Speaking truth to power

What right do ordinary citizens have to protest the Federal takeover of the Healthcare industry? For that matter, why would anyone show up at town hall meetings with their elected representatives to protest the policies of the Obama-Pelosi-Reid government? Answer: They have every right and some say a duty to show up and speak.

The simple truth is that a majority of Americans don't want the Federal government taking over the Healthcare industry. They have been watching a one-party government attempting to rush passage of all their radical policies as quickly as possible, with as little debate or scrutiny as possible. The end result of which will be a fundamentally different America than the one they grew up in and believe in.

Concession: They won the election. They have the power.

Even though they have the power they do not have the support of a majority of voters. I think this is why there is now a deceitful, concerted and organized attempt to smear anyone who dissents with their policies.

Interviewer: Do you think there's legitimate grassroot opposition going on here?

Pelosi: "I think they're Astroturf... You be the judge. "They're carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on healthcare." ~wizbangblog.com


And yet there is no evidence of 'astroturfing'. Quite the opposite:
ABC's Steven Portnoy reports:

There were no lobbyist-funded buses in the parking lot of Mardela Middle and High School on Tuesday evening, and the hundreds of Eastern Maryland residents who packed the school's auditorium loudly refuted the notion that their anger over the Democrats' health care reform plans is "manufactured."

"I went to school in this school," a man named Bob told me. "I don't see anyone in this room that isn't from Mardela Springs right now."

"We've been quiet too long," said a woman named Joan.

They came to yell at their congressman, freshman Democratic Rep. Frank Kratovil, and they were surprised to hear that the "Congress in Your Corner" event to which they had been invited -- by a robocall from Kratovil himself -- was not to be a public airing of grievances, but instead an opportunity for private, one-on-one sessions with the freshman Democrat.

As the crowd grew, and began venting frustration over the fact they would only be meeting with the congressman behind closed doors, Kratovil's aides suggested he switch to a town hall format. ~blogs.abcnews.com


The truth is that Democrats have a majority in congress partially because they won elections in conservative districts. Conservative voters in these districts are now wondering why they voted to put ultra-liberal Nancy Pelosi in power.
Kratovil is a Blue Dog Democrat who signed onto a letter last month urging House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to delay a vote on a health care reform bill until after the August recess. His officially "undecided" stance on health care reform makes him a prime target for frustrated constituents already miffed that he voted for the House Democratic leaders' energy bill last month, after initially telling voters he was "undecided" on Cap and Trade.

The former county prosecutor won his seat - formerly held by a Republican -- last November by just 2,852 votes.

Boos and cries of "You don't get it!" were hurled at Kratovil, as he suggested that the current health care system needed to be fixed.

"You're deceiving us! You're trying to shove this stuff through," one woman yelled.

"I'm not! But I hear you," Kratovil pleaded.

"This bill is un-American," said another voter, who asked whether Kratovil has read it.

"I am reading it right now," he said.

In an interview before the session, Kratovil admitted he's under heavy pressure from both the constituents in his conservative-leaning district and his party's leadership, but, alluding to his vote on Cap and Trade, he said he's already cast unpopular votes. ~blogs.abcnews.com


Is there any reason to smear these people as white supremicists? People who ostensibly helped to give Nancy Pelosi her position of power? Only if you cannot bear to be disagreed with. Only if you cannot stand dissent.

Those in power are miffed that these people are speaking up and have claimed that it's all an evil GOP orchestrated conspiracy campaign with no real support whatsoever. An organized protest is an illegitimate protest. Which is apparently why the White House is calling on their supporters to report dissenters and Democrats are calling on Labor Unions to send in the counter protesters. But does that mean they will only use union thugs members from the districts these town halls are in or will they be busing them in from all over to show a massive response? *Sigh*

Is there any appreciation of the fact that a community organizer is accusing protesters of being illegitimate because they are 'organized'?

Concession 2: What will be will be; you have to let everything play out.

Treating Americans as the enemy will ultimately come back to haunt the left and the Obama-Pelosi-Reid government. Obama's approval ratings continue to slide as he tries to implement his agenda, which is different from what he wanted many to believe during the election when he was promising tax cuts for 95% of all Americans. It might have been profitable to play coy about how liberal his true agenda was during the campaign but eventually if he wants to implement that agenda the truth becomes apparent. What you do when people start noticing this contradiction is what is happening now, deny it and blame those who recognize it and have the temerity to point it out.

Poll Shows Perils for Obama’s Health Overhaul

In the Quinnipiac survey, 55% (including 54% of the key independent voter bloc) said they were more concerned that the overhaul would increase the deficit than that Congress would not pass some kind of overhaul. That same 57% (and 59% of independents) disagreed with the following statement: "Overhauling the nation's health care system is so important that it should be enacted even if it means substantially increasing the federal budget deficit."

The poll also contains another piece of the public opinion puzzle that Mr. Obama and the Democratic congressional leadership may find problematic: Voters by a large margin don't want a health care overhaul if it can only garner Democratic votes. In other words, even though Democrats control both houses of Congress, voters are suspicious of a bill that only has Democratic support.

The poll found 59% of the public disagreed (and only 36% agreed) with the following statement: Congress should approve a health care overhaul even if only Democrats support it." ~blogs.wsj.com


They have the power but they don't have the full support of the American people. Contrary to what the left seems to feel these days Conservatives are still a part of America. The question is, with all the fervor the left is expressing will they choose to be moderate, as they always claimed they were, or will they choose to eliminate the opposition? This latest attack on protesters is not a good sign.

Posted by Eric Simonson at August 6, 2009 2:51 PM
Comments
Comment #285716
Treating Americans as the enemy will ultimately come back to haunt the left

You mean like calling American’s traitors? Funny how that works.

And NO elected official has the full support of the American people. Give me a break. Liberals were and are also a part of America, and not traitors for disagreeing. Let’s keep this real here.

Posted by: womanmarine at August 6, 2009 3:39 PM
Comment #285723

Eric, there is no takeover underway. There is just an alternative for those uninsured, currently, and those which the private sector will make uninsured going forward. As well as a competitive choice for Americans, a non-profit health insurance or a for-profit health insurance plan.

That’s it. No take over. Private insurers are not being shut down by any language in any of the reform measures.

So, dispense with the lies and misinformation, already. Take over my butt. Choice, competitive choice, is what is afoot. One would think Republicans would support that. But, as we learned over the last 8 years, what Republicans say to get in office, and what they do IN OFFICE, are world’s apart.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 6, 2009 4:20 PM
Comment #285728

ummm David, it should be: “Take over, my butt. ” The other has a strange connotation:)

I once attended a “riot” in Dayton Ohio when Nixon appeared to open an Air Force musuem. At least that is the way it was reported. There were a few 3 maybe 4 people shouting and waving signs. The National guard chased down one guy and arrested him.

That evening on the News with close in shots, I would’ve have sworn there was a massive protest and near riot.

Perhaps not grassroots or Astroturf, maybe just a few weeds cropping up.

Posted by: gergle at August 6, 2009 4:48 PM
Comment #285734

gergle, laughed my butt off on that one. Thanks.

Great point however. This health care reform issue will be a true test of the media in the coming months. Will the work feverishly to inform Americans of the facts and information they need to make an informed choice of their own? Or will they cower from such action for fear of being branded biased or partisan? We shall see, but, my money is on the advertising bean counters forcing the media to take the more profitable coward’s route.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 6, 2009 5:16 PM
Comment #285737

“…Federal takeover of the Healthcare industry?”

Where’d you get this? No such thing is happening. This one line completely blows the credibility of the rest of your post. It proves you are unqualified to rationally discuss the issues, because you can’t even get this one simple fact straight.

The disruptive Nazi-like tactics of the teabaggers is exactly like Hitler’s party used to destroy that democracy. I don’t care if you’re yelling at your Senator or representative or someone else’s, disrupting these town hall meetings is not the way to accomplish your goals.

As it turns out though, at the meeting I went to here in my hometown, I recognized several people who live near me, but across the border in another state. They were most disruptive.

Posted by: Greg House at August 6, 2009 5:42 PM
Comment #285738

Speaking truth to power. I’m sure people would love to know how the powerful insurance companies and right-wing thinktanks are backing this particular exercise in that, to the point of handing people the questions to ask.

But I guess those people love hearing themselves talk, so it works out.

I salute the credit you give to our intelligence about claiming that if one town hall was anecdotally confirmed to be only populated by locals, that has to mean all other claims must be false.

Have you noticed how Republicans are perpetually quoting polls, perpetually talking about dropping support? What does this have to do with anything? A law would be good or bad on its merits. So what do folks talk about?

They talk about poll numbers.

They talk about populist outrage.

They talk about speaking truth to power.

We have a conclusion we can draw from this: Republicans are once again appealling to the herd instinct to stampeded people away from healthcare. They don’t care about the numbers. We’ve made a number of the bills pretty much pay for themselves, but you’ll never hear it out of them. These bills will not take over healthcare, not even close. But that’s not the rhetoric the Right will use.

If this succeeds, we will once again come to regret it. But that is not what concerns Republicans. What concerns Republicans is elections, even more so than is healthy for the constituents in this country.

I want each and every one of you to think not of your children, not of what everybody else thinks, not of anything else but this: the facts of the healthcare system as you deal with it now.

The magic trick is to misdirect you, to immerse your mind in far-off, vaguely detailed futures, where any healthcare plan comes to disastrous consequences.

As a storyteller, especially in science fiction and fantasy, I’m familiar with this displacement. I’m also familiar with the tendency of these displaced fantasies of the future to get things almost completely wrong. DeLoreans don’t fly, the year 2000 came and went without the end of the world being nigh, and nobody yet has found a monolith in the Tycho crater measuring 9 X 3 X 1 (there’s also no evidence that billions and billions of monoliths are going to turn Jupiter into a second sun).

15 years ago, the fantasy of the Republican Party was that if you let Government run healthcare, you were going to see Bureaucrats making decisions for people, rationing care, hiking up costs, waste, and fouling up people’s care terribly. We were going to pay more and more for healthcare, and it was going to bankrupt the country eventually.

That fantasy came out wrong, not in the premises, but in their conclusion. They believed that Government would do this. Instead, Private Enterprise, aided and abetted by both parties, inflicted this sorrow and this potential hazard on us.

But they’ll tell us the same thing this time. Only this time, we know something we didn’t know before: where this logic would ultimately lead.

Do we seriously want to be right back where we are now, fifteen years from now?

The Republicans aren’t going to offer solutions. They’ll offer more time to suffer under this status quo, until they get back power, just like they did last time. They’ll scare the old folks, they’ll pump their follower’s heads full of industry talking points, and they’ll stage a nationwide campaign of political intimidation and forum domination, but they will never, never offer an alternative worth anybody else’s time.

Support the Democrat’s plans. If we’re looking to get new results, we should try new approaches, and let the quibbling of those whose advice to the American people got us right back in this crisis the last time be left safely unheeded.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 6, 2009 5:52 PM
Comment #285742

Cultural Dictionary

straw man

A made-up version of an opponent’s argument that can easily be defeated. To accuse people of attacking a straw man is to suggest that they are avoiding worthier opponents and more valid criticisms of their own position: “His speech had emotional appeal, but it wasn’t really convincing because he attacked a straw man rather than addressing the real issues.”

From The Big Sort:

“like minded groups create a kind of self propelled self reinforcing loop. Group members send out signals bolstering existing beliefs as they all vie to stand out as the most Rplcn or the most Dmcrt in the group… Any successful talk radio host, like Paul(St.), knows that acclaim and ratings accrue to the most zealous. It’s not enough to disagree…”

Posted by: ohrealy at August 6, 2009 6:18 PM
Comment #285751

“Oh, please, please, please let Obama fail. If he doesn’t we’ll never get back in power and it will be the end of our glorious movement. Go to townhall meetings and make noise and shout down the discussion so that even the tiny little reforms the Democrats are considering won’t be passed. Then we can get Palin & Company in the Whitehouse and a return Congress to its rightful owners, bought and paid for by K Street.”

Posted by: Mental Wimp at August 6, 2009 7:44 PM
Comment #285752

David,

Obama and other Democratic congressman have been on record saying that this is the end goal - a single payer system with all other option out of the picture. Sorry, but that’s the goal here.

Posted by: eric at August 6, 2009 7:53 PM
Comment #285756

ohreally,

I agree, there is a great deal of straw man arguments going on here. Because as a republican I really want people to die and insurance companies to make massive profits without paying for coverage.

Straw man and ad hominem are combined in the attack against those who oppose this policy as nazis and paid by insurance companies.

The political fact filters are working overtime here— that is very evident when even obvious facts are ignored and we can’t get beyond calling each other deluded.

Posted by: eric at August 6, 2009 8:13 PM
Comment #285757

Stephen,

I salute the credit you give to our intelligence about claiming that if one town hall was anecdotally confirmed to be only populated by locals, that has to mean all other claims must be false.

I’m not sure that there’s any amount of evidence that would help you think or feel differently than you do, but I would point out that there isn’t even a single piece of (even anecdotal) evidence of insurance companies funding any disruptive mob at any town hall meeting and yet that is what you believe. I don’t know… I’m not sure there can be a debate when facts don’t matter.

As for polls, I’m sure that if the poll were indicating 60% support for the healthcare takeover you would see it as validation. But since it is the opposite it’s evidence of ‘herd mentality’ and misdirection.

How’s this— let’s discuss this fairly and objectively. I’ll admit that I ramp up my rhetoric… obviously I know it when I see it on your side as well. But lately I have been noticing that the two sides here are living in totally different realities. I don’t see nefarious evil in everything from the left, I really don’t. I just want to be able to be left alone. Liberal policies make even the smallest matter a matter of federal significance. I don’t want that. If your policies just affected you then I wouldn’t care what Obama does. But the ideology requires a total monopoly.

Also, the status quo in healthcare involves a great deal of government intervention now. Healthcare has incentives that completely cut out any need for service and government involvement will only make that worse.

The reform we need is not to take over the private sector.

What’s funnier is that it’s likely none of these representatives have even read the bill.

Posted by: eric at August 6, 2009 8:18 PM
Comment #285758

Another group of insurance industry funded protesters: Video: Thuggish mob of elderly Nazis attacks AARP with questions about health care

Posted by: eric at August 6, 2009 8:20 PM
Comment #285760

Ha ha!!! A conveniently edited video. Not orchestrated??? Are you kidding??? He shakes hands with Hugo Chavez??? What is that but calling someone a Commie? You don’t need to wear a brown shirt to act like a jerk, idiot, or corporate shill.

Have you ever been to Dallas, Eric?

I used to live there. GW is building his library there. Do you think there might be more than a few Republican bots living there? Some of us old geezers still remember the Dallas papers running ads suggesting that Kennedy should be killed..right about the time he was… in Dallas.

Posted by: gergle at August 6, 2009 8:40 PM
Comment #285761

true,adv. truth, n. (OED)
3. a. Of a statement or belief: Consistent with fact; agreeing with the reality; representing the thing as it is.
d. transf. Speaking truly, telling the truth; trustworthy in statement; veracious, truthful.
1388 WYCLIF Luke xvi. 10 He that is trewe in the leeste thing, is trewe also in the more.
1602 SHAKES. Ham. I. iii. 78 This aboue all; to thine owne selfe be true:..Thou canst not then be false to any man.
1847 HELPS Friends in C. I. 8 A true man does not think what his hearers are feeling, but what he is saying.

Posted by: ohrealy at August 6, 2009 9:08 PM
Comment #285762

Yes, eric, and the goal of the Republicans is to turn America into a neo-nazi fascist state for the corporations with themselves in the board rooms.

Anyone who believes our government can shut down a better more competitive offering by the private sector isn’t acquainted with the underground illegal drug markets in America.

Yes, there are some Democrats who say they want a single payer universal health care system in America. BUT NOT OBAMA. Obama, in COMPLETE contradiction to your assertion, is on record saying he DOES NOT want a single payer system, nor does he want government doctors and nurses replacing private sector doctors and nurses.

So, stop already with the misinformation. It ruins the credibility of your other statements which happen to be factual and true. There is nothing in the proposed bills which will make it to the Senate that even suggests elimination of the private health insurance sector. What it does do is threaten non-profit price competition to the private health insurance sector. And you are for competition and consumer price choice, are you not? Or, only when a Republican sponsors it?

I don’t care if a Venusian proposes a lower cost option, with more choice, and a path to coverage for everyone who wants it. That is what I, as a father want for my daughter and her children, and I don’t care which party proposes it. Let’s get it done. That is what most Americans want, as well. Lower costs, more choice, and accessibility for health care. And you and your political side oppose this. Couldn’t be more obvious why your party no longer governs this nation.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 6, 2009 9:31 PM
Comment #285763

It’s perfectly fine to speak out against issues you’re concerned about, but it’s another thing entirely to show up just to cause a ruckus, stop the conversation, and scream and yell like children. They have every right to do so, but it just puts a halt to the democratic process. And, technically, those people disrupting town hall meetings are taking away other citizen’s right to speak by shutting down the discussion!

Posted by: Mike Falino at August 6, 2009 9:54 PM
Comment #285765

Case in point!

Posted by: Mike Falino at August 6, 2009 9:57 PM
Comment #285766

Eric-

I’m not sure that there’s any amount of evidence that would help you think or feel differently than you do, but I would point out that there isn’t even a single piece of (even anecdotal) evidence of insurance companies funding any disruptive mob at any town hall meeting and yet that is what you believe.

Dizzy? I don’t think your difficulty of convincing me of things means one damn thing as far as the dozens of recorded confrontations go.

Speaking of recordings, what’s your answer to this?

This video has a FreedomWorks employee clearly described as such stating that his group is a grassroots group. It is not.

It is the combination of the group Empower America, which was lead by William Bennet, Jeane Kirkpatrick, and Jack Kemp, with Citizens for a Sound Economy, a group that was founded and led by members of the billionaire Koch family, An R.J Reynolds heir, and Freedomwork’s current boss Dick Armey, and which was funded in turn by people like ADM, Enron, GE, Phillip Morris, Microsoft, ExxonMobil, and US Sugar, for crying out loud.

This is grassroots the same way the field in the Astrodome is a natural meadow. Yet that’s the bull they feed us. And obviously, the people in that video are unreservedly saying that the Teabaggers are gaining great deals of logistical help from these Right-Wing Thinktanks.

And now, those same people are distributing kits, complete with cute little bits of propaganda to mock healthcare reform with.

You’ve got this one Group, Conservatives for Patients Rights being lead by a guy whose company was fined 1.7 billion dollars under his leadership for defrauding Medicare and Medicaid.

As for there being absolutely no connection?

Bulls***.

Let the fine journalists at TPM give you the lowdown: (I know, you don’t like them. Prove them wrong if you can.)

On Friday, July 24, a representative of Conservatives for Patients Rights—the anti-health care reform group run by disgraced hospital executive Rick Scott[The Guy who bilked Medicare and Medicaid that I mentioned], in conjunction with the message men behind the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth—sent an email to a list serve (called the Tea Party Patriots Health Care Reform Committee) containing a spreadsheet that lists over one hundred congressional town halls from late July into September.

The email from CPR to tea baggers suggests that, though conservatives portray the tea bagger disruptions as symptoms of a populist rebellion roiling unprompted through key districts around the country, they have to a great extent been orchestrated by anti-health care reform groups financed by industry. (CPR did not immediately respond to a request for comment.)

That email predates by about a week a recent flurry of events at which Democratic members of Congress have been accosted and harassed by anti-health care reform tea party protesters. But beyond putting those spectacles, now receiving wide play on cable news, into a fresh light, it also provides a window into the tea party protesters’ organizing infrastructure, which, like so much political organizing today, occurs in private email list serves.

Got that? Now I’ve heard plenty of protests saying that our friend who wrote that memo, Robert MacGuffie, wasn’t really employed or associated with anybody. That turns out to be rather inaccurate. He wasn’t just posting out into the wind.

But his memo nonetheless found its way to hundreds of tea party activists, including the very organizations MacGuffie insists he’s unaffiliated with.

Like many political movements in the country, the so-called Tea Party Patriots organize on a number of email list serves—an eponymous google group, one called Health Care Freedom Tea Party, the aforementioned Tea Party Patriots Health Care Reform Committee—where the broader community of tea baggers, including those working independently, co-ordinate.

MacGuffie’s memo was posted to the Tea Party Patriots’ list serve, which is hundreds of members large, and includes representatives from not just small protest groups, but also major anti-health reform organizations such as Conservatives for Patients Rights, and Patients First, Patients United Now (an affiliate of Americans for Prosperity), and, yes, Freedom Works.

With such broad and powerful memberships, the group is able to co-ordinate protests and counter protests at events hosted by members of Congress and pro-reform groups. And that’s just what they’ve been doing, and plan to do much more over the August congressional recess, during which many believe the fate of health care reform will be decided.

Like I said. It’s to grassroots what the Astrodome’s field is to a verdant meadow.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 6, 2009 10:06 PM
Comment #285767

Eric,
“What right do ordinary citizens have to protest the Federal takeover of the Healthcare industry?”

Simple; when it comes to the point that a family of four (i.e. the average american family) has to pay for their Private Health Insurance Policy than to the bank for their house. Because I wonder how many conservatives are going to scream when they see their $700.00 a month health care bill turn into $1,400.00 without Americas’ Democratic and Republican Civil, Political, and Religious Leaders reforming the system.

Care to tell me how many Social Elite are ready to pay $80,000.00 for a Silver Health Care Plan when today they are getting a Golden insurance plan for $40,000.00?

Yes, go talk with your Elected Officials about the Reality all Americans face over he next few years in the Medical Industry; however, screaming that Congress should let the Private Industry decide what is a fair price. Are you ready to have a Health Care Plan that costs you 99% of your income? For if greed is the driving force for making a better Medical Industy in America than what happens when the Medical Bubble pops? No doctors and nurses able to practice their trade due to hospitals being broke and foreclosed.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at August 6, 2009 10:13 PM
Comment #285775

Stephen,

Since you double-posted your accusation, I’ll double-post my response.

Now I’ve heard plenty of protests saying that our friend who wrote that memo, Robert MacGuffie, wasn’t really employed or associated with anybody.

He wasn’t.

But his memo nonetheless found its way to hundreds of tea party activists, including the very organizations MacGuffie insists he’s unaffiliated with.

Oh nO! How is that possible! I mean, it is so hard for someone to pass on something they get to others in similar groups who pass them on to others on the internet. I can’t see how that could have happened EXCEPT that he MUST have been on the payroll of FreedomWorks! In fact, Rove himself must have written the memo…

Please Stephen, this is getting RIDICULOUS and bordering on the truthers and birthers…

Not into conspiracy theories? You are exuding them.

Like many political movements in the country, the so-called Tea Party Patriots organize on a number of email list serves—an eponymous google group, one called Health Care Freedom Tea Party, the aforementioned Tea Party Patriots Health Care Reform Committee—where the broader community of tea baggers, including those working independently, co-ordinate.

MacGuffie’s memo was posted to the Tea Party Patriots’ list serve, which is hundreds of members large, and includes representatives from not just small protest groups, but also major anti-health reform organizations such as Conservatives for Patients Rights, and Patients First, Patients United Now (an affiliate of Americans for Prosperity), and, yes, Freedom Works.

Right, so just curious, where is the evidence that he posted it there?

Don’t have it?

It’s anonymous and no way to trace that?

Well, you got me there Stephen. I can’t see why I didn’t see it before.

And of course, if he did post it there, it obviously meant he was a paid operative of the secret society running the teabaggers movement…

The funny thing is that no matter how many times everyone involved has tried to debunk the ThinkProgress and TPM fantasies, they refuse to let it go.

Didn’t you lambast those on the right a few years ago for all of the ‘George Soros’ stuff, how Obama was a terrorist because he ‘palled around with them’ and how Obama got his house from his friend…?

There is more evidence to THOSE things than what you are attempting here. It’s a great example of what lengths people are willing to go to make a NON story, because it DOESN’T MATTER to anyone who doesn’t already believe everything ThinkProgress and TPM say out of hand. So why would they worry about debunking it unless it wasn’t true?

You know, I was going to leave this all alone, but…

I hear a lot about the ‘teabaggers’ and ‘birthers’… I mention the ‘truthers’ and am told that they don’t represent the Democrats so we should just let it go, etc…

Then I see a ‘poll’ brought out saying that 28% of the Republicans polled believe that Obama wasn’t born in the US. AHA! We are told, this is a prime example of how f’d up the Republicans are…

Funny thing is, the Republicans, when they had a poll that stated that 35% of the Democrats believed that Bush was behind the 9/11 attacks, didn’t ust it in this manner. Because most people understand that there are crazy people out there and lumping poeple together like that is a wretched way to try to avoid the issues at hand. A terrible FALLACY and flawed debate technique. And those that did were wrong to do so.

But that didn’t stop MSNBC, did it? Or ThinkProgress…

And I’m not even a Republican! I don’t support their view that this bill will ‘kill granny’, I think it is wrong. I was included in their attempts to label anyone who didn’t agree with the administration as being anti-american because I think that gay people should be allowed to marry, that religion should be kept out of governmental instutions, that pot should be legalized and I support the ACLU.

Yet I have to defend them against the disgusting tactics that the left are using and have been using on not just them but anyone who dares speak out agains this adminstration.

And I could care less about the flag@whitehouse.gov nonsense that the White House has posted, in fact I am making sure to include my future articles to that address and sign them up for all KINDS of spam…

But tell me, what do you think the cry and hue (rightfully) would have been from the left had George Bush suggested such a thing…? Why is the left supporting it now when they never would have a year ago…?

BTW, I left out of my rant, because of my mocking, that it appears that you didn’t even read the part that I quoted…

” including those working independently”

” includes representatives from not just small protest groups”

He has done nothing except that he was part of a small PAC that he and a few friends put together, posted on a blog once that is shared by a site that is a partner organization to FreedomWorks and passed out a memo to around 10 people that found its way onto a ‘teabagger’ newslist that includes people from FreedomWorks.

And you and your fellow Liberals want to tear this man LIMB FROM LIMB for it.

Politics at its finest. And you wonder why I don’t want this type of ‘politics’ involved in my healthcare any more than it already is?

BTW, I’ve seen some of my posts reposted on newslists like this myself. (Yes, I google search the uselists to see old postings I have made for reference). Are you going to someday use that fact against me to suggest I am a paid operative of who knows what?

I suspect you would, if it was politically expedient…

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 7, 2009 12:56 AM
Comment #285776
I salute the credit you give to our intelligence about claiming that if one town hall was anecdotally confirmed to be only populated by locals, that has to mean all other claims must be false.

AND *I* salute the credit you give to our intelligence about claiming that if a couple town halls were disrupted of the thousands going on, then they ALL must be…

Ah, nevermind, apparently this is modern politics, what’s the point?

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 7, 2009 1:00 AM
Comment #285777
The disruptive Nazi-like tactics

Can I call Godwin’s law here? Thanks…

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 7, 2009 1:01 AM
Comment #285778

David,

Barack Obama is on camera explaining that the goal is a single payer universal coverage with no private insurance.

“I don’t think we’re going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There’s going to be potentially some transition process…” ~Barack Obama, 2007

Posted by: eric at August 7, 2009 2:57 AM
Comment #285780

David,

I understand what you’re saying but there are many reasons why we shouldn’t do this right now.

As for competition the government doesn’t have to show a profit so when it is in competition with private business there really isn’t any competition. Government will spend more and more and the money comes from taxes which will have to be raised to pay for it. The overall cost is more likely to go up rather than down.

Just look at the cash for clunkers program. A model of government ‘success’ which was supposed to cost a billion dollars and (surprise) needed more money to continue being ‘successful.’

Bush certainly increased the deficit and that’s one of my criticisms of his administration. But Obama, so far, has increased the deficit by a trillion dollars in 6 months! and counting…

We are going to be bankrupt very shortly at this pace especially when every new policy is a new massive program costing trillions in initial estimated costs, which are almost always far less than what it actually ends up costing.

Some of the data about the uninsured is misleading and the cost of doing something at any cost may be far more than simply just targeting a small subset of people who are problematically uninsured. Cost versus benefit.

Posted by: eric at August 7, 2009 3:17 AM
Comment #285781

Eric, do you understand the English language used by Obama? I have to ask that because that Obama quote says NOTHING about a single payer plan. He clearly and forthrightly is talking about what Republicans have said they champion in the past, relieving business of the cost burdens to become more competitive. Relieving business of health care costs is just as good for the bottom line as relieving them of taxation. American business can become more cost competitive with foreign nations who subsidize health care.

I truly am at a loss as to what you think Obama is saying here. He is championing with these words a conservative idea. Making American business more competitive by reducing their costs. I can only speculate that your command of the English language has failed you since your statement is a total disconnect from the quote of Obama’s.

If you want to go after a Democrat, go after Barney Franks who said: “If we get a good public option, it could lead to single payer and that’s the best way to reach single payer.” But, that is Barney Frank saying that, not Barack Obama. Obama has opposed the single payer option from the beginning of his campaign on the topic consistently.

And I frankly, no pun intended, think Barney is fantasizing, since a good public option will not lead to single payer. There will always be a demand from the more well off in our country for the most health care money can buy, and that guarantees a private sector in health insurance that can extract high enough premiums to provide coverage which the public option could never provide. In the very same way that the regular middle class use public libraries while the wealthy class can afford to build their own within their homes and include them in private country clubs.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 7, 2009 3:20 AM
Comment #285782

Eric said: “As for competition the government doesn’t have to show a profit so when it is in competition with private business there really isn’t any competition.”

That’s a crock. America has an enormous number of non-profit organizations in the market place in health care, in social services, and education, in financial services, and they don’t impact the private sector engaged in the same activities, and they certainly haven’t driven the private sector out of those businesses.

In fact, private education is growing, private health care is growing, and private for-profit social services in marriage counseling, family counseling, and tax assistance have all been growing side by side with non-profits.

Reality is such an inconvenience to ideology, isn’t it?

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 7, 2009 3:26 AM
Comment #285783

Stephen,

As to astroturfing… respectfully, as a kind of rebuttal, I’d ask you: is astroturfing exclusively a Republican activity? Or does your standard apply to democratic ‘operatives’ as well?

Posted by: eric at August 7, 2009 3:30 AM
Comment #285784

“Can I call Godwin’s law here? Thanks…”

Well, no, not in this case. Ever heard of a little thing called the beer hall putsch? Same tactics.

Had I merely stated that the Republicans are Nazis (which I do not believe) analogous to Limbaugh saying Democrats are Nazis (which he’s only doing to whip up his ratings), then Godwin’s would apply.

Comparing the Republicans’ Nazi-like tactics to the Nazis’ tactics is not covered by Godwin’s.

Objection overruled.

Posted by: Greg House at August 7, 2009 8:36 AM
Comment #285786

eric said: “Just look at the cash for clunkers program. A model of government ‘success’ which was supposed to cost a billion dollars and (surprise) needed more money to continue being ‘successful.’”

I think the point of extending was to continue to kill three birds with the same buck, stimulate economic activity in the short term, which some Republicans complain hasn’t been happening, begin reducing our oil consumption by promoting more fuel efficient vehicles, and reduce the pollution by increasing mpg of vehicles on the road.

And all these objectives are promoted by this action. It’s a success because the objectives are being met and the money wisely spent for having addressed 3 objectives for the same dollar.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 7, 2009 8:38 AM
Comment #285789

“….what happens when the Medical Bubble pops? No doctors and nurses able to practice their trade due to hospitals being broke and foreclosed”

That point seems to escape the Town Hall protesters. Inflation in medical services and insurance is a true threat to the nation’s health care. According to the Kaiser Foundation’s 2008 annual survey of employer health insurance plans, premiums for family coverage in an employer based group have increased 119% since 1999! They were, on average, $12,680.00 in 2008, a 5% increase over 2007. How long can businesses continue to provide employee coverage with such relentless increases? How can an unemployed worker or one employed without employer coverage, afford private insurance, let alone the deductibles and co-pays?

There is an economic and health train wreck in the foreseeable future.

If the town hall protesters have some constructive solutions, lets hear them. Simply ranting against a plan they know little about is counterproductive. In fact, it is downright dangerous.

Posted by: Rich at August 7, 2009 8:51 AM
Comment #285790

These shameful episodes of the DNC dismissing Obamacare opponents as paid shills -even running disengenuous TV ads to slander them- while SanFranNan is halucinating and seeing imaginary Swastikas- should make clear to anyone just what these far-left elitists think of your opinion.

Note that whenever Obama, Emanuel, or Gibbs are asked about why polls show SO many people oppose their misguided Cap-n-Trade and Obamacare proposals, they ALWAYS segue-right-into “we need to educate the public…”.

LOL- save your breath- Constitutionally-aware patriots don’t take lectures from Marxists.

Posted by: Reaganite Republican at August 7, 2009 9:02 AM
Comment #285792

Rhinehold-
Here’s my response to your response on my side.

Beyond that?

I know this revelation about the well-connected nature of the tea party listserv is distressing to you, but what are the chances that an outfit like TPM would make such a specific factual claim without factual backup?

Remember, these are the people who broke open the whole US Attorneys scandal. They didn’t achieve that by being cavalier with the facts.

You folks are dancing around the facts, not wanting to acknowledge that your countermovement isn’t proceeding entirely on its own power.

As for your other comment, Let me be straight with you. It’s not one or two disruptions, its dozens, spread all across the country. I wouldn’t go out on a limb based on just two incidents. There have been more than two.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 7, 2009 9:45 AM
Comment #285794

And my response to your response.

BTW, thanks for making it so easy to point out the hypocrisy by displaying it so obviously in your comments. Saved me a lot of time.

BTW, I never said the listserv didn’t exist. Not sure how you got that nonsense.

As for the number of disruptions, there are over 1500 (if some haven’t been cancelled) town halls going on over the country right now. What percentage are being ‘disrupted’, not just becomming vocal? 1%?

Wow, I’m not sure how this country gets anything done… And I can see now how it is the left’s duty to lump every single protester into the same group, just as you complain the right does with anyone who disagrees with them… But that’s part of my response, I won’t spoil it here.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 7, 2009 10:12 AM
Comment #285795

Oh, and the National Enquirer broke the story about John Edwards, are we saying now that it is an unimpeachable source of information? Is that the game we play?

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 7, 2009 10:14 AM
Comment #285798

Rhinehold-
You know, Dan tried that particular tactic, the “you make your hypocrisy self-evident” line.

Sorry. I’m plain about what I believe in. I understand my people aren’t perfect, but imperfection on both sides does not automatically become equality of behavior. You site that one incident where Obama’s folks had people call in to that radio show, filling up the lines.

Okay, that happened. And its not exactly the kind of tactic I’d recommend. I don’t think it proves anything, I don’t think it helps anything. At best, it lets people know that they’re not unchallenged. But you don’t need a whole bunch of people to make that challenge. The artificiality undermines the power of the approach. You know what somebody like them will say.

Which is why I appeal to novel factual information when I really want to win an argument. It forces people to realign their approach. That’s what I recommend as your primary line of attack.

But what you do, is that you simply deny the facts that I’ve offered. So you don’t deny the existence of the listserv. You’re still denying that the person writing my source article actually knew whats going on. Why?

Because it’s Talking Points Memo.

Although TPM has expanded to include Reader Blogs, an opinion page of sorts, and other things, the main focus of the site is on news, and many of the site’s features rely on fact reported elsewhere and their own reporting. You compare them to the National Enquirer, but as far as I know, Talking Points Memo enjoys a fairly good reputation, aside from the fact that it’s a decidedly liberal site.

The only person playing a game in this discussion with the credibility of the news sources is you. So you’ll have to tell me, is it your familiarity with that listserv in question that allows you to question whether the listed organizations are on it, or is that simply a fact you don’t want others on this site to believe for your own reasons?

Eric-
When I was a kid, people wishing to be obnoxious would repeat back what someone said, until they lost it.

Nice to know we’re using mature tactics here. Has it occured to you that

1) Nothing about Democrats using those tactics would mean that what the Hecklers are doing right now is right, making such assertions logically invalid as a defense(the tu quoque fallacy);

2) No evidence has been presented of such widespread, coordinated disruptive practices in on the left’s part at this point, making such equivalence factually unsound.

I won’t deny that there perhaps exist astroturf Democratic Party organizations. But most I know of clearly identify themselves for what they are. If you could name a number of the supposedly non-grassroots organizations, that would be helpful. Democrats have plenty of examples to choose from. Can we say the same about the Republicans?

And regardless of what numbers we uncover, one fact arises here that is difficult for you to deny with any credibility- that Industry funded thinktanks and astroturf groups are helping to organize the supposedly spontaneous demonstrations you’re praising here.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 7, 2009 10:56 AM
Comment #285799
You’re still denying that the person writing my source article actually knew whats going on. Why?

Because he says he didn’t, FreedomWorks says he didn’t, everyone else involved says he didn’t and you have provided no evidence that the did.

And most people who know what a listserv is know that items, like that memo, will be passed around and posted without the author’s knowledge all of the time.

Or it could have been. This could be an elaborate hoax that he is playing, setting up that PAC with 4 friends last year so that this year he could do the bidding of the evil overlords of FreedomWorks and claim that he wasn’t affiliated with it at all. And then throw it all away by leaving small breadcrumbs around that would PROVE that he was an operative…

*shrug*

Because it’s Talking Points Memo.

Or if it were Newsmax, or if it were CNN, or if it were god himself. If there is no proof of something, which hasn’t been provided, then there no proof. What is left is making leaps of logic, which you happily do when you want to believe the outcome and rail against when the Republicans did it to Obama re: Ayers.

In fact, I’m the only one saying that BOTH sides were wrong in trying to make the tenuous of cases be hard proof of anything.

The worst part is that you, and the others on the left who want to believe this to be true, are pretty much ruining the guy, dragging him through the mud for your own political agenda… Nice.

Although TPM has expanded to include Reader Blogs, an opinion page of sorts, and other things, the main focus of the site is on news, and many of the site’s features rely on fact reported elsewhere and their own reporting. You compare them to the National Enquirer, but as far as I know, Talking Points Memo enjoys a fairly good reputation, aside from the fact that it’s a decidedly liberal site.

Well, it started on itself on a false premise (that the ‘talking points memo’ was somehow proof of something that it wasn’t) it is a pretty good example of how they make leaps of logic to claim facts that aren’t such things. It sort of does call them into question when they keep doing it…

But, that’s ok, next time someone on here posts an article by Fox or Newsmax, I will be watching to see if you claim that the source is suspect…

The only person playing a game in this discussion with the credibility of the news sources is you.

Actually, you have that wrong as well. I said that the ‘news article’ was tenuous and not based on facts but leaps of logic. It proved nothing. And THAT called into question the news source. Not the other way around. As with any news source, I read the ‘article’ for any proof and then I look up the proof to see if it is accurate. I didn’t have to go that far with this one because no where does TPM or ThinkProgress ever come close to laying down PROOF that MacGuffie was involved in any way with FreedomWorks or that any part of his story, which he has made available, was not correct.

Just the same type of shoddy logic leaping that people like you complain that Republicans did in 2008 against Obama. I don’t support it when either party does it, but I think we see when you are willing to go down that path.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 7, 2009 11:19 AM
Comment #285802

Rich
“If the town hall protesters have some constructive solutions, lets hear them”

Their constructive solution is for govt to leave them alone and let them take care of themselves. That message is very loud and very clear.

Its not about not hearing them, its about not being willing to listen to them.

Posted by: kctim at August 7, 2009 11:41 AM
Comment #285803
halucinating and seeing imaginary Swastikas

Unfortunately, the swastikas are neither imaginary nor hallucinatory.

Their constructive solution is for govt to leave them alone and let them take care of themselves. That message is very loud and very clear.
Yeah, their constructive message is to make sure that government keeps its hands off Medicare. Posted by: LawnBoy at August 7, 2009 12:05 PM
Comment #285804

I LOVE IT!

So, they are carrying swastikas (saying never again and with lines through them, Pelosi didn’t mention that they were referring to PREVENTING Nazi-ism).

And that is a BAD thing?

And the Democrats feel no issue with calling the protestres ‘nazi brownshirts’, that’s okeydokey?

This has got to be the best summer ever for a non-democrat/non-republican. I’m getting some more popcorn for this.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 7, 2009 12:11 PM
Comment #285805

BTW, this is a link to a sign in an Iraq War protest…

http://www.the-clearing.org/Photos/Other/030118/01180173.jpg

Have fun!

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 7, 2009 12:15 PM
Comment #285806

Another one from an Iraq War protest…

http://www.pajamasmedia.com/instapundit-archive/images/pcswas.jpg

Awesome!

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 7, 2009 12:23 PM
Comment #285807
So, they are carrying swastikas (saying never again and with lines through them, Pelosi didn’t mention that they were referring to PREVENTING Nazi-ism).

And that is a BAD thing?

Let me see if I understand you here. It’s a good thing for protesters to call Obama a Nazi if they are opposed to Nazi-ism? Is that it?

Umm… So, exactly when would you find it objectionable for a politician to be called a fascist? Only if done by a self-described Nazi?

Yes, it is a BAD thing for right-wing protesters to call Obama a Hitler or a Nazi, just as it was a BAD thing for left-wing protesters to call Bush a Hitler or a Nazi.

Seriously, it’s ok to call someone a Nazi if you don’t like what they are doing? How silly.

Posted by: LawnBoy at August 7, 2009 12:27 PM
Comment #285808

LawnBoy,

You do realize that the Democrats are calling the protesters ‘brownshirts’ and that they are employing ‘nazi’ tactics, right?

Hell, it was done in these comments!

The protesters are claiming that what Obama is doing is facist… yeah, they have a right to do that. Just as the Iraq protesters did it. Just as so many Democrats did with Bush…

Was it not ok then too? Was Pelosi calling the Iraq protests ‘astroturf’ because they had swastikas then?

I think my brain is going to explode, I think I need to get outside for a bit…

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 7, 2009 12:35 PM
Comment #285809

kctim,

“Its not about not hearing them, its about not being willing to listen to them.”

I don’t know about you, but when people start shouting my willingness to listen drops way off. Demanding to be heard isn’t a way to get a point across, despite the examples we see and hear on “discussion” shows.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 7, 2009 12:37 PM
Comment #285810

Rhinehold,

You do realize that the Democrats are calling the protesters ‘brownshirts’ and that they are employing ‘nazi’ tactics, right?

Yep, and it’s irrelevant.

I was responding to multiple claims that swastikas were not being used against Obama, and I demonstrated that those claims were factually in error.

Responding with “oh yeah - well you do it too!” ignores what I said in favor of childishness.

I wrote above that it’s equally invalid for either side to use this tactic. Your knee-jerk response doesn’t address what I actually said.

Posted by: LawnBoy at August 7, 2009 12:42 PM
Comment #285811

LawnBoy,

I find it HILAROUS. I didn’t say that the protesters weren’t carrying signs calling Obama a fascist. I just think it is good theater to watch the rampant hypocrisy. Which is why I’m getting my popcorn…

BTW, the claim wasn’t that they were using swastikas against Obama, the claim was that they were astroturf because they were “carrying swastikas and things like that to a town hall meeting.” Of course, the inferrence (while calling the protesters brownshirts) is that they were sporting them… But that’s another debate for another time, I know that Pelosi is pretty much full of it most of the time anyway.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 7, 2009 12:49 PM
Comment #285812
the claim wasn’t that they were using swastikas against ObamaRhinehold,

See Comment 285790 to see the following phrase to which I was responding:

halucinating and seeing imaginary Swastikas
Posted by: LawnBoy at August 7, 2009 12:52 PM
Comment #285814

Rocky, there is no willingness to listen to them being displayed, that has led to their feeling the need to shout.
You can only tell people to either agree and accept or sit down and shutup, for so long.

Posted by: kctim at August 7, 2009 1:30 PM
Comment #285816

Their constructive solution is for govt to leave them alone and let them take care of themselves. That message is very loud and very clear.

I call B.S. The current bill lets everyone who has a plan keep their plan. If you don’t have one, it is not a matter of “being left alone”, because if these numbskulls get into an accident, e.g., they could easily be rendered poverty-stricken and end up on MY dime. So by not having insurance they are not leaving me alone. Got it?

Posted by: Mental Wimp at August 7, 2009 1:41 PM
Comment #285817
You can only tell people to either agree and accept or sit down and shutup, for so long.

So, it’s six months? Or, was it back at the tea parties when it was only two months?

So, the lesson is that liberals waited eight years to be returned to power, but those who hate us can’t stand to wait 5% of that.

Got it.

Posted by: LawnBoy at August 7, 2009 1:44 PM
Comment #285818
So, the lesson is that liberals waited eight years to be returned to power

So, the liberals have had NO power for the past 4 years? Didn’t have control of the house since 2004 and both houses sincd 2006?

I find that an interesting thought…

By your reconning, the conservatives were not in any position of power in the 90s?

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 7, 2009 1:49 PM
Comment #285819
it is not a matter of “being left alone”, because if these numbskulls get into an accident, e.g., they could easily be rendered poverty-stricken and end up on MY dime

And there it is. The government has decided it should be providing something and as a result, all of your individual rights of self-determination, privacy, etc are thrown out of the window as a result.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 7, 2009 1:51 PM
Comment #285822

Rhinehold,

So, the liberals have had NO power for the past 4 years?

Ummm… I was talking about the White House.

By your reconning, the conservatives were not in any position of power in the 90s?

I don’t know what you’re reckoning; that’s not at all what I said.

Posted by: LawnBoy at August 7, 2009 1:58 PM
Comment #285824

“And there it is. The government has decided it should be providing something and as a result, all of your individual rights of self-determination, privacy, etc are thrown out of the window as a result.”

Yep, screw’um. We’re all on our own.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 7, 2009 2:17 PM
Comment #285826

Mental
Does the govt option require they pay for the govt plan in addition to the plan they choose? If it does, not everybody can keep the private plan they choose.
If you listen to them, they do not want to be a part of another govt plan. Whether it be because of they wish to keep their right to choose, don’t want higher taxes or simply don’t trust govt due to its past, they do not wish to be a part of it.

If you don’t want them living off your dime, then why in the hell are you trying to force them to let you live off their dime?

Besides, its liberal policy which would require them to live off your dime anyways. Your beef is with the wrong people it seems.

LB
The lesson to be learned is that you need to come up with a plan for EVERYBODY, not just some.

“but those who hate us can’t stand to wait 5% of that”

Not when you are trying to dictate how they live and want them to pay for it.

Posted by: kctim at August 7, 2009 2:23 PM
Comment #285827

Yeah, it’s a shame that Americans aren’t smart enough to figure out a way to help other people AND keep their rights. We’re just too stupid I guess.

Maybe the founding fathers shouldn’t have bothered and just left us as subjects to the English crown, I think they overestimated the potential we had.

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/obama_drastically_scales_back

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 7, 2009 2:25 PM
Comment #285828
Not when you are trying to dictate how they live and want them to pay for it.

Sadly, it seems not to matter that this is a complete misrepresentation of the issue and policy goals at hand.

So, the lesson from kctim is that it’s acceptable to throw a tantrum when you don’t get what you want, even when what you are complaining about doesn’t represent reality.

Posted by: LawnBoy at August 7, 2009 2:34 PM
Comment #285829

LawnBoy,

You don’t feel the least concerned that what is going to happen is that people who can afford private and public healthcare will have the private option while still paying for the public, the ones who can only afford one or the other are going to be forced to choose the public (since they can’t afford both) and we are going to end up with the same situation we have in education where the children of rich parents who can afford their high property taxes AND private school get better education for their children and any time the SUGGESTION that we allow school ‘choice’ is brought up the left gets into a tizzy….?

Because, that’s pretty much already in the cards, don’t you think?

As long as you are ok with the rich getting better services, I’m sure they will be ok with it too.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 7, 2009 2:38 PM
Comment #285830

Rhinehold,

It’s not perfect, but it’s better than the status quo by a long mile. We now have care denied for newborns because of supposed pre-existing conditions. We have people afraid of going to the ER after debilitating car accidents because of financial fear. We have churches that pay clergy nothing but health insurance because of the rising costs.

So, would a system where everyone gets exactly the same be perfect by every measure? No. Would a system where the rich can still purchase more than the poor be perfect by every measure? No. Would either be a huge improvement over the status quo? Definitely.

Posted by: LawnBoy at August 7, 2009 2:46 PM
Comment #285833

LawnBoy,

Are you even aware why we have the situation we have now?

Hint, arguments just like what you have made without considering the side effects OR how individual liberty should be considered as well.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 7, 2009 3:16 PM
Comment #285834

Rhinehold,

Did I say there wouldn’t be side effects? These things are difficult, but every other industrialized country in the world has figured it out, so I don’t think it’s an unsolvable problem.

Are you even aware of how arrogant is sounds to use the phrase “Are you even aware…” followed by a hint based on a strawman?

Posted by: LawnBoy at August 7, 2009 3:20 PM
Comment #285835
but every other industrialized country in the world has figured it out, so I don’t think it’s an unsolvable problem.

Well, they don’t have the pesky notion of individual rights, which is what we are going to end up with too I suppose. It’s a shame, I really thought we could be better then everyone else.

Are you even aware of how arrogant is sounds to use the phrase “Are you even aware…”

Yes. And I can even answer the questions posed to me.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 7, 2009 3:43 PM
Comment #285836
Well, they don’t have the pesky notion of individual rights

And there goes any credibility Rhinehold might have thought he had.

Poof!

Posted by: LawnBoy at August 7, 2009 3:47 PM
Comment #285838

Interesting, you thought I had credibility? That’s funny!

Name one, LawnBoy. Give me the name of an industrialized nation, with ‘nationalized healthcare’, that was built on the notion that the government had strict limited rights and all citizens were born with rights that the government couldn’t take away, that people were inheritely free to live their lives free from any government intrusion into them…

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 7, 2009 4:09 PM
Comment #285839

Nah, you’ll just move the goalposts again. It’s not worth my time. I mean you’ll just say that all those human rights in Canada or the Netherlands or wherever won’t count because they don’t use the exact word you were looking for or something else irrelevant but supposedly face-saving.

It’s amazing that all those countries have so many human rights, and yet you claim none of them even have the pesky notion of what it is.

It’s amazing.

Posted by: LawnBoy at August 7, 2009 4:15 PM
Comment #285840

LawnBoy,

Words are important. I stated Individual Rights. You counter with ‘human rights’ which aren’t exactly the same thing. In fact, what they have in Canada or The Netherlands are ‘Constitutional Rights’. They don’t exist in the notion that a citizen has rights outside of those listed in their ‘constitutions’.

It has nothing to do with ‘moving the goalposts’, as it does in you understanding what makes (or used to make) the US different from these countries and why the Constitution is not a set of rights that the Individual has, but a document of the limits that Government has, never pretending to detail an exhaustive list of the rights that the Citizens retained outside of the government. The government doesn’t give us our rights so they cannot list them or take them away if they are constrained within the limited power…

And yeah, it’s amazing that you don’t understand that. And it is why we SHOULD be having a much harder time doing what you suggest, taking those things into account. Or, we pretend they don’t exist and just vote in whatever we want I suppose…

BTW, LawnBoy, can you tell me where in the Constitution the Federal government has the power to operate a national healthcare system? Especially considering that by law, no insurance company can cross state lines?

That would be a nice exercise…

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 7, 2009 4:22 PM
Comment #285841

Yep, I was right. I used the phrase “human rights” because it’s what the convenient resource uses, and you claim that that the phrasing makes all the difference, ignoring that the equivalent page for the USA is called Human right in United States.

I guess this is a problem of clarification. When you said “they don’t have the pesky notion of individual rights,” you weren’t clear enough. What you should have said is “they don’t have the pesky notion of individual rights defined precisely and exactly as we do, using the exact same founding documents, ignoring any practical realities of the existence of actual individual rights in their societies.”

If I had realized that you were defining “individual rights” as “individual rights as defined in America and nowhere else”, then your statement would have been a perfectly correct tautology.

Too bad I thought you were operating in the real world. My mistake.

I get American exceptionalism, and I have no problem with it. I do, however, have a problem with ignoring and distorting the reality as it is in other countries to justify maintaining a position in the United States that costs more and returns less than what we could have.

Posted by: LawnBoy at August 7, 2009 4:41 PM
Comment #285842

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

“Welfare” as definied at the time of the Constitution meant health, happiness, or prosperity.

Furthermore, a view of the Constitution as a collection of negative rights makes no sense. If one person malisciously prevents another from exercising free speech, then free speech has been prevented. Free speech is meaningless unless government positively acts to support it, otherwise one private entity would be able to crush another’s right at will.

Posted by: phx8 at August 7, 2009 4:49 PM
Comment #285843

I’m sorry, when I said ‘individual rights’, that’s precisely what I meant. Your misunderstanding of it is not my fault.

As for ‘getting less’, I disagree. When taking non-healthcare related deaths out of the equation the US has the #1 life exptectancy in the world. Not too bad really, IMO.

And, we get to keep the notion of liberty in the United States when the other countries don’t have to bother, they just make sure that they don’t violate the listed out rights that their ‘constitutions’. allow.

What was I thinking, actually working within our legal documents, I’m such a silly nit.

It’s obvious that YOU are willing to give up your rights for some perceived gain, but you don’t have the power to do that for everyone elses.

Yet.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 7, 2009 4:51 PM
Comment #285844

Phx8,

Great example of the misunderstanding many people have. I of course blame the fact that most people in the US are educated in a government controlled environment, so they teach what they want you to know…

PROMOTING the general welfare is a noble goal. I am all for it. But PROMOTING and PROVIDING are two different things, aren’t they?

As for your view that the constitution is a collection of negative rights is … interesting. Let’s use your example.

If one person malisciously prevents another from exercising free speech, then free speech has been prevented.

That’s part of the problem, no one is preventing anyone else from exercising free speech… Only, aren’t they? David can block you from posting on this site for any reason, right? Isn’t that a ‘violation’ of free speech? Nope. Because you don’t have a right to free speech over someone else’s private property. So he is quite free to block you as the representative of Cameron, who owns the site.

You have a right to free speech from the GOVERNMENT. The GOVERNMENT cannot take away your right to free speech. There is no guarantee to free speech on private property, except of course your own, because you own it.

So yes, one individual can crush another’s at will, as we see demonstrated here and many many other places all of the time.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 7, 2009 4:57 PM
Comment #285845

BTW, phx8, here are a couple of relevant quotes that you might find interesting:

“I hope our courts will never countenance the sweeping pretensions which have been set up under the words ‘general defence and public welfare.’ These words only express the motives which induced the Convention to give to the ordinary legislature certain specified powers which they enumerate, and which they thought might be trusted to the ordinary legislature, and not to give them the unspecified also; or why any specification? They could not be so awkward in language as to mean, as we say, ‘all and some.’ And should this construction prevail, all limits to the federal government are done away.” —Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1815. ME 14:350
“They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please… Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect.” —Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791. ME 3:148
Posted by: Rhinehold at August 7, 2009 4:59 PM
Comment #285846
I’m sorry, when I said ‘individual rights’, that’s precisely what I meant. Your misunderstanding of it is not my fault.

I’m glad you admit you were using a useless tautology. It’s my fault for misunderstanding that you intentionally stacked the deck in such a way that you could win semantically without having to have anything meaningful in your statement.

When taking non-healthcare related deaths out of the equation the US has the #1 life exptectancy in the world.
Do you have a source for this? Given our recent misunderstanding, I want to know exactly what you mean by “taking non-healthcare related deaths out of the equation”.

Otherwise, yes, we get less. We pay more, and satisfaction is less, infant mortality is worse, and millions have no coverage.

Posted by: LawnBoy at August 7, 2009 5:04 PM
Comment #285848

Hopefully these links will put down that canards that our life expectancy in the US is due to our Healthcare system and that we have a worse imoratlity rate. Both of them are false.

http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2007/09/natural-life-expectancy-in-united.html

http://healthcare-economist.com/2007/10/02/health-care-system-grudge-match-canada-vs-us/

As for me using a ‘meaningless phrase’, I think I have explained well enough why it is not meaningless and why it was the proper phrase to use for the point I made.

Just because you wanted to ‘catch me on something to destroy my credibility’ is a problem that should be looked at, IMO.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 7, 2009 5:10 PM
Comment #285849

Stephen,

When I was a kid, people wishing to be obnoxious would repeat back what someone said, until they lost it.

Nice to know we’re using mature tactics here. Has it occured to you that:
That wasn’t my intention at all. I’m not even sure why you would see that in my question. My point was to ask you to examine what appears to me to be a double standard. I don’t see what you seem to see here. Your definition of astroturfing would apply equally to both sides in this case. Indeed, to just about everything anyone does politically. Sharing information and communicating about events is apparently astroturfing. I’m was just hoping that you might be more objective.

For instance, some of your arguments about the Iraq war had merit. On policies of major significance it’s difficult to force an agenda when half of the country is against it. Of course, at the time that the Iraq war started there was a 70% approval for that policy but over time half of the country came to be more or less against it. In this case half the country is already against this healthcare takeover proposal. This is a democracy. The more of Obama’s policies that are ramrodded through without widespread support the more your overall agenda is going to be hurt. This is a democracy.

Truthfully, I’m beginning to be more detached about this since there’s almost nothing we can do (except maybe show up and protest) and yet opposing in any way just creates more demonization (and possibly violence).

I guess we should just shut up like Obama says.

Posted by: eric at August 7, 2009 5:12 PM
Comment #285850

Oh, and there are lots of things we should be doing to make our healthcare industry better and cheaper. And we can. But we don’t have to violate the constitution or our individual rights to do it.

At least, that’s if we try.

Or, we could just ignore our rights and let the government take away our liberties. Not much a single person like myself can do to stop that I expect.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 7, 2009 5:12 PM
Comment #285852

Rhinehold,

I wasn’t trying to catch you on something that would destroy your credibility. I honestly expected you to do better than use a tautology. That’s all.

Posted by: LawnBoy at August 7, 2009 5:20 PM
Comment #285857

Rhinehold,

Let’s try a slightly different approach. Could you please explain the following distinction:

  • In a country that has Human Rights, it is unacceptable for a mother to be worrying that her newborn might not have life-saving care because the medical provider is concerned about pre-existing conditions.
  • In a country that has pragmatically identical (though based on different philosophical underpinnings), it is preferred to keep a system in which a mother would worry that her newborn might not have life-saving care because the medical provider is concerned about pre-existing conditions.

I guess I don’t see why you spend so much energy on the distinction between pragmatically identical systems when that distinction isn’t related to the problems to be fixed

Posted by: LawnBoy at August 7, 2009 6:54 PM
Comment #285859

Oops, the second bullet should have started with this:

“In a country that has pragmatically identical (though based on different philosophical underpinnings) Individual Rights,”

Posted by: LawnBoy at August 7, 2009 7:01 PM
Comment #285860

Eric-
Your party is making **** up that has me asking what’s scarier: that people believe this, and say it sincerely, or don’t, and push this kind of stuff out of cynicism. I mean, you have Palin wondering out loud whether somebody could come kill her kid under a rule that merely says people can have a counselling session at government expense where they set up a living will or DNR request!

I mean, goddamn. That’s irresponsible. Somebody will believe her, and believing her, will act accordingly. Will set up their view of others, accordingly. People being put in positions of trust are abusing that trust by telling lies that could motivate people to potentially dangerous action.

You think your people can tell their constituents, their listeners and viewers forever that the fourth reich is upon them, and not have some kind of violence, some kind of insane outcome as a result? Can you really deliberately go about the business of using all these tactics, and not at some point provoke a sorry incident that we’re all going to regret or even mourn?

The last time the Republicans played with this fire, hundreds of people died, many of the them children, because some nut thought it was just that important, and didn’t have the faculties to tell what was right from wrong.

You have people twittering about bringing GUNS to these meetings. Like Chekhov said about his plays, if there is gun on the mantle in the second act, it’s going to be shot in the third. You folks cannot continue inciting such hatred, fear, and loathing, and then telling people that people like us must be defeated by all means necessary, and not end up causing some tragedy.

Your leaders are manipulating this rage and fear, stoking it up an creating it, but expect it to remain safely contained. It’s not going to. There is always somebody with more bullets than brains, and if you encourage them enough, they will show up, and think they’re doing the world a favor by doing so.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 7, 2009 7:03 PM
Comment #285861
Somebody will believe her

People are already using this insane misinterpretation at these out-of-control town hall meetings. Listen to the father of the boy in the wheelchair.

Posted by: LawnBoy at August 7, 2009 7:37 PM
Comment #285862

Rhinehold,
Good comments. I’m not a lawyer or a constitutional scholar, obviously, and it’s true a person can override another’s right to free speech on that person’s private property, which sets up the odd dynamic of promoting one right over another.

In a public domain, such as a publicly owned courthouse, a townhouse meeting brings up different free speech issues. I think most people would agree that any group has the right to attend a meeting in overwhelming numbers, be noisy, ask aggressive questions, and so on; but no group has a right to prevent free speech from happening by making loud interfering noise, blocking access to the speaker, etc.

Protesters can wave swastikas, compare Obama and the Democrats to Hitler & the Nazis, show up in large numbers for an opposition party’s event and ask unfriendly questions, and so on.

When it comes to health care, the difference between ‘promoting’ and ‘providing’ is slippery. Providing suggests giving health care. Promoting suggest being in favor of it. In the old sense of the word, I suspect it means more than merely advocating it, but to take actions to ensure that it happens, through justice, defence, and domestic tranquillity.

Posted by: phx8 at August 7, 2009 7:51 PM
Comment #285864

More fun with astroturfing!

A GOP Official and former aide to the Congressman’s defeated opponent shows up at a meeting characterizing herself as just an ordinary mom.

Let me be clear on something. Yes, my party might not be staffed with angels. But then if everybody is a depraved hypercompetitive twit in this country, the answer is not to use that fact to justify remaining depraved hypercompetitive twits. The answer is that we got to stop thinking purely in terms of how we’re going to defeat the other side and create a perfect bullet proof defense for our own.

Why? Because the ultimate end of hypercompetitive twittiness is just plan lying one’s ass off. It’s the perfect way to defend yourself. You can spin anything, say anything, defend lies with lies on top of lies. It’s the perfect way to attack others- just insist on stuff whether or not it’s true until people either accept it or don’t want to play the crazy game anymore

The Democrats weren’t perfect. Most of them were not at the top of their game these last two elections. This wasn’t something that happened because my party was worthy of it, and had pleased the election Gods with their virtue. What happened is that the Republicans hit a brick wall of reality that the hypercompetitive twittiness of their leadership couldn’t BS their way out of, and the Democrats had organized well enough to take advantage of.

We’re also desperate enough that we’re trying to be nice, calm, and agreeable with people, because apparently that’s more reassuring to people than concerted attempts to scare the **** out of them. So when our people act like this, we’re the ones who call them nuts and apologize for their insanity. We don’t feed the raving loonies.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 7, 2009 8:35 PM
Comment #285867

Rhinehold,

I’m interested in what you propose as a counter to Obama’s plan.

You say there is plenty we can do without “violating” your expansive sense of individual rights. I’m listening.

Posted by: gergle at August 7, 2009 8:50 PM
Comment #285871

OED twit, n.(A fool; a stupid or ineffectual person. slang)
1934 E. LINKLATER Magnus Merriman xvi. 178 He was..a false hero who flaunted himself in fine colours when he was drunk and dwindled to a shabby twit when sober.
1977 C. MCCULLOUGH Thorn Birds xviii. 467 There’s no need to get so worked up about it, you twit.

f twit, v (To blame, find fault with, censure, reproach, upbraid (a person), esp. in a light or annoying way; to cast an imputation upon; to taunt.)
1593 SHAKES. 2 Hen. VI, III. i. 178 Hath he not twit our Soueraigne Lady here With ignominious words..?
1633 T. ADAMS Exp. 2 Peter ii. 22 An Egyptian priest thus twitted Solon, You Grecians are ever Children.

f atwitan OE athwitan(To cast an imputation upon, reproach, upbraid, blame, taunt)
1530 Calisto & Melib. in Hazl. Dodsley I. 85, I marvel greatly thou dost me so atwite Of the doubt, that thou hast of my secretness.


Posted by: ohrealy at August 7, 2009 9:12 PM
Comment #285879

Stephen,

Part of the problem here is that Obamacare was meant to be passed already. It was to be rushed through the majority and done with already. No debate. No deliberation. No details for the public to mull over whatsoever.

The reason it’s in trouble, the only reason, mind you, is that the democrat majority was achieved partially by conservative democrats winning elections in conservative districts. …Conservative democrats.

Reid and Pelosi don’t need a single GOP vote to pass this. But some of these conservative democrats know that they will not get reelected if they vote for it.

So, what’s in the current 2,000 page bill? Which I might add is different from what they originally began ramming through.

Because the first bill was in fact more of an entire system reform, the current boondoggle has been scaled back to ‘insurance’ reform. The whole reform changed in the span of a few weeks.

The ink isn’t even wet yet and most of congress hasn’t read the bill themselves and don’t want to.

All we are told is that this is an emergency and must be done immediately before anyone gets to read it or understand what it means or make any independent evaluations of how much it will cost. So much for democracy or transparency.

It may cost as much as $2 trillion just in the initial few years and won’t actually cover everyone!!

But instead of exposing our ‘lies’ (yet to be proven or even explained) opposition is instead demonized. A sure sign that there is no argument, no high ground here for democrats, merely desperation and high handedness.

Why not expose the lies? Instead we are Nazi’s and a mob, and terrorists. Yes, these have all been said by elected democrats.

Not a strong argument. Lots of emotion. Lots of fear. But not much hope. Not much unity. Not much peace and freedom.

In fact, it’s looking downright scary.

Look Stephen, you’re a good guy and I like debating with you, but I think that you’re way off base believing that all opposition to Obamacare is illegitimate and astroturfed. It’s not a good position and not a good argument.

These protesters are getting organized, and they are networking but that’s not the same as astroturf. The tea parties, for instance, are real people. Most who have never done any ‘organizing’ before. It is the definition of grassroots. You may choose to believe otherwise because TPM says so but in that case there’s nothing more to talk about. You’ll say the sky is red if I say it’s blue.

But then that’s the case with virtually everything and that’s somewhat depressing because in that case there’s really no reason to talk about anything here on watchblog if we are just talking past each other.

Posted by: eric at August 8, 2009 2:33 AM
Comment #285881

When do you know that Eric isn’t arguing honestly? When he refers to “the current 2,000 page bill”. There isn’t one current bill - there are five candidate bills in five different committees.

Which I might add is different from what they originally began ramming through.
Yes, they are different because there’s been lots of debate and deliberation, which is counter to what you said just before:
No debate. No deliberation.

And you continue…

The whole reform changed in the span of a few weeks.
Yep, more result of that non-existent debate and deliberation, I guess.
our ‘lies’ (yet to be proven or even explained)…Why not expose the lies?
Done!
Posted by: LawnBoy at August 8, 2009 8:44 AM
Comment #285882

Gergle said

“Rhinehold,
I’m interested in what you propose as a counter to Obama’s plan.
You say there is plenty we can do without “violating” your expansive sense of individual rights. I’m listening.”

What can we do?


Posted by: Mike the Cynic at August 8, 2009 8:47 AM
Comment #285883

Eric-
I have the feeling this would have been passed already if it weren’t for your party’s excessive filibustering. I don’t buy your notion of it being rushed. I mean, if it’s a two thousand page bill, get ten staffers to go through 200 pages apiece, and have them write reports. You guys have had plenty of time to read it, and if you haven’t, well geez, who’s the one falling down on the job then?

We’re scaling down the ambitions of this bill, trying to satisfy your people, and our blue dogs. Don’t you understand that? The irony is, the bill without the public option actually costs more than the one with it!

This is just, in my mind, more excuses your party is giving to get in the way of health reform your people don’t want anyways. This about taking one potential achievement of the Obama Administration, and eliminating it, turning it into a Waterloo as one of your people said.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, we’re suffering for your policies, or lack of same. It is an emergency, just like Katrina was, just like the growing discontent in Iraq was, just like the economic crisis of last year was. But instead of dealing with crises, your party exploits them, does political grandstanding that leaves Americans in the lurch. It’s not that y’all are evil. Far from it, you think you’re the heroes!

But the problem is, your assumptions about how you will save the country, all run through taking it over first. After everybody else is defeated, then you can do what you want to do. Well, you tried that. And each time you tried to take an abstract party platform and turn it into reality, your plans turned into disasters. When you joined together with blue dogs to vote down bailouts, it was a triumph of capitalism that ended up causing the markets to crash even worse. When your president said, f*** it, leave Lehman Brothers to rot, it was a triumph of the free market just long enough to cause that free market to go into chaos.

And now, you’ll save healthcare by allowing it continue on a course most people agree will cause both fiscal crises and a burden on economic growth. Do you wonder why people aren’t so eager to avail themselves of your help much anymore?

You get badmouthed over these townhall disruptions because people didn’t come there to be harrassed, so you guys could listen to yourself yell at the top of your lungs. Even if it weren’t astroturfed, which really just ices the cake with a layer of added cynicism, you folks are still treating the rest of us as if we must be guided by your benevolant minority’s tyranny over the marketplace of ideas.

The definition of grassroots is in the leadership. When it’s people getting together themselves, not being drawn together by a thinktank behind the scenes, it’s grassroots. When the organization is being built up to look like something grassroots, but underneath is is the support and coordination of and industry group or an elite thinktank, then it’s something different, something that should not be accorded the prestige that comes to organizations that are self-built, self-funded.

The reason we’re talking past each other is that we’re not agreeing on a simple set of facts. Now I’ve offered evidence for industry group involvement, evidence that has yet to be refuted. The video, for crying out loud, should tell you that FreedomWorks is operating much the same way that Barack Obama’s campaign did. It’s something like grassroots, in that you don’t necesssarily have people just deciding things from above, but it’s unlike it in that a national organization is coming along and providing logistical support, talking points, campaign materials, saying where to show up, and how to act.

But, and this is the crucial distinction, the Obama campaign was open about the nature of the system. People knew that this was happening.

There is no such transparancy here, and for good reason. It would undermine the credibility of the tea party folks, if it were more widely realized that they were basically organizing on the ground for the insurance and healthcare companies, and for the thinktanks in their employ. I’m sure it already has for those who have learned of this connection.

Which is why you don’t want to acknowledge it. You feel in your gut that this is a losing argument to make. That, or you just can’t believe such a level of cynicism is involved in something you support so wholeheartedly.

Which brings me to my point: there is nothing wrong with acknowledging this, in fact it is for the best. The more the Republicans rely on deceptions, the worse their reputation will become. It doesn’t help either that disruption of civil discourse and of other people’s freedom of expression has become modus operandi for the tea party folks. Have you considered that your party, in fact, is operating a negative equivalent of the Barack Obama campaign, an organizational effort whose bottom-up effect will be to convince millions in a nonlinear, word of mouth way that the Republicans have truly gone around the bend?

The digital age is enabling Democrats to quickly spread YouTube videos of Republican’s offensive words and actions.

And what are the Tea Party folks doing? Providing grist for that mill, videos to e-mail relatives and friends of out of control fanatics. Democrats, especially those that worked under Obama, understand the value of restraint. It keeps these “macaca” moments to a minimum. Republicans, though, have been taught that restraint is for wimps, manners are for people who want to be pushovers.

You folks have not yet figured out that in an age where ones words and ones opinions, and one’s personal behavior can be selectively broadcast worldwide in seconds, that restraint and judgment are critical, and that simply letting yourself run wild is the easiest way to gut your credibility.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 8, 2009 9:06 AM
Comment #285887

You guys can go back and forth with big words and long sentences all

you want. Truth is however is simple. Even canadas own government

reports show that only one out of two cancer patience recieve timely

treatment. When one entity is paying the bill and there is not enough

money to go around, then someone has to decide which people get help.

Simple, very simple, so simple that I am sure Steven and David will

write many paragreaphs to try to debate that statement.

If this was a debate between the Democrats and the Republicans the

American public could probably get the much needed reform to solve some

of the problems that our system has. We need tort reform. The doctors

for years have been dealing with the overhead of huge insurance

premiums to protect them from frivolous lawsuits.

However the far left is not happy without single payer socialized

medicine and the Dems cannot seem to detach them from their party. A

provision in President Obama’s health care reform bill encourages

“end-of- life” counseling for seniors.

Sorry folks, but you guys on the far left do not have the support to

accomplish your “far left” policies. The moment the Democrats took over

the house and senate the far left began crying that conservatism was

dead. Then you found out you took the house and senate with

conservative democrats. Then when Obama won you said the same thing.


I have a surprise for you. You feel that way but the American people

dont. We are rising up again and as much as you have the attitude of

“we have to have this because its what is right and fair and just and

we just have to have it”, this is still a democracy. Well all the polls

show there is minimal support for the democrats version of health care

reform. But the lefts response? “Polls are not dialogue, they dont

count.” However those poeple who DON’T count DO vote. Call us the mob,

call us whatever you want. Say we are carrying swasticas when the

pictures show swasticas with red circles and a line through them. The

American people are outraged and the more you minimalize them the more

you will ignite them. We know what your response will be……Oh those

people are hired by the GOP and all that. I know, I know….well here’s

the facts folks: The far left has reared its full head finally and you

are in the tiny minority..Now that the people in the middle know what

you truely stand for(which you obvously hid and denied during the

election so you know this to be true)you will be placed back further

than you ever can fathom. We outnumber you big time… Now that’s not

what you say but facts are facts:


The Battleground Poll, the most respected and thorough of all public

opinion polls:

In August 2008, Americans answered that question this way:

(1) 20% of Americans considered themselves to be very conservative;

(2) 40% of Americans considered themselves to be somewhat conservative;
(3) 2% of Americans considered themselves to be moderate;

(4) 27% of Americans considered themselves to be somewhat liberal;

(5) 9% of Americans considered themselves to be very liberal; and

(6) 3% of Americans did not know or refused to answer.


just

one of many links to this poll, The Battleground Poll, the most

respected and thorough of all public opinion polls along with an

unarguable conclusioni

Nancy Pelosi and Reid wouldnt be calling us astroturf if they werent
concerned.


And yes lefties…I did post this on both sidfes…shoot me…It fits!

Posted by: scottie at August 8, 2009 11:58 AM
Comment #285888

And yes i have html deficiencies….
heres the link:

one of many links to this poll, The Battleground Poll, the most respected and thorough of all public opinion polls along with an unarguable conclusion

Posted by: scottie at August 8, 2009 12:00 PM
Comment #285891

scottie-
Your information would be far more useful if we could examine it in detail, through a link to the report you cite as the source for the healthcare information, and if we could also see the information concerning wait times and problems with getting certain treatments in America. Rather than simply react to some factoids, which are in plentiful supply, context or no context, I think it would be best to get a broader view of this subject.

As for the American people being outraged? NO, it’s more like a bunch of people being told where to show up in order to be loud, disruptive and ultimately defeat the point of the townhalls. Don’t believe them? One of their leaders admitted it, even took pride in it.

As I have already demonstrated, FreedomWorks is far from qualified to call itself a grassroots organization.

This is the the problem with the way these deal with the public. They don’t want to convince us like equals. They want to say whatever pushes our buttons and scares the old folks. They want to shout us down. They don’t even care if it makes you look like thugs and crazies. They think the rest of us just have to accept that kind of behavior because they’re so righteous.

Well, the answer is no. If you decide to act like that, if you decide that you’re going to shout people down, you should give up any entitlement to stay in that meeting. You should be escorted out of the building like anybody else in a public place or a private venue, who decides they’re entitled to disturb the peace.

And if you a Liberal, same damn thing. Conservative or Liberal, we all end up having to share the same public places, the same obligations and responsiblities as citizens to behaver rationally and not break the peace. They can complain about union thugs, but until I start seeing one incident after another of that kind of assault, I will just dismiss that as the usual tactic among right-wing extremists, which is dismiss any claim of excessive behavior by claiming that Democrats do the same.

I mean, somebody tell me what place a “you as well” defense has among Republicans, among the very conservatives who preach self-reliance and self-restraint? How is it that law and order conservatives are ending up being less peaceful and less agreeable than the supposedly wilder liberals?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 8, 2009 12:48 PM
Comment #285913

Steven,

Red herring!

Just because some of the people at these events are organized does not mean that the rest arent legitimate. You would have to be hiding in a closet to not realize that the president doesnt have the support of the people to socialize medicine. I will give some links as you requested but not for healthcare just yet…first some links to prove my main point which is that the far lefts ranting for years that conservatism is dead and conservatives are in the minority is not true and that we are waking back up and that the American people do not wnat the kind of health reforem the far left wants:

Obama ratings may be aiding GOP in Virginia

Obama approval rating sinks to 50%: poll

After 6 Months, More View Obama’s Presidency as a ‘Failure’ Than Bush’s

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll

which says:In the health care debate, 41% view the town hall protesters favorably while 35% have an unfavorable view. Twenty-five percent (25%) agree with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that health insurance companies are villains. Thirty-seven percent (37%) disagree.


But on to healthcare:

New York Times Poll Showing 72% Support for Obama’s Health Care Plan Was Stacked With Obama Supporters

which says:

Out of 895 respondents, 24 percent were Republicans, 38 percent Democrats, and 38 percent were independents, according to a June 20 release from CBS News. While the release says the sampling was conducted at random, those numbers are significantly below the 32.6 percent who identify themselves as Republican according to a May survey from the nonpartisan Rasmussen Reports.
(might make some difference and that poll was done a few months back!)

POLL: Less support for rebuilding health care system than during Clinton…

which says:

In early 1993 the sense of a health care crisis was far more widespread than it is today – a 55% majority in 1993 said they felt the health care system needed to be “completely rebuilt” compared with 41% today.


And as I told david in the other post:

Maybe some of the “astroturfers are organized..that doesnt make them all and :

we may be ignorant….we may be stupid…we may be dumb…we may know nothing…however we do know how to vote…we do not like the far left way of doing things…we are waking up….and that 60% of 300 million is way more than the few “astroturfers” that the great conservative machine may provide much like Jesse Jackson, Acorn, the labor unions, code pink, and such have been doing for decades!


Posted by: scottie at August 9, 2009 12:33 AM
Comment #285924

Gee, I wonder why the Republicans lost? Too bad they were all asleep. Complacency?

Posted by: womanmarine at August 9, 2009 9:30 AM
Comment #285931

scottie-

Just because some of the people at these events are organized does not mean that the rest arent legitimate.

That would be a legitimate point. Not every Republican who showed up there was one of these tea party protestors. And I commend those Republicans who did not act disruptively, who shared their concerns calmly and peacefully. They participated in Democracy as one should: by seeking to convince people through reason, or at least feelings expressed with respect for other’s ability to express their opinion as well.

But most of the people who showed up and have acted belligerently are part of the organized element, and I believe I’ve provided quite enough evidence of who is organizing them.

You put out these polls, but you put them out in support of a point which the polls do not validate: that somehow this is all a popular movement against Obama. Take a look, then:,/a>

CNN/ORC 56 40 16 7/31 - 8/3/09

Ipsos/McClatchy * 58 37 21 7/30 - 8/3/09

Quinnipiac U. RV 50 42 8 7/27 - 8/3/09

Time 56 38 18 7/27-28/09

CBS/New York Times 58 30 28 7/24-28/09

NBC/Wall St. Journal 53 40 13 7/24-27/09

NPR LV 53 42 11 7/22-26/09

Pew 54 34 20 7/22-26/09

Battleground LV 53 42 11 7/19-23/09

FOX/OD RV 54 38 16 7/21-22/09

AP-GfK * 55 42 13 7/16-20/09

First number is approval, disapproval, and the third is the difference between the two.

Obama remain, in all polls, clearly more popular than he is unpopular. And these numbers aren’t terribly worse than those we saw at the start of his term. We’ve been at this for about seven or eight months, and even with a Republican Congress and an unruly party, he’s still more popular in these polls, in all of them, than unpopular.

Sure, you can site selective polls, and say that he’s going down in flames. But that’s why you only cite selective polls- to create that appearance.

As for the NYT poll, Let me ask you a question: About where is Republican Party Identification, right now? The danger in trying to correct for party identification, is that you might weight things too much in favor of a certain party, and by doing so, bias the results. A recent Harris Poll pegged Republican Party identification at 26%. The NY Times Poll found 24%. So you tell, me what error are we supposed to be correcting for here?

A recent Gallup Poll of which states are competitive should scare the hell out of you. Out of all the states, only four are solidly red, Thirty are solidly blue, eight lean blue, eight are competitive (down from ten last year) and only one leans red.

To quote the survey:

Since Obama was inaugurated, not much has changed in the political party landscape at the state level — the Democratic Party continues to hold a solid advantage in party identification in most states and in the nation as a whole. While the size of the Democratic advantage at the national level shrunk in recent months, this has been due to an increase in independent identification rather than an increase in Republican support. That finding is echoed here given that the total number of solid and leaning Republican states remains unchanged from last year. While the Republican Party is still able to compete in elections if they enjoy greater turnout from their supporters or greater support for its candidates from independent voters, the deck is clearly stacked in the Democratic Party’s favor for now.

Got that? You’re succeeding in messing with the ephemerals. Perhaps you’re knocking some people out of the Democratic Party, but they’re not falling into your basket, they’re simply going independent.

Also, you’re alleging that people don’t like the Democrat’s proposals. That’s wrong. many of them enjoy considerable support. Only problem is, that support hasn’t been consolidated together for the overall plan. However, that problem is a problem I’d prefer to have to that of the opponents of healthcare reform, who though have an advantage on overall numbers for the time being, suck air on nearly every important measure.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 9, 2009 11:05 AM
Comment #285935

Steven
you say:
“That would be a legitimate point. Not every Republican who showed up there was one of these tea party protestors. And I commend those Republicans who did not act disruptively, who shared their concerns calmly and peacefully.”

That’s what you 9% far lefties don’t get. Those going to the tea parties are real Americans! Just because they get frusterated and raise their voices doesnt mean they are some robot. The far left has been doing this for years and the 9% far lefts hypocracy on this matter is obvoius to everyone so keep it up it helps us. Move on.org….. code pink …..Cindy Shehan and the anti war movement….and I could list for a paragraph all the far left organizations have been doing this for years. All of a sudden the other side gets some spunk and they get minimalized..Go ahead minimalize all you want!


And on those polls…yes polls are all over the place but one fact remains..the ones that are the closest to the voting results are the ones polling “likley voters” and none of urs above are one of those. Those polls show the more informed and up to date on political issues. The other polls generally tail behind because they include the people who do not pay as much attention to currrent events as closes as we. And they all have him at 50% or less and history shows the other polls will follow not too far behind. So do another far left tactic…dismiss the polls. But the one that should really tell is still the one that shows that 60% of the American public rate themselves conservative and 9% consider themselves faq left. Thats the one that counts:

The Battleground Poll, the most respected and thorough of all public

opinion polls:

In August 2008, Americans answered that question this way:

(1) 20% of Americans considered themselves to be very conservative;

(2) 40% of Americans considered themselves to be somewhat conservative;

(3) 2% of Americans considered themselves to be moderate;

(4) 27% of Americans considered themselves to be somewhat liberal;

(5) 9% of Americans considered themselves to be very liberal; and

(6) 3% of Americans did not know or refused to answer.

Posted by: scott at August 9, 2009 12:15 PM
Comment #285937

Scott-
Those going to the Tea-Parties ARE real Americans. I’ve never denied THAT. What I deny is that they are THE real Americans.

You make the same mistake with the Battleground poll. It’s one poll, and this line about it being the most respected and thorough poll sounds like something straight out of the company’s marketing. They’re not exactly going to call themselves despised dilletantes.

Additionally, can I draw your attention to a small problem with your claim? Self-Identification as conservative does not equate to self-identification as Republican.

The Republicans remain as unpopular as ever. They aren’t getting the approval Obama or the others are losing as a dividend.

Which is to say that your people are not in a good position to weather a counter campaign. You’re not making progress because you’ve persuaded people, but because you’ve sown doubt.

Doubts can be clarified.

Like I told Christine on the other side, all this Tea Party campaigning, especially if it’s sustained, could function to both raise negatives on your side, and lead the Democrats to consolidate their party’s power to overcome the Republican’s obstruction. If that happens, then all the screaming and carrying on will have been counterproductive.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 9, 2009 1:05 PM
Comment #285938

David….


you say

“Those going to the Tea-Parties ARE real Americans. I’ve never denied THAT. What I deny is that they are THE real Americans.”

I repeat for everyone reading…you say….

“Those going to the Tea-Parties ARE real Americans. I’ve never denied THAT. What I deny is that they are THE real Americans.”


EXACTLY….Thank you for being intellectually honest!

So my battleground poll conducted by 8 of the countries best known universities is off by a 10 margin error in ur favor maybe? even if that worst case scenario were the case that would put the far lefties at 19%. But I doubt they are off.. and and you are right doesnt equate with party affiliation but the democratic party is full of many southern democrats that became democrats at the time of Hoover who havent voted democrat in 30 years.. Ill stick with the poll thank you .. The far left point of view is held by less than 10% of the american public and the far lefts montra that the conservatives are dead and in the minority is just palin wishfull thinking.

Again…read it folks because this is the attitude of the far left:

“Those going to the Tea-Parties ARE real Americans. I’ve never denied THAT. What I deny is that they are THE real Americans.”

Hate to tell you David but even the US hating far left are also real Americans and so am I.

Posted by: scott at August 9, 2009 1:30 PM
Comment #285945

scott-
What makes you think I’m far left, besides your own personal bias on the matter? I was a centrist for the most part, resigned to a more militarized foreign policy, fine with a more business friendly culture, to a point, willing to compromise with the Republicans to find common ground.

What happened is that the Republican Party became the party of Bush, and becoming that party, you couldn’t talk them down from a single damn policy or talking point, no matter how stupid or impractical. Everything became about Defeating Democrats, painting them as fifth-column subversives.

So, I made the calculation in my mind that we simply weren’t going to get sane policy from the Republicans, and that it wasn’t much use compromising with the Republicans anymore.

I’m still a fan of moderation and moderate policy, but I don’t think your people are capable of delivering that, and since you’re intent on taking back the government, I’m intent on preventing that.

That simple. Until Republican learn to put the good of the nation first, and offer policy that most Americans can agree on, instead of trying to force either inaction, or minority supported policy on the rest of us, they will keep many Democrats, pragmatists and centrists like myself alienated, and a loss of popularity among Democrats will not translate to a gain for Republicans.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 9, 2009 3:29 PM
Comment #285950

David,

I will accept your word that you are a centrist. we will let those who have read your posts, coments, and the lengthy discussions you and I have have had on religion, taxes, Iraq, global warming, abortion, and many others make you centrist to centrist left or far left. If you are a centrist I humbly appologize however most of the debate over the last 5 years since I began participating in Watchblog have tended to make me believe that you lean much further to the left than most democrats. However, and I have posted before and firmly believe that you are intelectually honest and aren’t a leftwing bombthrower like many that participate.


The statement however:

“Those going to the Tea-Parties ARE real Americans. I’ve never denied THAT. What I deny is that they are THE real Americans.”

I’ll let that quote speak for itself.

You make statements about the Republican party that apply equally to the democratic party, especially now that it has been hijacked by the far left. So where is ur outrage then for both parties? Why dont you strongly support healthcare reform at the same time fighting tirelessly against giveing the whole thing to the government and taking away from private industry? Why dont you fight tirelessly for helping to clean up the environment while at the same time telling the far left with its now fully debunked by scientist “the sky is falling” attitude that they are nuts. Or have you seen the real debate in the scientific community that Al Gore said was over 3 years ago on Larry King?

Do both parties have their faults? Yes! However what you are accusing the Republican party of the far left groups such as Code Pink, Peta, MoveOn, and many others have been doing and doing worse. Some of those far left groups have been doing so for decades?

Will you denounce peta for comming un-glued because I like steak and bacon?

Will you denounce Al Gore for way overexagerating global warming especially in light of the FACT that all other planets in the solar system are following the exact same pattern as the earth and that we have been in a cooling trend now for almost a decade?

Will you denounce those who go to the colleges and shout out and throw pies at conservatives when
they speak?

Will you denounce President Barak Obama when he askes the American public to report to their website “fishy” free speach?

Will you denounce the far lefts wish for a government totally controlled healthcare system?

Will you renounce Nancy Pelosi’s statement about “astroturfers” carrying swasticas when the picture really showed a swastica with a red circle round it with a line through it?

Will you stand beside me and say that until Cubans quit finding it neccessary to flea Cuba and float here on makeshift rafts by the dozens that Cuba has some real human rights issues to fix before we can call their government a friend?

Oh David, I could go on and on.

But the main point is that if you really are a centrist and have those feelings toward the Republican party then you should be equally if not alot more outraged at the tactics and method and ideaology fo the far left.


Posted by: scott at August 9, 2009 4:23 PM
Comment #285956

scott-

You make statements about the Republican party that apply equally to the democratic party, especially now that it has been hijacked by the far left.

I make statements that you claim can be applied equally. However, you take one guy getting beaten up, and compare that to an industry-coordinated nationwide campaign of disruption of townhall events. That’s not equivalence, that’s wishful thinking.

As for being hijacked by the far left, it is empirically proveable that the Democratic Party hosts a much more diverse spectrum of ideologies than the Republican Party does. 69 precent of Republicans are conservatives, while only 40 percent of Democrats are liberal. The rest are moderates and conservatives. The irony is, it would be much easier if Congress was hijacked by the far left for us to get healthcare through congress. Instead, this supposedly ideological party is having to negotiate its way through its own conservative arm!

But heck, why waste a good talking point by letting the facts get in the way of it?

Where is outrage for both parties? I reserve equivalent outrage for equivalent circumstances. Since I don’t buy your claimed equivalences, it’s nowhere to be seen. I am not entitled to your opinion.

Private industry had 15 years to prove it could do healthcare better. It failed. Not only failed, but fulfilled some of the same horror stories they claimed government healthcare would create. That’s cosmic irony for you. We’re giving them another chance. Rather than go for single payer, which is what some of the folks further left wanted, we’re going for public option, which means people can stick with their old plans IF they like them.

I don’t tell the left that it’s view on Global warming is debunked, because I don’t buy this supposed debunking. I’m scientifically literate enough to know the basic reasons why scientists think that it’s CO2 from fossil fuel sources we’re burning, and not something else. And I keep up with the scientific findings that tell us that our world is getting warmer.

You’re expecting me to believe the same things are true, but to have a different opinion just out of intellectual perversity. Trust me, I’m not disagreeing with you because I’m trying to get you mad.

Will you denounce Al Gore for way overexagerating global warming especially in light of the FACT that all other planets in the solar system are following the exact same pattern as the earth and that we have been in a cooling trend now for almost a decade?

First, pick an argument. Cooling or warming. Second, natural variability has not taken a vacation. Third, climate is weather over decades of time. A few years trend in another direction does not qualify as a reversal of global warming.

Fourth, the other planets occupy other orbits, with climates determined by their own atmospheres, orbital characteristics and heat exchange processes. Which is to say any local changes in temperature might have any number of reasons for occuring. So there is no exact same pattern. Additionally, you’re missing a critical factor: solar irradiance. And contrary to the idea that some folks have that climate scientists need the contrarians to tie their shoelaces for them, we’ve already looked at solar irradiance, and there’s been no increase that could account for Earth’s overall warming trend.

Will you denounce those who go to the colleges and shout out and throw pies at conservatives when they speak?

I’ve already done so, and without the need of your prompting.

Will you denounce President Barak Obama when he askes the American public to report to their website “fishy” free speach?

Absolutely not. The purpose of the site is to report fishy claims about healthcare reform. Obama’s using his base of millions of supporters to help keep track of the rumor mill.

If that happens to be sinister, then Wikipedia is being run by the anti-Christ, because it runs by the same principle of using crowds to check on masses of information no one person could possibly keep tabs on. Jackbooted thugs will not show up at your door if you’ve passed on a chain letter.

Will you denounce the far lefts wish for a government totally controlled healthcare system?

No, because that’s far from what we actually are trying to push through Congress. A Daily Kos Diarist recently posted a tongue in cheek lists of “concessions” as a way to debunk right-wing conspiracy theories about the healthcare we’re proposing. Go ahead and read it. You’ll understand why many on the left think the hecklers are dumb and/or ignorant.

Will you renounce Nancy Pelosi’s statement about “astroturfers” carrying swasticas when the picture really showed a swastica with a red circle round it with a line through it?
Not when I’m the one they’re accusing of being a Nazi.
Will you stand beside me and say that until Cubans quit finding it neccessary to flea Cuba and float here on makeshift rafts by the dozens that Cuba has some real human rights issues to fix before we can call their government a friend?

I think it will be easier to corrupt Cuba with capitalism than it will be to undermine their regime with isolation. Especially given the fact that the whole rest of the world doesn’t bother to isolate them anymore anyway.

I have no reason to share your outrage on many of these issues. Some, because I think differently, others because I know differently.

I’m not going to apologize for being a moderate. You should consider that perhaps you’re a bit further from the middle and the mainstream than you first thought. And then you should consider whether you want to be there. Your choice.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 9, 2009 6:32 PM
Comment #285957

Scott said many things I disagree with, but, I will respond with one counterpoint that makes the general rebuttal:

Scott said: “Will you stand beside me and say that until Cubans quit finding it neccessary to flea Cuba and float here on makeshift rafts by the dozens that Cuba has some real human rights issues to fix before we can call their government a friend?”

Answer: Hell no. Because the logic in your comment is incredibly flawed. An estimated 6.6 million Americans have chosen to live overseas (U.S. State Dept.) which is more than half the entire population of Cuba (11.4 million, 2008 estimate). By your logic, that would make America a far greater nation of human rights violations than Cuba.

People leave their homeland for myriad reasons. Without empirical research, projecting the reasons is nonsense, and an extension of wishful thinking as to motive to make one’s argument. By the way, number of Americans leaving America has been rising over the last decade. Does that say something about Republican government in play over that decade?

Answer: NO! Not without empirical research supporting such a correlation. My writings this last week, last month, and last years slamming the Democratic Party stand for themselves and speak to your general assertion. I have never claimed to be a centrist. I am an independent which allows me to be right on some issues, left on others. Centrist implies a fixed Left and Right, which does not exist in America. The boundaries of Left and Right extremism are constantly shifting rendering a definition of Centrist pretty much meaningless, unless centrist is defined as pragmatic or some other way which lends a fixed definition.

And you made nearly your entire comment about me personally, instead of the issue of this article, or my written comments. No, I won’t join you. I am not a joiner, generally. I follow the dictates of logic, reason, and empirical data and information to the best of my ability, not those seeking a following or public affirmation.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 9, 2009 6:51 PM
Comment #285960

The bottom line is that the Democrats in D.C. have shown their desire to debate and compromise in good faith. The Republicans have shown that they are not willing to do that. The right is not interested in changing healthcare/insurance. That much is clear. They want to stop this thing at all costs, so they are using every play in the book to shut it down.
It’s not that the Republicans have a better idea. They have no ideas. Just opposition.
All the other arguments about polls and which people are astroturfing and which are grass-rooters really are an extension of the Republican method of trying to manipulate people with lies, exaggeration, and inuendo.
It would be really refreshing to see conversations involving the specifics of the bills and the merits of the different methodologies of handling the problem.
Oh well; I can only dream…

Posted by: Seatech1 at August 9, 2009 7:59 PM
Comment #285965

Following on Seatech1’s comment, I agree with Sullivan; there are many areas of legitimate concern and debate regarding the healthcare proposals. But unfortunately, what we get from the GOP is scaremongering disconnected from reality. From Mrs. Palin’s ridiculous “death panels” to the accusations of Socialism which distort both the proposals and the reality of Socialism, the GOP is relying on scaremongering instead of responsible governing.

The impending financial crisis which the health care status quo might bring is a serious problem to be addressed seriously. Obama and the Democrats are trying to solve these problems (however imperfect you might think their attempts are). Sadly, the GOP is just playing games.

From the article:

What do you want, GOP? A permanent populist culture-war? Or actual solutions to pressing problems? Let us know when you’ve matured enough to answer that question.
Posted by: LawnBoy at August 9, 2009 9:13 PM
Comment #286036

I read an interesting article in the NY Times yesterday which indicated that about $440 billion of the cost of the currently proposed health care reform will come from savings such as;
1. tracking procedures to prevent duplication of costly tests.
2. a national health data base to help determine what procedures and treatments effect the best outcomes.
3. Eliminate medical fraud.

This sounds reasonable to me and perhaps we should go forward with this part of the proposed legislation and wait a few years to see if there truly is a huge savings before we legislate the rest of the health care plan.

If significant savings do materialize that’s great and we can then decide how to spend those savings.

I am on Medicare and also have a MedSup. My physician gives me excellent care and I am very pleased with my coverage and cost. I do wonder however how my care might suffer when 40 or 50 million more patients are added to the system. Where are the additional doctors, nurses and hospitals coming from to handle this additional patient load? I also wonder how many folks will increase their doctor visits for minor health problems. Will the system become overloaded?

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 11, 2009 1:11 PM
Post a comment