Quote :

"Through competition, yeah sure. If a doctor feels that his services are worth charging more, and he gets enough patients to maintain that, he can continue charging whatever he wants. For example, I currently go to a dentist that charges up to 3x what my companies dental plans maximums for things like fillings and sealants set to. I still go there though because I think the quality of the service is worth it. Not everyone can afford that though, and not every dentist or doctor will be able justify what they charge, so they will have to drop their prices to stay in business. "

I don't see how your example is related to price controls

[Edited on August 12, 2009 at 1:43 PM. Reason : .]

8/12/2009 1:42:30 PM

8/12/2009 1:44:34 PM

^^^First off, no, I've never been to a war protest.

Secondly, I'm going to refrain for saying much more because I don't want to turn this into a discussion about the Iraqi war. I think, I mentioned in my post that neither group of protesters were exactly "playing nice". However, you neglected to mentioned that the #1 reason the Iraqi war was so unpopular is that every single reason we were given for it's necessity turned out to be 100% patently FALSE. Yeah, protesters took it to the extreme, but their main reason for outrage was justified.

Whereas, with the health care debate, protesters are yelling about shit that has no basis in reality. Death squads? Government takeovers? Forced enrollment? None of that shit is even close to true (compared to the shit you mentioned which wasn't too far off) when you look at the plans that are being considered. The only legitimate thing they have to get mad about is a possible rise in taxes and an increase in the deficit, both of which were possible outcomes of the Iraq war as well. Instead, Obama is Hitler and should be killed because he wants to give us all health care? Are you really telling me that sort of rhetoric is justified?

Quote :

" I don't see how your example is related to price controls"

Then you'll have to explain what you mean by price controls, because nothing I've mentioned seems to fit your definition.

8/12/2009 1:56:39 PM

^

Quote :

"This is how it's going to control the costs health care. Presumably, when this thing goes live, a fairly significant percentage of the population is going to opt in to it. The fed is going to be able to negotiate reimbursement rates for medical services and stick maximums on the amount that the plan is going to reimburse. This means that most people that are on the plan are going to choose to go doctors that charge within whatever the fed sets as their maximum amount a certain service should cost. Just like what you do with your private insurance plan now, sticking with in-network doctors so you pay very little out of pocket. The difference is, if enough people are on this one plan, it's going to force doctors to drop their rates so people on the public plan will go to them instead of their higher priced competitors. This is why the scope and coverage of this plans needs to go beyond just people who don't have or can't afford health insurance now. It's needs to be a good enough plan that people who already have health insurance will opt to switch to the public plan. If enough people enroll in it, it will absolutely serve to control costs."

I took the above to mean you want the government to set maximum reimbursement rates, which is effectively setting price controls. As you mention, this is fine for private plans, who must negotiate with doctors, but the government's largess would allow them to dictate prices.

[Edited on August 12, 2009 at 2:05 PM. Reason : .]

8/12/2009 2:04:30 PM

Quote :

""I'm just tired of so many people stirring this "Republicans have lost their mind" bullshit. ""

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/12/scott-death-marxists/

Quote :

"Last week, The Hill reported that Rep. Brian Baird’s (D-WA) office had received a fax that depicted President Barack Obama as the Joker and warned of “Death to All Marxists! Foreign and Domestic!” The Secret Service has said that the fax was “potentially an investigative intelligence matter.” Now, a second member of Congress is reporting that he received the same fax. On CNN this morning, Rep. David Scott (D-GA) — whose office was recently vandalized with a swastika — held up a printout of the fax, adding that the picture of Obama he received had “the swastika on his forehead.”"

8/12/2009 2:07:42 PM

Shrike
It sounds like we have a fundamental difference in what we think constitutes reality.

You apparently think that saying that Iraq was a religious war or a play for oil wasn't "too far off the mark". I don't think so. And I haven't seen any compelling evidence to suggest other wise.

You also apparently think that it is obvious that, unlike the justifications for the Iraq War, the justifications for health care reform are true. I don't think so.

The primary justification for health care reform is that adverse selection creates a market failure that must be solved by government intervention because it leads insurance companies to dumping sick people because they cost them money. However, As recent data from the Kiaser foundation shows, the uninsured are actually relatively healthy!! This seems to poke a hole in the "market failure" theory. It suggests that the majority of the uninsured are *choosing* to not purchase insurance (maybe because they don't want it or don't think they can afford it). That is MUCH different from being kicked off their insurance because they are sick. IOW:this is distributional issue and not a market failure issue. That doesn't mean government shouldn't be involved in expanding coverage (i think it should), but it does suggest other ways for addressing the situation besides reforming the entire system (i think income subsidies would work better than creating a public option).
http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/07/its_adverse_but_is_it_selectio.php

But I don't want to take this further either. Let's just agree to disagree, because I don't think the distance in our views in reality could be diminished in the time I am willing to put into such a conversation.

[Edited on August 12, 2009 at 2:16 PM. Reason : ``]

8/12/2009 2:11:02 PM

^Only thing I'll say further is that the intent of this plan isn't just to cover those without health insurance, but to improve the situation for people who do have health insurance but still have exorbitant medical expenses due to the way our current system works. It's also for filling gaps in coverage that no private health insurer can or is willing to do.

Quote :

"I took the above to mean you want the government to set maximum reimbursement rates, which is effectively setting price controls. As you mention, this is fine for private plans, who must negotiate with doctors, but the government's largess would allow them to dictate prices."

Exactly right, if enough people enroll into the public plan, it will force most doctors to keep their prices in line with what the plan's maximums are. This is exactly how France's health care system works (except there, enrollment into the "public plan" is mandatory). There will still be doctor's who charge more, and private insurers to cover those who wish to go to them, but the general rise in health care costs will be kept in check. What's wrong with that?

[Edited on August 12, 2009 at 2:20 PM. Reason : :]

8/12/2009 2:12:32 PM

^ Rather than take the time to walk through the many flaws with that logic, consider the following: if price fixing worked as flawlessly as you suggest, why not set prices in all markets? Shouldn't the government decide how much a car should cost and set the price accordingly? Surely no one would go hungry if we just forced producers to sell at 50% of current market prices.

8/12/2009 2:17:42 PM

Who said anything about price fixing? There's no point in keeping this up if you're just going to misrepresent what I'm saying. The government isn't forcing anyone to do anything, they are just creating a competitive environment where people who practice medicine will have to worry about how much they charge. Right now, they charge whatever they want because insurance companies can just raise premiums to cover them. Government intervention isn't necessary in other markets because most of them do a pretty good job of keeping prices in check on their own.

[Edited on August 12, 2009 at 2:29 PM. Reason : :]

8/12/2009 2:27:26 PM

Our govt has a history of overpromising and showing poor planning for the future. This will be no different.

When Congress was first considering the creation of Medicare part A, the hospital insurance program, Congress estimated that it would cost $9 billion by 1990. The actual cost in 1990 was $67 billion, seven times more than Congress estimated.

Then in 1967 Congress estimated that the entire Medicare program would cost $12 billion by 1990. What was the actual 1990 cost? $111 billion. Almost ten times the original estimate.

Remember at each step when our govt has seized more control of healthcare they have, at each step, promised to lower costs....yet here we are. So as the percentage of govt provided healthcare has increased..so has the cost.

8/12/2009 3:12:34 PM

Medicare wasn't created to control costs. It was created because old people weren't being accepted by private insurers and they couldn't get employer based coverage because they couldn't get jobs. Basically, it was created to solve a problem that the private sector was either unwilling or incapable of taking on itself. Or would you have preferred they just let old sick people die? It's costs spiraled out of control because it exists in the same fucked up system that made all our medical expenses shoot through the roof.

8/12/2009 4:20:39 PM

are there any pics of old people with anti government health care signs?

just for lolz.

8/12/2009 4:44:26 PM

"employer based coverage" which started as a result of govt setting policy. Under the 1942 Stabilization Act, Congress limited the wage increases that could be offered by firms, but permitted the adoption of employee insurance plans. In this way, health benefit packages offered one means of securing workers. Then in 1943 allowing for the tax deduction for employers and not individuals.

In 1958 75% of people had private insurance.

As medicare was introduced its costs rose dramatically, well above estimates. It rose so fast that it was forced in 1983 to cuts its fees. It could no longer afford to pay doctors thier usual and customary fees, instead they had to set thier own fees. (which is what they orginally wanted to do, but could not get passed initially. They needed this foot in the door..)

Look at the HMO act of 1973. In which our govt basically mandates managed care in an attempt to control costs.

8/12/2009 4:48:21 PM

^^there is this,

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/08/11/emotions-run-high-outside-obamas-town-hall-meeting/

Quote :

"Diane Campbell of Kingston, N.H., held a sign with President Barack Obama’s face superimposed on a Nazi storm trooper, a sign, she said, that was made by her chronically ill mother. Her mother’s hereditary autoimmune disease is treated with expensive transfusions of gamma globulin, paid for by Medicare. Her sister, Louise, was born with no arms and one leg, and is also covered by Medicare, the government-run health insurance program for the elderly and disabled."

[Edited on August 12, 2009 at 4:49 PM. Reason : :]

8/12/2009 4:49:34 PM

Quote :

"It's costs spiraled out of control because it exists in the same fucked up system that made all our medical expenses shoot through the roof. "

Medicare has always been a single payer system. And since 1983 it has set its own rates hoss.

8/12/2009 4:51:31 PM

Medicare costs a shitload because the people who use it dont put anywhere near as much money into the system as they take out. Neither medicare or the new govcare do anything to control costs beyond setting price requirements. Price requirements that will be set by the healthcare lobbies currently pushing the legislation through congress. These are the same guys who wrote medicare.

If you want to control costs have people pay for stuff when they use it. HSA plans with high deductables, low premiums, and full preventative covereage are a good start.

8/12/2009 4:52:18 PM

^yep.

Just ask yourself do you eat more at a buffet or when you pay per item? Its common sense.

8/12/2009 4:57:59 PM

im not refuting that some people take out way more than they put in but does the introduction of more expensive medical practices and tools in anyway configured into the fact that prices have increased dramatically?

in 1958 there was little knowledge of cancer and AIDS in a sense didn't exist. This couldn't have helped.

life expectancy has also went from an average of 69 to 78.

8/12/2009 5:05:46 PM

You're right. New technology = more expensive (in some cases) but better care(in some cases). Old people are going to cost more because they never budgeted for this stuff. Theres probably no way around that. What we can do is better prepare the younger folks of today for their future healthcare costs with things like HSAs. The goal being make it so young folks dont have to subsidize the care of old folks and put the savings into future care. Take care of the existing old people via the fed (like we do with medicare) and charities with the goal of shrinking the program in the future.

I mean look at social security. It was supposed to provide people with retirement support. What it ends up doing is taxing the shit out of young people. The one positive thing SS has accomplished is getting people to realize they need to save their own money for retirement. We're all looking at about a projected -30% return on the money we've put into SS if its even there at all when we get out. Social security is a disaster. There are government bonds that get better returns. Why the hell isn't it invested there at the very least?

tl;dr Get young people to start saving for the future, stop medicare/ss once the old people all die off, help the poor pay for their plans and HSAs with tax money + charities wherever possible.

But before you do that stuff fix education and our energy system so we have a better baseline to start from.

8/12/2009 5:31:31 PM

the problem with SS is that people don't use it for retirement support.

they use it to retire.

baby boomers are pretty much fucking us in the ass.

8/12/2009 5:35:44 PM

exactly. And we're planning all these systems around them. We need to plan for the future, not for people who are going to gouge the shit out of the system and leave it bankrupt right before they kick off.

8/12/2009 5:46:05 PM

Finally, a protest I can get behind!

Quote :

"Medicare has always been a single payer system. And since 1983 it has set its own rates hoss."

That doesn't change the fact that it was subject to same rise in costs that plague the health industry at large. Also, another major issue with Medicare is over diagnosis, which is how doctors get around lowered reimbursement rates: they just charge for more shit that isn't necessary.

Quote :

"Medicare costs a shitload because the people who use it dont put anywhere near as much money into the system as they take out. Neither medicare or the new govcare do anything to control costs beyond setting price requirements. Price requirements that will be set by the healthcare lobbies currently pushing the legislation through congress. These are the same guys who wrote medicare."

Honestly, if that's your view, than no health care reform will ever work. This is the sort of defeatist attitude that maintained the status quo for so long and put us in the mess we are today.

[Edited on August 12, 2009 at 5:53 PM. Reason : :]

8/12/2009 5:46:48 PM

^that's awesome (the pic)

8/12/2009 5:53:40 PM

wow, Gingrich owned.

Only a couple months before he was backing up Palin and decrying the "death panels" on TV last weekend, he was singing the praises of the exact same "panels" that are already in tact in low-cost healthcare areas
http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2009/08/12/newt-gingrich-changes-whats-left-of-his-mind-on-end-of-life-care/

Quote :

""More than 20 percent of all Medicare spending occurs in the last two months of life. Gundersen Lutheran Health System in La Crosse, Wisconsin has developed a successful end-of-life, best practice that combines: 1) community-wide advance care planning, where 90 percent of patients have advance directives; 2) hospice and palliative care; and 3) coordination of services through an electronic medical record. The Gundersen approach empowers patients and families to control and direct their care. The Dartmouth Health Atlas has documented that Gundersen delivers care at a 30 percent lower rate than the national average ($18,359 versus $25,860). If Gundersen’s approach was used to care for the approximately 4.5 million Medicare beneficiaries who die every year, Medicare could save more than $33 billion a year." via Health Care Rx: Across the Country, Some Systems Are Getting It Right – Newt Gingrich. That was Newt Gingrich just a few months ago praising the “Advance Directives” practiced by a hospital in Wisconsin. Advance Directives are another word for the end-of-life consultations that the teabggers have been flipping out over of late. Gingrich loved them a few months ago. This is Gingrich a few months before that, responding to a PBS query: "Let me give you an example that I find fascinating. In LaCrosse, Wisc., the Gundersen Lutheran Hospital system is, according to the Dartmouth [Atlas of Health Care], the least expensive place in America for the last two years of life. They have an advanced directive program, and over 90 percent of their patients have an advanced directive. They have electronic health records, so everybody on the staff knows what the advanced directive is. They have a very strong palliative care program for using drugs to manage pain. They have a hospice program. The result is today, the last two years of your life in costs are about $13,600. The last two years of your life at UCLA are $58,000. Now, why should Medicare pay $58,000 for the same outcome if it could pay $13,600? You can say, well, Los Angeles is more expensive; they do a couple of more complicated things. So fine. So let’s say it ought to be $20,000 at UCLA. That’s still [$38,000] less than it currently is. … We don’t think the politicians can ever fix this because the hospital lobby is so powerful, and the doctor lobby is so powerful, and the pharmaceutical lobby is so powerful, and the medical technology lobby is so powerful… And we also know — this is the great irony — the best places in America are always less expensive than the worst places. Health is not like jewelry and automobiles. In jewelry and automobiles you pay a lot more to get a lot better. In health, because the best places do it right the first time, they do it very efficiently, they pay real attention to quality, they’re actually less expensive than the places that are bad.""

8/12/2009 7:06:09 PM

Quote :

"Medicare wasn't created to control costs. It was created because old people weren't being accepted by private insurers and they couldn't get employer based coverage because they couldn't get jobs. Basically, it was created to solve a problem that the private sector was either unwilling or incapable of taking on itself."

Can you provide a citation for this?

8/12/2009 7:33:18 PM

Quote :

"Also, another major issue with Medicare is over diagnosis, which is how doctors get around lowered reimbursement rates: they just charge for more shit that isn't necessary. "

Thats not just a medicare problem. Private insurance has to deal with that too. The only difference is, when private insurance denies payment, the provider bills the rest to the patient. The patient then whines that his health insurance doesn't cover everything. The result are plans for governement insurance that will either have to cover everything (like medicare) or have to deny claims. My guess is they'll just pay for everything.

Quote :

"Honestly, if that's your view, than no health care reform will ever work. This is the sort of defeatist attitude that maintained the status quo for so long and put us in the mess we are today. "

Oh please. You're going to bitch and bitch and bitch about congress being in bed with big oil, but when it comes to big healthcare theres no fucking possible way anything dishonest is going on?

Lets take a look at Max Baucus. This dude is the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and is pretty important to this whole debacle. Of the 11.6 Million dollars he got for his 2008 re-election fund, only 5% came from his home state of Montana (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106655060). 1.1 MIllion of which came from the healthcare industry (http://blog.sunlightfoundation.com/2009/06/22/the-max-baucus-health-care-lobbyist-complex/). If you read the articles further its pretty evident that hes owned entirely by the healthcare industries and his constituency isn't even a consideration.

So dont give me this shit that healthcare legislation is somehow pure and sacred above all else and cant be bought.

8/12/2009 7:38:26 PM

ok

8/12/2009 7:49:24 PM

http://pamshouseblend.com/diary/12467/

Quote :

"A protester at Rep. Brad Miller's "town hall" meeting in Raleigh, NC compares Obama to Hitler and says Democratic reform legislation will make people "55 and older will not be allowed to have hip replacements" and other surgeries. She also echoes erroneous claims that the legislation will allow government "grim reapers" (Sarah Palin's alleged "death panels") will tell the elderly to "take a pill and just die." She also bemoans the fact that she "was accosted by a woman who was Jewish."

8/12/2009 8:23:13 PM

8/12/2009 9:00:20 PM

Quote :

"The public option is meant to raise the bar to a point that allows competition, but excludes 20% overhead and massive profits."

So, it makes competing more difficult, by raising the bar, then makes it even harder by doing so at a lower price... What do you think that will do to the private sector?

Quote :

"[I advocate price controls] Through competition, yeah sure."

I hope you didn't say that with a straight face... That's like saying "I advocate fair umpiring by allowing the teams to pay the refs before the game."

Quote :

"This is how it's going to control the costs health care."

It's going to control the cost by doing more of the problem? Whaaaaa? The whole fucking PROBLEM with the system is that the negotiating power of insurance companies is forcing doctors to raise prices so that when they get their 25% of the stated price they can make ends meet. How is allowing the gov't to put the bar at 10% gonna help any? All it will do is force private insurers to pick up the tab, the way people who currently pay in cash do now. Then guess what happens? The private insurers go out of business. How is that "price controls through competition?" That's an outright gov't takeover!

Quote :

"Who said anything about price fixing?"

Maximum reimbursement rates? That's effectively price fixing.

Quote :

"The government isn't forcing anyone to do anything, they are just creating a competitive environment"

Competitive environment? By running everyone else out of business? Give me a fucking break.

Quote :

"Right now, they charge whatever they want because insurance companies can just raise premiums to cover them."

False. Right now they set their prices based on what insurers and Medicare will pay them back. It's a classic business move, only in a perverse way. It's akin to a company raising the price of something to offset for a new gov't tax.

Quote :

"Government intervention isn't necessary in other markets because most of them do a pretty good job of keeping prices in check on their own."

The irony is that most of the other markets do such a good job precisely because there isn't such massive gov't intervention.

Quote :

"Basically, it was created to solve a problem that the private sector was either unwilling or incapable of taking on itself."

False again. It was created because the gov't made conditions such that no other entity could intervene and stay in business.

8/12/2009 9:21:56 PM

Aaron, have you mastered the ability to determine what is and isn't a strawman argument and what is and isn't an ad hominem?

8/12/2009 10:33:03 PM

Quote :

" negotiating power of insurance companies is forcing doctors to raise prices so that when they get their 25% of the stated price they can make ends meet. "

lolwut?

Doctors are among the highest paid professions, by a wide margin.

8/12/2009 10:41:18 PM

and among the most educated and needed... your point moron? If it took 8 yrs and over 100k to learn to change oil, im sure your oil changes will cost a shitload more than 20 bucks. Yet one insurance reimburses us 25 for an exam. fantastic.

The poster is correct, offices increase the charges they bill to offset further reductions in reimbursement rate.

medicare will look at the average charge for a code per region, then set the reimbursement rate. So despite being paid 60 bucks for a certain code, youll set your usual and customary higher, lets say 100, and bill medicare the 100 even though you only expect the 60. If you billed the medicare rate of 60, you will surely see your reimbursement next year below 60. Its kinda like doctors have a tendency to figure these things out quickly and make adjustments.

Now you might feel this sounds unfair or greedy (buzz word of late). Let me tell you we cannot control our prices, they are fixed more or less. So if gas/energy costs double tommorrow or gradually over the next 6 months. Or the govt mandates some other BS program that adds costs to your overhead, while leaving you unable to adjust for those costs. Every other industry can adjust thier cost of goods sold and charge a higher price. We would either have to lay off employees, which are needed more bc we are having to deal with higher volumes, or we simply go out of business bc our income is fixed. Because even though the power company might send a 300 dollar bill, if we paid them our reimbursement rates and send them 100 bucks, they turn off your power. Its the only way to have SOME control over your income.

The other way, as someone has mentioned already, is to run more tests. Thus doing two things, increasing revenue per patient (since we jsut cant bill more and get paid more) and it covers your ass from suits. Now before you start foaming at the mouth about doctors doing unneeded tests to simply get more money. That isnt true either, only certain tests are covered for certain diagnosis and it has to be coded correctly and the number of tests per diagnosis is limited per year. fyi

8/12/2009 11:07:16 PM

dont these unemployed pothead hippies have anything better to do with their days? i'm sick of my tax dollars supporting these fuckers while our buddies die face down in the mud so these hippies have the right to spew their ignorance.




oh wait....

8/12/2009 11:07:40 PM

Quote :

" and among the most educated and needed... your point moron?"

The point was that, as aaronburro wrongly indicated, doctors aren't the victims in this story.

8/12/2009 11:15:35 PM

smackr, have you mastered the ability to pull your head out of your ass and actually address the topic of a thread? Looks like you haven't

^ I never painted them as the victim. The notion of "ends meet" was meant to imply "staying in business." Though I can see how you could take it that way.

8/12/2009 11:16:52 PM

moron, I just explained to you why we raise our prices. I dont see where he said anything incorrect.

8/12/2009 11:19:27 PM

here are some average STARTING salaries for doctors. Now school isn't cheap but here are numbers just for shits.

Quote :

"If it took 8 yrs and over 100k to learn to change oil, im sure your oil changes will cost a shitload more than 20 bucks. Yet one insurance reimburses us 25 for an exam. fantastic."

Quote :

"Allergy/ Immunology $158,000 Anesthesiology: General $207,000 Anesthesiology: Pain Management $315,000 Cardiology: Invasive $258,000 Cardiology: Interventional $290,000 Cardiology: Noninvasive $268,000 Critical Care $187,000 Dermatology $ 195,000 Emergency Medicine $192,000 Endocrinology $171,000 FP (with OB) $182,000 FP (w/o OB) $161,000 Gastroenterology $265,000 Hematology/Oncology $181,348 Infectious Disease $154,000 Internal Medicine $154,000 IM (Hospitalist) $161,000 $198,000 Neonatal Medicine $286,000 Nephrology $191,000 Neurology $180,000 Obstetrics/Gynecology $211,000 Gynecology $159,000 Maternal/Fetal Medicine $286,000 Occupational Medicine $139,000 Ophthalmology $138,000 Ophthalmology Retina $280,000 Orthopedic Surgery $256,000 ORS - Foot & Ankle $228,000 ORS - Hand & Upper Extremities $288,000 ORS - Hip & Joint Replacement $330,000 ORS - Spine Surgery $398,000 ORS - Sports Medicine $266,000 Otorhinolaryngology $194,000 Pathology $169,000 Pediatrics $135,000 Pediatrics - Cardiology $145,000 Pediatrics - Critical Care $196,000 Pediatrics - Hematology/Oncology $182,000 Pediatrics - Neurology $175,000 Physiatry $169,000 Podiatry $128,000 Psychiatry $149,000 $169,000 $238,000 Psychiatry - Child and Adolescent $158,000 Pulmonary Medicine + Critical Care $215,000 Radiation Oncology $241,000 $385,000 $787,000 Radiology $201,000 Rheumatology $179,000 Surgery - General $226,000 Surgery - Cardiovascular $336,000 Surgery - Neurological $354,000 Surgery - Plastic $237 Surgery - Vascular $270,000 Urology $261,000"

[Edited on August 12, 2009 at 11:39 PM. Reason : sorry that graph didnt turn out great. but whatever]

[Edited on August 12, 2009 at 11:39 PM. Reason : STARTING]

8/12/2009 11:37:00 PM

How about that fantastic question asked of Obama, posed by the daughter of the head of Massachusetts Women for Obama. Speaking of astroturf

I guess what's good for the goose aint good enough for the gander.

8/12/2009 11:50:09 PM

^ as has been reported through several outlets, 70% of the tickets were given to random people online, and 30% were given to local schools and "political figures."

8/12/2009 11:57:27 PM

and? The question was still a plant.

8/13/2009 12:00:24 AM

^ Yep.



Malden girl to Obama: what about those "mean things" people say about your health plan??

Quote :

"Eleven-year-old Julia Hall asked: 'How do kids know what is true, and why do people want a new system that can -- that help more of us?'"

Quote :

"Kathleen Manning Hall, Julia's mother, was shocked when her daughter said she wanted to ask a question. They wrote it down beforehand, and Julia didn't miss a beat when Obama called on her. 'It was surreal,' said Manning Hall, a coordinator of Massachusetts Women for Obama during the election."

ASTROTURF!!!1

KIDDIE HUMAN SHIELDS!!!1

8/13/2009 12:02:33 AM

Who would have thunk that among the 30% of local political figures given tickets, a supporter of Obama would be there? It defies the odds, I tell you!

8/13/2009 12:04:13 AM

ASTROTURF!!!1



[Edited on August 13, 2009 at 12:21 AM. Reason : DO YOU FUCKING SPEAK IT?!!1]

8/13/2009 12:20:44 AM

What, you think they were going to let those raving lunatics inside to make him answer questions about death panels? Of course it's all going to be soft-ball questions by supporters. He's the president. It was the same way with Bush.

But sure, I guess it was astroturfing.


[Edited on August 13, 2009 at 2:08 AM. Reason : .]

8/13/2009 1:52:04 AM

so, it's terrible for conservatives to plant a question. but when Obama plants a question, it's ok? got it

8/13/2009 6:52:43 AM

so, it's terrible for liberals to plant a question. but when Bush plants a question, it's ok? got it

8/13/2009 7:29:42 AM

I liked the part where burro tried to paint the doctors and insurance companies as the victims in all this. I mean really, doctors struggling to "make ends meet"? That was rich. No wonder the problem has gotten so bad when we have people who think like that.

[Edited on August 13, 2009 at 8:00 AM. Reason : :]

8/13/2009 7:59:29 AM

^^^We're talking about pushing Trillions(that's with a T, like, a thousand billions) of deficit spending over the course a few years here. That much taxpayer spending deserves hardball questions, and not a willingness to take people at their word. If it means being the "raving lunatics" to ask the tough questions and keep the pressure on wanton .gov spending, then good for them.

Too many arguments have been presented here already to just brush off the possibility(probability) that this thing will be a train wreck. Anything of this magnitude requires the utmost criticism and even a little antagonism to keep in check.

8/13/2009 8:00:15 AM

there's a difference between critical (and even harsh) questions and downright lunatic questions.

8/13/2009 8:02:48 AM