Organized disorderly conduct at town hall meetings

[fleem]

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".

 

[fleem]

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]

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?

 

[fleem]

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.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

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]

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.

 

[Al68]

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: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=113181 .

You violated a slew of them.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

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]

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]

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.

 

[kldickson]

Which is a scummier thing to do than filibustering in the Senate.

 

[mheslep]

They can't filibuster the health care bill in the Senate,

Why not?

 

[Al68]

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.

 

[Al68]

They can't filibuster the health care bill in the Senate, so they're going to filibuster the public debate.

What public debate? There has been no public debate on the actual bill being proposed.

 

[Al68]

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"?

 

[lisab]

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 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]

Most public meetings in the US follow 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.

 

[Al68]

Most public meetings in the US follow 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]

Most public meetings in the US follow 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. 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.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Al68]

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]

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.

 

[mheslep]

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]

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

 

[Al68]

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.

 

[Al68]

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?

 

[Al68]

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?