TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?!

@Cycloptichorn,

I've already asked okie to provide evidence from the health care reform bill - showing page number and paragraph.

He will never produce it, but will continue to argue his point whether it's untrue. He'll never provide any support for his stance on most things - just his personal opinion (full of bull ****).

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

- is absolutely incorrect. Nothing in the bill mandated this at all. It merely authorized Medicare to PAY for such meetings - if the doctor or the patient request them.

If you understand how that would work, it would work the same as a mandate, cyclops. What can be charged to the government, the doctors will do and they will charge. And once the government begins paying for it all, who do you think the information will go to? And how much more of the decision making will be shifted to government over time as this whole thing evolves? Surely you are not that naive to not see that peoples health care decsions could potentially be taken away from them and given to a bureaucracy? Americans are sensitive to any potential loss of freedom.

4 Replies

@okie,

You keep projecting; how do you come up with these ideas that government is going to control medical care for each individual - and not the doctor? Please show us where in the health care reform bill you have obtained your information? PLEASE!

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
- is absolutely incorrect. Nothing in the bill mandated this at all. It merely authorized Medicare to PAY for such meetings - if the doctor or the patient request them.

If you understand how that would work, it would work the same as a mandate, cyclops.

Bullshit! Do you even know what the word 'mandate' means? I mean, you are 100% wrong. Something which isn't mandated doesn't 'work the same' as something that is mandated, at all.

Quote:

What can be charged to the government, the doctors will do and they will charge. And once the government begins paying for it all, who do you think the information will go to?

Idiotic and unproven assertions. You have no clue what you are talking about at this point, just making **** up.

Quote:

And how much more of the decision making will be shifted to government over time as this whole thing evolves? Surely you are not that naive to not see that peoples health care decsions could potentially be taken away from them and given to a bureaucracy? Americans are sensitive to any potential loss of freedom.

You are committing a Slippery Slope fallacy. Nothing like what you are discussing was part of the HCR bill, at any point. The whole 'death panel' thing wasn't based on fact but on lies, lies which you are now defending and repeating, and backing up with illogical arguments that have no relation to the reality of the HCR bill or the way America or Medicare work. At all.

I think it's safe to say that you have thoroughly embarrassed yourself on this topic today, Okie. True ignorance combined with an unwillingness to admit that you were wrong, and that your party regularly resorts to lies in order to try and scare people. And the funny thing is, it totally works on you! You buy into the bullshit, even though you know it isn't true. Guys like YOU are the reason the Republicans keep the lies up, because you'll swallow anything they feed ya - and then turn around and make a fool of yourself trying to defend it.

Unimpressive effort by you today.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

You keep projecting; how do you come up with these ideas that government is going to control medical care for each individual - and not the doctor? Please show us where in the health care reform bill you have obtained your information? PLEASE!

Oh, yeah right! He'd rather die than actually go look it up, but he's put himself too far out there to back down now.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@okie,

"If you understand how that would work, it would work the same as a mandate, cyclops. What can be charged to the government, the doctors will do and they will charge. And once the government begins paying for it all, who do you think the information will go to? And how much more of the decision making will be shifted to government over time as this whole thing evolves? Surely you are not that naive to not see that peoples health care decsions could potentially be taken away from them and given to a bureaucracy? Americans are sensitive to any potential loss of freedom. "

WOW

That is a fine example of a completely disparate list of statements seemingly connected by a very thin thread. It would be a great example of a very poor argument in a basic logic class!

i.e. - what bunk

apology for piling on !

1 Reply

@IRFRANK,

IRFRANK, When the original premise is built on a straw, everything else has no support for it. It crumbles before he continues to pile it on.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie, In the first place government is not going to "pay for it all."
In the second place, some companies are now transferring the higher cost of health plan premiums to high income earners in their companies. Is this another case of the poor stealing from the wealthy?

Quote:

Shifting Health Costs to High Earners
By REED ABELSON
Published: November 9, 2010

With health care costs climbing even higher during this enrollment season, more employers are adopting a tiered system to pass on the bulk of those costs to their employees by assigning bigger contributions to workers in top salary brackets and offering some relief to workers who make less money.
The New York Times

For years, employees have seen what they pay toward health care go up as companies ask them to contribute more to premiums and deductibles. But now, as people enroll in health plans for the coming year, the sticker shock is more jolting than ever because so many companies are passing on to their workers most, if not all, of the higher costs.

A worker’s share of a family policy is approaching $4,000 a year on average, and is most certainly going to keep on rising through the next few years. For lower-salaried workers, those additional costs have only compounded their struggle in a brutal economy.

More and more companies in the last year or so have begun signaling their recognition of the added burden shouldered by workers in low- and middle-income jobs by varying the premiums they pay based on salary. Consultants say the trend is likely to continue, as employers devise various ways of spreading increased health care costs among their staff and balancing that side of the ledger against fewer raises and other compensation.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I dont know why okie doesnt understand that the system as proposed, will provide a govt standardization of services. That way, service providers (Insurance carriers) will bew required to provide same services between the states. This is just like the way that airlines are regulated. AIrlines are fiercely competitive BUSINESSES, who each must provide a consistant means of providing takeoffs and landings between the states.
Imagine if there were no standardization.

I think the public will gradually own up to the fact that

1those whove kneejerked their opposition, just havent spent any time understanding the programs

2More people are gradually favoring the system as they learn more.

The questions about why dont the legislators want the citizens of the US to ahve the same kind of health service that the Federal EMployees Health Benefits Program?

What I hate is the fact that, with the continuation of the present system, should I move (as Ive planned) to either Maine or New Mexico, my insurance company (under an interstate "compact agreement" )could possibly deny my coverage because I have essential hyprertension, even though its well under control and the Mort tables show that, with medication and with BP under control, my health outlook is just like anyone else my age who doesnt have High BP.

My question has always been, "How much cash has the Insurance Industry added to the pot to keep the "Obamacare bullshit news line " boiling.
Apparently Okie has bought it hook line and sinker. And Okie is a retired geologist who seems an educated man . I wonder how he enjoyed reading the health care bill .

3 Replies

@farmerman,

Farmerman, there is just no reason why you can't post without making unreasonable purile attacks on me. I'm really sick of it.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Simply put, okie doesn't care for facts or evidence; he gets his info from FOX News. The problem with okie is very simple; he can't remember facts and evidence, current or past history, or understand simple concepts of common sense and logical thinking.

He often falls into his own trap without knowing it, because he loves to play word games around issues he really doesn't understand. He ends up contradicting previous opinions he's made on the same subject. I find it fascinating that somebody like him should be confused in his own crap, but he seems incapable of realizing his own bull ****.

He believes he's smarter than all the past presidents and congress' decisions including those of his own party. He has no concept of our Constitution, and blows off steam as if his stupid statements has any merit - such as the life of the rich and poor are equal.

He claims he has done well in school; I just want to talk to all his teachers to find out what they taught him. LOL

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Heres the pdf version of the table of contents of the Health Care and Edsucation Reconciliation Act of 2010. Each TOC line is a separate link cauase this is a big bill. I spent some time with it recently and Im amazed at some of the pork and other crap that needs to be excized. However, this Act should not be ditched in favor of the present system. If the tea party and GOP try to gut this for anything other than getting rid of pork, then we are doomed. It will only convince me that the tea party is firmly in the hand of some industrial puppetmasters.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c111:5:./temp/~c111CgMZX8::

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmer, some of those reforms the Repubs were in favor of, and so was I, such as transportability of insurance from one state to another. I have always been in favor of tweaking the current system to improve it, with reforms like the above, but I don't think that is what we got, and I think you know it. Another reform I was hugely in favor of was drastic tort reform, but I don't think we got it.

My brother was a general practitioner doctor for his entire working life, farmer, and we have had many conversations about the subject. I also have friends and close relatives as nurses, so I do not come to this subject with ignorance.

People simply want freedom and liberty to determine their own health care. They are very suspicious of a cheap Chicago politician that openly says he wants single payer government provided health care. I am not sure what all will result from this legislation, but suffice it to say I am not at all optimistic. I think Obama's aim is to cause more businesses to turn to the government for insuring their employees, and I look for costs to skyrocket. I also look for increased government expenditures that will spiral completely beyond what was predicted. It did not need to be this way. We could have instituted reasonable reform to improve what was already the greatest health care system on earth.

It is my opinion we should throw out the bill completely and start over. And I think the majority of Americans agree.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman, I've posted my opinions on this subject when congress was working on the legislation, and I have pointed out areas I felt needed attention, but didn't get it. I've also challenged other parts of their legislation that didn't control inefficiencies and waste that could save billions. Their mandate to penalize companies $2,500 for not providing health insurance is probably one of the worst sections of this whole bill. Many will opt out, pay the $2,500, and let taxpayers pick up the bill.

If you've been reading my opinions on politics, I've always been an advocate for universal health care based on the fact that our country spends the most for health care, but does not insure everybody. There is something drastically wrong when federal mandates require emergency rooms to take all patients without any insurance, and leave the hospital unpaid for those services. The bigger problem is that many of those emergency room visits could be handled by local clinics at much cheaper cost.

These are issues that our government failed to address. I am frustrated and angry, but I don't want to throw the baby out the bath water. That's too inhumane.

There were too many missed opportunities to approve a good universal health care system, and they blew it!

One more thing: When Massachusetts approved their universal health care system, they found patients who bought health insurance to take care of very expensive disease/illness, than opted out after getting the treatment. That loophole needed to be closed in the new national system.

0 Replies

It's interesting how so many people believe they know what "The Tea Party" believes or intends to do.

There isn't a "Tea Party," and whatever it is that is referred to as "The Tea Party" doesn't have elected or appointed leaders, it doesn't have an official platform and it doesn't have an anything approaching an official communication vehicle.

This is what the folks who want to demonize it don't understand --- its a movement, not an organization.

There is no doubt that professional political operatives have attempted and are attempting to take control of the movement, but it's not going to work.

The so-called Tea Party Candidates who have won or lost were simply the ones who ran as uncompromising proponents of a much smaller, much less intrusive federal government.

I'm, frankly, disappointed in all of you hard-core progressives. No way you should give ground to the movement because it exists to thwart your core goals, but all this crap about astro-turf and behind the scenes corporate money is stupid. Stupid because it isn't so and stupid because if you don't understand your opponent, you can't counter him.

For a minute, try and consider that there are people who disagree with you but who are as true to their convictions as you are.

Actually please don't.

Have fun, in your self-contained worlds, dumping all over the toothless racist morons you think the Tea Party members to be.

Please be very vocal with your disdain, and encourage your representatives in the media and government to be so as well.

Your disdain helps fuel the very movement you seek to quash.

While you're at it, get used to the Tea Party (no matter what you think it is) because it's no going anywhere, any time soon.

3 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

It's interesting how so many people believe they know what "The Tea Party" believes or intends to do.

There isn't a "Tea Party," and whatever it is that is referred to as "The Tea Party" doesn't have elected or appointed leaders, it doesn't have an official platform and it doesn't have an anything approaching an official communication vehicle.

Sure it does - the Tea Party is the Republican party. There is no difference between the two of them whatsoever. It is a faction within the party, one which seeks to shed the failures of the past by pretending they didn't support those people at the time. Nobody buys it, though, outside of a group of illogical wanna-be Galts like yourself.

Quote:

I'm, frankly, disappointed in all of you hard-core progressives. No way you should give ground to the movement because it exists to thwart your core goals

They don't have the ability to thwart our 'core goals.' Passage of HCR was the final straw for any sort of small-government pretensions, or the idea that America is a 'fend for yourself' nation. That's done for. Progressive politics in the next two decades will consist of refinement of currently existing programs and other nibbling around the edges.

Quote:

but all this crap about astro-turf and behind the scenes corporate money is stupid. Stupid because it isn't so

It is in fact so. Well-documented.

Quote:

and stupid because if you don't understand your opponent, you can't counter him.

We do understand who the 'tea-partiers' are: older white Republicans who are for the most part idiots, riled up into anger and fear by two stunning electoral losses in a row and not without a good dose of bigotry, for flavor.

Quote:

While you're at it, get used to the Tea Party (no matter what you think it is) because it's no going anywhere, any time soon.

Oh, I think you're wrong there. Completely. Because none of the so-called 'Tea Party' candidates who got elected is going to remain true to their supposed principles. The old-line Republican leadership will do everything they can to corrupt them and they will succeed. I predict that within a few years, nobody will even pretend that there is a difference between them and the Republican party itself, and there will be no meaningful changes to the way they do business.

You cats are like Lucy and the Football, yaknow? Every few years a new bunch comes along and promises you that they'll clean up Washington for real this time - honest! Small government and no earmarks! For real! This time.

And like a bunch of Charlie Brown-ish idiots, you guys fall for it time and time again. It's truly hilarious to watch.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Apparently "OK" is too short for Hamster so I will replace it with

OK fool

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Sure it does - the Tea Party is the Republican party. There is no difference between the two of them whatsoever. It is a faction within the party, one which seeks to shed the failures of the past by pretending they didn't support those people at the time. Nobody buys it, though, outside of a group of illogical wanna-be Galts like yourself.Cycloptichorn

I think you are very wrong to say that the Tea Party is the Republican Party. There is much difference. It should be obvious that they are not one and the same, simply by observation of things like what happened in Alaska.

There is nothing bad about the Tea Party movement. It is simply a movement at the grassroots that is tired of big government out of control. I think you are correct that the people in the movement would probably otherwise vote Republican most of the time, and may often be registered Republicans, because Republicans are closer to conservative principles than are Democrats, there can be no doubt about that. However, I also think some people in the movement may be independents and even Democrats that are fed up with how Washington is broken.

1 Reply

The GOP deviated to the left;
the Tea Party is to restore its central conservatism, its reason for existence:
representing Original Americanism.

David

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

That's easy; just listen to Sarah Palin; she's the leader.

0 Replies

TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know