New Haven Independent

Posted by: Bill | August 11, 2009 12:48 PM

The civil discourse ended during the Bush years when you wacky liberals stopped talking about ideas and resorted to calling names, as you often do in your own columns. I don't listen to the radio or tv talk shows, I get my news from the internet.

Posted by: bill | August 11, 2009 1:15 PM

Kalb's civil discourse not:

Kalb says about Palin " The last thing the United States needs is another intellectual lightweight running for office who takes complex issues and boils them down to bumper sticker solutions."

Kalb " But McCain is in the driver's seat, which drives the right-wing fanatic talk show hosts and "think tanks" nuts."

Kalb "President Bush along with his henchmen Dick Cheney and a host of amoral sociopaths, broke not only U.S. law but international law and in the process took the United States to hell."

Funny thing no liberals or democrats in the list.
Kalb, you are a left wing loud mouth who uses the written word.

Posted by: robn | August 11, 2009 1:39 PM

BILL,

The discourse ended in 2000 when the GOP sent 100's of paid staff down to Miami to stage fake protests and stop the incomplete vote counting in Florida. And the beat goes on...the health care protesters are mostly GOP operatves and insurance industry shills.

Posted by: Westville Mom | August 11, 2009 2:45 PM

This thoughtful conservative has one civil comment:

November 2, 2010

Posted by: lance | August 11, 2009 2:45 PM

steve kalb= part time professor and freelance reporter.

get a real job dude, you'll get benefits. stop asking others to foot the bill for it.

Posted by: Bill | August 11, 2009 3:17 PM

ROBN,
I'm glad it makes you feel comfortable lumping all protesters as operatives and shills.

There are many protesters for many reasons, here are some of mine.

Medicare Trustees predicts that in 2019 the trust fund would no longer be able to pay all of its bills.

Social Security cash shortage could occur as early as 2011 or 2012.

Deficits of $1.8 trillion this year and $1.3 trillion in 2010, as predicted by the White House

the Congressional Budget Office have scored several health care proposals as costing more than $1 trillion in the first decade

Where the heck is the money going to come from? Medicare and SSN are insolvent. This country can not afford another insolvent program. At least the Republican's tried to pass a balanced budget amendment in the 90's which was killed by the democrats. Since then both parties are spend happy but the democrats are certainly the winners by far with their spendridiculous stimulus package and health reform.

Posted by: Walt | August 11, 2009 4:32 PM

Sounds like a left-wing nut dumped by WELI in order to make room for more right-wing nuts.

Must be Kalb.

Posted by: meridenite | August 11, 2009 6:07 PM

note to self:kalb articles ignore

Posted by: Ellis Copeland | August 11, 2009 6:36 PM

Bill-- Ronnie Reagan ended civil discourse in this country when he decided you were either with him or against him-- and if you were against him then you didn't matter and could be freely demonized. I suspect you are a Faux Noise junkie. How you can watch that for ten minutes and come away thinking that "libruls" are about name calling is beyond me. All the right wing knows how to do is sling as much garbage as it can find.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | August 11, 2009 7:01 PM

the realization that politics and governance have been reduced to "wining" and "losing.

That about sums it up. Right or wrong, black or white. No middle ground! Very sad thing for a country that pushes our democracy on others, but fails to implement it in our own land.

Posted by: blue dog dem | August 11, 2009 7:19 PM

This guy teaches journalism? Try spell check. How do you spell "winning?" I usually use two N's. If he meant whining, which is usually what most of his articles do about anything moderate or conservative, I usually use an H. Must be nice to be Paul's friend so that he can have a legitimate gig to put on his CV, even if he (and we) doesn't deserve it.

Bill, he would cut the military budget (from one of his more recent posts).

Posted by: yohance | August 11, 2009 7:24 PM

Conservatives don't make a strong argument for their case by constantly resorting to ad hominem attacks (such as Lance and Walt's brilliantly eloquent comments above). Instead, try sticking to the issues. I can at least understand and respect where you're coming from if you back up your arguments with actual facts, even if I don't agree with them. Instead of sticking to the issues and making sensible arguments, the right goes and makes "facts" up (e.g. "death panels") and sticking labels (e.g. "secret Muslim"). Let's have some sensible dialogue, instead of using scare tactics and shouting each other down.

Posted by: blue dog dem | August 11, 2009 7:43 PM

Medicare is government healthcare: and it is also subsidized by approximately 30%, paid by insurance companies paying higher fees to doctors and hospitals to reimburse them for the low scale they must accept with the gov't mandated coverage. Once there is a single-payer system, there will not be any entity to subsidize these procedures through premiums collected by those with private insurance.

Euthenasia: there is nothing specific about this in the bills presented to Congress. It is implied with the mandatory once-every-five-years discussion doctors are to have with their patients aged 60 and older. The doctors will be paid to give these "chats" and there are 10 pages in the bill specifically given to this part of gov't run healthcare. 1% if the 1,000 page bill specifically speaks to end of life conversations between doctor and patient. Something so innocent could have used just one paragraph, unless ...? Considering their our documented cases of this type of "care" in England, Canada and Oregon, I don't believe it to be that farfetched.

Abortion: in the law, if something is not specifically mentioned, then it is impliedly accepted, i.e., since abortion is not specifically excluded in the bills, then gov't will pay for all abortions, including partial birth. Many, including myself, are against third trimester abortions and do not want our tax dollars used to fund these procedures. If abortion is not to be covered, then these honest representatives can specifically exclude it, except in those rare occurences when it is necessary.

I have spoken to four different doctors about the health bills and none are for the plans. When the AMA, which represents only 17% of all doctors tries to pretend that it has majority support, it just more smoke and mirrors from our transparent administration.

We have all suffered through many protests in downtown New Haven. Since it is moderates and conservatives protesting now, I am trying to remember when Kalb or any other libs complained about the mobs previously. They were equally as annoying, if not more so, because town halls aren't in public walkways, etc. and if you want to attend one of these healthcare forums, you should know by now what you are getting yourself into.

BTW, where are all the anti-war protestors now? A doubling down of our troops should have led to at least twice as many protests, shouldn't it?

Posted by: William Kurtz | August 12, 2009 8:34 AM

When was this golden age of civil political discourse? Certainly not in my lifetime and not even in historical memory. Political action groups and the media have always smeared their ideological opponents, stoked anger and distorted, to varying degrees, positions with which they disagreed. Yes, many of the so-called "teabaggers" (and by the way, now that we have had our adolescent giggle with this crude sexual innuendo, can we drop it from responsible commentary?) are caricaturing the healthcare debate, but their mistaken rantings should be countered with the facts, not 'manufactured anger' about how they're protesting.

BDD: The "Advanced Care Planning Consultations" are optional, not mandated. And the obligation is placed not on the patient, but on healthcare providers to clearly explain to patients the options for care, the benefits available for care, the reasons why having one's clear wishes expressed relieve a burden on family members and care-givers, etc. There's nothing is there about euthanasia and it's intellectually dishonest for critics to suggest otherwise. Perhaps they should do as Simsbury Jim suggests and "next time; read the bill!"

Posted by: blue dog dem | August 12, 2009 8:44 AM

Did anyone else see the ads on Craig's List for "grassroots" jobs for town hall meetings? I know many of the readers of the NHI would attend the town halls to support Obama for free, but if you can get paid, why not? If you apply, find out if they offer healthcare.

Copeland,
During the last election, it wasn't the moderates or conservatives that, on this site, were calling liberals names or telling them not to vote. It was the other way around. Generally the libs are more boisterous in their beliefs and that is one reason why unpopular opinions are the law. Moderates usually stay on the sidelines, expressing their views only to those closest to them, but things are changing.

I don't think anything is accomplished by just trying to insult the other side rather than explain your argument. I also doubt that peoples' positions change by what they read on this site, but at least it is a forum for discussion. Anyone who uses it just to stir trouble should really just stay on the sidelines and keep their mouths shut.

Posted by: blue dog dem | August 12, 2009 10:28 AM

WK:
In case you missed it, I began by stating "Euthenasia: there is nothing specific about this in the bills presented to Congress." I have read through portions of all the bills in committee and it is mandatory that the medical profession ensure that they speak to each patient, over the age of 60, once every 5 years about end-of-life options. To say otherwise is disingenuous.

I am in the insurance/investment field and know a little bit about these topics. I am for health insurance reform, not gov't mandated care, as medicare/caid is not a model of which to be proud considering the amount of private subsidization that it requires.

There have always been fringe elements trying to shout down their opponents, but over the past decade it has become even more fashionable by a larger number of the zealots on both sides. The masses can excuse a few idiots, but when it becomes de rigeur for most, thats when I have a problem. Still, it has been the far left more than any other political group that has been raucous in their support.

I have always been willing to discuss my beliefs with others but find when the facts don't support their positions, they either try to insult me, shout me down or stop replying to my posts.

Posted by: William Kurtz | August 12, 2009 11:31 AM

No, I didn't miss it and my apologies if I've mischaracterized your point in some way, but the sentence you quoted above is followed by, "it is implied with the mandatory once-every-five-years discussions. . ." I read that as your belief that the bill will mandate (as I mentioned before, the obligations are on providers to provide consultations, not patients to participate in them) a discussion of 'euthanasia' and so far, nothing in the bill suggests this. The relevant sections are on the infamous page 425. For the record, let's make sure we're talking about the same thing: euthanasia is a noun which comes from the Greek for "good death" and is defined by Princeton's Wordnetweb as, "the act of killing someone painlessly (especially someone suffering from an incurable illness).

Euthanasia is generally further divided into two broad types: "passive euthanasia," or the withholding of treatment that would prolong biological life (i.e., removing feeding tubes, as in the case of Terri Schiavo) and "active euthanasia," or an affirmative action which induces death (lethal doses of morphine or other drugs, for example). For the sake of conversation, let's lump in there "assisted suicide" in which a second-party provides an individual of sound mind but debilitated physical condition with the means to end his or her own life (ala Jack Kevorkian).

So, I guess I should revise my statement (". . . nothing in there about euthanasia. . . ") slightly to acknowledge that a discussion of end-of-life issues will certainly include education about Living Wills and advance directives, which could include advising a patient of what is involved in choosing to refuse feeding tubes or emergency resuscitation--all of which is fairly common, and all of which I imagine most people would agree that doctors should discuss with their patients to avoid the kind of ugly mess that surrounded the unfortunate Mrs. Schiavo. But there's nothing in there, explicit or implied, about doctors encouraging, or the system requiring people to make any particular end-of-life decision, and it's not only a disingenuous suggestion, but a sinister one, to say that there is.

Sarah Palin would have her fans believe that the president will create "death panels" to decide whether her son with Down's Syndrome should euthanized (so much for keeping children out of politics). And that's the real problem, not Ms. Palin, per se, but the willingness to from either ignorance or cynicism distort, caricature, or lie about what's actually in the plan. It's certainly not perfect; I can't imagine any system making everyone happy all of the time, but shouldn't people be talking about what it is and not what it's not?

Oh, and I think the fringe elements just look larger these days because there are so many more outlets for them--blogs, comments sections, 24 hour cable news, talk radio, etc. And on the question of whether people ever better in politics, Mental Floss magazine attributes the birth of negative campaigning in the USA to none other than Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. "Hideous hermaphroditical character" really puts 'socialist' into perspective, doesn't it?

Posted by: blue dog dem | August 12, 2009 11:59 AM

I completely agree with your comments re the discussion of the bills. I don't equate end-of-life discussions solely with euthanasia, and if 1% of the bill is dedicated to stress that the provider must discuss these issues, it seems that it is more than just discussing living wills. I would rather an attorney describe living wills and not discuss medicine and a physician discuss medical treatments and not estate planning, than vice versa.

Your mention of Schiavo is important when discussing the 40% of the population receiving long term care who are under the age of 65. As with most of us, she did not have any legal documents describing how she wished to be treated in the event of complete incapacitation. At least her family was able to decide. What if they are not given the option, then who decides? The provider or the government? I would prefer my family choosing to pull the plug rather than the DMV.

Posted by: William Kurtz | August 12, 2009 12:46 PM

One percent measured how? Length of text? You're right that it is about a lot more than discussing living wills, but since the controversy seems to center around euthanasia and the infamous, if imaginary, 'death panels' it seems reasonable to focus on that. The main change as I understand it is that the bill provides funding for these consultations--I'm not sure if they're intended to be provided by doctor, PAs, hospital social workers or some other staff but they're in there, on a mandated schedule, to ensure that patients and presumably their families get the information they need to make clear, informed choices.

Personally, I would like to see that sort of consultation more readily available. I confess that I don't know what that would look like; I don't know if I would be comfortable walking in for a physical and having the doctor say, "hey by the way if you suffer a catastrophic injury, do you want the plug pulled or no?" But I'm also uneasy at the prospect of my family having to make that decision without a clear idea of what I want--or making a decision that's in direct contrast to my wishes. It's easy enough to draw up a living will but harder to see it stick in the face of family opposition, or family infighting, again, as in the case of Terri Schiavo.

I don't think there's anything on the table--yet, and I would resist it if it were--that provides for taking decisions about care away from patients or family members. At least nothing beyond what the health insurance industry (with a fiduciary duty to its shareholders first and foremost, right?) already has the power to do.

Posted by: blue dog dem | August 12, 2009 2:01 PM

Every public corp has a duty to its shareholders, but health insurance companies in a lesser capacity than physicians have a fiduciary responsibility to their insureds.

Having said that, one of the easiest manners in which to insure more persons and to lower premiums is to make health insurance as accessible as auto & homeowners, i.e., making available on a nationwide basis rather than intrastate.

For example, if I offer coverage to a 30 yr old male in NY, CT and NJ, the rates are going to be different for each state, with the rates in this example going from least to most expensive. There is nothing, except for state authorization of the rates, that makes the rates higher in NJ than in NY or CT. Cost of care is basically the same, attitudes towards healthy living, pollution, stress, etc. mostly the same. If the federal government, through HHS rather than creating an entirely new department, supervised the rates that could be charged, then there would be a fairer cost and a savings to the general public. Moreover, the gov't is making coverage mandatory, so all the young healthy people who have opted out of coverage now will be required to carry it.

At the present time, there are 5 levels or tiers to the insured population. Infants and Toddlers; young children; twenty to mid-thirties; mid-thirties to mid-fifties and then seniors. The gov't system will have 2 tiers, so that everyone 45 and under will be subsidizing those 46 and older. What this means to the general public is that if they think rates are high now for coverage, wait until a two tier plan is in place. My estimate is that coverage for a single in their twenties will probably be around $300 per month, rather than the $180-225 now, because the graduated scale will no longer be present to minimize the extremes between the age groups.

The fact the gov't keeps stating the basis for much of the savings in their program stems from healthy living and checkups means that they will be regulating diets and enforcing people going to the doctor for checkups. Since more than half of the population is overweight or obese, I can't wait to hear the responses when doctors get the gov't to penalize the couch potatoes for not losing enough weight between visits.

The death panels and all the hyperbole might eventually happen, just as they did in Nazi Germany in the 1930's and '40's when those invalids and disabled were determined unfit to live because of the excessive debt and inflation the Weimars faced after WWI. But I am not an alarmist and these rantings do not influence my beliefs against the plan. I know that the gov't has no business in the private sector and will do my best to inform those who only hear the panacea and pablum from mainstream media.

Posted by: bill | August 12, 2009 2:32 PM

How quick the wacky left forgets.
Eight years of Slate's presidential caricatures
http://www.slate.com/id/2208775/

Posted by: robn | August 12, 2009 4:44 PM

Gents,

GOP and Insurance Industry shills are promoting these fake protests and a bunch of angry, uniformed Americans are going along with it.

"Industry leaders are always full partners in developing strategies to derail any reform that may interfere with insurers ability to increase profits," former CIGNA Vice President Wendell Potter, said Wednesday during a press conference at the U.S. Capitol.

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20090805-719453.html

Posted by: blue dog dem | August 12, 2009 5:39 PM

Even if a carrier raises it rates on a client, there are many other carriers out there that take them if they find their renewals to be too expensive. I shop out my business clients coverage every year so that I find them the lowest rates, so I have never experienced any businesses dropping coverage because of cost.

At no time can a health insurance company exclude a pre-existing condition if the business or person has had coverage that has not lapsed. It is called personal responsibility and most business owners I know of have it in spades.

Just because this former spokesman for the company stated something doesn't make it true (unless it goes along with your argument, then it has to be fact).

Companies make profits or they cease to exist. It's pathetic to think that it's evil to make profits. If they don't profit, they fire people and then they go out of business, leaving one less company to compete. If you have a 401K or own stock or mutual funds and they are invested in these companies, you make money if they make money. If they lose, you lose.

People are not dropped from coverage if they get sick. A pre-existing condition does not get you dropped from coverage if you had coverage when the condition developed. Like most people, they don't want to pay premiums unless they get sick, or want to buy life insurance unless they find out they are terminal. So they haven't any coverage and then get sick and can't get insurance. Then it's up to the rest of us to pay for their medical bills because they would rather buy a flat screen than pay health insurance premiums (I know I would).

I don't know who is behind the town halls, but I do know that I remember 1994 and the sweeping change that occured in that election when Clinton went against the majority's views. I cannot remember a time when people were more animated, so you can call it whatever you wish, but these people are going to vote and when they do, its not going to be the way the incumbents are hoping.

Getting 53% of the vote is not a mandate like
Reagan's re-election landslide. Moderates don't like getting riled up (I know I don't) and disparaging comments from experts like Kalb and others only fuel the fire. Pelosi & Hoyer calling them un-American!?! They don't have a clue. When I saw a video of a woman confronting Spector and speaking about awakening a sleeping giant, she just may be right. Obama could very well end up being a lame duck for 2-3 years with his heavy-handed tactics.

Taking a blurb from a week old article doesn't prove anything. Many people have sold out for their 30 pieces of silver and have later backtracked on it (see Pharma and AARP). Healthcare as Obama wanted it to be will not pass. You can say these things are staged and the GOP and insurance are behind it, but these people will vote and not too many politicians are going to tie their future to Obama's as his ratings fall lower than the popular vote percentage he received in the election.

Posted by: robn | August 12, 2009 7:12 PM

...or groups like "60 Plus" who were last used by as a front for the pharmaceutical industry to get a sweetheart deal injected into the Medicare drug benefit bill...
http://www.60plus.org/photo.asp?mode=p&i=41&a=10
....and are now shilling against health care reform by misinforming seniors with scare tactics...

Posted by: robn | August 12, 2009 10:18 PM

...or Americans For Prosperity, http://www.americansforprosperity.org/about
...the amazing "free market advocacy group" who, when they're not spreading prosperity by making sure Americans can't afford health care, are advocating for fine American traditions like....
...Tea party Tax protests where poor people complain about taxing the wealthy...
or
Pro-tobacco positions like the resistance of smoking bans....
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Americans_for_Prosperity

Posted by: jack | August 12, 2009 10:36 PM

I wonder what will happen in November of 2010? Anyone care to guess?

Posted by: blue dog dem | August 12, 2009 11:09 PM

RobN,

sorry most of your post was edited, I'm sure it was a gem. Since you are citing articles in the WSJ, here is one that is right on point

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204908604574332293172846168.html

BDD

Posted by: Walt | August 13, 2009 6:36 AM

Here is an example of how the Obama/Dem plan may work.

Was advised by my Veterans Administration Doctor, when I told her I had been diagnosed with prostate cancer. She said the VA does not usually treat such cancer on patients over a certain age, but just lets it progress to the end,

(To be fair, neither of us knew at that time that my cancer was very fast growing, so maybe that would have changed the picture and allowed treatment)

Nevertheless, my cancer is now being treated vis a Medicare Advantage Plan which Obama wants to stop (I heard him say so on CSpan) and regarding which I saw the Dems, in the House Committee, unamimously vote against a Repub amendment to save.

Trust them? Hell,no.

Latest lie? Obama claiming to have the endorsement of AARP, which AARP immediately said was untrue.

Fortunately I have my cancer this year when I can get treatment, rather than next year when, unless the Dem Blue dogs stick to their principles and join the Repubs in preventing the Obama/Dem plans, I would be up the proverbial creek

Posted by: blue dog dem | August 13, 2009 7:53 AM

WK,

I know you love to quote Jefferson, so here's one for you:

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

Also, another piece from the WSJ, this time by the founder of Whole Foods, which has locations not only in the US, but in Britain and Canada.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204251404574342170072865070.html

Posted by: robn | August 13, 2009 8:41 AM

BDD,

My postings are whole.

Both of the WSJ pieces you posted are Opinion pieces, not journalism. Anyone in the know knows the difference; especially in the WSJ which has fine journalists and a paleolithic Opinion section.

Posted by: blue dog dem | August 13, 2009 9:07 AM

Here's a video link of Obama back in 2003 stating that he wanted a one payer system. Now he doesn't want one and said that he never said that? I'm confused.

http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-in-03-id-like-to-see-a-single-payer-health-care-plan/

Posted by: robn | August 13, 2009 9:09 AM

...or like Conservatives for Patients Rights, a anti-reform "grassroots" group that raised only a mere $20 million to support their efforts...hmmm? how'd they do that???....maybe their founder was also the founder of the $23 billion for profit hospital chain Columbia/HCA. I think he's found himself in this new position because of the pesky FBI investigation in 1997 that led to 14 felony convictions and $1.7 billion in criminal and civil fines for Medicare fraud at Columbia/HCA...

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/rick-sanchez-takes-conservatives-patients

Posted by: blue dog dem | August 13, 2009 9:19 AM

RobN,
Let's not get into "journalism" as it is a dead art, as shown by Kalb, the AP, etc. Almost every article I've read in newspapers drips with opinion.

These are opinion pieces by persons that know a little bit more about the topic than you and I. An editor of a prize-winning publication with a large research staff and a CEO of an international company. What's your claim to fame?

I know you think your opinion is more important than most people's, but anyone who has read the WSJ knows it rarely has to issue a retraction. I'll take their version of the truth over yours and the sites you cite any day.

Nonetheless, you still cannot find anything to rebut any of the posts I've stated above and constantly changing the argument just shows how weak your rebuttals really are.

Posted by: William Kurtz | August 13, 2009 9:41 AM

We might better phrase the question not as whether government belongs in the private sector, but rather, whether a human right (yes, I'm aware that this is an assumption and an opinion) such as fundamental access to health care belongs in the private, for-profit sector, since it seems that seeking profit and providing health care are not entirely consistent goals. It's not evil to make money, and, like Reagan, I love it that the USA is still a country where someone can get rich but at the same time, we have to recognize as a society that people's riches are the result not only of their individual effort, but the efforts of other, less fortunate people all over the place--from the people in developing countries who make the products we buy cheap at Walmart so we can save, to the underpaid people who work at Walmart to ring them out, etc. etc. In other words, the prosperous segments of society should acknowledge this fact and perhaps change the baseline for success in this country so that it's based more on a situation where everyone's basic needs (food, shelter, health care) are satisfied. Perhaps Jefferson would acknowledge that that's not 'wasting' the labors of the people.

Thanks for the explanation of how state-by-state rates affect cost of coverage; I would agree that whatever plan gets everyone covered effectively with the most affordable cost would be a good one. If someone can make money doing so without compromising the quality of coverage, that's great too. But in my mind, the key is 'everyone.' It's unconscionable that in the USA a person can't get basic health coverage .

Posted by: robn | August 13, 2009 9:46 AM

BDD,

The issue is (wait, I'll underline it for you because you seem to keep missing or ignoring it) over hyped astroturf protests aimed at killing healthcare reform. My claim to fame is that I proved Steve's point many times over.

Posted by: William Kurtz | August 13, 2009 9:46 AM

Also, it's really time for the tea partiers to figure out what they want: more or less government spending on healthcare.

http://www.slate.com/id/2224938/

Posted by: blue dog dem | August 13, 2009 10:52 AM

WK,

I believe that everyone should have care as well, but when 90% of the population has existing coverage, I don't think we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Organic Foods' CEO had 8 great ideas, and if those were implemented, a public option would not be necessary.

RobN,
You proved Steve's point. Yea! When busloads of union members are bussed in to the events and ads on Craig's List are looking for paid "volunteers", yet you besmirch the ordinary, unaffiliated people that go because they are scared of what has been proven to be true about the plan, much less the exaggerations of others, you throw out a couple of points and that makes Steve correct? I empathize with the people going to these events, and when they start to get strong-armed, like in some videos I've seen, then you will really see the tide turn.

I want health insurance reform, but nothing close to the socialism that Obama proposed and keeps changing as the polls sink lower. I would guess that those attending these rallies want the same thing and I think its a complete joke when liberals complain about them assembling and speaking their minds when for eight years we have had to endure people with nothing better to do but sit on the steps of City Hall protesting a war that is still going on, stronger than before.

Posted by: robn | August 13, 2009 12:30 PM

BDD,

I'd love to spend all day nyah nyah'ing with you but I've got more important things to do like rearranging my fork drawer. However, before I bid you adieu, I'd like to point out a glaring falsehood that you just wrote, "90% of the population has existing coverage." BUNK. According to the last Census Bureau numbers, 18% of Americans are without health insurance and if unemployment grows to over 10%, the number of uninsured will probably grow to 25%, or about 60 million Americans.
You'd better change your handle to Insurance Industry Shill.

Posted by: Kalb | August 13, 2009 1:06 PM

Just a couple of clarification points:

1. These are opinion columns and while they contain facts I would never suggest they are reportage.

2. Since folks seem to like numbers, here are some to play around with:

"An estimated 43.8 million Americans had no health insurance in 2008, approximately 2.8 million more than in 1997, according to new data from CDC's National Center for Health Statistics.

The report, "Health Insurance Coverage: Early Release of Estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, 2008," presents the latest insurance estimates for the United States.

The report also contains new estimates of health insurance coverage for the 20 largest states, and shows Massachusetts had the lowest percentage of uninsured individuals under age 65 (3.4 percent) in 2008. In contrast, approximately 1 in 4 persons under age 65 lacked coverage in Florida and Texas, and 1 in 5 lacked coverage in Arizona, California and Georgia. Nationally, 16.7 percent of those under age 65 were uninsured in 2008.

The report provides information on both private and public insurance coverage. Among the states examined, private coverage rates for people under age 65 ranged from 78.9 percent in Massachusetts to 56.2 percent in Florida. Nationally, 65.4 percent of people under age 65 had private health insurance coverage."

3: The reality is that we already have nationalized, socialist, commie health care...we call it "Medicare." I haven't heard a peep form anyone suggesting we should get rid of that commie, liberal, left-wing, radical health care called medicare that NOW pays for lots of prescription drugs. And I have never heard of ANYONE turning 65 (or a few years later) and saying...nope..don't want it. I want to continue to pay my insurance company.

Jus' Sayin

Posted by: Bill | August 13, 2009 1:51 PM

Medicare and Social Security are insolvent and not examples of anything that I would want to emulate. Get rid of them? There are not doubt better ways to accomplish both but the liberals use scare tactics whenever there is talk to change them. When Bush attempted a reform of Social Security the democrats scared everyone and blocked it. Now that they are in control instead of trying to fix Medicare and Social Security they are adding another fiasco which will cost an extra 1 trillion dollars. Explain how this country can afford and extra trillion dollars when there isn't enough money for Medicare and Security. They are both not going to have enough money in a few years. And don't think you can squeeze it from defense spending which is down to 20% of the federal budget, the lowest level ever.

You and others who love the 46 million number uninsured always forget to mention that a large number of those are illegal immigrants and people who choose not to buy health insurance. Aren't you liberals pro-choice? And most of the 46 million uninsured still receive health care as a visit to the ER will demonstrate.

How can anyone trust Obama to write a health care bill after the cash for clunkers fiasco.

They can buy versions of the 2009 Lexus RX 350 or 2009 Lincoln MKX, both pricey five-passenger utility vehicles that get about 19 mpg and are capable of towing a small boat.

Even a high-end 2009 BMW X3 crossover utility vehicle, priced at just under $40,000, counts as a gas saver eligible under the government program, with 19 mpg.

Posted by: blue dog dem | August 13, 2009 2:16 PM

RobN,
Since you can't base your arguments on facts, let me explain the numbers. Since we have 307 million persons living in the US, and hopefully most of them legal, and supposedly, before all the debates started, we had 42 million uninsured, that means that with the 12 million illegals, who I don't care about, leaves 30 million or 10% uninsured.

I know you have a lot more important things to do, like make up facts, statistics, etc. and to use questionable websites to prove your theories, but until you can base anything in fact, you really should stop spreading misinformation. Out of all the people who post on this site, you are the only one that continuously takes quotes out of context to "prove" your point.

I used to enjoy debating you, but now you bore me with your lack of knowledge and twisting of facts. So go back to your important matters, I'm sure the wax must be ready for your brozillian.

Posted by: fingers | August 13, 2009 8:02 PM

Why don't we ask the 50 million people without health insurance their opinions on this issue? Everyone else just shut up.

Posted by: Tom Burns | August 13, 2009 10:41 PM

Robin,
You and Hood Rebel are always the most impressive bloggers on this site. Don't know either of you or your background but I wish either of you would run for office---you have my support--Tom

Posted by: jack | August 14, 2009 2:52 AM

I voted for Mr. Obama,I fell for the crap about him being a pragmatic centrist. A lot of people did. The scales are falling from middle Americas eyes. Calling regular Americans a mob of Nazi Brown-shirts? Evildoers? Releasing Union and Acorn thugs to intimidate them as they try to exercise their Constitutional rights? It's a lesson I, and millions of other Americans will carry into the Voting Booth for the rest of our lives. Americans are not Leftist Loon Collectivist and never will be. Health care reform, yes, Socialized medicine, hell no. I better go spit shine my jackboots, I want to look sharp for any Town Hall meeting or Tea Party rally that might happen locally.

Posted by: Walt | August 18, 2009 9:46 AM

Palin is ludicrous say the Dems, in her saying that we propose death squads in our health bills.

Those provisions were never, never, ever
in our proposals,they say, and ,also, we deleted the death squad provisions fro the bill last week,

At least, that is how I hear that controversy.

Sounds like more BS to me.

Posted by: Walt | August 18, 2009 12:00 PM

I'm not on any GOP mailing lists, and my MA company does not send any info re upcoming protests re Obamacare.

Would attend and protest if I were informed.

Please alert us!

Thanks

Posted by: Counter Culture | August 27, 2009 1:19 PM

While everyone today takes credit for "being against the war" in Vietnam or being a civil rights activist. I don't remember that many people at my college standing up for an admissions policy that would create a diverse student body. In liberal New York only a handful really.

We were counter culture and the fact - called all sorts of bad things for our civil disobedience.

It was worse as a protester against the Viet Nam war, we were threatend with bodily harm - there was love it or leave it.

There was arrest, but the numbers were always very few, in truth. On our New York campus fewer than five hundred of 20,000 people were truly active.

Now the mainstream culture has changed - and people that are not happy with the direction of our government - for good reason for them. They are being branded crazy, disruptive, all kinds of bad things, by the new 'mainstream'.

Loud discourse, angry people, civil disobedience should be the case when, other efforts fail and reordering our economy for a sixty year old political idea, perhaps even an obsolete idea think about it shouldn't there be a high price for that kind of change, shouldn't it be messy and loud. No matter what happens, the changes are going to screw lots of people, maybe not the ones complaining the loudest who know.

The business elite that runs this country wants this healthcare proposal, they want universal healthcare because they want to maintain a European size unemployment level.

They believe high unemployment will be here as a consequence of their financial mismanagement and of their approach to reducing carbon and to create more opportunity in other countries. Truth they think too much wealth is locked up in the US,that's not productive enough for them and they need to spread it.

Maybe they are right, but frankly that's the not greatest trade off.

So if people instinctively understand they are about to get screwed and they're angry - perhaps they should be.

Magicians don't perform magic - just mis-direction.

10% unemployment for some will be 40% for minority males - at least they'll have health insurance.

.