Town Hall meetings and protests

[JohnnyLingo]

I just posted this to my blog:

Some of the many criticisms of town-hall goers I have read and heard over the last few days:

1. Protestors are interrupting and shutting down senators and others attempting to speak.

My reaction: Bad form. Using your right to free speech to impeded the rights of another is not okay.

2. Protestors and mindless drones, parroting what talk radio pundits feed them and acting only because Rush told them to.

My reaction: This is a tough one. Are there people who are easily influenced by high-profile individuals? You bet. Are there people upset only because the radio told them to be? Yep. But are there people who honestly disagree with what is going on and want to make their voices heard? Yes. I think this argument is used because for people who lean left, it's less scary than believing that there are a lot of people who really are against the direction we're going with healthcare.

3. Glenn Beck and others of his ilk are instructing their drones on how to interrupt and shout down those in opposition to them at town hall meetings.

My reaction: I have yet to find a link that shows this, and considering it was either on TV or on the radio, there has to be a digital record of it somewhere. Until I find some proof, I'm chalking this up to fabrication. I have heard Beck encourage people to attend these meetings and make their voices heard, but he has not advocated for violence or other unproductive methods for doing so.

4. The protestors at town hall meetings are "un-American."

My reaction: Were these people out of the country for the last eight years? Bush's presidency generated quite a bit of protest from the left, and no one from the Washington Post decried them as un-American then.

This is the typical "party out of office is unhappy and mounts protests" thing we see after every power shift in Washington. Liberals did it then, conservatives are doing it now, and if a conservative wins the 2012 election, the liberals will get their protesting kits out of their closets and return to the streets.

If you support the healthcare reform intiatives and are unhappy with the acts of these protestors, get out and counteract them. Attend the town hall meetings and make your voice heard. Paint your own posters. Legally and respectfully show that there are people who are okay with what President Obama and Speaker Pelosi are doing here.

Because as it stands, only those questioning this reform are getting the coverage.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Lingo, you have to watch this:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-10-2009/healther-skelter

Hilarious. And right on topic.

[JohnnyLingo]

Lingo, you have to watch this:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-10-2009/healther-skelter

Hilarious. And right on topic.

Stewart's an ass. He's been fed by a sycophantic live audience for years and it's gone to his head.

Not to mention he's a partisan hack. How did he treat anti-Bush protesters five years ago?

[JohnnyLingo]

To clarify a bit:

I don't dislike Stewart because he attacks what I believe or has a different political ideology than I do.

I dislike him because he preens and because he is unbalanced.

I love South Park. They attack Republicans and conservatives a lot. I'm fine with it because they go after liberals and Democrats just as hard.

But when a comedic personality shows extreme bias in who they mock and use for comedy fodder, I don't like it.

That's all.

[Indy Coug]

To clarify a bit:

I don't dislike Stewart because he attacks what I believe or has a different political ideology than I do.

I dislike him because he preens and because he is unbalanced.

I love South Park. They attack Republicans and conservatives a lot. I'm fine with it because they go after liberals and Democrats just as hard.

But when a comedic personality shows extreme bias in who they mock and use for comedy fodder, I don't like it.

That's all.

I agree about South Park. One of the things I enjoy about South Park, Family Guy and The Simpsons is they go after everything and everyone with roughly equal abandon.

[falafel]

I agree about South Park. One of the things I enjoy about South Park, Family Guy and The Simpsons is they go after everything and everyone with roughly equal abandon.

South Park yes, Family Guy no. There's a pretty liberal slant to Family Guy. Case in Point: George Bush is intimate friends with the Super Devil.

[Indy Coug]

South Park yes, Family Guy no. There's a pretty liberal slant to Family Guy. Case in Point: George Bush is intimate friends with the Super Devil.

I'll admit I don't watch them as regularly as the Simpsons, but that was my observation based on my sample size.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

If I heard that assclown Arlen Specter say "we have to hurry up and pass this" I have probably acted like these Town Hall MENSA candidates.

A huge factor that has riled up this crowd was the Democrats' cavalier attitude exhibited when they passed that ridiculous stimulus bill back in February. That bill smelled worse as more time passed and the Democrats rushed to pass it before it became to unpopular.

They tried the same tactic with this health care bill. The stakes are now significantly larger and gas had already been poured on the kindling due to the Democrats' behavior when the stimulus bill was being debated.

First, old people mostly like the current system because they're taken care of. When rationing is introduced into the discussion (and make no mistake any sensible comprehensive health care reform will have to introduce some rationing), then that makes them raise their hackles. Notice all the old people at these town hall meetings. Old people aren't an insignificant constituency.

Second, most other people are at least moderately satisfied with their current health plan and most are smart enough to know that the current bill will not improve on the end costs to them and will possibly increase costs while possibly lowering quality. The CBO's message has gotten through to these people.

Finally, few people see the need or want a comprehensive overhaul. The problem is the wrong party is in power right now and the do nothing GOP Congress and President between 2004 and 2006 didn't care to address the issue. I haven't looked at recent stats, but during the 2000 election cycle, the ATLA (Association of Trial Lawyers of America) was the top PAC contributor to the democrats. It's extremely unlikely that the trial lawyers' influence over the democrats has changed very much.

So any kind of tort reform within health care reform is nonstarter. On CNN last night, they reported that an estimated 1.2 trillion dollars is wasted every year on health care. This wasn't exactly accurate because part of the figure dealt with health issues arising from obesity and smoking, so it would be more accurate to say that it's 1.2 trillion dollars that was either wasted or didn't have to be spent if people had better habits. The cost of medical malpractice insurance isn't the only cost that is passed on to end consumers due to trial lawyers' influence, its also the additional tests and procedures that are performed.

But the New Yorker article that someone posted here a few weeks ago shows a case of where tort reform enacted in Texas didn't do anything to curb the costs in one of the low income counties that falls on the border between Texas and Mexico. The article was illustrative because it showed that tort reform isn't really the silver bullett that conservatives hope it is, but it also showed that a publicly funded system will very possibly not be less expensive. The doctors were obviously taking advantage of the medicare funding.

Obama has said repeatedly that doctors' offices will still be private enterprises in an effort to assure people that the government isn't going to turn into big brother in regard to health care decisions. Fine, but that statement only augments the problem that a huge portion of the country finds objectionable with government funded health care: out of control deficit spending that will increase taxes on everyone.

Even if you take tort reform off of the table, there are some reforms that can be done. Get rid of the tax beneficial treatment given to employer funded health insurance. I don't how it ever happened that employers were the ones expected to provide health insurance. Instead, provide greater tax advantages to people to get a high deductible HSA plan.

Make people pay more attention to the kinds and amounts of health care they receive. Simply put, if people know that they will have to pay out of pocket, then they'll be less likely to take their kids to the doctor to look at an allergic rash that Grandma and Grandpa's dogs gave to them. My wife did this when she and my daughter traveled to my MIL and FIL's house- I asked her why the damn dogs weren't put outside the house when the rash started to develop instead of rushing to the doctor. Some people go to the doctor on the drop of a hat because it hasn't ever cost them very much. My wife grew up in a family like this. I didn't grow up in one of these families despite having an excellent health plan from my mother's employment. If I had been there, I would asked my FIL and MIL to keep the dogs outside during the duration of our stay and I would then have offered to do the most thorough vacuuming they had ever seen.

Also, heavy sin taxes should be levied on fast food and junk food. I would have no qualms if this put a serious dent in McDonalds and Wendy's profits. I would be moderately sad if it hurt In N Out. Make certain behaviors that lead to high health care costs unprofitable for the person engaging in them.

[falafel]

CMBF, my only response is that I don't like your new avatar.

[BigPiney]

Seems like the same things that we have seen in the past from both parties.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/07/paul-krugman/paul-krugman-claims-protests-2005-werent-raucous-h/

[JohnnyLingo]

Seems like the same things that we have seen in the past from both parties.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ent-raucous-h/

Right.

This is the typical "party out of office is unhappy and mounts protests" thing we see after every power shift in Washington. Liberals did it then, conservatives are doing it now, and if a conservative wins the 2012 election, the liberals will get their protesting kits out of their closets and return to the streets.

[I.J. Reilly]

Make people pay more attention to the kinds and amounts of health care they receive. Simply put, if people know that they will have to pay out of pocket, then they'll be less likely to take their kids to the doctor to look at an allergic rash that Grandma and Grandpa's dogs gave to them. My wife did this when she and my daughter traveled to my MIL and FIL's house- I asked her why the damn dogs weren't put outside the house when the rash started to develop instead of rushing to the doctor. Some people go to the doctor on the drop of a hat because it hasn't ever cost them very much. My wife grew up in a family like this. I didn't grow up in one of these families despite having an excellent health plan from my mother's employment. If I had been there, I would asked my FIL and MIL to keep the dogs outside during the duration of our stay and I would then have offered to do the most thorough vacuuming they had ever seen.

Also, heavy sin taxes should be levied on fast food and junk food. I would have no qualms if this put a serious dent in McDonalds and Wendy's profits. I would be moderately sad if it hurt In N Out. Make certain behaviors that lead to high health care costs unprofitable for the person engaging in them.

Just a couple of observations to add on to these parts.

1. I have experienced the same thing in my marriage. My wife was raised to go to the doctor at the slightest cold. They had great insurance and her mom took full advantage of it. She has since turned from her ways. This has been directly influenced by her now having to shoulder much more of the cost personally.

2. Taxes of any sort are almost always passed onto the consumer. The tax would have to be very substantial before you would ever see it affecting the bottom line of these corporations.

[creekster]

2. Taxes of any sort are almost always passed onto the consumer. The tax would have to be very substantial before you would ever see it affecting the bottom line of these corporations.

He is talking about an unprofitable activity for the consumer, not the corporation. The idea is to make the behavior much more expensive.

[I.J. Reilly]

He is talking about an unprofitable activity for the consumer, not the corporation. The idea is to make the behavior much more expensive.

Oh, I get what he is talking about, he just made mention of the profits of McDonald's and Wendy's and my comment was in response to that. I just don't think it will hurt the companies unless it is substantial. The tax would probably disproportionately affect the poor, since they consume more fast food as a group when compared to other demographics.

[creekster]

Oh, I get what he is talking about, he just made mention of the profits of McDonald's and Wendy's and my comment was in response to that. I just don't think it will hurt the companies unless it is substantial. The tax would probably disproportionately affect the poor, since they consume more fast food as a group when compared to other demographics.

Maybe I am not getting your point, but that is exactly what he wants to do. The poor are the fattest segment of the population and they eat the most junk. He wants ot make it less affordable for them to do so. This will eventually hit Wendy's and McD's profits, unless they respond by offerniing non-taxed healthier fare. The point is, he wants the poor to be unable to afford to eat themselves into needing health care. The effect on profits is of tertiary interest.