LLStarks
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Aug-08-09 07:58 PM
Original message |
| This new anti-health care reform ad is simply hilarious. |
abumbyanyothername
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Aug-08-09 08:02 PM
Response to Original message |
|
It is a pretty good indication of why they typically don't even try to argue the merits of the proposition however.
|
JBoy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Aug-08-09 08:02 PM
Response to Original message |
| 2. I love the background music! Soviet national anthem! |
crim son
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Aug-08-09 08:04 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
|
 I'd say the marketing firm who made the ad knows their target audience pretty well, heh.
|
wmhogg
(2 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Aug-08-09 08:11 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
| 4. This would embarrass even the Soviets! |
RandomThoughts
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Aug-08-09 08:18 PM
Response to Original message |
| 5. most health care discussions miss the whole argument |
|
Edited on Sat Aug-08-09 08:19 PM by RandomThoughts
What group decides who gets care, and what it costs.
Monopoly corporate control, CEOs and shareholders decide, both who gets care and how much it costs. (central planing)
Government single payer system, People elected by society decide who gets care and how much it cost. (central planing)
Public Option, If Insurance companies want business, they have to make people happy with better care or cheaper prices, if Government option wants to enroll people they have to have better care or lower prices. Competitive force of free market system.
(There are good arguments for central planning done by government not company shareholders, but most people still want a choice.
Also if the private system had competition, they could argue against single payer, because the biggest argument against public systems is lack of competition creates waste.)
It is pretty simple to see what would happen. On an even playing field, even without tax revenue. A public option that does not have 30% overhead will be more competitive then one that does. So insurance companies would have to cut profits to stay competitive.
So what is important, profits for shareholders, or a better cheaper health care system for all people? That question shows me why the Republicans are on one side, and Progressives on the other side. But they can't argue that point, so they say death panel, and freedom, and socialism, and fear.
|
lame54
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Aug-08-09 08:29 PM
Response to Original message |
ROFF
(122 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Aug-08-09 09:15 PM
Response to Original message |
| 7. If socialized health care is so bad |
|
why do we (Canadian) have a longer life expectancy than Americans?
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Mon May 20th 2013, 02:17 AM
Response to Original message |