Willravel

We didn't show up to town halls with the intent of stifling debate, powerclown. No equivalence can be drawn there.

roachboy

that comparison only works at the most superficial of levels.
for example, almost everything that the protestors---with the exception of pacifists, who oppose war on principle---were mobilized over turned out to be correct. so there was, in fact, information at the base of the protests. you might not agree with them ideologically, but even a conservative cannot at this point reasonably deny that the war against iraq was launched for reasons that had fuck all to do with what the public was told.
in fact, were the rightwing protests not getting such an inordinate amount of airtime on cable infotainment outlets this week, you might have heard about tom ridge's book about his tenure with heimat security in which he outlines a number of situation in which he was pressured to issue bogus "terror alerts"...

in this case, powerclown, there is almost nothing in the way of coherent opposition to obama's plan--partly due to tactical blunders on the administration's part--partly due to the sources of this agitation, the demographic to which they are speaking, the ways in which they address that demographic and so forth.

the sad thing is that the debate could easily have gone otherwise. i don't see why people require patently false memes to be opposed to it. there are arguments to be made, really. and they should be made. but they aren't being made.

but the folk who aren't making arguments sure are getting a shit-ton of press.
remember how the protests against the bushwar were treated?
o wait--maybe you can't because you sure as hell didn't see them on tv.
funny how that works in the "liberal" press.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Cimarron29414

I clearly remember seeing televised marches against the war in washington. I believe they were covered pretty well.

For the record, I agree with you that the reasons the Bush administration gave for invading Iraq have been proven to be unsubstantiated claims. I agree that the administration avoided evidence that would have gone against their claims. All in all, the Bush administration *wanted* to go into Iraq and chose the path of least resistance for the public (alluding to the potential terrorist ability of a willing Iraq during the fearful aftermath of 9-11). The things we are having a hard time doing in Afghanistan right now would have been fairly easy if we had kept at them back in 02-03 (I speculate). Iraq took our eye off of that ball and we've paid for it in losses.

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

Derwood

You have to hand it to the GOP....they like pushing the envelope of crazy

GOP: Reformed Health Care System Could Discriminate Against Republicans! | TPMDC

This WHARRGARBBLLL goes to 11

filtherton

Oh man. I heard an interview with her on the radio this morning. The interviewer lacked the follow-through to hold her feet to the fire.

---------- Post added at 05:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:21 PM ----------

When crazy is a significant portion of your base, you have to cater to that.

aceventura3

I have asked more questions than I have attempted to make arguments. Again, my number one concern is not an argument, it is an emotional based concern! How is the government going to allocate limited health care resources? Please show me where this has been "dispensed", this is a long thread perhaps I have missed it. Then I have other concerns, perhaps I have missed the dispensing of those too, i.e. - Medicare going broke but private insurers being financially sound as required by law - seems to me that private companies have a discipline they operate under that the government has not I am curious how you take these concercerns/questions to be arguments?

You miss the point. I am not saying and never said my response to a set of facts is legit relative to someone else. I have never had a problem with people reaching different conclusion. I will argue my position, explain it, try to persuade, but I don't make value judgments. I accept differences, I generally don't insult people because of those differences unless they insult me first (I am still an imperfect human subject to childish responses occationally), but I know my weaknesses and work on them.

I give some pretty specific examples to illustrate my point of view, I could be wrong but I know that two people of similar intellect/training/experience/etc can have the exact same set of facts and respond in very different ways, I think I know why - emotion. Your answer is...what?

where does that come from??? How did you read what I wrote and conclude the above? How does that happen?

How do you explain something as simple as what I presented, absent an emotional response to the question do I want to use an umbrella in the rain. complicated political theories are not worth crap if they can not address simple decision problems. A good politician knows, perhaps intuitively, how people emotionally respond to facts.

I generally start with a point of view, pro or con on an issue. I provide an opening statement in support of my view. I read responses or opposing points of view and I ask questions and present counter points. It is what I do, it gives me pleasure. It challenges me to think things through. If forces me to read opposing points of view. It helps me understand opposing trains of thought. Occasionally I change my point of view based on an exchange.

Why do I need to tell you this? Do you really care why I do what I do? Or, are you just trying to be condescending? Is it some kind of backdoor personal attack or what? Is this "trolling"? Are you trying to incite an emotional response? How is your question adding value to the topic? This is why I don't understand what "trolling" is. because I think based on the definition - you are guilty of it, here.

All of this is directed at me, and not the topic. I am not going to change who I am. You don't like me, the way I communicate, structure arguments, debate, ask questions, why don't you ignore me as an individual and stick to the topic? I have asked you this several times, what the deal? In my post #317 I ask a simple question and I get your response in post #318, why not just address the question and information, why direct you comment at me as an individual? Why is what you do any better or worse than those you think should be embarrassed based on TH meetings?

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

dc_dux

ace, I would start with the fact that your underlying premise is wrong.
Presidents dont offer specific legislative proposals...that is the role of Congress.

Presidents offer frameworks and goals/objectives and I think Obama has been clear on his broad goals for health care reform....then attempts to shape the details through the bully pulpit, consultations with lawmakers and other means.

Clinton's greatest failing with his early health care reform proposal was he ignored this fact and he had little Congressional support from the start because he attempted to do it all himself and shove his plan down the throat of Congress.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

aceventura3

People play to cameras. People who know they have almost no opportunity to have their voice heard, will go to the extreme to illustrate their point. Did you ever watch the show The Price is Right - I remember it because my grandmother watched it every day when I was a child. In order to get picked the contestants did all kinds of crazy things, shouted dressed up, had sign, just to get picked. They acted a fool on the show, however in real life i bet they were pretty "normal". Is it a surprise to you that people would act a fool to get on TV, to get noticed, to make a point? Again, if I were going to hold a TH meeting I would not be surprised by this stuff. Even when I was involved in local city political meetings we would have people do exactly what is happening now. When we knew we had a hot topic we planned for it. No surprises. And we got through it, we did what needed to be done. we did not cry about it or complain.

---------- Post added at 11:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:13 PM ----------

On big issues they do, or a least clearly define what they want. It can be as simple as Kennedy saying we are going to put a man on the moon by the end of the decade. Or, something as controversial as Bush presenting his case for the use of military force for the invasion of Iraq

We simply disagree. Obama has not been clear in my view.

Again I disagree. I think Clinton's problem and Obama's problem is they present there ideas on false premises. Private health care insurance is not the problem. Private health care companies operate under the regulatory environment created by government. They do what the government allows them to do, it is a highly regulated industry.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

dc_dux

I dont know how much more clarity you want in terms of broad goals/objective/principles then what he campaigned on and currently has posted on the WH website.
Certainly seems as clear to me as "Kennedy saying we are going to put a man on the moon by the end of the decade. Or, something as controversial as Bush presenting his case for the use of military force for the invasion of Iraq."

Congress makes laws, not the White House.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

aceventura3

Why does Obama go off point? Why the attacks against private insurers? Why the backhanded attack against doctors (i.e. -take out tonsils to make more money)? Why the on again off again confusion over a public option? The bullet points don't include being budget neutral, what happened to that? His campaign speeches don't reconcile with the above, no explanation. On and on..., there is confusion.

Do you really not think that I know Congress makes laws? Did you really not understand my point about Obama leading on the issue?

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

dc_dux

I read your point:
That is NOT what presidents do.

He even offered his preference on a significant portion of potentinal funding....lower the tax rates on exemptions for the top 5% to the same rate as the rest of the taxpayers.

IMO, you just dont like the way he is "leading on the issue" or using the bully pulpit and that is your right.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

scout

For the record I agree something needs to be done with health care. The current system cannot possibly sustain itself. No one can afford it now with or without insurance. And as far as the "birther" issue I'm quite positive the Libertarians and Republicans spent several million in Hawaii and other places investigating Obama before the November election. If there was something there I'm sure they would have uncovered it long before now. Heck if the truth was known the Clintons probably spent a little cash investigating Mr. Obama's birthplace during the primaries. The birther thing only serves to take peoples attention away from the real issues and concerns.

I'm still trying to understand how anyone could think that there could be civil debate at a town hall meeting when there is no centralized plan to debate. Debate is what happens during session in the House of Representatives and Senate. The town hall meetings was designed for our elected officials to hear feedback from their constituents and to let the constituents hear feedback from Washington.

None of our nightly news outlets have been very efficient in reporting what exactly is in the "health care bill" and part of that is because there are three different plans being considered, which plan do they report on? This whole thing has been convoluted from the beginning. Heck half the people participating in this thread can't tell you half the crap in all three of those bills. This whole information vacuum has resulted in the far right talk shows "reporting" everyone's worst fears. Since most people don't get their news online from several different sources like most of the people here participating in this thread there's no small wonder a lot of people showing up at these town hall meetings are confused. They work all day, come home, flip on the news and sit back with a glass of tea. Since there is no in depth coverage of the "health care plan" because the major news networks don't know how to cover all three plans or even which plan to cover these people don't know what the hell is going on. So they go to work the next day and ask people they work with and then all they hear is hearsay and everyone's worst fears. It's a small wonder the town hall meetings are turning out like they are. And for some of these people to be simply dismissed as "birthers" and "racists" is pretty damn shallow. Uninformed, yes definitely, but who's fault is that? This is the core problem as I see it. Resistance to health care reform is from lack of communication, not from some far fetched right wing racist conspiracy. If they are in fact winning this "debate" it's because the other side failed and are still failing to get their message out. Just about everyone you talk to readily agrees something needs to be done about health care so if your side has a plan other than let's vote on health care reform get your message out. How are you going to fix it, what will that mean to the average joe, how will you pay for it without raising taxes or breaking the back of our country. That's what people want to hear. Unfortunately, Obama and the Democrats didn't get the jump and now they are playing catchup.

__________________
"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."
Thomas Jefferson

dc_dux

Personally, I would like to see more of these signs at the town hall meetings.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

The_Dunedan

No argument here. But why should we add one well-intentioned but ill-conceived and inevitably ill-executed plan onto a previous example which, if the past continuous and inevitable march of increased spending holds, will prove to be even more expensive and possibly deliver on its' promises with even less effect? Just because the opposite wing of the Boot On Your Neck Party is in charge?

powerclown

I personally enjoy watching ordinary everyday people hollering at their elected officials. As far as stifling debate, I would say this to the democrats: nut the hell up. Holler back if you have to, explain with a little more clarity and backbone what really resides within the bureaucratic labyrinth of the healthcare bill and what it means for the average taxpayer and their families. And explain if you can why members of congress would still be getting better healthcare benefits than private citizens, along with the wisdom of spending a few extra trillion in a time of economic hardship. And maybe also explain the wisdom (or lack thereof) of handing over anything to a bureaucracy that doesn't run anything efficiently, or try explaining that profit motives, competition, and individual ingenuity have always led to greater cost control and effectiveness. The list goes on and on.

dc_dux

The purpose of the town hall meetings is to explain the various proposals:

...explain with a little more clarity and backbone what really resides within the bureaucratic labyrinth of the healthcare bill and what it means for the average taxpayer and their families

How can a member of Congress be expected to do that when he/she is shouted down before uttering a word of explanation?

Then, I'm curious how you can reconcile these conflicting positions:

...explain if you can why members of congress (or federal employees, I might add) would still be getting better healthcare benefits than private citizens....

...maybe also explain the wisdom (or lack thereof) of handing over anything to a bureaucracy that doesn't run anything efficiently
(have you ever talked to federal employees about the efficiency, choice, cost and level of satisfaction within the FEHB program?)

Do you want greater choice in your health care or not?

And then explain how, in the field of health care:

....that profit motives, competition, and individual ingenuity have always led to greater cost control and effectiveness.

So why are health care costs for the private consumer doubling every 7-10 years?

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

flstf

It seems to me that the free market is not working very well when it comes to health care. In my opinion it is not so much the insurance companies that are the high cost drivers but the non-competitive nature of the prices charged by health care providers. Even if we squeeze the profit out of insurance it is a small percent of the overall costs because of the increasing prices charged by hospitals, doctors, etc..

I watched the McCain town hall the other day and if I understand the Republican plan they want to also make insurance companies eliminate pre-conditions and lifetime caps. They don't want a government option but instead want to give each family $5000 ($2500 for individuals) to help purchase private insurance. I don't think it will take very long for the increased insurance costs due to the proposed reforms to eat up the 5 grand.

Neither party seems to address very well the problem of how to keep the health care providers from increasing prices much more than the average person's income. One thing that President Obama talked about is limiting people's health care costs to about 10% of their income per year. If they pass nothing else, I would like to see this go through. Losing everything I have worked for and bankrupting my family due to an accident or illness is what concerns me the most.

Derwood

Impossible to police. Liberals/Democrats got slammed for giving money to the poor to buy school supplies because some who received the funds went and bought video games and stuff instead. How do you guarantee that people will spend the money on insurance? And in the grand scheme of things, $5000 is a drop in the bucket over a lifetime of insurance premiums that double every 7 years

flstf

I imagine they can make you show receipts when you file your taxes to prove you spent it on insurance. I wonder how far $5000 will go once they impose the new insurance reforms. If the average family plan is about $1400 per month now I imagine it will go up to about $1800 or $2000 per month. (just pulled these numbers out of my hat) $5000 per year will take care of about $400 of that monthly premium. Like you said insurance premiums (and I surmise also health care costs) are doubling every 7 years so I guess the $5000 would have to double also.

Cimarron29414

My Healthcare reform bill:

"You can buy your insurance in any state in the union, no matter which state you live in."

I just added 49 competitors instead of one (Obamacare), and the government doesn't add one more new bureaucrat.

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

flstf

I think President Obama advocates the same thing with the addition of a government option for even more choices.

Cimarron29414

WRONG!!!!! He wants to eliminate private insurance. Youtube is your friend.

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

flstf

I think that would be his preference but politically it can't be done at this time. Besides, like I wrote earlier, I don't think insurance companies are the biggest problem it's the out of control health care costs they are insuring.

connyosis

Ah yes, youtube. Because we all know that youtube is THE source for reliable information. You know, like wikipedia.

Oh, lookie what I found: The White House - Blog Post - Facts Are Stubborn Things

__________________
If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Rekna

Don't you think this will just cause insurance companies to all move to insurance friendly states? They all move to the state that protects them and harms consumers the most and then the consumers are worse off then when they started.

dc_dux

Agreed.

The current patchwork of state regulations is part of the problem, not the solution.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

dippin

where did you get this nonsense?

Rekna

Youtube!

rahl

Any insurance company can sell in any state as long as they are state approved. My companies home state is in SC, but most of the business that I do personally is in OH and WV.

__________________
"Your life is Yours alone...Rise up and live it"

The_Jazz

I really don't want to do this since I'm actively moderating the thread, but this is absolutely wrong. In order to sell insurance in a given state (unless they're going to operate as an excess and surplus lines carrier, which a health insuror cannot do except in very unusual circumstances) they must file rates with the state as well as agree to operate under certain guidelines.

And getting state approval is not automatic and is not a simple procedure. It can take years. Ask any property insuror doing business in Florida about how long THAT takes.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

flstf

It looks like Republicans are in favor of at least one government health care plan. If they are concerned about a government option for the rest of us perhaps they could include it in these principles. Or how about including everyone no matter who they get their health care and/or insurance from.

Derwood

Hilarious. The GOP steps in with a bill to save seniors from something that was never going to happen, thus branding themselves as the heroes who saved them from Obama. Priceless.

FuglyStick

Brilliant.

"I introduced the bill to keep the military from sending robotic mice to the moon and eating it (it's made of cheese, ya know). I SAVED THE MOON!"

__________________
AZIZ! LIGHT!

filtherton

They've also saved the American Way of Life by abandoning all of the principles associated with it. We haven't had any terrorist attacks on US soil since we started torturing people.

rahl

How is what you said any different than what I said?

__________________
"Your life is Yours alone...Rise up and live it"

aceventura3

FDR's inaugural address he lays out his plan that lead to The Emergency Banking Act of 1933. This is an example of Presidential leadership on an issue, this is an example of clarity. There were no wide spread chaos in town hall meetings. FDR demanded that Congress act and within a week he got a detailed plan passed.

Here is part two, the more relevant section:


And the key was the FDR stayed on point during all of his talks and speeches.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Rekna

And the times were different then as there wasn't channels that had 24 hour new coverage which included 23.5 hours of lies, deceit and misinformation.

Sadly we have gotten to a point (largely because of fox news) where truth isn't a vital part of the news.

flstf

ace:
We may never see the likes of an FDR again. It is a little unfair to compare President Obama to him, or for that matter any other president since then.

Health care reform has always been difficult to pass even for FDR. President Obama is trying not to make the same mistakes as President Clinton who was accused of coming up with a detailed plan without enough input from others. Perhaps you are right and President Obama is maybe getting a little too much input lately.

FuglyStick

Obama needs to quit pussy footing with the GOP. He left the door open for compromise and debate, and the GOP responded with petulance, like teenagers who can't get things their way. You don't negotiate with petulant teenagers. It's time to tell the GOP to fuck off. If they don't want to participate in any meaningful way, then they can go pout somewhere, but enough of the GOP hijacking any progress with their theatrics.

__________________
AZIZ! LIGHT!

scout

The Democrats may have the majority but that doesn't mean they can just bully this thing through without ramifications. There are plenty of Democrats elected from "conservative" districts and states that will be looking for a job next time they come up for reelection if they don't come up with some sort of compromise. Believe me if it could just be rammed through it would have already happened, before the summer recess. They gave that a shot and we see how far that went.

__________________
"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."
Thomas Jefferson