President Obama Healthcare Speech

[TheGame]

Prof, I agree with you mostly on the things you have said. But your points don't address what racism really is to begin with.. With that said, in your opinion, what is racism?

Let me give an example...

A cop is sitting on a corner behind a sign. The speed limit is 50MPH and he is checking how fast people are going... A white guy rolls past the sign at 70MPH, and the cop shrugs him off. A black guy goes past the sign at 60MPH and the cop takes off quick and pulls the black guy over.

If you consider race relevant in this situation, then it can be percieved to be racist since he let the white guy go, and he pulled over the black guy. However, if you want to dismiss race from this scenario, the fact is that the black guy was pulled over because he was speeding. If he wouldn't have been speeding, he wouldn't have been pulled over, right? Or maybe the first guy just happend to be going fast enough that the cop didn't think he could catch up.. right?

With that said, I'm not going to waste my time argueing the fact that Obama has done some things that are not agreeable to a group of people. However, I will argue that when he does anything, he gets a worse reaction then when a white president does the same thing.

For example.. Gitmo. When Bush wanted to close it, people respected his decision to want to close it. Even though some may have got on his case for using it in the first place, generally nobody wanted to talk him down when he wanted to close it. Then, when Obama wants to do the same thing, all of a sudden its a big discussion, and people even come out in support of gitmo and torture.

Another example, when Bush talked about getting troops out of Iraq, nobody argued with him. They understood that its the right thing to do. When Obama talks about it, his motives are questioned, and its a discussion again. Some politicians come out and say that we should be in Iraq as long as it takes to reach the impossible goal...

I think the outbursts at Obama for pushing for some of the same things as his predecessors can easily be seen as racist. While I agree, the bottom line is that they're fighting the policy, just like the bottom line is that the black man was speeding in my first example.

[KillerGremlin]

Originally Posted by Professor S

All I can argue is my view point on the issue, which I've done many times and I think quite effectively. Regardless of whether or not you want to dismiss the opposition, you can't ignore it's size and effect on the discussion going on right now, even if you really really want to... and it seems like many of you really really want to.

Didn't the South use this argument before the Civil War? I kid, I kid....there's always two sides to every argument. It's my opinion that there hasn't been a ton of intelligible arguments on the News or TV or at these rallies. Most of the intelligent discussion is happening under the radar or perhaps in Congress? That's just what I see.

Originally Posted by Professor S

So does anyone else have anything to add other than grand generalizations and insults?

My home state of New Jersey is one crazy place, according to the new survey of the state by Public Policy Polling (D).

Dave Weigel points out that one out of every three New Jersey conservatives think that Obama could be the anti-Christ. To be precise, 18% of self-identified conservatives affirmatively say that Obama is the anti-Christ, with 17% not sure. Among the self-identified Republican label, it's 14% who say Obama has the number 666 hidden underneath his hair, plus 15% who aren't sure.

But oh it gets even worse on some other questions -- among both the right and the left.

It turns out that 33% of New Jersey Republicans say that Obama was not born in the United States, plus 19% in the Birther-Curious undecided category.

But Democrats shouldn't be too eager to laugh at this. On the other side of the political spectrum, there's some significant 9/11 Trutherism among Dem voters. We've got 32% of Jersey Democrats who say that George W. Bush had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks. In addition, another 19% of Jersey Dems are Truther-Curious, in the undecided column.

So that's only 48% of Jersey Republicans who definitively are not Birthers, and 49% of Dems who are officially not Truthers. Don't you just love our polarized politics?

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...t----oh-my.php
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/p...ase_NJ_916.pdf

[manasecret]

Originally Posted by Professor S

There is one majory difference between comparing the ACORN and 9/12 issues, not that I agree with many 9/12'ers on many of their assertions or their methods.

ACORN takes public money. 9/12'ers don't.

As for those that threw them out, you don't get credit for doing what you're obviouly supposed to do. Now if the filmmaker were asked if anyone threw them out and they said no, then I think we could question their integrity, but the story is in the gross misconduct not whether or not some people behaved properly. I will agree that the journalist should have volunteered that some offices did not help them, but it should have beenno more than a disclosure.

The fact that it happened once is bad enough and should have been major news across the board, much less multiple times in several offices in several cities. I know that CNN and other places are covering it now, but thats because they are at the point they had to. It took them days to cover any of it, so I give them little to no credit.

EDIT: I found the ACORN artile on CNN... at the bottom after scrolling for a bit, and it concentrates on new training for employees, which I hope is a good thing and they really follo through on the promise.

Add to that how Van Jones was never really looked into, and they spent more time covering the fact he called Republicans "assholes" than the fact that he is a 9/11 truther and at least formerly a communist. Once again, both of these things are legitimate news items regardless of idealogy and they were largely ignored until immedacy forced their recognition.

I give credit to NPR for carrying it, and I never include them in my thoughts on journalistic corruption. They might be one of the last remaining bastions of journalistic integrity.

Fair assertions methinks. And you're right, I didn't hear anything about it on CNN.com until today (though it was in their top headlines when I checked earlier), while I heard it on NPR I believe either Monday or Tuesday this week. I almost never check any other news sources so I can't say for them.

I didn't know that the ACORN problems happened in multiple cities until today. I don't condone it whatsoever, and as NPR said in their piece the employees were immediately fired and more training is being done which I hope helps. While not exactly an excuse, it also sounds like ACORN is run mostly by volunteers so I wouldn't expect all of them to know immediately what to do in such situations without some formal training.

But the point I was making about only showing the bad examples is, what if they did 300 videos and then only five of them were bad examples? Certainly that makes it seem like just a few bad apples and not a systemic problem. I mean, in any organization you can't expect perfection. On the other hand, if they did 10 videos and five of them were bad examples, that would be a systemic problem. The numbers ought to be disclosed.

EDIT: Because of how you worded your reply, I'm not sure you were clear on what I meant. I wasn't trying to compare the 9/12 and ACORN issues, just the videos about them.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin

Didn't the South use this argument before the Civil War? I kid, I kid....there's always two sides to every argument. It's my opinion that there hasn't been a ton of intelligible arguments on the News or TV or at these rallies. Most of the intelligent discussion is happening under the radar or perhaps in Congress? That's just what I see.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...t----oh-my.php
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/p...ase_NJ_916.pdf

KG, I read the article and the poll... and the article tales a few liberties with the results.

There is nothing in that poll that states 1/3 of Conservatives think Obama is a the anti-Christ. I saw that 18% did, but then again in the same poll 5% of Liberals aren't sure if he is or isn't, and 10% of those that voted for him think he is or aren't sure.

Overall, those poll numbers are plain weird. I think people from both sides are losing their minds over all of this stuff.

Well...it is Jersey for Christ's (or the anti-Christ's) sake.

EDIT: Oh, and Corzine is screwedin his election. What a complete and utter failure.

[KillerGremlin]

Originally Posted by Professor S

KG, I read the article and the poll... and the article tales a few liberties with the results.

There is nothing in that poll that states 1/3 of Conservatives think Obama is a the anti-Christ. I saw that 18% did, but then again in the same poll 5% of Liberals aren't sure if he is or isn't, and 10% of those that voted for him think he is or aren't sure.

Overall, those poll numbers are plain weird. I think people from both sides are losing their minds over all of this stuff.

Well...it is Jersey for Christ's (or the anti-Christ's) sake.

Hehe...I'm glad you saw the humor in the poll. I posted it for the LOLs, not for any serious discussion. I think the bottom line is there are idiots on both side of the spectrum. This country boggles the mind sometime. On the other hand, we have the women with the biggest breasts, the burgers with the most beef, and the biggest nukes. God bless America!

Anyway...onward with the Health Care Reform discussion!

[TheGame]

wtf...

[Professor S]

O'Reilly has been pro reform from the beginning. And for the record, I agree with many of his thoughts on healthcare reform. He's along the same lines as McCain in his views on the subject.

[TheGame]

I've never seen him say anything remotely in favor of the government creating a low priced health insurance option. But admittedly, I don't watch his show..

So, once again.. wtf

[Bond]

Not entirely surprising, considering O'Reilly's background. He is a very independent traditionalist.

[TheGame]

So, I'm bored with the forum being dead so I'm gonna toss in another poll here... As my first poll showed, 77% of Americans on AVERAGE between polls would prefer that there were a choice between private run health insurance and government ran insurance.

So what do doctors think about this?

When given a three-way choice among private plans that use tax credits or subsidies to help the poor buy private insurance; a new public health insurance plan such as Medicare; or a mix of the two; 63 percent of doctors supported a mix, 27 percent said they only wanted private options, and just 10 percent said they exclusively wanted public options.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNe...58F3VJ20090916
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_286352.html

63% for a public healthcare option alongside private, and 73% of doctors against having private insurance companies exclusively. From these polls, its safe to say that either the center is in favor of a public option, or there's bipartisan support by the people for this reform.

So why are our leaders backpeddaling on the idea? Once again, I think it comes down to who pays them.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by TheGame

So, I'm bored with the forum being dead so I'm gonna toss in another poll here... As my first poll showed, 77% of Americans on AVERAGE between polls would prefer that there were a choice between private run health insurance and government ran insurance.

So what do doctors think about this?



http://www.reuters.com/article/topNe...58F3VJ20090916
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_286352.html

63% for a public healthcare option alongside private, and 73% of doctors against having private insurance companies exclusively. From these polls, its safe to say that either the center is in favor of a public option, or there's bipartisan support by the people for this reform.

So why are our leaders backpeddaling on the idea? Once again, I think it comes down to who pays them.

Game, my answer to this poll is the exact same to the answer to the poll of average citizens...

Keep in mind those numbers reflect whether or not people favor a public option, not necessarily any public option plan we've seen or that has been presented. These polls examine people's openness to the idea/concept, not the reality.

IMO the current climate reflects people's reaction to practical application of that idea/concept.

In fact, to further illustrate tis point, another recent poll showed 56% being against THIS current plan (if you can really call it one).

Fifty-six percent (56%) of voters nationwide now oppose the health care reform proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s the highest level of opposition yet measured and includes 44% who are Strongly Opposed.

Just 43% now favor the proposal, including 24% who Strongly Favor it.

But the overall picture remains one of stability. While the numbers have bounced a bit following nationally televised appearances by the president to promote the plan, opposition has generally stayed above 50% since early July. Support has been in the low to mid 40s...

...While many credit or blame the town hall protests for building opposition to the plan, it appears they were simply a reflection of public opinion rather than a creator of it. This sense is confirmed by the fact that Obama’s approval ratings fell more in June and July before stabilizing in August.

One thing that did change during the month of August is that public perception of the protesters improved. after the initial shock wore off. Most voters came to believe that the purpose of the town hall meetings was for members of Congress to listen rather than speak.

I hope that answers your question.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...th_care_reform

[TheGame]

Of course people are against THIS current plan, because this one doesn't include the public option. So its not relevant to the discussion on if people are in favor or against the public option. I've already said on more then one occasion that the reason his approval ratings are dropping is because he's backing away from the public option. His base is going to disaprove of his actions and click that they're against it on all those polls until he strongly backs it.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by TheGame

Of course people are against THIS current plan, because this one doesn't include the public option. So its not relevant to the discussion on if people are in favor or against the public option. I've already said on more then one occasion that the reason his approval ratings are dropping is because he's backing away from the public option. His base is going to disaprove of his actions and click that they're against it on all those polls until he strongly backs it.

Game, the polls have reflected these numbers since July, and the article I cited backs that up. Your gamesmanship when it comes to debate is not effective nor appreciated. It's what makes having any kind of respectful debate with you impossible at times.

At this point, I have to assume you are just willfully ignorant and refuse to acknowledge any reality outside of your worldview when it comes to health-care. Create whatever fiction you like, but I'll not continue to give you opportunities to spread them.

Babble to yourself if you like. I'm no longer listening.

[TheGame]

Yet you aren't argueing anything I said, and have no point.

When did the Dems start bending over for the GOP? I'm pretty sure that started earlier then July. Dems have been reaching out to the republicans for months now, just to never get one voice of support. And in your own mind you want to make it seem like the democrats were not playing ball with the republicans whatsoever.

Every legitamate poll made in the last year showed that american people and doctors are in favor of the idea of having both public and private health insurance. (Including that little poll that happend in 2008) The reason that less and less people are supporting the "reform" now is because dems have been watering down healthcare for months to try and appeal to republicans (or using the republicans as an excuse to water it down and appeal to the people who pay them). That's just the reality of the situation.

Babble to yourself if you like. I'm no longer listening.

You never were listening, which is why we can't really have a debate. You spent a long time calling me out on racism, and I gave you a reply that took an objective look at the situation.. but you'd rather chose ignorance and not take into account anything that doesn't fit your own view.

[Ric]

Ok I have not really kept up with what has been discussed so far but I just wanted to offer my opinion on the whole thing.

Bare in mind I am living in England and have had what I would call 'the luxury' of the National Health Service (NHS) my entire life. Despite all its misgivings it is a good thing.

This could only stand to benefit the US. Whatever the cost, in the long run it would be worth it, It will take substantial initial setup cost yes but then after that it will work itself out. The cost in tax that you pay will be far less that what you will pay for private medical insurance.

It's not good to have a situation for example like the one I witnessed in Germany. My colleuge had an epileptic fit and needed an ambulance and the paramedics would not take him because he did not have his medical insurance card.

Under a national health service this would not matter and the private hospital would be able to charge a national health hospital for services rendered so to speak.

I personally support President Obama in his pledge to reform health care and I sincerely hope it successfully integrates itself into US society. One day you will wonder what you would ever have done without it