President Reagan on Socialized healthcare

And unemployment will not go beyond 8% and the deficit will be 7 Trillion.

If this bill were to pass as is, there would indeed be private options. However, from what I've read and heard, many, if not most, employers would drop their coverage in favor of the less expensive penalties. These relatively cheap penalties are by design. The employees would then have no choice but to go to the public option. You cannot be optimistic here Red. You'll get screwed. Be cynical and look beyond the rhetoric. There is an agenda here and it is not one that favors liberty and freedom.

 

Just when I thought you couldn't slice a hair any thinner...

It is clearly impossible for you to comprehend the point that is being made. How does it feel to have your mind confined to a box the size of a dictionary?

 

The bill gives lip service to prohibiting the dropping of coverage, but the penalties for doing so are cheaper than providing coverage. My, my. Coincidence? I think not.

Why must you assume I am content with the status quo? I'm all for reform, but I want the government's greedy, inefficient, politically motivated hands out of it.

Well, that's the difference between me and you. My senses are tingling and I smell something rotten. The frying bacon is the only good smell I can get.

 

Nevermind, not worth my time.

 

The original post is a dumbed-down version of a speech made a decade ago to music. We're supposed to be talking policy? Only in America...

That's not the argument at all.

So you do understand the subtleties of of the English language and how the formation of what we say affects how people interpret it. I thought you were being daft.

I do not disagree, but the OP was about Reagan's fear-mongering and how the current GOP have picked up the torch he lit. I'm sure we can find a thread about how man is causing global warming to discuss the Democrat fear-mongering, so I saw no need to further complicate this thread with other topics.

The bailing out of these companies was not a Democratic or Obama plan, however. I am disappointed that he did not reverse the course that the previous Administration began.

That would be a great place to live in. I share the same beliefs, but I live in reality.

Unfortunately we live in a world were businesses act on their own best interest and not in the interest of the consumer/citizen, therefore some government involvement is needed. If they didn't behave so recklessly and if greed was not such a strong motivator, then government involvement woulud not be needed.

It's smart only because it plays on the stupidity of the average American's unfounded fears. It's the same play made in every election with some ridiculous tactic like gay marriage or abortion rights.

I would much rather they manage healthcare than education.

Thomas Jefferson would probably be too disgusted with how stupid and lazy we've become to be giving out high fives to anyone. We're a much different country in countless ways, so Mr. Jefferson would be a little out of his element. We're more than a bunch of farmers, crammed against the east coast now. The economy is more global than he could have possibly imagined and his original ideas have been distorted beyond recognition. It's nice to think that we're of the same mind as the founding fathers, but the reality is that they were a bunch of rich, white dudes who used a lot of poor people as stepping stones for their personal advancement.

I'm sure after his initial shock, he'd be setting up a lobbying firm on K Street...

Of course it's not. I didn't embed any music or flashy graphics in my post.

 

I understand what you are trying to say. Just because your argument is wrong doesn't mean I don't understand it. I have tried to explain to you guys in about 4 different threads now that there is a difference between saying something is socialism and saying something is headed in that direction. You are right, socialistic is an adjective. I can just as easily go find a dictionary definition that suits my argument too if you want to get all semantic with it...since dictionary definitions are apparently all that matter.

Several of the things happening now are trending towards socialistic properties, especially in comparison to where we are coming from. Just because you guys don't like the word doesn't make it false.

See what I did there?

 

lets forget the politics of it for a second. why is it necessary that the government take a more active role in health care? what about the tort reform solutions that sabanfan offers? what about my plans for an overhaul of the food system that makes us fat unhealthy losers? are there no alternatives save for socialism?

also as far as jefferson goes, i am quite confident he would not only hi five me, but he would be in the market for a chest bump as well.

 

Fears of slowly losing options that have been historically consumer controlled for the most part are not unfounded. I don't care if you call it socialism or capitalism or anarchy or make up a freaking word for it, I don't need anyone or any specially defined term to tell me it's a terrible idea. Your ignorance and close-mindedness about seeing what is actually happening does not constitute a stereotype of the rest of the country as "stupid, uninformed and intellectually dishonest." You and Red can sit around and split hairs about the definition of socialism all day if you like. I agree, things could be better but the direction the current plan is taking us sucks, regardless of what you call it.

In my opinion, of course.