I just can’t get over about the backlash against the people who are exercising their 1st amendment right at these health care forums.
Protests and debates seem to be spun in a much more positive light when it’s a liberal issue.
Protests greet Bush's first speech as ex-president
“More than 100 protesters chanted "war criminal" and flung shoes in Calgary on Tuesday, angry that former U.S. President George W. Bush was in the Canadian city to give his first speech since leaving the White House.”
No backlash about this to be found anywhere in Al Gore’s Internet.
Oh, I see...THIS is a liberal protest so it’s ok. I get it. Because throwing shoes is nowhere near as bad as raising your voice in a town hall meeting.
You can’t suddenly demand more civility when you have acted in the same way the past.
Hello, Pot - Meet Kettle.
Though if you read this article – you can see the rhetoric is the same but the players are different.
Unions Protest Against Bush's Social Security Proposal
“The protests are part of a huge effort that labor has mounted, packing congressmen's town meetings with union members, pressuring investment firms to stop backing Mr. Bush's proposal and collecting tens of thousands of signatures to denounce his call for personal Social Security investment accounts.”
WAIT – you mean to tell me those efforts were ORGANIZED by LABOR?
And now the health care efforts might be organized by BUSINESS?
Health care protests 'clearly being orchestrated,' senator says
“…This is clearly being orchestrated, and these folks have instructions. They come down from a Texas lobbyist in Washington." Sen. Durbin (D)
OF COURSE THEY ARE BEING ORHESTRATED – THIS IS HOW IT WORKS! For the LOVE OF….
Wow, I must be a moron to think that people just magically mobilized and showed up for town hall meetings without a leader?
C’mon people, you are smarter than this. Just because you want government to be all pure and idealistic doesn’t mean it really is. This is how our system works and why it has worked for 233 years. Both sides debate and we don’t go tearing off too far in one direction and we get something that works. Yes, this is coming from someone who wants our government to be teeny. It works sometimes when it’s done right.
It’s sad really. We should be happy that people are participating in the process rather than let 435 +1 (the President) bozos make decisions without our input.
It is increasingly arrogant and for the President and Congress to NOT encourage debates.
You can’t lead by idealism and warm and fuzzies – the people should demand details.
This President is fanning the divisions – by pitting insurance and Pharma* companies as the bad guys and having people come up and tell their one-off sob health care stories. And most importantly, he is fanning these divisions by not giving us ANY details on the actual plan. I've been online for HOURS and can't figure out anything beyond "More of the 15% of people without health insurance will get insurance, and the rich people are paying for it".
For every sob story, there are 1000 people who can say "Um, yea, I pay my premiums every month and when I go to the Doctor my insurance company pays for it and for my pills too...Well, I pay for some of it but not too much when you think about how much it really costs...Funny how that works..."
Are there some problems? Yes. Do we need to do something? Yes? Do we need to do everything and do it fast? No. Do we need to know the exact details on how this will be done, costs, etc...YES.
What is so wrong with that?
I hope the debates get louder until we get a solution that is viable and sustainable without unfairly putting the entire burden on hardworking people who happen to make more money than someone else.
*I also believe (and I am entitled to my opinion, don't yell at me, be civil! hahah) that Pharma companies are being unfairly demonized by people who do not understand how much time, risk and money it costs to discover a new drug.
More than $800 million and 10 years (found on Al Gore’s Internet).
It costs a lot of money to pay for people who are smart enough to do the research, do the research, do the trials, get FDA approval and go to market. I will concede they could spend less on advertising but other than that – the first pill costs $800 million – is it so wrong for a company to have assumed a 10 year almost $1billion risk to charge $400 for 30 days of pills? Most of you will say yes - but explain to me why?
And, generic drugs, which cost less, have a lower standard (set by the govt) of effectiveness. I don’t recall the actual numbers but there is a 10 or 15% swing in how less effective a generic can be compared to a brand name. I recently switched from a brand name ($250 a month to my insurance company and $60 a month for me) medication to a generic ($10 a month) and suffered from a lack of any actual effect and very bad side effects. I prefer the more expensive pill - and I should and will pay the difference. In all fairness, my insurance premiums should go up because I choose the more expensive treatment. I see nothing wrong with that.