It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Thousands rally in Atlanta against Health care overhaul

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 08:23 PM
link   
online.wsj.com...






ATLANTA -- Several thousand people turned out in Centennial Park on Saturday to demonstrate opposition to President Barack Obama's effort to overhaul the health-care system. Protesters carried signs saying, "Obamacare Makes Me Sick!" or "Socialized Medicine Hotline: 1-800-YOU-DEAD."



So it's getting bigger. Now they are rallying en mass, not only in town halls. What does everybody say about this? Surely these are not all bussed in mass-protesters payed to scream and yell? I'll tell you this. I'd go to one if they had it where I live.

Personally, with rumors of the public option getting dropped, and those so-called death panel crap being dropped, I'd say the bill is all but dead, and at this point is nothing more than a statement to get government to boss around insurance companies. The funny thing, however, is that more than likely the insur company's will ignore government, buy more special interests, and take over the government some more.

YAY more corporatism, less freedom!

As to me, F the government and F the insurance company's. I support a single payer system that pays doctors directly and simply inspects them once a year for corruption and other bad things. 0 bureaucracy, no crappy service. The doctor and patient are in control.


mod edit, title spelling corrrected

[edit on 17-8-2009 by DontTreadOnMe]




posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 09:11 PM
link   
Glad to see people exercise their right to free speech in a public park paid for by tax dollars. That is a great place to do it.


However, since your article quotes Dick Armey, I feel this is worthy of note:


Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas) is resigning from DLA Piper law firm amid a wave of negative attention his grassroots organization, Freedom Works, has drawn for helping to organize protesters at health care town hall meetings with members of Congress.


www.politico.com...

Makes you wonder where the REAL money is or coming from.
(Freedom works purportedly represents Insurance and Big Pharma.)



Armey’s FreedomWorks is actively organizing against health care reform. Indeed, Armey’s lobbying firm represents pharmaceutical companies, such as Bristol-Myers Squibb, that oppose comparative effectiveness research in the health reform plan because such a program may cut into revenue for branded drugs.

Armey’s lobbying firm represents the trade group for the life insurance industry. Indeed, FreedomWorks mobilizes its members for deregulated life insurance reform.


Source



FreedomWorks trains and organizes volunteers to engage fellow citizens and influence their political representatives.


www.absoluteastronomy.com...


[edit on 16-8-2009 by kinda kurious]



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 09:14 PM
link   
As I've said so many times, you can put a billion dollars into something. People still have to come on their free will.

Can you explain to me how funding has any bearing on if people will come or not?

If this is wrong, then TV companies should not be allowed to fund the green movement and superstars shouldn't be allowed to fund movements with their face.

There's noting wrong here. Just a created problem making it look wrong, when in fact is very good. I thing it's great if a company pours in money to something they support. It's their right.

Why is it bad?



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 09:21 PM
link   
Interesting, I wonder if this type of scene accounts for all the military riot type vehicles I saw a convoy on 18 wheelers, right outside Atlanta and headed that way?

Are they expect more protest/demonstrations?

Dang, I missed the fun - too bad it didn't happen last week.



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 09:29 PM
link   
I'm curently on SSDI with medicare and have prescription coverge insurance. There obviously is a problem with abuse by some doctors and excessive fees burdening the system in medicare and medicaid. Many doctors and clinics might not even take medicaid. If these government services are being abused and bankrupted, than how can they set an example for anyone else?

My prescription coverage limit would have been exhausted with in 6 months on just one medication, so, it was cost prohibitive and the alternative would have been one that has current litigation against it?

I think what we need more of is preventitive health care in the first place.

That means tests that aren't too expensive in order to catch things earlier, before it's too late.

Many elderly lose all their life savings just to stay alive another 3 months or more?

I can't understand why people are defending a system that still doesn't work for us either.

The other thing is these hospitals etc. being owned and operated for profit?
Stock holders?

At some point, someone has to be working for the people and not these corporations.

I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take that prescription anymore


edit to add:

Someone needs to tell these corporate bloodsuckers to got to " Helath " in a hambag!


[edit on 16-8-2009 by aleon1018]



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


If you are directing your line of inquiry at me, as I stated: I am happy they are protesting in a public park. (As opposed to disrupting meaningful dialogue.)

I merely pointed out Mr. Armey's background since he was quoted in YOUR source.

I need not engage in any further discussion. I'm all for Capitalism, it is the American way. The polar opposite of Communism which people often confuse as a political ideology as opposed to the economic system it is.

Just pointing out FACTS. Regards.

[edit on 16-8-2009 by kinda kurious]



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 


I'm a socialist, and believe capitalism should be limited to produce and services. But not health care.

All I'm saying is that you pointed that out like it's something bad and embarrassing and against the "grassroots" title. It's not. grassroots means organized by the people. If at some point they get picked up by corporations, then great, but they are still grass roots in origin.

I have seen 0 advertisements for either side. The most I've seen are lawn signs for tea party's placed by home owners. So from where I stand, corporations can fund it for the billions. But people, like me, are still going there because we learn of it from places like here and freely chose to go, a la grass roots.

reply to post by
aleon1018

 


The money saved by destroying the bureaucracy and the insurance companies would more than cover a universal single payer system where the government pays the doctors directly and simply sends a yearly checkup for corruption possibilities.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by aleon1018

Many elderly lose all their life savings just to stay alive another 3 months or more?


I ask this in both a funny and inquisitive way, but what else would they spend it on? Most certainly not on living expenses
.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


Grass roots you say? More like Astroturf if you ask me.


Astroturfing is a word in English describing formal political, advertising, or public relations campaigns seeking to create the impression of being spontaneous "grassroots" behavior, hence the reference to the artificial grass, AstroTurf.

The goal of such a campaign is to disguise the efforts of a political or commercial entity as an independent public reaction to some political entity—a politician, political group, product, service or event. Astroturfers attempt to orchestrate the actions of apparently diverse and geographically distributed individuals, by both overt ("outreach", "awareness", etc.) and covert (disinformation) means.


Source



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by questioningall
Interesting, I wonder if this type of scene accounts for all the military riot type vehicles I saw a convoy on 18 wheelers, right outside Atlanta and headed that way?

Are they expect more protest/demonstrations?

Dang, I missed the fun - too bad it didn't happen last week.


I saw a similar convoy on Saturday on I-10 in Tallahassee. Several truckloads of Humvees, some with turrets on top! They seemed to be damaged and with improvised repairs such as plywood. I assumed they were shipped back from Iraq!



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


No room for socialists in this country. Go and live what you preach before you preach. Move to a socialist country if you don't like it here. I'm confident that your pie in the sky ideologies will be shattered thereafter. Our republic is set on extremely strong foundations. The worst here has it better than the best in some countries.

Providing socialist health care is NOT a function of our government according to our constituion - if you don't believe me read it for yourself.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by jayjayrocks
 


Of course it isn't. And neither is a whole lot.

Most of the so-called socialist health care nations are really actually bureaucratic socialism, which is really another word for light fascism. Socialist medicare to me would eliminate both insurance company and bureaucracy. Right now 380 billion is wasted in Medicare Medicaid and the whole lot of bureaucratic bull crap that is the current system. Eliminating that means 380 billion for the new system.

Let's do some math now shall we? 380 billion / 304 million means $1250 available on the spot for everyone at any one time. Now lets go into it more, because that obviously doesn't do much. This system should not be implemented until the right conditions. For now, it should only be for those government services. Eliminating the bureaucracy and doing direct pay means 380 billion a year for 96 million people. That would mean for the current time being everyone of those folks would have $3958 at any one time. Bit better, I'd say. But now lets invest some more. Let's become energy independent and only use our own oil, and North American oil, for plastics and what not. That's another 300 billion available. So now we have $3125 more for those folks, and we still haven't raised taxes. Let's also stop giving 500 billion to Europe (thanks Ben Bernake). Another $5208 for everyone. So now we are up to $12291 for people on those services at any one time. I'm more than confident that everyone doesn't need that kind of money at any one time, and I'm more than confident that countless other savings would add up to it.

As we get more profitable, and as our population grows, and the middle class grows, we would more than have enough money to cover the uninsured, and eventually cover everyone.

It would work, so long you keep the basics of socialism, but eliminating bureaucracy and insurance company. This promotes capitalism too, as hospitals and doctors get payed more for the number of people they save a year. So these folks will seek ways to save more lives, innovate, and better themselves. Socialism works with capitalism and obeys the founding father's traditions. Please understand that the founders made the constitution elastic so that as the nation grew and became productive, it could expand it's power and privileges to the people. It is not government run health care. It is government funded health care, run by free market capitalism and the hospitals and doctors themselves. Straight forward and no backup or waste. Perfectly obeying the constitution of limited government and the government being out of the face of the people. The truth is that socialism is not always good, but where it is good is where it greatly aids capitalism and the free market.



reply to post by kinda kurious
 


Funding something isn't commercial to me until something happens to represent it. I see no advertisements, I see no labels unless I visit the site (which I don't). I see my fellow neighbors organizing and I'd join them if I want to.

When I start seeing commercials and logos everywhere on those signs, then you'll be right. Until then it is simply well funded grass roots. People I know, not corporations, are telling me to go. People I know, not corporations, are making signs. People I know, not corporations, are arguing and debating.

Call it what you will. It still looks to be grass roots to me.



[edit on 17-8-2009 by Gorman91]

[edit on 17-8-2009 by Gorman91]



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by jayjayrocks
 


Of course it isn't. And neither is a whole lot.

Most of the so-called socialist health care nations are really actually bureaucratic socialism, which is really another word for light fascism. Socialist medicare to me would eliminate both insurance company and bureaucracy. Right now 380 billion is wasted in Medicare Medicaid and the whole lot of bureaucratic bull crap that is the current system. Eliminating that means 380 billion for the new system.

Let's do some math now shall we? 380 billion / 304 million means $1250 available on the spot for everyone at any one time. Now lets go into it more, because that obviously doesn't do much. This system should not be implemented until the right conditions. For now, it should only be for those government services. Eliminating the bureaucracy and doing direct pay means 380 billion a year for 96 million people. That would mean for the current time being everyone of those folks would have $3958 at any one time. Bit better, I'd say. But now lets invest some more. Let's become energy independent and only use our own oil, and North American oil, for plastics and what not. That's another 300 billion available. So now we have $3125 more for those folks, and we still haven't raised taxes. Let's also stop giving 500 billion to Europe (thanks Ben Bernake). Another $5208 for everyone. So now we are up to $12291 for people on those services at any one time. I'm more than confident that everyone doesn't need that kind of money at any one time, and I'm more than confident that countless other savings would add up to it.

As we get more profitable, and as our population grows, and the middle class grows, we would more than have enough money to cover the uninsured, and eventually cover everyone.

It would work, so long you keep the basics of socialism, but eliminating bureaucracy and insurance company. This promotes capitalism too, as hospitals and doctors get payed more for the number of people they save a year. So these folks will seek ways to save more lives, innovate, and better themselves. Socialism works with capitalism and obeys the founding father's traditions. Please understand that the founders made the constitution elastic so that as the nation grew and became productive, it could expand it's power and privileges to the people. It is not government run health care. It is government funded health care, run by free market capitalism and the hospitals and doctors themselves. Straight forward and no backup or waste. Perfectly obeying the constitution of limited government and the government being out of the face of the people. The truth is that socialism is not always good, but where it is good is where it greatly aids capitalism and the free market.



reply to post by kinda kurious
 




[edit on 17-8-2009 by Gorman91]

[edit on 17-8-2009 by Gorman91]


I understand that the constitution is adaptable. That does not mean that the federal government should function in this capacity. Most problems really should be solved at the state level. A problem in Wisconsin may not be a problem in Georgia. Now, what I want to know is why the problem of uninsured citizens isn't being solved. Just throwing Obamacare at the problem only treats a symptom not an ailment.



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by jayjayrocks
 


Are you serious? Of course we're a socialist country. But like most things it ain't balc-and-white. There's alot of gray in the middle.

Our mail, highway, military are all government 'socialist' services. The government also subsidizes agriculture, rail, utilities and most other essential services. Medicare and Medicaid are socialized medicine. If you happen to be indigent, can't afford a doctor and show-up at a hospital needing care guess what? They have to care for you at no cost. What's that if not 'socialized medicine'.

If we had a totally capitalist society, private interests would won everything. Every time you tried to drive your car you'd pay tolls to the company that owned the piece of road you were driving on. Pure capitalism would drive the country into the haves and have-nots. We'd essentyailly devolve into a feudal society. Screw everyone except for me poiunt-of-view.

For the good of the nation and society we have to incorporate certain 'socialist' fundamentals. A very strong argument can be made that providing healthcare makes us stronger as a nation. Because if we don't, we end up (as we do now) with millions of seriously ill people that we can either A) pay to take care of (socialism) or B) let die (potantially creating a major public health problem) or c) execute.

Giving things neat little labels does nothing to solve the problem. The healthcare problem is real in this country. Private industry has been allowed to 'self-regulate' for decades and costs have balooned geometrically as the percentage of the population recieving care has declined. We let the banks/financial sector look after itself and where did that get us?



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
online.wsj.com...






Wow, your headline, and the WSJ's (which is different) is very misleading.


You see the picture there? There is one guy for reform and another against it.

Once again Rupert Murdoch distorts the news.

You really should have been there. I was, and there were people on all sides of the issue.



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Credge
I ask this in both a funny and inquisitive way, but what else would they spend it on? Most certainly not on living expenses
.


The more they spend the less the government will get to take via "inheritance" taxes.

Gotta save every dime. Big gov's gotta make bank when you die.



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 


DC is full of a wide array of conflicts of interest. Just as you site a conflict for Armey, May I present a potential little glitch for Axelrod regarding the fight for healthcare.


Critics of President Obama’s health-care overhaul are zeroing in on his senior adviser David Axelrod, whose former partners at a Chicago-based firm are the beneficiaries of huge ad buys — now at $24 million and counting — by White House allies in the reform fight.

The unwelcome scrutiny, largely from Republicans, comes at an inopportune time as Obama seeks to shore up support for health care reform. It revolves around two separate $12 million ad campaigns advocating Obama’s health care plan that were produced and placed partly by AKPD Message and Media, a firm founded by Axelrod that employs his son and still owes Axelrod $2 million.


www.politico.com...



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by jibeho
 


I cited the pertinent background info of Mr. Armey as an ON TOPIC response to his mention in article referenced by OP.

You may certainly steer discussion as you so choose, but mine was directly relevant to OP.

Like the new Avy BTW.


[edit on 19-8-2009 by kinda kurious]



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by questioningall
 


These were no doubt National Guard units going to Ft. Stewart to embark for Iraq/Afghanistan. Ft. Stewart is a major embarkation point for the two war zones, and I75/I16/I95 is heavy with this kind of traffic. I got stuck behind a Montana National Guard unit just north of Marietta the other day.



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 


Just wanted to show the conflict on both sides of the Healthcare overhaul issue. If I wanted to discuss the topic of Axelrod's malfeasance I would start a thread.

The issue needs to go to a national referendum before things really start to get ugly. That would involve rewriting a plan that involved input from the citizenry. We know that won't happen in this opaque administration.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join