Healthcare Hysteria? Daschle Blasts Media Coverage Video
Complete video at: http://fora.tv/2009/09/16/Tom_Daschle_Weighs_in_on_the_Healthcare_Debate
Former U.S. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle criticizes the news media's sensational coverage of the healthcare debate and town hall protests. "The media have acted as irresponsibly on this debate as anything I've seen in public life," he says.
-----
New School President Bob Kerrey engages in an informal discussion with Tom Daschle, former U.S. senator and congressman, leading healthcare reform advocate, and public policy expert.
They discuss the growing misinformation and confusion surrounding the healthcare debate, and discuss possible solutions to this increasingly complex problem. - New School
Thomas Andrew Daschle is a former U.S. Senator and Senate Majority Leader from South Dakota. He is a member of the Democratic Party. He was defeated on November 2, 2004, by the Republican candidate, John Thune, in his bid for re-election.
He is currently a Special Policy Advisor at the law firm Alston and Bird LLP, visiting professor at the Georgetown Public Policy Institute at Georgetown University, and a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress.
Bob Kerrey is president of The New School in New York City. For twelve years prior to becoming president of The New School, Bob Kerrey represented the State of Nebraska in the United States Senate. Before that, he served as Nebraska's governor for four years.
Bob Kerrey is the author of When I Was A Young Man: A Memoir, published by Harcourt Books (May 2002). He served as a member of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, currently leads a five year writing challenge sponsored by The National Commission on Writing in America's Schools and Colleges, and is co-chair with Newt Gingrich of The National Commission for Quality Long-Term Care.
Save & Share: 
freesk8: I do not believe that you live in a nation with no poverty. None of those exist. Taxation is a necessary evil for the essential functions of govt, like police, courts and military. But for almost all other things, the private sector does it better and cheaper. Even roads are better as toll roads. Then people who drive less don't subsidize those who drive more. Individuals should pay for education and health care, and pvt charities should help the poor. Taxation is a net drag on the economy.
GeminiPrimeX: well, according to international studies, my country has no poverty. Even if I personally can disagree with that. And yes, taxation can be a necessary evil, the emphasis being placed on necessary. But you lessen the evil if the people have a strong say in what the taxes are spent on. Would you say to a industrial company that they have to pay for transport? And how would the company raise money to pay for the toll? Charities are nice, but they weaken during recessions.
freesk8: I place the emphasis on the evil of taxation. Many see it as a blessing, as long as it comes from others. Is there anything that it is moral for a majority to do that is immoral for an individual to do? If so, how does being in a majority make it OK? An industrial co should pay all of the costs of transport, including a share of roads ocean ports and air facilities to the extent that they use them. Tolls are passed on to consumers in product costs. Recessions are shorter with less govt.
GeminiPrimeX: So ordinary people should pay double tolls? It is moral to set aside yourself for the greater good. I dont mind paying taxes provided it comes to good use. I dont even have to benefit from it myself as long as someone else does. We are social primates, and that means that we must be able to cooperate. A society is a group of individuals who take a common responsibility for the things they have in common. If taxation provides the means to better achieve that then I wont evade my duties.
freesk8: People should pay tolls when they travel, and if they buy products that come from afar, they should pay a share of the tolls the trucks pay. And they will, via the price of the goods they purchase. I don't mind people contributing to the "greater good" voluntarily, but you want to force OTHERS to pay as well. I love voluntary cooperation, but forced "cooperation" is an oxymoron. The ends don't justify the means. Forced charity is another contradiction in terms. We can achieve more peacefully.
Stingray3440: Talk for 5 mins and said NOTHING. Yet another professional poly. Go home Mr D and stay there. The adults will take if from here.
GeminiPrimeX: But if the preferred method of cooperation is through taxation, it leaves you with three choices. you either change the system, if that fails you can accept it or you can move away. When you are living in a society you have to be able to compromise with the people you share that society with. To demand special treatment is a bit selfish, it makes you sound like a spoiled brat (not that I think you are that). Most societies want to pay taxes. As long as it goes to things they seem as worthwhile.
freesk8: If my preferred method of cooperation is through theft, is that OK? Is that just a "choice?" Taxation is not a choice. It is forced on people. Taxation may be necessary, but you can not call it cooperation, and it's not a choice. We have no right to force others to cooperate with us, even for good cause. To live in society, you have to respect the rights of others, but that is no compromise because you have no right to violate their rights. To insist on one's rights is not special treatment.
GeminiPrimeX: Taxation is a choice. You vote for a certain politician, and if said politician intends to carry out his or hers politics through taxation, you give them your support by voting for them. If you prefer a leader who wishes to remove taxation, then it´s your choice to support him or her instead. But in the end, majority rules. If you dont like that, you dont have to live where you do. But you can not force your view of society when society freely chooses something else. And they have chosen taxes.
freesk8: You seem to place a high value on democracy. But what if a majority of say, mostly white people, vote to steal all the assets of or kill the black minority? That is still democratic, but it yields a totally unethical outcome. My point? That democracy is only a means to an end of justice. The real goal is the defense of individual rights, especially minority rights, and the ultimate minority is the individual. Democracy is only good when it defends those rights. Else it is only mob rule.
GeminiPrimeX: I do value democracy and cooperation highly. But all humans and societies must obey on principal. And that is that every human being has the right to do whatever he or she pleases, providing she doesn't harm anyone else. it´s only a democracy if everyone benefits from it. As I said earlier, a society is a group of individuals who take a common responsibility for the things they have in common. Democracy is merely the tool used to better take on that responsibility.
freesk8: I love your definition of Liberty, above, and it seems we agree. Democracy is only good if it is limited: the majority must never be able to violate the rights of any minority. Democracy is a limited tool, for use in selecting representatives, or directing the state in it's legit function of protecting rights of individuals. But it is too broad to say that govt may do whatever the majority deems to be in the common interest. That is giving too much power to the majority.
GeminiPrimeX: No one has the right to violate the rights of anyone. Where I live it would even violate our constitution. We have gay marriages, in church, because if the church says no, they would violate our constitution. If a politician violates the constitution, or in any way interferes with matters he or she is not allowed to do( like the private sector), they could go to prison. I never met anyone here who doesnt want to pay taxes. We talk about how high taxes should be, or what they should be spent on
freesk8: What about the right to freedom of association? I'm an atheist, and against racism, and for gay marriage, but a church is a private association. It's members are free to exclude gays or even blacks if they choose. I'd picket and boycott such a church, but it violates the members' rights to freedom of assoc. for the govt to prohibit their racism. It's fine if people want to pay taxes, but I'll bet even in your country there are those who do not. Do you force them? Yes. That's violence.
GeminiPrimeX: As I said earlier everyone has the right to do whatever they want as long as they dont hurt anyone. Discrimination hurts people and thus is illegal. I suppose there are people who dont want to pay taxes, but are as you say, forced to do so. But how many people would suffer if there where no taxes? Not many people can pay the 15 000 dollars per term and child for school. Or some 70 000 dollars for surgery. A society without taxes would be like Monaco, where only millionaires can afford to live.
freesk8: When you choose a spouse, did you discriminate against those of your same sex? Did you choose someone of your same race as most do? Did this hurt those not chosen? These are all personal choices. They have to do with freedom of association. This freedom of assoc. extends to all private groups. You and I may not like exclusion based on race, sex, etc., but pvt assoc is a right. Govt must treat us equally, but pvt asocs have the right. Lower taxes means better employment for the poor.
GeminiPrimeX: I can hardly choose a spouse of the same sex since I am heterosexual, that was a weak metaphor. Your sexuality is innate in you and falls under the category of things physically impossible to change. No, I will not allow discrimination in any form. If I must choose between the rights of those those discriminated or private associations, the associations loose. I have no problems with high or low taxes. My point was that you must be very rich in order to live in a society with no taxes at all.
freesk8: My point is that you get to choose based on whatever criteria you like. You can choose based on sex (as you did if you are a married heterosexual) or race or age or whatever. It is sexism or racism to do so, and it is totally your business and the govt should never tell you whom you can or can't marry. This is why I support gay marriage. But all private associations must be allowed by govt to discriminate. Good people like you and I should boycott, but we must not resort to the law.
freesk8: My other point is that society would be better for the poor with low taxes than for the rich. The lifestyle of the rich is not significantly affected by high taxes. They can still afford their yachts and Porsches. But under a regime of high taxes, less economic activity occurs because marginal projects are rendered unprofitable by the taxation. This means jobs are harder to come by for the poor. Zero taxes are not feasible, but 20% of GDP is better than 40% for the poor.
freesk8: When taxes are high, govt also has more power. When govt has more power, and there are more regulations, the rich have the ability to influence legislation in their favor. This helps the rich stay rich with less risk and effort and reduces the ability of the poor to start competitive businesses and get richer. There is greater income group "churn" in countries with more limited govt than in more socialistic ones. If you want to help the poor, you want less govt overall, not more.
GeminiPrimeX: I have no arguments against your latest exchange. But low taxes wont be enough. You must also have a strong educational system that is equally available to all. So that everyone has roughly the same starting point in life, regardless of their families income. But overall I agree with your latest exchange to me.
freesk8: I'm a math teacher. I agree that educ. is the key. But how best to educate the poor? Private schools are better and, on average CHEAPER! My solution is to privatize all schools and allow them to compete to improve their quality. Then give a taxpayer-funded scholarship only to the poor. Maybe the bottom 25%. Run the schools as single-location, private non-profits, with local, parental boards. This would make them responsible to needs of parents, diverse, and locally focused.
GeminiPrimeX: Didn't know you where a teacher, nice to meet a colleague. Although I teach history, social science, cultural science, geography, english and swedish (I live in Sweden). We actually have a similar system. But every student is given a sum of money (financed through taxes) and then they can choose whatever school they like. The best schools get the most students, and makes the most money. The upside is that it´s available to everyone. Incidentally, our healthcare works in the same way.
freesk8: Always nice to meet an educator. The element of choice and school competition your system has are wonderful and I would love to have them in the US. Our system is a semi monopoly controlled by state (and increasingly federal) govt. You are forced to attend school (truancy laws) and you may only attend the school in your district. Private school is available, but mostly religious. A few home-school, and this has the best outcomes in the US! More choice in health care is better as well.
GeminiPrimeX: Thank you for your kind words. We used to have a similar system as the US, but gave it up long ago. My older colleagues said that our union was against it, since it would mean that schools that did bad would loose students, and thus business. It did happen, a good thing too. I must work hard to insure that my school draws in students Of course we also share in the profit if we succeed. But I think the students benefit the most. Had we stuck to your system, I fear things would turn for the worse.
Author: ForaTv; Uploaded: Oct 5, 2009; Duration: 4:39; Views: 1121
Tags: health care insurance debate obama fox news republicans gop right wing town halls tea parties party protests protesters glenn beck hysteria lyrics muse hysteria hospital hysteria hospital nds hysteria muse hysteria bass tab hysteria hospital emergency ward hysteria guitar tab hysteria lyrics hysteria tab hysteria muse lyrics
