"One good thing: maybe this will get all the town hall crazies to chill the fuck out."
Ha ha ha, ha ha ha ha, ha ha. [snort] [chuckle] Ha ha ha, ha ha ha, ha.
Oh. Wait. You were serious.
The only saving grace of this is the grim, uncaring satisfaction I'll have a decade from now when all the Tea Baggers are cast adrift because they can't afford their $5,000 per visit deductible and are dropped by their Delaware-based insurance company. Their only choice will be either to sell a non-essential organ or to book a seat on an ice flow somewhere.
...Assuming there are any ice flows left, obviously.
Thanks, Barack, for validating my decision to move to Canada! My children will be health and happy and well-educated and hire Amercans to keep the lawn tidy.
(DEAD) Goldwings - Remembered for his bravery and heroism... xD was starred
(DEAD) Goldwings - Remembered for his bravery and heroism... xD was unstarred
Bi-partisanship is vastly overrated. Republicans have not contributed any solutions to this problem; they lost the last two elections for very good reasons, their interests are clearly only in protecting the profits of the big insurance companies, who constitute a tiny percentage of the population. They shouldn't be consulted.
Both parties have moved to the right since Reagan, and certainly since Bush II...what's the point of even pretending "bipartisanship" is advisable or feasible when most of the seats on the other side of the table seem to be occupied by extremists who have nothing constructive to offer? This is as "conservative" a Democratic party the country (or at least, the people who voted for Obama/gave those Dems a majority in Congress) should have to tolerate.
I dread the future. I dread an America where people like Sarah Palin are not only tolerated in policymaking, but are rewarded and given power. I don't care if the Democrats have a majority right now, it seems voters have learned little or nothing from the past eight years.
That said--to be honest, I'm not informed enough about this myself. My parents disapprove of the comparisons to Hitler but they're lucky enough to have a decent insurance plan, and worry what they'll have to give up, even if they recognize and regret the fact that there are millions of people here who are either uninsured, underinsured, or worried about they're employers cutting insurance.
What's worse--the rationing (and costliness) that supposedly goes on in countries like England, or the "rationing" that happens as a byproduct of our expensive system?
I'm a crazy fucking liberal who feels that without a public option there is no real reform. I also have a proposal. I think all the wing nut crazies at the town hall forums should opt out of Medicare.
They clearly are concerned about "socialism" and should not be forced to participate in it. Let them pay their own damn medical bills like the expect the rest of us to do. Or hell, even better, let them try to buy a policy in the free market.
Well, here's a crazy proposal, what if I'm fine with building roads on my dime but I'm not fine with healing the sick? FYI, guys, if the rich opt out of taxes the government doesn't function. 50% of the tax base pays 95% of the taxes, and 5% pay over half.
@Unsolicited Advice: Believe me, it isn't the rich who go to these town halls and scream at their congressman. It isn't the rich who reflexively cry about socialized medicine or death panels or keeping the government out of Medicare. It's the herds of gullible, incurious middle and lower-middle class simpletons who are too intellectually lazy to make an effort to understand the issue and thus fail to comprehend that reform will ultimately benefit them the most. The herd requires that their opinions be fed to them in them in short, easily-digested soundbites. So, they feed at the trough of misinformation that is Fox News, talk-radio, and right-wing blogs, whose sole purpose is to appeal to their emotions as opposed to their minds.
As long as this country remains as wealthy as it is, the rich will never want for access to high quality healthcare.
Also, what if I'm fine with building roads and healing the sick on my dime, but I'm not fine with funding a costly, eight-year (by 2011) war whose justification was based on false premises (I know, I know, reductio ad Iraqarum). The fact of the matter is that in any tax system, some of a taxpayer's contribution will go to projects to which she may not agree.
Entitlement programs are paid for almost exclusively by the upper echelon of American wage-earners. The rich drive on roads and use oil in their cars, but they've already got great health care.
@Unsolicited Advice: No, Iraq wasn't a charity mission -- it was an aggressive attack by the US on another country, accompanied by gross violations of various international treaties including the UN Charter and the Geneva Convention. I'd rather pay for health care.
The thing is, a large majority of Americans(70%) are happy with the healthcare they have. And since the government has done such a bang up job running the Postal Service, Medicare and Amtrak into the ground. The real question is who in their right minds would want the government running their healthcare system. Not to mention people freaked out when they thought the government was listening in to their phone calls to overseas lines and reviewing their selections at the library. What do these people think about the gov knowing everything about their health issues?
@Lance Uppercut: Umm, last time I checked, the Postal Service still sends shit across the country in a couple days for 44 cents. Last time I checked, most of the people on Medicare loved it (even to the point that many are scared healthcare reform for all will siphon off from their beloved Medicare coverage). I can't really speak for Amtrak, but whatever is wrong with that can probably be attributed to the government's half-assed commitment to railway mass transit. If we actually funded and planned railways properly, they'd be a major asset to the public.
@Lance Uppercut: you know what confuses me? the fact that people have blind faith that the "private sector" can be trusted to wholly run health care. considering that the a handful of supposedly great private sector companies completely destroyed our economy in search of greater and greater profit margins.
@Lance Uppercut: Yes. President Obama will be looking, PERSONALLY, at the results of your last prostate exam. Exactly. And every month the Senate will convene to gossip about that rash you have. It's true.
What is the difference between gov't bureaucrats and insurance bureaucrats seeing medical records?
@lacieca01: Well, and did the question require that they had actually used in some significant way and been satisfied with their healthcare? Many people are just getting the cheapest shit available, thinking it will cover them for routine stuff, and they never really find out how screwed they are by the small print until they try to put in a claim. That satisfaction percentage, even if it's a legit number, probably only reflects the satisfaction with the price of the insurance, considering how little it ever gets used.
@Lance Uppercut: A lot of people are underinsured and don't know it until they get a serious illness. Americans also automatically believe whatever they have is the best in the world and tend to have very low familiarity with the way other countries operate. Public opinion is not a good gauge of the sysytem in this case.
All the other western democracies have universal healthcare that is either entirely public or has a very open public option. It works well, is more efficient and inexpensive, and is more just. The government is going to have access to information about people anyway through their taxes, criminal records, etc. That's no reason to privatize healthcare or for that matter the police force or the IRS. Right now private insurance companies who have only their profits on mind not your health have your health information and they will be going through it and looking for technicalities and excuses to not cover your illnesses.
@lacieca01: Canadians don't have to go to America to have boils removed. If there is a wait because people with issues much more serious than boils have been prioritized and the guy with a boil has a lot of money he may go to America to get something done, but the main thing is that is his choice and if he did not want to go elsewhere or didn't have money it would be performed here. A person poor, middle class or rich does not continue suffering endlessly when they can be helped and they are not driven to bankruptcy by health costs.
In America, on the other hand, people are going bankrupt and they are suffering and dying because they did not have insurance, could not get affordable insurance due to a pre-existing condition, or thought they were taken care of but their insurance is inadequate.
@Lance Uppercut: I trust the government with info about my health issues FAR more than I trust a private company. Oh, and patient satisfaction in countries with socialized healthcare run 85-90%. Cites are available in my posts elsewhere on this site, or can be provided upon request.
I like this chart from Wikipedia. All of the healthcare stats from the major industrialized nations at a glance. Nice to see that we pay the most but get squat.
Why are liberals so bad at pushing back??? The GOP upper ranks have won simply by repeating "death panels" and "socialism" until they stick. Can it truly be that easy to defeat a Democratic proposal with arguably one of the most popular Dem presidents along with a majority in the House AND Senate. Seriously? Why is no one saying that the the GOP is just lying to the public? We try to defend instead of attacking the fact that they are just lying over and over and over and we just eat it.
And we just go "you're crazy!" instead of clearly telling the people that believe this nonsense their GOP leaders peddle them that they're being lied to. But it's easier, I suppose.
@SinisterRouge: But we do say these things, and they do stick. The trouble isn't the people who watch Fox News, it's the fact that lawmakers are beholden to the medical lobby.
@SinisterRouge: You have to admit, it's a lot easier to yell "death panels" and "socialism" at a crowd of pissed off people who are ignorant of the facts, and get them to side with you, than it is to give them said facts in a digestible, yet impassioned, way (which means 140 characters or less, these days), and get them to side with you.
The GOP are successful at this shit not because they are better at it, but because their position (either "keep shit the same" or "roll shit back to the way it was before") is a much easier argument to make. They don't have to sell anybody on anything.
@SinisterRouge: i'm getting to the point where i'm just done with the democrats. i've threatened it before, but fuck it. fuck them. if they can't even sit up and just keep saying "the republicans are lying, corporate assholes who want you to pay as much money possible for inadequate care, and they are doing a disservice to this country by MAKING SHIT UP and being more loyal to insurance companies than their constituents", well then maybe the dembs shouldn't be trusted to competently create a health care bill. they can't even competently create a counter argument at this point.
@southernbitch: This comment is more typical of the left's equivalent of the "town hall death panel" ranters on the right, and about as helpful in achieving change.
@lacieca01: well, the fact of the matter is that for whatever reason intelligent debate in this country has reached a nadir. intelligent fact-based explanations of public policy are pretty useless these days, and a lot of that has to do with the 24 hour echo chamber that is unfortunately passed off as "news reporting" in this country, so if the actual way to influence the crafting of public policy is through making false claims, than it's the democrat's responsibility to try and refute them as much as possible. and if stating facts aren't enough to refute them, well, then they need to go after the actual credibility of the republicans as public servants and highlight how this blatant obstruction and obfuscation is, you know, hurting america, as stupid as that sounds- because those arguments are what works these days, unfortunately. and as for me being the equivalent of right wing ranters? what the fuck ever. i work in public policy. i spend all fucking day dealing with this level of bullshit. and im tired of how easy it is for the right to derail positive change by blowing ridiculous lies out of their collective asses, while the democrats, who nominally supposedly control power in this country, fold over and over again. bah. fuck them all, it's all the same party anyway when you get down to it.
@lacieca01: Why? I for one refuse to bend over for the Dems once again. If they let this opportunity pass them by it will be a cold fucking day in hell before I vote for them again. @i'm a bottle: is exactly right. They are beholden to big business just as much as Repubs and I've had enough.
@southernbitch: I'm on board with your frustration, but I'm not on board with the idea that the democrats are just "folding."
It's far easier--whether you're doing it from the majority, or doing it from the minority position--to argue that things should stay the same, than it is to argue for something new. The reason why the GOP's shit is effective is not because they're good at anything, but because trumpeting a message of the same automatically garners an insane amount of support all on its own.
Yes, the democrats can be, and are I think, attempting to fight this. But the fact that this pushback isn't as effective as we'd like it to be doesn't necessarily reflect on their level of effort, but rather on the fact that it's very difficult to instantly come up with a comprehensive healthcare plan and argue its merits to the public. The information is shaky because the democrats are being forced to build the plan and shill for it at the same time. If they wait until they're finished before they go about trying to inform the public, the GOP will already have convinced everybody that same = the best.
@skt.smth: Not really. Democrats could easily turn this nonsense around with facts and clear language. Obama is wonderful at talking about this...in the policy, dry, technical way of it. But it's not ever really that clear...either from him or anyone else. How is it that the GOP was able to say "Hey, government medicine" when in fact, the bill was not about that at all? Because WE let them.
Liberals are too busy calling the other side stupid to realize that we're the ones continuously on the losing end. We've got the numbers to win, but we manage to keep losing. Why is that? It's not just because a small, small subset of 'crazies' screaming at Town Halls. It's because the vast majority of Americans are getting terrible news from the people at the top.
Calling them stupid and dumb and crazy does nothing to get the vast middle to understand. It really doesn't. Why was FDR so successful? Americans weren't more intelligent then...if anything, they had even less exposure to knowledge. The difference is FDR put the New Deal in easier terms---this will HELP you. This is how it will help you. Here are the specifics of it. Talking high and intelligently about the merits of the bill will do nothing to help your side at all.
The 1993 proposal was killed by the same disease---huge amounts of mis- and disinformation coming from the high ranks of Republicans and most in the corporate-owned media. Why is the owner of the Washington Post holding a soiree (the one that got found out and cancelled) about how best to deal with the healthcare issue with top corporate fat cats? While her newspaper reports on the debate. They are invested in giving us bad information.
Calling Americans that don't understand how to disseminate all the misinformation dumbasses will not help to pass anything remotely liberal, never mind healthcare reform.
@SinisterRouge: You know who's good at explaining the need for health care reform and the public option in simple FDR-esque terms? Howard Dean. But for some reason the Obama administration wont touch him with a 10 ft pole. It's petty and self-defeating.
"One good thing: maybe this will get all the town hall crazies to chill the fuck out."
No, that's not a good thing because it means that the crazies have won. It's too bad that the Neo-Con's hype machine has pulled another fast one on this country and on something as important as healthcare.
If we are going to insure 45 million new people we're going to need a hell of a lot of new doctors. It's a supply and demand issue at some point, no? I'm not sure that any plan accounts for that.
@dado: family practitioners and nurse practitioners can provide a lot of primary care, make a decent living, and go to less school than doctors. shorter pipeline, more throughput. enroll now
@jubjub: Just another spineless democrat, eh? I'd reckon to suggest that, given the circumstances, he owns only a small part of the blame for this.
Look, it's the Congress' responsibility to write bills. For an example of what happens when the President does it, look to the last health care debacle that occurred.
And while I agree that Obama isn't as liberal or progressive as I hoped he would be, there was never any reason to believe that he would be. I never was convinced that he would come out for ending all wars, public health care for all, etc., I just hoped he would.
If you believed he was anything but a pragmatist centrist who's interested in compromise but not rocking the boat all the way over, you weren't paying attention.
The public option is the best way to rein in the health insurance companies, other than passing a federal law that says "You cannot charge more than $X for health insurance."
It's going to be interesting to hear about these "other ways" of "ensuring choice and competition." I swear to God, if the only thing that comes out of all this is that the gov't mandates that I buy health insurance at the same bonkers-ass premium (that I formerly had the choice to just not pay), I'm going to shit on the White House lawn.
@lionboy: As much as I'd like to wholeheartedly agree with your doomy outlook (since I'm just in that kind of mood today!), I still think there's plenty of time for Obama to cheat in the other direction, as seems to be happening on torture now. His initial stance, as president, was "let's look forward" with a side order of "this book isn't closed" from the DOJ. It looks like something might actually come of the issue after all, now that it's become less of a hot-button.
I can't rule out the possibility that we're in the midst of what might come to be known as Obama's signature move: introducing an issue, letting the "debate" (aka outrage) simmer, and then doing something while the spectators are winded.
But again, I will be royally pissed if all that happens is they pass a law telling me I have to buy the same old overpriced, fraudulent insurance as before. I highly doubt this will happen, but if it does, I will stay out of the U.S. until it's reversed. Still wouldn't be enough to make me vote for a republican, though.
I do think it's far, far too soon to be writing off Obama, though. It just feels like such a typical liberal maneuver to me. We wonder why democrats are such flakes, but perhaps it's because our loyalties shift like the wind. We have to remember that Obama is handling a gigantic mess, and trying to push new reforms on top of it all. I've argued since he was elected that he deserves a full term before we render summary judgment, and I'll stand by that.
Which isn't to say that we shouldn't complain about how his policies seem to be shaping up. There's room for that. I'm just saying, let's cut the "Obama's legacy will be the novelty of being the first black president" bit.
@i'm a bottle: Even casually, surely it ought to be "left wing of the party" or at the very least "some liberals."
There are a lot of us who consider ourselves liberals who also realize that politics is the art of the possible and that lasting change, even change in a leftward direction, sometimes has to be slow, incremental and imperfect.
We're also (perhaps) realistic enough to know that nothing will "get all the town hall crazies to chill the fuck out." Their craziness has nothing to do with the health care issue.
09/03/09
Not to be a rabble-rouser, but I wanted to stand up in the auditorium and say something about, "Fuck this. What are you saying?"
09/02/09
Ha ha ha, ha ha ha ha, ha ha. [snort] [chuckle] Ha ha ha, ha ha ha, ha.
Oh. Wait. You were serious.
The only saving grace of this is the grim, uncaring satisfaction I'll have a decade from now when all the Tea Baggers are cast adrift because they can't afford their $5,000 per visit deductible and are dropped by their Delaware-based insurance company. Their only choice will be either to sell a non-essential organ or to book a seat on an ice flow somewhere.
...Assuming there are any ice flows left, obviously.
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
Both parties have moved to the right since Reagan, and certainly since Bush II...what's the point of even pretending "bipartisanship" is advisable or feasible when most of the seats on the other side of the table seem to be occupied by extremists who have nothing constructive to offer? This is as "conservative" a Democratic party the country (or at least, the people who voted for Obama/gave those Dems a majority in Congress) should have to tolerate.
I dread the future. I dread an America where people like Sarah Palin are not only tolerated in policymaking, but are rewarded and given power. I don't care if the Democrats have a majority right now, it seems voters have learned little or nothing from the past eight years.
That said--to be honest, I'm not informed enough about this myself. My parents disapprove of the comparisons to Hitler but they're lucky enough to have a decent insurance plan, and worry what they'll have to give up, even if they recognize and regret the fact that there are millions of people here who are either uninsured, underinsured, or worried about they're employers cutting insurance.
What's worse--the rationing (and costliness) that supposedly goes on in countries like England, or the "rationing" that happens as a byproduct of our expensive system?
09/02/09
They clearly are concerned about "socialism" and should not be forced to participate in it. Let them pay their own damn medical bills like the expect the rest of us to do. Or hell, even better, let them try to buy a policy in the free market.
I'm sick of the bitching!
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
Well, here's a crazy proposal, what if I'm fine with building roads on my dime but I'm not fine with healing the sick? FYI, guys, if the rich opt out of taxes the government doesn't function. 50% of the tax base pays 95% of the taxes, and 5% pay over half.
09/02/09
As long as this country remains as wealthy as it is, the rich will never want for access to high quality healthcare.
Also, what if I'm fine with building roads and healing the sick on my dime, but I'm not fine with funding a costly, eight-year (by 2011) war whose justification was based on false premises (I know, I know, reductio ad Iraqarum). The fact of the matter is that in any tax system, some of a taxpayer's contribution will go to projects to which she may not agree.
09/02/09
Entitlement programs are paid for almost exclusively by the upper echelon of American wage-earners. The rich drive on roads and use oil in their cars, but they've already got great health care.
Iraq wasn't a charity mission, and this is.
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
What is the difference between gov't bureaucrats and insurance bureaucrats seeing medical records?
09/02/09
09/02/09
All the other western democracies have universal healthcare that is either entirely public or has a very open public option. It works well, is more efficient and inexpensive, and is more just. The government is going to have access to information about people anyway through their taxes, criminal records, etc. That's no reason to privatize healthcare or for that matter the police force or the IRS. Right now private insurance companies who have only their profits on mind not your health have your health information and they will be going through it and looking for technicalities and excuses to not cover your illnesses.
09/02/09
In America, on the other hand, people are going bankrupt and they are suffering and dying because they did not have insurance, could not get affordable insurance due to a pre-existing condition, or thought they were taken care of but their insurance is inadequate.
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
Republicans: They'll kill us all if you let them do this!
Democrats: Ok everyone, we've decided not to do it.
Republicans: See how these Democrats are a bunch of pussies who are too scared to accomplish anything?
...
Republican: Ok everyone, we are going to do this.
Democrats: But you can't, it is not right!
Republicans: So?
Republicans: See how these Democrats are a bunch of pussies who are too scared to fight against anything?
09/02/09
*Note: we are not actually winners. But at least we ain't pussies! Yee-haw!
09/02/09
[en.wikipedia.org]
09/02/09
And we just go "you're crazy!" instead of clearly telling the people that believe this nonsense their GOP leaders peddle them that they're being lied to. But it's easier, I suppose.
09/02/09
09/02/09
The GOP are successful at this shit not because they are better at it, but because their position (either "keep shit the same" or "roll shit back to the way it was before") is a much easier argument to make. They don't have to sell anybody on anything.
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
It's far easier--whether you're doing it from the majority, or doing it from the minority position--to argue that things should stay the same, than it is to argue for something new. The reason why the GOP's shit is effective is not because they're good at anything, but because trumpeting a message of the same automatically garners an insane amount of support all on its own.
Yes, the democrats can be, and are I think, attempting to fight this. But the fact that this pushback isn't as effective as we'd like it to be doesn't necessarily reflect on their level of effort, but rather on the fact that it's very difficult to instantly come up with a comprehensive healthcare plan and argue its merits to the public. The information is shaky because the democrats are being forced to build the plan and shill for it at the same time. If they wait until they're finished before they go about trying to inform the public, the GOP will already have convinced everybody that same = the best.
09/02/09
Liberals are too busy calling the other side stupid to realize that we're the ones continuously on the losing end. We've got the numbers to win, but we manage to keep losing. Why is that? It's not just because a small, small subset of 'crazies' screaming at Town Halls. It's because the vast majority of Americans are getting terrible news from the people at the top.
Calling them stupid and dumb and crazy does nothing to get the vast middle to understand. It really doesn't. Why was FDR so successful? Americans weren't more intelligent then...if anything, they had even less exposure to knowledge. The difference is FDR put the New Deal in easier terms---this will HELP you. This is how it will help you. Here are the specifics of it. Talking high and intelligently about the merits of the bill will do nothing to help your side at all.
The 1993 proposal was killed by the same disease---huge amounts of mis- and disinformation coming from the high ranks of Republicans and most in the corporate-owned media. Why is the owner of the Washington Post holding a soiree (the one that got found out and cancelled) about how best to deal with the healthcare issue with top corporate fat cats? While her newspaper reports on the debate. They are invested in giving us bad information.
Calling Americans that don't understand how to disseminate all the misinformation dumbasses will not help to pass anything remotely liberal, never mind healthcare reform.
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
No, that's not a good thing because it means that the crazies have won. It's too bad that the Neo-Con's hype machine has pulled another fast one on this country and on something as important as healthcare.
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
Look, it's the Congress' responsibility to write bills. For an example of what happens when the President does it, look to the last health care debacle that occurred.
And while I agree that Obama isn't as liberal or progressive as I hoped he would be, there was never any reason to believe that he would be. I never was convinced that he would come out for ending all wars, public health care for all, etc., I just hoped he would.
If you believed he was anything but a pragmatist centrist who's interested in compromise but not rocking the boat all the way over, you weren't paying attention.
09/02/09
It's going to be interesting to hear about these "other ways" of "ensuring choice and competition." I swear to God, if the only thing that comes out of all this is that the gov't mandates that I buy health insurance at the same bonkers-ass premium (that I formerly had the choice to just not pay), I'm going to shit on the White House lawn.
09/02/09
09/02/09
I can't rule out the possibility that we're in the midst of what might come to be known as Obama's signature move: introducing an issue, letting the "debate" (aka outrage) simmer, and then doing something while the spectators are winded.
But again, I will be royally pissed if all that happens is they pass a law telling me I have to buy the same old overpriced, fraudulent insurance as before. I highly doubt this will happen, but if it does, I will stay out of the U.S. until it's reversed. Still wouldn't be enough to make me vote for a republican, though.
I do think it's far, far too soon to be writing off Obama, though. It just feels like such a typical liberal maneuver to me. We wonder why democrats are such flakes, but perhaps it's because our loyalties shift like the wind. We have to remember that Obama is handling a gigantic mess, and trying to push new reforms on top of it all. I've argued since he was elected that he deserves a full term before we render summary judgment, and I'll stand by that.
Which isn't to say that we shouldn't complain about how his policies seem to be shaping up. There's room for that. I'm just saying, let's cut the "Obama's legacy will be the novelty of being the first black president" bit.
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
There are a lot of us who consider ourselves liberals who also realize that politics is the art of the possible and that lasting change, even change in a leftward direction, sometimes has to be slow, incremental and imperfect.
We're also (perhaps) realistic enough to know that nothing will "get all the town hall crazies to chill the fuck out." Their craziness has nothing to do with the health care issue.
03/02/09
03/02/09
03/02/09