Isn't this what Americans fear...

[j2k4]

...from nationalized health care - the thing everyone swears cannot/will not happen here?

Quick - someone explain this, without weasel-words and squishy logic.

http://www.irishelection.com/2009/11/harney-please-stop-identifying-problems/

[bigboab]

...from nationalized health care - the thing everyone swears cannot/will not happen here?

Quick - someone explain this, without weasel-words and squishy logic.

http://www.irishelection.com/2009/11/harney-please-stop-identifying-problems/

This situation is caused by the need to turn sections of the National Health Service into a profit making concerns so that it can be dissected and each profit making section privatised.

The whole purpose of the NHS is to ensure that free health care is available to everyone. It is not meant to be a profit making concern.

If you look at one section of the UK health service that has been privatised it would make a good horror movie. You have more chance of catching a fatal infection/disease in hospital than when it was completely Nationalised.

I am sorry I don't know what squishy logic means. At a guess I would say it means don't come back at me with facts.:)

[j2k4]

...from nationalized health care - the thing everyone swears cannot/will not happen here?

Quick - someone explain this, without weasel-words and squishy logic.

http://www.irishelection.com/2009/11/harney-please-stop-identifying-problems/

This situation is caused by the need to turn sections of the National Health Service into a profit making concerns so that it can be dissected and each profit making section privatised.

The whole purpose of the NHS is to ensure that free health care is available to everyone. It is not meant to be a profit making concern.

If you look at one section of the UK health service that has been privatised it would make a good horror movie. You have more chance of catching a fatal infection/disease in hospital than when it was completely Nationalised.

I am sorry I don't know what squishy logic means. At a guess I would say it means don't come back at me with facts.:)

Forgive me, Bob; the first two paragraphs of your post appear to be at odds, and - forgive me again - logically squishy.

[clocker]

Quick - someone explain this, without weasel-words and squishy logic.


Says the man who features a quote from Thomas Sowell in his sig.

[j2k4]

Now you've lost me, too.

[clocker]

Meaning that, in general, Thomas Sowell is a veritable fountain of weasel-words and squishy logic...which you approve of since he leans your way.

I think it's interesting that you don't seem to make room for the concept that we could do a better job of nationalized health care than Ireland.
Then again, given your underlying theme that ALL government is inept and inefficient, it's not surprising.

[j2k4]

Meaning that, in general, Thomas Sowell is a veritable fountain of weasel-words and squishy logic...which you approve of since he leans your way.

I think it's interesting that you don't seem to make room for the concept that we could do a better job of nationalized health care than Ireland.
Then again, given your underlying theme that ALL government is inept and inefficient, it's not surprising.

Please begin any response by indicating wherein lies the squishiness in my Sowell-sig before proceeding to whatever improvements in nationalized health-care you feel we may be capable of.

Do not forget to address Obama's recent admission that prior promises "allowing you to keep your current health care" have had rather large holes poked in them.

[devilsadvocate]

One of the objections given to a government run plan was that it would be unfair to private insurance as they wouldn't have to make a profit, which I found quite amusing because an admission that private insurance is more expensive kind of helped the public option case.

Sowell's logic would be less squishy if he had also stated something along the lines of

“It is amazing that people who think we cannot afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, and medication somehow think that we can afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, medication AND a private for profit bureaucracy to administer it.”

His logic is squishy because it ignores the parallel flip side.

[bigboab]

This situation is caused by the need to turn sections of the National Health Service into a profit making concerns so that it can be dissected and each profit making section privatised.

The whole purpose of the NHS is to ensure that free health care is available to everyone. It is not meant to be a profit making concern.

If you look at one section of the UK health service that has been privatised it would make a good horror movie. You have more chance of catching a fatal infection/disease in hospital than when it was completely Nationalised.

I am sorry I don't know what squishy logic means. At a guess I would say it means don't come back at me with facts.:)

Forgive me, Bob; the first two paragraphs of your post appear to be at odds, and - forgive me again - logically squishy.


I lost you Kev because you think that an NHS needs to be a profit making concern. It is a service to the public and paid for by public taxation. No person should be making a profit from other peoples misfortune.

[j2k4]

This, Bob...


This situation is caused by the need to turn sections of the National Health Service into a profit making concerns so that it can be dissected and each profit making section privatised.

...is from your post.

To what/whose need do you refer?

[j2k4]

One of the objections given to a government run plan was that it would be unfair to private insurance as they wouldn't have to make a profit, which I found quite amusing because an admission that private insurance is more expensive kind of helped the public option case.

Sowell's logic would be less squishy if he had also stated something along the lines of

“It is amazing that people who think we cannot afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, and medication somehow think that we can afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, medication AND a private for profit bureaucracy to administer it.”

His logic is squishy because it ignores the parallel flip side.



The "parallel flip side"?

Oh.

[bigboab]

This, Bob...


This situation is caused by the need to turn sections of the National Health Service into a profit making concerns so that it can be dissected and each profit making section privatised.

...is from your post.

To what/whose need do you refer?

The need of this so called socialist government to sell off parts of the NHS to private companies. They can't sell them off until they become super duper efficient and ripe for the private sector scavengers.

[j2k4]

This, Bob...



...is from your post.

To what/whose need do you refer?

The need of this so called socialist government to sell off parts of the NHS to private companies. They can't sell them off until they become super duper efficient and ripe for the private sector scavengers.

Alright, then - this begs a question:

Why in the wide, wide world of sports does a socialist government need to even consider selling (selling?) off this wonderful and inherently self-sustaining portion of the NHS to a private concern?

Huh?

National health care is touted as the answer to all that ails us (see what I did there), yet you seem to be saying it isn't financially viable, at least under government auspices.

Tell me what I am misunderstanding, here.

[bigboab]

The need of this so called socialist government to sell off parts of the NHS to private companies. They can't sell them off until they become super duper efficient and ripe for the private sector scavengers.

Alright, then - this begs a question:

Why in the wide, wide world of sports does a socialist government need to even consider selling (selling?) off this wonderful and inherently self-sustaining portion of the NHS to a private concern?

Huh?

National health care is touted as the answer to all that ails us (see what I did there), yet you seem to be saying it isn't financially viable, at least under government auspices.

Tell me what I am misunderstanding, here.

You are misunderstanding that the British 'socialist' government is more right wing than Maggie Thatcher.

[j2k4]

Alright, then - this begs a question:

Why in the wide, wide world of sports does a socialist government need to even consider selling (selling?) off this wonderful and inherently self-sustaining portion of the NHS to a private concern?

Huh?

National health care is touted as the answer to all that ails us (see what I did there), yet you seem to be saying it isn't financially viable, at least under government auspices.

Tell me what I am misunderstanding, here.

You are misunderstanding that the British 'socialist' government is more right wing than Maggie Thatcher.

Was Maggie more right wing than Ronald Reagan?

In any case, my question stands - why would a socialist government be "selling" off a NHS that, according to all testimony hereabout, is perfectly fine in all respects?

Or, does a socialist government which cannot maintain a financially viable NHS become conservative upon the occasion of finally realizing the idea of a NHS suffers a distinct lack of financial viability?

[devilsadvocate]

I don't think they are selling off the "NHS". Perhaps someone from the UK could confirm or correct this, but what they are doing is contracting out things like maintenance, catering and cleaning services. From my understanding the idea was that by contracting out to the lowest bidder they could save money. It appears that you get what you pay for and hygiene standards have fallen.

[bigboab]

You are misunderstanding that the British 'socialist' government is more right wing than Maggie Thatcher.

Was Maggie more right wing than Ronald Reagan?

In any case, my question stands - why would a socialist government be "selling" off a NHS that, according to all testimony hereabout, is perfectly fine in all respects?

Or, does a socialist government which cannot maintain a financially viable NHS become conservative upon the occasion of finally realizing the idea of a NHS suffers a distinct lack of financial viability?


I honestly can't think of a success story, unless you are getting dividend, where a nationised industry has been privatised.

The train service is atrocious.

The bus service has cut out all the buses that went to the small outlying villages because there is no profit in it. I could go on and on.

Yes Kev. Thatcher was more right wing than Reagan. She ordered the sinking of a submarine that was no immediate danger to anyone, thereby negating negotions to solve the Falklands issue.

How would you feel if your Government 'privatised' all of your roads and highways, resulting in you having to pay a toll every time you drove over a change of ownership line?
I understand that at present 40% of your roads are a national concern. What is the reason for this 40% ownership in a country that is against nationalisation?

[bigboab]

One of the objections given to a government run plan was that it would be unfair to private insurance as they wouldn't have to make a profit, which I found quite amusing because an admission that private insurance is more expensive kind of helped the public option case.

Sowell's logic would be less squishy if he had also stated something along the lines of

“It is amazing that people who think we cannot afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, and medication somehow think that we can afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, medication AND a private for profit bureaucracy to administer it.”

His logic is squishy because it ignores the parallel flip side.



Thanks for that quote. IMO that quote closes any further discussion.:)

[devilsadvocate]

How would you feel if your Government 'privatised' all of your roads and highways, resulting in you having to pay a toll every time you drove over a change of ownership line?


There are a lot of turnpikes here. They charge different tolls for different stretches of the same road. The NTTA decided to take the "booths" away and have tags instead. Vehicles without tags get photographed on entry and exit and they send you a bill in the mail. They are not too efficient getting the bills out and often they arrive months later with an "administration charge" attached for late payment.

[bigboab]

How would you feel if your Government 'privatised' all of your roads and highways, resulting in you having to pay a toll every time you drove over a change of ownership line?


There are a lot of turnpikes here. They charge different tolls for different stretches of the same road. The NTTA decided to take the "booths" away and have tags instead. Vehicles without tags get photographed on entry and exit and they send you a bill in the mail. They are not too efficient getting the bills out and often they arrive months later with an "administration charge" attached for late payment.

Definitely a case for nationalisation. IMO all national utuilities shoul;d be just that national otherwise you have dividend holders with too much control.

A small shopkeeper puts his customers first. A large company puts its shareholders first.

[devilsadvocate]

There are a lot of turnpikes here. They charge different tolls for different stretches of the same road. The NTTA decided to take the "booths" away and have tags instead. Vehicles without tags get photographed on entry and exit and they send you a bill in the mail. They are not too efficient getting the bills out and often they arrive months later with an "administration charge" attached for late payment.

Definitely a case for nationalisation. IMO all national utuilities shoul;d be just that national otherwise you have dividend holders with too much control.

A small shopkeeper puts his customers first. A large company puts its shareholders first. As far as I'm aware the NTTA is a state run concern, I think I could have been a LOT clearer why I responded. It was about having tolls.

http://www.ntta.org/AboutUs/Board/BoardOfDirectors.htm

From what I read in the past isn't there a government plan to change your freeways into toll? What about congestion charges? All on top of your outrageous gas tax.

[bigboab]

Definitely a case for nationalisation. IMO all national utuilities shoul;d be just that national otherwise you have dividend holders with too much control.

A small shopkeeper puts his customers first. A large company puts its shareholders first. As far as I'm aware the NTTA is a state run concern, I think I could have been a LOT clearer why I responded. It was about having tolls.

http://www.ntta.org/AboutUs/Board/BoardOfDirectors.htm

From what I read in the past isn't there a government plan to change your freeways into toll? What about congestion charges? All on top of your outrageous gas tax.

I think they have congestion charges in London. Some bridges have tolls. Tolls were muted as a means for new construction. Remember our roads are about as wide as your parking spaces.:lol:

[l33tpirata13]

the whole premise of this thread is dumb. OP uses an example from ireland as if that holds any water. it doesnt. and the op's signature is one of the dumbest things i have heard. the reasoning is so off.....

now as far as privatizing government agencies and services, it doesnt work, take for instance us, in chicago, we just got our parking meters contracted to a private company. what do you think happened when that came to be? Meters wouldnt get fixed, prices quadrupled, and people are being ticketed unfairly. this is always what happens when you have a money making company taking over a municipal service. IT NEVER WORKS!!!

[j2k4]

the whole premise of this thread is dumb. OP uses an example from ireland as if that holds any water. it doesnt. and the op's signature is one of the dumbest things i have heard. the reasoning is so off.....

now as far as privatizing government agencies and services, it doesnt work, take for instance us, in chicago, we just got our parking meters contracted to a private company. what do you think happened when that came to be? Meters wouldnt get fixed, prices quadrupled, and people are being ticketed unfairly. this is always what happens when you have a money making company taking over a municipal service. IT NEVER WORKS!!!


Were you born yesterday at all.

I hate to burst your bubble, but, living in Chicago, you cannot claim to know the first thing about how a competitive market should work, because your entire milieu is totally corrupt.

Your parking meter cluster-fuck began with a 'bid' process, didn't it?

The kind of bid which is inserted into the back pocket of the mayor?

[clocker]

Since your original post was obviously a swipe a nationalized health care and given your status as a business owner (presumably charged with providing some sort of health plan for the employees), perhaps you'd like to regale us with examples of how well privatized health plans are working out for you.

[j2k4]

Since your original post was obviously a swipe a nationalized health care and given your status as a business owner (presumably charged with providing some sort of health plan for the employees), perhaps you'd like to regale us with examples of how well privatized health plans are working out for you.

A "swipe"?

I suppose.

Let us not lose sight of what followed my "swipe", however; a sorrowful lament that NHS, where it is practiced, has substantial financial troubles, troubles that are not preferable to our current situation, and which seem to be leading to privatization.

As to this-

"...given your status as a business owner (presumably charged with providing some sort of health plan for the employees)"...

-please provide a provenance of legitimacy for this presumption.

[bigboab]

Since your original post was obviously a swipe a nationalized health care and given your status as a business owner (presumably charged with providing some sort of health plan for the employees), perhaps you'd like to regale us with examples of how well privatized health plans are working out for you.

A "swipe"?

I suppose.

Let us not lose sight of what followed my "swipe", however; a sorrowful lament that NHS, where it is practiced, has substantial financial troubles, troubles that are not preferable to our current situation, and which seem to be leading to privatization.

As to this-

"...given your status as a business owner (presumably charged with providing some sort of health plan for the employees)"...

-please provide a provenance of legitimacy for this presumption.

One of the causes of substantial financial troubles of the NHS is the exorbitant charges made by drug firms. Maybe if we were to nationalise them we could move forward. All the other problems are caused by low paid, could not care less workers, employed by private firms doing the 'opted out' cleaning contracts etc.

It is not just in the NHS that these things are happening. The prison service has suffered the same treament caused by private contractors;

More prisoners escaping while being transferred. Prisoners not turning up to court because the contractor had 'misplaced' the paperwork etc.

I stay about 2 miles from a state of the art private cushy prison. We can hardly sleep most nights because of helicopters overhead searching for people who are trying to break in to the prison. ;)

[j2k4]

Ah.

Well, I'm gonna charge my mouse.

Privately.

[clocker]

Let us not lose sight of what followed my "swipe", however; a sorrowful lament that NHS, where it is practiced, has substantial financial troubles, troubles that are not preferable to our current situation, and which seem to be leading to privatization.


I cannot imagine that an example of government failure would produce a "sorrowful lament" from you...deriding any and all government involvement is your bread and butter.

In a perfect example of your use of "squishy logic", you use Ireland as an example of all NHS attempts and their problems become emblematic of everyones.
Since nationalized health care is practiced in many states around the world, there are other, more successful programs to compare but of course, ones that work well don't interest you since they don't support your point.
Before you ask, I'd offer up Singapore as one example.

Furthermore, it's obvious that any solution that is not 100% perfect doesn't interest you...better the devil you know (and are comfortable exploiting) than the devil you don't.
This is a completely predictable conservative response to anything and pretty much ensures that nothing ever gets done...if the chance of failure exists, you aren't gonna risk it.
Maintaining the status quo is the is the conservative Holy Grail...because "America, fuck yeah!".

[j2k4]

Hmm.

Didn't I bring up Singapore as a positive example recently.

And wasn't I derided for doing so...by you, among others.

[clocker]

No.

[j2k4]

Hmm.

Didn't I bring up Singapore as a positive example recently.

And wasn't I derided for doing so...by you, among others.


No.

Yes.

http://filesharingtalk.com/vb3/f-the-drawing-room-55/t-health-care-in-singapore-384894

[clocker]

"Derided"?

I pointed out how inconsistent you were...a perception reinforced by this thread.

[j2k4]

I say toe-may-toe, you say toe-mah-toe...

[clocker]

No, I say Solanum lycopersicum.

I was not raised in a barn.

[pentomato]

Meaning that, in general, Thomas Sowell is a veritable fountain of weasel-words and squishy logic...which you approve of since he leans your way.

I think it's interesting that you don't seem to make room for the concept that we could do a better job of nationalized health care than Ireland.
Then again, given your underlying theme that ALL government is inept and inefficient, it's not surprising.

Please begin any response by indicating wherein lies the squishiness in my Sowell-sig before proceeding to whatever improvements in nationalized health-care you feel we may be capable of.

Do not forget to address Obama's recent admission that prior promises "allowing you to keep your current health care" have had rather large holes poked in them.

In Massachusetts we have universal health care the so call nationalized health care, your Idol Mitt Romney signed into law, and it works wonder, and yes we have the public option, people that can't afford it, the state provides it for them.
I don't think you have to go to Ireland, in Massaschusetts we have the best health system in the USA.

[j2k4]

Please begin any response by indicating wherein lies the squishiness in my Sowell-sig before proceeding to whatever improvements in nationalized health-care you feel we may be capable of.

Do not forget to address Obama's recent admission that prior promises "allowing you to keep your current health care" have had rather large holes poked in them.

In Massachusetts we have universal health care the so call nationalized health care, your Idol Mitt Romney signed into law, and it works wonder, and yes we have the public option, people that can't afford it, the state provides it for them.
I don't think you have to go to Ireland, in Massaschusetts we have the best health system in the USA.

I hear your state health care system has health problems, and apparently they don't have any mental health programs, or you'd make a bit of sense on occasion.

So Mitt gave it to you and it's great, but he still sucks, eh?

It seems to me, at least on the tiny scale of Massachusetts, that would make him a better man than B.O., in your eyes.

[pentomato]

In Massachusetts we have universal health care the so call nationalized health care, your Idol Mitt Romney signed into law, and it works wonder, and yes we have the public option, people that can't afford it, the state provides it for them.
I don't think you have to go to Ireland, in Massaschusetts we have the best health system in the USA.

I hear your state health care system has health problems, and apparently they don't have any mental health programs, or you'd make a bit of sense on occasion.

So Mitt gave it to you and it's great, but he still sucks, eh?

It seems to me, at least on the tiny scale of Massachusetts, that would make him a better man than B.O., in your eyes.

You can insult me all you want, you are not funny, your sense of humor sucks, but anyway if you need mental health, I think you do, we have the best,but please stay in the trailer park.
Mitt didn't give it to anyone, were the democratic legislators who pass that law, and it was what the people from Massachusetts wanted, so Mitt had not choice, by the way he is against it now, I wonder why?
Mitt is an idiot, he changes with the flow, he was pro choice now he is not, he was pro universal health insurance, now he is not, he decides along the way what is convenient to believe in, like every other republican.
Not in a million years will he be able to compare to Obama, he could if decided to be the man he should, but he is not.
The day that any Republican decides to stop thinking about money and be for the people, then I will be able to say he is better than Obama, but they are not and Mitt is a prick.
It was said before in this thread, I prefer the goverment to manage my health insurance, than any private company, their only concern and prority is to make as much money as possible out of my health plan, giving me the worst and less health care possible, so, if you call that socialism, let be it then, we have in Massachusetts and it works wonders, it is the best in the country, and we don't have any waiting lists.

[j2k4]

Okay, then.

Would you care to say anything else at all on the subjects of health care, Mitt Romney, and Massachusetts?

[mothis]

j2k4, even completely accepting your original point (or, at least the one raised in the article) that nationalized health care creates waste, and also accepting for the sake of argument that a privatized version has absolutely no waste at all, the conclusion that nationalized health care is therefore inferior to its privatized cousin is invalid. I would rather have some amount of waste than distribute health care only to those with sufficient means to pay arbitrarily high insurance premiums. I think the fundamental issue upon which we disagree is whether health care is a basic human right, or merely a luxury.

[j2k4]

Parse your basic misapprehension of the definitions/uses of the words "care" and "insurance" (as normally used following the other word in question, that being "health") and we can talk.

[mothis]

Well so, I think health care can be reasonably defined as 1) access to medical treatment 2)medical treatment. Health *insurance* is a contract undertaken between two parties in which the first party pays some premium to the second party and in exchange the second party agrees to pay on behalf of the first party some set of costs associated with health care.

[j2k4]

Mothis-

Perhaps you can help me with something...I don't have links, because I'm not so basically tight-assed about such things, but trust me when I tell you I remember this distinctly:

About a year ago, I remember a David Axelrod...oh, let's call it a presentation, about health care/health insurance (apparently the terms are interchangeable), wherein he asserted there were "47 million" people in the U.S. who had no insurance coverage/healthcare.

Leap ahead with me to yesterday, when I saw the same David Axelrod (he reminds me of Snidely Whiplash, you see) inform the audience that "there are 30 million people in the U.S. without insurance coverage/healthcare".

It seems to me that, if the Obama administration can reduce the number of health-oppressed people in this country by a factor exceeding one-third merely by blathering about the problem, someone ought to suggest they continue with this strategy.

Wouldn't you say.

[mothis]

This seems to be an attempt to bluster around the issue by trying to tie me to a less defensible position. You seem to have simply ignored my point.

[j2k4]

Well so, I think health care can be reasonably defined as 1) access to medical treatment 2)medical treatment. Health *insurance* is a contract undertaken between two parties in which the first party pays some premium to the second party and in exchange the second party agrees to pay on behalf of the first party some set of costs associated with health care.

An contract/agreement between "two parties", eh?

Reformulate that statement, and this time remember there are actually three parties involved, the third being the always-forgotten and growing-thinner-on-the-ground-daily taxpayer.

[j2k4]

I don't see how this is relevant. This seems to be an attempt to bluster around the issue by trying to tie me to a less defensible position.

Your position isn't really a position at all, but you're right, it is indefensible.

[mothis]

Wait, what? The taxpayer would in this formulation be the first party. In a nationalized system, no such contract exists because the costs associated with health care are distributed through taxation instead of charged directly (thus obviating the need for insurance).

[mothis]

This is an (accidental) double post. If you're a mod, please delete it.

[mothis]

I don't see how this is relevant. This seems to be an attempt to bluster around the issue by trying to tie me to a less defensible position.

Your position isn't really a position at all, but you're right, it is indefensible.

As I say, you have not actually attacked my point.

[j2k4]

Wait, what? The taxpayer would in this formulation be the first party. In a nationalized system, no such contract exists because the costs associated with health care are distributed through taxation instead of charged directly (thus obviating the need for insurance).

Why, your "formulation" is just silly.

You say, "National Health Care", and the taxpayer magically recedes into the far distance?

You really need to do better than that, sir/madam.

[j2k4]

Your position isn't really a position at all, but you're right, it is indefensible.

As I say, you have not actually attacked my point.

Okay.

As precisely as you can manage, then:

What is your point?

[mothis]

My point is that I believe health care is a fundamental human right, and that therefore making access to it conditional on having x amount of money is unethical. You see it as a luxury, and therefore do not see a problem with denying it to people who cannot afford to pay for it.

[j2k4]

My counterpoint would be that you have a point, and I have a point.

For your own reasons, you think your point trumps mine, and I, likewise, think mine trumps yours.

We agree that health care reform needs to be undertaken, but our respective methodologies are divergent.

Neither of us can lay unfettered claim to holding a majority of popular opinion.

We believe differently, that is all.

Your ideological brethren hold sway at the moment; I believe that will change in November.

Have you anything to add?

[clocker]

Your ideological brethren hold sway at the moment; I believe that will change in November.


You believe that the right will unseat enough incumbent Democrats to regain a majority in November?
You think America longs for the theocracy she never had?

[j2k4]

Your ideological brethren hold sway at the moment; I believe that will change in November.


You believe that the right will unseat enough incumbent Democrats to regain a majority in November?
You think America longs for the theocracy she never had?

I think the dems will lose the house and the senate.

You may think what you like.

[clocker]

OK.
I think you're crazy.

[A13]

All depends on how much politicians can talk within the next few months IMO. A lot of people are hating on the Democrats right now, and it can be fueled by people talking, to the point that Dems will lose both majority in the House and Senate. It's really divided on how people view healthcare. I can't say there's a majority on either side really.

[clocker]

Nice job of waffling.

[A13]

Glad to see you figured that out. That's why it's "all depends." I just say what I see. Never came in here with a determined mindset. All those politicians are corrupted suckers anyway. It won't make that much of a difference, with all that bipartisan shit going on.

[mothis]

I think the democrats will lose a lot of seats in the midterms. They are just so incredible ineffective. Look at this healthcare bill. What happened to the public option? How about single payer? The amount of concessions they made on it (e.g. no federal subsidies for abortions)? The republicans use dirty tactics and the democrats refuse to call them on it.

[j2k4]

How about single payer? The amount of concessions they made on it (e.g. no federal subsidies for abortions)?

What, to your way of thinking, makes federal money for abortion the way to go?

Do you honestly feel this to be the will of the people?


The republicans use dirty tactics and the democrats refuse to call them on it.

Enumerate the "dirty tactics", please, and the corresponding failures of the democrats to highlight them.