DNC now calling angry average Americans a mob

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

How can you be against it if you don't know what it is?

 

I can tell you what it basically is, as well as what the CBO says it is.

 

The government "public plan" is a small part of the Health Care reform bill.

 

Only certain people will be eligible for the public plan so employers won't be able to offload employees unless they qualify. And why would employers want to screw their employees by putting them in a public plan when they are not obligated to give them insurance right now? If they wanted to save money, they would cut benefits and payments now, which they are doing. The CBO says 4% of the public will opt for this public plan. Four percent.

What government program has EVER performed as designed?

[PastaJoe]

Funny, I remember reading several of the founding fathers that said the violence was NECESSARY every so many years to stop tyranny.

 

Maybe you failed to read the fathers before you came to your own conclusion?

 

So now you're advocating violence? And even though the current administration was voted in by a majority of Americans in a multi-party election, because you disagree with it's policies you call it tyranny? The founding fathers came from a history of monarchies. They set up our republic to allow for civil debate and discourse with our ELECTED government.

[Booster4324]

Funny, I remember reading several of the founding fathers that said the violence was NECESSARY every so many years to stop tyranny.

 

Maybe you failed to read the fathers before you came to your own conclusion?

 

You and Ocin start the revolution without us. We will catch up in just a few minutes...

[Kelly the Dog]

What government program has EVER performed as designed?

 

From what I have read, the military health care plan TRICARE is a darn good plan. Even Bill Kristol says its a great plan. Not to be confused with the VHA. The Health Care plans your congressmen and senators have along with government employees they hardly ever complain about.

[IDBillzFan]

According to LABillz, the only people who listen to them are liberals.

Yeah, that's what I said.

[DC Tom]

So now you're advocating violence? And even though the current administration was voted in by a majority of Americans in a multi-party election, because you disagree with it's policies you call it tyranny? The founding fathers came from a history of monarchies. They set up our republic to allow for civil debate and discourse with our ELECTED government.

 

I always looked at it as: "They set up the government so we could have a bloodless coup every four years if we so desired."

 

 

But really...are you kidding? Have you ever read anything from the founding fathers?

[Kelly the Dog]

Yeah, that's what I said.

 

Oh, you don't like gross exaggerations of people's points?

[IDBillzFan]

Oh, you don't like gross exaggerations of people's points?

No, I love gross exaggerations of people's points...just not my points.

[StupidNation]

So now you're advocating violence? And even though the current administration was voted in by a majority of Americans in a multi-party election, because you disagree with it's policies you call it tyranny? The founding fathers came from a history of monarchies. They set up our republic to allow for civil debate and discourse with our ELECTED government.

 

I'm not advocating violence at all genius. I'm advocating reading, thinking, and education in debate. You drew from the founders of the country about why violence isn't necessary, and the only way was civil. Here's what you said,

 

"And this country was founded by people who knew that civil discourse and debate was the only way we could survive together given the varied opinions of our citizens."

 

My point was you were wrong, I did not advocate anything. But just as you think I was inciting violence, you do not know what the founders of this country thought. All I said was you were wrong and your reply was equally as stupid.

 

Personally I'm against the American Revolution overthrowing the English, let alone violence now. Oh, and tyranny is defined by someone (guess who?) as when the people fear the government, and freedom and liberty is when the government fears the people.

 

Go do some homework on the quote...

 

Here's a hint: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t...jeff169586.html

[Chump Change]

From what I have read, the military health care plan TRICARE is a darn good plan. Even Bill Kristol says its a great plan. Not to be confused with the VHA. The Health Care plans your congressmen and senators have along with government employees they hardly ever complain about.

 

One reason I'm opposed to this bill is because as a Tricare for Life benefit recipient, it will vastly raise my annual premiums and cost share starting in 2011. According to the CBO, starting in 2011, my annual premium will rise from $490 per year to $1100 per. It would initiate cost sharing to require retirees to pay the first $525 of medical cost and 50% of the next $4,725 for a first year cost of $2,888 per person. It would also be indexed to increase with inflation. A reason given for this action (for PR effect) is "overuse" by Retirees.

 

So that is my rationale for opposition to the bill. If you want a link to the CBO report, PM me and I'll send you the link as well as where you can find the information I'm referring to.

[Kelly the Dog]

One reason I'm opposed to this bill is because as a Tricare for Life benefit recipient, it will vastly raise my annual premiums and cost share starting in 2011. According to the CBO, starting in 2011, my annual premium will rise from $490 per year to $1100 per. It would initiate cost sharing to require retirees to pay the first $525 of medical cost and 50% of the next $4,725 for a first year cost of $2,888 per person. It would also be indexed to increase with inflation. A reason given for this action (for PR effect) is "overuse" by Retirees.

 

So that is my rationale for opposition to the bill. If you want a link to the CBO report, PM me and I'll send you the link as well as where you can find the information I'm referring to.

I think this is what you are referring to and it's no longer valid. But perhaps it's something different.

We’ve received a ton of inquiries from members who received a chain message with this subject line that talks about a Congressional Budget Office idea to jack up fees for TRICARE for Life beneficiaries.

 

The content is based on truth, but it’s about 6 months out of date and is no longer relevant. If you receive the message from someone, please DON’T forward it on, but refer them to this answer about it.

 

Unfortunately, things sent out on the internet acquire lives of their own that go on long after the origin has been overcome by events.

 

The message refers to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) options list that was prepared last year. It provided a list of options (not recommendations) that government leaders might consider if they wanted to increase or cut spending in various areas of government – health care in this case.

 

The CBO puts out this kind of list after every congressional election. In most cases, nothing comes of the recommendations – at least those on military health care.

 

Worries that such initiatives would show up in President Obama’s budget proved unfounded. The new budget proposes fully funding TRICARE for the first time in four years – with no proposed benefit reductions or fee increases.

 

http://www.moaablogs.org/healthcare/2009/0...life-important/

[swede316]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/07...-violent-tampa/

 

The natives are getting really restless

[pBills]

Republicans Propagating Falsehoods in Attacks on Health-Care Reform

By Steven Pearlstein

Friday, August 7, 2009

Washington Post

 

 

 

As a columnist who regularly dishes out sharp criticism, I try not to question the motives of people with whom I don't agree. Today, I'm going to step over that line.

 

The recent attacks by Republican leaders and their ideological fellow-travelers on the effort to reform the health-care system have been so misleading, so disingenuous, that they could only spring from a cynical effort to gain partisan political advantage. By poisoning the political well, they've given up any pretense of being the loyal opposition. They've become political terrorists, willing to say or do anything to prevent the country from reaching a consensus on one of its most serious domestic problems.

 

There are lots of valid criticisms that can be made against the health reform plans moving through Congress -- I've made a few myself. But there is no credible way to look at what has been proposed by the president or any congressional committee and conclude that these will result in a government takeover of the health-care system. That is a flat-out lie whose only purpose is to scare the public and stop political conversation.

 

Under any plan likely to emerge from Congress, the vast majority of Americans who are not old or poor will continue to buy health insurance from private companies, continue to get their health care from doctors in private practice and continue to be treated at privately owned hospitals.

 

The centerpiece of all the plans is a new health insurance exchange set up by the government where individuals, small businesses and eventually larger businesses will be able to purchase insurance from private insurers at lower rates than are now generally available under rules that require insurers to offer coverage to anyone regardless of health condition. Low-income workers buying insurance through the exchange -- along with their employers -- would be eligible for government subsidies. While the government will take a more active role in regulating the insurance market and increase its spending for health care, that hardly amounts to the kind of government-run system that critics conjure up when they trot out that oh-so-clever line about the Department of Motor Vehicles being in charge of your colonoscopy.

ad_icon

 

There is still a vigorous debate as to whether one of the insurance options offered through those exchanges would be a government-run insurance company of some sort. There are now less-than-even odds that such a public option will survive in the Senate, while even House leaders have agreed that the public plan won't be able to piggy-back on Medicare. So the probability that a public-run insurance plan is about to drive every private insurer out of business -- the Republican nightmare scenario -- is approximately zero.

 

By now, you've probably also heard that health reform will cost taxpayers at least a trillion dollars. Another lie.

 

First of all, that's not a trillion every year, as most people assume -- it's a trillion over 10 years, which is the silly way that people in Washington talk about federal budgets. On an annual basis, that translates to about $140 billion, when things are up and running.

 

Even that, however, grossly overstates the net cost to the government of providing universal coverage. Other parts of the reform plan would result in offsetting savings for Medicare: reductions in unnecessary subsidies to private insurers, in annual increases in payments rates for doctors and in payments to hospitals for providing free care to the uninsured. The net increase in government spending for health care would likely be about $100 billion a year, a one-time increase equal to less than 1 percent of a national income that grows at an average rate of 2.5 percent every year.

 

The Republican lies about the economics of health reform are also heavily laced with hypocrisy.

 

While holding themselves out as paragons of fiscal rectitude, Republicans grandstand against just about every idea to reduce the amount of health care people consume or the prices paid to health-care providers -- the only two ways I can think of to credibly bring health spending under control.

 

When Democrats, for example, propose to fund research to give doctors, patients and health plans better information on what works and what doesn't, Republicans sense a sinister plot to have the government decide what treatments you will get. By the same wacko-logic, a proposal that Medicare pay for counseling on end-of-life care is transformed into a secret plan for mass euthanasia of the elderly.

 

Government negotiation on drug prices? The end of medical innovation as we know it, according to the GOP's Dr. No. Reduce Medicare payments to overpriced specialists and inefficient hospitals? The first step on the slippery slope toward rationing.

 

Can there be anyone more two-faced than the Republican leaders who in one breath rail against the evils of government-run health care and in another propose a government-subsidized high-risk pool for people with chronic illness, government-subsidized community health centers for the uninsured, and opening up Medicare to people at age 55?

 

Health reform is a test of whether this country can function once again as a civil society -- whether we can trust ourselves to embrace the big, important changes that require everyone to give up something in order to make everyone better off. Republican leaders are eager to see us fail that test. We need to show them that no matter how many lies they tell or how many scare tactics they concoct, Americans will come together and get this done.

 

If health reform is to be anyone's Waterloo, let it be theirs.

 

 

:worthy:

[swede316]

Republicans Propagating Falsehoods in Attacks on Health-Care Reform

By Steven Pearlstein

Friday, August 7, 2009

Washington Post

 

 

 

As a columnist who regularly dishes out sharp criticism, I try not to question the motives of people with whom I don't agree. Today, I'm going to step over that line.

 

The recent attacks by Republican leaders and their ideological fellow-travelers on the effort to reform the health-care system have been so misleading, so disingenuous, that they could only spring from a cynical effort to gain partisan political advantage. By poisoning the political well, they've given up any pretense of being the loyal opposition. They've become political terrorists, willing to say or do anything to prevent the country from reaching a consensus on one of its most serious domestic problems.

 

There are lots of valid criticisms that can be made against the health reform plans moving through Congress -- I've made a few myself. But there is no credible way to look at what has been proposed by the president or any congressional committee and conclude that these will result in a government takeover of the health-care system. That is a flat-out lie whose only purpose is to scare the public and stop political conversation.

 

Under any plan likely to emerge from Congress, the vast majority of Americans who are not old or poor will continue to buy health insurance from private companies, continue to get their health care from doctors in private practice and continue to be treated at privately owned hospitals.

 

The centerpiece of all the plans is a new health insurance exchange set up by the government where individuals, small businesses and eventually larger businesses will be able to purchase insurance from private insurers at lower rates than are now generally available under rules that require insurers to offer coverage to anyone regardless of health condition. Low-income workers buying insurance through the exchange -- along with their employers -- would be eligible for government subsidies. While the government will take a more active role in regulating the insurance market and increase its spending for health care, that hardly amounts to the kind of government-run system that critics conjure up when they trot out that oh-so-clever line about the Department of Motor Vehicles being in charge of your colonoscopy.

ad_icon

 

There is still a vigorous debate as to whether one of the insurance options offered through those exchanges would be a government-run insurance company of some sort. There are now less-than-even odds that such a public option will survive in the Senate, while even House leaders have agreed that the public plan won't be able to piggy-back on Medicare. So the probability that a public-run insurance plan is about to drive every private insurer out of business -- the Republican nightmare scenario -- is approximately zero.

 

By now, you've probably also heard that health reform will cost taxpayers at least a trillion dollars. Another lie.

 

First of all, that's not a trillion every year, as most people assume -- it's a trillion over 10 years, which is the silly way that people in Washington talk about federal budgets. On an annual basis, that translates to about $140 billion, when things are up and running.

 

Even that, however, grossly overstates the net cost to the government of providing universal coverage. Other parts of the reform plan would result in offsetting savings for Medicare: reductions in unnecessary subsidies to private insurers, in annual increases in payments rates for doctors and in payments to hospitals for providing free care to the uninsured. The net increase in government spending for health care would likely be about $100 billion a year, a one-time increase equal to less than 1 percent of a national income that grows at an average rate of 2.5 percent every year.

 

The Republican lies about the economics of health reform are also heavily laced with hypocrisy.

 

While holding themselves out as paragons of fiscal rectitude, Republicans grandstand against just about every idea to reduce the amount of health care people consume or the prices paid to health-care providers -- the only two ways I can think of to credibly bring health spending under control.

 

When Democrats, for example, propose to fund research to give doctors, patients and health plans better information on what works and what doesn't, Republicans sense a sinister plot to have the government decide what treatments you will get. By the same wacko-logic, a proposal that Medicare pay for counseling on end-of-life care is transformed into a secret plan for mass euthanasia of the elderly.

 

Government negotiation on drug prices? The end of medical innovation as we know it, according to the GOP's Dr. No. Reduce Medicare payments to overpriced specialists and inefficient hospitals? The first step on the slippery slope toward rationing.

 

Can there be anyone more two-faced than the Republican leaders who in one breath rail against the evils of government-run health care and in another propose a government-subsidized high-risk pool for people with chronic illness, government-subsidized community health centers for the uninsured, and opening up Medicare to people at age 55?

 

Health reform is a test of whether this country can function once again as a civil society -- whether we can trust ourselves to embrace the big, important changes that require everyone to give up something in order to make everyone better off. Republican leaders are eager to see us fail that test. We need to show them that no matter how many lies they tell or how many scare tactics they concoct, Americans will come together and get this done.

 

If health reform is to be anyone's Waterloo, let it be theirs.

 

 

:worthy:

Do you really believe that?

[pBills]

That republicans leaders and SOME of their followers are doing anything they can to disrupt, mislead and in many cases to avoid debate to find a middle ground? Yes.

 

Do I believe in the complete health care package that is being thrown out there now? No. Do we need some sort of reform? Yes. Who knows what the end of this may be, but something needs to be done. And the ONLY way to do that will be by sitting down at the table and talking it over. This mob mentality has got to stop.

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/07...-violent-tampa/

 

The natives are getting really restless

 

I read that. They went off as soon as the guy started talking. Based on the theory "We're All going to DIE with Obama Health Care"!!!

 

A health care town hall meeting in Florida on Thursday dissolved into bouts of heckling and violent pushing and shoving among attendees.

 

As Castor first began to speak, scuffles broke out as people tried to get into the meeting room. Parts of the congresswoman's speech was drowned out by chants of "read the bill, read the bill" and "tyranny," video of the meeting showed.

Conservative groups critical of Democrats' overhaul proposals have created their own plans, sending out information such as links to search engines; lists that relayed the locations of upcoming town halls; confrontational questions to ask members of Congress and chants and slogans to use in and around the venues.

[swede316]

Wow..There's no hope for us....Drinking the cool-aide.

[Bishop Hedd]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/07...-violent-tampa/

 

The natives are getting really restless

And you just knew it was a matter of time.

[swede316]

And you just knew it was a matter of time.

By all accounts they are genuine pissed off people..not paid or bused in. I wouldn't want to be that cop in front of the doors either...I see he made a quick exit...Smart man.

[Bad Lieutenant]

By all accounts they are genuine pissed off people..not paid or bused in.

 

By all accounts they are genuinely pissed off people who are pissed off for bogus reasons.