posted
Here is the story as heard on today's radio. I apologize for no link, but its just a silly story.
In Mehlville Mo, on the outskirts of St. Louis, the local Democratic congressman was having a town hall meeting.
Amongst the loud protesters was one man very much against "insurance for all" (no to mention those evil "Trial Lawyers"). He got into a fight with members of the service employees union.
He claims they started the fight. They claim he started the fight.
He was injured.
He is next seen in a wheel chair outside the union hall demanding to speak to the Union for compensation for his injuries.
The Union offices were closed on Sunday.
So he has a lawyer and is looking to sue.
But first he is asking donations.
He was laid off a couple of months ago and has no health insurance.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
I was wrong-as the follow up was on Saturday, not Sunday, but still the place was closed.
I was right that he doesn't have the insurance to pay his medical bills, but was protesting the need for insurance for all.
What I discovered was that he and his fellow protesters were protesting the Health Care bill, at a meeting about elderly rights.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's always going to be a lot of irony surrounding Republican policies as long as they tap into an economic and social base that will actually vote for them despite the clear long and short term disadvantages, while they convince the same people out of the other side of their mouths that everyone can succeed in a system that actually requires a number of people to fail.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I was right that he doesn't have the insurance to pay his medical bills, but was protesting the need for insurance for all.
The article does not say that Gladney was protesting the need for insurance at all nor does it say that is what the protesters were protesting.
quote: Saturday's protest was organized by the Tea Party coalition, which fights what it calls reckless government spending and opposes the president's health care reform proposal. The coalition is one of dozens of opposition groups attacking the administration's health care plans.
Protesting what little we know of the current health insurance reform bills does not mean people are against health insurance reform in general.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: There's always going to be a lot of irony surrounding Republican policies as long as they tap into an economic and social base that will actually vote for them despite the clear long and short term disadvantages, while they convince the same people out of the other side of their mouths that everyone can succeed in a system that actually requires a number of people to fail.
As opposed to the Democrat polices that requires everyone to succeed? Which policies would those be?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Protesting what little we know of the current health insurance reform bills does not mean people are against health insurance reform in general.
While this is true, it's a little disingenuous to suggest that the Tea Party Coalition is ever going to come out in favor of an Obama policy.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: As opposed to the Democrat polices that requires everyone to succeed? Which policies would those be?
Nowhere did I claim that opposition to such a philosophy requires adherence to diametrically opposite policies- nor is the opposition to a philosophy itself concomitant with the opposite approach. Of course, Republicans do like you to think that way, so I understand why you might be confused.
quote:Protesting what little we know of the current health insurance reform bills does not mean people are against health insurance reform in general.
While this is true, it's a little disingenuous to suggest that the Tea Party Coalition is ever going to come out in favor of an Obama policy.
Also "what little we know," is a cop out and a half. These bills won't be voted on in secret. You have every right to call your congressperson and ask for details.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
sadly I can tell you, as someone who is heavily involved in helping make health care reform happen right now, there are few details to be had currently. and they keep changing.
posted
Yes. Calling to ask a congressperson won't do a lick of good, because congresspeople don't have a much firmer idea what the current bills (much less the final bills) look like. They're far too large and complex and rapidly changing for anyone to have a handle on more than a small part, even with a staff to back them up.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Pressed by industry lobbyists, White House officials on Wednesday assured drug makers that the administration stood by a behind-the-scenes deal to block any Congressional effort to extract cost savings from them beyond an agreed-upon $80 billion.
Drug industry lobbyists reacted with alarm this week to a House health care overhaul measure that would allow the government to negotiate drug prices and demand additional rebates from drug manufacturers.
In response, the industry successfully demanded that the White House explicitly acknowledge for the first time that it had committed to protect drug makers from bearing further costs in the overhaul. The Obama administration had never spelled out the details of the agreement.
“We were assured: ‘We need somebody to come in first. If you come in first, you will have a rock-solid deal,’ ” Billy Tauzin, the former Republican House member from Louisiana who now leads the pharmaceutical trade group, said Wednesday. “Who is ever going to go into a deal with the White House again if they don’t keep their word? You are just going to duke it out instead.”
A deputy White House chief of staff, Jim Messina, confirmed Mr. Tauzin’s account of the deal in an e-mail message on Wednesday night.
Considering that one of the reasons to go public is to save money by using the sheer purchasing power of one payer (or in the US case, one very large payer?) to cut down on drug costs, this is an interesting pre-emptive move.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: While this is true, it's a little disingenuous to suggest that the Tea Party Coalition is ever going to come out in favor of an Obama policy.
I think it would depend on what Obama's policies actually are and I believe there is a much greater chance of the Tea party Coalitions supporting Obama then say Moveon.org supporting anything Bush ever did.
quote: Also "what little we know," is a cop out and a half. These bills won't be voted on in secret. You have every right to call your congressperson and ask for details.
Most congressman have not read the bill. A few have even stated that they won't. Obama met with insurers and other in the medical industry in secret (he will not release the visitor's logs). The Senate version is not even done yet. The press is certainly not doing it's job of reading through the bill to determine what is in it.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Uhuh. A cop out and a half. Whining about the fact that congressmen aren't going to read the thing (that surprises you by the way??), and that the press is "not doing its job" makes you look like a punk.
A single google search term led me to a dozen links, and a site that appears to update the bill as it is amended, adding the senate version later as it becomes available.
quote:Originally posted by Strider: sadly I can tell you, as someone who is heavily involved in helping make health care reform happen right now, there are few details to be had currently. and they keep changing.
it's quite frustrating.
I absolutely acknowledge that. That isn't a conspiracy. I think it's an unfortunate outcome of the timing with this bill. My point is only that whining and pointing fingers at the press is also equally useless.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
oh, agreed. just pointing out that getting accurate information can be quite difficult.
but I do think DarkKnight is being disingenuous. It's the very fact that everything with this bill is in flux right now with not many firm details that makes these health care reform protests so ridiculous. They are NOT protesting Obama's health care plan, they are by very definition protesting health care reform. or they are protesting falsehoods that are being propagated maliciously. in that case, they're just ignorant.
quote:I believe there is a much greater chance of the Tea party Coalitions supporting Obama then say Moveon.org supporting anything Bush ever did...
Heh. I have no idea what metric you'd use to measure that. Femtochances, where a snowball's chance in Hell is roughly equal to one millichance?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Strider: oh, agreed. just pointing out that getting accurate information can be quite difficult.
but I do think DarkKnight is being disingenuous. It's the very fact that everything with this bill is in flux right now with not many firm details that makes these health care reform protests so ridiculous. They are NOT protesting Obama's health care plan, they are by very definition protesting health care reform. or they are protesting falsehoods that are being propagated maliciously. in that case, they're just ignorant.
Yeah, we're on the same page there.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Such condenscion, Orincoro. You are just too cute when you use all of your Really Big Words altogether like that. Then again, since you only listen to Pelosi I can see why you hold to the bigoted beliefs you have and enjoy speaking down to people from perfect perch amongst the stars. Be Kind. Open your mind. Why are Democrats shoving this bill, which others have pointed out is not being widely read, for passage so quickly? How is what I said a cop out and a half? I'm not the one voting for the bill. Please take your punk comments, shine them up really nicely.... TD, I used the same metric for measurement you did when you made your statement.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I used the same metric for measurement you did when you made your statement.
No, I doubt it. Honestly, I think you just threw out a knee-jerk "hey, your side did it, too!" sort of reaction, without stopping to evaluate whether the situations really were equivalent, who the "sides" actually are, etc. Lots of people are doing that, and it's a shame.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Such condenscion, Orincoro.
Thanks, I work on being concise, but I'll accept "condenscion," as a compliment.
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: of your Really Big Words altogether like that.
You know, it's funny when you get all defensive and sarcastic when somebody utters a three syllable word at you. Don't put that insecurity on me- I have an OAD on hand, I use it often for reference, (although I never use words myself that I'm not already familiar with) and I'm not at all ashamed of the fact. If you have a question about a word I used, ask me. I routinely look up words that I don't see very often, and I find it beneficial. Perhaps this would help you as well. What won't help is whining about it, much less to a guy who, especially on political issues, is outmatched in vocabulary by at least 3 posters in this thread alone.
quote: Then again, since you only listen to Pelosi I can see why you hold to the bigoted beliefs you have and enjoy speaking down to people from perfect perch amongst the stars.
Point of fact, I never listen to Pelosi. That's not hyperbole, I just never read anything she has to say. Don't know why- maybe I should more often. Do you?
quote: Honestly, I think you just threw out a knee-jerk "hey, your side did it, too!" sort of reaction, without stopping to evaluate whether the situations really were equivalent, who the "sides" actually are, etc. Lots of people are doing that, and it's a shame.
Honestly I didn't. I did think of all the times I've heard here, especially from people like Lyrhawn, where conservations/republicans just stayed in lockstep with Bush and almost never went against anything he did. We just had 8 years of almost total Democratic opposition to everything that they could label as "Bush". Take NCLB for starters....Who wrote it? Who opposed it at first? Who grew to oppose it? Who takes the 'blame' for it? Making equivalences between MoveOn and the Tea Parties is a little unfair...Tea Parties are not back by Soros or some other billionaire despite the media's attempts to portray them that way. How about the man who started this whole thread? Is there any doubt if a black Obama health care supporter was roughed up by 'Republicans' this would be front page news? Calls of racism would be heard every day on CNN.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I have been looking for a good discussion on health care.
:snort:
Quick question: do you know what an ad hominem is, and if you do, can you please do me the favor of pointing out where I have used them, and against whom? Because attacking a person's motives is not itself an ad hom, but rather an ad hom is an attack on motive in place of an attack on policy or position. I've been pretty clear in being almost entirely focused on motive- that is my intent.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like the idea of universal health care, but this effort is a mess. There isn't a single plan to even sell - depending on where you look, everyone loses. And there isn't money for this at all. There simply isn't - China is worried and our credit is getting shaky now. Spending another TRILLION dollars right now is a terrible, terrible idea.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, actually it may be a pretty good idea- but that all depends on who you ask. It is not a cut and dried "bad idea" to spend money right now- the overall economy is a lot more complex than your checking account.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Orincoro, do you not understand what that means? Do you need some help on the concept? It's a discussion where the main arguments do not consist of mocking the other side. I know it's radical, but maybe you could search around and stop talking until you understand the idea, and then practice and see if you can formulate an opinion that doesn't drip with lazy, misanthropic, ill-mannered contempt.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Orincoro, do you not understand what that means? Do you need some help on the concept? It's a discussion where the main arguments do not consist of mocking the other side. I know it's radical, but maybe you could search around and stop talking until you understand the idea, and then practice and see if you can formulate an opinion that drip with ill-mannered contempt.
God I'm loving this. It's like Hannibal Lecter giving a lecture on compassionate interpersonal tolerance... actually it's like *you* giving that lecture.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its been asked, "Why are the Democrats pushing to get this bill passed so quickly." It is implied that it must be a smoke screen for something sinister.
Instead the answer is simple. This bill is a compromise of many different organizations and groups. Such a compromise is hard to hold together. If it isn't done quickly somebody is going to back out eventually, causing the whole compromise to collapse, leaving us with a failing expensive system we have now.
A questions I want answered is why are the Republicans fighting this bill so strongly. The majority of the people in the country want to fix the health care system. Instead of switching to a socialist one-payer nationalized system that the left wants, President Obama and congress are working on just adjusting the insurance system--which is what conservatives have suggested previously.
(The same way that conservatives suggested and proved that cap & trade market solution to pollution would work, and are not calling it an evil leftist conspiracy.)
Many people, from Rush Limbaugh to several conservative congressmen have stated that they will fight ANY health plan put out by this administration, because they believe that if they win they can gain the initiative to win elections in the future. They are trying to Break Obama on this issue.
I understand the politics of that, and their desire to hand a defeat to the man who so soundly defeated them in the past. But why do they have to do that petty politics on something so important as my health care?
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:From DK: Then again, since you only listen to Pelosi I can see why you hold to the bigoted beliefs you have and enjoy speaking down to people from perfect perch amongst the stars.
Seriously? Pelosi? Congressional Democrats barely listen to her half the time, why would you think an average liberal would? I can't stand Nancy Pelosi, and I'd be surprised if there was a Democratic voting liberal here who even had a good opinion of her, let alone actually takes any form of marching orders from her.
Surely you can pick a better Democratic power figure than that to try and use if you're going to accuse Orincoro of simply regurgitating the party line.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: I understand the politics of that, and their desire to hand a defeat to the man who so soundly defeated them in the past. But why do they have to do that petty politics on something so important as my health care?
Great question. I think the answer is too simple to be all that elegant: nobody running that opposition stands to lose anything if they succeed. As you said, they are pushing this as what Limbaugh termed "Obama's Waterloo," which implies total war against this administration; so it's not about issues, or about policies or ideologies, it's win/lose. They picked this issue largely because, I think, it is Obama and the reform agenda that is attempting to gain ground here- the worst thing that could come out of it for them is nothing, and from where the Republicans are sitting, they would never have made the attempt to improve the system anyway, so who cares? They're not going to now admit that reform is necessary, despite a failing current system. It's as if they've been handed a stack of chips to play with on credit they will never have to pay down, because this issue isn't national security, or constitutional rights, so they're not going to get hurt in the short term if our health care system gets worse and worse. That, and it's just too easy for rich commentators and legislators on a very favorable government health care plan not to care about the millions of people who are bound to get hurt- people who are destined by the very nature of the current system to be denied proper care. Republicans just don't want to talk about the losers, because in their book, anyone can become a winner (which is technically true in as far as it goes). The fact that their ideology, and the extension of that in their policies ensures that some people have to lose in order for others to win, and that that caveat actually goes a long way towards undermining the success of the entire system is just hand-waved away, because there are always success stories. Meanwhile the rotting underbelly of the whole beast infects the entire thing with terminal rot- but if you're riding up front, it's easy to ignore that.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Orincoro, do you not understand what that means? Do you need some help on the concept? It's a discussion where the main arguments do not consist of mocking the other side. I know it's radical, but maybe you could search around and stop talking until you understand the idea, and then practice and see if you can formulate an opinion that drip with ill-mannered contempt.
God I'm loving this. It's like Hannibal Lecter giving a lecture on compassionate interpersonal tolerance... actually it's like *you* giving that lecture.
Orincoro, you are my Hatrack Bill O'Reilly.
So much of what you write is painfully blind simple-mindedness, but I can't help myself, I have to read it. And you're so touchy! It's like you know you're missing something, but can't help but get angry whenever someone inches towards whatever that something happens to be in that particular argument.
quote:Tea Parties are not back by Soros or some other billionaire despite the media's attempts to portray them that way.
I can solemnly guarantee you that the Tea Parties are indeed backed by billionaires, or at least multiple millionaires.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: A questions I want answered is why are the Republicans fighting this bill so strongly.
Michael Cannon, Director of Health Policy Studies at the CATO Institute and therefore one of the most prominent ideological directors of conservative policy through sinecure incentives, wrote a piece called Blocking Obama's Health Plan Is Key to the GOP's Survival. The idea is that if Obama gets universal health care passed, he will bring "reluctant voters" into the Democratic coalition because the program will become infinitely preferable to the prior situation in America and such a system will inexorably become as untouchable as Medicare/Medicaid, and thus Republicans must at all costs prevent that from happening, because if the program is allowed to pass, Americans will love it despite the fact the GOP told them they won't love it.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have reservations about what's been floated about the new program, but the fear-mongering hysteria would be hilarious if I wasn't afraid people actually listen to that crap. Like Sarah Palin's Death Panel, or the IBD editorial which contained the horrible truth:
quote:People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless.
Stephen Hawking is, of course, British...
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: A questions I want answered is why are the Republicans fighting this bill so strongly.
Michael Cannon, Director of Health Policy Studies at the CATO Institute and therefore one of the most prominent ideological directors of conservative policy through sinecure incentives, wrote a piece called Blocking Obama's Health Plan Is Key to the GOP's Survival. The idea is that if Obama gets universal health care passed, he will bring "reluctant voters" into the Democratic coalition because the program will become infinitely preferable to the prior situation in America and such a system will inexorably become as untouchable as Medicare/Medicaid, and thus Republicans must at all costs prevent that from happening, because if the program is allowed to pass, Americans will love it despite the fact the GOP told them they won't love it.
"We can't have nice things..."
Or, more to the point, we can't have nice things if those nice things will make the Democratic Party look good.
Criminy, it's so petty! What ever happened to this idea that public servants were supposed to, I don't know, serve the public? Don't get me wrong, the Democrats have certainly done their share of foolishness and spite, but this is truly cutting off noses to spite faces.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, is it a plan that will benefit Americans in the long term, or is it not?
Or to be more specific, will the bill as passed benefit Americans in the long term, or will the costs outweigh the benefits?
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
a more detailed article from Think Progress in regards to the OP. It also contains links to various other sources dealing with different aspects of the story.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: "We can't have nice things..."
Or, more to the point, we can't have nice things if those nice things will make the Democratic Party look good.
The goal right now is to try to evoke as much anger over the prospect of UHC so that the republicans can enact some measure of control over the 'bipartisan' solution.
The goal of that is to enact just enough control to water down the program to something that works as badly as they can make it work, so that they can hope that it fails or remains unpopular enough that they can cut back on support or funding in the future, then use the unsatisfactory performance of a sabotaged system to justify its revokal and enshrine the 'proven' notion that UHC is terrible after all.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: "We can't have nice things..."
Or, more to the point, we can't have nice things if those nice things will make the Democratic Party look good.
The goal right now is to try to evoke as much anger over the prospect of UHC so that the republicans can enact some measure of control over the 'bipartisan' solution.
The goal of that is to enact just enough control to water down the program to something that works as badly as they can make it work, so that they can hope that it fails or remains unpopular enough that they can cut back on support or funding in the future, then use the unsatisfactory performance of a sabotaged system to justify its revokal and enshrine the 'proven' notion that UHC is terrible after all.
All this ascribing of motives. If you were doing it to a Hatracker it would be contributing to the dysfunction of the board
There may be some Republicans who see this as a primarily political issue; it makes sense that many of the political Republicans (those responsible for the long term health of the party) view it in those terms. Just as many political Democrats viewed Bush's myriad mistakes as political opportunities. Cynicism is the coin of the realm in political circles.
But I personally (and many other Republicans I know) have serious ideological issues with the proposed bills. I think the promises of cost-cutting and "bending the curve" have all been oversold and under delivered (and the CBO backs this up). I think past experience with Medicare and Social Security, and the current financial viability of those entitlements, should give us significant pause before instituting another massive federally-administered entitlement. I think cross-national health expenditure comparisons lack an understanding of underlying cultural dimension of health care spending. I think Obama's promise (or was it; after its initial affirmation of the deal, the White House is now apparently denying it) to Billy Tauzin (one of the lobbyists who negotiated the deal) not to review Medicare expenditures (with possible savings of around $200 billion) in exchange for an $80 billion concession, and a public endorsement of the health care reform initiative was dishonest, cynical, and a bad decision (both financially, and because he couldn't back it up; at least one of the current bills includes a congressional review of pharmaceutical payouts under Medicare, which is what caused Tauzin to go public with the details of the deal). I think claiming everybody needs to have some "skin in the game" and then turning a blind eye to out-of-control growth in malpractice awards, and consequently malpractice insurance, is dishonest. I think the whole process has been handled with an incredible amount of ineptitude and a lack of understanding about the true concerns of most people.
And I'm probably one of the most sympathetic Republicans you will find on the issue of health care reform. I think it's scandalous that we don't provide health insurance to the most vulnerable in our country. I think it's a great idea to encourage people to seek low cost preventative measures rather than force them into a situation of chronic (over)use of emergency rooms. I think there's a moral imperative to protect and provide for all citizens, especially given the dramatic increase in wealth in our country over the last couple of decades. So I'm on board with health care reform; just not the out-of-touch proposals coming from Washington.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: So, is it a plan that will benefit Americans in the long term, or is it not?
Or to be more specific, will the bill as passed benefit Americans in the long term, or will the costs outweigh the benefits?
It would be difficult to envision a plan that would in its totality be more expensive in the longer term than the current one- especially if you want to factor in the costs in economic losses caused by a generally substandard level of care.
At the same time as I don't want to pick on just the point that reinforces the need for reform, I think we should be cognizant of the universal cost to us of not reforming as well. I mean, theoretically you could devise a system that delivers the same standard of care we receive today (as an average), and put that system in the black with ultra-efficient planning and low overhead, torte reform and whatever else might work, and despite all that, the sheer loss of productivity caused by a depressed standard of care would represent, if not a loss, then at least a huge missed opportunity for growth. But maybe I'm foolishly optimistic in hoping that both aims could be achieved- a system that is in the black on paper, as well as a benefit to society. I'm rather suspicious of either side claiming that one of those aims is impossible to achieve, especially considering that there are so many obvious areas for improvement, and a lot of ways they can be improved, plus dozens of examples of how health care is, if not done perfectly, at least clearly done better, with a superior average outcome. That said, I'm more optimistic about a system that may be in the red, that provides a better standard of care, with fewer outliers, than I am about one that is nevertheless in the red, with hugely inconsistent standards.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
