From: Carbon on 24 Jan 2010 21:21
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 17:50:40 -0800, dene wrote:
> "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 09:49:02 -0800, dene wrote:
>>> "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>>>> On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 23:42:25 -0800, dene wrote:
>>>>> "Howard Brazee" <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> I suspect a lot of people are against this plan because they
>>>>>> don't want to acknowledge that they are paying for the poor.
>>>>> People are against it because they perceive it will do nothing to
>>>>> reduce their own premiums.
>>>> It's more complicated than that, tied in with Americans' fear and
>>>> suspicion of each other (racism) and how expertly those biases are
>>>> manipulated by big healthcare for its own benefit.
>>> Race has nothing to do with it. The bill will not directly reduce
>>> premiums and it robs from medicare. It's complicated, corrupt, and
>>> too encompassing.
>> I'll accept that your arguments are rational, but by and large
>> peoples' decisions about such things are not guided by reason--as
>> advertisers, lobbyists and Fox News all know. I argue that some of
>> those who stand to benefit most from universal healthcare (lower
>> income whites) are being manipulated by vested interests who
>> cynically appeal to sub rosa racism.
> I'm glad you acknowledge my arguments are rational but why is your
> argument based on race? What does race have to do with any of this?
Only that there are many billions of dollars at stake and the propaganda
used by the vested interests is much more sophisticated than most
realize. IMO, one of the wedges they are exploiting is racism. I'm not
claiming that they're not creating it out of thin air--they're just
using it because it's there.
A surprising number of people I have run into are sure that universal
healthcare is evil but so far none of them have been able to tell me why
it's bad or even what it is. To me this kind of behavior is emotional,
From: assimilate on 24 Jan 2010 21:49
On 24-Jan-2010, Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote:
> Most Americans are quite happy with their health care and why not,
> it's the best in the world. What they're are not happy with is the
> cost. If Congress actually passed some legislation that would reduce
> costs then people would support it. It also would allow more poor
> people to be able to afford insurance.
> Tort reform is one easy way to reduce cost. Of course, the Democrats
> are owned by the trial lawyers so that's not on the table. Then you
> could allow people to buy insurance in any state they want. This
> would also reduce costs because people could only buy the insurance
> coverage they want.
> Neither of these proposals would cost the government a dime.
let's not forget get rid of the employer provided policy, sell to
individuals & allow the customer to choose what is covered, not some gov't
From: assimilate on 24 Jan 2010 21:50
On 24-Jan-2010, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> > Those who will benefit most from the proposed health care legislation
> > are the likes of the AARP, big pharma, and health insurance companies
> > among others. Those who will benefit least (bear the greatest cost)
> > are those who work and earn the coverage they now have.
> In the bill's current incarnation you are likely quite correct that the
> vested interests would be the big winners. But how would AARP stand to
> gain? That's the American Association of Retired Persons, correct?
At present, AARP is nothing more than an Insurance company
From: Carbon on 24 Jan 2010 22:22
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 02:50:28 +0000, assimilate wrote:
> On 24-Jan-2010, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>> Those who will benefit most from the proposed health care
>>> legislation are the likes of the AARP, big pharma, and health
>>> insurance companies among others. Those who will benefit least (bear
>>> the greatest cost) are those who work and earn the coverage they now
>> In the bill's current incarnation you are likely quite correct that
>> the vested interests would be the big winners. But how would AARP
>> stand to gain? That's the American Association of Retired Persons,
> At present, AARP is nothing more than an Insurance company
I didn't know that. I thought they were mainly some sort of advocacy
From: William Clark on 24 Jan 2010 23:07
In article <om5pl51ieb0a6rnp8uc77avb4pbs1cd05n(a)4ax.com>,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 21:21:52 -0800, "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com>
> >Medicare is just as bad. So would be any sort of a gov't health care plan.
> Personally, I'd be very happy if there were no public schools,
> including colleges, no Medicare, no Social Security and no public
> housing. Then you can get rid of NPR and the NEA.
> The government has no business spending taxpayer money on any of these
And go back to living in mud huts. Good idea.