Whoa. Jane Hamsher's column (private corp.'s using the IRS as their collection agency)

[closeupready]

She is on fire here:

>>Rahm Emanuel has convinced himself that Ron Brownstein is a "liberal" and dismisses all of this as "the progressive backlash against the progressive backlash." He's betting that any inadequacies will be forgotten come November 2010 if the Dems can claim a "w" by passing any crap bill and slapping "health care" on it. And that if Congress just spends the next year naming post offices, any objections that Americans might have to paying 8% of their incomes to private corporations who will use the IRS as their collection agency will just disappear.

It's scary to think that people this obscenely stupid are running the country.<<

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsher/leftright-populist-outrag_b_397483.html

[jefferson_dem]

1. Jane has jumped the shark.

She's become consumed with self-important bitterness. Ack.

[Zodiak]

3. Ad hominem

Try talking about the issues presented in the article rather than Bill Fristian diagnoses of her sense of importance or her "bitterness", you might look like less of a bomb-thrower.

Of course if you WANT to be seen as a logically fallacious bomb-thrower, you're doing a bang-up job.

[jgraz]

5. Ad nauseum

That's really all they have left.

[Zodiak]

7. Want to have some fun?

Point it out (civilly of course) and watch them twist in the wind, howling at you with all kinds of cute names.

What blows me away is that they have no idea how childish they look doing this while screaming at you that "they are the adults"

[jefferson_dem]

8. Honestly, I do not care to read her perspective on the state of American politics.

I've read enough to know where she's coming from.

I am not unfamiliar with Jane (having followed her on Twitter until recently) or her blog (having it bookmarked for a couple years). The other day, she launched a tweet with the line "Obama lies...". If I wanted that, I would follow Breitbart and Beck. Not my cup of tea. If it's yours...please...enjoy.

[Zodiak]

11. Address the issues to debate, or do not engage

If you don't care to read her perspective, then do not participate in a thread about her perspective unless you have commentary about her topical perspective at hand.

If you have a knee-jerk need to ad hominem as a rhetorical technique, be prepared to be called out on it. It's intellectually dishonest and a waste of bandwidth, not to mention it is just negativity for negativity's sake.

I honestly do not believe that so many DUers are ignorant of the fact that this kind of discourse is rhetorically useless chaff. what I do not understand is that knowing this, many people insist on engaging in it anyways.

Is it that we do it to Republicans all of the time and suddenly when it is other Democrats we use the same techniques, just seeing "opponent" rather than "right-wing asshole"? Do we admire Karl Rove so much now that we use the same rhetorical tactics he uses?

I just don;t think it is right, and it is tearing this party apart more than it is being constructive in any way. Doing it in the service of "party unity" is self-defeating. We all know what disrespectful Karl Rove techniques look like.

[jefferson_dem]

17. What are you?

The thread police.

I provided my impression of Jane's perspective, generally speaking. Deal with it. If my comments offend you, or you find them to be useless, put me on ignore.

By the way, your sanctimony is amusing. Carry on. I encourage you to troll around in other threads and tell DUers how their posts fail to measure up to your lofty standards.

[Zodiak]

21. I am tired of watching sophists clog up this board and spread animosity for no good reason

And yes, I find these sorts of comments useless, just as anyone who knows about debating/logic/rhetoric would tell you. But no, I will not put you on ignore that way.

And if you paid attention, you would find that is EXACTLY what I do, both sides of the issue. I have gotten into the face of a lot of people who seem to use more sophistry than true contribution, and I have gotten many, many kinds of responses.

As far as sanctimony...I have been accused of it before, as well as being self-important, a "know-it-all", and all other kinds of cute things that equally mean squat. I personally describe my DU behavior as "self-righteous prick", but you know what stinks about me?

I'm right most of the time (because I look before leaping usually), and I do not take bait. If I am wrong, I accept it and appreciate the correction, but you have to actually engage me in order to do that. So few do, but the ones who choose to find that I am more than fair, and actually open-minded. I just don't like sophistry when everyone here knows what sophistry is.

I learn 1000% more from DUers who engage than from those that post lots of one-liners and character assassinations.

But name-calling does not dissuade me, nor do entreaties to ignore, nor do diagnoses of my psychology...that might work on people who do not like grief, but I have a detachment from emotion when I discuss politics (you know, thick skin). If you do a LOT of research on me, you will find that my DU persona is a tiny fraction of the whole.

You could of course launch into an angry tirade calling me all sorts of really unpleasant names and earn my ignore, but of course, that means that you are being that way with your eyes wide open that you had to resort to such immaturity to get me off of your back.

[jefferson_dem]

23. Hey.

Points well-taken, Zodiak. I appreciate your words...and hope we are respectful and contstructive in the way we engage the issues and each other.

[Zodiak]

27. That's all I ask...some restraint from the bigger voices

The recent happenings in the party are extremely important...and whether you admit it or not, you are a big voice here (GDP).

The more we engage seriously, the more clear our path lies...and perhaps some agreement will be had, as well. I think that no matter how mad that some of us get on the other side of the issue from you, we really do want this to be a successful Presidency. We really want the Democrats to succeed.

But a lot of trust has turned upside-down into cynicism. That is an emotional response completely expected from current events.

Trust me, for every argument I make against this bill elsewhere, I know there are 30 million people's insurance in the balance. It sucks to be in this position.

[galileoreloaded]

26. I'm with you...

she is a total right-wing, freeper sell out.

Why can't we find more folks that think and act like you and I for goodness sakes? This site needs a good purging. IM me and we can hook up to discuss purging these divisive folks.....

[movonne]

10. Your right...

[jgraz]

4. Yeah, that whole "being right all the time" has really swelled her head.

:eyes:

[Bolo Boffin]

16. You forgot to work "blackface" into your post.

What about her take on this situation is wrong?

[WillyT]

18. Rah, Rah, Sis, Boom, Bah !!!

Whatever...

:shrug:

[jefferson_dem]

20. Cute.

Unoriginal but cute.

[WillyT]

24. I'm Glad You Liked It !!!

:evilgrin:

[Bluenorthwest]

22. I love it when people pick up jargon from show biz.

You know what's jumped the proverbial shark? Attacking the messenger when you can not deal with the message. It's so very late nineties Laura Ingram. And that's about as shark jumpy as it gets. Now about the term 'jumped the shark'. It has become vastly overused and misapplied. I could say that jumped the shark as a phrase has jumped the shark, but that just feeds the already overly shoptalk oriented jargon of our American discourse.
But in general, when one tries to pick up hip sounding lingo, and then use it as a way to seem jadedly superior to content, as a platform for some affected for the moment ironic commentator voice, you wind up sounding like Tucker Carlson at a hip hop symposium.

[girl gone mad]

33. Attacking the messenger and ignoring the message?

That's not like you at all.

Oh, wait... yes, it totally is.

[Little Star]

2. Jane tells the truth.

[Zodiak]

6. She seems to be on the right side of the issue, and she has a lot of facts at her side

The opposition to her...well, from this thread and the video I just saw, it's all attack Jane and not her ideas.

Like the attacks on every other liberal since this pig in a poke administration began.

Yeah, that's going to go over well with the liberals and progressives who are already pissed off. There is nothing that makes you feel more like they are taking you seriously than having a tirade of logically fallacious attacks come at you, but no engagement of the issues.

Here is the meme that needs to be countered: "Democrats hate their liberal base".

If you post on DU or get on the ED show and act like an ass, you are underscoring this meme and fracturing this party. Just thought you ought to know. The mood out here amongst the liberals, progressives, and liberal independents is positively revolutionary. and every move the Democratic party or their apologists make only furthers the divide.

[provis99]

9. Rahm isn't obscenely stupid, he's just a neo-fascist DLC pig.

[laughingliberal]

12. The lucky ones will pay 8% of their income to private corporations

Our last premium would constitute 25% of the income of a couple who falls just outside 400% of FPL. And those premiums are not coming down, folks. Say goodbye to any hope, however slim it has been, of any upward mobility for those of us not of the upper 1%.

[Cassandra]

14. My premiums are already over 20% of my income...

and going up next month.

[Zodiak]

15. 17% will be the limit, apparently

It is still way too much.

[laughingliberal]

25. That would be a little better. But I still can't find a thing in this bill to guarantee that

There's nothing I've seen or read that could do that. There's nothing there to prevent the insurance companies from charging what they want and there is no subsidy for people who make over 400% of the FPL. Have I missed something. Cause, yes, it is still too much but I'd like to think that might be true.

[Zodiak]

28. At this point, I have read a good chunk of the bill

Perhaps 100 or so pages of the insurance portion (the lengthy medicare portion I admittedly skimmed but did not read), and I saw no specific mention of the 17%, but that is the number that is being bandied around as the maximum amount that you pay for premiums out of pocket. If there is more, I assume it is will subsidized.

I will tell you that what I read had a whole lot to do with premiums and enrollment, but nothing at all about denials, copays, or deductibles.

There is a requirement that these companies spend so much income on healthcare (85% or 90%), but it sunsets on the effective date in the House bill. Not a good thing.

You could also be forced to get your insurance from another state that does not have as tight of regulations as you get in your state. this is because the Republican idea that insurance could be sold across state lines got into both versions of the bill (in return for zero votes I might add). This will start a race to the bottom and turn health insurance into the Deleware-based credit card industry.

There is too much to fear in this bill, I fear, and the promises it has are easily squandered away because of poor regulation.

Plus it does not take into account that Americans, in many cases, cannot afford ANY new expenses at all these days. Everyone I know has been tightening the belt as far as it will go.

[laughingliberal]

30. Thanks for that. I worked my way through a lot of the bill at one point but and have tried to keep

adding and subtracting as they gutted it but am losing track. I do know about the MLR provisions but just see that as something which can be cooked by the insurance companies. As for that 17% thing, I can't figure out how that would work. I know the subsidies are at a certain rate for those who fall outside the eligibility for Medicaid but are below the 400% of FPL. Unless there's something in there that kicks in for those above that level who are being charged a lot of money. There may be but I don't know about it. Still, as you said, those who are still holding on are, basically, on the edge now and that kind of hit to their money will fall off.

The selling across state lines is a nightmare and was the worst of McCain's plan. Of all his ideas on health care reform, this was the one that would do the most damage as strange as that sounds.

I see nothing in the bill which will put the brakes on the rapidly rising premiums. It looks to me like it keeps the worst of the current system, does little to help those without coverage now, with the exception of a couple of groups. And it puts the taxpayers on the hook for a lot of it without bringing costs down. I would actually qualify for Medicaid under this plan and am without any coverage now. That said, it is such a disaster, overall, that I would prefer to continue to do without than see the damage this will do.

BTW, do you have a link to anything which shows the bill in its current state?

[Zodiak]

31. No, I actually do not

People occasionally have been posting a link to it.

but it is not how the bill is now, it is at least a couple of weeks old, perhaps more.

All of the new stuff is not available, apparently.

I think it came from a senator's website? Leahy?

I think this is it

http://leahy.senate.gov/issues/health/HealthCarePDFs/PatientProtectionAffordableCareAct.pdf

[laughingliberal]

32. Thanks, I didn't think it was out there in the current form but was hoping

It was bad before the tinkering. I haven't heard anything which has been improved since. Just some of the little bit that was a little positive has been taken out. I'm pretty sure, though, that if they'd done anything that made it better, they'd have been out there shouting it from the rooftops.

[Luminous Animal]

13. Thanks for the link.

I prefer to call the IRS the insurance industries' enforcer.

[winyanstaz]

19. K & R...

Keep on waking up America :)

[Matariki]

29. 8% is probably a very generous estimate

excellent points otherwise.

[Major Hogwash]

34. Pretty good article.

I think she has uncovered a lot of crap that was starting to ooze out from under the slimy rocks in DC.

She certainly was right about the fricking healthcare bill stinking to high heaven.

[mapleboard]

35. Jane Says

Jane is dead-on with her analysis. The Democrats are selling us out. It's always the "lesser of two evils" with the Democrats. Or is it like two Mafia gangs, and they just have different styles for screwing us?