LGP Political Discussion Thread

[doublem]

Hmmmmmmm....

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/ ... ce=refresh" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Geezer]

Hmmmmmmm....

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/ ... ce=refresh" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So what's your point? The Dems are sending ACORN, the Moveonorgers and union goons to these rallies. They're real grassroots I suppose. Lefties should never mention ugly signs again. Bush, Cheyney and others had the crudest signs imagineable being shown by liberals during thier 8 year tenure. Dems have absolutely no basis to ever complain about disruptive behavior or rude signs. For a dishonest buffoon like Pelosi to whine about opposing groups while her own supporting loon groups such as code pink have done far worse raises hypocrisy to an art form. Even for a politician. CBS, NBC and the like never bother to show lefty placards calling for Bush's death but they shour got their panties in a bunch when someone waves a sign that could be offensive to Obama.

[doublem]

Hmmmmmmm....

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/ ... ce=refresh" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So what's your point? The Dems are sending ACORN, the Moveonorgers and union goons to these rallies. They're real grassroots I suppose. Lefties should never mention ugly signs again. Bush, Cheyney and others had the crudest signs imagineable being shown by liberals during thier 8 year tenure. Dems have absolutely no basis to ever complain about disruptive behavior or rude signs. For a dishonest buffoon like Pelosi to whine about opposing groups while her own supporting loon groups such as code pink have done far worse raises hypocrisy to an art form. Even for a politician. CBS, NBC and the like never bother to show lefty placards calling for Bush's death but they shour got their panties in a bunch when someone waves a sign that could be offensive to Obama.

It isn't real, man. All these town hall meeting have shown is the incoherent nonsense message of the America people, who are largely influenced by elites. A lot of these people have no idea what they are talking about, they are just mad and afraid, I don't know what about, but they heard it from someone in authority. What do people mean when they say, we want our country back, or America is going to turn in the U.S.S.R. These people don't have any reasons for there anger or fear,they are acting like children, if you have objections to the health care plan fine, but please don't tell me things like we want our country back.

[Guinness]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/oba ... ce126.html

[shafnutz05]

It isn't real, man. All these town hall meeting have shown is the incoherent nonsense message of the America people, who are largely influenced by elites. A lot of these people have no idea what they are talking about, they are just mad and afraid, I don't know what about, but they heard it from someone in authority. What do people mean when they say, we want our country back, or America is going to turn in the U.S.S.R. These people don't have any reasons for there anger or fear,they are acting like children, if you have objections to the health care plan fine, but please don't tell me things like we want our country back.

People have a VERY good reason to be afraid of this bill...and it's not just baseless paranoia. The White House and Congress are starting to blatantly lie about the contents of this bill, because they know the public would NEVER support what is truly in it. For example:

1) Every day Obama goes on and on about how "if you like your insurance, you can keep it! No one is forcing you to do anything!". Yet on pages 16-17 of this very bill, it makes it perfectly clear that as soon as you leave your current insurance plan (for example, if you change jobs), you will immediately be forced to join the government's plan. When you file your taxes, if the IRS sees that you have not enrolled in the government plan, you will be fined and enrolled in a random plan chosen by a government-appointed bureaucrat. Look in the bill, IT'S RIGHT THERE. So sure, you can keep your private insurance....but as soon as you try and switch to a different provider, you have to register with the government. That is how they will slowly kill private insurers.

2) Obama keeps trying to calm down the seniors and baby boomers by saying "We aren't going to cut Medicare! No way!" Again, look in the bill. Half of this plan (over $500 billion) is going to be funded by slashing Medicare. They are going to make huge cuts to Medicare just as millions of baby boomers are moving into their 60s and 70s. Did you know that back in the stimulus bill from February, millions of dollars were allocated for "comparative effectiveness research"? Essentially, this researches whether it is financially worth it to treat older citizens when their productiveness to society won't be that great. Again, this is not speculation, THIS IS IN THE BILL.

3) What Hippocratic Oath? Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel (yes, he's Rahm's brother) has been appointed as health policy adviser at the OMB, and is a member of the Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research (which we discussed above). He has spoken on record, stating that the Hippocratic Oath puts too much emphasis on treating patients "regardless of the cost or effect on others." He has advocated, for senior citizens, the concept of end-of-life counseling and palliative care instead of treatment of diseases for older citizens, since their contribution to society is comparatively lower than a younger person. And guess who makes these decisions? Government officials that will be appointed by Barack Obama. When you are 68, do you really want some anonymous, unaccountable government bureaucrat deciding whether or not your cancer is worth treating?

You can debate the above points all you want, but don't try and deny them. These are all IN THE BILL. The American public has a real good reason to be worried about this plan...it represents the largest transfer of power from the legislature to the executive branch in 225 years. Everyone got bent out of shape because the Patriot Act put a ton of power into the hands of the executive...yet that power pales in comparison, when you consider that they will now have control over everyone's life.

Just had to get this out there...everyone keeps dismissing this opposition as radical or unfounded. That could not be further from the truth. Look at the bill, look at the lies and dodging from the administration and Congress.

[shafnutz05]

There are numerous other chilling details that are taken verbatim from the bill, but I would not get any work done today if I tried to list them all. There is a pretty decent list at this link below...citing exact pages and lines from the bills. You can verify them all with the actual contents in the bill, and tell me if I am lying.

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum ... 852217/pg1

[MWB]

1) Every day Obama goes on and on about how "if you like your insurance, you can keep it! No one is forcing you to do anything!". Yet on pages 16-17 of this very bill, it makes it perfectly clear that as soon as you leave your current insurance plan (for example, if you change jobs), you will immediately be forced to join the government's plan. When you file your taxes, if the IRS sees that you have not enrolled in the government plan, you will be fined and enrolled in a random plan chosen by a government-appointed bureaucrat. Look in the bill, IT'S RIGHT THERE. So sure, you can keep your private insurance....but as soon as you try and switch to a different provider, you have to register with the government. That is how they will slowly kill private insurers.

Don't think that's true.

http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2009/07 ... legal.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://mediamatters.org/research/200907210014" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[pittsoccer33]

1) Every day Obama goes on and on about how "if you like your insurance, you can keep it! No one is forcing you to do anything!". Yet on pages 16-17 of this very bill, it makes it perfectly clear that as soon as you leave your current insurance plan (for example, if you change jobs), you will immediately be forced to join the government's plan. When you file your taxes, if the IRS sees that you have not enrolled in the government plan, you will be fined and enrolled in a random plan chosen by a government-appointed bureaucrat. Look in the bill, IT'S RIGHT THERE. So sure, you can keep your private insurance....but as soon as you try and switch to a different provider, you have to register with the government. That is how they will slowly kill private insurers.

Don't think that's true.

http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2009/07 ... legal.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://mediamatters.org/research/200907210014" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Under that interpretation, the bill says that your current plan may not meet all the new federal mandates and requirements. if you like your plan and that choice evaporates, you will have to attempt to find a new one or be forced into buying the federal plan, which would very likely force you to change doctors, a promise Obama keeps saying will not ever happen.

All of this is written in vague language so that the details can be fleshed out by unaccountable czars at a later date.

[shafnutz05]

Don't think that's true.

http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2009/07 ... legal.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://mediamatters.org/research/200907210014" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yes, it is. It's true...you will be able to still enroll in a private plan. Unforunately, this "private" plan must meet every single requirement as defined in this bill, or else it will be deemed illegal. It also must include the public option. So essentially, it's not "private" anymore. It's semantics.

And Media Matters is hardly a bipartisan source of information

[shafnutz05]

Thank you pittsoccer33, you got to it before I did

[MWB]

3) What Hippocratic Oath? Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel (yes, he's Rahm's brother) has been appointed as health policy adviser at the OMB, and is a member of the Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research (which we discussed above). He has spoken on record, stating that the Hippocratic Oath puts too much emphasis on treating patients "regardless of the cost or effect on others." He has advocated, for senior citizens, the concept of end-of-life counseling and palliative care instead of treatment of diseases for older citizens, since their contribution to society is comparatively lower than a younger person. And guess who makes these decisions? Government officials that will be appointed by Barack Obama. When you are 68, do you really want some anonymous, unaccountable government bureaucrat deciding whether or not your cancer is worth treating?

Guess who makes what decisions? Are you referring to the mythical "death panel"?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090811/ap_ ... f_life_q_a" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A slightly different look at Emanuel:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090812/u ... 9191583500" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Daily Show take on some of this:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-a ... nel-debate" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You can debate the above points all you want, but don't try and deny them. These are all IN THE BILL.

No, they aren't all in the bill.

[MWB]

1) Every day Obama goes on and on about how "if you like your insurance, you can keep it! No one is forcing you to do anything!". Yet on pages 16-17 of this very bill, it makes it perfectly clear that as soon as you leave your current insurance plan (for example, if you change jobs), you will immediately be forced to join the government's plan. When you file your taxes, if the IRS sees that you have not enrolled in the government plan, you will be fined and enrolled in a random plan chosen by a government-appointed bureaucrat. Look in the bill, IT'S RIGHT THERE. So sure, you can keep your private insurance....but as soon as you try and switch to a different provider, you have to register with the government. That is how they will slowly kill private insurers.

Don't think that's true.

http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2009/07 ... legal.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://mediamatters.org/research/200907210014" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Under that interpretation, the bill says that your current plan may not meet all the new federal mandates and requirements. if you like your plan and that choice evaporates, you will have to attempt to find a new one or be forced into buying the federal plan, which would very likely force you to change doctors, a promise Obama keeps saying will not ever happen.

All of this is written in vague language so that the details can be fleshed out by unaccountable czars at a later date.

This is much more accurate than saying, "it makes it perfectly clear that as soon as you leave your current insurance plan (for example, if you change jobs), you will immediately be forced to join the government's plan."

If you changed jobs now, wouldn't you be forced to find a new plan, probably changing doctors also? There is the issue of the government putting conditions on insurers, which could be seen as good or bad. Having a set of standards to live up to isn't always a bad thing, but that is a different debate.

[MWB]

And Media Matters is hardly a bipartisan source of information

Don't attack the source, attack the information in it. If there's something inaccurate there, let me know.

[HomerPenguin]

Every day Obama goes on and on about how "if you like your insurance, you can keep it! No one is forcing you to do anything!". Yet on pages 16-17 of this very bill, it makes it perfectly clear that as soon as you leave your current insurance plan (for example, if you change jobs), you will immediately be forced to join the government's plan.

Yes, it is. It's true...you will be able to still enroll in a private plan. Unforunately, this "private" plan must meet every single requirement as defined in this bill, or else it will be deemed illegal.

So the bill doesn't actually say what you said it says, but the fact that it doesn't just reinforces your original point. Gotcha.

It also must include the public option. So essentially, it's not "private" anymore. It's semantics.

What "must include the public option"? If you're allowed to enroll in a private plan then you're allowed to enroll in a private plan. There's nothing public about a private plan.

[shafnutz05]

So the bill doesn't actually say what you said it says, but the fact that it doesn't just reinforces your original point. Gotcha.

What "must include the public option"? If you're allowed to enroll in a private plan then you're allowed to enroll in a private plan. There's nothing public about a private plan.

Ok......let me try one more time.

Is a "private" insurance plan truly private when federal bureaucrats are dictating every single requirement for that plan? You will absolutely be able to keep your "private" insurance, and enroll in "private" plans. Here's the problem. With all of the new regulations and rules that are going to be handed down by the executive, the cost of providing insurance (on the part of the employer) is going to skyrocket. Why would employers want to continue working with a "private" carrier that is costing them exponentially more money when they can just take the public option for their employees? The reason why Obama doesn't mind saying that we can keep the plan we have is that he knows full well the skyrocketing costs for insurance companies due to the increasing demand for services will force private insurers out.

As a comparison (and probably a poor one, say a government passed a law encouraging everyone to switch to a certain fuel-efficient car. The president comes out and says, "Now don't get me wrong, you can still drive your trucks and SUVs! However, if you switch to the hybrid car, your gasoline will be free." Who is that cost going to be transferred to? The truck and SUV drivers...gas will become so expensive, they will be financially forced to switch to the government plan.

I know that's a bad metaphor, but the best I can come up with on short notice.

[HomerPenguin]

Is a "private" insurance plan truly private when federal bureaucrats are dictating every single requirement for that plan?

Really? So now any industry under government regulation is no longer private?

Well heck, doesn't that mean we've all been full-on commie for decades now? What are we bickering about?

With all of the new regulations and rules that are going to be handed down by the executive, the cost of providing insurance (on the part of the employer) is going to skyrocket. Why would employers want to continue working with a "private" carrier that is costing them exponentially more money when they can just take the public option for their employees?

Then why, I wonder, does the CBO anticipate a net increase in the number of people on employer-provided insurance plans by 2016?

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009 ... ouse-plan/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[ExPatriatePen]

Is a "private" insurance plan truly private when federal bureaucrats are dictating every single requirement for that plan?

Really? So now any industry under government regulation is no longer private?/

You have to admit the lines between public/private have been blurred here under the Obama-stration. Look at the recent changes in the executive leadership at GM brought about by a "dictate" from the Obama White House. (Yes, I used the word "dictate" - rather appropriate isn't it?)

[ExPatriatePen]

Then why, I wonder, does the CBO anticipate a net increase in the number of people on employer-provided insurance plans by 2016?

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009 ... ouse-plan/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You would think that as payrolls expand from the current depressed levels over the next seven years that the number of employees receiving employer "sponsored" (not provided) coverage plans would also increase.

[pittsoccer33]

Is a "private" insurance plan truly private when federal bureaucrats are dictating every single requirement for that plan?

Really? So now any industry under government regulation is no longer private?/

You have to admit the lines between public/private have been blurred here under the Obama-stration. Look at the recent changes in the executive leadership at GM brought about by a "dictate" from the Obama White House. (Yes, I used the word "dictate" - rather appropriate isn't it?)

He'll give a teleprompter conference saying something like "now let me be clear, I have no interest in running a car company." Then in the next sentence he lays out his dictates and demands on how the car company be run (what kind of cars to make, what to pay the unions, mandates on MPGs etc).

[doublem]

Is a "private" insurance plan truly private when federal bureaucrats are dictating every single requirement for that plan?

Really? So now any industry under government regulation is no longer private?/

You have to admit the lines between public/private have been blurred here under the Obama-stration. Look at the recent changes in the executive leadership at GM brought about by a "dictate" from the Obama White House. (Yes, I used the word "dictate" - rather appropriate isn't it?)

Right, Obama is the only president to blur business and government.

[shafnutz05]

Right, Obama is the only president to blur business and government.

No, he isn't, but I think he has taken it a step further. He is essentially operating the largest automaker in the United States. At least with GM, the lines aren't even blurred anymore...they are one and the same.

[HomerPenguin]

Then why, I wonder, does the CBO anticipate a net increase in the number of people on employer-provided insurance plans by 2016?

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009 ... ouse-plan/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You would think that as payrolls expand from the current depressed levels over the next seven years that the number of employees receiving employer "sponsored" (not provided) coverage plans would also increase.

But that would be more than offset because “12 million people who would not be enrolled in an employment-based plan under current law would be covered by one in 2016, largely because the mandate for individuals to be insured would increase workers’ demand for insurance coverage through their employer,” the budget office wrote.

[Ron`]

That will work, the employees will just demand more coverage and get it .... Look around, most employers would drop it in a second for a forced government plan.

It all comes back to the principle of once they have control and it's out of the legislative branches nothing is safe....

[Guinness]

From where in the Constitution does the federal government derive the power to provide insurance of any kind at all?

Even supporters of the prohibition of alcohol realized that, in order to do so, the Constitution needed to be amended in order to inact such a restriction/imposition upon the lives of the people.

[doublem]

From where in the Constitution does the federal government derive the power to provide insurance of any kind at all?

Even supporters of the prohibition of alcohol realized that, in order to do so, the Constitution needed to be amended in order to inact such a restriction/imposition upon the lives of the people.

This isn't a constitutional issue. No one is being forced to take health care insurance. Prohibition was taking something away, the government providing a health care option does not fall in that category.