Federal Gestapo Services ask good citizens to report any emails about health insurance reform that seem "fishy" to flag@whitehouse.gov

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

kids use arguments like that "well, he did it first!"

the Dems have been wearing that one out for months now.

I don't understand why it is necessary to constantly recriminate.

Seems entirely counter productive to me.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The GOP is interested in wasting $700bn per year on a broken system while leaving tens of millions of Americans on the outside looking in on health care.

Better $700bn than $700bn + $1 trillion.

I suppose the idea is that installing an effective alternative to private insurers and re-introducing competition into this market (health insurance is mostly a monopoly these days) would yield some savings on the current waste. So, the math you offered may not actually apply.

For the record, I'm ok with the public option if it's SELF-FUNDED (as in "you have to pay to join".)

What I'm not ok with is spending $1 trillion to buy insurance for 40 million people through the current system without addressing the problems of the current system.

Absolutely. The excessive red tape and overhead that the private insurance companies created and that burdens our system to the breaking point must be addressed. Any reform effort bot starting to tackle this issue will be futile.

[natty bumppo 297]

Someone yell fire inside a movie theater and claim free speech too. This is simply insane trying to rationalize those that would rather lie and misinform than stick to what is factual.

I think the point here is this is being forced through without a full airing. The lack of understanding by everyone fuels speculation. Fear is a natural outcome. The points that the right are bringing up are a direct result of this. We are unwilling to just accept that we just trust washington to do the right thing. We take inconsistencies and take them to the worst possible outcome and the other side is taking those inconsistencies and saying there is nothing to worry about. Just take the time to get it right and remove the vague language so neither side has the ability to misunderstand.

We are allowing politicians to mislead and flat-out lie to us regarding this legislation. If more time were spent actually going through the bill (with full questioning when issues arise) instead of contributing to sour-graped lie campaigns... an honest debate could develop in less time and we'd likely have this bill already signed-

with private insurers insuring their customers all the same.

omg ... really?!? this has never happened before ...

Well I am being quite specific aren't I?

Its not fun being identified with the side that's lying just to be obstructive isn't it?

yes you are specific ... that said ...

Its not fun being identified with the side that's lying and hiding just to pass the legislation is it?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Its not a very useful way to go about it, IMO.

Why not? Imagine if it were a corporation like Monsanto and people were going around distributing misinformation about one of their products...they'd take them to court in a heart beat. There's no intrusion whatsoever of any constitutional protections in the attempt to address deliberate misinformation that is being disseminated by political operatives. In the business world, this would be libelous.

Well for one, it makes an assumption that members of the public following the administration are actually fully informed on the issues to recognise misinformation in order to pass it on. That immediately calls into question how useful it is.

This is the first administration to fully utilise the internet in its campaign strategy - with great effect as far as campaign donations went; but I don't think that the PR wing of the WH should be in the business of having members of the public do its job for them.

A government of the people, by the people and for the people...imagine that.

If you, a citizen, sends them the link to a site that you think if misrepresenting the facts regarding Obama's health care proposal, they will look at the site and then decide if there are indeed misrepresentations which they would address on their own web site. My God, there is absolutely nothing sinister about this. The Right Wingers are pretending to be outraged because they continue with their partisan hackery. It reminds of when Clinton was in office....to some, he could do nothing right, even when he was doing something they fundamentally were in favor of. Sore loseritis must be a genetic disorder among Right Wingers.

And for the record, they are not true Conservatives. They like to pretend they are, but they are the same neo-cons that put Bush in the WH. The traditional conservative position would be to stay with the what has been tried and true....like Social Security and Medicare. The liberal position is to continuously look for different solutions and the conservative approach is to be resistant to those changes. Reagan was against Medicare, but now you won't find a Republican saying they want to end Medicare. You know why? Because they know that it works. That's all true conservatives want...is the tried and true.

This is rich, you telling us what a "true conservative" is. I don't pretend to understand what makes a true liberal so don't try to tell me what a true conservative is. Thinking like that gave us McCain last year. He was what a liberal's idea of a "good" conservative should be. Nothing could have been further from the truth. We are through letting the opposition telling us what we should be like. That gave us the mess we are in today. You're just mad that we are not rolling over and going along with everything you want.

con⋅serv⋅a⋅tive

Show Spelled Pronunciation [kuhn-sur-vuh-tiv] Show IPA Use conservative in a Sentence –adjective

1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

That means that a program like Social Security or Medicare is already existing and institutionalized. I know you Right Wingers like to pretend you are just being Conservative but you don't what it means (see definition above). What you espouse to more is Libertarian (liberal) views with regard to government and the market....laissez-faire economics. A Conservative is resistant to change and adhering to the status quo, which may be in line with opposing health care reform, but not wanting to dismantle Social Security or Medicare. To those out there who truly are Conservative, I'd say - just give universal healthcare a chance to become institutionalized and you'll see that the American people won't want to give it up any more than they want to give up on Social Security or Medicare.

Edited August 7, 2009 by Col. 'Bat' Guano

[SMOKE 1,426]

Problem is... nowhere in this bill does it say the government is going to take over health care.

can you give an example of an industry where the private sector does compete the government? i can't think of one.

That is irrelevant to the specifics of this topic.

no it isn't. Gary said he didn't want the government taking over healthcare. you said what i quoted. i asked a question you can't answer. because you know as well as i do the private sector can not compete with the government.

Why can't it? Gary said what he said because he may be (again, I do not put words where they do not belong) projecting some conspiracy to force the evils of health care coverage on all that may be substandard to present standards of health care without considering that health care evolves with technology and costs go down over time as efficiency increases.

The resulting costs result from mismanagement. What we've seen thus far is a private sector that has taken profitability to an extreme beyond the limits a healthy society can and should tolerate. Hence the impetus to change that structure- not to destroy the current system but to place a check on it such that profitability doesn't become an exercise in corporate abuse and waste that takes precedence to a customer's (the patient) right to quality (health).

You asked in irrelevant question.

no i asked a valid question that you won't touch. 1 example please.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The right is being shut out of any input in Washington. Every amendment or change to the bill is met with an instant slapdown. In effect the only thing we can do is oppose the whole thing. Short of rolling over we are doing the only thing we can do.

That's factually incorrect, Gary.

Take the advance care planning provision of H.R. 3200, for example. The AARP strongly supports this provision which actually made it into the legislation with Republicans co-sponsoring it. Once this bi-partisan provision makes it into the legislation, the GOP then turns around and blasts the legislation that will lead us down a "treacherous path towards government-encouraged euthanasia if enacted into law". This is about as ill-spirited and dishonest an allegation as one could possibly imagine. Is this the bi-partisanship that the GOP allegedly is looking for? Don't kid yourself and others, Gary.

There's one goal the GOP has on healthcare reform and Sen. Jim DeMint was kind enough to share that goal with the public: To make health care reform Obama's Waterloo. The GOP is interested neither in compromise nor in bi-partisanship. The GOP is interested in maintaining the status quo on health care. The GOP is interested in wasting $700bn per year on a broken system while leaving tens of millions of Americans on the outside looking in on health care.

Is this any different that the dems assertions that the GOP would make seniors eat dog food and live on the streets when the reps were in power? You act as if the GOP is doing something new.

I am not aware of any such claims having been made. Maybe you can share some details on that?

But let's say those claims were made - these would be just as dirty and unjustified. And claiming to seek bi-partisanship while making such outrageous claims would be just as dishonest.

That doesn't change the fact, however, that the GOP is, in fact, not seeking bi-partisanship on health care reform but is pursuing a strategy to kill any reform effort whatsoever. That's the point I am making here in response to your complaint that the GOP doesn't get any opportunity for input. They do but they don't want it.

[GaryC 7]

Its not a very useful way to go about it, IMO.

Why not? Imagine if it were a corporation like Monsanto and people were going around distributing misinformation about one of their products...they'd take them to court in a heart beat. There's no intrusion whatsoever of any constitutional protections in the attempt to address deliberate misinformation that is being disseminated by political operatives. In the business world, this would be libelous.

Well for one, it makes an assumption that members of the public following the administration are actually fully informed on the issues to recognise misinformation in order to pass it on. That immediately calls into question how useful it is.

This is the first administration to fully utilise the internet in its campaign strategy - with great effect as far as campaign donations went; but I don't think that the PR wing of the WH should be in the business of having members of the public do its job for them.

A government of the people, by the people and for the people...imagine that.

If you, a citizen, sends them the link to a site that you think if misrepresenting the facts regarding Obama's health care proposal, they will look at the site and then decide if there are indeed misrepresentations which they would address on their own web site. My God, there is absolutely nothing sinister about this. The Right Wingers are pretending to be outraged because they continue with their partisan hackery. It reminds of when Clinton was in office....to some, he could do nothing right, even when he was doing something they fundamentally were in favor of. Sore loseritis must be a genetic disorder among Right Wingers.

And for the record, they are not true Conservatives. They like to pretend they are, but they are the same neo-cons that put Bush in the WH. The traditional conservative position would be to stay with the what has been tried and true....like Social Security and Medicare. The liberal position is to continuously look for different solutions and the conservative approach is to be resistant to those changes. Reagan was against Medicare, but now you won't find a Republican saying they want to end Medicare. You know why? Because they know that it works. That's all true conservatives want...is the tried and true.

This is rich, you telling us what a "true conservative" is. I don't pretend to understand what makes a true liberal so don't try to tell me what a true conservative is. Thinking like that gave us McCain last year. He was what a liberal's idea of a "good" conservative should be. Nothing could have been further from the truth. We are through letting the opposition telling us what we should be like. That gave us the mess we are in today. You're just mad that we are not rolling over and going along with everything you want.

con⋅serv⋅a⋅tive

Show Spelled Pronunciation [kuhn-sur-vuh-tiv] Show IPA Use conservative in a Sentence –adjective

1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

That means that a program like Social Security or Medicare is already existing and institutionalized. I know you Right Wingers like to pretend you are just being Conservative but you don't what it means (see definition above). What you espouse to more is Libertarian (liberal) views with regard to government and the market....laissez-faire economics. A Conservative is resistant to change and adhering to the status quo, which may be in line with opposing health care reform, but not wanting to dismantle Social Security or Medicare. To those out there who truly are Conservative, I'd say - just give universal healthcare a chance to become institutionalized and you'll see that the American people won't want to give it up any more than they want to give up on Social Security or Medicare.

I still love the idea that a far left lib is trying to tell me what a conservative is. You can post any definition you want. It still isn't accurate. It is what YOU want us to be and not reality. I will not let you or your side try to define what you don't understand.

[HAL 9000 96]

kids use arguments like that "well, he did it first!"

the Dems have been wearing that one out for months now.

I don't understand why it is necessary to constantly recriminate.

Seems entirely counter productive to me.

And here I was thinking that it was about service to the nation (constituents)- not playing reactionary politics. I guess voters need more reminders of these things until they decide to NOT elect preschoolers for political positions.

Someone yell fire inside a movie theater and claim free speech too. This is simply insane trying to rationalize those that would rather lie and misinform than stick to what is factual.

I think the point here is this is being forced through without a full airing. The lack of understanding by everyone fuels speculation. Fear is a natural outcome. The points that the right are bringing up are a direct result of this. We are unwilling to just accept that we just trust washington to do the right thing. We take inconsistencies and take them to the worst possible outcome and the other side is taking those inconsistencies and saying there is nothing to worry about. Just take the time to get it right and remove the vague language so neither side has the ability to misunderstand.

We are allowing politicians to mislead and flat-out lie to us regarding this legislation. If more time were spent actually going through the bill (with full questioning when issues arise) instead of contributing to sour-graped lie campaigns... an honest debate could develop in less time and we'd likely have this bill already signed-

with private insurers insuring their customers all the same.

omg ... really?!? this has never happened before ...

Well I am being quite specific aren't I?

Its not fun being identified with the side that's lying just to be obstructive isn't it?

yes you are specific ... that said ...

Its not fun being identified with the side that's lying and hiding just to pass the legislation is it?

Projecting an agenda unto this bill is dishonest.

Lets stick with the facts shall we?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Its not a very useful way to go about it, IMO.

Why not? Imagine if it were a corporation like Monsanto and people were going around distributing misinformation about one of their products...they'd take them to court in a heart beat. There's no intrusion whatsoever of any constitutional protections in the attempt to address deliberate misinformation that is being disseminated by political operatives. In the business world, this would be libelous.

Well for one, it makes an assumption that members of the public following the administration are actually fully informed on the issues to recognise misinformation in order to pass it on. That immediately calls into question how useful it is.

This is the first administration to fully utilise the internet in its campaign strategy - with great effect as far as campaign donations went; but I don't think that the PR wing of the WH should be in the business of having members of the public do its job for them.

A government of the people, by the people and for the people...imagine that.

If you, a citizen, sends them the link to a site that you think if misrepresenting the facts regarding Obama's health care proposal, they will look at the site and then decide if there are indeed misrepresentations which they would address on their own web site. My God, there is absolutely nothing sinister about this. The Right Wingers are pretending to be outraged because they continue with their partisan hackery. It reminds of when Clinton was in office....to some, he could do nothing right, even when he was doing something they fundamentally were in favor of. Sore loseritis must be a genetic disorder among Right Wingers.

And for the record, they are not true Conservatives. They like to pretend they are, but they are the same neo-cons that put Bush in the WH. The traditional conservative position would be to stay with the what has been tried and true....like Social Security and Medicare. The liberal position is to continuously look for different solutions and the conservative approach is to be resistant to those changes. Reagan was against Medicare, but now you won't find a Republican saying they want to end Medicare. You know why? Because they know that it works. That's all true conservatives want...is the tried and true.

This is rich, you telling us what a "true conservative" is. I don't pretend to understand what makes a true liberal so don't try to tell me what a true conservative is. Thinking like that gave us McCain last year. He was what a liberal's idea of a "good" conservative should be. Nothing could have been further from the truth. We are through letting the opposition telling us what we should be like. That gave us the mess we are in today. You're just mad that we are not rolling over and going along with everything you want.

con⋅serv⋅a⋅tive

Show Spelled Pronunciation [kuhn-sur-vuh-tiv] Show IPA Use conservative in a Sentence –adjective

1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

That means that a program like Social Security or Medicare is already existing and institutionalized. I know you Right Wingers like to pretend you are just being Conservative but you don't what it means (see definition above). What you espouse to more is Libertarian (liberal) views with regard to government and the market....laissez-faire economics. A Conservative is resistant to change and adhering to the status quo, which may be in line with opposing health care reform, but not wanting to dismantle Social Security or Medicare. To those out there who truly are Conservative, I'd say - just give universal healthcare a chance to become institutionalized and you'll see that the American people won't want to give it up any more than they want to give up on Social Security or Medicare.

I still love the idea that a far left lib is trying to tell me what a conservative is. You can post any definition you want. It still isn't accurate. It is what YOU want us to be and not reality. I will not let you or your side try to define what you don't understand.

LOL..."you can post any definition you want, and I still won't accept it! Neener, neener!"

Wake up and smell the coffee, Gary. You are a Conservative wannabe..a neo-con thinking you stand up for conservative ideals when in fact you are more libertarian when it comes to government and the market. Which is fine...but you ought to know the difference....hence the label, neo-con.

[HAL 9000 96]

Problem is... nowhere in this bill does it say the government is going to take over health care.

can you give an example of an industry where the private sector does compete the government? i can't think of one.

That is irrelevant to the specifics of this topic.

no it isn't. Gary said he didn't want the government taking over healthcare. you said what i quoted. i asked a question you can't answer. because you know as well as i do the private sector can not compete with the government.

Why can't it? Gary said what he said because he may be (again, I do not put words where they do not belong) projecting some conspiracy to force the evils of health care coverage on all that may be substandard to present standards of health care without considering that health care evolves with technology and costs go down over time as efficiency increases.

The resulting costs result from mismanagement. What we've seen thus far is a private sector that has taken profitability to an extreme beyond the limits a healthy society can and should tolerate. Hence the impetus to change that structure- not to destroy the current system but to place a check on it such that profitability doesn't become an exercise in corporate abuse and waste that takes precedence to a customer's (the patient) right to quality (health).

You asked in irrelevant question.

no i asked a valid question that you won't touch. 1 example please.

Irrelevant examples to irrelevant questions make for incongruous arguments.

[GaryC 7]

Is this any different that the dems assertions that the GOP would make seniors eat dog food and live on the streets when the reps were in power? You act as if the GOP is doing something new.

I am not aware of any such claims having been made. Maybe you can share some details on that?

But let's say those claims were made - these would be just as dirty and unjustified. And claiming to seek bi-partisanship while making such outrageous claims would be just as dishonest.

That doesn't change the fact, however, that the GOP is, in fact, not seeking bi-partisanship on health care reform but is pursuing a strategy to kill any reform effort whatsoever. That's the point I am making here in response to your complaint that the GOP doesn't get any opportunity for input. They do but they don't want it.

You may not have been in America when this was going on. Trust me, the dems even ran commercials showing seniors eating dog food if the reps took power. And your right, we don't want to compromise on this. We want no part of it at all and we will kill this. Just watch.

[HAL 9000 96]

The right is being shut out of any input in Washington. Every amendment or change to the bill is met with an instant slapdown. In effect the only thing we can do is oppose the whole thing. Short of rolling over we are doing the only thing we can do.

That's factually incorrect, Gary.

Take the advance care planning provision of H.R. 3200, for example. The AARP strongly supports this provision which actually made it into the legislation with Republicans co-sponsoring it. Once this bi-partisan provision makes it into the legislation, the GOP then turns around and blasts the legislation that will lead us down a "treacherous path towards government-encouraged euthanasia if enacted into law". This is about as ill-spirited and dishonest an allegation as one could possibly imagine. Is this the bi-partisanship that the GOP allegedly is looking for? Don't kid yourself and others, Gary.

There's one goal the GOP has on healthcare reform and Sen. Jim DeMint was kind enough to share that goal with the public: To make health care reform Obama's Waterloo. The GOP is interested neither in compromise nor in bi-partisanship. The GOP is interested in maintaining the status quo on health care. The GOP is interested in wasting $700bn per year on a broken system while leaving tens of millions of Americans on the outside looking in on health care.

Is this any different that the dems assertions that the GOP would make seniors eat dog food and live on the streets when the reps were in power? You act as if the GOP is doing something new.

I am not aware of any such claims having been made. Maybe you can share some details on that?

But let's say those claims were made - these would be just as dirty and unjustified. And claiming to seek bi-partisanship while making such outrageous claims would be just as dishonest.

That doesn't change the fact, however, that the GOP is, in fact, not seeking bi-partisanship on health care reform but is pursuing a strategy to kill any reform effort whatsoever. That's the point I am making here in response to your complaint that the GOP doesn't get any opportunity for input. They do but they don't want it.

Bump.

[natty bumppo 297]

kids use arguments like that "well, he did it first!"

the Dems have been wearing that one out for months now.

I don't understand why it is necessary to constantly recriminate.

Seems entirely counter productive to me.

And here I was thinking that it was about service to the nation (constituents)- not playing reactionary politics. I guess voters need more reminders of these things until they decide to NOT elect preschoolers for political positions.

Someone yell fire inside a movie theater and claim free speech too. This is simply insane trying to rationalize those that would rather lie and misinform than stick to what is factual.

I think the point here is this is being forced through without a full airing. The lack of understanding by everyone fuels speculation. Fear is a natural outcome. The points that the right are bringing up are a direct result of this. We are unwilling to just accept that we just trust washington to do the right thing. We take inconsistencies and take them to the worst possible outcome and the other side is taking those inconsistencies and saying there is nothing to worry about. Just take the time to get it right and remove the vague language so neither side has the ability to misunderstand.

We are allowing politicians to mislead and flat-out lie to us regarding this legislation. If more time were spent actually going through the bill (with full questioning when issues arise) instead of contributing to sour-graped lie campaigns... an honest debate could develop in less time and we'd likely have this bill already signed-

with private insurers insuring their customers all the same.

omg ... really?!? this has never happened before ...

Well I am being quite specific aren't I?

Its not fun being identified with the side that's lying just to be obstructive isn't it?

yes you are specific ... that said ...

Its not fun being identified with the side that's lying and hiding just to pass the legislation is it?

Projecting an agenda unto this bill is dishonest.

Lets stick with the facts shall we?

facts .... ok ... why is the administration not doing everything humanly possible to get them in front of the voters?

Edited August 7, 2009 by Natty Bumppo

[GaryC 7]

LOL..."you can post any definition you want, and I still won't accept it! Neener, neener!"

Wake up and smell the coffee, Gary. You are a Conservative wannabe..a neo-con thinking you stand up for conservative ideals when in fact you are more libertarian when it comes to government and the market. Which is fine...but you ought to know the difference....hence the label, neo-con.

There you go again, telling me what I am. Sorry, I will not let you define me. I am the true conservative, the neo-cons are the reps in congress now. They left me, I didn't leave them.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Is this any different that the dems assertions that the GOP would make seniors eat dog food and live on the streets when the reps were in power? You act as if the GOP is doing something new.

I am not aware of any such claims having been made. Maybe you can share some details on that?

But let's say those claims were made - these would be just as dirty and unjustified. And claiming to seek bi-partisanship while making such outrageous claims would be just as dishonest.

That doesn't change the fact, however, that the GOP is, in fact, not seeking bi-partisanship on health care reform but is pursuing a strategy to kill any reform effort whatsoever. That's the point I am making here in response to your complaint that the GOP doesn't get any opportunity for input. They do but they don't want it.

You may not have been in America when this was going on. Trust me, the dems even ran commercials showing seniors eating dog food if the reps took power. And your right, we don't want to compromise on this. We want no part of it at all and we will kill this. Just watch.

So if I read you right here (and on the other page) you appear to be suggesting that its perfectly justifiable making completely, utterly false claims about proposed legislation in order to stop "the left" achieving a vaguely defined philosophical goal. Doesn't matter what's actually in the bill - it should be shot down regardless?