Why do you call that delusional? With this acrimonious attempt at ridicule, is that not what you are doing? Please either ask rational questions based on the thread or visit another thread. Don't go away mad. Just go away.
Ah, in all this garbage lurked a legitimate, intelligent question -- and by vlaurelio of all posters! As I have said in other posts, I am not an expert on health care. Personally, I am looking at each proposal with an open mind, sort of like when you are looking for a new pair of dress shoes -- no, no, no, no, no, maybe, no, no, no....until there is finally a YES. I just haven't seen a "yes" yet from either party. I do know we need insurance reform (removal of pre-existing conditions, uniform rates, interstate insurance sales and stricter but uniform interstate regulation), actual rather than cosmetic tort reform, increased Medicare spending, stricter controls on Medicaid without the threat of medical bankruptcy...that sort of thing.
Thanks for proving my point. You see--despite your impotent directive--I am still able to point out your poor understanding of the referenced 1st Amendment protection.
#3 - It's already been touched on, but the word "option" means there is a choice. IF they offer a public option, it isn't a take over. People still have the choice not to take it. As far as spending related to health care, the tea baggers should love it. It will be deficit neutral, and if the projections they come up with to pay for it are wrong, then ADDITIONAL SPENDING WILL BE CUT TO PAY FOR IT. So it seems that tea baggers should be in favor of it, and hope it is actually more expensive than thought so that wasteful spending will have to be cut. I need to add on to the curtailing of free speech. BMJ isn't doing that, and I really see far less of it now that Bush is out of office.
As you may remember, I went to Senator Wyden's town hall meeting recently. If anyone had stood up and said this, they would have been booed by half the audience before the first seven words had completely been spoken... and that would be the half that you're attempting to defend (except for the tort reform mention, which would have received cheers). The folks I saw may have been diverse in the motives that brought them there, but they were very much united on what they were against and in agreement at how they would express that antagonism. The Tea Party movement is fascinating on a bunch of levels, but one of the things I find most interesting is the notion that most of these folks are probably pro-life, yet appear deaf to the fact that somebody dies in this country every 12 minutes or so because of lack of health insurance. The people I've seen appear to lack basic empathy for those suffering under our current system. It's almost like if they allow themselves to see the moral and financial disarray we now have, that they would have to personally confront an issue they prefer to think of in the abstract. Anyway, I appreciate what you're trying to say, but I'm not seeing it. The way it looks to me is that you're probably the fringe and the fringers you describe are the main body.
We already showed you tort reform was a red herring and you're still going on about it. I think most everyone would agree with you about pre-existing conditions, increased Medicare spending, and the problem of medical bankruptcy.
Very true. Tort reform has been enacted in numerous places and it has NEVER brought down the cost of health care. In fact health care has increased in places where Tort reform has been enacted.
First, let's sort out the rant and address the valid observations and questions. I did this by bold facing the latter so I can address this in an orderly fashion. 1) Many of the signs I have seen outrage me as much as they do you in regard to their unpleasantness and/or unfairness. However, that's what happens when you get people angry? Didn't you see the same thing in the Bush years? Was it right then? Of course not. That's why the vast majority of tea baggers are on the internet rather than the streets. 2) Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity, for better or for worse, are forces in tea party movement. Some of their points are valid, but they often push them to the extreme, much in the same way Keith Olbermann or the Daily Kos does from the left. Extreme, closed-minded positions are never instrumental in forging dialogue or compromise. 3) Tea baggers are suspicious of the health care plans because older Americans are the guinea pigs in this experiment. We are looking into the precipice from a foot away from the edge. The 20 or 30 year olds can afford to gamble because you have time to revamp the plan if it is unworkable. CBS News Sunday night IIRC had an interesting look at several national health care systems in other countries. Their observations were not encouraging. For example, in Panama a woman with a small tumor waited months "in line" to be treated. By the time her turn came up, the tumor was so large that, once it was removed, she was helpless and had to sent to a nursing home for the remainder of her life. There are not enough doctors and nurses to handle the demand of a national health care system, and the result, by whatever name you want to call it, would be rationing. Not one plan I have seen addresses -- not the need for -- but a plan for putting 150,000 more doctors and nurses on the hospital floors. Also, if there is so much waste and fraud in Medicare, why wait? Go after it now and show us some genuine cost savings. That was increase credibility for going forward.
Perhaps that's because its a 3rd world country. But the part you keep missing here is that those people already get treatment. Take the tumor example you gave - people who have tumors here already are getting treatment. It's just that they wait until the tumor is life-threatening and is at the taxpayer's expense. Treating that tumor earlier doesn't require more doctors - if anything, it would require less because the surgery would be simpler. Yes, you'll have an increase in demand for primary care - but you'll have a corresponding decrease in demand for much more time-consuming and intensive emergency care.
Ah, Major, I did not mean to ignore your first post nor this one. My comments, however, will be delayed because dinner awaits.
1. No the signs weren't the same during Bush. Some of the Hitler ones were. But anti-Bush folks didn't bring weapons, and signs threatening to return armed if the President didn't change his policies. Those are something unique to this group. 2. No Beck and Hannity aren't anything like the equivalent to Olbermann. Keith may be partisan, and he may put things in an over dramatic and sensationalized manner. But he doesn't say the President is a racist with a deep hatred for white people, do skits about poisoning leaders of congress, blatantly lie, get facts wrong and never correct them once they are brought to his attention, etc. Keith will also not hesitate to cast blame on Obama. The other two did not do that to Bush. They aren't different sides of the same coin at all. 3. Even if all of these arguments were true(some aren't valid, but let's just pretend they all are.) nothing about them would be worse than what we have now. We have rationing now, but it's decided by men who's goal is to make a profit. In addition we have people who just aren't covered. If I had to have rationing I would rather profit not be the motive behind it. The elderly won't receive changes to their medicare under the current bill, except waste will be removed. Instead of having to take the same test 5 times they can just take it once. It will actually be easier for them. We've heard stories like the one in Panama that have happened right here in the U.S. Each speech the President makes on it he cites different cases where people have died because of the insurance companies and their policies.
thumbs, you are a smart guy. why do you associate with these idiotic tea-baggers? They aren't conservatives, they are mis-informed radicals. By their own admission, they are operating on fear versus the facts. You are better than this.
No worries - I enjoy these types of threads. Much better than the usual fare around here. I will be watching football all day, so I'll probably check in again tomorrow.
I know its immature to continuously point this out, but you guys should really stick to calling yourselves Tea Partiers. Calling yourselves Teabaggers...thats like being a supporter of the Oscar Meyer plant and standing outside with a sign saying "I love putting Oscar Meyer's meat in me". Why make it easy? Its bad enough you let the birthers hang with you. Wait, never mind...political comedy hasnt been this good since Bush was in office. Keep on teabagging.
Ahh, so if it's something YOU want to talk about, it's a "valid observation". But if it's something I want to talk about, it's a "rant". Got it. Did I see blatant racism like this during the Bush administration? Absolutely not. You saw people criticizing his policies or his decision-making. You didn't see people mocking the color of this skin. Like it or not, these are the people with which YOU have aligned yourself by calling yourself a "tea bagger" or "tea partier". You can't join their ranks while at the same time denouncing them. Yeah, but Olbermann and Kos don't incite their followers to gather as an angry mob. Beck most definitely did. And is these two are truly "forces" in the tea party movement that you disagree with, why do you continue to align yourself with them? Again, you can't join their ranks while at the same time denouncing them. Way to ignore the first half of my statement: first you say they aren't homogenous (sp) in thought, now you say they all strongly favor health care reform. Which is it? Because while you may say the tea bag "movement" wants reform, their words, signs, actions, and inactions say something very different. Panama Population: 3,220,000 GDP: $42.446 billion Per capita $13,181 United States of America Population: 307,426,000 GDP: $14.264 trillion Per capita $46,859 Fair comparison. Why don't you try comparing our health care to Germany, France, or the U.K.? Those are the closest comparisons in the Western world. Oh, I know why: because we fail miserably when compared to these nations. You are just continuing to spread the F.U.D. that has prevented health care reform in the past. The GOP has a great plan: submit no real plan of your own, just say "NO" to everything the other side presents. Kaiser Permanente should love it!
Thumbs, I appreciate the civil tone you brought to this thread. You presented a great overview of the assumptions that you have when you go to 'bagger meetings. I would be willing to attend a meeting if it were actually like what you are describing. I did not participate in BJ's thread because I did see it as a caricature of the 'baggers and didn't feel like there was a civil enough tone. I voted with my feet and chose not to engage in that silliness. I also appreciate that you will not put up with racism or its undertones at your meetings. I would love to hear that you haven't got any birthers or antichristers there, but that might be too much to ask. However, when you sit by and let people at least nominally on your side take the civil tone with which you started this thread and s*** all over it by intimating that half of this country doesn't understand hard work like texxy did above, it undermines your claims that you are interested in civil discourse. I am NOT asking you to retroactively call texx out because I believe that demanded apologies are worthless. What I am saying is that in the future, you should have the courage of your convictions to call out people who are being offensive, especially if they are part of your group or purport to be one of your supporters, as texx did. As a preemptive gesture, I will commit to calling out silliness and offensive behavior among the people that I would consider to be on "my side," as I probably should have done with BJ when I saw that thread last night.
