PDA

View Full Version : ObamaCare: Too Many Contradictions



red states rule
08-07-2009, 09:20 AM
Seems those pesky facts are catching up to Obama. Amazing what happens to liberal talking points when logic is brought into the discussion


Obamacare's Fatal Flaw
By Ramesh Ponnuru
Monday, Aug. 17, 2009

There are two basic points about health-care reform that President Obama wants to convey. The first is that, as he put it in an ABC special in June, "the status quo is untenable." Our health-care system is rife with "skewed incentives." It gives us "a whole bunch of care" that "may not be making us healthier." It generates too many specialists and not enough primary-care physicians. It is "bankrupting families," "bankrupting businesses" and "bankrupting our government at the state and federal level. So we know things are going to have to change."

Obama's second major point is that--to quote from the same broadcast--"if you are happy with your plan and you are happy with your doctor, then we don't want you to have to change ... So what we're saying is, If you are happy with your plan and your doctor, you stick with it."

So the system is an unsustainable disaster, but you can keep your piece of it if you want. And the Democrats wonder why selling health-care reform to the public has been so hard?

Again and again, their effort has brought us into a land of paradoxes. Public skepticism is warranted when the President promises to cut costs while simultaneously providing coverage to nearly 50 million uninsured people. It is even more warranted when his congressional allies seek to raise taxes to pay for all the new spending that this cost-cutting entails. We aren't talking about short-term spending either; this isn't a trillion-dollar investment in a new system that will ultimately save money. The Congressional Budget Office says the leading health-care-reform proposals will increase health-care spending and make the budget harder to balance in the long run. Yet saving money is the President's principal stated rationale for reform.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1914973,00.html

chesswarsnow
08-07-2009, 10:33 AM
Sorry bout that,

1. I'm buying into it.:thumb:
2. Its better than what we presently have.
3. People ought not to have to go boke when they become ill.
4. Not in AMERICA.
5. There should be zero chance of that ever happening again.

Regards,
SirJamnesofTexas

namvet
08-07-2009, 11:44 AM
as RED said



http://debatepolicy.com/image.php?u=60&dateline=1249617199

Monkeybone
08-07-2009, 11:59 AM
Sorry bout that,

1. I'm buying into it.:thumb:
2. Its better than what we presently have.
3. People ought not to have to go boke when they become ill.
4. Not in AMERICA.
5. There should be zero chance of that ever happening again.

Regards,
SirJamnesofTexas

So you would rather do a quick fix and damn the consequences instead of taking our time and doing it right? yah. good thinking there. Just like the stimulus that was supposed to keep unemployment down..oh wait no... or I guess I could use the money to Chrysler to keep them form going bankrupt..dang it...no again.

Does our system need fixed? Absofreakinlutely. Do we need to fix and then eval it? No. That is the worse thing to do in almost any situation. We need to fix it little by little, not all at once. And we need to stay commited to fixing it, instead of getting instant gratification.