Do the Republics not realize their talking points were so obvious?

[AlBell]

.... you hear the same phrases used incessantly. Like I said above, a lot of people put the clips side by side revealing the same message word for word being repeated as often and it can be fit into a discussion. Do you think these folks all decide on their own to use the same phrases on the same days over and over? Of course it's coordinated.

Those truthful memes just have a life of their own.

Doncha love 'death panels'?

 

[Ziggurat]

You missed the joke, didn't you?

His point, of course, was that just caling something "health care insurance " does not mean that it will get you treated for a major illness, and that is the kind of "insurance reform" that the GOPers are trying to sell us.

Small problem, lefty: it wasn't a joke. He portrayed the situation as if he had actually been screwed over by his insurance company, when nothing of the sort happened. He just had no clue about what he bought, and that it was entirely his own fault.

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't think you got the point of that comment by Obama. He was pointing out that mandatory insurance was not a novel idea.

Wow. You couldn't be more wrong. He said nothing resembling the point you tried to make. And if you wanted to make the point that mandatory insurance was not new, then why the hell would he tell a tale in which that mandatory insurance supposedly bites him on the ***? That's not exactly a selling point for mandatory insurance, is it? No, his point was entirely to demonize insurance companies, but the real effect is just to expose his own ignorance because he didn't know the difference between liability insurance and collision insurance, as well as his sense of entitlement in assuming that he deserved something he never paid for.

And BTW, mandatory car insurance is an entirely different beast. It's only mandatory if you want to drive on public roads, and driving on public roads is considered a privilege, not a right. You don't get to drive unless you meet the conditions set by the state. Want to avoid paying insurance? Simply don't drive on public roads. But with the proposed mandatory health insurance, you're being forced to buy insurance not as a condition of choosing to do something you have no intrinsic right to, but simply because the state demands it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Those truthful memes just have a life of their own.

Doncha love 'death panels'?

That one especially pisses me off. Anyone who wants to really understand what the Republics have falsely called a death panel should take the time to hear Keith Olbermann's very emotional rant on the subject. His father has been in ICU for about 6 months battling one infection after another after a colon resection. I used to work in ICU. Olbermann's description is right on. Palin should go to hell for that lie, if there was a hell. Such a hypocrite!

You can find the piece here under 2/24/10 "An American Cry for Help".

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...

And BTW, mandatory car insurance is an entirely different beast. It's only mandatory if you want to drive on public roads, and driving on public roads is considered a privilege, not a right. ....

So the fact uninsured people use free care in any ED in the country and those costs are shifted to paying patients doesn't give the government the right to make those people pay their share of the costs?

If you can put aside in an escrow fund the amount it will take to pay that charge should you incur it, and sign an agreement you won't join a health insurance plan only when you need to use it, or if you do your premiums will reflect the drain which you are again asking be shifted to paying patients, then you should be able to refuse to buy the insurance.

 

[Drysdale]

You mean the talking points memos?

They've been exposed a number of times during Bush campaigns and the Bush years. People leaked the memos. And a whistle blower on Fox News disclosed morning meetings when the editorial talking points of the day are discussed. Newscasters then repeat the phrases throughout the day.

Frank Luntz's work is also common knowledge.

Then of course there's the outcome, you hear the same phrases used incessantly. Like I said above, a lot of people put the clips side by side revealing the same message word for word being repeated as often and it can be fit into a discussion. Do you think these folks all decide on their own to use the same phrases on the same days over and over? Of course it's coordinated.

Huh? No I mean the memo where the meeting was solely to discuss republican ideas.

I thought it was supposed to be an open exchange of ideas and to discuss what improvements/modifications could be made to the HC bill.

I've never heard of a meeting where only one side is expected to give their ideas. That is a lecture, or a presentation. In which case the dems would'nt have needed mics right?

 

[Malerin]

I'm surprised some of you expected anything substantive to come out of this "debate". All this was was political theater to make reconcilliation as palatable as possible.

It won't work. Democrats had a super majority, control of the presidency, and couldn't enact a core principle of their own party , even with outrageously appaling payouts and "deals". They are unable to govern.

 

[Ziggurat]

So the fact uninsured people use free care in any ED in the country and those costs are shifted to paying patients doesn't give the government the right to make those people pay their share of the costs?

You didn't get it at all. If you want to argue that the government has the authority to mandate health insurance, then make that argument. You are free to try to do so, and I never suggested otherwise. But you cannot claim that the arguments used regarding car insurance will work for mandating health insurance, because of the critical differences I outlined above. The situations just aren't equivalent or even similar. So not only was your defense of Obama's car insurance tale ridiculous on its face (it is obvious he wasn't trying to make the point you suggested), he would be wrong even if he was trying to make that point. Which, again, he wasn't.

 

[novice skeptic]

Edit: Nevermind, we'll agree to disagree

 

[Ziggurat]

Anyone who wants to really understand what the Republics have falsely called a death panel should take the time to hear Keith Olbermann's very emotional rant on the subject.

This line fascinates me. I think it reveals a lot. Not about health care, but about you. You talk about understanding, but how do you actually describe the thing which you think will bring understanding? Not "informative", not "well-reasoned", not "well-argued", not "logical", not even "persuasive". You describe it as an "emotional rant". And I am forced to conclude that you describe what you want people to watch in this way because you consider that description to be a positive portrayal. What you want people to understand is not the facts, not the logic, but the emotion, because that's what matters to you.

Simply fascinating.

 

[tyr_13]

This line fascinates me. I think it reveals a lot. Not about health care, but about you. You talk about understanding, but how do you actually describe the thing which you think will bring understanding? Not "informative", not "well-reasoned", not "well-argued", not "logical", not even "persuasive". You describe it as an "emotional rant". And I am forced to conclude that you describe what you want people to watch in this way because you consider that description to be a positive portrayal. What you want people to understand is not the facts, not the logic, but the emotion, because that's what matters to you.

Simply fascinating.

Zig, you're better than a stupid dodge to avoid acknowledging the death panel lie by focusing on the words 'emotional rant'.

 

[Ziggurat]

Zig, you're better than a stupid dodge to avoid acknowledging the death panel lie by focusing on the words 'emotional rant'.

My post actually had nothing to do with the "death panel" issue. I wasn't defending the term, nor am I interested in trying to. It's not a dodge to not discuss something that's irrelevant to what you're interested in. My point was purely about Skeptic Ginger's posting, and what seems to motivate her. Now, do you have any comments about what I actually said, or do you just want your opinion of "death panels" to be known?

 

[tyr_13]

My post actually had nothing to do with the "death panel" issue. I wasn't defending the term, nor am I interested in trying to. It's not a dodge to not discuss something that's irrelevant to what you're interested in. My point was purely about Skeptic Ginger's posting, and what seems to motivate her. Now, do you have any comments about what I actually said, or do you just want your opinion of "death panels" to be known?

Yes. Simply because something is an emotional rant doesn't mean it is devoid of valid points. If it is a rant based on emotion however, than yes, it probably isn't a useful rant.

Speculation on the motivation of a poster is sometimes useful, but here it is little more than ad-hom. Skeptic Ginger was addressing a point, that being the death panel talking point, and directing people to a 'resource' (I haven't vetted that source yet) about it. I fail to see how speculation of her motivation is relevant when her point is seemly valid. It would seem that attacking her for choosing the words 'emotional rant' is supposed to be a defense of the death panel thing. You claim that it is not such a defense. So, what was the point? Just to attack another poster? To give reasons to be skeptical of the source? To aid Skeptic Ginger in honing her argument perhaps?

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes. Simply because something is an emotional rant doesn't mean it is devoid of valid points.

Which might be relevant if I was talking about what Olbermann said. But I'm not. I'm talking about what Skeptic Ginger said. I find it interesting that she would choose the words "emotional rant" to characterize something she thinks is persuasive, and use those words to convince others of the value of watching the video.

I fail to see how speculation of her motivation is relevant when her point is seemly valid.

In a sense it's not relevant to her point. But I'm not prohibited from introducing new points into the discussion, am I?

It would seem that attacking her for choosing the words 'emotional rant' is supposed to be a defense of the death panel thing.

Well it's not.

So, what was the point? Just to attack another poster?

To suggest that, contra her OP, she isn't actually engaging in nuanced, fact-based analysis while the republicans are just sloganeering.

To give reasons to be skeptical of the source?

If you (generically) aren't already skeptical of Olbermann, then either you've never encountered him, you haven't paid attention, or nothing I say would make any difference anyways.

To aid Skeptic Ginger in honing her argument perhaps?

I suppose my post could function that way, and I don't mind if it does, though that's not really my concern.

 

[Spindrift]

I am amused by the assumption that the Democrats are simultaneously the party of the working class and the party of smart people. Gallup used to have polls that showed that the Democrats got a higher percentage of the vote from high school dropouts than they did from high school graduates, and a higher percentage of the vote from high school graduates than from college graduates.

I think you're reading or remembering that poll incorrectly.

According to CNN in 2008:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1

only 4% of the all voters were "No High School" and 20% were high school grads (the rest had at least some college.)

76% of voters had a least some college and Obama won 52% of them.
He got 58% of those with a postgradudate degree as well.

 

[Ziggurat]

I think you're reading or remembering that poll incorrectly.

No, he read that poll correctly. He didn't point out that democratic vote increased for those with post-graduate degrees, but except for that last category, the percentage voting democrat decreases with each step up in education, not increases. The post-graduate thing indicates that the relationship between education and politics is not simple, but it's clearly not a case of educated people voting democratic and uneducated voting republican. Democrats got a larger percentage of the votes among those with no high school degree than among any other category.

 

[tyr_13]

Which might be relevant if I was talking about what Olbermann said. But I'm not. I'm talking about what Skeptic Ginger said. I find it interesting that she would choose the words "emotional rant" to characterize something she thinks is persuasive, and use those words to convince others of the value of watching the video.

and

In a sense it's not relevant to her point. But I'm not prohibited from introducing new points into the discussion, am I?

I find it fascinating that you choose to focus on this. Is it prohibited to speculate on what that might say about your motivation? I mean, if your new point of a discussion is to talk about the posters motivations, that couldn't be an ad-hom right? Now why would someone want to talk about the choice of the words 'emotional rant' when the point was the death panel meme?

She described it as an 'emotional rant', I'm assuming, because that accurately describes it.

Well it's not.

That's good.

To suggest that, contra her OP, she isn't actually engaging in nuanced, fact-based analysis while the republicans are just sloganeering.

And you choose to do this, not by refuting any points she has brought up, but criticizing the choice of wording in a description. One would think that a fact-based analysis would be the most useful tool to point out the lack of such in the 'opposition'.

If you (generically) aren't already skeptical of Olbermann, then either you've never encountered him, you haven't paid attention, or nothing I say would make any difference anyways.

I don't actually pay attention to Olberman.

I suppose my post could function that way, and I don't mind if it does, though that's not really my concern.

Obviously it isn't, which is sad, because you're not presenting a good counter.

It is interesting that you chose a nitpicky pseudo-psychological analysis of word choice rather than the actual content of the argument. In fact, you've said that you aren't talking about the actual content of the argument at all. This is doubly interesting because there was actual content in the post you've analyzed contained what you've asserted was missing. Perhaps not 'nuanced' but still there.

 

[Ziggurat]

I find it fascinating that you choose to focus on this. Is it prohibited to speculate on what that might say about your motivation?

Of course not. But if your speculation is wrong, I'm going to tell you it's wrong. If Skeptic Ginger is interested, she is free to come back and tell us why she said what she said.

I mean, if your new point of a discussion is to talk about the posters motivations, that couldn't be an ad-hom right?

Surely you aren't suggesting that any speculation about the thought processes of other posters constitutes an ad hominem attack. That would be as ridiculous as claiming that such speculation can never be.

Now why would someone want to talk about the choice of the words 'emotional rant' when the point was the death panel meme?

Because it's interesting to me, as I already said. So unless you want to claim I'm lying, the reason was already made explicit. When have any of us needed any reason other than "it's interesting" to post about anything here?

She described it as an 'emotional rant', I'm assuming, because that accurately describes it.

I don't doubt it. That still leaves us with the question of why she thinks that an emotional rant is the most persuasive argument she could find, and why categorizing it as such is the best way to advertise its persuasiveness.

And you choose to do this, not by refuting any points she has brought up

No, tyr. I've done that too. I refer you to earlier posts in the thread, in particular #43, 63, and 68.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You didn't get it at all. If you want to argue that the government has the authority to mandate health insurance, then make that argument. You are free to try to do so, and I never suggested otherwise. But you cannot claim that the arguments used regarding car insurance will work for mandating health insurance, because of the critical differences I outlined above. The situations just aren't equivalent or even similar. So not only was your defense of Obama's car insurance tale ridiculous on its face (it is obvious he wasn't trying to make the point you suggested), he would be wrong even if he was trying to make that point. Which, again, he wasn't.

Twisting the facts to fit your reality, Zig?

Which are you complaining about, the fact the Democratic Party wants to impose mandatory insurance coverage whether it's paid for by taxes or by required purchases or a fine? Or are you only complaining about a particular comment Obama made in the meeting and you don't have an issue with mandatory insurance requirements?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

This line fascinates me. I think it reveals a lot. Not about health care, but about you. You talk about understanding, but how do you actually describe the thing which you think will bring understanding? Not "informative", not "well-reasoned", not "well-argued", not "logical", not even "persuasive". You describe it as an "emotional rant". And I am forced to conclude that you describe what you want people to watch in this way because you consider that description to be a positive portrayal. What you want people to understand is not the facts, not the logic, but the emotion, because that's what matters to you.

Simply fascinating.

It's really simple, Zig. The false claim about death panels is just that, a false claim turned into a talking point and repeated incessantly until people such as yourself lost track of what the original issue was. But those of us in health care who knew before all this what the issue was, a simple paragraph in a Bill that allowed health care providers to be reimbursed for having end of life discussions with people so when the time came they didn't end up with futile life saving measures, have not forgotten what the original issue was.

And Keith Olbermann, going through the long and painful death of his father also knows what the real issue was and what the phony talking point lie was. And if you'd take a few minutes to actually hear about the real issues, you'd be less likely to be fooled by the talking point lie.

That is unless you are in on the lie. So which is it? Do you believe there was ever a real measure to implement death panels or are you aware it was a lie but you choose to participate in it?