Page 51 of 289 FirstFirst ... 4147484950515253545561101151 ... LastLast
Results 751 to 765 of 4335
  1. #751
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,285

    Re: Obama's "Public" Health Care Plan

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    scooter, consider this an answer to your post. I don't agree with you. More so, I see a savvy administration getting all the players on board and more in the GOP should weigh in and be part of the change instead of using the obstructionist theory of allowing nothing to be changed.

    [URL="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/11/strange-bedfellows-industry-groups-join-effort-push-health-care-reform/"]
    If we agreed there would not be much need for discussion or debate would there.

    Heckuva way to "get all the players on board". Maybe it's just me.. but didn't Blago get busted for trying to "get all the players on board" with Obama's senate seat? I'm not seeing much of a difference here.

    Where you see "savvy", I see backroom quid pro quo deals with PhRMA the administration denied categorically until the memo leaked. I see Obama getting $150 MILLION in free advertising to push his plan. I see PhRMA getting a great ROI. I see the taxpayer footing the bill eventually for both. These are the exact same backroom dealings the left and Obamma himself used to excoriate the previous administration for. The exact same sort of deals Obama promised would never happen because of the massive amounts of "transparency" he promised repeatedly. Broadcast on CSPAN ringing any bells?



    Do you think candidate Obama would call these very same back room dealings "carrying water for the drug companies" had GWB been making the deals? Do you think for a moment I believe if ole GW were to pull a similar stunt you'd be lauding it as "a savvy administration getting all the players on board"? The term "willful suspension of disbelief" keeps coming to mind.

    Where you see no relation to the term "Astroturfing" when I point out phony doctors who are also Obama state delegates and lead a organizers for OfA, bussed in (AND PAID) SEIU/AFL-CIO/ACORN workers, I see a classic example of just that.

    Where you say the GOP should weigh in and be part of the change. I see a GOP party that has been locked out of the process whom wisely do not want to be associated in any way shape or form to an attempted gubberment health care takeover under the guise of reform. Which is why much to BD24's dismay the (D)'s are still trying to get some GOP'ers onboard. They are already on the hook for the $787 "stimulus" they passed w/o reading, the $410 billion spending bill with 9,000 earmarks & Capintrade.

    Where you say we should be part of the change instead of using the obstructionist theory of allowing nothing to be changed. I see what Obama is offering as nothing more than an extended version of the status quo he claims is unsustainable.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  2. #752
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,285

    Re: Obama's "Public" Health Care Plan

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchcedar View Post
    Weasel alert!!!Obama has no plan in place, but has backroom deals in place. And a spokesperson who doesn't know how to pronounce the word "yes" unless its followed by "we can".

    Transparency was promised.

    Payola was given instead.
    Pretty funny to hear her "clarification" of events that both PhRMA and the administration have been denying for weeks. Anyone in the MSM gonna sack up and use the words "lied to"? As in.. we were lied to?

    As a side.. do you think that cool $150 MILLION in free... not formally attached to any above board agreement with the administration... advertising qualifies as "astroturfing"...??
    Last edited by AMDScooter; 08-15-2009 at 05:22 PM.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  3. #753
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,285

    Re: Obama's "Public" Health Care Plan

    Savvy....

    Obama on Drugs: 98% Cheney?

    Eighty billion dollars of WHAT?

    I searched all over the newspapers and TV transcripts and no one asked the President what is probably the most important question of what passes for debate on the issue of health care reform: $80 billion of WHAT?

    On June 22, President Obama said he'd reached agreement with big drug companies to cut the price of medicine by $80 billion. He extended his gratitude to Big Pharma for the deal that would, "reduce the punishing inflation in health care costs."

    Hey, in my neighborhood, people think $80 billion is a lot of money. But is it?

    I checked out the government's health stats (at HHS.gov), put fresh batteries in my calculator and totted up US spending on prescription drugs projected by the government for the next ten years. It added up to $3.6 trillion.

    In other words, Obama's big deal with Big Pharma saves $80 billion out of a total $3.6 trillion. That's 2%.


    Hey thanks, Barack! You really stuck it to the big boys. You saved America from these drug lords robbing us blind. Two percent. Cool!

    For perspective: Imagine you are in a Wal-Mart and there's a sign over a flat screen TV, “BIG SAVINGS!” So, you break every promise you made never to buy from that union-busting big box - and snatch up the $500 television. And when you're caught by your spouse, you say, "But, honey, look at the deal I got! It was TWO-PERCENT OFF! I saved us $10!"

    But 2% is better than nothing, I suppose. Or is it?

    The Big Pharma kingpins did not actually agree to cut their prices. Their promise with Obama is something a little oilier: they apparently promised that, over ten years, they will reduce the amount at which they would otherwise raise drug prices. Got that? In other words, the Obama deal locks in a doubling of drug costs, projected to rise over the period of "savings" from a quarter trillion dollars a year to half a trillion dollars a year. Minus that 2%.

    We'll still get the shaft from Big Pharma, but Obama will have circumcised the increase.

    And what did Obama give up in return for $80 billion? Chief drug lobbyist Billy Tauzin crowed that Obama agreed to dump his campaign pledge to bargain down prices for Medicare purchases. Furthermore, Obama’s promise that we could buy cheap drugs from Canada simply went pffft!

    What did that cost us? The New England Journal of Medicine notes that 13 European nations successfully regulate the price of drugs, reducing the average cost of name-brand prescription medicines by 35% to 55%. Obama gave that up for his 2%.

    The Veterans Administration is able to push down the price it pays for patent medicine by 40% through bargaining power. George Bush stopped Medicare from bargaining for similar discounts, an insane ban that Obama said he’d overturn. But, once within Tauzin’s hypnotic gaze, Obama agreed to lock in Bush’s crazy and costly no-bargaining ban for the next decade.

    What else went down in Obama's drug deal? To find out, I called C-SPAN to get a copy of the videotape of the meeting with the drug companies. I was surprised to find they didn't have such a tape despite the President's campaign promise, [2] right there on CNN in January 2008, "These negotiations will be on C-SPAN."

    This puzzled me. When •••• Cheney was caught having secret meetings with oil companies to discuss Bush's Energy Bill, we denounced the hugger-muggers as a case of foxes in the henhouse.

    Cheney's secret meetings with lobbyists and industry bigshots were creepy and nasty and evil.

    But the Obama crew's secret meetings with lobbyists and industry bigshots were, the President assures us, in the public interest.

    We know Cheney's secret confabs were shady and corrupt because Cheney scowled out the side of his mouth.

    Obama grins in your face.

    See the difference?

    The difference is 2%.


    *******

    Palast studied healthcare economics at the Center for Hospital Administration Studies at the University of Chicago.

    Greg Palast's investigative reports can be seen on BBC Television's Newsnight and, in print, at [3] www.GregPalast.com.

    New: Subscribe to Palast’s [4] podcasts (iTunes required)
    &

    ALERT

    Now it's Let's Make a Deal with hospital lobbyists.

    First, the President was caught with his principles down, cutting a scuzzy back-room deal with pharmaceutical lobbyist Billy Tauzin to limit drug price savings to just 2% over 10 years (see attached, "Obama on Drugs: 98% Cheney?"), the New York Times today reports that another deal was sealed by lobbyist Chip Kahn of the American Hospital Association.

    Here are the numbers they don't want you to see: Hospitals will be allowed to hike their prices and revenues by six trillion dollars ($5,853 billion) over the next ten years, only $155 billion less than they had projected before the Obama "reform."

    In all, the Obama back-room deal will "reduce" our $26 trillion total hospital bill over the next decade by one-half of one percent.

    Once again, the lobbyists got the gold mine, the public got the shaft.

    Say it ain't so, Mr. President.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  4. #754
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    20,453

    Re: Obama's "Public" Health Care Plan

    And I gotta say, on the one hand, we have "all the players on board".

    Earlier we had the insurance industry astroturfing the grassroots obstructionists. So are they on board or on the other train? AARP? Nope, not so fast. AMA? Not according to the members. Republicans in Congress? So far, not a one. And the most important players, us... ? 35% are on board. 54% say no.

    I dunno. The train ain't lookin' that full. At every station, people are gettin' off.

  5. #755
    Joined
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,761

    Re: Obama's "Public" Health Care Plan

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchcedar View Post
    I don't remember it done for a US President quite so brazenly and certainly not on such a scale.
    Money given to campaigns for office by companies, groups, and individuals expect something in return. If you haven't seen it on such a scale you haven't been close enough to politics. Also the reporting is at a higher level. If you what to know how to profit on who is in office all you have to do is look up who are the big contributers and go with the flow. Swimming against the tide it doesn't work. When I found this out in the late 70s and early 80s I have done very well with what I have to work with. Just find the angle. The angle for now is green unless something changes but be carefull this market can go back down in a heart beat. Have your stops in.

  6. #756
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,285

    Re: Obama's "Public" Health Care Plan

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchcedar View Post
    And I gotta say, on the one hand, we have "all the players on board".

    Earlier we had the insurance industry astroturfing the grassroots obstructionists. So are they on board or on the other train? AARP? Nope, not so fast. AMA? Not according to the members. Republicans in Congress? So far, not a one. And the most important players, us... ? 35% are on board. 54% say no.

    I dunno. The train ain't lookin' that full. At every station, people are gettin' off.
    The only others "onboard" we know of ain't putting anything in writing nor are we privy to the deals they are making unless it's been leaked. I did check C-SPAN first. Safe to say that 35% are putting a lot of faith in Obama's promises despite his actions singing a different tune?
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  7. #757
    Joined
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Kern River Valley, CA
    Age
    71
    Posts
    21,615

    Re: Obama's "Public" Health Care Plan

    Quote Originally Posted by falcon_view View Post
    Need to rephrase

    Payola is an acceptable part of the process in United States and most if not all of the world.


    No rephrasing needed.

  8. #758
    Joined
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    624

    Re: Obama's "Public" Health Care Plan

    You know, I think I know how to make a HUGE dent in health-care costs.

    I call it the "bread & butter" patient. Every 30 days, another $150 office visit, after which you walk out with a prescription for 30 more days of your meds - no refills. You and the doc both know darn well that's what is going to happen - but you have to cough up the $150 "bribe" for the scrip every month.

    And you don't really mind too much, right? Insurance covers 80 or 90 percent, right?

    That 80-90 percent of a monthly visit, multiplied by millions of B&B patients, is a massive chunk of health-care costs. Just getting 90-day scrips (preferred by mail-order pharmacies) or even giving your butt a couple refills, would cut billions from the annual total by turning those monthly visits into quarterly.

    Of course, you haven't heard ANYTHING about this in the debate. It's how health-care providers all across the country get their docs driving Beemers. CAN'T mess with that.
    His: Windows 7 64-bit on MSI X58 Pro-E, i7 950, Radeon 4870 1G, 300G Velociraptor + 2250G other SATA, 12G RAM; Windoze Home Server on MSI K9N SLI Platinum, A64 X2 6000, nVidia 7900, 2TB SATA storage

    Hers: Vista Home 64-bit on Toshiba Core-2 Duo Laptop

    The dog: he'd rather go to the off-leash park now that I won't let him pee on Intel units.

  9. #759
    Joined
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Kern River Valley, CA
    Age
    71
    Posts
    21,615

    Re: Obama's "Public" Health Care Plan

    Many doctors take Medicare and Medicaid and that forces them into volume care. Most doctors make peanuts when compared to professional athletes or actors and rock stars. That kind of makes me wonder about priorities.

    I’m more interested in lawyers that own a fleet of Mercedes or politicians that own a cottage in Ireland.

  10. #760
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    10,814

    Re: Obama's "Public" Health Care Plan

    Quote Originally Posted by elliott View Post
    You know, I think I know how to make a HUGE dent in health-care costs.

    I call it the "bread & butter" patient. Every 30 days, another $150 office visit, after which you walk out with a prescription for 30 more days of your meds - no refills. You and the doc both know darn well that's what is going to happen - but you have to cough up the $150 "bribe" for the scrip every month.

    And you don't really mind too much, right? Insurance covers 80 or 90 percent, right?

    That 80-90 percent of a monthly visit, multiplied by millions of B&B patients, is a massive chunk of health-care costs. Just getting 90-day scrips (preferred by mail-order pharmacies) or even giving your butt a couple refills, would cut billions from the annual total by turning those monthly visits into quarterly.

    Of course, you haven't heard ANYTHING about this in the debate. It's how health-care providers all across the country get their docs driving Beemers. CAN'T mess with that.
    I call in for prescription refills. It is handled automatically unless the doctor feels that medical change over that month might warrant a visit. This is both for myself and two elders under my care.

  11. #761
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    10,814

    Re: Obama's "Public" Health Care Plan

    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    If we agreed there would not be much need for discussion or debate would there.
    glad you now feel this way. so much better than the name calling. good for you.

    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    Heckuva way to "get all the players on board". Maybe it's just me.. but didn't Blago get busted for trying to "get all the players on board" with Obama's senate seat? I'm not seeing much of a difference here.
    I'm sure you could find all sorts of outlawed things you feel it is similar to. But we are discussing healthcare.

    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    Where you see "savvy", I see backroom quid pro quo deals with PhRMA the administration denied categorically until the memo leaked. I see Obama getting $150 MILLION in free advertising to push his plan. I see PhRMA getting a great ROI. I see the taxpayer footing the bill eventually for both. These are the exact same backroom dealings the left and Obamma himself used to excoriate the previous administration for.

    What plan is it scoot? What plan has passed through Congress?

    A meeting announced the day after by Obama and the head of AARP, is a secret meeting ala Cheney energy meeting where you still don't know who was in attendance or what was discussed in the days leading up to the invasion of Iraq? Come on now.

    Now where I will agree is the pharmaceutical companies got a great deal in return for actually agreeing to a set reduction in concept before a bill is passed in the senate.

    How much better would it have been if the GOP didn't seek instead a blockage of any reform (with the exception of a few actually staying at the table). As we have seen in the past, the norm of late has been no change.

    What we have is a little change, a compromise due to the entire picture of actions by all. You now criticize Obama? I still criticize the GOP.

    And now you bring up what we foot through the entire system? Geez, why argue in the past about the cost of healthcare. Oh yeah, because it's not about healthcare. It's about making Obama look bad and getting your GOP majority back.



    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    The exact same sort of deals Obama promised would never happen because of the massive amounts of "transparency" he promised repeatedly. Broadcast on CSPAN ringing any bells?
    What's ringing bells is what I wrote above. Obama learned that after the great public uprising due to the "socialization call to action" and blockade to change, that it would be better to meet with Pharmaceutical companies and hit a deal that would bring savings otherwise not seen.




    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    Do you think candidate Obama would call these very same back room dealings "carrying water for the drug companies" had GWB been making the deals? Do you think for a moment I believe if ole GW were to pull a similar stunt you'd be lauding it as "a savvy administration getting all the players on board"? The term "willful suspension of disbelief" keeps coming to mind.
    Always the need to repeat like a Rush transcript to pound home a point?

    I've explained my views, however, what I see as a "willful suspension of disbelief" is how the changing times require changing strategies just to knock something off the track of status quo.


    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    Where you see no relation to the term "Astroturfing" when I point out phony doctors who are also Obama state delegates and lead a organizers for OfA, bussed in (AND PAID) SEIU/AFL-CIO/ACORN workers, I see a classic example of just that.
    Really. A new meaning of the word to you where a few individuals have misrepresented themselves, or known members with a view, now mean a grassroots uprising created by special interest organizations? So tell me, before I answer this comment further, with all the finger pointing, I missed where you admit the astroturfing from the right. Is there?


    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    Where you say the GOP should weigh in and be part of the change. I see a GOP party that has been locked out of the process whom wisely do not want to be associated in any way shape or form to an attempted gubberment health care takeover under the guise of reform. Which is why much to BD24's dismay the (D)'s are still trying to get some GOP'ers onboard. They are already on the hook for the $787 "stimulus" they passed w/o reading, the $410 billion spending bill with 9,000 earmarks & Capintrade.
    The discussion is healthcare scooter. But I understand you have no love of democrats and wish them out even when things are passed to deal with things you feel do not exist like a bad economy or warming.

    I'll just take this as another example of how this isn't about healthcare, it is about getting the dems out.

    Again, scoot, on topic, I have read some great examples of thoughts from the few in the GOP who have bucked the party line and gotten involved. So much for a lock out. The GOP has locked themselves out save a few by a defined strategy. Many of us see it. Too bad you don't.

    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    Where you say we should be part of the change instead of using the obstructionist theory of allowing nothing to be changed. I see what Obama is offering as nothing more than an extended version of the status quo he claims is unsustainable.
    Nice soundbite I've read from your bloggers. How does this fly with the Obama doesn't know what the plan is argument because it is moving through the House and Senate?

    As to an extended version of the status quo? The real change was presented as an overflight. The fear of socialization was well orchestrated even though it ignored where we do have government run programs.

    Yes the obstructionist 'theory' worked well in reality. I admit it. And what we will be left with is a watered down version of what we could have had if everyone focused on the problems at hand. So what's your take, that the obstructionist strategy doesn't exist and therefore had no effect?

    See what someone sees when all the elements are in place?

  12. #762
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    Age
    41
    Posts
    551

    Re: Obama's "Public" Health Care Plan

    Quote Originally Posted by elliott View Post
    You know, I think I know how to make a HUGE dent in health-care costs.

    I call it the "bread & butter" patient. Every 30 days, another $150 office visit, after which you walk out with a prescription for 30 more days of your meds - no refills. You and the doc both know darn well that's what is going to happen - but you have to cough up the $150 "bribe" for the scrip every month.

    And you don't really mind too much, right? Insurance covers 80 or 90 percent, right?

    That 80-90 percent of a monthly visit, multiplied by millions of B&B patients, is a massive chunk of health-care costs. Just getting 90-day scrips (preferred by mail-order pharmacies) or even giving your butt a couple refills, would cut billions from the annual total by turning those monthly visits into quarterly.

    Of course, you haven't heard ANYTHING about this in the debate. It's how health-care providers all across the country get their docs driving Beemers. CAN'T mess with that.
    I dont care if my doctor drives a beemer or not. Fact of the matter is, would YOU become a doctor for say...40K a year? Put yourself though what.... 8 years of college... and then what...4 or so years of residency making very little? So if your hit schooling at the ripe age of 18.... your looking like you will be 30+ YO before you start seeing any kind of money. Mind you, you are carrying the debt around from your student loans for school...
    Doctors bad days is when someone dies or gets sick, or has to deliver the bad news to someone. the mental strain of the job in itself is just crazy.

    And you think they make to much money
    Put your money where you mouth is mkay? YOU DO IT and we will see if your happy living on "modest" money


  13. #763
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,285

    Re: Obama's "Public" Health Care Plan

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    glad you now feel this way. so much better than the name calling. good for you.
    I'd recommend you step away from that "name calling" theme you are so fond of attributing to others. Glass houses and all that.

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    I'm sure you could find all sorts of outlawed things you feel it is similar to. But we are discussing healthcare.
    And I'm talking about the quid pro quo deal that deal Obama struck with PhRMA. How's it different? Next time try responding to the question instead of simply acting as if I'm the only one seeing the quid pro quo angle.

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    What plan is it scoot? What plan has passed through Congress?

    A meeting announced the day after by Obama and the head of AARP, is a secret meeting ala Cheney energy meeting where you still don't know who was in attendance or what was discussed in the days leading up to the invasion of Iraq? Come on now.

    Now where I will agree is the pharmaceutical companies got a great deal in return for actually agreeing to a set reduction in concept before a bill is passed in the senate.

    How much better would it have been if the GOP didn't seek instead a blockage of any reform (with the exception of a few actually staying at the table). As we have seen in the past, the norm of late has been no change.

    What we have is a little change, a compromise due to the entire picture of actions by all. You now criticize Obama? I still criticize the GOP.

    And now you bring up what we foot through the entire system? Geez, why argue in the past about the cost of healthcare. Oh yeah, because it's not about healthcare. It's about making Obama look bad and getting your GOP majority back.
    Your right otoc. Must simply be my partisan nature that expects Obama to actually deliver on those minor issues he harped on and on about like transparency and the health care dealings being above board and broadcast on C-SPAN. Specifically where he infers if a representative appears to be "carring water" for PhRMA.



    Odd that a quick search over at KOS and the DU shows a lot of the same "partisan" sentiment from Obama's supporters. Perhaps you should head over there and set them straight.

    It's a good thing he's making back room quid pro quo deals with PhRMA and then categorically denying the deals exits.

    Representatives from both the White House and PhRMA, shown the outline, adamantly denied that it reflected reality. PhRMA senior vice president Ken Johnson said that the outline "is simply not accurate." "This memo isn't accurate and does not reflect the agreement with the drug companies," said White House spokesman Reid Cherlin.
    It's a good thing the White House bypassed Congress in it's dealings. Who needs them anyway?

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    What's ringing bells is what I wrote above. Obama learned that after the great public uprising due to the "socialization call to action" and blockade to change, that it would be better to meet with Pharmaceutical companies and hit a deal that would bring savings otherwise not seen.
    So when the overwhelming majority consisting of nearly all repugs, about 75% of the independents and a smattering of Dems say they want no part of what Bamma is proposing. At that point it's okey for him to broker backroom quid pro quo deals? Deals that benifit the public very little...

    In other words, Obama's big deal with Big Pharma saves $80 billion out of a total $3.6 trillion. That's 2%.
    In all, the Obama back-room deal with the American Hospital Association will "reduce" our $26 trillion total hospital bill over the next decade by one-half of one percent.
    Changed the wording on that last one a lil. The lobbyists are getting billions.. joe public gets the shaft.. and Obama gets a "free" $150 MILLION dollar ad campaign to pimp his agenda.

    You'll have to excuse me if I'm not breaking out the champaign to celebrate.

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    Always the need to repeat like a Rush transcript to pound home a point?
    I guess you could have simply respond to the question without trying to make it sound as if I'm simply channeling Rush. Must be a really strong argument that follows I'm sure...

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    I've explained my views, however, what I see as a "willful suspension of disbelief" is how the changing times require changing strategies just to knock something off the track of status quo.
    Because Obama's back room dealings are a differnt type of quid pro quo... not to be confused with that "status quo" we are all accustomed to hearing about. Check.

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    Really. A new meaning of the word to you where a few individuals have misrepresented themselves, or known members with a view, now mean a grassroots uprising created by special interest organizations? So tell me, before I answer this comment further, with all the finger pointing, I missed where you admit the astroturfing from the right.
    A "new" meaning? Perhaps you should re-read that definition in the wikki link you provided:

    Astroturfing is a word in English describing formal political, advertising, or public relations campaigns seeking to create the impression of being spontaneous "grassroots" behavior, hence the reference to the artificial grass,

    AstroTurf.
    The goal of such a campaign is to disguise the efforts of a political or commercial entity as an independent public reaction to some political entity—a politician, political group, product, service or event. Astroturfers attempt to orchestrate the actions of apparently diverse and geographically distributed individuals, by both overt ("outreach", "awareness", etc.) and covert (disinformation) means. Astroturfing may be undertaken by an individual pushing a personal agenda or highly organized professional groups with financial backing from large corporations, non-profits, or activist organizations. Very often the efforts are conducted by political consultants who also specialize in opposition research.


    Sure looks like an exact fit to the examples I provided. Perhaps you can tell me where I've gone wrong in your reply. You can claim "a few individuals" but by the very definition you provided astroturfing can be done by individuals. The fact is I have provided evidence of astroturfing by pro~obamacare agents affiliated directly to Obama.

    On the other hand, when you were asked to provide evidence to back your claim that the grassroots were doing the exact same thing.. you were forced to back off the claim because you could find "NO" evidence. You missed the point where I "admit it" because I am not the one making the claims.. you are.

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    The discussion is healthcare scooter. But I understand you have no love of democrats and wish them out even when things are passed to deal with things you feel do not exist like a bad economy or warming.

    I'll just take this as another example of how this isn't about healthcare, it is about getting the dems out.

    Again, scoot, on topic, I have read some great examples of thoughts from the few in the GOP who have bucked the party line and gotten involved. So much for a lock out. The GOP has locked themselves out save a few by a defined strategy. Many of us see it. Too bad you don't.
    Of course you will take this as "just another example". It's the same tried and true boilerplate you use whenever confronted with a fact you cannot refute logically. The (D)'s are trying to get some token (R)'s onboard for the exact reason I outlined. They are already gonna eat it for the $787 "stimulus" they passed w/o reading, the $410 billion spending bill with 9,000 earmarks & Capintrade.

    But do go on how it's all about my disdain for the (D)'s which I've never made any effort to hide and simply avoid the inconvenient fact.

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    Nice soundbite I've read from your bloggers. How does this fly with the Obama doesn't know what the plan is argument because it is moving through the House and Senate?
    It is a good "soundbite" and I've read the exact same sentiment many places. It does not dimish the fact though as you'd like others to believe. Some day you'll have to explain how my usage is different from the "fear"... "do nothing"... "status quo"... rhetoric I hear passing Obama's lips being regurgitated in your posts.

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    As to an extended version of the status quo? The real change was presented as an overflight. The fear of socialization was well orchestrated even though it ignored where we do have government run programs.
    Oh.. the "real change" eh? Glad you cleared that up. Well orchistrated.. still pitching the phony grassroots theory eh?

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    Yes the obstructionist 'theory' worked well in reality. I admit it. And what we will be left with is a watered down version of what we could have had if everyone focused on the problems at hand. So what's your take, that the obstructionist strategy doesn't exist and therefore had no effect?
    The fact you continually dance about is had Obama the (D)'s had their way there would have been no debate at all. We'd have signed legislation already. And Obama's and the (D)'s biggest problem is simply Obama keeps to this date claiming his plan will do things the CBO has proven it won't. And the more people have a chance to read the house bill.. the less they like it. Call it whatever you like.. I'm glad some sane people were able to slow the process.

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    See what someone sees when all the elements are in place?
    Ido....
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  14. #764
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    10,814

    Re: Obama's "Public" Health Care Plan

    Quote Originally Posted by AMDScooter View Post
    I'd recommend you step away from that "name calling" theme you are so fond of attributing to others. Glass houses and all that.



    And I'm talking about the quid pro quo deal that deal Obama struck with PhRMA. How's it different? Next time try responding to the question instead of simply acting as if I'm the only one seeing the quid pro quo angle.



    Your right otoc. Must simply be my partisan nature that expects Obama to actually deliver on those minor issues he harped on and on about like transparency and the health care dealings being above board and broadcast on C-SPAN. Specifically where he infers if a representative appears to be "carring water" for PhRMA.



    Odd that a quick search over at KOS and the DU shows a lot of the same "partisan" sentiment from Obama's supporters. Perhaps you should head over there and set them straight.

    It's a good thing he's making back room quid pro quo deals with PhRMA and then categorically denying the deals exits.



    It's a good thing the White House bypassed Congress in it's dealings. Who needs them anyway?



    So when the overwhelming majority consisting of nearly all repugs, about 75% of the independents and a smattering of Dems say they want no part of what Bamma is proposing. At that point it's okey for him to broker backroom quid pro quo deals? Deals that benifit the public very little...





    Changed the wording on that last one a lil. The lobbyists are getting billions.. joe public gets the shaft.. and Obama gets a "free" $150 MILLION dollar ad campaign to pimp his agenda.

    You'll have to excuse me if I'm not breaking out the champaign to celebrate.



    I guess you could have simply respond to the question without trying to make it sound as if I'm simply channeling Rush. Must be a really strong argument that follows I'm sure...



    Because Obama's back room dealings are a differnt type of quid pro quo... not to be confused with that "status quo" we are all accustomed to hearing about. Check.



    A "new" meaning? Perhaps you should re-read that definition in the wikki link you provided:





    Sure looks like an exact fit to the examples I provided. Perhaps you can tell me where I've gone wrong in your reply. You can claim "a few individuals" but by the very definition you provided astroturfing can be done by individuals. The fact is I have provided evidence of astroturfing by pro~obamacare agents affiliated directly to Obama.

    On the other hand, when you were asked to provide evidence to back your claim that the grassroots were doing the exact same thing.. you were forced to back off the claim because you could find "NO" evidence. You missed the point where I "admit it" because I am not the one making the claims.. you are.



    Of course you will take this as "just another example". It's the same tried and true boilerplate you use whenever confronted with a fact you cannot refute logically. The (D)'s are trying to get some token (R)'s onboard for the exact reason I outlined. They are already gonna eat it for the $787 "stimulus" they passed w/o reading, the $410 billion spending bill with 9,000 earmarks & Capintrade.

    But do go on how it's all about my disdain for the (D)'s which I've never made any effort to hide and simply avoid the inconvenient fact.



    It is a good "soundbite" and I've read the exact same sentiment many places. It does not dimish the fact though as you'd like others to believe. Some day you'll have to explain how my usage is different from the "fear"... "do nothing"... "status quo"... rhetoric I hear passing Obama's lips being regurgitated in your posts.



    Oh.. the "real change" eh? Glad you cleared that up. Well orchistrated.. still pitching the phony grassroots theory eh?



    The fact you continually dance about is had Obama the (D)'s had their way there would have been no debate at all. We'd have signed legislation already. And Obama's and the (D)'s biggest problem is simply Obama keeps to this date claiming his plan will do things the CBO has proven it won't. And the more people have a chance to read the house bill.. the less they like it. Call it whatever you like.. I'm glad some sane people were able to slow the process.



    Ido....
    NO scoot, you want to stop it, not slow it by your earlier words.

    I explained my opinions including the fact that the campaign to stop it has had an effect.

    I suggest you spend less time inflating my opinion to match your concepts, less time on a few individuals, and more time seeing how healthcare should change as well as how the effect of obstructionism has affected it.

  15. #765
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,285

    Re: Obama's "Public" Health Care Plan

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    NO scoot, you want to stop it, not slow it by your earlier words.

    I explained my opinions including the fact that the campaign to stop it has had an effect.

    I suggest you spend less time inflating my opinion to match your concepts, less time on a few individuals, and more time seeing how healthcare should change as well as how the effect of obstructionism has affected it.
    Glad I took the time to shoot down your previous post line by line. I'll take this as your usual retreat from the baseless assertions and accusations made in your previous post.

    I suggest you stop trying to paint every point made in dissent as partisan.

    I'd also suggest you stop trying to paint the grassroots opposition in the same light, the polls show the logic of your regurgitated Obama talking points lacking any solid footing whatsoever.

    And finally I'd suggest stopping trying to denigrate that same dissent as simply "obstructionists". Especially in light of the fact had the dissenters not been vocal, there would have been no discussion on "how healthcare should change" at all. Remember Obama's deadline. Hurry.. hurry.. hurry.. no time to read. He brought this on himself.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •