Which Health Care Plan Would You Prefer?

[bfealk]

Well, now this will be interesting. I attended the forum with Gary Peters and Nancy Skinner. I have video of the entire event, but I've edited the answers down to Gary's answers and Nancy's answers on the same subject. The first one I will put up is on health care, mostly because there is a bright line between their positions. No further comments. I'll let you decide.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1407323989367348881">Gary Peters' Health Care Plan

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8330655227220774543">Nancy Skinner's Health Care Plan

Sorry about the duplicate message. Nancy's video took a bit to process.

[maddogesq]

1. Political reality sets in.

Actually, I am a Dennis the K kind of guy: Univeral health care now. However, as long as we have a media as it is, and as long as we don't have super-majorities in the house or senate, Skinner's idea at least starts the ball rolling. Both plans have merit, and I scored them equal on the health care issue.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/10/25/430486.aspx

Nothing will happen on any important domestic issue, IMHO, until we reel in this 12 billion FUBAR in Iraq...toot sweet. I thought Nancy hit that out of the park after the question regarding medical research/stem cell stuff, etc.

I scored Gary with a better opening statement. I scored the debate something like 8-6.5 favor of Skinner. The higher score reflects my obervation that she does a better job of reframing the debate; a skill that is handy when dealing with someone like Joe. Kudos to Gary too, as he was prepared and concise.

Debbie Goldberg had the best line of all when she asked us all to come together at the end of the day. Thanks Deb. That's why you are the chair of the 9th.

[bfealk]

2. Political reality that Nancy won't be the candidate?

I think Gary's plan is the one that shows some courage since he's talking about single-payer with the ability to purchase individual upgrades.

Nancy's plan actually competes across the board and insurance companies have to make a profit, so they'll keep redlining pre-existing conditions the way they do now.

[maddogesq]

3. You know, I tried to be nice with my response, and you...

revert to that attack mode. I thought I posted my assessment fairly, and you make the "won't be the candidate" comment. That's the difference between you and me, I guess. It's a maturity thing. I have been through a lot more in my life than, I suspect, inluding several near death experiences. Those experiences have taught me to stand strong, but be fair.

Your points about his plan are fair and well-taken. However, no one is coming together when you make those kinds of headlines in threads.

[bfealk]

4. I just like being clear

instead of obtuse, which is what I thought your comment was. Maybe I was stating the obvious, but I don't think it's a maturity thing at all. I look at it as an honesty thing. Why leave it for the reader to interpret? Why not just come out with it?

[bfealk]

6. How do you consider this an attack?

Seems like anything I say you'd consider an attack.

[Back to 92]

5. Please

Make up your scorecard and lay it out for everyone to see. Gary actually presented multiple cases about how he did reframe the debate and actually pass progressive legislation.

I understand that Nancy talks about reframing the debate, but on Health Care, she then said, basically can't reframe the debate on that. Another term for that is political reality and compromise. We've been compromising badly on Health Care for 60 years.

I know you really admire Nancy, but I think your affections may be getting the best of you on this one. AND others on this forum for that matter.

The discussions have been outrageously absurd and outlandish because of the back and forth and zealotry of the two of you guys, maybe just stopping would be an idea.

Maddoggesq, you frame everything that bfealk says as an attack, and rarely address the facts or even reality of what he is saying.

Bfealk, you constantly badger and attack Nancy like it is your job, you would probably be well served to just not comment at all, as much as it kills you, leave the editorial out, because that is what ends up being the subject of the thread, "OH the travesty" and not "Skinner may have a legitimate weakness", which is what sophisticated observers see.