or major health problems. The few problems I did have I was able to sponge off my parents to get them taken care of. Now that I'm over 50, I realize the importance of regular doctor visits and wish now I had been doing them all along - I don't have any major problems, but the few I have probably could have been avoided.

I don't like the "idea" of mandates, either. I am ideologically against the government "forcing" us to purchase anything against our will; even if it is "for our own good". However, this issue affects everyone to the point that if someone does not have health insurance and needs care, then the rest of us end up paying. Therefore, it benefits all of us if everyone has insurance. Just like Social Security, it only works if "everyone is in" and everyone contributes. Human Nature being what it is, many of us (especially younger people, and I do include myself when I was younger) feel like we do not need to participate and therefore will not.

In summary, although I am ideologically opposed to a mandate I support it as a matter of practicality. Does that make sense? I will admit that I could be wrong and that there may be aspects that I am overlooking. That is where healthy debate and discussion comes in! Therefore, I would love to hear more of your views and opinions since you obviously CAN be sincere and civil and capable of discussing these issues on their merits.

As for the PO, I would prefer a single-payer system and I sincerely hope we will have one some day. However, again as a matter of practicality, I cannot currently support it. Notice how much problem we have had simply passing a much weaker PO. A single-payer system simply would not pass. Further, the economy plays a major role. As much as I hate the insurance companies, they do employ a lot of people. Although I would love to see those who are working to deny care unemployed, I would hate to add the lower echelons add to our current high unemployment. Although some of them could be hired to work in the single-payer system, the vast majority would still be unemployed. Further, the insurance companies make their profits by investing in the stock market. If those investments suddenly were pulled, it would have a serious effect on the market. The market would eventually recover, but it has the potential to extend the current recession for years.

Therefore, although I support a single-payer system eventually, I just don't think that now is the time. But we need something NOW. I realize some of those arguments may seem weak, and I would love to hear another point of view. As long as it is reasoned and civil.

I can understand why some people get so emotional,however. It is a very important and emotional issue.
:hi: :hug:

And I appreciate your taking the time to clarify your position. I respect what you have to say, even though mandates make my hair stand on end. :)

I can see your concern for unemployment too. There are already too many out of work. Reid looked pretty strong on the public option today, so maybe things won't be so terrible. That remains to be seen though. :)

Because it was an honest appeal for civility to return to this forum.

Your opinion may not be correct, but I will defend your right to express your opinion.

Nevertheless, in this case, your opinion is right on dah money!!

I gave up trying to discuss the healthcare bill on another forum because the Democrats started acting like a herd of cats.
And I think that Reid's attempt to appease Snow was a huge mistake, especially in the light of what she said today about this version of the Senate bill - "this is too much public option."

Yet, Rachel Maddow tore this version of the Senate bill into teeny, tiny pieces within the first 5 minutes of her program tonight. She said that this version is the conservative's version, watered-down and limited and like you said, only available to uninsured people.

So, there is no real public option in this version of the Senate bill with an option, for people who are currently being gouged by the insurance industry.

And this appeasing of Snowe--I don't get it either. :(

79-38=41

79 recs
41 unrecs

Interesting.

Sid

:)

:sarcasm:

:rofl:

which gets her attention (because I am a hunka burning love, I tell you what)....then I go on to tell her my healthcare reform concerns.

She has unrec'd me twice. Go figure.

If I get more unrecs, can I marry your wife?

LOL!!!! :D

PM me.

There's nothing wrong with it!