IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

10 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Health Care Speculations, Theories, and Ideological Differences, by everyone's favorite economist, Paul Krugman.
Guest_TheAwesomeKid_*
post Aug 1 2009, 10:31 AM
Post #1





Guests






http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/31/opinion/...ugman.html?_r=2

I didn't want to post a wall of text, so there's the link. Thoughts?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_AK_WDB_*
post Aug 1 2009, 08:23 PM
Post #2





Guests






Not entirely truthful. The Republicans are not "opponents of reform", just opponents of the government taking a larger role. There are a number of types of "reform" under consideration, most of which just create more bureaucracy and spend more money without significantly improving the health care system. The only genuine "reform" is the bill proposed by Senators Ron Wyden and Bob Bennett, which gets rid of the tax benefit for employer-provided coverage, the soundest way to finance the expansion of health coverage.

That's my opinion in a nutshell, and it's formed from the relatively small amount of material I've managed to retain from the extensive writings of Nate Silver and The Economist. This whole debate is very complex.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_The Casey_*
post Aug 1 2009, 10:30 PM
Post #3





Guests






QUOTE (AK_WDB @ Aug 1 2009, 04:23 PM) *
Not entirely truthful. The Republicans are not "opponents of reform", just opponents of the government taking a larger role. There are a number of types of "reform" under consideration, most of which just create more bureaucracy and spend more money without significantly improving the health care system. The only genuine "reform" is the bill proposed by Senators Ron Wyden and Bob Bennett, which gets rid of the tax benefit for employer-provided coverage, the soundest way to finance the expansion of health coverage.

I think the "reform" that the article was referring to is the reform currently taking place and likely to take place under a largely Democrat-controlled federal government.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_BigTS_*
post Aug 12 2009, 06:46 PM
Post #4





Guests






It now looks like a wave of right-wing extremism is being unleashed — hysteria and paranoia are being used to defeat the idea of single payer (and even Obama's timid attempts at reform).

Protestor with a gun at health care townhall

The man who is holding the poster is implying quite clearly that he is in favor of killing Obama.

It seems like the same media that refused to cover anti-war rallies of upwards to half a million people will give no end of coverage to one hundred racist whackjobs who show up at a health care town hall.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_BadgerCam_*
post Aug 12 2009, 07:06 PM
Post #5





Guests






QUOTE (BigTS @ Aug 12 2009, 11:46 AM) *
1. It now looks like a wave of right-wing extremism is being unleashed — hysteria and paranoia are being used to defeat the idea of single payer (and even Obama's timid attempts at reform).

Protestor with a gun at health care townhall

The man who is holding the poster is implying quite clearly that he is in favor of killing Obama.

It seems like the same media that refused to cover anti-war rallies of upwards to half a million people will give no end of coverage to one hundred racist whackjobs who show up at a health care town hall.

1. People exercising their rights of freedom of speech and expression to let their elected representatives know they disagree with a proposed piece of legislation is not "right-wing extremism... hysteria... [or] paranoia."

2. Nobody should be saying or implying they want to kill Obama. We may not a worship him, but he is the President.

3. There are far more than 100 "whackjobs" who oppose this government overhaul of the healthcare system. I would venture a guess that there are many times more than attended your anti-war rally as a matter of fact. And most people who attend these town halls are not racist and I don't appreciate you trying to paint us all with that brush.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_BigTS_*
post Aug 12 2009, 07:30 PM
Post #6





Guests






QUOTE (BadgerCam @ Aug 12 2009, 03:06 PM) *
QUOTE (BigTS @ Aug 12 2009, 11:46 AM) *
1. It now looks like a wave of right-wing extremism is being unleashed — hysteria and paranoia are being used to defeat the idea of single payer (and even Obama's timid attempts at reform).

Protestor with a gun at health care townhall

The man who is holding the poster is implying quite clearly that he is in favor of killing Obama.

It seems like the same media that refused to cover anti-war rallies of upwards to half a million people will give no end of coverage to one hundred racist whackjobs who show up at a health care town hall.

1. People exercising their rights of freedom of speech and expression to let their elected representatives know they disagree with a proposed piece of legislation is not "right-wing extremism... hysteria... [or] paranoia."

2. Nobody should be saying or implying they want to kill Obama. We may not a worship him, but he is the President.

3. There are far more than 100 "whackjobs" who oppose this government overhaul of the healthcare system. I would venture a guess that there are many times more than attended your anti-war rally as a matter of fact. And most people who attend these town halls are not racist and I don't appreciate you trying to paint us all with that brush.


1. Disrupting town hall meetings and not allowing debate to even occur is against freedom of speech and expression.

2. I'm pretty sure he is implying that he wants to kill Obama. Specifically his sign reads: “It’s time to water the tree of liberty,” an allusion to a famous line from Thomas Jefferson, the rest of which is that “the tree of liberty” needs to be “watered” with the “blood of tyrants.” If you bother to read that closely, the poster essentially announces that it's time to kill the President.

3. What makes Obama different from the other big spenders who have previously occupied the White House? This is very much about protecting the ideological legacy of the right, which has used racial politics (in indirect, in-explicit ways) to protect the status quo.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_BadgerCam_*
post Aug 12 2009, 07:56 PM
Post #7





Guests






QUOTE (BigTS @ Aug 12 2009, 12:30 PM) *
QUOTE (BadgerCam @ Aug 12 2009, 03:06 PM) *
QUOTE (BigTS @ Aug 12 2009, 11:46 AM) *
1. It now looks like a wave of right-wing extremism is being unleashed — hysteria and paranoia are being used to defeat the idea of single payer (and even Obama's timid attempts at reform).

Protestor with a gun at health care townhall

The man who is holding the poster is implying quite clearly that he is in favor of killing Obama.

It seems like the same media that refused to cover anti-war rallies of upwards to half a million people will give no end of coverage to one hundred racist whackjobs who show up at a health care town hall.

1. People exercising their rights of freedom of speech and expression to let their elected representatives know they disagree with a proposed piece of legislation is not "right-wing extremism... hysteria... [or] paranoia."

2. Nobody should be saying or implying they want to kill Obama. We may not a worship him, but he is the President.

3. There are far more than 100 "whackjobs" who oppose this government overhaul of the healthcare system. I would venture a guess that there are many times more than attended your anti-war rally as a matter of fact. And most people who attend these town halls are not racist and I don't appreciate you trying to paint us all with that brush.


1. Disrupting town hall meetings and not allowing debate to even occur is against freedom of speech and expression.

2. I'm pretty sure he is implying that he wants to kill Obama. Specifically his sign reads: “It’s time to water the tree of liberty,” an allusion to a famous line from Thomas Jefferson, the rest of which is that “the tree of liberty” needs to be “watered” with the “blood of tyrants.” If you bother to read that closely, the poster essentially announces that it's time to kill the President.

3. What makes Obama different from the other big spenders who have previously occupied the White House? This is very much about protecting the ideological legacy of the right, which has used racial politics (in indirect, in-explicit ways) to protect the status quo.

1. If you prohibit them from expressing themselves you violate the 1st amendment. If you don't hey violate others right. It's not a perfect system I guess.

2. I was agreeing with you. As much as like Jefferson, that was an inappropriate use of his works.

3. He want's to spend more than any of them ever did. Ana for most of this it has nothing to do with legacy of our political beliefs. It has to do with protecting the legacy of our freedom. America has had two revolutions because the people feel the government got too powerful and we want to stop he government from taking too much power. And I would like to know how the right is so racist.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_AK_WDB_*
post Aug 12 2009, 10:01 PM
Post #8





Guests






Shut it off, shut it off, buddy, gonna shut you down...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Captaink_*
post Aug 12 2009, 10:16 PM
Post #9





Guests






FYI, the guy with the gun was outside of the building, well away from the president. Furthermore, it is entirely within his rights to carry an unconcealed weapon, unless of course he was within sight of the president, which he wasn't. You really think the secret service would let someone visibly packing to get close to the brobama?

Also, way to make broad assumptions. Just because someone had a gun didn't mean that he "is implying quite clearly that he is in favor of killing Obama". I carry a knife with me most days, but that doesn't "imply quite clearly" that I want to stab my biology professor, even if he did give me a bad grade.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_AK_WDB_*
post Aug 12 2009, 10:19 PM
Post #10





Guests






The implication was due to the Thomas Jefferson quote, not the gun.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_BadgerCam_*
post Aug 12 2009, 10:21 PM
Post #11





Guests






Sorry Kevin. I think I will have to go with Will on this one. That was more than a little out of line.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Captaink_*
post Aug 12 2009, 10:24 PM
Post #12





Guests






QUOTE (AK_WDB @ Aug 12 2009, 05:19 PM) *
The implication was due to the Thomas Jefferson quote, not the gun.

True, but if it is ok for the fringe on the left to make similar statements about Bush 43, it is ok for the fringe on the right to do the same for Obama. Either it is ok to call the president a tyrant, or it isn't. You can't change the rules (this goes for both sides)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_BadgerCam_*
post Aug 12 2009, 10:29 PM
Post #13





Guests






There is a difference between saying someone is a tyrant and alluding to a quote that says the blood of tyrants is need to refresh the Tree of Liberty from time to time.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_The Casey_*
post Aug 12 2009, 10:41 PM
Post #14





Guests






The main concern seems to stem from the already heated town hall meetings. The media certainly does not appear to be helping too much to lower the threat or fear of health care meetings becoming more violent than fevered shouting, and I think the worry here is that if people are bringing guns to these meetings, how much more violent are they going to get?

I must clarify that this doesn't say "People have guns, people angry, therefore people shoot people." I'm more trying to get across that the media both incites these actions and incites fear of these actions. I do agree with the point that having a lethal (especially projectile) weapon near major world leaders is unnecessary and frankly hazardous.

(I am not strongly anti-gun and do not feel like talking about it if it will be unnecessary, especially since this is a health care topic)

This post has been edited by The Casey: Aug 12 2009, 10:41 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_AK_WDB_*
post Aug 12 2009, 11:44 PM
Post #15





Guests






QUOTE (Captaink @ Aug 12 2009, 02:24 PM) *
QUOTE (AK_WDB @ Aug 12 2009, 05:19 PM) *
The implication was due to the Thomas Jefferson quote, not the gun.

True, but if it is ok for the fringe on the left to make similar statements about Bush 43, it is ok for the fringe on the right to do the same for Obama. Either it is ok to call the president a tyrant, or it isn't. You can't change the rules (this goes for both sides)

Did I say it was OK for the fringe left to make insinuations about killing Bush? No, I really don't think I ever said that.

QUOTE (The Casey @ Aug 12 2009, 02:41 PM) *
The main concern seems to stem from the already heated town hall meetings. The media certainly does not appear to be helping too much to lower the threat or fear of health care meetings becoming more violent than fevered shouting, and I think the worry here is that if people are bringing guns to these meetings, how much more violent are they going to get?

I'd have to agree with you there. The media loves to report on strife, and they're blowing it out of proportion and thereby increasing the amount of influence these loonies have on the general American public.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Research Monkey_*
post Aug 12 2009, 11:53 PM
Post #16





Guests






I just watched a woman on Hardball who spoke at an Arlen Specter rally (perhaps you've seen the clip), and it was really obvious that she was utterly clueless.

The anchor (the dude filling in for Chris Matthews) asked her if by saying "return this country to what the Founding Fathers intended in the Constitution," she meant repeal programs (which he called well instituted programs that are indeed socialism, he didn't try and trap her at all) like Medicare, and she said she didn't want to give an answer. I'm cool with people voicing their opinions when they understand what they mean, but I really think people who don't understand these issues are making a lot of fuss that's hurting any sort of progress or reform. I'm pretty sure that an ideal system of governance will incorporate ideas from across the political spectrum, and my views might not always be best. But for the love of humanity, please, fight ideas with ideas. Not with death panels, guns, "keep government out of my Medicare" signs, not decrying socialism, not claiming that government will be pulling the plug on grandma (especially not from a certain U.S. Senator from Iowa...), not any of this smurf.

I see town hall meets where a couple people cheer on a speaker who says anything about the quality of health care decreasing or that it will cause our taxes to go up, but when people say "THE GOVERNMENT IS TAKING OVER! GOVERNMENT IS ALWAYS BAD, BUREAUCRATS SUCK!" the whole crowd goes wild.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_AK_WDB_*
post Aug 13 2009, 12:20 AM
Post #17





Guests






I'm still baffled by the fact that everyone seems to be criticizing "the Obama health care plan." As far as I'm aware, there are at least five different health care bills that have been proposed in various Congressional committees, none of which has been sponsored by the Obama administration. It's possible that there are new developments of which I'm unaware, but Nate Silver usually does a pretty decent job of keeping me informed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Research Monkey_*
post Aug 13 2009, 12:28 AM
Post #18





Guests






QUOTE (AK_WDB @ Aug 12 2009, 05:20 PM) *
I'm still baffled by the fact that everyone seems to be criticizing "the Obama health care plan." As far as I'm aware, there are at least five different health care bills that have been proposed in various Congressional committees, none of which has been sponsored by the Obama administration. It's possible that there are new developments of which I'm unaware, but Nate Silver usually does a pretty decent job of keeping me informed.


Nope, that's still accurate.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_BigTS_*
post Aug 13 2009, 04:43 PM
Post #19





Guests






They have reduced all government action, other than warmaking, to a large socialist conspiracy.

But why? I don't get it, where were you guys when Bush was becoming one of the biggest government spenders that we've ever had?

Oh yeah, Obama is that Kenyan Black nationalist/Marxist/Muslim that wants to take everything from the good white people.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_AK_WDB_*
post Aug 13 2009, 05:08 PM
Post #20





Guests






QUOTE (BigTS @ Aug 13 2009, 08:43 AM) *
They have reduced all government action, other than warmaking, to a large socialist conspiracy.

But why? I don't get it, where were you guys when Bush was becoming one of the biggest government spenders that we've ever had?

Oh yeah, Obama is that Kenyan Black nationalist/Marxist/Muslim that wants to take everything from the good white people.

Yes, everyone knows all opposition to Obama must be born out of racism. Heaven forbid that anyone could actually disagree with his policies.

(For the record, I do agree with you that most of the protesters don't have a clue what they're talking about, as evidenced by the fact that they think there's an "Obama health care plan".)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

10 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 23rd October 2018 - 04:29 PM