Not only is dissent racist, and no longer patriotic — it’s downright Un-American.
Just when was it that opposing socialism became un-American? Are Nancy and Steny going to revive this?
I’m pretty sure this isn’t the way to win the hearts and minds of the American people. They seem to be just desperately flailing. I can’t take them seriously of course, in their sudden interest in discussing the issue. If they’d had their way, the bill would already have been a fait accompli, with no public discussion at all. But we’re the ones who are “un-American.”
[Noon Pacific update]
Geraghty has similar thoughts to mine:
I understand that the House of Representatives has done this before when Democrats were running the show.
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., could chair with Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., as the ranking member, except we would need some sort of catchy nickname for the idea of looking through the American population for those who dissent from the line of the White House and holding them up for public demonization and ridicule and shunning…
Beyond that, I would have someone who’s not in Congress right now put together a list of people who ought to be shunned and public persona non grata for their un-American behavior and views. We could get some prominent Democratic state legislatior to run it — say, Wisconsin Democratic Assembly Member Spencer Black — and we could name that list after him…
It would be ironic on multiple levels.
[Afternoon update]
So, do Nancy and Steny think that the SEIU is un-American?
Opponents of reform are organizing counter-demonstrators to speak at this and several congressional town halls on the issue to defend the status quo. It is critical that our members with real, personal stories about the need for access to quality, affordable care come out in strong numbers to drown out their voices.
The logical and hypocritical knots into which these creatures twist themselves is a sight to behold.
The quote was “Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American.”
Do you disagree?
You know, this health care reform plan has been meandering through various committees since late January of this year. How that equates to “no discussion” is beyond me.
More to the point, the article calls “un-American” things like “an ugly campaign is underway not merely to misrepresent the health insurance reform legislation, but to disrupt public meetings and prevent members of Congress and constituents from conducting a civil dialogue.”
Also, if I had a nickel for every time you said Obama or the Democrats were flailing, I’d be able to retire early.
My Vietnam vet neighbor called and we got admission tickets thru the lottery to President Obama’s Health Care Forum in Portsmouth NH Aug 11th. I just hope my so-called Un-American category won’t get me on the bus to the re-education camps.
You screwed up, didn’t you get the memo? It’s not “health care reform” anymore, it’s “health insurance reform”. The insurance companies are the current evil-doers.
Yes, drowning out opposing views is pathetic. Reminds me of the all too common reaction on university campuses and other forums when someone conservative is scheduled to speak.
Also Un-American is the behaviour of myriad congresspersons actively hiding from their constituents and refusing to be ‘representatives’ of the people and instead kowtowing to Pelosi’s demands.
The problem with health care reform is that they want to draw everyone into a single giant system that is run in a top down fashion. The sensible approach to health care reform would be simply to give people below a certain income level (determined by 1040 tax returns) spending vouchers to buy health insurance from existing providers and not screw with the health care coverage of anyone who is not poor.
However, the politicos have decided for whatever reason that this is not the “correct” approach. So, instead, they want to create some sort of giant government-run system that everyone would plug into whether we want to or not. I find this irritating.
I’m self employed. I don’t have the kind of insurance that employees get for free. What I have done is to get a high-deductible “catastrophic” health insurance policy that has quite reasonable premiums. This solution works well for me. If something bad happens to me (e.g. car accident, cancer), I’m out $7,500 and the insurance picks up the rest. This is no problem because I have the $7,500 available precisely for the possibility of such an emergency.
The minor stuff I can take care of myself. I take the same DIY approach to health care and life extension that others might take to rebuilding their home or managing their investment portfolio. I am into “rebulding” my body the same way that my neighbor might be into rebuilding his house. I believe that my DIY approach to bio-medicine has proven superior to me than the medical industry.
I don’t want or need the government to tell me how to manage the efficacy of my physiology any more than I want them to tell me how to manage my career or portfolio. This is why I oppose health care reform in its current form.
The quote was “Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American.” Do you disagree?
Yes. It’s rude, but it’s not “un-American.”
And I’d take them a little more seriously if I had ever heard them or their like express concern about it when (for example) people got shouted off stages on college campi by the left, which has been happening for years.
I had a nickel for every time you said Obama or the Democrats were flailing, I’d be able to retire early.
Even ignoring the exaggerated nature of the claim, I find that highly unlikely. I don’t recall using the word previously at all. Can you point out all these examples to which you’re apparently referring?
You know, this health care reform plan has been meandering through various committees since late January of this year.
Yes, and getting no where. It wasn’t until early July that Obama put his foot on the accelerator and demanded both houses pass a bill and get it him to be signed before August. The specific purpose was to avoid exactly what is happening now — getting feedback from the people our congress is supposed to be representing.
The “liberal” scale of values: shouting at politicians (unless, of course, they’re Republicans) is bad; sticking a gun at someone’s head and forcing them to pay for someone’s else medical care is hunky-dory.
I thinking of a bumper sticker: “Unamerican! Pelosi said so!”
“Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American.” The only shouting I’ve heard at a public forum over health care reform came from “my” Congressman, David Scott. Mr. Scott was asked by one of his constituents last week about the bill and responded by shouting quite loudly at the man, questioning whether he was even a constiutient. (He is.)
It’s sat around unpassed because the more politically astute in Congress are smelling blood in the water on this issue. The administration and the leadership tried their darnedest to get this passed on an emergency basis, without adequate deliberation, public scrutiny, or anyone actually reading the bill. Why this would surprise anyone after we rushed through the bailout bills, the stimulus, and many other no-time-to-talk bills (USA Patriot, Sarbanes-Oxley, etc.) is beyond me.
Passing a bill that’s perceived by many–and probably rightfully so–as a preliminary to nationalized healthcare is a good way to ensure that the GOP gets a repeat of 1994. I don’t think they’ll storm back in 2010 the way they did in 1994, but there’s a real distaste for anything smacking of blatant socialism for most Americans–even many Democrats. Which is why the more moderate on the left side of the aisle are getting cold feet.
The problem with health care reform is that they want to draw everyone into a single giant system that is run in a top down fashion.
The problem with the health care reform debate is that too many people believe misinformation like this.
I wonder how busily our friends at the Kremlin on the Potomac are inspecting public records relating to Ken Gladney’s past. He’s so un-American he showed up at a second protest in a wheelchair.
The problem with the health care reform debate is that too many people believe misinformation like this.
Jim, I repeat. We are not as stupid as you want us to be.
Leaving aside politics for a moment, if there’s nothing else we should know, it’s that long, quickly hobbled together bills are almost always bad and full of unintended consequences. So even accepting the idea that this bill isn’t intended to result in a single-payer plan–which is contrary to the words of many Democratic leaders, but we’ll ignore that for now–no one should be too thrilled with the effort to push this through without a LOT of back and forth. Like don’t pass anything like this for another year back and forth.
kurt9, you may want to have more than $7500 saved up for that possible catastrophic event. $7500 in catastrophic coverage generally translates to “$15000 in patient payouts of which you may be able to get $7500 back several months or years down the road as long as you call us up and threaten to sue us enough.”
The real problem with American health care is not availability, it is accountability. I’m convinced that if Americans could actually trust that their insurance company would come through for them when they need it as the contract says, then there would be very little clamor for massive change. So why isn’t the first word in any “health insurance reform” debate about increasing the accountability of insurers? Well, because then there would be very little clamor for massive change.
Oh, I forgot the mention. This thread looks fishy. Email sent.
Over at Hit & Run, a commenter is using the “flag@whitehouse.gov” e-mail address behind his “name.”
kurt9 – No, the bill does not “draw everyone into a single giant system that is run in a top down fashion.” The bill does:
1) Prevent private insurers from excluding you based on (possibly undiagnosed or hidden) pre-existing conditions.
2) Require that they more clearly define what is covered.
3) Prevent setting caps on coverage.
4) Require employers to provide health insurance (which by the way is not “free” to employees – I pay part of mine) or pay into a public system.
5) As an option, provide for a government-owned plan, similar in concept to Medicare.
Rand – for a starter, how about blame Obama’s upcoming loss on the evil right-wing bigots.
Google is a wonderful thing.
…then there would be very little clamor for massive change.
The only clamor for massive change is coming from lefties who want to eviscerate the current system on the faulty premise of a health care crisis in this country. I’m certain that the American public would be open to carefully measured reform measures that address specific issues involving health care insurance.
Clearly the public at large feels the federal government has less accountability than the insurance companies your are attempting to demonize.
Rand – for a starter, how about blame Obama’s upcoming loss on the evil right-wing bigots.
So you managed to find one other instance, almost a year ago? At a nickel apiece, you would now have a dime. Hope your retirement expenses are low…
Prevent private insurers from excluding you based on (possibly undiagnosed or hidden) pre-existing conditions.
How can you make blanket mandates that force a company to operate at a loss and expect it to stay in business?
There are better ways of addressing this issue. First, start with the premise that more private competition and innovation is better. Then, put policies in place that encourage more private competition and innovation. For instance, remove barriers that prevent policies from being sold across state boundaries. Remove the thousands of federal/state mandates that are imposed on insurance carriers so that insurance companies can tailor policies that fit specific demographics without government interference. Give employers the ability to use pre-tax dollars to reimburse employees willing to pay for their own insurance which would make insurance instantly much more portable.
There are many common sense actions that could be taken in small measured steps to improve the current situation. As each step is taken it can be measured and tuned over time to avoid inevitable unanticipated consequences and take advantage of more innovation as new ideas are thought of.
Changing EVERYTHING at once is stupid, stupid, stupid.
Rand, for Pete’s sake, do I have to document every time you predicted Obama would lose the primary or the election? I took the first hit from Google. There were pages of them.
How can you make blanket mandates that force a company to operate at a loss and expect it to stay in business? How can I be certain I’ll get what I paid for (health care) if the person selling it to me can cancel over something neither of us know about at the time?
Ummm…actually, I just went and read the example you provided, Chris. What is it supposed to be an example of?
Rand, for Pete’s sake, do I have to document every time you predicted Obama would lose the primary or the election?
Of course not, since that’s not what we were talking about. You wrote: If I had a nickel for every time you said Obama or the Democrats were flailing, I’d be able to retire early.
I simply pointed out that this was the first time to my knowledge that I had used that word, so you’d have a very poor retirement. You said nothing about predictions of them losing an election.
Ummm…actually, I just went and read the example you provided, Chris. What is it supposed to be an example of?
Perhaps he found where the healthcare bill would have prevented the Terry Schaivo incident?
Rand, you are being literal-minded. I suggested that your track record of predicting Democratic party / Obama failure was not very good.
I suggested that your track record of predicting Democratic party / Obama failure was not very good.
While that may (or may not) be true, it’s not at all what you suggested. I suggest that you work on clarity in writing.
if there’s nothing else we should know, it’s that long, quickly hobbled together bills are almost always bad and full of unintended consequences.
Really? I don’t believe that was the case with Medicaid and Medicare, or the Civil Rights Act, or the Voting Rights Act. Should we have waited longer before passing those?
no one should be too thrilled with the effort to push this through without a LOT of back and forth. Like don’t pass anything like this for another year back and forth.
There has been lots of back and forth. The Democrats had 20 primary debates at which health care plans were a central topic, starting two years ago.
Waiting a year on health care reform is the same as waiting eight. Next year will be about the midterms. Most presidents see their party lose seats in the midterms, so the going would be even harder in 2011. 2012 will be about the presidential campaign. If Obama is shot down on health care this year, he (like Clinton) is unlikely to make it his top 2nd term priority. If he does not win re-election, the new GOP president certainly isn’t going to go there. So maybe we’d get another shot in 2017, by which point insurance premiums will be twice what they are today.
No doubt there were people in 1993 who thought that ClintonCare was too complicated, and that it’d be better to wait a year. It’s now been 16, and things are much worse than they were in 1993 — costs are higher, and more people are uninsured or underinsured. Delay means at least another eight years of the same.
Better to legislate quickly and without thought of the consequences? A vast proportion of this country has access to health insurance. Drastically altering a system that does, by and large, work could have significant consequences. There are some legitimate concerns about whether the free market in healthcare–what’s left of it, anyway–can survive the kind of program proposed in this legislation, so, yeah, I think we can wait.
How about deregulating healthcare? Shouldn’t that be on the table for discussion, too? Oh, no, that would mean less power for the government and for the nannies, so, of course, we can’t think about that.
Better to legislate quickly and without thought of the consequences? Except that’s not what we’re doing. We (this country) have been discussing this issue for years.
The problem with all of the deregulation proposals I have seen are they fail to fix the problem. How does allowing insurers to cross state lines address pre-existing condition exclusions? Or, how does allowing employers to reimburse employees for their insurance needs reduce cost, when the private market is vastly more costly then group policies?
Saying “free enterprise” like it’s some kind of magic formula doesn’t cut it. Explain to me how it will reduce costs and improve access. After all, the most profitable insurance customer is the one with no claims, so there is every incentive in the world to cherry-pick out the sick.
So, Chris, it is your opinion that this tactic by Pelosi and Hoyer is going to be politically effective, and bring more people over to their side? Or what?
I think drawing every living American soul into an insurance plan that’s a clone of the “public option” constitutes a giant system run in a top-down fashion. If a would-be-federal-Commission that dictates everybody’s coverage and payments isn’t “top down”, what is? It’s certainly *not* a market.
Can anyone answer the obvious question: Where in our Constitution does it give the federal gummint ANY right to get involved in health care (or a lot of the other crap they’ve stuck their fingers in and screwed up)?
Anyone? Bueller?
Better to legislate quickly and without thought of the consequences? A vast proportion of this country has access to health insurance. Drastically altering a system that does, by and large, work could have significant consequences.
Which is why the reform efforts do not drastically alter the parts of the system that are working. People who are happy with their insurance can keep it.
I think drawing every living American soul into an insurance plan that’s a clone of the “public option” constitutes a giant system run in a top-down fashion.
No one is proposing such a thing. Note: Medicare is such a system, and people are pretty happy with it.
If a would-be-federal-Commission that dictates everybody’s coverage and payments isn’t “top down”, what is? It’s certainly *not* a market.
Health insurance is already regulated, but nonetheless it is still possible for an insurer to drop a customer for getting too sick, or to refuse coverage to someone who has a pre-existing condition. The reform bills would stop those practices. It’s still a market, just a regulated one, like your supermarket, where they aren’t allowed to sell uninspected meat.
People who are happy with their insurance can keep it.
Lies do not become true through repetition.
Can anyone answer the obvious question: Where in our Constitution does it give the federal gummint ANY right to get involved in health care (or a lot of the other crap they’ve stuck their fingers in and screwed up)?
Take a look at the Supreme Court decisions of the New Deal era.
Lies do not become true through repetition.
And content-free replies do not turn true statements into lies.
Put it this way: It would be a lot easier to design a good health care reform plan that did not let people keep their current coverage. Back-compatibility, as we refer to it in software, is a significant design constraint. The fact that the plans before Congress are as involved as they are is in part due to this constraint.
We’ve always been at war with Oceania.
The public plan will not crowd out private health care.
The public plan will not crowd out private health care.
Only if people vote that way with their feet.
Note: Medicare is a public plan that everyone pays into whether they want to or not. Nonetheless we still have private insurance and private health care for seniors. Your scaremongering has been proven false for decades.
Did you read the Bill, Jim?
http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf
It’s quite clear: everyone must be enrolled in a “qualified health plan” designed by the Comission. They will tell you what is covered and how much is to be paid, even if you’re not on the public plan. It is not a market because there’s no ability for buyers and sellers to determine what is to be sold, to set prices, or even walk away from the deal. The proper anology is not to a supermarket, but to federally mandated “food insurance.”
Also, parallels to Medicare are unjustified. Not only is Medicare underfunded, but no one is required to enroll, regardless of how much they’re taxed.
Medicare is such a system, and people are pretty happy with it.
It’s also going broke.
I also find it amusing that we’re being accused of scare mongering, after reading Obama’s speeches that do exactly that.
Barbara – It’s called the Interstate Commerce Clause, Article 1, Section 8, “Powers of Congress.” Since most insurance carriers are multi-state companies, and they all pay out-of-state claims, they are engaged in interstate commerce. Ditto auto companies, banks and AIG (insurance).
Did I miss anything?
Titus – no, actually the insurers can set prices and coverage levels. There can also be several levels of qualified plans.
“Regulate commerce among states” is a far cry from creating a health care organization. And FDR was heavily criticized for packing the Supreme Court to help get favorable rulings for his New Deal plans.
But please, hang your hat on that clause, while supporting a Congress complaining about citizens exercising their first amendment rights.