Change: Bush vs. Obama on protests

**George Gervin's Afro** · 08-05-2009

As far as I know they have the same rights as any other citizen. However, being who they are, they should be prudent in exercising their rights.

The White House is acting purely politically here; attack the messenger(s) so that the story is about paranoid, middle aged, angry, out of shape white folk, instead of being about the problems those citizens have with the President's agenda and proposed policies on healthcare - which based on polls are, to a large degree, not overwhelmingly popular.

Republicans have, of course, done it; labeling anti-war or anti-Patriot Act protestors as "Un American" most recently, and as "Dope Smoking, free loving hippies" in Nixon's day. Niether party is particulary high-minded; and both dislike effective criticism, and are willing to do whatever it takes to silence, or undermine it.

I agree with what your are saying but it's ludicrous , as some of the righties here claim, that this is something that this WH is guilty of when they ignored their guy doing similar things. I do think this is pushing the envelope however I don't blame this administration in trying to figure out where all of the misinformation is coming from. All we hear is old people are not going to get care and that everyone is going to lose thier health coverage etc... that's not true nor is fair to let that go unchallenged. This is the same thing that happened in Clinton's first term and nothing changed.

**101A** · 08-05-2009

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

All we hear is old people are not going to get care and that everyone is going to lose thier health coverage etc... that's not true nor is fair to let that go unchallenged. This is the same thing that happened in Clinton's first term and nothing changed.

Obama is on record as saying he is for a single payor, universal, healthcare system.

A strong argument can be made that the government competing with private insurers, especially as that compe ion is defined in the current proposal in the house, that THAT could lead to just what the President has said he wants.

What a politician DOES is always more important that what he/she SAY'S - so people don't fully trust what Obama is saying now.

Many, many Americans DO NOT want a universal/single payor healthcare system. They are fundamentally, strongly opposed to such a system.

I, myself, believe that the plan currently in the House will, inevitably lead to a Universal, single-payor healthcare system. No one has told me to believe that, or connected the dots for me. I came to that conclusion all on my own. If I say so, in a loud voice, I am not spreading misinformation - or misleading anyone. I believe the President and his allies are the ones doing that.

(and I take back the last post in the other thread - we're now having a political discussion)

**Supergirl** · 08-05-2009

Originally Posted by 101A

I, myself, believe that the plan currently in the House will, inevitably lead to a Universal, single-payor healthcare system. No one has told me to believe that, or connected the dots for me. I came to that conclusion all on my own. If I say so, in a loud voice, I am not spreading misinformation - or misleading anyone. I believe the President and his allies are the ones doing that.

well, that's fine and well, but it's a mighty irrational feeling ("belief") you've got going on there, and irrational feelings make for lousy policy.

there is amble evidence to suggest that there is NO WAY IN America ever winds up with a single payer system, whether you want them to or not. Our political system will just never let such a proposal through.

**101A** · 08-05-2009

Originally Posted by Supergirl

there is amble evidence to suggest that there is NO WAY IN America ever winds up with a single payer system, whether you want them to or not. Our political system will just never let such a proposal through.

When the govt. puts all other carriers out of business, there will only be a single payor left.

In 2003 our President said that he was in favor, and was working toward a Single Payor System. His party has a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, and has solid control of the House, which is headed by a VERY liberal Senator from San Francisco.

If there was EVER a time that a path to single payor could be etched in stone; this is it.

Excuse me if I don't take your (relatively well established naive) word for it.

**Supergirl** · 08-05-2009

Originally Posted by 101A

When the govt. puts all other carriers out of business, there will only be a single payor left.

In 2003 our President said that he was in favor, and was working toward a Single Payor System. His party has a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, and has solid control of the House, which is headed by a VERY liberal Senator from San Francisco.

If there was EVER a time that a path to single payor could be etched in stone; this is it.

Excuse me if I don't take your (relatively well established naive) word for it.

actually, i suspect i know more about health care than most people in this forum, but that's another point altogether and not one that warrants debate.

Obama has already ruled out single payer system - he has said he isn't striving for one and doesn't expect one to come out. The Blue Dog Democrats have much more control than anyone at this point, and they would never sign off on such a plan.

Where does this fear that a govt plan would drive everyone else out of business come from? Why does it come out of the mouths of the same people who think the govt can't run anything? if you believe in the market at all, then you have to believe that if the govt enters the health care marketplace, only the most affordable and best run plans will come out OK in the end. monopolies are never a good thing for an economy or for people.

What is being proposed is REGULATION of the kind of profits CEOs can make off of other people's health insurance, and REGULATION of the kind of money insurance companies and doctors can charge for medical procedures. None of that means that there won't be a marketplace of health care plans, including a public option and many, many private options. I suspect you will see all the same private options (Tufts, BCBS, Harvard Pilgrim, Aetna, United Behavioral Health) and perhaps a few new ones. None of them have been hurt by Massachusetts' health insurance mandate or Mass Health being a part of the marketplace here. And contrary to other reports on this board, the Massachusetts model is widely held to be a success. Is MA having financial problems? Yes. But not because of the insurance mandate or because of Mass Health. And trust me, on issues of Massachusetts politics, I am quite sure I know more than anyone else on this board.

**DarrinS** · 08-05-2009

Supergirl,

Let's band together and rid the internet of this disinformation campaign. Help me report these paid shills to the White House.

Great example, here.

**Crookshanks** · 08-05-2009

Hey - I think I'll send Supergirl's post above to that website - she has no clue what she's talking about and is spreading disinformation.

The democrats are using Alinksy's Rules for Radicals - you know, define the enemy, isolate him and then discredit and demonize him. That's exactly what Nancy Pelosi and Obama and his gang of thugs are doing. And these "angry mobs" make up 52% of the voting-age population. It's not just the "righties" as you libs here would like us to believe. They're average, every day citizens who don't want the government messing up 17% of our economy.

As for Obama being against a single-payer system - was he lying in all those videos of past speeches, or is he lying now? I think he's lying now - and so do a majority of people. That's why there's so much outrage. And now the Obama administration is asking citizens to spy on their neighbors and friends and turn them in.

I've checked out some conservative sites and this [email protected] is going to go down in flames. The site is already being spammed and people are turning themselves in. One person turned in her 85 year-old grandmother with this comment. "Please straighten her out, she doesn't believe in euthanasia and would rather have the higher cost medical care"

**George Gervin's Afro** · 08-05-2009

Originally Posted by Crookshanks

Hey - I think I'll send Supergirl's post above to that website - she has no clue what she's talking about and is spreading disinformation.

The democrats are using Alinksy's Rules for Radicals - you know, define the enemy, isolate him and then discredit and demonize him. That's exactly what Nancy Pelosi and Obama and his gang of thugs are doing. And these "angry mobs" make up 52% of the voting-age population. It's not just the "righties" as you libs here would like us to believe. They're average, every day citizens who don't want the government messing up 17% of our economy.

As for Obama being against a single-payer system - was he lying in all those videos of past speeches, or is he lying now? I think he's lying now - and so do a majority of people. That's why there's so much outrage. And now the Obama administration is asking citizens to spy on their neighbors and friends and turn them in.

I've checked out some conservative sites and this [email protected] is going to go down in flames. The site is already being spammed and people are turning themselves in. One person turned in her 85 year-old grandmother with this comment. "Please straighten her out, she doesn't believe in euthanasia and would rather have the higher cost medical care"

The democrats are using Alinksy's Rules for Radicals - you know, define the enemy, isolate him and then discredit and demonize him.

That's wierd Karl Rove and his ilk did the exact same thing...hmmmm...... I guess you must have been born this past January because any clear thinking person would realize how hypocritical this is..

**Supergirl** · 08-05-2009

I need to stop trying to have conversations with people who don't really want to hear or read anything other than their own ill-informed opinions. But I will leave people who care about truth with this:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...bjects/health/

It's an exhaustive file on all the statements made about health care and whether they are actually true or not. And yes, it ranks Obama's stance on health care as a "half-flip" because his position has become more nuanced as result of actually taking office, as opposed to running for it. Which, you know, is what EVERY OTHER POLITICIAN ON THE PLANET DOES when they actually get into office.

**Crookshanks** · 08-05-2009

Nuanced - that's an elitist way of saying HE'S A BIG FAT LIAR!

**SonOfAGun** · 08-05-2009

Originally Posted by Supergirl

WHat part of "bussing people in" to make it look like the health care proposals are truly being opposed by AMericans do people not understand?

it's like the same damn woman at all the "rallies."

that's not dissent, folks. that's manipulation and deceit. it's the republican way.

But hey, it reeks of desperation. The Republicans know they're on the wrong side of history on this one. They just can't get out of their own way. The vast majority of Americans aren't falling for their lies.

all aboard the ACCORN TRAIN WOOOOO WOOOOOOOOOOO

**Spursmania** · 08-05-2009

I wish I knew of a town hall meeting taking place here in San Antonio. I'd definitely make some noise! Of course, it would be reported that someone bussed me to the meeting.

Many, many Americans do not want government run health care. The polls show many Americans are against this bleeding liberal bill whether or not liberals want to believe it or not.

**SonOfAGun** · 08-05-2009

Originally Posted by Supergirl

I need to stop trying to have conversations with people who don't really want to hear or read anything other than their own ill-informed opinions.

**George Gervin's Afro** · 08-05-2009

Originally Posted by Spursmania

I wish I knew of a town hall meeting taking place here in San Antonio. I'd definitely make some noise! Of course, it would be reported that someone bussed me to the meeting.

Many, many Americans do not want government run health care. The polls show many Americans are against this bleeding liberal bill whether or not liberals want to believe it or not.

I wonder why...when they are being fed poor people will die and care will be rationed. women with breat cancer won't get treatment..etc..I wonder why when polled people are against it..of course I would like to get more accurate infromation to those people so they can make a non biased decision not based on assumptions and scare tactics but that's just me.. let's just scare everyone and tell them it's going to be just like (insert country here) even though a final bill hasn't been proposed. it may not be the most honest thing to do but i want to win so the truth..

**George Gervin's Afro** · 08-05-2009

Originally Posted by Supergirl

I need to stop trying to have conversations with people who don't really want to hear or read anything other than their own ill-informed opinions. But I will leave people who care about truth with this:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...bjects/health/

It's an exhaustive file on all the statements made about health care and whether they are actually true or not. And yes, it ranks Obama's stance on health care as a "half-flip" because his position has become more nuanced as result of actually taking office, as opposed to running for it. Which, you know, is what EVERY OTHER POLITICIAN ON THE PLANET DOES when they actually get into office.

intellectual honesty and resident conservatives mix like oil and water

**Crookshanks** · 08-05-2009

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

liberal intellectual dishonesty and resident intelligent conservatives mix like oil and water

fixed it for you

**101A** · 08-06-2009

Originally Posted by Supergirl

Where does this fear that a govt plan would drive everyone else out of business come from? Why does it come out of the mouths of the same people who think the govt can't run anything? if you believe in the market at all, then you have to believe that if the govt enters the health care marketplace, only the most affordable and best run plans will come out OK in the end. monopolies are never a good thing for an economy or for people.

1. The Govt. CAN"T run anything.

Therefore, initially, the public option will be an abject failure. It will attract the sickest among us, who cannot get coverage anywhere else; it will be "selected against".

2. Insurance companies, being the profit driven, intelligent en ies they are, will recognize this; and will allow, by inordinate rate increases, upcoming large claimants, and claimant groups to move to the public plan during the window of time those claims will hit. Their underwriters are good; their agents want to make commissions; they will keep calling on those groups, and when the conditions clear, will sign them up for premiums the govt. plan can't match because of the adverse selection THEIR underwriters are dealing with; and the amount of premium they need to collect to cover their (mounting) losses.

3. The media will cover the DEEP hole the public option finds itself in.

4. The hole will be blamed on the insurance industry.

5. New regulations will be passed to "level the playing field.

6. Repeat steps 1 - 5 until the only regulation left is to outlaw private insurance.

It is inevitable. The government option will be completely out of its league; it has no concept of making a profit, or controlling costs while the insurance industry is VERY good at it. The govt's compe ive advantage is the ultimate one; they write the rules.

**boutons_deux** · 08-06-2009

Why do Medicare users poll more satisfied with Medicare than private insurance users with private insurance?

And Medicare users, 65+, very probably use Medicare much more than private insurance users.

The subsidized, corrupt private insurance industry provides no value anywhere near the profits they pocket and overheads they waste.

Private insurance users, esp the ones who don't have to pay for it, not even taxed on the employer-provided benefits, are all for private insurance until they get mugged by it.

Let's see how many anti-health-reformers would be against the public option if they had to pay, after tax, $13K/year to insure their family of four.

If the govt is so bad, why are Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid overheads so much lower than for-profit operations?

**DarrinS** · 08-06-2009

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

Why do Medicare users poll more satisfied with Medicare than private insurance users with private insurance?

And Medicare users, 65+, very probably use Medicare much more than private insurance users.

The subsidized, corrupt private insurance industry provides no value anywhere near the profits they pocket and overheads they waste.

Private insurance users, esp the ones who don't have to pay for it, not even taxed on the employer-provided benefits, are all for private insurance until they get mugged by it.

Let's see how many anti-health-reformers would be against the public option if they had to pay, after tax, $13K/year to insure their family of four.

If the govt is so bad, why are Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid overheads so much lower than for-profit operations?

I'm reporting this "fishy" post to the White House office of New Media.