Reader billxi writes in approvingly of the story of US Reps Jim McGovern and Richard Neal getting shouted down by teabagging thugs in Worcester.
WORCESTER — U.S. Reps. James P. McGovern and Richard E. Neal were heckled and booed after trying to rally support today for President Barack Obama's plan for a comprehensive national health insurance program.
The two Worcester-area Democratic lawmakers were shouted down several times by people attending a packed “town hall” meeting at the University of Massachusetts Medical School.
UMass officials threatened several times to end the gathering because of the raucous behavior, which occurred despite a heavy police presence.
At one point, Mr. McGovern was likened by an attendee to Josef Mengele, the Nazi officer who performed experiments on concentration camp survivors.
Oh really? A generally hostile crowd, that just happened to show up? The Telegram's writer Bronislaus Kush, in line with most media coverage of teabagging, is innocent of any knowledge that 1. this is being orchestrated by conservative groups, and the 2. the stated strategy is that of maximum disrespect, maximum disruption.
Say, Mr. Kush — why not just let the teabaggers write the story for you? They couldn't have done any better.
You know, one would hope that this kind of tactic would backfire. Shouting down a speaker is a low, dishonest, un-democratic tactic. But we should know better — history is replete with examples of thuggery winning the day.
Stand tall, Congressmen. There's just got to be a better, stronger response than to let the thugs get away with it. They cannot win an honest argument; they cannot win in a civil discussion. So they're taking it out of bounds. But they will not bully us out of health care reform. That's what to take away from this.
UPDATE: It gets weirder, but also kind of less weird at the same time, if you know what I mean … Josh Marshall reports that the LaRouchies were also involved in the disruption. So the whole thing got a lot less Worcester and a lot more Harvard Square — where the LaRouchites are irritating, but rather consistent in their everyday high-nuttiness.
Teabaggers, LaRouchites … it's really a match made in heaven. I fully expect now to see the teabaggers using those signs that all eerily have the same writing …
Discuss
161 Comments . Comments are closed.Mengele?
Unbelievable. They are deliberately using unanswerable rhetoric.
I was really hoping
the inappropriate term "teabagging" would discontinue being endorsed by the likes of the editors.
Maybe it's high time to start referring to liberal activists as snowballers?
Call us snowballers when we have snowball parties.
You're snowballing
because you take my money and give it to someone else...catch me?
Nope, makes no sense at all
Oy.
Don't quite your day job.
Discontinue??
Why? It is hilarious, all the moreso because entirely self-inflicted.
I hereby encourage expanded use of the term "teabagging" for bad behavior like that described in Charley's post. :D
Seems more than just the left is now reading
Alinsky's Rules for Radicals were you denouncing code pink when they used similar tactics?
Wow that's interesting, kind of like what Alinsky references in his third rule.
These are tactics honed and perfected by the left over the last 38 years. Pardon me if I don't shed a tear if they are used against the left. None of those people in the room were paid Charley. You know it and I know it. Which is a lot different than the paid canvassers by lefty organizations this summer to drum up support for HealthCare reform.
People are angry Charlie angry.
George Soros is funding your side. Others are organizing the conservative side.
Thugs, bullies, and murderers
No need to shed tears. Right-wing scum are revealing themselves for the ignorant thugs they have always been. Stunts like this help mainstream America see very clearly who the rightwing really are.
Extremists have driven the GOP into oblivion. Now that they have been thoroughly whupped at the polls, they resort to violence and threats of violence (as in the murder of Dr. Tiller), thuggery, and boorish hooliganism. All that preaching about self-responsibility and "accountability" -- and none to be seen, either in the GOP leadership or their minions.
Celebrating anger? That sword cuts both ways. A whole lot of people are angry at the way rich old white men are destroying entire neighborhoods and cultures. A whole lot of latinos and women are angry at rich old white men whining about Ms. Sotomayor.
Walk proud, EaBoClipper. You've chosen a fine group to defend.
I see you've studied alinsky
Particularly rule number 11
where did he $quot;identify a responsible individual$quot;?
He did rightly call you out for defending the indefensible, but that's nowhere near the same thing.
I hate the word $quot;latino$quot;
nothing is more innaccurate than modern day hispanic people calling themselves the name of a proto-roman italian tribe.
Neither here nor there, but man.
So
Forms label me as "Caucasian," and I imagine it's been millenia since my ancestors were anywhere near Armenia.
But do you self-identify as Caucasian?
I don't.
Not really
But the same forms that say "Latino" typically say "Caucasian"
Untidiness
Language, alas, does not develop logically. One of the big engines of word and language development is metonymy.
Another, less charitable word for metonymy might be inaccuracy.
I've heard that the term was coined
Under Napoleon III while he was trying to develop a relationship with south america by showing a bond they have in common with France (latin derivation) and then contrasting it with the Americans and English (germanic).
Like the new G.O.P. spokesperson Orley Taitz
How you're going to get Charlie Baker elected when he is running on a ticket with people who compare Jim McGovern to Josef Mengele and think the Birthers have a reasonable point is beyond me. Always nice to see you over here reiterating the talking points of the moment though, EaBo. I'm glad it beats listening to the echoes at RMG, :-)
if you've been to RMG lately
you know we as editors think birthers are batshit crazy. The mengele refernce is out there, but how is it different than calling George Bush Hitler?
Those are the two of the first three of 1,640,000 images of George Bush as Hitler on google images.
Or how about this lovely Sheppard Fairy depiction of George Bush as a satanist vampire? Which was a cover or the LA Weekly. He was so roundly derided that he got his own show at the ICA and he was responsible for the Obama campaigns iconography
so spare me the fauxrage.
furthermore
Real thuggery is what union members do at debates. Take 2 x 4's and sytematically push young college girls into oncoming traffic on Congress Street in Boston. That's thuggery. Booing and hissing is not thuggery. Nobody got physically assualted. Booing and hissing are speech and as such protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution.
This is your example of free speech?
As to your earlier point, the booing and hissing is intended to disrupt free speech...thuggery.
EaBo
You strike me as an honest man.
But I think the equivalency argument falls short. Bush was president, and he had started a war on false pretenses. That provokes a reaction.
Jim McGovern and Richard Neal are Congressmen, and they were there to hear from constituents. Already, we're talking about a different scale of action.
I was thinking about this yesterday, because, on Blue Hampshire, I was complaining about the calls for us to attend these meetings and scream for reform. Didn't we WIN the election?
But this changed my mind. This is WAY over the top. Did we call Bush dumb and "misunderestimate" him? Yep. Did we call Cheney Darth Vader? What should we call a guy who authorized torture and may have had an assassination squad under his control? Darth Vader, for all his faults, is a fictional character in a universally beloved movie who finds redemption in the end. Mengele is one of the closest things to an inhuman monster the human race has ever produced -- and he was REAL.
That's beyond the pale. And I hate the trap it creates, where we help it by even mentioning it, but that's the breaks, we have to call foul on that.
$quot;assassination squad under his control?$quot;
Tin foil hat alert.
Seymour Hersh
Name an important national security story that Hersh has been wrong on. Name one.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
Go to DKos. It won't burn.
Maybe you should look at this and then call Chairman Steele.
Umm, GOP? You got a second? I want to show you something.
Oops, I forgot. Do they even listen to MA GOPers? You guys, for the most part, are slightly more progressive than Arlen Specter, right?
Well, at least when running for Governor and not for Prez. Do you miss "Hisself?"
Retrieving the ugly
Looks like the nutties are pulling down the photographic evidence.
Alinksy wrote that in 1971! That's 38 years ago.
I'm willing to bet 99.999% of the folks on here have never heard of him. I know I hadn't. Rules for Revolutionaries, yes. Rules for Radicals, no.
Do you have anything to show that any progressive group makes use of his rules? Charley posted direct links to his connections.
It reminds me of you folks trotting out the fictional "Gay Agenda" based on an equally obscure memo.
The Democratic National Committee under Barack Obama
And you don't even have to take my word for it. You can take Saul Alinsky's son L. David's as expressed in a letter to the Editor in the Boston Globe
Greater Boston Interfaith Organization
A terrific, progressive group, is one of the Alinsky-founded Coalition of Industrial Areas. http://www.industrialareasfoun...
I really don't get the demonization of Alinsky on the right, except that he identified himself as "radical" -- i.e. poor people should have some control over their own destiny -- and that his name sounds vaguely, you know, Eastern-European and commie.
Eabo's general claim is that what's good for the goose is good for the gander, as far as Alinsky-style techniques are concerned. That is certainly true. However, my experience with GBIO is that those meetings or "actions" are very civil, very well-organized, very tough but respectful. They are indeed a show of power -- no apologies for that -- but not predicated on shouting people down or threatening them.
I recommend everyone -- left and right -- read Reveille for Radicals. It's a good, easy read, very practical, and frankly not very radical.
http://www.amazon.com/Reveille...
Industrial Areas Foundation
sorry, IAF, not the other thing.
Alinsky is incredibly important
And Rule for Radicals is a must read.
In addition to the Industrial Areas Foundation whose philosophy was the basis of much of the grassroots organizing in the 1960's; and which won the first living wage ordinance in Baltimore in 1994 and New York City (and was the basis for the ongoing fights for state wide Big Box wages laws and the County wide fight in LA); ACORN's community organizing strategy as well as many labor union community campaigns (especially SEIU's Justice for Janitors or the Home Care organizing campaigns) all rely heavily on Alinsky.
He was also one of the first to call for corporate shareholders to take human rights fights to shareholder meetings. He's a GIANT when it comes to progressive politics and anyone who hasn't heard of him should go get Rules for Radicals today.
People are hopeful!!
They won the election! Teabaggers and birthers are ANGRY. They are convinced their loss was due to not being loud and crazy enough.
NEWS FLASH: Palin was born in the USSR - there's proof
Yeah, yeah
Obama was bon in the Pillipine jungles!
*barf*
If there's any group worse than the birthers and teabaggers, it's the laroushites. The teabaggers and birthers are an angry mob; the laroush people are a bizarre cult.
Question for Charley
"orchestrated by conservative groups"
What's your view overall of hearings or quasi-hearings where dissent is organized and speakers are booed? (Minus the Mengele references).
I.e., don't we usually have sort of an unappealing choice, either no hearing or a performance art type hearing where the audience is bussed in?
Neither comes close to the intent of reasonable discourse.
I was pondering this myself
There have been a couple of examples of particularly loathsome anti-gay speakers being shouted down.
For example, a group at Smith disrupted a College Republican sponsored speech by Ryan Sorba, author of the "Born Gay Hoax." They basically entered the room and drowned him out. I had mixed feelings about it at the time. The guys stated purpose in life is to recriminalize homosexuality. He also appears to be out looking for confrontation.
The protest still me as thuggish. Frankly, the more people here what this guy has to say, the less credible he and the groups hosting him appear.
That said, the tactics in Worcester were very different. Deliberately infiltrating the crowd with the sole intent of subverting discussion is pretty heinous.
Whoa whoa whoa
Liberals NEVER act like teabaggers! Never ever ever ever ever!
Note: This video does not mean I endorse Ann Coulter or her views, I actually think she kinda sucks.
So funny.
Imagine the outrage about the "thuggery" of such an incident if it was a "liberal" speaker being pie'd or shouted down!!! Here is a word I use on this site often... Hypocrites!!!
did you actually read my post?
I explicitly called out a "shouting down" as thuggery. It's still very different from the teabaggers' tactics.
And...
Don't be wishy-washy. It is either right or wrong to shout-down a speaker, regardless of their ideology or the subject. Whether it is Gay rights, Abortion or politics... people have a right to speak. I agree with your remark about letting the person speak (and I'd add answer questions) will give the audience the ability to believe or dismiss the speaker. But also, don't advertise a "Town Meeting" when it is a speech.
And yes I read all your postings whether I agree or not( and I usually give you a high rating... usually).
It's wrong to shout people down
Let them talk, then disagree with them.
I agree that shouting speakers down is improper behavior no matter who does it.
which is what I said....
Shouting down is wrong. The difference is between individuals acting out and a an organized faux grass roots protest.
And of course the difference being decided by the left with zero proof other than...
it be obvious.
Agree that it's wrong to shout down
But yes, these are town meetings in the sense that they are interactive, though the host politician may open the proceedings with a prepared statement.
There's a big difference
between a few individuals acting on their own, and a group of people encouraged by an organized effort.
There are goons, fools, and buffoons of all political stripes. That's to be expected, and to be discouraged.
This is different though. This is widespread, organized, and actively encouraged by assorted local GOPs and conservative organizations. It deserves extra scorn because not only do the goons, fools, and buffoons merit scorn, but the act of organizing this approach and encouraging it deserves an extra serving of disdain.
Thank you
I was looking for this clip. Plus reference to all the other conservative speakers that have been harassed, booed, pied, or disinvited.
That's for highlighting that ...
While I don't agree with shouting down speakers, it is important to highlight that you are comparing a Representative discussing policy decisions and a fringe speaker like they are somehow similar. Interesting ....
I might have missed something but is there $quot;proof$quot;...
that the people asking questions had a "sole intent of subverting discussion"? Was there an investigation? How do we know it wasn't as simple as people with a bunch of questions being "SILENCED" and not being happy about it? If they are simply going to repeat the left-wing talking points then have a press conference but if you are going to have a "town meeting" then let people ask questions. Sounds like your bias is getting the best of you.
Don't play the fool.
2. They are shouting over the speaker, refusing to allow him to answer or to allow the others in the room to hear the answer.
To be sure, not everybody who is against this health care proposal in the room is part of "they"... but many were.
Ok, so every time and every place a Congressman or a Senator
tries to speak about the Healthcare reform and gets shouted-down or people complain... they are plants from the right?? Does that mean if they get a warm reception and people agree, then the crowd is "plants from the left"?
I don't agree with people shouting-down a speaker but please don't equate anyone protesting as being a plant. That's beyond playing a fool.
Ryan Sorba
Spoke at Framingham State last year. The GLBT group wanted to disrupt the presentation. They were quite outraged about someone refusing to wholeheartedly kiss gay bummy. The presentation went on as planned. It was the best attended event at Framingham State I had ever seen. In the end, even I could see Mr. Sorba's stretching of facts(?). I guess freedom speech only applies when you are agreeing with the speaker. Who better be a democrat.
wholeheartedly kiss gay bummy?
Mr. Sorba wants to criminalize homosexuality. Of course gay groups were outraged.
The sad thing is you seem to have been unable to make the connection between Mr. Sorba's obvious distortions and your own attitudes towards gays.
Outed
Well, congrats. You're a homophobe and a bigot, and you're apparently proud of it. "gay bummy" indeed.
Such a powerful diagnosis from a short humorous euphemism.
You should charge people by the hour Charley. If he said refusing to wholeheartedly kiss gay bummy appease the gay protestors" would he have been safe??? If one tells (or hears and laughs at) a gay (about a straight person), racial (white people), ethnic (polish), political (Republican)... joke are they also labeled homophobe, bigot, racist, xenophobic... Is Obama a bigot for his joke about comparing his horrendous bowling to "like the Special Olympics or something." Don't be so judgmental for someone using language you might not use.
PS Don't the BMG Rules of the road prohibit name calling (or do you get a pass if it's a lefty calling a righty names)?
More trolling
Some of us are able to discern the difference between "African American" and "Nigger", or analogously, between "appease gay protesters" and "kiss gay bummy".
You would have us believe are not.
here, here
The other point is one joke does not necessarily make a bigot. In stark contrast, billxi and johnd have a long history of such comments. No one is judging them in a vacuum.
One joke does not make a bigot.
As I said Obama's joke about the "special Olympics" never placed him as a bigot (at least with this crowd). Although, you know when people make a joke like he did, it wasn't the first time. That's ok, show he's normal. Although Kramer (Michael Anthony Richards) had NO history of being a racist but he had one outburst and will forever be remembered by the racist rant. Michael Jackson however paid $15 million of hush money to drop "oral copulation with a minor" charges as well as many others but we remember him as a great singer, complete with a moment of silence in the US House... Funny how those things work.
Nice try...
To the normal person (not you Tom), they would see quite a difference between a racial slur for black people (which is only acceptably used by black people) and a cute euphemism. But since it involved Gay people it is totally nuclear and we can't go there. I would have responded sooner but neighbor called me a "mick" so I had to bring a defamation lawsuit against him and then my best friend who is Polish beat the shit out of me for telling him a Polish joke (and then I had to explain it to him). Some people are just way too uptight about some things.
The impossibility of winning
Comments identifying trolling will often attract trollish responses.
Silence turns out to be the best cure. In the face of the usual provocations (unfair accusations, point-missing, gloating, appeals to rules real or imagined, etc.), silence can be hard but it works.
Then by all means BE SILENT KBusch.
I have not asked for YOU to respond to anything I write. In fact, if you see my ID please ignore it and don't even read it. You of course are free to do what you want but I would rprefer that you "pass" with your comments. Certainly a "troll" like me deserves no interest from the likes of KBusch (and Tonto).
You have never exhibited even the slightest modicum of chance that you possessed an ability to change your opinion so dialogue is "impossible" and a waste. So... enjoy your stubbornly bigoted positions, your politics and your life. I'll try to do the same.
.........
. . . .
Speaking of Bigot
Evidently you are too! You don't like disabled people. Therefore, join my bigot club. Even I in my so-called bigotry admitted mr. Sorba was full of excrement. You don't like Dan Grabauskas, you're homophobic too. Of course the democratic umbrella is all encompassing, who else are you biased against? Sorry Charley.
I can't speak for Charley...
...but disliking the bigoted words of one disabled person doesn't mean one dislikes disabled people. It doesn't even mean one dislikes you. Same with Dan Grabauskus (although in that case people were specifically criticizing about the Registry and T, not him).
You also never said Mr. Sorba is "full of excrement." I'm glad to hear you say that now. It still doesn't make your own postings about gay people less offensive.
Another Bigot!
I politely said "Mr. Sorba's stretching of the fact9s)?" Join my bigot club. We know you don't like me. You're a bigot too. Can we just end the bigot labelling? I don't like labelling people.
this may help
From Merriam-Webster
Disliking your crass behavior here is not bigotry.
Now, what were you saying about gay people and democrats, again?
$quot;You don't like disabled people.$quot;
Drawing conclusions like this is why I find you 99.9% dismissible and it took a considered effort of gaining and posting photographic evidence before I could get on board with one of your claims. Had you been a more reasonable poster in general, extra evidentiary efforts might not have been required to take you at your word.
Ok, then...
These tactics worked out great at the McCain/Palin rallies. Nice to see the opponents of reform marginalizing themselves so thoroughly.
This is what the recess wrought ...
This is the sole reason why Republicans sought the recess and the blue dogs obliged. "We need to read the bill" baloney JohnD was pushing last week. John this BS is the only reason they wanted the delay.
I'm sorry. So we were suppose to read the bill and then NOT QUESTION anything.
The more people know about this the more they DON'T LIKE IT!!! This will continue and by the end of the month I believe the American public (and not some biased lying poll number) will get their points across to their elected officials. The liberal MA delegation will try hard to ignore their constituents and vote however they want but in more balanced states, that will have consequences in Nov 2010.
Know of what?
I don't know one word of the bill. All I've heard is Republican hysteria and noise, plus an occasional defense by the president. And I do think the Democratic Party dessrves some blame for that.
Do you support it?
I support changing the current system
And I'm hoping my party fixes it with the greatest good and the least harm.
As to what specifics to hope for, I like the idea of a public option. I am not holding my breath on it.
I also support changing the current system...
but I don't trust your party to change it the way I want.
They read the bill?
The blue dogs gave these nuts a month for this BS. Please don't insult everyone's intelligence by your comments.
Intelligence is exactly what I'm looking for.
Do you think they should have voted for it without reading (lie the Stimulus Bill)? Are you ready to support 100% of the reform (any hidden bonuses in their... better check).
I don't support what these people are doing ...
when out elected officials are doing town hall sessions to answer legitimate questions from voters. I guess that has no meaning to you. Your comment is completely worthless.
You are acting like a zombie believing everything you WANT to believe
and simply ignoring what you dislike, truth aside. Go away.
public vs. polls
Newsflash, polls are how one measures public opinion, so you'll need to show me the exact question and explain why its biased. Being a polisci major who was required to take polling classes I trust the science behind polling as long as it is done correctly and in good faith.
I can't find a copy of it
Is it available publicly?
The bill and the official summary
Here is the full 1,018 page house bill: http://edlabor.house.gov/docum...
Here is the committee's official summary (35 pages): http://www.stark.house.gov/ima...
The bill and the official summary
Thank you
Teabaggers?
Oh, I get it. You're making a sex joke.
:-)
Two Sides to Every Story
There are always two sides to every story. It is my understanding that people were told to not videotape. My videographer got there late and did not hear this and thought he was taping but didn't. UMass has a tape, will they make it available? Then we can all talk like we were there.
Note this came from RMG so as the owner, I'm posting the whole comment.
As opposed to Bush administration events, where protesters were forcibly ejected?
Assuming they were allowed in in the first place.
And in some cases
allowed in, then ejected because they'd arrived in a car with a non-Republican-approved bumper sticker on it.
This person doesn't want to follow the rules
Which seem to have been very clearly stated: questions on note cards, and no cameras. Instead, they think for some reason best known to themselves that they have the right to stand up and shout out whatever "real" question they want to whenever they want.
What rubbish.
If 1stRichard is so unsatisfied with his representatives, he should run for office himself. Maybe he will win. Then he can organize whatever meetings he wants.
In the meantime, he needs to accept a basic principle that most people learn in nursery school: groups have rules, and everyone needs to follow them or no one gets any juice.
Heh no cameras
Ya wouldn't want documentation. I have a call into the public affairs office of UMass Worcester. They taped. I want the DVD to make it public. I'm still waiting for my "I'll call you back in a couple minutes" It's been an hour.
Index cards? Oldest trick in the books
The only cards read are the ones the speakers have prepared.
In REAL town meetings, there's a microphone, and folks line up to ask their questions.
None of this "index card" bullshit.
You know this holds universally
because ...
When people aren't willing to line up to ask their questions
and instead shout over the speaker with their own questions, then index cards become the avenue to maintain order.
It does, however,
open organizers up to suspicions that they are picking and choosing questions that will not make the host politician uncomfortable. I personally am not as quick to assume sinister motives, but I do understand the concern. A better way might be to limit each questioner to 30 seconds so he might preface the question slightly or make a brief comment, but not be allowed to make a speech. I've seen that work effectively in some fora.
I think it's funny
that you think this expresses a "second side" to the story.
From here, it reflects the faux-aggrieved wininess that afflicts the right--part and parcel of the victim mentality expressed and exploited by such leading lights as Sarah Palin and those people who insist that Barack Obama was not born in Hawaii.
In a nutshell: Denise and Michell put their best chips on their shoulders, went to a meeting, tried to hijack it, and failed--AND this proves "we are all doomed."
This doesn't contradict a thing Charley said--it corroborates it.
Gripes about how some people said mean things about Bush and Cheney of of the same pathology.
Really, this is a very revealing thing to post.
Isn't this the American way?
Don't liberals fight for the right to speak? This isn't an isolated incident as House members and Senators are getting beat up all across the country. THAT was why Obama and company wanted the August vote, they feared the American people would unleash their fury when they read the bill.
I hope this bill AND EVERY MAJOR BILL does get delayed so Congress can read them completely and then they can discuss them with their constituents. Is that wrong? Don't we have the right to get our opinions to our elected officials?
Remember all these "thuggery" charges when the next Republican gets heckled by students or union workers which has been going on and supported by Democrats for the last 8 years.
Change is coming!!!!! And so is a middle class tax hike!
Right to speak, yes
Right to be rude, not so much.
These people do NOT reflect the last election results or more recent polls. They are a vocal minority responding to coordination tactics. Nothing wrong with organizating per se, but it is wrong in this case to claim that just because members are getting backlash all over the country that such back lash is at all representative.
Shoe, meet other foot
One need only take a trip down memory lane to see David singing the praises of such tactics and Charley enumerating others deserving of such treatment. Source
I followed the link to the Telegram article and saw a photo of a Congressman Neal speaking in front of a seated, quiet audience. And what does the Congressman McGovern have to say about this "thuggery":
Get a grip.
The House Bill eliminates my ability to have access to private health insurance. It begins on p. 16, where "grandfathered" insurance companies are banned from enrolling new members.
That is thuggery.
That is partially true
I've been reading the bill. What the clause on page 16 does is grandfather in your current individual coverage if you are not part of a group plan. However it makes it illegal for that particular plan to accept new enrollees. Which of course will increase the costs for that plan. You are however able to get a supposedly "better" government sanctioned plan if your current plan is too costly.
This argument can cut both ways. Yes it doesn't outlaw private insurance, but it does however force you to choose an "approved" private insurer. And of course those private insurers will have to "compete" with the public plan. That's not competition.
We on the right need to be very careful about how we frame what is in the bill, else we can be called on it. I too thought page 16 said what you've inferred. It doesn't say it exactly but leaves the impression. That's the problem with legislation today it is way to complicated for the lay person to understand.
If you'd like to listen, I am reading the entire bill into audio and posting it online. You can listen at http://www.tinyurl.com/hr3200a...
why would posting audio of the bill make it more understandable?
From reading RMG I do gather literacy is a huge problem in your community, but I don't think listening to you read the bill will help with that.
Is there a summary yet (unbiased) of the bill?
1,000+ pages is just too much reading for most people... combined with twisted wording to hide provisions they don't want us to know about.
I'd also like some confirmation on something Karl Rove said on my favorite NEWS channel FOX...
He said of the 45 million uncovered people in the US...
20% are illegals 30% could enroll in Medicare right now. 30% of people without healthcare make over $50K/year and chose NOT to pay for it.
I'd like to know how many people really need healthcare (that can't get Medicare, that are US citizens, that can afford it but don't buy it...).
Official Summary
Here is the official committee summary: http://www.stark.house.gov/ima...
In my request I said UNBIASED
this is from the Democratically controlled Committees on Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, and Education and Labor July 14, 2009
Well. yes
The American people elected a Democratic majority therefore their report is the committee report. You're welcome to find the minority report if such exists. Also I suggested you check out the website about healthcare myths posted on the BMG front page before you resort to Fox. (That goes for a few others on this thread as well.)
The Dem one gets thrown out.
Even you must believe that they can't present this bill in an unbiased way. As for FOX, they will find issues which need to be confirmed and I'm good with that. I asked for an unbiased summary since I believe there is shit buried. News is coming out daily so the summary will be here soon. Public opinion on the bill is crashing. The public option is DEAD!!!
Present some evidence, please
You "believe" things are buried but don't back it up. You say public opinion is crashing, but that's contrary to polls I've seen. Are you even certain the summary is a majority report only and not a collective work of the committee? I wouldn't necessarily assume that. Check out CBO for a "just the facts" or the ranking member's website for a dissenting view.
$quot;those private insurers will have to $quot;compete$quot; with the public plan. That's not competition.$quot;
It's not? Why? This is what I fundamentally don't get about this debate. Righties think that government sucks and can't do anything right. If that's true, presumably the "public option" will suck, and no one will buy it. Problem solved, right? Private insurers win in the marketplace, just like righties think they should.
Let the market sort it out. Isn't that what you guys want?
The Government is not in the
"market". Private industry is in the "market". That's what you lefties will never get. The system through regulation will be gamed so that the public option is the "cheaper" option even though it is supported by higher taxes. Then one by one private insurers will fold leaving us with no option but the public one. It's what Barney Frank has said is his goal, it is what Obama has said is his goal. It is what the left is built upon. Incrementalism.
The current private system doesn't work
It is bankrupting the country. Just try running a small business -- or a big one -- that has to compete with foreign companies that don't have to pay an extra $500-1,000 per employee per month. The whole country is being hurt to support the profits of health insurers.
Not to mention the millions of people who get access to very substandard care, if any, because they don't have insurance, and the millions more who are bankrupted every year.
If the private system worked, your criticisms would have some weight. Since it doesn't, and since the systems in other countries are so much better -- which is beyond dispute if you have ever lived abroad ... Singapore, England, France: they make the U.S. look like a third-world country in many respects -- opponents of health care reform just look blinded by ideology and unable to accept reality.
Actually McGovern Said on WTAG last night
That the current system does work and it is the best in the world.
It is being bankrupted by government regulation, unfunded medicare mandates, and people not knowing what they really pay. When the private sector like CVS tries to put in minute clinics to take the burden off of emergency rooms. People on the left scream.
True reform would entail: Tort Reform, Medical Savings Accounts, and catastrophic mandatory insurance that kicks in after say $3000 per year in cost." That would be cheaper than the current system. The two years I had no medical insurance but had catastrophic insurance had a cost of $less than $1250 per year. That included two trips to an orthopaedic doctor, in the two year period. Government overregulation of health care is what is killing the industry.
the 'best system in the world'
I just listened to the audio in your link. The 'best system' comment was made in the context of praise for the doctors, nurses, other medical care professionals, and hospitals. The congressmen did not extend their praise to the health insurance companies.
When health care systems are ranked by the World Health Organization according to outcomes for the general population (and not just for those who can afford the best care), our country comes out number 37, just behind Dominica and Costa Rica: http://www.photius.com/ranking...
blinded
I doubt that's true. Sure, there is ideology on either side, but that's a minority. The majority voice (IMHO) comes from the people that do have insurance, because most do.
Where's the opposition. Occam's razor: the poor are already covered (medicaid); the children are covered (SCHIP); the elderly are covered (Mediare); the working middle and upper middle class is covered (Private employer).
Who's not covered: working poor, illegal aliens (excluded in this bill) for the most part.
And, these groups with coverage are happy for the most part with their coverage. The same groups are now pissed (mainly elderly and middle class working) and i) don't want to risk change to coverage they generally like and ii) don't want to pay the insurance bill for the additional people that will cost them money or otherwise crowd clinics that are already crowded.
It's that simple. You can demonize the radio-right or the evil insurance, but they just can't create the kind of dissent that the teaparties bring out of whole cloth.
The U.S. has fewer small businesses than Europe
John Schmitt and Nathan Lane, "An International Comparison of Small Business Employment," CEPR, August 2009.
Fail.
Who cares what a couple of politicians' "goal" is? Do you really think that a government-run "public option" will be a good insurance plan? I assume that you don't. Therefore, you will not buy it. And no doubt some Americans will dislike the idea of "the government" making health care decisions for them (they'd prefer to have Aetna doing it), so even if the public option is cheaper, they won't buy it. If, however, a bunch of other Americans do think the public option is a good plan, then they will buy it. And if the public option becomes so wildly popular -- if so many Americans tell their friends and neighbors that the public option plan works great for less money that everyone runs out and buys it, thereby driving the private insurers into bankruptcy -- well, that's the bitch of having to provide a good product for an affordable price, right? Market. Competition. America.
All due respect, the right's theory about how "competition" should work in this instance is ricockulous.
6. And another 6...
...for "ricockulous". Haven't heard that in years.
Reasons why it's not comeptition
(1) Premiums are never set on the basis of cost + profit, or even cost. MBTA fares are $2, but actual costs are $5 per ride. This is true of the Connector. Their pricing is below cost ... they subsidized premiums with other tax revenue. (2) Gvt can absorb the net loss of a program by funding with other tax revenue, printing money, or government borrowing. Private industry cannot do this. Even most states cannot do this. (3) Gvt is the REGULATOR of health insurance and many areas of medicine. You cannot be the law-maker/regulator AND a competitor simultaneously. Ex: it sets Medicare reimbursements by fiat rather than paying for doctor's services in the open market. It is writing the legislation that favors the government plan, like page 16 prohibiting new enrollees into a private plan. (4) Government can change the rules whenever it wants.
David, no one has had time to read the bill. Restrictions like the prohibition on new enrollees into a private plan on page 16 begin to reveal the true intent of liberals in Congress -- they want a government-run single-payer system. They want a nationalized health system.
Is is NOT what the Obama administration is saying. This is NOT what Congress is saying. Many people now do not believe Obama and Congress and are furious they are being lied to.
And they are upset because a socialized health care system is what exactly what they don't want.
Public option
1: What if the public option is wildly successful, you know, like Wal-Mart is to retail, and turns into the monopoly that is single payer? A monopoly, which can ultimately limit benefits with no alternative to customers.
2: Or what if the public option is a horrible, money sucking failure, and it turns into yet another Government program which, once started, cannot be un-started.
3: Or, as you seem to say, the public option may co-exist in the healthcare market, keeping the private insurers honest. It does appear destined to possess one key market advantage: it can operate across state lines. Private insurers can't do so, so easily. BTW, that seems to be a significant market advantage/subsidy.
What's the probability of #1, 2 or 3? I can't see any reason to assume equal probabilities to either one.
And is it so unreasonable to accept that protestors are individually uncomfortable, to the point of civil protest, with the government saying "hey, trust us."
Think you hit the nail on the head
People do not trust the "hey, trust us" approach, especially when
The people also know that the probability of your #2 being true 99% certain. Can we cite any government instance of #1?
Do you play chess?
I understand what you're saying, EaBo. I don't agree. Limiting thinking to the words on the page is like Clinton's "is is" comment or David's many shades of "impressive".
Of course Congress isn't going to write a bill that eliminates private coverage immediately and directly. But, the logical and predictable outcome of the bill is elimination of the ability to choose private individual coverage.
In addition to not being able to enroll new members, plans can't make any changes to benefits or conditions. It eliminates their ability to compete. It eliminates this plans. It eliminates my choice.
You're too smart to hang your opposition on this,
Right up there with the logical and predictable outcome is single payer. (I wish)
I don't hang my opposition on this
But there is a certain deception happening when proponents of the bill repeat the "you can keep your plan" claim.
I understand that presenting only one part of data is a tactic used to sway opinion. I'm sure everyone by now knows that the number of uninsured has hit an all time high. I would bet that not so many know that the number of uninsured as a percentage of population has remained flat for the last 20 years (since it was first tracked by the U.S. Census).
You wish for single payer. So did the POTUS in a speech in 2003. Is that the plan? If so, proponents should be honest and see how well single-payer idea is embraced.
But it's naive to think that proponents of single payer thought they could do it in one swoop. It takes months, if not years, for one company to be absorbed by another through acquisition. How could anyone possibly expect that a switch to single payer would happen in a single step? There is no infrastructure for that.
Elimination of choice of individual plans is a low-hanging fruit. There aren't many individual plans as opposed to group plans. It is the logical first step of a plan with the ultimate goal of eliminating private insurance. Otherwise, the bill would have established a guidelines
If not that, then what do you believe is the ultimate goal of this bill?
Get a grip yourself.
Your link to my post about the UMass protests is utterly unconvincing as evidence that I approve of this kind of thing. My post simply reports that it happened. And when someone tried to twist my post into an endorsement of what happened, I responded:
I went on to say that the UMass faculty and students were right to protest Andy Card's receipt of an honorary degree. They were -- giving him the degree was a huge mistake. But I never said that shouting him down completely was the right way to do it.
Furthermore, obviously the photo in the Telegram has nothing to do with the protests that occurred at the McGovern/Neal meeting; the photo was clearly taken before (or after) the protests erupted. So the fact that you "followed the link" and saw a photo of a "seated, quiet audience" is pretty much irrelevant -- you don't dispute that the protests and the shouting actually happened, I assume. Finally, you'll have to do better than a bald assertion that the House Bill "eliminates [your] ability to have access to private health insurance." That is literally the first I've heard of that one. Seems pretty unlikely. "Thuggery"? Hah.
Thanks for playing, though.
You mis-cite David and Charley
Neither one of them applauded people being shouted down in the post you cite. They did approve expressions of displeasure for Card's degree by, in David's case, faculty members standing up and turning their backs. If the right-wing teabaggers at the health care forum had done they same, they might actually have advanced their agenda instead of coming off as Charley Baker's worst nightmare.
That's a distortion
of what I said. I said I could imagine others being booed. And booing, in and of itself, is legitimate, as long as people are allowed to speak.
Here's page 16. I'm no lawyer, but it doesn't seem to say what you think it says. I'm sure you've read it, though, right?
What it says, I think
Is that you can keep your current coverage so long as
1) The plan through which you participate doesn't accept new members after the date the law is enacted (easy to do although why restrict choice)
or
2) There are no changes whatsoever to the plan after the date of enactment (this would appear to be the provision that effectively kills these plans in a relatively short period of time).
Here's a link to an article in Fortune that addresses this point, among other things. I would agree with the author that most people are unlikely to be able to keep their current coverage for very long. Do you agree?
http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/2...
pot/kettle
When Don Feder came to UMass in March last year, and the speech was canceled mid-speech because the the Pride Alliance, the Coalition Against Hate and the Campus Anti-War Network rallied an audience together to shout him down.
Ann Coulter at UConn in '05 had to stop her speech because of the shouting. Star Parker on the Penn State campus...
What to take away from an audience that yelling at you: If they're not paid to yell at you then they're personally unhappy with your message. Pretty sure these teaparty folks aren't paid.
$quot;these teaparty folks$quot;
Please -- they're called teabaggers. ;-)
I see you've read
Alinsky too.
Where you need to demonize your opponents. Nice. They are members of the Taxed Enough Already TEA groups. They are not Tea Baggers. That term was introduced by Janine Garafolo, much like Sarah Palin never claimed to see Russia from her window, she merely stated the fact that from Little Diomed Island in Alaska, you can see Big Diomede Island in Siberia.
She also said this. Palin, also, she did.
7 degrees of separation
Ultimately, the argument always returns to Palin.
Hey, EaBo started it!
Oh grow a sense of humor already.
As for your defense of Sarah Palin, nice try. But her attempt to explain why Alaska's proximity to Russia enhanced her foreign policy cred was, to put it mildly, a catastrophe.
Watch CBS Videos Online
File under: Hindenburgian Moments in American Politics.
Whenever people get a little concerned about Obama's direction or worried that we're not making the progress we should be, they should fire up this Best of Palin, sit back, and reflect. By the end of her babbling, a whole new sense of calm, safety, and satisfaction will wash over, putting all of those anxieties in perspective.
With Obama in charge, the likelihood that we'll end up walking the road like the man and the boy is greatly diminished--and for that I am immensely grateful.
I can see the John Hancock tower from my apartment...
...does that make me an expert in Finance? The fact that I can see the Hancock is just as irrelevent to my financial knowledge as Big Diomede being visible from Little Diomede is to Sarah Palin's foreign policy experience. Totally irrelevant, but Sarah and the GOP tried to pass that off as foreign policy cred. She didn't just "merely state" in passing this fact.
And man, this Saul Alinsky obsession isn't working. Is Alinsky the new Marx? Are you going to start labeling people as Alinksy followers much the way a few months ago you demonized every Democrat, especially the President, as a Marxist?
Eabo, you complaining about us demonizing opponents is hilarious; it's like if Jose Canseco was suddenly offended at the idea that there was rampant steroid use in baseball.
Are you now or have you ever been an Alinsky follower?
ANSWER THE QUESTION!
EaBo, how many Alinksy followers do you think there are on BMG?
;)
Learning from the left
There's been a lot of talk on the Right of reading Saul Alinsiky. Perhaps Eabo Clipper is among Alinsky's newest readers.
I did read a book of his many, many years ago. My impression was that it was more clever than useful.
like
Sounds like a description of Joe Biden
Or...
...much of what passes as conservative thought at BMG.
Clever
It's true. Clever often trumps useful.
Depends on who wins the auction
EaBo seems to have missed several of the more important points
This one for example:
Six sixes and support suggestions.
You have identified the next task for those who are organizing and supporting these series of shake em up attacks all over the country. But that's their problem, so forget about it.
What to do now?
Understand that the goal of this series of these simple "stop attacks" is to convince enough Members of Congress that their seats are in jeopardy if they do not pull back from supporting our President's goal of getting a good health care reform bill passed this fall.
How many Stop the (fill in the blank) War!! have we all attended? And are still attending, come to think of it.
For those of us who want to support our President and his goal of getting health reform done this fall, our job is to organize our friends and neighbors to go to these events, in large numbers, with as many large people as you can to stand in key spots with large supportive signs.
If you can't go then organize a support petition among friends and neighbors send it in to your Congressperson.
BTW, I actually have no problem with anybody organizing anybody to participate in recess public hearings on anything. Been doing it for years. It's a public education tactic for every one involved, including the "target" Congressperson. And I've been a little surprised to read so much shock and horror about the shake em up attacks on this site.
Thank you for being honest
Judy,
At least someone here is.
Rob
The party of Nixon and Agnew
has always been so good at determining who's honest.
As has the party
of Clinton and Obama
Do you really want to play this childish game. I can all day long.
Said differently
Isn't the line "At least someone here is honest" insulting?
You frequently deploy the rhetorical device of assuming your point of view represents truth itself. By that view, everyone agrees with you but only a few are "honest enough" to admit it.
Just like the few Republicans "honest enough" to admit that Bush was a crummy President and that the Iraq war was a mistake.
Got it
Teabaggers = people who yell at democrat congressmen.
/subtle
there's a reason it's called astroturf
If they're organized through larouche and the free republic and you're a democrat, "not happy with you" is meaningless.
I'm reminded of when the "Hispanics for Bush" coalition at a campaign rally turned out to be Minnesota College Republicans holding signs in Spanish.
Here's another one, gary ...
even more embarrassing for me personally b/c it happened at my alma mater -- Oberlin students shout down Larry Summers: http://www.oberlin.edu/stupub/...
And it's wrong. Just plain wrong. No qualifications for "agree" or "not agree".
Anyway, "they do it too!" -- tu quoque -- is a lame-ass defense. Doesn't really address anything at all, does it?
I mean, I don't even know why you of all people would react defensively, in identification with people who shout down people with whom they disagree. I'm not even criticizing you, or any of the conservative folks that show up here and banter. I'm not even criticizing conservatism per se. I'm criticizing thuggish, anti-intellectual, anti-democratic tactics. I'm a Norman Rockwell Dem, gary ...
http://arthistory.about.com/od...
Never thought I'd see poor Ann Coulter as the poster-child for civilized discourse, but there it is ...
Defensively
My comments aren't in defense of their actions. I think yelling at a speaker is bad form, and wouldn't do it.
But, I'm also saying that the teaparty folks aren't there because of some larouchian radio-right conspiracy.
Rather, the radio right is taking advantage of some pissed off-edness that genuinely exists because i) most people are insured ii) most people are happy with their health care and many people don't trust the Federal government when it says "we're here to help you" and we have to do it fast!
most people want a change
As shown by the 13 polls summarized here: http://www.wpasinglepayer.org/... Each poll minimally shows a plurality favoring more involvement by the government.
One of the polls cited is a ballot initiative that was voted on in ten legislative districts in Massachusetts. The question, which supported a single-payer plan and opposed individual mandates, won by 73%.
Public opinion
What does seem to have happened is that the Republican core has gotten very riled up. Though a minority, the strong disapprovers of Obama are numerous according to polling. Contrast the folks wanting some kind of healthcare reform. They don't know for sure what Congress is proposing. (There are a lot of committees. Senate and House versions will be different.) What they've heard sounds complicated. Will it be better? How can they be sure?
So I think we have a situation where those in opposition are more united, more passionate, and more vocal than the plurality in favor.
Nah, just sore losers
The Larouchians were certainly present at the event we're discussing. Whether "conspiracy" or not, they were there.
I agree with you that the teabaggers themselves are comprised of (1) people who have insurance, and (2) people who are happy with their own health care, and (3) people who don't want the government to help anyone else. I don't doubt that they're pissed off -- they are, in fact, a tiny minority.
A staggering number of people, especially people of color, do not have insurance. Most people are not happy with their health care. The teabaggers are pissed off because they are a tiny and shrinking minority. The radio right panders to them because their advertisers like the demographics of that minority (for now).
Most people don't trust the GOP when it comes to health care or economics. At least the teabaggers are bullying their way through events like this as disruptive thugs, instead of bullying their way through hearings and majority caucuses in congress as lying and deceptive elected representatives.
The intellectual violence heaped against science, medicine, statistics (see the various census disputes), and plain logic by the rightwing while they held the government created this situation -- their dwindling number of followers screaming louder and louder as the colossal absurdity of their argument becomes more and more obious.
DNC's response to Radical Right
Just arrived from the DNC
Teabaggery = thuggery. I suspect the general public feels a little broadsided by the bold and unapologetically juvenile behavior and is, consequently, a little slow to react. In time, however, patience for these tactics will evaporate.
Be Not Afraid
Fellow Bloggers, Michelle Obama:
aside from that one memo
do you guys have any actual proof that this is some grand scheme and not just people being outraged?
One smoking gun isn't enough now? (EOM)
GOP Whips
http://www.cprights.org/
http://www.freedomworks.org/
I'd feel bad about the LaRouchites pushing this thing past the level of crazy that your average teabaggers would bring, but, as the good book says, 'Ye, gets what ye deserves.'
Maddow does a thorough job documenting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
Take a look and verify for yourself.
TPM Worcester post
TPM
Townhalls Gone Wild - THE COMMERCIAL
Sorry, did I put a timeline on it.
No, I have not read the bill and don't know if I will. I still have 5 books in a pile that I haven't read. How am I going to read the bill when I spend so much time blogging here? Did you read the bill? Don't tell me I'm full of it. Just curious... do you advise Congress to sign bills WITHOUT reading them? I think you might be full of it.
« Blue Mass Group Front Page
Wed 23 May 5:17 AM