Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
iNow

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

Recommended Posts

My source was linked in my post, and there are others.

Further, you're misrepresenting me a bit. I did not say that the majority of citizens support "Obamas plan," so note that.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StrawmanI have the opinion that in actuality most Americans are not for "Obamacare." I have not been able to verify if this is correct or not, it is based on general observation and talking to people in everyday life. Most people I know, are not in support of specific aspects of his proposed plan.

And, as I already described for you personally back in post #14, that's not relevant here.

 

You misinterpreted my post. Very sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

About the second question, the first part was an opinion. I was asking you to verify if my opinion was unsupported with facts, and then express your own facts so I could expand my knowledge on this issue. There has been quite a bit of opinion-sharing thus far.

 

-I did not want to make baseless statements- so before they could be misinterpreted I let it be known it was in an opinion.

 

Also could you please provide actual relevant sources? If you are referring to the Youtube videos, I don't consider those accurate sources. They are left open to interpretation, which could go many different ways (And it already has).

 

Also my first question, could you please answer it? You failed to do so, perhaps this is how alot of Americans are feeling nowadays...So in one respect I can sympathize.

 

By the way, your link was dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
could you please provide actual relevant sources? If you are referring to the Youtube videos, I don't consider those accurate sources. They are left open to interpretation, which could go many different ways (And it already has).

My source had nothing to do with YouTube for the claim regarding support for reform among citizens. See the first post of this thread... the very first reference shared. There are plenty of others all showing a similar outcome of 70-80% support for reform.

 

 

In the meantime, speaking of YouTube videos and correcting misinformation, here's one regarding the death panel and "rationing of care" arguments:

 

 

qn0xxjpf360

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you agree, then, that all private insurers already have these "death panels?"

Can you explain why nobody has been talking about that all of these years?

 

You never watched 'Sicko'? I agree, some people may view the panels all private insures have as death panels.

 

But again your missing the point. Governments have no interest in customer retention. Also, private insurers make vastly higher profits by paying claims vs. denying them. This would be the opposite in government health care.

 

Also, can you also acknowledge that the government is likely not to refuse life saving care,

 

Show me a government health care system, fed or state, that runs within budget and does not cut back on programs. Then I will be happy to discuss whether the government is likely not to refuse life saving care.

 

but even if they did, the individual will still have the ability to seek private coverage on their own?

 

According the the way I understood it and the interpetation I read, referenced in my first post in this thread, That after midnight, 01/01/10 no new private health care policies will be written. When your current employee or private health care policy expires you will automatically be enrolled in the government system. If you switch or quit your job, you will auotomatically be enrolled in the government plan.

 

There is another area that discusses how and what government guidelines and panels the private health care companys will fall under, if they choose to continue to operate. The funding for the health care providers will come from the government and not the patient.

 

My point in the evasiveness, not referencing where I read the parts I have read, is in hopes that some of you more intelligent will find a source your comfortable with and read this bill, because there are many contradicting reports due to the complexity of the legelse language. I also think you may have second thoughts when you do. On other forums I have yet to find one person say they were in favor of it after reading the first 100 pages. I really hope you won't place all your faith in the government and find out for yourself whats in it, or I guess you can wait for the politicians to tell you.

 

Anybody who reads it cannot deny the bill is in fact a single payer system.

 

Yes, I can justify it, since their opinion is so obviously rooted in misinformation and falsehoods. I'm not judging them as a person, I'm showing the fallacious nature of their stated premises.

 

Whats the purpose of posting references to back up what I say when you don't read them? As an olive branch I will post it again.

 

Here is a second source in case you didn't like the first one.

 

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5517492

 

The news from Barbara Wagner's doctor was bad, but the rejection letter from her insurance company was crushing. The 64-year-old Oregon woman, whose lung cancer had been in remission, learned the disease had returned and would likely kill her. Her last hope was a $4,000-a-month drug that her doctor prescribed for her, but the insurance company refused to pay.

 

What the Oregon Health Plan did agree to cover, however, were drugs for a physician-assisted death. Those drugs would cost about $50.

 

"It was horrible," Wagner told ABCNews.com. "I got a letter in the mail that basically said if you want to take the pills, we will help you get that from the doctor and we will stand there and watch you die. But we won't give you the medication to live."

 

Critics of Oregon's decade-old Death With Dignity Law -- the only one of its kind in the nation -- have been up in arms over the indignity of her unsigned rejection letter. Even those who support Oregon's liberal law were upset.

 

The incident has spilled over the state border into Washington, where advocacy groups are pushing for enactment of Initiative 1000 in November, legalizing a similar assisted-death law.

 

Opponents say the law presents all involved with an "unacceptable conflict" and the impression that insurance companies see dying as a cost-saving measure. They say it steers those with limited finances toward assisted death.

 

"News of payment denial is tough enough for a terminally ill person to bear," said Steve Hopcraft, a spokesman for Compassion and Choices, a group that supports coverage of physician-assisted death.

 

 

Letter's Impact 'Devastating'

"Imagine if the recipient had pinned his hope for survival on an unproven treatment, or if this were the first time he understood the disease had entered the terminal phase. The impact of such a letter would be devastating," he told ABCNews.com.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My source had nothing to do with YouTube for the claim regarding support for reform among citizens. See the first post of this thread... the very first reference shared. There are plenty of others all showing a similar outcome of 70-80% support for reform.

 

 

In the meantime, speaking of YouTube videos and correcting misinformation, here's one regarding the death panel and "rationing of care" arguments:

 

 

qn0xxjpf360

 

70%-80% support of reform? I believe that is an exaggeration. Using second hand information will get you nowhere. Now for my sources...

 

From the Wall Street Journal:

In mid-June, respondents were evenly divided when asked whether they thought Mr. Obama's health plan was a good or bad idea. In the new poll, conducted July 24-27, 42% called it a bad idea while 36% said it was a good idea.

 

Among those with private insurance, the proportion calling the plan a bad idea rose to 47% from 37%.

 

Declining popularity of the health-care overhaul reflects rising anxiety over the federal budget deficit and congressional debate over the most contentious aspects of the legislation, including how to pay for it. The poll also shows concern over the role of government in determining personal medical decisions.

 

That doesn't look like 70%-80% support to me. Now are you going to question the validity of my source..The Wall Street Journal?

 

From what I gather, there seems to be a divide amongst Americans..

 

CNN Political Ticker:

Americans appear split over President Barack Obama's health care reform proposals, according to a new national poll.

 

Fifty percent of those questioned in CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Wednesday morning say they support the president's plans, with 45 percent opposed.

 

The results indicate a generational divide.

 

"Obama's plan is most popular among younger Americans and least popular among senior citizens," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "A majority of Americans over the age of 50 oppose Obama's plan; a majority of those under 50 support it."

 

Hmmm...If I had to choose..

 

I think I'd go with the more experienced bunch, those over 50, they've been around longer. They know what works, and what doesn't work.

 

"Nearly half of those who oppose the Obama plan say they are more likely to attend town hall meetings to express their views on health care; only 37 percent of those who support Obama's plan are very likely to attend a public forum on that issue," adds Holland.

 

The poll indicates that only three in 10 of all Americans think the president's health care proposals will help their families. Another 44 percent feel they won't benefit but that other families will be helped by the president's plans, and one in five say no one will be helped.

 

 

But...but..I thought it was only the extreme conservative radical Americans who attended the town hall meetings..You know? The ones who are always yelling. Apparently normal people are interested in expressing their views also.

 

Reuters:

WASHINGTON, July 20 (Reuters) - Public support for President Barack Obama's handling of healthcare reform, the pillar of his legislative agenda, has fallen below 50 percent for the first time, a Washington Post-ABC News poll released on Monday said.

 

Have you noticed the trend in recent news reports? Support has fallen. Little by little, people are starting realize how foolish this whole scheme really is...

 

Once again, We need reform for our healthcare system, but we do not need liberal Democrats ideas for healthcare instilled nationally...


Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

http://www.rollcall.com/pdfs/healthchart072309.pdf

 

I also like how simple this proposed plan is supposed to be... No wonder so many people are in support of it *sarcasm*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But again your missing the point. Governments have no interest in customer retention. Also, private insurers make vastly higher profits by paying claims vs. denying them. This would be the opposite in government health care.

Um, no.

You've just argued that private health insurers make vastly higher profits by paying out more claims... by paying claims which increase their costs and raise their expenditures relative to their income.

 

That's incredibly wrong. They make money by maximizing premiums and minimizing payouts. Higher income, lower expenditure. This is basic economics... You can assert the contrary all you want, but that won't make your assertion true.

 

 

I'm sure you meant they would lose customers by refusing claims, but that TOO is plainly false, since health insurance is not a standard commodity like a television or a car, and recent history and evidence proves such an assertion wrong on its face. People don't cancel their insurance when they get ill and that illness isn't covered... They just go into bankruptcy.

 

Either way, your claim is false. Higher costs [math]\ne[/math] vastly higher profits. Are you beginning to understand now why attention is being called toward the misinformation being used by opponents? It's silly falsehoods like this one you've just shared.

 

 

Whats the purpose of posting references to back up what I say when you don't read them? As an olive branch I will post it again.

 

Here is a second source in case you didn't like the first one.

Good question, because what you are posting is COMPLETELY irrelevant to the topic, and the point you are making has already been acknowledged. Nobody here is claiming that there are not valid concerns or motivations for anxiety, so stop pretending this is the case. The thread is about how people are reacting to those feelings, how this is impacting our ability to move forward, and not about the legitimacy of their emotions.

 

Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

 

 

 

 


Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged
70%-80% support of reform? I believe that is an exaggeration.

Well, my source, and the data feeding their numbers, supported my claim. So, you can choose to believe or not to believe anything you want. It doesn't change the facts I presented.

 

 

 

That doesn't look like 70%-80% support to me.

Perhaps that's because you are moving the goalposts by discussing Obama's healthcare plan, whereas I was referring to healthcare reform.

 

When we talk about different things, of course there will be different numbers. :rolleyes:

 

 

From what I gather, there seems to be a divide amongst Americans..

I agree, but that doesn't justify the behavior being discussed in this thread, nor is it reason to use misinformation and falsehoods in support of their position.

 

 

 

But...but..I thought it was only the extreme conservative radical Americans who attended the town hall meetings..You know? The ones who are always yelling. Apparently normal people are interested in expressing their views also.

Another irrelevant red herring. I don't care what political leaning these people at the town halls are... They are acting like a bunch of immature children incapable of resolving issues like adults.

 

 

Little by little, people are starting realize how foolish this whole scheme really is...

Again... not at all relevant to what we are discussing here. It is the manner in which they share that realization which is the topic.

 

 

Once again, We need reform for our healthcare system, but we do not need liberal Democrats ideas for healthcare instilled nationally...

And that STILL doesn't justify these tactics. Why are so many people struggling to wrap their heads around what I'm saying? Am I typing in Swahili, or something?

Edited by iNow
Consecutive posts merged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According the the way I understood it and the interpetation I read, referenced in my first post in this thread, That after midnight, 01/01/10 no new private health care policies will be written. When your current employee or private health care policy expires you will automatically be enrolled in the government system. If you switch or quit your job, you will auotomatically be enrolled in the government plan.

 

Could you please site were in the bill the it discuses restricting access to private health insurance after January 1st, 2010, because out of all the material and news-reports I have read and saw I have never once heard this. Even Senator Specter said today that the bill will tax companies that do not provide healthcare, thus creating an incentive for businesses to not cut their health insurance.You say you posted it in your first post, but I could not find it instead I found,

 

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.

 

Which again is basically go do the research yourself, and the link you provided links to a man named Peter Fleckenstein's twitter page. Besides having no idea what Mr. Fleckenstein's credentials are I cannot find any actual information on the issue you bring up, just a bunch of jiberish with some links.

 

Just for the record twitter is not a reliable citation for any scholarly information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That after midnight, 01/01/10 no new private health care policies will be written. When your current employee or private health care policy expires you will automatically be enrolled in the government system. If you switch or quit your job, you will auotomatically be enrolled in the government plan.

 

I don't think this is certain at all. The House bill does not explicitly state this, it's just the way some have interpreted it. Others interpret it to mean that new private plans will require approval by a government authority of some kind. Still others interpret it to mean that it will basically work like it does now, and companies will continue to switch coverers just like they do at the present time.

 

The President himself has said that it does not mean that people will be gradually switched into the government policy, and that that is not the purpose of the government plan (the thing we've been labeling "Obamacare").

 

That having been said, I don't have a problem with people stating that they are concerned about this possible outcome, in their opinion. It's not fear-mongering, so long as it is stated as their personal concern. It's only fear-mongering if people claim it to be fact and insist that everyone else recognize it as such.

 

 

Anybody who reads it cannot deny the bill is in fact a single payer system.

 

This allegation is based on a chain of assumptions not supported by evidence (i.e., an opinion). A more reasonable perspective might be to say, as I've seen some conservatives express on other forums, that there is a concern here that it might lead to a single-payer system, which they go on to explain their concerns about.

 

And House Democrats don't believe it is single-payer either, which is why they're attempting to amend it to replace the entire bill with a single-payer system via an amendment which will be voted on when the House reconvenes this fall.

 

 

70%-80% support of reform? I believe that is an exaggeration. Using second hand information will get you nowhere. Now for my sources...

 

Americans appear split over President Barack Obama's health care reform proposals' date=' according to a new national poll.[/quote']

 

I don't think we're going to get very far if we can't even agree that many-to-most Americans see our health care system as flawed and in need of some kind of reform. This is not the same thing as saying whether Americans support the President and Congress' plan for reform.

 

Opposition to the government's current plan is not the same thing as opposition to health care reform. Support for health care reform is not the same thing as support for the government's current plan.

 

Both the partisan right-wing opposition to Obama and the left-wing supporters of this plan are exploiting this reasoning at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anybody who reads it cannot deny the bill is in fact a single payer system

 

Okay, I know I said I was done discussing things with you, but... WHAT?

 

There is only one bill before Congress right now that would create a single payer healthcare system, and that's HR 676, the Kucinich-Conyers bill. That is not the bill we're discussing here.

 

If you think "Obamacare" is a single payer healthcare system perhaps you're confused as to what a single payer healthcare system is. Here's a hint: it has a single payer. It would not include a public option in addition to the existing multi-payer private healthcare system. The public option would be the only option, as in HR 676.

 

In fact, Obama's former GP has denounced Obamacare, advocating a single payer healthcare system instead:

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/30/obamas-doctor-opposes-health-care-plan-calls-single-payer/

 

Calling the present bills a single-payer system is not only flat out wrong, it's an insult to people like me who actually do support a single-payer system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Could you please site were in the bill the it discuses restricting access to private health insurance after January 1st, 2010, because out of all the material and news-reports I have read and saw I have never once heard this. Even Senator Specter said today that the bill will tax companies that do not provide healthcare, thus creating an incentive for businesses to not cut their health insurance.You say you posted it in your first post, but I could not find it instead I found,

 

My interpetation of HR 3200

 

PG 145 Line 15-17 An employer must auto enroll employees into public option plan.

 

PG 24 Line 116 Government sets prices for all private health plans.

 

PG 72 Line 8-14 Government is creating an health care exchange to bring private health care plans under government control.

 

PG 265 Line 1131 Government mandates & controls productivity for private health care industries.

 

PG 84 Line 203 Government mandates all benefit packages for private health care plans in the Exchange.

 

Which again is basically go do the research yourself, and the link you provided links to a man named Peter Fleckenstein's twitter page. Besides having no idea what Mr. Fleckenstein's credentials are I cannot find any actual information on the issue you bring up, just a bunch of jiberish with some links.

 

Just for the record twitter is not a reliable citation for any scholarly information.

 

The twitter link is to Peter Fleckensteins personal interpetation, most of which I believe to be accurate.


Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged
I don't think this is certain at all. The House bill does not explicitly state this, it's just the way some have interpreted it. Others interpret it to mean that new private plans will require approval by a government authority of some kind. Still others interpret it to mean that it will basically work like it does now, and companies will continue to switch coverers just like they do at the present time.

 

The President himself has said that it does not mean that people will be gradually switched into the government policy, and that that is not the purpose of the government plan (the thing we've been labeling "Obamacare").

 

That having been said, I don't have a problem with people stating that they are concerned about this possible outcome, in their opinion. It's not fear-mongering, so long as it is stated as their personal concern. It's only fear-mongering if people claim it to be fact and insist that everyone else recognize it as such.

 

 

This allegation is based on a chain of assumptions not supported by evidence (i.e., an opinion). A more reasonable perspective might be to say, as I've seen some conservatives express on other forums, that there is a concern here that it might lead to a single-payer system, which they go on to explain their concerns about.

 

And House Democrats don't believe it is single-payer either, which is why they're attempting to amend it to replace the entire bill with a single-payer system via an amendment which will be voted on when the House reconvenes this fall.

 

You are absolutely correct. My opinions are not fact and too often I state them that way. :embarass:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The twitter link is to Peter Fleckensteins personal interpetation, most of which I believe to be accurate.

Yeah, but as you like to keep throwing in everyones face, I'll remind you that you are on a science forum, and the interpretation offered on some dudes twitter page is not what we mean when we ask for references and sources.

 

This is the point to which DJBruce was calling your attention, and it appears you've not grasped that as evidenced by your response.

 

 

You are absolutely correct. My opinions are not fact and too often I state them that way.

Which is also part of the problem with people in these town halls. Can you at least pretend to stay on topic, navigator? That'd be great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My source was linked in my post, and there are others.

Further, you're misrepresenting me a bit. I did not say that the majority of citizens support "Obamas plan," so note that.

 

 

 

And, as I already described for you personally back in post #14, that's not relevant here.


Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

As promised... I'm going to go ahead and leverage work already done by others to bring these together. Be sure to watch these videos to see just how plainly false navigators assertion was that the only witch hunt or lynching style activities are coming "From supporters of the bill."

 

 

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-10-2009/healther-skelter

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-10-2009/healther-skelter---obama-death-panel-debate

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-10-2009/moment-of-zen---george-w--bush-town-hall-meeting

 

 

I am referring specifically to the video clips within the clip itself. The first few are more humorous jabs at people being afraid of Obama, but later my point is supported robustly with clips specific to the quote unquote "debate" taking place. The final clip in the first video is especially telling.

 

I see people upset, but nothing criminal, witch hunt or lynching.

 

 

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

 

St. Louis County police say six people were arrested. Two of those were arrested on suspicion of assault, one of resisting arrest and three on suspicion of committing peace disturbances. Carnahan was gone when the ruckus started.

 

Kenneth Gladney, a 38-year-old conservative activist from St. Louis, said he was attacked by some of those arrested as he handed out yellow flags with “Don't tread on me” printed on them. He spoke to the Post-Dispatch from the emergency room of the St. John's Mercy Medical Center, where he said he was waiting to be treated for injuries to his knee, back, elbow, shoulder and face that he suffered in the attack. Gladney, who is black, said one of his attackers, also a black man, used a racial slur against him before the attack started.

 

“It just seems there's no freedom of speech without being attacked,” he said.

 

 

http://stlouisteaparty.com/2009/08/07/union-thugs-deliver-unprovoked-beating-on-black-conservative-at-carnahan-town-hall/

 

Here is a video of the Union memebers attack and arrest. As the video starts the victim is already on the ground and being kicked. A letter from the victims attorney is also listed.

 

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

 

August 7, 2009

 

Dear Mr. Hennessy:

 

I am Kenneth Gladney’s attorney. Kenneth was attacked on the evening of August 6, 2009 at Rep. Russ Carnahan’s town hall meeting in South St. Louis County. I was at the town hall meeting as well and witnessed the events leading up to the attack of Kenneth. Kenneth was approached by an SEIU representative as Kenneth was handing out “Don’t Tread on Me” flags to other conservatives. The SEIU representative demanded to know why a black man was handing out these flags. The SEIU member used a racial slur against Kenneth, then punched him in the face. Kenneth fell to the ground. Another SEIU member yelled racial epithets at Kenneth as he kicked him in the head and back. Kenneth was also brutally attacked by one other male SEIU member and an unidentified woman. The three men were clearly SEIU members, as they were wearing T-shirts with the SEIU logo.

 

Kenneth was beaten badly. One assailant fled on foot; three others were arrested. Kenneth was admitted to St. John’s Mercy Medical Center emergency room, where he was treated for his numerous injuries. Kenneth was merely expressing his freedom of speech by handing out the flags. In fact, he merely asked people as they exited the town hall meeting whether they would like a flag. He in no way provoked any argument or altercation, as evidenced by the fact that three assailants were arrested.

 

We hope that Kenneth fully recovers from his injuries; however, he is in great pain at this time. We will be pursuing legal action at our discretion. This was a truly senseless hate crime carried out by racist union thugs. Regretfully, Representative Carnahan’s statements blaming Kenneth for being a disruptive force are wholly untrue and slanderous. We would like to think that an elected official in Representative Carnahan’s position would gather accurate information before carelessly rushing to judgment.

 

Kenneth supports conservative ideals, although he subscribes to no particular political party. We are calling on the SEIU, Representative Carnahan, and President Obama to condemn the racist actions of these union thugs. In the days to come, we will be investigating whether these thugs are working at the behest of Representative Carnahan and how strong their alliances to various organizations–such as ACORN–may be.

 

We hope the St. Louis Tea Party and tea party organizations around the country will protest Representative Carnahan’s offices and also protest SEIU offices in every major city across the U.S. These Democratic strong-arm tactics must end now.

 

Regards,

 

Attorney David B. Brown

 

From Tampa...

 

 

http://www.examiner.com/x-14143-Orange-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m8d7-Union-thugs-manhandle-town-hall-participants-in-Tampa

 

 

A crowd of more than 500 against Obama’s health care tried to attend cowardly Castor’s town hall scheduled in room designed two hundred. Tractor sized bouncers (union thugs) manhandled the overflow crown, injuring several.

 

White House Deputy Chief of staff, Jim “Mad Dog” Messina, was quoted as White House aides gave Senate Democrats a recess battle plan on Thursday, arming the lawmakers with tips on how to fight back against their constituents,

 

If you get hit, we will punch back twice as hard!”

 

Eyewitnesses report SEIU/Acorn members roughing up seniors, pushing little-old-ladies against the wall and literally tearing a man's shirt.

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqjTJkphPao&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fsweetness%2Dlight%2Ecom%2Farchive%2Funion%2Dthugs%2Dattack%2Dprotester%2Din%2Dtampa&feature=player_embedded

 

-

 

There is also a video of one of Sen Carahans employees being arrested for assaulting somebody handing out leaflets, when I find it I will post it.


Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

- One woman was arrested for misdemeanor assault and destruction of property for allegedly pushing another woman who was recording the events on her cell phone, then grabbing the phone and breaking it.

 

The first video she states she is an employee of carahan.

 

 

This video shows her being arrested.

 

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

 

Grassroots or astroturf?

Edited by navigator
Consecutive posts merged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bascule are you advocating a monopoly?

 

If you want to consider a single-payer system a monopoly by a not-for-profit organization officially recognized by the US Government (but not directly part of it, ala the Federal Reserve) so be it.

 

Note that this is not what the proposed legislation (aside from Kucinich's bill) would do. It would merely provide a public option which people could choose to use if they so desire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I see people upset, but nothing criminal, witch hunt or lynching.

I never said it was criminal. I said the behavior is immature and non-productive, and also indicative of the poor level of discourse taking place right now in our nation.

 

 

Here is a video of the Union memebers attack and arrest. As the video starts the victim is already on the ground and being kicked. A letter from the victims attorney is also listed.

Yeah... So?

 

From Tampa...

Yeah... So?

 

There is also a video of one of Sen Carahans employees being arrested for assaulting somebody handing out leaflets, when I find it I will post it.

Yeah... So?

 

One woman was arrested for misdemeanor assault and destruction of property for allegedly pushing another woman who was recording the events on her cell phone, then grabbing the phone and breaking it.

Yeah... So?

 

 

The first video she states she is an employee of carahan.

Yeah... So?

 

All your examples are doing is further illustrating my point. What is the issue here?

 

 

Grassroots or astroturf?

There are clearly some genuine instances of grassroots behavior to be found, but that does nothing to deflate my point. The behavior itself is tending more toward riotous mobs as opposed to civil debates, and that is an immature waste of time that only prevents us from making progress. Further, I suggest that most of the unfocused rage (unfocused being the key word there) which we are seeing is totally astroturf. People are rabid and frothy, and while I can appreciate their various reasons for frustration, their expression of it is nether mature nor articulate. Therein lies the topic of this thread.

Edited by iNow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are clearly some genuine instances of grassroots behavior to be found, but that does nothing to deflate my point. The behavior itself is tending more toward riotous mobs as opposed to civil debates, and that is an immature waste of time that only prevents us from making progress. Further, I suggest that most of the unfocused rage (unfocused being the key word there) which we are seeing is totally astroturf. People are rabid and frothy, and while I can appreciate their various reasons for frustration, their expression of it is nether mature nor articulate. Therein lies the topic of this thread.

 

Based on the evidence, wouldn't you agree that your thread title is grossly lacking in objectivity and your OP is loaded with disinformation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Based on the evidence, wouldn't you agree that your thread title is grossly lacking in objectivity and your OP is loaded with disinformation?

 

You're one to talk, given you're actively disseminating disinformation. Are you still contending the proposed legislation (aside from Kucinich-Conyers) creates a single-payer system?

 

Perhaps before levying these sorts of requests on others you could work on reducing the amount of disinformation you're disseminating yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're one to talk, given you're actively disseminating disinformation. Are you still contending the proposed legislation (aside from Kucinich-Conyers) creates a single-payer system?

 

Perhaps before levying these sorts of requests on others you could work on reducing the amount of disinformation you're disseminating yourself.

 

I have also admitted to fault when the accusation has merit in light of the evidence. However, the OP has made it very clear that I should not answer questions directed to me if they are off topic.

 

You may not believe it, but I really would like to address your question and describe the basis for my opinion regarding HR 3200. If you would start a thread with the purpose of disecting the bill to better understand whats in it, I could illustrate the foundations of my opinion, while at the same time remain on topic. I eagerly look forward to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You may not believe it, but I really would like to address your question and describe the basis for my opinion regarding HR 3200. If you would start a thread with the purpose of disecting the bill to better understand whats in it, I could illustrate the foundations of my opinion, while at the same time remain on topic. I eagerly look forward to it.

 

There is nothing stopping you from opening such a thread yourself. Thanks.


Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged
Based on the evidence, wouldn't you agree that your thread title is grossly lacking in objectivity

Guilty as charged. I have learned through experience that a provocative thread title helps to encourage thread participation. The title of the thread, however, has zero impact on its actual content. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is nothing stopping you from opening such a thread yourself. Thanks.


Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

Due to my conservative nature, I would be hard pressed to find anything positive to discuss, I am afraid I would spoil the discussion before it even started. Also, somebody like yourself, who has more credibility with other members, would spark a more lively debate, IMO.

 

Guilty as charged. I have learned through experience that a provocative thread title helps to encourage thread participation. The title of the thread, however, has zero impact on its actual content. Thanks.

 

Um, you can be provacative without being misleading.... I will drop it.:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have also admitted to fault when the accusation has merit in light of the evidence. However, the OP has made it very clear that I should not answer questions directed to me if they are off topic.

 

You may not believe it, but I really would like to address your question and describe the basis for my opinion regarding HR 3200. If you would start a thread with the purpose of disecting the bill to better understand whats in it, I could illustrate the foundations of my opinion, while at the same time remain on topic. I eagerly look forward to it.

 

Considering you're ostensibly an opponent of healthcare reform who doesn't want to address the actual issues of the bills at hand but instead want to lob about ad hominems and spread disinformation, I'd say it's entirely on-topic. You're part of the problem the OP sought to point out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bascule you are correct here:

If you want to consider a single-payer system a monopoly by a not-for-profit organization officially recognized by the US Government (but not directly part of it, ala the Federal Reserve) so be it.

 

The not-for-profit organization would be like the post office - a money losing proposition supported by taxes. That's what government does - it provides expensive and poor service in all areas where it gets involved.


Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged
There is an active campaign right now to make it look like there is greater opposition to US Healthcare reform than there truly is. More on that below. However, if you look at actual polling data, roughly 70% of Americans want healthcare reform.

 

So here is the claim. It is true. Ever since Nixon there have been proposals for health care.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/rasmussen/20090811/pl_rasmussen/healthcarereform20090811_1

 

The latest polls show that people do not want the health care reforms being touted by Congress.

 

The response to this public response has been childish claims like the OP and Pelosi and others that the opposition is throwing tantrums. In fact it is the supports like Pelosi that are throwing tantrums because their poor ideas are not wanted.

 

The opposition to the health plan is over 50%. Much more interesting is that 46% are strongly opposed while 26% are strongly in favor. Overall the opposition is gaining ground. As people learn more about these plans the greater the opposition.

 

No wonder the president wanted a vote before the pubic became aware of the contents of the bills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The not-for-profit organization would be like the post office - a money losing proposition supported by taxes. That's what government does - it provides expensive and poor service in all areas where it gets involved.

 

And here we have yet another baseless assertion grounded in the fallacy of poisoning the well. All it takes is one single counter example to be proven wrong... and one example is the Veterans Health Administration.

 

Further, I have great experiences at my post office (really, no worse than I do at FedEx or UPS... usually better as it happens), so really... Why do people continue asserting that dealing with the post office is any worse than... oh... I don't know... Dealing with an insurance company? :doh:

Edited by iNow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Considering you're ostensibly an opponent of healthcare reform who doesn't want to address the actual issues of the bills at hand but instead want to lob about ad hominems and spread disinformation, I'd say it's entirely on-topic. You're part of the problem the OP sought to point out.

 

I have already stated I am willing to discuss the issues of the bill, in fact, I believe it is imperative that each one of us try to understand each others point of view in an effort to find some unity. I am sure my posting style may not reflect that, but in my defense, this is not the easiest place to try to present an alternative view.

 

As far as the ad hominems I will make a genuine effort to refrain from those types of remarks, so please call me on it. I admit, I haven't been posting on forums long enough to refine my posting skills and hope you will bear with me.

 

As for the disinformation, thats based on your opinion, I haven't seen any references giving evidence that this bill does not lay the ground work for a single payer system. I can only go on my interpetation and the others I have read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a interesting video of a townhall meeting held by Senator McCaskill in Missouri, where she calls the crowd out on their yelling and unruly actions, saying,

"Do you all think that you are persuading people when you shout out like that."

 

25XvbpSgkY0

See roughly one minute into the movie.

 

At another point Senator McCaskill tells the crowd,

 

"That is ironic because, Okay, I got to tell you guys, I hate to use my mother's voice here because I got three teenagers and I got one but what is it you think we're going to accomplish if you don't let anybody talk? What is the point? Is the point not to let anybody talk? I'm confused."

 

I really enjoyed somebody standing up to the crowd and telling them exactly how they are acting, like children, and how this will accomplish nothing. Although it is saddening that it appears the message was lost on the crowd.

 

My source for the second qoute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And here we have yet another baseless assertion grounded in the fallacy of poisoning the well. All it takes is one single counter example to be proven wrong... and one example is the Veterans Health Administration.

 

I can't think of a more important government program than the Veterans Health Administration to provide sufficient funding in an effort to prevent cut back. Our military deserves it more than any other IMO.

 

But what about medicare, medicaid and they many other state programs that struggle every year with budget shortfalls and program cutbacks?

 

Further, I have great experiences at my post office (really, no worse than I do at FedEx or UPS... usually better as it happens), so really... Why do people continue asserting that dealing with the post office is any worse than... oh... I don't know... Dealing with an insurance company? :doh:

 

I too have had pretty good service from my local post office, but several others are closing due to lack of funding. I wonder if FedEx and UPS are also feeling the squeeze. As far as my health insurance, I have always gotten the care in a timely fashion and thought the quality was good. Last fall my allergies were much worse than previous years so I went to an allergy specialist. The felt they had the correct diagnosis, but wanted me to get an MRI to eliminate the possibility of a sinus infection. I was able to schedule the appointment within the same week and the wait was less than 20 minutes, it was a new clinic that provided the MRI.

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.