Log In | Register
Yesterday, Senate Democrats working on health care reform reached a compromise on the public option that will create a network of nonprofit insurers and allow Americans between the ages of 55 and 64 to buy into Medicare. The right has hypocritically opposed a government-run public-option while simultaneously defending Medicare. On his radio show today, Fox News host Glenn Beck called Medicare what it is — a "government-run health care plan."
Glenn Beck: We Should Abolish Medicare
Seeded on Tue Dec 15, 2009 7:58 AM EST
Article Source: Crooks and Liars- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
- Public Discussion (36)
I'm sick and tired of Glenn Beck's rants. The man is only concerned about his bottom line. The opportunist!
- 11 votes
Too bad we are not a capitalist society. The bottom line is not God and I am thankful for that simple fact.
- 8 votes
Yes, capitalism is all about the bottom line. It's just too bad people are born HUMANS and not capitalists...
We are supposed to care about HUMANS first. I'm appalled at what people do NOT teach their kids at home these days.
- 9 votes
#1.5:Couldn't we abolish Glenn Beck first?
I think that would be a good place to start! Why is this addict, nitwit asked to speak on anything, anyway?
But then I come back to "birds of a father flock together"! And I imagine the only ones listening are the addicts and nitwits!
- 6 votes
addicts and nitwits!
That and I might add those unable or unwilling to find out the truth. Also, those who find fear easier to understand than reasonable truth that can be complex and require a more thoughtful approach.
I think Beck is playing to people's fears. He's found it much easier and way more profitable than telling people that things are NOTalways black and white, that there are many shades of gray in between. That would take intellect, knowledge and a bit more time than the sponsors of his idiocy want.
- 7 votes
#1.6: "birds of a father flock together"
Should be "birds of a feather". My oops.
- 3 votes
It will do some of you well to listen to Beck once in a while instead of dismissing everything he says. I watch the man, and he says nothing that is not based on facts. You guys just refuse to see the facts and want to live in this make-believe world that Obama is your saving grace. By the way MaryEllen, I'm not an addict or nitwit either, I have a masters degree in business and a BA in Science. I am capable of researching what is told to me on any network to find the truth myself. What are you so afraid of, that he might convince you of something you don't want to believe. Medicare is a government run healthcare system that is failing. But, to end it completely at this point would devestate a large majority of our population that depend on it. After all, they paid into it their whole working lives.....just like some of the rest of us. Making it available to those 55-64 would mean I could buy into something that I've already been buying into for over 30 years. Knowing that it would only bring an immediate end to it, leaving nothing but the public option. The difference with Medicare and the public option is; one is forced and one isn't. If you don't want to buy Medicare B.....you don't have to. Medicare A has already been paid for during your earning years. The public option would be required and not a choice. Invading my space, and I don't like it.
Rita, you're right to your opinion but I choose not to listen to Glenn Beck's rants or watch him fake tears.
- 6 votes
The public option would be required and not a choice. Invading my space, and I don't like it.
Actually, the public option would have been offered as only ONE choice of many to the people who are NOT able to get employer based coverage and buy individual plans and certain very small businesses. It was and always has been JUST one option among many.
- 5 votes
I don't think the tears are fake. He is really just a pussy.
- 5 votes
#1.9: By the way MaryEllen, I'm not an addict or nitwit either, I have a masters degree in business and a BA in Science. I am capable of researching what is told to me on any network to find the truth myself. What are you so afraid of, that he might convince you of something you don't want to believe. Medicare is a government run healthcare system that is failing. But, to end it completely at this point would devestate a large majority of our population that depend on it. After all, they paid into it their whole working lives.....just like some of the rest of us. Making it available to those 55-64 would mean I could buy into something that I've already been buying into for over 30 years. Knowing that it would only bring an immediate end to it, leaving nothing but the public option. The difference with Medicare and the public option is; one is forced and one isn't. If you don't want to buy Medicare B.....you don't have to. Medicare A has already been paid for during your earning years. The public option would be required and not a choice. Invading my space, and I don't like it.
You can be an addict and also have a degree or two. Addition is not based on education, but behavior. And you can also be an addict to anything, not just alcohol or other drugs.
that he might convince you of something you don't want to believe.
This is not one thing you have to worry about--ever; Beck nor any other "talking head" can convince me of anything. I take the time to read and then decide what I want to believe, and then I go for it. I am not concerned about what other people say, I am a "one-man/woman band" in that regard. I don't need a "flock nor gang nor mob" with me to make a point.
Medicare is a government run healthcare system that is failing.
Medicare is a government run health care system that might be failing based on the numbers requiring it, and the costs that the Medicare program itself pays to the private insurance companies to provide health care to seniors. These private health care providers charge the government entirely too much for ALL of its services, which the government must pay them for in dollars. So don't ever think that the private insurance companies are not "ripping off" the government with their outrageous fees - which they set themselves- and only adding to the burden of the cost to run this "government run program".
Finally, "your space" has been invaded by the government since the [your] beginning of time. Do you currently have a social security number? Do you own a computer? Are you aware of the eavesdropping and other clandestine wiretapping techniques that were committed under gwb? So what makes 2009 so different? Is it because the President is different?
- 7 votes
Great points MaryEllen!
And let's not forget the Patriot Act. Anyone can be considered a terrorist at any given time.
- 6 votes
I can see getting rid of Medicare. It could be replaced with a better system. I'd set an age and say everyone under that age will not have it, then, take their contributions and place them in a personal medical saving account to be used to purchase their own insurance when they reach the current medicare age. And yes I know that there are other issues that will need addressing.
- 2 votes
#3 - Tue Dec 15, 2009 8:45 AM ESTSCtexan, yes, and the plan to privatize Social Security was a resounding success, wasn't it? I wonder how many Americans today would be willing to revisit that bright idea. Beck better be careful or all those Gray Panthers will be out for his blood--Republican AND Democratic.
- 5 votes
sms...sign me up for the privatizing Social Security program. My 401K has successfully rebounded and making money, why would I not expect the same result from a private Social Security investment?
- 1 vote
sjayne, how old are you? If you had been living on the proceeds for the last couple of years, you might not have been so sanguine about it. And would you be singing the same tune if your 401 were NOT on the rebound?????
- 6 votes
#3:I can see getting rid of Medicare. It could be replaced with a better system
"Better" is a comparative term, and it is also a comparative term that is solely in your opinion. It is very easy ["could have, would have, should have"] to say something i.e., "get rid of this or that", but what about the nuts and bolts of any entity because "the devil is always in the details".
So have you given any "alternative" medical plan any thought, or are you just blowing off steam, and opposing the Medicare plan because it is a popular plan right now with the Democrats- and the seniors?
So tell us, what would be your "better plan" including the details? (And hasn't that "personal medical account" thing been considered before by the repugs before?, and voted down).
- 7 votes
#4 - Tue Dec 15, 2009 9:21 AM EST- 1 vote
#4.1: Since you asked
Yes, I read your "republican themed" plan. Again the gist of this plan is the medical savings "club" that sounds much like one of the attempted "and not yet ready for prime time" schemes the repugs offered;although yours, I must say, contains a few more details.
But good luck in trying to get all of the bureaucracy across to the powers that be. For instance your plan mentioned a "panel" to discuss whether one had made "good faith efforts". Now because "good faith" is a subjective theory, what I might see as good faith, you might not; and so on and so forth.
But having said that, your plan still offers no competition to the private insurance companies, which really is the reason we need health care reform. Your idea only serves to make the private insurance companies yet even more money still, and guarantees that these private insurance companies get ALL of the medical business. Who or what is there to compel them to be fair and honest? The answer to that is: no one and nothing.
And do you really think these big business, moneyed, monopolized private insurance companies will regulate themselves? The answer to that also is: NO. These greedy insurance companies want no competition of any sort and your plan gives them exactly that - even across state lines. They are only competing against themselves. And who wins here, without any ceiling being placed on how high they can go: certainly not the consumer!
So whereas I am sure you put a lot of thought into your repug plan, and I am sure they would be proud, it doesn't do it for me.
- 6 votes
You summed up the differences quit well; you want government to take care of you and I want government to get as much out of the way as possible.
I won't go tit for tat with you, it's a waste of time. Your cool-aid stained lips tell your story.
Right; you want government out of the way except when you are begging them to peer into our bedrooms and private lives...when you are begging them to wiretap all citizens just on the outside chance someone might be saying something that COULD be harmful...or not...you want gov't out of the way except when you are using them to try to bring prayer into school...which, by the way, is just the right's way of having yet another nanny looking over us.
Kool-Aid? Your lips are stained with Vapo Rub.
- 2 votes
Can show me where I've even suggested those actions? No? Then rant on.
He actually thinks rightwing seniors are willing to slit their own throats, to prove a point about their disdain with "govt run healthcare". Laughable.
- 5 votes
#5 - Tue Dec 15, 2009 9:23 AM EST#5: He actually thinks rightwing seniors are willing to slit their own throats, to prove a point about their disdain with "govt run healthcare". Laughable.
And if you remember the Town Hall Meetings in August of this year, a lot of the protesters=screamers, did not even know that Medicare was a government run program! Talk about your uninformed and non-intellect. How they have survived this long is a mystery to me!
- 5 votes
Unfortunately the right has a history of successfully convincing the sheep to vote against their own best interests.
To paraphrase Kevin Spacey in "The Usual Suspects":
"The greatest trick Republicans ever pulled was convincing the poor that their votes do not count."
The labelling of non-competition in health-care is a prime example.
Capitalism is competition and survival of the fittest.
What they propose; a non-competitive system where the insurance companies maintain a stranglehold on consumers by virtue of the monopoly they hold is pure socialism.
- 5 votes
It reminds me of the old game where you take your friend's hands and go "Hit yourself, hit yourself!"
- 5 votes
You're right MaryEllen and that's so said. They were fighting against themselves. They were fighting against that which sustain them.
Medicare is the best thing that happened for seniors and getting rid of it is not the answer.
Glenn Beck could care less whether or not there is a Medicare. He likes hearing his own sickening voice.
- 6 votes
#6 - Tue Dec 15, 2009 9:59 AM ESTI give Beck credit for at least avoiding the trap that has killed so many arguemnts before. Granted, it's still crazy, but at least it's consistent.
- 1 vote
#7 - Tue Dec 15, 2009 10:54 AM EST#7: Granted, it's still crazy, but at least it's consistent.
"Consistently crazy" brings up the next phase: Institutionalized!
- 3 votes
#5.2: What they propose; a non-competitive system where the insurance companies maintain a stranglehold on consumers by virtue of the monopoly they hold is pure socialism.
You're exactly correct, Sean. What the repugs want to glean over, and keep wanting us to forget, is that it is not competition BETWEEN the insurance companies - because they ALL set the same rates are governed by the same conglomerate, but to put something else totally different in the equation.
Now that would be true competition, which they are wholeheartedly against.
- 3 votes
#8 - Tue Dec 15, 2009 11:11 AM ESTYou're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
