There's lots of lamenting on the left about all the teabaggers showing up and town hall meetings on health care being held by returning members. The right's all atwitter about organized labor and the left sending people to these meetings. I'm not sure any of it is really bad. Obviously, death threats, demonization and the like are not good for civil discourse. No one gains from shouting. In a perfect world each town meeting would be a civilized discussion of the merits of different approaches to health care. But that's not the world we live in. The more likely alternative is no interest, sparsely attended meetings or just one side showing up.
At least you can say there's some civic engagement going on. Yes, a lot of it is based on fear mongering and stoked emotions. Rush Limbaugh's rant yesterday comparing the "Democrat party" to Hitler was among the more absurd things ever spoken. But the enemy of legislation is apathy and we're not in an apathetic season. There's real passion over this issue, even if a lot of it is based on willful ignorance.
The health care debate still has a long way to play out. We'll be talking about it all fall and the plans being talked about will change and change again. In the meantime, isn't it better that people are engaged in the August heat than not at all.
"There's real passion over this issue, even if a lot of it is based on willful ignorance.
America: Too stupid to know better. Heartwarming, isn't it?
They're not engaged, they're just shouting at each other. No one will change their mind as a result of these protests. I would much rather that laws be written calmly, without death threats being involved.
This story is really about whether the protesters are "Real People."
http://www.wiserthanthecrowd.com/2009/08/real-people.html
If the Astroturfers are, in fact, real people, I would sure as hell like to see their birth certificates!
The only Astroturfers at the "Coffee for Cleaver" (Rep. E. Cleaver, D., KC, MO)event on Saturday were Democrats with their professionally made signs. See the picture in the KC Star article. Give me a break.
http://www.kansascity.com/115/story/1372110.html "Protestors" at the event slightly outnumbered "defenders."
So you're saying that inflammatory rhetoric devoid of anything even remotely resembling genuine policy disagreements and designed almost exclusively to stoke fear and hatred is a good thing? Seriously?
What the hell has happened to the Atlantic? This used to be a place for intelligent discussion, rather than a bunch of political hacks enjoying themselves some theater which is highly destructive for the country.
I can read Fallows online for free, so I have absolutely no need to renew the subscription I've had for many, many years. This magazine is sinking faster than the Washington Post.
Seconded. Matt's defense of fear-mongering and misinformation here is positively bizarre.
"Sure the gladiators are actually killing each other, but at least its really exciting, am I right?"
Cooper has no shame.
The lies are getting dangerously close to incitement.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/08/obamas-baby-death-camp.html
All the political analysts coyly equivocating about this rhetoric will have blood on their hands.
I have to agree completely here. If Mr. Cooper truly believes that activists being sent to scream and yell in order to disrupt townhall meetings is a good thing, the state of American journalism is more dismal than I thought.
Honestly, the amount of stupidity that has become involved here, both on the Right and in the media, is astounding.
I have to agree completely here. If Mr. Cooper truly believes that activists being sent to scream and yell in order to disrupt townhall meetings is a good thing, the state of American journalism is more dismal than I thought.
Honestly, the amount of stupidity that has become involved here, both on the Right and in the media, is astounding.
Very well said.
People are being wilfully mislead by demagogues, and threatning violence (which Cooper dutifully says isn't a good thing), and the Atlantic thinks it's a good idea.
As reasonable and thoughtful as Ambinder's equating the mobs shutting down town halls with the protests outside the Social Security fora.
trust me. it's only a matter of time before someone decides to bring a concealed weapon to accentuate their point.
"In the meantime, isn't it better that people are engaged in the August heat than not at all."
What kind of warped view of this situation is that. This isn't about healthcare. These right-wing mobs can't stand the thought of a Democratic congress or especially a Democratic president, a black one to boot. The health insurance industry in coordination with their political arm, the Republican party, are inciting and coordinating this "outrage". Right-wing hate radio and Fox News are right in there with them. This has nothing to do with health reform, but everything to do in trying to bring down a Democratic president by whatever means necessary.
You'll never see the corporate media report it this way or expose what's behind the whole thuggish "goundswell" of this whole sorry situation.
The right wing mobs you refer to are taking lessons from your Democratic, socialist OBEYME president. Let me refresh your memory, he was a community organizer and is very heavily tied to ACORN, who are also attending these town hall meetings along with union members in order to try to disrupt those right wing mobs you are referring to. The silent majority is awake, they are mad as hell and they are not going to take anymore of the crap that is being dealt to them by both the liberal democrats and rino republicans.
It would be, if there were, say, passionate debates happening about the merits of co-op v. single payer.
That's not what's happening here. If Obama was pushing for a national holiday to celebrate ice cream, you would see these same nutjobs with the same signs, claiming that Hitler's favorite flavor was Rocky Road and that Obama was trying to kill lactose intolerant senior citizens. Its not about policy. Healthcare just happens to be the most visible target on which the teabaggers can vent their spleen.
I shall be interested to see Cooper's reaction when someone pulls a gun at one of these meetings. Napolitano tried to warn the nation of the increased likelihood of violence from rightwing extremists, and was howled down. Since then we have seen Richard Poplawski, Scott Roeder and James Von Brunn. Does Cooper not recognize that the violence at these meetings is a rightwing phenomenon, and typical of how casually the rightwing now accepts, disseminates and exploits mass hatred? How many people will have to die or be injured before the media realizes its complicity?
The hateful, willful and deliberate physical violence has thus far only occured once and was first struck by SIX (6) count 'em (paid?) DEMOCRAT SEIU labor members in St. Louis against "a", i.e., ONE (1) singular, African-American Republican activist; some of the Democrat/Labor Union CRIMINALS who attacked him were likewise African-American.
The media just doesn't seem to 'get it'and maybe you do not either ... we Americans of all races, ethnicity and colors are Americans first; the biggest majority of us are our own people and are not 'for sale' to anyone on either side of the political fence or aisle. We are the ones appearing at the town hall meetings ... others paid or bused in (i.e., ACORN, SEIU, AFL-CIO, UAW, etc., and any and all conservative groups that are doing it),i.e., "agitators", are in the minority and are MEANINGLESS.
Unseemly 'in your face' tactics, i.e., Chicago Political Machine mob mentality, that is being employed now by any groups ... was learned from the liberal left-wing Democrats and President Obama, i.e., "During his campaign last year, the president famously told his supporters to "get in the faces" of those who disagreed with his vision for America. One of his Chicago mentors recalled in a 2007 New Republic profile that Obama, as a community organizer, was "the best student he ever had, a natural, the undisputed master of agitation" to gain political power. Sadly, now that he has it, he is turning it against those who oppose him." (The Washington Examiner Newspaper, Opinion, Aug. 8, 2009)
We, the people, already have no confidence in columnists and journalists. The broadcast media is just as bad and thus, more people pay for cable so they can pick and choose what they watch rather than have it imposed on them in their own homes. Is it any wonder newspapers are folding into bankruptcy or just going out of business and broadcast network ratings are plummeting? There is a reason for that ... Americans who want and have in their hearts, what is good for America et al, are not going to sink their money into functions which overtly as well as covertly, operate against America's best interest and their own best interests.
"Americans who want and have in their hearts, what is good for America et al, are not going to sink their money into functions which overtly as well as covertly, operate against America's best interest and their own best interests."
Out of curiosity, are you OK with the state of health care right now? You talk about the media and many of "us" not getting it - maybe what you don't get (and this perhaps is understandable if you haven't experienced it) is what it feels like to be denied health coverage due to some "pre-existing" condition or to be limited in what kinds of treatments you can get (this is called "rationing" - ironic that YOU and people like YOU are saying the government will do this - what do you think insurance companies do already?). Obviously those people who are rich and/or very healthy can't relate to the plight of someone with no job trying to pay premiums for an entire family. Here's some recommended reading:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/05/AR2009080503331.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns
What I am not okay with is government running ... healthcare, car companies, banks, insurance companies, mortgage companies, i.e. "free enterprise". It's not good for America or Americans.
Though I did not vote for President Obama...while he was a candidate and talking about wanting to reduce costs for healthcare; I did e-mail his campaign with a suggestion that costs could be reduced if pharmaceutical companys were prohibited from advertising their prescription medications. Not only would it save on prescription costs, it would lower healthcare costs in that doctors would not have patients pressing them for medications that the doctors themselves might have wanted to otherwise prescribe something else. Of course, that suggestion went nowhere with either candidate or President Obama because that would have cut into his 'media darling' advertising incomes and the pharmaceutical companies would have actually had to pay tax on all that money they were spending on advertisement, used to reduce their tax liability on their obscene incomes and through which they alternatively, get even more sales revenue. Tort reform is another good way to bring healthcare costs down and let doctors get back to the real practice of medicine rather than law suit prevention.
I am against denying any person for pre-existing conditions. I support people in every state being able to shop for insurance across state lines rather than insurance companies being protected from competition. Competition is 'free enterprise' at it's best.
"Obviously those people who are rich and/or very healthy can't relate to the plight of someone with no job trying to pay premiums for an entire family." Yes ... I am rich but not with money or other forms of wealth. I am rich because I am my own person and to the greatest extent possible, I take personal responsibility for myself by living in a paid for 750 sq. ft. frame house on a little piece of paid for land that we cleared the way pioneers did ... by hand ... in the country with gravel roads. We've got no credit cards and don't want any; we save until we have enough dollars to buy what we need or want and we buy new as well as 'yard sale'. We garden and can our own vegetables and we raise a few chickens. We drive paid for used cars and keep them in good maintenance. ITS HARD WORK and it's really hard work when you're old ... ask me, I can speak from personal experience.
The Teabaggers are such "good" Americans that they're shutting down discussion and then screaming bloody murder about how they're not being allowed to express their views.
The Teabaggers are such "good" Americans that they feel it's entirely acceptable to make death threats.
The Teabaggers are such "good" Americans that they're completely incapable of accepting personal responsibility for their own behavior but instead, blame it on Obama and the Democrats.
Democratic officials are receiving death threats? Well, it's their own fault!
and your point? to me who said nothing about teabags?
Where were you during the war...any war that an American Commander and Chief (including President Obama) has sent "good" Americans to fight? Yes, I know that has nothing to do with the subject matter I've been discussing or even want to discuss ... just curious.
The explosion of violence and ignorance at these events is anything but "civic engagement". These protesters are completely, and deliberately, misinformed about the health care reforms and are simply screaming to make noise and cause obstruction (just listen to some of the ridiculous statements they make). There is absolutely nothing positive about it; to claim otherwise as Mr. Cooper does here is foolhardy.
Clarifying? Yes. Good? Not necessarily. These teabag riots have had the effect of exposing the rotten core of the American Right, just as "Massive Resistance" exposed the white Southern power structure for all the world to see in the 1950s and 1960s. It's important to know just how lunatic the right-wing base of the GOP is. After all, how can a moderate Democrat bargain in good faith with people who proudly represent these thugs?
But is that a good thing? Apathy is annoying, but violent polarization is not always the better alternative.
If health care is as important as Obama has claimed it is, then surely it is to be expected that Americans will become passionate about it. Is it only Obama who can become passionate about this issue?
It seems Americans' passion is not as welcome by the Obama Administration as it was during the campaign, when it was all about how wonderful Obama was. In other words, Obama liked their enthusiasm and emotional outpourings when they suited him. Now, however, Obama doesn't want to hear it.
Where's the beef? Or, more politely, what's the substance of your complaint.
Passionate debate is fine. Fact-free passionate is rather different.
Certainly part of the problem is that these 'teabaggers' are exposing their ignorance and their desire for a free lunch -- e.g. 'government hands off my medicare.'
Are the brawls of August of good? Well it depends on what you mean by good. If you're a journalist looking for stories during the traditionally slow August recess, then these brawls are good. If you're someone who is legitimately trying to participate in the process (either for or against health care reform) they are not good. They are bad, really, really bad. Our elected leaders need to hear from the people they represent. Screaming, fist fights and death threats are not civic engagement, it's thug behavior. Civic engagement can get heated but by definition it shouldn't short-circuit the process where one side keeps the other from engaging.
Mr. Cooper, as a journalist you have a responsibility to act as a check on our elected officials, you also have a responsibility to act as a check on the more extreme elements that seek to threaten and intimidate those who disagree with their point of view. I urge you to get out of the traditional media mindset and think about how you would feel if when you went to participate in the process you were called a nazi or threatened with physical violence.
The Democrats have bought the support of most of the health care industry groups, so isn't the Dems blaming the "health insurance industry" for these protests a little like the pot calling the kettle black - major hypocrisy.
TycheSD, not all Dems - but true, the Blue Dogs are definitely in the pockets of the health care industry. Republicans traditionally have been more allied with the insurers though.
Sorry, but I have a hard time taking most of these anti-reform protesters seriously. Aside from being abusive and offensive (and yes, there WERE protesters photographed with swastikas and signs comparing Democrats or President Obama to Nazis, I'd be happy to link but those of you who don't believe me can also use Google), many of them are not smart. If government-funded health care is so bad, why are these protesters (who are predominantly 50+ years old) benefiting from Medicare or about to benefit from Medicare? What these protests have taught me is that old people are (predictably) afraid of any change and as self-obsessed as they accuse my generation of being.
Medicare ... Part A is for hospitalizations and at no cost other than if you use it, you co-pay. Part B is optional and pays physicians and for tests, etc. Everyone on Medicare Part B pays a minimum of $96.40 (more if they have a greater income) each and every month and IF THEY USE IT, they also have a co-pay. There is also a $100 annual deductible. This does not provide vision, dental or *prescription coverage (*unless you take Part C and pay a premium for it).
True, Medicare is not as expensive as private insurance but it is for the elderly who generally are no longer able, acceptable, or allowed to work in the work force/free enterprise system and live on this limited income. If you need it, you pay for it ... If you have been blessed by God with good health and don't need it, you still have to pay for it every month and if you drop it, you have to pay a $ penalty to re-enroll.
Social Security, before anyone asks, is not an 'entitlement' ... it's a "contract" to provide insurance which is paid for in advance wtih premiums paid by payroll deduction from your paychecks over your working life.
You do understand that this isn't true, don't you?
The people enjoying Medicare today are passing the bills on to their children and grandchildren. The money today's elderly paid out of their own checks is long gone, it went to pay for the Medicare of the elderly now dead and gone. It's the same way with Social Security. The only problem is, people keep on living longer. So the average old person ends up using way more money under Medicare than they ever put in.
Oh yes, I certainly do understand that it is true.
I've worked since Nineteen Hundred Fifty-Nine (1959) and every paycheck I've earned had taxes taken out to pay IN ADVANCE, my Social Security/Medicare "insurance premium" (the same taxes that government gives you NO choice about them TAKING). There would be plenty of money in the INTEREST BEARING Social Security Trust Fund had it not been for *Congress' rabid appetite for spending and its' raiding thievery of other folks advance premium monies with interest (by the way, Democrats were IN CONTROL of Congress for 40 consecutive years while most of this was going on, just like the control Congress now)and it is Congress et al, who has broken faith and the contract with the American people and Congress is the reason the INTEREST BEARING Social Security Trust Fund is essentially broke today. Trust Congress? Believe Congress? NOT IN THIS LIFETIME!
Re: “It's the same way with Social Security. The only problem is, people keep on living longer. So the average old person ends up using way more money under Medicare than they ever put in.”
Congress has broken the Social Security contract so many times with Americans by changing the terms after the fact as well as increasing retirement age and adding means testing, etc. and why did they do that? … in hopes that more elderly would DIE off before they reached retirement age and draw any of their insurance benefits. Natural attrition was Congress’ method for covering their raiding thievery and trying to make the Social Security Trust Fund once again solvent. BUT...with GOOD medicine, natural attrition just ain't working for them so they need us to die off more quickly and this Administration wants to control how and when that occurs, and they need a new influx of "premiums" to continue their thievery from and thus we have ... Obamacare.
@texastwin
All I hear in your comments is selfishness and self-satisfaction. If you're that old, then I will be paying for your Medicare out of my own paycheck, which judging from your description is a few tax brackets above your own. Whatever taxes you paid-in while working will not even come close to covering your current (and rising) health care costs. So no, your life is not the ode to self-reliance that you claim it to be. If you truly understood the global economy you would know that your "free enterprise" idyll is a fantasy.
Your "facts" and ideology suit your modest personal ambitions, but you're mistaken in thinking that your current stability is de facto evidence of the superiority of your beliefs. You've been lucky, be thankful, but don't pretend to know what is best for your unlucky fellow citizens, whose plight you clearly have no interest in improving.
You also rail against Congress as if you didn't have a vote all those years. You got the representation you deserved. Your generation kicked these problems down the road, and so it is my generation that's forced to deal with them.
Its pretty pathetic that someone who is about to enjoy Government-run healthcare either way is against expanding it to his fellow citizens.
Your generation had its chance and blew it. The least you can do is have the decency not to stand in our way as we try to remedy your failures.
I am not selfish. I’m proud for you that your tax bracket is a few brackets above mine … God bless you. Yes, the taxes + the cumulative interest that was accumulated on all the money that I and other of my generation paid in, will more than cover any health care benefits I will ever receive.
I do have an interest in the plight of my fellow citizens and that is exactly why I am against a public option and/or socialized healthcare.
“…your life is not the ode to self-reliance that you claim it to be…” Yes, it is. Our home and property is paid for; our furnishings, cars and other material assets, are paid for. It’s not about ambition, a satisfying life is about contentment. And you can take your idyllic fantasy ‘global economy’ and put it where the sun don’t shine because I happen to know the difference.
I don’t claim any ‘superiority’ so don’t put your words in my mouth. Feeling Superior is your problem, not mine. All I spoke about was that we thought about our lives and what we wanted out of life for ourselves (we don’t try to run other people’s lives) and we set our feet on the path and worked hard to get there and we’re still working. You want to be in debt, go for it and ‘owe, owe, owe as down the road you go’.
No, I have not been “lucky” … I’ve been BLESSED and I am thankful. Neither do I pretend to know what is best for fellow citizens but I know what is best for me and mine and for that … I have spoken for myself.
“You also rail against Congress as if you didn't have a vote all those years.” I sure do – I was around during all this time … I know what’s what. And I voted but I sure didn’t vote for any, not one of the thieves that have raided the social security trust fund for decades. No, I didn’t get the representation I deserved or voted for.
The Democrats' claim about angry town hall participants is shifting from, "They're GOP operatives" to "They're too stupid to know what's good for them."
Denigrating Americans who are happy with their their health care and don't want to see it changed is foolish. Democrats need to do better than this. This can only hurt them.
They can be both stupid and phony plants. The two are not mutually exclusive. In fact, being one probably increases your chance of being the other.
But do you have a single shred of evidence, (aside from the insane ramblings of the Fox News crowd), that anyone who likes their current health coverage will be forced to have it changed in any way?
And how are the Nazi comparisons and the burning effigies supposed to demonstrate a legitimate objection to health care reform?
SS.....at 50 one still has to wait another 15 years to benefit from medicare.
At 54, I am barely hangin on, paying my own healthcare insurance with a deductible of $5000.00 per year (pre existing condition, don't you know) and making $9.00 per hour (underemployed and doing the best I can).
I can assure you, I have no problem with change.
Interesting that many opposed to any healthcare reform are retired or current military, retired or current govenment workers or those in the high end bracket who have platinum healthcare insurance.
Maybe the reason we think you're stupid is because in spite of repeatedly being told otherwise, you persist in believing your health care will get changed. You guys tend to only be distrustful of the government when it comes to things like this, but not when Cheney & co are selling you a pack of lies re: Saddam and 9/11
Claiming people who disagree with you are "stupid" is one sure way to lose an argument. In fact, the only other sure way to lose an argument about health care is to drag in Cheney and 9/11.
Obama's relationship with the pharmaceutical industry and his alleged "$80 billion deal" is of much more relevance than Cheney's relationship with Halliburton.
Perhaps you can research the details of that agreement. Wait. They haven't been disclosed.
Umm another way to lose an argument is to pretend that one bad relationship (and I am not in favor of what Obama did with pharma) is "more relevant" than another. In case you forgot, Halliburton shot and killed innocent Iraqis. And they're still getting contracts from our current state dept, so I guess some things never change.
Back to health care: I stand by what I say about people being stupid. I am not in favor of everything Congress or the "Gang of Six" has put on the table. But I do see the need for health care reform - and I'm saying that as someone who is young, healthy and covered by her university. So I'm fortunate enough to have access to quality health care and not to have to pay a whole lot, but I recognize that not everyone is as lucky as I am. The problem with MOST of these protesters (and hey, maybe there are civil people at these things who have useful ideas, too bad we don't hear about them over the din of the crazy people) is that they subscribe to things like "the government is supporting euthanasia" (see Sarah Palin's latest ramblings about a "death panel" being created to kill her disabled child) or "illegals are the only ones without health care insurance, otherwise people just don't want it" without any evidence for them. Not to mention, they fail to see the problems with health care insurance - people's care is ALREADY being rationed in horrible ways. So in a bizarre way, these same people who rant against government control or against decisions being taken out of their hands are being played for fools - who do you think currently makes decisions about what you can and cannot get treated for?
Our health care system is the best in the world at curing sick people (see p. 184 of this WHO report). If you don't want to acknowledge that fact then don't. There isn't just one study that shows we cure sick people better than the rest of the world; study after study after study shows that. The empirical evidence shows that socialized medical systems spend less by rationing care (the UK's NICE just restricted steroid injections for back pain, it also restricts other kinds of treatments). The government will ration our health care in any politically expedient way it wishes. You may want the idiots who screwed up our housing markets to screw up or health care but most Americans don't. You may be clueless or just dishonest. Given your liberal political views it's probably both.
This is one of the most laughable arguments trotted out by liberals. The primary reason Obama has advanced for his attempted take over of the health care system is that we spend too much money on needless procedures. He is out to save us from all of those unnecessary tonsillectomies that are being done in his fevered imagination. He just gave his idiotic explanation about taking a blue pill instead of a red pill because the blue pill costs less (we now know he's watched the "Matrix"). He was admitting that he wants to intervene in the doctor-patient relationship in determining the treatments for their patients. The government doesn't have the ability or the right to say whether the red or blue pill will be more effective for any given patient. Obamacare definitely means rationing by the wise Obama and his cronies.Then you say that health care is already being rationed. Which is it? Do we spend too much on health care or is it being rationed by greedy insurance companies? And if you think that rationing is a bad thing, why would you support the creation of a government monopsony that will ration care even more? Furthermore, you don't seem to understand some basic facts. Insurance companies aren't health care service providers. They merely decide whether or not they will pay for a certain procedure on behalf of a beneficiary. If they decide not to pay (which happens much less than Obamacare supporting loons realize) then the individual is free to pay for it him or her self. In Canada, for example, if the governmet denies a certain treatment, the patient can't get that treatment unless he/she goes to the US and pays for it. In Canada it is illegal to provide health care services privately. Obamacare seeks to do the same thing with its proposed community boards with the power to determine what procedures will be allowed.
As far as astroturfing allegations go, Americans are overwhelmingly happy with their health care. That is why people oppose this power grab by Democrats. Health care is definitely expensive and there are needed reforms. It's just that Obama isn't proposing anything that will make health care cheaper, just ask the CBO. We need tort reform so that the plaintiffs' lawyers who have Democrats in their back pocket quit driving up the price of malpractice insurance. We need to end the linkage between health insurance and employment (a vestige of Roosevelt's socialist wage controls in the 1930's). We need to create a national market for health insurance etc. In short, we need to fix all of the problems that the government has created in the health care industry, not increase the government's intrusion.
Finally, the fact that Halliburton held government contracts for decades before Bush entered office (including the Balkans under Clinton) and the fact that they now hold government contracts under Obama proves that there was nothing exceptional about Halliburton holding government contracts during Bush's presidency. That fact contradicts your lame attempt to create a nefarious connection between the war in Iraq and Dick Cheney. You know, being young is no excuse for being stupid.
@MMB54, sorry I didn't mean to be flip, 15 years is definitely a long time - my point was just that I feel a lot of older people tend to be against any kind of health care reform. CNN's recent health care poll also suggested some sort of generational divide (over 50s being more likely to be against reform, under 50s less likely). But I totally agree with your last paragraph.
Sorry AndreainNY, but I stand by what I say (and umm actually, Cheney's relationship with Halliburton was plenty relevant, but that's an argument for another day). When a majority of protesters believe things like "the government supports euthanasia" or "the government will ration care" they are dumb. The fact that they refuse to see the need for any reform at all is troubling to me. And I say that as someone who is young, healthy and has her health care covered.
Straw man alert: The fact that they refuse to see the need for any reform at all is troubling to me.
The fact that liberals are so dishonest is troubling to me. Prove that there is any group of any significant number that believes there is no need for any reform. The republican party definitely supports reform. In typical illogical fashion, you claim that because rational people are against a government takeover of the health care system that they are against all reform. Wrong as usual.
Government will ration care. Obama has said in his emminent wisdom that we spend too much on health care and his "plan" will spend less than we spend now. That is rationing.
OK, since you're a Republican - what specific reforms do you support? I've pasted below the principles Obama has spoken about and that he'd like to see in a health care plan, do you agree with any or all of them?
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/19362.html
Incidentally, do you feel like people at the town halls have been talking about reforms? Town halls are supposed to be a way to engage often absent congressmen/women, but I see little actual conversation.
You write "Furthermore, you don't seem to understand some basic facts. Insurance companies aren't health care service providers. They merely decide whether or not they will pay for a certain procedure on behalf of a beneficiary. If they decide not to pay (which happens much less than Obamacare supporting loons realize [oh really? when was the last time you were in the real world?]) then the individual is free to pay for it him or her self." - I understand plenty - you do realize that many many Americans cannot actually afford to pay for procedures or drugs out of pocket? They're too expensive...this is a basic fact you have conveniently ignored. I'm not sure if you think tragic stories of health care are just fairy tales (go to Andrew Sullivan's blog if you need to read some) or you just don't realize that most people aren't rich...Incidentally, it's not mutually exclusive to say that insurance companies ration but we spend too much on health care - it's a fairly well accepted fact (and I've seen this said by even conservative pundits) that we spend a lot, very inefficiently on health care. And while I know that Canada, Britain and France bashing is fashionable amongst Republicans, let me just point you to this useful little table:
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
It's from 2000, but I'm guessing that things haven't changed for us in the last 9 years. Notice that Canada and Britain are in fact ranked above us in addition to many other countries. Doesn't mean their systems are flawless, but I bet if you polled in those countries, they'd take their health care systems over ours. Look, I believe that everyone should be able to get affordable health care. If that makes me a clueless dishonest liberal loon, then so be it.
Also, just to go back to the original issue posed by the Atlantic writer, I've noticed that neither you nor any other (I'm assuming) conservative person posting comments here has said much about the protesters carrying swastikas and comparing the Dems and Obama to Nazis. I seem to recall that when one blogger on Move On did something similar with Bush and Nazis, there was general (and completely justified) outcry. Abraham Foxman, the head of the anti-defamation league (hardly a bastion of liberalism) has issued a statement denouncing the tactics of these protesters. Do you think that Obama is going to create "death panels" (like what Sarah Palin said yesterday on her Facebook page)? Do you think Democrats' health care wants are Nazi-like? Let us all know.
Republicans held the presidency and both houses of Congress for several years. Somehow I think if they were going to do something they'd have done it. Now we're to believe they support reform but the issue needs to be studied for a few more decades....somehow I'm skeptical.
To be precise, Republicans had a majority in Congress for only four years during the Bush Administration. Democrats conveniently forget that the Democrats controlled the Senate from Jan. 2001-Jan. 2003 in addition to having the majority in both houses since 2006. Bush proposed creating a national market for health insurance in order to avoid the large discrepancies in insurance premium rates. The Democrats opposed it. They needed to maintain all the government created the problems with the current system in order to convince people that the only possible answer is a government takeover. As for reforms, Bush and the Republicans proposed plenty of them. Read here, here, and here was McCain's proposal for reform.
SS, you conveniently failed to acknowledge your previous dishonesty about Demcorats' true intentions to end private insurance. You could also benefit from a class in basic logic at your university.
You are absolutely right hypothetically. However, we are dealing with reality here. Democrats support a government takeover of the health care system that Obama euphemistically claims will "bend the cost curve" (i.e. reduce our current level of spending to the level that he somehow knows to be the correct amount of spending). Countering criticism that Obamacare means rationing by claiming that the current level of spending (which Obama says is too high and he will reduce) includes rationing doesn't help your argument. Whatever the level of current "rationing", Obama intends to ration even more.
Second of all, I'm not a Republican. I didn't vote for McCain and I have voted for Democrats and Republicans in the past. I am not a narcissistic, angry liberal however. That must be what confused you.
As for the horror stories of people who need expensive care that they can't afford, you choose demagoguery instead of argument. Just becasue I don't support the Democrats' power grab doesn't mean that I don't want to help people who truly need it. However, we don't need to throw out the baby with bathwater and get rid of all the good to address a problem that only affects a relatively small percentage of Americans. There is a saying in the legal profession, hard cases make bad law. It is a bad idea to take the extreme case and formulate policy that applies to everyone based on that extreme.
I could explain some of the basics of health care to you but there isn't enough time to address your ignorance and you aren't open minded so it doesn't matter. However, as one example of many if you are on a group plan through your employer and you change jobs and they offer their own group plan, you won't lose coverage for a pre-existing condition. Group plans don't exclude and over 130 million Americans get their insurance through an employer sponsored group plan. Health insurance shouldn't be coupled with employment, it should be protable and that is one of the many reforms that conservatives support. However, under our current system, the number of people who are denied coverage for pre-existing conditions is relatively small. I am all for making that number zero, I am not for a takeover by the federal government, however.
For someone who didn't vote for McCain and claims to not be a Republican, jt007, sure sounds like you agree with a lot of his and Bush's ideas. I'm honestly not sure where you've gotten the impression that Obama wants to end private insurance. You cherry picked some video clips from very liberal members of Congress who do not influence policy in Congress to the extent that Blue Dogs do. You're correct that Obama does LIKE the public option. He's on record as saying that, if we were to start our health care system over, a single payer system might be optimal, but we can't realistically have that now. Obviously, from a political viewpoint, he doesn't have the votes for whatever "government takeover" you have imagined even if that's what he wanted. And (I'm sure this makes you super happy) he probably doesn't have the votes to get a public option either. For someone who says that I'm close-minded and ignorant, you seem to have conveniently ignored much of what's been reported the last few weeks and more specifically, what Obama has said. Not to mention, you don't seem particularly open-minded yourself. You've essentially assumed that a public option would push out private insurers without saying why - from my point of view it seems that private insurance companies might be forced to improve their plans if they faced competition. The CBO (which you cited earlier so I assume you trust them) has also found that a public option would not push private insurers out
http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2009/07/28/cbo-public-option-wont-kill-private-insurers/ You seem to be eager to come to the private insurance companies' defense - I'm sure they find that nice :)
What good in the health care system will be erased if we create reforms as suggested by Democrats? Do you actually think that for people without insurance or with extremely high premiums things can get much worse?
I suppose there's a chance that at the end of August, when neither Sarah Palin nor the other wackadoodles (cogresspeople included) have been able to find the part of the legislation that sets up death panels, that this will all look like a bunch of folderol, the gullible gulled by some anonymous e-mails. Opposition will have exhausted any hope of appearing sane, supporters will be energized by the insanity, and there will be helpful footage for the 2010 campaign of Your Own Republican Congressperson LYING To You about what was in a bill they were supposed to have read. That might work as long-term strategy.
But one of the wackadoodles shooting a congressman, then explaining how they were saving us all from the death squads, is looking just as likely. So no, I don't think this is good. The people up in arms don't seem to have the slightest idea what is in the bill they are so passionately opposed to. (People who opted into Medicare claiming all government run health care is unAmerican, for example.)
"The people up in arms don't seem to have the slightest idea what is in the bill they are so passionately opposed to.(People who opted into Medicare..."
No one 'opts' into Medicare. If you receive social security, the goverment mandates you into Medicare. You can 'opt' into Part B or Part C and pay for it but Part A (original Medicare)...government 'opts' you into. Maybe it is you who doesn't have the 'slightest idea'.
You are kidding yourself if you think the American people "don't seem to have the slightest idea what is in the bill they are so passionately opposed to."
It's the liberals who don't get it. Their vaunted "critical thinking skills" are failing them if they cannot fathom that the government-run plan or the phony "coop" will eventually drive private health insurers out of business. Anyone with unlimited capital who writes the rules of competition always wins.
Connect the dots, Willie!
Shouting down Representatives, or preventing members of the audience from asking questions, before they even have a chance to open their mouths is not a "good thing". (Even less are intimidation tactics used to prevent people from attending these town halls.)
The most distressing part of what I have seen so far is that many protesters genuinely seem to believe nonsense such as "death panels". It means that there is a huge amount of BS to scoop away before a sensible debate can start.