August 7, 2009
Here Are Yer Angry Mobs!!!
Dana Loesch has some pictures of the "angry mobs" showing up at the Health Care Town Halls (you know, where there is supposed to be an open discussion, yada yada yada). Here's an example:
Scary!
The leftosphere and the liberal commentariat charged that the town hall meetings weren’t authentic, the crowds were ginned up by insurance companies, lobbyists and the Republican National Committee. But you can’t get people to leave their homes and go to a meeting with a congressman (of all people) unless they are engaged to the point of passion. And what tends to agitate people most is the idea of loss—loss of money hard earned, loss of autonomy, loss of the few things that work in a great sweeping away of those that don’t.People are not automatons. They show up only if they care.
What the town-hall meetings represent is a feeling of rebellion, an uprising against change they do not believe in. And the Democratic response has been stunningly crude and aggressive. It has been to attack. Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the United States House of Representatives, accused the people at the meetings of “carrying swastikas and symbols like that.” (Apparently one protester held a hand-lettered sign with a “no” slash over a swastika.) But they are not Nazis, they’re Americans. Some of them looked like they’d actually spent some time fighting Nazis.
Anyone who has watched the news on TV has seen loud, obnoxious and crude peole attempting to disrupt recent town hall meetings. Perhaps the people shown here are not loud, obnoxious and disrupting. It's like showing a picture of a flower bed next to a dump and then claiming that the dump isn't really there. Bravo for the people who engage in legitimate protest and bad cess to those who insist upon obnoxious and disruptive behavior.
Below are just three of the lies being spread about health care reform. Each is followed by an explanation of the passages in the reform study.
"Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed!"
TRUTH: Page 29 continues to define the "essential benefits package" and discusses limits on what Americans will have to spend on health care under this minimum standard. In no way does this section stipulate the rationing of care.
"Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process)"
TRUTH: Page 30 begins to describe the Health Benefits Advisory Committee which establishes certain minimum standards for health insurance plans. In no way does this committee deny treatments and benefits to Americans with health insurance.
"Page 42: The 'Health Choices Commissioner' will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None."
TRUTH: Page 42 begins to describe the Health Choices Commissioner's duties. The idea that this person will decide what benefits Americans receive is patently false, given that most Americans will keep their current plans under reform, and Americans within the exchange will have the choice of purchasing many different kinds of health plans. Rather, the Commissioner will establish minimum standards to protect Americans.
More to come as required.
OldTimeLefty
OTL-as I said to Crowley on RIF,and will tell you here-the left brought these tactics to the fray a long time ago-Crowley is too young to remember,but you aren't.
Now, with a left-friendly government(I know,never enough for you)it's coming back at them.
What goes around,comes around.Street aphorisms are amazingly apt sometimes.
OTL, it is not error to make the most extreme translation of the wording in a bill. Look what has been done with the relatively simple language of the Bill of Rights. How did the "commerce clause" and the "Police Powers" clause come to mean the federal government could regualte the quality of water that does not even border on "navigable waters"?
As to the citizens appearing at Town Hall Meetings, it has been called "the attack of the Haut Polloi". Even Barbara Boxer complains that they look like they came from Brooks Brothers. Hasn't Obama advised his followers to "get in the face" of the opposition? "If engaged citizens shower Obama with adoration at stage-managed rallies, they are the very stuff of American democracy. If they boo their congressman, they are a scandalous eruption of fake or hateful sentiment."- NR
Warrington,
Let's grant that it's "not error to make the most extreme translation of the wording in a bill". But you have to base the "translation" on what's actually said.
You'll have to explain how one gets "healthcare will be rationed" from a discussion of "limits on what Americans will have to spend on health care under this minimum standard".
Incidentally, we already have rationed health care, rationed by the amount of money that you have available to pay for medications. As a case in point consider the difference in medical care received by diabetics, some can afford insulin pumps which give the smallest basal increment available (0.025 U/hr) for more precise basal dosing. So if you need 0.025, 0.675 or 1.075 U/hr to perform at your best, the pump can deliver it. Very nice for those who can afford to pay for it. But those diabetics who cannot afford the cash or pay for the medical coverage have to live by sticking them selves several times a day with inferior and outmoded types of insulin. A diabetic friend of mine tells me that he is 20 years behind the medical curve because he cannot afford the premiums. He considers himself rationed already.
Likewise you'll have to explain how you arrive at "a government committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get(and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process)" from a Health Benefits Advisory Committee which establishes certain minimum standards for health insurance plans. How do you go from "minimum standards" to deciding "what treatments and benefits you get"? You tell me about these two items and we may put the argument on a rational footing. We can go on from there after you reply.
Posted by: OldTimeLefty at August 8, 2009 11:47 PMjoe,
Ah yes, I remember it well. If you take a good look at what I wrote you will see that I did not in any way say, imply or otherwise suggest that the protesters should be banned. Read it again with less rancor in your mind and you'll verify what I just wrote.
That being said, I also remember widespread dismissal of anti-Iraq war protests in 2003.
Of course, it's a lot easier to oppose something than to support a complicated plan with the same full-throated freedom from nuance. It seems to me hat Democrats are only on the losing side of the public to the extent that they allow themselves to be bullied.
One of the reasons that I am not a Democrat is that the do allow themselves to be bullied.
OldTimeLefty
νδρν
OTL-strange as you may find this,I am not summarily opposed to a public option for people priced out of medical coverage.I just don't want the government rushing half-cocked into a program that may have opportunities to be used as an income generator and fraud platform by unscrupulous "providers" like has occured far too often with Medicare.
Most people who would avail themselves of a public option would be low paid working folks and those recently laid off in the recession.Not freeloaders.They already have coverage.
Maybe you should drop some rancor yourself.Or drop anchor(It rhymes-I couldn't resist).And illegal aliens CANNOT be included for any non-emergency care,period.
OTL asks - You'll have to explain how one gets "healthcare will be rationed" from a discussion of "limits on what Americans will have to spend on health care under this minimum standard".
OTL, I have to admit that my knowledge of medical care is too limited to discuss rationing of particular types of care. I do not believe this prevents me from making comments drawn from my experience of how government operates. We are not discussing the quality of care, but whether, or how, care will be provided.
Before turning to government action, let us consider that "rationing of health care" already has a long history, it is called "triage". The military has practiced this for long, and it appears everywhere that there are large numbers of people requiring care. Care is provided to those most likely to benefit from it, those less likely to benefit are moved to the end of the line. This accords with the military maxim "never reinforce defeat". I am not ignoring the fact that "budget constraints" already effect health care, I am seeking the prevention of the growth of that aspect of health care. One method I favor is "keeping it local", it is far easier to act harshly if you are at great remove from the situation at hand.
If we nationalize health care, we will have the largest possible pool of people seeking care; although our resources will be large, they will also be "limited". In the nature of government, the governors will seek to control expenditure by a "budgetary process". As everyone familiar with this knows, the "system" will be controlled by artificial and arbitrary limits. It will not be responsive to stimulus. The system will impose triage on itself in order to conserve resources. We see this everywhere that socialized medicine has been adopted, "we're sorry Mrs. Jones, our guidelines do not permit joint replacement past age 79". "But, doctor, I am only 6 months past that". "I am sorry Mrs. Jones, but that decision has been made and it is above my pay grade" "Well doctor, can I go elsewhere?" "I am sorry Mrs. Jones, but that is not permitted even if you can afford it. Everyone gets treated the same."
OTL - How do you go from "minimum standards" to deciding "what treatments and benefits you get"? You tell me about these two items and we may put the argument on a rational footing. We can go on from there after you reply.
Let us look at the nature of our government. What we are looking at is the "enabling legislation", this is actually susceptible to legislative debate. After passage of the "enabling legislation" the legislature steps aside, debate is ended. The "program" is then placed in the hands of appointed, not elected, administrators ("bureaucrats" if you will). These appointees are granted the power to make regulations which have the "force of law", although legislative oversight is slight. (An excellent example of this is the IRS, with its endless regulations. Congress has no interest in interfering as long as the revenue flows in).
In the interest of time, let us return to Mrs. Jones, aggrieved by a regulation that prevents her from receiving a joint replacement. Her only choice is a lawsuit in Federal Court (the legislation my provide for panels of "Administrative Law Judges" as an intermediary step, but I do not know it). The first question is "does the enabling legislation permit the regulation?' Since legislation is usually short on constraints, let us assume that it does permit it; at least in the sense that it is not specifically disallowed. If the action is not specifically disallowed in the language of the bill, the courts will assume that Congress has properly delegated the authority to make the decision. Assuming that the regulation passes that test, we must then turn to a Constitutional question of whether the government is permitted the action they desire. These question are always murky. The Constitution never really considered the IRS, Social Security and certainly never nationalized health care. We could continue, but at this point, Mrs. Jones is probably dead.
OTL, this could go on quite a bit further. Instead, I will ask you to reflect on your experience, or the known experience of others, with the IRS, FDA, Social Security, the old Draft Boards, even local Zoning Boards. Then ask yourself what is the American experience? Are these bodies thought of as generous and forgiving, or harsh and regulation bound? Do not confuse yourself with stories of people requesting action to which they were specifically entitled, and regarding governmental permission as largesse.
Posted by: Warrington Faust at August 9, 2009 9:58 AMWell said Mr. Faust.
Note the provision in the bill that after 2013 (i.e., after Comrade Obama is not running for reelection) that private health insurers will not be allowed to accept new people. So Obama is engaging in a real rhetorical sleight of hand (I call it lying) when he's telling people that they'll be able to keep their insurance if they like it - yeah, so long as they don't change jobs after 2013 and/or wish to switch to another private insurer.
The cattle car doors to the "government option" camp will swing wide open, and folks herded into the train.
I would add that there are many parallels to public education:
Health care will be "free" - with taxes spiraling freely upward to support it.
Government near-monopoly status will ensure lack of accountability and declining quality.
The de facto government employees (though technically "private" - kind of like the welfare daycare workers in RI), will become increasingly unionized and that will bring with it the NEA-like mediocrity and declining quality.
There will be some private clinics available, at high price, to serve the elite (e.g., the Democrat officeholders who imposed to "government option" on the rest of us). Just as their children don't attend public schools, they won't subject themselves to public healthcare.
W.F said
OTL, I have to admit that my knowledge of medical care is too limited to discuss rationing of particular types of care. I do not believe this prevents me from making comments drawn from my experience of how government operates. We are not discussing the quality of care, but whether, or how, care will be provided.
Well, I say that England and Canada have government run health care, and that I prefer it. You say "no". I say "yes" and we play ring around the roses. What you have said here, as you admit is pure conjecture.
W.F. said
One method I favor is "keeping it local", it is far easier to act harshly if you are at great remove from the situation at hand.I say tell that to the veterans receiving care at the VA.
W.F. said
As everyone familiar with this knows, the "system" will be controlled by artificial and arbitrary limits. It will not be responsive to stimulus.I say, I don't know that this is a necessary consequence of health care. Personally, I look with envy on the Canadian system. So I see what you say here as another assertion. What you freely assert, I just as freely deny.
Finally, I have never had a problem with the IRS. I think that the tax on the highest level incomes is far to low, but that is a function of the legislature. I would like to see the FDA have more teeth. Social Security is a blessing and a treasure as Bush found out, and I was subject to the draft, served in the army and in many ways profited from the experience. We, you and I, also have vastly different reactions to the word, "bureaucrat". You seem to equate it with indifferent obfuscation, and at one end of the spectrum perhaps it is so; however bureaucrats are people with jobs to do and some are helpful and respectful and some are not. It's far too facile to demonize and dismiss them. I do fear the Pentagon war machine, CIA intrusions into domestic life, and have been close enough to the NSA to have observed some awful practices done in the name of "freedom". But, please you are playing to the gallery when you adopt a knee jerk reaction to the word, "bureaucrat." I'm sure that the likes of Tom Wah Wah will applaud you, but need I remind you that the praise of fools is an insult.
OldTimeLefty