Reid: If You Oppose Health Care Legislation You’re A Racist

I always knew I was a racist.  First it was the Tea Parties with all of the white faces in the crowd (thank you Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews.)  Yesterday, Harry Reid expounded on the floor of the Senate, that if you are opposed to the Health Care legislation then you are just like all of those people who opposed abolishing slavery.  I seem to remember it was a Republican president who pushed the issue that plunged us into a bloody Civil War.  Whoops!

If my memory serves me right, the Civil Rights act was passed because of massive support from Republicans, not Democrats.  So Mr. Reid, am I to believe you are advocating that those opposing your huge grab for power should not speak out on their concerns?  Sounds like the desperate act of a desperate man who has run out of support for his bill.

I hope all of you in Nevada are listening to this guy and remember his idiocy at the next election.  He is an embarrassment to Nevada and the United States Senate. 

Of course, this is just my opinion.

Rob’s Rant

Advertisements

9 Responses

  1. Harry Reid did not say you, or Republicans, were racists. Not by a long shot. He did say you were on the wrong side of history – and you may very well be.

    You are essentially copying a Fox News spot who got it wrong. By listening to the talking heads instead of the actual words you are perpetuating incorrect and inaccurate facts. That is the danger of trying to be politically correct by blindly cutting and pasting Republican news. You serve the party, not yourself.

    Your misinterpretation got you off on a tangent over who voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (for example, Barry Goldwater R-AZ, opposed it). I’ll provide more detail below.

    Back to the story, The Plum Line got it correctly. You can judge the actual words for yourself.

    Reid said: “Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all Senate Republicans can come up with is: ‘Slow down, stop everything and start over.’ If you think you’ve heard these same excuses before, you’re right.”

    Reid didn’t say that opposing health care reform was the moral equivalent to supporting slavery, or depriving women of the right to vote. More importantly, he didn’t say opponents of health care reform were racist for doing so.

    Reid said that they all voted on the wrong side of history. He is saying that change has come.

    Back to The Civil Rights Act of 1964. For the 100 years between the Civil War and Civil Rights Act, the United States was solidly divided between North and South, as opposed to between conservatives and progressives. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 showed this split. Almost all Southern Republicans voted against the Act, as did almost all Southern Democrats. In contrast, almost all Northern Democrats and Northern Republicans voted to pass the Act.

    Given the regional split, you (and fellow Republican bloggers [see note below]) are pushing the role of “massive” Republican vote. The vote in the House and Senate both, not a single Southern Republican voted to pass the bill. Republicans like John Tower and Barry Goldwater voted against it.

    Among Northern representatives, 94% of Democrats voted for the bill while only 85% of Republicans voted for it. That said, the bill would not have passed by just Northern Democrats alone. It required the vote of Northern Republicans (the branch that today couldn’t be elected using your conservative litmus test) to counter the Southern Democrats vote.

    You are wrong on Reid.

  2. Harry Reid did not say you, or Republicans, were racists. Not by a long shot. He did say you were on the wrong side of history – and you may very well be.

    Really? Ok, Nike, here is the full quote from The Atlantic – not really a bastion of conservative ideals:

    Reid ruffled many feathers by comparing opponents of health care reform to those who said it was too soon to abolish slavery and give women the right to vote, his exact words being: “You think you’ve heard these same excuses before, you’re right. In this country there were those who dug in their heels and said: Slow down, it’s too early, let’s wait, things aren’t bad enough about slavery. When women want to vote, slow down, there will be a better day to do that.” http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/12/reid_defends_the_slavery_remark.php

    I’m on the right side of history for asking questions of my elected officials.

    You are essentially copying a Fox News spot who got it wrong. By listening to the talking heads instead of the actual words you are perpetuating incorrect and inaccurate facts. That is the danger of trying to be politically correct by blindly cutting and pasting Republican news. You serve the party, not yourself.

    Where did I quote Fox News other than maybe the video clip? Again, this is not a news site, this is an opinion blog. I cut and paste stories and express my opinion. Why is it so hard for you to grasp that concept Nike? From my vantage point, this story has nothing to do with party and more to do with the blind arrogance of Harry Reid.

    Reid said: “Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all Senate Republicans can come up with is: ‘Slow down, stop everything and start over.’ If you think you’ve heard these same excuses before, you’re right.” Reid didn’t say that opposing health care reform was the moral equivalent to supporting slavery, or depriving women of the right to vote. More importantly, he didn’t say opponents of health care reform were racist for doing so. Reid said that they all voted on the wrong side of history. He is saying that change has come.

    See actual full quote above.

    I’m sorry I’m using the racism moniker – I forgot that is your bailiwick. Careful inspection of legislation that will control a massive part of our economy should be slowed down and examined in full. 2,000 pages – that’s a massive piece of legislation that needs proper dissection. Senator Reid knows that the more time that passes the more people will bail out of his side, hence the push to get things done. Explain to me what is the rush to pass this massive overhaul of the health care industry.

    Equating this careful behavior to those that wanted to slow down legislation on slavery – that’s calling those people racists.

    Back to The Civil Rights Act of 1964. For the 100 years between the Civil War and Civil Rights Act, the United States was solidly divided between North and South, as opposed to between conservatives and progressives. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 showed this split. Almost all Southern Republicans voted against the Act, as did almost all Southern Democrats. In contrast, almost all Northern Democrats and Northern Republicans voted to pass the Act.

    I believe the quote I used in the post was, “If my memory serves me right, the Civil Rights act was passed because of massive support from Republicans, not Democrats.” Actually, from the numbers below it seems like I was right on the Republican end and off a little on the democratic end.

    Given the regional split, you (and fellow Republican bloggers [see note below]) are pushing the role of “massive” Republican vote. The vote in the House and Senate both, not a single Southern Republican voted to pass the bill. Republicans like John Tower and Barry Goldwater voted against it.

    Since there were only 10 Republicans in the house in the south and one in the Senate it is a little out of balance statistically. It kind of seems like an overly sensational statement by you, although true.

    Among Northern representatives, 94% of Democrats voted for the bill while only 85% of Republicans voted for it. That said, the bill would not have passed by just Northern Democrats alone. It required the vote of Northern Republicans (the branch that today couldn’t be elected using your conservative litmus test) to counter the Southern Democrats vote.

    I hate to use Wikipedia for anything, but I really don’t feel like trudging through anywhere else. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

    By party
    The original House version:[9]
    • Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
    • Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
    Cloture in the Senate:[10]
    • Democratic Party: 44-23 (66%-34%)
    • Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
    The Senate version:[9]
    • Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
    • Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
    The Senate version, voted on by the House:[9]
    • Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
    • Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)
    By party and region
    Note: “Southern”, as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. “Northern” refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.
    The original House version:
    • Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
    • Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)
    • Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
    • Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)
    The Senate version:
    • Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%) (only Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
    • Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%) (this was Senator John Tower of Texas)
    • Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%) (only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the measure)
    • Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%) (Senators Barry Goldwater of Arizona, Bourke Hickenlooper of Iowa, Edwin L. Mechem of New Mexico, Milward L. Simpson of Wyoming, and Norris H. Cotton of New Hampshire opposed the measure)

    ^ a b c King, Desmond (1995). Separate and Unequal: Black Americans and the US Federal Government. p. 311.
    ^ [|Jeong, Gyung-Ho]; Gary J. Miller, Itai Sened (2009-03-14). “Closing The Deal: Negotiating Civil Rights Legislation”. 67th Annual Conference of the Midwest Political Science Association. p. 29. http://polisci.wustl.edu/media/faculty/MidwestJMS.pdf. Retrieved 2009-11-04.

    Yes, there was a separation between the north and the south. The fact still remains that a larger percentage of democrats voted against the final bill.

    The point is that since the Democrats are always touting their diversity and inclusiveness of ideals, it should have been 100% in the affirmative regardless of geography. You’ve really proved my assertion as it is pretty balanced, even back in the early 60’s for both Republicans and Democrats. I suppose we don’t have to mention that that Democrats back then were much more conservative in their ideals.

    You are wrong on Reid.

    I’m right on Reid. You are wrong on Reid. Nanny, Nanny, Boo, Boo.

  3. Rub,

    A consistent theme in my message to you is CONSERVATIVE vs PROGRESSIVE.

    – Conservatives were opposed to abolishing slavery. They were in Whig party then. They said slow down, too fast. Progressives were in the new Republican Party, who wanted change.

    – Conservatives were opposed to Women’s suffrage. They said slow down, too fast. Progressives were for change.

    – Conservatives were opposed to The Civil Rights amendment in 1964. They said slow down, too fast. Progressives were for change.

    As I understand your argument, you only care about superficial party labels. This is because you listen to talk radio that is pushing a fantasy revisionist version of history. They break it down to push a specific new argument. They don’t give you the facts.

    Conservatives were predominant voting blocks in the South and West, just as today. It is only an accident of history that they are Republican today. They were Democrat back then in large numbers.

    You want to fit your view of Democrats today to Democrats of the 1960s, and Republicans of today into Republicans of then.

    The label Republican before 1970 (and after Theodore Roosevelt) was pro-business. The label Democrat from 1920s to today is pro-Labor. I’ll expand that just a bit. Democrats are pro-Labor/ pro-Consumer. Republicans were pro-Business.

    The South was Democrat since Reconstruction only because Lincoln was from the Republican party. Inside the South, all Democrats were conservative. You only have to look at George Wallace to realize this.

    Politics in America had multiple layers: segregationist vs non-segregationist, states rights vs national rights (Theodore Roosevelt was a National rights guy), labor vs business, and consumer vs business. No one was a left. Left belonged to communists, or socialists. They were all American.

    So with that complicated history, liberals on both the Dem and Rep side passed the Civil Rights Act in 1964. Who knows, you might have been a liberal back in 1964.

    That said, I respect all members of either party that supports civil rights. I respect your take on civil rights. We probably can agree that rights are rights.

    Our mutual agreement probably ends when I say I support the rights of gays to marry; you may disagree. I digress.

    (btw, Rub, glad you are quoting wikipedia! Another glass ceiling broken).

    About Reid. You can’t push your point by misquoting Reid. As many have pointed out, Reid is speaking about historic votes. At no point does Reid say Republicans are racist. A quick listen to the clip you posted verifies this. Here is the actual transcript:

    “Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all the Republicans can come up with is, ‘slow down, stop everything, let’s start over.’ If you think you’ve heard these same excuses before, you’re right. When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said ‘slow down, it’s too early, things aren’t bad enough.'”

    “When women spoke up for the right to speak up, they wanted to vote, some insisted they simply, slow down, there will be a better day to do that, today isn’t quite right.

    “When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today.”

    Show me the part where Reid says Republicans are racist.

    But he does say that conservatives are once again on the wrong side of history.

    Your personal opposition to health care reform is based on your partisan pro-Republican point of view. Modern societies offer free education and free roads, we save money to pay people in retirement, we can spend Trillions on a war that was nearly lost, but somehow we can’t find a way to close all of the evil loopholes of health care abuses.

    Wait for what? Sorry Rub, I think you are on the wrong side.

  4. Rub, that’s pretty weak. I would have guessed you would use something like Bor (Rob spelled backwards.)

    Yeah, quoting Wikipedia was a momentary weakness on my part. Not the most reliable source, but it is a source. I actually take points off of the papers of my students who use this as a source. I figured you would like to see that linked.

    I never said the Reid says Republicans were racist – you read that into the post. Comparing those who oppose health care legislation to those who opposed abolishing slavery is what he said I know you’re not naive enough to think he used this comparison on accident. I don’t think Harry Reid does anything on accident – that kind of impulsive behavior is reserved for our Vice President.

    Regarding the differences in the parties and their positions, you are probably right on that issue. The pendulum has swung in either direction and the democrats of the 60’s are nothing like that of today. JFK was pretty conservative and probably wouldn’t recognize his own party today.

    As far as health care reform, I don’t think that the government can do anything efficiently or effectively. This view has nothing to do with a pro-Republican point of view. This is just another power grab that will never get smaller in size or scope. Show me any program that the government has done that is more efficient or effective than the private sector. I’m sure there is something out there, but I haven’t found it. Feel free to also show me the reason why there is such a rush to get some type of government program rolling. I know the answer to my question – Time Kills All Deals. Obama, Reid and Pelosi know this.

    And no I really don’t agree with gay marriage but have no problem with partner rights the same as are enjoyed by married couples. We’ve discussed this before, I believe, about civil unions. What’s wrong with that designation?

  5. I am not sure why you don’t like the health care passed in congress because I think it is a level headed bill with deep center roots.

    – the government will not be running on iota more of health care as a result of this bill.

    – it does not set guidelines for payments on procedures. It amends the IRS code to insure everyone has health insurance and provides a payment voucher to purchase insurance. Individuals (or families) buy the insurance, sign some paperwork, and the insurance company bills the government.

    – the bill is a boon to small businesses. Very small businesses, under 100 or so, don’t have to do anything but can have access to a better employees.

    – if you are a very small business, today you are at a disadvantage when it comes to hiring employees. Qualified individuals wind up going with companies that offer insurance. With the new bill, everyone will have insurance.

    – the bill ends abuses of the health care company, such as rescission.

    – under current rules, your own insurance company may pull the plug on your insurance benefits any time it wants. Whether or not you believe that this occurs a lot or a little, it occurs and it needs to be stopped.

    – the bill reduces Medicare costs by efficiencies. This alone will help stem part of the deficit.

    Catastrophic insurance may be an option for you today (if you did not have health insurance through your employer), but it will not be an option if you ever develop anything mildly serious: high blood pressure, cholesterol above 220, borderline diabetes, and a host of other issues. Forget being able to buy insurance at any price if you had past history of cancer.

    You probably look at all of this from a left v right point of view, but here are principles that I think you and I can agree on with regards to health care

    – everyone in America should be able to buy and pay for health insurance. They should not be denied. Insurance is an averaging of risk, and premiums should reflect risks involved, but it should not be denied.

    – averaging of risk means that insurance companies can deliver health care for pretty much everyone. High risk pool individuals (cancer survivors, genetic markers for certain conditions, etc…) at about 1.2 x current rates.

    – sick people today who cannot afford care wind up getting sicker and eventually wind up at the emergency room. You and I pay for their care. That is not my America. In my America, some people need help.

    – Obama’s plan reduces premiums (more people can purchase) and some people get vouchers for some r all of the premiums. You can debate that point in its entirety, but that’s how I feel. I feel it saves us money in the long run.

    You asked why wait. We did hire Obama to do something so he better get on to it. I have a lot of confidence that Obama is steering the ship of state in the right direction. You think it’s all going socialist because you listen to Glenn Beck, but we can have a Glenn Beck thinks nonsense discussion another time. He uses idiotic diatribe to prove green is yellow and most people passively agree.

    I am unwilling to see another 44,000 people die in America, people with insurance who were dropped or denied, just so we can wait for the Republican plan that will never ever come. Wait means death.

    About gay marriage. All of the other choices you mentioned do not provide full and complete rights under Federal and most state laws. A gay partner cannot be in the emergency room because they aren’t married. The list of discrimination due to lack of a marriage certificate is long, very long. It includes social security, health care, child custody, etc…

    Marriage and civil unions are not the same thing.

    If they passed a law saying: In all laws, contracts, and agreements, marriage or spouse shall mean two individuals regardless of gender in a marriage or civil union as defined and recorded by a state, then you’d have something.

    Until then, equal rights requires that it be called marriage.

  6. I am not sure why you don’t like the health care passed in congress because I think it is a level headed bill with deep center roots.

    Government is and will be involved. There is no other way. This bill is the first step to a full blown single payer system – which is what the liberal democrats want – and have indicated as much.

    Almost anything the government touches is flawed. This will be no different. I’m not against “reform” of the health care system because of some right – left way of thinking. You think I’m some type of Republican hack for some reason because my ideas occasionally coincide with theirs. Feel free to continue that belief.
    How about this for some suggestions that could help in regards to health care:

    • Let insurance companies compete across state lines by reducing the restrictions each state puts on those policies.

    • Cut out benefits of any kind to illegal aliens currently in our country. Ship them home to get care in their own country.

    • Tort reform.

    The proposed bill(s) that have bantered about in Congress are nothing but bloated money grab – money we don’t have and will not with the continued spending. Does it not bother you that we are continuing to devalue our currency by printing more money to pay for all these agenda items? Guess not.

    You asked why wait. We did hire Obama to do something so he better get on to it. I have a lot of confidence that Obama is steering the ship of state in the right direction. You think it’s all going socialist because you listen to Glenn Beck, but we can have a Glenn Beck thinks nonsense discussion another time. He uses idiotic diatribe to prove green is yellow and most people passively agree.

    Actually, I asked why are we pushing things so fast.
    That feeling has no bearing on me listening to Glenn Beck (which I do about once every two months) or you watching Keith Olbermann. I do think we are pushing towards socialism and you know very well that my thoughts on this go back many many years. I think we have been pushing the socialist agenda since the days of FDR – it’s just now being pushed at breakneck speed.

    Obama is just the current office holder. Even the more conservative admins have refused to cut very few social programs and spending. We can’t afford to prop up everyone and nor should we aspire to that end. Personal responsibility is needed and I see a vast lack of this idea in our society.

    I am unwilling to see another 44,000 people die in America, people with insurance who were dropped or denied, just so we can wait for the Republican plan that will never ever come. Wait means death.

    Republicans have proposed ideas, but what would be the real use to any proposals. With a super majority in Congress, the Democrats should be able to pass anything they want. People who need care, get care. When Uncle Sam has an hand in these things, 44,000 will be a pipe dream, although I have no idea where that figure came from. Say hello to Death Panels!

    About gay marriage. All of the other choices you mentioned do not provide full and complete rights under Federal and most state laws. A gay partner cannot be in the emergency room because they aren’t married. The list of discrimination due to lack of a marriage certificate is long, very long. It includes social security, health care, child custody, etc…

    As we have argued before, pass a comprehensive law to make these changes in a civil union basis. When put to a vote, no state will approve of Gay Marriage. The proponents have to resort to the courts to either get what they want or to subvert the voters. Have you ever asked why the gay marriage proponents are pushing the “marriage” thing so hard? If they really wanted these benefits they would push to change the civil union laws. Personally, I don’t have a problem with same-sex partner benefits, power of attorney, etc., even though I’m not a proponent of Gay Marriage.

  7. The ideas that Republicans have proposed regarding health insurance reform (the ones you mentioned: tort reform, competition, etc.. ) do not insure people or resolve any of the abuses. That’s why Republican ideas have not been embraced.

    You have to be quite a bit math challenged to not see that this is so. It’s just a smoke screen to pretend that they have an alternative. The entire R idea is just so DOA. Smoke and mirrors.

    Insurance company abuses will some day affect you personally unless you and your family happen to be lucky enough to not get sick until you get to become 65. If you get cancer when you are 50 caps and being dropped are real risks. R’s need to be on the side of ordinary Americans.

    There are no death panels. You are even more radicalized than I thought.

    A lot of conservatives rest heavily on an arbitrary and completely made up “principle.” One such principle is that businesses can fix everything, and that governments can’t.

    I can name countless of cases where government has to step in and fix problems created by business. Pollution is just one of the many solutions brought to you by businesses in search fro profits. They pass on the cost of cleanup to everyone, whether they buy their products or not. It becomes an enforcement and cleanup issue. Government has to hire people to clean up.

    The exact same thing happens with health insurance. People are dropped, not covered, etc.. Everyone is left with a problem of handling this problem.

    We need to be much less polarized and much more willing to understand each others point of view. Instead it has become a lot of name calling, making fun of the other side (Sen Smiley), etc…

    Radio talk heads would lose their jobs if they couldn’t radicalize you.

    • The ideas that Republicans have proposed regarding health insurance reform (the ones you mentioned: tort reform, competition, etc.. ) do not insure people or resolve any of the abuses. That’s why Republican ideas have not been embraced.

      And the ideas proposed by the government will not solve problems but create additional ones with more bureaucracy.

      You have to be quite a bit math challenged to not see that this is so. It’s just a smoke screen to pretend that they have an alternative. The entire R idea is just so DOA. Smoke and mirrors.

      The whole idea of government having a better solution is the real smoke and mirrors.

      Insurance company abuses will some day affect you personally unless you and your family happen to be lucky enough to not get sick until you get to become 65. If you get cancer when you are 50 caps and being dropped are real risks. R’s need to be on the side of ordinary Americans.

      Maybe true, maybe not. Insurance companies insure on risk. They are in business to make money. If you want to insure on this risk, great. Eliminate the barriers of competing across state lines and the bureaucracy that comes with it and we’ll see what happens to insurance cost. I’ll be there is tremendous money to be made by a company that specializes in higher risk patients or those with preexisting conditions. We’ll probably never know.

      There are no death panels. You are even more radicalized than I thought.

      Thanks me, radical Rob. What is the alternative? There will be rationing, there is no other end to the current scenario. People will make decisions on health care of individuals much like the do in countries with socialized systems (Canada, Great Britain, etc.) OK, call it a health panel deciding proper health care. Whatever floats your boat Mikey.

      Here’s a quote from an article at the Cato Inst: Dr. Emmanuel’s varied and murky remarks about using panels of experts (like himself) to ration health care are less clear or less candid than those of another bioethicist, Peter Singer of Princeton. Singer’s article, “Why We Must Ration Health Care,” was a cover feature in The New York Times Magazine on July 15 — shortly before Palin took the opposing side of this issue. http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/12/22/death-panels-sarah-palin-was-right/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Cato-at-liberty+%28Cato+at+Liberty%29&utm_content=Twitter

      A lot of conservatives rest heavily on an arbitrary and completely made up “principle.” One such principle is that businesses can fix everything, and that governments can’t.

      Not true, but total government involvement is not the answer either. The government is so large and obtrusive that it impedes growth in almost every sector. The government is charged with our national security, infrastructure and governing (i.e. spending the tax money wisely) – where did all this other stuff come from? How much of our national treasury has been given up in payoffs to Senators for their Health Care vote (i.e. Nelson, Landreux, etc.)? We as a country feel “entitled” to so many things. It will be our downfall.

      I can name countless of cases where government has to step in and fix problems created by business. Pollution is just one of the many solutions brought to you by businesses in search fro profits. They pass on the cost of cleanup to everyone, whether they buy their products or not. It becomes an enforcement and cleanup issue. Government has to hire people to clean up.

      Yes, there are these problems that occur within any society, but I could name countless areas where government over extends itself. I’m fine with enforcing regulation but many problems in this area occurred years ago before we knew what we knew. Others occurred because of unscrupulous companies. The damage the government imposes on the US is much more destructive than any private company.

      The exact same thing happens with health insurance. People are dropped, not covered, etc.. Everyone is left with a problem of handling this problem.

      So fix that specific problem. We’ve argued before about the real numbers of uninsured and I’m not going to rehash that discussion. Again, competition can fix many problems.

      We need to be much less polarized and much more willing to understand each others point of view. Instead it has become a lot of name calling, making fun of the other side (Sen Smiley), etc…

      Maybe, but it swings both ways. You need your own website to “fix” this injustice.

      Radio talk heads would lose their jobs if they couldn’t radicalize you.

      Right. Keep believing that Mike. Meanwhile, the country becomes more conservative and will hopefully clean house in 2010. Heck, I’m for cleaning everyone out and starting over.

  8. A consistent message in this reply is that THERE IS NO GOVT PLAN being passed by congress. That may be have been a plan proposed by a legislator back in March, but it is certainly not the reforms passed by the House and Senate.

    The House and Senate plans require everyone to buy insurance, allow people to purchase insurance through competitive exchanges (that do not include a government program), and stops insurance company abuses.

    Throughout your reply you are arguing that the government will run health care. They won’t. I challenge you to find an instance of a government run program anywhere in the bill.

    I can believe that radio talking heads are deep into discussion of government run health programs. There are no such programs.

    You may feel informed because you listen to these radio talking heads. They are lying to you. Plain and simple. They haven’t taken the bill in congress and presented it to you in any informed and cogent way.

    Their missing is to keep you radicalized, keep you fighting against something that doesn’t exist, because if you actually knew what was in the bill, you might actually come to believe that it is best for you and your family.

    Your entire post is a rant on a govt plan. It doesn’t exist. Never has. The only way I can understand this is that the programs you are listening to are misinforming you.

    I posted a bit about how you and your family may actually lose your coverage if you get seriously sick. You addressed some theory of insurance and ignored the risk. Let me restate it for you:

    I said: Insurance company abuses will some day affect you personally.

    You said: Maybe true, maybe not.

    Insurance company abuses affects 50% of all premiums that exceed their risk models. Under the current plan, you can pay to the insurance company for 20-30 years and at the end you have a 50% chance of getting your bills paid, if you hit a serious medical condition.

    Contract law, and common sense, says that the exact terms of the contract should be spelled out when you buy. You choose the risk level you want. They offer you a product at that risk, at their prices.

    Contract law, and common sense, does not say take your chances and they get to decide if they will comply.

    Your answer was a description of some alien form of crap shoot economics. You must have completely misunderstood the premise of the statement, or you may not be capable of bringing yourself to accept insurance abuses.

    You can thank Obama and democrats for finally putting an end to these abuses. (You won’t cause you would rather laugh at a cartoon of Sen McCaskill instead of look at real facts).


    There are no death panels. You are even more radicalized than I thought.

    No one wants an America where people die because they can’t afford insurance or we can’t provide them with health care. Any of these two scenarios is what people would call “death panels” a term brought to you originally by the LaRouche camp.

    If you are denied care by an insurance company, as noted above under abuses, than that would be denial of critical care and constitutes a form rationed care. It exists today and will terminate, hopefully immediately, when the new legislation is passed.

    Under the plan to be soon passed into law, all decisions about care are spelled out when you buy insurance. There are no hidden denials of care clauses.

    The plan is not a Canadian style plan so there is no need to discuss Canadian plans at all.


    And the ideas proposed by the government will not solve problems but create additional ones with more bureaucracy.

    There is no single payer, no government insurance plan, no new bureaucracy – what are you talking about?


    The radicalization of Rob

    I have every confidence that you are more interested in the truth than in being led down some primrose path. The truth happens to be that the plans being passed by congress creates competition and stops abuses. It is not a gov’t run health care.

    Right wing talking heads won’t keep their listeners in the short term if all they did was discuss how great the plans in Congress are. They would rather discuss hypothetical ideas like the gov’t take over of health care.

    But their talk is not about the current bill in congress. The current bill is centrist. It fixes problems without being govt run.

    So now they have you voting against your own best interests. They have you believing that the current bill is about govt takeover. They keep the doom and gloom talk going because it keeps you in the Republican fold.

    If you actually opened you eyes you would see what is in the bill and how it protects you and your family.

    Now you have to ask yourself a question: are radio talk heads working for your best interest, or are they just manipulating you?

    And they are clearly manipulating you if they haven’t discussed the merits of the bill being passed in congress.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: