Hey, Obama, the Anger's Not 'Manufactured' It's REAL

M. Remmers,

I would love to be informed, but all me Dem Senator and Rep give me are the Obummer sound bites. See my post above.

Interesting, because you assume the tone of someone who has already made up their mind despite claiming to lack the facts.

what a well thought out statement. when did it become a crime to question government? oh wait i know the answer to my question, when obama was elected.

when did it become a crime to question government? oh wait i know the answer to my question, when obama was elected.

Welcome to the USSA

You lost.

Deal with it!!

I am pretty sure it will not take much more for the avg american to decide to "deal with it" but we will deal with it in a manner you might not like.

and when we do - feel free to complain ;)

You lost.

Deal with it

I am dealing with it. By spamming elected officials with my disgust and exercising my first amendment rights.

It's not about winning or losing. If you'd grow up, you'd know that.

It's about what's best for the American people. Not 15% of them. It's about our original freedoms and what makes us different from other countries, not becoming just like them.

I don't think everyone that doesn't agree is a lobbyist or works for the insurance agency. I care about others thats why I want more information. What is in this bill? what will my money go to? People just wanna know the facts and since we are not being told or even been able to see anything in writing it makes us think there is something to hide. Everyone has different reasons.

Congress only needs 1100 pages if they are trying to hide stuff.

i'd rather it be done right instead of quickly. it took romney 2 YEARS to get it done in MA and that was just one state. And romney even admits he made mistakes and wasn't completely happy.

Obama is trying to do this to the country in under 6 months. seems like it should take a little longer.

Obama is trying to do this to the country in under 6 months. seems like it should take a little longer.

Seems like we've had decades and nothing has been done. I see the republicans as obstructing, not constructing reform. They want the status quo, and that is unacceptable.

Seems like we've had decades and nothing has been done.

Lib50...Obama took over 6 months to pick out a freakin' dog for gods sake!! Why would he try to ram this through and against the people's will.

I see the republicans as obstructing, not constructing reform.

I'd like to know if you view the below link as 'constructing' or 'obstructing'. A black man at a townhall meeting in St. Louis was giving out buttons that said 'Don't Tread On Me'. He was jumped by an angry mob of SEIU union members. He was kicked. he was beaten. He was called racial slurs. Six people were arrested. Two for physical assault. I'd really like your take on this. So far, every self proclaimed liberal on Newsvine that I've asked about it has justified it. One even said the man who was beaten..."asked for it".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBdbTVUeay8

I agree......this is part of it.

You are making the assumption that our government can invest our money wisely. They can't. While there are many products of government that are necessary, none of them come at bargain prices, because our government is incapable of such a task. What "wise" investment do you think would have been made that would keep us from where we are now? Some new airplanes for congress? All the while we had the opportunity to fix roads and other infrastructure (assuming this is what you think would have been done without the wars) we didn't. Simply more programs to insure the scales can continue to tip to those that get from those that have. Real people that work hard are just getting tired of this and are really, really tired of being portrayed as stupid yokels or dummy pawns. We are sort of mad as heck and not wanting to take it anymore.

Shirley Draeger -- I wasn't talking about the governemnt. "At the top" means private individuals and some corporations, wasting huge sums on unproductive expenditures, including multiple MacMansions, super-yachts, jets, travel, you name it. None of those yield future productivity. We have been ignoring basic economics for far too long.

Mandy,

The bill is public and available for you to read:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3200:

You can also find it easily by Googling HR 3200. Please take a look.

Abortion is not even mentioned in the bill. But there is concern that not specifically prohibiting it will result in it being slipped in the plans after the bill is passed. This is a legitimate concern. In fact, there have been several amendments proposed that would specifically prohibit the plan from paying for abortion with taxpayer money...as far as I can tell, they have come very close but haven't passed. Also, Obama himself has agreed that, while he is pro-choice, that taxpayer money should not be used to pay for it.

There is also the Hyde Amendment of 1976 which specifically prohibits taxpayer money from paying for abortions except in the case of rape or incest. I'm not quite clear as to how that amendment affects the current plan. There is concern that it is not sufficient to cover here.

I wrote to my senators about this concern and I suggest that you and people you know do the same. These amendments are only losing by 1 vote. So, it is a matter of 1 person changing their vote that will cause an abortion restriction to pass. As citizens, it IS our responsibility to communicate in a civil way with our representatives.

Like has been mentioned before, it is not helpful to show up at a meeting yelling and screaming. They are obviously having these meetings to get feedback from their constituents. But if it is all about anger and emotion, they will never get the actual message. Read the bill as best you can and be SPECIFIC with your representatives about what concerns you.

Health Care reform is NEEDED. Other countries do it and we can do it too...if we can act like adults and work together to get it done right.

Since you have read the bill, can you explain this part of the bill which spells out reposnsibilties and how it won't cost me a dime? Section 301 thru 412.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:1:./temp/~c1116z7N8t:e176188:

Are you receiving free health care now? If so, let me know how you managed that deal.

Currently employers are burdened with paying for health care costs that are unjustly inflated. Your employer, if you have one, will have to continue to offer coverage either through a public or private plan. If you are under the poverty level, you would qualify for the existing Medicaid plans that serve the poor. Otherwise, you can personally buy into the public plan OR a private plan as you wish. It wouldn't be reasonable for health care to be free. But, prices need to come down...and at least they are making at attempt at reform towards that goal. This idea is that a cheaper public option will force the insurers to drop their prices and act more responsibly. The bill may not be perfect, but it's an attempt. Again, contact your representatives if you have some ideas of how to do it better.

I haven't read all 1000 pages of the bill, but before I get angry over something, I know where to check it out for myself.

Keep in mind that the bill is still being revised. But I agree that we're going to end up paying through the nose both in increased taxes and increased premiums. Regardless of whatever fluff they put in this crap.

Thanks!

So if we all put on our Sunday best we are Lobbyist : )

That's what the Left says!

You've got to see Barbara, "the racist" Boxer's comments.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73Mdxa-cKyk

I've already got a t shirt picked out for our townhall. It says "I'll respect the president to the extent that he respects the constitution." Don't want people to be confused and think I'm a lobbyist! =)

I'd join you if we lived closer! My clients and I are waiting for our town council meeting, unless they try to sneek it in without notice. We have that problem alot when it comes to the sunshine law.

Please give us some factual literature to read, to back up your statement!

To alot of white people he is a change. Stop the ignorance.

What?????????

Didn't see any supporters at these meetings, did you?

Red Herring. This has NOTHING to do with race!

Sorry Dancingqueen. This is inaccurate, the bill specifically prohibits federal money from covering illegal aliens.

SEC. 246. NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS.

Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.

TB,

Does this trump Sec. 246? I'm not sure.

SEC. 152. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Except as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations consistent with this Act, all health care and related services
(including insurance coverage and public health activities)

covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to
personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of
high quality health care or related services.

I'm no lawyer...but I wouldn't think so.

Citizenship isn't a personal characteristic (like a big nose or red hair), it's a legal status.

So lets assume you're right, Trillium. That the bill doesn't cover illegals. Part of the excuse the Obama administration used for creating this behemoth in the first place was the 'skyrocketing cost of healthcare' due to all of the uninsured people going to emergency rooms. If the bill doesn't cover illegals, we will still be picking up the emergency room tab for them ON TOP OF the price tag we'll be paying for the public option.

Sounds like a lose-lose proposition for the American taxpayer, eh?

Sounds like a lose-lose proposition for the American taxpayer, eh?

I don't see where many people could possibly win in this situation. Is there any reason or existing model we have to give us any confirmation this will work at all? Nope.

Pat, that is only one "excuse" for reforming our health care system. There are so many more reasons. And, I'm quite sure that plenty of bonafide American citizens currently populate the ERs today because of lack of insurance. So, on that front...this would at least help reduce that issue.

Regarding existing models for this type of thing working: every other industrialized nation in the world has some type of universal health care system.

Wikipedia has a nice summary of how other countries are doing it...there are lots of variations:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care

This study linked below compares and ranks 6 countries including the US...and we come out last in all categories from cost to overall health. So, where is the proof that OUR system is working at all? (Be sure to look at the pdfs and charts linked on the left of the page)

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Publications/Fund-Reports/2007/May/Mirror--Mirror-on-the-Wall--An-International-Update-on-the-Comparative-Performance-of-American-Healt.aspx

Ironically, we taxpayers are currently paying for universal healthcare in Afghanistan and Iraq thanks to the $915 bllion wars we have been waging for the last 8 years. (Must be a perk?) Why is it that we can spend all of that cash overseas in 8 years with no anger or outrage (manufactured or real), while a suggestion that we spend less than that over 10 years to improve the health and lives of Americans is treated as some kind of outrage?

This kind of thing can be done, it IS being done, and people around the world are reaping better benefits than Americans BECAUSE it is being done.

This anger/outrage thing is simply not productive. There are plenty of examples around the world to look at...if everyone who is complaining would spend a little more time doing some homework and then making an attempt to have mature and constructive conversations with each other and their representatives, we might be able to get something done.

Critics of this argument note that there is very little correlation between life expectancy and infant mortality with the quality of health care, due to such factors as alternate causality and variations in the way countries collect their statistical data.^[97] In fact, the U.S. led the world in life expectancy twenty years ago with virtually the same health system.

A valid point, but the study I cited above is not pertaining to those factors necessarily. It rates many factors including patient satisfaction, the time it takes to get into a doc, availability of services, costs, etc.

Many of the fears and assumptions people have about a nationalized health system pertain to accessibility and quality of care...as well as costs. This study, which is comprehensive and has been repeated several times, addresses those issues specifically and really points out some deficiencies in our system.

Personally, I've been on the losing end of the system and have been price gouged ridiculously for lack of having insurance. I'm also an owner of a health care clinic, so I see clearly how the system works. It just seems to me that we should WANT to make some changes. If we're heading down the wrong path...let's get on the right path and get it done. The last administration did nothing. The time is ripe to get something accomplished and one of the reasons I support the President is because he said he would push for health care reform. More power to him. It will be interesting to see where the people of America choose to go with this thing.

This is the the most used wording on this health care bill argument to justify it:

reforming our health care system

This is not reform, this is an entirely new program. It should read "New Program to compete with the private sector and destroy it".

This is what we need:

1. transitive verb improve something by removing faults: to change and improve something by correcting faults, removing inconsistencies and abuses, and imposing modern methods or values

This is what is being proposed:

2. transitive and intransitive verb get rid of unacceptable habits: to adopt a more acceptable way of life and mode of behavior, or persuade or force somebody else to do so

Thanks for the grammar lesson. But it technically is reform of the existing industry via the implementation of new rules and regulations to ensure affordability, essential benefits, and consumer protections. At the same time it is creation of a new arm of the system which is the public plan.

Sometimes it is necessary to force change in a system that has become too greedy to correct itself. Wouldn't the world be a wonderful place if greed and corruption didn't exist and big industry could always be trusted to do the right thing?

exactly how is anythign The President is doing going to destroy the Constitution?

look up socialism.

get your family to pay your medical bills .

because I will not. and am bettin millions of others feel the same way.

GB,

Whether a drug is "overpriced" depends on the value it delivers. Some drugs are, but modern pharma has extended our lifespan and keep out out of hospitals. Staying out of hospitals saves real money.

Observer -false argument, the price of the drug is not based on the value it delivers, it is based on what the market will bear. modern pharma has not extended our lifespan, monitoring our health more regularly, better food, better shelter, these things have extended lifespan, not primarily drugs. There can even be an argument that the over prescription of anitbiotics has actually made us weaker and more suseptible to infection.

Pharma charges the most the market will bear wherever they sell thier drugs, that is whay they got the ban on Canadian drugs passed, they produce the same drug there, they just charge less and they don't want Americans to have that benefit. Overpriced is the pursuit of profit and is accurately used, th drug is actually offered at a lower price in another market. We pay more, because in the company's mind, we can afford more.

Modern pharmaceuticals have NOT increased our lifespan? Are you kidding?

Have you looked at Statins?

Just because a drug company says somethign does not automatically make it true and that is a recent development and the impact is dubious at best. the point is that the drugs themseleves are not responsible for prolonging life. I also not that the pricing issue was not addressed at all.

modern pharma has not extended our lifespan, monitoring our health more regularly, better food, better shelter, these things have extended lifespan, not primarily drugs.

As a person that would be severely brain damaged and have zero motor control without the drugs, I have to say that this statement is thoroughly off base. Not only are they responsible for prolonged life..they are responsible for quality of life. No amount of eating leafy greens will replace the pharmaceuticals I take daily nor will it for the 456,000 people who share one of my disabilities or the 1,500,000 who share the other one. We owe our lives to the pharma companies as do many other people with various other health issues. Like big pharma or not...they help massive quanities of people on a daily basis.

But screw the 2,000,000 that are in my situation right? We have illegals to insure instead.

I know your intent wasn't to insult and I apologize if I seem harsh in this post. But I would suggest you peer outside of your own little corner of the world before you post such nonsense.

BTW these protests specifically designed and intended to shut down any debate and to intimidate any opposition speech meets the definition of political terrorrism. Violence and the threat of violence to keep others from expressing thier views or to force your political agenda. If yoru argument is valid, a civil discourse should be enough, if you believe you have facts and truth on your side, present them, take questions and have a discussion an a debate. Throwing around this nazi/lynching/socialst crap is not trying to show that you are right, only that you want to shut people up. Which ironically makes you the facist.

WTH? It has nothing to do with age. LOL LOL

spell my name right ;)