Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
iNow

Opponents of US Healthcare Reform Lose Battle on Merits; Resort to Tantrums/Theatrics

Recommended Posts

It's odd where they cut that video, but I agree that it highlights the line of demarcation between legitimate concerns and fear-mongering. Gingrich is right up against it, and hinting well over it. Palin can't even tell it's there (and could care even less). She might as well be guest-hosting for Rush.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is filled with so much disinformation and so lacking in objective reasoning I don't even know where to start. The Op started by highlighting parts of the memo from the right, so lets look at parts of the memo from the left.

 

 

http://healthcareforamericanow.org/site/fight

 

We should demonstrate that we are the majority by chanting: When the other side gets too loud, we should shut them down with chants that counter their message like “Health Care Can’t Wait!” and “Health Care Delayed is Health Care Denied” and prep people to chant at key points when the other side gets most disruptive.

 

Do not debate on their “policy” points.

 

Interrupt them when they get disruptive and refocus the meeting.

 

Both sides organized groups and gave them ideas to make them themself visible and have their opinion heard. The left has included tactics that are more likened to shutting down the debate. Disagree? Lets look at what happened...

 

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/back-story/2009/aug/08/georgia-democrat-rages-against-local-doctor-over-h/

 

Tensions are running so high at town hall meetings that Rep. David Scott, a Georgia Democrat, yelled at a local doctor concerned about health care after mistaking him for an "astroturf" political operative looking for a fight.

 

Mr. Scott became visibly agitated when one of his constituents, a practicing doctor, asked a few questions about health care reform during a town hall meeting. The meeting was held to discuss a road project, but was opened up for questions near the end. That's when Dr. Brian Hill stood up to speak.

 

Dr. Hill asked Mr. Scott why he was going to vote for a health care plan similar to that implemented in Massachusetts "that is shown not to work" and if he supported a government-provided health care insurance option.

 

The congressman replied by accusing the doctor of "hijacking" his event.

 

"I'm listening to my constituents, OK?" Scott said, "These are people who live in the 13th Congressional district, who vote in this district. That’s who I’ve got to respond to … So what you’ve got to understand, those of you who are here, who have taken and came and hijacked this event we dealing with here, this is not a health care event."

 

"You chose to come and to do it on your own," he yelled. "Not a single one of you had the decency to call my office and set up for a meeting." He went on, in a threatening voice, "You want a meeting with me on health care, I'll give it to you!"

 

Looks like this dem followed the memo from the left to a T.

 

I always thought town halls were a forum for voters to discuss their concerns with their representatives, so the reps could accurately represnt them in washington.

 

Does Obamas hope and change, in this context, mean now the representatives tell their constituents what they will be legislating for in washington?

 

What happened in St. Louis?

 

 

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/08/shock-video-dems-sneak-union-thugs-into.html

 

DEMS SNEAK UNION THUGS INTO CARNAHAN TOWN HALL-- 1,000 Tea Party Taxpayers Locked Out! Over 1,000 St. Louis Tea Party Taxpayers showed up at the Russ Carnahan town hall meeting in South St. Louis tonight. The Carnahan staff was sneaking in SEIU members in the side door marked "handicapped." In this video you see one Carnahan supporter allowed into the meeting at Bernard Middle School through a side door. There were 1,000 tea party taxpayers stranded outside the main door.

When two SEIU members attempted to get in the same side door marked "handicapped" the crowd went nuts and blocked them at the door. Did you notice how nonchalant the SIEU members were about getting inside the door? Like they knew right where to go.

 

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/laworder/story/0470FEB3219207458625760B001142AC?OpenDocument

 

St. Louis County police arrested six people, including a Post-Dispatch reporter, during a demonstration Thursday evening outside a forum on aging called by U.S. Rep. Russ Carnahan, D-St. Louis.

 

Two of the people were arrested on suspicion of assault, one of resisting arrest and three on suspicion of committing peace disturbances, police say.

 

You may disagree with the source, but the videos at the link speak for themself.

 

I have heard no reports of an opponent of Health care reform being arrested, only those in favor of it. That included one lady that admitted to being an employee of Carnahan. And who called out the union thugs? So who is hiring who? Still disagree? how about this?

 

flag@whitehouse.gov.

 

An email set up by the white house to report opposers. What could that information be used for? Clarification? Objective reasoning would say no, given the reputation Chicago style politics are known for. More likely it would be used to marginalize opposers in the future or maybe set up political re-education programs for dissenters.

 

Still disagree? lets continue...

 

 

http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-na-health-grassroots10-2009aug10,0,7896694.story

 

Reporting from Washington -- To win the White House, Barack Obama and his political team built a vast grass-roots network of supporters and volunteers that came to be considered one of the most valuable assets in American politics. Their ambition after the election was to reshape the network, with its trained organizers and 13 million e-mail addresses, into a ground-level force to push the new president's policy goals.

 

...snip...

 

Staffers have been hired so far in 42 states, said the group's deputy director, Jeremy Bird, and he expects to have paid workers in every state in a matter of weeks.

 

So I ask you again, who is hiring who?

 

Another fact that has seemed to go right over the OPs head, is that almost everybody wants health care reform, but not in the form of a 1000 page bill that Obama is supporting, but has curiously exempted the unions, himself and the rest of the bureaucrats from, not to mention doing everything he can to keep from reading it so the American people understand it. Thats whats being opposed, not health care reform.

 

Has everybody forgotten during the campaign he wanted every American to have access to the same health care the politicians get?

 

Or how about stating that he would invite members of the senate and congress to the white house to read the bill line for line if he were elected?

 

As far as the OP not being able to connect the relevance in the bill being a single-payer program, let me help you out. The bait you swallowed, hook, line and sinker was calling this plan health care reform. If you would actually read it before you project whats in it you would know that after 01/01/10 no new private health care policies will be written. When your current policy expires, you quit or switch jobs, you are automatically enrolled in the govenrments program, effectively eliminating private health insurance. Thats single payer, socialized health care and what the opposers are opposing, not health care reform. Go to youtube an search "Obama in his own words" and see what he has to say about eliminating private health care and the single payer system. You can also go here and see for yourself whats in the bill.

 

I appeal to the OP to remove the blinders and allow yourself to look at this from both sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I appeal to you to stop with the personal comments, and remember that my point was about much more than a single memo. This is not some phenomenon which I personally made up. It's happening everywhere, and all major outlets are talking about how rabid things have become.

 

Further, in your post above, you have attributed a LOT of thoughts and positions to me which I simply do not hold or believe. If you wish to ask me my opinion on a matter, then please do so. However, I implore you to cease and desist making up for yourself how I feel about various things, and filling in gaps with your own preconceptions. I don't know you, which also means you don't know me. Keep that in mind, friend.

 

This isn't about left and right. It's about the quality of discourse in our nation (or lack thereof) and the way we seem to be throwing gladiators to the lions instead of intellectually doing what's best for our collective futures.


Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged
I have heard no reports of an opponent of Health care reform being arrested, only those in favor of it.

Incredulity is not a valid form of argument here.

 

 

Still disagree? how about this?

 

flag@whitehouse.gov.

 

An email set up by the white house to report opposers. What could that information be used for? Clarification?

Yes, for rebutting the misinformation that is out there. In fact, it's become so bad, that the White House opened this site this morning:

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/

 

 

 

Objective reasoning would say no, given the reputation Chicago style politics are known for.

Poisoning the well is ALSO not a valid form of argument here.

 

 

More likely it would be used to marginalize opposers in the future or maybe set up political re-education programs for dissenters.

Nor are strawmen or slippery slopes.

 

 

Another fact that has seemed to go right over the OPs head, is that almost everybody wants health care reform, but not in the form of a 1000 page bill that Obama is supporting

When exactly did that go over my head? I completely agree. That was not, however, my point. Care to try again?

 

 

 

Thats whats being opposed, not health care reform.

Again, not the point. I understand why people oppose parts of the bill, and I tend to agree with them on many of those fronts.

 

However, if you'll stop with the personal ridiculousness for just a moment, you will see that my thread resolved around the nature of the dissent, and the way it is manifesting. I am, frankly, frustrated that there ARE really good arguments to be made, but people are simply not making them. That's the larger issue, and I ask that you come off your little soapbox for long enough to realize that.

 

 

As far as the OP not being able to connect the relevance in the bill being a single-payer program, let me help you out. The bait you swallowed, hook, line and sinker was calling this plan health care reform. If you would actually read it before you project whats in it...

 

<...>

 

I appeal to the OP to remove the blinders...

And, if you continue with comments such as this, I'm going to report the shit out of your posts, and campaign heavily to have your abrasive ass removed from the Politics board.

 

You're obviously bright and well informed. Now, start acting like it, and pay attention to what people are ACTUALLY saying. Thanks.

Edited by iNow
Consecutive posts merged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I appeal to you to stop with the personal comments, and remember that my point was about much more than a single memo. This is not some phenomenon which I personally made up. It's happening everywhere, and all major outlets are talking about how rabid things have become.

 

Further, in your post above, you have attributed a LOT of thoughts and positions to me which I simply do not hold or believe. If you wish to ask me my opinion on a matter, then please do so. However, I implore you to cease and desist making up for yourself how I feel about various things, and filling in gaps with your own preconceptions. I don't know you, which also means you don't know me. Keep that in mind, friend.

 

Fair enough.

 

 

This isn't about left and right. It's about the quality of discourse in our nation (or lack thereof) and the way we seem to be throwing gladiators to the lions instead of intellectually doing what's best for our collective futures.

 

In order to be objective you have to include both sides of the story, you only included one side in order to prop up your opinion. You made it about the left and right, I included the other side of the story for balance.

 

I ask you again, who is hiring who, effectively reducing the the quality of discourse in your opinion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

navigator,

 

Two wrongs make a right?

 

We have people lying about their political affiliations, claiming they are non-partisan when they actually worked on Republican campaigns. We have members of PACs (who are organizing the "protests") showing up to town hall meetings claiming to be your average Joe. These PACs are spreading lies about Obama wanting to murder your grandma. We have death threats against Democratic Congressmen.

 

But that's all okay because the Democrats are doing some shady stuff at town halls too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
navigator,

 

Two wrongs make a right?

 

We have people lying about their political affiliations, claiming they are non-partisan when they actually worked on Republican campaigns. We have members of PACs (who are organizing the "protests") showing up to town hall meetings claiming to be your average Joe. These PACs are spreading lies about Obama wanting to murder your grandma. We have death threats against Democratic Congressmen.

 

But that's all okay because the Democrats are doing some shady stuff at town halls too?

 

Of course two wrongs don't make a right, can you show me where the opposers of this health care bill are hiring people to advance their opinion of it?

 

Here is another one from those in favor of the bill...

 

 

http://www.thebigfeedblog.com/2009/08/obama-paying-15-hour-to-support-health.html

 

 

Group Paying $15 dollars an hour to support health care plan.

 

So a "mob" isn't a mob when you're being paid? Where the media? Is this not astroturfing? This ad is being plastered on Craigslist across the country.

 

Now is our chance to make health care work.

 

America’s health care system is broken. Health care costs are spiraling out of control, throwing families, businesses and government into financial crisis. Families are worried their health coverage won’t be there when they need it. Our country can’t afford to wait for health reform that keeps costs down and protects consumers.

 

We can’t wait for affordable, dependable health care.

 

We’re fighting for health care that will protect families’ financial health, lay out a clear path for all Americans to afford health care, and improve patient safety and quality care.

 

You can work for change this summer.

 

Join motivated staff around the country working to make change happen. You can make great friends and money along the way. Earn $4000-$6000 this summer.

 

To apply for a job, visit our website—http://www.JobsThatMatter.org—or call Chris at [213-251-8630.]

 

 

This listing can also be found on craigslist.

 

I can think of no better way of reducing quality political discourse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course two wrongs don't make a right, can you show me where the opposers of this health care bill are hiring people to advance their opinion of it?

 

Wow, did you just comma splice the statement "of course two wrongs don't make a right" with a challenge for me to find PACs on the right in opposition of the healthcare bill. Why? Would that somehow vindicate liberal pro-healthcare PACs in your eyes (thus two wrongs making a right)?

 

I think you're missing the bigger picture...

 

Here is another one from those in favor of the bill...

 

This listing can also be found on craigslist.

 

I can think of no better way of reducing quality political discourse.

 

Are you unfamiliar with the concept of Political Action Committees? Yes, people actually pay money (on both sides of the table) to advance political causes.

 

An example of an exclusively anti-healthcare conservative PAC is Patients United Now

 

They are a subgroup of the larger conservative PAC Americans for Propsperity.

 

Some other PACs channeling money into opposing healthcare (and in turn helping to organize the town hall disruptions) are FreedomWorks, American Majority, and The Sam Adams Society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Navigator,

 

you have an alternative idea to health care reform? If this bill is so horrible and disasterous, how come people are resorting to these tactics.

 

I hear a lot "That won't work" but no why it won't work except for that the government magically can't do healthcare properly, with no real reason other than that they are government. On top of that there is NO alternative presented besides..."Free market!" It's not an argument.

 

So how again is this method to opposing the bill presented which I doubt anyone has a great hold on to begin with will benefit form this course of action?

 

What's so efficient by doing this. Forget parties, two sides, one object presented from one side created to make a better system. What works better proper communications or facts? or political tactics that have nothing to do with it?

 

It's cool you presented the side of left and it's mistakes but beyond that....You still have a war of disinformation to handle.

 

That's the essence of this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow, did you just comma splice the statement "of course two wrongs don't make a right" with a challenge for me to find PACs on the right in opposition of the healthcare bill. Why? Would that somehow vindicate liberal pro-healthcare PACs in your eyes (thus two wrongs making a right)?

 

I think you're missing the bigger picture...

 

 

 

Are you unfamiliar with the concept of Political Action Committees? Yes, people actually pay money (on both sides of the table) to advance political causes.

 

An example of an exclusively anti-healthcare conservative PAC is Patients United Now

 

They are a subgroup of the larger conservative PAC Americans for Propsperity.

 

Some other PACs channeling money into opposing healthcare (and in turn helping to organize the town hall disruptions) are FreedomWorks, American Majority, and The Sam Adams Society.

 

Ah, now we see some objectivity!

 

It would be interesting to know how many of those PAC members, that attended the town halls, were either paid to or would directly benefit from opposing the health care bill.

 

I provided evidence of both on behalf of the ones in favor of the plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It would be interesting to know how many of those PAC members, that attended the town halls, were either paid to or would directly benefit from opposing the health care bill.

 

Then use google and try to find out. That question is also not relevant to the intent of the discussion in this thread. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then use google and try to find out. That question is also not relevant to the intent of the discussion in this thread. Thanks.

 

Sure it is. It provides evidence as to motivation, which goes directly to the merits of the intentions of those who attended the town halls.

 

Your thread title is "Opponents of US Healthcare Reform Lose Battle on Merits; Resort to Tantrums/Theatrics"

 

I have already shown who was using theatrics and tantrums, its pretty clear when you look at who went to the hospital and who went to jail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have already shown who was using theatrics and tantrums

 

Actually, you didn't. iNow certainly did in the OP.

 

Try again. Harder, this time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, you didn't. iNow certainly did in the OP.

 

Try again. Harder, this time?

 

You wouldn't consider the union members locking the main entry doors, to prevent the opposers from having their voice heard, while letting in other union members through the side "handicap" entrance, theatrics?

 

What about Carnahans female employee arrested for assault after having a temper tantrum, knocking an opposers cell phone out of his hands breaking it?

 

Or the black conservative who was beaten and sent to the hospital for peacefully handing out leaflets that opposed the health care bill?

 

The facts are out there, I am not going to provide the links. Instead, I would encourage some of you to step out of the left wing bubble thats makes this political forum appear severely lacking in objectivity, which I thought was a central principle to all scientists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK FINE! ACCEPTED! NOTED! WRITTEN DOWN! MARKED IN STONE.

 

What does that have to do with the ability to properly discuss issues based on the merits of the proposal?

 

That's the issue! there is no argument at all to against the bill. The fact that there are left extremist defending the bill with stupid tactic doesn't address that when the opposition to the bill has NO argument and reverts to tactics such as described by the OP doesn't change the fact that this tactic is NOTcreating stimulation or progressive dialogue over said issue i,e, health care reform.

Edited by GutZ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The facts are out there, I am not going to provide the links.

 

You're making the claim. You have the burden of proof. I don't play go fish, sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK FINE! ACCEPTED! NOTED! WRITTEN DOWN! MARKED IN STONE.

 

What does that have to do with the ability to properly discuss issues based on the merits of the proposal?

 

That's the issue! there is no argument at all to against the bill. The fact that there are left extremist defending the bill with stupid tactic doesn't address that when the opposition to the bill has NO argument and reverts to tactics such as described by the OP doesn't change the fact that this tactic is creating stimulation or progressive dialogue over said issue i,e, health care reform.

 

The OP accused the opponents of being the ones preventing the ability to properly discuss issues based on the merits of the proposal, no?

 

That is simply not true. It should be pretty obvious which side was using tactics that prevent quality political discourse.

 

There are several arguements by the opposition. I will stick to the ones that have merit based on Obamas own words. The opposition doesn't want a bill shoved down their throat, by the same people who exempted themselves from it. They also don't like the fact that Obama is going back on his word in regards to reading it.

 

During his campaign he said he wanted Americans to have access to the same health care the politicians get. He also said he would invite senators and congress to the white house to read the bill. Those are very powerful positions that motivated people to vote for him. He was also critical of Bush for signing legislation that he never read. His hypocrasy on these issues is drawing alot of concern and rightly so!

 

The main arguement I have heard is the bill takes away the voters right to choose which health care plan best suites his/her needs and puts it in the governments hands as a single payer system. Obama has been all over the map on this issue, the only correlation is based on who his audience is at that time. Also, if you have read the bill I doubt you failed to notice the number of times the word Acorn was used when the bill discussed who would head up the committees responsible for determing who was worthy to get what health care and how much.

 

If the bill was presented as an option, I doubt their would be so much opposition, but its not. Its a single payer, socialized health plan that leaves the government solely in charge of your health care, unless you are a union member or a politician.


Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged
You're making the claim. You have the burden of proof. I don't play go fish, sorry.

 

I included all the key words neccessary to make it a very quick and easy search.

 

Does your ideology take priority over objectivity? Doesn't lend much credibilty to your scientific views on this forum.

Edited by navigator
Consecutive posts merged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You wouldn't consider the union members locking the main entry doors, to prevent the opposers from having their voice heard, while letting in other union members through the side "handicap" entrance, theatrics?

 

What about Carnahans female employee arrested for assault after having a temper tantrum, knocking an opposers cell phone out of his hands breaking it?

 

Or the black conservative who was beaten and sent to the hospital for peacefully handing out leaflets that opposed the health care bill?

 

The facts are out there, I am not going to provide the links. Instead, I would encourage some of you to step out of the left wing bubble thats makes this political forum appear severely lacking in objectivity, which I thought was a central principle to all scientists.

 

Yes so some supporters of the bill are doing things to subvert a honest discussion of the bill, but so are some opponents of the current bill. The use of these tactics by either side is unjustified and disgraceful. We as citizens need to rise above this partisan strife and have a civilized discussion on the issue currently at hand.

 

As for the Newt Gingrich interview, it was interesting to see a report actually stand up to a politician and call him out on his logical fallacies. Although it is completely reasonable to consider what Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel wrote and what this might means about President Obama is should not be confused with a discussion on the current healthcare reform bill.

 

Also before you stereotype every member of this board I would suggest you read a few threads. Although many members tend to be more liberal not all of the board is and all members tend to be open mind and willing to listen to a logical argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes so some supporters of the bill are doing things to subvert a honest discussion of the bill, but so are some opponents of the current bill. The use of these tactics by either side is unjustified and disgraceful. We as citizens need to rise above this partisan strife and have a civilized discussion on the issue currently at hand.

 

I haven't seen the opponents subvert an honest discussion. I have seen people upset and wanting answers that aren't being given.

 

The town halls used to be a forum for the voters to share their concerns to their reps. so the reps could go to Washington and accurately convey the concerns of his constituents. The town halls lately have consisted of the reps telling the voters what their concerns should be.

 

The voters are demanding to be heard and rightly so!

 

 

Also before you stereotype every member of this board I would suggest you read a few threads. Although many members tend to be more liberal not all of the board is and all members tend to be open mind and willing to listen to a logical argument.

 

Thats why I said some of you.

 

My apologies if I offended anybody, that was not my intention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I haven't seen the opponents subvert an honest discussion.

Incredulity is not a valid form of argument. Further, your comment implies that you did not actually read the OP.

 

 

I have seen people upset and wanting answers that aren't being given.

I have, as well, but I have also seen other things which are more about theatrics than about merit.

 

 

The town halls lately have consisted of the reps telling the voters what their concerns should be.

This is a baseless assertion. You are again using the logical fallacy of poisoning the well, with zero evidence in support of your position. I am sure there are a handful of meetings where this could serve as an accurate description, but you have stated "town halls lately" in an all inclusive way.

 

You either need to be more precise with your language so as to avoid miscommunication, or you need to stop making claims which are plainly false. My hope is that you will actually choose to do both.

 

 

The voters are demanding to be heard and rightly so!

Perhaps they should also be willing to listen. This is supposed to be about dialog, not who can shout the loudest.

 

 

 

As an interesting aside, you've helped evidence exactly the issue to which I was trying to call attention in this thread. Thanks for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Navigator,

 

you have an alternative idea to health care reform?

 

 

 

 

The Health Care Freedom Plan

 

 

• Protects the right of Americans to keep their employer-based plan without having to pay additional taxes on those benefits.

• Provides Americans without employer-based coverage with vouchers of $2000 for individuals and $5000 for families to purchase health insurance. The premium for the average private policy sold in the individual market in 2007 was $1,896 for an individual and $4,392 for a family (Source: eHealthInsurance)

• Allows Americans with Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) to use their HSA funds to pay for insurance premiums, encouraging employers to contribute to their employees’ HSAs.

• Creates a nationwide market for health insurance by allowing individuals to purchase health insurance plans in any state.

• Provides block grants to states to develop innovative models that ensure affordable health insurance coverage for Americans with pre-existing health conditions.

• Reduces predatory and frivolous malpractice lawsuits against physicians and hospitals.

• Assures that every health care consumer has access to price information prior to treatment so they can make informed decisions about their care.

• Repeals financial bailouts (TARP) to ensure that the plan does not add to the deficit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I haven't seen the opponents subvert an honest discussion. I have seen people upset and wanting answers that aren't being given.

 

The town halls used to be a forum for the voters to share their concerns to their reps. so the reps could go to Washington and accurately convey the concerns of his constituents. The town halls lately have consisted of the reps telling the voters what their concerns should be.

 

The voters are demanding to be heard and rightly so!

 

 

A honest and civilized discussion is one were citizens vocalize their opinions in a orderly way, and in turn listen respectfully to the opinions of others regardless if they agree with the other person's opinions or not. Yelling and screaming has no part in a civilized debate, as it does nothing but destroy the discussion. Simply making your point louder does not make it more convincing.

 

There are many examples of opponents of the healthcare reform subverting a honest and civilized discussion. For example when the crowd in Philadelphia refused to allow Senator Arlen Specter to finish his statements they were subverting the discussion. Had the crowd allowed Senator Specter finish his remarks and then had they individually voiced their dissatisfaction there would have been no problem and they would have voiced their opinions to their senator.

 

I included all the key words neccessary to make it a very quick and easy search.

 

Then it should be easy for you to find the supporting evidence. The burden of proof is always on the one making the assertions, whether it is science, law, or a political forum.

Edited by DJBruce
Misspelled the Word Quote in the Tex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I included all the key words neccessary to make it a very quick and easy search.

 

Many people make unsubstantiated claims on this forum. I don't have the desire or time to Google them all.

 

Asking other people to research claims you make rather than defending them yourself is shifting the burden of proof.

 

You have the burden of proof. Own up to it, or retract your argument. Just F*cking Google It is not an acceptable answer, sorry.

 

Does your ideology take priority over objectivity? Doesn't lend much credibilty to your scientific views on this forum.

 

Can you knock off the constant ad hominems?

Edited by bascule

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

All you have done is to take this thread further off-topic, but there's always this:

 

Health Insurance Consumer Protections

  • No Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions
    Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.
  • No Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays
    Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.
  • No Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care
    Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.
  • No Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill
    Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill.
  • No Gender Discrimination
    Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.
  • No Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage
    Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.
  • Extended Coverage for Young Adults
    Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.
  • Guaranteed Insurance Renewal
    Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick.


Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Perhaps a mod can delete navigator's off topic comments, or at least move them to their own thread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incredulity is not a valid form of argument. Further, your comment implies that you did not actually read the OP.

 

I have, as well, but I have also seen other things which are more about theatrics than about merit.

This is a baseless assertion. You are again using the logical fallacy of poisoning the well, with zero evidence in support of your position. I am sure there are a handful of meetings where this could serve as an accurate description, but you have stated "town halls lately" in an all inclusive way.

 

You either need to be more precise with your language so as to avoid miscommunication, or you need to stop making claims which are plainly false. My hope is that you will actually choose to do both.

 

I am not under the assumption that the opponents behavior has always been stellar at these town halls. But do you really think its theatrics and not true feelings? Isn't it obvious to you who has more to lose, the opponents of this health care bill or the politicians, Acorn and union members that are exempt from it? What do you expect from people who Obama basically lied to, to get their votes?

 

How can you accuse one side of disruptive behavior, when the accusers have been found guilty of assault to the exstent of ending up in jail for sending someone to the hospital and still claim to be objective?

 

 

Perhaps they should also be willing to listen. This is supposed to be about dialog, not who can shout the loudest.

 

How long do you put up with being lied to?

 

 

As an interesting aside, you've helped evidence exactly the issue to which I was trying to call attention in this thread. Thanks for that.

 

Your welcome. :)


Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged
All you have done is to take this thread further off-topic, but there's always this:

 

Health Insurance Consumer Protections

  • No Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions
    Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.
  • No Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays
    Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.
  • No Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care
    Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.
  • No Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill
    Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill.
  • No Gender Discrimination
    Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.
  • No Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage
    Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.
  • Extended Coverage for Young Adults
    Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.
  • Guaranteed Insurance Renewal
    Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick.


Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Perhaps a mod can delete navigator's off topic comments, or at least move them to their own thread?

 

Not trying to derail the thread, just answering a question.


Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged
A honest and civilized discussion is one were citizens vocalize their opinions in a orderly way, and in turn listen respectfully to the opinions of others regardless if they agree with the other person's opinions or not. Yelling and screaming has no part in a civilized debate, as it does nothing but destroy the discussion. Simply making your point louder does not make it more convincing.

 

I agree, but when you lie to somebody about something as important as health care, a life and death matter, can you honestly say you can't understand their frustration?

 

Then their rep comes to the town hall and starts regurgitating the same lie, your going to upset people. IMO their anger has merit.

 

There are many examples of opponents of the healthcare reform subverting a honest and civilized discussion. For example when the crowd in Philadelphia refused to allow Senator Arlen Specter to finish his statements they were subverting the discussion. Had the crowd allowed Senator Specter finish his remarks and then had they individually voiced their dissatisfaction there would have been no problem and they would have voiced their opinions to their senator.

 

I agree, however, people will only swallow lies for so long.

 

Then it should be easy for you to find the supporting evidence. The burden of proof is always on the one making the assertions, whether it is science, law, or a political forum.

 

I understand the principle, but I am curious at what point does it become important enough for people to see for themselves, without it being handed to you? This is a life and death matter. If you choose to believe I am being dishonest, even in light of the facts I have already presented, thats your right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.