August 09, 2009
At Rick Larsen's Town Hall Meeting

I went to the health care town hall meeting in Mount Vernon today. It's hard to tell how many people were for or against H.R. 3200 ... all I know is there were a ton of people. The facilities held about 150 people, I was told; outside on the lawn, with a speaker so people could hear, were several hundred more. Here's my quick two-minute video of the event (from the outside ... if you are going to the Everett meeting next week, get there at least two or three hours early, if you want to get inside).

On the theme of civility, I had some pleasant discussions with people who clearly disagreed with me about health care. I think I was able to explain my views and how they come from my first principles, how liberty must be respected; and I told them I understood they just wanted health care for everyone, no matter how it happened. Once they understood that, it made it easier to see why I believed the current plan was bad news. I don't know how much they really understood, but at the very least, some of them didn't walk away thinking all people who oppose health care are evil, selfish, people. And that's progress.

Rep. Rick Larsen (D-WA) handled himself well. He helped keep the tone of the meeting civil -- mostly -- and open to all views (except the view that Obama is a Nazi), despite the vast differences of opinions and high-running emotions. He was asked a lot of questions about the plan, and he gave specific and factual answers (he noted that he read the whole bill, which is believable; the question is whether he understood it all, and I doubt anyone does). He even gave his own views about some things, except for the view most people wanted to know: whether he would vote for this bill (assuming it didn't change). He said he hadn't decided, which, frankly, I don't believe.

Larsen spoke favorably of much in the bill, and expressed misgivings about some things, like the public option. He candidly said he had no answer for a question of how the government could possibly do the job of managing these programs efficiently. But, he said, he liked a lot of other things in the bill, such as fixing Medicare payments and ending the practice of rescission (except in demonstrated cases of fraud).

The crowd was mostly attentive to what Larsen and his questioners were saying, and only occasionally let out a cry of approval or disapproval. A bunch of different people had signs, for and against the public option, and single payer health care, and higher taxes and so on. A typical civil, and opinionated, Northwest crowd.

The most notable signs -- Larsen, as noted above, singled them out disapprovingly -- featured Obama wearing a Hitler moustache. The people with these signs also handed out pamphlets with Obama and Hitler together. Now, this wasn't from any Republican or conservative group, but from the PAC for Lyndon LaRouche, ex-con and professional kook.

There was also a great big sign featuring a full-color aborted fetus, with the words, "Democrats vote for abortion rights." And then a woman decided she disliked the sign enough to try to do something about it, and she stood in front of them with her own sign to block it. Her sign was much smaller, so I guess it was just the symbolism of obstructing someone else's freedom of speech that appealed to her. Her name is Catherine Chambers, she is a Democrat running for Bellingham City Council, and she says on her web site that she understands "that the council is a non-partisan position and as such I will bring forth all of my experience working with diverse people and ideas." Unless they are ideas that -- as an endorsee of NARAL, I suppose -- she dislikes.

Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.

Posted by pudge at August 09, 2009 12:11 AM | Email This
Comments
1. I used to question showing aborted children in photos at groups like this; but then I realized that this is simply the truth of what abortion is. The ripping apart--literally---of a child. Why should people who support this be ashamed of it? I think the Chambers person is so ashamed of what she probably supports that she doesn't want other people to see what it is that she supports. If pro-aborts don't like photos of aborted babies, then maybe one should rethink their support of the act in the first place. I'm just sayin'.....

Posted by: Michele on August 9, 2009 12:32 AM
2. btw, for those who wish to view footage of Kenneth Gladney-- who is in a wheelchair recovering after being beaten, kicked and called racist names by democrats from the thug group SEIU, here it is--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RG3lr3pbqtI

Mr. Gladney's beating at the hands of democrats shows what the rest of us could be up against if we dare disagree with Obama. But we won't stay quiet against these thugs tactics.

Posted by: Michele on August 9, 2009 12:40 AM
3. Don't tread on me.

Posted by: joebandmember on August 9, 2009 07:05 AM
4. I was delighted to see such a large crowd show up to meet with Rep Larsen on short notice on a busy weekend. I am glad to hear he has read the bill- I wish he had actually read Waxman- Markey before he lined up with the Democratic leadership again and voted for that mess. I share Pudge's view that Rep Larsen has surely made up his mind and will vote for whatever Democrat bill is brought to the floor. While Rep Larsen is a decent fellow he will nearly always fall in line with Demo leadership and vote the party line- which I expect him to do here. My question for him and all of the Washington State delegation- will the Congress, Administration and Judiciary ( and their staffs) be joining this single payer system being forced on the rest of us or will you opt yourselves out and keep your world class health coverage that most people can only dream of.........? Wanna bet?

Posted by: AnacoObserver on August 9, 2009 07:52 AM
5. I agree that we should all have the same coverage that our representatives are given. If that doesn't happen, we still need healthcare reform. We can't let perfect be the enemy of the very good or even the "just plain good". If we have to make small steps in the right direction then that's what we have to do.

Posted by: Steve on August 9, 2009 08:07 AM
6. Steve: I agree that we should all have the same coverage that our representatives are given.

Why? I see not a single logical reason why we should.


If that doesn't happen, we still need healthcare reform.

Yes, we do. However, that reform SHOULD NOT be in the form of government insurance, government "markets," significantly increased government regulation, and so on.


We can't let perfect be the enemy of the very good or even the "just plain good".

Sure. But most of us on the right think this bill is just plain BAD, in regard to the most significant parts of the bill.

Posted by: pudge on August 9, 2009 08:39 AM
7. Pudge--
What were the 3 hardest questions Larsen was asked and what did you hear him say in response?
Did Larsen take follow-up questions?

How important is Larsen's vote in the scheme of things??
My guess is Democrats in tough, tight Districts will be allowed to vote NO...as long as there are enough YES votes. This is of course, politics as usual.

Did Larsen really read the whole Bill...or just the Democrat leadership spin on it??
The devil is always in the details.

Congrats on going pudge.
If you don't show at these Town Halls, you lose much of your license to bitch.
I'm going to see Baucus this afternoon...and Obama on Friday.
Will I be civil??
Toward Baucus===YES He is the only man who can stop this travesty as Chair of the Finance Committee.

Toward Obama===HELL NO! He is a liar, a Socialist and decided to launch vitrol toward the minority who question him.
Why is this KLOWN coming to Montana?
To try and put pressure on Baucus with a "deck-stacked" rally. I'll be only a handful of token Conservatives get within 1/2 mile of Obama...in an area that is highly Conservative.

We'll see lots of Union Goons and plants.
Obama leaves nothing to chance at this point.
Should we be "civil" toward Obama pudge??
He has made his intentions clearly known.
I say HELL NO!

Posted by: Mr. Cynical on August 9, 2009 09:06 AM
8. Cynical: What were the 3 hardest questions Larsen was asked and what did you hear him say in response?

I don't know offhand and don't have time to think of them right now. I gave one example in the post: "He candidly said he had no answer for a question of how the government could possibly do the job of managing these programs efficiently." Several people on both sides expressed their opinion of what should happen ("we need a public option," "we can't have government running things"), and mostly Larsen just accepted what they had to say, without arguing or significantly commenting on those opinions.


Did Larsen take follow-up questions?

No, though he allowed multi-part questions.


How important is Larsen's vote in the scheme of things??

As my Congressman, to me, very important. We already went over this.


Did Larsen really read the whole Bill...or just the Democrat leadership spin on it??

As I noted (did you read my post?), he said he did.


Should we be "civil" toward Obama pudge??

I won't bother saying what YOU should do. I would be, yes. I would be firm in expressing my views and implying consequences. And I would be civil.

Posted by: pudge on August 9, 2009 09:14 AM
9. Since when does a meeting about health care reform turn into a snarky remark about abortion rights advocates? Judging from the voice-over, the narrator doesn't even have a uterus.
Stick to the topic- we need health care reform.

Posted by: Nancy Sherer on August 9, 2009 09:26 AM
10. Nancy: Since when does a meeting about health care reform turn into a snarky remark about abortion rights advocates?

Since a candidate for Bellingham City Council decided to try to shut down speech from anti-abortion protestors in a public venue.


Judging from the voice-over, the narrator doesn't even have a uterus.

Judging from your comment, you don't know what an ad hominem fallacy is. Please: intelligent people have long rejected the notion that women have more of a say in this issue than men do. The issue comes down to only one thing: whether the life in the womb has rights that the government is, or should be, obligated to protect. The answer to that question has nothing to do with anyone's gender.

If you believe the life in the womb does have such rights, abortion-on-demand should therefore be illegal, because the job of government is to secure everyone's rights to life, liberty, and property. If you do NOT believe the life in the womb has such rights, then it is a decision left to the individual parents. Gender is not logically relevant, at all.


Stick to the topic- we need health care reform.

You see, I get to say what the topic is on my posts. You don't. Understand this truth.

As a fellow Bellingham Democrat with Catherine Chambers, I can understand how you'd be upset, Nancy. But she's the one who made a fool of herself in trying to stifle the disagreeable speech of others in a public place, after pledging to work with "diverse people and ideas."

That I point it out is fair comment, and moreso, it's a public service. Even though I don't live in Bellingham, or Whatcom County, I dislike it when public officials (or those trying to become such) act against the rights of citizens. So I point it out. Don't like it? Blame Catherine, not me.


And yes, we do need health care reform. We do NOT, however, need government-run and government-managed and government-controlled health insurance. We need to, rather, KILL any bills that attempt to accomplish these things.

Those things are not reforms, they are not progress: they are REgress. They bring us back to a time when governments did not respect the liberty and the rights and the free choices of their people.

I think we should aim toward human progress, not regress. I think we should aim toward liberty, not feudalism. We need health care reform, and we need it as soon as possible, and we need it to involve as little goverment as possible.

Posted by: pudge on August 9, 2009 10:39 AM
11. Thanks, Pudge for keeping us informed. I went to Mt. Vernon from Alger, a couple hours early. I expected a crowd, but not to that extent. As a Lung Cancer survivor, I didn't think I could walk from where I had to park, so, I went back home. While it's true we need Health Care Reform, we do not need Health Care Replacement especially under Government control. I can understand those without health insurance wanting it, but, I ask when was the last time you heard anything positive about Medicare, the Veteran's Administration, or even TSA. All Government run programs. And people unfamiliar with Medicare think that it pays for everything. I thought so, too, until I went on it. What a rude awakening that was. BTW, I am neither a Democrat or a Republican. I am a registered Independant for many years, because neither political Party offers what I want.

Posted by: concerned on August 9, 2009 11:47 AM
12. While I disagree with Pudge about the healthcare bill and the need for a public option to keep the insurance companies honest, I agree with Pudge's ideas about healthy debate.

If the opponents of the health care plan can come up with some arguments as to why our current system:
Consisting of ever escalating costs (as a greater part of our GDP), highest prices for drugs in the world, most expensive health care in the world (while not covering 1/3 of the people under 65) and results (actual health) on par with slovenia is worthwhile....go ahead.

The system is a total failure and most people think it needs to be fixed:

Sixty-three percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey released Friday said they would favor an increase in the federal government's influence over their own health care plans in an attempt to lower costs and provide coverage to more Americans; 36 percent were opposed.

The poll also suggests that slightly more than six out of 10 think the government should guarantee health care for all Americans, with 38 percent opposed.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/29/health.care.poll/index.html

Posted by: correctnotright on August 9, 2009 12:33 PM
13. If the opponents of the health care plan can come up with some arguments as to why our current system ...

If you want honest debate, as you claim, then you should not pretend that opponents of the health care plan are proponents of the status quo.

Also, a poll that asks in the abstract, with no context, if we should "guarantee health care" is a useless poll. When informed that this would mean that other people are obligated to provide that health care, and that it means drastically increased costs and power to government, the numbers drop significantly.

Posted by: pudge on August 9, 2009 12:40 PM
14. #9: the Bellingham council candidate pretty much invited snarky comments with her questionable behavior toward others who were simply pointing out the truth about abortion---which obama wants the "public option" to cover. And for which Obama wants to tax certain citizens to help subsidize the "public option" that will pay for child-killing, as LaShawn Barber correctly refers to abortion.

Posted by: Michele on August 9, 2009 01:16 PM
15. Nancy: Since abortion will be covered under the public option. That's why. Those of us who are morally opposed don't want to be forced to fund it.

(Here is where you equate it to funding the war on terror with your tax dollars. However, military decisions/funding are a function of the government as outlined in the Constitution. Health care is not.)

Posted by: PeggyU on August 9, 2009 01:32 PM
16. correctnotright--
I have repeatedly shared with you the Price-Waterhouse-Coopers Study showing 50% waste in the current system and where it is.
Once again...here are the key findings:

"Our research found that wasteful spending in the health system has been calculated at up to $1.2 trillion of the $2.2 trillion spent in the United States, more than half of all health spending. Defensive medicine, such as redundant, inappropriate or unnecessary tests and procedures, was identified as the biggest area of excess, followed by inefficient healthcare administration and the cost of care necessitated by conditions such as obesity, which can be considered preventable by lifestyle changes. PricewaterhouseCoopers' paper classified health system inefficiencies into three "wastebaskets" that are driving up costs:

Behavioral where individual behaviors are shown to lead to health problems, and have potential opportunities for earlier, non-medical interventions.
Clinical where medical care itself is considered inappropriate, entailing overuse, misuse or under-use of particular interventions, missed opportunities for earlier interventions, and overt errors leading to quality problems for the patient, plus cost and rework.
Operational where administrative or other business processes appear to add costs without creating value.
When added together, the opportunities for eliminating wasteful spending add up to as much as $1.2 trillion. The impact of issues such as non-adherence to medical advice and prescriptions, alcohol abuse, smoking and obesity are exponential, and fall into all three baskets."

And here is the link--
http://www.pwc.com/us/en/healthcare/publications/the-price-of-excess.jhtml

The LEFTIST PINHEADED KLOWNS want a war about "civility".
They ignore studies like this one by PWC because 2 of the biggest issues identified are fraud and TORT REFORM (and the cost of defensive medicine).

It is a waste of time to play pattycake with the KLOWNS like cnr. They have zero interest in reigning in the AMBULANCE-CHASERS...Trial attorneys who control the Democrat Party.

Posted by: Mr. Cynical on August 9, 2009 01:36 PM
17. @14 Michele on August 9, 2009 01:16 PM
@15 PeggyU on August 9, 2009 01:32 PM

The claim that HR 3200 would require Americans to subsidize abortion with their hard-earned tax dollars is FALSE.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on August 9, 2009 02:54 PM
18. MikeBS: actually, no, it's true.

Under HR 3200, Our tax dollars will pay for a tax credit for many people to get health insurance. That health insurance will, in some cases, pay for abortion. Therefore, American taxpayers will be forced to subsidize abortion.

QED.

The problem with that link is that its author believes -- incorrectly -- that taxpayers won't be subsidizing the insurance.

Posted by: pudge on August 9, 2009 03:08 PM
19. @18 pudge on August 9, 2009 03:08 PM,

no, it is correct.
Per FactCheck.org
"Actually, it's not merely "tradition" that keeps taxpayer-funded health care from paying for abortions. It's the law, starting with the 1976 Hyde Amendment, which prohibits public funding of abortions through the Medicaid program except in cases of rape, incest or life endangerment. And according to the Guttmacher Institute, whose research is generally respected by both sides of the debate, there are a number of other restrictions on the expenditure of federal funds for abortion.

SOURCE: http://m.factcheck.org/2009/07/surgery-for-seniors-vs-abortions/

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on August 9, 2009 03:45 PM
20. MikeBS: direct funding, yes. There is no direct funding of abortions. But there is a tax credit (which is paid for by other taxpayers) to buy the insurance, and the insurance covers abortion.

I am correct.

Posted by: pudge on August 9, 2009 04:07 PM
21. MikeBS, when the democrats lay out their own plans for how they think they will pay for what Obama wants, why do you think one of the planks involves plans to tax a segment of income earners for Obama(s)care? Obviously, it's to help pay for the program. By the way, since you are obviously monitoring what is said on this blog, how many people here have you turned in to the Obama snitch patrol for saying things you don't like about his plan for govt. medicine?

Posted by: Michele on August 9, 2009 05:09 PM
22. @20 pudge on August 9, 2009 04:07 PM,

"But there is a tax credit (which is paid for by other taxpayers) to buy the insurance, and the insurance covers abortion."

Source???
Or just your opinion?

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on August 9, 2009 05:58 PM
23. @21 Michele on August 9, 2009 05:09 PM,
"By the way, since you are obviously monitoring what is said on this blog, how many people here have you turned in to the Obama snitch patrol for saying things you don't like about his plan for govt. medicine?"

Only you Michele, but if you put on your beanie, you'll be protected from Obama and Santa's evil Muslim elf henchmen.
:-D

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on August 9, 2009 06:19 PM
24. MikeBS: Source???

Which part? Many insurance plans cover abortion. And the tax credit subsidy does not specify which plans are used. This is not hard.

Posted by: pudge on August 9, 2009 06:35 PM
25. but Mike, there are so many here who are against Obama's plan; why not get really zealous and turn in even more?

Posted by: Michele on August 9, 2009 07:04 PM
26. What about the way things are right now? If your current insurance provider covers someone else's abortion, does that mean you tacitly approve of abortions by giving them money?

Posted by: Joe Wisconsin on August 9, 2009 07:25 PM
27. Joe, that's a valid point, but I hope you're not implying that if I am against goverment funding abortions, because I don't want my tax dollars going to abortions, then therefore I should not do business with a private insurance company that does it. They aren't the same.

Posted by: pudge on August 9, 2009 07:36 PM
28. pudge--
You are gonna love this.
I went to the Max Baucus forum at the Museum of the Rockies. There were about 150 protestors. They wouldn't allow protestors with signs on PUBLIC Property and made folks with signs go to an area approx 300 yards from the auditorium.
I had no sign and when I tried to get into the forum, I was told it was VIP...I needed to apply on-line to go and then be selected.

So I sat by the door with a nice couple and a few other folks watching the coming & going.

Here is the hysterical part....
The Forum was about WELLNESS & HEALTH in Rural Counties. We sat there and watch this guy drag in cases & cases of beer, wine & booze.
Then the caterer shows up and I ask what they are serving--
Hamburgers, Sausage and Corn on the Cob with lots of dripping butter, he replied.

So I go up to the ladies who would let me into the Auditorium and said
"Let me get this straight...this is a conference about Wellness and Health in Rural Counties, right?"
"Yes" they replied.

Then I said, "aren't 2 of the biggest health issues in rural Montana ALCOHOLISM and OBESITY?"

Somebody said YES!

So I said, "what in the hell are you serving all the alcohol and fatty foods for?????"

The cops were shaking they were laughing so hard!!
Too damn funny.
You can't make sh*t like this up!!

Anyway, Baucus was very gracious in going out of his way to address protestors. This is his legacy. He is the only man who can stop the train and has thus far.

Obama is coming on Friday to pressure Baucus.
There will be a huge protest at the Airport.

Montana is the battleground for our American Way of Life vs. OBAMUNISM.

Wish y'all were here.
Will let you know what happens Friday.

Posted by: Mr. Cynical on August 9, 2009 08:33 PM
29. I posted this in a previous thread but it is very pertinent to Obama's Health Care Plan -

Obama is not going to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250K!!!! That is what he said!!!

But what I expect is that everyone especially all middle class folks making less than $250K will suddenly see horribly expensive fees on their medical care, their gasoline and diesel, home electricity, and home heating energy to help pay the Trillion dollar deficits generated by Obama's Health Care Plan and Cap & Trade!!!

We all know that Obama does not lie!! How else can he pay for his plans and not raise taxes? If does not pay his plans, his tremendous deficits will cause hyperinflation because other governments, particularly the Chinese government will refuse to purchase US Treasury Bonds!

Oops - Obama will just raise taxes!!

Posted by: Tim on August 9, 2009 09:30 PM
30. Aaah, so that is where you have been, Mr. Cynical? Missed you here.

I heard that someone was in the first quarter of the line waiting to get in but never made it. It seemed Larsen had SEIU goons outside primping and prancing for photo ops, and when time came to come in to fake "fill" the hall were allowed in a side door.

Posted by: swatter on August 10, 2009 07:56 AM
31. swatter: I was in what was probably the first quarter of the line. But there were just a ton of people there. I did see a lot of people go inside in front of me, but it's hard to say how many got in, because I got in, but then they pushed me through another door to the lawn with the loudspeaker.

Anyway, Larsen was perfectly willing to go outside for MUCH of the meeting with the cordless mic, and take direct questions, so he clearly wasn't afraid to face people who disagreed with the health care plan.

Posted by: pudge on August 10, 2009 08:11 AM
32. @24 pudge on August 9, 2009 06:35 PM,

Correct! The as-is tax deductions of employee provided health insurance would continue under HR 3200. No change to policy and/or law regarding abortion funding via tax dollars occurs with HR 3200.
There are proposed amendments to the bill from Democrats which would preclude the government insurance plan from approving abortion procedures for coverage.

@27 pudge on August 9, 2009 07:36 PM,
"because I don't want my tax dollars going to abortions" ... but they already do, and we don't as individuals get to pick and choose where each dollar goes or not.

@29 Tim on August 9, 2009 09:30 PM,
"Oops - Obama will just raise taxes!!"
If you think Obama and the Democrats raising taxes on annual income >$250k to pay for their new programs is breaking news.... well. :-/

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on August 10, 2009 08:21 AM
33. MikeBS: The as-is tax deductions of employee provided health insurance would continue under HR 3200

Yes, but in addition, there's new tax credits, which are a much more direct funding mechanism than tax deductions.


There are proposed amendments to the bill from Democrats which would preclude the government insurance plan from approving abortion procedures for coverage.

I am pretty sure the tax credits are not exclusively for the public option.


pudge on August 9, 2009 07:36 PM, "because I don't want my tax dollars going to abortions"

You are misquoting me. I did not say that as you've quoted it. I was drawing a hypothetical, and used the conditional "if." Your quoting makes it seem like I actually said I don't want my tax dollars going to abortions, and I did not say that. Please be more careful.

(That said, I do not want my tax dollars going to abortions. But I didn't SAY that, and you were therefore misquoting me.)


... but they already do, and we don't as individuals get to pick and choose where each dollar goes or not

Which is part of why we shouldn't be funding those things through government in the first place. Obviously.

Posted by: pudge on August 10, 2009 08:27 AM
34. We are going to have socialized medicine.

If Obama doesn't give it to us Romney will.


SO, all the rest is just partisan wrangling.

So, we really don't need to get so upset. Does it really make that much difference if it happens now under Obama or in the near future under Romney?

Let us not forget how the first bailout was done under Bush. And if you want to go back further Nixon passed Affirmative Action. So Republicans have been pretty successful getting socialist programs passed.

SO, if they do succeed in stopping Obama, I have no doubt that Obama's program will survive. It will be Romneycare, not Obamacare but for the most part be identical.

So, in the end this is all about hating Obama and not wanting him to get the credit.

Sorry, hate isn't enough for me to want to stop a plan that will get passed if not now then four to eight years from now.

Posted by: Sean on August 10, 2009 08:33 AM
35. @33 pudge on August 10, 2009 08:27 AM,

didn't mean to misquote. sorry.

The argument regarding personal preferences/convictions regarding where individual tax dollars go is an old one, and one that the side you appear to support has never won. My favorite tax protester is Henry David Thoreau. The man had the courage of his convictions. Surely as an MA native you know all about it.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on August 10, 2009 08:33 AM
36. MikeBoyScout -

"@29 Tim on August 9, 2009 09:30 PM,
"Oops - Obama will just raise taxes!!"
If you think Obama and the Democrats raising taxes on annual income >$250k to pay for their new programs is breaking news.... well. :-/"

I mentioned that Obama won't raise taxes on Middle Class making less than $250K and that instead of taxes he would charge horrible fees on everyone's bills.

Well to me government fees are taxes so Obama will again be going back on what he has stated as he will be raising taxes on everyone one way or another to pay for his Trillion dollar debts! Hopefully you now understand what I wrote.

Time will tell!

Posted by: Tim on August 10, 2009 09:58 AM
37. Obama is the consummate "smoke-and-mirrors" fantasy budget balancer.

Listen, the KLOWN wants to deficit to skyrocket...because servicing the debt makes us all even more dependent on THE GOVERNMENT.

Obama never tells the whole truth or even close.
Did y'all know Federal Tax Collections are waaaaaaaaaay down. If revenue doesn't come in as projected, what happens.
THE DEFICIT CLIMBS!

Obama's "forecasts" on revenue are beyond pie-in-the-sky. Take whatever Obama says with a huge block of salt and look/verify his faulty underlying assumptions.

Hey Barrack is the ultimate Optimist. Optimism and projections ultimately turn into a reality with consequences.

Intentionlly over-estimating revenue to jam thru a massive government program is the oldest, tiredest trick in the book. Good thing smart folks are all over this and not just taking Obama's crooked staff's word for anything.

Max Baucus is a grownup who will hopefully take the credit card away from the brother.

Posted by: Mr. Cynical on August 10, 2009 10:13 AM
38. @36 Tim on August 10, 2009 09:58 AM,

No, I don't understand why you expect horrible fees, but I really don't need to understand how you use your crystal ball.
I expect your prognostication about what Obama and the Democrats will do based upon nothing but your crystal ball to be less correct than the local weatherman.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on August 10, 2009 10:17 AM
39. MikeBS: yes, I almost went off but then I figured it was unintentional. No need to apologize; just wanted to let you know so you could be more careful in the future.

And yes, it is an old argument, and one on which there's plenty of principled and rational, philosophical, disagreement. Just because someone's name is Thoreau doesn't make him right.

Posted by: pudge on August 10, 2009 10:18 AM
40. We can't let Obama pass this.

If he does then Romney can't pass it four years from now.

This is all just an exercise in Obama hating.

That is all this is.

Posted by: Jill on August 10, 2009 10:22 AM
41. Sean (and, apparently, JIll):

We are going to have socialized medicine. If Obama doesn't give it to us Romney will.

No, Romney would not. I know his views pretty well, having voted for him for governor of MA and followed his political career, and he's never expressed favor for this plan or anything similar to it. Forcing citizens to buy health insurance -- I call it a "life tax" -- is detestable, but it's not socialized medicine. You're ignorant about Romney.


SO, all the rest is just partisan wrangling. ... Does it really make that much difference if it happens now under Obama or in the near future under Romney?

Ummm. No, it doesn't matter at all. That's the point. We would oppose it just as much if Romney were President. That you think otherwise means you're also ignorant about us, our views, our motivations.


Let us not forget how the first bailout was done under Bush.

A great example: if you went to the Tea Parties I went to (three of them), you would've heard people yelling in outrage at George Bush's actions, including TARP. That you think we didn't further demonstrates your ignorance. This isn't partisan for us. We are Republican BECAUSE the GOP opposes things like this; if they didn't, we would go elsewhere (which is why the GOP lost so many votes under Bush ... because Bush and the GOP stopped acting like conservatives).


Republicans have been pretty successful getting socialist programs passed.

And we've opposed them. I spoke out against the expansion of Medicare under Bush. I spoke out against No Child Left Behind. And if there had been rallies like the Tea Parties when Bush was President and the Congress was Republican, to protest government spending, I'd have gone.


So, in the end this is all about hating Obama and not wanting him to get the credit.

This is typical of the left, and I've made note of it several times in the last few weeks: rather than addressing the actual arguments, the left throws out ad hominems and all other manner of red herring fallacies to dishonestly attempt to undermine the people making the arguments, to AVOID addressing the arguments.

Dick Durbin actually said that these protestors are undermining democracy: on the contrary, it's representatives like him who dishonestly and illogically and unintellectually dismiss citizens with valid concernsd who undermine democracy.

And you're doing the same thing.

EVEN IF you were right about your claims -- and you're not, but even if you were -- they would still be fallacious. Invalid. Unintellectual. Irrational.

We recognize your dishonest, fallacious comments and dismiss them as such.

Posted by: pudge on August 10, 2009 10:28 AM
42. Given that Jill and Sean come from two completely different IPs and have the same talking points, I suspect that their comments are "being orchestrated, and these folks have instructions." This "isn't the democratic process."

At least, according to Dick "The Dick" Durbin.

It's sad though that their talking points are completely dishonest. If you're going to have people, en masse, give the same talking points, take the time to make them accurate and logical, rather than false and fallacious.

Posted by: pudge on August 10, 2009 10:33 AM
43. Mike - you do not need a crystal ball to understand that Obama's plan will put the United States into Trillions dollars of debt. That has been published by the MSM. How would you pay for that debt?

If we don't pay that debt, we will be printing money and having hyperinflation (which we will probably have anyway much as Jimmy Carter caused). To pay that debt will require everyone's effort even though Obama has already stated we won't have tax increases on those making less than $250K but he did not say anything about charging fees on everyone's bills to make up the difference.

That enormous debt will adversely affect everyone and is the biggest problem with Obama and his government.

How would you fix that debt problem?

Posted by: Tim on August 10, 2009 10:41 AM
44. @43 Tim on August 10, 2009 10:41 AM
"Mike - you do not need a crystal ball to understand that Obama's plan will put the United States into Trillions dollars of debt. That has been published by the MSM. How would you pay for that debt? ...How would you fix that debt problem?"

We're already ~13 trillion dollars in debt. The last time this problem was attempted to be corrected and turned around the plan to do so was to decrease spending and increase the marginal tax rate on higher income earners. That was working until the Bush tax cuts, 9/11 recession and an unfunded Iraq war.

HR 3200 shall cost money, lots of it. Doing nothing shall also cost money. I see a good reform bill as an investment; An investment in better health of the people of this country - the people that produce the wealth and do so better when healthy.

The current system is beyond broken. I wish Republican leaders and Congress people would stop BS-ing us with inane talk of Abortion and "Death Panels" and offer solutions to the health insurance issues of continually increased costs faster than the rate of inflation, decreased per capita coverage and sub par medical outcomes.

So far, no luck, but I'll keep writing and wishing. :-)

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on August 10, 2009 12:08 PM
45. Let the private sector reform healthcare. Where is Tort reform being addressed in this bill to limit trial lawyers with frivilous lawsuits? Now that is what is one area driving up costs along with those going to emergency for non-emergency needs.
If this is such a great bill, why isn't congress and Senate signing themselves up? Not good enough for them but shove it down ours. NO THANKS. I am very satisfied with my insurance.

Posted by: Harry on August 10, 2009 01:02 PM
46. Mike - The proposed Obama solutions are "beyond broken".

Posted by: Tim on August 10, 2009 01:33 PM
47. I saw clips of the town meeting hosted by Rick Larsen fox news I noticed it fared much better than others around the country.This is encouraging and people were able to voice their concerns thank goodness.I belive people don,t feel listened to.I agree with pudge as to how well this meeting was handled.Iwish Icould say that for Nancy Pelosi and cronies!! Notice even Obama said debate was important. Guesswho ended up with egg on her face!!

Posted by: Laurie on August 10, 2009 04:36 PM
48. I'm afraid you are confusing "feeling good about civility" with effectiveness.
The Democraps have swallowed the hook!
They were baited into showing outrage at angry. taxpaying US citizens.
Dontcha get it??

This is NOT about Health Care Laurie.
It is about a giant step waaaaaaaaay over the Socialist line. Health Care is the fodder.

Reasonableness?

This is POLITICAL!

The Dems took the bait and the polls show it.
Pelosi and other KLOWNS will have their statements jammed in their faces ad infinitum.
Do you think Pelosi was responding to "reasonableness"????

Posted by: Mr. Cynical on August 11, 2009 06:59 AM
49. Laurie--
One other thing to consider...but you have to first look at this as a POLITICAL battle...not an intellectual/ideology debate:

Whenever those in power (and the Dems have the Presidency, Fillibuster-proof Senate and an overwhelming Majority in the House...THEY are in power big-time,,,right?)...whenever those in power brutally condemn those vehemently speaking out against how they are using that power....
THEY LOSE!!
Do you understand that?

They (Dem leaders including Obama) took the bait, swallowed the hook and the whole damn pole!
Obama today has totally re-tooled his propaganda to address those of us who pay for our insurance.
He should be shouted down dfor his failure to be honest with the public about the cost, impact on service and how this will be paid for.
Are you gonna just let the guy dance around with his smoke-and-mirrors...knowing full well his track record of saying one thing (like he did to get elected) and doing the opposite??

Remember his campaign rhetoric about balanced Budget and eliminating the deficit???
That's what he needs to be held to....and he has already made that IMPOSSIBLE>

So go ahead with your civility approach.
This issue is on the front page and Dem leaders look like Attila the Hun BECAUSE OF ANGRY, VOCAL PROTESTORS.

Tell me you understand? Perhaps you don't agree, but at least tell me you understand.

Republicans/Conservatives are inept POLITICALLY because they spend too much time in the INTELLECTUAL arena and are afraid to stand up and express their true feelings. They bitch privately and to each other...rather than POLITICALLY winning the battle.

Nice for you civil folks to watch others get their hands dirty so you don't have to, right?

If you are angry, GET YOUR ASSES OFF YOUR COUCHES AND PROTEST LOUDLY!!

I'm tired of "tough-talking at breakfast with other conservative's" types. We have waaaaaaaay too many of those. They give little $$ and are never there when it comes time to making phone calls or go sign-waving or door-belling.

Know the type??

Ineffective losers!

Posted by: Mr. Cynical on August 11, 2009 07:11 AM
50. I only mention Civility as a good approach at these town meetings to basically take the wind out of the dems sails. While we do indeed have the right to free speech on this issue as well as many others protesting is where I choose to raise my voice a bit louder. and no I am far from a socailist!! I'm as against this presidents healthcare as the rest of you! My rep Dave Reichert (R) Had a telephone town meeting where plenty of us expressed our concerns recently. It went well and he explained clearly how this plan would effect others something the dems refuse to do! How can they when it's not even read by them where it was by Reichert.That says something!Many times the dems did not seem to listen to peoples concerns many of them valid as i see it.

Posted by: Laurie on August 11, 2009 08:33 AM
51. Good for you Laurie.
But my point was that Health Care is POLITICAL.
And it's not about intellectualizing and debating and being right at this point.
It's about being EFFECTIVE and the reason this is all over the news (for better or worse..there is no bad publicity!)....is because of vehement, vocal protestors.
How much press did Reichert's phone meeting get??
Do you think it stirred people to think??
Most likely folks that have already made up their mind.

Nothing like some passion to stir the pot Laurie.
Think about it.

Posted by: Mr. Cynical on August 11, 2009 08:40 AM
52. We will have plenty of camera's to tape the Democrat/Union thuggery expected at the Obama Town Hall meeting in Bozeman on Friday.

I doubt seriously Obama will be given a "free pass" with an orchestrated Town Hall filled with Government Union Employees and allowing just 1 or 2 tough questions (that could very well be plants too).

Do you really think Obama will let Tea Party organizer's, who had nearly 2,000 at the July 4th Tea Party in Bozeman in a county of 75,000, in to ask the tough questions about cost, control, consequences and how it will be paid for????

Sit in the comfort of your living room and watch passionate people do the heavy lifting for y'all!

Posted by: Mr. Cynical on August 11, 2009 08:45 AM
53. It seems that Rick Larsen however, did at least read this bill.To his credit.Even if I don't agree with Obamacre.

Posted by: Laurie on August 11, 2009 08:48 AM
54. One last thing to chew on--
Part of the Democrat strategy is to cover all these orchestrated Town Hall meetings....a Leftist Propaganda tool. If folks don't seize the opportunity to protest at these, they will get very, very little coverage in their own organized, seperate protests. Comprende??

Politics is so often about opportunities and missed opportunities. I'd rather lose doing absolutely everything to get an anti-Public Choice message out...than to sit back after the fact and say "boy, I wish we had seized opportunities to protest BEFORE it was rammed thru and now it's too late".

Anyway, I have met lots of professionals (docs, RN's, CPA's, architects, engineers, high techy's)...you name it. No "rednecks"! None.
ANd a lot... a whole lot of small business owners of all kinds. It's amazing these people take time away from work costing themselves lots of money to attend these protests.
If you take off work, You have an investment in this issue....vs. those who get involved when it's "convenient" or not at all...just tough talk over coffee and zero follow-thru.

Get involved now....

Posted by: Mr. Cynical on August 11, 2009 08:53 AM
55. Laurie--
Think about what you just said...Rick Larsen gets "credit" for reading the Bill???
We have lowered the standard below sea-level.
It's his job.
It's insane to think anyone would ever vote for anything they had not read.
That's why we are in the mess we are in!
Credit...for reading a Bill that will change our American Way of Life immensely??
Think about it Laurie....their is no credit due.
Plus, how do you know Larsen didn't just read some Leftist bureaucrat's spin/talking points??

If Larsen read it, he would have hundreds of questions. Does he?? Seems like their were only a handful of things he highlighted...but I wasn't there. What are his main concerns Laurie??
Did he discuss Tort Reform??
Defensive medicine and resulting unneccesary tests are the #1 cause of waste per the 2008 Price Waterhouse Coopers Study...along with fraud.
Did Larsen discuss attacking these areas?????
If not, why not.
They account for 15-20% of the waste.
Use this as a benchmark for assessing Larsen's "sincerity".
Did Larsen aggressively address these issues in the Town Hall meeting??
If not, he's playin' with ya cuz he's in a swing District.

Posted by: Mr. Cynical on August 11, 2009 09:01 AM
56. Cynical: think what you want, but please do not attack people like Laurie for wanting to engage in civility. That's uncalled-for.

Laurie: yes, he did read it, he said, and I believe him ... but note Ron's post: surely he didn't understand it very well. Indeed, at the meeting, he expressed ignorance about some of the topics covered by the bill. Not that I blame him too much ... no one could understand it fully. Which is why, in part, he shouldn't vote for it.

Posted by: pudge on August 11, 2009 09:02 AM
57. pudge's coverage of Larsen event gets picked up by TalkingPointsMemo.com
Tea Party Sign: "Keep The Guvmint Out Of My Medicare"

Uh-oh Michele! We ARE being monitored! :-D

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on August 11, 2009 03:42 PM
58. Just so your readers know -- there will be a change in the location for the Everett Town Hall.
Everett Station meeting room will only hold about 250 and there is no place for overflow and the parking would be rough with the commuters still the lots. The Larsen staff is firming up a new location and have released their reservation on the Everett Station Room

Posted by: everettdemocrat on August 11, 2009 03:42 PM
59. Thanks, EverettDem. Please do keep us posted, if you can.

MikeBS: heh. They are right, I am somewhat bemused, and friendly. Although, even though it's a funny sign on its face, there's certainly some truth to it: maybe the person meant to not CUT Medicare or change it; maybe they meant to stay out of the doctor-patient relationship; etc. Who knows?

Posted by: pudge on August 11, 2009 03:53 PM
60. pudge spews:
56. Cynical: think what you want, but please do not attack people like Laurie for wanting to engage in civility. That's uncalled-for.

Gee pudge, do you think I hurt Laurie's feelings and you need to stick up for her???
Weird pudge, weird.
You use the word "attack people like Laurie".
How did I attack her pudge?
Gimme a break.....

Posted by: Mr. Cynical on August 11, 2009 08:03 PM
61. Cynical, I am merely pointing out that you're a loudmouth and a bully. Shrug.

Posted by: pudge on August 11, 2009 08:36 PM
62. Actually pudge, I'm a loudmouth who gives plenty of time and money to Conservative causes and candidates. I pointed out how ineffective it is to be played by these orchestrated meetings and how immaterial Risk Larsen is in stopping Single Payer.
Now you post about another "stealth" meeting at Cowlitz Expo Center.
Be Civil!!

Posted by: Mr. Cynical on August 12, 2009 09:50 AM
63. Cynical: I'm a loudmouth who gives plenty of time and money to Conservative causes and candidates.

Good for you. That has nothing to do with anything I said, though.


I pointed out how ineffective it is to be played by these orchestrated meetings and how immaterial Risk Larsen is in stopping Single Payer.

You expressed those opinions, yes.

Posted by: pudge on August 12, 2009 10:04 AM
64. good synopsis, except for the suggestion that rick larsen responded with specific, factual answers. really? i was there and i thought he stuck to a couple of talking points, the most prominent being: we need health care reform so no one is discriminated on the basis of gender, age or pre-existing conditions.

Posted by: Kelli on August 14, 2009 03:11 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?