Healthcare Hysteria? Daschle Blasts Media Coverage

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.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• health
• care
• insurance
• debate
• obama
• fox
• news
• republicans
• gop
• right
• wing
• town
• halls
• tea
• parties
• party
• protests
• protesters
• glenn
• beck
• fora.tv
• foratv
• fora
• tv

[Hopeful71]

" I guess you do deserve to be stomped on by the jack booted NAZI'S"

There is that calm rational debate we were all hoping we could have...

[m0nkeybl1tz]

So you guys think that because this guy disagrees with you, he's a Nazi, deserves to be fired and/or set on fire? And you're criticizing him because HE's biased?

I agree with truthadvocate that he's basically saying ignore the dissenters, and plow ahead regardless of public sentiment (which does seem to be Obama's plan) but at the same time, these people seem opposed to healthcare at all costs, so if you listen to them, nothing will ever get accomplished.

[ThaATrain10]

Let's stay on subject, folks..

[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.

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[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]

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.

[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.