Who is really behind the protests?

[red butler]

It sickens me that the Democratic party is complaining about organized protests. I haven't seen a well organized protest about the war since Obama got elected. When I was at Fort Lewis there were protests scheduled regularly. The protesters would stand by the gate and scream at everyone that entered. My wife would almost be in tears because she couldn't understand why any American would harass soldiers and their wives for doing their duty. The sad thing is, I predicted the protests would die down after the election. We're still in Iraq and Afghanistan, but there is no political advantage to continue the protests. The protests were merely a tool organized by the democratic political machine to publicly tear down Bush.

 

[VolDad]

History repeats itself......

 

[GASOUTHERNVOL]

It sickens me that the Democratic party is complaining about organized protests. I haven't seen a well organized protest about the war since Obama got elected. When I was at Fort Lewis there were protests scheduled regularly. The protesters would stand by the gate and scream at everyone that entered. My wife would almost be in tears because she couldn't understand why any American would harass soldiers and their wives for doing their duty. The sad thing is, I predicted the protests would die down after the election. We're still in Iraq and Afghanistan, but there is no political advantage to continue the protests. The protests were merely a tool organized by the democratic political machine to publicly tear down Bush.

kinda funny how that works out isnt it? I guess because the Barackstar is continuing the fighting then its ok?

 

[Lexvol]

Patty Sheehan= LEGITIMATE American hero

Conservative protestors=misinformed nutbags and puppets

This is the problem I have with the mainstream media.

 

[GASOUTHERNVOL]

agreed lex, or when people are protesting about their taxes being spent, they are nothing but tea-bagging racist rednecks, but when a liberal hippy that has no clue what they are talking about are holding up a protest sign then they are "enlightened"

 

[OrangeYankee]

Patty Sheehan= LEGITIMATE American hero

Conservative protestors=misinformed nutbags and puppets

This is the problem I have with the mainstream media.

I actually was going to ask LG this in a serious way. Let's assume for the moment that, yes, all the people who are mad as hell at these protests are plants/right wing loons. And I'll give LG that all of talk radio is a bunch of nutbags as well. Then answer me this question.

What are:

Cindy Sheehan
Dan Rather (Forged Documents as real journalism)
Chris Matthews
Keith Olberman
Al Gore
Sean Penn
Rosie O'Donnel
Matt Damon
Michael Moore
War Protestors at almost all bases and funerals for soldiers during the Bush years.

to you?

I mean you are always quick to come out to discredit anyone who has openly went out to express their disgust with Washington (most of the tea party movement and these town halls are not just about Obama). So, I'm wondering if you feel the same disdain for those who do the same thing as Conservative Talk show hosts (the "journalists" and media types I listed) and those who practiced the same 1st Amendment rights of protest over the previous 8 years. I'm really honestly curious.

 

[GASOUTHERNVOL]

I actually was going to ask LG this in a serious way. Let's assume for the moment that, yes, all the people who are mad as hell at these protests are plants/right wing loons. And I'll give LG that all of talk radio is a bunch of nutbags as well. Then answer me this question.

What are:

Cindy Sheehan
Dan Rather (Forged Documents as real journalism)
Chris Matthews
Keith Olberman
Al Gore
Sean Penn
Rosie O'Donnel
Matt Damon
Michael Moore
War Protestors at almost all bases and funerals for soldiers during the Bush years.

to you?

I mean you are always quick to come out to discredit anyone who has openly went out to express their disgust with Washington (most of the tea party movement and these town halls are not just about Obama). So, I'm wondering if you feel the same disdain for those who do the same thing as Conservative Talk show hosts (the "journalists" and media types I listed) and those who practiced the same 1st Amendment rights of protest over the previous 8 years. I'm really honestly curious.

good luck getting a straight answer on this one

 

[VolsSportsFan]

People do realize the people asking questions last night were all Obama plants, don't they?

 

[kev20]

hahahaha

Fears fuel emotional health care protests - CNN.com

Of course the protesters are not ordinary citizens and do not have genuine concerns. Ridiculous!

Beyond the noise of raucous crowds and angry protesters who have turned town hall meetings into shouting matches is genuine concern from ordinary citizens who are afraid that President Obama's health care proposals would only make things harder for them, experts say.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/12/health.care.fears/index.html?eref=igoogle_cnn

 

[tim]

I think that LG and people like him have too much invested in BHO to be impartial. They put up the good fight and they may believe it, but they're wrong and maybe deep, deep, deep down inside they'll admit it to themselves, but never to you or I. I feel that the media is so invested in BHO succeeding that they are similar. OTOH it works the other way too. Personally, I think all politicians are crooks and should be treated as such.

Term Limits.

 

[GAVol]

Patty Sheehan= LEGITIMATE American hero

I had no idea you were an LPGA fan.

 

[OrangeYankee]

I think that LG and people like him have too much invested in BHO to be impartial. They put up the good fight and they may believe it, but they're wrong and maybe deep, deep, deep down inside they'll admit it to themselves, but never to you or I. I feel that the media is so invested in BHO succeeding that they are similar. OTOH it works the other way too. Personally, I think all politicians are crooks and should be treated as such.

Term Limits.

At the end of the day, that is the only way we will have true political reform in Washington, but unfortunately we are basically asking people to vote to eliminate their careers. Not going to happen.

 

[GAVol]

It is stunning watching the degree to which the Democrats are bungling this issue from a strategic standpoint.

 

[Cartervol]

He won't rest until he either gets something done, or he gets done. Whichever comes first. These town hall deals are a joke though. Like someone said its all a dog and pony show. Makes it look like a lot of people really want this. At least thats what they're trying to show the blind mindless sheep that follow the flock.

 

[lawgator1]

I actually was going to ask LG this in a serious way. Let's assume for the moment that, yes, all the people who are mad as hell at these protests are plants/right wing loons. And I'll give LG that all of talk radio is a bunch of nutbags as well. Then answer me this question.

What are:

Cindy Sheehan
Many angles here. First, she is a woman whose son was killed in Iraq. I don't have a problem with her protesting the war, or setting up shop outside W's ranch (assumign she obeyed all pertinent local ordinances in doing so). She lost a lot of credibility running for Congress, IMO. Some seem to think she was just too liberal and a peacenik at all costs type of person, but I don't recall her going to townhall meetings for whatever cause and drowning out the speaker as a means to protest.
Dan Rather (Forged Documents as real journalism)
98% of his journalism was fine and while liberal he didn't go too far. He got caught up in the frenzy of those forged documents on Bush and it ruined his credibility.
Chris Matthews
A Washington insider, for many years in my view had the best news program on television. But he has gone off the deep end in the last 18 months, I'd agree. Don't watch him anymore.
Keith Olberman
Very intelligent guy. He scares the Republicans more than most liberal talk show hosts because he seems to be much more entertaining than what the left has been able to put up against RL, et.al., so far. I do enjoy his worst person in the world routine, especially when its Rove, O'Reilly, or Limbaugh (which it almost always is).
Al Gore
Dopey.
Sean Penn
Dopey X2
Rosie O'Donnel
Shrill and dopey.
Matt Damon
Honestly I'm not aware of his politics, so no comment.
Michael Moore
Annoying glibness. I don't watch his stuff.
War Protestors at almost all bases and funerals for soldiers during the Bush years.
I don't think you can paint with such a broad brush. I don't mind protestors at all. I don't mind people coming to the townhalls when they wait their turn and ask tough questions. I don't mind if they stand outside the townhall before, during, and after it and complain as bitterly as they want to about everything from the healthcare plan to the stimulus package, that's all fine. But, whether its war protestors at a townhall on Iraq, or people opposing the healthcare plan, they ought not advance their position by simply not allowing the other side to be heard.

I mean you are always quick to come out to discredit anyone who has openly went out to express their disgust with Washington (most of the tea party movement and these town halls are not just about Obama). So, I'm wondering if you feel the same disdain for those who do the same thing as Conservative Talk show hosts (the "journalists" and media types I listed) and those who practiced the same 1st Amendment rights of protest over the previous 8 years. I'm really honestly curious.

See above. What interests me is that so many of you have fashioned the argument about "who is behind the protests" as the left arguing that Blue Cross is sending out it mailroom clerks to pretend to be local citizens at these townhalls and then going from one to the next. I think what the Democrats, and Obama, are complaining about is that the insurers are promoting these blatant misrepresentations about healthcare reform, i.e. that the government is going to start rationing health care provided by Medicare, when that is simply not even remotely part of the bill.

That gets the seniors in particular worried and anxious, and since so many of them already dislike Obama it doesn't take much to get them to show up at these meetings and start crying and wailing and getting themselves on tv as "part of their civic duty."

If they'd ask their question and actually LISTEN they would learn that their fears are unfounded and they'd be a whole lot more comfortable with the process. But there is this weird frenzy out there and folks that are smarter and more informed should be ashamed of themsevles for placing their own agendas ahead of an earnest debate about a problem, rising health care costs, that is really out of control.

I am a partner in small business with 12 employees. Since we opened up in April, 2001, we paid the full health insurance for all of our employees. Every year, the cost of that rose 20-40%, and we figured out a way to pay for it.

This year, for the first time, we had to ask the employees to pay a small share of the cost of the latest increase, and we had to take on a plan with a higher deductible. If it continues, its a matter of time (and I don't mean 7 or 8 years) before we can't afford it all or, more likely, individual employees start balking at their share of the monthly cost and choose to go without.

It is a problem that is going to get worse, not better.

 

[rjd970]

I am a partner in small business with 12 employees. Since we opened up in April, 2001, we paid the full health insurance for all of our employees. Every year, the cost of that rose 20-40%, and we figured out a way to pay for it.

This year, for the first time, we had to ask the employees to pay a small share of the cost of the latest increase, and we had to take on a plan with a higher deductible. If it continues, its a matter of time (and I don't mean 7 or 8 years) before we can't afford it all or, more likely, individual employees start balking at their share of the monthly cost and choose to go without.

It is a problem that is going to get worse, not better.

This is the crux of the problem. It is a very real issue, LG, and if nothing is done then things will get a whole lot worse. Reform obviously needs to happen.

But here is the problem with Obama's plan...instead of going without, your employees will undoubtedly go with the public option he is pushing which will drive out out any private options because they simply won't be able to compete with a "free" option. Eventually all private options will get purged from the market and we are off to the races with rationing, government control of medical decisions, and every other fear everybody is screaming about right now. This isn't a matter of socialized medicine right now...it is a first step in that direction. Reform needs to have some control measure so private insurers can still compete instead of being hamstringed from the beginning.

Don't get me wrong, I think the way the insurance providers are set up now is less than ideal. It monopolizes the system and puts too much emphasis on the bottom line and not enough on taking care of its consumers. But some free market dynamics need to still be in play, otherwise the whole system will crash and quality will plummet.

 

[lawgator1]

This is the crux of the problem. It is a very real issue, LG, and if nothing is done then things will get a whole lot worse. Reform obviously needs to happen.

But here is the problem with Obama's plan...instead of going without, your employees will undoubtedly go with the public option he is pushing which will drive out out any private options because they simply won't be able to compete with a "free" option. Eventually all private options will get purged from the market and we are off to the races with rationing, government control of medical decisions, and every other fear everybody is screaming about right now. This isn't a matter of socialized medicine right now...it is a first step in that direction. Reform needs to have some control measure so private insurers can still compete instead of being hamstringed from the beginning.

Don't get me wrong, I think the way the insurance providers are set up now is less than ideal. It monopolizes the system and puts too much emphasis on the bottom line and not enough on taking care of its consumers. But some free market dynamics need to still be in play, otherwise the whole system will crash and quality will plummet.

Well, my understanding is that the employer would pick which plan to offer, and the government's wouldn't be "free" at all. It would cost whatever the cost of the health care is projected to deliver, plus whatever the cost is of running the program.

The thinking is that the enormous economy of scale presented by that plan, combined with the lower administrative cost and lack of profit, would allow people basically to buy into the Medicare program. No lifetime or annual caps for catastrophic care, no complicated formula for reimbursement (have you ever gotten a statement from your health insurer? --its harder to read than your cell phone bill).

People argue that there is fraud and waste in Medicare, and that is true. But there is fraud and waste in the private insurance system, too. Medicare seems to get along just fine -- I don't know of any doctors who don't take it -- and to do so at a lower overall cost than private insurers manage, even with the abuses that make the news from time to time.

 

[KB5252]

This is the crux of the problem. It is a very real issue, LG, and if nothing is done then things will get a whole lot worse. Reform obviously needs to happen.

But here is the problem with Obama's plan...instead of going without, your employees will undoubtedly go with the public option he is pushing which will drive out out any private options because they simply won't be able to compete with a "free" option. Eventually all private options will get purged from the market and we are off to the races with rationing, government control of medical decisions, and every other fear everybody is screaming about right now. This isn't a matter of socialized medicine right now...it is a first step in that direction. Reform needs to have some control measure so private insurers can still compete instead of being hamstringed from the beginning.

Don't get me wrong, I think the way the insurance providers are set up now is less than ideal. It monopolizes the system and puts too much emphasis on the bottom line and not enough on taking care of its consumers. But some free market dynamics need to still be in play, otherwise the whole system will crash and quality will plummet.

Exactly, all tax payers will be paying for this plan. Those that have private health insurance will be paying for health insurance twice, when they do not receive the benefit. Many employers and citizens will realize this and opt for the government run option, soon enough companies providing health insurance will not be able to compete unless they too get in bed with the government. In the end everyone loses and government has much more control of our daily lives.

There are studies that show government run medical plans (medicaid etc)turn down claims at a higher rate than private insurers.

 

[rjd970]

Well, my understanding is that the employer would pick which plan to offer, and the government's wouldn't be "free" at all. It would cost whatever the cost of the health care is projected to deliver, plus whatever the cost is of running the program.

The thinking is that the enormous economy of scale presented by that plan, combined with the lower administrative cost and lack of profit, would allow people basically to buy into the Medicare program. No lifetime or annual caps for catastrophic care, no complicated formula for reimbursement (have you ever gotten a statement from your health insurer? --its harder to read than your cell phone bill).

People argue that there is fraud and waste in Medicare, and that is true. But there is fraud and waste in the private insurance system, too. Medicare seems to get along just fine -- I don't know of any doctors who don't take it -- and to do so at a lower overall cost than private insurers manage, even with the abuses that make the news from time to time.

Exactly, and you don't think that will purge every other option? No profit = no incentive to compete and make things better and cheaper. Now you have a single payer system strong-arming providers to reduce cost, quality goes down, and the government is determining what is really needed and not needed for your own health.

 

[droski]

if you drop your insurance the govt will charge you 9% of your payroll to put people on the public plan. the overwelming majority of private plans costs a lot more than 9%. every major employer in this country is going to go for the cheaper option and dump their plan for the public option. to imply this isn't a problem with the program is idiocy.

and I'd like LG to list a single intelligent or independent thought Keith Olberman has had.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Well, my understanding is that the employer would pick which plan to offer, and the government's wouldn't be "free" at all. It would cost whatever the cost of the health care is projected to deliver, plus whatever the cost is of running the program.

The thinking is that the enormous economy of scale presented by that plan, combined with the lower administrative cost and lack of profit, would allow people basically to buy into the Medicare program. No lifetime or annual caps for catastrophic care, no complicated formula for reimbursement (have you ever gotten a statement from your health insurer? --its harder to read than your cell phone bill).

People argue that there is fraud and waste in Medicare, and that is true. But there is fraud and waste in the private insurance system, too. Medicare seems to get along just fine -- I don't know of any doctors who don't take it -- and to do so at a lower overall cost than private insurers manage, even with the abuses that make the news from time to time.

the economy of scale argument, as it relates to the government contracting process, is absolute garbage.

 

[rjd970]

There are studies that show government run medical plans (medicaid etc)turn down claims at a higher rate than private insurers.

Not sure about that, I may be wrong though.

 

[rjd970]

the economy of scale argument, as it relates to the government contracting process, is absolute garbage.

"Go with the lowest bidder, then pay for overuns later".

I'm not sure the DoD will ever figure that one out.

 

[rjd970]

every major employer in this country is going to go for the cheaper option and dump their plan for the public option. to imply this isn't a problem with the program is idiocy.

Somebody needs to scream this at Obama in the next townhall.

This is the centerpiece of my issue with UHC as proposed by this administration. For me, and many others that work for large companies in the private sector, it will mean we have to trade in excellent (and cheap) coverage for the public option. Not to mention it will cause a steady decline in the overall quality of our healthcare system in general.

 

[lawgator1]

if you drop your insurance the govt will charge you 9% of your payroll to put people on the public plan. the overwelming majority of private plans costs a lot more than 9%. every major employer in this country is going to go for the cheaper option and dump their plan for the public option. to imply this isn't a problem with the program is idiocy.

and I'd like LG to list a single intelligent or independent thought Keith Olberman has had.

If that were the case, and if it mirrored the Medicare program, what's the problem? Now when I ask that, I realize that you have a certain reaction to what you consider to be a prelude to socialized medicine, so you can skip that argument as I am already aware of it.

I'm asking, if employers can offer their employees health care and save the kind of dolalrs we are talking about for their own profit and/or re-investment, and if the quality of care is similar to that of Medicare, what's the downside?

And as to Olberman, you've made up your mind and so I won't bother you with a list. But his expose last night on how many big advertisers are shunning Glenn Beck was pretty good.

the economy of scale argument, as it relates to the government contracting process, is absolute garbage.

Why? Seriously, why wouldn't it be the case that the administration of a public plan across the country wouldn't have some efficiencies built into it that localized plans don't have?