My decided lack of posting has prompted emails, a few calls, and a concerned last in line who, with those loving and puppy dog eyes of his, asked me in person on Saturday night what the REAL reason was as to why I was not posting as much last week. Truth be told, it is just for the reason I detailed on here. I'm really having a difficult time, for the most part, seeing the point in having reasonable discussions with conservatives these days. Take, for example, the issue of civilian trials vs. military tribunals for hirabis. It's just another example of the Cult in action.
They will tell you that military tribunals are the ONLY effective way to deal with hirabis. Civilian courts are a mockery and are too good for these murderers. Besides, some lawyer will probably get 'em off and before long they'll be walking the streets and ready to kill...Kill....KILL!!!!!
After the blood lust has retreated slightly from their eyes, I respond by asking them a question. "How many hirabis have been tried in military tribunals to completion?" Their answer varies, depending upon the person, from several dozen to hundreds. This is incorrect. The actual answer is three.
Now, only one of the three (Ali Hamza Ahmad Suliman al Bahlul, a Yemeni) is serving a life sentence down at Gitmo. The second, David Hicks, plead guilty to providing material support to terrorism and received a sentence of seven years’ confinement. But a period of six years and three months was suspended and he was released. He is now free and living in Australia after serving the other nine months there. The third, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, plead guilty to providing material support to terrorism. This was in 2008 and he was sentenced to five years in prison. But he had already served most of that time at Gitmo so he was released to Yemen to finish and now he is free as well.
Compare this to the 174-523 civilian trial cases (the number has a range depending upon how you want to define "terrorism") that have ended in convictions over the last decade. Of these cases, 25 have been released, some of which simply served their time. In looking at these numbers, one would think that civilian courts would be the way to go, not just for conviction rates but for sheer expediency.
But not for the Cult. Oh no. If they say it, then (poof! like magic), it is now true. Show them the facts regarding military tribunals (direct from the DOD) and it still won't matter. The military is the only way to go and fuck you commie for thinking otherwise. It's basically like talking to Colonel Flagg. And this would be why I haven't posted much lately. This kind of denial...it's pathological...and so frustrating to deal with that these days I really can't take it anymore. It gets worse every day.
A recent visit to the gym further cemented this feeling. A new friend (we'll call her Nancy) and I were discussing health care. She is very conservative and is completely convinced that if it passes, we will have a socialist government. I explained to her that there is no public option in the bill. She informed that it's coming next. I reiterated how that it is not in the bill. It didn't matter...it was still coming and Obama-Reid-Pelosi were ready to pounce just like they were on the guns.
After hearing her deride the Manzi article (the social cohesion part) as being psycho bullshit that will further put us in a welfare state, I was completely at a loss. She went on to accuse me of being ultar liberal and a secret socialist. As I tried to explain to her that a recent article she sent me was fear mongering propaganda and how exactly it was just that (the word "threat" is mentioned in juxtaposition to reconciliation as you can clearly see), she then accused me of being brainwashed and drinking Kool Aid. So, again we see items 1 and 6 on my list of characteristics of being in a Cult.
1. Quickly withdraw into the group and distrust the outside world.
6. Accuse people outside of the cult of being brainwashed and/or in a cult.
While I'm certain this will elicit complaints, not only from my colleagues on the right but the left as well, that I am being too harsh...narrow minded...judgmental and that accusing them of being in a cult isn't helpful, I don't really see any alternative. If someone has any other ideas, I'm all ears.
The only one that I have come up with is to completely change the tenor of my posts or possibly not even engage in discussions like this any longer because the perception of these folks is so far off that I am monumentally dumbfounded. I guess I just have to face the fact that I can't help them.
I don't think anyone can. And that makes me really fucking sad.
57 comments:
I know you're frustrated by the reactions you're getting, but many of your recent posts are of the form: "These people are [crazy, lying, hypocrites, brainwashed, cultists, closet right-wing terrorists] and here is why." You then, in your frustration, proceed to use profane invective to express your low opinion of the vast right-wing "movement."
Some of your readers think you are talking about them (in some cases you may well be), and they react negatively. They heap the same kind of scorn on you that you heap on them.
You will not convince people of the opposing viewpoint when you're talking about "what they really believe." It's just like the conservative who tells you that Obama's real intention is to socialize health care, even though that's not what the bill is, and it will be impossible for Obama to get the public option through the Senate in the foreseeable future. He really wants to have socialism, your friend thinks, so that will obviously be the next step.
Many of your readers do not share all the ideas that you ascribe to "them." There is not one "conservative" viewpoint. But you often lump "them" into one big group, just as they lump "us" into another opposing group.
The reality is that no two people agree on everything and no two people disagree on everything. In real life, you'll find you have something in common with just about everyone you deal with and can usually find some kind of accommodation with them to agree to disagree.
People posting on blogs have no motivation to reach such accommodation, and have more fun just blasting other people, belittling other people's ideas and bellowing louder than the last guy. It can be quite depressing.
This general behavior is starting to leach into public discourse everywhere: on cable news, in Congress, at town hall meetings, at the gym. It started long before the current recession, so we can't claim hard economic times are to blame. Remember when you were supposed to avoid politics and religion in polite conversation? There was a reason for that...
So, while some on the right wing may in fact be all the things you say they are, if you are rude and and insult them on your blog, they will be rude and insult you right back. If you want a courteous conversation, you should engage in upbeat dialog sprinkled with self-deprecating humor. If you keep a civil tongue in your mouth, they may feel some restraint. If not, you can feel smug and superior. And isn't that what blogging is all about?
blk,
Well said.
There's one additional point: Discussion is not possible when at least one side refuses to understand what the other side is saying. For example: Centerpoint Energy really is the Gift That Keeps On Giving. But somehow it magically morphed from corporations having Power (that actually belongs to government; and Mark's original contention) to corporations abusing customers (which does happen; and is why government power to deal with those abuses is considered legitimate).
Yet for all our debate on the subject, Markadelphia's responses indicate that we might as well have been talking to a brick wall for all the difference it has made. Heck, my dogs understand what I'm saying better than Mark seems to.
For example, he's still using the word "hirabi" (which is roughly equivalent to "heretic") to describe the Muslim terrorists, even though I've pointed out numerous times that they are doing exactly the kinds of things Mohammad himself did.
Oh, and for the record, when I first encountered Marky, I tried talking to him exactly as you described as best ("a civil tongue"). I even called DJ on abusing Marky. Unfortunately, he has earned the abuse he receives from us. The list of Markadelphia's Standard Responses is quite accurate and the result of years of watching how he argues. If you'll notice, most of these arguments are actually logical fallacies. (Straw man, Faulty Appeal to Authority, Agumentum ad Populum, Tu Quoque, Red Herring, Equivocation, etc.) (This list of logical fallacies is fascinating. You should check it out. You might be surprised at just how many of them Mark uses on a regular basis.)
In order for discussion to even be possible, each side must be willing to understand what the other side is saying (instead of talking about "what they really believe", as you pointed out). They also must be willing to admit when they're wrong; something I've done numerous times (most recently here when I charged Mark with not including a link, when he actually did), but to my knowledge, Marky has done only twice in 3 years. (And a recent comment by Marky makes me think that he hasn't even changed his mine on the 2nd one.)
blk, when you're willing to be reasonable, you'll find that there are many conservatives who are equally willing to be reasonable in debating things with you. Mark has shown no such willingness to engage in reasonable debate.
BTW…
"It's just like the conservative who tells you that Obama's real intention is to socialize health care, even though that's not what the bill is, and it will be impossible for Obama to get the public option through the Senate in the foreseeable future. He really wants to have socialism, your friend thinks, so that will obviously be the next step."
Actually, we think Obama wants the public option because we have him on video saying exactly that. Is it unreasonable to conclude that Obama wants the public option when he has said so in just so many words, even if he can't get it (yet)?
Here's a better, more in depth video of what Obama wants for health care.
I just gotta point this out. Marxy says this is one of the marks of a cult:
"6. Accuse people outside of the cult of being brainwashed and/or in a cult."
Sooooo… who has actually been doing this? (Accusing people of being in a cult)
Ed, if I was in a leftist cult, why would I post at TSM? Why does my blog mostly have right leaning commenters?
Actually, your point reminds me of something else Nancy said yesterday..."you are are never going to convince me just like I am never going to convince you." While the first part is true (and clearly very cult like) the second part isn't. I'm willing to be convinced but you are going to have to show me demonstrable proof.
In other words, show me that Medicare for all is going to lead to death panels. Good luck.
An example of me being convinced would be my stated desire to return to good capitalism. Juris clearly proved, through the Manzi article, that this can never happen. Clearly, I was being short sighted. He also proved how much better of a president Reagan was than I previously suspected. I've always believed that Reagan was above average on foreign and below average on domestic. After reading the Manzi article, I'd say Reagan was at least average on domestic and this is specifically in regards to his track record on innovation.
At the end of the day it comes down to track record. Honestly, I've been thinking lately how awful of a president Clinton may have been for allowing the financial industry to whir so far out of control like that. Bush made it worse. Again, look at the results.
Yeah, some cult I'm in...I think Reagan was a good president.
Never been a big fan of Reagan; I actually saw him as a bit of a disappointment (probably something like a lot of Obama supporters of late). But I did just learn something that moved him up a great deal in my eyes. I stopped at Manzanar yesterday after a ski trip to Mammoth. I had driven by dozens and dozens of times, always saying I needed to stop there one day. Finally did, and well worth it - even for someone who already knew something about the story. My wife didn't know at all and was stunned. Anyway, Reagan signed the reparations and official apology of the U.S. govt for the internment of Japanese-Americans in WWII. Imagine that, a 'conservative' apologizing for the unconscionable and unconstitutional actions of the great progressive (FDR) himself.
I actually thought the real reason Mark was having a hard time with politics lately was the fact that Obamas agenda isn't going through, even with majorities in the house and senate. I rememebr the good ol days on this blog when people who voted for GWB were asked to defend every single one of his actions and policies. Now I am on here asking any Obama supporter to defend the stimulus bill, the cap and trade bill and the most recent jobs bill and every single one of you Obama supporters go silent. Sure you'll talk about health care once in a while but only in the context of how the current system is screwed up...having a hard time proving that the actual bill being voted on will lower costs aren't you?
I also think Mark attached himself to an unhealthy degree to an individual politician. Too many times, when you attach yourself to another human being you are going to be disappointed. I try to be attached to ideas, not people I don't know.
"I'm willing to be convinced but you are going to have to show me demonstrable proof."
Your track record belies this claim.
..."you are are never going to convince me just like I am never going to convince you." While the first part is true (and clearly very cult like) the second part isn't.
Is it possible that the problem here is not that you are allegedly more open to being convinced than your gym friend is, but rather that both of you feel the need to convince the other of anything at all?
To be honest, I couldn't care less if you think Christianity is a good thing, the mob killed JFK, we never actually landed on the moon, 9/11 was an inside job, or that this health care bill is a good thing. We can sit and discuss those topics all day if you'd like, but at the end of the day your position, changed or unchanged, is exactly that - your position. Even if of polar opposite minds on those issues that shouldn't preclude us from having constructive discussions or formulating constructive policies. Unfortunately, as blk correctly notes, people posting on blogs have no motivation to reach such accommodation, and instead are motivated to win the argument. As that behavior becomes more prevalent in our society, perhaps due to the increasing number of participants who were raised in that very environment, we will see an increase in the buffoonery that passes for political discussion, orchestrated by increasingly buffoonish politicians.
Certainly you would take humbrage if I supported a political agenda predicated on the notion that Christianity is, in fact, evil, and everything related to Christ was to be banned. Such an agenda threatens what you believe and you will not stand for it no matter how logical an argument I might use. Can you not see that the same is true of the monstrosity that I view this health care bill to be? You are welcome to your viewpoint on the matter. I respectfully disagree with it. But you lose that respect when you (by extension, because of those you support) take the stance that you will force your agenda onto this country because you are convinced it's the right thing to do. Frankly, I'd much rather have a blathering idiot like Palin in the WH in the hopes that she is too stupid to do too much damage to the country. The danger I see in your position is that the damage you are doing is done with the belief that you are actually doing good.
Ultimately, I have no interest in convincing you that you are wrong, or even making you understand or appreciate my position. But I sure am motivated to stop you from advancing your agenda.
A quick note to one of the anonymi-I accidentally deleted your comment when I was deleting a spam post. I have decided to de-clutter our comments section with crap advertising. If you want to re-post, please feel free. I didn't delete it on purpose and leave all comments up no matter what they say with the exception now of weird advertising schemes.
PL, well that's just it. I don't have an agenda or a belief. I have a bunch of ideas that I would like to see implemented. One of them is health care. Sadly, the current bill, while certainly flawed, has been painted with such an enormous amount of lies and deceit by the Cult that my frustration is at an all time high.
But you are correct. I am never going to convince anyone otherwise and that's because of their belief. The fact that I need to so so...well, it's become apparent to me that this is a flaw in my personality. Just to note, I understand there is a difference between your position and their belief.
anonymi - i like that.
Don't kid yourself. You have beliefs. Nothing wrong with that. You have an agenda, too, but not to the same level. Like the Big O, I have a health care agenda. I think (no, I don't have an internet source, HMHC) that most people think the health care system can be improved. So why can't we all just get along?
"…an enormous amount of lies and deceit…"
You mean like this one?
"I reiterated how that it is not in the bill. It didn't matter...it was still coming…"
In other words, you claim that the goal is not public health care in spite of video of Obama and others saying that it IS the goal.
Are you going to stop the lies and admit that it is their stated goal?
"So why can't we all just get along?"
To answer a question with a question…
Are all changes positive changes, i.e., improvements?
Mark Steyn wrote a really good piece on health care yesterday, about how getting through such a massive government entitlement program will really change the paradigm. Here's the link:
http://article.nationalreview.com/427119/its-about-government-not-health-care/mark-steyn
I am in full agreement with him. This is "what I believe".
THIS is depressing to me; that fully half of the population in America will quite happily toss away their last vestiges of individual liberty to an insatiable government, to reap the benefits of other people's labor. And they see no moral problem with doing that, with forcing the entire population to pay into some huge Ponzi scheme whether they want to or not, whether America as it was envisioned will survive or not. THATS depressing. While I am as much a proponent of civility as anyone, a few harsh words said here and there on the internet do not even come close to compare.
Are all changes positive changes, i.e., improvements?
To answer a question with, well, an answer: No, of course not. Which is why this health care bill not only needs to be defeated, it needs to be destroyed. Burned. Ashes loaded onto a rocket and launched toward the sun, where they will be further consumed by fire.
None of that necessarily has anything to do with people finding common ground on the issue.
And that's why we can't just all get along. Some of us want to make changes that the rest of us are convinced would be thoroughly detrimental to everyone. Furthermore, they're not willing to have rational debates, examine the evidence thoroughly, or consider alternatives that everyone can agree on; instead choosing to ram it down our throats despite massive objections.
When "bipartisanship" is twisted to mean "you must give up everything you believe in and agree with us", that doesn't leave much room for getting along.
But why are you convinced, Ed? This is why I say the things I do about the Cult. You don't trust anything the government tells you unless it's related to the military which, actually, is quite odd.
No one is ramming anything down anyone's throats. The bill is honestly one giant compromise. No public option, no universal care, no federal funding for abortions (no private funding either-wtf?)and 30 million new customers for the insurance industry. But because of your programming, it's a government take over with death panels pulling the plug on grandma.
Do you want to know why there aren't any alternatives that people can't agree on? Look in the mirror. Giving in just a little means giving up everything to you. You are interested in tort reform and portability neither of which will lower rates or cover the majority of our country.
You use the video above as an example of KNOWING what is going to happen. Ed, that video was last summer. I know this might be tough for you to grasp but things have changed and the chances of a universal public option being implemented are slim to none.
What is truly bizarre is we have a fine example of evidence in the form of Medicare. Has anyone on Medicare been put in front of a death panel? Has our nation descended into flames? Is the system bankrupt? Are people being turned away for care? No. No. No. No.
And yet you tell me that all of these things will happen. Well, Ed, it's been around for almost 50 years and it hasn't happened yet. I know...I know...any minute now Obama is going to POUNCE!
PL, you may have mentioned this previously but I'm curious as to what your solution would be to solve our health care problems. We have less people signing up for care and, as a result, the insurance industry raises their rates. As procedures become more costly, how are people going to pay for it?
Kevin, the new bill is not an entitlement program. It's an attempt to regulate an absolutely out of control industry. In other words, it's a no brainer.
Sadly, your last paragraph demonstrates a need for de-programming. There's no doubt a Ponzi scheme is going on but it sure as fuck isn't the government that's behind it. I think I've asked this before but what do you think would've happened if we had privatized social security back in 2004? Where would all that money be now? And who would be responsible for it being gone?
The answer is the same people that are behind the actual Ponzi scheme, part of which entails lying to people and making them believe that the government is stealing money from hard working Americans.
"But why are you convinced, Ed?"
So Obama (among others) being captured on video numerous times over a period of years saying that he wants single-payer health coverage isn't enough to convince you that he wants single-payer health coverage?
I gotta say that my mind just boggles at the sheer obtuseness you just demonstrated. And you have the temerity to accuse us of being disconnected from reality?
blk,
Notice that Marky just demonstrated the truth of the point I made in response to your first comment.
"No one is ramming anything down anyone's throats."
Oh really?!?
"House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter is prepping to help usher the healthcare overhaul through the House and potentially avoid a direct vote on the Senate overhaul bill, the chairwoman said Tuesday."
Ramming. It. Down. Our. Throats.
Ramming. It. Down. Our. Throats. despite MAJOR opposition:
"A Rasmussen Reports survey found that 55 percent of Americans think that Congress should throw the current health care plan out and start fresh,"
…
"Only 37 percent of Americans think Congress should continue to build on the bill Democrats have been debating amongst themselves for nearly a year."
…
"Twenty-five percent of Democrats join most Republicans and independents in favor of scrapping the current legislation and starting the process over. Republicans favor starting over (85 percent), while independents favor a fresh start two-to-one.
"An even larger percentage of Americans – 60 percent – tell Rasmussen that if Democrats don’t start over completely, they should at least modify their bill to attract significant Republican support. Only 31 percent think that Democrats should take Obama’s advice and pass it with or without the GOP."
In other words, sentiment in this country is running almost 2 to 1 AGAINST passing the current bill.
Passing it—especially by actively avoiding a vote—in the face of such overwhelming opposition is a definitive example of RAMMING. IT. DOWN. OUR. THROATS.
Oh, and BTW… Marxy's response to the videos of Obama saying he wants single-payer is classic Standard Response #7: "The "Who you gonna believe, me or your lyin' camera?" response. Nothing is valid, no matter what the evidence for it is, unless it squares with the conclusions he's already jumped to."
Wow. I need deprogramming? Your cult theme is starting to get a little old. You are completely incapable of having a discussion without being personally insulting and condescending. YOU are the problem here. YOU are the barrier to civil discourse. I suggest you reread blks original post and grab yourself a nice hot cup of settle the fuck down.
Can you think of any time the government has waded into something with it's size 12s to control costs and it's actually worked?
This bill is a compromise only in that they want to get anything passed getting governments foot in the door re healthcare. It'll make the next step easier. It's a process called incrementalism. A step on the way to those "deprogramming centers", maybe?
How exactly will the government control costs? How exactly will it make procedures cheaper? How exactly will those 30 million new customers pay for their coverage? According to Pelosi, we won't find any of that out until AFTER the bill is passed. Because that's how "the most transparent, ethical congress in history" rolls.
Ed, so what if he wants it? I want a lot of things that doesn't mean I'm going to get them.
And what happens again if we get single payer? Oh yeah, that's right...we all perish in flames...
CNSN News, ED? Rasmussen, Ed?Tsk Tsk...
And, as last in line has informed me several times, there is only one poll that matters and that's the one on election day. President Obama campaigned with health care reform as a center piece to his election. This is a fact. He won the election. This is a fact. People overwhelmingly supported reform until....
The Cult went to work and started lying their asses off about what health care reform will mean (death panels, babies dead, no more apple pie). Hence we have the problem we have now...tell the "Big Lie" and the frightened masses will believe it..
Kevin, I consider it personally insulting when you claim, erroneously I might add, that people are "reaping the benefits of other people's labor" when these same people...people that are friends of mine...people that I see at school every day...people that go to school with my children...are working 2 and 3 jobs and STILL can't fucking afford to pay for health care. So you are going to have to excuse me while I struggle to find answers as to why you are so willfully ignorant about what is actually fucking happening in our country!!!
It's not up to me to de-program you. Step outside of the bubble you live in and go see for yourself what is actually happening. I'll answer the rest of your questions later. My frustration is at an all time high at present and I really don't want to continue typing.
Mark said this:
I don't have an agenda or a belief. I have a bunch of ideas that I would like to see implemented. One of them is health care.
Then he said this:
I am never going to convince anyone otherwise and that's because of their belief.
Wait wait wait. Did you seriously just try to imply that:
1. You aren't able to convince other people because they have some kind of crazy belief system getting in the way.
AND
2. Your 'ideas' are so .. factual, so truthy, that yours and other peoples support for them isn't 'belief' in something, it's just the right thing. (Leaving aside your repeated failure to make the case for your ideas to any mind that is at least marginally versed in skepticism and logic.)
Seriously?
Then they should find a better fucking job. Make themselves more fucking marketable. They should probably make a fucking health insurance policy more of a fucking priority in their fucking lives especially if they have fucking children. What the fuck happened to self fucking reliance? Why is fucking government the only fucking answer? Maybe they should just get a fucking catastrophic policy and pay fucking cash for regular fucking checkups. I bet you fucking anything they haven't even fucking given that any kind of fucking consideration. It's a matter of fucking priority.
F-bombs aside... I spent most of my twenties uninsured and once wound up in hospital for a day. Cost me close to a grand. I was making crap wages at a crap job with no insurance. I worked out a payment plan AND PAID IT OFF. WITHOUT running crying to the government.
So I've LIVED outside my present bubble thankyouverymuch, and I DEALT with it.
"Ed, so what if he wants it?"
Here are your own words:
"But not for the Cult. Oh no. If they say it, then (poof! like magic), it is now true."
…
"I explained to her that there is no public option in the bill. She informed that it's coming next. I reiterated how that it is not in the bill. It didn't matter...it was still coming…"
In other words, you called her crazy for thinking that getting single-payer is one of Obama's goals. I showed you proof that Obama does in fact want a single-payer system.
The "so what" is that she was right and you are wrong! Are you finally willing to admit that?
"CNSN News, ED? Rasmussen, Ed?Tsk Tsk..."
GENETIC FALLACY, YOU GODDAMNED FUCKING IDIOT!!!!!
Why, oh why can you not get the FACT that using a logical fallacy is the equivalent of pushing with a rope through YOUR THICK GODDAMNED SKULL!!!!
You claim to be a "critical thinker", and I would agree as long as "critical" means "in critical condition, near death."
M, like your parents I am going to suggest you stop playing with yourself. This constant Cult masturbation is unnecessary, uncivil, generally unpleasant and completely unproductive.
The more you stress it, the more you come across as a Scientologist-like nutjob. Or a Truther, Birther or ChemTrailer.
Really, you should stop.
Then again, you didn't stop on the corporate abuse topic, and you never did answer me why anyone should be allowed to ride a motorcycle (since that increases our society's medical costs). So I'm not very hopeful that you are going to change.
M, in answer to the question posed to me...maybe they aren't. Maybe answering the question of how we can allow everybody to pay for everything isn't the approach we should take. I don't have a soundbite answer to how we can improve the health care system. In that respect I have no problem being cast as somebody who is "saying no without offering alternatives", primarly because I am confident that the solution on the table is worse than the problem.
Mark asked "Are people being turned away for care?"
Kind of.
The Mayo clinic here in MN has stopped accepting medicare patients. Why do you think they made that decision?
Total lie.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601202&sid=aHoYSI84VdL0
"The decision, which Yardley called a two-year pilot project, won’t affect other Mayo facilities in Arizona, Florida and Minnesota."
Here's some more information regarding the Mayo clinic in Florida.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/becomingpat-jax/medicarecoverage.html
And the clinic in your state.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/billing-rst/#medicare
"If you are hospitalized your Part A (hospital inpatient) and Part B (hospital outpatient) claims will be filed to Medicare for you. These Medicare payments will be sent directly to the hospital."
Where exactly did you hear that the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota is not taking Medicare patients any longer?
I heard that it was only Mayo in Arizona and restrictions in Florida.
jeff,
A quick search found this article in the Washington Post.
"Mayo announced late last week that its flagship facility in Rochester, Minn., will no longer accept Medicaid patients from Nebraska and Montana. The clinic draws patients from across the Midwest and West, but it will now accept Medicaid recipients only from Minnesota and the four states that border it."
They haven't stopped accepting all Medicare patients, but they have severely cut back.
Here's more from that article:
"Separately, the Mayo branch in Arizona -- the third leg of the Mayo stool, with the Rochester clinic and one in Florida -- put out word a few days ago that under a two-year pilot program, it would no longer accept Medicare for patients seeking primary care at its Glendale facility. That facility, with 3,000 regular Medicare patients, will continue to see them for advanced care -- Mayo's specialty -- but those seeking primary care will need to pay an annual $250 fee, plus fees of $175 to $400 per visit.
Mayo officials said Monday that the two moves were "business decisions" that had grown out of longstanding concerns about what it sees as underpayment by Medicare and Medicaid."
Thanks Ed. You get a cookie.
Total lie huh jeff? Tell that to the "Mayo officials who said Monday that the two moves were "business decisions" that had grown out of longstanding concerns about what it sees as underpayment by Medicare and Medicaid."
Jeff, when the government is the only payer around and they don't pay enough, who are you going to go to then?
Jeez, Ed, isn't taking the Lord's name in vain a sin?
I read all the links that you put up here, Ed and judge them accordingly based on what they are saying. Rasmussen Polling frames their questions with wedge issues that typically are made to elicit a conservative response. Or, more likely, dove tail nicely into conservative talking points. Compare the Rasmussen poll to this one.
http://www.pollingreport.com/health.htm
Notice any differences in the way the questions are worded?
Ed, if anyone suffers from genetic fallacy, it's you. You categorically refuse to accept any claim Michael Moore makes based on its merit alone. Instead, you call him a "proven liar" and thus, any claims are outright discounted. Hence the reason why I was *tsk tsk* ing you. Are you saying that I can now put up links to Moore's site and you will judge each claim based on its merit and not consider the source?
"You categorically refuse to accept any claim Michael Moore makes based on its merit alone."
Bullshit. I reject claims and conclusions which are based on faulty reasoning and distorted evidence. We've been over this ground before, specifically about the conclusions he makes in his distortion filled movies. Why don't you get it?
Let me put it another way:
(2+2) * (7-6) = 5 * 5 = 25 = Wrong Answer = Michael's Moore's movie logic
You CANNOT get a valid answer if your intermediate steps are invalid. PERIOD!!!!!!!!!! That's basic logic. Fundamental. Unalterable. Logic 101. And yet you deny this. That's only "rational" if you define "rational" using the same thought process as Humpty Dumpty from Alice in Wonderland:
"`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'
`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master -- that's all.'"
"Instead, you call him a "proven liar""
Hello?!? McFly?!? Do you even know the definition of "liar"?!? It's a person who deliberately states something which is not true. Moore has deliberately and repeatedly made claims in his movies which are not true. The definition matches his actions. Therefore, I call him a "proven liar" because he IS a proven liar.
"Are you saying that I can now put up links to Moore's site and you will judge each claim based on its merit and not consider the source?"
If you actually understood the Genetic Fallacy—and stopped deliberately MISunderstanding me—you would know the answer to that question. It would also help if you understood credibility.
Now, about that pointed question you once again running away from:
"Ed, so what if he wants it?"
Here are your own words:
"But not for the Cult. Oh no. If they say it, then (poof! like magic), it is now true."
…
"I explained to her that there is no public option in the bill. She informed that it's coming next. I reiterated how that it is not in the bill. It didn't matter...it was still coming…"
In other words, you called her crazy for thinking that getting single-payer is one of Obama's goals. I showed you proof that Obama does in fact want a single-payer system.
The "so what" is that she was right and you are wrong! Are you finally willing to admit that?
Bonus question: WHY isn't the public option currently in the bill?
Note that it's not just the Mayo clinic that's firing Medicare patients:
"Physicians of many specialties have started to refuse to accept Medicare patients. In a survey published by the American Medical Association (AMA) in September 2002, 24 percent of physicians sampled said they had either limited the number of Medicare patients they treat or planned to limit the number within six months because of reduced reimbursement, and 17 percent said they currently were not accepting new Medicare patients. Of the 83 percent that were still accepting Medicare patients, about a third were contractually obligated to do so by a hospital or other organization. A full 42 percent of respondents said they would no longer participate in Medicare if physician rates were lowered by 5 percent to 6 percent in 2003."
— Medicare and the Anesthesia Shortage, Part 3: Making a Stand
Note that as of March 1st, reimbursement rates under Medicare have been cut 21%.
Hey Jeff, why is Obama cutting medicare?
Rasmussen Polling frames their questions with wedge issues that typically are made to elicit a conservative response.
Irony! Irony! If a poll "frames" its questions with a liberal bias the poll results are always valid, right M - sheesh. If you think polls are bullshit, fine, then they are bullshit ALL THE TIME, not just when you don't get the results you want.
last,
It was an automatic drop written into law. From what I saw, it was supposed to gradually ratchet down starting in about 2003. But each year, Congress has acted to temporarily stop the decrease, until this year.
So the real question is, why did the Democrats allow this to happen?
Other questions: Why isn't this splashed all over the news? Has Congress acted on this over the last 12 days? (I didn't see anything, but it doesn't mean they haven't done anything.) What do you think doctors will do about this, given that there was already a significant number of doctors rejecting Medicare patients back in 2003?
Ed, I just can't believe that the people who post on this blog support cutting medicare!! How cruel!!! I mean, the people they voted for did this, therefore this must be what the people who voted for obama wanted!! Boo-ya!
Jeff, Elizabeth, Sara, who do you want to cut medicare?
woops, that's "why".
juris,
I doubt Marxy even looked at the wording of the Rasmussen poll. The questions weren't leading. The questions asked by the GfK poll were very different than Rasmussen poll, except for the last two. The GfK was was NOT asking what people thought Congress should do (except for the last 2 questions), which is what the Rasmussen poll did, but what their general attitudes were.
But looky, looky. When the GfK poll did ask people what they thought Congress should do, the results were very similar to the same question asked by Rasmussen:
"An even larger percentage of Americans – 60 percent – tell Rasmussen that if Democrats don’t start over completely, they should at least modify their bill to attract significant Republican support. Only 31 percent think that Democrats should take Obama’s advice and pass it with or without the GOP."
From the GfK poll:
"How important is it that any health care plan have the support of both Democrats and Republicans in Congress?"
Very important: 61%
"If President Obama and the Democrats in Congress are unable to win support from Republicans to pass a health care plan this year, what should they do? Should they go ahead and pass a bill without Republican support, or keep trying until they are able to make a deal with the Republicans?"
"Pass without Republican support": 27%
"Keep trying to make a deal": 68%
I also noticed that the Gallup poll just under it also matched the Rasmussen poll:
"Which would you rather see Congress do: start over and work to pass different health care legislation, or not work on health care legislation at this time?"
"Start Over": 62%
"Not Work on Health Care": 37%
Marxy, did you even bother to read your own link?
BTW, here are the polling questions from Rasmussen:
"Should Dems Pass Bill As Is or Change to Get Support of GOP?"
"Democrats should pass that bill": 31%
"Democrats should change the bill to win support from a reasonable number of Republicans": 60%
"For Healthcare Plan it is Better to..."
"Build on the health care plan that has been working its way through the House and Senate": 37%
"Congress should scrap that plan and start all over again": 55%
Interesting that you left out these numbers from the poll.
-43-41 favor-oppose passing it by then end of the year
-41-43 favor-oppose the bill
-48-37 Dems over Republicans to handle health care.
-49-46 favor-oppose President Obama's handling of health care.
In regards to Gallup, the 62 percent you mention were of the "Asked of those who answered Vote against" number. So, no, it does not match the Rasmussen polls nor do any of the other numbers you failed to mention. Based on these other two polls, your assertion that two thirds of this country are against this bill is not valid. It looks pretty split down the middle to me as it always is...
Interesting wording changes you threw in there:
"What do you think the President and Congress should do about health care this year? Do you think they should keep working to pass a health care plan by the end of the year, scrap the current negotiations and start over from scratch, or leave the health care system as it is now?"
Three options became two in your "restatement":
"favor-oppose passing it by then end of the year"
Actually, based on the wording of this question, 43% favor passing something about health care this year. The original question does NOT say "this health care bill" or anything like that.
Furthermore, 56% do NOT want it rushed to finish this year. (Keep working without a time limit 41% + 15% who said leave it alone.)
Your second one is even MORE egregious:
"In general, do you support, oppose or neither support nor oppose the health care reform plans being discussed in Congress?"
This IS a very badly worded question. It doesn't say "the bill" as you misquoted it, just "health care plans" which easily covers ALL ideas being floated in Congress. So someone thinking tort reform and interstate insurance could easily answer yes to this question.
The last two are really odd given that they're so different from the results of the other questions. Those questions would seem to speak more about political partisanship than the issue itself.
"In regards to Gallup, the 62 percent you mention were of the "Asked of those who answered Vote against" number."
So? It was the same question asked to a smaller group. Even so, the answers are remarkably consistent.
Now how about very direct polling questions:
"Generally speaking, do you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and the congressional Democrats?"
Oppose: 53%
Favor: 42%
(Yes, I'm summarizing these numbers. The details are available at the link.)
"If the health care reform plan passes, will the quality of health care get better, worse, or stay about the same?"
Better: 23%
Worse: 49%
Same: 20%
"If the health care reform plan passes, will the cost of health care go up, go down, or stay about the same?"
Up: 54%
Down: 17%
Same: 19%
Significant opposition. Period.
"Based on these other two polls, your assertion that two thirds of this country are against this bill is not valid"
Of course that assertion isn't valid! It's because That's. Not. What. I. Wrote, Scarecrow. (Here's more information on the Strawman Fallacy for those still struggling with the idea of logic.)
The poll said 60% (not 2/3rds), think that at least more work should be done on it. If you compare that to percentage of those who support the Democrats' bill, that means that even some supporters think it should be polished further. And that's just shy of twice the percentage (not 2/3rds of the country) of those who want it passed exactly as is.
"It looks pretty split down the middle to me as it always is..."
53% Against, 42% For. Demonstrating your math skillz again?
BTW, hereis Rasmussen's article on the overall poll numbers and the results of this poll over the last year or so.
Now, about that question you keep ignoring (#1):
"Ed, so what if he wants it?"
Here are your own words:
"But not for the Cult. Oh no. If they say it, then (poof! like magic), it is now true."
…
"I explained to her that there is no public option in the bill. She informed that it's coming next. I reiterated how that it is not in the bill. It didn't matter...it was still coming…"
In other words, you called her crazy for thinking that getting single-payer is one of Obama's goals. I showed you proof that Obama does in fact want a single-payer system.
The "so what" is that she was right and you are wrong! Are you finally willing to admit that?
Bonus question: WHY isn't the public option currently in the bill?
Wow. I think someone needs to take a chill pill.
Well, well, well…
Check out this document produced by a House committee which lists differences between the House and Senate versions of the health care bill:
In the House version: "National public option administered by HHS and using negotiated rates to pay providers." (Page 4)
You said, "I explained to her that there is no public option in the bill." Bzzzt! Wrong answer!
This article from the Minnesota Post puts it this way:
"The House version has a public option - a government-run insurance plan that would negotiate payment rates with doctors and hospitals."
Post a Comment