Lately we’ve been seeing a very disturbing development in American politics. Opponents of the effort to reform health care have adopted the tactic of disrupting and destroying any chance of meaningful debate at the so-called town hall meetings being held by our national elected representatives. The claim is that these disruptors represent a grass roots movement that opposes a government run health care system. The reality is that they are a bunch of ignoramuses that have been yet again duped by Republican operatives whose clients are the very corporations that do not want to see anything change at all, i.e., health insurance companies and their investors.
But I’ve noticed a historical parallel here. It happened about 150 years ago. One segment of the population desiring progress sought to change a very evil and obscenely unjust practice called slavery. But another segment believed it was their right to maintain the status quo. The problem was that the people who wanted to maintain institutional slavery were far too few to accomplish that politically. So they used their power (i.e., money) to recruit the poor and ignorant to fight for them. It’s a well known fact that the vast majority of Confederate soldiers did not own slaves and believed the motive for secession and the Civil War was States rights. But the real motive was a bunch of monetary gluttons who desired to protect their right to gain wealth any way they wanted regardless of the morality of it.
I and many historians believe the Civil War never actually ended. It just went from being a hot war to a cold war. This is evidenced by the emergence of groups like the KKK and even laws endorsing State sponsored racism following the defeat of the outlaw Confederate government. If you don’t believe the beliefs that fueled that war still permeate our country, just contemplate the fact that it took a hundred years for the Federal government to step in and guarantee blacks the same civil rights white Americans took for granted.
As time marches on the issues have shifted but the characters that fuel these conflicts are the same. Today the issue is health care reform. As was the case with slavery, the rest of western civilization is far ahead of us on health care. The actual opposition to reform is of course the wealthy that have attached themselves to the “for profit” health care teat and aren’t about to give it up. And just like the Civil War, they do not represent numbers sufficient to stop it. So, as has been the tactic of the status quo defenders, they’ve recruited the ignorant through misinformation and the demonization of the opposition.
And lately that recruitment has taken on an ominous tone. Phrases like “it’s time to take your country back,” and now this tactic of bullying and shouting down supporters of health care reform has taken things to a new and I believe dangerous level. These town hall meetings have taken on such a violent tone, many now come with a large police presence.
This comes down to nothing but money folks. Shall we continue to allow the wealthy to fleece America for billions and billions in profit for themselves. Or do we take that money and spend it on health care for the millions of Americans who aren’t getting any. This isn’t about the Left against the Right as much as the wealthy want you to believe it is. This is about the wealthy against the rest of us.
The top 10% of the people in this country have horded over 90% of “our” wealth. It’s time for the people who are so easily duped by these monetary gluttons to wise up and open their eyes. You are being exploited and used by people who don’t give a damn if you live or die. I truly fear that if this doesn’t happen we could be headed for a time when the Civil War could turn hot again. And that would be a tragedy of truly Biblical proportions.
*************
Devin Barber, Politics Correspondent
Devin’s column, “Left Of The Right” published weekly or more to Gather Essentials: Politics is a Blue Collar Democrats take on current political news.
Devin was raised by proud Roosevelt Democrats. Being the son of parents counted among the throng of Americans displaced by the Great Depression has given Devin a deep rooted passion for causes dealing with the poor and the working class.
You can find all of Devin’s columns at LEFT OF THE RIGHT
You can keep up with Devin’s postings and his Gather activity by joining his Gather network. Just click here: Devin Barber and then select the orange “Connect” button on the left-hand side of the page.
You can find Devin and other Political Correspondents, plus celebrity content and plenty of other politics experts at Politics.gather.com.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 180
What's a lot Carla? organizations have vowed to show up to oppose the citizen protesters, What then?
"Guess"
That's right that's all your doing guessing and spreading propaganda about these American citizens! You have no proof that any (but maybe a few) of the tens of thousands of citizen protesters are working on behalf of anyone but themselves.
But I don't expect you to stop maligning them, your just following orders.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tens of thousands (among millions) of out of work folk with nothing but anger, mistrust and too much time on their hands find an opportunity to capture a few extra dollars from some lobbyist to travel out of their neighborhood to raise the roof elsewhere--that is what has been reported on from reps and senators who spoke with C-SPAN on air.
Some meetings have gone well only due to the fact that ALL questions were submitted in writing and passed to the speaker. Now that is the way Cambridge Town Meetings are held--save the fact that each speaker has 3 minutes to speak their mind and the Council will recess if order is not followed. Further if no order is returned within 3 minutes the person is removed by the police. I have lived here about 25 years and I have only witnessed this situation 3 times and not in recent years.
2. “But I don't expect you to stop maligning them, your just following orders.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just to whom are you speaking? Your statements are becoming wildly off the deep end--have you been drinking from the bowl again?
I, and many others, believe in civil discourse. People who don't so believe are attending "town hall" meetings and shouting down anyone who disagrees with their preconceptions. There is at least empirical evidence that some of them have been paid to do just that. So, who is following orders here?
See you there!
I'm not on the Democrats mailing list. so no I didn't get the memo.
As I said, see you at the next elections.
"And we will win in 2010, 2012, 2016 and so on."
When your dream turns into a nightmare!
health care reform doesn't have to be in the form of government takeover.
There are plenty of solutions available.
Why is the government the only way?
I hope this uprising of American citizens stops the progression to government controlled health care but brings about better answers which conclude in real solutions.
Like all Republican/Conservatives say " There are plenty of solutions available"
But as usual specifies nothing.
This is not an uprising of citizens.
It is a manipulated gang
Why would the Republicans, who say there are other possibilities not
show up at the meetings with one of the "Plenty of Solutions Available"
The Republicans have these plans.
End Social Security
End Medicare/Medicaid
Prevent at all costs a national health plan.
As you have been ordered by your leader to propagandize these citizen protesters you do him proud!
In a matter of days these people have gone from being ineffectual crazies while attending Taxed enough already parties, to shrewd operatives working for those in the politics and industry who oppose Obama!
Your willingness to malign these citizens is a reflection of your character....or rather lack thereof!
The Conservative/Republican dodges the question with accusations.
NAME ONE ALTERNATIVE PLAN FOR NATIONAL HEALTH CARE.
Where is your plan?
One of the many possibilities. . . . You allude to in your first comment?
The people directing this alleged protest, are the shrewd operatives.
They will be as effective as the tea party crowd.
The tea party crowd seemed to be mostly Glen Beck Sean Hannity racists.
The anti health care,( sheesh don't you have any shame )
sending out old ladies and old men after telling them Medicare is going to be cancelled?
There are plenty of solutions available."
Alright, I'm listening: What are the alternatives and how are they better than what's in the works now?
It isn't enough to decry the current developments, as those disruptive idiots are doing. One has to be willing to discuss alternatives instead throwing yourself to the floor and yelling at the top of your lungs like an extremely spoiled child.
There are plenty of solutions available.''
Come on people, the republibots have a plan. It's tax breaks for the ins. co., pharma, and health companies, and let's not forget the rich. Oh, and they want to take away peoples right to sue incompetent doctors. You know, tort reform. Why do they always want to take ''away'' American's rights, not promote them. They want unregulated capitalism, like they failed to establish in Iraq, a failed neo con experiment.
Also, Why do these morons believe that ''they'' are the only ones the elected officials are supposed to represent. Didn't we win the election. Like they told us during the bu$h years, ''you lost, sit down and shut up''. It was ok for them to say it to us, why can't we say it to them?
BTW, I just heard on The Ed Show, that the leader of United Health Group, makes 102,000.00 and hour. Where do they get that money? ''NO you can't have that surgery, it cost to much''. or ''That medicine is experimental, it won't work''. How many of ''your'' family members have they denied.
Oh, and the returdabots had the house, senate and the white house and they did ''nothing'' That to me speaks volumes now.
There isn't any government takeover of health care being proposed, which you would know if you weren't posting doctored videos.
There are plenty of solutions available.
Then please explain why one party has decided that NO bill is better than ANY bill the majority party tries to pass?
Why is the government the only way?
Just to reiterate, no one is proposing a government takeover. What part of "if you have a doctor and private insurance plan you like, you get to keep it" is so confusing?
Also, are you suggesting that the current health care system isn't broken? [Hint: Even the people who don't want any bill to pass think that the current system is broken.] The fact that the cost of health care annually increases by many many times over the inflation rate is a good tip off of something amiss. That and millions of uninsured Americans. And a slew of other reasons.
So something has to change. But the minority party seems more intent on scoring political points rather than even working toward health care reform.
I hope this uprising of American citizens stops the progression to government controlled health care but brings about better answers which conclude in real solutions.
You really have to expand beyond your standard biased blogs and doctored videos and "the bill promotes euthanasia" web sites.
And for god sake stop spouting bumper stickers like they had meaning. Think for a change.
"Like all Republican/Conservatives say " There are plenty of solutions available""
Sorry, I didn't realize that you actually wanted a discussion. I thought you were here like all of the rest of the liberals/Democrats, just to attack the protesters for speaking out against the policies of Obama, for exercising their constitutional right to voice their opinion to state their case.
I don't believe that is the case David, I think if the Democrats/Obama would come up with something else than government control of the health care in this country they would get a listed from the party across the aisle.
"Just to reiterate, no one is proposing a government takeover. What part of "if you have a doctor and private insurance plan you like, you get to keep it" is so confusing?"
From section 102 of HR 3200,
"(A) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1."
The wording indicates that no new members can be enrolled after the government's plan becomes in effect.
"Also, are you suggesting that the current health care system isn't broken?"
Do you have a quote of me saying so?
You'll excuse me if I take the words of the President's proposed health care bill over yours or David's or anyone else who is not qualified to interpret said words.
You'll excuse me if I take the words of the President's proposed health care bill over yours or David's or anyone else who is not qualified to interpret said words.
Sure, go for it Dan. Post the exact words from "the bill," cite whatever "bill" that you are actually talking about, cite your source for "the bill" (i.e., did you download it from the House/Senate/WH web site or off off Newsmax or some blog), then explain how you believe "the words" have convinced you that the government will be taking over health care and that private insurance will no longer exist.
Post enough information so that we can see the context (extracting sentences out of context is worthless, especially given your history of leaving out the parts that refute your conclusions).
Even Barney Frank admitted that the plan is for the government to take over.
Charles, you do the same. Post the exact words, source, context, etc.
"(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT-
(A) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.
(B) DEPENDENT COVERAGE PERMITTED- Subparagraph (A) shall not affect the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an individual who is covered as of such first day."
There ya be David.
The Health Care plans circling the bowl are incomplete and unfinished partial documents waiting restructuring and debate in the Congress when they reconvene. Why not research (and contact and yell at) who the idiot is who wrote that drivel in the mark ups before summer recess?
This was your statement:
You'll excuse me if I take the words of the President's proposed health care bill over yours or David's or anyone else who is not qualified to interpret said words.
Here's what was requested to support your statement:
Post the exact words from "the bill," cite whatever "bill" that you are actually talking about, cite your source for "the bill" (i.e., did you download it from the House/Senate/WH web site or off off Newsmax or some blog), then explain how you believe "the words" have convinced you that the government will be taking over health care and that private insurance will no longer exist.
Post enough information so that we can see the context (extracting sentences out of context is worthless, especially given your history of leaving out the parts that refute your conclusions).
So here's the short version of why your "support" doesn't actually support anything of the sort you have suggested.
1) You suggest that this is the "President's health care bill" when in fact you quote from the House version of the bill (which isn't the President's), which will be different from the Senate version and the final compromise version. So you start off with a false premise. But let's give you a pass on that one since you seem intent on attributing the last 6 months of House and Senate debate on the Health Care bills as "the President's bill."
2) You then extract a piece of one section of the bill and suggest that it supports your view that "the President" will "eliminate private insurance." Unfortunately, the extracted piece does nothing of the sort. In fact...
3) The title of that section is "PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE." So how exactly is "protecting the choice to keep current coverage" equate with "elimination of private insurance?" [Hint: It doesn't. In fact, it does exactly the opposite of what you suggest it does.]
So, how did you do with supporting your reply?
Sure, go for it Dan. Post the exact words from "the bill,"
NOPE. You extracted a couple of paragraphs out of the section, carefully omitting the contextual parts that showed your interpretation was wrong, including the title of the section which is "PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE."
cite whatever "bill" that you are actually talking about,
NOPE. You didn't even make an effort to say what bill you were talking about. In fact, you suggested that your quoted piece was "the President's own words" when it in fact is from the House bill, one of three bills that will need to pass before the President even signs it (and two aren't even written yet). So you mischaracterize the source of the bill because it serves your purpose to do so.
cite your source for "the bill" (i.e., did you download it from the House/Senate/WH web site or off off Newsmax or some blog),
NOPE. Didn't bother to cite your source of the bill. Since the section you do quote comes from the House version, we can assume that is the original source. But clearly the misinterpretation is off some blog because it's wrong.
then explain how you believe "the words" have convinced you that the government will be taking over health care and that private insurance will no longer exist.
NOPE. Again, didn't even bother to explain why you thought the words meant that the government would be taking over health care and eliminating private insurance. You merely post some words out of context and "conclude" that it meant something it clearly doesn't mean.
Post enough information so that we can see the context (extracting sentences out of context is worthless, especially given your history of leaving out the parts that refute your conclusions).
NOPE. You did exactly what you always do. Cut out pieces you think demonstrate your predefined opinion (even when they don't) and don't provide any of the context that is needed to interpret them properly. And you did so even after being reminded that context, citations, and proper interpretation is needed.
Here's the full passage (there is more in the full section of course, and all of it is needed to understand what is going on):
SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE.
(a) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE DEFINED.—Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term ‘‘grandfathered health insurance coverage’’ means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:
(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.
(B) DEPENDENT COVERAGE PERMITTED.—Subparagraph (A) shall not affect the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an individual who is covered as of such first day.
(2) LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR CONDITIONS.—Subject to paragraph (3) and except as required by law, the issuer does not change any of its terms or conditions, including benefits and cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day before the first day of Y1.
(3) RESTRICTIONS ON PREMIUM INCREASES.—The issuer cannot vary the percentage increase in the premium for a risk group of enrollees in specific grandfathered health insurance coverage without changing the premium for all enrollees in the same risk group at the same rate, as specified by the Commissioner.
Nope David!
Obama was trying to get a bill passed before the August recess I think we can consider any bill under consideration his bill.
"NOPE. Again, didn't even bother to explain why you thought the words meant that the government would be taking over health care and eliminating private insurance."
Yup! I have posted this and explained it in our exchanges before, don't think I need to repeat it again.
You Obama supporters are just working really hard at trying to make it mean what you want it to mean.
"the President's own words"
Ahh, More of David's mischaracterizations!
"Post enough information so that we can see the context (extracting sentences out of context is worthless, especially given your history of leaving out the parts that refute your conclusions)."
Remember your infamous "CHART"? Hello kettle, I'm pot and you're black! LOL!
"Here's the full passage (there is more in the full section of course, and all of it is needed to understand what is going on):"
Nothing you have posted explains how my (and others who may very well have a better understanding of the wording than you) interpretation is in error.
Nope David!
Obama was trying to get a bill passed before the August recess I think we can consider any bill under consideration his bill.
Sorry, Dan. You aren't entitled to make up facts. Like calling a bill that Congress has been working on for 6 months "the President's own bill." While he may support the concept of the bill, the bill was written by Congress and debated ad nauseum for 6 months. And it is absolutely a non sequitur to suggest that the President pushing for a deadline (after months of discussion) makes it "his bill." While this is a semantical issue and it is irrelevant if it is "his bill" or "the House bill," the point is that you have spun this point into a pejorative that is neither justified or accurate. Why? Because you think you can get more ideological mileage out of such spinning than you could be being honest.
"NOPE. Again, didn't even bother to explain why you thought the words meant that the government would be taking over health care and eliminating private insurance."
Yup! I have posted this and explained it in our exchanges before, don't think I need to repeat it again.
You Obama supporters are just working really hard at trying to make it mean what you want it to mean.
Nope. You posted this snippet and didn't make any attempt at all to explain why you think it says what it doesn't, either now or at any time before. You merely post a snippet and conclude the opposite of what it actually says because you wanted it to say the opposite of what it says. You never have offered one little piece of analysis of how the words (which say one thing) somehow support your conclusion (which is not supported by the words).
And this has nothing to do with "Obama supporters" (which is a platitude sans meaning in your context). This has to do what the passage says, including the parts you left out, and the section before it that puts the whole thing in context and makes it clearly say the opposite of what you are trying to claim it says.
"the President's own words"
Ahh, More of David's mischaracterizations!
How is this a mischaracterization? In this specific quote you say "President's own health care bill" (and since it is "his" then it must be "his words"). In past comments you have claimed specifically that they were the President's own words. It is not his words in the bill and not his words in any other context.
"Post enough information so that we can see the context (extracting sentences out of context is worthless, especially given your history of leaving out the parts that refute your conclusions)."
Remember your infamous "CHART"? Hello kettle, I'm pot and you're black! LOL!
Sorry again, Dan. My chart was fully documented and supported and nothing was out of context. In fact, every single one of the additional names you offered as "not being in the chart" also were associated with free market lobbying organizations. So I could easily expand my chart to include virtually everyone you might suggest isn't covered. On top of that, you clearly still don't understand what the chart actually means, which shows a severe tendency on your part toward two-dimensional thinking, not to mention an ideological bias and propensity for cherry picking (which you have admitted). So no kettles here, though clearly you are the pot.
"Here's the full passage (there is more in the full section of course, and all of it is needed to understand what is going on):"
Nothing you have posted explains how my (and others who may very well have a better understanding of the wording than you) interpretation is in error.
Actually, it does demonstrate that the interpretation you copied from a blog is in error. Severely so. Go ahead, read the whole thing. And don't forget to include the section before it and after it to get the fuller context. You know, actually present the entire thing within its context and meaning, as opposed to cherry picking the pieces you think (or were told) can be misinterpreted into what you want them to mean.
In fact, Title I (of which section 101 and the snippets you cherry picked from section 102) is all about protections and standards of qualified health plans. In other words, about making sure the health care system has high standards of care and affordable access. The purpose of the title is "to establish standards to ensure that new health insurance coverage and employment-based health plans that are offered meet standards guaranteeing access to affordable coverage, essential benefits, and other consumer protections." (emphasis added)
So the section you cherry picked and claim "eliminates private insurance" just ensures standards of care and consumer protections, not to mention affordability. Are you against affordability? Don't think private carriers can compete with each other or a public option?
So, did you or the blogs you copy from misinterpret, or are you being intentionally dishonest?
Even if I was, what wrong with doing what you do?
"Sorry, Dan."
Picayune criticisms jut to be contentious.
"How is this a mischaracterization?"
Because it doesn't reflect what I posted, it reflects what you wanted what I posted to mean for the sole purpose of being contentious.
"Actually, it does demonstrate that the interpretation you copied from a blog is in error."
You have not shown that the interpretation is in error.
"So, did you or the blogs you copy from misinterpret, or are you being intentionally dishonest?"
Neither!
You are welcome to your opinion and that is all it is, nothing more.
You are no expert in the subject that we should accept your opinion as any more valid than anyone else.
Even if I was, what wrong with doing what you do? (Dan E)
First, you cannot find one example of a fact that I made up. Not one. And you know it.
Second, so you admit that making up "facts" to suit your purpose is okay? That is exactly the point. Making up facts is never okay.
"Sorry, Dan." (David K)
Picayune criticisms jut to be contentious. (Dan E)
You think being accurate and honest is "picayune?"
"How is this a mischaracterization?" (David K)
Because it doesn't reflect what I posted, it reflects what you wanted what I posted to mean for the sole purpose of being contentious. (Dan E)
But Dan, it does reflect what you have posted, here and elsewhere.
""Actually, it does demonstrate that the interpretation you copied from a blog is in error." (David K)
You have not shown that the interpretation is in error. (Dan E)
Actually, the words themselves show your interpretation is in error. Which is not surprising, since you took a Title that deals with setting standards of care and affordability and a section that is specifically entitled "PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE" and tried to make it say that it eliminated private insurance. Your interpretation is not only clearly in error, it is obviously exactly counter to the truth. And no amount of playing dumb will change that.
"So, did you or the blogs you copy from misinterpret, or are you being intentionally dishonest?" (David K)
Neither!
You are welcome to your opinion and that is all it is, nothing more.
You are no expert in the subject that we should accept your opinion as any more valid than anyone else. (Dan E)
This has nothing to do with opinion and you know it. Not mine, not yours, and not the bloggers you copied it from. Rolling out the "it's just your opinion" bumper sticker is your standard answer when you are caught trying to manipulate the facts. The simple truth is that the facts are not as you claim. They are, in fact, the opposite of what you claim. No opinion necessary here. The facts, and your distortion of the facts for your ideological purpose, speak for themselves.
I or the blogger I copied it from is just as qualified to interpret the bill as you are.
It is all about OPINION, and you have nothing to prove that your OPINION is any more valid than ours.
You may wish to believe that the words mean what you want them to mean but they don't.
This isn't a question about qualifications. It's a question of honesty and bias. When you simply copy your information from severe right wing blogs you get interpretations that are severe right wing. Just as information from a severe left wing blog would likely be biased to the severe left wing. It's the old "hammer/nail" adage. You get what you expect to get because you go there hoping to find a biased assessment.
It is all about OPINION, and you have nothing to prove that your OPINION is any more valid than ours.
No, it has nothing to do with opinion (in all caps or otherwise). It has to be with fact and honesty. When you say something is fact when it is not fact, that is dishonest.
You may wish to believe that the words mean what you want them to mean but they don't.
Here's the thing, Dan. You think they say what they do because your biased right wing blogs tell you they say that, just like they tell you that a section that counsels older Americans how to find fair and affordable long-term coverage is twisted into "death panels" and a stimulus package to keep the economy from floundering is "socialism." Your sources are so biased that it would be impossible to expect them to have an honest, unbiased interpretation. So the interpretations you copy are dishonest, biased interpretations. Every single one of them.
And again this has nothing at all to do with my interpretation of the words. This has to do with the sum total of all the information out there, where interpretation is from non-biased sources to balance the biases on both sides. Seriously, don't you think it's more than a little biased spin to take a section entitled "PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE" and try to make it say that it eliminated private insurance? That's like taking a passage that explains why the sky appears blue and saying that it really says the sky is fuchsia.
In short, you get what you look for. And that's the point. When you look for biased information on biased sources you get biased information. Try getting information that doesn't come from a source whose entire reason for existence is to promote a particular bias. Try looking at multiple sources from multiply points of view.
And sorry, occasionally taking something where the bias is uncertain can be written off as lack of research, but constantly taking things where the bias is clear is done to promote a particular biased ideology. And to do so when the preponderance of the evidence shows you're wrong is dishonest.
Well yes it is David, but with you it is more a matter of ego, your ego will not let even the idea that you might be wrong exist. So you keep coming back reiterating the same things just using different words.
If honesty were the issue you would have admitted long ago that it was a matter of opinion.
I'm more than willing to let it go at having differing OPINIONS You just can't do that, you have to find someway to say "I'm right and you're wrong" over and over and over as if simply saying the words make it so.
"Here's the thing, Dan."
No it isn't David, what it is David, is that you claim it means one thing and I and others who most likely have at least as great a grasp on the english language and in understanding legalize as you do say it means something else.
BTW They removed the "death panel" part in one of the versions of the bills because it has been misconstrued (their words) to mean something they did not intend it to mean.
"In short, you get what you look for."
It would be a simple matter to clarify the wording of the bills so there is no confusion on their meanings.
"And to do so when the preponderance of the evidence shows you're wrong is dishonest."
Show me the evidence that shows that my understanding of the wording of the bill is in error David.
You state it over and over and over but simply saying it doesn't make it so. Have you quoted someone who better understands the wording of the bill than I or those I quote?
No you have not! And why haven't you?
Because you know it is a matter of opinion and if you post someone who agrees with your opinion I can just come up with another "authority" who disagrees with your position.
So you just resort to droning on and on, I'm right, I'm right, I'm right...And you're wrong, as I said earlier David with you it's an ego thing.
Well yes it is David, but with you it is more a matter of ego, your ego will not let even the idea that you might be wrong exist. So you keep coming back reiterating the same things just using different words.
No, it isn't about qualifications, Dan. Though perhaps you would like to give an actual source for what you have copied so everyone can see what the qualifications are on which you rely? I'm sure we'd all love to see how unbiased they are.
As for the ego thing, thanks for the chuckle. Though the reason I have come back to "reiterate the same things using different words" is that you seem unwilling or unable to comprehend the fact that you extracted snippets from a section in order to make it look like it says something it doesn't say.
If honesty were the issue you would have admitted long ago that it was a matter of opinion.
But honesty is the issue, Dan. You extracted snippets out of context, then misinterpreted them, all so you could claim the sections said something they didn't say. No opinion involved at all...you cherry picked what you thought could be spun to mean something totally different from what the sections mean. It isn't a "difference of opinion" when you try to change the facts.
"BTW They removed the "death panel" part in one of the versions of the bills because it has been misconstrued (their words) to mean something they did not intend it to mean."
Really? Couldn't it simply be that the idea of a "death panel" being pushed by some ideological folks is patently ridiculous?
Or are you actually suggesting that anywhere in any version of any bill there is actually something that functions as a "death panel" (by whatever name you may call it)? If that's what you are saying, then provide the exact passage, including the source of the passage. Go ahead. Provide whatever section you think supports the idea of "death panels" or "murder squads" or whatever ridiculous name you've given to counseling older Americans how to deal with long term care issues. Don't forget to document.
"And to do so when the preponderance of the evidence shows you're wrong is dishonest."
Show me the evidence that shows that my understanding of the wording of the bill is in error David.
You state it over and over and over but simply saying it doesn't make it so. Have you quoted someone who better understands the wording of the bill than I or those I quote?
No you have not! And why haven't you?
Because you know it is a matter of opinion and if you post someone who agrees with your opinion I can just come up with another "authority" who disagrees with your position.
So you just resort to droning on and on, I'm right, I'm right, I'm right...And you're wrong, as I said earlier David with you it's an ego thing.
First off, I've never said "I'm right, I'm right" or anything like that. This has nothing to do with me being right or even you being wrong. It has to do with you intentionally misrepresenting that section of the bill. It has to do with you trying to change the facts.
Secondly, I have shown you the evidence that what you copied from the biased blogger is in error. But you've ignored it. Just as you ignore any evidence that refutes your copied contention.
Though perhaps you would make some attempt to explain how a Title that deals with standards of care and affordability of both new and existing health care plans can somehow be about "eliminating private insurance?" The only way the Title could result in "elimination of private insurance" is if "private insurance" were incapable of providing high quality affordable care. Are you suggesting that private insurance does not provide affordable high quality care?
Or perhaps you could explain to all of us how a section (102) "protecting the choice of to keep current coverage" could mean the elimination of private insurance (e.g., while most people would interpret "keeping current coverage" as meaning "keeping current coverage," perhaps you have some insight that could make it mean the opposite).
Or perhaps you could explain how the preamble to the parts of section 102 that you extracted, i.e., the preamble that you carefully omitted from your snippets, and which is entitled "(a) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE DEFINED," could somehow mean the elimination of private insurance. Again, while most people would interpret "grandfathered health insurance" as being "existing health insurance" (which by definition, currently means "private insurance" or "Medicare/Medicaid" or "no insurance"), perhaps you can offer insight into how this somehow means "elimination of private insurance." [For the moment we'll ignore the socialistic agenda that created the government run Medicare/Medicaid and the more recent government run Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act introduced by then Speaker Dennis Hastert and signed by President Bush in 2003.]
At the same time, too many of us are suffering at the hands of insurance companies, the medical establishment and the pharmaceutical manufacturers.
You may get nothing but "unsupported drivel" from FOX News, but CNN and MSNBC are solid...
If you agree that "too many of us are suffering at the hands of insurance companies, the medical establishment and the pharmaceutical manufacturers." Then you need to be on the side of Reform, not on the "just say no" side or even on the fence.
I am well employed and, supposedly well insured, yet my medical expenses have caused me to be unable to go to the grocery store many times. I'm averaging $300 a week for medical costs in addition to what the insurance covers, and not many people could handle that any more than I can. One example is that the co-payment for medications, including some of the generics, has gone from $10 a couple of years ago to $50 each now. My reality is not unusual at all. Something must be done! That needs to start with being given clear, honest information about plans to be offered.
It seems people have forgotten that these things (i.e., bills) are written to become laws. Which means legal language.
There also is quite a bit of what Devin calls "politicaleze" and what normal people might call "loopholes" and "compromises." Some of it is gamesmanship, but some of it also is related to the fact that there are 50 states and hundreds of districts that may have different views and needs on the issue.
Clarification should be provided by those proposing the bills, in language that can be clearly understood!
The problem is less that the bills are hard to read, since hardly anyone of the public will actually read bills of this magnitude. In fact, most of the legislators will also not read the bill in its entirety (though the staffs of the key committee members will have read it for them and briefed them).
The problem is that the minority party tends to lie about what the bill entails purely for political gain (and yes, the majority party does its share of "accentuating the positive"). That is what is happening now. When one side puts all its effort into doing nothing but trying to keep ANY bill from passing, especially when they do so by blatantly lying and trying to scare the public (e.g., "the bill requires euthanasia of old people"), then the system breaks down and the public doesn't know what to believe.
And that is beyond despicable.
I also have had times when it is a choice between prescriptions or groceries. This is while working for a Fortune 500 with excellent insurance. Needs to stop. As does families force into bankruptcy by medical bills.
tax the rich
There's one problem, republibots currency for freedom is only blood. Their answer is always war, and they won't be happy until they rule America with the iron fist that Hitler's friend, prescot bu$h first proposed when he conspired to overthrow the federal government. When we all are working for a pittance, in sub standard republibot owned sweat shops, will the threat of violence or civil war be thwarted. As long as there is an America, there will be those (the republibots) that hate it.
The reason that they think that everyone's happy with all the above is that the only people they listen to are the insurance companies. They're happy as clams -- they're making huge profits off our misery.
Too many of them own guns because of flaws in their character or ego... Its a thing related to having power. They have this need too feel powerful and they see the explosion of the powder and damage of the projectile as a help for the ego, or powerlessness, or a way of dealing with things they cant emotionally and /or mentally
.
I would say yes, these voters are being emotionally whipped into a rage. They are poor and are going to get poorer.
Their jobs all went to Communist China, thanks very much to the Republicans.
Their voters stayed focused on prayer in schools and anti-abortion.
The only jobs left in the U.S.A., fast food & restaurant workers, motel maids, janitorial services for corporate offices/ landscapers are all done now by illegal immigrants.
Meat packing plants were de-unionized, Chicken processing plants laid off citizen employees. These jobs are all for illegal immigrants.
Plant nurseries and seed producers now hire illegal immigrants, (try to get job at one.)
The building construction industry once provided good paying jobs, all gone now to cheap illegal immigrant labor.
Who can provide a list of unskilled (does not require college) jobs that exist in sufficient number to employ our legal resident workforce.
Even so called white collar jobs are now going out of the country.
Programming/software jobs
Reviewing the health insurance claims submitted by the Doctors.
Preparing bank and credit card statements
We know the 'call center jobs are gone- gone- gone.
Remember that wide open border with film of illegal immigrants pouring into the nation.
The Republicans(Business interests) insisted that our borders were sound, and that these workers were not taking "American" jobs and were not reducing the hourly pay for those jobs.
Now, a plan for health care for all is being demonized as some huge liberty stealing movement.
The people who are being told to go disrupt the health care meetings, don't have health care, or if if they do, it is already provided by the government.
Medicare/ Medicaid.
They are being told to go 'fight" against a takeover by the Communist/Marxist/Socialists.
Sounds like a call to . . . . opposition that could eaisly be turned to violence.
As for the elections,
I will predict a larger majority for the Democrats in 2010.
It isn't that the Republican base has changed their minds.
They are outnumbered, and the Republicans, with their very Christian, anti-minority message, don't have much chance of increasing their numbers.
So they have no choice but to tell lies increase fear, one last chance to get these people to once again act against their own self interest, kill the national heath care plan.
One of the biggest lies.
Granny will be forced to have "death' counseling.
Fact:
The national plan says:
it WILL PAY, ONCE EVERY 5 YEARS FOR A CONSULTATION WITH YOUR OWN DOCTOR FOR END OF LIFE CARE.
Sounds like a very good plan to me.
No Private Insurance will not cover such a discussion.
To them it is. Christian to be against anyone "not like them"
It already has. Who do you think all these wacko's are, that are killing innocent people before killing themselves. The church killers, and health club killers, and the abortion doctors and all. The problem is we on the left, don't see it this way. We ''are'' at war, and I will ''DEFEND'' myself to the death. Their's or mine. There will be more killings and even maybe at some of the town halls before it's all over. That's the last refuge of the easily lead, uneducated minions of the right. Violence.
Actually I am against psychotropic meds especially for crowd control--that would be a Sci-fi reference yet, the objective would be interesting. They-Repubs think we, anyone not against health care, are brainwashed so here is one just for them. Take your meds! Please!
The party of lies and hate
Meaningful debate when this is how the left views ANYONE who doesn't lock step with them. Do you really think that there would be any true debate when the lefts mind is closed to any idea that they didn't come up with?
None of the left want a debate they want it their way or no way.
The problem with a lot of today's Americans is that everything is seen in terms of "Us vs Them". Of course, the hyperbole the media spew out doesn't help; they care more about ratings than accuracy.
Hmmmmm? I've heard something like that before. Oh yea, ''you're either with us or against us''. But that was when we were the opposition, that doesn't count, huh charles.
''the lefts mind is closed to any idea that they didn't come up with?''
You mean like tax breaks for the health industry and the rich. Didn't we try that once before. Oh yes. Wall st. Did that one work? Or how about taking away people's right to sue incompetent doctors. Is that one you want too, charles. That'll teach those poor people for attacking that poor doctor who killed their bread winner. Why don't they just go bankrupt and loose everything, like their supposed to.
Anyone can stand on the sidelines and critcize. Let's have some good ideas and workable solutions. We despartely need national healthcare in this country.
Teachers rack up quite a hefty financial-aid burden too, but their starting salaries are much lower.
While I'm sure that a lot of the people disrupting the town hall meetings memorized slogans to shout and got canned lists of questions from right wing sources, it's clear to me that a lot of them are sincere including the ones who brought scripts to the meetings. They feel like the present administration is trying to destroy a way of life they believe they practice. I think they've bought into a golden age based on the agrarian myth and nobody's going to take it away from them.
I'm not shocked or surprised. Politicians since Reagan have capitalized on these yearnings. When Obama took office it was too much for the golden agers. They view the 20th century as a threat to their values. The 21st is waaay too much.
As for you moonbats still supporting this trash, I can only guess you liberal zombies would follow Obama off a cliff. Politically speaking, that's where you are headed right now. Enjoy the fall! LOL.
I really have to applaud your undying optimism regarding your hopes for a GOP comeback. But get real man! Saying "Clearly, the majority is against this huge change in health care" is simply wishful thinking and doesn't jibe with the facts buddy. There isn't a single poll that doesn't absolutely confirm that Americans without doubt desire significant change in our health care system.
Small bills make big problems and Health Care is no small component of our economy and National well being. News from NPR
" '80s Tax Bill Has Lessons For Health Care Overhaul
In negotiating health care legislation, lawmakers ought to look back to 1986. That was the year that a Democratic House and a Republican Senate worked together to pass a tax simplification bill. A full court press by lobbyists is usually enough to stop a bill — but not in 1986.”
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111764470
We appear to be facing a more narcissistic citizenry than 23 years ago--hmmm it only takes one generation to bring discontent, disconnects, and misinformation into a logical debate which has no actual form as we speak.
America is waking up from it's slumber and noticing that their freedoms are being taken away!
Hey Devin! The Dems don't need a single Republican vote to pass this. So, it's a Republican problem. GO AHEAD AND PASS IT!
Patriot Act. Thank you gw bu$h.
''Your children will be in debt for their complete lives.''
Unpaid tax breaks for the rich and corporations, unpaid Medicare part D. Thank you gw bu$h.
''The two largest entitlement programs, Social Security and Medicare, are going broke. ''
Robbing them both for their pet projects, thanks ''all'' politicians (both sides).
''We are borrowing money so that people can buy cars made in other countries or made by foriegn corporations.''
Shipping manufacturing jobs overseas, thank you gw bu$h.
''Democrats who demonized the finanacial and auto companies for having exectutive jet planes have now order 8 for themselves!''
BTW, they just canceled them. I guess the dems ''do'' listen to the people.
''America is waking up from it's slumber and noticing that their freedoms are being taken away! ''
Tell me some freedoms that the dems are taking away. And don't try to blame the ones that gw bu$h took away, on the dems.
''The Dems don't need a single Republican vote to pass this. So, it's a Republican problem. GO AHEAD AND PASS IT!''
At last we agree on something.
The freedoms of Americans have been taken away by the Bush/Cheney regime and how on this planet these revelations can be attributed to POTUS 44 is beyond illogical. It is as though America was asleep for 8 years and now that they are awake they are throwing scorn at the person currently in the driver’s seat. They missed the change in leadership as they yawned--never blink. The misinformation leads to “Ignorance” and proliferates like a fungus or wild fire which thwarts the best of intentions and deeds of good people.
Change You Can't Believe In! Obama is done.
Sounds like a policy that they had during the 1930's in Italy.
Which demonstrates that you have absolutely no idea what's going on now or what went on in Italy in the 1930s.
You really have to start gathering information instead of merely spouting blogger garbage.
gw bu$h didn't need to compile a White House enemies list of emails. He just collected everyones, in the name of national security. Now that's fascism at it's best (worst). Like he said ''you're either with us, or against us''.
So, MoveOn.org must not count? Huh?
What makes the Right so very wrong is not that they disagree but, the language you/they use.
For example: Dan, Jeff, and Mickey d. very often seem to be utilizing Republican talking points, but then, all of a sudden, they explain in their own words, something, or some aspect of what they, themselves know, and experience.
I see wisdom there, that is not coming from a neccesarily political ideological stance, although with all the political dust being kicked up, and the water being muddied, it becomes difficult to tell, these days.
When I can open my own eyes, even momentarily, and seperate the insults traded back and forth, I can see that Dan, Jeff, and Mickey d., although they can get pretty darned snakey, they are NOT the enemy.
Whether those doing so can be categorized as Left, Right, Center, or whatever, that kind of behavior is intolerable!
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2009/08/07/victim-alleged-seiu-town-hall-assault-st-louis-interviewed-cavuto
Are you personally planning to "get rough" with members of the SEIU, Tim?
I haven't attended any of the town hall meetings, nor have I tried to sell any ' Don't tread on Me ' flags. There for so far I have avoided being roughed up by SEIU thugs and I'm not sure if I could defend myself against 4 or more guys. But if this continues, there are those among us who will take action.
And for the record, I never said that I was personally planning to get rough with SEIU thugs.
By the way Wilbur, what's up with the green avitar? Are you now the Jolly Green Giant from Down Under? LOL!
"By the way Wilbur, what's up with the green avitar? Are you now the Jolly Green Giant from Down Under? LOL!"
Originally, it was a gesture of support for the protesters in Iran. To be honest, the main reason why I haven't changed it back is because the color makes it easier to find replies to my comments.
Wow...Of course I wasn't there. I'm just going by the reports, but I suppose that it's possible that the attack by the SEIU thugs didn't actually take place and it was all made up. But then again, I suppose that it's possible that none of the town hall protests never took place and they were all made up. Also, I suppose that there is a chance that nothing that we read about or see on the news actually took place....but that is all that we have to go on unless we were there when certain events took place...and if we were there to witness the events and then told our story, there is a very good chance that people would think that we were making it all up....isn't there?
It's also possible that he attacked the SEIU member, isn't it? I mean, I've seen the video footage, but it doesn't show who threw the first punch. I thought maybe you knew something that wasn't in the reports. After all, we wouldn't want things "to get rough" before we knew for sure what happened, would we?
Maybe you ought to just pay a hooker instead, Charles.
I didn't say that I wanted things to get rough. What I meant was that in my opinion, I think that things will get rough if this sort of thing continues. Sorry that I confused you Wilbur.