Health Care

I thank Con for his response and I want to be clear that I am not trying to be difficult. I ask for definitions so I can see your full point and I can avoid misunderstandings. At this point, Con has only used hot button terms like "big government". I enjoy debating not punditry. Television personalities like Hannity and Olberman enjoy throwing out vague terms so they can change the definition when a guest responses well. I have no time for such nonsense. I asked for definitions and Con refused to provide them. I asked for sources and Con made little effort to supply them. Am I asking too much? I will try to deal with Con's response. Con agrees the government has run the military efficiently so the statement referencing the government's inability to run anything is refuted. Con then moves the goal posts on me and now claims, "There is absolutely no way that a government take over of health care could ever operate as efficiently as the military." Ok, I don't use the word "absolutely" in reference to future outcomes unless I am dealing with math, and even then I am cautious. If you would tell me what you mean by a government take over then we can talk. Do you mean regulations? Hospitals becoming government owned? Do mean government ran health care competing against private carriers? Are you talking about Medicare? How can I address such a vague point? The statement is simply rhetorical and has little meaning. Con follows with a statement referencing less government in healthcare right now. Well we do not have a universal health coverage plan currently so are you referencing current regulations? Medicare? Do you see the problem here, Con? You chose hot buttons "big government" and "government take over" and then referenced the present day situation. He states: "The people are perfectly capable of providing their own health care with out the big bloated federal government getting in the way." "If only we had less government involved in health care then free market would be allowed to work as it is supposed to." This must be present day so how does it apply to current legislation in Congress which has not passed? Now if this is the case we can avoid any discussion about health care proposals, but Con goes further and asks for tort reform. He states: "If you'll notice the proposed bill does not address any common sense solutions like more competition across state lines or tort reform." I thought you wanted less government involvement. Tort reform in reference to malpractice cases would require MORE involvement from the government, not less as tort law and damages is generally left up to the states, not the federal government. http://www.settlementcentral.com... This is one of the problems with allowing interstate commerce with insurance companies. Your proposal involves more federal control, not less. Why would you remove state involvement in torts, by claiming the federal government should step in and reform torts at a federal level all the while claiming you want less federal government? At this point, your rhetoric is contradictory so how can I debate an issue you refuse to define and go against a contradictory position? All I can do is point out the flaws in your position as I still have no idea what the Con position is saying. Con states: "I am sure that pro will ask me to scour the internet looking for data from some research agency to back up my claim that government has continually made things worse for the average american (sic) but that would take a very long time and be inconclusive so I'm not going to do it. But I think most people know it to be true." This is an argument from ignorance and yes claims need support. If you are unwilling to support your arguments, don't present them. I have no need to address this further. Con states: "This health care reform is not about health care but a gigantic power grab by administration to advance its radical socialistic agenda." Did I mention Hannity already? This statement needs support. Define radical socialists, administration, and what exactly this "administration" has done concerning a furtherance of this "radical socialist agenda." This is just hot button rhetoric and needs not be addressed further. Con must do better than right wing pundit talking points. "First I would like everyone to understand that socialism is the polar opposite to the way our founders established this country with limited government." If you would have defined socialism I could have addressed this point. Socialism is so broad that I cannot, in the space provided, explain all facets, but as instigator you certainly could have done so. You chose not to give us a definition so I have nothing to clash with at this point. "Progressive steps are made toward socialism in the cover of darkness without honest debate." On a dark and stormy night … not so much. President Obama spoke directly to Republicans concerning many issues in the health care debate. How is this in the cover of darkness? I can read all the legislation presented on this subject as it is publicly available. President Obama made clear when running for President that he supported universal coverage in reference to health care and would focus on implementing legislation in this respect. We all had a vote. We elected him. How is this secretive? More and more rhetoric, nothing solid here. I'm tired. The only point Con brought forward was a poll. He did not link the poll, the methodology, the margin of error, nothing. He said it was there. Rasmussen? I would love to view the methodology used and see the full results but unlike truly scientific polls, the results are hidden … unless you pay for them. "All the data collected by Rasmussen Reports, not just the portion we make public." For 20 bucks a month, no thank you. http://www.rasmussenreports.com... Really? Talk about "in the cover of darkness". The instigator has offered very little here. I cannot address a contention unless it is defined. Rhetoric is for the mindless masses, I need facts and data, or at a minimum, definitions.