I am not saying that there are not racists in the US. There are far too many. And yes, the GOP has proven themselves to be very petty when it comes to some of the approaches they take when criticizing the president and his initiatives...and yes, a lot of what they say is ridiculous...just like saying that a main reason behind not supporting this bill is due to racism However, Batman, it is entirely possible to be critical of this plan for the reasons I stated above...just as it's entirely possible to be a proponent of health care reform and still disagree with the proposals that they are trying to pass. Your "you're either with us or against us" style to me is no better than the attitude of republicans during the farce behind invading Iraq.
here's a much better poll -- Poll: Big Majorities Dismiss Leading Right Wing Health Care Attacks As “Scare Tactics” * Sixty-three percent said the claim that “death panels of government officials would decide how much medical care ailing individuals will receive” is a scare tactic, versus 30% who said it’s legit. * Fifty-nine percent said the claim that “health care would be rationed” is a scare tactic, versus 35% who said it’s legit. * Fifty-two percent said the claim that “health care would become socialized medicine” is a scare tactic, versus 43% who said it’s legit. * Sixty-one percent said the claim that “government money would be used to pay for abortions” is a scare tactic, versus 33% who said it’s legit. * Fifty-eight percent said the claim that “government money would pay for health care for illegal immigrants” is a scare tactic, versus 37% who said it’s legit.
Should not have used that exact phrase, as I was referring more towards the whole "you are a bad person" if you are not for what we are doing mentality that most republicans I know had back then concerning the invasion. Didn't mean the actual quote said to other countries in the world.
Blake I would love to hear solid, informed ideas about healthcare reform from republicans. But as Bats alluded to, nothing has been introduced. Nothing but lies, insults, inuenndo and distortion. Obama has bent over backwards to bring members of the other side to the table. And after all this time, not one ONE republican will come forward and agree to the plan so far. oh and basso is full of **** if he believes that "with us or against us" wasn't also directed to the anti war crowd. In this country and around the world.
So, in summary: 12% of Republicans think most Democrats are racist. 22% of Democrats think most Republicans are racist. What conclusions am I supposed to draw from this, considering there isn't even much agreement on what it means to be a racist? Edit: I guess there must have been a "not sure" option in the poll as well
The same as independents. The GOP does deserve credit that 12% of its members realize the racism involved in the opposition. Maybe BAsso can eventually come to join the 12% of Republicans who realize this.[/QUOTE] This was a really good post glynch. You took basso's numbers and put them right back in his face. All of that being said, most of the opposition that I have seen has more to do with taxation and the perceived loss of their current benefits than it does race. Was it racist when Republicans opposed HillaryCare? I just do not see it.
No it was directed at domestic critics also. It is basically the same argument of accusing anyone who didn't offer unqualified support of the Iraq war as being traitorous.
This is the problem that I've been saying to Thumbs and others who, in my opinion, have expressed rational opposition towards the play that a lot of that has been drowned out by those yelling about "Socialism!" and "Nazicare!". Given the vagueries in the projections there is a very legitimate concern if this program can actually be paid for and I personally have some strong doubts whether this will be deficit neutral. It is also a very valid concern if the health insurance mandates could be covered by subsidies especially considering the problems that Massachusetts has had with its mandate. Also given the government's less than stellar track record in administering all sorts of programs efficiently I think it is to question how well it could be run. Lastly we can only speculate what affect a public option will have on the health insurance market and it is within the realm of possibility that it could drive out many insurance plans. That said most of these arguments are sidetracked by the screamers and issues that are flat out wrong like whether the bill will cover illegal aliens.
I originally posted this in another thread. [rquoter] Race-Baiting at the Drudge Report See below. Is this national news? Is this even local news? Beatings are terrible, and the students who did this should be punished, but you have to ask yourself why Drudge would feature this inconsequential story on his homepage. The answer, unfortunately, is fairly obvious -- the message is that white people ought to be very afraid of black people, starting with the President. <img src="http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/Picture%204.png" height=600 width=600</img> [/rquoter] I think there is a very vocal minority that is peddling racism somewhere between just below the surface and right out in the open. Whether their opposition is racist, or they are just expressing their opposition through racism, I don't really know. But when you step back an think - really think about the motivations for posting the story above, I don't know how else you can explain it. It only makes sense to make it your number one headline if you are looking to inflame your readers with a fear of black people being “out to get whitey”. I would feel a whole lot better about the whole thing if the Republican legislators and pundits all over the TV and internet weren't doing everything in their power to avoid saying even the slightest bit against the racism when it is presented to them. I just saw some black Republican on Anderson Cooper fall all over himself to defend Rush Limbaugh's racist tirade regarding the bus incident in my original post. When pressed, the most he would say was that "Rush doesn't speak for Republicans" (false), the ubiquitous "he's just an entertainer" (which would be true except for the fact that he has hundreds of thousands of fans who wait on and believe his every word as if he weren't just an entertainer) and finally settling for the idea that Rush "must have been joking" (false as well and even if it were true, telling offensive racist "jokes" hardly qualifies as a defense). It was honestly one of the most bizarre and saddest things I've ever seen. Rather than shutting these people down, they are doing everything they can to pander to and provide excuses for the crazies. The Republicans on the national stage could learn something about the empowerment that comes from policing your own side of the isle from Refman. I think if they would just distance themselves from the crazies, they could move past this minority crazy view. But until they do, the media will keep hammering them with it, and it will appear that every conservative buys into that crap. Maybe the truth is that they really are all afraid of running afoul of the Rush/Hannity/Beck media bulldozer.
Most people are racist, let's not try to pretend most tea-baggers aren't, especially in light of their rhetoric. Hell yes they are racist. I think there's also another element here as well. Class. So many of these disenfranchised white Republicans (like my father) seem to hate the notion of being working class. That's the heroin the GOP sells to poor whites in the south, and things like Universal Heathcare hurt the grand myth that we are all prosperous, and that good things will come our way if we work harder. "Oh, no, you are hard-working, Middle Class, middle Americans. Let's all live in the fantasy that we are also all heterosexual and moral beacons of inspiration and we all love our lives and spouses." No we aren't, and no we don't. We are working class, most of us have little education, and disdain those that do, and remain very suspicious of culture, even...our own. We watch reality television and live vicariously through professional athletes and celebrities. But we can point our finger at black people who have collective lower SAT and IQ scores and we can feel good about that. Until one is elected president and tries to improve the quality of life for everyone. That's what this is about. Let's not delude ourselves.
The Democrats are wrong. The health Care opponents aren't racist. They think Obama is the Anti-christ. http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=174457
Repped for truth. After 2+ months of listening to argument and debates on this, the best I've gotten is speculative concern about the long term effect of a public option. Let me repeat: The most legitimate complaints I have heard from the anti-health care crowd are based on speculation. I'm sorry - but that just does not satisfy me as a serious counterpoint.
Congress has no idea how much it is really going to cost They have no real idea as to how to administer it They are not really sure how to pay for it (Pelosi states that they will just shave off $500bb from the system somehow...but there is no concrete plan) There are 1000 pages that few have read...who knows how many benefits are being given to unions, etc... They have no idea how many people will need it (The CBO admitted that they did not factor in any large companies when doing their study...what happens if these companies choose to pay a fine instead of continuing coverage) They have not said if this public option will pay the same way medicare does...which doesn't pay doctors/hospitals enough to cover costs MINUS salaries They have done nothing to attack the drug companies or plaintiff attorneys...who are also a major part of the problem. Yeah, there is nothing to criticize about this proposal outside of politicial ideological differences The whole bill and it's premise are speculative! Healthcare reform is needed...big time. People need health care and it's costs are out of control. But once again, this isn't the answer, IMHO And before one of you starts attacking the GOP in your response to my post, I am not a republican.
None of these things are true. Of course not - the specifics of a public plan are still being negotiated. Without knowing what the public plan will be, you can't know how many people will likely join or how it will pay. Which makes you wonder - why are people attacking it instead of working on the details? The drug companies part - again, not true. Plantiff's attorneys - true, but that's because, as has been shown over and over here, tort reform been shown to have no impact on health care costs. Since most of what you posted wasn't true, we're still at square one.
i mean, yes they don't know for sure. but they have several good projections. how can you completely discount a CBO projection? what does this mean? a public option isn't radically different than medicare. you can administer it like that. perhaps this is a bit true. but medicare advantage for example wastes billions of dollars without quantitatively showing better care. clearly we have incentives to order too many tests. talk to any doctor, they'll tell you honestly that for a variety of reasons (they say litigation moreso...detractors would attribute it to many financial incentives to ordering tests) that they order tests/procedures that aren't necessary. the article a few months ago comparing el paso with mcallen, same demographics same health but mcallen spent almost double of el paso without appreciable quantitative benefits. those incentives certainly costs a lot. and yes they haven't been fully expounded on but there are several ideas that congress is debating and that are in the bills. the union gripe is just random don't you think? why would you think unions could get something in this? and if you haven't read it, i don't think your in a position to throw out random accusations. as far as a 1000 pages, well first of all that happens in every bill. so lets not take such umbrage when it happens in a bill we don't like. secondly, this is kind of a complicated issue. you yourself allege that congress hasn't dealt with many complex issues, yet when a bill is of sizable, you criticize that? single payer would solve everything. but i think the way obama is getting around that is essentially forbidding certain companies from dropping coverage/taking the public option. also you can obviously make the penalties significant enough to counteract any concern. how hard is that? specialists salaries are way too high. the ideas proposed that you can easily read in major newspapers include one in which they lower salaries for specialists and raise them for primary care physicians. this would provide proper incentives. states are already doing tort reform. which has done nothing to lower insurance rates. see, e.g., texas. and i absolutely agree on drug companies. the premise is, we have too many people not properly (under or completely lacking) coverage and we spend too much for that inadequate coverage. how in hell is that premise speculative? as far as the bill, we've had 60 plus years to study this. we can study every other country. and sure there are a lot of compromises due to a variety of political calculations but that's just how government works. well then the premise isn't wrong. and secondly, what would be the answer? how do you extend coverage and reduce cost, without a complicated 1000 page bill, without fully being sure how many people will be covered, without 100% certainty on the cost and pass it without making compromises, whether its with the pharmaceutical lobby or the plaintiffs lobby?
