Results 31 to 33 of 33
Thread: Fixing Health Care
-
12-16-09, 01:31 PM #31
Re: Fixing Health Care
Originally Posted by Blakeman
Originally Posted by Blakeman
And the reason Democrats aren't happy with him is because he caucuses with the Democrats, which means he essential IS one. Also, the platform he ran on in 2006 is the complete opposite of what he is doing now. One thing he said was he was with the Democrats on everything but war. He's a liar who ignores his constituents, plain and simple.
Originally Posted by Blakeman
-
12-16-09, 02:15 PM #32
Re: Fixing Health Care
Originally Posted by Fovezer
Honestly I don't care about Joe too much as I do not live in Connecticutt. Almost every politician has a platform they run on during an election and either go along with their party and tow the line or become wish-wash. I do like the fact that he is an independent though as that way he isn't constrained by one parties views, especially if a party changes over time.
I'm still waiting to see what the result of all this is. I will be surprised if there isn't bloat for some state or special fund thrown in to get someones vote like always.
-
12-16-09, 03:41 PM #33
Re: Fixing Health Care
I wasn't arguing against the article. I was merely stating that in the agricultural example, the government suggested new methods of doing things. They didn't make their own farmlands and grow crops for people who couldn't afford to. Like I said, if they want to come in and revamp some methodologies and some processes to make things run more efficiently, then go a head. Show the current insurance companies how to run more efficiently (like showing the farmers how to grow crops more efficiently). But if you want to spend $1,000,000,000,000 to make your own health care (Crops), then that's not in line with the comparison. With this point, I'm not arguing the predicted success or failure of the idea. I'm simply saying the comparison in the article isn't as cut and dry similar to our health care situation.
And trigger, when I say we will pay more taxes, I am talking about the American people as a whole. I'm not going to be ok with a hike in taxes for anyone (let alone the "wealthy") if it's for an absorbent amount of money for a project that I am not confident this administration can execute successfully. Whether or not they can or will, we cannot tell until we look at it in hindsight, but if the past is any indicator, the success probability of government being productive with taxpayer money isn't in our favor.
Why does our initial move have to be a Trillion dollar move? Why does it even have to be all encompassing? Perhaps hand pick a few areas and try out the new ideas on a smaller scale. If it works, incorporate it. If it doesn't, then failure is minimal. It doesn't have to be all or nothing at the moment.
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks