Courtesy of "1bit"

[ClearPresentDanger]

There is a political term named "framing the argument". Perhaps the damage being wrought to our nations town hall meetings is nothing more than that. Something akin to ramming the opponents ship with risk of sinking oneself. Turning town hall meetings into a Nationalistic forum instead of a discussion forum.
 
One of my points is that the discussion on health care reform is too narrow anyway! Take the talking point "Medicare is already Socialism and the government can't handle that efficiently" as an example argument against health care reform.
The argument that government is wasteful regarding Medicare overlooks the point that the individual health care providers bill the government for their services, not the other way around. This point of inefficiency or overcharging by these providers is in this case an example of the adage "whatever the market will bear" in the operation of capitalism.
 
Very recently Doctors are giving interviews on radio and TV news shows telling us in clear terms that their job is to see as many patients as possible each day and bill the insurance providers as much as possible for each patient.
 
Pharmaceutical companies seem to be the big winners in the recent attempt by Congress to revamp the prescription medicine portions of Medicare, how did that happen? Did the government hand over more Medicare business to one portion of the medical providers? Is our Federal Government system too overloaded with special interest power to do the right thing for the average Joe?
 
The root of our requirement in addressing health care reform should be centered on the cost of health care in the US. This slope of ever increasing costs is much older than the Obama administration. Even goes back before Regan and continued right on through every single administration during my lifetime no matter the party affiliations.
 
Again I ask the question why does health care cost more in the US than in any other country on earth?
 
My basic contention is that government should regulate the health care system et.all, not provide health care which by the way it doesn't in the first place. The Medical Professionals provide health care, not the government.
 
Let me be very clear on one point. My perspective is not to support a political agenda. Recent history points out that unbridled greed damages nations economies and that the US is subject to this human effect. Take the latest financial meltdown for example. (Additionally does the name Madoff ring any bells?)  Corruption can invade Socialism.  So to for Communism. So true for Tribalism. Each form of organization can be damaged by people in positions of control within those systems. Those behaviors must be regulated to prevent collapse of the economic structures. Our country did not regulate the financial community very well now did it? And look what our costs are, an additional 100K dollars per person in debt. And this started many Presidents ago also, like health care costs ever increasing.

Courtesy of "1bit"

[ClearPresentDanger]

1. and the rest

The point of this forum was as follows:
1. To discuss healthcare and especially the phenomena of the Tea Party movement.
2. To get the cobwebs out and practice critical thinking.

This started without any rules or guidelines. With the stated purpose above, we will focus on discussion. This means proposing new concepts not yet discussed regarding to healthcare, and/or refuting concepts already posted.

Anger in its own right has no purpose here. On the other hand, Republicans_rule_92, if you truly intended that any of the implied statements in your last post are true and pertain to healthcare, please present it/them categorically with a sound argument for that statement. In addition, there are many answers and follow-up to your previous statements that have gone unanswered.

Again, please have your statement tied somehow into the subject of healthcare. This is not a religion thread based on belief. we are all trying our best to be factual as possible. No one here claims to know it all, but at least site some sort of sound basis to back up claims -- part of the fun is to be refuted and learning and growing from the experience. Let's try to make this fun! True argument has nothing to do with looking smart and pious, but with leaving hate behind and being ethical and responsible in presenting ideas.

With that said, I will retract a personal prejudice and address the opposition as the Tea Party Patriots (TPP) instead of the derogatory "tea baggers".

Back to the discussion:

If we consider the brain poster from 19 as not being associated with the current discussion, I can see a parallel to the arguments presented by the TPP at a resent protest I attended (17). There seemed to be no logical association between the facts currently known about the healthcare proposals and the objections of the TPP. Obama seemed to encounter the same situation (18) and was busy debunking them as well.

For the rest of you in opposition to the currently proposed healthcare reform, does this TPP model fit you?

For those who have not spoken, come on, let's hear how you agree or disagree!

___________________________________________________________________
20
1bit wrote:

Pure garbage Repubcratsrule92, get a brain and start presenting ideas not fascist propaganda.
___________________________________________________________________
19
Republicans_rule_92 wrote:
http://skydrive.live.com/play.aspx?path=/photomail/%7bd256e43e-3041-4b74-93d3-fa140dcb3e54%7dℑ=22AEE44AEED5EFBA!1051&imagehi=22AEE44AEED5EFBA!1049&CID=2499185853722914746
___________________________________________________________________
18
xformer2009 wrote:

As you are probably aware, Obama has recently debunked some of the more outlandish claims and concerns at the recent town hall meetings. Public opinion is still strong for strong reform and many of the components of Obama's proposal. Many of us have expressed our desire for a strong public option (if not outright single payer). Whatever it will be, he said he will veto it if it's not fiscally sound and balanced.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8196007.stm
Perhaps even more interesting are the responses. The people keep pouring in with support.
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?forumID=6869&edition=2&ttl=20090813060701
_________________________________________________________________
17
xformer2009 wrote:
Wu's Town Hall at Portland - the outside protest
We participated in the block outside the town hall auditorium. We arrived at ~ 1/2 hour prior to the event. H^2 carried her "Please let me have my public Option" sign, and a faux sign-up list stating "Yes, I want to give up my government Medicare!" ( given to us by B., who attended with us - thank you B!).
The actual town hall meeting only had a seating capacity of about 60. Actual attendees of Wu's meeting must have been there since 8:00 AM. There were about 500, or so outside protesting (apparently, the same amount of people at McMinnville, covered by B.). The wrapped around the street corner from where the entrance to the auditorium. The ratio of pro-healthcare reform vs. tea baggers was nearly 10:1 (compared to ~1:1 in McMinnville reported by B.).
I found the majority of the tea baggers were in there late 50's. H^2 found the opposition to be composed of "only handful, but composed both young (30s) and old (50 to 80)", indicating there may be more younger baggers than I noticed.
The main points I overheard from the opposition were concerns that the government was going to take over healthcare and turn the country into a socialist regime. This usually accompanied concern about the cost destroying the county. It was interesting to note that all arguments I heard or got involved with were generalized without any general concept of why this would be the case (much less specific evidence sighted). The young tea baggers that were there (~8 in 3 different groups) were concerned with government paid abortions, exclusively concerned about religious issues.
H^2 wanted to characterize the opposition viewpoint as that of "opposing government in general, and scaring people that THEIR own options with their insurance will not be competitive with government. Overall, their argument is that "I don't want to pay for anyone else" (but it is OK if some else pay it for me)".
A large portion of the crowd carried signs or spoke outright about their beliefs. Those who were in opposition seemed to have found themselves involved in conversations with the rest of the crowd. In many cases, the baggers were well dressed compared to the majority of the crowd. Obviously, there may be many exceptions to these observations. Although, as mentioned before, the crowd had a tendency to point them out. The opposition would be especially hard to distinguish if they happen to dress casually and decided to keep to themselves.
The tea baggers seem to have dispersed by ~20 minutes after the start of the event. We left ~30 minutes after the town hall meeting began.
http://rcpt.yousendit.com/724981435/542fdcd6530f091d6e49ca96f752c45b
___________________________________________________________________
16
1bit wrote:

Perhaps this discussion on health care reform needs to open up the bandwidth from the narrow focus of Government VS the people.

I've been urging all along to look at the runaway capitalism element of health care so here is some grist to chew on.

This comes from the Times August 12.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/12/health/policy/12insure.html
___________________________________________________________________
15
1bit wrote:
 
Government regulation can be a good thing.
If I ran a bank could I simply not pay overdrafts?
That's called a bounced check right, goes back to the author in spades, hurts his credit report.
 
But with overdraft "protection" the bank customers seem to have become complacent or are using this feature as a buffer. Banks in turn have reciprocated by enjoying the profits they see from this service.
However, if you read this attachment to the end you will find that the government is attempting to allow banking customers to opt out of overdraft protection.
After all if I'm a responsible person I won't make an overdraft right? Then there is no need for me to have overdraft protection unless I want it and am willing to pay for it.
 
Do you think banks will send their lobby lawyers to Washington to protect their profits?
 
Do any other industries in the US send their lawyers to Washington to defend their profits?

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE5790YM20090810

___________________________________________________________________
14
xformer2009 wrote:

Here's a look at the bagger base:

http://teapartypatriots.org/

___________________________________________________________________
13
1bit wrote:

Before 911 and Homeland Security we US citizens were taking our small backpacks into movie theatres.
In them were items like water bottles and munchies. After all not all of us could afford the theatre if we depended on snacks over the counter.
Seems the theatre operators have this idea that their customers are a captive audience and will pay whatever the market will bear.
Not a problem, other's may pay five dollars for a small box of popcorn and two dollars for a drink but not me.

Now in today's reality the theatre operators have decided that it's their responsibility to ban backpacks and large purses from movie theatres and in fact inspect the contents of their customers bags. You never know, some terrorist might be out to kill as many innocent theatre goes as possible. Happened just the other day didn't it?
Oh well, there goes taking in snacks, so if we want a snack we go to the counter.
And pay eleven dollars for a small box of popcorn and a small soda.
Nice profit margin.

Now we all know eleven dollars is more than the entrance fee to the movie.

Could this form of runaway capitalism invade any form of fee based service?

Why is medical care more expensive in the US than any other country on earth?

Consumers lost the healthcare debate:

http://www.wric.com/global/story.asp?s=10872705

___________________________________________________________________
12
xformer2009 wrote:

A really good source about debunking the lies about healthcare reform.

http://www.pleasecutthecrap.com/

Please also be aware of an upcoming radio program this Monday on the Thom Hartmann show. 9:00AM 10/10, 620AM KPOJ.

"WHY ARE CONSERVATIVES RAMPAGING AT TOWN HALL MEETINGS?" Right wing whistle-blower Frank Schaeffer gives Thom the inside story.

Get active! here's a resource to find healthcare events near you:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/ofhcfindevent/

___________________________________________________________________
11
1bit wrote:



http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/0809/Dean_healthcare_reform_must_not_deny_Americans_sickest.html?showall
___________________________________________________________________
10
xformer2009 wrote:


Republicans_rule_92 is quoted:
"why is America in the top chart of obesity ???" Implied cause of poor health is American's not taking responsibility and always the cause of their own obesity.

1bit is quoted:
" struggled to get enough food so when these folks come to the cities to work they are all skinny!"

Preventing obesity does not prevent auto accidents or the spread of Hepatitis C, or many other dangerous pathogens.

Republicans_rule_92 is quoted:
”Why are 80% of people dehydrated / their muscles not having enough water in them? ... if water is a 85 million market and it sales more than milk and coffee combined then that’s what I'll sale , even though I'm not product based." Implied additional cause of poor health is American's not taking responsibility by not drinking enough water. Regardless, asserts that this is an example of how money will be made to help the family survive a healthcare crisis.       
           
There is no argument that the bottle water has boomed in the last couple of decades. I would argue the main drive behind this phenomenon is the desire to have a believed "safe" water source, and something to stick in ones mouth instead of other less healthy choice -- actually this demonstrates a desire to take responsibility and not drink something that makes one obese.

http://www.nrdc.org/water/drinking/bw/chap2.asp

This market would arguably be dominated by large scale corporate entities. There are current debates whether they are providing a good service to the population (not to mention the debate of water the plastic bottles are doing to the world's oceans and landfills. Regardless, their large distribution networks and high volume low price point is going keep all of us peons out of their market.

That only leaves the nitch market for specialty waters. The majority of which are outright scams. The systems that are not scams require a high level of technical expertise in that market to survive.

http://www.aces.edu/waterquality/DrinkingWaterScams-Regional%20PPT-web.ppt
http://www.amquix.info/perfectwater_debunked.html

Unless I see a current proving otherwise, the belief that American's are this dehydrated is bunk. The medical community seems to indicate that water needs depend on many factors a varies widely between individuals and have not concluded how much people in general need. The general guidelines seem to be that thirst may be too late to tell how much water you need, and drinking a lot more water can't hurt, but that's it.  Such material claiming extreme water needs are probably being claimed by the companies that are pushing their nitch water.

http://www.snopes.com/medical/myths/8glasses.asp
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-02/aps-jhm022404.php

Relaying on sale from water sales would not save one's family from a healthcare crisis. In fact, although initial sales may boom due to the placebo effect of customers believing in the special nitch water, it will eventual fall off once the customer feels they have been scammed. In fact, after a customer looses faith in the water, the credibility of the seller will be brought into question. Sales of nitch water will actual causes more fanatical harm to the family then ease or prevent the burden of healthcare costs. 

Proper hydration does not prevent auto accidents or the spread of Hepatitis C, or many other dangerous pathogens.


Republicans_rule_92 is quoted:
"Make extra MONEY by doing whatever ...and I personally have russian , romanian and asian friends that their fathers and mothers came here with only 20-50 dollars to their name and worked their ass off and now they have great homes , enough money for health care , cars , cable , food , warmth and AC... MAKE MONEY ON YOUR OWN AND PROVIDE FOR YOUR FAMILY!"

If you are hit by a 1.2million doctor's bill after being treated for cancer, there's no amount of money or jobs you, or your wife combined can take to cover the cost. Your family would be officially strapped with dept, not just lacking little money to begin with.

Even if your responsible and think your covered. Soon, it will be a choice between buying questionable healthcare and simple necessities like food.   Again, if your claim is denied your family is screwed.

Strong will isn't going to pull the family out that kind of a situation. The point is, the dynamics that allowed those in the past to struggle and eventually succeed are going away. It isn't that people are lazy. The mechanisms are vanishing.

You recently visited a 3rd world country. Do you think there are fundamental difference between America and that country? What made the US the attraction it is to immigrants?

A thumb nail sketch of the US Dream mechanism:
I. In the beginning, the US was protected by great spans of water, and had a seemingly endless expansion to the west. Those wanting to escape the cramped European nations and their  suppressive aristocracies could  do their own thing with free land and fill up the west (assuming you weren't a Native American, of course). One Of course, the frontier is now closed.  See the documentary "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond.

II. The Asian countries were still being suppressed by European interests (see same reference above), but Europe itself was to undergo decades of war and destruction. The US was still protected to a great degree by great spans of water. After which while the world was busy repairing itself (not competing), the US was to enter it's "Golden Era". Manufacturing capability increased significantly after the war. Cheap resources were readily available (and eagerly supplied by countries trying pull themselves out of their mess). The middle class was relatively strong, we had  a good manufacturing base,  Taxes for uber wealthy was relatively high, but the rich didn't go away.

III. Then around the beginning of the 80's, we started dismantling the control mechanisms that kept the system functional. Corporations began to be given more free reign on how they could pursue their own interest, and ultimately control aspects of our lives they have no right to. Healthcare is an excellent example. The initial explosion of "free money" has similarities to the placebo effect of the nitch water analogy mentioned above . All the tax cuts were being supplemented by a sudden spike in deficit spending. The scam is no reviled, we have to pay for our greed.
So today with more companies reducing the amount of health insurance coverage they provide employees combined with stagnant wages rising less than the rate of inflation, increasing numbers of people can’t afford to buy protection for the most important need they can’t afford to do without. It’s created a state of social inequality seen in the Economic Policy Institute 2004 report on the State of Working America. It showed the top 1% controls more than one-third of the nation’s wealth while the bottom 80% has 16%. Even worse, the top 20% holds 84% of all wealth while the poorest 20% are in debt and owe more than they own. Just released Internal Revenue Service data shows the same imbalance. The IRS reported the share of all income earned by the top 1% of taxpayers rose to 19% in 2004 from 16.8% in 2003 and just below the 20.8% high it hit in 2000 helped by capital gains from the stock market boom of the 1990s. All this shows how unbalanced wealth and income distribution are under an economic model favoring the rich and leaving all others behind. To rectify this, the nation needs a new model that distributes the nation’s wealth more equitably and that begins with its tax code. It also needs to provide health care for all its citizens which it already does for its senior ones - a single-payer system administered by the government and allowing people to choose their own providers. But even seniors are in trouble today as the Bush administration wants to move retirees on Medicare into private for-profit plans and thus kill off a system that effectively serves the public. The private operators need to cut costs to grow their profits, but when they do it people most in need are hurt the most.
All this paints a scenario of a dying middle class heading for extinction. Good jobs are disappearing, wages are stagnant or falling making becoming middle class today, in Hartmann’s words “like scaling a cliff.” Those who are middle class now are hanging on for dear life but losing their grip, and those aspiring to get there find it increasingly harder to do. It can’t be done on the minimum wage or even well above it in a job that pays at the Walmart level. And it surely can’t be done without the protection unions once could provide before the Reagan war on labor began reducing their power, or in a nation that once had a strong base of high-paying manufacturing and other jobs now being lost to cheap labor markets abroad. The result in Hartmann’s words: “America is regressing (and) Middle-class income has stopped growing.” The problem isn’t the economy. It’s the unlevel playing field where union protection is weak, corporations are in control in league with government supporting their interests, and workplaces are “run more like kingdoms” with workers heading toward becoming serfs with no rights.
From Stephen Lendman review of Thom Hartmann's book Screwed.
The world around us doesn't happen in a vacuum. The clients that come to use our services need money to pay us. Any job we get has to be paid by a demand for our work. The food we eat needs to be produced, transported, and paid for. The cloths we wear need to be made. To make the system move, when we get sick, we need to be repaired to contribute. The world we knew that sustain personal greed and lack of concern for society as a whole is the world of the past.

Republicans_rule_92 is quoted:
"Why do foreigner make fun of us that were lazy and sue anybody to make a quick buck?  Americans have set a bad name for ourselves"

The same spark that created the American dream has also indeed sparked a desire to get rich in an easy way. I believe tort reform is indeed required, especially with regard to lawyer behavior.

HOWEVER, this is not a black and white issue. Many uneducated believe that ALL large winning lawsuits are frivolous. The fact is, such beliefs are propagated by interests that want to control damage to their personal interest NOT for the betterment of the public good. When a doctor is proven truly liable for malpractice, there must be a deterrent to prevent violation of one of the most sacred trusts one can have between a doctor and patient. Our public safety becomes at risk. Overall, there needs to be a more appropriate balance between protection and  reasonable liability insurance for doctors.

Here's a good example. The discussion of huge lawsuits seem to recall the incident involving McDonalds and spilt coffee. Most people don't know the real story:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/8/1/141345/4615


Foreigners make fun of us because we are the only 1st world country that does not protect our own industry from imports, or have foreign trade plan. An example of the American Dream mechanism.


" We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution ..."

___________________________________________________________________
9
1bit wrote:

To compare requires a pretense (or argument) that frames the comparison range.
 
An example is the term personal responsibility. I'll use this term to frame a comparison between the USA and other countries.
Other countries that are homes to people that take personal responsibility fare well in our modern global capitalistic financial system.
These include USA, China, Germany, Brazil, India, and many others.
 
The US, Germany and UK have a large population of dangerously obese citizens compared to China, Brazil and India. 
Now that I've made the comparison I'll present some ideas to explain the comparison.
China, Brazil, and India are emerging from "third world" status. Their population is being given the freedom to move about the country and work for money and get ahead.
Connect this with global economy (and capitalisms constant search for profit) and you get factories going into China, Brazil and India that are populated by very inexpensive workers. That single capitalistic advantage of cheap labor drives profit that encourages money to move from the developed countries to the emerging countries. This money builds factories, pays wages, taxes, builds infrastructure, and medical services to keep the workers healthy.
These citizens of China, Brazil, and India come from poor farm backgrounds and struggled to get enough food. It is not possible to get fat in the survival mode. So when these folks come to the cities to work they are all skinny!


This is my pretense:  International trade is described in many ways. One is to compare the dollar amount a country exports compared to the dollar amount a country imports.
My comparison is this.
The US, Germany and UK have a large imbalance of imported vs. export dollars compared to other countries like China, Brazil, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Canada.
Simple to say that the exporting countries (China, Brazil, etc.) have something that the importing countries US, Germany, etc. want and don't have.
The US doesn't make toasters because the capitalists that own the companies that used to make toasters in the US can get much larger profits by manufacturing the toasters in China or Mexico and then importing them to the US. This makes that company rich, that companies stock price soars and stock traders make buckets of money buying and selling stock. The losers are the American workers who no longer are employed making toasters. The winners are the executives that run the company and Wall Street. 
Can you think of any other examples of companies that have moved manufacturing overseas on the profit motive?
 
Besides manufactured goods there are other dollar valued import imbalances the US, Germany, UK, France and other countries are experiencing.
A comparison commodity is oil.
 
Most of the goods and services ALL countries on earth buy,sell or trade are affected by the price of oil.
Who determines the price.
 
The US only pumps 30% of the oil we consume from our own country. The rest is imported.
Russia, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and others are selling oil. The US, Germany, France, UK and others must import oil to survive.
Of course the oil producing countries must sell oil to survive, but who controls the price?
Oh it's the free market we are told. Increase production and the price goes down.
So we have OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries). Their single goal is to control the price of oil to their benefit. This is good capitalism.
This didn't work so well when the price spiked to 140 dollars a barrel last year, or did it? What caused the oil price spike?
Truth is that it happened because there are no international regulations to prevent price gouging, panic commodes buying or whichever term you apply.
 
Another simple component of capitalism is the term supply and demand.  This leads to another tenant of capitalism derived from the supply and demand rule.
That is this. The price of a good or service will be as high as "the market will bear". 
Apply this to distribution method and you get wealth getting the good or service and those without wealth less and less of that good to control the distribution at a price.
 
 This capitalism method is pretty darn good. We have spacecraft, IPods, microwave dinners, air conditioning, the list goes on.  Where there is demand the capitalistic mentality is to provide it at a profit. The profit drives the supply. The profit must be there.
 
Consider the recent oil price spikes where profit takes control of the process of distribution for it's sake alone. This didn't work to serve the human system of supply and demand to the benefit of both the supplier and the consumer. It only served profit taking.
 
My next comparison is this statement.
France, Germany, UK and others use a form of socialized medicine to provide health care to their citizens while other countries like Brazil, Mexico, US do not.
 
The cost of health care in France, Germany, Canada and the UK is very high. This one government service alone consumes 30% of the taxes those governments take in.
China, Brazil and Mexico, Indonesia, and others provide very basic fee serviced health care to their citizens. The % of people in those countries that receive no health care at all is huge. You are accustomed to seeing pictures of Asian people with terrible teeth for instance.  But not in France, Germany or Canada. Those folks are basically healthy. By comparison the US has a large percentage of citizens that are very healthy. But at what cost? The facts point out that health care in the US is more expensive than any other country on earth, and increasing. This in addition to the US government paying 30% of it's tax intake for socialized medicine (Medicare/etc.).  France, Germany, Canada have NO citizens without basic health care. The US has ~70 million people without health care. How did this come about?
Well the basic properties of capitalism decide the price. Those with wealth get the best and most and live better as a result. Those without wealth get nothing because the wealth is increasing for some and poverty is increasing for many.
The capitalistic pyramid of supply and demand with the top of the pyramid determining the price is not well suited to provide health care to masses of people.
 
Health Insurance Companies have added a layer of profit taking to the US medical provider structure that is pure profit for itself.
 
Pharmaceutical companies are on that list, profit driven.
 
Hospitals for profit.
 
Those are institutions not individuals.  Pay the doctors buckets of money, pay the nurses, pay the medical technicians. Buy expensive equipment and build fabulous new hospitals. That's where the medical dollar we spend should be going, not to profit taking.
 
To get a handle on health care in the US is simple.
 
Simply remove the profit from the capitalistic structure that surrounds the supply and demand in health care.

Republicans_rule_92, can you think of a better mechanism to do this?

___________________________________________________________________
8
Republicans_rule_92 wrote:

taking action and depending on government to support me to two different things you said it best.
 
xformer2009 is quoted:
"God forbid, if your daughter gets very sick and is denied care, you and your wife couldn't find enough work to make extra money to cover the cost. Your freedom will be taken away from you by garnishing your wages, denying you credit to buy anything, limit your ability to buy food, and place your bodies under constant stress, fighting for the survival of your daughter. Thankfully, there are a few government program left that would help you a little bit. Not all of the social network has been completely stripped away yet. I tell you, for the sake of your family, I would consider it morally justified to steal whatever you needed for the survival of your family under that situation. I know you're a good man. You would do whatever is necessary to fight for your family."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XivNwQ76mCs
point being ---- make extra MONEY by doing whatever ...... and pay for the health care that is needed and it never hurts to keep in good health , why is america in the top chart of obesity ??? why are 80% of people dehydrated / their muscles not having enough water in them?  why do foreigner make fun of us that were lazy and sue anybody to make a quick buck?  americans have set a bad name for ourselves and I personally have russian , romanian and asian friends that their fathers and mothers came here with only 20-50 dollars to their name and worked their ass off and now they have great homes , enough money for health care , cars , cable , food , warmth and AC ...... if water is a 85 million market and it sales more than milk and coffie combined then that’s what I'll sale , even though im not product based.  MAKE MONEY ON YOUR OWN AND PROVIDE FOR YOUR FAMILY! its just like fitness goals , you gotta workout eat healthy , do your cardio , drink water and you'll lose weight , right ?

___________________________________________________________________
7
xformer2009 wrote:
Republicans_rule_92 is one the kindest and devoted family man I know. He is good person and it is an honor to call him my friend. He has the moxy to come right out and state his position. I admit, I'm sometimes a bit more timid at times.
Guys, I have a tendency to miss a few points (sometimes talk about something I didn't bother to ven mention). Please keep me in line.
That American spirit you speak of is a given requirement to succeed in anything we pursue in life. Without it, I couldn't call you a man.
The reality is, A., our current situation threatens that spirit.
 The growth of healthcare in this country will soon exceed the ability to support itself. In other words, it will self destruct in approximately 10 years (some predict less) if nothing is done about the current situation. Actually, this fact is not really a core debated issue.
Even those who believe they are well insured are getting screwed when they get sick and are denied coverage. They pulled themselves up by their bootstraps and still get screwed. Many times, the victims are wrongly denied, but the fact the matter is, the insurance industry takes into account that many of the sick they deny don't have the resources, energy (they're dying), or time left to fight for their rights. They simply die. It's been a recently released that UHC has started a policy of automatically denying claims over $5000
God forbid, if your daughter gets very sick and is denied care, you and your wife couldn't find enough work to make extra money to cover the cost. Your freedom will be taken away from you by garnishing your wages, denying you credit to buy anything, limit your ability to buy food, and place your bodies under constant stress, fighting for the survival of your daughter. Thankfully, there are a few government program left that would help you a little bit. Not all of the social network has been completely stripped away yet. I tell you, for the sake of your family, I would consider it morally justified to steal whatever you needed for the survival of your family under that situation. I know you're a good man. You would do whatever is necessary to fight for your family.
Health has one unique attribute that no other essential component of life has. Once you lose your health, you lose choice and control. Some people go out of their way and deserve to loose their health. They may take unnecessary risks or not perform basic maintenance to sustain their health. On the other, if some makes a mistake and injures you with their car, or you get cancer (very unfair to those who do everything to keep themselves healthy, but it happens) it's out of your control and you must get help. Even food has options except in the most extreme cases. There are choices to sustain one's self, even in an emergency. I won't belabor the point, but one can think of many cases were your independence can be taken away from you in an instant. Being young instills a false sense of invincibility, which ironically is one of the factors driving up healthcare costs!
Taking action is something we all can do!
We are the only civilized country that  has this poor of heath system for the amount of cash we pour into it. We must level the playing field and get the damn thing fixed. We're worse than Cuba, for god sake! Otherwise, A., we won't be able to sustain the  components of America that allow us to be the great innovative people we are!
___________________________________________________________________
6
Republicans_rule_92 wrote:

health coverage ??? make extra money , take action , be an American and control your ship , be independent

___________________________________________________________________
5
1bit wrote:


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/07/opinion/07krugman.html?emc=eta1
___________________________________________________________________
4
xformer2009 wrote:
Government is not currently working because we have been brainwashed that any government in our lives is bad. We have seen this dismantling through ineffectiveness of the Federal Trade Commission, and deregulation of other common entities (the Enron scandal). It's a much broader discussion than covered here, but it has to do with what is the proper role of government in the commons (or the part of our country that belongs to all of us). We are in debt because we got greedy and dismantled our government.
The main focus: These tea bag idiots are disrupting serious debates about healthcare by brute force instead of discussion. It is obvious that they don't understand what the facts are and are simply driven by emotion. The brains  and funding behind the disruption is actually a group of insurance corporations who are simply interested in the bottom line. The tea baggers and conservatives are simply pawns for their agenda.
Bottom line: If we don't take a look the facts and get our heads out of our asses, me, you, your daughter, everyone is going to get seriously fucked fanatically and have no health coverage if  these corporate entities have their way.



___________________________________________________________________
3
xformer2009 wrote:
One of the reason's I found this interesting was the comparison of the teabag activity back when that video came out compared to now. As you know, many in Congress are going around to their constituents having town hall meetings on healthcare reform. The tea baggers are organizing to disrupt the meetings, not to offer any discourse. Unlike the Bush administration that simply forbid those with apposing opinions from entering any press event (remember the "free press zone" cages?), the Democrats are assuming everyone is there to have a discussion.
1bit, I think you made an interesting reference to the Nazi's. We are not declaring them all Nazis, but they sure are using the tactics of the brown shirts to break up  the opposition.
http://markmaynard.com/?p=5697&cpage=1
http://www.blueoregon.com/2009/08/merkley-hits-the-trifecta-at-madras-town-hall-teabaggers-birthers-and-deathers.html?cid=6a00d8341c2c3f53ef0120a521c41c970c
Ultimately, this seems not be a battle between the Blue and the Reds. The conservatives are simply focused on discrediting the Democrat Party. They do not seem to have any concerns regarding long term social consequences, other than elections. As with the media coverage, the Republicans are simply shills being played by those with actual long term stakes (and bankroll) to focus policy toward their own needs.  Mind you, the emotion (not reason) to motivate the tea baggers is being fed by the mainstream media and conservative outlets.
The big pool of money to move and organizing the tea baggers around is coming from corporate interests. This is ultimately a battle between getting something done and the corporate class keeping their pie.
I think the Dems need to put their foot down. If people come to the meeting to simply disrupt instead of talk. Can it be done without appealing to more lies and emotion? The first thing the tea baggers would do is complain that their 1st amendment rights were violated (while in fact they  trample all over the rights of others).
Make no mistake, These tea baggers are not very swift, but the corporations are very calculating and not to be treated lightly. This sadly, not a battle over ideals and principles. Perhaps it's a question of how stupid we are and if we can overcome it.
http://reform-dem.blogspot.com/2009/04/teabaggers-are-coming-to-madison.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/03/olbermann-slams-members-o_n_250580.html
What's the right thing to do?
___________________________________________________________________
2
1bit wrote:

Alright I've come to a preliminary perspective that these tea parties are organized by Republicans all right, it's too big to young to be a true grass roots thing.....
But!
Some are Independents of the Ron Paul ilk.
Some are first timers just plane moved to do something because it feels good to blame somebody else except themselves. Afterall a good god fearing citizen has no fault in their initiative so long as that little voice inside their heads agree with them. By action they prove propaganda works. Say something enough times and some people will believe it.
Some are racists that have religion mixed up with racism brewed into some hell drink that Hitler prescribed.
Some are truly ignorant or stupid and weren't reading the current events going on over the last--oh say---20 years.
 
Can you add to this list?
 
 
___________________________________________________________________
1
xformer2009 wrote
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpzeI8sgIHU
A look at the tea baggers from their first go-round