The proposed health care bill thread (merged) [Archive] - Page 3

View Full Version : The proposed health care bill thread (merged)

Pages : 1 2 [3] 4 5

SteamWake

08-12-09, 11:51 AM

Am I mistaken when I say I have heard him say in the past that he thought employer based plans should/would be phased out over 10 years? That doesn't jive with what he said yesterday.
:hmmm:

No you are not mistaken he said this to some group on record. There hope is that most un-informed citizens will overlook the double talk and blatent lies.

Now you guys who are going to say "link it" go find it yourself.... its out there.

AVGWarhawk

08-12-09, 12:02 PM

Am I mistaken when I say I have heard him say in the past that he thought employer based plans should/would be phased out over 10 years? That doesn't jive with what he said yesterday. :hmmm:

Eventually employers will drop their own plans. Why bother when said employee can go sign up with the government via a website. It is one less hassle for the employer.

Aramike

08-12-09, 12:25 PM

Am I mistaken when I say I have heard him say in the past that he thought employer based plans should/would be phased out over 10 years? That doesn't jive with what he said yesterday.Nope, it does not jive. He is on record saying that he wanted us to move to a single-payer system.

The president is out-and-out lying to the country. And about half the people are either stupid/uninformed enough to believe him or are so dillusional that they will do their best to spin his words to mean something else.

ReallyDedPoet

08-12-09, 12:52 PM

Eventually employers will drop their own plans. Why bother when said employee can go sign up with the government via a website. It is one less hassle for the employer.

I don't know much about the proposed plan there, but in Canada Gov. does not cover all of your expenses. Far from it.

There are still lots of employer based plans. It's additional coverage so to speak. I am under two plans, my wife's for Medical ( prescriptions, eyeglasses, etc. ) and Dental and mine for Long Term Disability and additional life insurance stuff. Both of these are cost shared between the individual and the employer.

August

08-12-09, 01:21 PM

I wonder if we will see employers give us the money they had been paying into private insurance. If they do that means a several hundred dollar a month raise for most folks...

Onkel Neal

08-12-09, 01:29 PM

Nope, it does not jive. He is on record saying that he wanted us to move to a single-payer system.

The president is out-and-out lying to the country. And about half the people are either stupid/uninformed enough to believe him or are so dillusional that they will do their best to spin his words to mean something else.

Wait, no way the president is lying. If he was, there are people here who would have posted and outlined exactly what he was lying about.

Where are you truth-detectors? Bush may not be president any longer but we still need you! :03: Let me do a quick search for "Bush + lying" and find those guys.

geetrue

08-12-09, 01:37 PM

Eventually employers will drop their own plans. Why bother when said employee can go sign up with the government via a website. It is one less hassle for the employer.

I agree and many others see this being the trend ... and why will this happen, because it will become a law you can't hide from.

If you are an employer you will have to provide insurance for your employees either through a private plan or the governments still unpassed plan.

Many millionaire business owners don't provide insurance for their employees, because it would have to come out of their pockets. The only law right now is, tough titty said the kitty go work somewhere else.

I like it like this, I like the have's and the have not's ... It's the American way.

What kind of country will we be if you make the employers roll over and do it the governments way?

This will become a police state of who is doing what to who ... with a law that everyone must have a national (health) ID card. I think I read that in the first bill right ... if not I'm sorry to bring it up, but I will not carry one around to match my drivers license and SS card.

Sure Palin sounds like a nut case, as most of the angry crowds sound like too, but even if they pass the health care bill when will the health care bill be finished?

It will never be finished ... put me in a box with Palin if you want to, but it could very well generate into, "How would you like to die" or "I'm sorry to inform you that your baby has a problem that will cost the tax payers too much money over the coming years" "How would you like to terimate this problem"

Who or what do you trust to happen down the road?

Where is Will Rogers when you need him most: http://www.cmgww.com/historic/rogers/quotes2.htm

"If you ever injected truth into politics you'd have no politics." Will Rogers

http://blogs.e-rockford.com/applesauce/files/2009/08/great-depression.jpg

I forgot my health care card ... can I borrow yours?

Aramike

08-12-09, 01:54 PM

Wait, no way the president is lying. If he was, there are people here who would have posted and outlined exactly what he was lying about.

Where are you truth-detectors? Bush may not be president any longer but we still need you! :03: Let me do a quick search for "Bush + lying" and find those guys.:har:

So true! Isn't hypocrisy wonderful?

August

08-12-09, 02:04 PM

Aramike

08-12-09, 02:12 PM

Looks like that little girl who asked Obama a question was, to put it mildly, not so randomly chosen:

http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p170/MarkNH/arf/obama-planted-question.jpg

Here's the whole thing:

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=911911To be honest, I usually brush off political maneuvering, but this kind of stuff is scary, if you really think about it.

Onkel Neal

08-12-09, 02:19 PM

Ooohh, shades of Hillary Clinton, that's pretty bad. So there were plants in the audience after all. And I trusted him! :wah:

It will be interesting to see the extent this is covered in the mainstream media. If this had been Bush, the outrage would have fried the paint off the broadcasting antennea. :o

August

08-12-09, 02:25 PM

Onkel Neal

08-12-09, 02:33 PM

more (http://thespeechatimeforchoosing.blogspot.com/2009/08/oh-mybarack-obama-caught-astroturfing.html) details

This is our "transparent President"? Pathetic.

Tchocky

08-12-09, 02:39 PM

geetrue

08-12-09, 02:41 PM

Yep, but i'll bet it is ignored...

What media bias?

They (CNN/ABC/CBS/NBC/Fox) can't ignore this ... good find August.

Now I can go cook a baked potato in my tin hat ... this is too much :salute:

Tchocky

08-12-09, 02:44 PM

more (http://thespeechatimeforchoosing.blogspot.com/2009/08/oh-mybarack-obama-caught-astroturfing.html) details

This is our "transparent President"? Pathetic.

Even-handed analysis indeed.

Barack Obama and the democrat party have declared war on all of us.

They have declared war on the American citizen.

They have flat decided that even though most of the nation wants them to stand down, stop spending our great grandkid’s future, and leave the best health care on earth alone, they are still going to go full steam ahead and build themselves a communist utopia anyhow!

August

08-12-09, 02:52 PM

Even-handed analysis indeed.

Who claimed it was even handed analysis and why should it be?

Takeda Shingen

08-12-09, 02:53 PM

I'm kind of suprised at the reaction to the audience. Every major televised event, ranging from campaign rallies to 'town hall meetings', have preselected audiences, ie 'astroturfing'. Every candidate does it, and has done it for decades. In fact, even the questions taken in press conferences are pre-screened. Really, every time I see any of these events from any candidtate, I assume that I am watching something completely fabricated for the cameras. The 'can I find someone who does not agree with the concept' comment was a dead giveaway. Come on, you've got a 'random' population segment of several thousand and you are having trouble finding even one person without a consenting view?

Don't take this as an anti-Obama or anti-left 'slam'. The GOP does exactly the same thing. Welcome to politics. I assume that, at the very least, I am not being told the whole truth; and at the most, being lied to outright.

August

08-12-09, 03:06 PM

I'm kind of suprised at the reaction to the audience.

Why are you surprised?

Where is the media "firestorm" like like there was back 2005 when Bush tried it?

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0502/18/acd.01.html

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2009/06/15/shill-attendee-obamas-healthcare-townhall-audience-wheres-media-

Onkel Neal

08-12-09, 03:08 PM

Preselected audience members? Hardly a first. Not exactly scary either.

Not how I would choose to run such an event, but I'd be surprised if the questioners weren't selected.

Neal - have you a link to Obama's conflicting statement? As far as I've heard, his position on a single-payer system is "Ideally, yes. Practically, no". Hence the current proposed reforms.

Yeah, but Obama is supposed to be different. Plus it doesn't help he spoke out in the beginning that the audience was not full of plants. (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/08/obama-healthcare-transcript-new-hampshire.html)

OK, I've only got time for a couple more questions. Somebody here who has a concern about health care that has not been raised, or is skeptical and suspicious and wants to make sure that -- because I don't want people thinking I just have a bunch of plants in here. All right, so I've got one right here -- and then I'll ask the guy with two hands up because he must really have a burning question. (Laughter.)All right, go ahead.

But it was obvious, even without the discovery of the 11-year old politcal whiz kid...

That's what we need to do right now. And I need your help. If you want a health care system that works for the American people -- (applause) -- as well as it works for the insurance companies, I need your help -- knocking on doors, talking to your neighbors. Spread the facts. Let's get this done. (Applause.)Thank you. Thank you.

(Applause.)
AUDIENCE: Yes we can! Yes we can! Yes we can! :har:

Link? Not really, that's why I said I was unsure. With so much disinfo flying around, I have trouble distinguishing what someone said from what someone else said someone said...got it? :wah:

I did find this on MSNBC (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/)(a left-leaning news source, sort of the mirror image of Fox News).

*** And fact-checking Obama: But the president also made some misleading statements of his own at his town hall yesterday. “I have not said that I was a single-payer supporter because, frankly, we historically have had an employer-based system in this country with private insurers, and for us to transition to a system like that I believe would be too disruptive.” But Obama did advocate a single-payer system back in 2003, although since then he has a said a single-payer wouldn’t work. Obama also repeated this line: “If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.” However, there is nothing in any bill moving through Congress that would enforce that. (In fact, it's surprising the White House continues to push this line -- there is NO way the government can guarantee that a business won't change health care providers. They just can't.) And then Obama said, “We have the AARP on board because they know this is a good deal for our seniors.” But AARP put out a statement yesterday saying that it hasn’t officially endorsed any of the bills moving through Congress, although it has said some encouraging words about them.

Onkel Neal

08-12-09, 03:11 PM

Even-handed analysis indeed.

Um... yeah? :hmmm: What does that mean?

Who are you quoting, anyway?

Quote:
Barack Obama and the democrat party have declared war on all of us.

They have declared war on the American citizen.

They have flat decided that even though most of the nation wants them to stand down, stop spending our great grandkid’s future, and leave the best health care on earth alone, they are still going to go full steam ahead and build themselves a communist utopia anyhow!

Takeda Shingen

08-12-09, 03:14 PM

Why are you surprised?

Where is the media "firestorm" like like there was back 2005 when Bush tried it?

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0502/18/acd.01.html

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2009/06/15/shill-attendee-obamas-healthcare-townhall-audience-wheres-media-

I'm suprised because of the inability of many to realize that (1) all politicians are inherently dishonest, and (2) many of the major news outlets have a political bias. None of this is new. Wake me when politicians start telling the truth and the media begins to simply report on what happened without telling me what to think about it. Anything else is just a case of trying to stick it to the guy that stuck it to you last time.

It's like a football game: You just want to beat the other team.

geetrue

08-12-09, 03:27 PM

Obama said, “We have the AARP on board because they know this is a good deal for our seniors.” But AARP put out a statement yesterday saying that it hasn’t officially endorsed any of the bills moving through Congress, although it has said some encouraging words about them

The seed that AARP has approved of what?

Never mind that the house has five (5) bills on health care pending and the senate has one (1)

The seed has been planted for ten's of thousands that watched and the correction has been planted in hundreds ... too late :yep:

SteamWake

08-12-09, 03:33 PM

FIREWALL

08-12-09, 03:35 PM

While it would be nice to have lower healthcare premiums.

But not at the expense of turning my Primary Care Dr's waiting room from a average 8-10 persons to 80 all waveing their Medfare cards.

That alone keeps my premiums current and away from the County Hospitals.

Tribesman

08-12-09, 03:43 PM

I couldn't help myself from saying audibly that I'm glad our taxpayer dollars are funding her gambling.
Yep , like that poor auld fella from NY who moved to Florida and couldn't pay his mortgage, maintainance or medical bills ....yet lost the miraculous winning lotto ticket he bought in the liquor store.

AVGWarhawk

08-12-09, 03:57 PM

Good article in the Washington Post 8/7/09 by Charles Krauthammer about health care:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/06/AR2009080602933.html

Echoes a lot of what Golden Rivet has been saying.

:)

From that article:

Strip away current inefficiencies before remaking one-sixth of the U.S. economy.

Exactly what I have been saying all along. Fix the system first!

FIREWALL

08-12-09, 04:04 PM

:haha:

Ironically/sadly enough, I ran into this exact problem today.

Heh, one other time I was behind a woman and her boyfriend (I'm guessing) trailing 5 kids, buying about $18 worth of groceries. She was digging through her purse, unable to find her Quest card (our version of foodstamps), and her boyfriend mentioned that she could just pay with her $50 bill instead. She replied: "Hell no! I'm takin' that money to Potowatami!"

Potowatami is our local casino.

I couldn't help myself from saying audibly that I'm glad our taxpayer dollars are funding her gambling.

A simular card was issued here in California to raise their " Self Esteem" when shopping for groceries. :roll:

Aramike

08-12-09, 04:45 PM

Preselected audience members? Hardly a first. Not exactly scary either. It's scary when the president clearly implies that these are not plants asking the questions.

Ironic how your ideological brothers are complaining about so-called astroturfing while the president you support does the same thing as a standard operating procedure.

Not to mention that he completely lied about his previous stance on single-payer health care AND the AARP support for this plan...

Onkel Neal

08-12-09, 05:13 PM

Oh and is your google button broken for christs sakes. First thing out of disputors mouths "show me a link". Of course were all just making this stuff up and pulling it out of our butts.

Yeah, Obama might lie to you but I won't :shucks:

AVGWarhawk

08-12-09, 07:18 PM

I don't know much about the proposed plan there, but in Canada Gov. does not cover all of your expenses. Far from it.

There are still lots of employer based plans. It's additional coverage so to speak. I am under two plans, my wife's for Medical ( prescriptions, eyeglasses, etc. ) and Dental and mine for Long Term Disability and additional life insurance stuff. Both of these are cost shared between the individual and the employer.

Thats the thing RDP. I do not need additional coverage. I'm happy with what I have. Therefore, I should be able to keep it and not have to pay into someone else's plan.

Funny to see the stalwart president, the president of change, cumble. This will be his undoing. His supporters are not to enamered at the moment with this plan. He has yet to tell us how this will be paid for. Taxes sure but that is not enough. Just today I heard a figure on the news for taking care of those with terminal illness. The last year is the most expense and it was said that one hundred TRILLION was spent on terminal cases each year. How does he plan on paying this? Will there be a board that listens from case to case on terminal patients then put a thumb up or thumb down for care? Hell, sell tickets like Gladiators of old. Does granny live or die?

Onkel Neal

08-12-09, 07:28 PM

Thats the thing RDP. I do not need additional coverage. I'm happy with what I have. Therefore, I should be able to keep it and not have to pay into someone else's plan.

Funny to see the stalwart president, the president of change, cumble. This will be his undoing.

His credibility is sure crumbling (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/11/AR2009081102810.html) :nope:

Candidate Barack Obama offered a lofty vision of how his White House would operate. When the details of health reform were being hammered out, he vowed, "We'll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies."

The campaign even aired an ad singling out Billy Tauzin, the drug industry's chief lobbyist. "The pharmaceutical industry wrote into the prescription drug plan that Medicare could not negotiate with drug companies," Obama said in the ad. "And you know what? The chairman of the committee, who pushed the law through, went to work for the pharmaceutical industry making $2 million a year. Imagine that."

Now, it turns out, the Obama White House has cut a backroom deal with Tauzin: Drugmakers would ante up $80 billion in savings in return for a promise that Medicare wouldn't be allowed to negotiate drug prices.

"We were assured: 'We need somebody to come in first. If you come in first, you will have a rock-solid deal,' " Tauzin told (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/06/health/policy/06insure.html) the New York Times.

AVGWarhawk

08-12-09, 07:49 PM

Neal, from that article above:

Obama's idealistic campaign-trail promises and the gritty realities of governing.

Yes, reality slapped him in the face. The first reality was Iraq and pulling them out immediately. We see how that went once he got the REAL briefing on Iraq just before he was elected to the White House. He changed his tune. The sad reality here is he thought he would change Washington. It will not happen. Period.

The good old boy network is alive and well.

mookiemookie

08-12-09, 08:07 PM

The last year is the most expense and it was said that one hundred TRILLION was spent on terminal cases each year.

Uh...you might want to check those numbers. $100 trillion is around 20 times the cost of the financial bailouts. Using the broadest measure of money, there isn't even that much money in circulation.

I think someone is selling you a bill of goods.

August

08-12-09, 08:43 PM

Last year at this time there were a lot of Subsim forum members claiming that the main stream media was not biased toward one party or the other.

In the face of the numerous recent examples of blatant main stream media hypocrisy and bias where is your outrage now?

Aramike

08-12-09, 10:30 PM

The last year is the most expense and it was said that one hundred TRILLION was spent on terminal cases each year.Yeah, like mookie said, check that one... that's more money than the ENTIRE WORLD spends in a year, on ALL economic trade.

geetrue

08-12-09, 11:20 PM

What if President Obama told the truth about the AARP being on their bandwagon?

Perhaps representives of the AARP have already been to the White House for private talks (records are sealed on who has visited since January) from these talks he just assumed they were on his bandwagon.

I'm starting to think that he didn't out and out lie at least not this time.

1480

08-13-09, 12:32 AM

Yep , like that poor auld fella from NY who moved to Florida and couldn't pay his mortgage, maintainance or medical bills ....yet lost the miraculous winning lotto ticket he bought in the liquor store.

The man gives an observation and you are all over it like a ten dolla hoe on Friday.... These card welfare systems beg for abuse. I see it all the time and worse yet, some of these fine store owners are being indicted by the "gee" because they are funneling funds to terrorist organizations....our tax money hard at work!

AVGWarhawk

08-13-09, 06:35 AM

Yeah, like mookie said, check that one... that's more money than the ENTIRE WORLD spends in a year, on ALL economic trade.

I was half listening to be honest Aramike. Perhaps it was billion. Certainly not million. A million today is like saying $100.00. :88) Whatever the case, the cost is very high for terminally ill folks. My mother-in-law was well over $200,000.00 for her terminal cancer. It just brings about my point again, fix the system. Everything concerning it has gone haywire with costs and for really no good reason.

AVGWarhawk

08-13-09, 08:20 AM

Aramike/Mookie, article below and quote. The cost is up there for terminal folks. Obama states 80% of the total health care cost are due to chronically ill or those at the end of their life. This is troubling because he is looking at what? Possible panel of grim reapers for grandma or dad who has terminal cancer?

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2009/08/there-he-goes-again.html/

THE PRESIDENT: So that’s where I think you just get into some very difficult moral issues. But that’s also a huge driver of cost, right?
I mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here.

Skybird

08-13-09, 10:03 AM

Scenes from the globe's richest third-world-country:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/08/health-care-clinic.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/gallery/2009/aug/12/healthcare-california-inglewood-clinic

http://www.ramusa.org/

http://www.zeit.de/online/2009/34/bg-obama-gesundheitssystem

Donors still needed, says RAMUSA - not for some African aid-project, but their stay in California.

One is used to see such things in Africa, SE Asia and from natural desaster areas only. A national shame for a country like the US, and a health system more expensive than for example the German one - but not more efficient or any better, while leaving every sixth American behind anyway.

And accusing Obama of intended euthanasia, and following a Nazi-agenda when talking of a mandatory health insurance that everybody can afford. What a disgusting hysteria. Palin mendaciously talked of "death commitees" after the health system reform in order to raise not arguments but primitive emotions in order to damage Obama - although her handicapped little son directly benefitted from the oh so socialistic structures of the health care system that already are there. What a mean, devious hypocrisy of this hungry reptile.

We have financial problems with our "socialistic" health care system in Germany, too. But then again, the medical standard is easily en par with the American one - but we pay roughly only half as much money. Strange, isn't it, even more when considering that over here not one sixth of the population falls through the net. Maybe you want to come over and learn how to have a better system than yours. Yours - is so corrupted by the pharmaceutical industry that you just get ripped off and off and off. If you like a corrupted pharmaceutical industry - that you can have in Germany, too, it is the most expensive market for medical drugs in Europe - and still, per head our system is much cheaper than yours.

Every sixth US citizen depends on events like in Inglewood, and has access only to most rudimental free services that often do not supply the needed medical treatement, for that would be too expensive, but only provide surrogate procedures and cheaper, less appropriate drugs. - But wanting to buy fighterplanes for over 300 million dollars per piece, while having already accumulated close to 12 trillion in public debts. I often think no other country in the world is as contradicting and made of such polarised extremes, as the US. It's always thinking in absolutes and extremes.

I see this as shameful for the US as it is shameful for Germany that in Berlin 20% of the schoolkids already are from so poor families that their parents send them to free school canteens and wellfare services that provide free lunchs - so that they get a warm meal at least every 2nd day. things like this are a disgrace for any rich civilised nation. For the US, and for Germany as well. But the malicious hysteria about Obama's reform really tops everything.

mookiemookie

08-13-09, 10:05 AM

I often think no other country in the world is as contradicting and made of such polarised extremes, as the US. It's always thinking in absolutes and extremes.

Too true.

AVGWarhawk

08-13-09, 10:36 AM

I would agree also Sky and Mookie. I think a radical extreme change brings this on. This plan to many is very radical.

SteamWake

08-13-09, 10:42 AM

Mookie agreeing with Skybird on a post which is totally off topic.

How quaint. :haha:

I can do that too ;)

The euro-region economy barely contracted in the second quarter as Germany and France unexpectedly returned to growth, suggesting Europe’s worst recession since World War II is coming to an end.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a3kTBJn7GfHQ

Aramike

08-13-09, 11:55 AM

Aramike/Mookie, article below and quote. The cost is up there for terminal folks. Obama states 80% of the total health care cost are due to chronically ill or those at the end of their life. This is troubling because he is looking at what? Possible panel of grim reapers for grandma or dad who has terminal cancer?

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2009/08/there-he-goes-again.html/Indeed. I wasn't suggesting your point was wrong ... just wanted to comment on the number because it was so astronomically high. :ping:

Aramike

08-13-09, 12:00 PM

I often think no other country in the world is as contradicting and made of such polarised extremes, as the US. It's always thinking in absolutes and extremes.Welcome to 2 party rule, my friend.

If you like universal health care you must also be in favor of gay marriage, abortion, banning firearms, unionization, atheism, etc. If you don't like it you must also be against gay marriage, all forms of abortion, want every child to own a gun freely, employer rights, the Ten Commandments in every classroom, etc.

Onkel Neal

08-13-09, 12:35 PM

I see this as shameful for the US as it is shameful for Germany that in Berlin 20% of the schoolkids already are from so poor families that their parents send them to free school canteens and wellfare services that provide free lunchs - so that they get a warm meal at least every 2nd day. things like this are a disgrace for any rich civilised nation. For the US, and for Germany as well. But the malicious hysteria about Obama's reform really tops everything.

How is it shameful for the US? Is the country obligated to guarantee everyone everything they want? :hmmm: Maybe it is shameful for these people who rely on volunteer services, but the country United States of America is doing just fine. There are always going to be have-nots. The "poor" of today have a life of comfort and ease compared to the poor 200 and 100 years ago, yet how many poor does one see voicing that fact? None, it's always "Help me". I don't have problem with helping the poor, but it must always remain voluntary.

Aramike

08-13-09, 12:57 PM

geetrue

08-13-09, 01:41 PM

Exactly what I have been saying all along. Fix the system first!

It won't happen ... Obama already thought of that when he or one of his czars cut (took away)
$300 billion dollars that has now been up'ed to $500 billion dollars from Medicare

in order to make his new health care plan affordable with an estimated cost over a ten year period of over
$1 trillion dollars, give me a break will there really be a 2019 with the national debt increasing?

National debt is now estimated at $17,000 per family of four and rising

If all he did is try to fix the system with these medicare cuts, even more outrage would come from townhall meetings.

Limit medicare to those who can't afford medical premiums and Social Security to those making under $250,000.

I bet the states wish they could just print more money to pay their bills, but they can't ... now can they :hmmm:

This graph speaks for itself ... does that mean that communism is better?

I don't think so: life-expectancy-versus-health-care-cost-per-capita (http://wolafen.wordpress.com/2009/01/11/life-expectancy-versus-health-care-cost-per-capita/)

ReallyDedPoet

08-13-09, 01:45 PM

Aramike

08-13-09, 02:17 PM

Problem is any one of us could be in the " have-not " category at any time. Be it though an accident, job loss, disease, etc, the list goes on.

I do a lot of work with the disabled and not one day goes by when I say to myself " I could be in this situation, this could be me or someone close to me " so I do all of my planning\work with that in mind.My point was that there are many, many safety nets in place for that contingency. But that doesn't give anyone the right to have everything they want via TAKING from others.

Let's say something happens to you and you go to the poor house. Do you still think you deserve your 60" HDTV with 500 channels?

SteamWake

08-13-09, 02:24 PM

http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh312/UlteriorModem/derail.jpg

geetrue

08-13-09, 02:25 PM

I agree. When the poorest of us have access to color television and clean running water, life really isn't that bad.

And I know for a fact that the poor have accessed to food through not only government food programs but independent pantries as well.

Society can only do so much for "impoverished" children. We can provide the food, but we can't make the irresponsible parents prepare it, or even take advantage of the programs in the first place.

One does start to understand why some people are indeed poor.

Problem is any one of us could be in the " have-not " category at any time. Be it though an accident, job loss, disease, etc, the list goes on.

I do a lot of work with the disabled and not one day goes by when I say to myself " I could be in this situation, this could be me or someone close to me " so I do all of my planning\work with that in mind.

So true ... many many people especially in today's ecnomic turn down are just one pay check away from calling a realitive for help or have to depend on the state to survive.

They should have townhall meetings just for people that see these kind of people everyday police, ambulance drivers, welfare workers, etc.

Answer their questions and probe them for what to do.

I hope and pray more help for children of druggie parents with sterner laws to protect children in abusive homes.

All druggie parents should have to attend re-education centers till they understand what they have done and what they are doing wrong.

New Hampshire? Obama? Townhall meeting?

Have I gone OT? :yep:

Add me to the list, but I can't resist adding my two cents to this subject about poor people.

I are one :yep:

SteamWake

08-13-09, 02:30 PM

Meth mug shots before and after.

http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh312/UlteriorModem/methmugshots.jpg

Link to original (better resolution)

http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=42845

geetrue

08-13-09, 02:40 PM

I was just talking about this OT somewhere else ...

Now it's on topic ... meth is a real problem especially for the children of meth users.

I hope and pray more help for children of druggie parents with sterner laws to protect children in abusive homes.

All druggie parents should have to attend re-education centers till they understand what they have done and what they are doing wrong.

Takeda Shingen

08-13-09, 02:42 PM

Welcome to 2 party rule, my friend.

If you like universal health care you must also be in favor of gay marriage, abortion, banning firearms, unionization, atheism, etc. If you don't like it you must also be against gay marriage, all forms of abortion, want every child to own a gun freely, employer rights, the Ten Commandments in every classroom, etc.

Another quote for truth.

Task Force

08-13-09, 03:03 PM

Wow... they looked like s*** in there before pics, and look like s*** x3 in there after pics...

These people are really stupid.

AVGWarhawk

08-13-09, 03:18 PM

Let's say something happens to you and you go to the poor house. Do you still think you deserve your 60" HDTV with 500 channels?

Hell yeah. I will wait until FEMA pays for it. :D

Thomen

08-13-09, 03:26 PM

Another quote for truth.

Not really. According to Mike's post, the two party system apparently also prevents a middle way, which would be the way to go here. This strongly reminds me of the "If you are not with us, you are against us" mentality, which in instances like this is more of a hinderance.

Personaly, I am in favor of health care system that, if done right, can provide coverage for those in need or unable to afford insurance themself. But, I also do believe that it has to be well thought out, planned and integrated so that abuse, mismanagement and total one-sided control can be avoided.

The so often touted Canadian system is not a solution, nor do I think that the socialy financed system which many European nations employ will work without any problems. What many people forget if they make a comparison to more socialy inclined countries is, that those nations needed decades (or in the case of Germany, 125 years)to pimp, tweak, revamped and reform their system of care. And it is still not working perfectly.

Take your time, and do it right, if want to implement a socialy funded health care system.

geetrue

08-13-09, 03:35 PM

http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh312/UlteriorModem/derail.jpg
Oh boy, oh boy! Lets talk about FEMA :haha:

This is like target practice, uh?

Just kidding ... I'm off to have a late lunch :cool:

AVGWarhawk

08-13-09, 03:44 PM

Oh boy, oh boy! Lets talk about FEMA :haha:

This is like target practice, uh?

Just kidding ... I'm off to have a late lunch :cool:

If you only knew the half of it geetrue :har:

Aramike

08-13-09, 03:45 PM

Not really. According to Mike's post, the two party system apparently also prevents a middle way, which would be the way to go here.That really wasn't my point at all. I was responding to a point Skybird made about the extremes of US political stances with a point of my own about how the two-party system shoe-horns people into camps that are opposed broadly on separate issues, even though individuals may have different stances on different items.

I'm not saying that it prevents a middle ground, but I do think that it makes it difficult to find one. Most importantly, my point is that the body politic represents the people as if there is no middle ground.

Thomen

08-13-09, 03:49 PM

That really wasn't my point at all. I was responding to a point Skybird made about the extremes of US political stances with a point of my own about how the two-party system shoe-horns people into camps that are opposed on broad issues, even though individuals may have different stances on different issues.

Ahh, I see. Thanks for the clearification! :up:

AVGWarhawk

08-13-09, 03:50 PM

Geetrue,

Fixing the system needs to start somewhere. Honestly, getting drug companies to DC for questioning sounds like a start. Hell, they got everyone else to DC for questions and then beat the hell out of them for flying an airplane there. The sue happy courts need to be addressed. Malpractice insurance investigated. There is plenty to see and do fix this first. Just my thoughts on it. :)

Takeda Shingen

08-13-09, 04:05 PM

Not really. According to Mike's post, the two party system apparently also prevents a middle way, which would be the way to go here. This strongly reminds me of the "If you are not with us, you are against us" mentality, which in instances like this is more of a hinderance.

Personaly, I am in favor of health care system that, if done right, can provide coverage for those in need or unable to afford insurance themself. But, I also do believe that it has to be well thought out, planned and integrated so that abuse, mismanagement and total one-sided control can be avoided.

The so often touted Canadian system is not a solution, nor do I think that the socialy financed system which many European nations employ will work without any problems. What many people forget if they make a comparison to more socialy inclined countries is, that those nations needed decades (or in the case of Germany, 125 years)to pimp, tweak, revamped and reform their system of care. And it is still not working perfectly.

Take your time, and do it right, if want to implement a socialy funded health care system.

So I guess that's a 'yes, really' after all, isn't it?

Rilder

08-13-09, 04:16 PM

Meth, Heroin, Cocaine are probably the worse drugs one can take. :down:

Jimbuna

08-13-09, 04:19 PM

Meth, Heroin, Cocaine are probably the worse drugs one can take. :down:

Serious life changers....and deadly at the best of times.

Rilder

08-13-09, 07:16 PM

Serious life changers....and deadly at the best of times.

Yeah, despite this, I don't really care if you take them, its your body and if you want to ruin it with drugs like Meth, Heroin and cocaine, its not my concern as long as you taking it doesn't hurt me or those I care about.

Aramike

08-13-09, 07:23 PM

Yeah, despite this, I don't really care if you take them, its your body and if you want to ruin it with drugs like Meth, Heroin and cocaine, its not my concern as long as you taking it doesn't hurt me or those I care about.So what happens if a crack addict runs out of money and someone you care about becomes a mark - something that wouldn't have happened without the crack?

Drugs make people lose a lot of their sense of reason. That's why people should be prevented from using them.

Dowly

08-13-09, 07:55 PM

Well, he said "..its not my concern as long as you taking it doesn't hurt me or those I care about"

:03:

antikristuseke

08-13-09, 08:13 PM

So what happens if a crack addict runs out of money and someone you care about becomes a mark - something that wouldn't have happened without the crack?

Drugs make people lose a lot of their sense of reason. That's why people should be prevented from using them.

People should be educated as to the effects of drugs, but outright baning, as is aparent from history, does not work. All prohibition does is give organized crime an income.

And as Rilder put it, it is your body, do with it what you will. As long as you do not harm others with your actions. Belive it or not, responsible recreational drug use is possible.

Aramike

08-13-09, 08:18 PM

Well, he said "..its not my concern as long as you taking it doesn't hurt me or those I care about"

:03:Right, but how do you propose controlling that when you average addict can't even control themselves?

Aramike

08-13-09, 08:20 PM

People should be educated as to the effects of drugs, but outright baning, as is aparent from history, does not work. All prohibition does is give organized crime an income.There's no way you can qualify that statement as you don't have any proof as to what things would be like should such drugs be legalized.

But you'll have a hard time convincing me that drug abuse and its inherent dangers would be LESS prevailant should people have unfetterred access to substances such as meth, crack, etc.

The average populace is not like teenagers ... if you say yes, more people do things.

Carotio

08-13-09, 09:08 PM

I have seen that one before, and here's one which is even worse. The same woman caught so incredible many times....:o

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y288/Carotio/FunnyStuff/downward-spiral.jpg

SteamWake

08-13-09, 09:09 PM

Sad part is these folks are a drag on the health care system ultimatly they end up in an ambulance and the ER.

So saying "Do as they wish they dont affect my life" is niave.

August

08-13-09, 10:39 PM

There's no way you can qualify that statement as you don't have any proof as to what things would be like should such drugs be legalized.

But you'll have a hard time convincing me that drug abuse and its inherent dangers would be LESS prevailant should people have unfetterred access to substances such as meth, crack, etc.

The average populace is not like teenagers ... if you say yes, more people do things.

I don't agree with that. I believe that people so inclined will always find a way to obtain their drug of choice regardless of its legality. Those pictures above prove that. History shows you just can't stop these things without eliminating all vestige of freedom from society.

All prohibition really does, besides giving the government an excuse to erode our constitutional rights, and costing the taxpayer enormous amounts of money to fight this "war on drugs", is to remove all control over its production and consumption.

In short we loose control of the users society, Their social scene goes from licensed establishments operating openly and subject to regular health inspections and police patrols, to backrooms, basements, garages and shacks in the woods with no regulatory oversight at all.

Prohibition also has a well documented history of enriching and empowering the criminal class to the point that their bloody tentacles extend throughout society, now they're even challenging national governments for dominance.

We just can't talk about prohibition without acknowledging these huge and dangerous downsides to a war that ultimately we really don't want to win.

The key to battling drug abuse imo is openness, education and zero tolerance for crimes committed under the influence.

The way I see it, if a person wants to wreck his or her own mind and body then that's their right to do so in a free society, but if they do their drug of choice, (and I include alcohol and other legal drugs in this) when their supposed to be taking care of a kid then it's child abuse, if they do it then drive a vehicle, its operating under the influence.

Aramike

08-13-09, 11:34 PM

I don't agree with that. I believe that people so inclined will always find a way to obtain their drug of choice regardless of its legality. Those pictures above prove that. History shows you just can't stop these things without eliminating all vestige of freedom from society.

All prohibition really does, besides giving the government an excuse to erode our constitutional rights, and costing the taxpayer enormous amounts of money to fight this "war on drugs", is to remove all control over its production and consumption.

In short we loose control of the users society, Their social scene goes from licensed establishments operating openly and subject to regular health inspections and police patrols, to backrooms, basements, garages and shacks in the woods with no regulatory oversight at all.

Prohibition also has a well documented history of enriching and empowering the criminal class to the point that their bloody tentacles extend throughout society, now they're even challenging national governments for dominance.

We just can't talk about prohibition without acknowledging these huge and dangerous downsides to a war that ultimately we really don't want to win.

The key to battling drug abuse imo is openness, education and zero tolerance for crimes committed under the influence.

The way I see it, if a person wants to wreck his or her own mind and body then that's their right to do so in a free society, but if they do their drug of choice, (and I include alcohol and other legal drugs in this) when their supposed to be taking care of a kid then it's child abuse, if they do it then drive a vehicle, its operating under the influence.I think we're going to have to disagree on this one. While you raise good points, I think it is an error to consider the prohibition on drugs analogous to, say, the prohibition we saw on alcohol (which I'm assuming is your benchmark, but I may be wrong).

A person drinking is far more capable of making a logical decision than someone smoking crack. Furthermore, the effects of impairment are far more gradual than, say, meth, allowing someone time to "catch" themselves, as it were.

Indeed, banning anything creates a black market for that thing. But, in my opinion, that doesn't mean we shouldn't ban things. There are benefits to certain drugs being outlawed that we need to consider. For one, we'd be fooling ourselves if we think that the illegal nature of drug use itself isn't a deterrent on SOME people. Also, anyone would be hard pressed to convince me that selling heroin at a corner store wouldn't, in and of itself, lead to additional people trying and become addicted to the substance (we're talking about some of the most addictive chemicals on the planet, here).

Now, toughening the laws is a good stance with people who are reasonable, but there's no such thing as a reasonable crackhead. Once the substance takes over and the crackhead is broke, he won't give a second thought about smashing a window to gain access to the substance, regardless of what the penalties are. Combine that with the chance that we'd be creating more crackheads by making the drug far more accessible, we'd likely see an increase in crime. Which means an increase in costs to prosecute. Which means more victims. And more prison space being used. And, more healthcare costs supported by the general consumer.

Sure, people should have a right to throw away their lives if they so choose, but society has a right to make it as difficult as possible for those people to do so and thusly become a societal parasite.

Indeed, there are people, such as those pictured, who are going to not give a damn about the laws to begin with. But I do not believe we should make it easier for them.

billyjack

08-13-09, 11:52 PM

Aramike

08-14-09, 12:09 AM

NO matter what we all have them, don't sit there and say oh i don't have a problem U DO. that's bullsh*t you know and i know it. What we do in our own lives is our own concern. I USED to have a drug problem, and it was a nasty one, I was hooked on crack. Ya that's right i WAS a crackhead for about 15 years, But NEVER once did i EVER EVER break into someones home hold them up steal there money or anything like that. I worked to support my habit. when the money was gone that was it, it was gone, but i made sure my bills where all paid had gas in the car and had a roof over my head, so not everyone addicted to drugs is bad, i went to rehab for about 2 years got clean and have been clean now for 12 years, I admit i was stupid but hey we ALL live and learn don't we. that's all i got to say on it. so DON'T sit there and down size me cause i had a drug problem, It's over and i have moved on. THANK GOD FOR FRIENDS THAT ARE THEIR AND TAKE THE TIME TO HELP.

P.S. It takes a BIG person to step up and say they have a problem to begin with. took me a long time to realize it. but i did.First off, congrats on recovering. :up:

However, to anyone who thinks society looks down on drug addicts, that's tough beans. Society does. There's a reason companies drug test, for instance. They are looking down on the crackhead, pothead, meth-user, etc. They don't want that person in their business. I wouldn't either.

Yes, everyone has their problems. However, some problems are greater than others, and some problems have a stigma associated with them (rightfully so). For instance, someone getting a divorce qualifies as a person with a personal problem. But that is not nearly as likely to affect their cognitive abilities, moral compass, and priority system as someone addicted to crack. That's why the divorcee is far more likely to get a job, while the crackhead is far more likely to end up in prison (on charges UNRELATED to drug possession).

Furthermore, no one here is saying that drug addicts are "bad" people. But, we do know that users (especially of "hard" drugs) are far more likely to commit serious crimes, even than people who are alcoholics, for example.

In any case, its a good thing you beat your addiction, and its a good thing you never did anything overly stupid while addicted. But that in no way means that other people are not still crackheads, and that crackheads are not still more likely to commit serious offenses.

CastleBravo

08-14-09, 01:19 AM

When ever I see these type of pictures, which arise from time to time, it weighs heavy on my heart. This is indeed human tragedy. A fate far worse than sudden death. There, by the grace of God I do not walk.

CastleBravo

08-14-09, 03:43 AM

When will our representatives start to listen? They just don't seem to get it!

WASHINGTON (AP) - Amid a boisterous debate on health care reform, people flooded members of Congress on Thursday with so many e-mails that they overloaded the House's primary Web site.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090813/D9A25N781.html

“If Patrick Henry thought that taxation without representation was bad, he should see how bad it is with representation”

Skybird

08-14-09, 04:55 AM

How is it shameful for the US? Is the country obligated to guarantee everyone everything they want? :hmmm: Maybe it is shameful for these people who rely on volunteer services, but the country United States of America is doing just fine. There are always going to be have-nots. The "poor" of today have a life of comfort and ease compared to the poor 200 and 100 years ago, yet how many poor does one see voicing that fact? None, it's always "Help me". I don't have problem with helping the poor, but it must always remain voluntary.

The word here is "Solidargemeinschaft", which means community basing on the principle of solidarity. Granted, the term can easily be abused, and politicians do it all the time here in Germany, excessively, but in its original meaning, it is an important thing. This is what turns a loose band of strangers and egoist individuals into a group belonging together, one nation, nation, one people. Not to care for people who are worse off due to their own fault - that is one thing. But leaving people behind so carelessly and uninterested like you expressed it , who never have had a chance and equal opportunity like others or who fell down the ladder without it being their fault, due to desease, fate hitting them badly, or mistakes of others - that is somethijng very different.

Three years ago, roughly, I saw a guy on TV, who made an interesting and provocating statement, he was professor for something, I donT remember it in full, but a university guy. He said that due to it'S history and being founded as a lose band of immigrants from a thousand nations, americans do not really have a feeling of national identity like this feeling is grown in europe over the much longer time of foriming up of european nations. And he said that this absence may explain the often excessive display of ritualised patriotism, for he argued that nationalism is the excessive hate on others and patriotism is the excessive fixiation on oneself. He saw patriotism in america as a kind of overcompensation for lacking national identity. He was speaking on the national level, not about small local communities. And I think he hit a nail there. It is sometimes said that the way americans admired their institution of the presidency expresses a hidden yearning for what the first seddlers left behind: the institution of a monarchy. I don't know if that has some truth or not, but I am often stunned at the enormous willingness to simply not care for those people of one's society and nation that were not as well-treated by life as others, and whose fault has been to have been born in the wrong place, in the wrong time, and maybe with the wrong skin colour. It is true that sometimes hard work gets you out of such conditions. But this is no rule, and where it is said that hard own work always improves your situation and turns you from rags to riches, I say this is a simple, opportunistic lie. the world is not that just and predetermined, and in a capitalistic system, that does not shy away from exploiting the weak for the benefit of the stronger, even a very talented genius who works in four jobs per week and tries his very best according to his personal potentials (which differ from man to man, btw!) can fail to climb up the ladder, or fall down the ladder due to events he cannot be made repsonoible for, or due to the mistakes of others - or the willingness of others who take profit from seeing him falling.

Solidarity, Neal, that's what it is about. I could also say: national integrity. Of course only with those who do not abuse it. And the abuse by assumed social parasites fades in scale and importance, compared to the abuse of the celebrated ultra-rich elite forming the industrial-economic leadership. The often made generalisation that all people living by wellfare are parasites by intention and own decisiuon, is just that: a generalisation.

If you just want to live for yourself, and by yourself, and not accepting any responsibility for the community, then you should find yourself a nice island with no other humans on it, give back your passport, and move from Texas to there.

Carotio

08-14-09, 05:54 AM

These fates are tragic, and it does always make one wonder if the laws we have are the best, if something needs to be changed etc etc.

Currently all drugs are illegal in Denmark, from the mildest hashisch, which is smoked to the heavy stuff such as heroine, cocaine etc etc.
But a lot of people still use it, and it is everywhere in the society. Recently a high society woman was arrested for transmitting drugs to her parties to her guests, that is cocaine. If you go to bars and discos, even in the small cities, you may get it offered.

I think it is sick, and mostly because people ignore that their friends use it and cover their arses, instead of preventing it or helping them out of their misuse. Probably because they use it themselves....

Though it is illegal, I can accept ONE kind of legal drugs. Switzerland has govermentally runned clinics, where drug addicts can come and get their fix with the help from doctors and/or nurses and slowly be treated so that they one day can leave it all behind. I would wish our politicians had the courage to do the same here. It would help the people and make an obstacle to the pushers and drug industry....

OneToughHerring

08-14-09, 06:00 AM

Carotio,

what's the situation overall in Denmark concerning the more harder drugs? I know about Christiania, a place where hashish use was legal at least for awhile. I used to think that Denmark is the gateway for most drugs into Scandinavia and Finland. Provided by the global drug traders and spread by the local criminal organisations like MC-gangs.

Carotio

08-14-09, 06:12 AM

OTH,

It's everywhere now, it seems most young people today have got it offered.
Christiana, yeah, that used to be the place to buy stuff, at least in Pusher Street, they sold haschisch openly. Not a place to use your camera...
But the police cleaned the street some years ago, and since then the drug industry has flourished without comparison everywhere else, even in small towns, so that even teenagers are reported to have had it offered in the streets.
You have no idea how many youngsters smoke a joint today like it was a regular cigarette, not like just 5 years ago. And of course they don't realize the danger of it, they don't see the spiral before it's too late.
It's kind of sad....

OneToughHerring

08-14-09, 06:16 AM

There is a lot of pro-cannabis stuff in Finland as well, and I notice the users in the streets, they are pretty open about it.

Btw I didn't mean to suggest that Denmark is the only route for drugs into Scandinavia, I'm sure we get a lot from Russia and pretty much everywhere these days. The drug trade and traffic is really global these days and difficult to stop. People have to make the decision to not to use themselves.

Rilder

08-14-09, 06:28 AM

Drugs, at least the lighter stuff like Weed, MDMA, shrooms,(Shrooms might be legal dunno though) etc is readily available here in Midwest, at least according to ... uhh sources. Outlawing doesn't really mean much just that you have to get it from dodgy sources, just legalize it all and use the profits from selling it legally to work on making some of the worse drugs safer.

sharkbit

08-14-09, 08:12 AM

Somebody on a different forum made this statement. I found it interesting:

NO SYSTEM, no matter HOW brilliant, is going to save or fix a population that is becoming more and more unhealthy in its daily lives. The people we see screeching uncontrollably at these "Town Meetings" aren't really asking for "health" care so much as they are asking for sick care or a health bailout. We spend more on health care than any other country, yet we rank 37th in overall performance (WHO rankings)... think that has anything to do with how much money we flush down the toilet on conditions that are completely preventable in most cases? Diabetes, lung cancer, 794 other diet and obesity related diseases. Half of these imbeciles complaining about HC reform to their senators are overweight! How much do you really care about health? Their attitude is "let me down McDonald's 5 times a week, smoke a pack a day, drink myself silly on the weekends, and then when I develop lung cancer, I DEMAND TO BE SUCCESSFULLY TREATED AT A PRICE THAT I CONSIDER 'FAIR.'"

The graph that geetru had in his post made me think about it.
:)

August

08-14-09, 08:53 AM

I think we're going to have to disagree on this one. While you raise good points, I think it is an error to consider the prohibition on drugs analogous to, say, the prohibition we saw on alcohol (which I'm assuming is your benchmark, but I may be wrong).

Alcohol prohibition is indeed my benchmark here. I see many parallels that shouldn't be dismissed because we all like a tipple now and then ourselves.

A person drinking is far more capable of making a logical decision than someone smoking crack. Furthermore, the effects of impairment are far more gradual than, say, meth, allowing someone time to "catch" themselves, as it were.

A drinker becomes impaired just as quickly as a meth user so I'm not sure what you mean by the effects of impairment being more gradual. It just takes a couple of drinks to be over the legal driving limit. I myself have drunk moonshine (the alcohol equivalent to illegal drugs) that had me slurring my words and loosing my balance within minutes. How much faster could it be?

Indeed, banning anything creates a black market for that thing. But, in my opinion, that doesn't mean we shouldn't ban things. There are benefits to certain drugs being outlawed that we need to consider. For one, we'd be fooling ourselves if we think that the illegal nature of drug use itself isn't a deterrent on SOME people. Also, anyone would be hard pressed to convince me that selling heroin at a corner store wouldn't, in and of itself, lead to additional people trying and become addicted to the substance (we're talking about some of the most addictive chemicals on the planet, here).

But less addictive than legal nicotine as the medics like to tell us and less impairing than booze too. The flip side of your argument is that there are people who try hard drugs just because they are taboo. This is especially true with teenagers which is the age group where addiction commonly begins.

Now, toughening the laws is a good stance with people who are reasonable, but there's no such thing as a reasonable crackhead. Once the substance takes over and the crackhead is broke, he won't give a second thought about smashing a window to gain access to the substance, regardless of what the penalties are.

Ever see a person going through alcohol withdrawal? It's not a pretty sight and the addict can get just as violent in his search for a fix. At least the crackhead doesn't bother anyone when he's smoking, unlike the drunk who can be just as violent with a drink in his hand as without.

Combine that with the chance that we'd be creating more crackheads by making the drug far more accessible, we'd likely see an increase in crime. Which means an increase in costs to prosecute. Which means more victims. And more prison space being used. And, more healthcare costs supported by the general consumer

You're basing your whole argument here upon legalization increasing use but you haven't proven that point yet.

Sure, people should have a right to throw away their lives if they so choose, but society has a right to make it as difficult as possible for those people to do so and thusly become a societal parasite.

Indeed, there are people, such as those pictured, who are going to not give a damn about the laws to begin with. But I do not believe we should make it easier for them.

What easier? I'm talking about controlling it not promoting it. Right now we leave that to criminals looking to make a quick buck from impressionable kids. Of course legalization must be accompanied by education and regulation.

SteamWake

08-14-09, 11:31 AM

Aramike

08-14-09, 01:17 PM

A drinker becomes impaired just as quickly as a meth user so I'm not sure what you mean by the effects of impairment being more gradual. It just takes a couple of drinks to be over the legal driving limit. I myself have drunk moonshine (the alcohol equivalent to illegal drugs) that had me slurring my words and loosing my balance within minutes. How much faster could it be?Moonshine is a rare equivolent, but even so, the intensity of that drunk is no where near the intensity of the high gained through meth. The drug doesn't send you stumbling as much, no ... but it changes entirely the way you think.But less addictive than legal nicotine as the medics like to tell us and less impairing than booze too. Nicotine isn't mind-altering (I smoked for years and other than being a tad irritable when I ran out, there are no major effects). And booze isn't nearly as intense (alcohol is a depressant and meth is a stimulant).Ever see a person going through alcohol withdrawal? It's not a pretty sight and the addict can get just as violent in his search for a fix. Yeah, actually. Both my parents were heavy alcoholics. However, criminally speaking the percentage of alcoholics committing serious crime AS A RESULT of their addiction is anecdotally no where NEAR the percentage of meth-users/crackheads.

This morning I ran into my neighbor who's a cop and asked him what he thinks about this. His opinion is that you'd be hard-pressed to find any cop who thinks legalizing hard drugs would be a good idea, because it ISN'T like dealing with someone who's been drinking.You're basing your whole argument here upon legalization increasing use but you haven't proven that point yet. Dude, I'm using anecdotal common sense here - if you legalize something and make it more widely accessible, it's consumption will go up.

On the other hand, your basing your argument on alcohol prohibition as though it is the same thing as the current prohibition on drugs. It's not. The circumstances (the distribution and manufacturing infrastructures, chiefly, along with enforcement avenues) are completely different.

Besides, despite most statistics of the era being haphazard, we know that most people agreed that alcohol consumption dropped off in 1920, and steadily rose after that. However, alcohol never quite gained the social stigma needed nor did enforcement abilities ever expand enough to combat the enemy due to an unpopular law.What easier? I'm talking about controlling it not promoting it.How is controlling it (by regulating its sale in retailers) NOT make it easier? I don't find anything difficult whatsoever about going to a corner store and buying a gallon of milk. Right now we leave that to criminals looking to make a quick buck from impressionable kids.Which I doubt will change, anyway. Criminals sell ANYTHING that there's a market for. We're not going to legalize drugs for children. But instead, if you legalized drugs for adults that dealer could carry the stuff LEGALLY to sell to a child when the cop's not looking.

A cop stops a guy a few blocks away from a school now with rocks on him, he's going to prison - for a long time if there's an intent to deliver. Cop stops a guy in same situation with legalized drugs ... guy gets off and moves to another school.

One other thing that the cop told me about making drugs legal that is interesting, speaking of dealers - many criminals are often in possession of controlled substances, allowing for some violent ones to be locked away for longer than the original crime would allow for.

mookiemookie

08-14-09, 02:32 PM

Ronald Reagan on socialized healthcare circa 1960... Ahead of his time by decades.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLpem-AAs&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Evtxoa%2Ecom%2Fforums%2Fsho wthread%2Ephp%3Fp%3D2467830&feature=player_embedded

Another one ahead of his time:

"Sometimes they are referred to as the 'radical Right.' But the fact is that there is nothing radical about them. They offer no novel solutions to the problems that plague them; indeed, they offer no solutions at all. They are immensely discontented with things as they are and furiously impatient with almost everyone in public office who can in any way be held responsible for their frustrations. But it cannot be said that they hold any clearly stated objectives or have any specific program either in common or individuals. They are fundamentally and temperamentally 'aginners.' And perhaps the commonest characteristic among them is anger. They can fairly be called, if nothing else, the Rampageous Right."

...

(For them,)"socialism is an epithet applied indiscriminately to almost any form of collective endeavor. Thus, any governmentally operated insurance program to provide medical care for the elderly is denounced as Socialist." (To them, welfare and) "even the progressive income tax are all looked upon as satanically inspired deviations from capitalism."Alan Barth, New York Times Magazine - November 26, 1961

SUBMAN1

08-14-09, 04:09 PM

You can always spot a meth user. Its even more easy to spot a long time user - the sores on their face.

-S

August

08-14-09, 09:07 PM

CastleBravo

08-14-09, 09:10 PM

Is drug abuse a pre-existing condition?

Aramike

08-15-09, 05:18 AM

Mike we disagree on so many points here it's too much work to argue them all so I won't I'll have to content myself with saying that while I believe we'll go on fighting it, the war on drugs cannot be won, and furthermore I think the damage it is doing to our society may not be repairable.I don't disagree with you completely, and to be honest, I'm playing devil's advocate on a lot of my points. I just find it difficult to reconcile the idea that legalization will make certain things less prevailent (drinking in fact INCREASED after prohibition ended).

I don't believe your premise is wrong - I think we just both take different approaches to the same problem. I do respect the thoughts you've put forth, and (believe it or not) I've researched both of our positions extensively since this discussion began.

Ultimately, I cannot find I comprehensive, kill-all, absolute fact answer to the discussion. As such, I'm willing to admit you may be right ... along with confessing that I may be right. :know:

Regardless, you remain one of my favorite independant thinkers on here!

Rilder

08-15-09, 05:26 AM

Lets just all discuss this over some hash. ;):cool::rotfl:

OneToughHerring

08-15-09, 05:28 AM

(drinking in fact INCREASED after prohibition ended).

Got any statistics to prove that? You see, I agree with you but I'm having a hard time finding statistics about alcohol comsumption in the -30's or even earllier. Pro-legalization people claim that removing the laws would lower consumption. All the recent statistics about, for example, lessening the restrictions on beer here in Finland tell that less restrictions = more consumption = more harms from higher consumption.

Rilder

08-15-09, 05:31 AM

I think that may come from the fact that young lads like me when confronted with a set a laws want to punch them in the face and laugh as we do MDMA.

Not that I do MDMA....;)

Aramike

08-15-09, 12:47 PM

Got any statistics to prove that? You see, I agree with you but I'm having a hard time finding statistics about alcohol comsumption in the -30's or even earllier. Pro-legalization people claim that removing the laws would lower consumption. All the recent statistics about, for example, lessening the restrictions on beer here in Finland tell that less restrictions = more consumption = more harms from higher consumption.It's really hard to find statistics on alcohol consumption after prohibition due to the fact that no one could really keep track of alcohol consumption during prohibition (in fact, no one really tracked it at all in either case). However, the benchmark used was occurrences of liver cirrhosis. I honestly can't find any stats on the web but I remember writing a paper in college about it.

CastleBravo

08-16-09, 05:10 PM

White House appears ready to drop 'public option'
Facing mounting opposition to the overhaul, administration officials left open the chance for a compromise with Republicans that would include health insurance cooperatives instead of a government-run plan. Such a concession probably would enrage Obama's liberal supporters (and it has)but could deliver a much-needed victory on a top domestic priority opposed by GOP lawmakers.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul

Depressing. Our leaders have sold us out.

What happened to Presidents who said "The Buck Stops Here" and acted accordingly?

Make no mistake about it. Obama has sold us out. He's going to force everyone into Romneycare where you buy junk policies that wont cover doodley-squat. And the beancounters will be able to deny even more care. Meanwhile, the racketeering CEO's will get to double their bloated salaries. This is just more corporate welfare.

So much for "Taking On The Private Interests".

i think the idea is they lie like a rug about what he wants and then pass a sham bill quickly

Baucus' bill is the one Obama will sign...More corporate welfare for the pimping CEOs while the rest of us get *******ed even more

Yes, they have sold us out. So public option, just a weak co-op as yet another band aid that won't do s***. Obama said he was for change. We now see that's all we'll have left in our pockets after he forces Romneycare down out throats.

and the Bait and Switch continues

Bribing criminal scumbags is what he calls reform

the royal scam on the american public is in high gear baby-pedal to the metal

This is an exrememly sad depelopment

We already elected an overwhelmingly Democratic House, 60 Senators and the President. What the f--k more do we have to do?

But at least 20 of the Dem Senators are traitors and appeasers including the "leader".

No more donating to the DNC

Get ready for a GOP Congress in 2010. It's a rerun of Clinton all over again

Embarrassed to say that I totally believed him

Stick a fork in health care reform. It's dead. We're going to have to wait another 15-20 years before we can try (and fail) again

You have got to be *******ing kidding me

he is already on track to be a one term President. He will either lose the nomination or the election. And no, I am not one who thought he was going to lose in the past. I donated my legal limit to him in Decedmber 2007 and then went over every time McCain's numbers went up. But I do not intend to vote for Obama again, not in a primary anyway

He also said he would repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

The terrorists won. I have said this before, but it bears repeating - Rove was right when he said that Dems are soft on terrorists. He said that after we were attacked on 9/11 the Dems would have sought counseling for the terrorists. Well, terrorists attacked us again on the health care debate, and guess what we did? It's over. I am going to redouble my efforts to find a job in a civilized country. THere is no one here to support any more.

Sigh it was nice while it lasted...guess I'll be staying home next election...******* those blue dog inbreds...

Get ready for Speaker Boner, Majority Leader Frog Face, and President Palin in 2013The Dems are not getting any more money, volunteer time, or even votes from me. I've been voting Dem since 1978, and it's over.

un*******ing believable!!!! I AM NOT PLEASED AT ALL!!!

This bulls*** "compromise" is infuriating!

I'm not okay with it and that's not why I voted for him, talk about failure!

CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN?????????????????????????

We're screwed. We'll end up with a bad government program, either a co-op or public option, which will prove what the Republicans have been saying all along, government is the problem, not the solution. We are allowing the Republicans to dominate the discussion and we will deserve what we get.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4017164#4017169

nikimcbee

08-16-09, 05:13 PM

Damn, I was hoping it was "Vikings win Superbowl." or nikimcbee wins lottery.:hmmm::woot:

CastleBravo

08-16-09, 05:14 PM

Damn, I was hoping it was "Vikings win Superbowl." oe nikimcbee wins lottery.:hmmm::woot:

If either would happen......ya wouldn't hear about it from me.:D

FIREWALL

08-16-09, 05:20 PM

When you leave for that Civilized country..... Don't forget to turn off the lights.

:haha:

Platapus

08-16-09, 05:21 PM

As a biased political article, it is not even entertaining to read. :nope:

CastleBravo

08-16-09, 05:29 PM

As a biased political article, it is not even entertaining to read. :nope:

Now the AP is biased? Given, the DU post is biased but I thought the AP wasn't.?.:timeout: Or is the AP only unbias when it supports the left?

Platapus

08-16-09, 05:34 PM

CastleBravo

08-16-09, 05:41 PM

Read the article. Look at the words. Just because the journalist agrees with your position, does not mean it is unbiased.

Unbiased journalists don't use words like criminal scumbags for starters.

So congratulations on finding an article that agrees with your opinion, but as news, it belongs with the latest on Brittney Spears.

'criminal scumbags' ? I think you are looking at the DU post, the leftist post, not the AP post. What does that tell you?

AP
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul

DU
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4017164#4017169

Thomen

08-16-09, 05:41 PM

Read the article. Look at the words. Just because the journalist agrees with your position, does not mean it is unbiased.

Unbiased journalists don't use words like criminal scumbags for starters.

So congratulations on finding an article that agrees with your opinion, but as news, it belongs with the latest on Brittney Spears.

you sure you clicked the Yahoo/AP link and not the blog? The AP story doesnt say anything about criminals or scumbags

SUBMAN1

08-16-09, 07:17 PM

As a biased political article, it is not even entertaining to read. :nope:

Whoa! That sounds more like a biased opinion than a biased article! Open your mind man and let us know your thoughts. I hate simple one line responses that lack the reasoning behind them. Only bias could make you say what you did.

-S

CastleBravo

08-16-09, 07:31 PM

Removing the 'public option' guts HR 3200. And Obama will claim a victory which is false. Any healthcare bill without a 'public option' changes nothing. RESET! Start with tort reform.

Sailor Steve

08-17-09, 12:55 PM

We're not going to legalize drugs for children. But instead, if you legalized drugs for adults that dealer could carry the stuff LEGALLY to sell to a child when the cop's not looking.

A cop stops a guy a few blocks away from a school now with rocks on him, he's going to prison - for a long time if there's an intent to deliver. Cop stops a guy in same situation with legalized drugs ... guy gets off and moves to another school.
Does that happen now with alcohol?

But I do agree you have a point. But then I don't think any drug that has to be manufactured should be legalized.

By the same token most comparisons made with alcohol abuse are usually related to smoking weed, not anything else.

FIREWALL

08-17-09, 01:03 PM

I didn't know we had that many Female Members. :haha:

Kloef

08-17-09, 01:13 PM

Ban alcohol and hard drugs,legalise cannabis and we will all be able to leave the sorry state we left human kind in for the last ...years.

At least thats what rasta's say,they seem to be the only people these days with a sense of reality....and i support them.:cool:

If you cant help yourself you can never be a normal human being,just a drag to society.

Platapus

08-17-09, 06:54 PM

I was responding to the words in the quotation block in the post.

My apologies, the top link goes to a different article.

Thomen

08-18-09, 09:48 AM

Removing the 'public option' guts HR 3200. And Obama will claim a victory which is false. Any healthcare bill without a 'public option' changes nothing. RESET! Start with tort reform.

Well, they became skilled in back paddeling it seems.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090818/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_health_care_overhaul

SteamWake

08-18-09, 10:10 AM

Well, they become skilled in back paddeling it seems.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090818/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_health_care_overhaul

"Became" skilled :rotfl:

Its a freakin way of life for them.

Thomen

08-18-09, 10:23 AM

"Became" skilled :rotfl:

Its a freakin way of life for them.

Became? jeebus.. lol fixing it.

Well.. they are still in training. But they get better and quicker to catch up with him. :03:

SteamWake

08-18-09, 01:30 PM

Became? jeebus.. lol fixing it.

Well.. they are still in training. But they get better and quicker to catch up with him. :03:

Nah they have a long history of this sort of thing.

John Kerry "I voted for the war before I voted against it"

George Bush "No new taxes"

Barrack O "Im a proponent of single payer health plan" "Im not for a single payer health plan"

Hillary Clinton "Im sick and tired of pepole who say if you disagree with this administration your somehow un-american"

John Edwards "Hiieeeeeyyyyaaaaaaaa" :rotfl:

mookiemookie

08-18-09, 06:09 PM

FIREWALL

08-18-09, 06:53 PM

How many here have shook hands with a Politician ?

Before or After he picked your pocket. :har:

Aramike

08-18-09, 08:35 PM

The health care "debate" at its very best:

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/18/hitler-israel/

That woman is a pig. The icing on the stupidity cake is the idiot is wearing an Israel Defense Force tshirt.Both of the woman and the man are idiots. Apparently the man never heard of the VA...

The lesson here though is that we should judge any side of a debate by the biggest idiots we can find.

August

08-18-09, 08:38 PM

Both of the woman and the man are idiots. Apparently the man never heard of the VA...

The lesson here though is that we should judge any side of a debate by the biggest idiots we can find.

Pointing out that the other side has bigger, louder or more obnoxious idiots is a time tested path to political success in this country. :yep:

Zachstar

08-19-09, 05:45 AM

CNN reported earlier that dems are considering leaving the republicans in the mud by ramming a health care bill through the senate and passing it barely. Sometime late next month perhaps.

That is the basic point there is no need for details as there aren't any. Its called FUD and looks like the dems have been reading out of the republican playbook.

Its like this republicans. You can poltically come back to the table and stop the insaneness and perhaps get a middle ground (Claim you halfway supported it in one way or another or claim somthing somthing about democrats as usual if it fails) Or you can be poltitically left in the mud if it actually works and becomes even half as sucessful as medicare.

And make no mistake. Union, Many Healthcare Institutions, Progressives, etc.. Are for this. The few "blue dogs" we have will stand up for the health of the nation or they will face EXTREMELY well funded political primary challenges and maybe even poltical thrid party challenges (Politically Vastly reducing their democratic voters)

Now personally I hope we poltically leave the republicans in the mud and polticially force the blue dogs into either camp instead of their both sides playing lately. As even if this does not pass with a polticial nuclear option we still have plenty of time to keep doing it again and again until elections. Draining opposition resources and exposing ties until politcally they crumble. Some of these youtube videos I am seeing are going to make great ads for dems in 2010.

Yet of course we have to be "bipartisan" so its just FUD. Unless the republican senators are poltically THAT stupid and they are not.

August

08-19-09, 07:34 AM

Now personally I hope we poltically leave the republicans in the mud and polticially force the blue dogs into either camp instead of their both sides playing lately.

So go ahead and pass it. When it fails, and it will, your side won't have anyone to blame but itself and that will surely be used to beat you over the head come next election.

Zachstar

08-19-09, 07:50 AM

That "own it" stuff again.. The dems are reporting posts like that at freeperville. To be honest I was expecting more along the lines of "What the hell is this a one party system!?! You liberal something something! (Even tho I am right of liberal :P )

Well we will "own" it surely. If you are that sure it will fail utterly then leave us to our fate.

Edit: I mean the most of you who are "against" the plan. I still HIGHLY doubt the republican party will take the chance of it passing without them. They voted for medicare in small numbers as well as they will this time in my opinion.

SteamWake

08-19-09, 08:08 AM

CNN reported earlier that dems are considering leaving the republicans in the mud by ramming a health care bill through the senate and passing it barely.

Against the majority sentiment of the nation. Go find the frikkin polls for yourself.

This will not turn out good for either the nation or the liberals.

Besides I dont think they really can because they just dont have the votes. There are a few senators out there that actually are listening to their constituants.

Peolosi will of course do her best to 'twist some arms' but ultimatly some senators realize that it may well be the last vote they make.

Honestly I cant see how anyone whom would think legislation by 'ramming things through' is a good thing.

Ken Spain, a spokesman for the National Republican Campaign Committee said blaming the GOP is "laughable."

"Apparently having a filibuster-proof majority, a 40-seat advantage in the House, and a president who was once really popular isn’t enough," Spain said in a statement. "Maybe if people actually liked the bill, Democrats’ wouldn’t have such a tough time whipping up bipartisan votes, much less vulnerable Democrats within their own party."

ETR3(SS)

08-19-09, 09:42 AM

I think a good quote is order, taken from a Revolutionary War movie.

"Why should I trade 1 tyrant 3000 miles away for 3000 tyrants 1 mile away. An elected legislature can trample a mans rights just as easily."

AVGWarhawk

08-19-09, 09:43 AM

CNN reported earlier that dems are considering leaving the republicans in the mud by ramming a health care bill through the senate and passing it barely. Sometime late next month perhaps.

That is as far as I read....the dems have been shoving things through for the past 9 months. What makes this shoving any different? I have had plenty already shoved where the sun don't shine when it comes to the Change president. :down:

Aramike

08-19-09, 04:23 PM

I highly doubt you'll see the Dems go for the nuclear option. The reason they want bipartisan support is because they fear this bill will fall flat, and when it does they can blame the Republicans for taking steps to underfund it.

If they go it alone, that'll be the beginning of the end for the current Democrat leadership, and they know it.

The problem Dems have is that they are stuck between a rock and a hard place - the lunatic fringe that supported them the loudest and the moderates that got them elected. Should they alienate either side, they're done.

Ladies and gentlemen, sit back and watch the hilarious drama that's a result of pandering! :haha:

August

08-19-09, 07:41 PM

That "own it" stuff again.. The dems are reporting posts like that at freeperville. To be honest I was expecting more along the lines of "What the hell is this a one party system!?! You liberal something something! (Even tho I am right of liberal :P )

Well we will "own" it surely. If you are that sure it will fail utterly then leave us to our fate.

"Right of liberal", uh huh....

Hey maybe you expect it because threatening to disown his country when he's mad at his government is a liberals tactic. :)

Seriously, for now you guys are the majority party. If you have the votes to pass this then you have the votes and that's all there is to it. It's the American way.

Remember this however, it had better work, or the American people will run your butts out of Washington starting next year.

Thomen

08-19-09, 08:05 PM

"Right of liberal", uh huh....

Hey maybe you expect it because threatening to disown his country when he's mad at his government is a liberals tactic. :)

Seriously, for now you guys are the majority party. If you have the votes to pass this then you have the votes and that's all there is to it. It's the American way.

Remember this however, it had better work, or the American people will run your butts out of Washington starting next year.

I sense a business opportunity here... better start stashing pitchforks, eggs and tomatoes to sell to the angry mobs! :hmmm:

ETR3(SS)

08-19-09, 08:08 PM

Don't forget the tar and feathers!

CastleBravo

08-19-09, 09:36 PM

August

08-19-09, 09:39 PM

Didn't Mr Obama campaign on the 'something new' in Washington? He is showing it and the Dems have a 78 member majority in the house, and a clear majority in the Senate.

Pass the bill. What is the white house and congress waiting for?

I'm beginning to think Aramike has nailed it. The Dems desperately seek GoP support in order to share the blame when it fails.

CastleBravo

08-19-09, 09:40 PM

Firms with Obama ties profit from health push

http://l.yimg.com/a/i/us/nws/p/ap_logo_106.png
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's push for a national health care overhaul is providing a financial windfall in the election offseason to Democratic consulting firms that are closely connected to the president and two top advisers.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090819/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_health_care_consultants

CastleBravo

08-19-09, 09:54 PM

It is well within the means of Mr. Obama and his simpathtic congress to pass the bill. The August recesses is little more than preview of things to come.

November 2010 will be an exercise in reality.

August

08-20-09, 09:19 AM

CastleBravo

08-20-09, 05:05 PM

How about our silver-tongued president? Perhaps his hypnotic powers of persuasion are leading the masses to a Socialist utopia? Uh, not so much.

http://patriotroom.com/images/upload/Democrat_favorability_082009.jpg

Its this poll showing independents which is Obama's worry.
http://people-press.org/reports/images/532-7.gif

http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1559

Tribesman

08-21-09, 02:38 AM

Its this poll showing independents which is Obama's worry.

I think the more interesting poll was that on healthcare which was printed in the WSJ this week.
A selection of often repeated lies about the proposed legislation was given together with the question of true or false .
Half of all respondants thought the lies were true...though that proportion increased to 3/4 with respondants who described themselves as viewers of Fox news.

CaptainHaplo

08-22-09, 08:07 PM

Sure - its all because of the "LIES" of fox news that health care governmentalization is taking a public support freefall.

I guess thats why "End of Life" care that gave government control over terminal care that was a "LIE" and "DIDN'T EXIST" was then publicly announced by the Dems themselves as being STRICKEN and REMOVED from the bill.

So who was lying? How could they say it never existed, then that they removed it? Oh wait - that is right, we just all must not be "nuanced" enough to get it.

The facts boil down to this....

#1 People with private insurance are GENERALLY happy with the coverage they have.

#2 People with private insurance don't feel its fair to have their health plans taxed out the yang (and ultimately out of existence) to pay for the MAJORITY of uninsured who CHOOSE to not have insurance. ***They choose it because the majority of uninsured that are not children are WILLFULLY unemployed and instead choosing to suck the nipple of government via welfare and other social programs. There are people who do not fall into this category, but the reality is the greater percentage DO!

#3 Anyone not aligned and dedicated to a socialist system understands that the bill, as written, is designed and will remove ALL private choice within the decade, if they actually READ THE BILL. Most Americans are for both CHOICE and a FREE MARKET CAPITALIST system for their goods - including Health Care.

#4 After seeing the doublespeak from the current administration, as well as the liberal leadership of congress, as well as the FAILURES of the same, people are starting to take a closer look and the smoke and mirrors are not holding up.

CastleBravo

08-23-09, 04:12 PM

Rep. Eric Massa (D - NY) on Healthcare Reform

"I will vote adamantly against the interests of my district if I actually think what I am doing is going to be helpful. I will vote against their opinion if I actually believe it will help them."

Nice.

SteamWake

08-24-09, 01:23 PM

In a sterling example of goverment run healthcare...

CHARLESTON, W.Va. — At least 1,200 Gulf War veterans across the country have been mistakenly notified by the Veterans Administration that they suffer from a fatal neurological disease.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,542086,00.html?test=latestnews

CastleBravo

08-27-09, 10:20 AM

From CBS........

Section 431(a) of the bill says that the IRS must divulge taxpayer identity information, including the filing status, the modified adjusted gross income, the number of dependents, and "other information as is prescribed by" regulation. That information will be provided to the new Health Choices Commissioner and state health programs and used to determine who qualifies for "affordability credits."

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/08/26/taking_liberties/entry5268079.shtml

mookiemookie

08-28-09, 10:45 AM

Whoops! I guess it only works one way. McCain ejects town hall protestor:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BIlVGzziQk

August

08-28-09, 11:15 AM

Whoops! I guess it only works one way. McCain ejects town hall protestor:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BIlVGzziQk

I watched the clip twice but didn't see anyone ejected. Didja mix your clips up?

mookiemookie

08-28-09, 11:25 AM

I watched the clip twice but didn't see anyone ejected. Didja mix your clips up?

No, she was indeed escorted out:

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/20090827woman_ejected_at_mccains_town-hall_meeting/srvc=home&position=recent

FIREWALL

08-28-09, 11:43 AM

The woman being removed was a Heckler.

Not a protester.

mookiemookie

08-28-09, 12:06 PM

The woman being removed was a Heckler.

Not a protester.

Ah, I get it. So if you scream, shout and disrupt a Democrat's townhall to the point they can't speak, you're a protester. If you scream, shout and disrupt a Republican's townhall to the point they can't speak, you're a heckler. There's gaps in that logic so large you can drive a truck through.

Also, you're completely wrong:
http://cameron.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/01/06/disruption-at-mcca ins-townhall-hivaids-activists-interfere/
(Remove Spaces Where Needed)

It seems that the protesters (not just one, but many) were for HIV/AIDS funding, to which McCain has not committed to. A comment by one of the protesters on the Fox News site will say it way better than I can:

"I was one of the protesters at this event. The reason for the protest was that we actually have asked him MANY times to commit to funding for HIV/AIDS, actually we’ve asked him for more than that, and he, like the other republican candidates who we’ve also asked the same questions to, has not committed to funding at all. Our largest asks is that he commit for the U.S. to give aid to 1/3 of the people in the world with the disease, our fair share as we control 1/3 of the wealth in the world.

McCain hides behind generalizations like “corrupt governments” who do not deserve money to help their people. He doesn’t care that 8,000 people die every day around the world from HIV/AIDS. The truth is, the money the United States would spend would really be given to non-governmental organizations, on the ground so that it was in direct contact with the people who need it.

He’s been asked, politely many many times already. We are tired of his lack of response, and we hope that our drastic measures will allow him to understand that we are in fact very serious about this issue.

And at the very end, he did allow the girl he was talking to in this clip to ask a question, she asked two, he answered one, and he still stuck to his line that he will not fund corrupt governments.

He needs to come out with a plan, if it’s not ours, then he needs one that will work for him, but he hasn’t seen the last of us.

For more info on our asks, go to: http://www.08stopaids.org/files/08SA%20combined%20platform.pdf

or:http://www.08stopaids.org/"

August

08-28-09, 03:20 PM

No, she was indeed escorted out:

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/20090827woman_ejected_at_mccains_town-hall_meeting/srvc=home&position=recent

But I don't see your point here Mookie.

Are you trying to tell us that political rally protestors/hecklers being escorted from the premises are only gang tackled and tased by the police at Democrat rallys and not at Republicans? That doesn't say much about your favorite party now does it?

AVGWarhawk

08-28-09, 03:24 PM

You know what is so great about about this healthcare bill? The government can use it just like a bank. They take money from medicare and SS already. So hey, why not add another ATM machine for Pelosi :yeah:

mookiemookie

08-28-09, 03:34 PM

But I don't see your point here Mookie.

Are you trying to tell us that political rally protestors/hecklers being escorted from the premises are only gang tackled and tased by the police at Democrat rallys and not at Republicans? That doesn't say much about your favorite party now does it?

The point is that if you go to a town hall and hold up signs comparing Obama to Hitler, scream at the Democratic congresscritter to "keep yer damn government hands off my Medicare!" and generally do everything you can to disrupt the proceedings, you're lauded by Fox News (not to mention the wingy-est wingnuts here) as "expressing your freedom of speech" and are labelled a protestor and true patriot (insert "I'm Proud To Be An American" recording here.) If these people were kicked out of the Dem's townhalls, Fox News would be blowing up over it and there would be riots.

Buuuuut...do the same thing at a Repub townhall and you're kicked out and labelled a heckler. (Which, by the way, is what should happen with ANYONE who disrupts one of these things, but that's not the point I'm making here)

Can you see the double standard?

August

08-28-09, 08:45 PM

The point is that if you go to a town hall and hold up signs comparing Obama to Hitler, scream at the Democratic congresscritter to "keep yer damn government hands off my Medicare!" and generally do everything you can to disrupt the proceedings, you're lauded by Fox News (not to mention the wingy-est wingnuts here) as "expressing your freedom of speech" and are labelled a protestor and true patriot (insert "I'm Proud To Be An American" recording here.) If these people were kicked out of the Dem's townhalls, Fox News would be blowing up over it and there would be riots.

Buuuuut...do the same thing at a Repub townhall and you're kicked out and labelled a heckler. (Which, by the way, is what should happen with ANYONE who disrupts one of these things, but that's not the point I'm making here)

Can you see the double standard?

The only double standard I see is that Fox is but one opposing voice in a group of powerful networks who are even more biased, but to the opposing side.

None of them are going to show you the heckler that doesn't get kicked out and is allowed to say his or her piece because that doesn't fit the evil Republican stereotype that they have created and promote daily.

Richard G

08-28-09, 10:09 PM

I don't like this whole healthcare thing for one reason. Its unconstitutional.

Congress has very specific powers enumerated to it in the Constitution. Powers not granted to the Congress by the document are reserved to the States. A huge healthcare entitlement is not one of Congress powers, but a State or States could enact one (and some have).

Its a short list of powers. Here they are:

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

SteamWake

08-28-09, 10:18 PM

SteamWake

08-28-09, 10:20 PM

Aramike

08-29-09, 03:59 AM

Richard G, you're wrong. Badly. In fact, its in the very first portion of the Constitution you quoted:The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Emphasis added by me.

This is not a Constitutional issue. While I believe that opponents to the current bill are correct, I also believe it is unwise of them to try to frame it in some way that winds up being, well, nutjob.

Richard G

08-29-09, 12:58 PM

Well, "general welfare of the Unites States" is a far cry from "removing the hemorrhoids from my/yours/every Americans ass".

A very specific, and personal issue.

mookiemookie

08-29-09, 01:19 PM

Well, "general welfare of the Unites States" is a far cry from "removing the hemorrhoids from my/yours/every Americans ass".

A very specific, and personal issue.

Yes, because that's ALL health insurance covers. Hemorrhoid treatment.

Sea Demon

08-29-09, 02:07 PM

Yes, because that's ALL health insurance covers. Hemorrhoid treatment.

But your personal healthcare is not "general welfare". It is your personal responsibility. Your healthcare does not belong to me or other taxpayers. It belongs to you completely. I have no domain, say or control of your personal healthcare, nor do I want any control of it. This is where Democrats abuse of the Constitution is highlighted. Ultimately liberals can attempt to make the "general welfare" argument for many things if they are so inclined. Universal housing, Universal automobile loans, Universal auto insurance, Universal home owners insurance, and everything else a Democrat thinks the taxpayer should be underwriting for them.

Would you like the taxpayers underwriting these things for you mookie? And if not...why not? These are all critical things a person needs to function in society, right? In fact, one could argue you could die without them. The issue is, the founders of this nation did not intend "cradle to grave" statism for people unwilling to view themselves as independant entities responsible for their own sustinence. That is clear and established regardless of liberal wet dreams of redistribution. It is vulgar the way "general welfare" has been so abused. That is a mockery of liberty. Richard G is correct. They did not intend for a federal entity, seizing by force the time and property of other individuals to distribute to others. In this case taxpayers and physicians. There is a way to reform health care, but not in this type of statist and intrusive government way.

Aramike

08-29-09, 02:21 PM

Well, "general welfare of the Unites States" is a far cry from "removing the hemorrhoids from my/yours/every Americans ass".

A very specific, and personal issue. The point still stands. Nationalized healthcare is not unconstitutional. I can understand your disagreement, but a constitutional law issue it is not.

Aramike

08-29-09, 02:26 PM

But your personal healthcare is not "general welfare". It is your personal responsibility. Your healthcare does not belong to me or other taxpayers. It belongs to you completely. I have no domain, say or control of your personal healthcare, nor do I want any control of it. This is where Democrats abuse of the Constitution is highlighted.It could be argued that healthcare affects the general welfare of the populace. Contagious diseases, reductions in the workforce, emergency services unavailable due to being overburdened by preventable emergencies, etc.

Look, I can understand being against nationalized healthcare. I am heavily against the current plan (although I am for some sort of major healtcare reform, possibly even SOME nationalization of it). However, this is NOT a Constitutional issue.

Opponents would be wise to not stretch so far to find fault, when there's plenty of obvious fault to be found staring straight ahead.

mookiemookie

08-29-09, 02:34 PM

But your personal healthcare is not "general welfare". No, but the collective health and welfare of the United States is.

And again, sorry I don't buy into the libertarian "screw you, I got mine" mindset. A healthy population is a more productive population.

niversal housing, Universal automobile loans, Universal auto insurance, Universal home owners insurance, and everything else a Democrat thinks the taxpayer should be underwriting for them. Slippery slope argument. None of those things are costing us 16%+ of our GDP and rising.

Sea Demon

08-29-09, 06:01 PM

No, but the collective health and welfare of the United States is.

And again, sorry I don't buy into the libertarian "screw you, I got mine" mindset. A healthy population is a more productive population.

Yes. We all wish for everyone to be healthy. But facts are, some people don't take care of themselves. We simply will continue to get a beneficial overall good health of the USA only in so far as people choose to take care of themselves. Taxpayers paying for everyone's healthcare won't change that in any way. It is wrong to make people pay everyone else's health bills.

This is not a "screw you, I got mine" issue. I didn't always "have mine". I worked and prioritized for it. Like you and everyone else should do. My priority is my life and that of my family. Your personal health doesn't concern me. Harsh but true. Since I have no control of your health, and no control of your personal choices as to your personal maintenance, I don't want to pay for yours. And I want no such control over you. I truly wish more people understood liberty and personal responsibility.

Slippery slope argument. None of those things are costing us 16%+ of our GDP and rising.

Nope. Exact same argument. We can reform the system without government control and statism. If you don't want to take personal responsibility and control your own healthcare, why not give government control of your housing? Why not your property insurance? Why not food? Why not auto insurance? All those could cause the same hardships on the system in other ways. Trying to seperate the issue won't work. They are exactly the same. You're trying to alleviate yourself from taking charge of your healthcare. You're trying to make others pay your health bills. And most people aren't going to go along with it.

There are many reasons why health care is so expensive. And government has been a part of the problem. It definitely wouldn't be the solution.

It could be argued that healthcare affects the general welfare of the populace. Contagious diseases, reductions in the workforce, emergency services unavailable due to being overburdened by preventable emergencies, etc.

I don't buy it. People's choices in their own lives will affect this outcome more so than any "Universal" health care plan. In fact, good arguments and displayed facts have shown Universal "free" healthcare to contribute negatively to overall "general welfare" of the populace.

Aramike

08-29-09, 06:24 PM

I don't buy it. People's choices in their own lives will affect this outcome more so than any "Universal" health care plan. In fact, good arguments and displayed facts have shown Universal "free" healthcare to contribute negatively to overall "general welfare" of the populace. For one, I don't buy the argument that, because universal health care has been poorly implemented in many nations, it is therefore impossible to implement an effective version.

Secondly, buy it or not, the fact is that this is not a Constitutional issue. "General welfare" is a vague premise that could mean a great many things - not just what you'd want it to or not want it to mean.

mookiemookie

08-29-09, 06:24 PM

Your personal health doesn't concern me. Harsh but true. Since I have no control of your health, and no control of your personal choices as to your personal maintenance, I don't want to pay for yours. And I want no such control over you. I truly wish more people understood liberty and personal responsibility.

Then your issue is with the concept of insurance itself, not health insurance. You can't control if I overload my electrical outlets or leave the stove on in my home, but if my house burns down as a result and we're with the same homeowner's company, you're paying for my house.

Sea Demon

08-29-09, 07:15 PM

For one, I don't buy the argument that, because universal health care has been poorly implemented in many nations, it is therefore impossible to implement an effective version.

Secondly, buy it or not, the fact is that this is not a Constitutional issue. "General welfare" is a vague premise that could mean a great many things - not just what you'd want it to or not want it to mean.

Yeah, except that our deficits are another issue. Economically, there is no money. And it's partly due to alot of other issues where government decided to get it's hands on. Social Security is broke. Medicare is broke. Amtrak is broke. Just a few examples. From the outset, it's already not feasible.

On the second part, it will not be argued on the "Constitutional" issue. It simply will never go there. Doesn't mean that there isn't an argument to be made as to whether or not the Founders of this nation ever intended the government to force people to pay other people's bills. And you'll never convince me that it could ever have been original intent. Like I said before...."General Welfare" has been grossly abused on many issues.

Then your issue is with the concept of insurance itself, not health insurance. You can't control if I overload my electrical outlets or leave the stove on in my home, but if my house burns down as a result and we're with the same homeowner's company, you're paying for my house.

No..not at all. I pay my premiums and understand the risk. I know that my insurance companies are paying out claims daily, yet my own insurance doesn't change that much year to year. I pay insurance premiums on things that may happen to me and my family. Same with you paying your premiums. I am not paying for anybody else's burned down house. I pay the insurance company to cover me in the event of something happening. Once I pay them my premium...the money is theirs. And I am covered. And happy as a clam.

What you seek is for me to pay your premiums for you. Something I'm not interested in doing.

Although you have an interesting view on how this all works, bottom line, if you want insurance on something, you have to prioritize and pay for it. Just like the rest of us. If you force a government subsidy on it, you directly force me to pay for a plan I have no control over for myself, nor do I want to participate in it. You are in effect voting money out of my pocket to pay your bills. Or at least trying to. If I don't participate in this subsidy as common use, then I shouldn't have to be forced to pay for it for others. Nor should I have to pay twice, as a government subsidized plan would force me to do it if I went out and paid for a private plan.

Aramike

08-29-09, 08:20 PM

Yeah, except that our deficits are another issue. Economically, there is no money. And it's partly due to alot of other issues where government decided to get it's hands on. Social Security is broke. Medicare is broke. Amtrak is broke. Just a few examples. From the outset, it's already not feasible.That's the problem with the current plan. Earlier in this thread I showed a plan that I believe, combined with Tort reform, would work.

However, like I said, the current plan is garbage.On the second part, it will not be argued on the "Constitutional" issue. It simply will never go there. Doesn't mean that there isn't an argument to be made as to whether or not the Founders of this nation ever intended the government to force people to pay other people's bills. And you'll never convince me that it could ever have been original intent. Like I said before...."General Welfare" has been grossly abused on many issues.The problem with your argument is that things such as the "Patient's Bill of Rights" would also be invalidated.

Besides, it is unwise to attempt to rely on what we suppose the Founding Father's opinions on modern issues would be.

In any case, we are all forced to "pay other people's bills" when considering the common good. Police enforcement, fire protection, EMT, roads, infrastucture, etc (I could really go on and on here) are all things that some people may not directly use. The only reason healthcare is not on this list is because healthcare has been traditionally privatized.

It's just a matter of perspective.

Tribesman

08-29-09, 08:28 PM

I pay insurance premiums on things that may happen to me and my family. Same with you paying your premiums. I am not paying for anybody else's burned down house.
Of course you are paying for other peoples burned down houses, thats what insurance does.You are paying to cover yourself and contributing to every other policy holder who may make a claim.
Just like private health insurance means you pay for every hypocondriac with that company who feels the urge to bother a doctor every week.
my own insurance doesn't change that much year to year
Your contributions vary year to year depending on how much other people claim and how well or badly the company has assesed the risks.

Sea Demon

08-29-09, 11:10 PM

Of course you are paying for other peoples burned down houses, thats what insurance does.You are paying to cover yourself and contributing to every other policy holder who may make a claim.
Just like private health insurance means you pay for every hypocondriac with that company who feels the urge to bother a doctor every week.

Your contributions vary year to year depending on how much other people claim and how well or badly the company has assesed the risks.

Well, they are using the money I and other people have paid as premiums to cover a claim. That's true. But I don't agree with your assessment or twisting of the issue. After I pay them, it's not my money anymore, and I still have the coverage/service I pay for through my premium. I receive what I'm paying for. No more or less. And you have no idea how my insurance is adjusted year to year..or if at all.

The way you guys twist this, you might as well claim I'm paying a waiter's rent because I left him a tip. Yes, in theory one can draw that out....in a weird kind of way. But when I add to his income in tips, it's no longer my money. After I pay him, the money asset is his. He paid his own rent by using money he earned providing a service. Likewise, the insurance company is paying the claim with their company assets. Assets they receive through customer premiums. You can twist it all you like...but it's merely semantics. I don't agree that I'm paying claims. I'm paying for coverage and services for my insurance plan. Once the company receives my money, I'm not concerned about it as it's no longer my asset. As long as there are funds available when I file. Never had a problem with any of my insurance BTW. I don't know why liberals think this argument could ever work.

Another thing to twist..that you cannot do, is come to grips that a government taxpayer subsidy forces people with private plans to pay for healthcare twice. People with private plans would pay their own private health premiums, then have to pony up for the government plan they don't use. There are good ideas out there for reform, to make health care plans available for anybody who wants it at a fair cost. The government taking control of everything ain't it. The government setting itself up as a competitor, and referee of private sector plans ain't it. The government should provide oversight and regulate as necessary, but that's the only role I see for it.

Sea Demon

08-29-09, 11:22 PM

In any case, we are all forced to "pay other people's bills" when considering the common good. Police enforcement, fire protection, EMT, roads, infrastucture, etc (I could really go on and on here) are all things that some people may not directly use. The only reason healthcare is not on this list is because healthcare has been traditionally privatized.

It's just a matter of perspective.

True. Matter of perspective. But things like police, fire, EMT, roads, infrastructure, military are common use by all taxpayers. Whether used or not. It's part of the unwritten "contract" between government and citizens of reasonable and fair taxation for items of common use. Something that used to be common knowledge amongst the average American. Your personal health does not belong to me or other taxpayers. It's yours and yours alone. It is totally the domain of the private citizen. And I won't get into the abuse of "General Welfare" again. That has been abused to death. This is merely some people using the voting booth to make other people pay their health bills.

In addition, I'm not too happy that so many people seem so desperate to give this domain to the government so quickly and so easily. On the other hand, I'm relieved to see others fighting against this stuff tooth and nail.

Aramike

08-30-09, 02:06 AM

In addition, I'm not too happy that so many people seem so desperate to give this domain to the government so quickly and so easily. On the other hand, I'm relieved to see others fighting against this stuff tooth and nail. Hmmm, let's see ... one of healthcare's largest problems currently are the lawyers and out-of-control insurance companies - who are about the only things more hated than the government.

Tribesman

08-30-09, 04:29 AM

Well, they are using the money I and other people have paid as premiums to cover a claim. That's true. But I don't agree with your assessment or twisting of the issue. After I pay them, it's not my money anymore, and I still have the coverage/service I pay for through my premium
And when you give the government money is it still your money or are you just a contributorto the services you pay for and recieve.

things like police, fire, EMT, roads, infrastructure, military are common use by all taxpayers. Whether used or not.
Universal healthcare is common use , whether used or not.
Thats why its universal healthcare

Something that used to be common knowledge amongst the average American.
You really shouldn't spin that line , it can very easily blow up in your face.

Tchocky

09-04-09, 01:40 PM

*opens casket of thread*

Saw this video and it impressed me. Good to see a politicain who is willing to talk to opponents with respect. It's wonderfully productive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCNs7Zpqo98

Al Franken having a chinwag with some tea party types.

(Don't see much sign of the angry mob though. Oh well)

CastleBravo

09-09-09, 04:30 PM

WHIP COUNT: DEMS LACK THE VOTES
Wed Sep 09 2009 17:30 ET

At least 44 more moderate Members of the Democrat Caucus have gone on the record in opposition to the current health care bill in the House, a Hill source claims. Likewise, at least 57 liberal Members of the Democrat Caucus have gone on the record saying they will vote against a health care bill without a strong public option.

Unless multiple Democrats flip on their stated position on health care, Speaker Pelosi lacks the votes to pass a bill through the House on the strength of Democrat votes alone.

WHIP COUNT

44 Democrats Opposed

1. Rep. Altmire
2. Rep. Adler
3. Rep. Barrow
4. Rep. Boren
5. Rep. Boucher
6. Rep. Boyd
7. Rep. Bright
8. Rep. Carney
9. Rep. Childers
11. Rep. Cleaver
12. Rep. Cooper
13. Rep. Costello
14. Rep. Cuellar
15. Rep. Dahlkamper
16. Rep. Davis
17. Rep. Driehaus
18. Rep. Ellsworth
19. Rep. Gordon
20. Rep. Griffith
21. Rep. Halvorson
22. Rep. Hill
23. Rep. Holden
24. Rep. Kanjorski
25. Rep. Kaptur
26. Rep. F Kratovil
27. Rep. Marshall
28. Rep. Massa
29. Rep. Melancon
30. Rep. McIntyre
31. Rep. Minnick
32. Rep. Murtha
33. Rep. Oberstar
34. Rep. Ortiz
35. Rep. Perriello
36. Rep. Peterson
37. Rep. Polis
38. Rep. Pomeroy
39. Rep. Ross
40. Rep. Shuler
41. Rep. Stupak
42. Rep. Tanner
43. Rep. Taylor
44. Rep. Titus

57 Liberal Democrats to vote no on a bill without a strong public option

On July 31, 2009, the Congressional Progressive Caucus sent a letter to Speaker Pelosi expressing their opposition to a weakening of the public option. The letter on behalf of 57 Progressive Democrats concludes, “In short, this agreement will result in the public, both as insurance purchasers and as taxpayers, paying ever higher rates to insurance companies. We simply cannot vote for such a proposal.” The text can be read here: http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/uploads/57%20member%20letter%20to%20PelosiWaxman%207%2030% 2009.pdf (http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/uploads/57%20member%20letter%20to%20PelosiWaxman%207%2030% 2009.pdf)

1) Rep. Woolsey
2) Rep. Grijalva
3) Rep. Kilpatrick
4) Rep. Nadler
5) Rep. Hare
6) Rep. Roybal-Allard
7) Rep. Ellison
8) Rep. Blumenauer
9) Rep. Watts
10) Rep. Edwards
11) Rep. Olver
12) Rep. Kucinich
13) Rep. Richardson
14) Rep. Waters
15) Rep. Conyers
16) Rep. Chu
17) Rep. Hinchey
18) Rep. Johnson
19) Rep. Watson
20) Rep. Spier
21) Rep. Pascrell
22) Rep. Doggett
23) Rep. Kaptur
24) Rep. Hirono
25) Rep. Filner
26) Rep. Sanchez
27) Rep. Fudge
28) Rep. Lee
29) Rep. Carson
30) Rep. Jackson Lee
31) Rep. Honda
32) Rep. McDermott
33) Rep. Clay
34) Rep. McGovern
35) Rep. Clarke
36) Rep. Massa
37) Rep. Pingree
38) Rep. Jackson, Jr.
39) Rep. Cummings
40) Rep. Thompson
41) Rep. Moore
42) Rep. Payne
43) Rep. Stark
44) Rep. Towns
45) Rep. Brown
46) Rep. Hastings
47) Rep. Valezquez
48) Rep. Gutierrez
49) Rep. Napolitano
50) Rep. Sires
51) Rep. Tierney
52) Rep. Capuano
53) Rep. Fattah
54) Rep. Serrano
55) Rep. Farr
56) Rep. Delahunt
57) Rep. Johnson

BACKGROUND:

Rep. John Adler (D-NJ): “Isn’t good for America.” But dissatisfaction extends beyond Blue Dogs. Rep. Rick Boucher (Va.), a conservative Democrat but not a Blue Dog, says he doesn't like the public option. Rep. John Adler (D-N.J.) told an audience, "The bill that's coming through the House, with or without the public option, isn't good for America." (Mike Soraghan and A.B. Stoddard, “Dem Split On The Public Option Casts Doubt On Reform Of Healthcare,” The Hill, 8/31/09)

Rep. Jason Altmire (D-PA): Voted Against The Health Care Bill In The Education And Labor Committee. “Two key House committees moved along Democratic healthcare legislation on Friday, only days after the bill was introduced. … The Education and Labor Committee approved their portion of the bill by a 26-22 vote. Democratic Reps. Jared Polis (Colo.), Dina Titus (Nev.) and Jason Altimire (Pa.) voted against the bill.” (Michael O’Brien, “House Committees Advance Healthcare Overhaul,” The Hill, 7/17/09)

Rep. John Barrow (D-GA): “I still voted against the bill.” Barrow said he does not believe that the changes they made are permanent or adequate.“I still voted against the bill, even after we had gotten these amendments passed, not because I didn’t think they made it better, but because I didn’t think they made the bill good enough,” he said. (Sandi Van Orden, “Barrow Offers Why He Voted Against Health Care Bill,” The Effingham Herald, 9/3/09)

Rep. Dan Boren (D-OK): “The House Bill That’s Out There, I Can’t Support.” “Second District Congressman Dan Boren said Monday that health care reform rests largely on President Barack Obama's willingness to accept bipartisan compromise on the issue. ‘If health care reform is going to happen it will have to happen in a bipartisan way,’ Boren told the Tulsa Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce. ‘It's really up to the president.’ Boren, a Democrat, said he is trying to keep an open mind but said, ‘The House bill that's out there, I can't support.’” (Tom Gilbert, “Boren: Bipartisanship Key To Health Care,” Tulsa World, 7/20/09)

Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA): I have a problem with this government option plan," Boucher said. "I'm troubled that the government option plan could become very popular and if it became sufficiently popular it could begin to crowd out the other" private insurance companies. Furthermore, he said, the public option could "financially destabilize" rural hospitals. (Sarah Bruyn Jones, “Boucher Unconvinced On 'Government Option' For Health Care,” The Roanoke Times, 8/19/09)

Rep. Allen Boyd (D-Fla.), who belongs to the moderate Blue Dogs group, said at a town hall meeting yesterday that "the public option is off the table." When asked whether it would be a good idea to "scrap everything" and start the process of reforming health care over, Boyd reportedly said, "I think that is an excellent idea … we may end up there."

Rep. Bobby Bright (D-AL): U.S. Congressman Bobby Bright announced recently he opposes the current draft of United States House of Representatives health care legislation. “I am hopeful that when Congress returns in September, the process will be more bipartisan and we will be able to produce something that works for the American people,” Bright said. “I continue to believe that the current direction of health care reform relies too heavily on taxes on individuals and small businesses, and the overall cost of health care legislation remains too high. Moreover, though changes have been made to how the public option will work, the overall bill does not represent my belief in a free-market approach to health care reform.” (“Bright Questions Health Care Reform,” The Southeast Sun, 8/26/09)

Rep. Chris Carney (D-PA): “I Would Not Vote In Favor Of It At This Point.” “Carney said he could not support a plan crafted by House Democrats because of the way the plan would impact small- to medium-sized businesses, rural areas and small hospitals. ‘There is a 1,000-page template out of the House, but it's very fluid and being negotiated as we speak,’ Carney said. ‘There is not unanimous agreement on the initial version. Guys like me - the blue dog Democrats - are firm on our disagreement with certain aspects of the bill.’ ‘As it is now, and realizing it is extremely fluid and changes daily, I would not vote in favor of it at this point,’ he said.” (David Thompson, “Carney: More Time Needed For Proper Health Care Reform,” Sun Gazette, 7/24/09)

Rep. Travis Childers (D-MS): Would Not Vote for a House Health Care Reform Bill. During a town hall teleconference Tuesday night, Rep. Travis Childers, D-Miss., said "he would not vote for a House health care reform bill in its current form," a Memphis TV station reports. http://www.wreg.com/sns-ap-ms--childers-townhall,0,6705422.story

Rep. Travis Childers (D-MS): “We Cannot Support Any Health Care Reform Proposal Unless It Explicitly Excludes Abortion From The Scope Of Any Government-Defined Or Subsidized Health Insurance Plan.” “We believe in a culture that supports and respects the right to life and is dedicated to the protection and preservation of families. Therefore, we cannot support any health care reform proposal unless it explicitly excludes abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan. We believe that a government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan, should not be used to fund abortion.” (Letter To Speaker Pelosi, 6/25/09)

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO): “I’m willing to Push the Reset Button.” “Cleaver willing to start over on health care bill. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver told reporters this morning he's willing to start from scratch on a health care reform bill, as many Republicans have suggested. "I'm willing to push the reset button," Cleaver said, although he appeared skeptical about the prospects for any new legislation from a restart of the process. The Missouri Democrat also said health care reform is "too important" to be passed with only Democratic votes, as White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel has recently suggested. Cleaver also said if health reform isn't passed by year's end, it won't happen. That, he agreed, effectively gives the GOP veto power over any legislation for the next 90 days or so, once Congress returns after Labor Day. (Dave Helling, “Cleaver Willing To Start Over On Health Care Bill,” The Kansas City Star, 8/19/09)

Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN): “Is Not Good Enough to Earn the Support of Nashville-Area Voters.” I want to vote for health-care reform. Every American deserves comprehensive health care. It is a moral imperative. But the House bill, at least as I have closely reviewed the June 19th and later drafts, is not good enough to earn the support of Nashville-area voters. http://www.cooper.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=278&Itemid=73

Rep. Jerry Costello (D-IL): “We Cannot Support Any Health Care Reform Proposal Unless It Explicitly Excludes Abortion From The Scope Of Any Government-Defined Or Subsidized Health Insurance Plan.” “We believe in a culture that supports and respects the right to life and is dedicated to the protection and preservation of families. Therefore, we cannot support any health care reform proposal unless it explicitly excludes abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan. We believe that a government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan, should not be used to fund abortion.” (Letter To Speaker Pelosi, 6/25/09)

Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX): “Am I In Favor Of This Bill As It Is Written? I Am Not.” “‘We have the more conservative folks and the more liberal folks pushing me both ways,’ Cuellar noted. ‘Do I believe in health care reform? Yes I do. But I also believe in insurance reform. Am I in favor of this bill as it is written? I am not.’” (Ron Maloney, “Somewhat Rowdy Crowd For Cuellar Visit,” The Gazette-Enterprise, 7/26/09)

Rep. Kathleen Dahlkamper (D-PA): “We Cannot Support Any Health Care Reform Proposal Unless It Explicitly Excludes Abortion From The Scope Of Any Government-Defined Or Subsidized Health Insurance Plan.” “We believe in a culture that supports and respects the right to life and is dedicated to the protection and preservation of families. Therefore, we cannot support any health care reform proposal unless it explicitly excludes abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan. We believe that a government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan, should not be used to fund abortion.” (Letter To Speaker Pelosi, 6/25/09)

Rep. Lincoln Davis (D-TN): “We Cannot Support Any Health Care Reform Proposal Unless It Explicitly Excludes Abortion From The Scope Of Any Government-Defined Or Subsidized Health Insurance Plan.” “We believe in a culture that supports and respects the right to life and is dedicated to the protection and preservation of families. Therefore, we cannot support any health care reform proposal unless it explicitly excludes abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan. We believe that a government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan, should not be used to fund abortion.” (Letter To Speaker Pelosi, 6/25/09)

Rep. Steve Driehaus (D-OH): “We Cannot Support Any Health Care Reform Proposal Unless It Explicitly Excludes Abortion From The Scope Of Any Government-Defined Or Subsidized Health Insurance Plan.” “We believe in a culture that supports and respects the right to life and is dedicated to the protection and preservation of families. Therefore, we cannot support any health care reform proposal unless it explicitly excludes abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan. We believe that a government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan, should not be used to fund abortion.” (Letter To Speaker Pelosi, 6/25/09)

Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D-IN): “I Was Not Prepared, Nor Would I Have Voted For, the Proposed Bill on August 6th.” “I’m really glad we were able to postpone the legislation,” Ellsworth said. “I was not prepared, nor would I have voted for, the proposed bill on August 6th” when the summer recess began, he said. http://www.tribstar.com/news/local_story_247222034.html

Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN): “I Cannot Support The Bill.” “On Thursday, Gordon and the other six Blue Dogs on the committee demonstrated their concerns about the bill by reading nearly identical opening statements. ‘I am thoroughly reviewing the bill. However, as currently written, I cannot support the bill,’ Gordon said after the hearing.” (Bill Theobald, “Health Bill Faces Fight From Tennessee Blue Dogs,”Tennessean, 7/19/09)

Rep. Parker Griffith (D-Al): Rep. Parker Griffith, D-Al., who opposes the public health care option, says he needs more details before he can sign off on the co-op notion being floated by the Senate. "It depends on how it's worded and how it's structured," Griffith said Monday, according to the Huntsville Times. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/08/back-in-home-districts-muchwooed-blue-dogs-not-barking-for-health-care-reform-legislation.html

Rep. Debbie Halvorson (D-IL) “My message right now is we don’t have a bill”: While health care proposals are changing by the minute, Halvorson said her primary concern is cost. If the final draft increases the federal deficit, she'll vote against it, even though President Barack Obama's administration repeatedly has said he is "not open to deficit spending. Health reform will be paid for and it will be deficit neutral over 10 years," Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius wrote in submitted testimony to the House Energy and Commerce Committee. "My message right now is we don't have a bill," Halvorson said. "In fact, the moderate Democrats are the ones holding off so we wouldn't have to vote on this before we left. Health care is a big issue, but just because I ran on health care doesn't mean I'm going to vote for a bill that doesn't work and costs too much money. True reform brings costs down. True reform is not what this bill is yet." (Kristen McQueary, “Dodge In, Halvorson On The Defensive,” The Southtown Star, 8/20/09)

Rep. Baron Hill (D-IN): “Said This Morning He Would Not Vote For The Health Care Reform Bill In Its Present Form.” “Congressman Baron Hill said this morning he would not vote for the health care reform bill in its present form, primarily because he believes it lacks effective health care cost controls. … ‘There are seven of us blue dogs on the committee opposed to the bill in its present form,’ Hill said. ‘We met the last two days drafting amendments to the bill that address the issue of accountability and cost controls.’ Hill said he wants the bill to control costs by shifting the system away from the fee-for-service model, which he says financially rewards doctors and hospitals in direct proportion to the number of procedures they perform. ‘We need to create a medical system that makes sure the patient comes first instead of a system that rewards doctors for overutilizing services,’ he said. ‘That means getting rid of fee-for-service.’” (Dann Denny, “Baron Hill Wants Health Care Bill Modifications,”Herald-Times, 7/16/09)

Rep. Tim Holden (D-PA): “We Cannot Support Any Health Care Reform Proposal Unless It Explicitly Excludes Abortion From The Scope Of Any Government-Defined Or Subsidized Health Insurance Plan.” “We believe in a culture that supports and respects the right to life and is dedicated to the protection and preservation of families. Therefore, we cannot support any health care reform proposal unless it explicitly excludes abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan. We believe that a government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan, should not be used to fund abortion.” (Letter To Speaker Pelosi, 6/25/09)

Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-PA): “We Cannot Support Any Health Care Reform Proposal Unless It Explicitly Excludes Abortion From The Scope Of Any Government-Defined Or Subsidized Health Insurance Plan.” “We believe in a culture that supports and respects the right to life and is dedicated to the protection and preservation of families. Therefore, we cannot support any health care reform proposal unless it explicitly excludes abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan. We believe that a government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan, should not be used to fund abortion.” (Letter To Speaker Pelosi, 6/25/09)

Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH): “We Cannot Support Any Health Care Reform Proposal Unless It Explicitly Excludes Abortion From The Scope Of Any Government-Defined Or Subsidized Health Insurance Plan.” “We believe in a culture that supports and respects the right to life and is dedicated to the protection and preservation of families. Therefore, we cannot support any health care reform proposal unless it explicitly excludes abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan. We believe that a government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan, should not be used to fund abortion.” (Letter To Speaker Pelosi, 6/25/09)

Rep. Frank Kratovil Jr. (D-MD): Opposes current legislation in the House, but remains open to public option. He opposes the measure currently under consideration in the House and will vote against it unless there are significant changes. Among his objections: the price, which would add $239 billion to the deficit over 10 years, according to a preliminary estimate by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. He's also concerned, he says, that the measure is too generous to the poor, at the expense of the middle class, and potentially harmful to rural areas of Maryland, like the Eastern Shore, which already have trouble attracting and keeping doctors. At the same time, Kratovil speaks with evident passion about the need for change. He said in an interview that he "absolutely" would support a more "reasonable" plan, though he acknowledges that he doesn't know how to close the cost gap. Unlike many of his fellow Blue Dogs, he's not against including a public insurance option. He said he would favor one that creates an "equal playing field" and legitimate competition with private insurance companies. "I don't follow the fear that having a public option means the beginning of a single-payer system," he said, sitting in a windowless conference room at his Salisbury district office. (Paul West, “A Blue Dog Democrat's View From The Middle,” The Baltimore Sun, 8/23/09)

Rep. Jim Marshall (D-GA): “As the Bill Stands Right Now, I Would Have to Vote ‘No.’” "As the bill stands right now, I would have to vote 'no' until we get a better handle on the costs. I am adamantly opposed to throwing more money at the current system." http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/main.asp?SectionID=17&SubSectionID=116&ArticleID=63041&TM=231.214

Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY): “But I Will Not Vote For A Bill That Gets It Wrong, And If I Had To Vote Today For The Current Piece Of Legislation In Front Of Congress, I Would Not Be Able To Support It.”“U.S. Rep. Eric Massa said if he had to vote today on America's Affordable Health Care Choices Act, he would probably vote against it. ‘We all know that one in six don't have health insurance. We all know that we pay more per capita for health care than any other nation in the world. These things need to be addressed, and doing nothing, which is what so many want to do, is simply not an option,’ said Massa, D-Corning. ‘But I will not vote for a bill that gets it wrong, and if I had to vote today for the current piece of legislation in front of Congress, I would not be able to support it,’ he said Tuesday during his weekly teleconference with the media.” (Ray Finger, “Massa Wary Of Health Care Reform Bill,” Star-Gazette, 7/22/09)

Rep. Mike McIntyre (D-NC): I am not convinced that we should have the public option. I know there's been a lot of debate about that, but I’m not convinced that we should do that, so as it stands now, I would be a no on the public option. With regard to the coops, I think there's room for debate there on how that's done, and I’m not in favor of just dumping federal money into it, I think that's the essence of his question. http://www.wwaytv3.com/node/17942

Rep. Mike McIntyre (D-NC): “We Cannot Support Any Health Care Reform Proposal Unless It Explicitly Excludes Abortion From The Scope Of Any Government-Defined Or Subsidized Health Insurance Plan.” “We believe in a culture that supports and respects the right to life and is dedicated to the protection and preservation of families. Therefore, we cannot support any health care reform proposal unless it explicitly excludes abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan. We believe that a government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan, should not be used to fund abortion.” (Letter To Speaker Pelosi, 6/25/09)

Rep. Charlie Melancon (D-LA): “We Cannot Support Any Health Care Reform Proposal Unless It Explicitly Excludes Abortion From The Scope Of Any Government-Defined Or Subsidized Health Insurance Plan.” “We believe in a culture that supports and respects the right to life and is dedicated to the protection and preservation of families. Therefore, we cannot support any health care reform proposal unless it explicitly excludes abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan. We believe that a government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan, should not be used to fund abortion.” (Letter To Speaker Pelosi, 6/25/09) Rep. Walt Minnick (D-ID): Rep. Walt Minnick, D-Id., is described in the Idaho Mountain Express as flatly opposing the Democrats' health care reform bill. "The government should set the rules of the road and then let private business do the work," he said. http://www.mtexpress.com/index2.php?ID=2005127388

Rep. John Murtha (D-PA): “We Cannot Support Any Health Care Reform Proposal Unless It Explicitly Excludes Abortion From The Scope Of Any Government-Defined Or Subsidized Health Insurance Plan.” “We believe in a culture that supports and respects the right to life and is dedicated to the protection and preservation of families. Therefore, we cannot support any health care reform proposal unless it explicitly excludes abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan. We believe that a government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan, should not be used to fund abortion.” (Letter To Speaker Pelosi, 6/25/09)

Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN): “We Cannot Support Any Health Care Reform Proposal Unless It Explicitly Excludes Abortion From The Scope Of Any Government-Defined Or Subsidized Health Insurance Plan.” “We believe in a culture that supports and respects the right to life and is dedicated to the protection and preservation of families. Therefore, we cannot support any health care reform proposal unless it explicitly excludes abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan. We believe that a government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan, should not be used to fund abortion.” (Letter To Speaker Pelosi, 6/25/09)

Rep. Salomon Ortiz (D-TX): “We Cannot Support Any Health Care Reform Proposal Unless It Explicitly Excludes Abortion From The Scope Of Any Government-Defined Or Subsidized Health Insurance Plan.” “We believe in a culture that supports and respects the right to life and is dedicated to the protection and preservation of families. Therefore, we cannot support any health care reform proposal unless it explicitly excludes abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan. We believe that a government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan, should not be used to fund abortion.” (Letter To Speaker Pelosi, 6/25/09)

Rep. Tom Perriello (D-VA): Perriello said he does not currently support any of the three proposals in congress. He said he won't support a program that funds abortions, but he said it's starting to sink in with people that the feds aren't trying to do away with private insurance. "You still hear concerns about it being a public mandate rather than a public option. People are going to be given a wide range of choice between private insurance and maybe, or maybe not, a public option. I think people are starting to understand that," Perriello said. (Brian Damewood, “Locals Sound Off Over Health Care,” wset.com, 8/18/09)

Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN): I have not found a bill I can support yet. "I'm not here to sell you anything," he said. "I have not found a bill yet that I can support" -- interrupted by applause -- "I am here to listen and to learn. I believe we have problems in our health care system. We are not spending our money wisely, so I believe we have to do something." (Bob von Sternberg, A Kinder, Gentler Town Hall Meeting. The Minnesota Star Tribune 8/15/09) Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO): Voted Against The Health Care Bill In The Education And Labor Committee. “Two key House committees moved along Democratic healthcare legislation on Friday, only days after the bill was introduced. … The Education and Labor Committee approved their portion of the bill by a 26-22 vote. Democratic Reps. Jared Polis (Colo.), Dina Titus (Nev.) and Jason Altimire (Pa.) voted against the bill.” (Michael O’Brien, “House Committees Advance Healthcare Overhaul,” The Hill, 7/17/09)

Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-ND): Voted Against The Health Care Bill In The House Ways And Means Committee. “The House Ways and Means Committee approved legislation early Friday to overhaul the health care system and expand insurance coverage after a marathon session in which Democrats easily turned back Republican efforts to amend the bill. … In the Ways and Means vote, three Democrats — Ron Kind of Wisconsin, Earl Pomeroy of North Dakota and John Tanner of Tennessee — joined Republicans in voting against the bill.” (Robert Pear, “House Committee Approves Health Care Bill,” The New York Times, 7/17/09)

Rep. Mike Ross (D-AL): "I have been skeptical about the public health insurance option from the beginning and used August to get feedback from you, my constituents," he wrote in a statement his office released publicly. "An overwhelming number of you oppose a government-run health insurance option, and it is your feedback that has led me to oppose the public option as well."http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2009/09/blue_dog_ross_comes_out_agains.html

Rep. Heath Shuler (D-NC): In the Tarheel State, Rep. Heath Shuler, D-NC, said during a telephone town hall meeting, per the Citizen-Times, "that he opposes the House health care reform legislation because it would increase the deficit, doesn't reduce the overall cost of health care and doesn't do enough to promote people living healthier lives… 'I do not support HR3200 at the present time,' Shuler said...emphasizing that the current legislation does not do enough to promote wellness, prevention and disease management. Nor is enough being done to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse in Medicare and Medicaid, he said." http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090814/NEWS01/908140330/1200

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI): “I Cannot Support This Bill In Its Current Form.” “‘I cannot support this bill in its current form,’ Democrat Bart Stupak said, adding it did not provide real competition for the insurance industry and could hike costs for consumers.” (Kim Dixon, “Obama Looks For Republican Healthcare Backing,” Reuters, 7/16/09)

Rep. Stupak (D-MI): “You’ve Got A Broken System. We Are Perpetuating A Broken System.” “Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) cast himself as one of eight opponents of the bill as written on Energy and Commerce. ‘You've got a broken system. We are perpetuating a broken system,’ Stupak said. ‘They've got to address our concerns, or the other option is a “no” vote.’ He also said opponents might try to block a bill by defeating the House rule on the floor.” (Jeffrey Young, “House Leaders Cheer Healthcare Progress Amid Infighting,” The Hill, 7/17/09)

Rep. Stupak (D-MI): “Why Would We Give You More Money For A System That’s Broken?” “Stupak’s concerns are varied, but they include his desire for a prohibition on federal funding for abortions as part of the public insurance option under consideration, as well as a demand for deeper cost cuts and dealing with regional disparities under Medicare. Fundamentally, the bill does not fix the broken health care system, he said. ‘Why would we give you more money for a system that’s broken?’ he asked.” (Steven T. Dennis, “Stupak Warns Of Democratic Defections On Health Bill,” Roll Call, 7/17/09)

Rep. John Tanner (D-TN): Said Rep. John Tanner, D-Tenn., according to the Commercial Appeal, "most reasonable, sensible people realize that we've got some holes in the current delivery system that are resulting in inefficiency, duplication, nonproductive ... provider-to-patient expenditures, and what I've been telling people is we need to figure that out before we start overturning the entire system...I think we need to take a deep breath and go at this thing incrementally." http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2009/aug/19/tanner-listens-to-care-concern/

Rep. Gene Taylor (D-MS): Rep. Gene Taylor, D-Miss., at a town hall meeting in Moss Point Monday night, said, per the Associated Press, "I would hope that everyone in this room knows by now that I am not going to vote for the health care plan." http://www.clarionledger.com/article/20090819/NEWS/908190330/1002/news01/Taylor-rejects-Obama-plan

Rep. Dina Titus (D-NV): Voted Against The Health Care Bill In The Education And Labor Committee. “Two key House committees moved along Democratic healthcare legislation on Friday, only days after the bill was introduced. … The Education and Labor Committee approved their portion of the bill by a 26-22 vote. Democratic Reps. Jared Polis (Colo.), Dina Titus (Nev.) and Jason Altimire (Pa.) voted against the bill.” (Michael O’Brien, “House Committees Advance Healthcare Overhaul,” The Hill, 7/17/09)

Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-MO): Rep. William Lacy Clay, D-St. Louis, is among the unwavering on the public option. In a statement to Political Fix, Clay asserted today that a public insurance plan “is the only way to force insurance companies to control costs, treat their customers fairly and spur competition. (Bill Lambrecht, “Clay: Public Option “Only Way” To Control Costs, Spur Competition,” The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 8/18/09)

Rep. John Conyers (D-MI): It is clear that real reform means injecting real competition into the insurance market to improve affordability and drive down health-care costs. "The centerpiece of this reform is a robust Medicare-like public health insurance plan tied to the Medicare provider system. Like many of my colleagues in both the House and Senate, I will oppose any health-care reform bill that lacks such a plan. (Rep. John Conyers, “Conyers: Public Option Is A Necessary Component Of Health-Care Reform,” Press Release 9/9/09)

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN): Sixty members of the Progressive Caucus have "drawn a line in the sand," saying they will NOT support anything short of reform that includes a public-option health insurance program. The concept of co-ops supplanting the public option plan is not good enough, those signing the letter have said. Ellison, a passionate Obama supporter, admitted following the news conference that he believes it's necessary for the president to again make it clear that the public option plan is the only acceptable solution. "There are a lot of people who think that Obama and [Secretary of Health Kathleen] Sebelius made a tactical mistake by seeming to back off. … He can't hand it [the public option] away without a political price to pay. That's not a bad thing. He might think he can walk away and say, 'I brought more reform than we've had in 60 years.' But we [in the progressive caucus] are saying, 'That's not enough.' " (Doug Grow, “Congressional Progressive Caucus 'Pep Rally' Is Still Pushing Public-Option Health Care Reform,” Minnpost.Com 8/20/09)

Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY): "I'd have to think long and hard, I'd have to see if it moved health care forward," New York Rep. Eliot Engel told CNN's Wolf Blitzer. "…I think it would be a terrible miscalculation if we didn't have a public option." Engel called nonprofit health cooperatives, or "co-ops" — which are being proposed as an alternative — "untested," and said that he needs proof that they would help to lower costs. (Lauren Kornreich, “House Democrat: 'Terrible Miscalculation' To Skip Public Option,” CNN.com, 8/18/09)

Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-PA): "There is no option when it comes to reforming America's ailing healthcare system. We must do it. And there is no option for inclusion of a public plan. We must have it. Real reform requires real choice. A public option provides consumers a critical alternative to private plan. (Rep. Chaka Fattah, “Healthcare: Public Option Mirrors Other Government Insurance Plans,” Press Release, 8/21/09)

Rep. Phil Hare (D-IL): “….in recent days there have been some reports that the President may reconsider requiring a strong, robust public option that competes directly with private insurance companies. That would be a mistake. Health care reform without a public option is a like a car without a motor. It may look nice, but it isn’t going anywhere.” (Ed Tibbetts, “Hare To Biden: Don’t Drop Public Option,” The Quad City Times, 8/20/09)

Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL): Jackson held a town hall meeting last night - with CNN cameras present - that he described to King as civil before laying down a marker for his friend, the president. "A hundred and sixty members of Congress have already signed a letter indicating that without a strong public option, from their perspective, including my signature, that this bill is a non-starter," Jackson said. (Steve Rhodes, “Prescription For Debate,” NBC Chicago.com, 8/20/09)

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA): Liberal Democrats are terrified that he will jettison their Holy Grail, while conservatives fear that a vote for a public option - characterized by opponents as leading to government-run health care - could doom them in tough re-election fights. "This is not a sliver of health care reform, this is essential," said Rep. Barbara Lee, an Oakland Democrat, one of 60-plus House liberals who vow to vote against any plan without a public option. Lee said she hopes Obama will clearly state his support. "This is really a moral imperative," she said. "This is a huge issue." (Carolyn Lochhead, “Dems Pin Health Reform Hopes On Obama's Speech, The San Francisco Chronicle, 9/8/09)

Rep. Jerrod Nadler (D-NY): "We are making clear to the leadership that we insist on a robust public option and our votes won't be there if there isn't a public option," said Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D., N.Y.), a senior member of the House Progressive Caucus. Whether they would actually vote no is unclear. Some working to pass the measure find the threat unpersuasive. The Progressive Caucus has 82 members, enough to defeat a health bill, since virtually all 178 House Republicans are likely to vote no. (Laura Meckler and Naftali Bendavid, “Liberals Fear Losing Public-Plan Option,” The Wall Street Journal, 7/29/09)

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL): Meanwhile, Jan Schakowsky, a leading progressive Democratic lawmaker, said liberals were not prepared to climb down. “I will support nothing short of a robust public health insurance plan upon implementation – no triggers,” she said. “I believe Congress will pass and the president will sign such a bill.” (Edward Luce, “Obama Seeks To Quell Healthcare Revolt,” The Financial Times, 9/3/09)

Rep. Peter Stark (D-CA): "Well, the only co-op I know about is when I used to milk cows and we sold the milk to Golden Guernsey. And I think there's only one co-op left," said Stark, who considers the co-op idea a non-starter. "There aren't many of you listening who remember the co-ops of the '30s, which was a - just kind of a Roosevelt outgrowth of rural electric co-ops, phone co-ops." (David Lightman and William Douglas, “Health Care Debate Exposes Regional Rift For Democrats,” McClatchy Newspapers, 9/3/09)

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA): Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) agreed with Conyers's ominous analysis and warned that House liberals will not settle for the kind of compromise that might be necessary in the Senate. "You're asking whether or not we will support some other alterative to public option, and I want to be very, very clear," she told MSNBC's Ed Schultz. "We've got to have a public option. I will not vote for anything that doesn't have a public option." (Eric Zimmermann, ”Black Caucus Members: It's Public Option Or Nothing,” The Hill 9/9/09)

Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY): Reform proponents like Congressman Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) say he won't have the votes for one that doesn't. "Having a plan that doesn't have a public option is worse than having doing nothing at all," he said. "Leaving the insurance companies in charge of this is kind of like leaving a pyromaniac in charge of the fire department. (Don Dahler, “No Public Option Is A Mistake,” wcbstv.com, 8/17/09)

Rep. Lynn Woosley (D-CA): Woolsey said she will vote against any measure that lacks a “robust public option” based on the Medicare model and intended to compete with private insurance. Without it, health care remains “business as usual,” Woolsey said by phone from an education conference in Banff, Alberta. “It’s not reform without the public option.” (Mike Coit, “Woolsey, House Liberals Demand 'Public Option' Health Plan,” The Press Democrat, 8/18/09)

Developing...

August

09-09-09, 06:40 PM

I just read a very interesting article on Obama and the health care bill. It's written by avowed Democrat named Camille Pagalia, but running dog leftist or not, she's a real straight shooter who isn't afraid to call it as she sees it.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2009/09/09/healthcare/index.html

A couple of excerpts:

By foolishly trying to reduce all objections to healthcare reform to the malevolence of obstructionist Republicans, Democrats have managed to destroy the national coalition that elected Obama and that is unlikely to be repaired. If Obama fails to win reelection, let the blame be first laid at the door of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who at a pivotal point threw gasoline on the flames by comparing angry American citizens to Nazis. It is theoretically possible that Obama could turn the situation around with a strong speech on healthcare to Congress this week, but after a summer of grisly hemorrhaging, too much damage has been done. At this point, Democrats' main hope for the 2012 presidential election is that Republicans nominate another hopelessly feeble candidate. Given the GOP's facility for shooting itself in the foot, that may well happen. It hurts a bit to read it but I have to agree with this as well:

Having said all that about the failures of my own party, I am not about to let Republicans off the hook. What a backbiting mess the GOP is! It lacks even one credible voice of traditional moral values on the national stage and is addicted to sonorous pieties of pharisaical emptiness. Republican politicians sermonize about the sanctity of marriage while racking up divorces and sexual escapades by the truckload. They assail government overreach and yet support interference in women's control of their own bodies. Advanced whack-a-mole is clearly needed for that yammering smarty-pants Newt Gingrich, who is always so very, very pleased with himself but has yet to produce a single enduring thought. The still inexplicably revered George W. Bush ballooned our national deficits like a drunken sailor and clumsily exacerbated the illegal immigration debate. And bizarrely, the hallucinatory Dick Cheney, a fake-testosterone addict who spooked Bush into a pointless war, continues to be lauded as presidential material.

AngusJS

10-12-09, 08:50 PM

He's too fat. No coverage for you!

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_13530098

That's kind of like the denial of coverage for another pre-existing condition: being a victim of spousal abuse.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/14/when-getting-beaten-by-yo_n_286029.html

We truly have the best health care system in the world.

Fr8monkey

10-13-09, 12:08 AM

Yaaaay! The free market wins again!!

CastleBravo

10-13-09, 01:05 AM

Skybird

10-13-09, 01:30 AM

I just say: predictive gene-analysis. Wait and enjoy. Private business like employers and insurance companies will love it. And where legislation forbids it, it will be done illegally and without knowledge of the affected person. Nobody can spend a single day without leaving a trail of genetic samples behind. and in today's world of interlinked databases, worldwide web and controlomania by governments and increasingly paranoic security laws and uncritical stands towards data processing technology and chipcards, just a single set of anaylsis data can live forever and still circulate in this virtual space even 20 years after it was - legally or illegally - created. Private people may not have the means and the money to retrieve them - but business has, when it wants.

CastleBravo

10-13-09, 01:39 AM

Skybird

10-13-09, 01:40 AM

That's not science's fault if man distorts it's methods or abuses it's results. This is not the creation of the nuclear bomb, which always is a bad thing because it is always an abuse. Knowledge about genes can have it's medical value, but also can be abused. Our choice.

If anything is to be criticised here, than the attitude of that everything must be done for the only reason of that it can be done.

CastleBravo

10-13-09, 01:43 AM

That's not science's fault if man distorts it's methods or abuses it's results.

Like Algore and global warming?

CastleBravo

10-13-09, 01:45 AM

That's not science's fault if man distorts it's methods or abuses it's results. This is not the creation of the nuclear bomb, which always is a bad thing becasue it is always an abuse. Knowledge about genes can have it's medical value, but also can be abused. Our choice.

Based on your knowledge of the past Skybird, do you really want others making the decission for you?

Skybird

10-13-09, 01:47 AM

Skybird

10-13-09, 01:52 AM

Based on your knowledge of the past Skybird, do you really want others making the decission for you?

???

CastleBravo

10-13-09, 01:59 AM

I neither comment on Al Gore in a positive or a negative way, and global warming I see as a fact that can only be denied by explicit manipulation of science.

And that the first is aware of the latter does not mean that without the first there would not be the latter. Dismissing climate change by pointing at Al Gore, does not work.

Don't get me wrong. Algore was but an example of science manipulated for personal gain. I don't think in itself science is a bad thing, although it does change on a regular basis. Which is why one must be ever so carefull when using it as a basis for changing human/cultural/civil life.

There are just too many things science doesn't know or can tell us.

MothBalls

10-13-09, 01:59 AM

Skybird

10-13-09, 02:49 AM

Summary: Darwinism, modernized by Hawkins. Now we have Neo-Darwinism managed by capitalist. Doesn't look good. Maybe we could just sub-contract our health care to Canada.
Or you become donors for organs. :D

Skybird

10-13-09, 02:53 AM

There are just too many things science doesn't know or can tell us.
Ah, yes, it is a work in process and always will be, and it certainly gets misunderstood in it'S nature very often, since it not so much discovers but invents the world, or better: the way in which we see it. As long as it serves our purpose to come along a bit better than before - why not.

CastleBravo

10-13-09, 02:59 AM

it is a work in process and always will be

Which is why one must be ever so carefull when using it as a basis for changing human/cultural/civil life.

antikristuseke

10-13-09, 03:11 AM

There are just too many things science doesn't know or can tell us.

It is like democracy in that regard, not perfect, but the best we have. I'll take science over dogma any day.

Skybird

10-13-09, 03:17 AM

Which is why one must be ever so carefull when using it as a basis for changing human/cultural/civil life.
... and must also be careful in rejecting it for the sake of preventing the changing of human, cultural and civil life. ;) Becaue the surrounding we establish our existence in chnages as well, and last but not least due to our own effect on it. We must constantly adapt. Where we did not while there still was time, history shows us no surviving, only dead cultures.

CastleBravo

10-13-09, 03:53 AM

I don't think I'm rejecting science. I'm a religious person but unlike many I can see where science and religion can co-exist. But a healthy skepticism of both is warranted. Questionining is what science is all about as I understand it and is what you intimated by saying it is a process. Faith is also a process which ebbs and flows continuously. Its Human nature to question everything and science and faith are equally at the point of question. That is my take on it as of now, but the process continues......don't ya know?

Skybird

10-13-09, 03:58 AM

To me comparing science with religions makes no sense at all, both are antagonistic both in their intentions and in their methods. But you knew that this answer would be coming from me.

GoldenRivet

10-13-09, 04:34 AM

for those who missed the rest of the story, the insurance provider reversed their decision on the child.

:up:

Tribesman

10-13-09, 05:04 AM

for those who missed the rest of the story, the insurance provider reversed their decision on the child.

An interesting lesson.
If you want to reverse a descision it helps if you work for a TV broadcasting company and your local story can get national coverage through your companies affiliates.

Aramike

10-13-09, 05:19 AM

for those who missed the rest of the story, the insurance provider reversed their decision on the child.

:up:Indeed.

Although, if they were at all inclined towards doing the right thing, they would never have had a decision to reverse.

GoldenRivet

10-13-09, 05:19 AM

An interesting lesson.
If you want to reverse a descision it helps if you work for a TV broadcasting company and your local story can get national coverage through your companies affiliates.

an old lesson learned many times over as well :yep:

Thomen

10-13-09, 10:20 AM

Insurance company changes policy:

Rocky Mountain Health Plans said Sunday it will no longer consider obesity a “pre-existing condition” barring coverage for hefty infants.

http://www.bostonherald.com/business/healthcare/view.bg?articleid=1204232

Sea Demon

10-13-09, 10:45 AM

In addition, it shows how easily a policy can be changed in the private sector when bad policy is in place. If this was government run healthcare, the bureacracy, red tape, politics, debates ad nauseum, and the movement of both heaven and Earth would have to take place to get the policy changed. Here in the private sector, it takes a decision, and a phone call.

mookiemookie

10-13-09, 10:51 AM

Here in the private sector, it takes a decision, and a phone call.

Yeah, right. You're leaving out the nationwide news coverage and bad PR. :roll:

August

10-13-09, 10:53 AM

Yeah, right. You're leaving out the nationwide news coverage and bad PR. :roll:

You're right, but I wonder how much government administrators will respond to the same pressures. I suspect not as much as a private company that relies on it's image to remain profitable.

Skybird

10-13-09, 12:56 PM

for those who missed the rest of the story, the insurance provider reversed their decision on the child.

:up:
What?! Why spoiling a good fight so soon...? :DL

P.S. To spill back some fuel into the fire: obesity is known to be a medical catalyst for quite some health problems and a shortage in life expectancy. Denying that is like still refusing the idea of nicotine and tar from smoking causing cancer. :D I wonder if beyond the individual fate, the original decision of the insurance company could not serve as a convincing collective educational measure in a scoiety were too many people lack too much education not to spend time stuffing themselves with crap food and physiological poisons that just blow them up in volume and size and finally kill them. [SB sprinting out of the room and last was seen running for the woods to hide and take cover]

SteamWake

10-13-09, 02:03 PM

14 to 9 with Olympia Snowe being the sole republician on the yay side of the vote.

No links yet this is just off the wire.

PeriscopeDepth

10-13-09, 02:12 PM

I think you mean Senate Finance Committee. :)

PD

SteamWake

10-13-09, 02:14 PM

I think you mean Senate Finance Committee. :)

PD

It was... was just comming back to fix it but too slow. :oops:

I'll try to get a mod to fix it.

Stealth Hunter

10-13-09, 06:36 PM

I don't think in itself science is a bad thing, although it does change on a regular basis. Which is why one must be ever so carefull when using it as a basis for changing human/cultural/civil life. There are just too many things science doesn't know or can tell us.

So what's your alternative?:hmmm:

AngusJS

10-14-09, 07:46 AM

This is the outcome of government in healthcare. Bureaucrats make the rules and you, the individual are ....firetrucked. Why does anyone think an 'administrator' hundreds of miles away knows what is best for you or your family?You do you realize that Rocky Mountain Health Plans is, while non-profit, an independent health care provider? And that according to them, they denied the baby because that's standard in the industry? And the only reason the couple chose Rocky Mountain is because their previous company jacked their rates up 40% because the 4 month old was obese?

And this is one of the goals of health care reform - ending denial of coverage based on pre-existing conditions.

August

10-14-09, 11:14 AM

And this is one of the goals of health care reform - ending denial of coverage based on pre-existing conditions.

I'd think that's as simple as instituting a state insurance regulation.

SteamWake

11-19-09, 09:51 AM

This saturday :o

God help us all.

ETR3(SS)

11-19-09, 11:44 AM

Hmm a weekend vote again huh? I think this is the most time either side of Congress has worked on the weekend.

SteamWake

11-19-09, 11:47 AM

Yea like last time at midnight on a weekend when you know who isnt on the air :03:

God help us if they ram this thing through. It is wholly unsustainable.

I dont want to be a socialist :oops:

AVGWarhawk

11-19-09, 12:54 PM

I think Lieberman will not be around this weekend to vote no. He is against the abortion part of the bill that basically says if you participate in this government run program you will pay a minimum of $1.00/month to fund abortions. At least this is how this portion of the bill was conveyed. Lieberman has voiced his disagreement with the abortion issue.

Onkel Neal

11-19-09, 04:25 PM

AVGWarhawk

11-19-09, 04:34 PM

Someone explain the health care bill to me, please. Specifically, you guys who are ardent supporters of it. How does it work? If I stop paying my corporate policy, am I covered by the govt? How much does it cost me?

No one knows for sure including Capital Hill! It is a 2097 page bill. Who the hell has really read the damn thing?

From what I read, it is a plan were all pay in even if you are covered elsewhere. Your money will cover abortions. You will have coverage like the folks on medicare have. It will be about $30.00 per week out of your pay. So that nice little $7.00 extra I got each week from Obama at the beginning of his term as a 'tax cut' is now a payment of $30.00/week. Fantastic! Of course this is all conjecture and trials/tribulations because it will not become effective for another two years or so. Therefore, the bill can be changed to whatever Pelosi feels I need. In the meantime the insurance industry will be swallowed up and dissolved. Big old meanies anyway they are. Instead of fixing them and the system we will just drum them out of business with a government program all under the guise of do gooders on Capital Hill. All is fair in love and war. :03:

Oh, BTW, the tranparent government is as tranparent about this bill as a brick wall is. Pelosi lied once again and did not post the bill on the internet. Tell me there is things in that bill that would not make your stomach sink.....

AVGWarhawk

11-19-09, 04:58 PM

OK, I found the posting of bill here:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/19/comment-box-send-findings-health-care-reform/

Reading over page 118 the abortion looks to be NOT covered under this plan. I need to read it again because of the usual legalese. :shifty:

SteamWake

11-19-09, 05:01 PM

Maybe this will help

http://republicanleader.house.gov/blog/?p=690

AngusJS

11-19-09, 05:09 PM

Yea like last time at midnight on a weekend when you know who isnt on the air :03:

God help us if they ram this thing through. It is wholly unsustainable.

I dont want to be a socialist :oops:Let's see here, pretty much every 1st world country besides the US has universal health care. And that's right, they're all socialists. The Aussies? Socialists. Taiwanese? Maoists to a letter. All those Swiss bankers? Commies every one.

:damn:

Seriously, stop listening to Rush for a week and see what happens.

Sea Demon

11-19-09, 05:48 PM

Let's see here, pretty much every 1st world country besides the US has universal health care. And that's right, they're all socialists. The Aussies? Socialists. Taiwanese? Maoists to a letter. All those Swiss bankers? Commies every one. .

Well, guess what. You aren't getting socialist universal healthcare. That's a complete lost cause. That aspect of health reform is dead in the water.

And since you can't get it with the majority of Democrats now in the House and the Senate, plus a President initially in favor of it, the future for it is highly unlikely. Some reform is coming your way, but it's not going to be what you want. It seems to actually be a crap sandwich so far. I have a feeling this is going to be an issue that many voters like you will come to think that it would have been better left alone. And true independent voters will come to hate Democrats for it. Especially if this bill amounts to over 1 Trillion with no noticeable improvements in care, or problems created (which is likely). I'd start sweating if I were you. And your party has nobody to blame but themselves.

AVGWarhawk

11-20-09, 09:42 AM

Seriously, stop listening to Rush for a week and see what happens.

Who listens to Rush anymore? :hmmm: Last time I checked most if not all conservatives can make their assessment on their own without having to listen to Rush or Fox news. :O:

NeonSamurai

11-20-09, 09:56 AM

Who listens to Rush anymore? :hmmm: Last time I checked most if not all conservatives can make their assessment on their own without having to listen to Rush or Fox news. :O:

Hmm really? As according to research, most people tend to prefer not to have to really think for themselves or form their own opinions independently, but prefer to have their thoughts and opinions fed to them from a source (or sources) they feel they trust, and co opt it as being their own.

Critical thinking is virtually non existent in the general public today, most do not even have the basic skills necessary to be able to do it properly. It's a major problem in universities right now.

BTW this applies regardless of political identity.

AVGWarhawk

11-20-09, 10:07 AM

Hmm really? As according to research, most people tend to prefer not to have to really think for themselves or form their own opinions independently, but prefer to have their thoughts and opinions fed to them from a source (or sources) they feel they trust, and co opt it as being their own.

Critical thinking is virtually non existent in the general public today, most do not even have the basic skills necessary to be able to do it properly. It's a major problem in universities right now.

BTW this applies regardless of political identity.

Well then, I must be one of the select few that has multiple links to a variety of news outlets so I may get several different views/opinions to make a better assessment. As for Rush, I have not listen to that boob for over 15 years. I take TV news at face value...it is just about worthless in my estimation.

I guess I'm just the exception to the rule. :O:

August

11-20-09, 10:14 AM

NeonSamurai

11-20-09, 10:26 AM

Well then, I must be one of the select few that has multiple links to a variety of news outlets so I may get several different views/opinions to make a better assessment. As for Rush, I have not listen to that boob for over 15 years. I take TV news at face value...it is just about worthless in my estimation.

I guess I'm just the exception to the rule. :O:

Not highlighting you personally mate :DL

People may use multiple sources for their news, but they often pick news sources that display a bias similar to their own. There is a good reason why almost all the news formats available now are almost entirely subjective rather then objective, and have specific biases. We are not told about events any more, we are told how we should interpret those events.

Even still though you may be surprised how much your own biases effect your point of view, and your selection (and interpretation) of news outlets. It's incredibly difficult to find and reduce the effect of ones personal biases. This is something we are all guilty of to varying degrees.

In general though people don't like thinking for themselves very much, it's a lot of hard work that never ends. This is why we have developed so many different mental shortcuts, such as stereotyping.

SteamWake

11-20-09, 10:27 AM

Let's see here, pretty much every 1st world country besides the US has universal health care. And that's right, they're all socialists. The Aussies? Socialists. Taiwanese? Maoists to a letter. All those Swiss bankers? Commies every one.

:damn:

Seriously, stop listening to Rush for a week and see what happens.

Seriously its not all about the health care bill it is about "Fundimentally changing America". Its about control and Goverment intrusion into every aspect of our lives.

It's all about control.

AVGWarhawk

11-20-09, 10:36 AM

Not highlighting you personally mate :DL

People may use multiple sources for their news, but they often pick news sources that display a bias similar to their own. There is a good reason why almost all the news formats available now are almost entirely subjective rather then objective, and have specific biases. We are not told about events any more, we are told how we should interpret those events.

Even still though you may be surprised how much your own biases effect your point of view, and your selection (and interpretation) of news outlets. It's incredibly difficult to find and reduce the effect of ones personal biases. This is something we are all guilty of to varying degrees.

In general though people don't like thinking for themselves very much, it's a lot of hard work that never ends. This is why we have developed so many different mental shortcuts, such as stereotyping.

I know you're not Neon and you are absolutely correct! In short, birds of a feather flock together. I do attempt to get a broad spectrum of news outlets to form a good opinion but I do gravitate to the sites that closely resemble my thoughts on the matter. Human nature I guess.

Very true that most people do not think for themselves....kind of like my wife. :hmmm: Please to not repeat that to her. She will only ask me how she should respond. :shifty:

NeonSamurai

11-20-09, 10:39 AM

I question the research and your conclusions.

Ok, where would you like to start then? How bout we start with how news is presented to the public.

Do you disagree that news is now presented mostly in a subjective manner today? That rather then telling you what happened, virtually all news outlets try and tell you how to think about it? If this is true, then why are virtually all news outlets doing it? I would say probably because people are preferring it over objective news, as if they were not then news would have remained more objective.

Now if people were critically thinking for themselves, the question becomes, why would they prefer news outlets that offer subjective material? Good critical thinkers should want objective news so that they could form their own conclusions wouldn't they? They wouldn't need someone else telling them how to think about something as they would be doing it themselves.

If you like I'll be happy to pull out some of the research as I am able to (a lot of it is locked away in private databases) and examine it in more detail with you.

BTW to be absolutely clear, I'm not targeting any group or faction. This is a very broad statement, and I can back it up pretty well too.

AVGWarhawk

11-20-09, 10:44 AM

I question the research and your conclusions.

August,

I agree with Neon 100%. Now, there are those that are the exception to the rule and they are known as the thinkers of our society. By and large, most go from day to day none-the-wiser to current events and only ingest what is told to them via a news station. What they hear is written in stone as far as they are concerned because Walmart is closing real soon and they need to get some paper plates.

Onkel Neal

11-20-09, 11:21 AM

August,

I agree with Neon 100%. Now, there are those that are the exception to the rule and they are known as the thinkers of our society. By and large, most go from day to day none-the-wiser to current events and only ingest what is told to them via a news station. What they hear is written in stone as far as they are concerned because Walmart is closing real soon and they need to get some paper plates.

Of course, we're all exceptions to the rule here :DL

AVGWarhawk

11-20-09, 11:58 AM

Of course, we're all exceptions to the rule here :DL

Exactly! :D Off to Walmart!

Onkel Neal

11-20-09, 11:59 AM

I'm off to see Twilight! :D

SteamWake

11-20-09, 12:07 PM

I'm off to see Twilight! :D

Oh lord you just lost some respect :doh:

AVGWarhawk

11-20-09, 12:27 PM

I'm off to see Twilight! :D

I get to see it with my daughters...:O:

August

11-20-09, 12:34 PM

Ok, where would you like to start then?

The beginning is usually the best. :DL

Like for instance: Whose research? What are their qualifications? How do they figure it's "most" people? What proof is there that critical thinking is virtually non-existent? What is the justification for saying that people lack those basic skills?

Without providing the answers to all those questions up front aren't you really asking us to do the same thing you're criticizing us for?

AVGWarhawk

11-20-09, 12:47 PM

Without providing the answers to all those questions up front aren't you really asking us to do the same thing you're criticizing us for?

I do not think it is being critical of anyone really. It is a general observation. For lack of a better example, do you remember the women video taped during the campaign for president where she said Obama will pay her mortgage? This woman believed this.

NeonSamurai

11-20-09, 01:59 PM

The beginning is usually the best. :DL

Like for instance: Whose research? What are their qualifications? How do they figure it's "most" people?

I'll be happy to provide what you ask, though unless you have access to academic databases like PsychInfo and the like, I won't be able to provide much if any of the actual research on the subject matter beyond simple citations. There has been a fair amount of research into the subject in psychology, and in the other social sciences. So much so that it's generally taken for granted.

"Most people" is a generalization admittedly. Its hard to provide exact figures, as the values vary wildly, typically depending on the socio-economic level of the area, but the suggested number is rather high.

Anyhow I am willing to try to provide hard data, but it will take me a fair amount of time to dig up, at least a week of digging through the databases for the research citations.

What proof is there that critical thinking is virtually non-existent? What is the justification for saying that people lack those basic skills?Ok this is going to be rather long, and for the moment I'll have to justify it by rational and logical means. First off lets start with a definition of what critical thinking is. (quoted from http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/cogsys/critthnk.html)

...the ability to analyze facts, generate and organize ideas, defend opinions, make comparisons, draw inferences, evaluate arguments and solve problems (Chance,1986, p. 6);
...a way of reasoning that demands adequate support for one's beliefs and an unwillingness to be persuaded unless support is forthcoming (Tama, 1989, p. 64);
...involving analytical thinking for the purpose of evaluating what is read (Hickey, 1990, p. 175);
...a conscious and deliberate process which is used to interpret or evaluate information and experiences with a set of reflective attitudes and abilities that guide thoughtful beliefs and actions (Mertes,1991, p.24);
...active, systematic process of understanding and evaluating arguments. An argument provides an assertion about the properties of some object or the relationship between two or more objects and evidence to support or refute the assertion. Critical thinkers acknowledge that there is no single correct way to understand and evaluate arguments and that all attempts are not necessarily successful (Mayer & Goodchild, 1990, p. 4);
...the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action (Scriven & Paul, 1992);
reasonable reflective thinking focused on deciding what to believe or do (Ennis, 1992).

Now the first thing is, critical thinking is not a natural and innate ability, but a learned skill. This doesn't mean you can not teach yourself how to do it, but it is still a learned skill regardless. It doesn't come naturally as human beings are both predisposed and also conditioned to think in certain ways based on culture, experience, and other factors. These form our biases, which is a major hurdle for real critical thought.

Now in general critical thinking is not taught very much in schools, in fact we are taught to pretty much blindly accept things in school with out a great deal of questioning. Religion also tends to do the exact same thing with questioning. The only place you will find critical thinking actively taught is University as it is an essential skill. This right there highlights the fact that a lot of people have not been taught how to critically think. This doesn't mean that they are all incapable of it, but unless they have spent the time teaching themselves how to do it properly, they will not be able to do it fully.

Even in university large numbers of undergraduates lack critical thinking skills, and never fully develop them. This is a well recognized problem, and why universities spend so much effort trying to teach it. If you have any university professor friends or acquaintances, you can ask them about it (first year students are usually really really bad at it as evidenced by their writings). This tends to supports the statement that most people lack critical thinking skills.

Anyhow I'm running short on time right now to finish this post, I'll take it up later tonight perhaps or over the weekend. I'll look at the psychology behind why people tend not to be inclined to use critical thinking, and a bunch of other stuff when I take it up again. :DL

Without providing the answers to all those questions up front aren't you really asking us to do the same thing you're criticizing us for? Not exactly no, I did not answer all those questions initially, as the subject is very expansive and a lot of it is considered common knowledge. This however doesn't mean you shouldn't question what I wrote, and blindly accept it. That would be bad critical thinking right? ;)

August

11-20-09, 04:37 PM

Not exactly no, I did not answer all those questions initially, as the subject is very expansive and a lot of it is considered common knowledge. This however doesn't mean you shouldn't question what I wrote, and blindly accept it. That would be bad critical thinking right? ;)

Well I may not have a choice. Going by what you're saying i'd need access to scientific databases, which I don't have, and specialized training to even decipher the information in them.

I guess my question is what can "most" people do BUT blindly accept most of the stuff they hear on the news? I mean if the TV talking head tells me that, according to "experts", the health care bill is a bad thing, or that the Iranians are secretly arming Hezbollah, or that human activity is the source of global warming, or whatever, is it reasonable to expect me or most folks to be able find out the truth on our own? and by "able" I mean still keep meeting their own commitments.

AVGWarhawk

11-20-09, 04:47 PM

Onkel Neal

11-20-09, 09:54 PM

Oh lord you just lost some respect :doh:

Haha. A lot, or a little?

August

11-20-09, 10:18 PM

For the most part, people hear 'experts' and that is all they need to know. The story is accepted.

I'd say it's more the problems involved with obtaining the truth independently. As Neon correctly points out anyone with the right access and right training can check for themselves. But how realistic is that for the average person? I mean even if they don't accept the story how many people can be expected to have or obtain the money, time, training or access to make their own informed decision, especially on so many diverse subjects?

Platapus

11-20-09, 10:34 PM

I'd say it's more the problems involved with obtaining the truth independently. As Neon correctly points out anyone with the right access and right training can check for themselves. But how realistic is that for the average person? I mean even if they don't accept the story how many people can be expected to have or obtain the money, time, training or access to make their own informed decision, especially on so many diverse subjects?

A very good point. I guess the alternative is to trust the people who represent you. That's the reason for a representative government... so the citizens don't have to understand the issues, they just have to have faith in their representatives.

Myself, being an analyst, I prefer getting my own information from the source, but I agree it is not easy and is very time consuming. I am also one not to put a great deal of trust in my representatives, but that is a symptom of being a cynical independent. :D

What concerns me is when people rely on commentators (Limbaugh/Oberman and the like) to tell them what to believe. :nope:

The only accountability that commentators have is revenue. That does not bode well for an authoritative source.

With the advent of the Internets Tubes, it is easier to get information about the issues, but it is also easier to get crap about the issues. That does not help the average citizen much I am afraid.

Unfortunately, there may not be a solution to this problem.

Stealth Hunter

11-21-09, 02:02 AM

http://www.seoboy.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/omfg.jpg

:haha:

SteamWake

11-21-09, 08:40 AM

A very good point. I guess the alternative is to trust the people who represent you. That's the reason for a representative government... so the citizens don't have to understand the issues, they just have to have faith in their representatives..

Therein lies the problem a lot of people do NOT trust the likes of Pelosi and Reed and certainly do not feel their representatives actually represent the people rather that they represent special interests and their own cushy positions.

Polling has shown that alot of citizens want nothing to do with this health care legislation. Most polls show a majority do not want it.

But the thinking of representatives on capitol hill in their plush chambers is that we just dont know what is good for us.

Unless there is something more nefarious afoot.

Personally I have called ... make that 'tried' to call my representatives but their voice mail is full the phones go un-answered and emails go unread.

SteamWake

11-21-09, 08:42 AM

Haha. A lot, or a little?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A105u7sDCLE&feature=player_embedded

:haha:

We report you decide :rock:

NeonSamurai

11-21-09, 08:50 AM

I guess my question is what can "most" people do BUT blindly accept most of the stuff they hear on the news? I mean if the TV talking head tells me that, according to "experts", the health care bill is a bad thing, or that the Iranians are secretly arming Hezbollah, or that human activity is the source of global warming, or whatever, is it reasonable to expect me or most folks to be able find out the truth on our own? and by "able" I mean still keep meeting their own commitments.

Well they can if they have the time look at multiple sources of the same news, try to avoid biased news sources (that or mix your sources so your getting both sides of the bias), and seek further information from what ever sources you can. The best thing to do though is try your best to filter out all the subjective crap included with the news, all the commentary and other fluff, and form your own opinion on it through rational thought.

What I always object to is blind obedience and acceptance with out thinking it over first. As for experts, I tend to examine how many experts agree. For example if large numbers of the scientific body support a theory then they probably have a good reason to. If I can I will also try to get my hands on some of the data to examine it.

I'd say it's more the problems involved with obtaining the truth independently. As Neon correctly points out anyone with the right access and right training can check for themselves. But how realistic is that for the average person? I mean even if they don't accept the story how many people can be expected to have or obtain the money, time, training or access to make their own informed decision, especially on so many diverse subjects?

Unfortunately that is a problem in science, it tends to lack in transparency and accessibility. Some of it is unavoidable, but I think the community tends to make it unnecessarily difficult. There isn't an easy answer to this, but in cases where I lack the training and expertise (or time) to investigate it first hand, then as I said above I will examine the direction the community is going. I also try to maintain a degree of skepticism towards all things.

What concerns me is when people rely on commentators (Limbaugh/Oberman and the like) to tell them what to believe. :nope:

The only accountability that commentators have is revenue. That does not bode well for an authoritative source.

With the advent of the Internets Tubes, it is easier to get information about the issues, but it is also easier to get crap about the issues. That does not help the average citizen much I am afraid.

Unfortunately, there may not be a solution to this problem.

What bugs me the most is tainted information. You don't get raw information any more, you get information with a perspective thrown in. This is really just pure manipulation of the public. They make it easy for the public not to think for themselves, just get your opinion on a subject from the media, no thinking about it, or examination of the sources, or motivation, or anything.

I don't mind when people disagree with me, disagreement is very human and is to be expected. I just don't like it when the opinion is not based on any personal thought on the subject, but rather it has been fed to them. You can always tell when someone is defending a position they did not put much thought towards, as they will quickly turn to rhetoric, or insult when challenged on their view.

I guess I am of the opinion, that if you have an opinion on something, you better be able to back it up with something more. :DL

AVGWarhawk

11-21-09, 09:38 AM

What bugs me the most is tainted information. You don't get raw information any more, you get information with a perspective thrown in.

And this has been the complaint as of late. Most now consider it opinion journalism and not hard news. For the most part I would have to agree.

This is really just pure manipulation of the public. They make it easy for the public not to think for themselves, just get your opinion on a subject from the media, no thinking about it, or examination of the sources, or motivation, or anything.

This is why I think Beck is a bit over the edge. I do not watch the guy.

I guess I am of the opinion, that if you have an opinion on something, you better be able to back it up with something more

Then once you have the back up it becomes a fact. :)

NeonSamurai

11-21-09, 10:23 AM

Or at least a theory with some evidence ;) there are very few actual "facts"

Platapus

11-21-09, 12:32 PM

Therein lies the problem a lot of people do NOT trust the likes of Pelosi and Reed and certainly do not feel their representatives actually represent the people rather that they represent special interests and their own cushy positions.

I would disagree with you and would offer as evidence that the citizens of the 9th District in California and the citizens of Arizona do trust their representatives as shown by the same citizens choosing to keep reelecting them into office.

With Senators and Congresshumans being reelected at rates exceeding 90%, it appears that people like "their" representative, but don't like "those" representatives. Well guess what. The representative of the 9th district of California is only representing the citizens of the 9th district of California. If I, in the 10th District of Virginia don't like the representative of the 9th district of California. ....who cares. She is not my representative!

The fact that I, as a citizen of Virginia, don't like the Senator from Nevada is totally unimportant. The Senator from Nevada really does not care what I think, being a citizen of Virginia. And the same can be said for any other member of congress.

Platapus

11-21-09, 12:35 PM

What bugs me the most is tainted information. You don't get raw information any more, you get information with a perspective thrown in.

On many matters, you can get access to the source information through the various government libraries (both online and off-line)

If a citizen really wants to know what a specific bill contains, they can get a copy of the bill and read it for themselves instead of relying on some commentator to give their interpretation of it.... but that takes effort and many people are unwilling to put forth the effort and will much prefer being fed the sound-byte answer.