Palin's exit

Well, how have you determined that your views are not out of the mainstream? I would hope it isn't by comparing yourself to people on Daily Kos. How can I demonstrate that a given view is out of the mainstream? If I show polls that say something is opposed by most Americans, would that do it?

Sure, Daily Kos has grown. So has RedState. All political blogs are growing.

I'm not going to defend Palin's rhetoric, but I'd be interested as to hear how this is a "downright lie." Government rationing under socialized medicine isn't exactly a far-out notion. To the contrary, it's fairly inevitable, and it involves making value judgments about length and quality of life.

You got to be kidding me? You're defending those comments? And you say I'm "out of the mainstream?!" That isn't real debate, it's knee-jerk heightened rhetoric to make people angry.

What do the insurance companies do now? Turn people down with pre-existing conditions, in effect, killing some of them? People are dying now because they can't afford health care!

My god, these inane comments are actually warning people against something that already exists now!

I don't think you want a real debate about this, Yoda, not when you use words like, "Government rationing under socialized medicine" to describe the bill. Fine. You must think the way health care is run in this country is just great. Good for you.

And hey, I got good health insurance, why should I care about other people?

This seems to be the standard response to any criticism about nationalized healthcare: to simply point out that we have problems already. Well, no kidding, but under this proposal we'll be paying trillions more for them. And it'll be in the form of a government entitlement program, which always grows over time. Not to mention that there's a huge difference between a government making a choice that hurts you, and the mere cumulative circumstances of our choices and events in our lives doing so.

Uh, no, I didn't say it was great. You said this about Republicans in general, too, but it's a complete non-sequitur: why would not liking nationalized healthcare imply that the current system is great? There's literally no logical connection between the two. Please, show me one place I said anything of the sort.

You have no solution, that's why I argued about the current state of health care. Further, because you have no solution, you are merely stating that we keep things as they are. And god forbid, we as a government should help the citizens of this country. No, that is an entitlement program! I think conservatives just run around saying that any form of program that assists citizens is bad. I find that ridiculous.

And, lol, we're arguing about the same thing in two different threads!

Yeah, I dunno how the discussion leaked over. Whichever thread you'd rather discuss this in is fine with me, though it probably makes more sense in the Obama thread. I can move these last few posts if necessary.

Anyway, a few thoughts:

1) We've been over this "no solution" thing. The idea that you have to have a healthcare plan in order to oppose any other healthcare plan is nonsensical. Why do I need to have an answer to have problems with a proposed answer? How does whether or not I have a plan have anything to do with whether or not this one is wise? Please explain the thinking behind this claim.

2) I'm not stating that we keep things as they are indefinitely. I'm stating that we're going to make them worse, and that's bad.

3) The fact is that Republicans have, indeed, proposed alternate plans, but I couldn't remember who was sponsoring them and was too lazy to look, and I don't like to make claims I haven't verified to some degree. Sen. DeMint has proposed a compromise that involves letting people go across state lines to purchase healthcare. This plan has been around for years. In an actual, bipartisan proposal, Senators Wyden (D-Oregon) and Bennett (R-Utah) published an op-end just three days ago in the Washington Post detailing their proposal for health care reform. Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) has an entire website setup for his plan.

4) Democrats didn't propose any alternative to save Social Security in 2005, back when they were engaging in all the tactics and forms of opposition and demonization that you seem to think only Republicans engage in. Was it okay for them to oppose Bush's reform plan without advancing one of their own?

I think Dennis Miller said it best:

"I like Palin simply because all the right people hate her."



Yup, that sums it up for me.

__________________

I don't "hate" Palin, as a matter of fact I don't understand the fascination on either side. As far as being "for" someone simply because groups one personally disagrees with don't like them just seems bulligerent. I mean by that measure I should love Michael Moore, but I actually think he's a pompus ass the likes of Sean Hannity or Ann Coulter. A fringe loon that serves no purpose, except fodder for each other.

__________________


...uh the post is up there...

I've only read this last page, but to save everyone some time and effort, I'd like to add the following.

In my experience, the only thing more pointless than arguing Universal Healthcare with an American who doesn't want it, is arguing the existence of a creator with someone who is/isn't religious. It's a mind set and there's not a single fact or opinion that can be stated that will change the mind of the other. That's just the way it is.