Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | Home RSS
 
 
 

Obamacare and demagoguery

December 3, 2013

To the editor: H. L Mencken defined the word demagogue as, “One who preaches a doctrine he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(72)

JReader

Dec-04-13 10:09 AM

It's funny, every time I hear someone on the left state something along the lines like "for many people they will be able to replace their 'terrible' plan with a much better plan"; I wonder how do they know this to be true in each and every case ? The government has set the parameters to what constitutes an acceptable plan so once again like so many other things they have deemed "one size fits all". Of course it is much easier for them to then claim their new policies will be superior to their old ones because it contains more coverage. Gone is the ability for the individual to pick and choose which coverage is best for them and their circumstances.

Imagine you walk into a restaurant and instead of picking something off the menu your meal is already decided for you. You may have just wanted a salad but instead the government has put in your order and it's a five course meal including dessert. And, in the end you have to pay the bill & tip. That describ

10 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

tooold

Dec-04-13 10:17 AM

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

tooold

Dec-04-13 10:25 AM

Too much government in our lives. It woul be nice if the people that are in love with this administration were the only ones affected by their bills instead of everyone having to pay the price. "We have to pass it to see what's in it". What kind do person says this stuff.

10 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Auntydem

Dec-04-13 1:19 PM

No one said, "We have to pass it to see what's in it." Speaker Pelosi said, “You’ve heard about the controversies, the process about the bill…but I don’t know if you’ve heard that it is legislation for the future – not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America. But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it – away from the fog of the controversy.” She was not speaking to members of Congress. She was speaking to about 2,000 local officials attending the National Association of Counties in DC.

6 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

japanviking

Dec-04-13 1:47 PM

President Obama stated "We're not repealing it as long as I'm president," referring to the ACA. He also stated "If I've got to fight another three years to make sure this law works, then that's what I'll do.” Until a Republican regains the White House it is an undeniable fact that it is not getting repealed. Republicans need to move on to other legislative efforts being ignored so something can get accomplished prior to 2016. The Congress has accomplished less than any other Congress in history so let’s try to get something accomplished the next three years other than holding hearings and going on talk shows trying to repeal this law. Even if the Republicans gain a majority in both houses in 2014 repeal would still require the President’s signature which will never happen. Also the chances of overriding a veto are so infinitesimal they are almost non-existent. Let’s not get so myopic on this one issue we ignore the business the Congress is supposed to be there to do.

5 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Avoice

Dec-04-13 1:55 PM

Auntydem - you win the "spin award of the day" for that post plus a chuckle or two.

7 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

tooold

Dec-04-13 2:15 PM

What difference does it make where and whom she said it too. You read the Washington post This is the "paper" of the Democratic Party and all their articles are biased.

5 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Auntydem

Dec-04-13 2:18 PM

Avoice - Take a moment to look it up rather than demagogue it.

4 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Auntydem

Dec-04-13 2:20 PM

Too old - what matters is that your "quote" is not a quote.

4 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

tooold

Dec-04-13 2:41 PM

In this bill they talk about prevention. This is something I hope most do already. What I have a problem with are the people who are not trying to prevent illness or disease. Like smokers or over eaters etc. what happens if smokers get lung cancer etc. does this health care bill cover this . Just looking for answers. My doctor has been on the prevention kick for years.

4 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Auntydem

Dec-04-13 2:54 PM

The health care bill does not offer insurance or cover anything; people choose a private insurance company through an exchange or any insurance broker or if they qualify they can receive Medicaid. What smokers are charged is up to the insurance companies, as it has always been, and they always charged smokers more. However, if you are a former smoker with emphysema you can't be denied insurance.

5 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

svensota

Dec-04-13 3:02 PM

Tooold: You get three free root beer suckers if you can touch your toes twice within a minute. And if you stay off the cancer sticks for 20 years or more you'll get to live long enough to help pay for all of our new and wonderful liberal healthcare programs.

If not for us lefties, you would have no Social Security, no Medicare, no unemployment insurance, and about 100 other fabulous Federal programs (Scooters!) you use and depend on--and help make our society the envy of the world.

Happy Festivus!

Now, as part of our celebration, JR will chime in with his daily airing of grievances.

5 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MichaelT

Dec-04-13 3:53 PM

Sven: You talk about Social Security, Medicare, etc. as though these programs are something everyone loves. Certainly, we use them -- you have to play the hand you're dealt. But the real argument is whether we would all be better off if these gov't programs had never existed in the first place -- that is, if each one of us were responsible for taking care of himself and his own kin. In order to imagine this, you would have to picture what you would have done with at least 10% more in your paycheck the past fifty years, what it would be like not to have to dot all the i's and cross the t's on gov't forms, what it would be like not to have to worry about exceeding your allowable earned income in retirement, etc. Capitalism is far simpler than socialism, and better for maintaining individual liberty. It rewards the ambitious and punishes the lazy.

8 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Avoice

Dec-04-13 5:03 PM

Auntydem - Medicaid and MnCare are government insurance plans so we have a mixture of both private and public insurance plans people can enroll in. IMHO, the government has created the policy and made into law requirement of what an insurance plan must contain, that is where I have to chuckle as the plans will require the plan to cover a newborn to a 95 year old male or female, for contraceptives, maternity benefits, and abortion services.

6 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Auntydem

Dec-04-13 7:10 PM

Group/employer-sponsored plans cause plenty of chuckles too. I flip thru mine and see I, like all in the group, are covered for all kinds of conditions, devices,and drugs most have been fortunate to never need or have not pertained to them personally. All, male & female, are covered for contraceptives and births and prostate cancer. As for the ACA, no private insurer is forced to cover abortion, states can opt out of coverage on exchanges, or states must have at least 1 plan offering abortion coverage. The law requires persons choosing plans with elective abortion coverage to pay a separate premium from their own pockets.

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

tooold

Dec-04-13 8:43 PM

There is a suit before the Supreme Court about all corporations must supply contraceptives coverage to all their employees in their insurance plans. Two companies are fighting this because of their religious beliefs. Hobby Lobby and Chick Filet are the two that I know of. Again--this is their company--started by families and made it on their own. Now again the government is telling them what they have to do. These to companies are against abortion and do not want to pay for this. To me this is interfering with their religious beliefs. Someway Obama will find a way for these companies to comply. How sad.

7 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

tooold

Dec-04-13 8:49 PM

I do not use a scooter. Nor a bar in my shower nor a walker. I credit myself and my genes-- not the government.

5 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

svensota

Dec-04-13 9:23 PM

MIT: Capitalism also rewards the unscrupulous and punishes the underclasses.

Fill out your Form US393Z and please return all the government benefits you and your family (don't forget crazy Uncle Ted) have received the past 50 years.

Capitalism as you envision it, MIT, is perfect if you have 500 acres, three mules, 12 kids and a hankerin' for some of your own moonshine.

Welcome to the 21st Century.

4 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MichaelT

Dec-04-13 10:30 PM

Sven: Who are the capitalists who were most successful? Were they not those who provided something that the people wanted and needed, and provided it at a lower price than anyone else? You may vilify them, but you cannot argue with the fact that they became rich by providing a benefit to society.

The principles that make capitalism the best of the economic systems are timeless. They work today as well as they did two hundred years ago. Capitalists build wealth for themselves and for society.

Socialists consume wealth and tear down society. Socialist societies do not ascend the economic ladder; they go down one rung at a time. Why is there so little economic opportunity in America today? It's because we are becoming socialistic.

8 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

svensota

Dec-04-13 11:08 PM

Sure, MIT. And, you win the Jay Gould Award for Pure C o c k a m a m i e.

You might try a little refresher course on the business practices of Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, Fisk, et al.

4 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MichaelT

Dec-05-13 8:00 AM

Sven: You, like most socialists and Marxists, focus your attention on vilifying the "greed" of the capitalist. At the same time, you completely ignore the greed and corruption that is displayed by those who hold the purse-strings in our gov't. The truth is, both the private capitalist and the gov't "representative" are made of the same flesh and blood and are motivated by the same self-interest.

The central question then becomes: Which system (capitalism or socialism) does the most to bring the highest standard of living to the most people? Sam Walton or Barack Obama? Bill Gates or Nancy Pelosi? John Rockefeller or Karl Marx?

9 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

svensota

Dec-05-13 10:07 AM

MIT:If I am a Marxist, my friend, then you are a Fascist.

Get out your Glockenspiel.

4 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JReader

Dec-05-13 5:28 PM

Aunty,

does it also make you chuckle when you hear "if you like your currnet plan you can keep it."

I thought the goal of this reform was to get everyone insured. If people already had insurance that the shopped and paid for why is it now necessary to get them replaced ? Especially considering it was promised that they could keep them in the first place ?

Isn't it simply the case that individuals are now required to pay for coverage they will never need simply to make coverage more affordable for others. It's another case of people being penalized for doing the right thing (carrying insurance) and paying for those who didn't do the right thing (had no insurance).

9 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

middleclassworker

Dec-06-13 7:18 PM

"Capitalist"...another term for the 1% of America that has 50% of the money and growing. Anybody who has ever played Monopoly knows how the game ends.

How nice of you, MIT, to loom out for the 1%, especially since you will never be part of that club.

7 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MichaelT

Dec-07-13 1:54 AM

MCW: I don't begrudge others the wealth that they have earned or inherited, as long as they obtained it legally. Our Constitution guarantees to each of us the right to private ownership of property, and it doesn't specify any upper limit on that guarantee. Wealthy people spend money, making useful things and creating jobs for others.

My son just spent a week washing windows on the Cargill mansion north of Eau Claire, WI. The owner paid them $8,000 for that job, and he has it done twice a year. My son appreciated having the work.

The problem with Marxists is that they are as greedy as they say the capitalists are, perhaps even greedier. It's interesting that in communist countries the leaders live like kings and everyone else lives in economic misery. It's still a 1% vs 99% economy, only the 99% are much poorer.

5 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 72 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web