|
giantleech wrote: What would have been FAR WORSE for Americans would have been if Obama, the house, and senate Democrats had rammed through legislation with a 'public option' attached, which the majority of Americans DO NOT WANT (any number of polls attest to this fact.)
I've heard others make this point (the polls are against the plan) and it confuses the hell out of me. I paid quite a bit of attention to both Obama's primary camapaign and the presidential election campaign. During both, he spent a lot of time telling the electorate that he would introduce some form of public health care if they elected him. I'm not saying that opinion polls don't indicate a majority against public health care, but until America decides to govern itself using the "representative samples" chosen by media outlets and marketing organisations (which is maybe what you want?) then Obama is surely obliged to at least try and deliver what he so loudly promised in his campaign?
Clearly you disagree with that, giantleech, but could you tell me why? Why do you think Obama should abandon one of the promises that got him elected? Why should opinion polls matter after a general election that was fought as much on this issue as any other?
giantleech wrote: Thankfully, the 'public option' has been rightfully defeated...
In which case you're celebrating the defeat of democracy by vested interest. The rest of the world realised that America abandoned democracy in principle, as well as practice, in Florida in November 2000. It's just a little odd to see someone on the American right wing admit that fact and rejoice in it.
Now you've eliminated democracy, what's next? Freedom, apple pie, or The American Dream?
giantleech wrote: I'm certainly not for any of this Federal-State power grab, but you libs and novelty voters elected this Marxist ideologue into power...
Wow. I'm with Stray here. Could you explain exactly how Obama can be described as Marxist? Or as has been suggested, are you merely misusing the word as a generalised "left of me!" insult? We can all misuse words for various effects, but it tends to hinder genuine communication. It's the internet equivalent of standing at a bus-stop shouting nonsense about Zionism or UFOs. Or Zionist UFOs!
giantleech wrote: ... so this statist agenda of the Dems is what you will get...
Shucks! That darn democracy again! I'm actually not a democrat myself, though for somewhat different reasons than you. But America still claims to be, which is why "this statist agenda"* is being pursued.
* Note: It's far from a "statist" agenda.
giantleech wrote: unless enough of us active conservatives (and enough sane liberals who do not detest free markets...
Obama is still clearly committed to free markets. More's the pity.
To suggest otherwise is either ignorance or a lie. In fact, it's an overt cornerstone of his public option. One of the primary functions of the public option would be to introduce a 'low-end' plan for those who can't afford current health care in the hope that will produce competition and drive down the costs of other plans.
giantleech wrote: ... and who have soured quickly on this egomaniac prez's arrogant demeanor and reckless agenda)
The agenda he spent a year vigorously promoting prior to the election. And which got him elected.
There is a view, you know, that any society that can afford, via taxation, to ensure no citizen goes hungry or homeless and every citizen has access to education and healthcase, should do so. That it is precisely that kind of policy which makes a country "great". You don't agree with that view, clearly, which is fine. But describing as "Marxist" anyone who does isn't just ignorant, it makes you look like a fool.
|
