American Healthcare Protests

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BoringMetaphor

I just read this article.

Since I am merely a comrade of Soviet Canuckistan, I was wondering if any Americanos could tell me how true that is? Are the protests widespread? Well reported on down there? Do you know people who go to them?

Grassroots or astroturf? Real or fake?

Those are the questions being asked about the rash of protests taking place all over the country against the president's plans to reform the nation's healthcare.

Many Congressional Democrats are facing angry constituents at \"town hall\" meetings.

What is meant to be an opportunity to exchange views and listen has turned into something more like a bar-room fight.

At one such meeting, the police were called in to restore order. One Congressman has received death threats, another has faced an effigy hanging by a rope.

Placards warn of \"health rationing\" and \"socialised medicine\"; chants of \"Just Say No!\" are commonplace.

Democratic senators and representatives - who have just gone home for the summer - may now be wishing they had stayed in humid Washington instead.

Tiny rump?

So are the \"grassroots\" genuinely angry, or are the protests simply manufactured \"astroturf\"?

That depends largely on your politics - or whether you watch the liberal MSNBC or conservative Fox News.

If you are an Obama Democrat, you will find reason to be suspicious.

Why, for example, are the protesters filming the meetings and then posting video on the internet?

The Democrats say the protests are the reaction of a tiny rump of right-wing Republicans, still sore about losing the election.

The protesters, Democrats claim, are the same people who question whether Barack Obama was even born in America - the so-called \"birthers\". The whole phenomenon is a conspiracy of fringe protesters and wealthy special interest groups opposed to changing the status quo, liberals insist.

Democratic video targeting healthcare opponents - courtesy YouTube

A recent advert from the Democratic National Committee accuses the protesters of mob tactics.

Ryan Ellis, of conservative pressure group Americans for Tax Reform, says there are only two possible explanations for the protests.

Either they are a genuine response, or there is a \"secret, evil conspirator hiding somewhere in a mountain\" who is organising it all, Mr Ellis says. It is no surprise as to which one he thinks is true.

Republicans are genuinely opposed to healthcare reform. Their opposition is largely born of a belief that anything involving more government will lead to disaster: \"small government good, big government bad\" is the Republican motto.

Without much pressing, Ryan Ellis admits that his organisation is helping protesters by posting a list of town-hall meetings on its website, and suggesting possible questions for reform opponents to ask.

But he still insists the protests are fuelled by real anger and denies claims that some of the demonstrators are being paid.

Backfiring

Republicans will also make the point that \"organising\" protests is hardly anything new to the left.

Ryan Ellis points to the way that some trade unions will pay the homeless to chant outside offices and factories that employ non-unionised labour.

And then think of the anti-war movement. Genuine, yes. But completely spontaneous - no. You need to organise demonstrations.

And how exactly did Barack Obama defeat Hillary Clinton and John McCain? In politics organising the grassroots has always been a key to success.

Sarah Palin
Mrs Palin accused the president of attempting to set up \"Death Panels\"

There is no doubt that these protests have breathed new life into the Republican Party at a critical time.

It has largely been in disarray since losing the election, but now feels it has traction.

For the first time, a series of opinion polls suggest that President Obama is losing support.

But there is a recognition that some of the tactics might backfire.

In her latest post on Facebook, the former Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, says \"people must not get sidetracked by the tactics that can be accused of leading to intimidation and harassment\".

That might sound a bit rich given that only a few days ago she denounced the Obama healthcare plans as \"evil\" and claimed that the president wanted to create \"death panels\" - doctors deciding which patient should receive treatment.

It is the rhetoric, as well as the tactics, that has shed more heat than light.

Phony war

President Obama and the White House are not entirely blameless either.

They have given credence to the claims that these protests have been orchestrated by a few disgruntled Republicans and by special interest groups with deep pockets.

The president has also added to the confusion about what his health reforms will actually entail.

He has set out broad principles - everyone should have access to health insurance, and costs must come down. But he has asked Congress to work out the all-important details.

The stakes are high for the president and the Republicans.

And the debate about whether these protests are \"grassroots\" or \"astroturf\" is just the phony war; the prelude to a vote which has not yet taken place.

But if President Obama and the Democrats lose this round, they might never recover.
 
Not too hard to figure out. The people ''against'' are the ones who read the actual proposed legislation. The ones ''for'' are the ones who have not read the proposed legislation. Seems pretty cut and dried.
 
The Messiah said:
Not too hard to figure out. The people ''against'' are the ones who read the actual proposed legislation. The ones ''for'' are the ones who have not read the proposed legislation. Seems pretty cut and dried.
Well, glad we got that cleared up then.
 
M

Mr_Chaz

Ravenpoe said:
The Messiah said:
Not too hard to figure out. The people ''against'' are the ones who read the actual proposed legislation. The ones ''for'' are the ones who have not read the proposed legislation. Seems pretty cut and dried.
Well, glad we got that cleared up then.
Yeah, wouldn't want anyone getting confused thinking that the OP was about the protests/protesters rather than the contents of the bill.

Some might even think that debate about the bill would be a healthy thing. We couldn't possibly have people wanting that.
 
If you're seriously looking for an answer BoringMetaphore, don't even bother. You'll just get crap like The Messiah dished out.

Don't look for rationale here, for it is forsaken in this place. :eek:rly:
Mr_Chaz said:
Ravenpoe said:
\"The Messiah\":28dp7198 said:
Not too hard to figure out. The people ''against'' are the ones who read the actual proposed legislation. The ones ''for'' are the ones who have not read the proposed legislation. Seems pretty cut and dried.
Well, glad we got that cleared up then.
Yeah, wouldn't want anyone getting confused thinking that the OP was about the protests/protesters rather than the contents of the bill.

Some might even think that debate about the bill would be a healthy thing. We couldn't possibly have people wanting that.[/quote:28dp7198]

The protests aren't even about the bill.
 
The Messiah said:
Not too hard to figure out. The people ''against'' are the ones who read the actual proposed legislation. The ones ''for'' are the ones who have not read the proposed legislation. Seems pretty cut and dried.
Oh, so what you're saying is that very few people are against it then...
 
A

Armadillo

There are no doubt people who've helped to organize protests at the town halls...the article even states that it's necessary. Even so, the vast majority are, IMO, everyday people who are sick of watching this administration spend money like it's going out of style, and aren't too keen on potentially losing a lot of personal choice regarding their health care. It's not that we don't think reform needs to happen, it's that we disagree about what form it should take. Myself, I think the first priority should be tort reform so that doctors needn't worry about being frivolously sued into oblivion.

But back to the main point, I think the Democrats are making a HUGE mistake by just dismissing the protesters as "fake" or "Astroturf" or whatever cutesy thing they come up with next. These people are their constituents, they're angry, and they probably won't take kindly to being insulted and marginalized by their elected officials.
 
S

Steven Soderburgin

Armadillo said:
These people are their constituents, they're angry, and they probably won't take kindly to being insulted and marginalized by their elected officials.
Then maybe their elected officials should stop expecting people to buy the massive amount of misinformation that is being spread about healthcare reform in order to get people to actively protest against their own best interests.


Oh, wait, you were talking about Democrats. Nevermind.
 
When they're bussed in from out of town, or admit to the press that they're there to "bust up" the meeting, they are no longer constituents. They're thugs. Look at who is paying for these "recess rallies". Big Insurance. Big Pharma. The "Liberty Council" that allegedly provided that "line by line account" is wholly owned by two insurance companies.

When the goal isn't to discuss, but to scream and drown out any rational discourse, they have marginalized *themselves*. They don't take kindly to being called out for their thuggery? Too fucking bad. They chose the path of sheep courtesy of Palin, Gingrich, Beck, et. al. Calm down and act rationally or fuck the fuck off. Screaming and violence isn't going to get anyone to listen to you.
 
Actually, that right there is what's pissing me off about all of this. I don't mind the protests - protesting is an important part of our political process. Unfortunately, whatever actual concerns people might have are being ignored because of the active disinformation being distributed. So we get GOP thugs bringing in people to spread lies and we get dumb shit Dems writing the whole thing off as artificial, ignoring the actual concerns.

I say we burn the whole thing to the ground, collect the insurance, and move on myself, but I might be a little...out of sorts this morning.
 
There have been serious efforts in the US to nationalize or provide basic social healthcare to all citizens since at least 1912, if not earlier.

Thus far about all we have is medicare, which is essentially the healthcare counterpart to social security (ie, only available to 65 and above, for disabled, and others that benefit from social security).

US culture, to some degree, precludes a comprehensive healthcare plan.

1. The rich are afraid they are going to subsidize healthcare for the poor, and/or be unable to pay for better healthcare than what's gov't provided
2. Healthcare establishment is afraid that doctor's salaries will decrease and that they may be stuck with the bill since the gov't has a track record of starting programs without fully funding them
3. The middle class is worried that they may not have much healthcare choice at all - they won't be able to afford privatized healthcare (because they are paying taxes to cover gov't healthcare) and the gov't healthcare must necessarily have lower benefits (they have experience with other gov't social programs that suggests a lower overall efficiency)
4. Some are worried for religious reasons - are their tax dollars going to fund abortions? Ethically/religiously controversial treatments (ie, sex-change, stem cell treatments with viable embryos, Ashley treatment, etc)

It's a complex issue. It isn't that there's two sides, for and against, it's that this issue itself invites so many interpretations and affects so many groups with different goals that it's just not going to come together easily, if at all.

-Adam
 
S

Steven Soderburgin

steinman, you forgot about the private insurance companies who are afraid they won't be able to pull coverage based on technicalities after someone who has been paying increasing premiums for years gets sick with an expensive chronic, but treatable disease.
 
Man Kiss, that's one of my hot buttons right there. Just listening to those wormy CEO's up on capital hill talking about that practice made me want to go mad. :explode:
 
B

BoringMetaphor

I dont really care whether healthcare is good or bad for America.

Im curious about whether some of these protests are staged by some organisation or collection or organisations. Or if this is actually getting people angry enough to go out and act like that. I mean isnt this the level of social unrest you expect from the radicals arguing against globalization or yknow.. the Iraq war.

I suppose the motivation itself doesnt matter, as surely the "left" has done the same thing. But what is striking to me is that seems like the equivalent of your nut jobs who wear bandanas and throw rocks at cops in downtown metropoli. (metropolises?)

Is that an invalid comparison? Im coming from the outside so I really can't tell.
 
I don't want a bureaucrat between me and my health care... Wait I already do. He works at Blue Cross and he denies as many treatments as he approves.
 
Egads, I was wrong. Some very good points are being made by just about everyone involved. Consider me embarrassed for underestimating how the discussion could go. :redface:

As for BoringMetaphore's actual question-
The yelling, screaming people, I think, are there at the Democrat Congressman town halls at the behest of the pharms and such disguised as "Think Tanks". I do think that it is a minority of people though. It just seems like more because they are the loudest and garner the greatest level of attention. The squeaky wheel and all that.
 
The left loves to protest, but hates it when they aren't the ones protesting.

You're telling me that the left doesn't organize the same stuff? All that protest under the previous administration was completely grassroots, and they didn't try to disrupt events? Quit acting like the right is doing something new and vile.

As for the OP, all I have seen is probably the same as you. The news always sensationalizes everything. I don't know how organized the movement is, but apparently there are some folks who aren't willing to sit on the sidelines, expecting their representative has their best interest in mind.
 
drawn_inward said:
The left loves to protest, but hates it when they aren't the ones protesting.

You're telling me that the left doesn't organize the same stuff? All that protest under the previous administration was completely grassroots, and they didn't try to disrupt events? Quit acting like the right is doing something new and vile.
You and I have very different ideas of what "protesting" is.
 
drawn_inward said:
You're telling me that the left doesn't organize the same stuff? All that protest under the previous administration was completely grassroots, and they didn't try to disrupt events? Quit acting like the right is doing something new and vile.
When folks are going in packing heat, like that guy in Utah, or when a lady shows up with a trunk full of guns and ammo at a "FEMA internment camp" in response to the rantings of a Beck, A Gingrich, a Bachman, then it *is* something new and vile. Someone put the idea that Obama was coming to take the guns away from that guy in Pittsburgh. The result was three dead cops. Beck and the gang can plead innocence all they want, but the very next day there they are, calling for their sheep to "take this country back" and near-armed revolution.

This isn't any pot-kettle situation anymore. It's gone in a whole new direction. An ugly and dangerous direction. There will be more dead before it's all over unless the folks who claim to speak for the right reign it in.
 
J

Joe Johnson

As the adage goes, two wrongs don't make a right. Asshats on the dems side screaming at a meeting are just as bad as asshats on the reps side doing the same. Either makes an intelligent discussion impossible. Protesting is different. These people (on both sides) are just disrupting the meeting, never allowing any point to be made.

They are real life trolls/flamers/griefers.
 
drawn_inward said:
The left loves to protest, but hates it when they aren't the ones protesting.
The problem is the tenor of the protests. When the left protests, it seems like the words and phrases "impeachment", "civil rights", "take back congress", and "stop the war" come up a lot. Meanwhile, on the right it seems like the words and phrases "gun", "Real American", "destroying America", and "take back our country" come up a lot.

One at least sounds like it is trying to incite change using the system. The other sounds a lot like the prelude to armed rebellion.
 
Dorko said:
drawn_inward said:
The left loves to protest, but hates it when they aren't the ones protesting.
The problem is the tenor of the protests. When the left protests, it seems like the words and phrases "impeachment", "civil rights", "take back congress", and "stop the war" come up a lot. Meanwhile, on the right it seems like the words and phrases "gun", "Real American", "destroying America", and "take back our country" come up a lot.

One at least sounds like it is trying to incite change using the system. The other sounds a lot like the prelude to armed rebellion.
Yet the ones with TV and radio shows feign shock and dismay when they find people taking their messages seriously. The Tampa mob was a pack of Glenn Beck fans. The lady going after the "FEMA Camp" was as well.

I tell you again, unless they dial it back, more people will die as a result. And the real villains will lose nothing but a few advertisers.
 
Last week before these stories hit, Colbert got his hands on a memo that was sent to all the local Republican Party Headquarters laying out how to act in these protests. Then 2 days later the Town Hall Meetings start and there are people at each one doing exactly what was on the memo.

It is a higher level of organization that the Republicans pull off with these astro-turf movements. Just like the homo-erotic tea bagging that they gave to Obama months back.

It gets ridiculous how often you can catch the 'right' going on to the talk shows using the exact same talking points. It does look funny with 8 different guests on Fox News parroting each other on a daily basis. Especially the Death Panels that are (not) in the bill, Gingrich got called out for lying about those Death Panels. Stephenopoulus(sp) told Gingrich that there was no such measures, and all Gingrich could say is that it is a 1000 page bill. No apology for lying, just it is easy to get mislead because the bill is as long as a Harry Potter novel.

Will Rogers put it best.

I do not belong to an organized political party. I am a Democrat.
 
But, they're gonna send people to kill old people to save money... as soon as tehy have enough people for it that is... (hey Obama, sarcasm only works on crazy people if it's really mean spirited...)
 
A brief glance at some of the bill just blows my mind. http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf

So, the gov't will REQUIRE that every American obtain health insurance at their own cost - even if they can't afford it. If they don't, they will be taxed for the gov't minimum health plan.

The gov't also sets the standards for what qualifies as a health plan that meets the requirement of having a health plan, for instance "Such rate shall not vary by health status-related factors" - which means that I cannot choose a health plan which is cheaper due to my non-smoking, non-drinking, etc lifestyle. I get to subsidize everyone who chooses to have cancer, and subsequent cancer treatment, in their 60's by smoking in their 20's. Not to mention the whole religious aspect of this - there are religions that prohibit certain medical treatments/procedures/etc, will the gov't make a loophole for them, or force them to conform to the rules? How many loopholes are going to have to be created? How many people will slip through these loopholes? How will this be enforced? Are we going to have policemen start checking for "License, registration, proof of vehicle AND health insurance" now?

And that's just one tiny small portion of this 1,018 page bill.

Ugh.

The current system isn't perfect, but I can't subscribe to a government controlled healthcare system. I don't want politicians to have that much control over my family's healthcare.

-Adam
 
It gets ridiculous how often you can catch the 'right' going on to the talk shows using the exact same talking points. It does look funny with 8 different guests on Fox News parroting each other on a daily basis.
trust me its just as rediculous when the 'left' does it on CNN and MSNBC.
 
Covar said:
It gets ridiculous how often you can catch the 'right' going on to the talk shows using the exact same talking points. It does look funny with 8 different guests on Fox News parroting each other on a daily basis.
trust me its just as rediculous when the 'left' does it on CNN and MSNBC.
Yeah, but as reality has a well known liberal bias they never seem as insane as the right...
 
@Li3n said:
Covar said:
It gets ridiculous how often you can catch the 'right' going on to the talk shows using the exact same talking points. It does look funny with 8 different guests on Fox News parroting each other on a daily basis.
trust me its just as rediculous when the 'left' does it on CNN and MSNBC.
Yeah, but as reality has a well known liberal bias they never seem as insane as the right...
:rofl:
 
Kissinger said:
stienman said:
A brief glance at some of the bill just blows my mind. http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf

So, the gov't will REQUIRE that every American obtain health insurance at their own cost - even if they can't afford it. If they don't, they will be taxed for the gov't minimum health plan.
Hey, I made a whole thread about that bill! >:|
Which devolved into inanity and those of us who actually tried to discuss it rationally were generally ignored.

It was really quite lovely. :smug:

@Li3n said:
Yeah, but as reality has a well known liberal bias they never seem as insane as the right...
Ok, maybe you were right Krisken... :eyeroll: I take back anything I thought or said about rational and well thought out discussion...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top