TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Opinions on Obama health care initiatives
Pages (9): « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 »

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Non sequitur. I'm arguing work load vs. compensation as an obstacle to doctors entering the profession.

the difference between the US and the UK, becoming a doctor is about helping the sick, financial reward, whilst substantial, is secondary.

My mom got her D.M.D. in 1994 at a cost of $186,000. She still owes more than $100,000.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton My mom got her D.M.D. in 1994 at a cost of $186,000. She still owes more than $100,000.

without knowing what the average dentist makes in the US, that seems odd, the average dentist in the UK earns over 6 figures, so can clearly afford to pay back more than 6k per annum towards student loans.
I suggest your mother spends more of her money paying back her loans rather than funding trivial rehab costs for her retarded son?

quote:

Originally posted by Az the difference between the US and the UK, becoming a doctor is about helping the sick, financial reward, whilst substantial, is secondary.

Yup, we're all just a bunch of money grubbing bastards over here.

quote:

Originally posted by Az without knowing what the average dentist makes in the US,

Perhaps you could come back to us when you know what the fuck you'r talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Delete public. Insert GOP. Healthcare is on par with utilities, infrastructure, etc and should be regulated heavily by the government, just like every other first world country. You seem content in America's continuing stumble down the standard of living list. You are content in a healthcare system that is an obvious failure, and blindly rejecting a serious attempt to reform it. Republicans aren't providing their own proposals. Nooooo. Their only focus is making sure Obama/Democrats fail. Perhaps revenge for Bush's stupidity?

It's obviously not just the GOP who is against this. Look at the polling data. A majority of Americans do not want this bill. And 57% do not want a public option. Obama et. al. don't care what the people want, they just want to ram it through. And, the health industry IS heavily regulated. The questions are about HOW it's regulated.

I can't believe you seriously think America is spiraling down the standard of living list. You can be without a fucking job right now for 79 weeks and get almost $1800/month through unemployment... you can get food stamps and whatever... "poor" people in this country have cell phones, TV's, and rug rats wearing $100 Nike's. Try going to somewhere like Bulgaria and look at what their definition of "poor" is, then tell me America's living standard is something to worry about.

You (and others) keep making the mistake that the people who oppose THIS sorry excuse for a bill are content and would choose to do nothing. That is straw man city. I would love to see some changes; some real reform man, and so would a lot of people who are protesting right now. They aren't all Republicans either... Democrats and independants are speaking out at the town halls with just as much outrage. You keep using the word "reform", but that is not what is happening in this bill... government control/takeover and management, and putting your healthcare decisions in the hands of burecrats is more like it. People want reform, just not Obama's definition of it. BTW... have you ever spent time in and around a VA hospital and see how those places are run?

quote:

Private insurance should be as private as the electricity grid. In my personal opinion, health insurance companies shouldn't be allowed to make a profit.

That's insane. I don't get it... you think they should volunteer their time or something? You've totally bought into the demonization meme. It's just like with the drug companies; people freak out over the profits they make, but guess what? 92% of developed drugs don't make it through the FDA process and reach the market. Those drug companies spend billions of dollars hoping just a few can make it big, and when they do, they need that profit to research and develop more drugs, of which an average of only 8% will be successful.

quote:

As for the abortion lie you just posted, keep reading...None of the reform bills "even mentioned the word abortion until this latest version took on this issue last week," Farley said, referring to an amendment introduced by Rep. Lois Capps, D-Calif. The amendment would segregate "the money that would be used to cover abortions. It would specifically prohibit federal dollars from being used to subsidize abortions."

Abortion lie? They plan to use taxpayer money to fund it, son.

quote:

AP- GOVERNMENT INSURANCE WOULD ALLOW COVERAGE FOR ABORTIONS http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090805...erhaul_abortion

Or, you could click this link to watch the video of CA Democrat Rep. Zoe Lofgren admit to her constituents that the bill funds abortions, and that she believes it should.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTYvK4h44RU

quote:

As for "government coming into homes usurping parental rights." As neophono made clear, the program is VOLUNTARY. It's only absurd to you because you mistakenly (willingly or otherwise) believe the program is mandatory. It is not...

Wrong. Page 840 of the bill adds this caveat: "The state shall identify and prioritize serving communities that are in high need of such services, especially communities with a high proportion of low-income families."

State agents will prioritize which homes may or may not need interventions, and make contact (which is messed up to begin with, because what... lower socio-economic status = not as good a parent?). It would be like the social worker showing up at the front door to direct parents by government standards (which is very reassuring) how to better parent the child/children. I'm still not sure how this relates to "health care".

quote:

What I see is someone whose fallen head over heels the rhetoric coming from Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and other idiots. A little advice. When you see Glenn Beck on tv, turn it off!!

LOL... dude I don't watch Glenn Beck's show. But it's not just rhetoric man. This is such a passionate issue because it will affect everybody, and when people become worried about the decisions of their personal well-being, being out of their hands, it's scary to them. Government control and management of anything is a disaster, and they never do it better than the private sector where people have incentive to do well. Why do you think all those Congressmen wouldn't dare put their families on the same plan they expect the public to be on? Their "government" plan is farmed out to private insurers. "Good for me but not for thee" should be their slogan. I'll accept universal health care when all the politicians agree to put themselves and their families on it too.

I do not think that a majority of americans do not want this bill. A majority of americans support the bill.

Obama slams TV over health care "ruckus"

quote:

US President Barack Obama on Friday blamed headline-hungry television networks for enflaming an ugly backlash by foes of his top priority effort to offer health care to all Americans. A combative Obama also accused health insurance firms of holding sick Americans "hostage" as he launched a weekend tour of mountain west states Montana, Colorado and Arizona where suspicion of Washington runs deep. "I know there's been a lot of attention paid to some of the town hall meetings that are going on around the country, especially when tempers flare," Obama said, at his own event with 1,300 people in an airport hangar. "TV loves a ruckus," said Obama and then joked: "you've got to be careful about those cable networks." US news channels have been looping ferocious confrontations at town hall meetings held by lawmakers during their summer recess where voters have accused Obama of plotting a "socialized" takeover of the private health system. But the president argued that away from television's glare, people were holding "civil, honest" conversations about change, at a time when some 46 million Americans have no health care insurance whatsoever. Recalling a placid event he held in New Hampshire on Tuesday, the president said: "that reflects America a lot more than what we've seen covered on television for the last few days." Trying to recapture control of the ferocious debate, Obama turned fire on health insurance firms, who reform advocates accuse of exploiting gravely ill Americans. "We are held hostage, at any given moment by health insurance companies that deny coverage, or drop coverage, or charge fees that people can't afford at a time when they desperately need care," Obama said. "It is wrong, it is bankrupting families, bankrupting business -- we are going to fix it when pass health insurances reform this year," said Obama. The president was introduced at the event by Montana woman Katie Gibson, who repeatedly lost her insurance and face high fees when battling recurrent cancer, and was finally bailed out by a state-backed program. Health reform has been elusive for former Democratic presidents and Obama's political capital would be severely depleted if he fails. With a nod to the wilderness state of Montana, Obama hit out at political posturing in Washington over health care. "You have bear, moose and elk ... in Washington you have mostly bull!" He also denied claims that he is attempting to introduce a "socialized" system like the national health services in Canada and Britain, following dire portraits painted by his rivals of medicine in those two countries. "We can't let them do it again," Obama said here, recalling how former presidents Lyndon Johnson and John F. Kennedy also faced ferocious opposition to now established healthcare programs. "If you want a different, future, a brighter future, I need your help. Change is never easy. Fight against the fear, this is not about politics, this is about helping the American people." Obama aides are confident he will still be able to drive reform through when Congress returns in September and escape damage to his political capital or sweeping "change" agenda. But a key health care player, Republican Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, warned the tide of anger left the legislation's fate uncertain. "It could have the impact of stalling it. It could have the impact of starting all over again. Or who knows. It could have the impact that nothing's changed and you just move ahead." As the president steps up his counter-attack, a coalition of pro-reform groups are belatedly blitzing airwaves with a 12-million dollar spending spree of advertisements supporting the overhaul. Some criticism though does seem drawn from genuine suspicion of big government germane to American politics, particularly in the heartland. Critics cite fears about the level of government intervention Obama has prescribed in the finance and industrial sectors to counter the deepest economic crisis since the 1930s. Republicans argue that "Obamacare" would be too expensive, swell the ballooning deficit, worsen the quality of care and strangle the industry with government bureaucracy. Obama is yet to reveal a detailed plan, but promises to expand coverage, control spiralling healthcare costs, rein in insurance companies and prioritize preventative care.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Perhaps you could come back to us when you know what the fuck you'r talking about.

around $130,000 in houston, texas, which would suggest your mother should have been able to pay more of her loans back than she has. Why isn't this the case?

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Yup, we're all just a bunch of money grubbing bastards over here.

yeah, pretty much

quote:

Originally posted by Az yeah, pretty much

There's a lot of much easier ways for people to make money. Four years of undergrad, four years of med school, three to five years of residency followed by a quarter of a million in debt and a lifetime of 60 hour work weeks is not "easy." With inflation, doctor's salaries have not changed in the last three decades and have even in some fields gone down, way down. You can have your anti-doctor goggles on all you want, but you're out of touch with what motivates people to become doctors and the reality of medicine in general.

Shakka, hope your trip was good. I�ll get back to the more reasonable discussion with you when you return. Until then, I�ll address 17ssss�s diatribe here. Since this is pretty long, I think it�s worth breaking down in parts. And please keep in mind, 17sss, I gave you the courtesy and read through your post and nearly all the links in their entirety. I�m sure it�s too much to ask of you do the same, and I honestly won�t hold my breath, but I would nevertheless strongly urge you to do so.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss You seriously believe that? First of all, the CBO $1 trillion cost mark is horribly incomplete. Here is the CBO stating that they see no cost savings in the house bill---> http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/20...alth-plans.html Here is the Politico doing a story on a conveniently excluded CBO report that the "only" $239 billion in deficit spending needed is actually closer to $800 billion----> http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25520.html Congressional Budget specialist explaining how preventative care will actually raise costs, not lower them---> http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalp...-cut-costs.html

Yes, that was at the time when the CBO saw just 2 pieces of legislation. Furthermore, if memory serves I�ve had a similar conversation with you regarding such issues in the past, and that is when you bring such articles that demonstrate potential COST to the table, why do you conveniently leave out the potential net SAVINGS that could occur as well, which not only offset the costs but potentially leave a surplus. Let me show you again:

quote:

The provisions that would result in the largest savings include: � Permanent reductions in the annual updates to Medicare�s payment rates for most services in the fee-for-service sector (other than physicians� services), yielding budgetary savings of $196 billion over 10 years (excluding interactions�namely, the effects of those changes on payments to Medicare Advantage plans and collections of Part B premiums); � Setting payment rates in the Medicare Advantage program based on per capita Medicare spending in the fee-for-service sector, providing savings of $156 billion (before interactions) over the 2010-2019 period; and � Changes to the Medicare Part D program that would establish a new prescription drug rebate program for some people who are eligible for both Medicaid and Medicare, while expanding drug coverage to beneficiaries that are currently subject to a gap in coverage (often referred to as the Part D �doughnut hole�), saving $30 billion over the 2010-2019 period. The provision that would result in the largest increase in Medicare spending would change payment rates for physicians� services to replace the 21 percent reduction in payment rates scheduled for January 2010, under the existing �sustainable growth rate� formula, with an inflation-based update. In subsequent years, rates would reflect separate updates for �evaluation and management� services and for all other services. CBO estimates that those changes would cost $228 billion over the 2010-2019 period (before taking into account interactions). Including those interactions, the net cost of the changes in physicians� payment rates would total $245 billion. Page 4 on: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10464/hr3200.pdf

You can also throw in streamlining medical records, increasing efficiency of care (i.e. reducing ER care for uninsured), preventative medicine, etc. etc.

Why leave that out? Oh yeah, that�s right, it doesn�t fit in with your story very well. And it certainly doesn�t fit your narrative of �fiscally responsible� politics, which is the biggest oxymoron for the modern day Republican party.

You can read more on what Elmendorf said, including his follow-up testimony in the House Ways and Means Committee where he essentially walked his statements back here:

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_...-testimony.aspx
and

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2...elmendorf-cost/

And I think these rules for the press and folks like yourself should apply when using this CBO testimony:

quote:

Politicians who are going to use this CBO report against the existing health-care reform proposals must do some combination of the following: a) Support, as the CBO says you should, the eradication of the tax exclusion that protects employer-based health-care insurance; b) Support, as Lewin and Commonwealth say you should, a public insurance option that can bargain at Medicare's rates; c) Support, as the Office of Management and Budget and every health-care wonk in town says you should, one of the various policies floating around to give MedPAC authority to continually reform and modernize Medicare; d) Support some form of aggressive cost-sharing that would make people extremely angry because it will save money by reducing their access to health-care services; e) Support comparative effectiveness review that can judge not only the effectiveness but also the cost-effectiveness of various treatments, and give the federal government authority to use that data when deciding reimbursement rates. I would also like to propose a related rule: any reporters who receive a quote from a politician referencing this CBO score should be required to ask the politician which of these policies -- or which alternative cost-saving policies -- they support. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ez..._on_the_cb.html

quote:

Secondly, the true cost is probably closer to $4 trillion... of course there are attempts at burying this information too. This is from testimony given by Dr. Stephen Parente of the University of Minnesota and Johns Hopkins, in testimony given to a House subcommitte on health care reform at the end of June. BTW, he is a health economist who's expertise are in health insurance, health information technology and medical technology evaluation: http://www.hsinetwork.com/E&C_SC-He...9_oralFinal.pdf Read the whole thing... it gets better. Here's the final snippit worth mentioning: So, we'd get a medium level plan with moderate access to physicians... and doctors getting underpaid by 10%. Sweet!

Gosh, why am I not surprised that you�re using folks from HSI, the GOP�s favorite health care think tank? By the way, have they released their methodology for their analysis yet?

In any case, the House Ways and Means Committee noted the following problems with their analysis:

quote:

� The HSI analysis assumes substantial erosion of private coverage that rests on two likely false assumptions: (1) that private plans sit idly by and fail to offer products at lower prices to compete with the public option for business; and (2) that an employer shared responsibility requirement is ineffective and leads to massive dropping of ESI, despite contrary experience in Massachusetts and in today�s market where the majority of employers already offer coverage on a voluntary basis. � The analysis says there are no offsets in the discussion draft, yet the bulk of the text consists of payment and delivery system reforms in Medicare and Medicaid that will yield hundreds of billions of dollars in savings. http://www.theseminal.com/2009/06/2...misinformation/

How strange that once again a conservative group and individual like yourself blatantly ignoring some 500 pages or so in the bill(s) that outlines offsetting the cost.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Outright lies and distortions... I don't know man. You should read this Washington Post article from yesterday explaining exactly how it's not too far off base to see how doctors will be incentivised to nudge along people near the end of their life to consider that option. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...l?nav=emailpage

Umm, okay. So giving the CHOICE to explain to a patient�s family members how Medicare will, *gasp*, pay for hospice care, is a DEATH CONSPIRACY of sorts now? Do you realize that the part that the author of the post is referring to here, section 1233 where it says �"such consultation shall include the following," is actually just an amending part to section 1861 of the Social Security Act, which turns out to be just a list of definitions? That�s right, bub � it�s just an amendment to an EXISTING LAW ALREADY IN MEDICARE. Doctors are not mandated to say anything (like the author of the WaPost openly admits), it just simply means the definition of reimbursed advanced care (i.e. living will stuff) includes those listed in the definitions of section 1861 of the SSA.

Really scarwy stuff, I know.

BTW, this part in the bill that�s getting so much attention, you do know that there have been others who have co-sponsored nearly identical legislation in the past like this part of the bill? And take a wild guess who those folks might be,(wait for it), why, by golly they are REPUBLICANS! That�s right, champ, Collins (R-ME) and Isakson (R-GA), Lugar (R-Indiana), Reps. Boustany (R-LA), Davis (R-KY), and Tiberi (R-OH) all have sponsored such legislation requiring Medicare to pay for such counseling:

http://www.politicalbase.com/news/g...nseling/229694/

But hey, IOKIYAR, right? Those silly Republicans, they sure can get away with anything, but by golly we need to CRACK down on Democrats wanting THE EXACT SAME FUCKING THING.

But hey, it�s Obama�s bill, and it�s his fault. And he wants to kill Grandma with a big, Joker-like smile on his face.

He�s also after your children to put them in a stew and eat them.

Let�s also not forget he will kill your pony if we let him��..

Something else of hypocritical bullshit value is also worth noting. As Rachel Maddow (yeah I know, your favorite girl) noted last night, 3 Republican nitwits seemingly have a rather difficult time understanding what they purported and promoted is not any different than what Obama is proposing in the public option. Specifically, your favorite pal and party leader, Limbaugh, the quitter and ex-governor of Alaska Palin, and Newt Gingrich.

quote:

] Originally posted by The17sss Are you aware that Obama accepted $150 million from pharmaceutical companies in exchange to go easy on them with drug pricing? Are you also aware he executed a back room deal in private (where are those promises to show all health care negotiations on C-SPAN?)where Pharma would committ to $80 billion in savings if Obama agreed to not let Medicare set drug prices? Sounds like a mix of extortion and our president getting in bed with big business to shape legislation.... another broken promise. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...9081102810.html

Very aware, and very pissed off at him for doing so, provided this comes to fruition. You see, one can still support an individual and disagree strongly with his point of views on things at times. How about you and Limbaugh?

While I support his overall message and push for a public option, it�s clear that even he has been influenced by corporate lobbyist fucks. To their credit, many Democratic legislatures are putting on the pressure to Obama to get him to back away from the deal:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/07/h...tnt&tntemail0=y

You see, not everyone in our party has to move in lockstep with their leader.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Man... come on. For real. Don't you get it? The bill itself is a trojan horse for a singal payer option to destroy private insurers.

I heard it will actually kill all kitties and doggies in the world. Guess our sources of unsupported assertions and idle speculation are different��

quote:

Companies will not be able to afford to provide coverage and to save themselves, they'll have to offload their coverage to the government. When one entity does not have to show a profit to stay in business, there IS NO free market competition. Barney Frank was just bragging about it last week, how the bill will force us into Single Payer.

I think it�s interesting to note what the CBO, you know that nonpartisan group that you quote mined from, has to say about what the public option will do for private insurance companies. What�s more, what it will do for businesses who currently can�t afford insurance under the current system:

quote:

A separate budget office report made public Monday found that a health care reform bill that includes a public option sought by Democrats would result in 3 million more people enrolled in employer-sponsored coverage by 2016, compared with what would happen under current laws. The report, responding to questions from Rep. Dave Camp, R-Michigan, was not a final review, the office said. (snip) "The Lewin Group estimates 70% of people with private insurance -- 120 million Americans -- will quickly lose what they now get from private companies and be forced onto the government-run rolls as businesses decide it is more cost-effective for them to drop coverage. They'd be happy to shift some of the expense -- and all of the administration headaches -- to Washington. And once the private insurance market has been dismantled it will be gone." http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...ominate-system/

Furthermore:

quote:

But there are other ways to set up a public option health care plan. Under the Lewin Group's estimates, if you restrict a Medicare-style public option only to individuals and small businesses, only 32 million would leave private coverage. And if the public option is less like Medicare and competes more like a private insurer, the number drops further. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...s-health-study/

Exactly what the CBO had projected: http://www.stark.house.gov/images/s.../lewinvscbo.pdf

Crazy, ain�t it? You have any nonpartisan sources to support your assertions that it will kill private insurers, or do we once again just take your word for it?

quote:

If our health care system is so horrible, why does Obama keep saying we can keep the plan we have if we like it?

Umm, because he wants to give you a choice? He wants to allow you to choose on which one will be better for you and your family, because he may actually believe that forcing government mandates on everyone isn�t always the answer to your problems?

I know, I checked my tin foil hat on that one too. Weird.

quote:

It's obviously a lie, but think about it... if we need an overhaul so badly, why would he say that people can keep their current plan if they like it?

You do realize there are reforms in the bill for private insurers too, don�t you? If those companies can successfully compete with a public option, then they will do so. Jesus, aren�t you the ones who purport free markets and shit? Do I really have to be the preacher of that to you Conservatives?

Or is it only kosher for free markets to NOT include the government competing as well?

quote:

If Shakka can't point it out... I gladly will. First of all, there is a provision on page 16 of the bill that clearly outlaws private insurance. Once your current plan is up, peace out. http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArt...332548165656854

Patently false. I heard this bullshit from an AM radio Conservative shitmonger here in Kansas City. One only needs to take a closer look at what�s actually in the bill to easily refute this obfuscation:

quote:

SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE. (a) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE DEFINED. -- Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term ''grandfathered health insurance coverage'' means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 [2013] if the following conditions are met: (1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT. -- (A) IN GENERAL. -- Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1. (B) DEPENDENT COVERAGE PERMITTED. -- Subparagraph (A) shall not affect the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an individual who is covered as of such first day. http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA...409.pdf#page=16

Section 102, subsection C:

quote:

"Individual health insurance coverage that is not grandfathered health insurance coverage under subsection (a) may only be offered on or after the first day of Y1 as an Exchange-participating health benefits plan." http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA...409.pdf#page=19

This Health Insurance Exchange part, according to the House Ways and Means Committee "creates a transparent and functional marketplace for individuals and small employers to comparison shop among private and public insurers."

http://energycommerce.house.gov/Pre...200_summary.pdf

So no, it�s not going to kill private insurance like the bogyman article was trying to purport.

quote:

But there's a lot more. Obama in 2003 speaking at an AFL-CIO conference: Obama in 2007: And if that's not good enough, watch the video clip of him saying all this, PLUS several other Democrats admitting to the trojan horse:

I�m curious if you have any specific sources on Obama saying those things. I would just like to examine them, once again, in full context. Regardless, again I would challenge you to demonstrate anything in these bills, and seemingly against what I posted above from the CBO, that these House bills proposed says anything that resembles single payor. Please post it now.

Until then, it continues to be unsupported on your part. One thing that�s worth entertaining is the fact that Obama has changed his views on a number of different aspects now that he�s in the White House. One thing that�s really riled up liberals and progressives, for example, is his reversal on FISA laws and surveillance. It would appear that, right or wrong, he does change his mind, and he seemingly may have done so here.

As for other Democratic Congressional members, it is no secret at all that a number of them are advocates of single payer. Not sure what you�re trying to prove with that, but you�re not �outing� anyone here. But again I challenge you to examine this bill and show me where they have allowed any �Trojan horses� to come through that would kill private insurers and force us all under the evil umbrella of government-run healthcare.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Oh boy... talk about being stuck in an ideology and letting it influence your thought.

Hi Pot, it's Kettle calling.....

quote:

You're dead wrong about the hitler mustache bullshit, but I'll get to that in a minute.

Can�t wait.

quote:

It amazes me how Democrats love to drum up protests, and in the most crass and destructive manner, but when people oppose their policies those same people are labled as unstable mobs full of vitriol and hate. It is the Democrat party who has astroturfing to a science, and has all the rent-a-mobs bussed in... so when something legitimate bubbles up, those people can't believe that it's real. David Axelrod himself has made millions of dollars running a firm that specializes in astroturfing. Obama's entire town hall in New Hampshire yesterday was STAGED; the 13 year old girl who asked a question was identified as the daughter of a major Obama supporter (link--> http://www.boston.com/yourtown/news...ostPop_Emailed2) ;

Umm, okay, so that just BLOWS the cover off that one, huh? Are you fucking serious? Wait, don�t answer that one, sadly I know you are. I�m not exactly sure how the daughter of an Obama supporter asking a cute little question somehow equates the whole thing being STAGED!!!!, but hey, one can surely believe what one wants.

But I think it�s worth comparing these town halls, especially the most recent one Obama had in Montana, to the obviously and horribly staged ones your Republican president had in the past 8 years, especially when it came to his push to overhaul Social Security. When you examine that douchebag and his town halls, there is absolutely no comparison, none.

quote:

Obama had his own rent-a-mob group Organizing For America bussed in; NONE of the town halls got violent until our Agitator-In-Chief put out a call to the SEIU and made sure the Democrat representatives filled half the room and (his words) "hit back twice as hard". Take a look at 1825 K Street in D.C. dude.... the HCAN (Health Care for America Now), AFL-CIO, ACORN, MoveON.org, SEIU, and other unions/organized groups who exist to protest for Democrat causes are set up right by the White House. Funny though, I didn't see Obama come down on the SEIU when a black conservative man got beaten up at a meeting in St. Louis like he did on the Cambridge police guy.

Umm, yeah, the guy who supposedly has no health insurance but turns out to actually have insurance through his wife�s work and is now accepting donations for his medical expenses. Yeah, please tell me more about �staged� protests, please.

quote:

Go watch the YouTube video. (Or, the "shocking video," as Power Line hypes it.) The first thing you notice when the camera starts rolling is a union member already sprawled out on the ground with somebody standing over him. No explanation of how he got there (pushed, shoved, punched?) and Ham couldn't care less. Then yes, Gladney is pulled to the ground by somebody wearing a union shirt. (At the :06 mark.) But instead of Gladney being beaten and punched, as his attorney describes, and instead of union "thugs" standing over him and threatening him, Gladney bounces right back on his feet in approximately two seconds and the scuffle ends. That was the savage "beating" the conservative blogosphere can't stop talking about? The only real mystery from the incident is why Tea Party member Gladney, who's seen up-close after the brief encounter walking around and talking to people and who appears to be injury-free, then decided to go to the hospital to treat injuries to his "knee, back, elbow, shoulder and face." All that from a two-second fall to the pavement? Also unclear is why he contacted a newspaper reporter, or why his attorney wrote up lavish accounts and sent them to conservative bloggers, or why Gladney and his attorney appeared on Fox News. FYI, according to his attorney, Gladney plans on filing a civil lawsuit against the union. (snip) The Hill erroneously reported that Gladney had been "hospitalized" after being "attacked." As you can see from the video, Gladney was not "hospitalized." (i.e. Rushed away by ambulance.) Instead, as the Post-Dispatch correctly reported, Gladney "said he sought hospital treatment." http://mediamatters.org/blog/200908080004

And we first find that:

quote:

Supporters cheered. [His attorney, David] Brown finished by telling the crowd that Gladney is accepting donations toward his medical expenses. Gladney told reporters he was recently laid off and has no health insurance. http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/ne...EA?OpenDocument

Then we come to find that he did actually have insurance, but took donations from chumps anyway:

quote:

Brown said, contrary to recent reports like [the] one from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Gladney wasn�t laid off and has health insurance. "He�s just unemployed," says Brown, and "has insurance through his wife." ... Meanwhile, though Gladney appears to be just fine in the video right after he was supposedly beaten up, he showed up the next day at a tea party event in a wheelchair. At the event, Bill Hennessy, the organizer of the St. Louis tea parties, asked the crowd to donate money to Gladney to help him pay for his injuries, despite the fact that he now says he has insurance. When I asked Brown about this, he said: "Well, who doesn�t need a donation? If people want to give him a donation because he�s injured and unemployed, that�s up to them." Brown said Gladney has raised about $1,100 in donations so far. http://washingtonindependent.com/54...-alleged-attack

Oh yeah, his lawyer was also with him at the rally. How strangely convenient and coincidental, huh?

You made some other assertions about other groups being called out by the White House to go support Obama at these town halls. Not that I disagree, but can you support that statement with evidence that the White House itself mobilized them?

But let�s just say that they did, just for the sake of argument � your point being what? That Democratic groups can also go to these meetings and discussions and protect their Congressional supporters of the bill from those who were mobilized by corporate health care lobbyists and other Conservative interest groups from deliberately disrupting the meeting and shutting out constructive discourse? Because that�s what they are there to do. If your side can actually partake in a rational discussion and argument on this issue, rather than shout down and deliberately disrupt the meetings, then they are by all means completely welcome.

But what was patently obvious from the start is that they were not interested in that at all, and the corporate interest groups had sent memos before the break even started to have deliberate disruptions being the norm:

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2...lips-astroturf/

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/31...arassment-memo/

http://www.desmogblog.com/oil-lobby...launch#comments

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/28/cppr-dci-astroturf/

quote:

Anyway, shit yeah people are up in arms, and they should be. And it's not just Republicans that are pissed off in those town halls. For too long they have been treated like stupid peasants who aren't smart enough to make deicisions for themselves...

Yeah, how silly of me to think of Bush and Cheney with their overwhelming government influence and gigantic spending spree with endless wars started and being fought and telling their supporters to just �trust us� seemingly did that exact same thing.

But considering we are talking about actually covering those uninsured, saving lives, reducing the costs of health care, and making the market more competitive and productive for everyone (like the CBO purports) by giving us a choice between government-run insurance or private insurance, yeah, I can see how that�s so damn scarwy to Republicans and their supporters who bite at everything Limbaugh feeds them without stopping for just one fucking moment and trying to examine the entire discussion in full context.

quote:

that even if a majority of people disagree, the political class knows better. People are genuinely sick and tired of being ignored, and treated as if they work for the elected official and not the other way around.

Huh, must be why the majority voted in a Democrat in the White House and we have a majority in Congress too, huh? Because we don�t seem to listen very well to what the people want��.

quote:

Why are Democrat protesters allowed to go berzerk because "dissent is patriotic"? But people are now expected to sit down and politely accept the bill of goods being sold to them? They should just accept a largely unread bill and have it rammed through wit breakneck speed?

No one should be allowed to go �berserk�. But everyone, including those who disagree, should be required to have a respectful argument and discussion. Yelling, disrupting, Nazi references and the like serve only one purpose � to scare and intimidate. They do not serve as a means of an adult-like conversation and argument.

I would contend that�s what scares the Limbaugh supporters the most � being rational. Because if we actually have such a discussion, we can examine each point and counterpoint in detail like I�m doing here. And then we will see where people are at the end of it.

quote:

They are mad because they are coming with legitimate questions, and realizing that they are more informed than their representatives. People are tired of being polite... if you were on an airplane with a madman flying it towards a mountain, would you sit politely and say, "excuse me sir... excuse me... uhhh... would you mind please steering the plane to the left a little bit?"

Yeah, because giving insurance to everyone, and giving a choice to Americans on what kind of insurance they want that is the most cost effective like I outlined above is really equivalent to flying towards a fucking mountain.

Good one. But I like my analogy of killing kitties and doggies better.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss So what do you suggest. Maybe the people up in arms right now should protest like Democrats? 1) Left wing Minutemen storming the stage during a speech at Columbia Univ: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuNXmy0e5fc

Well when we see such behaviors being condoned and advocated by the Democratic party like we see the current behaviors being pushed by Republicans and their corporate lobbyists influences:

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2...lips-astroturf/

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/31...arassment-memo/

http://www.desmogblog.com/oil-lobby...launch#comments

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/28/cppr-dci-astroturf/

then I will be happy to concede your point. I did a quick search through a number of progressive blogs on this event you posted in particular and came up very empty. No mention, no cheers, nothing. Now, you do the same on Rush Limbaugh, FreeRepublic, Powerline, HotAir, and the rest of the right-wing blogs on the behaviors of YOUR protestors, and let�s see how many disagreements we come up with their behaviors.

But bad behavior is bad behavior, and I agree those protestors were wrong to drown out the Minutemen. I guess my question to you is, at it�s very worst here, do 2 wrongs make a right? After all, if you�re trying to demonstrate that Republican voters are somehow better than Democrats, does this really bolster your point much?

quote:

2) Tancredo getting forced off stage while speaking at UNC-Chapel Hill: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaTkGgE-hXA

Equally wrong, and I fully agree this behavior was inappropriate. Although I do wonder if this was organized by corporate lobbyists like we see with your group of Astroturfers.

Regardless, no matter who organizes, it�s bad behavior not to allow the guest speaker to speak no matter which side of the issue one is on.

quote:

3) Olympia Washington protestors blocking military shipments: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dM2tNL_roBY

Yep, another illegal action I do not condone. Civil disobedience is illegal, but again does that compare to the hatred, parallels to Nazi Germany, and jokes of killing and assassination we are seeing from these protests?

As a side note, I am curious as to your thoughts on having an Army spy in the group, to which the Army is now investigating since it may be a bit of a legal breach:

quote:

Stephen Dycus, a professor at Vermont Law School who focuses on national security issues, said the Army was prohibited from conducting law enforcement among civilians except in very rare circumstances, none of which immediately appeared to be relevant to the Fort Lewis case. Mr. Dycus said several statutes and rules also prohibited the Army from conducting covert surveillance of civilian groups for intelligence purposes. "Infiltration is a really big deal," he said. He said it "raises fundamental questions about the role of the military in American society." http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/02/us/02army.html

Would you condone such possible illegal behavior by the Army?

quote:

4) ACORN breaking into a Baltimore home: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRrHZGTdhKw

Umm, ACORN was helping a woman break BACK INTO HER FORECLOSED HOME! While I do not condone illegal behavior, could you at least try to put the whole story in context here? This lady, Donna Hanks, was working for months with the bank to try to get her loan to be more affordable. The bank refused and kicked her out.

Again, I�m not condoning the behavior of Donna and ACORN, but putting the whole story in context we see the larger problem involving more than just ACORN and the homeowner, especially during that critical time of home foreclosures.

And really, does that even compare to swastikas, jokes of poisoning Nancy Pelosi (thanks Glenn Beck), pics of hanging, and other racial slurs being thrown around by teabaggers and members in your party at these town halls?

quote:

5) Left wing mob chasing CHristians out of San Francisco's Castro District: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrRxFoBSPng

Yeah, anti-gay bigots preaching in the most gay-friendly part of San Fran being chased out because gay rights were taken away from California. Sorry, perhaps I�m being a little dense, but I fail to see a very good parallel here. Bigots going into the lions� den (or lioness, hell I dunno) and preaching their hate rhetoric of hellfire to those who are gay, and then getting chased out by those who not only strongly disagree with them but, in their eyes (and mine) just got their rights stripped away from them.

That�s somehow a comparison to Legislatures going into their own districts, wanting to have a discussion with ANYONE including those who disagree with them, wanting to hear the voices of their constituents (including those who disagree with them), only to have complete disruptions, swastikas, Hitler and Nazi references, hate mail and death threats over HEALTH CARE?!?!?!?

Fuck, that�s really fucking twisted of you to even try with that comparison.

quote:

6) Left wingers stomping on elderly woman's cross at a Prop 8 rally: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmMpPS8IRT0

Bad behavior, yet again. But again the context is relevant � lesbian/gay individuals getting their rights taken away, then having a woman walking right in with a fucking cross in front of them. That really isn�t smart of her at all. Of course she had every right to protest, and she had every right not to have her cross taken and stomped on, but you walk into a ruckus crowd like that AFTER they got their rights stripped from them, jesus what does she honestly expect?

And again, when we compare it to Legislatures coming home, wanting a dialogue with their voters, including the ones who disagree with them, on a bill THAT HAS YET TO BE VOTED AND PASSED ON, is that really a worthy comparison? Has anyone�s rights been taken away from them? And aside from those making above $250k, I would contend that no one�s rights would be violated if, at worst case scenario the bill does actually get passed. If anything, this bill actually enhances the rights of the patient and their families (ex: end of life services and consultation).

quote:

It's fucking amazing... the hypocricy.

Well not when one actually puts most of these events in full context and in direct comparison to the idiots in your party protesting today. But thanks for playing�..

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Now, as for the Swastika business.... the guy carrying the sign with Obama having the Hitler mustache was identified as a supporter of the Democrat John Dingel who was holding the town hall meeting... after the meeting was over he was even passing out literature to people for Dingel!! http://theblogprof.blogspot.com/200...poster-was.html The fact of the matter is Pelosi started the swastika bullshit when she lied on TV last week saying she saw them all over the place, while the only shread of evidence was someone holding a sign with a swastika that had a circle and line through it saying "no socialism". Then, by coincidence, swastikas start popping up... one guy gets busted as being a Dingel plant,

Where to begin. Let�s start with your blogprof �proof� of that guy being a Dingell �plant.� His proof is what � a clip from the Neil Cavuto show where a critic of Dingell claimed it being so. Yeah, I see, so we are to believe an anti-health care guy who says he�s a plant on Faux News as �proof� he�s a plant. And what�s worse, our second-hand critic saw him handing out Dingell fliers too!

Got it. What�s next, is he also a LaRouche supporter, as Red State claims too?

Fucking quit the bullshit now. The next time you bring us some sort of �evidence� by a fucking blogger, please be sure to cite a source that has a little more credibility other than a second-hand critic of Obama saying it�s so. How fucking ridiculous can you get?

As for Pelosi, I�m afraid you�re going to have to do better than that. Can you cite any reliable source that indicates your assertion that the only sign she could possibly have referred to was the one you mentioned? Because at last glance, there were more than just one, such as this one down in Texas:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/indyic...57621829704454/

Ah hell, just read this for more evidence to support Nancy�s assertions:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/200908070008

http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%...all-meetings%2F

and

http://www.alan.com/2009/08/06/pelo...-hall-meetings/

Sorry, champ, she was quite right, and your group of protestors are fucking nuts.

quote:

and the spray painted swastika over the sign from your link is too politically convenient to be real now.

Yes, keep handwaving away your fanatical nutbags that belong to your group like that. It�s working wonders��

quote:

How many BusHitler signs did we see flailing around the place anyway? There are plent of visible swastikas in this Bush protest from 2005 (but it's cool... they're Democrats): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15Ur...player_embedded

I don�t condone that behavior either, but again full context is important. The majority of Americans at that point did not support the war (yes, I know, despite having voted the idiot back in office for a 2nd term), and they were seeing what they considered an illegal invasion that was killing tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands actually) of Iraqi civilians, thousands of American troops, and displacing millions of other Iraqi citizens, and absolutely no good exit strategy at all that would get us the hell out of that mess. Furthermore, a poll taken at the 2004 November elections revealed almost � of voters believed how Bush obtained his presidency in 2000 was questionable. Bush at that time had already spent 4 years of doing a splendid job of fucking up our country and heading it off a cliff. The anger for many folks was palpable and, given these facts, was pretty understandable.

Of course I don�t think it was correct to compare Bush to Hitler as a consequence, but really, compare that to Obama, just 6 months into office, and his Congressional Democrats who want an OPTION that competes with private insurers so that everyone can actually obtain insurance when they need it and others can actually have more affordable insurance if they so choose to �

is that really a worthy comparison to you? Do you think the swastika shit on a health care bill is really a worthy comparison to a needless war of choice (and started by false pretenses, I might add), killing hundreds of thousands of people and displacing millions of others in the process? No comparison to Nazi Germany and the Holocaust should be given to either one, but really, which comparison to the Nazi�s is truly the most outlandish out of the two here?

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Rassmussen, Gallup, and Pew all report that you're wrong. A strong majority of people DO NOT want Obamacare in general... 53% http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...alls_to_new_low And you're even further off base about the single payer... 32% favor it and 57% oppose it. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub..._care_57_oppose

Straw man. Show me where I said anything about single-payer, or at least show me where I said the majority of Americans favor single payer at this time?

As for Obama�s health care, right now you can put me and a number of Obama supporters in the camp of disapproval as well, though for entirely different reasons than Conservative supporters. Does that mean I agree with my Conservative counterparts on WHY I disapprove? No, but it would potentially put me in the same camp.

It�s all about the wording when it comes to polls, and it�s a big reason why Rasmussen is consistently the outlier and favorite of Republicans. For example:

http://www.cogitamusblog.com/2009/0...ssen-polls.html

http://washingtonindependent.com/30...ll-that-matters

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/re_ob...nd_the_batt.php

I�ve said this to you before � anytime you examine polls, you need to examine ALL of them and see where the general trends lie. Because when you do that, you see a better picture of what the American people believe and want. For example:

quote:

Quinnipiac: 62 percent support "public option." When asked whether they "support or oppose giving people the option of being covered by a government health insurance plan that would compete with private plans," 62 percent of respondents in a July 27-August 3 Quinnipiac poll said they support giving people a public option. In a July poll asking the same question, 69 percent said they support a public option. Washington Post/ABC News: 54 percent support a "government-run plan." A July 15-18 Washington Post/ABC News poll asked: "Thinking about health care, one proposal to insure nearly everyone would require all Americans to have health insurance or pay a penalty on their income tax, excluding those with lower incomes. It would require most employers to offer health coverage or pay a fee. There would be a government-run plan to compete with private insurers. And income taxes on people earning more than 280-thousand dollars a year would be raised to help fund the program. Taken together, would you support or oppose this plan? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?" Fifty-four percent of respondents said they would support the plan. Time: 56 percent favor a "government-sponsored" option. In a July 27-28 Time poll, 56 percent of respondents said they would favor a health care bill that "creates a government-sponsored public health insurance option to compete with private health insurance plans." NY Times/CBS News: 66 percent favor a "government administered" plan. When respondents were asked in a July 24-28 New York Times/CBS News poll whether they would "favor or oppose the government offering everyone a government administered health insurance plan - something like the Medicare coverage that people 65 and older get -- that would compete with private health insurance plans," 66 percent said they would support the plan. McClatchy: 52 percent say "it is necessary to create a public health insurance plan." In a July 9-13 Ipsos/McClatchy poll, 52 percent of respondents said that the statement -- "It is necessary to create a public health insurance plan to make sure that all Americans have access to quality health care" -- came "closest to [their] opinion" of "whether or not the government should create a public health insurance plan as an alternative to private insurance." NBC News/Wall Street Journal: 46 percent favor a plan "administered by the federal government." However, at least one poll, conducted July 24-27 by NBC News/Wall Street Journal, shows a split opinion on the public option. When respondents were asked whether they would "favor or oppose creating a public health care plan administered by the federal government that would compete directly with private health insurance companies," 46 percent said they would favor such a plan, while 44 percent said they would oppose it; 10 percent of respondents were not sure. http://mediamatters.org/research/200908060031

Which seemingly runs directly counter to your point. Strange that.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss You're probably sick of reading by this point... but if you want some good clarity you should read this article by a Duke University professor who breaks down controversial parts of the Healthcare Bill into plain english, and you can see how much Obama and the others are blatantly lying to you when out on the stump. Link here: http://sweetness-light.com/archive/...l-actually-says

Admittedly I haven�t read this piece yet, but I will get to it. I did quickly glance over it, and I actually applaud him for actually looking at the bill in detail, although I initially think many of his fears could be laid to rest if he gets a little more background context to it. But again I�ll have to look closer at the piece before commenting further (given the fact that I�ve looked at all of your other sources, I hope I�ve shown some integrity thus far in examining all of your arguments.

In conclusion, yes I believe much of this debate was manufactured by corporate interests pouring in $1 million per day in killing this bill, and yes as I have demonstrated, they are directly behind the current protests. That does not mean, nor do I want to take away the fact that many people, including a number of protestors, have legitimate concerns over the proposed bills in Congress, and it is on this point where the conversation and debate should occur. But that is certainly not what Conservative pundits, blowhards, and corporate lobbyists who give out most of their money to Conservative lawmakers and Democratic Blue Dogs want us to hear or discuss.

Because if we do actually have a logical, rational discussion about this bill, if we actually get past the nutbaggers and their swastikas, Hitler and Nazi parallels, Astroturf and AM radio and Faux News fearmongering that the government wants to kill Grandma and take over all of your lives, if we actually get past the bullshit and discuss the issues � the Republicans will lose.

Badly.

quote:

Originally posted by Az around $130,000 in houston, texas, which would suggest your mother should have been able to pay more of her loans back than she has. Why isn't this the case?

Do you realize I was agreeing with you? Then you turned into an asshole, so fuuck you.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss It's obviously not just the GOP who is against this. Look at the polling data. A majority of Americans do not want this bill. And 57% do not want a public option. Obama et. al. don't care what the people want, they just want to ram it through. And, the health industry IS heavily regulated. The questions are about HOW it's regulated.

I have looked at the polls...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/2009080...spoliticshealth

Actually, Obama realizes the sorry state of our healthcare system. While other civilized countries with functional universal healthcare system watch us with amusement, the right wing is doing all they can stop any reform from being done. In the meantime, our country grows closer to being bankrupted by the costliest healthcare system in the world. A system which you want to stay the same. Shame.

quote:

I can't believe you seriously think America is spiraling down the standard of living list. You can be without a fucking job right now for 79 weeks and get almost $1800/month through unemployment... you can get food stamps and whatever... "poor" people in this country have cell phones, TV's, and rug rats wearing $100 Nike's. Try going to somewhere like Bulgaria and look at what their definition of "poor" is, then tell me America's living standard is something to worry about.

You can't expect our education system, the laughing stock of the first world, to result in rising standards of living. Yea, I know, our country is not poor relative to the third world. So what? Our standards of living is still falling. Healthcare is also inextricably linked to standards of living. When people are healthy, they are productive. It is in this country's best interest to have universal healthcare coverage just as it is in this country's best interest to have universal education.

quote:

You (and others) keep making the mistake that the people who oppose THIS sorry excuse for a bill are content and would choose to do nothing. That is straw man city. I would love to see some changes; some real reform man, and so would a lot of people who are protesting right now. They aren't all Republicans either... Democrats and independants are speaking out at the town halls with just as much outrage.

Then let's see some proposals. All I ever hear about is how Republicans are doing all they can to stop any reform. And I know why. Because the Democrats are in power and the Republicans cannot accept that under a Democrat government, healthcare was fixed. Of course led by the usual suspects. Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck.

quote:

You keep using the word "reform", but that is not what is happening in this bill... government control/takeover and management, and putting your healthcare decisions in the hands of burecrats is more like it. People want reform, just not Obama's definition of it.

Government takeover? Absolutely not. You will get to choose your doctor and your doctor will be the one who treats you. Healthcare decisions in the hands of bureaucrats? LOL...As if the private insurance companies aren't already denying people for existing illnesses and watering down coverage. Under this bill, that would be stopped.

quote:

BTW... have you ever spent time in and around a VA hospital and see how those places are run?

Yea, I have. Both my parents are/were in the military. I'v been treated in a military hospital inside military bases. These are people who must be prepared to treat war wounded. They better be a damn good hospital. And they are.

quote:

That's insane. I don't get it... you think they should volunteer their time or something?

Who said volunteer? I said NON-PROFIT. As in, they don't make profits. They returns any surplus back to their policy holders in the form of lower rates or higher coverage.

quote:

You've totally bought into the demonization meme.

I'v bought into a Harvard study which found the number 1 reason for bankruptcy in America was healthcare costs. What's even more despicable is that a huge number of these people had health insurance.

quote:

It's just like with the drug companies; people freak out over the profits they make, but guess what? 92% of developed drugs don't make it through the FDA process and reach the market. Those drug companies spend billions of dollars hoping just a few can make it big, and when they do, they need that profit to research and develop more drugs, of which an average of only 8% will be successful.

Guess what? Drugs companies are on board with healthcare reform. When it comes to healthcare insurance, they shouldn't be making profits to the detriment of their policy holders. You know that's their SOLE purpose right? It isn't to help anyone. It's simply profiting, an unempathetic endeavor, where in a select few areas, shouldn't be allowed. Healthcare coverage is one area.

quote:

Abortion lie? They plan to use taxpayer money to fund it, son. Or, you could click this link to watch the video of CA Democrat Rep. Zoe Lofgren admit to her constituents that the bill funds abortions, and that she believes it should. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTYvK4h44RU

Did you read this part?

"A compromise approved by a House committee last week attempted to balance questions of federal funding, personal choice and the conscience rights of clinicians. It would allow the public plan to cover abortion but without using federal funds, only dollars from beneficiary premiums. Likewise, private plans in the new insurance exchange could opt to cover abortion, but no federal subsidies would be used to pay for the procedure."

quote:

Wrong. Page 840 of the bill adds this caveat: "The state shall identify and prioritize serving communities that are in high need of such services, especially communities with a high proportion of low-income families."

Nowhere did that say it was mandatory.

quote:

State agents will prioritize which homes may or may not need interventions, and make contact (which is messed up to begin with, because what... lower socio-economic status = not as good a parent?). It would be like the social worker showing up at the front door to direct parents by government standards (which is very reassuring) how to better parent the child/children. I'm still not sure how this relates to "health care".

High crime areas sure equal not good parents. And yes, socio-economic status has a lot to do with that. I guess at-risk youth programs also should not identify areas with high rates of...at-risk youth. There are quantifiable factors in figuring where such programs should be located.

quote:

LOL... dude I don't watch Glenn Beck's show.

Limbaugh?

quote:

But it's not just rhetoric man.

Most of it from your side is.

quote:

This is such a passionate issue because it will affect everybody, and when people become worried about the decisions of their personal well-being, being out of their hands, it's scary to them.

That's fine as long as the bill would actually curtail these decisions about their personal well-being. It doesn't so this "fear" has no basis.

quote:

Government control and management of anything is a disaster, and they never do it better than the private sector where people have incentive to do well.

Profit would dictate denying coverage and other tactics detrimental to the patient. I know two doctors (one being my mom), who tell me the insurance companies routinely delay payment all the way up to the 90 day deadline to make a payment by continually asking for proof of this or that, test results, x-rays, etc. You send them the x-ray, then they ask, "well, we need a blood test." You give them the blood test..."oh we also need a second opinion." The only incentive to do well is for the insurance company to do well for themselves. This bill would put an end to a lot of this. Unfortunately, I don't think it goes far enough. I don't think any company should profit from health insurance. Just like the Japanese healthcare system.

quote:

Why do you think all those Congressmen wouldn't dare put their families on the same plan they expect the public to be on? Their "government" plan is farmed out to private insurers. "Good for me but not for thee" should be their slogan. I'll accept universal health care when all the politicians agree to put themselves and their families on it too.

Congressman aren't poor so they afford private insurance. Sometimes, you read far more into things than is logical. They and the people will still have a choice.

Those farkin' nazi protesters will not be allowed to voice their opinions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/19/o...agewanted=print

quote:

August 19, 2009 Op-Ed Contributor Keep Off the Astroturf By RYAN SAGER WITH the �public option� part of President Obama�s health care reform plan looking dead in the water, many of its supporters are taking issue with the legitimacy of its opposition. �We call it �Astroturf,� � Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said of the protesters at town-hall meetings. �It�s not really a grass-roots movement.� What exactly is Astroturf supposed to mean? Typically, that, in the absence of widespread support for a position, some unseen entity manufactures the appearance of it. But is that really what�s happening here? With voters split fairly evenly down the middle on health care reform, it seems presumptuous to label your side �real� and the other synthetic. Considering today�s 24-hour cable news babbling, down-and-dirty blog activism, and talk-radio rabble-rousing, it�s worth asking if the Astroturf epithet still has meaning. Astroturf, in the political sense, is thought to have been coined by Senator Lloyd Bentsen, who used it to describe the �mountain of cards and letters� he got promoting what he saw as the interests of insurance companies. �A fellow from Texas can tell the difference between grass roots and Astroturf,� Bentsen said in 1985, �this is generated mail.� Generated mail is a pretty old idea. In Shakespeare�s �Julius Caesar,� Brutus is persuaded to assassinate Caesar in part by letters of support from the public � letters that were actually faked by Cassius �in several hands ... as if they came from several citizens.� More recently, a Washington lobbying firm working for the coal industry was caught sending bogus letters to members of Congress � supposedly from community organizations � urging them to oppose the House cap-and-trade bill. Such brazen fraud is rare, though, and politicians are usually pretty savvy about seeing through it. More effective are campaigns aimed at generating news coverage to convince people that many other people hold a certain position. This is what Republicans are now accused of doing. What�s unclear is how this differs from old-fashioned political organizing. American history is littered with movements that have organized aggressively to exaggerate their sway. Samuel Adams was a master manipulator of the town hall, rallying opponents of British policy to show up at meetings and then publicizing the outcomes � communicated through the colonies� Committees of Correspondence � to embolden patriots in other towns. While one might resist drawing a moral equivalence between our founding fathers and today�s self-proclaimed Tea Partiers, the principle is the same: outraged citizens married to savvy organizers. One reason the town hall protesters are called Astroturf is that they have ties to groups with corporate financing like FreedomWorks, run by Dick Armey, the former House majority leader. But the Obama administration has been doing its own stage managing. At a town hall in Virginia last month, the president took questions from members of organizations with close ties to the administration, including the Service Employees International Union and Organizing for America, which is a part of the Democratic National Committee. The Web site of another liberal group, Health Care for America Now, instructs counter-protesters to �bring enough people to drown� out the Tea Partiers. Is this Astroturf? Here�s a rule: Organizing isn�t cheating. Doing everything in your power to get your people to show up is basic politics. If they believe what they�re saying, no matter who helped organize them, they�re citizens and activists. The language at the town halls may get ugly and rough. But it�s not Astroturf. Ryan Sager, the author of �The Elephant in the Room: Evangelicals, Libertarians, and the Battle to Control the Republican Party,� writes the blog Neuroworld.

On the subject of bringing semi-automatic rifles to townhall meetings to protest against healthcare, I don't wish that upon Bush. That's how ridiculous that spectacle is.

Dem wants to eliminate private health insurance altogether

Link

Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) returned to the ObamaCare battle on MS-NBC�s Morning Joe today, preaching the public-plan gospel just as he did yesterday on CNBC. However, this time, Joe Scarborough goaded Weiner into a little more honesty than he�s offered on the effort to �reform� health care. Declaring that �health care is not a commodity,� Weiner says his aim is to eliminate all private insurance � which is why he will not yield on the public-plan option:

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.