So doing something stupid is better than doing nothing?

Post #4,425 by Fearless Freep 8/9/01 4:54:20 PM Reply	So doing something stupid is better than doing nothing? Jay O'Connor "Going places unmapped to do things unplanned to people unsuspecting"
Post #4,436 by Ashton 8/9/01 7:41:12 PM Reply	Unclear your referent - Is the idea, universal health care deemed now and evidently, "something stupid"? despite its presence in the civilized countries of the world (all of whom are less wealthy that we, overall and per capita). Or then do you mean: it would have been stupid for the Repos of both parties - to actually converge on a graduated solution? Or to make it real easy: test runs with time limits, as costs/benefits are observed and discussed? Or some thing signifying a direction and a beginning. What we got: was 0 nada zippo. What we are unable to even debate in Murica is: why.. the insurance middle-man (Corp) is a Murican necessity - ever for there to be such coverage. Insurance welfare, no less. Tacitly accepted? (Must I find the Insurance PAC - merely visible - amounts contributed, for this to be an er 'issue', or will the rough #s in the NPR summary do?) A.
Post #4,438 by Brandioch 8/9/01 7:48:59 PM Reply	If I may quote Bill. again... "And after it was done...noone made a concnerted effort to portray Clinton as an uncaring bastard who cares more for the HMO than he does for the uninsured children." And quote you: "So doing something stupid is better than doing nothing?" Now, how to convey the concepts....... I don't know if I can. Clinton's plan is not implemented, we still have un-insured children, but that's okay because the possible alternative MIGHT be stupid. So, HMO's are making more money -AND- Children are still un-insured That sounds like a great philosophy to me.
Post #4,469 by bepatient 8/9/01 10:47:19 PM Reply	Earth to Brandioch The entire point of this thread has been that even though Republicans offer programs...and these programs are rejected (with no alternatives offered by the Democrats...much like your UHC example)...the press and the DNC continue to portray the Repos as uncaring, unfeeling bastards who care more for corps than they do for people. (and you can read the post I initially responded to to notice that this campaign is worldwide...since they even have the brits thinking it) In your UHC example that is akin to saying that Clinton is an uncaring bastard who cares more for HMOs than he does about insuring children. However, you'll notice that that did not occur....because maybe...just possibly...one side doesn't play the same game as the other....as if you'd recognize or admit that fact. Um...er...well... I have no choice! [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #4,548 by Brandioch 8/10/01 4:31:37 PM Reply	Earth here, send transmission. "In your UHC example that is akin to saying that Clinton is an uncaring bastard who cares more for HMOs than he does about insuring children." Ummm, again, Clinton proposes a plan to provide such care and it doesn't pass so Clinton doesn't care? I'm not seeing that. Are you mixing your general and your specifics in this example? Now, to help you out, if Clinton veto'ed a Republican plan to provide such care to those same children, you would be right. Which is totally different from the original topic of "talking heads" and such. But, so what?
Post #4,599 by bepatient 8/11/01 12:46:17 AM Reply	I did...your decoder ring is set to the wrong frequency. The republicans offer programs to help the poor. The democrats reject these plans. They then call the Republicans uncaring bastards with no regard for the poor. The democrats offered UHC. The republicans rejected this plan. They did NOT...however call Clinton an uncaring bastard with no regard for the uninsured. Any clearer and I'd have to stamp it on your forehead. Um...er...well... I have no choice! [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #4,625 by Brandioch 8/11/01 12:40:19 PM Reply	Message decoded. Please confirm. "The democrats offered UHC. The republicans rejected this plan. They did NOT...however call Clinton an uncaring bastard with no regard for the uninsured." Clinton seeks to help uninsured. Republicans seek to stop such help for the uninsured. Republicans do NOT say Clinton has NO regard for uninsured. ------------Is that what you're trying to say?------------------- The republicans offer programs to help the poor. The democrats reject these plans. They then call the Republicans uncaring bastards with no regard for the poor. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Why, those nasty Democrats. Have they no shame? Will they stoop to anything? Would it be possible for you to name one of these programs that the Democrats have rejected and which they vilified the Republicans about? Not that I would ever doubt your word.
Post #4,657 by Ashton 8/11/01 6:15:44 PM Reply	Unfair.. The Republicans are compassionate, and are simply misunderstood. Their perennial inaction is perfectly reasonable. See - Since words can be so easily misinterpreted - especially by the Liberal Press (all four.. three? remaining Press Corporations, that is) - Naturally the Republicans do not wish to commit their compassionate feelings for the poor, to actual proposed legislation with words and clauses and ummm.. er funding.. and such small details. (Call this a conservative prescience: someone would be sure to twist their words! So the best thing is not to propose anything in writing. Safer.. and we know how important safety is, when you are tryin to conserve everything. As much as you can get, 'to conserve', anyway.) See? they really mean well, and it's mean of you - to put words in their clamped-shut mouths. Prove! they don't mean well. Show me in their detailed proposa-- Uh.. Never mind. Ashton Congressional Record enough words to reassemble any way ya want - as is most often done
Post #4,660 by bepatient 8/11/01 6:21:27 PM Reply	look up Um...er...well... I have no choice! [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #4,665 by Brandioch 8/11/01 7:13:19 PM Reply	I see.... my ceiling and a spider web w/spider and my light. Hmmm, so, you're saying that the spider is a metaphor for Republican compassion? Not that I'd ever doubt your word.
Post #4,675 by boxley 8/11/01 9:00:58 PM Reply	block grants for welfare to the communities Gingrich proposed and Clinton no noed. Gotta have that federal bj^H^Hoversight. thanx, bill Our bureaucracy and our laws have turned the world into a clean, safe work camp. We are raising a nation of slaves. Chuck Palahniuk
Post #4,873 by drewk 8/13/01 1:15:50 PM Reply	Wow, and you say that's not a straw man Clinton seeks to help uninsured. Republicans seek to stop such help for the uninsured. By "help uninsured" do you mean the Universal Health Care part of the Clinton Health Plan that went to Congress? Because there were quite a few other things covered in that package. And even that part wasn't universally supported. There are still arguments raging over the effectivenss of the Canadian style of socialized medicine, so I don't think nationalized health care is a clear winner. But even if a particular congressperson supported the particular form of Universal Health Care codified in the Clinton Health Plan, there could still be critical flaws in other parts of it that would cause the congressperson to vote against the package. I guess I'd be tilting at windmills to even bring up the concept of a poison pill. This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Post #4,881 by jb4 8/13/01 2:17:24 PM Reply	Re: Wow, and you say that's not a straw man There are still arguments raging over the effectivenss of the Canadian style of socialized medicine[...] Boy, I'll say! One such aspect of this debate is the "effectiveness" of having Canadians paying something like 1/8th of the cost for a given prescription medication as Merkins do. I suppose that debate would be between the large 3 or so multinational pharmaceutical producers, and ...consumers? jb4 (Resistance is not futile...)
Post #4,891 by drewk 8/13/01 3:21:32 PM Reply	No, it'd be ... From the people who have to wait until some bureaucrat decides you're "sick enough" for the procedure. Unless you're wealthy enough to just come to the U.S. and pay to have it done. But then socialized medicine would seem to be good enough only for those who can't afford to make their own decisions, which seems pretty much like non-socialized medicine anyway. This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Post #4,520 by Fearless Freep 8/10/01 12:01:26 PM Reply	Red Herring If the discussion was... Clinton: "Insure the children" vs Republicans: "No plan at all" ...you might have a point. But you said the Republicans had no alternative to "Universal Health Care" and Universal Health Care, at least as proposed by Clinton was about a lot more than just about insuring children. That's the point to wish I said (by making the reverse point sarcastically) that no plan is sometimes better than a bad plan. In other words, equating opposition to Clinton's plan as opposition to insuring children is a strawman argument that attempts to dodge the issue with an emotional ploy Jay O'Connor "Going places unmapped to do things unplanned to people unsuspecting"
Post #4,522 by wharris2 8/10/01 12:03:52 PM Reply	Red Herring part 2 Not to mention that the Clinton health care plan was developed behind closed doors in secret meetings, against the law. French Zombies are zapping me with lasers!
Post #4,523 by Simon_Jester 8/10/01 12:08:37 PM Reply	Hmm...behind closed doors.... Sort of like Cheney's energy policy?
Post #4,524 by Fearless Freep 8/10/01 12:13:56 PM Reply	Doesn't bother me too much in this case... ...as I'm more objecting to the logical bait-and-switch than the particulars Jay O'Connor "Going places unmapped to do things unplanned to people unsuspecting"
Post #4,553 by Brandioch 8/10/01 6:13:15 PM Reply	Narrowing the focus. "But you said the Republicans had no alternative to "Universal Health Care" and Universal Health Care, at least as proposed by Clinton was about a lot more than just about insuring children." Yep, but that was the example I used. Yep, there was more to it than just children. But children make such an easy emotional target. "That's the point to wish I said (by making the reverse point sarcastically) that no plan is sometimes better than a bad plan." Ah, but is that true in this specific instance? "In other words, equating opposition to Clinton's plan as opposition to insuring children is a strawman argument that attempts to dodge the issue with an emotional ploy" Yes and no. It is an emotional ploy. It is not a strawman. And it doesn't dodge the issue. Universal Health Care was proposed. By a Democrat (I can't say "liberal") and defeated. The Republicans have not offered any counter plan. Children are still uninsured. Again, the easy emotional tie is that CERTAIN PEOPLE are INSENSITIVE to the NEEDS OF THE CHILDREN. While CERTAIN OTHER PEOPLE are CARING about the NEEDS OF THE CHILDREN. Of course, in theory, a bad plan could be worse than no plan. But this is the real world, not a theoretical construct. So, in theory, does not apply. Actions and results are all that matter. Those poor, poor children. sobs Who will care for those poor, poor children? sobs

Welcome to IWETHEY!