More Random Videos
He was doing okay, until he had to go and do what all of the Republicans must be getting paid to do, which is;
1) Pretend that there are no present costs associated with the 15% uninsured Americans.
2) Pretend that Public Option is exactly the same thing as Single Payer
3) Give examples from true Single Payer nations (Canada, UK) and misapply them to the US as if those examples would be relevant to the US if it had a Public Option open to people as an, pay attention to this word, OPTION.
I had to turn it off half way through just as I did when, a few years ago, GOP politicians pretended that the main enemy in Iraq was al Qaeda and not the various militias and insurgents. Or when they pretended that only "known terrorists" would have their phone calls intercepted, or that all of the Gitmo inmates were the "worst of the worst" out of all the known terrorists.
Frickin' Through the Looking Glass land these Bozos live in. 
1) Pretend that there are no present costs associated with the 15% uninsured Americans.
He never did that. He never once said that there are no present costs associated with the 15% uninsured Americans.
3) Give examples from true Single Payer nations (Canada, UK) and misapply them to the US as if those examples would be relevant to the US if it had a Public Option open to people as an, pay attention to this word, OPTION.
And yet one of the defenses the Democratic party gives that this would be of benefit to America is to say that the Canadians have it, the UK has it, etc. It is hypocritical to say he shouldn't make those comparisons, and yet have the Democratic party making them every day. Either comparisons matter, or they don't (in actuality, you are correct, they don't matter, but this waffling back and forth is just more lies - and yes, the Republicans do it too, as you see on the video).
The elephant in the room in the debate over health care is that the government spends billions every year on uninsured Americans, so much in fact that the basic idea behind the reform is that it is enough money to actually insure these people rather than pay ala carte when these people get sick.
That is the so-called 'revenue neutral' concept that used to be the cornerstone of reform before details of the Bill were delegated to Congress and therefore to the lobbyists with the highest bids.
Mr Rogers didn't need to reference the fact that we are already spending plenty on this problem, by ignoring the single most significant point of the issue, he pretended the elephant wasn't in the room by default (IMHO)
I don't care who says it, single payer and public option are NOT the same thing, just because a dem says an apple and an orange are the same doesn't make it so. One is a government takeover of health care, the other is an option of last resort which would compete with the existing private insurance industry. They are nowhere near on the same scale, either qualitatively or quantitatively.
Those who insist they are the same are the liars, for the simple reason that they aren't at all the same.
The elephant in the room in the debate over health care is that the government spends billions every year on uninsured Americans...
While I agree the government does spend money on uninsured Americans, I have never seen anything summarizing exactly how much is spent. This should be comparatively simple to find out, and it should be equally as simple to find out what a health insurance plan to cover those same people would cost. Until I see those facts, I can not and will not support legislation pulled out of the Democratic asses in Congress.
That is the so-called 'revenue neutral' concept that used to be the cornerstone of reform before details of the Bill were delegated to Congress and therefore to the lobbyists with the highest bids.
Um, as anyone with even the most basic knowledge of the American political system knows, all bills must pass through Congress. What did you think was going to happen? This is another reason Congress needs to stay the fuck out of my health care.
Mr Rogers didn't need to reference the fact that we are already spending plenty on this problem, by ignoring the single most significant point of the issue, he pretended the elephant wasn't in the room by default (IMHO)
So it comes out that I am exactly right. Your interpretation of what he said in three and a half minutes (less than half of which by your own admission you watched - God forbid you actually approach this with an open mind) was that he was ignoring that fact, but he never said there were no costs.
Please be kind to Mr, Gramps. He is getting old and is doing his very best to defend FF policies and procedures. There will be a special place for him amongst the virgins as his FF PR skills are always on message.
I assume that means you have no intelligent reply, so you make some vague negative comment in hopes no one will notice?
but the problem with the current bill is that it forces people into the public option which will become a singer payer system.
We have 40 some million Americans without health insurance. As Mr Rogers points out, if you try to stuff that 15% in with the other 85%, there is going to be some curling up at the edges.
The idea of Public Option is that people who can't get into a private plan would have a place to go, to take off some of the pressure of accommodating all those people at once.
We had something like this in Florida, under Jeb Bush as governor, by the way. After one of the big hurricanes, private insurance companies fled the State, leaving a large number of Florida homes uninsured. Since most lenders require the borrower to have this kind of insurance, the State of Florida set up "Citizens Insurance" a State owned public option for those who couldn't get regular insurance. Some homeowners, and I was one, were forced into taking out a policy with Citizens, since there was no alternative. I couldn't get private insurance even though my home was new, had never had a claim, was not in a flood plain, and was certified to the highest standards for wind.
I reluctantly signed up for Citizens (I was skeptical being no fan of Jeb Bush) but everything worked out as advertised. Life moved on, and eventually, Citizens found a private insurance company that was willing to write a policy for me, and I went back from public to private in a smooth transition.
None of the horror stories that are being so carefully crafted and inserted into the media now ever materialized from this, and I suspect that they wouldn't from a health care public option.
It would fill the gap until something better came along. No one would get a red hammer and sickle painted on their face, the sky won't fall, and Texas will probably end up not seceding from the Union.
Trying the Federal Government to do the same would be foolish in medical area. They have done a bang up job with medicare/ss/postal service.
Home insurance is fairly straight forward compared to the health industry, since they are increasing the amount of people into the system and not increasing the amount of doctors, nurses, and such. The only thing they are building is more red tape about controlling your medical access.
I would trust the local states more to handle the issue, but only a little bit more than the federal government. I forget which state royally screwed up their medical system, but I believe it was in the New England area.
You have totally missed the point. It wasn't considered socialism when it was a Bush that did it, and there isn't any ideological difference between wind insurance and health insurance. Yes, the law wouldn't create more health care workers, but again, the uninsured are getting health care paid for by the government right now, as I have explained on numerous occasions.
Bringing the postal service into it only shows how much you don't know about the topic. I am too lazy to look up the exact year right now, but the US government hasn't run the postal service since I was in grammar school. The USPS is a semi-autonomous corporation. Yep, the Post Office was outsourced more than 4 decades ago, so go yell socialism at your letter carrier. It would make about as much sense as what you are saying now.
the federal government is not paying for 47 million people's insurance (even if roughly 9 million should be sent home via catapult).
Now the government wants everyone to pay into the system to steal more money even someone does not want to afford the wonders of medical insurance to pay for others beyond medicare taxes. They'll create more government jobs and control on what medical services you can access even if you have private insurance.
this whole issue grows tiresome.
thebaron
I would mind him as next president, but he makes too much sense!