Robert Gibbs
President Obama is now making a recess appointment of Donald Berwick to oversee Medicare and Medicaid. The purpose of the recess appointment is clear; Obama wants to avoid a confirmation hearing on Berwick in which this man's ideas ands previous statements would be brought to the fore; namely, thet Berwick has expressed support for the idea of rationing health care to people based on their age and the whole cost-effectiveness of treating the elderly. He has also stated that any quality system of health care must involve distribution of wealth.
In the below White House press briefing this week, WH spokeshole (and professional comedian) Robert Gibbs treats reporter Fred Lucas like an errant school child (to the laughter of other reporters) when Lucas asks him if Obama agrees with statements made by Berwick.
Well, regardless of whether or not Republican congressman Paul Ryan made a similar statement, this is also what Berwick has stated (2008 in the UK). In the below video, Berwick speaks of redistribution of wealth.
In the below article, Berwick (in an interview) addresses health care rationing (see p2).
http://www.biotechnologyhealthcare.com/journal/fulltext/6/2/BH0602035.pdf?CFID=578
Mr Gibbs; let's forget about what Paul Ryan said on the topic and get back to Mr Berwick's statements on redistribution and rationing, OK?
"OK!"
47 comments:
Let's get a straightforward statement from conservative Republicans on what they DO believe.
1) Is fiscal prudence sufficiently important to control health care costs?
2) If so, does this mean denying some treatments to some people some times in some reasonably defensible manner?
3) If (2) is unacceptable, does this mean that we should leave it all up to the market, i.e., you can have the health care you can afford?
That crowd really can't have it both ways, critiquing the massive burden to taxpayers and budgets of a comprehensive health care bill, while simultaneously denouncing "death panels."
When was it that conservatives gave up the principle of TANSTAAFL to the rest of us?
I've fought health care rationing in many circumstances, most of them sponsored by Democrats, but I do believe we should put a floor under what medical care people can have, with a sliding scale, and I do believe there should be a cut-off of when its worth spending the money.
For myself: when I am chronically and most likely permanently incapable of giving informed consent, there will be no invasive surgeries, just palliative care, and let nature take its course. By most accounts, that would save a good 25% or more on current health care costs.
I do believe five year olds with leukemia should get bone marrow transplants.
Siarlys, with all due respect,
Before you came to this blog, I wrote on this topic and described my 8 years caring for my mother after her stroke. She died last year at 88 after a steady decline in which I had to take control of all of her affairs.
First, my mom had a living will and was inn full control of her wishes.
During her illness, I have no complaints about how Medicare and her secondary insurence took care of things. There were numerous doctors visits, EKGs, ultrasounds, sudden trips to the hospitals, MRIs and she even had a pace maker put in.
I wonder whether under Obamacare, a sick 85 year old woman would be given a pace maker.
When her time came, she knew she was not going to beat her final bout of pneumonia. She and I and her doctor knew she was going, and she didn't want any further treatment. It was her decision that treatment stop, and I made the arrangements. She died that night.
The point I am making is that to let go should be the decision of the patient, their family, spiritual advisor in concert with the doctor. Yes, it may cost more money, but once the govt gets involved in that decision, and this is the intent of the current adminsitration, then the result is the so-called death panels in Washington which decides what treatment is approved or denied. The British system, which Berwick so admires is run on a system of actuarials, patients, age, health status and cost of treatment.
Will it save money? Yes. I know only too well that the greatest expense comes at the end of life.
But we are not The Netherlands, which aslo does this. If we get to that point, it will cost us something as a people. It will cost us our souls.
You know, before they even began the Holocaust, the Nazis were killing people who were retarded, old and sick or who were institutionalized. Believ it or not, public reaction forced them to ceaew-at least go deeper underground, so to speak. They called it "Life unworthy of life."
That term is a reality, but it is up to us and our families to make that decision, not the govt.
The point both of you are missing (Gary moreso) is that regardless of whether or not "death panels" exist in the Obama healthcare plan (spoiler: they don't), ACTUAL DEATH PANELS ALREADY EXIST IN THE CURRENT HMO SYSTEM!
Gary, I really doubt that the latest health care bill will seriously disrupt the entirely appropriate manner you and your mother handled her situation.
Anonymous has a good point, which reminds me that after the medical insurance industry ran their campaign to shoot down the Hillary Clinton health plan, they essentially gave us, in the private sector, ALL the bureaucratic nightmares they prompted Harry and Louise to tell us were coming from the government.
Personally, I favor a single-payer multiple provider approach, or even better, five competing public options, against which any private company may continue to compete.
Siarlys,
The public did not want Hillary's plan, especially when it was learned that it had been crafted behind closed doors. Same with this one.
The public did not want Hillary's plan, especially when it was learned that it had been crafted behind closed doors. Same with this one.
Public opinion only started to turn on the current plan when it got watered down and the public option was dropped. When people were polled on the individual aspects of this current plan (like not being able to deny people based on pre-existing conditions, etcetera) they were still overwhelmingly for it.
These facts are always conveniently ignored in the right-wing "the public is against it" talking point.
Lance,
You gotta stop getting your news from Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert.
And those polls.. what is the term, you ask a question that everybody but Hitler would be for and then apply it to the health care bill-yes, we all want it!
As I remember it, support for Obamacare started with a bare majority support which continued to decline the more the consequences of such a plan were discovered. The seems never consider consequences or unintended consequences.
They never acknowledge that bureaucies never run things as economically or efficiently as the market. No panel or committee of experts make better decisions than millions of people making 10s of million decisions about what is best for them day in and day out.
The kind hearted people would like to have companies insure them at regular rates even though they have a pre-exsisting conditions. That is dishonest theft for one thing besides incentivizing otherwise honest people to wait until they have something before they buy insurance. The insurance companies stay in business by taking premiums from healthy people to pay for the sick ones. You don't like your carrier's plan? Go to another company. You can't go to another government.
This another huge step in building a massive government in control of every aspect of our lives. Control over healthcare, auto industry, student loans, financial companies, on and on and on, all in the name of "fairness". In fact, IMHO, it is a strategy to get a dependent society, another welfare entitlement state. Just like the ones that are failing in Europe.
You gotta stop getting your news from Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert.
Or worse...Fox News.
As I remember it, support for Obamacare started with a bare majority support which continued to decline the more the consequences of such a plan were discovered.
You mean the completely bogus consequences that had no grounding in any kind of reality? Yup. The right definitely spun a good web of propaganda on that one.
So your view of reality is that ObamaCare was wildly or even widely popular at the introduction and only as the Right criticized it, it became unpopular. Do you think the majority of Americans still like the idea of universal health coverage ... no matter the cost or consequences? I understand they would like to have free health coverage if there were no costs or consequence. All kind hearted people would like that but in the real world there are both costs and consequences.
The back room deals and forcing the bill down our throats only made things worse as it was clear to me and all those who went to town meetings with representatives that the vast majority of people didn't want Obamacare.
And what, precisely, was the "good web of propaganda"?
Miggie, considering that the beginning of your argument consists of arguing points that I wasn't making, and then it's followed up by mindless right-wing propaganda talking points, what's the use in me even trying to reply?
Gary, please stop speaking for "the public." It is the oldest bit of demagoguery in the history of the res publicae. I learned, somewhat painfully, as I grew older and more mature, that what I think would be good public policy, even what I conceived would naturally command the support of an overwhelming majority of "the masses," is not necessarily what "the people" want.
Conservatives have been vying with liberals, populists and socialists in using this terminology at least since the campaign of William Henry Harrison against Martin Van Buren.
I was not a fan of Hillary's proposal. Most of all, I did not appreciate being required to carry a computerized ID card which could track my movements anywhere in the country, in order to obtain medical care.
However, the general rejection of government-led health care reform was the product of a cynical public relations campaign, prepared and perpetrated by the very "experts" we really don't need running our lives, for the purpose of protecting the turf of the bloated plutocrats who paid for it.
The current plan suffers from being a hodge-podge of what a variety of well placed advocates were willing to live with. It also suffers from the fact that lots of people would rather keep what they are accustomed to than try out something totally new that might promise to be better in the long run. So, its a messy series of compromises. I suspect it will already be apparent by November that its not half bad, and definitely better than doing nothing.
Lance, let me remind you that you were saying that positive view of the ObamaCare Plan only faltered when it was watered down without the public option.
"Public opinion only started to turn on the current plan when it got watered down and the public option was dropped. When people were polled on the individual aspects of this current plan (like not being able to deny people based on pre-existing conditions, etcetera) they were still overwhelmingly for it."
Then you seemed to blame the right wing for spinning propaganda against the the bill.
"You mean the completely bogus consequences that had no grounding in any kind of reality? Yup. The right definitely spun a good web of propaganda on that one."
I wrote that the decline " started with a bare majority support which continued to decline the more the consequences of such a plan were discovered." I also pointed out the the Left never considers consequences. I went on to point out some unfavorable consequences and why the supporters are so soft headed as well as soft hearted.
Later I asked for your "good web of propaganda"
It seems to me you forgot your own talking points which I responded to directly. You also go on to say that the observations I made were "mindless right-wing propaganda talking points,"
I guarantee you that I read a hell of a lot more than you do and give these issue a great deal of thought. So for you to dismiss them as off point is another display of Left Wing discomfort with reality. You are dealing with cognitive dissonance and it is hard for you to accept what you believe is true just isn't factual.
The bill had fatal flaws in it from the start and the more the people learned about them and figured out what would likely happened with the passage of the bill, the less support the bill got. They confronted their representatives in Town Hall meetings. When the Democrats forced it through anyway with back room bribes and other middle of the night sneak tactics, the push back grew.... and it will continue to grow.
Siarlys: "However, the general rejection of government-led health care reform was the product of a cynical public relations campaign..." How about supporting this comment with some evidence? It is clear that 60% of Americans now call for the repeal of Obamacare. Don't you think it's quite weak to claim now that some mysterious PR campaign caused this massive opposition? The fact is that Americans are deeply skeptical of the program due to the tactics used by the Dems to push it through.
Lance: The entirety of your last post conveys a desire to avoid the facts of the matter. "Right-wing talking points"? Miggie directly challenged your unsupported claim that a "web of propaganda" caused public opinion to turn against Obamacare in two ways: (1) Attempting to refute your claim that there was original support for the plan as designed and (2) asking you for evidence of the "web of propaganda". Not only that, but you respond with insults by claiming these are "mindless" observations. If they are indeed incorrect, it should be easy to dissemble them, but instead you claim the effort unworthy of your time.
Furthermore, your earlier (unproven) claim that people were in agreement with particular aspects of the new law is a red herring even if true. The important matter is whether people embrace the bill as a whole. People are not stupid; when we hear that the bill will cost (likely understated if history serves as a guide) $900 billion over 10 years and that it improves the deficit by $100 billion, it's not hard to figure out that taxes will go up by $1 trillion to achieve the claimed net fiscal result. This is a major reason to oppose the program on its face.
Finally, a comment on your casual denigration of Fox News. There is no doubt that Fox commentators are slanted right. Nobody could watch Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, or Bill O'Reilly without recognizing this fact any more than they can watch Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow and not recognize their left biases. On the other hand, if you claim the hard news part of the operation is slanted, I'd like to see the evidence. Produce clear evidence of hard-news bias like the outright lying which caused Dan Rather's downfall at CBS, then make your claims. Conservatives have strong reasons, such as this case, to look on network news with suspicion. Where is the Fox News smoking gun?
Miggie and Tim,
I salute you both. I feel as if the cavalry has come riding to the rescue. The red herring defeats the straw man.
This is probably pointless, BUT...
So your view of reality is that ObamaCare was wildly or even widely popular at the introduction and only as the Right criticized it, it became unpopular.
I did not say that. You are distorting what I said. Perhaps I should have been more clear, but the polls showed that the majority (a slim one in some polls) was in favor of health care reform. That's not to say that it was "wildly popular." You're putting words in my mouth.
The back room deals and forcing the bill down our throats only made things worse as it was clear to me and all those who went to town meetings with representatives that the vast majority of people didn't want Obamacare.
This is what I mean by talking points. That "forcing the bill down our throats" is like a mantra with you people. And are you trying to say that people who go to town meetings represent the majority of Americans? Is that really a point that you're trying to make, or am I misunderstanding you?
And what, precisely, was the "good web of propaganda"?
I'm talking about hysteria over "socialism", "communism", and "death panels". All of which are ridiculous.
I guarantee you that I read a hell of a lot more than you do and give these issue a great deal of thought. So for you to dismiss them as off point is another display of Left Wing discomfort with reality. You are dealing with cognitive dissonance and it is hard for you to accept what you believe is true just isn't factual.
I believe that just like a lot of people, (both liberal and conservative) you do indeed do a lot of reading - most of it limited to things that support your pre-determined world view. Before you accuse me of the same, keep in mind that I read Gary's blog and frequently comment here.
And as for conservatives talking about cognitive dissonance and "discomfort with reality" - the mind reels at the irony. If I had a nickel for every time I've used actual facts to support my points on this blog, only to have them completely dismissed and/or ignored, I'd be a frikken' millionaire.
Okay, I also wrote a reply to Tim, but Blospot is limiting reply lengths. I'll have to just leave it at that for now.
When the Democrats forced it through anyway with back room bribes and other middle of the night sneak tactics, the push back grew.... and it will continue to grow.
Recent Gallup polls would indicate otherwise.
So, no, the current plan is hardly "wildly popular" but considering that I never said that, you can hardly claim a victory there. Still, your assertions of what "the people" want don't really match reality either though, do they?
Lance,
This is getting confusing so I going to respond to each of your comments as I received them in email messages.
You wrote:
"This is probably pointless, BUT...
So your view of reality is that ObamaCare was wildly or even widely popular at the introduction and only as the Right criticized it, it became unpopular.
I did not say that. You are distorting what I said. Perhaps I should have been more clear, but the polls showed that the majority (a slim one in some polls) was in favor of health care reform. That's not to say that it was "wildly popular." You're putting words in my mouth.
The back room deals and forcing the bill down our throats only made things worse as it was clear to me and all those who went to town meetings with representatives that the vast majority of people didn't want Obamacare.
This is what I mean by talking points. That "forcing the bill down our throats" is like a mantra with you people. And are you trying to say that people who go to town meetings represent the majority of Americans? Is that really a point that you're trying to make, or am I misunderstanding you?
-----
You're right, you didn't say it was "widely popular." I exaggerated that and added some heavy sarcasm because I had originally written "As I remember it, support for Obamacare started with a bare majority support which continued to decline the more the consequences of such a plan were discovered.'
You wrote: "You mean the completely bogus consequences that had no grounding in any kind of reality? Yup. The right definitely spun a good web of propaganda on that one."
So I inferred you were blaming the collapse of support on "the good web of propaganda" the right spun. So we can agree that the support never was really very much even at the beginning. You say that the right used propaganda (I suppose you say it was untrue as well) and I say the public became aware of the true dimension and the likely consequences of the bill.
Then you wrote (#2)
"And what, precisely, was the "good web of propaganda"?
I'm talking about hysteria over "socialism", "communism", and "death panels". All of which are ridiculous.
I guarantee you that I read a hell of a lot more than you do and give these issue a great deal of thought. So for you to dismiss them as off point is another display of Left Wing discomfort with reality. You are dealing with cognitive dissonance and it is hard for you to accept what you believe is true just isn't factual.
I believe that just like a lot of people, (both liberal and conservative) you do indeed do a lot of reading - most of it limited to things that support your pre-determined world view. Before you accuse me of the same, keep in mind that I read Gary's blog and frequently comment here.
And as for conservatives talking about cognitive dissonance and "discomfort with reality" - the mind reels at the irony. If I had a nickel for every time I've used actual facts to support my points on this blog, only to have them completely dismissed and/or ignored, I'd be a frikken' millionaire. '
----------
First of all, it isn't hysteria to label it socialist because that is precisely what it is. It is the creeping imposition of a bureaucratic society guided by governmental elites over the traditional free choices Americans are accustomed to. I don't want to get into a debate about what kind of socialism it is, I only want to point out that this is taking choices (and money) away from the people and putting it in the hands of the state. Communism is a form of socialism. Death panels is a description of the kinds of committees, agencies, and bureaucrats who will be in control of the health system instead of the choice of coverage, treatment, or not that free men enjoy.
You are dead wrong in saying I read things that support my pre-determined views. The last few books I read on the Left side were Defining Moment about FDR, the Promise, about Obama, Death of American Virtue, Clinton vs Starr, and The Argument: Billionaires, Bloggers, and the Battle to Remake Democratic Politics. I venture to say that is more than you read... books that is. The fact that you also expose yourself to Gary's views is commendable and I hope you learn something. All I've seen you post are shallow snide comments that are without real substance.
Then you wrote (#2)
"And what, precisely, was the "good web of propaganda"?
I'm talking about hysteria over "socialism", "communism", and "death panels". All of which are ridiculous.
... deleted to save space for transmission
I believe that just like a lot of people, (both liberal and conservative) you do indeed do a lot of reading - most of it limited to things that support your pre-determined world view. Before you accuse me of the same, keep in mind that I read Gary's blog and frequently comment here.
... deleted to save space for transmission.
----------
First of all, it isn't hysteria to label it socialist because that is precisely what it is. It is the creeping imposition of a bureaucratic society guided by governmental elites over the traditional free choices Americans are accustomed to. I don't want to get into a debate about what kind of socialism it is, I only want to point out that this bill takes choices (and money) away from the people and puts it in the hands of the state. Communism is a form of socialism. Death panels is a description of the kinds of committees, agencies, and bureaucrats who will be in control of the health system instead of the choice of coverage, treatment, or not that free men enjoy.
You are dead wrong in saying I read things that support my pre-determined views. The last few books I read on the Left side were Defining Moment about FDR, the Promise, about Obama, Death of American Virtue, Clinton vs Starr, and The Argument: Billionaires, Bloggers, and the Battle to Remake Democratic Politics. I venture to say that is more than you read... books that is. The fact that you also expose yourself to Gary's views is commendable and I hope you learn something. All I've seen you post are shallow snide comments that are without real substance.
Lance, in reply (#3)
You wrote; "When the Democrats forced it through anyway with back room bribes and other middle of the night sneak tactics, the push back grew.... and it will continue to grow.
Recent Gallup polls would indicate otherwise.
So, no, the current plan is hardly "wildly popular" but considering that I never said that, you can hardly claim a victory there. Still, your assertions of what "the people" want don't really match reality either though, do they?
-------------
Neither the previous or the current plan is "wildly popular" I wrote in a previous message that you pointed out in some approval rating in March that it was less than 50% approval... which was probably its high point. It started out with lukewarm support outside of the hard Left Wing and the White House.
Support for it has plummeted since. Whether that was because the people finally found out what was in the bill and the consequences or a campaign by the Right Wing is the difference. I maintain it was the former. The Tea Party movement was a consequence of this H/C bill and it was not started by the Republican Party. Many, a majority, of the members are Republicans, but a good number are Independents and Democrats who became energized over the prospect of the healthcare take-over. They are primarily exercised over the galloping statism policy this administration has pursued. We'll see in November how many voters support this bill and this attempt to move this country to the Left.
I don't want to get into a debate about what kind of socialism it is, I only want to point out that this is taking choices (and money) away from the people and putting it in the hands of the state. Communism is a form of socialism. Death panels is a description of the kinds of committees, agencies, and bureaucrats who will be in control of the health system instead of the choice of coverage, treatment, or not that free men enjoy.
The point is that using "socialism" as some sort of buzzword synonym for "evil" is disingenuous, considering that many of the government services that we count on currently are a form of socialism. (My favorite Tea Party sign was "Get your government hands off my Medicare!")
Regarding the "death panels", this was pure hysteria. If anything, one can make an argument that we already have death panels with millions of Americans being denied health care coverage for all sorts of pre-existing conditions. "Death panels" is a scare tactic with little basis in reality.
Continued...
You are dead wrong in saying I read things that support my pre-determined views...I venture to say that is more than you read... books that is.
I'll apologize for my assumption about what you read if you'll do the same regarding how much I read. First of all, I'm an English teacher, so I teach a lot of literature. I also read a lot, especially during the summer. Now, if you meant that you read more politically-themed books, then yes, you've got me on that one. Since June, I've read Nomad by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Cat's Cradle by Kurt Vonnegut, Troy by Adele Geras, and I'm more than halfway through The Ramayana. So, me reed book two.
As for what I learn on Gary's blog - well, I certainly learn something, but not always what you'd probably like me to learn.
All I've seen you post are shallow snide comments that are without real substance.
I like to think that I pepper my substance with snide comments. I'm sorry, but this comment simply isn't fair. You see what you want to see, I guess.
It started out with lukewarm support outside of the hard Left Wing and the White House.
Support for it has plummeted since.
Okay, now who's ignoring reality? Did you see the recent poll that I linked? Or do you have an even more recent poll that indicates otherwise?
Many, a majority, of the members are Republicans, but a good number are Independents and Democrats who became energized over the prospect of the healthcare take-over.
Hmmm...where have I heard THIS before? Democrats are a small minority, and the "independents" are independents like Gary - Independents who always vote Republican.
And it never was a health care "takeover". Again, this is a talking point that makes me wonder if you understand the term "option" in "public option".
We'll see in November how many voters support this bill and this attempt to move this country to the Left.
Indeed we will. My prediction is that the country will be nearly evenly divided, just like they always are, and the winner will get a bare majority (of the popular vote, that is). I know a lot of people are disappointed in Obama but not for the reasons you conservatives like to say. They (well, me too) are disappointed that the health care reform didn't go far enough.
"Democrats are a small minority, and the "independents" are independents like Gary - Independents who always vote Republican."
I resemble that remark.
Lance,
Whatever your disagreements with Miggie, I can assure you that (I know him personally) that he is a well read and knowledgable individual,
I'll respond serially to your comments.
Your snide comments are without any depth. They are just snickers insinuating you know something more. In fact, they are shallow and without gravitas.
The poll you cited that I saw was in dated in March, presumably the high point of support. Check any recent poll you want about the popularity of ObamaCare and you will see it has tanked.
You claim to know the makeup of the Tea Party but you don't cite where and how you reached your view. It happens that I went to my first Tea Party the beginning of the month and personally talked with a decent sample of people about their politics. This confirmed what I already read about the makeup of those who go to Tea Parties. The golden thread that runs among them is old fashioned patriotism. They pledge allegiance to the flag and sing the national anthem. No doubt half assed sophisticates like you will sneer at that.
I resemble that remark.
Gary, you and a billion others. It's such a cliche now that it's part of Stephen Colbert's whole persona. He always insists that he's an independent while always supporting whatever the Republicans do.
And waiting for Gary to say/imply that I get all my news from Colbert in 3...2...1...
You claim you read a lot of books, at least in the summer time. The problem is that none of them are related to this political discussion. So how do you presume to know with any degree of confidence that your assertions are true? You probably read some read left wing blogs or the main stream media to get your talking points.
Maybe if you ever lived in the real world and had to make a payroll or a profit for the shareholders you'd understand what's what. You would be better able to understand consequences. The thought of what could possible go wrong with ObamaCare never entered your mind. The value of the marketplace making healthcare individual decisions instead of the State was never considered. The cost and likelihood for bad decisions, waste, and corruption were no doubt cavalierly dismissed. It is only the Utopia of millions of uninsured getting coverage that motivates the Left... regardless of what the cost. The State HAS to get more power unto itself. You don't get that from Vonnegut. I know, I've read him too.
The least informed (I was going to write "dumbest") opinion you assert is that calling ObamaCare socialistic was a way to demonize it ... because many government services "we count on" are a form of socialism. This the basic argument of the left wing. They would love a more powerful government with a more dependent, entitlement demanding, constituency.
ObamaCare will turn the enormous healthcare delivery system into a de-facto nationalized utility by forcing Americans to buy insurance and micromanaging insurance companies from the Dept of Health and Human Services. It will take away from a market- based, patient oriented system that needs reform ... like tort reform and coverage that can be purchased nationwide. Tort reform, which would fix a major expense in the overall system is not in ObamaCare because it affects the trial lawyers constituency in the Democratic Party.
Insofar as the benefits of government services that people depend on is concerned, the fact is that in Social Security, for example, people would have done a lot better on their own providing for their own retirement than giving it to the government, paying bureaucrats, and then getting their money back with a smaller return than they would have on their own. People who are at the trough don't like to consider that.
Death panels, as I wrote before, is a description of the mechanism that all the decisions, including end of life ones, that the government will make instead of the people. You simply can't get over the "pre-exsisting conditions" heart bleed. Would the next step be to force insurance companies to cover burning buildings? You simply have not thought through the consequences of this obsession.
Bottom-line, the policies of the Left are clearly Socialist. The would have the government define and dominate healthcare, as well as energy, insurance, the auto industry, wages, student loans, and on and on. Snicker as you will, these actions are consistent with a socialist vision of America where the Government defines and dominates the private sector.
End of lesson.
Your snide comments are without any depth. They are just snickers insinuating you know something more. In fact, they are shallow and without gravitas.
Well now you're just trying to hurt my feelings.
The poll you cited that I saw was in dated in March, presumably the high point of support. Check any recent poll you want about the popularity of ObamaCare and you will see it has tanked.
Look, Miggie, if it is, then I'll admit it. That won't change my mind about whether it's good or not, but I'll admit that it's as unpopular as you say. However, I gave you a poll from March. What do you have? Unless I've missed something, it's just the fact that people are showing up at town hall meetings. What does that prove?
You claim to know the makeup of the Tea Party but you don't cite where and how you reached your view. It happens that I went to my first Tea Party the beginning of the month and personally talked with a decent sample of people about their politics. This confirmed what I already read about the makeup of those who go to Tea Parties.
Okay, I'll admit to assuming a bit there. On another thread, I admitted that I was only going by what I've seen on TV and that from what I've read in the paper, the Tea Party seemed a bit more complex. I'll throw myself on my sword for that one. But, get ready for a big butt...
he golden thread that runs among them is old fashioned patriotism. They pledge allegiance to the flag and sing the national anthem. No doubt half assed sophisticates like you will sneer at that.
I have two American flags in front of my house. That means that I love America twice as much as people who only have one. The first part is true; I don't really believe the second part. I do, however, think that patriotism is about a lot more than singing anthems and making pledges. So, you're doing a lot of assuming about me now.
As for the reading, I already conceded that it's not political reading, so I don't know why you felt the need to point that out. As for my assertions, I do read my local newspaper. I wish that I had written everything down, but I remember the polls being generally favorable toward health care reform, and then it started to slip as it got watered down. Still, you haven't exactly backed up your assertions either, have you? You've only backed them up with more assertions! I'm still waiting on a poll that shows how unpopular the health care bill is. I've already admitted to a mistake on this thread; I'm ready to admit to another if you can prove it.
Maybe if you ever lived in the real world and had to make a payroll or a profit for the shareholders you'd understand what's what.
Okay, now you're just being insulting, and to use a term that you conservatives like to throw around - you're being rather elitist. Since I'm a teacher, I don't live in the real world? I'll have you know that I've worked all sorts of jobs, from grocery bagger to data technician to accounting assistant to manager of a cybercafe. I think I've gotten a better sense of the real world since I've had to deal with 150 teenagers (and often their parents) a year. But hey, thanks for thinking that you know all sorts of things about me. Oh, and my dad also owns his own business (and I worked with him for a time - the whole "data technician" thing.)
Maybe if you ever lived in the real world and had to make a payroll or a profit for the shareholders you'd understand what's what.
Okay, now you're just being insulting, and to use a term that you conservatives like to throw around - you're being rather elitist. Since I'm a teacher, I don't live in the real world? I'll have you know that I've worked all sorts of jobs, from grocery bagger to data technician to accounting assistant to manager of a cybercafe. I think I've gotten a better sense of the real world since I've had to deal with 150 teenagers (and often their parents) a year. But hey, thanks for thinking that you know all sorts of things about me. Oh, and my dad also owns his own business (and I worked with him for a time - the whole "data technician" thing.)
As for the rest, it's just one assertion after another, and you've brought out the right-wing talking points machine gun to the point where I don't even know what we're talking about anymore.
For instance:
You simply can't get over the "pre-exsisting conditions" heart bleed. Would the next step be to force insurance companies to cover burning buildings?
Seriously? Is that really a point that you're trying to make? That's an absurd slippery slope.
And again, as for death panels, how is that different from people being turned down for insurance (and therefore treatment for life-threatening illnesses) because of some unrelated condition that they had in the past? How is this NOT a "Death Panel"? I mean, even if I give it to you (I don't) that Obama's plan would create something you could call a "Death Panel" can't you at least concede that this is a serious problem that needs to be fixed?
There's other stuff, so feel free to declare victory on anything I didn't address. Let's just get down to the real point, okay? This is all about how the public feels about health care reform, and according to you, the people are turning against it more and more all the time. My questions to you are:
1. What are your sources for this information?
2. Assuming that it's true that public opinion is indeed turning, how much can you attribute it to people coming around to your way of thinking? Is it possible that a lot of people don't approve because it wasn't what Obama was originally promising?
I will say this, Miggie, you are giving me a run for my money. I haven't had to write and revise my posts this much in some time. Kudos to you. (That's not sarcasm - hard to tell with me, I know.)
There's other stuff, so feel free to declare victory on anything I didn't address. Let's just get down to the real point, okay? This is all about how the public feels about health care reform, and according to you, the people are turning against it more and more all the time. My questions to you are:
1. What are your sources for this information?
2. Assuming that it's true that public opinion is indeed turning, how much can you attribute it to people coming around to your way of thinking? Is it possible that a lot of people don't approve because it wasn't what Obama was originally promising?
I will say this, Miggie, you are giving me a run for my money. I haven't had to write and revise my posts this much in some time. Kudos to you. (That's not sarcasm - hard to tell with me, I know.)
I will also say that I hate how blogger is limiting the word count per post. How frikken' annoying!
As for the rest, it's just one assertion after another, and you've brought out the right-wing talking points machine gun to the point where I don't even know what we're talking about anymore.
For instance:
You simply can't get over the "pre-exsisting conditions" heart bleed. Would the next step be to force insurance companies to cover burning buildings?
Seriously? Is that really a point that you're trying to make? That's an absurd slippery slope. After all, don't we have insurance for that sort of a thing already? Why would I expect health insurance to cover a burning building?
And again, as for death panels, how is that different from people being turned down for insurance (and therefore treatment for life-threatening illnesses) because of some unrelated condition that they had in the past? How is this NOT a "Death Panel"? I mean, even if I give it to you (I don't) that Obama's plan would create something you could call a "Death Panel" can't you at least concede that this is a serious problem that needs to be fixed?
As for the rest, it's just one assertion after another, and you've brought out the right-wing talking points machine gun to the point where I don't even know what we're talking about anymore.
For instance:
You simply can't get over the "pre-exsisting conditions" heart bleed. Would the next step be to force insurance companies to cover burning buildings?
Seriously? Is that really a point that you're trying to make? That's an absurd slippery slope. After all, don't we have insurance for that sort of a thing already? Why would I expect health insurance to cover a burning building?
And again, as for death panels, how is that different from people being turned down for insurance (and therefore treatment for life-threatening illnesses) because of some unrelated condition that they had in the past? How is this NOT a "Death Panel"? I mean, even if I give it to you (I don't) that Obama's plan would create something you could call a "Death Panel" can't you at least concede that this is a serious problem that needs to be fixed?
There's other stuff, so feel free to declare victory on anything I didn't address. Let's just get down to the real point, okay? This is all about how the public feels about health care reform, and according to you, the people are turning against it more and more all the time. My questions to you are:
1. What are your sources for this information?
2. Assuming that it's true that public opinion is indeed turning, how much can you attribute it to people coming around to your way of thinking? Is it possible that a lot of people don't approve because it wasn't what Obama was originally promising?
I will say this, Miggie, you are giving me a run for my money. I haven't had to write and revise my posts this much in some time. Kudos to you. (That's not sarcasm - hard to tell with me, I know.)
Lance,
You could always throw out that "straw man" argument.
I'll answer each email as I get them until I get bored with it. Frankly, I'm beginning to feel sorry for you ... thrashing around without really knowing what you are talking about.
I wrote that you didn't seem to know what's what because obviously you never had any real responsibility in the real world. You confuse working hard with having real responsibilities in the commercial world. You simply don't know how it works or what real responsibility in the commercial world is. That's what we are talking about... what is likely to happen if Obamacare is enacted... not the best way to bag groceries. According to your view dealing with 150 teenagers is equivalent to making a profit or meeting a payroll. It is a different skill set. A hod carrier works harder than you do but that doesn't mean he understands what you do. You know nothing of economics on the practical or theoretical level and if you feel insulted by that, it doesn't matter to me.
If you can't comprehend the analogy of forcing an insurance company to insure a burning building, then you'll have to go back a semester. You're the one who doesn't comprehend the consequences of the State forcing people to buy anything.
If people are turned down for insurance they have the option in a free society to go to another insurance company or paying more in premiums or turning to the dozens of organizations that help people in dire straits. When the government makes all the decisions there is no place else to turn. A more reasonable reform would be to set up a high risk pool. That would be expensive but a fraction of the Obamacare monstrosity costs.
Democrats, led by Obama in the front of the parade, are hostile toward business and free enterprise. They want the state to control everything (Communism) or as much as possible (Neo- socialist). Obama is a Neosocialist.
" However, I gave you a poll from March. What do you have? Unless I've missed something, it's just the fact that people are showing up at town hall meetings. What does that prove?"
OK I looked it up for you: On July 12th: (Rasmussen)
"Fifty-three percent (53%) of voters nationwide favor repeal of the recently passed national health care law. The latest weekly Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey on the subject finds that 42% oppose repeal." http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law
When you stop to consider, if you knew, that all major legislation of this type always had some or more bipartisan support. More than half the country wants it repealed! If it were as popular as it should have been to force through such a major change only 10 or 15% of the people would have been against it. So it is worse than just a few points difference.
"Okay, I'll admit to assuming a bit there. On another thread, I admitted that I was only going by what I've seen on TV and that from what I've read in the paper, the Tea Party seemed a bit more complex. I'll throw myself on my sword for that one. But, get ready for a big butt... "
So what is it? (BTW, does the thought that you could be wrong on other firmly held views ever crossed your mind?)
Waving the flag is an expression of patriotism. I don't think that two flags make you more patriotic. I was describing the golden thread that is common to the Tea Party people I know. I have no idea how patriotic you are but if you view American exceptionalism the same way as President Obama ( " the same way Swedes think Sweden is exceptional") then I'd say it is not a real love of this country which is the basis of patriotism.
Again, I don't think support for the bill slipped because it was watered down. I disagree with you and the Left Wing of the country. The more that comes out about what it has in it and the more the consequences are appreciated, the further it will drop. I don't think it will be a straight drop down but as companies and individuals figure out the effect on them it will get worse and worse. Don't forget that several people have already been elected in interim elections by running on anti-healthcare positions.
These assertions are opinions. I think they are observable phenomena but if you only read left slanted media you would never know about it.
Gary, you act like I'm playing some kind of trick when I use that term. Is it really so hard to grasp? Or do you think that it's perfectly valid to put words in the mouths of others when you argue with them?
And sorry for goofing up my posts - I guess I copied/pasted a couple things more than once.
So, Lance, it seems that you have conceded on all points or otherwise have been proven wrong.
It now boils down to your bleep that you never said actually said "wildly popular" and that I "put words in your mouth. OK let's dispose of that too.
You said, "Public opinion only started to turn on the current plan when it got watered down and the public option was dropped."
I said, in essence, that it started with a bare majority and that it was not Right Wing propaganda that caused its decline in popularity but the process of the people learning what was in the bill and the consequences.
Now the facts I supplied from the Rasmussen show that in fact it was never that popular. Since you claimed otherwise, I attributed to you the notion that it was even widely popular ... I think I was right... that's what you insinuated in your post and that but for (false and misleading) propaganda it would be popular among the people.
Since you seem to lack current data, let me quote Rasmussen again, "In July, a survey by the polling company Rasmussen Reports comparing the parties on 10 issues showed Republicans leading in eight (immigration, government ethics, national security, Iraq, taxes, Social Security, abortion, and the economy); the previous October, Democrats had led on all 10."
To get a better overview of the consequences I have been writing about, let me recommend "The Battle" by Arthur Brooks. Let's see how serious you want to become.
I wrote that you didn't seem to know what's what because obviously you never had any real responsibility in the real world. You confuse working hard with having real responsibilities in the commercial world. You simply don't know how it works or what real responsibility in the commercial world is.
Miggie, there are a million impolite things that I would like to write in response to this. Let me leave it at this: you do not know me. You do not know what my experiences are. Remember that Cybercafe where I was a manager? I watched that place tank and go out of business. Remember the accounting assistant thing? I was dealing with the numbers of a company that rented corporate apartments. Don't tell me what I've experienced and what I haven't.
I'll admit that I probably shot off a bit too cavalierly with some of my assertions on this conversation. I've done much better on other debates on this blog (like with global warming and gay marriage). I probably should have left it alone, as I don't really think that public opinion is always a good barometer of what's right and what's wrong in the first place, so I was arguing something that I don't even consider to be all that important.
I accused Gary once (or twice, maybe three times) of not being able to just admit when he's lost an argument. I'll admit that I definitely lost this one when it comes to how popular health care reform is or is not.
I was going to write more regarding all the other issues, but I'll just attempt to bow out gracefully and stick to arguing the stuff with which I'm better versed.
Lance,
You wrote, "I was going to write more regarding all the other issues, but I'll just attempt to bow out gracefully and stick to arguing the stuff with which I'm better versed."
I say good for you. I look forward to shedding some light on other issues for you as they are sure to come up. Both sides of the political spectrum have visceral responses to these issues. They come from what we all fear may flow from the immediate issue at hand.
I hope you will read "The Battle" by Arthur Brooks and maybe even "Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto" by Mark Levine so you will see what those of us on the Right believe.... just as I read the books about the Left, written by people on the Left.
This thread was getting too long anyway.
Post a Comment