News Organized disorderly conduct at town hall meetings

[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?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

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
I love these clowns :-)

 

[Al68]

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.

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.

 

[lisab]

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]

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.

 

[Al68]

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.

 

[Al68]

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.

 

[Evo]

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

 

[lisab]

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]

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

 

[Al68]

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]

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?

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 http://www.thriftyfun.com/tf655295.tip.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.

 

[turbo]

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]

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.

 

[turbo]

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.

 

[mheslep]

Because when one thinks "socialist", the first person that comes to mind is "Hilter"...um, ok...

Google National Socialism

 

[mheslep]

... We cannot afford the path we are on.

We can not afford the path Congress proposes.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

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 http://www.thriftyfun.com/tf655295.tip.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 truly 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]

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

 

[lisab]

"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 . And if we consider what http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5g_wa88T0JMCHqtPyXCYtnjCu3_nA" .

 

[Argentum Vulpes]

If the Health care reform bill 2009 aka HR 3200 is good and needed let's 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.

 

[mheslep]

"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. 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 let's banish/kill the jews' variety.

 

[Count Iblis]

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: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]

The omitted paragraphs are mostly of the 'first let's 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]

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

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]

Hitler? Seriously? C'mon, guys, we're better than Goodwin's Law here.

Thread locked.