View Full Version : Organized disorderly conduct at town hall meetings
Count Iblis
Aug6-09, 11:08 AM
http://www.thecherrycreeknews.com/content/view/4996/2/
With federal lawmakers returning home this week to begin their month- long recess, the far right is welcoming them with large, angry throngs at "town halls gone wild." "Screaming constituents, protesters dragged out by the cops[and] congressmen fearful for their safety" have marked the ugly scenes that have become the rule in recent days, as normally respectful meetings between representatives and their constituents have been inundated with right-wing protesters focused on killing health care reform.
Should the organizers of these acts of "disorderly conduct" be arrested and prosecuted?
DavidSnider
Aug6-09, 11:12 AM
Should the organizers if these acts of "disorderly conduct" be arrested and prosecuted?
If they encourage people to incite violence, yes. Just being obnoxious, no.
http://www.thecherrycreeknews.com/content/view/4996/2/
Should the organizers of these acts of "disorderly conduct" be arrested and prosecuted?
Who would you like to decide whether the conduct is disorderly? The current party in power?
Ivan Seeking
Aug6-09, 02:32 PM
Who would you like to decide whether the conduct is disorderly? The current party in power?
Because just like during the election, they - the Republicans brought in to disrupt the discussions - are making false accusations. They are also preventing people who actually wish to learn and talk about the issue of health care from doing so. Have you seen the chaos they have been inciting? That isn't democracy; it is an attempt at mob rule.
They are reciting the insurance company line.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=328246
It is all just the same old fear factor right wing politics. And it is organized by special interests.
The lobbyist-run groups Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks, which orchestrated the anti-Obama tea parties earlier this year, are now pursuing an aggressive strategy to create an image of mass public opposition to health care and clean energy reform. A leaked memo from Bob MacGuffie, a volunteer with the FreedomWorks website Tea Party Patriots, details how members should be infiltrating town halls and harassing Democratic members of Congress:
– Artificially Inflate Your Numbers: “Spread out in the hall and try to be in the front half. The objective is to put the Rep on the defensive with your questions and follow-up. The Rep should be made to feel that a majority, and if not, a significant portion of at least the audience, opposes the socialist agenda of Washington.”
– Be Disruptive Early And Often: “You need to rock-the-boat early in the Rep’s presentation, Watch for an opportunity to yell out and challenge the Rep’s statements early.”
– Try To “Rattle Him,” Not Have An Intelligent Debate: “The goal is to rattle him, get him off his prepared script and agenda. If he says something outrageous, stand up and shout out and sit right back down. Look for these opportunities before he even takes questions.”
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/31/recess-harassment-memo/
Count Iblis
Aug6-09, 03:01 PM
Who would you like to decide whether the conduct is disorderly? The current party in power?
Why not let experienced police officers like Crowley keep an eye on the town hall meetings. :approve:
russ_watters
Aug6-09, 03:04 PM
Heh, this is a funny thread - democrats complaining about republican protests!? We're definitely in bizarro world now!
Ivan Seeking
Aug6-09, 03:20 PM
Heh, this is a funny thread - democrats complaining about republican protests!? We're definitely in bizarro world now!
They aren't protesting, they are disrupting town hall meetings. Do you know the difference?
They are denying other Americans the right to free speech. When you get the occasional liberal nut trying to disrupt Republican events, they are arrested or escorted out. But in this case we have mobs, not just a few individuals.
Here in Oregon, one woman was forced to leave a Republican rally just for wearing an Obama t-shirt.
Who would you like to decide whether the conduct is disorderly? The current party in power?
Because just like during the election, they - the Republicans brought in to disrupt the discussions - are making false accusations. They are also preventing people who actually wish to learn and talk about the issue of health care from doing so. Have you seen the chaos they have been inciting? That isn't democracy; it is an attempt at mob rule.
They are reciting the insurance company line.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=328246
Why did you bother quoting my question if you weren't going to answer it? Your response indicates you read something that wasn't there. I guess I need to add a sig that says "I'm mostly libertarian, and have little respect for either party". That way if I say something like "Its going to rain tomorrow", people won't immediately presume I'm a democrat, and if I say, "I had eggs for breakfast" they won't immediately presume I'm a republican.
If anyone sees anyone doing anything 'fishy' at these town halls you have a duty to your President to report them:
There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/
No that's not a statement from the the Puffington Host or what have you. Yes it is up on whitehouse.gov, with a whitehouse email address to collect information on Americans.
BTW, I've reported Evo for her fishy fish smacks. They have you in their database clutches now Evo.
Gene Green's town hall meeting: packed with people who don't want a government-run "socialist" health insurance program. Then Rep. Green asks how many people are on Medicare, and sheepishly, the hands come up. Are these people brain-dead? If it wasn't for that "socialist" insurance program, most would likely have no coverage. Why are they taking advantage of a publicly-financed health insurance while trying to keep others from getting that option?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXzJxKVJQds
Why are they taking advantage of a publicly-financed health insurance while trying to keep others from getting that option?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXzJxKVJQds
What is illogical about trying to get half your money back from a thief that took your money? So you're saying the best way to fight government behavior you don't believe in, is to increase its efficiency?
What is illogical about trying to get half your money back from a thief that took your money? So you're saying the best way to fight government behavior you don't believe in, is to increase its efficiency?Obviously, they approve of the government behavior when it benefits them personally, because there were a LOT of Medicare recipients in the room and probably many more who didn't raise their hands out of embarrassment at their own hypocrisy. These people are bussed in by lobbyist-controlled special interest groups solely to disrupt the meetings and try to prevent civil discourse.
Ivan Seeking
Aug6-09, 05:45 PM
Why did you bother quoting my question if you weren't going to answer it? Your response indicates you read something that wasn't there. I guess I need to add a sig that says "I'm mostly libertarian, and have little respect for either party". That way if I say something like "Its going to rain tomorrow", people won't immediately presume I'm a democrat, and if I say, "I had eggs for breakfast" they won't immediately presume I'm a republican.
Sorry, I misread your post.
As to who should decide, that is not relevant. If they are disrupting a town hall then they should be asked to leave or be escorted out. There is such a thing as disorderly conduct.
Ivan Seeking
Aug6-09, 05:49 PM
Obviously, they approve of the government behavior when it benefits them personally, because there were a LOT of Medicare recipients in the room and probably many more who didn't raise their hands out of embarrassment at their own hypocrisy. These people are bussed in by lobbyist-controlled special interest groups solely to disrupt the meetings and try to prevent civil discourse.
Yep, just more right-wing sleeze.
Ivan Seeking
Aug6-09, 05:51 PM
If anyone sees anyone doing anything 'fishy' at these town halls you have a duty to your President to report them:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/
No that's not a statement from the the Puffington Host or what have you. Yes it is up on whitehouse.gov, with a whitehouse email address to collect information on Americans.
Oh lord. Try to get a grip.
They are trying to track and counter all of the disinformation being spread by Republican operatives. It seems they also need to track and counter all of the bogus claims related to their debunking of bogus claims. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Oh lord. Try to get a grip.
They are trying to track and counter all of the disinformation being spread by Republican operatives.Republican operatives! Yes, yes they must be stopped! Especially the fishy ones.
The name calling 'brain dead', stupid, hick and the rest by the left about American's who disagree (Dems and Reps I see on the news at these events) with the Administration policies is tiresome.Well, I see a profound lack of intelligence and personal responsibility displayed by people who gladly accept Medicare insurance and then start spouting off in public meetings about the evils of a publicly-financed health insurance program. Typical neo-con "logic" - "It's a socialist hand-out because it doesn't benefit me."
Obviously, they approve of the government behavior when it benefits them personally, because there were a LOT of Medicare recipients in the room and probably many more who didn't raise their hands out of embarrassment at their own hypocrisy. So if government forces someone to buy insurance they don't want, it's hypocritical to be against such a program, but actually use the insurance after being forced to pay for it?
What kind of logic is that?
Ivan Seeking
Aug6-09, 06:08 PM
How is a democracy supposed to operate when the "opposition party" seeks to spread disinformation as their form of opposition?
I can hardly think of anything more Un-American than disrupting town halls meetings. These people are not loyal Americans - they obviously don't believe in the Constitution. Their idea of free speech is to spread disinformation at the expense of the nation.
These people are not loyal Americans - they obviously don't believe in the Constitution.You mean the constitution with provisions for the federal government to operate a national health care plan at taxpayer expense? Or the real one?
Democrats and the White House are now claiming that the protests were orchestrated by insurance companies and lobbyists. And Harry Reid "scoffed at the notion that the protesters reflect grass-roots sentiment". (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090806/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul)
I'm not in favor of any disorderly conduct, but how delusional can Democrats be to think that no one could possible oppose their ideas except insurance companies and lobbyists?
The details on what constitutes an "acceptable" health care plan are not final yet, but any American that decides that he/she is not interested in buying such a policy will have to pay an additional income tax equal to (the lesser of) 2.5% of their income (over a specified amount) or the national average cost of an "acceptable" plan. (Source: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:H.R.3200:, HR3200)
The only exception is being a member of a recognized religious sect (Amish?) that opposes buying such coverage. Any other individual that is personally against buying a mental health/birth control/abortion/prescription drug, etc. insurance policy will just have to pay the extra tax in addition to the (Major Medical?) policy they have (if it's still legal to have), or buy a policy against their own beliefs to satisfy government.
There are also many Americans (like me) that don't morally oppose such policies, but just don't need or want an expensive insurance policy, and just keep a Major Medical policy that doesn't come anywhere close to "accepted".
Why would Democrats demand participation? (as if the answer isn't obvious).
jimmysnyder
Aug6-09, 08:08 PM
The only exception is being a member of a recognized religious sect (Amish?) that opposes buying such coverage.
Fortunately, I'm Amish, or soon will be. There are two issues here that are getting somewhat conflated. One is the disruption of town hall meetings and the other is the opposition to the plan.
I did a desultory search for video of disrupted meetings and found none. Has someone got something for me? The descriptions I have read leave some doubt in my mind as to whether the politicians were in danger or they were fearful that they could be in danger. I can't comment on the disruption because I simply don't know enough to do so.
Opposition to the plan is to be expected from those whose oxen will be gored, those who are opposed on partisan grounds, those who are misinformed, among others as well those who have genuine concerns. Some people with money and organization to do so are packing these meetings which is what they are supposed to do. If you don't like it, pack them yourself. By all means forbear criticizing the opposition merely for existing.
I did a desultory search for video of disrupted meetings and found none. Has someone got something for me? The descriptions I have read leave some doubt in my mind as to whether the politicians were in danger or they were fearful that they could be in danger. I can't comment on the disruption because I simply don't know enough to do so.Me, either. No one has provided any substantiation for much of anything. The quote in the OP was obvious propaganda, and the AP, and the news services that carry their stories are worthless at reporting any actual facts.
Of course, according to AP, all of the protesters interviewed denied having any connection to any political party or insurance company, but that doesn't mean much. The fact that not a single shred of evidence to the contrary has been offered means a lot, considering the claims made by Dems and the White House.
Are they just using the delusional logic that they must be connected to insurance companies, etc., since they oppose the plan?
..Some people with money and organization to do so are packing these meetings which is what they are supposed to do. I have not seen evidence of that either, unless putting up some $1.99 website saying Congressman Rockhead's townhall is 6PM at the Moose lodge is considered wielding power. I call paying people to pack a hall the wielding of money and power. If that's going on I'd also like to know where.
I have not seen evidence of that either, unless putting up some $1.99 website saying Congressman Rockhead's townhall is 6PM at the Moose lodge is considered wielding power. I call paying people to pack a hall the wielding of money and power. If that's going on I'd also like to know where.Democrats know very well that wild allegations alone are enough to stir up hatred for their opposition. They've mastered that skill for decades. Reality is irrelevant.
What is illogical about trying to get half your money back from a thief that took your money? So you're saying the best way to fight government behavior you don't believe in, is to increase its efficiency?
Obviously, they approve of the government behavior when it benefits them personally, because there were a LOT of Medicare recipients in the room and probably many more who didn't raise their hands out of embarrassment at their own hypocrisy.
So the reason we presume they are hypocrites is because there were a lot of them. If there were fewer then we would presume they are not hypocrites. OK, got it. Thanks.
Who would you like to decide whether the conduct is disorderly? The current party in power?
As to who should decide, that is not relevant.
Are you sure it isn't relevant? We must all be aware of the consequences of setting precedent that gives the government more power to silence and intimidate the people. Secondly, 70% or more of what the government has been doing for the last several decades has been unquestionably unconstitutional. This is a group of partisan politicians using tax dollars to propagandize the public (yes, just like republicans do, too), and now we want the government to have the power to silence those that yell at it? And if there is any physical behavior (flailing arms or even shoving), consider that the U.S. revolution included even more violent behavior. The masses have been propagandized to believe in their party--its easy to do, just wear a suit and speak eloquently.
These people are not loyal Americans - they obviously don't believe in the Constitution.
Ah yes, the little known "health care" clause of the Constitution, which comes right before the also little known "prohibitions against citizens jeering politicians that commit constitutional violations" clause. I forgot about those two clauses. Thanks for pointing them out.
TheStatutoryApe
Aug7-09, 12:13 AM
I knew it was going to happen.
Conservatives complain about liberal protestors during the Bush admin calling them anti-american while the liberals complain about the facist government restricting their freedom of speech.
Now with a liberal admin we have conservatives protesting and liberals complaining that these conservatives are anti-american.
People seriously need to get the **** over themselves and realize how hypocritical they are. Oh but wait! We're right and they're wrong so that makes everything better right?
Ridiculous.
Oh by the way, so far the only "disorderly conduct" I've seen is some jeers at some of the things the politicians have said. I'm not so sure jeering at something said by a politician, when that politician is spending tax dollars solely to propagandize a blatant constitutional violation by the federal government, is exactly "criminal and unconstitutional".
Also I've heard the argument that these town hall meetings are for informing the people. Ah. So that's the relationship between the people and the government. They talk, we listen.
Office_Shredder
Aug7-09, 04:22 PM
Also I've heard the argument that these town hall meetings are for informing the people. Ah. So that's the relationship between the people and the government. They talk, we listen.
On the one hand, you have the congressman, whose job it is to represent you and and be informed on these topics. On the other hand, you have the layman, who doesn't have that job. The congressman holds a town hall meeting (which have existed for many, many years, it's not some new Democratic conspiracy to brainwash the populus) to update the people on what he's doing in congress, and to get feedback from them. How is this a bad thing? Do you even know what a town hall meeting is?
On the one hand, you have the congressman, whose job it is to represent you and and be informed on these topics. On the other hand, you have the layman, who doesn't have that job. The congressman holds a town hall meeting (which have existed for many, many years, it's not some new Democratic conspiracy to brainwash the populus) to update the people on what he's doing in congress, and to get feedback from them. How is this a bad thing? Do you even know what a town hall meeting is?
You have completely misunderstood my post.
jimmysnyder
Aug7-09, 06:25 PM
So, ever the engaged (and engaging) citizen, I sauntered over to the local town hall meeting to jeer at my representative. When I got there, there was a long line and you had to take a number. Most of the jeerers were locals, but there was Ma Hogue right in front of me and everyone knows she was originally from North Jersey. I asked her who bussed her in ha ha, but she said that bus left 40 years ago and I could stuff it where the govt can't find it. When we got inside it was pandemonium. You couldn't hear the anti-healthcare reform jeerers for the sexual pecadillos jeerers who in turn were drowned out by the fiscal irresponsibility jeerers. We took our turns at the mike all at the same time. Then the news people came and there was a mad rush to get in front of the camera so we could wave to our loved ones. They said they wanted to film some violence and could we please provide some. Now I'm not above giving my neighbor a shellacking at any other time but this was a town hall meeting after all. We all declined and the news people shuffled off disappointed, but reported that there was violence anyway. Then the representative thanked us all for keeping things so much quieter than they had been last time and we all went out to rejoin at Dirty Frank's for beer and political discussion.
wittgenstein
Aug7-09, 07:33 PM
Healthcare support was overwhelming only a few weeks ago. But now with insurance company "grass roots" protests* and the media ( sense the media is pro-business) using its vast powers of propaganda, people are beginning to believe the lies.
First, there is no government take-over of health care ( considering how anti- honoring insurance contracts the insurance companies are I fail to see how the government could be any worse) the President's plan increases options.
This is why the protests are disorderly. The protesters do not want to debate because they have no rational argument. There mission is to serve the insurance companies whether naively or knowingly.
* A group run by the same folks who made the "Swiftboat" ads against John Kerry is compiling a list of congressional events in August to disrupt. An insurance company coalition has stationed employees in 30 states to track where local lawmakers hold town-hall meetings.
First, there is no government take-over of health care ( considering how anti- honoring insurance contracts the insurance companies are I fail to see how the government could be any worse) the President's plan increases options.I guess imposing a stiff income tax penalty on anyone who doesn't choose to buy a "government approved" insurance policy isn't a government takeover by your standards. It's just "increasing options" for those of us that will be punished. And outlawing any other kind of (edit: health) insurance contract between private parties also isn't a "takeover", I suppose. (Source: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:H.R.3200:) Anyone who actually reads the proposed draft bill knows who is lying. Obviously you have not read it..
This is why the protests are disorderly. The protesters do not want to debate because they have no rational argument. There mission is to serve the insurance companies whether naively or knowingly.
Yeah, no one could possibly be against this agenda unless they were serving insurance companies. Simple faulty logic here. This is why there is such horrible political discourse in the U.S. The liars can count on the fact that most people won't bother reading the proposal being debated, and will buy into the delusional logic that concludes that opponents must just be serving insurance companies.
BTW, forum rules can be found here: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=113181.
You violated a slew of them.
jimmysnyder
Aug7-09, 08:10 PM
And outlawing any other kind of insurance contract between private parties also isn't a "takeover", I suppose.
I have to admit, I didn't read the entire bill. Can you tell me which section this clause is in?
kldickson
Aug7-09, 08:13 PM
Whatever the opinions of the right-winger rabble, no matter how ridiculous they are and unfounded in any sort of fact - and they are EXTREMELY ridiculous and unfounded - they dip down to even lower levels once they make it clear that their purpose is not to have an intelligent debate but to disrupt it.
Count Iblis
Aug7-09, 08:28 PM
Whatever the opinions of the right-winger rabble, no matter how ridiculous they are and unfounded in any sort of fact - and they are EXTREMELY ridiculous and unfounded - they dip down to even lower levels once they make it clear that their purpose is not to have an intelligent debate but to disrupt it.
They can't filibuster the health care bill in the Senate, so they're going to filibuster the public debate. :mad:
kldickson
Aug7-09, 08:35 PM
Which is a scummier thing to do than filibustering in the Senate.
They can't filibuster the health care bill in the Senate, Why not?
And outlawing any other kind of insurance contract between private parties also isn't a "takeover", I suppose.I have to admit, I didn't read the entire bill. Can you tell me which section this clause is in?Edit: Oops, I meant health insurance, not any insurance. I'll correct my post. Sec 102(c)(1)outlaws private policies that don't meet certain requirements. But this is just an expansion of the outlawing of private insurance contracts, not a brand new idea. Many current laws have the effect of outlawing policies that don't meet the requirements in the law.
For example private insurance contracts with better coverage for physical health than for mental health were outlawed (under the radar) by the AIG bailout bill.
"Establishing requirements" for private insurance contracts is typically in one section of the bill, while outlawing private insurance contracts that don't meet the requirements are in another section.
They can't filibuster the health care bill in the Senate, so they're going to filibuster the public debate. :mad:What public debate? There has been no public debate on the actual bill being proposed.:mad::mad:
Whatever the opinions of the right-winger rabble, no matter how ridiculous they are and unfounded in any sort of fact - and they are EXTREMELY ridiculous and unfounded - they dip down to even lower levels once they make it clear that their purpose is not to have an intelligent debate but to disrupt it.Could you show a little respect for forum rules and explain what "rabble" you're referring to, and maybe some substantiation of your claim about "their purpose"?
Could you show a little respect for forum rules and explain what "rabble" you're referring to, and maybe some substantiation of your claim about "their purpose"?
Most public meetings in the US follow Robert's Rules of Order (http://www.robertsrules.org/rulesintro.htm). A right to free speech doesn't mean you can just barge into a meeting and start shouting people down, and people who do this aren't good citizens...I might even call them rabble as well. We are a nation of laws, and, I hope, of courtesy.
(Btw, it's worth the time to at least become familiar with those rules, so if you ever go to a meeting you'll at least have some knowledge of how things work.)
OmCheeto
Aug7-09, 09:47 PM
Most public meetings in the US follow Robert's Rules of Order (http://www.robertsrules.org/rulesintro.htm). A right to free speech doesn't mean you can just barge into a meeting and start shouting people down, and people who do this aren't good citizens...I might even call them rabble as well. We are a nation of laws, and, I hope, of courtesy.
(Btw, it's worth the time to at least become familiar with those rules, so if you ever go to a meeting you'll at least have some knowledge of how things work.)
Thank you lisa. I've never seen those rules.
I was most impressed by the last line:
Most importantly, BE COURTEOUS.
There is so little of that left.
Most public meetings in the US follow Robert's Rules of Order (http://www.robertsrules.org/rulesintro.htm). A right to free speech doesn't mean you can just barge into a meeting and start shouting people down, and people who do this aren't good citizens...I might even call them rabble as well.Me, too. And I agree with you here. The post I was responding to doesn't specify what was being referred to, what was being called "ridiculous and unfounded", and made unsubstantiated claims about "their" purpose, with no indication of who "they" are. The tone and content of the post indicated that it was not just in reference to disorderly protesters generally.
Ivan Seeking
Aug7-09, 09:51 PM
Most public meetings in the US follow Robert's Rules of Order (http://www.robertsrules.org/rulesintro.htm). A right to free speech doesn't mean you can just barge into a meeting and start shouting people down, and people who do this aren't good citizens...I might even call them rabble as well. We are a nation of laws, and, I hope, of courtesy.
As near as I can tell, the anti-reformers showing up at these meetings are indistinguishable from the Jerry Springer audience. I wonder what the crossover rate is to tabloid TV fans; nearly 100% I would bet.
Did you hear that today Limbaugh was trying to equate Obama to Hitler? Hitler had a health care plan like this, you know. :rofl: We have gone from terrorist, to a closet Muslim, to a domestic black terrorist and Christian extremist, to a socialist, to a communist, and now a fascist.
You have to admit that Obama guy is incredibly versatile.
jimmysnyder
Aug7-09, 10:04 PM
IN GENERAL- Individual health insurance coverage that is not grandfathered health insurance coverage under subsection (a) may only be offered on or after the first day of Y1 as an Exchange-participating health benefits plan.
So I can't buy insurance for $1 a year unless such a policy is grandfathered.
If I understand what you are saying, this is a common feature of insurance laws and as such is no reason to accept or reject the bill. Nor does it provide a test of whether someone has read the bill or not. Nor does it justify calling anyone a liar.
Ivan Seeking
Aug7-09, 10:17 PM
Ah yes, the little known "health care" clause of the Constitution, which comes right before the also little known "prohibitions against citizens jeering politicians that commit constitutional violations" clause. I forgot about those two clauses. Thanks for pointing them out.
Use your head. I was talking about denying others the right to free speech. That is the intent of the people disrupting the meetings.
Ivan Seeking
Aug7-09, 10:18 PM
So I can't buy insurance for $1 a year unless such a policy is grandfathered.
If I understand what you are saying, this is a common feature of insurance laws and as such is no reason to accept or reject the bill. Nor does it provide a test of whether someone has read the bill or not. Nor does it justify calling anyone a liar.
Who are you talking to?
Ivan Seeking
Aug7-09, 10:26 PM
I guess imposing a stiff income tax penalty on anyone who doesn't choose to buy a "government approved" insurance policy isn't a government takeover by your standards.
First of all, insurance is not health care. Even if we had a single-payer system, that doesn't mean the government is taking over health care.
It's just "increasing options" for those of us that will be punished. And outlawing any other kind of (edit: health) insurance contract between private parties also isn't a "takeover", I suppose. (Source: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:H.R.3200:)
Please cite the specific section of the bill that applies. Each section has its own link. That way we know you aren't just making things up.
So I can't buy insurance for $1 a year unless such a policy is grandfathered.
If I understand what you are saying, this is a common feature of insurance laws and as such is no reason to accept or reject the bill. Nor does it provide a test of whether someone has read the bill or not. Nor does it justify calling anyone a liar.I specifically said it was a common feature of insurance laws (pushed by Democrats). The fact that a feature has been common in other bills has nothing to do with whether that feature in this bill is a reason to reject it or not. Especially by those of us that opposed that feature in the other bills as well.
And I never used it as justification for calling anyone a liar. I used the word liar to refer to politicians claiming that their opposition, in general, were on the side of insurance companies against poor people.
The simple fact is that the type of insurance policy that many people now choose would be outlawed. And all Americans would forced to either buy an "acceptable" policy or pay a stiff tax penalty (not to exceed the average cost of an "acceptable" policy, nice coincidence).
And I realize that I'm referring to a draft proposal that is still being "tweaked", but I doubt if they will take out the feature that forces people to participate.
I like the "more choices" claim by proponents. The only choices in the bill are limited to policies with specified requirements. Basically the choices are limited to the kind of policy that I have never had, have no interest in buying, and are completely ridiculous for most people. But there are choices we have now that would be outlawed, despite the fact that they are private agreements between private parties. Common feature, yes. Compatible with individual liberty, no.
Ivan Seeking
Aug7-09, 10:39 PM
This is funny!
...An activist turned to his fellow attendees and asked if they “oppose any form of socialized or government-run health care.” Nearly all did. Then Representative Green asked how many of those present were on Medicare. Almost half raised their hands.
Now, people who don’t know that Medicare is a government program probably aren’t reacting to what President Obama is actually proposing. They may believe some of the disinformation opponents of health care reform are spreading, like the claim that the Obama plan will lead to euthanasia for the elderly. (That particular claim is coming straight from House Republican leaders.) But they’re probably reacting less to what Mr. Obama is doing, or even to what they’ve heard about what he’s doing, than to who he is...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/07/opinion/07krugman.html?_r=3
So in the example above, half of those jeering any form of government involvement in health care are already living on government funded health care. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you! It seems that they should voluntarily remove themselves from the system. It reminds me a bit of Gov Jindal [R] complaining about the bailout while gladly taking $3 billion for his State.
First of all, insurance is not health care. Even if we had a single-payer system, that doesn't mean the government is taking over health care. Government takeover of the health care system is a reasonable, if simplistic, description of a single payer plan in my view. Granted in single payer the hospitals would not all be government owned nor the doctors federal employees (e.g. the UK), but the government does set the price for everything in single payer - drugs, doctor fees, and most especially it means the government decides what health care it will not pay for at all.
kldickson
Aug7-09, 10:49 PM
If I recall right, Dick Armey disseminated a memo for the purposes of disrupting these events. Pay attention to page 2 of 10.
These people are nothing short of whackjobs.
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/townhallactionmemo.pdf
First of all, insurance is not health care. Even if we had a single-payer system, that doesn't mean the government is taking over health care.
That's more a matter of semantics than substance. Everyone knows what is intended when someone uses the phrase "taking over health care" in this context. Please cite the specific section of the bill that applies. Each section has its own link. That way we know you aren't just making things up.First, I have cited the section in this thread, although it's really a combination of several sections. Second, a good way for someone to know whether or not I'm making things up about a bill being debated is to actually read the bill instead of listen to political propaganda.
Of course it would be a very different debate if everyone did that. An informed one.
And of course this doesn't even legitimately apply to anyone actually advocating the proposal, since it should be safe to assume they know what's in it.:uhh:
So in the example above, half of those jeering any form of government involvement in health care are already living on government funded health care. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you! It seems that they should voluntarily remove themselves from the system.Yeah, they shouldn't actually use the insurance they were forced to pay for. That's hypocritical?
Government takeover of the health care system is a reasonable, if simplistic, description of a single payer plan in my view. Granted in single payer the hospitals would not all be government owned nor the doctors federal employees (e.g. the UK), but the government does set the price for everything in single payer - drugs, doctor fees, and most especially it means the government decides what health care it will not pay for at all.I think "takeover" is reasonable for the current proposal, since under it, the payments are either direct from government or provided by private insurance policies that are "accepted" by government.
I guess "takeover" is too strong a word as long as people have several (government approved) choices?:rolleyes:
TheStatutoryApe
Aug7-09, 11:17 PM
Is it ok for people to disrupt organized rallies by people whom you (no one in specific, whom ever wishes to answer) do not agree with?
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_14_96/ai_55983400/
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/02/28/us/angry-crowd-disrupts-rally-by-ku-klux-klan-in-dallas.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJ59rvPGe_4 I love these clowns :-)
Did you hear that today Limbaugh was trying to equate Obama to Hitler? Hitler had a health care plan like this, you know. :rofl: We have gone from terrorist, to a closet Muslim, to a domestic black terrorist and Christian extremist, to a socialist, to a communist, and now a fascist.
You have to admit that Obama guy is incredibly versatile.LOL. Versatile, yes, but you got the order wrong, "now a socialist" comes last. The comparison to Hitler was based on Hitler being socialist, not fascist.
LOL. Versatile, yes, but you got the order wrong, "now a socialist" comes last. The comparison to Hitler was based on Hitler being socialist, not fascist.
Because when one thinks "socialist", the first person that comes to mind is "Hilter"...um, ok....
TheStatutoryApe
Aug7-09, 11:55 PM
LOL. Versatile, yes, but you got the order wrong, "now a socialist" comes last. The comparison to Hitler was based on Hitler being socialist, not fascist.
Fascism and Socialism have similarities in execution and most 'socialist' or 'communist' governments that have existed have used fascist methods to attain their goals. They are different though, and Hitler was certainly a fascist.
Because when one thinks "socialist", the first person that comes to mind is "Hilter"...um, ok....Well, since "Nazi" is short for "National Socialist", maybe. I wasn't claiming that Hitler was more socialist than fascist, but that his comparison to Obama was based on socialism, not fascism.
Fascism and Socialism have similarities in execution and most 'socialist' or 'communist' governments that have existed have used fascist methods to attain their goals. They are different though, and Hitler was certainly a fascist.He was both. I never suggested he wasn't fascist, just that that wasn't the basis of his comparison to Obama by Rush.
Here you go, no need to discuss healthcare reform anymore, Sarah Palin has declared
Palin says Obama's health care plan is 'evil'
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin called President Barack Obama's health plan "downright evil" Friday in her first online comments since leaving office, saying in a Facebook posting that he would create a "death panel" that would deny care to the neediest Americans.
"The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel'
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_palin_health_care
He was both. I never suggested he wasn't fascist, just that that wasn't the basis of his comparison to Obama by Rush.
I don't buy that. The average American (or any national, I would expect) thinks "Hitler = Fascist," not "Hitler = Socialist." Limbaugh certainly knows that.
TheStatutoryApe
Aug8-09, 12:31 AM
Here you go, no need to discuss healthcare reform anymore, Sarah Palin has declared
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_palin_health_care
Can we protest and disrupt this woman please?
erm... Palin that is. ;-p
I don't buy that. The average American (or any national, I would expect) thinks "Hitler = Fascist," not "Hitler = Socialist." Limbaugh certainly knows that.Clearly, Hitler is remembered more for fascism than socialism, but just as clearly, national health care proposals by Obama would be considered socialist, not fascist.
The comparison was made in the context of Obama's national health care proposals. Hitler's health care plan would be considered an example of socialist policy, not necessarily fascism. Fascism was just the means used to achieve and maintain the socialism.
OmCheeto
Aug8-09, 12:24 PM
Is it ok for people to disrupt organized rallies by people whom you (no one in specific, whom ever wishes to answer) do not agree with?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJ59rvPGe_4
Oh come on! Give me a break!
To think you insulted me in the AIG thread for cheering on just such a group...
These hooligans have merely replaced pitchforks with death rays and dangerous pointy aluminum helmets. They are even caught red handed spewing acid (http://www.thriftyfun.com/tf655295.tip.html) and lye (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/394857/product_review_colgates_octagon_soap.html) towards the faces of the peaceful protesters. They should have all been arrested.
-------------------------
My apologies for posting something so obviously vacuous. But I like the clowns also. Though my first reaction was that we need to step up the war on drugs.
Guess who's helping whip gullible neo-con pawns into a frenzy? The quitter-in-chief from Alaska.
"And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil."
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/08/palin-paints-picture-of-obama-death-panel-giving-thumbs-down-to-trig.html
I was so ticked when I read that article that I just had to post, and missed Evo's #67.
Ivan Seeking
Aug8-09, 04:43 PM
Wow! The goal of health care for everyone translates to "Obama's 'death panel'"?
There is truly something wrong with these people.
If we continue on our present course, the cost of health care will cripple the nation - it will take us down. The cost of health care is rising three times faster than wages. Arguably, much of that goes to insurance company profits and administrative costs. But instead of offering options wrt legitimate concerns, we get this nonsense from the Springer crowd and Sarah Palin.
It is Dick Cheney with lipstick indeed! So now we will see: Is America going to fall for these lies again? Will the abusive and overly-vocal minority thwart the best efforts of good people working hard to help the country?
Are you going to allow Sarah Palin's fear mongering to deny you and your family health care? We cannot afford the path we are on.
Are you going to allow Sarah Palin's fear mongering to deny you and your family health care? We cannot afford the path we are on.If my wife every loses her job, I won't be able to pick up private coverage due to "pre-existing conditions" - we need some kind of public option under which sick people can get treatment and not get dumped when they need expensive interventions. Apparently, nobody in the GOP thinks that's a good idea. If they agreed that universal coverage was a good thing, they could at least offer their ideas in bipartisan forums instead of just saying NO, and urging their supporters to disrupt public meetings held by Democrats.
Because when one thinks "socialist", the first person that comes to mind is "Hilter"...um, ok....Google National Socialism
... We cannot afford the path we are on.We can not afford the path Congress proposes.
TheStatutoryApe
Aug8-09, 07:34 PM
Oh come on! Give me a break!
To think you insulted me in the AIG thread for cheering on just such a group...
These hooligans have merely replaced pitchforks with death rays and dangerous pointy aluminum helmets. They are even caught red handed spewing acid (http://www.thriftyfun.com/tf655295.tip.html) and lye (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/394857/product_review_colgates_octagon_soap.html) towards the faces of the peaceful protesters. They should have all been arrested.
-------------------------
My apologies for posting something so obviously vacuous. But I like the clowns also. Though my first reaction was that we need to step up the war on drugs.
Haha.. You remembered that? I almost forgot about that thread.
And yeah those guys are pretty crazy. Apparently they are part of an 'anarchist' group.
And apparently no one else has anything to say about people whom they agree with 'disrupting the first amendment right' of others. I suppose it truely is ok to 'infringe' upon the first amendment right of people so long as the people deciding whether or not it is infringment disagree with the infringed.
Hans de Vries
Aug8-09, 07:41 PM
Clearly, Hitler is remembered more for fascism than socialism, but just as clearly, national health care proposals by Obama would be considered socialist, not fascist.
The comparison was made in the context of Obama's national health care proposals. Hitler's health care plan would be considered an example of socialist policy, not necessarily fascism. Fascism was just the means used to achieve and maintain the socialism.
"Fascism?" "Socialism?"
So my father had to endure and survive a Nazi concentration camp because Hitler
wanted to defend his national Health care plan?
Do you also want to imply that those concentration camp survivors who founded Israel
did so based on the principles of "Hitler's socialism"? After all, the dominating political
party in Israel from 1948-1977 was Israels socialist party....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Labor_Party
This "Hitler is a Socialist" is never heard in Europe or anywhere else in the world and
it's amazing that this neocon fable has survived until 2009. It simply does not belong on
a scientific webside.
If you want to show your respect for the victims of WWII then make sure that you know
what you are talking about. The crimes of Hitler are far, far to serious to be reduced to
a cheap fable just to keep the unions outside the gate or whatever.
Regards, Hans
"Fascism?" "Socialism?"
So my father had to endure and survive a Nazi concentration camp because Hitler
wanted to defend his national Health care plan?
Do you also want to imply that those concentration camp survivors who founded Israel
did so based on the principles of "Hitler's socialism"? After all, the dominating political
party in Israel from 1948-1977 was Israels socialist party....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Labor_Party
This "Hitler is a Socialist" is never heard in Europe or anywhere else in the world and
it's amazing that this neocon fable has survived until 2009. It simply does not belong on
a scientific webside.
If you want to show your respect for the victims of WWII then make sure that you know
what you are talking about. The crimes of Hitler are far, far to serious to be reduced to
a cheap fable just to keep the unions outside the gate.
Regards, Hans
Nice post, Hans.
But yes, it seems the neocons are trying to equate Obama and Hitler, because both wanted national health care :rolleyes:. And if we consider what Sarah Palin said on her blog (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5g_wa88T0JMCHqtPyXCYtnjCu3_nA), stating that old and disabled people will face "death panels" who will decide their fate...well, I sense a theme here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law).
Argentum Vulpes
Aug8-09, 09:56 PM
If the Health care reform bill 2009 aka HR 3200 is good and needed lets have a debate on it after you are done reading and understand all 1017 pages of it. What is the worse that can happen in a six month period, in a system that has been around for the better part of a century.
It seem that a president and a congress that wants to ramrod such a giant/far reaching bill might be up to no good.
Also looks like some Democratic and liberal heads will start to roll, someone left out their copy of Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals and a Republican got his hands on it and read it. :biggrin:
"Fascism?" "Socialism?"
So my father had to endure and survive a Nazi concentration camp because Hitler
wanted to defend his national Health care plan?
...
This "Hitler is a Socialist" is never heard in Europe or anywhere else in the world and
it's amazing that this neocon fable has survived until 2009. It simply does not belong on
a scientific webside.
If you want to show your respect for the victims of WWII then make sure that you know
what you are talking about. Quite so. The best way to adhere to the precepts of scientific website is actually do some research, and not simply make unsupportable assertions about what is or is 'never heard .. anywhere else in the world'.
We do know there was a great deal of communication between the Bolsheviks and Germany for decades before WWII, and much parallel thinking. The Nazi progenitors wanted much of the same concepts coming into reality in Russia, but they had no intention of submitting to Moscow's control, as Marxism requires, so they invented their own version - hence the term National Socialism. The Nazi party platform is instructive. Most of it is a socialist manifesto, with their own anti-semitic uber race condiments sprinkled on. Translated from the Nuremburg trials (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/1708-ps.asp):
...
7. We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens. If it is impossible to sustain the total population of the State, then the members of foreign nations (non-citizens) are to be expelled from the Reich.
...
9. All citizens must have equal rights and obligations.
...
11. Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery.
...
13. We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).
...
15. We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.
16. We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.\
17. We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.
...
20. The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school [Staatsbuergerkunde] as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.
21. The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.
...
23. We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press. In order to enable the provision of a German press, we demand, that: a. All writers and employees of the newspapers appearing in the German language be members of the race: b. Non-German newspapers be required to have the express permission of the State to be published. They may not be printed in the German language: c. Non-Germans are forbidden by law any financial interest in German publications, or any influence on them, and as punishment for violations the closing of such a publication as well as the immediate expulsion from the Reich of the non-German concerned. Publications which are counter to the general good are to be forbidden. We demand legal prosecution of artistic and literary forms which exert a destructive influence on our national life, and the closure of organizations opposing the above made demands.
The omitted paragraphs are mostly of the 'first lets banish/kill the jews' variety.
Count Iblis
Aug9-09, 06:20 PM
Well, what matters is that the Third Reich was successful in its health care aims. So, the "Hitler quotes" are not going to prove the idea that a state regulated health care system would lead to a bad outcome. Also, consider that the US ranks quite low if you consider life expectancy. The US comes after all the European countries that have State subsidized "socialist" health care.
Hitler's view on the physical fitness of the German youth was that the youth should be:Flink wie ein Windhund, zäh wie Leder, hart wie Krupp-Stahl (http://kunst.gymszbad.de/nationalsozialismus/ideologie/sitte.htm).
Of course, that's necessary if you want to build a large army.
But then, how does this picture compare to the US youth who are obese, some of whom suffer from type 2 diabetes? Can the government intervene in the US? No, it would be politically incorrect for the US governement to advice people not to eat too many Big Macs. You cannot intervene in the free market as that would upset McDonald's right to conduct free enterprise.
I think it is fair to say that this US policy leads to the premature deaths of millions of people, so if you want to play the "Hitler/Stalin/Pol Pot look-alike game", I think the conservatives would lose.
TheStatutoryApe
Aug9-09, 06:32 PM
The omitted paragraphs are mostly of the 'first lets banish/kill the jews' variety.
Aren't those bits important though? Isn't the manifesto describing what it wishes for those they see as deserving (ie, aryan citizens)? But we should never mind the parts that talk of whom we can probably assume they felt are undeserving of the benefits of 'socialised' medicine?
4. Only a member of the race can be a citizen. A member of the race can only be one who is of German blood, without consideration of creed. Consequently no Jew can be a member of the race.
5. Whoever has no citizenship is to be able to live in Germany only as a guest, and must be under the authority of legislation for foreigners.
Considering whom it was they considered citizens and non-citizens does this not appear more fascist than socialist? And we know that the part saying "without consideration of creed" is incorrect since they eventually outlawed all but one party (starting with the communists) and every religion but one.
Hans de Vries
Aug9-09, 06:50 PM
We do know there was a great deal of communication between the Bolsheviks and Germany for decades before WWII, and much parallel thinking. The Nazi progenitors wanted much of the same concepts coming into reality in Russia
:confused::confused::confused:
Hitler's personal reason to hate the Jews was because he associated
them with Social Democrats. By killing the Jews he could save the
world from Judeo Bolshevism and save "the Lord's work".
I gradually realized that the Social Democratic press
was headed primarily by Jews....
Now, although I made an effort and tried to read these
Marxian products of the press, my aversion was intensified.....
I took all the Social Democratic pamphlets I could get
hold of and traced the names of their authors: they all were
Jews.....
One thing had become clear to me: the party with whose
little representatives I had to fight the hardest struggle
during many months were almost entirely in the hands of
a foreign race; it brought me internal happiness to realize
definitely that the Jew was no German.....
But it was never possible to free a Jew from his convictions:
At that time I was still naive enough to try to make
clear to them the madness of their ideas; in my small circle
I talked until my tongue was weary and till my throat was
hoarse, and I thought I could succeed in convincing them
of the destructiveness of their Marxist doctrine of irra-
tionality; but the result was only the contrary. It seemed
as though the increasing realization of the destructive
influence of Social Democratic theories would serve only to
strengthen their determination.....
The fact that I reached my goal more quickly
than I dared to hope at first was due to the knowledge I had
gained of the Jewish question, though at that time it had
not gone very deep. This alone made possible a practical
comparison between reality and the theoretical bragging of
the apostles who founded Social Democracy......
While thoroughly studying the Marxist doctrine and by
looking at the Jewish people's activity with calm clarity,
Destiny itself gave me the answer......
The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic
principle in nature; instead of the eternal privilege of force......
If, with the help of the Marxian creed, the Jew conquers
the nations of this world,......
Therefore, I believe today that I am acting in the sense
of the Almighty Creator: By warding off the Jews I am
fighting for the Lord's work.
.......
http://www.archive.org/stream/meinkampf035176mbp#page/n119/mode/2up
Regards, Hans
russ_watters
Aug9-09, 06:53 PM
Hitler? Seriously? C'mon, guys, we're better than Goodwin's Law here.
Thread locked.
vBulletin® v3.7.6, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.