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 wrote:

gorgon wrote:Meanwhile, the Dems effectively gave the country better access to health care and a patients' bill of rights at a time in which people are worried about their finances and benefits -- and yet they're running away from the issue and legislation. You can't run away from it...you voted for it, so you're stuck with it. What you can do is embrace it, frame the legislation a different way and make it your own.

they did. Medicare has quit paying for mammograms for the elderly, as part of cost cutting.
Part of the health care plan taxes healthcare benefits as income. ZThats a tax raise for everyone.
Major companies (McDonalds) are demanding waivers or they will dump their health care plans.

1.) Really, cause when I go to questions.medicare.gov and check for what coverage is provided for mammogram screenings I see that for women over the age of 40 they are covered for a x1 per 12 months.

Most people will not see a tax increase. Those earning more than $200,000 individually ($250,000 as a married couple) and those with high-premium insurance plans will see tax increases. High earners need to pay 0.9% more in Medicare taxes.The total Medicare payroll tax rate will be 2.35%. The current rate is 1.45%. The tax rate will apply to unearned income, such as dividends and capital gains. Taxpayers who get high-premium insurance plans from their employers, which some think are a luxury, will need to pay a ”Cadillac Tax.” If your employer plan exceeds $8,500 for a single person or $23,000 for a family in premiums per year, you could be stuck with that tax.

McDonald’s offers a ’mini-med’ plan, also known as a limited benefit plan.These plans are in some ways the opposite of insurance: they pay for routine health care expenses but not catastrophic ones. Benefits are often capped at $25,000 to $50,000 per year. The McDonald’s plans have even lower caps, in the range of $2,000 to $10,000. Basically, McDonald's offers crap insurance plans.

What really sucks is that minimum wage workers pay into Medicare yet don't get the benefits of the single payer system. The real solution is medicare-for-all healthcare.

-Yad

Monster Rain wrote:^^^^I don't believe I've seen this before... someone with an ideological axe to grind trolling an internet forum.

Its pretty freaky isn't it.

Just remember boys and girls, a vote for Frazzled is a vote...for Freedom!!!!

Frazzled wrote:

gorgon wrote:Meanwhile, the Dems effectively gave the country better access to health care and a patients' bill of rights at a time in which people are worried about their finances and benefits -- and yet they're running away from the issue and legislation. You can't run away from it...you voted for it, so you're stuck with it. What you can do is embrace it, frame the legislation a different way and make it your own.

they did. Medicare has quit paying for mammograms for the elderly, as part of cost cutting.
Part of the health care plan taxes healthcare benefits as income. ZThats a tax raise for everyone.
Major companies (McDonalds) are demanding waivers or they will dump their health care plans.

Missing the point. Or perhaps illustrating it.

You're cherry-picking with the things you named. If you're capable of taking off the partisan hat even a smidge, you'll see there are obviously things within the legislation that the Dems can cherry-pick too. Instead, most are running away from it. But there's nowhere to hide. So IMO the communications strategy (assuming you're running in an area polling strongly against health care reform) ought to be to try to mold the conversation around the issue as best you can. You already know your opponent is going to beat your vote in favor of it into the ground in every bit of advertising they have. Therefore, shift the discussion from the vote itself to some of the features of the legislation that might play with the public. You're probably not going to win the public over on the issue, but you start to blunt your opponent's criticism that way. Running away is the worst thing you can do.

Here in PA the strategy seems to be 85% dire attack ads in an effort to make everyone forget about the real issues. Although I recently saw that our Dem candidate for governor has made some strides in the polls, and part of this surge was credited to a series of ads attacking his opponent on...*GASP*...jobs.

Yad wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

gorgon wrote:Meanwhile, the Dems effectively gave the country better access to health care and a patients' bill of rights at a time in which people are worried about their finances and benefits -- and yet they're running away from the issue and legislation. You can't run away from it...you voted for it, so you're stuck with it. What you can do is embrace it, frame the legislation a different way and make it your own.

they did. Medicare has quit paying for mammograms for the elderly, as part of cost cutting.
Part of the health care plan taxes healthcare benefits as income. ZThats a tax raise for everyone.
Major companies (McDonalds) are demanding waivers or they will dump their health care plans.

1.) Really, cause when I go to questions.medicare.gov and check for what coverage is provided for mammogram screenings I see that for women over the age of 40 they are covered for a x1 per 12 months.

THEN YOU SEE WRONG. Thats what they told my mom.

They also informed my wife's BFF that they were recommending a mammogram every two years instead of one. Had she done that, instewad of chemo her family would be at her funeral.

Frazzled wrote:

Yad wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

gorgon wrote:Meanwhile, the Dems effectively gave the country better access to health care and a patients' bill of rights at a time in which people are worried about their finances and benefits -- and yet they're running away from the issue and legislation. You can't run away from it...you voted for it, so you're stuck with it. What you can do is embrace it, frame the legislation a different way and make it your own.

they did. Medicare has quit paying for mammograms for the elderly, as part of cost cutting.
Part of the health care plan taxes healthcare benefits as income. ZThats a tax raise for everyone.
Major companies (McDonalds) are demanding waivers or they will dump their health care plans.

1.) Really, cause when I go to questions.medicare.gov and check for what coverage is provided for mammogram screenings I see that for women over the age of 40 they are covered for a x1 per 12 months.

THEN YOU SEE WRONG. Thats what they told my mom.

They also informed my wife's BFF that they were recommending a mammogram every two years instead of one. Had she done that, instewad of chemo her family would be at her funeral.

I can't pretend to know the specifics of your mom's situation, but:

http://www.medicare.gov/navigation/manage-your-health/preventive-services/breast-cancer-screening.aspx?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

-Yad

Again intranets and reality are usually different things.

But again, it doesn't matter. Please continue with your diatribe and feel good about it. I'm happy it enterains you.

Meanwhile for those that actually vote, early voting has started in many states.

Frazzled wrote:Again intranets and reality are usually different things.

But again, it doesn't matter. Please continue with your diatribe and feel good about it. I'm happy it enterains you.

Meanwhile for those that actually vote, early voting has started in many states.

Heh

And in most tallies so far dems are doing better or the same and repubs in early voting.

My issue with the tea party. They are good at wailing aginst things, but what are they gonna replace them with? Start over on health care? They didn't even start last time. Stop building things close to the twin towers? Yeah that's gonna fix the economy.Ask mexicans for papers? that's gonna help too! End public school funding, great! No more min wage awesome, I've always wanted to work for 2 bucks an hour. You know what some of our ideas us Dems had didn't work as good as we hoped but at least we had ideas. The other side was busy trying to call it everything but what it was (economic downturn, slowdown, bumpy ride). I'd rather go with a bad idea than no idea at all.

Obama may be the most spineless person of my race, and the dems may be a bunch of droopy vaginas, But I'll take a droopy vagina over a bunch of cocks any day.

Yad wrote:
I can't pretend to know the specifics of your mom's situation, but:

http://www.medicare.gov/navigation/manage-your-health/preventive-services/breast-cancer-screening.aspx?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

-Yad

From the link:

How often is it covered?

Once every 12 months
For whom?

All women with Medicare age 40 and older can get a screening mammogram every 12 months. Medicare also pays for one baseline mammogram for women with Medicare between ages 35 and 39.
Your costs in the Original Medicare Plan?

You pay 20% of the Medicare-approved amount with no Part B deductible.

agnosto wrote:There's something wrong with people that think republicans are too liberal...

Thread winner!!!

GG

Frazzled wrote:

1. I'm a libertarian. We view the Tea Party as a bunch of lefties.

Yeah... that's wrong. Republicans are still right of libertarians. Socially liberal, with an emphasis on individual choices and freedoms and fiscally conserative, with an emphasis on minimal government intrusion. The majority of conserative Republicans have a very prescriptive philosophy that is opposed to the individual freedoms desired by libertarians.

PanzerLeader wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

1. I'm a libertarian. We view the Tea Party as a bunch of lefties.

Yeah... that's wrong. Republicans are still right of libertarians.

Frazzled wrote:Wa wa Democrats hate the Tea Party. They will hate them way more in 10 days.

After they fracture the republican voterbase and severely diminish the republican ability to compete in elections? Yeah, probably, we'll have to deal with them. We won't hate them as much as you're going to start hating them though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Again intranets and reality are usually different things.

But again, it doesn't matter. Please continue with your diatribe and feel good about it. I'm happy it enterains you.

Meanwhile for those that actually vote, early voting has started in many states.

You could just ban him you know. You seem to be banning people for saying things you don't like lately.

Ahtman wrote:

PanzerLeader wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

1. I'm a libertarian. We view the Tea Party as a bunch of lefties.

Yeah... that's wrong. Republicans are still right of libertarians.

I don't think I said that wrong. Let me try to clarify. If you place the Democrats on the left and Republicans on the right of the classic American political spectrum, traditional liberatarian views fall in the center. They are much closer on economic and size of government issues to the Republican party but fall significantly closer to the Democrats on social issues---albeit for different reasons. The social liberalism of liberatarian views is grounded in a fundamental belief in individual freedoms and what the government cannot regulate instead of the Democratic party lines of fairness and equality.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Wa wa Democrats hate the Tea Party. They will hate them way more in 10 days.

After they fracture the republican voterbase and severely diminish the republican ability to compete in elections? Yeah, probably, we'll have to deal with them. We won't hate them as much as you're going to start hating them though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Again intranets and reality are usually different things.

But again, it doesn't matter. Please continue with your diatribe and feel good about it. I'm happy it enterains you.

Meanwhile for those that actually vote, early voting has started in many states.

You could just ban him you know. You seem to be banning people for saying things you don't like lately.

I agree the Tea Partyists are screwing the Republicans royally. However, it stands to reason that at some point one or more Tea Partyists will win an election. Vindication can make a political movement gain LOTS of momentum. A nation rife for decisive action can have a very dramatic effect on how that entity can or will become.

WarOne wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Wa wa Democrats hate the Tea Party. They will hate them way more in 10 days.

After they fracture the republican voterbase and severely diminish the republican ability to compete in elections? Yeah, probably, we'll have to deal with them. We won't hate them as much as you're going to start hating them though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Again intranets and reality are usually different things.

But again, it doesn't matter. Please continue with your diatribe and feel good about it. I'm happy it enterains you.

Meanwhile for those that actually vote, early voting has started in many states.

You could just ban him you know. You seem to be banning people for saying things you don't like lately.

I agree the Tea Partyists are screwing the Republicans royally. However, it stands to reason that at some point one or more Tea Partyists will win an election. Vindication can make a political movement gain LOTS of momentum. A nation rife for decisive action can have a very dramatic effect on how that entity can or will become.

A political movement with no actual politics or policies will be demolished by actual power though. It's hard to be blankly anti establishment anti "everything people don't like" and pro "everything people like" when you're put into power. You start to realize that your platform is utterly conflicting, ridiculous, and idiotic. At that point you either just pretend (which is likely) or start to act within the establishment. Or really, what is most likely is that they'll pretend while acting within the establishment. Essentially being republicans.

Actual power would destroy the tea party, it's entire point is rallying against power through ignorant and conflicting populist viewpoints.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Wa wa Democrats hate the Tea Party. They will hate them way more in 10 days.

After they fracture the republican voterbase and severely diminish the republican ability to compete in elections? Yeah, probably, we'll have to deal with them. We won't hate them as much as you're going to start hating them though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Again intranets and reality are usually different things.

But again, it doesn't matter. Please continue with your diatribe and feel good about it. I'm happy it enterains you.

Meanwhile for those that actually vote, early voting has started in many states.

You could just ban him you know. You seem to be banning people for saying things you don't like lately.

BANTHEVITCTIMBANTHEVICTIM

ShumaGorath wrote:A political movement with no actual politics or policies will be demolished by actual power though. It's hard to be blankly anti establishment anti "everything people don't like" and pro "everything people like" when you're put into power. You start to realize that your platform is utterly conflicting, ridiculous, and idiotic. At that point you either just pretent (which is likely) or start to act within the establishment.

Actual power would destroy the tea party, it's entire point is rallying against power through ignorant and conflicting populist viewpoints.

And be wary of those political parties that do come to power like that.

Know-Nothing Party garnered a remarkable 21.6% for their presidential canidate in 1856 in the popular vote and was based on fearmongering and hatred.

Progressive Party of 1912 was essentially an "I hate Taft" party when Roosevelt decided to split from the Republicans and fight for the presidency, effectively handing the Democrats the White House.

They came close to getting some power, but thanks to some lucky breaks, a third party of nut-jobs or populists have not gained power in any greater significance than the two national parties.

Tea Party Patriots wrote:As the government is of the people, by the people and for the people, in all other matters we support the personal liberty of the individual, within the rule of law.

God, I love this. The phrase "Of the people, by the people, for the people" doesn't imply individual liberty, it implies democratic governance of a collective group. That governance might involve liberty, if the people want liberty, but there's no reason that they must desire that.

Tea Party Patriots wrote:
Our current government's interference distorts the free market and inhibits the pursuit of individual and economic liberty.

I love this too. The market is always distorted when considered moment to moment. The 'free market' only flattens out distortion over an extended period of time, which is how all chaotic processes function.

dogma wrote:

Tea Party Patriots wrote:As the government is of the people, by the people and for the people, in all other matters we support the personal liberty of the individual, within the rule of law.

God, I love this. The phrase "Of the people, by the people, for the people" doesn't imply individual liberty, it implies democratic governance of a collective group. That governance might involve liberty, if the people want liberty, but there's no reason that they must desire that.

And the government is, unless I'm missing something fundamentally important, made up of "people" who were elected by "people" who ostensibly do serve the "people."

Or am I mistaken, somehow?

dogma wrote:

Tea Party Patriots wrote:As the government is of the people, by the people and for the people, in all other matters we support the personal liberty of the individual, within the rule of law.

God, I love this. The phrase "Of the people, by the people, for the people" doesn't imply individual liberty, it implies democratic governance of a collective group. That governance might involve liberty, if the people want liberty, but there's no reason that they must desire that.

Tea Party Patriots wrote:
Our current government's interference distorts the free market and inhibits the pursuit of individual and economic liberty.

I love this too. The market is always distorted when considered moment to moment. The 'free market' only flattens out distortion over an extended period of time, which is how all chaotic processes function.

Well, it is their interpretation of a statement made hundreds of years ago from a group of people with a different set of values from the people who are using them today.

No different from other groups of people who use words or symbols with a distorted context from their prior meaning.

Monster Rain wrote:
And the government is, unless I'm missing something fundamentally important, made up of "people" who were elected by "people" who ostensibly do serve the "people."

Or am I mistaken, somehow?

The key thing is the word "the". When you say "the people" you are referring to a group. When you say "people" you are referring to individuals.

Phrased as you have above it implies both democratic governance, and liberty. Though that leaves us with the question: Is the government then allowed to infringe on the liberty of people to choose a non-libertarian government?

Phrased as it is in the Tea Party Patriots mission statement it only implies democratic government, which means that the government exists to serve the collective, not all members of it.

dogma wrote:Though that leaves us with the question: Is the government then allowed to infringe on the liberty of people to choose a non-libertarian government?

By us do you mean everyone or do you mean in the context of the Tea Party who is subject to interpreting what they mean by their statement?

I mean everyone.

Basically I'm trying to illustrate how you can have government focused on the popular will, or you can have a government focused on liberty. You can't have one focused on both.

Obviously this means that, in practice, its all a balancing act based on political expedience, rather than any commitment to principles.

dogma wrote:I mean everyone.

Basically I'm trying to illustrate how you can have government focused on the popular will, or you can have a government focused on liberty. You can't have one focused on both.

Obviously this means that, in practice, its all a balancing act based on political expedience, rather than any commitment to principles.

Hmmm...so could you have something like popular liberty, where you give the most liberty to the most people?

WarOne wrote:Hmmm...so could you have something like popular liberty, where you give the most liberty to the most people?

That is probably the closest approximation to what the Founder's intended posted so far. Several times in the Federalist papers the Founders warn explicitly against foregoing the "tyranny of the majority" (i.e. following a strict popular will) in favor of protecting the rights of the minority. Now, minority in this case meant different political opinions among white males and nothing on ethnic, racial or gender lines but the idea can be extrapolated and interpreted easily enough to fit today's society and its needs. Just because 55% of the population believes something is right does not give the government the right to implement that solution---particularly if it would violate the individual rights and freedoms of the remaining 45%.

PanzerLeader wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

PanzerLeader wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

1. I'm a libertarian. We view the Tea Party as a bunch of lefties.

Yeah... that's wrong. Republicans are still right of libertarians.

http://rlv.zcache.com/o_o_tshirt-p235949208526201432qw9y_400.jpg

I don't think I said that wrong. Let me try to clarify. If you place the Democrats on the left and Republicans on the right of the classic American political spectrum, traditional liberatarian views fall in the center. They are much closer on economic and size of government issues to the Republican party but fall significantly closer to the Democrats on social issues---albeit for different reasons. The social liberalism of liberatarian views is grounded in a fundamental belief in individual freedoms and what the government cannot regulate instead of the Democratic party lines of fairness and equality.

Can the government regulate murder?

Kilkrazy wrote:
Can the government regulate murder?

Yes. Capital Punishment. Some might argue that gun control laws would in affect be a regulation of murder, or at least the most common tool of murder (other than cars).

Do we agree that murder is bad, and therefore should be regulated, and the government has a role in doing this?

An alternate view is that murder is the private concern of individual citizens, and the government has no business sticking its nose in.

Kilkrazy wrote:Do we agree that murder is bad, and therefore should be regulated, and the government has a role in doing this?

An alternate view is that murder is the private concern of individual citizens, and the government has no business sticking its nose in.

Yes, the government can regulate murder. At the minimum, the government is protecting the minority from indiscriminate killing. There is also a compelling state interest to protect the lives and property of its citizens. The general idea in the traditional liberatarian views is that the government shouldn't regulate what individuals do on their private property so long as it does not affect the lives or property of others. The "War on Drugs" is the classic example. If you choose to smoke pot in your house, you are not having an adverse effect on anyone else and the government shouldn't stop you from doing that. However, the government does have a right to say "No driving while high" because you then become a threat to everyone you have to drive past. Liberatarian views also split from the Republican party on other key social issues such as homosexual marriage (it's not the government's business whose doing who), abortion (it's a personal decision and the government shouldn't regulate whether or not you can do it or when you can do it), and the environment (government is responsible for telling property owners what the standards for land use are and then holding individuals and corporations accountable for them).

You can find alot more information here: http://www.lp.org/platform