So how much would your max. monthly premium come to? I’m covered by my employer currently, and there are no upsides or downsides for me in that situation, but I did a hypothetical where I was not covered as a single dude with an AGI of 35000/year, and the maximum premium would be $277–not a lot for some serious peace of mind.
Johan_O
3102
Teaparty person having a polite and well informed discussion with congressman Grayson.
http://www.poetv.com/video.php?vid=76880
I assumed you had to be being sarcastic. But you weren’t!
Pogo
3104
It struck me as an argument between two stupid people who weren’t precisely sure of their own justifications for their opinions.
RSofaer
3105
My linux refuses to play any flvs, but from a few frames, that girl is pretty cute! She should win!
They weren’t yelling at each other or calling each other childish names. In the current environment, I’ll take what signs of hope I can find.
Pogo
3107
Well, it wasn’t a stupid argument. It was civil, but nothing got done.
“Here’s my sensationalist viewpoint, here’s my rebuttal” dozens of times over.
Unless I missed some part where someone actually changed their mind and agreed.
Conversation is the beginning of understanding.
Outside of storybooks and bibles, changing an opinion is a process, not an event.
Pogo
3109
I would like to change my opinion and say that I agree with you.
Meh. Not all arguments end with one side completely winning over the other side.
Both sides were spouting talking points and countering with more talking points.
Take it as a rare civil discussion in the US.
Johan_O
3111
It isn’t the most well spoken arguments for or against HCR, though I think Grayson does quite allright, but like others said I thought it was a welcome change to see people discussing it instead of screaming and sign waving. And the teaparty girl actually argues about numbers and issues instead of calling Grayson a socialist or invoking armageddon. aAll in all I think she comes out better in this than most of the Republican leadership I’ve seen. Besides that, she is cute, and not the angry retiree you usally see at depictions of teaparty rallies.
I SMOLDER WITH GERIATRIC RAGE
That woman who was comparing HCR to Nazism at the town hall meeting and got served by Barney Frank was kind of cute too, but an obvious loon. This one actually had some arguments (although I’m not sure I believe her stat about how private health insurance is covering more and more people in the absence of the new law).
I think I could brainwash her easily enough to join my, um, “party.”
So, after watching that video two things struck me. First that seemed like the first honest and civil debate I’ve ever seen between two (I’m assuming, though I think the context makes this a safe assumption) politically active people in the US from opposite sides of an issue. I think this needs to happen more in the US. Honest, Civil debate. Neither were making terribly interesting or new arguments but neither belittled each other nor attacked the other personally. I didn’t notice just how bad this sort of thing was in the US until I moved back to Canada. We have political shows and political segments where the representatives from the various parties involved have actual discussions that don’t devolve into name calling, that are actually about the topic and present thought out arguments without calling anyone a Nazi or what have you. The political climate in the US is appalling, both sides resort to name calling and personal attacks so much that neither has an interest in even attempting civil debate with actual facts and thought out arguments.
Second, the only alternative to government involved health care should involve people who are unable to pay dying in the street. This strikes me as the only way a fully private health care system can work, you either pay for the services or you don’t receive them, quite possibly leading to your death. If you reject that then you reject the basic idea of private health care.
The argument that people “get care in emergency rooms” is ridiculous. Either empower hospitals and insurance companies to make financial decisions and thus life and death decisions, privately run death panels if you will, about who can pay and who can’t. If you don’t believe that to be the best approach you fundamentally believe society has an obligation to everyone’s health and the mechanism for society to help its members is through the government. That means government involvement the moment you put an individual’s health and/or life ahead of their means to pay for the care they need.
Once government is involved it is the responsibility of the government to provide that service in the most economical and efficient means it can (yes, somewhat oxymoronic when discussing the government). That also means the tax payer is paying for it one way or another. The government is already in health care, whether they take that money from a common pool filled via income tax or through a specific health care tax or a mandate that forces people to pay into a private health system isn’t terribly relevant, government is in. The alternative is people dying of treatable conditions or injuries.
Cubit
3116
Great video, thanks for sharing. I actually think the woman makes a pretty good case for a single-payer system. :)
WarrenM
3117
Her “people can get treatment in emergency rooms” pillar throws her entire argument into question. And whenever he had an answer for her, she moved on to a new question - so basically, she had her prepped points but no data she could dig into for further debate.
Athryn
3118
This is kinda sad:
Insurance companies arguing that they can still deny coverage for children with pre-existing conditions.
This disgusts me.
Further evidence that the health insurance industry is a blight.
It’s a start, and she’s debating with a Harvard grad.
He seemed impressed though. It would be funny if she ended up working for him.
