Are the town hall protestors the mainstream view of America?

Flutter Girl

soulsinging wrote:

Until the big companies just buy out all the little guys and, like happened with the banks and AIG and Walmart, you are left with only one or two huge companies too big to fail and with no competition whatsoever. That is why prices are so high now. If 10 companies in one state is not enough competition to drive prices down, what good is another 90? The problem is they all engage in price fixing... and they'll just take that national. You won't get insurance at Georgia's rates, the one in Georgia will raise it to Florida levels.

Oy vey I'm having trouble keeping up here...

Georgia would never be able to get away with that cos they would still have to remain at affordable rates in their state..Actually the lowest cost state would set the bar, and they would not be able to get away with raising rates because there are laws in the particular amendment being proposed that would prevent them from doing that. They have to remain affordable for the people in their state, and if the people in their state have a measily income, then the companies would have a measily (by the rest of our standards) cost for their plans.

And like I said..Public option..and medicaid, for that matter, are worthless for me cos with them I'd still get stuck with the cost of the brand name medicine. Only, if I had to get a public option plan, as would be required by law or else face a fine, as detailed in the amendment, I will be paying for the name brand on my own AND a public option plan. I'd be screwed.

The UK and France study are definate, it's just the 3rd I can't remember straight..sorry.
How do you skip from step one to step 3? Opening the borders means more supply, equaling a sudden and dramatic less demand. That ends with lower cost. It's a simple tried and true equation.

I didn't hear it..I read it. It's all available on the government website for anyone to read the bill..If I haven't missed it already, I'll also be watching Congress debate it on cspan (yes...I am actually boring enough to watch that..)

Actually Doctor's would readily accept them. It would bog them down more at first, but if insurance is more affordable, there will be more people able to get on it instead of medicaid and doctor's positively despise medicaid. I can not say that strongly enough.
Most doctors will look into and begin to accept a new plan at the simple request of a patient. My dad had to do that with his doc, dentist, and derm (he's no pretty boy, he works hard outdoors, he's required to go every 2 months to be checked for skin cancer), when his company downgraded his insurance to a newer little company..

soulsinging

Flutter Girl wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

Until the big companies just buy out all the little guys and, like happened with the banks and AIG and Walmart, you are left with only one or two huge companies too big to fail and with no competition whatsoever. That is why prices are so high now. If 10 companies in one state is not enough competition to drive prices down, what good is another 90? The problem is they all engage in price fixing... and they'll just take that national. You won't get insurance at Georgia's rates, the one in Georgia will raise it to Florida levels.

Oy vey I'm having trouble keeping up here...

Georgia would never be able to get away with that cos they would still have to remain at affordable rates in their state..Actually the lowest cost state would set the bar, and they would not be able to get away with raising rates because there are laws in the particular amendment being proposed that would prevent them from doing that. They have to remain affordable for the people in their state, and if the people in their state have a measily income, then the companies would have a measily (by the rest of our standards) cost for their plans.

And like I said..Public option..and medicaid, for that matter, are worthless for me cos with them I'd still get stuck with the cost of the brand name medicine. Only, if I had to get a public option plan, as would be required by law or else face a fine, as detailed in the amendment, I will be paying for the name brand on my own AND a public option plan. I'd be screwed.

The UK and France study are definate, it's just the 3rd I can't remember straight..sorry.
How do you skip from step one to step 3? Opening the borders means more supply, equaling a sudden and dramatic less demand. That ends with lower cost. It's a simple tried and true equation.

There won't be dramatically less demand. Everyone needs health care. There's no floor on that. The fact that there is more supply doesn't mean demand shrinks. Regardless of whether there's no change, a public option, or open borders, the same number of people still need health care/insurance.

If you had to get the public option plan, it would cost you nearly nothing. Certainly far less than the $729 per month you spend on your current insurance. I am sure that would be sufficient to cover your drugs. And hell, you're not covering your drugs under the current system anyway, your dad is. And why do people keep saying you pay a fine if you don't opt for the public option? My understand is that in any incarnation, you only pay a fine if you refuse all insurance. If you have your own private health insurance, no fine. If you take the government plan, no fine. If you don't take the government plan and refuse to get any private insurance, THEN you pay a fine.

Flutter Girl

soulsinging wrote:

You think if they pass a 'no denial for prior conditions' law you're suddenly going to get those things cheaper? The first thing they're going to do is raise the rates on everyone to compensate for having to take on people that aren't in the shape of a championship level tennis player. You'll be paying over a grand. And you may still run into problems like being dropped halfway through chemo or being told the company won't cover treatment or certain tests.

Nope, they won't be able to, it's all in the proposed amendment..Not allowed to jack up the rates like that, and it's extremely specific about how they cannot deny tests/treatments, or drop a person because they become sick/disabled..He thought well ahead on that..

Demand would shrink in each individual state. It will rise in cheaper states, but as said, the amendment is clear that companies in those states will not be allowed to raise their rates to something unaffordable for the average income in those states. In response to that, the more expensive states will lower their rates to stay competitive with the lower income states, and people will be able to afford health care in their own state, and their own state will keep it low cos those companies will be well aware of the constant threat of their customers going to another cheaper state if they try and raise their rates again. In the end, what will happen is everything will even out across the notion to match the costs in the lowest income states and the doctors really wouldn't be that overwhelmed with new companies because the newly lowered rates of the companies they already deal with will keep most of the business in that state after all.

And the $729 is not for insurance..that is what I pay for my medications. On a public option plan, I would not be able to get those meds unless I paid for them myself because they are not generic. Therefore, I would end up still paying $729 a month for medication, and the cost for the public option plan.

soulsinging

Flutter Girl wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

You think if they pass a 'no denial for prior conditions' law you're suddenly going to get those things cheaper? The first thing they're going to do is raise the rates on everyone to compensate for having to take on people that aren't in the shape of a championship level tennis player. You'll be paying over a grand. And you may still run into problems like being dropped halfway through chemo or being told the company won't cover treatment or certain tests.

Nope, they won't be able to, it's all in the proposed amendment..Not allowed to jack up the rates like that, and it's extremely specific about how they cannot deny tests/treatments, or drop a person because they become sick/disabled..He thought well ahead on that..

Demand would shrink in each individual state. It will rise in cheaper states, but as said, the amendment is clear that companies in those states will not be allowed to raise their rates to something unaffordable for the average income in those states. In response to that, the more expensive states will lower their rates to stay competitive with the lower income states, and people will be able to afford health care in their own state, and their own state will keep it low cos those companies will be well aware of the constant threat of their customers going to another cheaper state if they try and raise their rates again. In the end, what will happen is everything will even out across the notion to match the costs in the lowest income states and the doctors really wouldn't be that overwhelmed with new companies because the newly lowered rates of the companies they already deal with will keep most of the business in that state after all.

And the $729 is not for insurance..that is what I pay for my medications. On a public option plan, I would not be able to get those meds unless I paid for them myself because they are not generic. Therefore, I would end up still paying $729 a month for medication, and the cost for the public option plan.

The purpose of the public option plan is that it would cost you nothing, but fair enough.

I guess I don't understand why it is ok for the government to step into an industry and tell it when it can and cannot adjust its fees, and who it can and cannot cover, and basically every other aspect of its business (other than how much it can spend on lobbying), but it is communism if the government says "well, you all keep doing whatever the hell you want, and we're going to offer our own option for you to compete with." Doesn't the latter option lead to the same result (forcing insurance companies to compete with lower cost options) with substantially LESS government interference with and regulation of private business?

Cliffy6745

Flutter Girl wrote:

I'm not stupid enough to be choked with credit cards, the closest I come to that is a check card. My bills are minimum, the utilities and a couple luxuries (satellite tv, AOL..)

Off topic.....

AOL as a luxury.....You're not helping the sterotype that Pearl Jam fans are stuck in the 90's

gabers

Flutter Girl wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

What if they're not communist, and are just socialist. Do you know what that means? Or is there no such thing in your mind? Just communists and God-fearing, Jesus-loving capitalists?

socialist is right between democrat and communist. Want freedoms, but also want the government to take care of you. I'm an independent, myself..I'm not keen on extremes..they don't allow for any grey area
And I am also a fan of capitalism. As are many democrats, and even some socialists. Capitalism is not specific to any party.

Just because it always bothers me when people misquote this, by it's pure definition, socialism is extreme left and communism is far right political ideology. Communism is characterized by a "stateless" society (far right) and Socialism is characterized by a state controlled economy. Just sayin'.

Prince Of Dorkness

gabers wrote:

Just because it always bothers me when people misquote this, by it's pure definition, socialism is extreme left and communism is far right political ideology. Communism is characterized by a "stateless" society (far right) and Socialism is characterized by a state controlled economy. Just sayin'.

Now now.. don't confuse the poor conservatards with facts and stuff. They only just learned how to spell "Moron."

Flutter Girl

Cliffy6745 wrote:

Flutter Girl wrote:

I'm not stupid enough to be choked with credit cards, the closest I come to that is a check card. My bills are minimum, the utilities and a couple luxuries (satellite tv, AOL..)

Off topic.....

AOL as a luxury.....You're not helping the sterotype that Pearl Jam fans are stuck in the 90's

LoL...for someone with no money, it's a luxury (tho I am pretty stuck in the 90's myself)..

Flutter Girl

Jasunmark wrote:

gabers wrote:

Just because it always bothers me when people misquote this, by it's pure definition, socialism is extreme left and communism is far right political ideology. Communism is characterized by a "stateless" society (far right) and Socialism is characterized by a state controlled economy. Just sayin'.

Now now.. don't confuse the poor conservatards with facts and stuff. They only just learned how to spell "Moron."

I'm not a conservative..
I'm glad Gaber posted it, I was unaware of the actual definition. I had always assumed that socialism was when the government takes care of the citizen's thru massive programs like UK's NHS, etc..And Communism is where the government takes care of every aspect in the citizen's lives..

'takes care' is probably not the right term to use here......

Prince Of Dorkness

Flutter Girl wrote:

I was unaware of the actual definition. I had always assumed that...

I want to thank you for explaining the entire Tea Party movement in a sentence and a half.

Flutter Girl

Jasunmark wrote:

Flutter Girl wrote:

I was unaware of the actual definition. I had always assumed that...

I want to thank you for explaining the entire Tea Party movement in a sentence and a half.

Again..I am not a conservative. Nor have I been to any of these tea parties or town hall meetings. Nor have I had the need to know the exact definition.

Prince Of Dorkness

Flutter Girl wrote:

Jasunmark wrote:

Flutter Girl wrote:

I was unaware of the actual definition. I had always assumed that...

I want to thank you for explaining the entire Tea Party movement in a sentence and a half.

Again..I am not a conservative. Nor have I been to any of these tea parties or town hall meetings. Nor have I had the need to know the exact definition.

I didn't say you were a conservative. But I DID say that before you start using words you should know what they mean.

And you HAVE had the need to know the exact definition because you've tried (unsuccessfully) to explain what they mean, thus passing your cluelessness on to more people. you think you're Glenn Beck or something?

Flutter Girl

Jasunmark wrote:

I didn't say you were a conservative. But I DID say that before you start using words you should know what they mean.

And you HAVE had the need to know the exact definition because you've tried (unsuccessfully) to explain what they mean, thus passing your cluelessness on to more people. you think you're Glenn Beck or something?

It's what I get for posting while doped up on cold medicine and having not slept in more than 24 hours..Gaber- I was actually right. Jasunmark, not only were you wrong, but you proceeded to attack me with your ignorance.

stateless would be somalia....

from center to left is independent, to liberal, to socialist, to full blown communist. socialists believe capitalism is bad, therefore government should take care of the citizens..to an extent. Communism feels capitalism is unnacceptable and abolish it entirely, having the government "take care" (if you can call it that) of the citizens entirely, such as what Cuba did before the Iron Curtain (and their funding) fell. I am on the Board of Directors for Grupo Caiman, a Cuban organisation working with the revolt. The president of our organisation is the son of one of the founding members of the 26 of July Movement, and we have worked with Huber Matos. Camilo Cienfuegos was a favourite by the Cuban citizens, over Fidel, Raul, Che, and even Huber, because he was seen as being more to the right, a socialist, instead of a full on communist like Fidel and Che. Don't know who Huber and Camilo are? Look them up, I'm not your personal history teacher. Moreover, my family came from former soviet union. Point is, I know a thing or 2 about what communism is. If it is so far right, then please indulge me in the reason why Cuba is listed as a one-state socialist republic/communist state?

Just sayin'

Prince Of Dorkness

Flutter Girl wrote:

It's what I get for posting while doped up on cold medicine and having not slept in more than 24 hours..Gaber- I was actually right. Jasunmark, not only were you wrong, but you proceeded to attack me with your ignorance.

Wow.. it's like when Sarah Palin walked out of the court after being found guilty and said "It's nice that they found no wrong-doing and I was cleared of everything."

OutOfBreath

Flutter Girl wrote:

from center to left is independent, to liberal, to socialist, to full blown communist. socialists believe capitalism is bad, therefore government should take care of the citizens..to an extent. Communism feels capitalism is unnacceptable and abolish it entirely, having the government "take care" (if you can call it that) of the citizens entirely, such as what Cuba did before the Iron Curtain (and their funding) fell. I am on the Board of Directors for Grupo Caiman, a Cuban organisation working with the revolt. The president of our organisation is the son of one of the founding members of the 26 of July Movement, and we have worked with Huber Matos. Camilo Cienfuegos was a favourite by the Cuban citizens, over Fidel, Raul, Che, and even Huber, because he was seen as being more to the right, a socialist, instead of a full on communist like Fidel and Che. Don't know who Huber and Camilo are? Look them up, I'm not your personal history teacher. Moreover, my family came from former soviet union. Point is, I know a thing or 2 about what communism is. If it is so far right, then please indulge me in the reason why Cuba is listed as a one-state socialist republic/communist state?

All well as far as real instances are concerned. But ideally, the point of communism is no state at all. It won't be necessary. But for a transitional period, the state would take control and guide society towards real communism. No communist regime ever have gotten anywhere near past that stage, as when some people get a lot of power, they tend to want to keep it. Which is why communism never gets off the ground. In that context, Cuba is merely socialist, as was the entire Soviet bloc.

But in everyday language, communism usually just means a more harsh socialism with an authoritarian streak. In that context, Cuba can be called "communist". But "true" communism can never be achieved, just like anarchism or the ideally free market. The reason is because we are people, and these ideals rarely take that truly into account, except for small peices of it that befits the theory. Most commonly power, both brute physical and more subtle definitional power, are left out.

Peace
Dan

Flutter Girl

OutOfBreath wrote:

All well as far as real instances are concerned. But ideally, the point of communism is no state at all. It won't be necessary. But for a transitional period, the state would take control and guide society towards real communism. No communist regime ever have gotten anywhere near past that stage, as when some people get a lot of power, they tend to want to keep it. Which is why communism never gets off the ground. In that context, Cuba is merely socialist, as was the entire Soviet bloc.

But in everyday language, communism usually just means a more harsh socialism with an authoritarian streak. In that context, Cuba can be called "communist". But "true" communism can never be achieved, just like anarchism or the ideally free market. The reason is because we are people, and these ideals rarely take that truly into account, except for small peices of it that befits the theory. Most commonly power, both brute physical and more subtle definitional power, are left out.

Peace
Dan

I appreciate how you explained it, unlike jasunmark.

And to jasunmark, before you get high on your horse, true communism isn't worth understanding for a purpose of arguement regarding current political parties. The only tangible communism to speak about and compare to is what I described. To bring up true communism was a mute point. I understand why Gabers did it, but it was still a mute point because it was obvious I was not referring to a kind of government that will never exist.

pickupyourwill

musicismylife78 wrote:

Are they just a fringe group of righties pissed off, just like the left was when Bush got in? Or do you think its something bigger, and that they actually have some kind of movement going on?

I remember those teabag parties awhile back. I dont remember what was decided about them, how many there were, how many people showed up, etc...

My question is this: from my viewpoint, there seems to be alot of anger directed at Obama right now, and its based on the health care thing. Is this, as I said, just the logical right wing opposition who wanted Mccain to win, and now that Obama is shoving legislation down our throats, they are, understandably, just as we were with Bush, angry, pissed off, and want him impeached?

just wish everyone got along.