Okay, the election wars are beginning. The health care propagandists

[Cleita]

are arriving on DU with the usual scare tactics against health care reform. These are paid operatives from the for profit health care lobby. All we can do is rush all their negative posts with facts, figures and website links. We had a posse here before that we alerted each other when a thread needed facts and dissemination of Harry and Louise type tactics. However, some of the most fervid posters are no longer with us because illness and deaths have diminished our ranks. I'm asking anyone who is interested in health care reform to indicate that they are and who don't mind being PM'd if an offensive thread needs attention. Sometimes one or the other of us have tried to keep these operatives at bay alone and it gets very tiring when you are doing it alone. Thanks for any help. Here's an example of such a thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3408401&mesg_id=3408401

[Skittles]

1. or are they just people who don't care for Obama's plan? n/t

[trotsky]

2. No way! Paid operatives! You cannot be a Democrat and have different ideas!

I'm series!!!111!

[Cleita]

6. I didn't know different ideas involved fear tactics and ad hominem attacks. n/t

[trotsky]

7. You mean like calling others propagandists and paid operatives? n/t

[Cleita]

8. I called you nothing of the sort, nor anyone else.

I spoke in generalities because it is a know fact that paid operatives lurk and sometimes post at these boards. If in fact someone is repeating right wing talking points, whether deliberately or because they have bought into the argument, it should be pointed out to them. They should know that if they are not such an animal that they appear to be one because of the language they use, for instance talking about the Democrat Party instead of the Democratic Party. I think you will agree that anyone who says that will be called on the carpet about it. This is no different.

[trotsky]

9. Didn't say you called me those.

But you used the terms, and linked to a thread. 2+2.

How about letting the facts decide the debate instead of labeling someone with those? Innocent before proven guilty and other crazy outdated ideas like that?

[Cleita]

10. Well, since I can't trace their ISP's which is how other websites

do it, all I can do is look at the M/O, which I have been following for a decade now in regard to health care even before DU was founded and attempt to get the perpetrators to out themselves. It's crude I know but effective. If it looks, walks and quacks like a duck, most likely, it's a duck. This issue and poverty are very important to me and I won't let these lobbyists from the insurance and HMO industry spread their misinformation if I can help it. "Business first above all considerations" is not my mantra and as far as I am concerned this attitude is ruining our country. I'm one small elderly woman trying to set the facts straight and it's all I have to offer, so sue me.

[LeftishBrit]

17. While I agree with your views on health care...

and as a citizen of a country which has had a national health service for 60 years, am sometimes startled that there could be much question about it,

I still doubt that lobbyists post or pay others to post on DU!!! They could achieve much more by lobbying members of congress, or getting their arguments into the wide-circulation media.

[Cleita]

20. There is proof. Thom Hartmann the radio host has stated on the air

that the web masters of his message board have uncovered evidence of operatives who were paid a small amount per word, sometimes ten cents, sometimes other amounts, to internet posters by special interests to post their talking points on left wing messsage boards. The people who do this are publicists hired by various lobbies and think tanks usually connected to conservative causes and corporate health care and big PHRMA interests. I really wish some investigative reporters would go after this story and uncover the whole dirty business. I had articles bookmarked in the past where some reporters have attempted to uncover this, but like all real news, it gets buried and ignored. The links eventually get archived or scrubbed so it's really hard to pinpoint right now but that doesn't mean it's not true.

[Cleita]

4. No, they aren't objecting to Obama's plan.

This is the main objection to the Obama plan as framed in this article:

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2008/june/obamas_health_care_.php

A remarkable thing just happened in the people’s party. Democrats have chosen a candidate, in the year 2008, who does not have a plan for universal health coverage. Barack Obama caresses the words “universal coverage” almost hourly, but his proposal offers nothing of the kind — unlike the plans of Hillary Rodham Clinton, John Edwards and other Democratic hopefuls.

Most striking, the man who showed such timidity on health care became the hero of ardent progressives. So forgiving was their love of Mr. Big that they virtually abandoned what should have been the Democrats’ most potent promise: medical coverage for all.

This is political opportunity lost. In a new CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll, 49 percent of registered voters list the economy as their No. 1 issue, with the Iraq war second at 19 percent. Health care comes in a close third at 14 percent.

Make no mistake: A universal health-care system is an economic as well as social imperative — the idea that in a rich country, no one should go without medical care. The lack of one hurts Americans’ ability to compete with foreigners whose governments have controlled national health-care costs and achieved better average medical outcomes through their national systems of universal coverage... more at link.

These objectors are framing fear. "It's gonna cost so much." "It's gonna destroy our infrastructure." "Sick people are going to overload the system because they didn't go to the doctor when they didn't have health insurance." These are all Harry and Louise fear tactics. Also, I read Obama's plan and I don't find it that different from Hillarycare or for what John Edwards proposed, but even these plans are not satisfactory to the health insurance industry because they know under those plans they won't be able to cherrypick whom they insure. They won't be able to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions and they are going to have to keep their premiums competitive with a government run health plan that will be offered to employers and individuals if they can't purchase a private insurance plan.

[dropkickpa]

3. What?

How moronic can this shit get? Just because people aren't blindly worshipful of a candidates plan does not mean they're evul plants from the big bad healthcare industry. I still haven't seen you answer the questions asked of you. Maybe you're a plant! RAG@WEED!!!!! RUN!!1!!!1!

[Cleita]

5. So far I haven't seen any real questions to answer but plenty of

ad hominem attacks from a camp that doesn't have a reasoned argument to present me.

[dropkickpa]

11. You didn't answer the posters question in the thread YOU linked

How is the proposal going to save 50% of costs? The bill doesn't give that number, but you seem to have inside info. But, instead of giving an answer on how exactly that 50% is going to be saved, you immediately jumped to the "yer a healthcare/repug/pharma/big business plant" rant when confronted on it.

[Cleita]

12. For those who are really not interested in discussing the problem by reading

about it and must be spoon fed, let me try this. Unfortunately, it involves a link so please be patient with me.

http://www.healthcare-now.org/hr676.html

HR 676 Would Reduce Overall Health Care Costs

Families Pay Less
A study by nationally recognized economist, Dean Baker, of the Center for Economic Research and Policy concluded that under H.R. 676, a family of three making $40,000 per year would spend approximately $1900 per year for healthcare coverage. Currently, (in 2007) the average annual premium for families covered under an employee health plan is $11,000. (National Coalition on Health Care.)
Business Pays Less
In 2005, without reform, the average employer that offers coverage was contributing $2,600 to health care per employee (for much skimpier benefits), or 217.00 per month. Under HR 676, the average costs to employers for an employee making $30,000 per year will be reduced to $1,425 per year; or about $119.00 per month.
Baker's study reported that HR 676 would reduce health spending in 2005 from $1 trillion, 918 billion dollars to 1 trillion, 861.3 billion dollars, which translates into a saving of $56 billion in overall health care spending while covering all of the uninsured. This is a 3% reduction in over-all health care spending.
Proposed Funding For USNHI Program:
Maintain current federal and state funding for existing health care programs; employer payroll tax of 4.75, an employee payroll tax of 4.75; establish a 5% health tax on the top 5% of income earners; 10% tax on top 1% of wage earners, 1/3rd of 1% stock transaction tax, closing corporate tax loop-holes; repeal the Bush tax cut for the highest income earners.

What part of health care expenditure being reduced from $217 and month to $119 a month or almost half don't you get? Also, we can include all the uninsured for less than $56 billion a year than we are now paying for health care and having uninsured and underinsured not included.

[Skittles]

15. get used to spoon-feeding, Cleita

I myself am too tired to do it

[dropkickpa]

18. Why did you not post this info

in the other thread in response to the other poster? Instead, you avoided answering the questions and wandered off into tinfoil hat land, clucking about some conspiracy and calling names, accusing posters of being plant/shills/whatever.

I honestly don't care one way or the other if you came up with an answer for me, I was just wondering why you didn't do it in the first place rather than accuse a poster of being a shill of some sort.

[Cleita]

21. I did post the links.

No one read them and that is the problem. If you don't read them and make up your mind for yourself, what I say is nothing.

[antigop]

13. Thanks, Cleita. Want to know how to combat the anti-single-payer advocates?

Ask them, "Why do large companies self-insure?"

Answer: Because it's cheaper.

[Cleita]

14. Thanks for the suggestion.

:hi:

[LeftishBrit]

16. While I've been a bit shocked at some of the right-wing sentiments expressed...

I really doubt that health insurance lobbies and the like would pay people to post on DU!

[Cleita]

22. Read my post #20 to you. n/t

[Sadie4629]

19. Um . . .

UHC, like any public policy, CAN and SHOULD be debated.

Lots of people have good reasons for opposing UHC, in every form that has been proposed. To deny them the right to express dissent is highly, um, undemocratic.

[Cleita]

23. I would love a debate but what I'm getting is snark.

It's predictable BS RW code, talking points and not very original. It's been around since Hillary Clinton proposed a national health plan the first time around. It's intent is to protect the insurance, HMO and big PHRMA industries with scare tactics, misinformation and when that doesn't work insults like calling people names, oh let's say calling them foolish for instance for even imagining that they could be right about this.

[dropkickpa]

24. Cleita, this whole thread was started as snark

NOT discussion. Your OP title starts off as conspiracy stuff and the post goes downhill from there. What you are seeing as snark is a reaction to that. If you had posted a thread asking for debate on the topic of healthcare for all with specific reference to the proposals, you'd get debate. Start a snark thread, and you'll get snark. Seems pretty simple to me.

[Cleita]

25. It was started as an appeal for people who want meaningful health care

to help me diffuse the disinformation about this matter being spread by people whose interests are not those of reform but to cast doubt on that reform. I don't need to post threads because other posters are coming in with the talking points that come from that camp and stirring up flame arguments. I have started many threads in the past with factual information as how NHC works. Those threads die because the disruptors don't post on them because they can't come up with a good debate. Disrupting is what they do. When they say it's going to cost too much to reform and that we need is means testing and that tax credits will solve the problem and many, many other scare tactics, these talking points have been written by the health care industry. When I put up information that challenges these notions, I do not get informed debate but snark. Sorry. That's the way it is. The best informed of our DUers who were able to "head them off at the pass" are no longer with us because they are victims of our health care system. I'm asking for new ones in the Health Forum where it used to be okay to find like minded individuals. What you are really saying is that I'm not articulate enough for you and that probably is true. I am neither a health care professional nor a professional blogger but I will be damned if I let these lies spread either at DU or elsewhere.

On edit, I have a challenge for you. The next time I come across one of these threads that are suspect, I will PM you to join it. Maybe you can show me that a debate can be had with one of these disruptors. If you are able to then I concede but those propagandists cannot be allowed to spread disinformation on this very critical matter. I know of three DUers that have died because they didn't get needed and critical health care because our for profit health care system failed them. I have known many others outside of DU who died unnecessarily and without humane end of life care because of our system.