Opposition to healthcare

[Raspberry]

There are people who genuinely oppose healthcare reform. Do they have a right to have their concerns addressed? With their party in the minority, what is their option to express their opposition?

I remember when we were in the minority, and the frustration many of us felt while watching SC Justices we adamantly opposed being confirmed, and that's just one example of how the majority can run roughshod over the the minority.

I tried to phrase my question in the most neutral terms possible, so as to get some thoughtful responses.

[John Q. Citizen]

1. They could write a letter to the editor.

[Larkspur]

2. They have a right to express their opiniont, but they have no right to hijack the forums

where healthcare is discussed and pro-healthcare reform advocates have the right to expose the lies, misinformation, distortions and bullying tactics used by the anti-reformists. The Righties who showed up at Rep. Courtney's town hall meeting didn't like listening to those of us who disagreed with them but because we outnumbered them they had to sit through what we said.

[maryellen99]

6. K&R

Someone I went to HS with has cancer and is opposed to Health Care Reform because he doesn't want the politicians telling him what treatment he can get. I hope he realizes if his wife loses her job that no one will insure him.

[blogslut]

7. Instead, he's allowing the insurance company to choose his treatment

Give your friend my well wishes.

[blogslut]

3. Name one

?

[Raspberry]

8. Name one what??? n/t

[blogslut]

13. Name one person that opposes health care reform

?

[Raspberry]

18. Um,

A co-worker. 28 years old. Healthy. Doesn't want to pay any more taxes.

Next question.

[blogslut]

19. Okay, two questions

Have you explained to your co-worker that the Democratic health care plan will only raise taxes on people that make an annual income of $280,000 or more?

Have you pointed out that when your co-worker gets sick (and they will) they will be at the mercy of their profit-based insurance provider?

[Raspberry]

21. A couple of answers

1-I don't necessarily believe that myself.

2-He understands, and is willing to play the odds that he won't get sick.

[blogslut]

23. Why don't you believe it?

The Tax Foundation http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/24864.html">states:

The latest proposal—one of several floated on Capitol Hill in the past few days and the third analyzed by the Tax Foundation since Friday—would impose a surtax of 1 percent on married couples with adjusted gross incomes (AGI) between $350,000 and $500,000 (singles between $280,000 and $400,000); 1.5 percent on couples with incomes between $500,000 and $1 million (singles earning between $400,000and $800,000); and 5.4 percent on couples earning more than $1 million (singles beyond $800,000).

The Tax Foundation released an initial report Friday based on another plan that had been floated that included a 4 percent surtax, as well as an updated report yesterday based on a three-tiered structured with a maximum rate of 3% for couples earning more than $1 million.

"More than three-quarters of the states would face combined top income tax rates exceeding 50% under this latest health care funding proposal," Tax Foundation President Scott Hodge said. "That means government would be taking more than half of every additional dollar from high-income taxpayers. The lowest top tax rate would be about 47%—and that's in the nine states that don't tax wages."

http://www.taxfoundation.org/about">The Tax Foundation is a non-partisan entity, started in 1937.

I'm sorry you don't believe it. I'm sorry your friend acts against his own self interest. Perhaps you're not a fan of health care reform.

[Horse with no Name]

25. I personally know TWO young men in their 20's and 30's

respectively. They vote republican.
The first one--in his 20's--his family is very well off. He didn't marry his girlfriend when she was pregnant because she qualified for Medicaid...and why should he pay for his own kid out of his money when someone else can do it. It's nothing but a pragmatic business decision.:eyes:He doesn't buy health insurance because he is in his 20's and it is a waste of money. Yet he has vowed to protest any type of universal healthcare. He doesn't want his money to pay for others.:eyes:
Now--he has been hoisted on his own petard. Seems like he is in need of a heart transplant. His family (who own businesses in 3 counties) are begging for help because their poor son doesn't have health care insurance (the same son who didn't want to pay for it because he had other things to do with HIS money). It was never a matter of not being able to afford it at any point.
They could readily afford it. They just chose not to. If they were willing to sell their $250k home or liquidate some business assets, they could probably afford the transplant. I have not one ounce of pity for the circumstances of his own doing that he finds himself in.
The second man is in his 30's with 2 small children. Another expensive home. Owns his own business. Again, feels like paying for health insurance is a waste of their money. Their luxury cars and trips and home are a much better investment. That is, until a couple of months ago when he dove into the shallow end of a pool. Let's just say it didn't end well for him and he will need extensive care for the rest of his life (that he will spend in a wheelchair).
Both of these men are republicans. Both were very selfish. They didn't want to pay for their own healthcare, let alone yours.
They would be considered previous to their illness/injury to be freepers. They would both be attending tea parties and screaming "Just Say No" at the nearest rallies.
Good health is not a guarantee. Just because you are healthy today, doesn't mean that tomorrow you won't be turned upon your head with nothing to hang on to.
Your friends are foolish--as were the two I just mentioned. I can't even begin to imagine the costs that will have to be absorbed because of their inability to pay--because they were unwilling to participate in something they could both easily afford--as your friend can.
I'd tell your friend to stay out of Vegas. He needs all his luck outside of the casino.
Oh, I'd tell him he was stupid, too.

[sandyd921]

27. Here's a proposal that won't cost more

but will get quality health care to everyone in the most efficient way possible:

Won’t this raise my taxes?

Currently, about 60% of our health care system is financed by public money: federal and state taxes, property taxes and tax subsidies. These funds pay for Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, coverage for public employees (including police and teachers), elected officials, military personnel, etc. There are also hefty tax subsidies to employers to help pay for their employees’ health insurance. About 20% of health care is financed by all of us individually through out-of-pocket payments, such as co-pays, deductibles, the uninsured paying directly for care, people paying privately for premiums, etc. Private employers only pay 21% of health care costs. In all, it is a very “regressive” way to finance health care, in that the poor pay a much higher percentage of their income for health care than higher income individuals do.

A universal public system would be financed in the following way: The public funds already funneled to Medicare and Medicaid would be retained. The difference, or the gap between current public funding and what we would need for a universal health care system, would be financed by a payroll tax on employers (about 7%) and an income tax on individuals (about 2%). The payroll tax would replace all other employer expenses for employees’ health care, which would be eliminated. The income tax would take the place of all current insurance premiums, co-pays, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket payments. For the vast majority of people, a 2% income tax is less than what they now pay for insurance premiums and out-of-pocket payments such as co-pays and deductibles, particularly if a family member has a serious illness. It is also a fair and sustainable contribution.

Currently, 47 million people have no insurance and hundreds of thousands of people with insurance are bankrupted when they have an accident or illness. Employers who currently offer no health insurance would pay more, but those who currently offer coverage would, on average, pay less. For most large employers, a payroll tax in the 7% range would mean they would pay slightly less than they currently do (about 8.5%). No employer, moreover, would gain a competitive advantage because he had scrimped on employee health benefits. And health insurance would disappear from the bargaining table between employers and employees.

Of course, the biggest change would be that everyone would have the same comprehensive health coverage, including all medical, hospital, eye care, dental care, long-term care, and mental health services. Currently, many people and businesses are paying huge premiums for insurance so full of gaps like co-payments, deductibles and uncovered services that it would be almost worthless if they were to have a serious illness.

The proposal is for a single-payer system. Unfortunately there's not a chance in hell we'll get this now, but I think people deserve to know that there is a better way. Here's where you can learn more about how single-payer would work:

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php

[Texasgal]

34. This co-worker had better

HOPE she/he doesn't come down with a debilitating illness or disease otherwise she/he is fucked.

[tekisui]

4. There is nothing wrong with voicing concern at a public debate.

Trying to shut down the debate with bullying and threatening tactics is not productive, nor should be taken as serious concern. Disruption is different from debate.

Also, anyone against reform is doing the bidding of obscene insurance companies. I don't defend that.

[Echo In Light]

5. Righties love to attempt obscuring the crucial difference therein

[KyleA]

10. If they express honest opposition....

That's one thing. Like "I don't care about others, fuck them if they can't afford it" but stop making up lies like Grandama is going to be put to sleep.

[Echo In Light]

12. And they can espouse their "christian" values all they want, but not over the heads of everyone else

Yet, that's precisely their m.o.

[sandnsea]

9. Any opinion based on FACT is always welcome

And therein lies the difference between even the furthest left wing concern, and even wild ranting expression of that concern - and the nutballs on the right. None of them have even a passing acquaintance with any facts. While the way far code pink left gets facts wrong as well, it is usually only about 10% of their argument, not the entirety of their angst.

[excess_3]

11. please stop the 1994-era type footdragging .n/t

[Warpy]

14. People who have been lied to will have stupid questions

and if those questions are asked in a manner consistent with a civilized meeting, that's fine with me. The questions deserve answers. The lies need to be countered.

However, the hooters are not acting in a manner consistent with a civilized anything. They need to be treated exactly the same way Code Pink has been treated: firmly escorted out of the venue and arrested.

[Strong Atheist]

15. Welcome to DU!

:toast:

[GTurck]

16. Shouldn't opposition...

be an individual thing rather than a partisan one? It seems to me that being against something solely because of the side of the aisle one prefers is liking people because other people approve of them not for their intrinsic value but their agreement with each other. Isn't that sort of un-American? Democracy is only viable when we are not a mindless mob but thinking, evaluating adult individuals seeking some sort of agreement.
As far as I have been able to discern no one has thwarted an expression of opposition. Quite the contrary dialog has been shut down by the right so that no dialog is made.
The biggest worry by John Adams was what he called "the tyranny of the majority" which he equated with mob action. Yes we chafed under the GOP and especially Bush/Cheney but they really did ignore and diminish those who did not agree with their actions. I don't see that in this debate. Lately the minority has been very disrespectful of the majority who want health care reform and not all of whom are liberals or Democrats. That is a huge difference.

[WeCanWorkItOut]

17. I think there's room for civil debate, I think we need more of it.

Please consider just who opposes health care reform: those who oppose this particular reform bill, and those who oppose reform in general.

Of those who are generally opposed, some, such as medical specialists, expect to lose money. Others just don't understand how bad the health care problems are (the "we've got the best health care in the world" crowd). Still others expect, whether reasonably or unreasonably, to lose health care.

Of those who oppose this particular bill, some wanted Single Payer. Some don't like the individual mandate (I myself think it may hurt the near-poor). Some are alarmed by all the concessions that have been made to the drug manufacturers and the hospitals, and fear that this may turn out to be inflationary.

Now I am not happy with this particular bill myself, so maybe I'm biased. But it seems to me that many, even among the most ardent opponents of reform, could be worked with, and could be persuaded into real improvements in our system, given time and better information.

[me b zola]

20. Bullshit

They are not voicing their concerns. What ever "concerns" they have because they have been intentionally mislead, they are further mislead into shutting down any discussion so that they may get correct info.

I'm really so sick and tired of hearing people equate the left with the right. They are not the same nor do they use the same tactics.

[spanone]

22. they could go to town hall meetings and participate in the debate...shouting down is not debate

[Horse with no Name]

24. There is a huge difference

Not that I expect you to see it, you seem to take on the "minority viewpoint" in most instances.:eyes:
I think your name even tells us what you think of us, but I will give this a whirl.
WE had the power to filibuster the SC Justices. Our elected representatives CHOSE not to. Keeping powder dry and all.
Obama has extended his hand to those fucktards more times than I care for him to have done.
Each and every time, they have spat in his face.
But he has extended the gesture...over and over again.
He has given the minority a platform--it is their fault if they do NOT CHOOSE to use it to their benefit and instead CHOOSE to obstruct.
Just a refresher--this is what happened to US when we were the minority.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/6/14/163150/899
>>>snip
In December, ranking Democrat John Conyers (Mich.) began holding "forums" -- gatherings with all the trappings of official hearings -- after Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) refused to hold hearings on topics Conyers requested. The forums have been held in smaller committee rooms, often with C-SPAN coverage and formal witness lists.

In a sign of how far relationships on the committee have soured, majority staff recently announced a new policy to deny any request from a committee Democrat for the use of a committee hearing room.

>>>snip
Sean McLaughlin, deputy chief of staff for Sensenbrenner, recently wrote to a minority staffer in more pointed language.

"I'm sitting here watching your `forum' on C-SPAN," McLaughlin wrote. "Just to let you know, it was your last. Don't bother asking again."

In other words--the REPUBLICANS refused to let our viewpoint be heard...wouldn't have hearings, stifled ANY oversight. So, when the Democrats decided to hold hearings on their own, they couldn't even use a meeting room, the microphones were turned off, AND the lights were turned out.

Can you IMAGINE the faux outrage that would happen if the Democrats even gestured that they were not going to allow them their opinion? Can you IMAGINE the faux outrage that would happen if we relegated them to dark broom closets?
I cannot even IMAGINE the loop to loop coverage of THAT! Yet, I can't even remember a slight peep from the M$M when this happened to Democrats. Not one fucking peep.

We have not "run roughshod" over the minority. Our President and our Congress have almost bent over backwards trying to accomodate THEIR viewpoint a fucking lot more than they have tried to accomodate MINE and have received NOTHING but criticism in doing so.

So do you care to ask ME again if I give a flying fuck about their minority opinion? The answer would be a resounding NO.

[johny344]

26. Curious

Do people have a right to health care?

I know people have the right to seek out health care and acquire health care, but do people have the right to demand health care from others?

[rhett o rick]

28. No matter how you phrase your question, you can't hide the fact that you are a right wingnut.

go away.

[Critters2]

29. +1 nt

[rhett o rick]

30. You are asking if people that want fascism, should they be given an oppurtity to speak out.

I say fuck no. Fascist assholes need to be deported. Get it? Fascist assholes need to be deported.

[rhett o rick]

35. Good grief, if only i could spell. Opportunity. nm

[Critters2]

31. Elections have consequences. nt

[steelmania75]

32. Opposing a public option when you have no/crappy health care is like shooting yourself in the foot

[City Lights]

33. They're free to share their concerns at Townhall meetings.

In a polite, constructive way, of course.

If they can't behave like adults at Townhall meetings, perhaps they should stay home, or protest outside the event. However, they have no right to disrupt the event to the point of shutting it down, so their voices of opposition are the only ones heard.

[BirminghamExaminer]

36. They could go to a town hall meeting and ask the screamers to stop so they can ask a question n/t

[rhett o rick]

37. If there are any people "genuinely" opposed to health care, and I think that they are only in your

right fucking wing mind, they can politely ask their questions like decent humans. But they are not decent humans. They are ignorant puppets of their right wing asshole masters.

Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.