Healthcare - I'm on Public Option slow boil by pizmobeach

Frem,

You know that Voight-Kampff test of yours… did you ever take that test yourself?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 1, 2009 1:43 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

When did this thread become about how cool someone was?

About psychological manipulation of fellow forumites?

About old evidence held in reserve that proves X to be Y, but held back for Z good of mankind?

About who is more evil, more conniving, more manipulative, more douchey?

Why does a health care thread degenerate into a thread where various Dark Lords of the Sith compare the size of their light sabers?

It may be that some people here command vast armies of converts like 'The Shadow' and his support network. It might be that some people here are psychological commandos. It may be that some people here have vaults filled with the dirty little posts that everyone hopes that everyone else has forgotten.

None of it has any positive impact on the size of your phallus. I promise. I also promise that some of you folks may be able to clobber political rivals with your big swinging johnson, but waving it at fellow forumites results in nothing but shrinkage.

There are people on here who worry me and anger me, but the bad guys are mentioned at the top of the thread. Having duels with the people in the middle is a waste.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 1, 2009 3:23 AM

Anthony,

You answer your own question. Buried threads should stay buried. If they didn't, then some people not right now posting in this thread would come off not very well. This would escalate a war.

Threadjacks are not uncommon, this one is unfortunate. IMHO, Mike was out of line. Frem, in a very predictable leap to Mike's defense, for some reason, decided to take a strong self destructive stance:
First, state the uselessness of manipulative people, then establish his own creds as a manipulative person.

Logically impeccable. Of course you're right, this "bad boy" thing that some posters get off on is self defacing: Establishing yourself as evil while claiming to be a child rights advocate in possession of a number of other people's children is not a brilliant move.

Oh, and to the self proclaimed "evil." Nonsense. I've met evil. Not jut child abuser, psychopaths and serial killers. You want evil? Try sitting down and having a political argument with a Nazi SS, no I don't mean neonazis, I've met them too, those guys are evil wannabes, It's actually hilarious to here self proclaimed "Nazis" back off of the sorts of positions that Wulf might post. But here's what's not funny, talking to the real Nazi SS and having them tell you what they did and why it was right. Listen to the details of someone explaining to you the necessity of killing the children of the jews and the russians "protecting" europe from being overrun with them, while mixing in anecdotes of their abuse of young boys they've killed. Yes. I've met evil and you're not it. You're the diet coke of evil.

I agree with Tony. All of this "evil" thing is just a bad boy teenage "just like spike" testosterone contest. Put it back in your pants. You ain't winning any accolades for beating up on people.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 1, 2009 4:08 AM

... fully loaded, safety off...

Everyone - breath in.... breath out... Good!

Some more numbers...

White House Phone Numbers:

Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414
FAX: 202-456-2461

I just called the comment line and it wasn't busy, but I did have to hold. "Your call is important to the President..."

I waited less than 3 minutes and talked (rambled) to a live person who assured me that all comments are tallied and the president sees the numbers at the end of the day... I choose to believe that.

Call NOW or write

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
RE: YES ON PUBLIC OPTION
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com Now available on your iPhone

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 1, 2009 4:15 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"It's actually hilarious to here self proclaimed "Nazis" back off of the sorts of positions that Wulf might post."

WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS?

Now, according to you, Im some "super-nazi"?

Wow. Just. Wow.

I guess anyone who is non-PC (i.e. HONEST) is a nazi now?

FUCK OFF.

(Ok, this little snippet has pissed me off.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 1, 2009 4:29 AM

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
"It's actually hilarious to here self proclaimed "Nazis" back off of the sorts of positions that Wulf might post."

WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS?

Now, according to you, Im some "super-nazi"?

Wow. Just. Wow.

I guess anyone who is non-PC (i.e. HONEST) is a nazi now?

FUCK OFF.

(Ok, this little snippet has pissed me off.)

How about you lads start another thread to discuss this stuff?

Thank you, I really appreciate it.

================

Two more links that can help - the second one has a list of web contact forms - very useful, quick and much easier than calling or writing and I *think* your input will be counted in somewhat the same way as other methods.

http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State.shtml

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com Now available on your iPhone

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 1, 2009 5:35 AM

BYTEMITE

I would second a different thread, or even e-mails or something, because this kinda looks a bit like this argument is spiraling out of control, starting to draw people in who weren't involved on accident, you know?

Though, I do want to say, I've never met any of the famous River's, but clearly there's history here. Still, whether or not you disagree with a person's political party or the person themselves, is it really okay, assuming the claims of sock puppetry are true, to chase a person off with the same harsh language that chased them off before? Yes, they may have said worse things to you, but YOU are still HERE, and they are not.

Personally, I think that if someone feels someone else to be wrong, the point of internet discussion is to try, if not to convince the other person, than at least to understand them. We gain nothing from turning away from people, or, you know, calling them sub-human. Though I understand, Frem, sometimes you've had no other choice but to use people to further your agenda, here is not your immediate world.

>_> <_<

Hmm, stalling on healthcare. If a public option can be delivered in 31 days, and we need to defeat Baucus' farce of a bill, how do we want to do that? Let's discuss that some. Letters are good, but are they a stall tactic?

Perhaps what we need to do is show Senators involved in votes that people both 1) want a public option, and 2) show that the "Obama plan" that they don't trust is really Baucus' plan. I think we can find polls a plenty to show this, some of them reasonably neutral. This will stall admirably, and further the cause.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 1, 2009 1:09 PM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"What is it you don't like about the mandatory insurance part of the bill? I mean, you're all for taking responsibility for yourself, but you're against a law requiring you to take responsibility for your healthcare?"

Hello, Kwicko,

You're not really being fair on your analysis there, are you?

This is akin to someone saying "I think I should be responsible for my own transportation."

And your reply being,

"Then I'm sure you'll appreciate a law requiring you to buy an automobile."

It's six of one, thirty-two of the other.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

Well, Anthony, to be fair to the realities of the current argument, you'd have to say "I think I should be responsible for my own transportation, and I think they should do away with all forms of public transportation." After all, these ARE the same people who went to the tea-bag rallies to demand "No Socialism" - and then complained that the DC Metro subway and bus lines weren't up to the task of meeting the demands of the crowd.

So do all that - do away with all the mass transit, THEN be responsible for your own transporation. And don't take a cab and try to stiff me with picking up the fare!

In other words, DON'T get insurance. But when you get sick or injured, don't you dare go to the emergency room! Stay home and just die quietly like you're supposed to, and stay out of the way of the healthy people.

That's the "health care" that tea-baggers want.

Mike

The percentage you're paying is too high-priced
While you're living beyond all your means;
And the man in the suit has just bought a new car
From the profit he's made on your dreams

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 1, 2009 1:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Ack. Okay, Mike, Bad Dog!

River,

I don't know if you've noticed this about Mike, but it may be sick, but he baits people to personal battles. It may be trollish behavior, but there's really only one thing to do: Ignore it.

Silly me, trying to "bait" someone into a personal attack, especially after being told things like...

Quote:
If Dems go nuclear on this, it will be a suicide vote come 2010 & 2012. So go ahead and do it already...stop being such little whiny shits. You got the House & Senate & President & all filibustery proof to boot...whats yer fucking problem???

I am getting much enjoyment very occasionally reading all your posts and watching you all go fucking nuts over your Obama disappointments. Cheer up...he'll be gone from DC before you know it, and all his marxist, left-wing radical Pelosi crap will be cleaned up all nice and neat.

...yup, being a liberal Democrat, that seems pretty squarely aimed directly at me, although RL's such a twat that he/she/it can't even do it outright, but instead latches onto that old chickenshit passive-aggressive "all liberals" bullshit - and then try to walk that shit back when he/she/it (can we just call it "sheeit" for short?) gets called on it.

So yeah, I *will* take it personally, because it's so very clearly INTENDED that way. Odd that you're so blindered by your own partisan views that you don't ever notice that, DT. I know you're supposedly above all that, but you really aren't, if you want to take a good, long, objective look at yourself. You want to hold liberals to a much higher standard, even while you disagree with most of their views.

As for RL, I've made it abundantly clear to "sheeit" that I can hold a grudge for a long, long time, and that I've got a long memory as well. Shall I necropost some of the lovely things Sheeit had to say to me in the past?

Quote:

I'm serious. Do you know how much restraint it takes for me not to post the comments of the not yet mentioned user who posted what you were just commenting?

You'll also recall that said user also posted what she posted as a "post-in-kind" response to something equally vile and disgusting that was posted by RL, then.

Quote:

Here's why I don't do it, and it's not because I'm above it. We're all on a level here, and to be on a level, we have to be fair. I'm not proctecting anyone, just trying to be fair to everyone. No one deserves the firing squad.

As for your "honor" and "fair" stuff... After the way liberals have been treated in this country, and after trying to turn the other cheek far too many times already, I have to just say...

Fuck 'honor'. Fuck 'fair'. Fuck 'nice'. I'm done with that shit, because you want me to play nice with people who'd rather see my "islamist-sympathizing ass" dead.

You want to argue that Sheeit didn't call ME out directly in its post? Okay, fine - you'll notice that *I* didn't actually call Sheeit a "c-word" in my post, either; I simply noted that it had been done, and that Sheeit had tried to live up to the word. You tend to forget, I'm *very* careful with my words.

Quote:

Oh, and I like the line about posting it in the middle Niki's squirrel pics. Yeah, I know what you're thinking "but that would be inappropriate" maybe the reality is "but that would hurt Mike." You know what? Yes, it would be inappropriate there and it would be in appropriate here. I think we call that way the fuck out of line.

Now you've lost me. I literally have no idea to what you're referring.

Quote:

Sorry dude, just calling it as I sees it.

As am I.

Quote:

Also: Ever think that maybe people have sockpuppets because of things like this? I like to get to know people. I don't care for the sockpuppet thing because it gets in the way. But if someone has to change usernames just to avoid personal attacks, that's just a sad commentary on the group.

Not if their whole reason for creating the sockpuppet was to come back in and attack the group. Which is what RL was doing.

Mike

The percentage you're paying is too high-priced
While you're living beyond all your means;
And the man in the suit has just bought a new car
From the profit he's made on your dreams

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 1, 2009 1:41 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Kwicko,

Again, I think you're being a bit unfair in your analysis. I doubt anyone's position is, "Die outta my way."

Mandatory insurance coverage has all the disadvantages of tax funded public insurance and none of the benefits.

You're required to get it, so it's a lot like a tax on everyone.

But you're getting it from someone whose interest is profit motive, absent from the moderating force of supply/demand issues. In a free market, there is no demand for crap insurance. But in a mandatory environment, a market for useless insurance springs into being.

You see this a lot with "Mandatory Minimum" Auto insurance, where the company is in a race to provide you with as few services as possible. They are essentially charging you for an 'insured' certificate, and never mind that your actual services provided are only slightly more than useless.

Many people, confronted with getting insurance that will do little to improve their level of protection, would rightfully prefer to do without. However, under a mandatory system, you have to pay for largely useless craptastic coverage because it's against the law to say no, and it may be the only coverage you can afford.

It is for this reason that the combination of Mandatory Insurance, and the absence of a Public Option, is the worst of all possible worlds.

There are a lot of people who would be better off with NO insurance, rather than mandatory CRAP insurance that merely drains their wallet.

Mandatory Insurance is just another exciting way to fuck the poor. The wealthier individuals will still be able to get higher quality insurance coverage. The only people impacted will be the people you most desperately want to help, and it will be a negative impact. You'll be reaming their anus sans lubrication.

IF insurance ever becomes mandatory in this country, there MUST be a public option. Otherwise you're throwing the sheep to the wolves.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 1, 2009 2:51 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Miss Bytemite:
Since you are the only one who's brought a salient point, you are the only one who will get a response.

How exactly would you feel, if every time you tried to have a discussion, some poster came in spewing an agenda, which - if not met with fawning adoration, would immediately result in a voluminous flood of profanity, hostility and verbal abuse of everyone not "on board" with it.

Again, and again, and again - till discussion became almost impossible.
Till the board itself slowly emptied, as folk got tired of trying to swim the verbal sewers just to have a discussion ?

Because that is what those folks did, and it is what they DO.

How many more times do you have to let them kick you in the teeth before you slap them away, Byte ?
How LONG must one tolerate it, a year ? two ?
(Cause it DID go for a very frikkin long time!)

Eventually even the most patient folk get sick of it, and when finally, FINALLY enough folk stood up and shoved back, they threw their little hissy and ran under a rock somewhere to seethe.

And here they come again, with the same song and dance, the same intent to wreck any discussion that isn't stroking them or their agenda - and someone I thought knew better standin there holding the door, makin excuses as they come storming in ?
*shakes head*
And so, being unable to physically slap some sense into them, I start mentally screwing with them in an obvious way somewhere between cruel and playful, kinda like a cat with a mouse, just to keep em wondering - what else would you have me do, respond in kind and allow the wreckage of a useful thread when it devolves into the total flamewar the bile-bots WANT anything not on board with their agenda to be ?

I will say this much, pleading mental instability to someone openly planning to mess with your head is idiotic, innit ?

Now, to the business at hand: that whole 30 days thing.

Reason is that some stuff is coming to a head regarding the whole mess, which must be properly confirmed and fact checked before being brought forth, or else it's just another one of the fringe elements wacky stories, you see ?

But I have a good eye for this kind of stuff, and given proper confirmation, the arms folk are going to have to twist to get it shoved into the public arena, and the inevitable chaos and distortion once the media as a whole descends on that information, you're lookin at a 21 day cycle, plus whatever it takes to promogulate to the public at large - ain't MY information and I never did say it was, but if one was paying attention or digging deep enough, and some of you have indeed been digging in the right places, they'd also have some idea of what this is about.

If this stuff can be verified and confirmed, and I see no reason it can't cause it's met ever acid test so far, you'll have one hell of a lever with which to shatter the credibility of those blocking the public option, okay ?

Far as the "Mandatory" argument goes, Anthony has completely nailed my position on it, and in much nicer words.

Now if you'll excuse me, I need some stitches, have to watch them lower another old friend in the ground tomorrow, on top of another death I won't even talk about, and really not in the mood to play petty word games with folk who wanna defend other peoples intentional malice right now, cause I also got work to do, right ?

And no, I'm not really interested in sympathy, just pointing out you'd be askin it from someone who's awful damned short on the stuff right now.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 1, 2009 5:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello Kwicko,

Again, I think you're being a bit unfair in your analysis.

Quite possible; I'm actually pointing out some extremes of the "no socialism!" position.

Quote:

I doubt anyone's position is, "Die outta my way."

Well, I doubt their STATED position is such, but in essence, that IS the position. You have people who have stated that they (a) DO NOT want mandatory insurance coverage for all, (b) DO NOT want a public option or single-payer system that would cover us all, (c) DO NOT want ANY coverage for those here illegally, and (d) DO NOT want ANY kinds of "socialism".

Mix those things together, and you absolutely are telling at least some people to please die quietly, and preferably out of my way. Nobody wants to come out and say it, but that's the long and short of it.

Quote:
Mandatory insurance coverage has all the disadvantages of tax funded public insurance and none of the benefits.

You're required to get it, so it's a lot like a tax on everyone.

But you're getting it from someone whose interest is profit motive, absent from the moderating force of supply/demand issues. In a free market, there is no demand for crap insurance. But in a mandatory environment, a market for useless insurance springs into being.

You see this a lot with "Mandatory Minimum" Auto insurance, where the company is in a race to provide you with as few services as possible. They are essentially charging you for an 'insured' certificate, and never mind that your actual services provided are only slightly more than useless.

Many people, confronted with getting insurance that will do little to improve their level of protection, would rightfully prefer to do without. However, under a mandatory system, you have to pay for largely useless craptastic coverage because it's against the law to say no, and it may be the only coverage you can afford.

It is for this reason that the combination of Mandatory Insurance, and the absence of a Public Option, is the worst of all possible worlds.

There are a lot of people who would be better off with NO insurance, rather than mandatory CRAP insurance that merely drains their wallet.

Mandatory Insurance is just another exciting way to fuck the poor. The wealthier individuals will still be able to get higher quality insurance coverage. The only people impacted will be the people you most desperately want to help, and it will be a negative impact. You'll be reaming their anus sans lubrication.

IF insurance ever becomes mandatory in this country, there MUST be a public option. Otherwise you're throwing the sheep to the wolves.

--Anthony

I find myself basically in agreement with everything else you posted on this one.

For the record, I think the mandatory insurance idea is ludicrous.

Mike

The percentage you're paying is too high-priced
While you're living beyond all your means;
And the man in the suit has just bought a new car
From the profit he's made on your dreams

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 1, 2009 5:31 PM

Mike,

Nothing personal. It was a reference to your word, given twice, here.

Re: Necroposting a) you don't have to, I've read those posts, and b) I'm avoiding doing that because there are a couple of users here who I commend for not partaking in this bloodfeud at the moment, who if one were to necropost would come off as more vile than any of us, and that's not fair to them. Everyone has lapses of reason, and if they've moved on, then that's a credit to them, there's no reason to destroy them. I'm talking about your own friends and allies here.

I have a partisan political position? I thought I loudly denounced the GOP some time ago, and am *more* supportive of Obama than you are. Yes, I have issues with his policies on fiscal policy and the war, and am a little worried about his continuation of infringement on the bill of rights from the last administration.

This isn't exactly a partisan point of view.

In fact, I think it's point for point in accordance with you're own point of view.

That said, a record of campaign promises broken is fair: The dems had a lock solid congress, and some republican allies, they could have passed anything they wanted, including their whole 100 days package. It's probably fair to assume that anything they didn't do that was on the campaign platform they didn't do because the party (collectively, obamas and clintons and any other power group within the DNC) didn't want to do it.

The squirrel pics was a reference to your "talk story comment."

I honestly disagree on one point: I think River6213 became riverlove to avoid this sort of attack. She was fairly inoffensive for some time, and it took people a lone time to pick it up. I personally picked it up on an IP trace, but Pizmo beat me to it in his post.

I personally thought it would have been an interesting discussion. I didn't have any use for a bloodfeud.

Frem,

You don't find anyone else to blame in these flame wars of which you speak? I was there. This all went along perfectly fine until "more than one" person get into it, and I could name a handful, both left and right, who did this without cessation.

Anyone remember when a certain user would attack anything and everything I posted regardless of what it was? And would flood the thread with vicera? I don't recall any assistance at the time, and I recall a lot of threads that didn't go this way, including this one, with a number of other people. Sorry, I just don't agree with the conclusion, and I'm working from the same dataset.

I'm refraining, you might notice, from necroposting anything that would damage any current present member. I have no vested interest in chaos and violence here, or in attacking anyone, it serves no purpose other than to hurt others. It would be incredibly easy to make my point by doing so, but it would be unfair to people here, and unkind.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 1, 2009 6:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Mike,

Nothing personal. It was a reference to your word, given twice, here.

Oh, I know it's not personal between you and I. As for my word, I'm skeptical. I tend to not give my word easily; I *do* remember saying I'd *try* to refrain a bit. What can I say? There are a few posters who bring out the absolute worst in me.

I'll note for the record that I've been called some vile things by this very same "person", and I have absolutely no interest in forgetting nor forgiving. There are some people I will not just shake hands with and call it all good, most especially when they've never been even close to willing to do anything of the sort.

Quote:

Re: Necroposting a) you don't have to, I've read those posts, and b) I'm avoiding doing that because there are a couple of users here who I commend for not partaking in this bloodfeud at the moment, who if one were to necropost would come off as more vile than any of us, and that's not fair to them. Everyone has lapses of reason, and if they've moved on, then that's a credit to them, there's no reason to destroy them. I'm talking about your own friends and allies here.

Oh, I know exactly who you're talking about. Thing is, I think you have the wrong impression not only of the person, but of the posts involved. As I said, it was a "post-in-kind" response; I recognized it as such because I tend to do the same, only to probably a more extreme degree, as you saw above. I responded to RL in the same fashion - actually, I was quite a bit more civil - as she/it has consistently responded to me. I'll not make the mistake ever again of trying to be civil with this "person". I just won't. At some point, you don't just shake Dahmer's hand and call it all a misunderstanding, while he picks his teeth with your child's finger and wipes his chin with your mom's knickers.

Quote:

I have a partisan political position? I thought I loudly denounced the GOP some time ago, and am *more* supportive of Obama than you are. Yes, I have issues with his policies on fiscal policy and the war, and am a little worried about his continuation of infringement on the bill of rights from the last administration.

This isn't exactly a partisan point of view.

Partisan is no doubt the wrong word. And for someone who chooses words with care, that bugs me that I can't seem to put my mind to a better word for it. What you seem to have is a bit of temporary blindness for abuses from the conservative direction which are aimed at those of us of a more liberal (read "socialist") bent. As an analogy, you might sit quietly by while ten posts bashing "hippies" go sailing past, but when one of those self-proclaimed hippies retorts in the same kind of blunt language, you have a tendency to call them on it. Maybe I see it more often now, because I saw it before and now can't "un-see" it.

So it's not quite "partisan" per se, but it's a bias, and one I think you're completely unaware of, or even sure that you DON'T have. But I see it. And I no doubt have my own biases, most likely headed the other direction.

Quote:

In fact, I think it's point for point in accordance with you're own point of view.

You're not. I actually AM quite a partisan. Unfortunately for me and my party, I'm also a realist and a pragmatist, which means at some point I've got to either choose between pointing out what's wrong with the party, or trying to cheerlead that there's nothing wrong at all.

Quote:

That said, a record of campaign promises broken is fair: The dems had a lock solid congress, and some republican allies, they could have passed anything they wanted, including their whole 100 days package. It's probably fair to assume that anything they didn't do that was on the campaign platform they didn't do because the party (collectively, obamas and clintons and any other power group within the DNC) didn't want to do it.

A record of broken promises IS fair. You'll note that I took no offense nor made any comment about that part of the post. It's perfectly fine to say, "Said he'd close Gitmo. Hasn't." I have an issue when it's stated along the lines of "Said he'd close Gitmo, but didn't, because all the liberal nazi socialist democrats are evil, and the black ones are even worse."

Quote:

The squirrel pics was a reference to your "talk story comment."

Ah. Then you didn't get the implied joke. That's okay; I'm used to it. People constantly give me quizzical looks about my humor, unless we all happen to be on acid at the time, at which point I seem to make more sense, or they seem to be in tune with the way my mind works.

It was rather an oblique joke, and involved a couple posts in Talk Story, AuRaptor, the sockpuppet thread, and RL swirling around in it somewhere, being someone other than RL...

Quote:

I honestly disagree on one point: I think River6213 became riverlove to avoid this sort of attack. She was fairly inoffensive for some time, and it took people a lone time to pick it up. I personally picked it up on an IP trace, but Pizmo beat me to it in his post.

Some of the Rivers around here are unstable. RiverDancer seems to be the notable exception. If RL became RL to chill out, it didn't work very well at all.

Quote:

I personally thought it would have been an interesting discussion. I didn't have any use for a bloodfeud.

I personally think parts of it HAVE been interesting. As for the bloodfeud, sometimes you've just gotta stand aside.

Now, I'm not Frem, but I've got a li'l' input on some of this stuff as well:

Quote:

You don't find anyone else to blame in these flame wars of which you speak? I was there. This all went along perfectly fine until "more than one" person get into it, and I could name a handful, both left and right, who did this without cessation.

I was there, too. And I was one of the ones whom you speak of.

Quote:

Anyone remember when a certain user would attack anything and everything I posted regardless of what it was? And would flood the thread with vicera? I don't recall any assistance at the time, and I recall a lot of threads that didn't go this way, including this one, with a number of other people. Sorry, I just don't agree with the conclusion, and I'm working from the same dataset.

I remember, and I remember it turning into a bit of a bloodfeud for you, for quite a while. Seems none of us are above it. We all have our own personal nemeses around here...

As for assistance, I seem to recall you getting at least a modicum of support from more than one person.

S'wenyways, how's about that healthcare reform discussion? Shall we put this one to bed and move on, or shall we just rename this post and start a freshy regarding healthcare?

Mike

The percentage you're paying is too high-priced
While you're living beyond all your means;
And the man in the suit has just bought a new car
From the profit he's made on your dreams

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 1, 2009 8:04 PM

Mike

Quote:
Oh, I know it's not personal between you and I. As for my word, I'm skeptical. I tend to not give my word easily; I *do* remember saying I'd *try* to refrain a bit. What can I say? There are a few posters who bring out the absolute worst in me.

Yeah, I get that. I was disappointed.

Quote:
I'll note for the record...

Yes, we're all familiar with the record, in excruciating detail. A lot of blood was spilt. You did say later that you would let bygones be bygones and that led me to take positions I would not otherwise have taken. I put me in a spot. But more than that, obviously I prefer a forum where people have some pretty solid armor. I've been called vile things by almost everyone on this forus, yet I continue to do my best to be civil.

If I am rough on someone, it's not their persona, but their iterative posts. I said that I got sick of Wulf posting the same damn thing 200 times. I did the same to whozit and a number of others. It's not the content of the post itself, it's just a waste of time. I don't hold anything against Wulf, and I blame everyone equally for being baited into a race war or 2a battle on his posts, I'd just like to see something new.

Quote:
forgetting nor forgiving.

Forgetting is ill advised, forgiving is a power that makes us able to move on. If all humanity were to bear grudges against all the slights against them, well, the list of people I'd have to kill would be pretty damn long.

Remember, I'm a taoist, you gotta expect this "let the water flow to the sea" kind of attitude from me. I have been attacked with no less fury, remember.

Re: Necroposting a) you don't have to, I've read those posts, and b) I'm avoiding doing that because there are a couple of users here who I commend for not partaking in this bloodfeud at the moment, who if one were to necropost would come off as more vile than any of us, and that's not fair to them. Everyone has lapses of reason, and if they've moved on, then that's a credit to them, there's no reason to destroy them. I'm talking about your own friends and allies here.

Quote:
Oh, I know exactly who you're talking about. Thing is, I think you have the wrong impression not only of the person, but of the posts involved.

Oh, it's not one flame war, it's a long history of it. And there's one person in mind and I'm very sure you know who, but there are a couple others close behind. The fact that they have moved on is a credit to them, and I have no interest in harming them, it would be uncalled for.

"post-in-kind" is what we call a flame war. I will not engage in them just because my opponent does. I've been their, and moved on.

Quote:
...only to probably a more extreme degree, as you saw above. I responded...

Oh, 'twere only the world that simple. alas.
The picture is far more complicated than it seems.

Quote:
At some point, you don't just shake Dahmer's hand and call it all a misunderstanding, while he picks his teeth with your child's finger and wipes his chin with your mom's knickers.

I just wanted to savor this image as the most inappropriate thing posted

Sorry, I thought if anything be savored for posterity... No offense... The danger of internet forums...

Quote:
Partisan is no doubt the wrong word. And for someone who chooses words with care, that bugs me that I can't seem to put my mind to a better word for it. What you seem to have is a bit of temporary blindness for abuses from the conservative direction which are aimed at those of us of a more liberal (read "socialist") bent.

Ah, this is how *you* see it, from a liberal perspective. What you are missing is the absolute tonnage of vicera that comes from the left here and is targeted at a large swath of the right that far surpasses even Auraptor at times. I suspect you miss it for two reasons:

1. You're not really reading liberal attacks on conservative posters, positions and populations
2. You fail to see what is offensive about them.

To weight the total, I'd say, sure, there were times when the right was throwing more hate, and that this is definitely not one of those times...

My neutrality to this matter is even-handed. I'm not on the warpath against myriad posters from the left for everything said. Yes, I let the conservative slings and arrows slide by with barely a notice, but I extend the same obvlivious dismissal to those of the left.

I humbly suggest that being on the left, you just don't see them for the offensive attacks they are.

Not everything flies by without notice from me, but the usual left-right does, regardless of how much hatred is embodied. I'll attack a weak position on either side. I have political positions, sure, but I don't select positions to attack based on my positions, but based on the strength and merit of the post and position. I side with a large number of left wing posts, and attack a fair number of conservative ones. I'll freely admit that I'm a conservative, and not a supporter of socialism, labor unions, or anything state run, etc., and a believer in faith-based, family values, individualism, competition, etc. But if someone comes forward with a good solid proposal for national healthcare or welfare, I'll give it a fair even handed consideration. If someone comes out with a totally half-assed position on free markets or societal preservation, I'll rip it to shreds. But if either side comes out with a venomous attack, I'll just ignore it.

Quote:
As an analogy, you might sit quietly by while ten posts bashing "hippies" go sailing past, but when one of those self-proclaimed hippies retorts in the same kind of blunt language, you have a tendency to call them on it. Maybe I see it more often now, because I saw it before and now can't "un-see" it.

I don't believe this is the case, but in my defense, I'll also add this: 90% of flame wars I tend not to read. If you or Frem or Byte posts something, i'm liable to read it. There are a fair number of people who just attack the other side like rabid dogs, and there's little point in wasting my time on what they have to say.

So sure, I may totally miss attacks on the left which are inappropriate simply because I'm ignoring that person's posts. But in general, I tend to ignore this sort of stuff altogether. (How many Whozit, Auraptor, or even Wulf posts do I have time for? I skim Niki to see if she mentions me, or introduces some interesting topic rather than launching partisan attacks and with Rue and Sig I do the same thing.)

Quote:
So it's not quite "partisan" per se, but it's a bias, and one I think you're completely unaware of, or even sure that you DON'T have. But I see it. And I no doubt have my own biases, most likely headed the other direction.

Not an intentional bias, I apologize if it comes out that way. More a few things:
1. Recognition of what's offensive is easier for one's own side
2. I'm ignoring 90% of posts and easily 1/2 of all users, or more.
3. pure vicera I tend to ignore completely, unless I think that it was viciously destructive in nature, such as dragging up dead battles. Just the same as I pin anyone who necroposts for the sake of politicking, regardless of side, as you may have noticed. I don't nitpick a necropost if there's a topic that recurs:

It's perfectly appropriate to necropost a gold standard thread if there's a new gold standard story.

It's inappropriate to necropost a dead partisan scandal on either side if there is no related news just to stir up trouble.

Quote:
Quote:
In fact, I think it's point for point in accordance with you're own point of view.

You're not. I actually AM quite a partisan. Unfortunately for me and my party, I'm also a realist and a pragmatist, which means at some point I've got to either choose between pointing out what's wrong with the party, or trying to cheerlead that there's nothing wrong at all.

I meant the specific issues at hand:
The war (anti)
The economy (out of control in the hands of crooks)
Civil Liberties (being reined in under the auspices of fear)

Sure, there are issues we would disagree on, left-right ideologies and wedge issues, but these were not the subject of debate at the moment.

Quote:
Quote:
That said, a record of campaign promises broken is fair...

A record of broken promises IS fair...

It's always fair

Quote:
"Said he'd close Gitmo, but didn't, because all the liberal nazi socialist democrats are evil, and the black ones are even worse."

Didn't see this post. Actually, I tend to read all posts with a built in filter of the poster. I think most people do, or should: If I didn't do this, I could never hear what Pirate News was saying. Every response to PN would probably read "Anti-semitic B^||$#!+!" and then a reference to my ancestors who died in the holocaust. My "user-specific filter" is necessary to be able to read just about everyone here, esp. those who post frequently.

Boiled down, there was nothing unusual here, and I saw nothing specifically anti-black, just some rhetorical grandstanding about an accusation of hypocrisy on the left, using race as a shield the way israel uses anti-semitism as a shield. Now, sure, I generally support israel, not attacks on palestinians, or a single israeli state dominating muslims, but one state and two state solutions are viable, but I also remember that the zionists were virtually useless to me and my friends ancestors when the holocaust actually happened, even to the point of the British Israelite Society and the Baron de Rothschild issuing statements to the effect of "These jews are converts and their descendents not true blood, and so not our problem." Well, after that, for zionists to use anti-semitism and the holocaust as a shield, sure, I'd call them on that. I'm not calling out democrats for using racism as a shield, I don't think it's particularly the case, but if someone wants to make the argument, it's not an absurd case. It doesn't match statements like "black people ruin neighborhoods and then they'll just move somewhere else and ruin that" <-- this is racism. Saying democrats use race as a shield because the president is black? That's subjective speculation but not innately racist.

Quote:
Ah. Then you didn't get the implied joke. That's okay; I'm used to it. People constantly give me quizzical looks about my humor, unless we all happen to be on acid at the time, at which point I seem to make more sense, or they seem to be in tune with the way my mind works.

I'm not sure, enlighten me.

Quote:
It was rather an oblique joke, and involved a couple posts in Talk Story, AuRaptor, the sockpuppet thread, and RL swirling around in it somewhere, being someone other than RL...

I remember the Talk Story threads that went RWED, if that's the reference. Otherwise, I missed it.

Quote:
Some of the Rivers around here are unstable. RiverDancer seems to be the notable exception. If RL became RL to chill out, it didn't work very well at all.

Attacking people you think are unstable is a good way to maintain stability? "Your logic does not resemble our Earth logic" - Buffy

Seriously, I took it personally, as someone who spent three years as an institutional guinea pig, only to find out that my "mental problems" were just being caused as a side effect to a stomach problem.

Long story.

Quote:
I personally think parts of it HAVE been interesting. As for the bloodfeud, sometimes you've just gotta stand aside.

You can cause it to spin out of control. Whether the discussion is productive is in part in your hands.

Quote:
Now, I'm not Frem, but I've got a li'l' input on some of this stuff as well:

[flamewars]

Quote:
I was there, too. And I was one of the ones whom you speak of.

I know you try to avoid this stuff but you do get caught in it sometimes.

Quote:
I remember, and I remember it turning into a bit of a bloodfeud for you, for quite a while. Seems none of us are above it. We all have our own personal nemeses around here...

Yes, that was my point. The problem is that he did troll everything I posted, without exception, which was very annoying. Eventually, I ended it by just quoting his own words back to him and saying nothing of my own until he called his own words "Nothing short of the propaganda of Hitler" or something very close to that. Maybe he didn't realize they were his own words, but this did have me rolling on the floor laughing.

Quote:
As for assistance, I seem to recall you getting at least a modicum of support from more than one person.

It went both ways. The final exchange was him vs. himself with no intervention, except a post of you telling me to stop once.

But I got both support and tag team attack siding with the aforementioned trollish behavior because it was coming from a liberal, so, yeah, there was some common sense, and some partisanism.

Quote:
S'wenyways, how's about that healthcare reform discussion? Shall we put this one to bed and move on, or shall we just rename this post and start a freshy regarding healthcare?

Mike,

Sure, can you try to apply a filter to all posters? It really helps. If someone just trolls you endlessly, I understand, but treat everyone as if they're Pirate News and think how you would *not* respond to John with "jews jews jews jews jews!"

Anyway, I'm concerned. I'm being called in for the third time this year for healthcare review. This time I have to drive an hour at 7 am for a meeting at an ambiguous address. Last time I got a form saying I had been cancelled and needed to fill out form X to keep my insurance, only to find that the fine print of form X said "Filling out this form waives any claim to health insurance" As someone with either cancer or pre-cancer, I gotta keep the insurance. So, I try to keep a low profile, because I have a vested interest. I don't know if this national healthcare would clear up the bureaucratic BS designed to get me off the roles, or if it would just make it worse.

The cost of actual care, or insurance, is out of range. Meanwhile, I'm unable to get any care because of the dumb fucking HMO runaround.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 1, 2009 8:40 PM

RIVERDANCER

Ironically, the whole situation makes me rather sick.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 1, 2009 11:03 PM

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by RiverDancer:
Ironically, the whole situation makes me rather sick.

Maybe it's been healthy for the boyz to vent?

@Anthony

Thank you for making my cloudy skies even darker

Your post brought to light how a completely suck situation can be even worse - it bears repeating, in part:

"Mandatory insurance coverage has all the disadvantages of tax funded public insurance and none of the benefits.

... you're getting it from someone whose interest is profit motive, absent from the moderating force of supply/demand issues. In a free market, there is no demand for crap insurance. But in a mandatory environment, a market for useless insurance springs into being.

It is for this reason that the combination of Mandatory Insurance, and the absence of a Public Option, is the worst of all possible worlds.

Mandatory Insurance is just another exciting way to fuck the poor. The wealthier individuals will still be able to get higher quality insurance coverage. The only people impacted will be the people you most desperately want to help, and it will be a negative impact.

IF insurance ever becomes mandatory in this country, there MUST be a public option. Otherwise you're throwing the sheep to the wolves."

A.

"Let's see... we have these people that are poor and have no insurance... how do we take advantage of them?"

Fuuuuu...a bad thing and now even worse, and yet better for Big Insurance. It just kills me - how many people are there at the end of this gravy train making the rest of us flop around??

It's not a very "sexy" topic - and the insurance companies are counting on that - but if there was one political event to get JUSTIFIABLY PISSED about it's this one. Wulf? Ding ding ding... any bells ringing for you? Anyone else?

Just to make it easier for everyone that has a notion, Senators, alphabetical by state, links to simple contact forms. Doesn't have to be fancy, just say what you want. Yes, it does mean something:

Begich, Mark - (D - AK)
http://begich.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=EmailSenator

Murkowski, Lisa - (R - AK)
http://murkowski.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactMe.EMai
lLisa

Sessions, Jeff - (R - AL)
http://sessions.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ConstituentServ
ices.ContactMe

Shelby, Richard C. - (R - AL)
http://shelby.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactSenatorShe
lby.EmailSenatorShelby

Lincoln, Blanche L. - (D - AR)
http://lincoln.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm

Pryor, Mark L. - (D - AR)
http://pryor.senate.gov/contact/

Kyl, Jon - (R - AZ)
http://kyl.senate.gov/contact.cfm

McCain, John - (R - AZ)
http://mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.ContactFo
rm

Boxer, Barbara - (D - CA)
http://boxer.senate.gov/contact/email/policy.cfm

Feinstein, Dianne - (D - CA)
http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactUs.Emai
lMe

Bennet, Michael F. - (D - CO)
http://bennet.senate.gov/contact/

Udall, Mark - (D - CO)
http://markudall.senate.gov/?p=contact

Dodd, Christopher J. - (D - CT)
http://dodd.senate.gov/index.php?q=node/3130

Lieberman, Joseph I. - (ID - CT)
http://lieberman.senate.gov/contact/

Carper, Thomas R. - (D - DE)
http://carper.senate.gov/contact/

Kaufman, Edward E. - (D - DE)
http://kaufman.senate.gov/services/contact/

Nelson, Bill - (D - FL)
http://billnelson.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm

Chambliss, Saxby - (R - GA)
http://chambliss.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Email

Isakson, Johnny - (R - GA)
http://isakson.senate.gov/contact.cfm

Akaka, Daniel K. - (D - HI)
http://akaka.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Home

Inouye, Daniel K. - (D - HI)
http://inouye.senate.gov/Contact/Email-Form.cfm

Grassley, Chuck - (R - IA)
http://grassley.senate.gov/contact.cfm

Harkin, Tom - (D - IA)
http://harkin.senate.gov/c/index.cfm

Crapo, Mike - (R - ID)
http://crapo.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm

Risch, James E. - (R - ID)
http://risch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Email

Burris, Roland W. - (D - IL)
http://burris.senate.gov/contact/contact.cfm

Durbin, Richard J. - (D - IL)
http://durbin.senate.gov/contact.cfm

Bayh, Evan - (D - IN)
http://bayh.senate.gov/contact/email/

Lugar, Richard G. - (R - IN)
http://lugar.senate.gov/contact/

Brownback, Sam - (R - KS)
http://brownback.senate.gov/public/contact/emailsam.cfm

Roberts, Pat - (R - KS)
http://roberts.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactInformati
on.EmailPat

Bunning, Jim - (R - KY)
http://bunning.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.ContactF
orm

McConnell, Mitch - (R - KY)
http://mcconnell.senate.gov/contact_form.cfm

Landrieu, Mary L. - (D - LA)
http://landrieu.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm

Vitter, David - (R - LA)
http://vitter.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.ContactFo
rm

Kerry, John F. - (D - MA)
http://kerry.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm

Cardin, Benjamin L. - (D - MD)
http://cardin.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm

Mikulski, Barbara A. - (D - MD)
http://mikulski.senate.gov/Contact/contact.cfm

Collins, Susan M. - (R - ME)
http://collins.senate.gov/public/continue.cfm?FuseAction=ContactSenato
rCollins.EmailIssue

Snowe, Olympia J. - (R - ME)
http://snowe.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactSenatorSnow
e.Email

Levin, Carl - (D - MI)
http://levin.senate.gov/contact/

Stabenow, Debbie - (D - MI)
http://stabenow.senate.gov/email.cfm

Klobuchar, Amy - (D - MN)
http://klobuchar.senate.gov/emailamy.cfm

Bond, Christopher S. - (R - MO)
http://bond.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactUs.ContactFo
rm

McCaskill, Claire - (D - MO)
http://mccaskill.senate.gov/contact/

Cochran, Thad - (R - MS)
http://cochran.senate.gov/email.html

Wicker, Roger F. - (R - MS)
http://wicker.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.EMailSena
torWicker

Baucus, Max - (D - MT)
http://baucus.senate.gov/contact/emailForm.cfm?subj=issue

Tester, Jon - (D - MT)
http://tester.senate.gov/Contact/index.cfm

Burr, Richard - (R - NC)
http://burr.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.ContactForm

Hagan, Kay R. - (D - NC)
http://hagan.senate.gov/?p=contact

Conrad, Kent - (D - ND)
http://conrad.senate.gov/contact/webform.cfm

Dorgan, Byron L. - (D - ND)
http://dorgan.senate.gov/contact/contact_form.cfm

Nelson, Ben - (D - NE)
http://bennelson.senate.gov/contact-me.cfm

Gregg, Judd - (R - NH)
http://gregg.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.ContactFor
m

Shaheen, Jeanne - (D - NH)
http://shaheen.senate.gov/contact/

Lautenberg, Frank R. - (D - NJ)
http://lautenberg.senate.gov/contact/routing.cfm

Menendez, Robert - (D - NJ)
http://menendez.senate.gov/contact/

Bingaman, Jeff - (D - NM)
http://bingaman.senate.gov/contact/

Udall, Tom - (D - NM)
http://tomudall.senate.gov/contact/contact.cfm

Ensign, John - (R - NV)
http://ensign.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.ContactFo
rm

Reid, Harry - (D - NV)
http://reid.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm

Gillibrand, Kirsten E. - (D - NY)
http://gillibrand.senate.gov/contact/

Schumer, Charles E. - (D - NY)
http://schumer.senate.gov/new_website/contact.cfm

Brown, Sherrod - (D - OH)
http://brown.senate.gov/contact/

Voinovich, George V. - (R - OH)
http://voinovich.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Contac
tForm

Coburn, Tom - (R - OK)
http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactSenatorCob
urn.Home

Inhofe, James M. - (R - OK)
http://inhofe.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.ContactFo
rm

Merkley, Jeff - (D - OR)
http://merkley.senate.gov/contact/

Wyden, Ron - (D - OR)
http://wyden.senate.gov/contact/

Casey, Robert P., Jr. - (D - PA)
http://casey.senate.gov/contact/

Specter, Arlen - (D - PA)
http://specter.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.ContactF
orm

Reed, Jack - (D - RI)
http://reed.senate.gov/contact/contact-share.cfm

Whitehouse, Sheldon - (D - RI)
http://whitehouse.senate.gov/contact/

DeMint, Jim - (R - SC)
http://demint.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Home

Graham, Lindsey - (R - SC)
http://lgraham.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.EmailSen
atorGraham

Johnson, Tim - (D - SD)
http://johnson.senate.gov/contact/

Thune, John - (R - SD)
http://thune.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Email

Alexander, Lamar - (R - TN)
http://alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Home

Corker, Bob - (R - TN)
http://corker.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactInformatio
n.ContactMe

Cornyn, John - (R - TX)
http://cornyn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.ContactFo
rm

Hutchison, Kay Bailey - (R - TX)
http://hutchison.senate.gov/contact.cfm

Bennett, Robert F. - (R - UT)
http://bennett.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Email

Hatch, Orrin G. - (R - UT)
http://hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Offices.Contact

Warner, Mark R. - (D - VA)
http://warner.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Contact

Webb, Jim - (D - VA)
http://webb.senate.gov/contact/

Leahy, Patrick J. - (D - VT)
http://leahy.senate.gov/contact.cfm

Sanders, Bernard - (I - VT)
http://sanders.senate.gov/contact/

Cantwell, Maria - (D - WA)
http://cantwell.senate.gov/contact/

Murray, Patty - (D - WA)
http://murray.senate.gov/email/index.cfm

Feingold, Russell D. - (D - WI)
http://feingold.senate.gov/contact_opinion.html

Kohl, Herb - (D - WI)
http://kohl.senate.gov/contact.cfm

Byrd, Robert C. - (D - WV)
http://byrd.senate.gov/contacts/

Rockefeller, John D., IV - (D - WV)
http://rockefeller.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm

Barrasso, John - (R - WY)
http://barrasso.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactUs.Conta
ctForm

Enzi, Michael B. - (R - WY)
http://enzi.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactInformation.
EmailSenatorEnzi

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com Now available on your iPhone

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 2, 2009 2:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by RiverDancer:
Ironically, the whole situation makes me rather sick.

The healthcare situation, or the flamewar situation? Or both?

Probably both.

Yeah. I bet it's both.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 2, 2009 2:15 AM

Thanks for the awesome list, Piz. It's going to come in handy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 2, 2009 4:26 AM

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Thanks for the awesome list, Piz. It's going to come in handy.

Np, I had the time... I feel like I've seen every one of our senators now as they tend to put a smiling picture of themselves on their contact page, 'cept for the guy who had a picture of himself on the phone... "hello? what? is anyone there? Speak up! I can't hear your email!"

2 senators decide they wanted you to send them email directly as opposed to through a secure form (allowing spammers to riddle them with spam of course - these guys are in the dark ages, whatever):

Franken, Al - (D - MN) Class II
320 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5641
E-mail: info@franken.senate.gov

LeMieux, George S. - (R - FL) Class III
356 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3041
E-mail: info@lemieux.senate.gov

Of course they want to *harvest* your personal info - the price of citizenry - but ya know, it's up to you what you send them. Personally, at the very least, if you have the time and the knowledge I would create a separate email address:

senators@yourdomainname.com or something@freemail-account - that way you can watch the use of it and ditch it if you need to.

Take 5 seconds - click, paste and send.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com Now available on your iPhone

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 2, 2009 6:48 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Too much to respond to, so I'll just state my case.

I refuse to believe this is what Obama wanted all along. I think he made the same mistake--in the opposite direction--as Clintons did. Clinton (Hillary) WROTE the bill last time, without letting Congress have their say, and it died. This time Obama let Congress have ALL the say, and it's worse than dying, it's killing us.

I read where someone said something about not having a President, and what's happening is confirming my fears--sadly--that he's too naive and will bend too far, not that he purposefully intended for there to be no public option...and worse.

The money trail is what I see; that our representatives (I use the term advisedly...if that were possible) and bought and paid for. As I heard recently, it ends up with the insurance companies getting tons of new customers--with subsidies from the government to make up what they can't pay (and even that, only to a degree!). They got it by giving up a few things, like previous conditions, etc. So yes, there are a few good things in there, but so far outweighed by JUST the mandatory coverage that I think there will be a helluva backlash if it passes.

Personally, I don't think it will. Call me naive, too, but I can't see them TRULY getting away with this robbery, so only time will tell. Haven't given up on SOME kind of public option, but we'll see.

The "Die Quickly" thing was fantastic, we enjoyed the hell out of it. The screaming from the Republicans is disgusting, but predictable...given all the "death panels" and other bullshit they've been shoving down everyone's throats, the complaints about "Die Quickly" are so absurd as to not be worth thinking about.

I know it was over the top, but it was good to see at least ONE Democrat grow enough of a pair to call it like it is, and refuse to knuckle under. If the Dems had pursued this as aggressively as the Republicans fought it, we might have had a chance.

IF the Republicans hadn't been such a bought-and-paid-for Party of No, we'd have had a chance, too. But it seems our two-party system (as much as it is) has gone down the tubes, at least as far as the Repubs go. There is absolutely nothing Obama or the Dems do that they don't go after, whether right or wrong, that they don't pull all the stops out to defeat, and have no compunction about lying through their teeth to achieve it.

But it IS the Blue Dogs I blame, wholeheartedly, and once again see the Dems "snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory". If only the Conservadems hadn't been so bought, I know it would have worked. Majorities in both parties...except for five...what a laugh!!!

At the moment, I can't believe it will pass this way. I can't believe they will actually get away with the mandatory thing, but we'll have to just wait and see. If it does go through, I think there's gonna be hell to pay, big time. Those poor idiots who went along with the tea party and town hall crap will find out what they TRULY wrought--the government REALLY being in control of our health care, and the insurance companies, Big Pharma and their lobbiests pulling off the single biggest coup in the decades of fighting for healthcare.

Someone said they were tired of our bitching and moaning about Obama's failures: tough shit. I'm going to right on bitching and moaning--it's a public forum and it's my right...but I'm going to go on holding out hope. My gawd, to blame Obama for the original bailouts is such a laugh, given it was technically the Bush Administration that brought it about, Obama being essentially powerless at the time. Yeah, the subsequent bailouts haven't worked--yet--and may not, but I truly believe Obama was/is TRYING to help the country, not the Marxist some like to think of him.

Now it's nine months; I'm still willing to give him time. And for all the list of what he HASN'T done, he HAS accomplished some thing to turn us around from Bush's "dictatorship"...I think he'll do more, but he's up against some serious competition and they know how to play dirty; coupled with the Dems lack of balls, it's an uphill battle.

If'n you wanna blame anyone, blame the Blue Dogs. If they'd toed the line like the Repubs do most of the time, we'd have a public option. I would write letters, but I know how useless that is; my own reps are on our side, writing anyone who doesn't "represent" me is a waste of time, letters rarely help unless people are on the fence, and the Repubs and Conservadems have an AGENDA--defeat Obama at all costs--so blaming Obama is ridiculous.

IF the Dems had gotten their shit togeter and fought back just as hard as the Repubs did--and they didn't even need to lie, just get out there and FIGHT--it would have been different, maybe. Given the percentage of Americans who WANT the public option, it's pretty amazing they're being screwed so beautifully...but not really surprising. If they hadn't been so complacent, so trusting of their 60-seat majority, big majority in the House, and the public being behind them, we might have had a shot.

That's how I see it, and I'm not ready to give up yet. It's not a bill yet; it's not a law yet; and I truly don't believe they're going to get away with the mandatory thing, however it ends up. The public option; we'll probably get some kind of wave in that direction or the House won't pass it, but my hopes of it being a TRUE public option are dimming.

But I'm not ready to quit. And I'm not ready to call Obama "Bush". Time will tell.

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 2, 2009 7:53 AM

Writing letters to the editors of your local newspapers will have more effect than writing your representatives, in general. But what the hell, do both.

"The you must buy health insurance" plan seems tailor made to force everyone into the economic system, the last chance to opt out being removed. Also, obviously, the first time that corporate financial industry will be able to universally tax the entire citizenry directly.

No wonder the state keeps putting my healthcare up for review: they want everyone off of the state rolls so they can hand us over to the feds. Erk.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 2, 2009 8:39 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Meh, I went one better, stopped at the office of my rep on the way back from the funeral, pushed him for five minutes, got it, and gave him Anthony's evaluation in capsule lecture and my opinion on it.

He seems on-board with the concept and is very much against the idea of handing his people over to the insurance companies since both he and I also had doctors appointments today and were both a bit bitter about the quality of care involved.

He also had a few things he'd like to discuss later, as he's maybe a wee bit concerned about my folks rabidity towards the folks roadblocking anything resembling a public option - but when we have that chat imma just give him the "barfight rules" speech again, I think.

There's a REASON I told folk to keep puttin the boot in till that party was functionally destroyed, and now you're lookin right down the barrel of it folks - how bout we not make the mistake again, eh ?

We've extended the hand, they bit it, so it's time for the beatdown.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 2, 2009 8:42 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Again.... why don't we just have government regulation of health insurance?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 2, 2009 9:01 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

It depends on the regulations you have in mind. But unless you control the factors that lead to exhorbitant costs and "aministrative fee" rip-offs (monopolization, state-by-state fragmentary regulation, lack of baragining ability on behalf of individual purchasers, lack of transparency through the use of shell corporations) costs will continue to be backbreaking, and go even higher.

You should realize, Wulf, that the health insurances are only doing what EVERY successful coporation wants - AND IS LEGALLY ALLOWED- to do. If you (1) infringe on health insurance "corporate rights" by requiring responsibilities other than the commonly accepted "fiduciary duty" to its stockholders, or (2) limit by law the amount of profit a company may retain then (3) ALL corporations will view it as a threat to their existance, and the entire US Chamber of Commerce will fight tooth-and-nail to defeat you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 2, 2009 9:10 AM

One way to drive down private insurance costs is to let it be sold across state lines like auto insurance. The system now creates a few or one insurance co. that all have to use in their state...almost a monopoly. Competition will lower costs, and competitive levels of service will force companies to improve if they want to survive. Also, individuals should be able to "design" a policy to suit their needs. Not everyone needs or wants coverage for everything. Could start with catastrophic coverage, and then choose any add'l options you want. None of this will cost taxpayers one cent. Also, caps on malpractice damages, and Federal "guidelines" for medical services wouldn't hurt either.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 2, 2009 9:19 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

To make it easy, these are the Finance Committee Senators who voted against the public option

Lincoln, Blanche L. - (D - AR)
http://lincoln.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm

Carper, Thomas R. - (D - DE)
http://carper.senate.gov/contact/

Nelson, Bill - (D - FL)
http://billnelson.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm

Baucus, Max - (D - MT)
http://baucus.senate.gov/contact/emailForm.cfm?subj=issue

Conrad, Kent - (D - ND)
http://conrad.senate.gov/contact/webform.cfm

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 2, 2009 9:24 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Also, caps on malpractice damages

This isn't gonna help. In CA, where we have caps on malpractice AND mandated arbitration, the cost of health insurance is still very very high. It's almost impossible to win a malpractice suit. It takes more than a f*ckup by a doctor. I know, we tried that route for our dd's birth injury.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 2, 2009 9:37 AM

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
One way to drive down private insurance costs is to let it be sold across state lines like auto insurance. The system now creates a few or one insurance co. that all have to use in their state...almost a monopoly. Competition will lower costs, and competitive levels of service will force companies to improve if they want to survive. Also, individuals should be able to "design" a policy to suit their needs. Not everyone needs or wants coverage for everything. Could start with catastrophic coverage, and then choose any add'l options you want. None of this will cost taxpayers one cent. Also, caps on malpractice damages, and Federal "guidelines" for medical services wouldn't hurt either.

There's something about a "for profit" monopoly that mucks it up. The perfect competiton IS the gov because they won't be tempted - as another for profit insurance company would be - to bait-n-switch, or deny claims, or *oops* lose paper work try submitting again, or any of the other ways to shave every penny and squeeze every service.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 2, 2009 9:38 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

McAllen (Texas) has another distinction, too: it is one of the most expensive health-care markets in the country. Only Miami—which has much higher labor and living costs—spends more per person on health care. In 2006, Medicare spent fifteen thousand dollars per enrollee here, almost twice the national average.

“It’s malpractice,” a family physician who had practiced here for thirty-three years said.

“McAllen is legal hell,” the cardiologist agreed. Doctors order unnecessary tests just to protect themselves, he said. Everyone thought the lawyers here were worse than elsewhere.

That explanation puzzled me. Several years ago, Texas passed a tough malpractice law that capped pain-and-suffering awards at two hundred and fifty thousand dollars. Didn’t lawsuits go down?

“Practically to zero,” the cardiologist admitted.

***************************************************************

Nope, it's not malpractice.

(Originally published online in Salon, but now available only through secondary sources.)

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 2, 2009 9:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
One way to drive down private insurance costs is to let it be sold across state lines like auto insurance. The system now creates a few or one insurance co. that all have to use in their state...almost a monopoly. Competition will lower costs, and competitive levels of service will force companies to improve if they want to survive. Also, individuals should be able to "design" a policy to suit their needs. Not everyone needs or wants coverage for everything. Could start with catastrophic coverage, and then choose any add'l options you want. None of this will cost taxpayers one cent. Also, caps on malpractice damages, and Federal "guidelines" for medical services wouldn't hurt either.

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
There's something about a "for profit" monopoly that mucks it up. The perfect competiton IS the gov because they won't be tempted - as another for profit insurance company would be - to bait-n-switch, or deny claims, or *oops* lose paper work try submitting again, or any of the other ways to shave every penny and squeeze every service.

You've described how things are now...just one or a few companies in each state running amok. Breaking down the state barriers will allow hundreds of companies to compete for business. They will have to improve service, or they will be out of business. Sorry, but I do not believe that a 1000+ page pile of mumbly-gook that only attorneys can understand drafted by Congress is the answer to anything. The Federal Govt. is already too big and it shouldn't get any bigger. If the Govt gets directly involved in this, private insurers will never be able to compete, and these companies will fold, millions in the industry will lose their jobs, and we that are covered now will be left to the mercy of the Fed Govt. I don't trust the Govt.'s ability to do anything right, especially when it comes to the health of my family. I do not mind if they want to raise my taxes a bit so that the genuinely poor can get Fed tax credits to fund some basic health coverage. I think that's fair & reasonable.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 2, 2009 10:13 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"If the Govt gets directly involved in this, private insurers will never be able to compete ..."

It sounds like an argument against the reasonableness of maintaining private insurance.

"... we that are covered now will be left to the mercy of the Fed Govt."

And those who are not covered ? What about them ? Do you see private insurance doing anything for them ?

"I don't trust the Govt.'s ability to do anything right ..."

Except, apparently, compete with private insurance.

It's already been discussed - the government cannot be both SO incompetent that they can't provide care; and at the same time, so effective they outcompete private business. You need to pick your fear.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 2, 2009 10:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"If the Govt gets directly involved in this, private insurers will never be able to compete ..."

It sounds like an argument against the reasonableness of maintaining private insurance.

"... we that are covered now will be left to the mercy of the Fed Govt."

And those who are not covered ? What about them ? Do you see private insurance doing anything for them ?

"I don't trust the Govt.'s ability to do anything right ..."

Except, apparently, compete with private insurance.

It's already been discussed - the government cannot be both SO incompetent that they can't provide care; and at the same time, so effective they outcompete private business. You need to pick your fear.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

The Fed Govt. can out-compete anything private because of its' scope, buying power, and non-profit operating model. If you READ my post, instead of just looking for holes to poke, you'd see where I said I'd be willing to pay more in Fed taxes to pay for healthcare for the poor. What else do you want from me? I do not want to see a federal nanny-state in America. You are taking this issue and making it a life or death ideological referendum for America. It does not have to be that way. Neither side in Congress wants to compromise, but I'm willing as I said to do my part. Just keep the f'ing Govt out of my life...ok.

Funny how all the anti-Govt folks here are silent all of a sudden. I guess it's only hip & cool to be an anarchist or libertarian when there's a Republican Adminstration in power.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 2, 2009 10:57 AM

UNABASHEDVIXEN

Can I make a suggestion to those of your who are keen to lobby your representatives? I work for a Member of Parliament (the Canadian equivalent to a Congressperson) and I open mail all day long. If you want your message to have any impact, follow these simple steps:

1. Proofread. Use proper grammar, spelling, etc. I know this shouldn't matter, but it does.

2. Identify yourself as a constituent, and include your address to prove it.

3. Don't rant or, well, sound crazy. I deal with crazies all day long, and I've learned to tune them out (one must in order to get anything done).

4. Be respectful. It's fine to disagree, and to say that your support of them is contingent on how they vote, but don't name call or accuse. Our office has a strict no-profanity policy. The minute someone writes or speaks a profanity they are immediately hung up on/deleted/recycled (depending on the medium!).

5. The Chairs and Members of commmittees do care what you think. And remember, just because you can't vote for them doesn't mean you can't give them money - don't be afraid to play that card. In US politics, money is everything.

6. Be brief. Whoever gets your message reads mail all day long. Make your point and be quick about it. No need to go through the 15 things your disagree with.

7. Support those reps who you agree with - positive words really help, and they get far more negative than positive mail. My boss always says that her constitunets keep her going, because she knows they're behind her even when the fight is long and hard.

I hope y'all find this useful.

ETA: I had to correct my grammar. Oh, the irony!

*
People before profits

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 2, 2009 11:03 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I'd be willing to pay more in Fed taxes to pay for healthcare for the poor. What else do you want from me?

To... what? Put the insurance companies on an IV of tax money? I'm not sure I get your proposal.

Quote:
I do not want to see a federal nanny-state in America. You are taking this issue and making it a life or death ideological referendum for America.

Actually you are (too?) because your first sentence was extremely categorical.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 2, 2009 11:11 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Jong

What you ACTUALLY posted was:

"I do not mind if they want to raise my taxes a bit so that the genuinely poor can get Fed tax credits to fund some basic health coverage."

First of all, poor people are too poor for tax credits to do them any good. Second of all, you want to make these people have to crawl to the same private system (in your mind, with federal money) that dumped them in the first place. Basically, you want (partially) federally funded private insurance. No ?

The reasons why you say you want this ? Because 1) the federal goverment is SO capable it can overwhelm the 'efficiencies' of a private system, and at the same time it so 2) so inept it won't be able to do the job.

You still have a contradiction in your argument.

"What else do you want from me?"

A logical argument.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 2, 2009 1:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Again.... why don't we just have government regulation of health insurance?

Supposedly, we do. But congresswhores keep selling that "regulation" back to the insurance companies, or rolling it back so that they can make their money off the back end.

Did you know that almost all of the Senate ALREADY voted for a public option when it comes to insurance? It was PROPERTY insurance, and the vote came in reaction to Hurricane Katrina, and the fact that Trent Lott's home in Mississippi was heavily damaged, and his insurance company tried to do the old "it wasn't the wind, it was the water" and "it wasn't the water, it was the wind" switcheroo - so he lobbied to get the laws changed to allow government flood insurance to be bought - with subsidies - even retroactively, so he could get paid.

This "public option" on flood insurance is subsidized by the government, and so far has put over a billion dollars of TAXPAYER money into the coffers of the insurance industry.

So, since these fucknuts are already determined to give MY money to themselves and to the insurance lobby, I don't think it's asking too fucking much that I get some goddamned health coverage out of it.

Mike

The percentage you're paying is too high-priced
While you're living beyond all your means;
And the man in the suit has just bought a new car
From the profit he's made on your dreams

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 2, 2009 1:31 PM

Quote:

Funny how all the anti-Govt folks here are silent all of a sudden. I guess it's only hip & cool to be an anarchist or libertarian when there's a Republican Adminstration in power.

Nope, that can't be it, because I don't remember any of the right-wingers saying a single thing against the government back then. In fact, I distinctly remember them calling out anyone who dared to do so as being "un-American". Where was all the "government can't do ANYTHING right" and "I don't want the f'ing government in my life" talk when the Patriot Act was passed (talk about a thousand pages of gobbledygook that was never read before being rushed through!) or when we simply HAD TO invade Iraq because of the "imminent threat" they posed to "our freedoms"? Were you one of the ones saying that we needed big government spying on us to keep us safe? Apparently they DO think government can do SOME things right, as long as those things involve bombing other countries and rolling back our constitutional rights...

It's funny how all the pro-government folks from back then are so gung-ho ANTI-government when there's a Democratic administration in power.

Mike

The percentage you're paying is too high-priced
While you're living beyond all your means;
And the man in the suit has just bought a new car
From the profit he's made on your dreams

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 2, 2009 1:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
I'd be willing to pay more in Fed taxes to pay for healthcare for the poor. What else do you want from me?
To... what? Put the insurance companies on an IV of tax money? I'm not sure I get your proposal.
Quote:
I do not want to see a federal nanny-state in America. You are taking this issue and making it a life or death ideological referendum for America.
Actually you are (too?) because your first sentence was extremely categorical.

It's kind of ironic, because it seems like the people who are most vocal in "not wanting to see a federal nanny state" are almost universally the very same people who said we all had to "rally behind our President" after 9/11, and that to do anything other than support our federal government was tantamount to treason. Odd that they don't seem to feel that way about something that kills more than 15 times as many people every year as were killed on that day, and that kills more than 10 times as many people as we've lost soldiers in Iraq.

Mike

The percentage you're paying is too high-priced
While you're living beyond all your means;
And the man in the suit has just bought a new car
From the profit he's made on your dreams

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 2, 2009 1:49 PM

Signy : You ignore the plan that many favor to allow insurance co's across state lines. That will lower their costs to us, and create an environment of having to deliver the services that you have paid for.

Rue : You ignore the reality that ...yes in the short term the Fed Govt. can lower costs due to their pooling power, but in the long term you can expect the costs to the Govt to increase ten-fold....as it has in states with universal coverage like Mass & Tenn.. By the time the Fed system collapses, the private sector will be extinct.

Kwikkko : What are you rambling about? I'm talking anarchists & libertarians, never mentioned anything else. All of a sudden they LIKE big Govt? Sure. As far as the Patriot Act, it never hurt or affected me in any way. Sorry if you were made to stress about your nefarious dealings in life over it. You still harbor much hatred towards the past...time to move on dude.

That's all folks. Tired & goin to bed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 2, 2009 2:09 PM

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by UnabashedVixen:
Can I make a suggestion to those of your who are keen to lobby your representatives? I work for a Member of Parliament (the Canadian equivalent to a Congressperson) and I open mail all day long. If you want your message to have any impact, follow these simple steps:

1. Proofread. Use proper grammar, spelling, etc. I know this shouldn't matter, but it does.

2. Identify yourself as a constituent, and include your address to prove it.

3. Don't rant or, well, sound crazy. I deal with crazies all day long, and I've learned to tune them out (one must in order to get anything done).

4. Be respectful. It's fine to disagree, and to say that your support of them is contingent on how they vote, but don't name call or accuse. Our office has a strict no-profanity policy. The minute someone writes or speaks a profanity they are immediately hung up on/deleted/recycled (depending on the medium!).

5. The Chairs and Members of commmittees do care what you think. And remember, just because you can't vote for them doesn't mean you can't give them money - don't be afraid to play that card. In US politics, money is everything.

6. Be brief. Whoever gets your message reads mail all day long. Make your point and be quick about it. No need to go through the 15 things your disagree with.

7. Support those reps who you agree with - positive words really help, and they get far more negative than positive mail. My boss always says that her constitunets keep her going, because she knows they're behind her even when the fight is long and hard.

I hope y'all find this useful.

ETA: I had to correct my grammar. Oh, the irony!

People before profits

Those are all great - thx for the outline. Unbelievably, it turns out that they're people too (!) and want to be spoken to just like the rest of us do.

Having a good deal of my current job in *customer service*

I have a fair grasp of those items, especially the yelling bit.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 2, 2009 2:40 PM

BYTEMITE

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:

The Fed Govt. can out-compete anything private because of its' scope, buying power, and non-profit operating model. If you READ my post, instead of just looking for holes to poke, you'd see where I said I'd be willing to pay more in Fed taxes to pay for healthcare for the poor. What else do you want from me? I do not want to see a federal nanny-state in America. You are taking this issue and making it a life or death ideological referendum for America. It does not have to be that way. Neither side in Congress wants to compromise, but I'm willing as I said to do my part. Just keep the f'ing Govt out of my life...ok.

Funny how all the anti-Govt folks here are silent all of a sudden. I guess it's only hip & cool to be an anarchist or libertarian when there's a Republican Adminstration in power.

I've been doing other things today. Rest assured that I'd like to see the mandatory health insurance bullshit crushed under foot, and I'm pissed that Obama capitulated to those interests. Not that ANYONE in office would have had any choice in the matter, if they wanted to work on health care reform.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 2, 2009 2:42 PM

Frem,

Well done. We used to have a rep you could do that with. Now we have a corporate tool

Vixen,

My congressman and both senators are hopelessly corrupt. I haven't checked out their voting on this, but Hillary was the one who started the "You must buy health insurance" plan, and it's her, chuck schumer, and blue dog arcuri, who is pretty corrupt.

Any suggestions?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 2, 2009 3:03 PM

Quote:

Kwikkko : What are you rambling about? I'm talking anarchists & libertarians, never mentioned anything else.

Sorry, must've misunderstood you. So I take it you're neither an anarchist nor a libertarian. I know several of the ones around here have been QUITE pissed about all this stuff - but of course they were also the ones who were pissed about the same kind of big government crap before, too.

Quote:

All of a sudden they LIKE big Govt? Sure.

Nope, from what I've seen, they don't.

Quote:

As far as the Patriot Act, it never hurt or affected me in any way.

Well, until the FBI sees some of those pictures on your hard drive...

So you DO like big government, then, right?

Quote:

Sorry if you were made to stress about your nefarious dealings in life over it.

Cute. I have no "nefarious dealings". And if I did, I'd make damned sure not to mention them anywhere in the open.

Quote:

You still harbor much hatred towards the past...time to move on dude.

Says the person who spells my screenname with three consecutive "k"s. I'm guessing you're one of the twits at the town hall meetings who carries the Obama-with-the-Hitler-mustache sign to show everyone how much you've "moved on" and gotten away from your old hatreds.

Mike

The percentage you're paying is too high-priced
While you're living beyond all your means;
And the man in the suit has just bought a new car
From the profit he's made on your dreams

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 2, 2009 3:07 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Jong

"Rue : You ignore the reality that ... in the long term you can expect the costs to the Govt to increase ten-fold....as it has in states with universal coverage like Mass & Tenn.."

Massachusetts has the worst of both worlds, oddly enough JUST LIKE the plan that seems to be coming down the road - mandatory coverage, and no government insurance. Yes, it's mandatory PRIVATE insurance. And yes, it sucks.

As for Tennessee "CoverTN relies on voluntary partnerships between the state, individuals and employers where each commit to pay one-third of the monthly premium of the low-cost product." That 'low-cost' product ? PRIVATE insurance !

Neither of these is either government run insurance, or government-run health care.

If I were to take a lesson from this, it would be that when you try to involve PRIVATE health insurance companies, you guarantee disaster.

TWO out of TWO PLANS AGREE !

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 2, 2009 3:20 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Signy : You ignore the plan that many favor to allow insurance co's across state lines. That will lower their costs to us, and create an environment of having to deliver the services that you have paid for.

Is that it? The "big plan"? JS, it would take a HELLUVA a lot more than that to fix the health insurances! YOu would have to (1) require them not the exclude people for pre-exisintg conditions (2) require them to offer a series of UNIFORM coverages so that people can compare apples-to-apples (3) create "cooperatives" for individuals to acquire some of the same purchasing/ negotiating power as a larger group. AND STILL, you would have the same issues as people not being able to afford coverage. Within 10-15 years, the national market would be dominated by just a few big players, just like telecom industry re-consolidated after deregulation- all without reducing costs to the consumer.

Quote:
Rue : You ignore the reality that ...yes in the short term the Fed Govt. can lower costs due to their pooling power, but in the long term you can expect the costs to the Govt to increase ten-fold....as it has in states with universal coverage like Mass & Tenn.. By the time the Fed system collapses, the private sector will be extinct.

JS, you ignore the reality that even countries WITH SINGLE PAYER systems STILL have private insurers.

More to the point: Your fear of a "nanny state" only seems to apply to the gubmint taking care of actual- yanno- people. You don't seem to ANY problem at all with the gubmint taking care of health insurances! Once again, this seems to be a case of capitalism for the poor, socialism for the rich.

Quote:
You still harbor much hatred towards the past...time to move on dude.

THIS in a post dripping with vitriol and ad-hominem? Uh... excuse me while I have a good guffaw!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 2, 2009 3:38 PM

Meanwhile, here in the land of private insurance, we spend roughly 16% of our GDP on healthcare, to insure that not everybody's insured, to insure that many of the insured can't afford to go to the doctor or to get sick, to insure that our outcomes for those who DO get sick rank among the bottom of industrialized nations, others of which spend on average less than 10% of their GPD on healthcare, and usually with far better outcomes.

We DON'T live longer than those other nations. We DON'T have better healthcare outcomes. We AREN'T healthier, or even happier, if that can be measured. Believe it or not, people actually ARE leaving this country in droves to get medical treatment abroad. There's even a term that's been coined for it: Medical Tourism.

Insurance companies in this country have seen their profits rise by 428% since 2000, while real median income has actually dropped 4.1% in that time, and while FEWER people are being insured, and those who are, are seeing their premiums go up an average of 17%-21% PER YEAR.

If you think malpractice caps are the answer, you've obviously been asking the wrong questions. If malpractice suits were that out of control, the insurance industry wouldn't be taking these enormous profits. They are taking huge profits - even while the rest of the economy crashes to the ground - so there's your answer. You've been sold a bill of goods. Again.

You know why malpractice caps are ridiculous? One case: The guy who was supposed to have a leg amputated below the knee, but the doc was in a hurry and didn't read the chart, the nurse read it wrong, and the team didn't bother to look at the other leg - so they took the wrong one. Then had to take the other. So a guy steeling himself to try to adapt to life with one leg now gets to try to figure out how to live with none. But hey - here's a hundred grand for all your future needs, right?

The argument for malpractice caps and tort reform seem to be predicated on the idea that a jury isn't capable of figuring out what's a fair dollar value for pain and suffering, and what's a fair dollar value for negligence versus and honest mistake. And the second you cap those amounts, you'll hear the accountants at every major corporation cranking up their adding machines to see what the break-even point is on fixing the next Ford Pinto versus the out-of-pocket expenses of paying the (now much lower) damages to the families of the dead. The people who champion malpractice caps and tort reforms think that nothing bad will ever happen to them - and they better damned well be right. They also lack anything even approaching human empathy.

So yeah, I think maybe the government CAN compete with those appallingly bad numbers and even worse business practices.

Mike

The percentage you're paying is too high-priced
While you're living beyond all your means;
And the man in the suit has just bought a new car
From the profit he's made on your dreams

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 2, 2009 6:24 PM

RIVERDANCER

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by RiverDancer:
Ironically, the whole situation makes me rather sick.

The healthcare situation, or the flamewar situation? Or both?

Probably both.

Yeah. I bet it's both.

Yeah, it's kind of both. Mostly the so-called "plan" that is nothing like what was pitched, planned, or expected. Partly the flaming. I kinda stopped reading the discussion part-way through; I can only stand so much shouting.

Mostly, though, I hate the insurance companies, now more than ever. And the government? Yeah, disappointment and distrust on the rise once again.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 3, 2009 2:10 AM