Peter Heck - columns - Try Some Tea

Archive

Subscribe to this blog's feed

2009 Articles

Saturday, September 19 2009

Try Some Tea

The hedonists have a phrase that simply says, "Don't knock it 'til you've tried it." Not normally one who would embrace or advocate such a philosophy, I have found myself repeating the phrase quite frequently to those who are tempted to criticize the pro-freedom TEA Parties that are sweeping the country.

For the most part, I don't fault critics of the parties for their skepticism. Indeed if all I knew about the events was what was portrayed in the mainstream media - racist, ignorant, bitter, old, white folks who hate change of any kind - I'd steer clear of the party myself. But that representation of this movement is about as accurate as it would be to call ACORN a model of civic virtue.

The message of the TEA Party movement is a simple one: freedom works best. Thanks to the wisdom of America's Founding Fathers who made our government completely reliant upon the consent of the people, those in Washington can't take our liberties away unless we let them. As a result, power hungry politicians work overtime to generate a climate of panic and exploit every problem as a crisis that needs an immediate government solution. The dirty little secret being that with every government solution we consent to, we hand them more power over our lives.

By design, the policies they propose always sound wonderful - save the planet, insure the masses, stop obesity. But the devil is in the details: to save the planet we must let government tell us how much energy we can consume; to insure the uninsured, we must let government tell us what procedures and operations we can have; to end obesity, we must let government regulate what kind of food businesses can sell.

The TEA Party movement is about reminding people that government was intended to protect your freedom to earn whatever you want for yourself. But the moment you begin believing that things should be given to you, accepting the political game of "whoever promises me the most things gets my vote," and adopting the entitlement mentality that regards all good things as your "rights,"...you transform the role of your government from one that protects your freedom to one that controls it.

Central planning has been tried repeatedly, promising to end poverty, insure health, and bring about the kind of equality where no one lived in a mansion while others lived on the streets. And the consequence was that everyone (besides those in power) ended up on the streets. It doesn't work. What works is freedom.

Some have wrongly assumed that these TEA Parties are the creation of the Republican Party and unfairly target Democrats. First of all, the thought that the staggeringly incompetent national Republican Party could organize something like this is laughable. Secondly, to suggest that the events are anti-Democrat relies on the absurd assumption that there aren't any Democrats who still believe in freedom.

Yes, these TEA Parties are protesting the leadership of Pelosi, Reid, and Obama.but not because they're Democrats. Rather, because the policies they are advancing are meant to deprive us all of our freedom (economic and otherwise).

Many of the Democrats who attend these TEA Parties see them as an outlet for their frustrations. Having witnessed the outrageous deficits of the George W. Bush years, they voted for change. And the change they got was to see President Obama double down on Bush's big-government, freedom-limiting approach, and multiply his deficits ten-fold. That isn't change. It's the same, sad, steady, sorry march to government growth we've been experiencing for two centuries.

The core motivation behind this movement is simple: we don't want our legacy to be the generation that let freedom in America slip from our grasp. We don't want to look back on the once great United States, and say, "Wasn't it wonderful when we were free? It's too bad we couldn't get over our Republican/Democrat party obsession to notice when our leaders were stripping us of our freedom, and stopped the revolution before it was too late."

For 230 years, patriots have defended that core principle of the Constitution that we have a duty to "preserve the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity." In other words, we have a responsibility to ensure that those who come after us get the same opportunity we had to freely pursue happiness.

Despite the misleading reports from a state-run media, that is what this movement is about. So I challenge the skeptics: try some TEA. You might be surprised how inspiring the message of freedom still is.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 10:06 pm | Permalink | 88 Comments | Email

Comments:

What is most frustrating is the label of racism being thrown about. By calling us that, the accuser can disregard our complaints. They don't have to defend their big-government agenda, or study the Founding Fathers. We are also concerned with taking care of each other. We simply believe that local communities are better equipped to do it than a cenralized government. By the way Pete, we have been under the Constitution for just over 220 years! ;)

Posted by vcamatt on 09/20/2009 17:18:49

It amazes me how a politician gets away with plunder. The politician convinces the one that has been robbed that he has done a good deed, and gets his vote. That's like picking someone's pocket, convincing him that he did his community a service by allowing his pocket to be picked, then asking him for more money and getting it. Wake up, people! We can do a better job of taking care of the needy in our community than Washington can.

Posted by vcamatt on 09/20/2009 17:24:57

BAH! Nice catch, Matt. I could correct it...would that be cheating? :-)

Posted by peterheck on 09/20/2009 21:06:50

The problem with racism is that we can't categorically brand people racists, but on the other hand, can't pretend racism no longer exists. Having voiced my opposition to affirmative action many a time with many a liberal, I know how the race card is used to derail arguments and to discredit people. It's sad. A great example would be the Gates incident. Is it legal to yell at an officer in your own home? Legally it is. Regardless of whether or not the cop was a racist, Mass law defines disorderly conduct to be more than simple verbal abuse. This was the bottom line, but we never got there because the news could NOT GET OVER RACE. Annoying.

Posted by N. Gavelis on 09/21/2009 16:46:15

While politicians sometimes lie, elections never and polls seldom (unless done by Fox). Obama will get Health Care passed and enacted because he has the votes and enough support from the people. Tea Partiers don't have votes and represent no more than noisey minority. Change came with the 2008 elections and the call of "Yes we Can" is now "Yes we are" Sorry guys

Posted by Lew on 09/21/2009 17:03:12

I remain amazed that such a large number of America's citizens refuse to acknowledge the dangerous edge that freedom has approached. Sure, America is not going to become a dictatorship overnight - I hope - but the types of policies being proposed by this Congress & Administration are all about collectivist control. History keeps demonstrating that this leads to not much good. The foundation is being laid for totalitarianism, and it matters little whether it begins as benevolent dictatorship or not.

Posted by ChucksChants on 09/21/2009 21:37:38

I know you Lew. You know me. That's all I will say because I don't want to jeopardize our friendship. I am so disappointed in your position regarding Obama. I am no Republican fan, but I am a freedom fan. Heck is right in this column. I am one of those Democrats that wonder what happened to our call for civil liberties, withdrawal from the Middle East, and being the party that represents the little man. It's sad what has happened to our party. It's even sadder that you are supporting it.

Posted by B.R. on 09/21/2009 22:19:47

I disagree, Lew. If the votes were there, this health care proposal would have passed months ago. The votes simply aren't there and moves in one direction or another pulls people from opposing camps. Many politicians are starting to read the TEA leaves and see that the general populace is not happy. An unprecidented presidential media blitz after months of development of a bill originally intended to be rammed through congress is indicantion that there's real trouble with the bill, not real strength.

Posted by Asburystrider on 09/21/2009 22:26:49

Here's an excellent link describing the state of the health care bill based on polling analysis. The bill in its current form is in a lot of trouble. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2009/09/polling_on_health_reform.html

Posted by Asburystrider on 09/21/2009 22:44:52

Concerning the TEA Party movement, N. Gavelis has written, "I believe the tea partiers are well-meaning but sorely misinformed and misguided. They are being used a tool by political operatives and healthcare lobbyists to keep the status quo." In addition to its complete lack of plausibility, this is a particularly hypocritical platform coming primarily from the organizations and political party that has rounded up faux protestors to staff its functions for decades.

Posted by ChucksChants on 09/22/2009 08:37:52

I draw attention, for example, from the 1960s political movements in San Francisco. Guess which political party would call upon Jim Jones for support in political rallies, elections, and media coverage? Aww, c'mon someone... take a wild guess! I know that it's an out-in-left-field shot, but let's take a wild swing at... the Democrat party. Yep, I know it's a big surprise to everyone, but Democrats in San Francisco were enamored by the instant support they could get just by ringin' up good ol' Jimmy Jones.

Posted by ChucksChants on 09/22/2009 08:38:43

Have a political rally to fill up? Call Jim Jones. Have a protest march? Call Jim Jones. Need some extra votes? Call Jim Jones. Like a miracle (I don't know what term Democrats use since they are enamored with atheists, too), the streets and polls would be filled with willing souls from the Peoples Temple.

Posted by ChucksChants on 09/22/2009 08:39:31

****** After the tragedy at Jonestown, Temple members revealed to the New York Times that the Temple arranged for "busloads" of members to be bussed from Redwood Valley to San Francisco to vote in the election.[41] A former Temple member stated that many of those members were not registered to vote in San Francisco, while another former member said "Jones swayed elections."[41] Another former Temple member stated of Jones that "he told us how to vote." [41] She stated that Temple members were required to produce booth stubs to prove that they voted, and members that could not produce such stubs were "pushed around, shoved and physically abused."[41]

Posted by ChucksChants on 09/22/2009 08:41:49

When asked how Jones could know for whom they voted, the member responded "You don't understand, we wanted to do what he told us to."[41] ("Peoples Temple in San Francisco," wikipedia -- much more content there) ****** Jim Jones' political fans included Jimmy & Rosalynn Carter, Willie Brown, George Moscone, Harvey Milk, Walter Mondale, Jerry Brown, and others. Intriguingly, Jones also had relationships of varying degrees with the Symbionese Liberation Army, the Nation of Islam, Angela Davis, and the American Indiana Movement - all extremely radical 1960's groups & movements.

Posted by ChucksChants on 09/22/2009 08:42:33

As we all know from history, Jones was completely psychotic or something. He was extremely good at luring folks into his cult, and he was extremely good at putting on a good front to gullible civic figures. His manipulation skills were remarkable. But that is not the major point. The significant reality is that while Democrats at the local, state, and national levels could impress the press (another historical gem here) and boast of large numbers of supporters, what they really had were brainwashed "zombies" who were simply following the orders of their beloved leader to be wherever and to chant whatever. They had no vested interest in the issues in which it appeared they supported.

Posted by ChucksChants on 09/22/2009 08:43:39

Now, today, there are those with the gall to accuse Americans opposing this Orwellian health care of numbly and blindly following the "drum beating" of "talk show hosts," "well-financed special interests," or big pharmacy companies. Give me a break! Democrats are calling in organized labor units, ACORN (or whatever they are now), and other "community organizers" to "keep the peace." If Jim Jones was still around, guess who would be giving him a call, too?

Posted by ChucksChants on 09/22/2009 08:45:08

One of the most glaring errors in attributing the TEA Party movement to "talk show hosts" is that none of those hosts are seeking political office through which they could impose their personal policies upon an unwilling public. They are simply making public what they know about the issues (for instance, actually reading the draconian bills being brought before and voted on in Congress) and letting the public decide what conclusions to draw.

Posted by ChucksChants on 09/22/2009 08:50:22

That's a far cry different than having our elected President tell us that it doesn't matter what those folks outside his window are saying - or what the bills being voted actually read - because he is going to pass them. Just out of curiosity, who is addressing these issues from the framework of freedom and who is addressing them from the framework of totalitarianism?

Posted by ChucksChants on 09/22/2009 08:53:55

Gee, Lew, did you express those same sentiments from 2000-2008? Or did you, perhaps, oppose some policy proposals coming from the federal government during that time frame?

Posted by ChucksChants on 09/22/2009 08:57:00

Lew is right, BR. A Pew poll showed that something like 3 out of 4 Americans support some kind of public option. Obama is doing what the majority wants - he is not caving to special interests or the loud minority. He is also not settling for the status quo, which as you can see is abyssmal: http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/health/spend/cost_longlife75.gif

Posted by N. Gavelis on 09/22/2009 10:46:52

Specify the "staus quo" to which you refer.

Posted by ChucksChants on 09/22/2009 12:05:46

My gosh, NG. Do you actually do any research or do you just spit out facts you BELIEVE to be true? According to the most recent Pew Research poll: 42% Favor ObamaCare, (29% Strongly Favor) 44% Oppose ObamaCare, (34% Strongly Oppose). There was a recent Daily KOS poll which stated that 2/3 people (not even close to the 3/4 you're suggesting) supported a public option, but the Poll was HIGHLY oversampled in democratic districts and demonstrated horribly flawed methodology. We can disagree on opinion, but let's at least be honest with the facts.

Posted by Asburystrider on 09/22/2009 12:45:06

Here's the problem(s) with the life expectancy point. 1. We have one of the heterogenous populations in the world which lends itself to a considerably larger percentage of genetic disorders and health problems. 2. We have as much of a lifestyle problem as we do a health care problem. Diet, exercise, and lifestyle habits have as much or more of a factor to play in life expectancy. American's don't live the healtiest lives. Those seeking health care tend to get excellent care despite their poor lifestyle. 3. We have a very violent and a very mobile society. When you factor out violent crime and automobile accidents, we have the HIGHEST LIFE EXPECTANCY IN THE WORLD.

Posted by Asburystrider on 09/22/2009 13:01:43

There certainly are things we can do as a society to improve life expectancy, but there's a reason why people come to the US to receive quality care and not the other way around.

Posted by Asburystrider on 09/22/2009 13:02:30

It is worth taking notice when even George Stephanopoulos challenges President Obama on what is and is not a tax, and that, yes, public "option," government-mandated health care is a tax.

Posted by ChucksChants on 09/22/2009 13:19:26

I'll post the poll I was talking about when I get the chance, Strider. It wasn't about favoring/opposing Obamacare - it was specifically about the public option.

Posted by N. Gavelis on 09/22/2009 15:20:12

Now time for me to fact-check you: (1) Heterogeneous populations do not lead to birth defects - it's homogeneous populations that do. This is a rule of thumb in medicine/biology. (2) WE TOTALLY AGREE! SAVOR THIS MOMENT! (3) Your last scenario is a joke. If you factored car crashes and violence out of ANY first-world Western country, they would have the highest life expectancy in the world! That's kind of like saying, "hey let's just pretend heart attacks don't exist." It's just silly, even as a thought experiment.

Posted by N. Gavelis on 09/22/2009 15:29:37

Yes, we have the best doctors in the world, but that's because we have the BEST MED SCHOOLS in the world, not because we have the best healthcare system. There are three doctors in my immediate family who will vouch for this. Question, strider: Are you satisfied with the healthcare system in this country? Would you like it to stay the way it is? I work in a healthcare, the legal end not the clinical end, so this issue is of interest to me.

Posted by N. Gavelis on 09/22/2009 15:34:40

And what is quality care when you don't have access to it, either because you don't have insurance, or because your own insurance uses a loophole to stiff you? Medical problems were behind two thirds of bankruptcies in 2007. Two thirds! I am surprised that you've get to give even a nod to the problems with the healthcare when it is such a looming, undeniable, indefensible problem in this country. This is not something I have "faith" in - I see it everyday at work.

Posted by N. Gavelis on 09/22/2009 15:43:45

And now what you've been waiting for, Strider. It was an AARP poll, not a Pew Poll, that found that FOUR OUT OF FIVE Americans support the public option. So yes, I was wrong - support for the public option was LESS than I reported. :) Of course, this is just one poll. Google around for other polls on the public option and you'll see it is supported by the majority. Sorry to steal your thunder, bud.

Posted by N. Gavelis on 09/22/2009 15:57:56

I'm sure that you can drag out your anecdotal support for limited/lack of access, but so can I. As I wrote elsewhere, I have visited patients in ICU care all across the income spectrum from poverty to no financial problems/burdens. Haven't seen one whit of difference in access or care. There may be issues of care that differ from hospital to hospital or even physician to physician, but no denial because of finances. Those who could not pay prior to treatment simply aren't going to pay. So how much are you willing to chip in for them?

Posted by ChucksChants on 09/23/2009 10:54:09

Well, here's another "moment to savor" as we express close agreement concerning the improper behavior of some health insurance companies. Here is where your nonsense about "status quo" fails miserably because conservatives - certainly this one - would like nothing better than to see changes in the system (I refrain from using "health care" system because health care appears not to be the issue when silly rhetoric is stripped away).

Posted by ChucksChants on 09/23/2009 11:02:46

When given the chance, alternatives to bad companies will arise. It may be a new company offering traditional forms of health insurance, or it may be new ways of sharing risk. There are already several of these newer innovations in place. Are you familiar with them? At any rate, most, if not all, of these bad comapnies are being given a pass by our government (and I am being very non-partisan here; this has gone on regardless of the majority party).

Posted by ChucksChants on 09/23/2009 11:07:06

Plus these bad companies are being given a pass by the public. Why? Because they can work in obscurity. The basic insurance rating companies also fail miserably. Independent market research firms, such as Weiss Market Research, alert both the public and government to these issues. Unfortunately, much of the public does not know of them, and the government chooses to ignore them, even though they receive their testimony. Go figure.

Posted by ChucksChants on 09/23/2009 11:11:46

Opening the markets instead of impeding them will hasten greater equity of availability and service. It won't be perfect, but I contend with the evidence in place that it will be a lot better than the collectivist command economy you favor.

Posted by ChucksChants on 09/23/2009 11:15:06

First, I'm right on the heterogenous populations issue. The problem is that when you have two people who are too genetically dissimiliar, you are more likely to have genetic issues surface. Any true evolutionist would agree. What you are talking about is inbreeding which is a problem in and of itself. But this isn't the whole story either. When you have a more diverse population, you have a wider variety of health issues surface. It's more taxing on the system and a casulty of demographics more than a poor system. Second, I'm glad we agree on something here. The point being that another external factor (lifestyle) has more to do with life expectancy than the health care system itself.

Posted by Asburystrider on 09/23/2009 11:40:58

Of course I'm not factoring out violent crimes and auto accidents in ONLY the US. That would be an unfair comparison. Of course you compare apples to apples. Factor out violent crime and accidents for ALL countries and you find that they are disproportionately found in the US. It puts US life expectancy at the top among industrialized nations. You can call it bogus. I call it a legitimate consideration.

Posted by Asburystrider on 09/23/2009 11:46:47

Now to your questions. Your first question is actually two in one. Am I satisfied with care in the US? 100%. This weekend I was watching football at 4 PM. By 8 PM I saw the delivery of my first child. When Canada is facing a ten month waiting list for doctors and I can go from sitting at home to having a child in a matter of four hours with phenomial attention from medical staff, it tells me care is excellent. Am I satisfied with the system? No. There are a lot of problems with the system itself. Just because I don't agree with ObamaCare doesn't mean I believe the system doesn't need reform.

Posted by Asburystrider on 09/23/2009 11:57:39

There are all sorts of things that I would like to see changed. There's too much regulation in the industry, too much litigation, and too much abuse. I've worked on both sides (patient, clinician, and provider) in the health care field and I've seen all of this. I spent half my time doing nothing but paperwork to cover my hind end and justify services. Does this bill provide TORT reform? No.

Posted by Asburystrider on 09/23/2009 12:55:54

It's a government program. What's most laughable about this is the justification from the Medicaid/Medicare persepctive. President Obama says he can cut $500 million of waste/abuse/fraud from these programs. 1. If there's this much waste/abuse/fraud currently in the system, why is this not dealt with NOW? 2. If there's this much waste/abuse/fraud in the system is this really supposed to be a consolation that an even bigger program will be the answer? 3. When did uncovered waste/abuse/fraud become the piggybank to fund other programs?

Posted by Asburystrider on 09/23/2009 13:01:57

As I mentioned before, I've worked on both the patient and clinical end of the health care industry. I see it everyday at work. I'm surprised that you've yet to give even a nod to the problems of government intervention into the healthcare industry and the detrimental impact to an imperfect system. And as far as your AARP poll goes, it was conducted by a political operative group that ADVERTISES itself as agenda driven. These guys are in the business of pushing agendas, not fact finding. Sorry to steal your thunder, bud.

Posted by Asburystrider on 09/23/2009 13:09:06

I have found numerous references to the results of the aarp poll, but not the poll itself. What did the poll state? Anyone?

Posted by ChucksChants on 09/24/2009 08:07:46

Included in the results of the aforementioned poll is the reality that fewer than 40 percent of those responding can even define what "public option" means (UPI, 8/26/09; Denver Post, 8/26/09). How does that contribute to meaningful poll results? Might be like the folks who sign petitions to ban hydrogen dioxide.

Posted by ChucksChants on 09/24/2009 08:18:20

GretaWire,9/24/09: "The Senate Finance Committee Democrats (except Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas) are REFUSING to put the Senate Finance committee health care reform bill on the Internet so we -- yes, that includes you -- can see it. What are they hiding? What are they afraid of?" This is where I begin to wonder, just a little, where those with such a profound trust in government control and command economics find a basis for their trust.

Posted by ChucksChants on 09/24/2009 13:52:39

Just had an interesting experience with government-related health care. I am an authorized participant in the Veterans Administration (VA) system. (So how dare I express opposition to other government run health care? Well, VA eligibility is a benefit I earned and not an entitlement I receive. I expect my previous employer to live up to its promises, just as anyone else expects his/her employer anywhere else to live up to its promises. Note also that the purpose and scope of medical care through the VA is narrowly defined.)

Posted by ChucksChants on 09/24/2009 16:02:08

Anyway, I recently have been put on a prescription for which I make a copayment. I discovered that this medication is available through civilian pharmacies for less cost to me than my VA copay. So I called to request a written prescription so that I could get it in town instead of through the VA. I was told, politely & civilly, that prescriptions made through the VA system must be filled by the VA system. If I want to receive the medicine from another source, I need to get a prescription from a non-VA doctor.

Posted by ChucksChants on 09/24/2009 16:06:59

I am not making a complaint about the VA system here; I have been rather impressed overall with the care I receive, but it is appropriate to note the level of bureaucracy that a VA participant must deal with in order to navigate the system and receive care. Even though I can save myself money by getting my medicine at a different pharmacy, I am not allowed to do so if I remain within the system for this prescription. This is merely one instance.

Posted by ChucksChants on 09/24/2009 16:12:01

I have had my doctors tell me that they would rather prescribe a different medication than they do but it is not available within the VA formulary. It's not that what they do prescribe does not work; it's just not their preference. Also, quite a few medications in the VA formulary are available only in stronger doses than prescribed because it cuts costs to stock less inventory. The veteran is literally trained on the use of a pill splitter when he/she enters the system. I take a medication that I split. It's no big deal for me, but how many Americans really want to be forced to take such actions so that money can be saved on government-run health care?

Posted by ChucksChants on 09/24/2009 16:21:52

If these few examples are experienced already by those who are benefit eligible for government-run health care, then what will it be like when all of America is routed into a governemnt system as delineated by the current bill in debate? Do proponents of public options and government-run health care really know what they are going to be getting into? As indicated by the aarp poll, I suspect not.

Posted by ChucksChants on 09/24/2009 16:22:22

With all the hoopla over the size of the crowd at the DC TEA party, I want to point out that the preparation for the protests did not include much of a beefed up security. It's not too hard to figure out why... the demographic of the participants - mainly conservatives I'm guessing - indicated that there would be virtually no trouble. And there wasn't.

Posted by ChucksChants on 09/24/2009 18:49:41

Fast forward now to Pittsburgh & the G20 conference. I just watched the report on how many thousands of law enforcement & National Guard troops have been activated for crowd control. And they're not there to control the everyday citizens. They are there to control the protestors. There have already been acts of vandalism. Night & day difference between the two types of protests, yet who do the Democrats fear the most? This is speaking volumes, folks.

Posted by ChucksChants on 09/24/2009 18:50:13

All I can say is that when Medicare was on the hill in the 60's, conservatives rolled out Ronald Reagan who called it socialism. Where would our seniors be without it today? Most in bankruptcy and living their last days in poverty. If there is anyone in this forum who thinks Reagan was right, you are either very young or have never taken care of aging parents or a fool. Right B.R.?

Posted by Lew on 09/24/2009 19:08:50

As a side note to B.R. I have always been a strong supporter of Obama. I could disagree with you more. I rarely discuss politics publicly because many people cannot segregate politic from the rest of their lives. I can and do. It pains many to hear the rudeness replace decent political discussion. The result is people like Joe Wilson. If he shouts that from the gallery, he is escorted out. Should a congressmen behave better than John Q. Public. Conservatives say no.

Posted by Lew` on 09/24/2009 19:25:53

Hey Lew. Yes, Reagan was right. Freedom would have been a much better solution. We wouldn't be dealing with the mess in Medicare right now that even Obama's administration recognizes it to be. The curious thing to me is how the same folks who recognize the mess of Medicare now want to expand that mess to the rest of the population. Without question, Reagan was right.

Posted by peterheck on 09/24/2009 19:36:37

Your next course of action, I'm guessing, will be to tell me that I want to deprive seniors of their healthcare. Not so. I recognize that Medicare has created a great number of dependents that now rely on the system for their survival (this is exactly the intent of socialism - make people dependent upon you, and you ensure your complete control of them). The best course of action now would be to begin phasing out the system making people responsible for themselves. Instead, the socialists in D.C. want to expand it. And why not? More control for them.

Posted by peterheck on 09/24/2009 19:39:01

Chuck, the AARP poll was conducted by Penn, Schoen and Berland Associates, and there's a good reason why you can't find the poll. Normally I wouldn't criticize the source, I would examine the facts, but finding the facts in this case is a bit tricky and the source shady. Here's direct quotes from the front page of their website: "Penn, Schoen and Berland Associates is a market research and consulting firm with over 30 years of experience that specializes in bringing the lessons from the political campaign trail into the corporate boardroom to give our clients the strategic insights they need to beat the competition - WINNING KNOWLEDGE" Yeah, that's an objective "polling" agency. *eyeroll*

Posted by Asburystrider on 09/24/2009 19:48:22

Peter, Seniors have a higher satifaction with Medicare then the rest of us have with our private insurance. Medicare and VA are socialized medicine that work my friend. I would guess that you don't have immediate family 65 and older. Without medicare the generation that fought WW2 would be living each of their last days in fear of the cost of their health. Reagan was wrong and so are you. We even can't agree on the basics of Medicare. That is sad that you are that far out of the mainstream.

Posted by Lew on 09/24/2009 20:11:30

The assumption by proponents of a command system economy is always that the price of goods and services would have followed the same path in a market economy has it has in a command economy. This is, of course, quite a false assumption as any basic economics course can demonstrate. As soon as something like medicaire/medicaid burst upon the scene, there was an immediate upward pressure on prices as more money (taxpayer funded) chased after the same limited goods and services.

Posted by ChucksChants on 09/24/2009 21:12:51

Let's make this simpler. You attend two auctions, one with 10 people in attendance, the other with 100. If the auction items are equivalent at each, which auction do you think will result in higher bids? Or you are at an auction and someone comes in and hands everyone an extra $100 in "free" money. What do you predict will happen to the bid prices? Or, more realistically, someone comes in and gives $100 in "free" money to half the participants. Now prices will go up, but not everyone will be able to participate as well.

Posted by ChucksChants on 09/24/2009 21:17:35

However, if the "free" money had not entered the picture, prices would have responded accordingly. On top of this, add the cost of layers of bureaucracy and fraud. Try as they might, no government yet has been able to prevent the natural laws of economics from imposing itself into any system. The ulitmate result of the government controlled command economy is misery for its citizens. PS I'm certainly open to considering contrary evidence.

Posted by ChucksChants on 09/24/2009 21:27:05

Some more interesting details about the aarp public option poll cited on this page. First, the majority of those polled also responded that they want neither higher taxes nor insurance premium increases to cover the cost of public option coverage. Yet, according to the policy makers who want to implement the public option, higher taxes (or some type of government mandated fee) and higher premiums (because private insurance firms will be forced by government to underwrite more costly policies) are exactly what they plan.

Posted by ChucksChants on 09/25/2009 07:16:35

The results of this poll are unhinged from any logical reality. Eight out of ten respond that they want a public option, but fewer than four out of ten can define what a public option is. Similarly, six to eight out of ten do not want to bear any additional costs for a public option even though they favor it. Second, UPI reports that the poll "surveyed 1,000 adults." From this poll, reports are made that "8 out of 10 Americans say they favor a public health insurance option." Maybe, just maybe, this might be a case of inadequate sampling. (UPI, 8/26/09)

Posted by ChucksChants on 09/25/2009 07:17:05

Lew said something that really bears repeating: Seniors have a higher satifaction with Medicare then the rest of us have with our private insurance. Medicare and VA are socialized medicine that work. Funny how conservatives consistently overlook the socialist measures that benefit them. Reagan was wrong in lots of ways, not least in supporting terrorism and opposing democracy when it was convenient (Iran Contra). Also (and this one's tongue in cheek) he NEGOTIATED WITH OUR ENEMIES! OH NOES!

Posted by N. Gavelis on 09/25/2009 16:49:50

Good call on ignoring all of the other comments directed at debunking your comments, NG. Just reiterate something that Lew already said - no one will notice. Obviously, those folks on Medicare aren't going to have a higher level of satisfaction with their healthcare than the rest of us have with our private insurance if the system continued down the path our government has it on. In other words, the short term has run out and now we've got a mess. Is it your proposition that we expand that to the entire country? So no, it wasn't accurate when Lew said it is socialized medicine that works, and you're not right either. Reagan was, however.

Posted by peterheck on 09/25/2009 21:17:30

In the name of accuracy I do have to issue a correction. Above I mentioned that Pres. Obama claimed that he could find $500 Million in waste/fraud/abuse in Medicaid/Medicare. This was inaccurate. The truth is he claimed that Medicare/Medicaid has $500 Billion in waste/fraud/abuse. Sorry to mislead everyone here. I was off by the amount abuse/waste/fraud of the government run element of our health care by 1000 fold. Now we can get back to examining why we should multiply the scale of government involvement in our health care system.

Posted by Asburystrider on 09/26/2009 12:47:07

N. Gavelis, I can only assume that you failed to read my recent account of my own experience with the VA healthcare system because I choose to believe that you are smart enough to comprehend what I wrote. Both VA & Medicare are very specific and targeted systems. VA in particular is not an entitlement; it is an earned benefit. And seniors have no choice but to enroll in Medicare as the private sector dumps their costs into the lap of American taxpayers via politicians eager to buy votes. This will be the end result of any so-called "public option."

Posted by ChucksChants on 09/26/2009 13:42:05

Additionally, Lew's comment with which you agree is a bit broad. ALL seniors have a higher satisfaction with medicare than ALL the rest of us have with our private insurance? Fascinating, since I appear to not fall into your category of ALL, and since I have heard comments from seniors who likewise do not fall into your category of ALL. Now, I suppose if you mean that there is satisfaction to be found when the responsibility for the cost of healthcare can be shifted from me to someone else who is coerced by threat of fine and/or imprisonment to bear that responsibility. Maybe, then, there is an element of this greater satisfaction of which you write.

Posted by ChucksChants on 09/26/2009 13:47:32

Hey, I wonder what the polls are going to begin looking like as further details of command healthcare break out: "But the legislation includes an individual mandate penalty that could go as high as $1,900. Thomas Barthold, chief of staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, told senators that the IRS could take legal action against those who fail to pay the mandate penalty...

Posted by ChucksChants on 09/26/2009 14:43:41

...In a handwritten note to Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., Barthold said violators could be charged with a misdemeanor and could face up to a year in jail or a $25,000 penalty." (FOX News, 9/26/09) If nothing else, Americans might want to be concerned that the IRS is going to have parts to play in the command healthcare system. Wow, makes we want to sign up!

Posted by ChucksChants on 09/26/2009 14:45:50

"Negotiating" with our enemies is one thing; selling our nation out to our enemies is another matter altogether.

Posted by ChucksChants on 09/26/2009 16:32:52

A word of clarification about my satisfaction with VA care. Yes, I am satisfied with my overall care; that comes mainly from the courteousness and professionalism of those I have dealt with. The system remains what it is. It serves you if you serve it. The bottom line is that is generally more bureaucratic than civilian care - at least from the recipient side. I have known some veterans who I thought were eligible for more care than I was receiving but they weren't receiving it.

Posted by ChucksChants on 09/28/2009 22:11:28

A little investigation revealed that they had not submitted some piece of paperwork or something. I am the kind of person who is not daunted by a four page form; not everyone responds that way. Through my recommendations and help, other veterans have been afforded greater access to more care. My question, therefore, remains, "Is the typical American willing to subject him/herself to these quirks and frustrations in return for the access they believe they are promised?"

Posted by ChucksChants on 09/28/2009 22:12:55

If this monstrosity of a policy is passed into law (that's LAW, don't forget),then I am tempted to seek a position in the system. I could be one of those annoying bureaucrats making everybody fill out those multi-page forms and collecting all your personal information. Wouldn't that make you sleep well at night? If I liked you, I could probably let a few things slide, but if you annoyed me, I could send you back to do everything properly. Great powertrip, eh?

Posted by ChucksChants on 09/28/2009 22:14:30

Just what do you supporters of government healthcare insurance think that you're going to get? How do you think it is going to be administered? Do you really believe that it will fulfill what politicians promise? Do you believe that new sets of government rules will serve us better than Americans across the land making their own decisions? Hope you like paperwork.

Posted by ChucksChants on 09/28/2009 22:15:37

Speaking of negotiating with our enemies, you know it's bad when you have a Frenchman telling you you're too soft. Reason #15732 why the UN is an utterly worthless organization. http://ambafrance-us.org/spip.php?article1432

Posted by Asburystrider on 09/29/2009 00:01:31

Yep. A world under liberal influence keeps getting more and more surreal.

Posted by ChucksChants on 09/29/2009 13:34:06

Remember that little piece by the President to Congress on 9/9/09 that the reforms he is proposing will "not apply to those who are here illegally?" Well, I'm not calling the President a liar on that - maybe he thinks he means it - but check out what leaders in his pary (ie, Democrat Party) want to see happen... http://chuckschants.blogspot.com/2009/09/health-insurance-democrats-illegal.html or just go to www.chuckschants.blogspot and read my "Health Insurance, Democrats, & Illegal Immigrants" article. (And what are "affordabilty credits"?)

Posted by ChucksChants on 09/29/2009 13:41:26

Back to the polls: "The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 56% are opposed to the plan... Currently, among all voters 23% Strongly Favor the legislative effort and 43% are Strongly Opposed." ("Support for Health Care Reform Hits New Low," Rasmussen Reports wbesite, 9/28/09)

Posted by ChucksChants on 09/30/2009 12:06:41

...and it looks like the public option is dead (or at least on its death bed). People like the concept of a public option (which I don't deny) until they see the price tag and the consequences. As Milton Friedman so adequately summed up economics "there are no free lunches". The more that comes out about the plan, the less people like.

Posted by Asburystrider on 10/01/2009 13:46:27

From Peter Heck: "Uh-oh. The Medicare denial rate was nearly 2 times that of all private carriers combined. That's a bit of an inconvenient fact for the socialists."

Posted by ChucksChants on 10/07/2009 06:42:42

A part of the problem with a "public option" is also that the government can do things which would be unethical if done by private organizations. I worked with an agency that dealt with extensive Medicaid billing. We would bill to medicaid for patient X, receive payment, have auditors review our charts, and if an i wasn't dotted or a t wasn't crossed, funds would RETROACTIVELY be taken and as a PERCENTAGE to ALL transactions. So they could have simply pulled a few bad charts but the result would be an enormous percentage of medicaid funds retroactively revoked. If a private organization pulled that kind of action, they would be thrown in jail.

Posted by Asburystrider on 10/08/2009 14:09:40

What advocates of obama-care (whatever) refuse to acknowledge are exactly these types of results. The same folks who for decades now have been building distrust for government now believe that government - BIG government - is more trustworthy and efficient than the private sector. 'Course, those are the same folks who sign petitions to ban dihydrogen monoxide.

Posted by ChucksChants on 10/09/2009 09:06:32

Well, it is a known fact that 100% of the people who ingest dihydrogen monoxide die. Something needs to be done. Think of the children!

Posted by Asburystrider on 10/09/2009 15:10:14

Sadly all too true. Just as those who continue to breathe dioxygen. We just need to get rid of this stuff!

Posted by ChucksChants on 10/11/2009 17:23:58

Maybe we can just curb use by taxing consumption. Ironically, in a sense, we already do.

Posted by Asburystrider on 10/15/2009 10:14:03

Well yes, we've been under the current constitution for 222 years. We have indeed been under "a" constitution, whether that be The Articles of Confederation or our current Constitution, for 230 years. What ever our constitution is it is our goal to protect that. That mentality has slipped in many cases and letting government grow has not been on the agenda of either party recently. The whole two-party system is screwed up. Washington expressed that political views would not be represented through yourself, yet through the party you affiliate with.

Posted by Evan Cass on 10/20/2009 12:57:16

We have all begun to lose our morals. We don't know what "we" are fighting for just what our parties have on the agenda. It is a big statement, and you can call me bone-headed, but this country needs to dissolve our ties to a political system consisting of two political parties.

Posted by Evan Cass on 10/20/2009 12:58:16

Not "boneheaded," I would say, but a proposal difficult to enact. A key, I believe, is keeping leadership responsible. Not merely the politicians we elect, but also the leadership within a political party. Some good news is that with the technology of communication we have today, it is more difficult to get away with the "backroom" deal making that enhances party apparatus but not constituents. In the end, it comes down to constituent involvement. When we defer to other "experts" to make our decisions for us, we usually do not fare to well.

Posted by ChucksChants on 10/21/2009 07:09:26