chunk23

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Sep 17, 2009 -> 03:32 AM) And yours either, apparently, since opposition to Obama = racism. Please show me where I've said that.

Reality has no place in the minds of those people, so it wouldn't matter.

People say democrats are the real racists because of classic projection. Saying racism is not a part of this is just so so ignorant. Yeah, there's certainly no element of race to those protesters.

A lot of the hatred is motivated by race. Tim Wise has done an excellent job revealing and explaining it. It also happens to be the area my thesis work is focused on. Just a note though, in his first six months in office, Bush got the 1.6 trillion tax cut, No Child Left Behind, cut stem cell funding, and blocked funding to organizations associated with abortion. He got a lot done right away. And there was definitely opposition. There were the global Iraq War protests that went completely ignored. There were protests about the election. But, as has been said, these protesters did not receive a voice in the media the same way the protesters of today have. Racism has always been easy to manipulate, ie the Southern Strategy, welfare reform, anything regarding immigration reform. QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 16, 2009 -> 10:26 PM) But just as in the sixties, it wasn't just about race. It's not that they see barack obama as inferior. It's they see their privileged role in america as slipping from underneath them. Except, the sixties that was happening, now it just seems to be being passed down to them from above. I don't get it. I'm all for speaking up. I understand worrying about the deficits. I don't understand this incoherent protest against everything and anything. Racism has often been used in class warfare as a way to maintain conflict and avoid solidarity between groups in the lower class. By telling people "they took your jobs", instead of "we shipped your jobs overseas or are paying migrant workers 80 cents a day", it creates a very easy target.

It was always going to be that the moment Baucus was put in charge.

The thing is though, with the exception of the progressive caucus (who tend to be ignored at all times), it seems that they just plain don't want the public option.

The bipartisan thing was never going to happen. Which is why I hate that they bothered trying to compromise in the first place. Everyone knew the republicans would vote against anything put forth by a democrat, so why even bother? That's why I think the democrats don't really care that much about the reform. If they did, they would've started with single payer, so if need be, they could negotiate down to public option. An individual mandate without a public option is a disaster and is a worst case scenario. Afterall, Baucus is a leading recipient of donations from insurance companies.

What reform would you propose should be done?

I would imagine that other presidents were asked similar questions regularly, if anything just for making small talk. Difference was this being recorded. I also don't see it as a big deal.

Joe Wilson supported flying the Confederate Battle Flag over the South Carolina capitol, is a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans ( a group that according to the SPLC, is now Neo-Confederate), and defended the confederate heritage as honorable. "You lie!" may not have been born out of racism, but the guy's a racist. The idea that anyone who criticizes Obama is accused of racism every time is a laughable strawman.

When someone skips out on an ER bill, which is pretty common because an uninsured person pays 2.5 the rate an insured person would, the cost is placed on the taxpayer. By providing insurance, that cost would be lowered, because 1) they would be charged the insured rate, and 2) there is less incentive to skip out on the bill. Also, every bill being considered at this point has the public option as budget neutral, so it wouldn't add to taxes. They're supposed to be self-sufficient on premiums and deductibles.

Private contractors definitely don't work for cheaper. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/wor...a/mercenary.htm The reason former soldiers become PMCs is because they can earn up to 400% of what they made in the military. http://www.bushleagueofnations.com/chapter...Nations-Ch7.pdf The increased use of PMCs is because they can get away with a lot more legally, they provide plausible deniability, and the further merging of the MIC into the goverment and the corruption that comes with it.

We use Xe to do our fighting because that provides plausible deniability when they commit war crimes and atrocities. The increased privatization also is largely because of people like Cheney and his connections with Halliburton.

Not according to the UN and the World Health Organization, which ranked the US as the 37th best healthcare system, with many countries with UHC ranked above us.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 15, 2009 -> 03:08 AM) I wouldn't say buchanan is representatiive of mainstream conservatism or neo-conservatism. He's representative of racist bigots. I could go the easy route and ask "what's the difference?" but I won't go for the low hanging fruit. However, in today's political climate, a neocon is the mainstream conservatism. However, Buchanan is not a modern conservative. He's a classical conservative (paleoconservative), as evidenced by his isolationist foreign policy. To call the man who is responsible for igniting the Culture War irrelevant is historically ignorant. He has had a major impact on politics over the past almost 40 years. Pair that with Morning Joe, hosted by a former GOP congressman, I think it's easy to make the case that MSNBC is not nearly the liberal parallel to Fox News that others make it to be. Yes, it is sympathetic to Obama and more liberal than Fox News and somewhat more so than CNN, but it is at most center-left. edit: I was at several of the Iraq protests in Chicago and the streets were lined with riot gear equipped police. Literally lined with the police. Was there an equivalent show of force for the teabaggers? But I agree, the Iraq War is an embarrassment to many journalistic institutions. Not only did they fail to cover the dissenters, they failed to question the evidence used to justify the war (the aluminum tubes for instance).

How come it hasn't killed the quality of care in countries with UHC?

Slower than everyone but Canada. If we have the best health-care in the world, why is our mortality amenable to healthcare so high? Also, the argument isn't over whether or not the actual health care is the problem. We certainly have excellent doctors and treatment facilities. The problem is that we pay more than anyone else in the world and 50 million of our citizens are without insurance, effectively meaning they are barred from anything but emergency services. It is an issue of access and affordability not quality of care.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Sep 15, 2009 -> 03:21 AM) You don't get it. Private insurance cannot compete. They lose money under this. Private health care is springing back up in Canada because people hate the system. Gee, go figure. It's a boondoggle to control what they don't now, and that IS socialism, whether you want to admit it or not. They ARE liberal because they KNOW what it will do. Oh, let's take public option off the table, but in its place, let's put regulations up the ass on what they can and cannot do. Last time I checked, that means they will be so regulated that they will not be able to make the decisions in a market based situation. Oh, I forgot. The "market" is an evil socio-f***up that we dare not do. We must contain salaries, health care, industries, environment, and everything else under the sun, all in the name of making our society so much better - they know what's best for us, shut the f*** up, sit down, no debates, we know what's better for you then you know! Barackus the Great knows utopia, and we will arrive! Woot! Conservatives have come back to power in Canada and have gutted funding for health-care to make private insurance companies more attractive. Don't just call points bs, you have to back up your assertion with facts. Like this one about administration costs. http://www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/resource...hnicalPaper.pdf According to the UN, the number one health care system in the world is France. They have private insurance companies. The difference between their companies and ours is a big one though. Theirs are non-profit. It is that incentive to maximize profits in every sector that have driven up American healthcare costs and led to massive numbers of people being denied care. Also, I don't think you know what socialism is.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Sep 15, 2009 -> 03:00 AM) I would say none of these people are "conservative". Especially Buchanan. He's just a mouth piece on MSLSD to say that they have a "right winger" point of view, and he's a nutball jackass who lost his irrelevancy in about 1975. You might be looking at Buchanan through the scope of a neocon, which he is not. He's your old school run of the mill isolationist conservative.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Sep 15, 2009 -> 02:54 AM) You're getting your talking points from SEIU? Please. Refute the assertion, not the source. The source in that article was the insurance companies. Are you saying the insurance companies lied when they admitted to denying coverage because of domestic violence?

Would you say a channel with Joe Scarborough, a former GOP congressman, and Pat Buchanan as a nightly contributor are liberal? What about a channel with a primetime host who encourages the Birther movement? (Lou Dobbs) Also, I would say being pro-single payer, anti-militarization, and pro-gay rights are not fringe elements of the liberals. They are central planks of it. As Stephen Colbert would say, reality has a liberal bias. Kapkomet, everyone you just listed, especially Reid, is a centrist. Pelosi is borderline progressive. And yes, Bill Clinton is a centrist. Don't look at the (D) next to the name, look at the policies they stand behind.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Sep 11, 2009 -> 04:47 PM) While true, I'd still maintain that you are speaking of a minority, not a majority who are unhappy. And I don't see it being any cheaper, which is the biggest problem I have...nothing we do is cheap...why do people insist that this one single thing will be? WHY? http://www.gallup.com/poll/8056/healthcare...ain-canada.aspx A huge majority of Americans are unhappy with accessibility of healthcare. Regarding cost, we already spend twice as much as any other country on healthcare. Medicare's overhead costs are by the worst measures half of what private insurance companies' overhead costs are by the best measure. Not only that, but Medicare's overhead costs have been decreasing historically, while private insurance companies haven't seen any decline in overhead. Medicare also has the highest consumer satisfaction rating. Currently, Medicare's beneficiary costs average around $6k, whereas private insurance beneficiary costs are around $3k. This is because the Medicare risk pool is entirely high risk, as it's only the elderly, while private insurance companies will just drop you if you cost too much money (21% of claims are denied, the more you need insurance, the more likely you are to be dropped). If we opened Medicare eligibility to everyone, the average beneficiary costs would drop dramatically. Combine that with the low administrative costs compared to private insurance, billions would be saved. People often say that a government bureaucrat will get between you and your healthcare. Would you rather have a corporate bureaucrat, whose job is to actively deny you care, instead? Did you know that having a history of any mental illness is grounds for denial of coverage? (from a blue cross underwriter manual) How about acne? How about having been a victim of domestic violence? http://www.seiu.org/2009/09/domestic-viole...g-condition.php

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Sep 15, 2009 -> 01:48 AM) But don't most of them consider themselves independent to some extent? Besides MSNBC and FOX, the other major TV news divisions are more along the lines of Bill Clinton type Democrats. Funny that you say Bill Clinton Type Democrat, as Clinton is widely recognized as being a Conservative. I wish MSNBC was far left wing as you think they are. If they were, they would be criticizing Obama for abandoning single payer without a thought. As well as increasing military action in Pakistan and Afghanistan, selling out to lobbyists, and ignoring gay rights. Pro-Obama does not mean far radical left wing, seeing as Obama is by all measures a centrist at best. edit: just for an idea of the liberal MSM myth, look at the list of just how much Rupert Murdoch controls. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_Corporation And for good measure, this exceptional article about the myth. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/05/28/mcclellan/

Acknowledged.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Sep 9, 2009 -> 10:25 PM) Oh, I wouldn't say that. The left wing fringe is just as loud and effective. but anyways, check this out I would disagree with your assertion. The right wing fringe is getting hours of televised publicity constantly, in the form of teabaggers and town hall disruptors. Although it isn't all sympathetic, it certainly creates the impression that there is a sizable population doing this, even though it is most certainly fringe elements. Look at the some of the things that they have manage to win in the past few weeks, such as removing end of life care, ending the public option (most likely), denying health-care to illegal immigrants (how they plan on doing this without a national ID program, I don't know), Van Jones resigning. Now compare that to the massive world wide Iraq protests, how much coverage they got, and what impact they had.