8/6/2009 12:37:30 AM

who said life was a guaranteed freedom?

8/6/2009 12:46:08 AM

Quote :

"Now as proof of the GOP conservatives orgainizing propping up protest.. we have Glenn Beck Republican Senator from noted conservative comedian, pundit, radio show host ... Sean Hannity, Republican governor of noted conservative pundit, radio show host, author..... and O'Reilly GOP national chair of noted conservative pundit, author, all around blowhard...... as proof. Awesome boonedocks." "

Well, yes, one would expect conservative pundits to promote conservative events, it's almost like they might agree with the ideals being put forth. But this is no more an indication that these various events are astroturfing and fake anymore than the various celebrity endorsements of Obama's campaign is evidence that all of his support was bought and paid for.

8/6/2009 7:41:28 AM

Pundits and their bussed in zealots != grassroots effort. That is the point being made from the beginning, the proof of which is yet to be revealed.

8/6/2009 8:15:59 AM

WTF is wrong with organized protests anyway. Other protests (i.e. not against Obama) are still okay right? WTF is wrong with trying to change congress? If people don't agree with what congress is doing they should try and voice those opinions, without some idiot like Pelosi saying "town hall meeting government health care opposers carry Swasticas."

8/6/2009 9:26:28 AM

Quote :

"who said life was a guaranteed freedom?"

A bunch of free-lunch liberals misinterpreting the Declaration of Independence, that's who.

8/6/2009 9:31:35 AM

The Democrats are looking pretty desperate by trying to portray the people at the town hall meetings as paid hacks. If they were paid hacks, though, it would be a page out of their own book.

8/6/2009 10:33:19 AM

Paul Krugman argues that Blue Dog Democratic concerns about ObamaCare are incoherent (An Incoherent Truth, July 27). Far be it from me to defend any politicians from charges of incoherence or duplicity, but Mr. Krugman's own arguments for universal health-care are weak.

For example, he wants "all but the smallest businesses [to] be required either to provide their employees with insurance, or to pay fees that help cover the cost of subsidies - subsidies that would make insurance affordable for lower-income American families."

In the name of Hippocrates, that's far from clear. Employers forced to pay employees higher non-wage benefits will reduce employees' wages. With smaller paychecks, it's quite possible that lower-income Americans will find even subsidized insurance to be no more affordable than is today's unsubsidized coverage.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux

8/6/2009 11:32:39 AM

Quote :

"Groups coordinate Obama opposition Conservative and business groups, some funded in part by insurers, are mobilizing members and supporters to participate in health-care forums that lawmakers are holding in their states and districts this month."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/25873.html

Astroturf

[Edited on August 6, 2009 at 12:15 PM. Reason : ]

8/6/2009 12:15:03 PM

So were the anti war protests organized, sponsored and supported by the likes of NOW, MoveOn.org and Cindy Sheehan also examples of astroturfing or were they legitimate gatherings of concerned citizens?

8/6/2009 12:55:37 PM

Look at these fucking idiots.



My problem is with the hypocrisy of it all. I can guarantee you none of those people's federal taxes have gone up or will go up anytime in the near future. So exactly wtf are they protesting? Just high taxes in general and government waste? Where were they the last 8 years then when it was just as bad? Is it because it was being used to bomb brown people instead of provide things like health care and education to the masses? Oh yeah, black liberal in the White House now, that makes all the fucking difference

Don't fucking tell me this is anything like protesting a war, and the loss of life that goes along with it. And before you call me "unamerican" for calling protesters idiots, they have all the right in the world to protest whatever they want. However, I also have the right to call them idiots for it.

8/6/2009 1:05:10 PM

Quote :

"I can guarantee you none of those people's federal taxes have gone up or will go up anytime in the near future."

How can you possibly think this?

8/6/2009 1:09:17 PM

Moveon began as an email chain. That's pretty damned grassroots. And what did the National Organization for Women have to do with the anti-war movement?

On the other side, we have Insurance Corporations and pundits employed by multinational media conglomerates.

The two sides aren't even remotely analogous.

8/6/2009 1:10:45 PM

Quote :

"How can you possibly think this?"

Because it's true? Hell, most of them just got a break on their income taxes, as well as stuff like Cash for Clunkers and a tax credit for buying a new home.

8/6/2009 1:12:52 PM

Really? It's true? So, those of us who opt out of this plan won't have our taxes increased? Those small business owners who choose not to go with the public option won't have a 2.6% income taxation penalty? I'm sorry, but the version of the bill I read included both of those things.

8/6/2009 1:14:17 PM

Quote :

"I can guarantee you none of those people's federal taxes have gone up or will go up anytime in the near future. So exactly wtf are they protesting? Just high taxes in general and government waste? Where were they the last 8 years then when it was just as bad?"

You are 99% right the people protesting likely will not see any tax increase ever!

The people who truly have something to bitch about have more important things to do then hold up silly signs and boo hoo in front of capital hill on a business day. When they want to air a grievance they will do so in such manner that their voice is hear networking, a black tie dinner, playing a game of golf with you friend whose advisor to the congressman, etc.

[Edited on August 6, 2009 at 1:16 PM. Reason : k]

[Edited on August 6, 2009 at 1:16 PM. Reason : l]

8/6/2009 1:15:42 PM

Quote :

"Really? It's true? So, those of us who opt out of this plan won't have our taxes increased? Those small business owners who choose not to go with the public option won't have a 2.6% income taxation penalty? I'm sorry, but the version of the bill I read included both of those things."

Are you fucking kidding me? How many small business owners do you think are out on the streets holding signs and yelling at legislators? 0, including Joe the plumber fraud. And what version of the bill included anything about everyone's taxes increasing? None of them.

[Edited on August 6, 2009 at 1:19 PM. Reason : :]

8/6/2009 1:18:51 PM

Did I say EVERYONE's taxes? No... I said the people who chose to opt out. They WILL be penalized for opting out. That's plainly what it says. And how do you know there aren't any small business owners protesting? Seriously? Do you know everyone out there protesting?

8/6/2009 1:20:25 PM

There is no penalty for people who choose not to opt into the public health care plan. If you want to stick with your current plan, you can. The only penalty is for business owners who don't provide their employees with health care. They pay a penalty to the fed to make up for their employees having to get on the public option, which makes perfect sense.

And you're right, I can't be sure. I'm making the reasonable assumption that people who run businesses have something better to do, or at the very least, are smart enough to not get involved in such ridiculous protests.

[Edited on August 6, 2009 at 1:30 PM. Reason : :]

8/6/2009 1:27:40 PM

^That's not true.

Quote :

"The house bill hopes to guarantee health coverage for all and impose a penalty tax for those who do not opt for health insurance. Individuals making more than $280,000 will have a surtax starting at 1% rising to 5.4% for those earning $1 million a year. Businesses who do not offer coverage will pay 8% of their payroll and businesses making under $250,000 will be exempt from the tax. The health care plan is a 10 year plan that will cost approximately $1 trillion. The plan requires individuals to carry insurance and businesses must offer it. For individuals who opt out of obtaining health insurance, they will pay a penalty of 2.5% of their income. "

• Page 149: Any employer with a payroll of $400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll
• Page 150: Any employer with a payroll of $250K-400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays a 2 to 6% tax on payroll
• Page 167: Any individual who doesnt' have acceptable healthcare (according to the government) will be taxed 2.5% of income.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-3200


[Edited on August 6, 2009 at 1:36 PM. Reason : V That should help.]

8/6/2009 1:29:58 PM

[citation needed]

8/6/2009 1:32:59 PM

Quote :

"BUFFALO, N.Y. - Imagine how much automobile insurance would cost if it paid for all expenses associated with owning an automobile – oil changes, engine failures, worn-out tires, brakes, rust, and so on. The number of people who couldn't afford car insurance would rise dramatically, and we would have a car insurance crisis in America. That is the situation with healthcare. As health plans increasingly pay for almost every service or procedure, ameliorate our every discomfort, and succumb to every cultural whim and fad, the price of insurance continues to rise. Health plans are paying for every imaginable benefit – while automobile insurers are not – because of both consumer demand and state mandates. The demand for additional healthcare benefits is greater than for additional automobile insurance benefits because many people feel entitled to have access to every possible healthcare service. The costs of additional benefits are not always clear to consumers; thus, many people perceive the benefits to be "free." In response to consumer demand, health plans sometimes expand coverage on their own. In other cases, they are forced by politicians running for reelection to cover additional services or procedures. To make health insurance more affordable, state governments should stop mandating additional benefits and rescind all of their previous mandates. In addition, both private and public insurers (such as Medicare) should agree to pay for only costly and essential medical services and procedures (similar to the way they banded together to pledge to reduce $2 trillion in healthcare expenses a few months ago). Under the system I am proposing, health insurance would pay for emergencies and urgent care, diagnostic tests and X-rays, medically necessary surgery, hospitalization, therapy, and any other critical services that few people could afford to pay out of their own pockets. Individuals would pay for routine, discretionary, and elective services – such as doctor visits, acupuncture, marriage counseling – on their own. This type of system – which has not yet been tried – would lower healthcare costs and make insurance more affordable for everyone, especially the uninsured, by reducing the number of healthcare services that are used. When the use of services goes up, health insurers must raise premiums to pay for the increase in expenses. This makes it more expensive for insured people to keep their health coverage, while also making it more expensive for uninsured people to purchase coverage. Insurance is intended to be a pooling of people's money to pay for large, unexpected expenses – not for every expense that is incurred. In other words, it is supposed to be a safety net for catastrophic events. Yet many Americans go to the doctor for all kinds of trivial ailments, because their insurance pays for it. True, many people want this type of coverage, but that is because they do not understand the long-term cost implications. If Americans want to keep the current healthcare system sustainable (and it appears they do), then they need to take on more financial responsibility for their healthcare. People who choose to visit the doctor for the sniffles should pay for it themselves rather than making everyone else pay for it. If they did, the use of services – and thus the cost of healthcare – would go down. If we can budget for our phone, electric, cable, and gas bills, as well as for unexpected household and automobile expenses, then we can budget for routine healthcare services. This would require some families to forgo the purchase of a plasma TV, but it would make health insurance more affordable. In addition, most health plans even cover lifestyle choices that have been sold as medical conditions by lobbyists, pharmaceutical and medical companies, politicians, the media, and pop culture. Some of these covered services – such as cosmetic procedures, birth-control pills, and abortion – do not even address a diagnosis. (Contrary to popular belief, pregnancy is not a malady.) If there is no medical condition, then health insurance should not be paying for it. By shouldering a greater burden of their healthcare costs, Americans would probably eat more healthily, exercise more, quit smoking, and lead healthier and happier lives. A healthier population would use fewer medical services, which would lower healthcare costs and premiums. When it comes to healthcare, we should not confuse luxury with necessity. By transforming health insurance into a system that simply pays for essential medical services and procedures, more Americans would be able to afford insurance – and there would be far fewer uninsured Americans. "

8/6/2009 1:34:24 PM

Quote :

"‘SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE. ‘(a) Tax Imposed- In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of-- ‘(1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over ‘(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer."

8/6/2009 1:36:12 PM

That's a penalty for not having any health insurance at all, not for not opting into the public health care plan. If you stick with current private health care plan, you don't pay squat. And honestly, what person would choose to not have any health coverage when an affordable public option is available? There are also 4 bills in congress right now, that provision isn't in all of them.

8/6/2009 1:36:17 PM

I don't have a private health insurance plan, and I am certainly not opting into this government one. But you just told me I wouldn't have to pay?

But... I'm done arguing for today. I have to go to a mediation in about 13 minutes, and I'm sure my client will be very happy I'm arguing on an internet message board prior to presenting her case...

And none of that V is any different from anything I have said.

[Edited on August 6, 2009 at 1:41 PM. Reason : ]

8/6/2009 1:37:37 PM

Quote :

"Page 149: Any employer with a payroll of $400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll • Page 150: Any employer with a payroll of $250K-400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays a 2 to 6% tax on payroll"

They have to offer the plan. Not exclusively. They can offer their employees public and private plans.

Quote :

"• Page 167: Any individual who doesnt' have acceptable healthcare (according to the government) will be taxed 2.5% of income. "

Again-- they don't have to have the public plan-- they need to have -a- plan.

Quote :

"I don't have a private health insurance plan, and I am certainly not opting into this government one."

Then you're just going to leech from the system if you get cancer?

[Edited on August 6, 2009 at 1:42 PM. Reason : .]

8/6/2009 1:40:44 PM

Quote :

"That's a penalty for not having any health insurance at all, not for not opting into the public health care plan. If you stick with current private health care plan, you don't pay squat. And honestly, what person would choose to not have any health coverage when an affordable public option is available? There are also 4 bills in congress right now, that provision isn't in all of them."

People who don't like sucking off the government teat and letting it control every aspect of their lives.

8/6/2009 1:42:03 PM

So then what? You're just going to the ER every time you need some sort of medical treatment? That's the sort of system abuse the 2.5% penalty is meant to discourage. I don't necessarily agree with that by the way, but that's the idea.

8/6/2009 1:45:11 PM

^^^, ^I didn't say I would never have health insurance. Just that I don't have it right now. I recently got married, and am no longer covered on my parents. I have no issues with private health insurance, and I am certainly not a leech on the system.

[Edited on August 6, 2009 at 1:45 PM. Reason : ]

[Edited on August 6, 2009 at 1:46 PM. Reason : ]

8/6/2009 1:45:25 PM

You would be if you got in a car wreck tomorrow.

8/6/2009 1:47:10 PM

I'm still confused as to how people think it is acceptable for the government to take over our healthcare system.

Quote :

"You would be if you got in a car wreck tomorrow."

No -- we would pay out of pocket. Period. If that's what it takes then that's what it takes.

[Edited on August 6, 2009 at 1:48 PM. Reason : ]

8/6/2009 1:47:39 PM

^^Why? How do you know I can't pay for it? And any car wreck is covered under car insurance, especially if I'm not at fault. But why are we arguing whether or not I need to have insurance?

[Edited on August 6, 2009 at 1:48 PM. Reason : ]

8/6/2009 1:48:17 PM

Quote :

"I disagree that the people showing concern over some healthcare proposals are 'manufactured' Real folks, strong opinions."

--Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO)

http://tweetcongress.org/people/claire-mccaskill

8/6/2009 1:57:48 PM

there's a pretty distinct difference between the people who are "showing concern" and have totally legitimate questions and concerns and want to actively, coherently, and effectively engage their representatives in respectful debate and the nutbars holding signs saying "KEEP THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF MEDICARE" who are shouting down their representatives and interrupting their fellow sane citizens who wish to have a real, honest debate.

[Edited on August 6, 2009 at 5:37 PM. Reason : /]

8/6/2009 5:34:44 PM

Quote :

"I'm still confused as to how people think it is acceptable for the government to take over our healthcare system. "

Because the government is not taking over the healthcare system?

The gov. is, has been, and should be regulating it, but the plan through congress does not "take over" the healthcare system.

8/6/2009 6:53:32 PM

It depends on your definition of takeover. Given the control over the supply of practitioners, the prohibition of inter-state purchases of insurance plans, the prospective prohibition of high-deductible plans with health-savings accounts, implicit price controls via the dictation of reimbursement rates (which have perverse effects on the physician mix, such as leading to a shortage of primary-care physicians), subsidies that favor low-deductible insurance plans, egregious regulations on community-care centers (which lowers the supply of alternative providers for those who use the ER as their primary provider), among many others, one can argue the takeover started long ago.

8/6/2009 8:33:39 PM

moron
quite true. The nominal goal of the plan is actually pretty reasonable--introducing competition into the health insurance industry to lower premiums and expand coverage. Its actually pretty surprising how many people (dems and reps) that think the plan is much more expansive than it actually is.

I think this is because so many arguments in the punditry revolve aroundf the value of single payer systems like Canada, when that is actually not at all like what is being proposed. I think that winds up leaving people with a very false impression.

[Edited on August 6, 2009 at 8:39 PM. Reason : ``]

8/6/2009 8:39:13 PM

It would be nominal only if the public plan operated on a level playing field. That is impossible given the entity would have a significant cost-of-capital advantage. The lack of private guarantors in the prime-mortgage market due to Fannie's cost-of-capital advantage is highly suggestive of what would take place under if the government offers its own plan. There is also much reason to believe the government's role will not remain static, but will gradually grow just as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security has.

[Edited on August 6, 2009 at 9:14 PM. Reason : .]

8/6/2009 9:12:47 PM

'Nobody Is Collecting Names': White House Responds to Charge It’s Monitoring Speech of Health Care Reform Opponents - ABC News

Quote :

"The blog and tips email was because, [Robert] Gibbs said, 'we have seen, and as I've discussed from this podium, a lot of misinformation around health care reform. Some of it I think spread purposely. We have used on many occasions the Web site to debunk things that are simply not true. We ask people if they have questions about health care reform and about what they're hearing about its affects on them, to let us know and we'd provide them information to show that that wasn't true.' Continued Gibbs: 'but nobody is collecting names.'"

Quote :

"When asked, Gibbs acknowledged that the White House is required by law to save all correspondence it receives. 'Obviously, the National Archives documents correspondence with the White House,' he said."

http://tinyurl.com/nwxmhf

8/7/2009 3:16:09 AM

Quote :

"France Fights Universal Care's High Cost When Laure Cuccarolo went into early labor on a recent Sunday night in a village in southern France, her only choice was to ask the local fire brigade to whisk her to a hospital 30 miles away. A closer one had been shuttered by cost cuts in France's universal health system Ms. Cuccarolo's little girl was born in a firetruck. France claims it long ago achieved much of what today's U.S. health-care overhaul is seeking: It covers everyone, and provides what supporters say is high-quality care. But soaring costs are pushing the system into crisis. The result: As Congress fights over whether America should be more like France, the French government is trying to borrow U.S. tactics. ... The problem is that Assurance Maladie has been in the red since 1989 ... "French people are so attached to their health-insurance system that they almost never support changes," says Frédéric Van Roekeghem, Assurance Maladie's director. ... Since the 1970s, almost all successive French health ministers have tried to reduce expenses, but mostly managed to push through only minor cost cuts. ... In theory, Assurance Maladie should be able to contain hospital costs the same way it does with doctors: by harnessing its position as the dominant payer in the health-care system. In practice, it doesn't work that way. The state hospital of Le Havre, called Groupement Hospitalier du Havre, or GHH, has nearly 2,000 beds and is one of the most financially strapped in France. A 2002 report by France's health-inspection authority found that the hospital had a track record of falsifying accounts in order to obtain more state funds ... Yet even the smallest budget moves are proving controversial. Local residents are up in arms over a cost-cutting measure that makes patients pay €1.10 an hour to park at the hospital. "It's a scandal," says retired local Communist politician Gérard Eude. "It goes against the very idea of universal health care." "

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124958049241511735.html#mod=WSJ_myyahoo_module

8/7/2009 7:51:51 AM

Quote :

"I don't have a private health insurance plan,"

Well you are an idiot. I am sure you will be the same person whining when you blow a tire on the road, have to visit the ER, and are the one slapped with the 20K hospital bill.

8/7/2009 8:25:20 AM

^I fully understand the consequences of not having health insurance. I'd also hope that I can handle a blown out tire without wrecking (have done it before). But that is beside the point. I'm not scared of not having health insurance to the extent that I wouldn't drive my car anymore. That's ridiculous. I simply don't want to go out and get health insurance when I can wait a few months and have it with my husband's job. And stop trying to derail this thread talking about things you have no understand of, like my personal health care situation.

8/7/2009 9:01:21 AM

DUURRR DURRR SOCIALIST

DURR DURRRR TERK ERRR GUNZ!

8/7/2009 9:02:20 AM

Hillsborough St was on MSNBC last night!

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/08/06/maddow-big-money-behind-health-care-reform-protests/

Woot!

The NC GOP headquarters building is named after the leader of one of the "grassroots" anti-healthcare organizers. Nothing says grassroots like having your name on the establishment's headquarters.

8/7/2009 9:47:04 AM

Quote :

"The nominal goal of the plan is actually pretty reasonable"

So was the original income tax bill. It was sold to the public as only affecting those mega-rich people in the northeast.

Obama is on tape admitting he wants single-payer, and it might take 10-20 years to get there...but that's his goal. So I would assume everything he is doing regarding health-care is to that end.

Most gov't plans designed to help us eventually expand and take away more and more of our money & freedom. Why would this Health-care bill be any different?

8/7/2009 9:49:58 AM

Yes, no one actually disagrees with socialized healthcare. Anyone that says they do is just paid off by the insurance companies! Yeah, that has to be true.

8/7/2009 9:53:36 AM

8/7/2009 11:05:23 AM

Axelrod gives Dems their health talking points

Quote :

"When asked during a Fox News interview whether strategists have manufactured the strong feelings expressed at town-hall meetings, Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) said: 'In the town hall meeting I had, that was not the case. 'People have strong views about healthcare reform,' he said. 'The overwhelming majority of Americans want to participate. They want to know how it affects them, and what it will do with their health insurance through what it will do with their healthcare costs. Those are legitimate questions.'"

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/axelrod-gives-dems-their-health-talking-points-2009-08-06.html

[Edited on August 7, 2009 at 11:40 AM. Reason : .]

8/7/2009 11:39:24 AM

8/7/2009 11:46:46 AM

^ Dude, STFU. That bile and junk like it is not representative of the real concerns about health-care reform across this country. And I never saw your outrage when Bush was routinely depicted as a Nazi by the far-left (here's just one example of hundreds if not thousands):



Sensible Democrats realize that the concerns at issue are real:

Quote :

"When asked during a Fox News interview whether strategists have manufactured the strong feelings expressed at town-hall meetings, Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) said: 'In the town hall meeting I had, that was not the case.'"

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/axelrod-gives-dems-their-health-talking-points-2009-08-06.html



[Edited on August 7, 2009 at 12:05 PM. Reason : Do you even know who Lyndon LaRouche is?]

8/7/2009 12:03:05 PM