Fox News Sunday - Mitch McConnell Manipulates on the Public Option

reply to post by Misoir


The truth is they both bow to both. They bow to corps for money and the poor for votes. That is why this nation is more or less bankrupt. They shouldn't take money from anyone to give it to anyone else. They should just pay for basic things like defense, and a fed justice system, and the like and quit trying to adjust the field of play. Let the chips fall where they may.

reply to post by tommy_boy


I agree we should do a better job of holding all politicians to a certain level of expectation.

My question to you is how many jobs would have been created or saved if we used $700 billion for corporate tax cuts or to retool certain industries with state of the art equipment so they can compete in a global economy, or to pay down the debt or not borrow it in the first place as opposed to creating make work jobs with no net return on investment. Would the world really end if we lost some government staff, police, firefighters, and teachers. The only jobs they saved or created were government jobs and some bs make work projects.

Government doesn't create real jobs that net extra tax income. Only private industry can do that, and they can do that well if they would reduce the tax burden and all the rules and restrictions on employing people and manufacturing goods and/or offering services.

reply to post by Mr Sunchine


This is a thread I started yesterday.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

That states my opinions, after reading you won't understand how I support a government health care system. I support it because I believe just like how government is supposed to only protect us from harm this should be included in the category of 'harm'.

reply to post by Mr Sunchine


Well, for starters, you merge Medicare, Medicaid, and the new public option as 1 thing. Start there. Deal with the unfunded liability as part of the holistic overall goal. This doesn't reduce any cost, but at least frames the discussion.

Next, repeal all of the Bush Tax cuts on the wealthiest, and on corporations.

The Federal government will be able to throw its weight around and negotiate lower rates on services, prescription drugs, etc. Also, it it manages to keep its administrative costs down, it will strongly compete with private insurers, resulting in a larger insured pool, resulting in lower premiums for everyone.

Next, you still charge a premium, just one that is decoupled from the traditional corporate greed we see how (especially in California, as we saw last week in the news, with a top insurer raising rate by 39%).

Next, you continue to look for efficiencies in spending mainly by getting control of earmarks and pork. There's money in the system, Sunchine. Congress just isn't going to tell you that because they want their pet projects.

I'm sure there's a ton other ways to fund this, stuff I'm not noting.

My point in this thread, however, is that whether you're against or for any one issue, we should debate this stuff in good faith. And when our representatives don't, we need to clean House (so to speak).

reply to post by tommy_boy

If you believe the Public Option is bad, GREAT! Tell why and give facts.

Fact 1:

We cannot afford one more government entitlement program. We are 14 trillion dollars in debt. Medicare and Medicaid, which are both public options are bankrupt and unsustainable in the long run without MASSIVE tax hikes. Tax hikes destroy the economy, because you can build a business anywhere in the world so why would you do it where you will have to pay higher taxes. Jobs can easily be moved to other countries and products can be easily shipped back to the USA for sale.

We live in a global economy. It is not 1950 anymore. We have no competitive advantage given the technological and logistics age that we currently live in.

reply to post by tommy_boy


Tommy_boy, a pleasure debating with you as well. I couldnt reply to your u2u because it says I do not have enough posts yet.

My point in this thread, however, is that whether you're against or for any one issue, we should debate this stuff in good faith. And when our representatives don't, we need to clean House (so to speak).

Well I will vote against McConnell if you promise to vote against Pelosi, Obama, and Reid.

The Federal government will be able to throw its weight around and negotiate lower rates on services, prescription drugs, etc. Also, it it manages to keep its administrative costs down, it will strongly compete with private insurers, resulting in a larger insured pool, resulting in lower premiums for everyone.

Next, you still charge a premium, just one that is decoupled from the traditional corporate greed we see how (especially in California, as we saw last week in the news, with a top insurer raising rate by 39%).

Next, you continue to look for efficiencies in spending mainly by getting control of earmarks and pork.

The federal government doesn't work this way. The politicians get huge donations from lobbyists and industries. They will not negotiate prices down past something that is symbolic because it is not in their personal interest.

Remember how Obama made a deal with the drug companies and Congress voted to not let us import drugs to reduce costs. Why did they do this, because of three things.
1. It would piss off their corporate donors and lobbyists.
2. How are we going to afford R&D on drugs if everyone is just buying eveything at slightly above production costs. Plus, only a fraction of the drugs get approval.
3. It costs like 1.4 billion dollars and ten years to get a drug approved by the FDA.

Who in their right mind would invest in inventing new drugs if there is no money in succeeding?

[edit on 21-2-2010 by Mr Sunchine]

[edit on 21-2-2010 by Mr Sunchine]

The thing that no one has the balls to address is that the whole healthcare industry is corrupt.

Have you ever wondered why your doctor always prescribes the newest and most expensive drugs, when the old, cheap, generic stuff works just fine in most cases?

Have you ever wondered why most doctors only see you for 5 minutes and rarely looks you in the eye, but still charges you $100 for those 5 minutes?

Why do you have to pay $100 to go to the doctor to get a prescription for $5 antibiotics when you already know you have a sinus infection?

[edit on 21-2-2010 by Mr Sunchine]