The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[SacTown Chronic]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I suppose any conservative upswell against it must be artificial, and those who support the plan just know what's best for America.

Not at all. And that's kinda the point. It's hard enough to understand health care issues without having to wade through piles of intentional disinformation. Rational opposition voices with legitimate concerns about the plan are being shouted down by the red herring chasers and bigots with not-so-secret agendas, imo.

but I am not an astroturfer, and I don't personally know any.

I don't presume to think that you are. I've never considered you a right-wing nut job even though you are, in fact, a right-winger and a nut job. I can't picture you strutting around a town hall meeting with a "No Nazis" sign. "No cats", on the other hand...

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

Please explain to me the difference between you reading the transcript and discussing it with your kid after school and you watching it with your child in the room.

Here's the thing - you heard that Pelosi called the protestors Nazis. You believed it and repeated it. It wasn't true. By the time you realized it and "took it back", you may have told other people, and they told other people. This is exactly how all this crap works. This is what "astroturf" is. It's the outrage created when misinformation is repeated. Yes, people are angry and the polls show it. But why? Because someone says "death panels", other people repeat it, and then the first person "retracts" but it's too late. It's outrage based on phony concepts.

As ISM points out, so much is different in presentation as opposed to in print, and also there is a possibility that I might not trust the politics of the teacher of my children to lead the discussions before and afterwards. This is not the case in my particular situation.

Yes, I heard it and saw it. Part of it is based on it's pretty what I would expect Pelosi to do.

[scaeagles]

I would also suspect that it is primarily the outrageous claims that seem to get the press. For example, the CBO says it will not save money in the long term and will increase the deficit. Or how the system can handle 40 million more people having regular doctor visits without an increase in the number of doctors. Or how waiting times will increase because of that. Or how taxes will most likely have to increase to cover the costs. Those are not particularly sensational when someone spouts off about them.

How many of you have been to a town hall on the subject? I went to one with my congressman Shadegg, and it wasn't one with the vitriol or outrageous claims. Those that get the press are the ones with the outrageous claims.

There are plenty of completely reasonable reasons to be against the plan.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by SacTown Chronic

I don't presume to think that you are. I've never considered you a right-wing nut job even though you are, in fact, a right-winger and a nut job.

Proud to be both.

[3894]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

How many of you have been to a town hall on the subject? I went to one with my congressman Shadegg, and it wasn't one with the vitriol or outrageous claims. Those that get the press are the ones with the outrageous claims.

Hubbo and I went to one with Rep. Dave Obey last Sunday. We expected wingnuts, since Obey is chair of Committee on Appropriations.

Au contraire and thank God for that. Everyone was civil and there was absolutely no shouting or rudeness.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Or how the system can handle 40 million more people having regular doctor visits without an increase in the number of doctors. Or how waiting times will increase because of that.

This particularly argument makes not sense to me (and seems really cruel since it appears you're arguing for stringent rationing; i.e. it is bad to provide health coverage to 40 million people who currently have none because it would slow things down for those who currently do have some) and it looks like you're abandoning your capitalist credentials (an increase in demand will apparently not result in an increase in supply). Would you be willing to expand on the thought since I'm sure neither of those are true.


And I know you say you don't watch the various reviled talking heads. I'll take you at your for that. It is, therefore, interesting that through some apparent osmosis much of the time whatever arguments you make for or against a position are the same as what they were saying just a few days before or happen to currently be a link on the Drudge Report. To me, observing you, it looks like you're very much consuming what they say, you just may be getting it secondarily. Either that or you actually do have though processes similar to Glenn Beck. That would be worse.


And yes, "astroturfing" in the sense of centralized and organized excitement of supposedly grassroots movements exists on all sides of the political spectrum and has for approximately 1.2 million years (413 years in Kansas, Alabaman, and parts of Florida) since the first hominid really felt we should get out of the trees to look for food and so slept with the alpha males mate and tricked her into presenting it to him as her own idea.

I have no problem with that. I do have a lot of problem with said leaders telling outright lies and fabrications in pursuit of it. And no, to say that the health care reform opposition is telling some amazing whoppers is not to say that everything they say is a lie. So pointing out some valid concerns is not an amelioration of the charge.

If I say:

1) The sky is blue
2) Cap'n Crunch cereal tastes good but cuts up the roof of your mouth
3) Comcast is a cable company
4) Your grandma is a coprophiliac

When you say "my grandma is NOT a coprophiliac and you're a horrible person for saying such a despicable lie" it would be rightly viewed as in no way redeeming myself if I said "what? but the sky really is blue!"

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Visible.Alex.Mojo.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Alex

This particularly argument makes not sense to me (and seems really cruel since it appears you're arguing for stringent rationing; i.e. it is bad to provide health coverage to 40 million people who currently have none because it would slow things down for those who currently do have some) and it looks like you're abandoning your capitalist credentials (an increase in demand will apparently not result in an increase in supply). Would you be willing to expand on the thought since I'm sure neither of those are true.

I have done most of my research through the Heritage Foundation. Lots of articles and info there.

An increase in demand can lead to an increase in supply, but it would most certainly start with a shortage of the supply. Short supply with increased demand increases the cost until supply can be increased. That presents another problem, in that increaing supply isn't as simple as going to a doctor manufacturer and having them make more. We have to have people that want to become doctors, are willing to study long enough to become doctors (and pay the tuition for it), and are qualified to become doctors. So I disgaree with the foundation of your first paragraph. I am not arguing for rationing (though I think it is going to happen based on supply and demand), nor am I abandoning those economic principles.

A side effect of insurance coverage that I experience all the time in arguments with my wife is that the kid has a low fever. "Oh my!" says the wife. "A fever! We must take the child to the doctor. After all, we have insurance, so it only costs us the copay." Well, OK, if the kid still has a fever in a week and the tylenol doesn't take it down, sure, but the immediate reaction is insane. I do not wish for any sick person to be denied treatment, but I think my situation (and no, I haven't done the research) is typical. Our bodies are pretty much made to take care of and heal themselves, and too many people think every little owie or booboo requires a doctor visit.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Alex

I have no problem with that. I do have a lot of problem with said leaders telling outright lies and fabrications in pursuit of it. And no, to say that the health care reform opposition is telling some amazing whoppers is not to say that everything they say is a lie. So pointing out some valid concerns is not an amelioration of the charge.

Nor is focus on the outrageous claims (both by those that mke them and those who focus on them) reason to ignore the real problems.

[Betty]

We've had health insurance through my husbands employer for 15 years. He's now on disability and since his office is less then what's required for the FMLA, they are under no obligation to continue his health coverage.

My office doesn't have at least 80% of employees willing to sign up. Large percentage of employees are low waged factory workers and just won't sign up. So, it's not available through my employer.

We now qualify for COBRA and with my husband not working and required to continue his medical coverage to remain on disability, we have no choice but to pay for COBRA coverage at about $600 per month or pay substantially more for doctor's visits (that are required for him to continue receiving benefits). We could also sign up for private health insurance.

Friends of mine, who work for the same place I do, pay for their own health insurance and pay, nearly $1000 a month for it.

So, we pay $600 a month - or will anyway.

That won't last forever.

Not having health insurance is not something I want but may be what we get because we just can't afford the $600 a month let alone the $1000. We'll be able to keep it up for a little while but for how long? And then what?

What the heck do I do if I have no health insurance and one of my kids get sick? And let's just hope that's it's not something serious that would require any sort of long term care or hospital stay. That scares me to death.

Why do I suddenly feel like some lower class citizen not deemed worthy enough for health care?