US Republicans tell lies about the NHS

[Philidor]

You have to be private in LA - they don't have another option, which is really sad. That's why a lot of homeless people are in serious trouble, plus they don't have the dole. We donate a lot of our stuff to the LA children's hospital and a lot of our money to Meals on Wheels in the States. Living in LA has made me appreciate how important the NHS is. Source

[chillowack]

Originally Posted by Philidor

This isn't bad - Glenn Beck's anal procedure:

YouTube - JOHN STEWART & BECK

"Not bad"? This was great! There's nothing like proving a person's hypocrisy with his own words. Stewart and his "protege" Colbert are masters of this.

And the quip about "the hole in Beck's ass not having healed enough for him to stop talking out of it" was brilliant!

[Philidor]

Well, it passed:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GALYnnAQFKA"]YouTube- President Obama On the Passage of Health Reform[/ame]

How are the Teabaggers reacting? Going bonkers, presumably, and ranting about Socialism. LOL It's odd for an Englishman, schooled in 60 years of the NHS, to watch the shenanigans. I've known hundreds of socialists, from far left to soft-as-custard social democrats, and I can assure you Obama is not Joe Stalin.

[Balthazar]

Originally Posted by Philidor

How are the Teabaggers reacting? Going bonkers, presumably, and ranting about Socialism. LOL It's odd for an Englishman, schooled in 60 years of the NHS, to watch the shenanigans. I've known hundreds of socialists, from far left to soft-as-custard social democrats, and I can assure you Obama is not Joe Stalin.

Though I'm glad to see it passed, this watered-down legislation is more about the viability of Obama's administration than real health care reform. The sweeping claims that the Democratic leadership are making about this measure are debatable, considering the compromises they've made to appease the gun-toting loonies. The surrender of a single-payer stipulation (to cut down on costs from deliberately complicated billing strategies) and a public option (to offer low-cost public insurance to compete with private plans) discouraged a lot of red cats like me from wholeheartedly supporting the measure. Progressive Senator Dennis Kucinich had to be strong-armed by Obama into voting for the bill.

I hope it's a step in the right direction, as well as a harbinger of progressive social legislation to come. But I worry.

[Philidor]

Originally Posted by Balthazar

Though I'm glad to see it passed, this watered-down legislation is more about the viability of Obama's administration than real health care reform. The sweeping claims that the Democratic leadership are making about this measure are debatable, considering the compromises they've made to appease the gun-toting loonies. The surrender of a single-payer stipulation (to cut down on costs from deliberately complicated billing strategies) and a public option (to offer low-cost public insurance to compete with private plans) discouraged a lot of red cats like me from wholeheartedly supporting the measure. Progressive Senator Dennis Kucinich had to be strong-armed by Obama into voting for the bill.

I hope it's a step in the right direction, as well as a harbinger of progressive social legislation to come. But I worry.

We've lost battles in the NHS: prescription charges, the near annihilation of NHS dentistry (all those jokes about British teeth ) and Bevan (the first Health Secretary) notoriously had to 'stuff their mouths with gold' to secure the doctors' support (when he wasn't calling Conservatives "vermin"). But once this sort of reform's through it's very hard to roll back fundamentally. So it's an amazing achievement. Plus it's 'foot on the door' and can be built upon, a prospect certain to cause gloom in the breast of a birther-NRA-gun-nut-teabag.

CONGRATULATIONS!

[Chi_town/Philly]

1. The Obamacare bill was broadly unpopular. Every honest poll in the last two months has shown that more Americans opposed it than supported it. It was arguably the single biggest issue that drove Senator Brown to victory in the Massachusetts Special Election. States don't come much more left-wing than Massachusetts, the only one of the 50 to support McGovern in 1972. So it's clear that far more people than the hard-right distrusted this bill, and for very solid reasons.

To the constituents that consistently opposed the legislation, Obama & Pelosi said "tell-it-to-the-hand."

2. Many Americans, as a general matter of policy, tend to distrust a 2200+ page piece of legislation that purports to make so much more sense for the country as a whole, if only the hoi polloi were sophisticated enough to understand it all.

3. As part of the reconciliation process, the House of Representatives voted on the Senate bill, which is so festooned with payoffs that we're still trying to figure out who was bought off. Some have been named, e.g.: the 'Louisiana Purchase' [bought Landrieu's vote], the 'Cornhusker Kickback' [bought the vote of Nebraska's Ben Nelson], 'U-CON' [a play on words describing Connecticut's favored treatment] and 'Gator-Aid' [Florida's concommitant deal]. This kind of cynical, corrupt, 'end-justifies-the-means' negotiation has been widely, and righteously, reviled.

4. Putative pro-life democrat congressman Stupak from Michigan publicly came out in support of the legislation (as I knew he would all along [also see Kucinich, Dennis]) with the statement that he was reassured that Obama would sign an Executive Order barring funds from this bill to be used on abortions. Not lost in the hoopla is that Executive Orders can be rescinded at any time by a subsequent President, or even the President that promulgated the Executive Order in the first place. Entirely lost in the hoopla is the possibility that an Executive Order that has the possibility of countermanding a provision of a passed law is subject to court challenge. At any rate, I think it's telling that no abortion-rights democrats were put off by this pronouncement in the least. I suspect there's a certain amount of 'nudge-wink' going on here- and it wouldn't be the first time.

5. The provisions of Obamacare claim to do many things. They claim to a) cut Medicare with no adverse effects to Medicare benefits, b) add 30+ million uninsured into coverage, c) 'allow' contented persons to keep their doctor-patient-health insurance relationship as-is, and do all these things while d) reducing the total cost of medical care, e) denying the potentiality of rationing care, and f) reducing the federal deficit. Many sensible Americans conclude that this violates the law... the law of arithmetic.

I have not seen a more arrogant disregard for the will of the American people, on a domestic issue, in memory. [Though stay tuned, I may see another one... "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" a.k.a.: Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants- even more comprehensively unpopular than this most recent bill.]

Opposition to the Statists is now hornet-mad and bee-energetic.
In 10 months, we could well see a new hand on the narrow end of the 'Speaker-of-the-House' gavel.

[Balthazar]

Originally Posted by Chi_town/Philly

1. The Obamacare bill was broadly unpopular. Every honest poll in the last two months has shown that more Americans opposed it than supported it.

Just barely. The latest Gallup poll showed 48% against and 45% in favor. That's pretty much even, given any reasonable margin of error. So would that indicate that the bill was also "broadly popular"? Exactly what constitutes "breadth" in this analysis?

It was arguably the single biggest issue that drove Senator Brown to victory in the Massachusetts Special Election. States don't come much more left-wing than Massachusetts, the only one of the 50 to support McGovern in 1972. So it's clear that far more people than the hard-right distrusted this bill, and for very solid reasons.

I live in Massachusetts, where the Democrats expected to be handed the vacant Senate seat on a silver platter. Even registered Democrats like me deplored the hubris of the Coakley camp. However, the Brown phenomenon was nothing more than slick marketing. The deluge of ads showing handsome Scott Brown driving his expensive pickup truck and pretending to be a regular guy were conspicuously missing any substantive discussion of his stance on issues. While running on the Republican ticket, he never mentioned the R word and claimed to be an "independent voice" for change, etc. He dismissed any criticism of his voting record from the Democratic camp as "negative campaigning," as if his position on issues were irrelevant to the matters at hand. Anyone who fell for this disgraceful snow job should be ashamed of himself.

Blah blah blah the bill is many pages long blah blah corruption blah blah baby killers blah blah Sarah Palin talking points blah blah

Oh. Kay.

Opposition to the Statists is now hornet-mad and bee-energetic. In 10 months, we could well see a new hand on the narrow end of the 'Speaker-of-the-House' gavel.

In any mid-term election, the majority party usually loses seats. But health care is a done deal. I've even read an article by Bush speechwriter David Frum blaming the Republicans' lunatic fringe for Obama's health care victory. And by November, it will probably be to the Republicans' benefit to distance themselves from the people who predicted the Apocalypse if Obamacare became law. Where's the hail of fire now??

[Herzeleide]

Originally Posted by Chi_town/Philly

I have not seen a more arrogant disregard for the will of the American people, on a domestic issue, in memory.

Reap what you sow, man... in a society ran by the anomic, the retarded and the flagitious, what do you expect the populace to believe? It's not the 'American people', it's the reactionary ideas inculcated therein that a few have to take a stand against.

[Chi_town/Philly]

Originally Posted by Balthazar

Just barely. The latest Gallup poll showed 48% against and 45% in favor. That's pretty much even, given any reasonable margin of error. So would that indicate that the bill was also "broadly popular"? Exactly what constitutes "breadth" in this analysis?

Uh, that ALL the independent polls showed this opposition (and greater).

Originally Posted by Balthazar- in 'straw-man' mode

Blah blah blah the bill is many pages long blah blah corruption blah blah baby killers blah blah Sarah Palin talking points blah blah

This is the way American left-wing Statists who are used to conducting their discourse in an echo-chamber argue their points. It's entirely substance-free.

Full marks to Philidor for an honest observation among the points made from the left-side of the aisle... it IS the short end of the wedge.

[Balthazar]

Originally Posted by Chi_town/Philly

This is the way American left-wing Statists who are used to conducting their discourse in an echo-chamber argue their points. It's entirely substance-free.

Yes, and this is the way American right-wingers react when no one takes their stale bait anymore. The Republican idea of discourse is a slew of fearmongering hyperbole, invoking "the people" when the only ones who benefit from Republican policies are their corporate cronies, and appeals to the authority of Founding Fathers who would be shocked at the religiosity and ignorance of their Tea Party descendants.