Chuck Norris roundhouse kicks Obamacare

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

gorgon wrote:
reds8n wrote: Are the republicans in the USA really so demoralised that they are elying upon radio and tv hosts and washed up actors to do their "thinking*" for them still ?

It's just fearmongering politics as usual. Both sides do it. And it usually tramples over any real dialogue and constructive debate on a given issue.

The nutjob reactionaries are out in force, don't get me wrong. The "black helicopter" and "one world government" types from the Clinton years mostly got quiet during Bush's tenure except for the occasional border patrol "militia", so everyone forgot about them. But they're still out there.

But this is more about the loony fringe piggybacking onto a major effort by the congressional GOP to remain relevant. The actual issue of health care is becoming secondary, sadly.

If you believe that is the only groups objecting than you must think thats the majority of the US population.

When it comes to health care decisions, 51% of the nation’s voters fear the federal government more than private insurance companies. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 41% hold the opposite view and fear the insurance companies more. Seven percent (7%) are not sure who they fear the most.

Among those who have insurance, 53% fear the government more than insurance companies while 39% take the opposite view. Those without insurance fear the insurance companies more.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/august_2009/on_health_care_51_fear_government_more_than_insurance_companies

Americans Split on Healthcare ReformThirty-five percent of Americans say they would advise their members of Congress to vote for a healthcare reform bill in September, 36% would advise them to vote against a bill, and 29% have no opinion.

http://www.gallup.com/video/122228/Americans-Split-Healthcare-Reform.aspx

**Orkeosaurus**

It looks like the specifics of how the program would be implemented is up to the states.

If abuse occurs in the program, it will probably be a state issue. The bill doesn't appear to give authority, only funding (which makes sense for a voluntary program).

**dogma**

Relapse wrote:
Actually, having friends whose parents fought for Hitler in WW2 gives me a better insight than the average guy on the street.

No, it really doesn't.

Relapse wrote:
By that statement it's likely you don't have any kids. As a parent, I think anyone from the government trying to tell me how to raise my children offensive if it's done the way it reads in that bill.

So, you find it offensive that the state might provide funding for the provision of parental resources? That's absolutely absurd. Its like being offended by the mere existence of the armed forces.

Look, the government is increasing the defense budget! Its only a matter of time before they use the military to deprive us of our rights!

**Relapse**

dogma wrote:
Relapse wrote:
Actually, having friends whose parents fought for Hitler in WW2 gives me a better insight than the average guy on the street.

No, it really doesn't.

Relapse wrote:
By that statement it's likely you don't have any kids. As a parent, I think anyone from the government trying to tell me how to raise my children offensive if it's done the way it reads in that bill.

So, you find it offensive that the state might provide funding for the provision of parental resources? That's absolutely absurd. Its like being offended by the mere existence of the armed forces.

Look, the government is increasing the defense budget! Its only a matter of time before they use the military to deprive us of our rights!

Actually, it does. The average guy on the street doesn't know a lot of what went on in Germany at that time. I've heard a lot of first hand accounts.

If someone is using those resources to attempt taking over how my children are raised it's offensive.

**dogma**

Relapse wrote:
Actually, it does. The average guy on the street doesn't know a lot of what went on in Germany at that time. I've heard a lot of first hand accounts.

Anecdotal evidence isn't evidence at all. I use this example all the time, but:
The fact that my neighbor works for UPS does not allow me to speak on the topic of corporate logistics.

Relapse wrote:
If someone is using those resources to attempt taking over how my children are raised it's offensive.

But that's not what's being described in the bill.

**Relapse**

dogma wrote:
Anecdotal evidence isn't evidence at all. I use this example all the time, but:
The fact that my neighbor works for UPS does not allow me to speak on the topic of corporate logistics.

Not a very good analogy. Your neighbor could tell you about what his job and the rules surrounding it involves, which in turn gives you an idea about UPS company policies. The only way you could fail to learn anything from him is if he didn't talk about his work. If you listened to his stories and asked questions, then you'd learn.

**Frazzled**

dogma wrote:
Relapse wrote:
Actually, having friends whose parents fought for Hitler in WW2 gives me a better insight than the average guy on the street.

No, it really doesn't.

Relapse wrote:
By that statement it's likely you don't have any kids. As a parent, I think anyone from the government trying to tell me how to raise my children offensive if it's done the way it reads in that bill.

So, you find it offensive that the state might provide funding for the provision of parental resources? That's absolutely absurd. Its like being offended by the mere existence of the armed forces.

Look, the government is increasing the defense budget! Its only a matter of time before they use the military to deprive us of our rights!

It uses the funds to mandate compliance. You know how this works Dogma.
Do I personally think this tiny bit is an issue? No. There's plenty of nightmare in this bill without it.

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:
It uses the funds to mandate compliance. You know how this works Dogma.

Yes, I do, but that wasn't the type of compliance I was referring to. In order to receive the funds in question, the state in question must possess a program consistent with the description in the bill. No one is being forced to use the program, or even act on the information provided by it.

Relapse wrote:
Not a very good analogy. Your neighbor could tell you about what his job and the rules surrounding it involves, which in turn gives you an idea about UPS company policies. The only way you could fail to learn anything from him is if he didn't talk about his work. If you listened to his stories and asked questions, then you'd learn.

Except I never stated that he was incapable of imparting knowledge, only that his microcosmic perspective is incapable of illuminating a macrocosmic phenomenon; like corporate logistics. In the same vein, individual tales of Nazi Germany are not particularly effective at describing the whole of that political institution; especially when you attempt to use them to justify a claim to comparability with parental resources in a healthcare bill.

**sebster**

Frazzled wrote:Here's the final flaw in that argument. The Democrats control the Executive. the Democrats control the House. The Democrats control a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. If the Democrats wanted to, they could pass it at any time.

Sure, but they're the Democrats. Collapsing into an ineffective pile is pretty much what they do.

**gorgon**

Frazzled wrote:If you believe that is the only groups objecting than you must think thats the majority of the US population.

Well, yeah, I forgot about the insurance lobbyists and the doctors.

This is all just a replay of 1993. Voters feel health care is an important issue, a new president is elected with that as part of his platform, he tries to make changes, and quickly loses the battle for public opinion as the aforementioned forces ally to scare the public and put all kinds of silly ideas in their heads. With real debate squelched, the measure fails, and then after a respite the voters go back to wondering why someone isn't doing something about health care.

Both sides are guilty of these scare tactics. Are you going to tell me you've never felt similarly when the GOP brings up the topic of Social Security reform, etc.? It's the same damn thing. And I don't even know that it's always about actual differences so much as it's about blocking the other side and showing them who's boss. What's best for the country isn't even on their radar. Both sides know Social Security, health care and a bunch of other issues need reform. And they could probably could compromise and find areas of common ground if they weren't so busy playing their little political games and keeping score on their chalkboards.

**Frazzled**

Thats not a supportable argument.

Rasmussen less than 24 hours old:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/august_2009/support_for_congressional_health_care_reform_falls_to_new_low
Less than 42% now favor the current proposed plan. So again, you must think the majority of the US are idiots or in the tank.

56% over 65 oppose this plan. They are the most impacted. They also vote the most. Congress is keenly aware of that.

Public support for the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats has fallen to a new low as just 42% of U.S. voters now favor the plan. That’s down five points from two weeks ago and down eight points from six weeks ago.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that opposition to the plan has increased to 53%, up nine points since late June.

More significantly, 44% of voters strongly oppose the health care reform effort versus 26% who strongly favor it. Intensity has been stronger among opponents of the plan since the debate began.

Sixty-seven percent (67%) of those under 30 favor the plan while 56% of those over 65 are opposed. Among senior citizens, 46% are strongly opposed.

Predictably, 69% of Democrats favor the plan, while 79% of Republicans oppose it. Yet while 44% of Democratic voters strongly favor the reform effort, 70% of GOP voters are strongly opposed to it.
Most notable, however, is the opposition among voters not affiliated with either party. Sixty-two percent (62%) of unaffiliated voters oppose the health care plan, and 51% are strongly opposed. This marks an uptick in strong opposition among both Republicans and unaffiliateds, while the number of strongly supportive Democrats is unchanged.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.

Despite the loss of support, 51% of all voters still say it is at least somewhat likely that the health care proposal will become law this year. That figure has hardly budged since the debate began and now includes 18% who say passage is very likely. Thirty-nine percent (39%) say passage of the plan is unlikely, but only 10% say it is not at all likely.

Congress is now in recess until early September, but Democratic congressional leaders have vowed to pass some form of the health care plan when they return to Washington. Town hall meetings many of the congressmen are holding to get public feedback on the plan have turned into protest sessions, and the New York Times reports today that the president and Democratic leaders are revamping the sales strategy for the reform effort because they find themselves on the defensive.

As for the protesters at congressional town hall meetings, 49% believe they are genuinely expressing the views of their neighbors, while 37% think they’ve been put up to it by special interest groups and lobbyists.

The latest polls shows that 26% of voters believe that passage of the Congressional health care plan will lead to a better quality of health care. But most voters (51%) disagree and say the quality will get worse. Seventeen percent (17%) expect it to stay the same.

Voters ages 18 to 29 are closely divided on the question of quality, but those in all older age groups by sizable margins expect quality to worsen.

Seventy-five percent (75%) of Republicans and 59% of unaffiliated voters say passage of the health care plan will cause the quality of health care to go down. Among Democrats, 41% say quality will improve, 25% get worse and 26% stay the same.

Fifty-one percent (51%) of all voters say the cost of health care will go up if the reform proposal passes. Nineteen percent (19%) say costs will go down, and 21% say they will stay the same.

Voters in all age and income groups, again by large margins, believe passage of the reform measure will drive up health care costs.

Republican voters overwhelmingly say costs will go up with the new plan. By a two-to-one margin, unaffiliated voters agree. Democrats are fairly evenly divided as to whether costs will go up or down.
When it comes to health care decisions, 51% of voters fear the federal government more than private insurance companies. But 41% fear the insurance companies more.

Yet only 25% agree with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that health insurance companies are "villains."
While Congress has debated reforms to the U.S. health care system, Americans have begun to show greater confidence in it. Forty-eight percent (48%) of adults now say the health care system is good or excellent, and only 19% say it’s poor.

Fifty-four percent (54%) of voters say tax cuts for the middle class are more important than new spending for health care reform, although the president’s top economic advisers have indicated that tax hikes may be necessary to fund the reform plan. That helps explain why 76% say it is likely that taxes will have to be raised on the middle class to cover the cost of health care reform, and 59% say it’s very likely.

Thirty-two percent (32%) favor a single-payer health care system where the federal government provides coverage for everyone, but 57% are opposed to a single-payer plan.

Please sign up for the Rasmussen Reports daily e-mail update (it’s free) or follow us on Twitter or Facebook. Let us keep you up to date with the latest public opinion news.

**gorgon**

That's because I'm not making the argument you claim I am. So let me be clear. Chuck, radio hosts and co. (a.k.a. the loony fringe) are piling on politics-as-usual by the GOP, who are in fact piling on major efforts by powerful interests to make sure health care reform never happens.

That shift among those Americans isn't because they've read the bill or done unbiased, independent research about the particulars and decided on their own. It's because the PR machines have gone to work scaring seniors, etc., exactly as they did last time. And because the GOP's more than happy to pile on in order to get a "win."

Just look at the polls back in March.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/03/05/poll-do-americans-want-government-health-care-reform/

"Seventy-two percent of those questioned in recent CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey say they favor increasing the federal government's influence over the country's health care system in an attempt to lower costs and provide health care coverage to more Americans, with 27 percent opposing such a move. Other recent polls show six in 10 think the government should provide health insurance or take responsibility for providing health care to all Americans."

If you're going to claim that the polling shift is because Americans have become educated on the bill in a unbiased way from unbiased sources, then this conversation can't go any farther because we just disagree on that point. But again, I find that standpoint fascinating given the fact that the GOP's accused the Dems of fearmongering on Social Security and other entitlements for decades.

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:...or in the tank.

See, I've always believed that. Not many people in this country seem to take politics seriously enough to actually understand how the creation of policy will affects their lives; making them susceptible the type of arguments which plant them firmly in the tank on one side or the other.

Frazzled wrote:
56% over 65 oppose this plan. They are the most impacted. They also vote the most. Congress is keenly aware of that.

A more interesting poll question: "Do you believe that the healthcare bill currently contains provisions for euthanasia?" Not a bad way of gauging whether the current fears are the result of legitimate research, or simple ignorance.

**Wrexasaur**

Here is an interesting article on this subject. Pretty in-depth, but it is fortunately from the view of the people that will actually be affected by this immediately. As far as I know this article does not take direct sides, and socialized health-care STILL looks good. I see a lot of polls running around as was mentioned in the articles, but none of them make any sense. If Americans change their mind THAT quickly they are obviously not reading the material necessary to make such drastic decisions.

I like cheeseburgers, but I do not like bungee-jumping... erm, what?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8197915.stm

I will continue to find more information because this whole debate seems to be hinged on polls that represent a small portion of the actual population. Besides the fact that statistics are provably inefficient at collecting hard data, it seems that people refer to them like they are made of pure-gold.

A bit of PR in action, though I am thinking that this was a mistake, though it may have been a purposeful one. Mistakes happen people, just think of them as facts until we can make another mistake... mmk'?

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/28/giuliani-bipartisan-tort-reform/