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.
Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Walking to John O'Groats for some spastics
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
Aug-15-2009 10:38
NeoPhono
Übermensch
Registered: Sep 2003
Location: In Orbit
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.
Aug-15-2009 13:22
MisterOpus1
Grumpy Old Fart
Registered: Dec 2001
Location: Kansas City
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
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.
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:
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:
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.
___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...
Aug-15-2009 17:44
MisterOpus1
Grumpy Old Fart
Registered: Dec 2001
Location: Kansas City
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:
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.
But you see, it’s perfectly okay if you’re a Republican (IOKIYAR), but when the government does it, especially a Democratic president, oh HELL NO!!! NO FUCKING WAY!!!!
Right?
And if you do actually bother to watch Maddow or read the transcript – you’ve got one of your party’s favorite heroes, ol’ Newt, openly admitting, in fact advocating
quote:
And, from bigtime liberal Lee Siegel in an article called "Obama's Euthanasia Mistake", he makes this point:
Can’t say I’ve heard of him, but I’ll take your word for now that he is a “bigtime librul”. My response is simple – idiocy, unfortunately, is not kept entirely amongst Conservatives. Siegel’s argument fits in the exact same category of Stooopid as the other Conservative arguments you’ve brought so far. He completely sidesteps, overlooks, or blatantly ignores the fact that such end of life counseling is ELECTIVE, i.e. in accordance to the patient’s choice, just as the bill describes. And when Siegel describes:
quote:
Determining which treatments are 'cost effective' at the end of a person's life and which are not is one of Obama’s priorities. It’s one of the principal ways he counts on saving money and making universal healthcare affordable
Of course that’s one of Obama’s priorities with the bill, JUST LIKE IT WAS NEWT GINGRICH’S AND THE SLEW OF REPUBLICANS I LISTED ABOVE THAT WERE ORIGINALLY FOR THIS TYPE OF LEGISLATION BEFORE THEY WERE AGAINST IT. Just like Newt Gingrich who once advocated for a company on “advanced directives”:
quote:
"More than 20 percent of all Medicare spending occurs in the last two months of life. Gundersen Lutheran Health System in La Crosse, Wisconsin, has developed a successful end-of-life best practice that includes community-wide advance care planning, where 90 percent of patients have advance directives."
(snip)”The Gundersen approach empowers patients and families to control and direct their care. Gundersen delivers at a 30 percent lower rate than the national average. If Gundersen's approach was used to care for the approximately 4.5 million Medicare beneficiaries who die every year, Medicare could save more than $33 billion a year."
So even Gingrich along with the AMA, other Republicans listed above, Obama, and most Democrats, and anyone who understands health care costs understand this is an expensive part of health care that can be streamlined, thus having billions of dollars cut down as a result.
Again, how scarwy.
quote:
You must also be forgetting what Obama said in his June infomercial on ABC to a woman in response to her mother getting a pacemaker at an elderly age. He literally said this: I don't think that we can make judgments based on people's spirit... End-of-life care is one of the most difficult sets of decisions that we're going to have to make. But understand that those decisions are already being made in one way or another. If they're not being made under Medicare and Medicaid, they're being made by private insurers. At least we can let doctors know and your mom know that, you know what, maybe this isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off, uhhh, not having the surgery but taking, uh, the painkiller.
Umm, WHAT? How the hell can anyone in with half a neuron in their head somehow misconstrue what Obama was talking about here? How the hell could anyone possibly twist around what he said here like this? Fucking pathetic of you and the rest of the wingers to do this.
First off, let’s put his ENTIRE quote in full context, rather than just notoriously snipping little pieces off like you and Limbaugh are doing here:
quote:
So that was over five years ago. My question to you is, outside the medical criteria for prolonging life for somebody elderly, is there any consideration that can be given for a certain spirit, a certain joy of living, quality of life? Or is it just a medical cutoff at a certain age?
OBAMA: Well, first of all, I want to meet your mom, and I want to find out what she's eating. But, look, the first thing for all of us to understand is that we actually have some -- some choices to make about how we want to deal with our own end-of-life care. And that's one of the things I think that we can all promote, and this is not a big government program. This is something that each of us individually can do, is to draft and sign a living will so that we're very clear with our doctors about how we want to approach the end of life.
I don't think that we can make judgments based on peoples' spirit. That would be a pretty subjective decision to be making. I think we have to have rules that say that we are going to provide good, quality care for all people.
GIBSON: But the money may not have been there for her pacemaker or for your grandmother's hip replacement.
OBAMA: Well, and -- and that's absolutely true. And end-of-life care is one of the most difficult sets of decisions that we're going to have to make. I don't want bureaucracies making those decisions, but understand that those decisions are already being made in one way or another. If they're not being made under Medicare and Medicaid, they're being made by private insurers.
We don't always make those decisions explicitly. We often make those decisions by just letting people run out of money or making the deductibles so high or the out-of-pocket expenses so onerous that they just can't afford the care. And all we're suggesting -- and we're not going to solve every difficult problem in terms of end-of-life care. A lot of that is going to have to be we as a culture and as a society starting to make better decisions within our own families and for ourselves.
But what we can do is make sure that at least some of the waste that exists in the system that's not making anybody's mom better, that is loading up on additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care, that at least we can let doctors know and your mom know that, you know what? Maybe this isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off not having the surgery but taking the painkiller.
And those kinds of decisions between doctors and patients, and making sure that our incentives are not preventing those good decisions, and that -- that doctors and hospitals all are aligned for patient care, that's something we can achieve. We're not going to solve every single one of these very difficult decisions at end of life, and ultimately that's going to be between physicians and patients. But we can make real progress on this front if we work a little bit harder.
Now when you take this in FULL context, how the hell is what he’s saying somehow unreasonable? He is essentially stating there is a likely waste of needless treatment options in our current system, and that finding the right one would be the most productive and efficient means of care. Some other things to consider – terminally ill folks tend to have higher medical costs in their last 3 months of life than they had throughout the rest of their lives. Furthermore, I can’t find the source off hand, but the AMA has been pretty adamant about how doctors perform needless surgeries on the elderly that does little to improve their overall function and quality of life.
___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...
Aug-15-2009 17:54
MisterOpus1
Grumpy Old Fart
Registered: Dec 2001
Location: Kansas City
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:
You see, not everyone in our party has to move in lockstep with their leader.
___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...
Aug-15-2009 17:55
MisterOpus1
Grumpy Old Fart
Registered: Dec 2001
Location: Kansas City
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."
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.
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."
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."
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.
___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...
Last edited by MisterOpus1 on Aug-15-2009 at 19:54
Aug-15-2009 18:35
MisterOpus1
Grumpy Old Fart
Registered: Dec 2001
Location: Kansas City
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."
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.
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.
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:
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.
___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...
Aug-15-2009 19:11
MisterOpus1
Grumpy Old Fart
Registered: Dec 2001
Location: Kansas City
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:
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?
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.
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?
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?
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.
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…..
___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...
Aug-15-2009 19:14
MisterOpus1
Grumpy Old Fart
Registered: Dec 2001
Location: Kansas City
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:
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 ½ 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?
___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...
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:
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.
Which seemingly runs directly counter to your point. Strange that.
___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...
Aug-15-2009 19:19
MisterOpus1
Grumpy Old Fart
Registered: Dec 2001
Location: Kansas City
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.
___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...
