36 States Aim to Preempt Federal Health Care Plan -- Politics Daily

No, there is no missing the words "White supremacists", "southern white privilege.", "I say . . . segregation today . . . segregation tomorrow . . . segregation forever." , "white supremacists undermined public education", "Governor Wallace"

Sorry, I didnt miss anything. The seeder made it quite clear he is a racist and a bigot. I cant believe you would even try to defend this race baiting. This thread is offensive on every level.

Mike,

At the risk of upsetting you further, the 'bait' only works if you accept it. Your choice to move on or take up the seeder's challenge. I am defending him because this is America where we allow everyone freedom of speech from this seeder to those who would carry signs that I personally do not like, but will fight you for their right to carry them!

All I am suggesting is that instead of attacking him, attack his premise on the issue and show him why he is wrong. Is that not a more civilized approach than a back and forth of who can say the worse thing about one another? Should not someone play the grown up and choose to discuss the issue or simply ignore the comments?

I find it interesting that for you it is clear that this is about race and race alone. I think it is about a comparison of how a division of PEOPLE (in the pass colored and presently political partisans) are struggling again with how to find common ground. I do see the parallels. It made people attack one another verbally, constant threats of violence, propaganda spread, obstacle were put in place. Wallace would be a Limbaugh and Boehner would be Strom Thurman. Your perspective for me points to how much our interpretation is a personal matter, but the key is to figure out a compromise.

I am not trying to upset you and I hope you beleive that.

Mike I was not calling you out...or I did not think in those terms. I thought I was paying you a compliment by believing you capable of making an argument on the topic INSPITE of the rhetoric.

The comment you highlighted was not meant to define you as anything. I have not heard a single thought from you that implied to me that you were/are a racist. What I think is that we too easily do not separate the issue from the person. That is what I was trying to say when I said "...race and race alone."

I also find it interesting that you seem to believe my views determine my color. What is that about? If I try to see something from this person's perspective, I must be of his color? Are you saying that no person could see things from another culture's perspective?

In the end Mike, You are who you are (meaning all of us). Some will work all angles to bridge the cultural divides and others none at all and even others falling at various points in between. I choose to try to see things from various perspectives. Sometimes I get it and other times I don't. I promise you my goal was never to upset you, yet it seems I did. I know folks come here and get caught up in the 'fight to be right' that so much that we block everything else, every possibility out. I try not to do that and so yes I am trying to understand his perspective and to some degree, I do see how he might make that connection. It is fair even if not accurate, it is fair, in my opinion for him to do so. But I won't debate this with you further Mike. Instead i assure you I respect your views as well. My apologies for poorly chosen words.

I conclude the only reason you are upset is that I am revealing the strategy that is being employed to vilify Health Care

Im upset because you use race to try justify some people being against health care.Whatever arguments you had are irrelevant. Your just a bitter, black racist, using race as an excuse for everything.

Nice try "Doc" your just a racist plain and simple.

Do you harbor disdain for uninsured Americans?

No, not at all. I was once uninsured also. Then, I took my ass back to night school while i worked. Improved myself, got a better job, and Guess what "DOC"??? I can afford my own healthcare now for me and my family. Its magic man.

I know that is repulsive to you. taking responsibility for your life. You do realize thats how most "White supremacists" do it, you know, they bust their asses and work for it and earn it.They dont go around saying their entitled to anything, they dont want nothing free, they wanna earn it.

Thank you for that statement. I did not grow up during that error but I have seen films. I know it does not do history time frame justice in the eyes of those who lived and suffered through that era. Tell me if I get it:

In both situations:

A tradition was about to change and people feared it greatly. They assumed that the betterment of a segment of America would cause the downfall of their own and anger grew out of that fear. Instead of rational discussion, every took to what they saw as their own best interest while people like King (then) and Obama (now) tried to reason with them to a no violent conclusion. People carried signs and made derogatory comments. White folks made threats and carried weapons. Am I close?

Back to the subject of Health Care...

You know I think almost every issue that we have in this country centers around FEAR. One of the biggest fear seems to be the possibility of equality. I think people believe that without power over others that they lose. I also think there is something to be said about why other countries do not like us. They watch how we treat one another. Those in power have consistently forced the weak out and just the color of his skin has made them rethink who we are (thus the more favorable ratings these days). Still, they watch how we respond to his leadership. They see that the bottom line is that we were ready to choose a minority for leadership, but in what appears to be as an image instead of a leader. There is no desire from either side to work with him wholeheartedly. It seems to me every decision is made via the calculation of will it get me re-elected.

That also speaks to the power of the people. DO we have a voice when we vote? Or is it just a ritual as we hear what we want or what they want us to to the point that when honesty presents itself, we are cynical.

I wrote on another post that I wanted some to explain why Obama was a "Liar and Chief" and all I got was angry rhetoric. I am new to this and I have found that no one who s to discuss issues yet. They only want to argue how I have wronged them by asking or suggesting we evaluate the topics that made us write and post on the topic. I can tell I will not last long as I have no interest in that. This could be a valuable/useful tool if we could just get past ourselves to learn what divides us so we can better our relationships.

I like President Obama. I like how he appears patient. As I define bipartisanship as accepting the best solution no matter the party as oppose to gaining a vote, I see him has staying true to his promise. I am not a kiss up, I was not pleased with the transparency issue though his excuse was plausible and he did hire lobbyist (though that is not a deal-breaker for my trust). All financial bets were off when I learned of the problems upon his arrival and I have seen the games played by nearly all media sources. I do think they should take sides...they should just report and drop all the pretend analyst and strategists. Or give equal time then fact check. Instead, they have a word of the day(s) trend and hide behind phrases like: According to blah. blah, blah, the President is jamming this bill down Americans throats. I have taken to Jon Stewart because his jokes often reflect how I felt when I watch Soap News.

Okay, I binged...please forgive me, but I REALLY NEEDED THAT!

Are there statistics to support Blacks disproportionately benefit from medicaid/medicare than others?

Numerous, look them up. Compare black's access to healthcare before and after Medicare and Medicaid. Simple math, blacks have a greater percentage living in poverty and with lower incomes and assets then other Americans, they will disproportionately benefit.

My understanding of the health care cuts is that it does not reduce the service. It cuts what is available in the service

Health care is not insurance. Cuts to hospitals and the government programs that keep hospitals solvent obviously reduces service. Look at this year alone. Have more hospitals closed or have more hospitals opened? The law still is that Medicaid recipients must receive the same standard of care as a person that pays out of pocket. That law was not changed, just the money given to the providers of care.

Sounds to me like the 4 million jobs this plan is said to create, may be accurate base on the numbers of newcomers.

The President also said that his scheme won't cost America anymore money. Have blacks heard the term 'Malarkey'? If hospitals are Today cutting jobs and not hiring, let alone closing down, then where are these 4 million jobs coming from? On what future date is today's situation supposed to change? Tell me a single possible way even a half a million jobs providing actual health services will be created within the financal constraints that the President has repeatedly claimed exists for the Democrat's plan?

Hi JAVE!

Thank you for the response. I enjoyed reading your comments. I asked you a question hoping that you could support your claim and your response was to tell me to look it up. When I hear that kind of argument (and it seemsto always be the prevailing one from every person who opposes the bill/President), it says to me the person I am asking is clueless beyond his/her guessing and is relying on imperfect opinion to convince others. But in all fairness, you did say at one point you were guessing.

I have no interest in a tug of war over an issue with anyone who does not bother to support what they are saying while I do respect everyone is right to speak despite showing they're are factually ignorant (freedom of speech and all). I just prefer to point that out as it tells those who are looking for more substantial information on the issues(s), that these people have none to offer. For people like me who would appreciate a discussion where others bothered to do a little more than rant showing a genuine knowledge of the topic would really have been nice. For me, it doesn't matter not if you are for or against the President or his plans because you would have shown your interest was for a better America and not just someone who wanted others to think they had something of importance/relevance to add when they were simply empty repetitive rhetoric. You would find me respectful and eager for an opposing view that made me rethink my position had you had made that effort. THAT is what a good discussion should be about in my opinion.

I can't tell you if Black people have or have not heard the word marlarkey, but as they are intelligent and live in the same as I do, I suspect they have heard that word. Anything less than beleif that they are lost on this discussion sounds to me like an insult to their intelligence to be honest with you. So, I suspect they are paying attention and can tell who is giving them malarkey for themselves. They have the same ability to think as you and I thus, can recognize what serves their personal interests just as much as anyone. I would no more insult their intelligence by assumption as I would by making statements about them as factual without providing evidence to support it. That would in my opinion be demeaning.

Admittedly, I don't know the statistics on Blacks access, but as I did not make that claim, I can just as easily say you are in error and ask you to prove me wrong by going and looking it up. Do you not see how childish that is and how it just weakens any argument? I think it wouldbe interesting to learn the results of a poll asking this segment of Americans if they support the President's plan that you and some others imply will effect them in a negative way. Of course, I have no idea, but I would guess, the number of support for the plan/President would be high! I say that based on the newly- elected leader of the NAACP, Roslyn M. Brock, 44, a Health Care Executives, is correct in her claims on the topic as seen last week on CSPAN and CNN, (I think they both occurred on 2/21/10) as she implied their (NAACP) overwhelmingly supported the bill and the President.

You also asked me about jobs. Well, it seems to me the argument about cost and jobs is indeed a valid one. So first, let's talk cost. According to the CBO report, a non partisan/independent source, which is the significant point for my paying them attention, the President's plan is indeed cost effective. Now I do not believe you or I or many others quite frankly, have or will crunch the numbers, so I accept their views of it as being cost effective. I can tell you the report is on line if you want to read it (PDF though). :-(

You also asked me to explain how as even a half million jobs providing actual health services would be created within the financial constraints that the President repeatedly claimed exists for the Democrat's plan? Where to begin? Well, I first see a need to remind you that the plan contains Republican ideas as well so it is not a Democratic plan. It may not have their votes, but the plan is a blend of all suggestions. Now more to the point. I have watched the President discuss this just as you say you have and it is astounding to me how we can both watch and hear different words. You claim here that he spoke of constraints that would hinder growth? I heard him say it would create growth. The field would need new medical employees in enormous numbers! It will require more doctors, nurses, medical technicians. I heard our records would be placed on computers making it unnecessary to redo test already done or having information available at a touch for a patient from say another state and unable to speak. I heard the preventive care will offset the emergent care tremendously. It seems it cost us all less to have a child with a upset stomach visit a doctor's office instead of an emergency room. It also is cost effective to treat diabetes at the start instead of at the point of amputation or blindness. I could go on but what would be the point if I have not said enough already. Yet, I will close with this...perhaps it is a more of an moral and ethical question for me. If I had to choose between saving a life of paying to keep them alive. I think any answer is fair depending on your value of human life. For me, no money is worth another person's like. That's not a party line answer...it's just who I am. Thank you again for giving me much to think about.

I have read through the bill a couple times and found so much of the claims against it to be unfounded, I would guess, like me, these leaders, and perhaps Blacks have bothered to do the work and concluded what is in their best interest all without you or my input

Like every American I have not been able to read the bill, simply because an actual bill has not been passed yet. I do not believe the cost estimates I heard reflect the true costs involved. Nothing in these proposals gives money to expand hospitals or the professionals and staff that care for patients. The bill is silent regarding the billions of dollars needed just to stop this year's hospital closings, let alone expand to care for millions more people.

I guess black or white we'll find out how it turns out, come what may.

JAVE-

You write to me that you can not read the 'bill' as it has not passed yet? In the same paragraph you say "The bill is silent regarding the billions of dollars needed just to stop this year's hospital closings..." So, it is not a a bill when you want to be snarky and a bill when you are trying to make a point? You admit you have not read it, but I should respect your opinion of what it does and does not address financially? I guess we can go rounds if we both wanted to on HR3200 is a bill or not. That's simple...count me out. For me, and me alone, that would be silly and childish. HR3200 is the information that is in question and it is what was voted on Christmas Eve and it passed. I know it is the bill that will be tweaked by the House and Senate which is what ALL AMERICANS are discussing today in terms of what to expect from health care. As for its financial validity, your admissions made the case for me to dismiss you as a viable source for an opinion on the topic.

By your own admission you do not know we have a bill. You do not know what is in that bill. Yet you do not understand how people of color could draw a conclusion as to how it effects them? I guess I should not be surprised. After all, if you did not bother to read it, and have a mindset that no other American bothered to do so, you could actually believe that people who state they are for it are like you in terms of educating themselves. That in my opinion, is quite presumptuous and absurd. I will say again, I read the bill and I know others who read the bill and I suspect that those you question also read the bill. So perhaps you need to consider that the reason some of us seem to be of the opposite mindset from you on this issue. It's because we bothered to learn what was in the bill before we took a position.