PDA

View Full Version : Herman Cain Owns Bill Clinton On Healthcare



NJCardFan
01-24-2011, 11:40 AM
Wow. This is what happens when you put a corporate CEO with a great business sense up against a man who just receives talking points from his handlers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdLGKRBJ_0E&feature=player_embedded

NJCardFan
01-24-2011, 11:44 AM
Apparently, this was the catalyst to defeating Clinton's healthcare initiative. And the game has not changed. Mandating healthcare will kill jobs plain and simple.

txradioguy
01-24-2011, 11:53 AM
Wow. This is what happens when you put a corporate CEO with a great business sense up against a man who just receives talking points from his handlers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdLGKRBJ_0E&feature=player_embedded

Might wanna put some ice on that.


http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/2874/poohownedbw2.jpg

Wei Wu Wei
01-24-2011, 01:50 PM
Apparently, this was the catalyst to defeating Clinton's healthcare initiative. And the game has not changed. Mandating healthcare will kill jobs plain and simple.

the last time this was an issue it was the republicans who offered the healthcare mandate fyi

txradioguy
01-24-2011, 01:59 PM
the last time this was an issue it was the republicans who offered the healthcare mandate fyi

Ummm...no...in 1993 it was all Clinton...Billy Jeff pushing it and Hillary holding her secret commissions studying it's implementation.

Try again kid.


What you are talking about and trying to tie to this specific discussion was a state thing...not for the entire country...and so far it has been a major fail.

What we are talking about here is the nationwide attempt to implement universal healthcare. Not some stupid thing Mitt Romney did.

Pathetic attempt to tie the two together...but hey...at least you tried.

Wei Wu Wei
01-24-2011, 02:08 PM
alright well here's a Fair & Balanced™ article from Fox News

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/27/republicans-hatched-idea-obamas-health-insurance-mandate/


Republicans were for President Obama's requirement that Americans get health insurance before they were against it.

The obligation in the new health care law is a Republican idea that's been around at least two decades. It was once trumpeted as an alternative to Bill and Hillary Clinton's failed health care overhaul in the 1990s. These days, Republicans call it government overreach.

Mitt Romney, weighing another run for the Republican presidential nomination, signed such a requirement into law at the state level as Massachusetts governor in 2006. At the time, Romney defended it as "a personal responsibility principle" and Massachusetts' newest Republican senator, Scott Brown, backed it. Romney now says Obama's plan is a federal takeover that bears little resemblance to what he did as governor and should be repealed.

Let's see the State Law required everyone to buy insurance and they sold it as personal responsibility. If you are not insured and you end up in an ER, the tax payer has to foot the bill, it's a form of welfare.

This is the same reason states require auto insurance, because not being insured costs other people money in the event of accidents.

So yes there is a difference between that and the current mandate law in that one was state level and the other is national level.

txradioguy
01-24-2011, 02:17 PM
alright well here's a Fair & Balanced™ article from Fox News

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/27/republicans-hatched-idea-obamas-health-insurance-mandate/



Let's see the State Law required everyone to buy insurance and they sold it as personal responsibility. If you are not insured and you end up in an ER, the tax payer has to foot the bill, it's a form of welfare.

So you're taking what a RINO did in a Liberal state and saying that all Republicans were for it?

I already told you that the whole Romney thing and Clinton/Obama care were two different arguments. All you're trying to do is use it as moral equivalence.

It's like asking a child why he hit another kid and the response is "well he did it first".

Just as dumb when you try to do it here.


This is the same reason states require auto insurance, because not being insured costs other people money in the event of accidents.

Nope not really. No one mandates you have to buy a car.



So yes there is a difference between that and the current mandate law in that one was state level and the other is national level.

The fact that you don't see the difference between the two explains a lot about your level of understanding of the world.

Wei Wu Wei
01-24-2011, 02:30 PM
The for-profit nature of the health care and health insurance industry needs to be examined critically.

There are concerns about small businesses not being able to handle increased costs associated with insuring their employees, but a Public Option or an optional medicare for all system would allow consumers to have a low-cost non-profit alternative if they do not want private insurance, and small businesses wouldn't be forced to cover health care costs.

txradioguy
01-24-2011, 02:37 PM
The for-profit nature of the health care and health insurance industry needs to be examined critically.

Why? Simple solutions have been offered and rejected because the Libs are so single focused on forcing universal healthcare on the masses.


There are concerns about small businesses not being able to handle increased costs associated with insuring their employees, but a Public Option or an optional medicare for all system would allow consumers to have a low-cost non-profit alternative if they do not want private insurance, and small businesses wouldn't be forced to cover health care costs.

Single payer isn't the answer either. There is a reason the Libs took it out of what was already an unpopular bill with the public. It would have killed the measure entirely.

Let the people decide for themselves if they want healthcare or not. It never was guaranteed to anyone. So what's the point in forcing people to have it? Why does the Federal government get to decide they know better for me what I want and need than I do?

Answer is they don't.

The state of healthcare prior to this sham of a health care law was of the Dems own doing when they pushed through legislation to create HMO's. They have been sadly mistaken to think they could fix what they already screwed up with something even worse.

lacarnut
01-24-2011, 02:52 PM
The for-profit nature of the health care and health insurance industry needs to be examined critically.

There are concerns about small businesses not being able to handle increased costs associated with insuring their employees, but a Public Option or an optional medicare for all system would allow consumers to have a low-cost non-profit alternative if they do not want private insurance, and small businesses wouldn't be forced to cover health care costs.

The MA Health Care Plan has proven that the government meddling in health care is a disaster causing costs to rise. Do you actually think that Obamacare with 136 new agencies to monitor it with thousands of new federal workers is going to bring costs down? On the contrary, costs will escalate out of control. You have to be a moron to think otherwise.

There are quite a few things that can be done to improve health care. Tort reform, portability, reduced regulations are just a couple. The government sticking it's nose in it will make it more expensive and cause a shortage of doctors and hospitals. This is already happening. Private hospitals have scrapped plans to build new hospitals in a number of locations. Fewer prospective doctors will go into the profession if the government sets limits on how much they can charge. My doctor told me that he may have to cut back on Medicare patients if the 20% cuts to doctors take effect thanks to Obamacare.

Are you getting a picture of the cluster-fuck that Obamacare will bring?

NJCardFan
01-24-2011, 06:18 PM
The for-profit nature of the health care and health insurance industry needs to be examined critically.

There are concerns about small businesses not being able to handle increased costs associated with insuring their employees, but a Public Option or an optional medicare for all system would allow consumers to have a low-cost non-profit alternative if they do not want private insurance, and small businesses wouldn't be forced to cover health care costs.

Then let it be an option paid by the individual, not a mandated tax on everyone.