To Doubters and Pouters, Re: Healthcare

[Nuclear Unicorn]

More the former than the latter because sometimes pouters are too emotionally invested whereas doubters have genuine intellectual curiosities deserving of respectful address.

Sometimes the voices of those that would condemn you speak the loudest of your virtues. To wit: I am not prepared to believe that Obama's HCR proposal is the corporate windfall that many would paint it to be. If that were the case than more corpoatists would be supporting it.

Instead, what we see are the corporations, with their tightly-scripted tea parties and FOX news/talk radio broadcasts, opposing HCR at every turn.

Conversely, to claim Obama is working for the corporations is to claim he lied all through the campaign so successfully that 54% of the US voting electorate was suckered by mere sloganeering, i.e. "Hope" and it's attending "Change". Were we--the American voter, and especially you peers at DU so easily duped as you would have us believe? If we are as silly as you seem to imply perhaps you should question your association to us. "Who is more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows him?" as the old Jedi once said.

Now, I am not saying you should exile yourself from DU. On the contrary, an inquisitive spirit and sense of inner generosity is what made you reject "conservativism" for being a progressive liberal in the first place. All I'm asking is to retouch and rekindle that same spirit and realize we are not being duped but rather greater wheels are turning. Stay with us and take a moment to see beyond the horizon.

Just sayin'.

[foxfeet]

1. Wheels/chess: potato/potahto.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

5. Oh good grief!

No wonder we can't in the public arena.

Half of us don't want to take 5 secinds to calm down and when polite conversation seeks to address that fact it isn't met with any reasoned response just pointless snark.

In November 2008 a great political battle was won. A young commander who was dismissed by his oponents almost out of hand sent those very same opponents away scattered and confused. Then, as he was moving on to secure his victory on behalf of the people that sent him forward naysayers from his own camp yapped and nipped at his heels every step of the way. Now the enemy, once defeated but suddenly emboldened, regathers on the field. Where the leaders says to manuever right his detractors scream left; when he cries left they scream right! He won the battle, they surrender the campaign.

(Sorry, I had to read about the Second Peloponnesian War recently...and so much of this reminds me of the political in-fighting that doomed Athens to the reign of the oligarchs).

This is hard enough to amend massive social and political injustices without our fellows doing the GOP's work for them. O'Keefe and the phony ACORN sting is about sowing confusion and discord among the ranks of democrats. For all we know he has a DU account the way some folks act!

[Bluenorthwest]

10. If you think this is polite

you are being too kind to yourself.

[foxfeet]

21. "Doubters and Pouters" doesn't qualify as pointless snark?

Polite conversation, my ass. You sound like the Republicans who are happy only when the conversation takes place on their terms. Your post does not seem aimed at eliciting "polite conversation."

Edit: spelling

[Nuclear Unicorn]

44. I did not notice your post until now

Further down the thread Fumesucker pointed this out to me.

I apologized then and I repeat that apology for you, you are right that my words were poorly chosen and unkind.

[foxfeet]

49. Peace. One lives and (one hopes) learns.

I have no need to keep flogging this particular issue.

[GreenArrow]

52. "doubters and pouters" isn't polite conversation

it's brazen assholery.

[Winterblues]

2. Just something to remember

Ponzi was loved and trusted by virtually everyone he met. He had a charisma that made everyone he met believe in him completely... just saying....Never hurts to be wary...believe your eyes more than your ears..pay attention more to what actually happens than what is being presented.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

6. You're comparing Obama to Ponzi?

[subcomhd]

18. FAIL nt

[BlooInBloo]

51. hahahaahaa!!

[NYC_SKP]

3. "Ad Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc"; Obama did something, then Health Industry stocks rose,

therefore Obama is an evil corporate puppet.

That's the kind of faulty logic we see far too often in the media and, sadly, here on DU.

Good Post, recommended.

:patriot:

[ddeclue]

11. For it to be post hoc ergo prompter hoc the two have to be UNRELATED.

When you FORCE Americans to buy policies at gunpoint and you REFUSE to require real competition, the insurance company investors have every reason to feel good about their stocks and drive up the price.

There IS actual causality here - your post hoc ergo prompter hoc claim is specious.

[NYC_SKP]

30. True that, ddeclue. It's a simple non sequitur.

The two are related, but as the President has done little more than offer gestures and comments that are terrifically vague, changes in stock values are more likely related to other matters, perhaps signals from congress.

So that it does not follow. There is no causation.

[John Q. Citizen]

4. If you don't believe what Obama says publicaly, then that's your problem. But he says that

the insurance companies, the drug companies, and the AMA do in fact support his initiative.

Maybe Obama is lying. Maybe he is uninformed.

Or maybe you don't know what you are talking about. In my opinion, you are confusing Republican politicians with the health care industrial complex. They are not the same thing.

I'm not sure who you claim to represent when you say, "Stay with us and take a moment to see beyond the horizon."

Which is the "us" that you claim to speak for?

Are you hired to be a PR person for that "us" or are you appointed by a board or by some person of authority? And why can't you get some facts into your post? Like how much money has been given by what corporations to defeat Obama's health care plans would be a good starting point.

As of now, all you have is opinion devoid of any real facts to back up your thesis. In fact your thesis seems very thin on the face of it considering that Big Pharma's trade association group has sunk millions into adds promoting health care reform, and that the insurance industry group, AHIP, has repeatedly and publicly supported almost everyone of the Obama reforms.

Just sayin'

[ddeclue]

7. YOUR SHIPMENT OF HERO WORSHIP FAIL HAS ARRIVED:

This is DEMOCRATIC Underground.

You must have us confused with OBAMA Underground.

The Baucus plan is a total open mouthed tongue kiss to insurance companies and a total bend over and get screwed to the American citizen.

I did NOT see Obama say he would veto any bill containing personal insurance mandates (forcing us to buy a private insurance policy at gunpoint from the insurance thieves.)

I did NOT see Obama say he would veto any bill that failed to contain a robust public option available to all Americans without conditions.

In short I have every reason to object to what is going on right now and you should back the heck off.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

13. So, since you don't get every single talking point you want...

...screw the poor?

Two forms of advice I shall not ask for here: political and poker. I'm the kind of girl that holds her cards close.

I voted (the first time in my life that I could) for a consensus builder with a conscience. You can't use the perfect as an excuse to thwart the good. Nor should we be so short-sighted as to assume that HCR is frozen in perpetuity. People familiar with healthcare have heard of things called skeletons. They are strong. They support and protect vital organs.

Just because every preferred bulletpoint is not listed doesn't mean: A) it isn't there B) won't make it to the conference bill C) can't be added in later years.

QUESTION: If this bill goes down do you think any subsequent administration could every raise the issue again? Won't the GOP'ers say, "hey, you guys tried in 1993 and 2009 and you failed both time with democrat majorities"?

People, this may be our last shot and it could be Obama's undoing if it fails. The last thing we need is Joe Wilson's echo chamber drowning out a fair dialogue.

[ddeclue]

14. If WE DON'T get those then the POOR will be the first ones screwed.

YOU are a corporatist apologist. You can stop trying already.

There is simply NO excuse that justifies the Baucus bill and YOU KNOW IT.

Everyone else here does too.

Go away now and tell your corporate masters that you tried but nobody was buying your spin.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

19. Bill Press was very much against the Baucus bill

...but late last week he said a Krugman op ed gave him pause.

You act as if Baucus is the only plan out there or that it will be set in stone until Doomsday.

And I don't know about you but President Obama said in his speech that waivers would allow the poor to avoid the mandate while offering them assistance. Did you miss that part of the speech or just choose to not mention it?

Things grow. Things change. Things evolve.

People should too.

And who are you calling a corporatist? Last I heard corporatists want Obama to fail.

[ddeclue]

23. "Waivers" - Yeah right.. I'm supposed to trust THAT?

Wait till the cameras are turned off and the media goes home and those will quickly disappear - and don't count on them to really help many people anyways.

YOU are a corporatist supporting a corporatist plan - Obama's plan.

The Baucus plan IS the only plan out there that has a chance of passing and at this point it's Baucus or bust.

I vote for "bust".

Things aren't "changing" or "growing" for the better so WHY should I cave in on doing the RIGHT thing as the plan "evolves" ever more AWAY from REAL health care reform (SINGLE PAYER or GOV'T RUN) and ever more into a Christmas Present to the Insurance Lobby?

Shame on you for even trying to post this drivel.

Now go tell your corporate masters you've failed. Again.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

25. VERDICT:

Obama is a lying, corporatist, thief to be thrown to his enemies.


EVIDENCE:

You heard "mandate" and believed it.

You heard "waiver" and disbelieved it.


Stunning.

[ddeclue]

46. I believe it because it's there and he supports it - what is stunning is your deliberate ignorance.

:eyes:

[dflprincess]

41. If this scam passes how long do you think it will before the subject comes up again

Congress will pass & Obama will sign the faux reform bill, expect us to thank them for reenforcing the private insurers with our money and doing very little to change a system that is so broken we do need to "start from scratch". And it will be years before the issue gets revisited.

[cliffordu]

33. Just because he didn't IMMEDIATELY reassure you??

Oh, but wait:

He lost the initiative by being MIA in the talk show circuit, 'Member???

( :sarcasm: )

Now of course, he's overexposed.

Fucking guy is like a rorschach test - Sometimes it seems we all see what we want to see.



He seems to move at his own pace. Drives pretty much everyone crazy.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

8. A Negative Rec too?

I'm not saying you have to fawn over every line I type but a NEGATIVE...for trying to be POSITIVE?

Is there a curmudgeons brigade on the boards here? I didn't see a support group forum for 'em (yes, a pun) so I can't tell if they're officially recognized.

[ddeclue]

9. Boo hoo - your OP deserves to be unrecced into oblivion.

It's NOT "curmudgeonly" to complain when you are getting screwed over - sorry if we aren't just going to blindly go along with anything without thinking about it.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

15. And who do I unrec...

...when members of Obama's own party defeat HCR, screw the poor, give the congress back to the GOP and weaken him for 2012?

Enjoy your clicking.

[ddeclue]

16. No YOU are the one out to screw the poor and cost him the 2012 election.

Go away and tell your corporate masters you've failed.

[Umbral]

12. I guess some people bought the "Hope and Change" Bullshit. Me? I voted against the Republican. nt

[SammyWinstonJack]

20. +1

:applause: :thumbsup:

[Fumesucker]

17. Eh, I would say your post count is a little low to be chiding others here..

Not that post count has anything to do with the correctness or lack of such of your post, but rather that post count has to do with credibility, particularly so when you speak of "pouters"..

Personally I don't think that anyone who wasn't a "corporatist" would have been allowed to get anywhere near the nomination of either party, which is a roundabout way of saying I think Obama is a corporatist.

[SammyWinstonJack]

22. They weren't allowed and Obama is.

Personally I don't think that anyone who wasn't a "corporatist" would have been allowed to get anywhere near the nomination of either party, which is a roundabout way of saying I think Obama is a corporatist.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

24. Perhaps "pouters" was a bit inflammatory...

...and I should have chosen something else (I wanted something that rhymed with doubters).

But I have to wonder what is the purpose of voting or organizing or even a place such as DU if the common voice cannot break through the corporate walls?

I'm not attacking you but I myself couldn't get out of bed if I was subject to such a belief.

[Fumesucker]

28. A lot of us are here more to vent than anything else..

For myself there is simply no one I know in real life who is interested at all in politics, it's either get online or learn to talk about football and NASCAR, neither of which I give the slightest flip about.

The frustration level of those of us who are reasonably intelligent and paying attention to politics is climbing to hitherto undreamed of levels.

And there are days when the only thing that motivates me to get out of bed is that my dogs have to be walked.

You have to realize that "poutrage" is a term that many here really object to, I know you didn't use that particular one but it has gotten to the point that anything even close raises hackles.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

36. Nonetheless, I accept your observation

and it was inconsiderate of me to speak so harshly.

I can tell I upset many folks here and I owe them my apology especialy since I am the one calling for understanding amongst our own.

My harshness was uncalled for.

[Fumesucker]

37. We all make mistakes..

Your apology is accepted and appreciated but not really necessary.

[Old Codger]

26. well

Ok a mandate is the same as a tax, a mandate without a public option is a tax that bypasses the normal channels of government and will be paid directly to the insurance company of your choice, and that appears at this time to be the only "public option" we may have.. I already have single payer insurance and it works very well thank you and should be available to all who so desire.... Medicare would be the only real sane way to go, the basic infrastructure exists therefor no large investment in that phase, and since it already exists no long term planning phase involved, it works irrespective of what they so vehemently claim to the contrary...

[Nuclear Unicorn]

32. FINALLY!

A voice of dialogue.

Thank-you.

Of course in addition to the mandate the other thrust of this plan is to LOWER the cost of insurance all around either through competition or by providing a federally subsidized option (PO or co-op). If prices come down that means the number of people who cannot afford insurance goes down as well. Those are the ones the "mandate" is aimed at. Those who still cannot afford insurance have waivers and subsidized assistance.

[dflprincess]

42. We really need to get past the idea that insurance = care

A lot of people with insurance still cannot access the care they need because they can't afford the out of pockets. Nothing in the plans currently floating around Congress guarantee anything but that you'll be forced to contribute to the profits of outfits like United Health Group or Cigna.

[Old Codger]

50. Seems like

You are missing my point somewhat, a mandate that forces people to buy from existing insurance companies is as I say a tax being paid directly to insurance companies, tax breaks for poor people who do not earn enough to owe taxes is a pretty inane idea, giving them direct rebates of some sort ALA earned income credits is a loser also, no matter how anyone attempts to sugar coat it a mandate is a gift to insurance and in no way guarantees health care it guarantees that insurance will receive large amounts of money...We all know and so do all of our representatives in congress and the senate and the whitehouse that single payer is the only real viable, fair and equitable answer to the problems inherent in for profit health insurance.>>>>> GREED Adding thousand or actually probably millions at a somewhat lower fee is still a huge huge bonus to the people who are responsible for the problem to start with, rewarding what amounts to criminal behavior, if it were a single person doing this it would constitute a crime... when insurance companies deny coverage they in effect deny health care to people who cannot afford the dr and hosp. bills, in many many cases this ends in the death or at best possibly permanent disability, when some religion denies health care to a child the courts step in and force that care....but when it is done in the name of corporate profit is is condoned...

[DireStrike]

27. I think your reasoning is fallacious

"Corporations do not support this bill because it does not give them what they want."

This is not valid. Corporations, and the right, are competent negotiators and will fight tooth and nail if they think there is any way a deal can be made better for them.

[Lyric]

29. "If that were the case, than (sic) more corpoatists (sic) would be supporting it."

How many attack ads against Obama's plan have you seen the insurance companies running?

I've seen some by opportunistic Republicans hoping to ride Obama's failure to re-election, but the corporations themselves seem to be oddly silent. Now why do you suppose that is?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

34. To say the corporations support HCR is like saying...

...the Teabaggers are a spontaneous manifestation of popular, grassroots discontent...

...while polls overwhelmingly supported the president enacting HCR.

I guess it's a matter of whether one thinks Glenn Beck speaks FOR the people or TO the people.

[Gravel Democrat]

45. Here's an experiment for you

you write:"while polls overwhelmingly supported the president enacting HCR"

Here is HR3200 online:
http://www.examiner.com/x-12837-US-Headlines-Examiner~y2009m8d10-Health-care-bill-HR-3200-read-it-online-now

Scroll down to the embedded document.
In the top right,click on the second to last drop down thingy- you can type in a page number.

Type in 167
It’s Division A, Title IV
This astonishing crap goes on until page 215

Then please tell me if those same polls would still overwhelmingly support *this* version of HCR

If the people aren't given all the details how can they make educated decisions?

And the people are not being given all the details...

Thanks

[jotsy]

31. Single payer, universal health, NOW.

In attempting to provide my twelve year old with an answer she could understand, I explained the health care situation this way:

Imagine you're at a school dance and a boy asks you to dance and while your dancing, he steps all over your feet so much that it hurts to stand. How are you going to respond when he asks if you want to dance some more? Her answer, of course, was 'no thanks'.

I guess the difference for us is that's not what we get to say to the insurance companies. These irrelevant and greedy middleman have to be removed from the delivery system. I view health care as infrastructure to the human body, perhaps if it were discussed more in that light, it could take some of the heat out of the debate.

I expect my government to be capable of rendering the kind of laws that make sense and serve the citizenry. If they can't see their way clear to being a conduit of public will, then the public may have to. HR 676 is the plan supported by a considerable bulk of doctors and other health care professionals who don't seem to be invited to any discussion regarding the pitfalls and the peaks of a variety of models. The dialog has been framed to a narrow set of peripheral topics and proprietary notions that have little to no place in what progress might look like. Until profit is removed from the process, true reformation will remain elusive.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

35. Thank-you

May I ask though: would you have foresaken civil rights laws without affirmative action?

What if the former laid the foundation for the latter? In the end we were able to address a great social injustice.

I'd rather have co-op today with a framework for single-payer tomorrow than give the congress to the GOP in 2010 and allow them to crush any hope we have for--well--anything. You sure as heck can't win with defeatism.

[Bluenorthwest]

38. You can not win with weakness and capitulation

Forcing people to buy products from companies that make piles of profit from denying benefits is simply wrong. In all of our peer democracies it is a crime to profit from providing basic health care. So to play your leap of logic game, what you support is a continued criminal assault upon the people, to provide political cover for the craven.
Mediocrity is not a thing to be proud of. Giving up before trying is called 'helping the other side'.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

39. I think ProSense has a very good thread on this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8665177

See especially Post #14 from him which cites the actual relevant amendment.

[dflprincess]

43. +1

[ddeclue]

48. Yeah..right...trust me..If you believe THAT I have a bridge in Tampa to sell you.

Your argument is same used by the segregationists - let's take our time, trust us, we'll get you there eventually, be patient.

NO THANKS!

All this does is give the bad guys more time to tinker and hijack my movement.

"There were those who said this is an old injustice, and there is no need to hurry. But 95 years have passed since the 15th amendment gave all Negroes the right to vote.

And the time for waiting is gone.

There were those who said smaller and more gradual measures should be tried. But they had been tried. For years and years they had been tried, and tried, and tried, and they had failed, and failed, and failed.

And the time for failure is gone.

There were those who said that this is a many-sided and very complex problem. But however viewed, the denial of the right to vote is still a deadly wrong.

And the time for injustice has gone." -

Lyndon Baines Johnson,
36th President of the United States
upon signing the Voting Rights Act of 1965.



Change "vote" for "medical care" and "Negroes" to "working class Americans" and this statement exactly desribes both the history and the current state of healthcare in this country - the system is for the "haves" and the "have nots" like those Negro voters have systematically been excluded from access.

Unlike the current administration's approach to the issue of medical care however, LBJ did not settle for small changes around the edges of the issues of civil rights and voting rights - as he observed "they had been tried for years and years and years and they had failed and failed and failed."

Johnson's passage of the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Act (along with others such as Medicare and Medicaid) was a monumental and an extraordinarily difficult task - moreover it was a highly unpopular task in the South and in his home state of Texas - yet he did not shirk the responsibility or delay and dilute the reform.

Had it not been for the Vietnam War, Lyndon Baines Johnson might well have been one of our greatest Presidents, perhaps worthy of becoming the elusive "fifth face" on Mount Rushmore.

I wonder what Johnson would think of the current administration and the current United States Senate which find it so easy to compromise cardinal prinicples just so they can pass any watered down bill that might be passed off as "health care reform"?

I wonder if he would have been so very willing to back a shamefully watered down HR3200 or whether he would have pushed and cajoled, arm twisted and shamed a reluctant Congress into doing the right thing by passing a bill guaranteeing health care to all Americans such as in HR676?


Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane. - Martin Luther King, Jr.

[jotsy]

53. The public option WAS a compromise.

2010 is far enough away to take the strong hold of the two parties down. Lots of time to find viable "off-party" candidates in scores of districts, outside of Dennis Kucinich, I can't find a reason for keeping anybody else that's there now.

The public has been sucked dry and should not engage in continuing to let our leadership pimp us out to be screwed over any more. The corporatocracy has us tied to a ball and chain to their terms of our existence, breaking from that won't likely be a bit by bit kind of steps thing, unless we choose where, when and how to make that break, it's going to be ugly and painful. Pushing now to forward until forward is now is the charge of our era. As the original 21st century progressives, it's on us to see that through.

[ddeclue]

47. +1!

[LaydeeBug]

40. The Health care corporfascists are dancing behind closed doors, and you know it.

But *we* are still the boss of them, through OUR gov't, comprised of US, and *we* still have time to hold their feet to the fire.