Cat Out of Bag: The Nonpartisan Healthcare Plan is Kerry/Edwards

And this is why politics will never achieve this sort of compromise. When one side offers to be bipartisan, but ultimately it is just a trap, seeking to fool those who entered into a debate honestly you lose honest debate. You took a lot more away from your position via your methods RANT. I am sorry to have participated. May this thread be a warning to any other ATSers who enter a dialogue with you.

You asked "Leave Bush and Kerry out of the discussion if we can", the whole thing was a setup and you began the debate with fraud. I expected more from a ATS moderator.


[edit on 17-10-2004 by Mainer]

Sorry you feel that way though.

Old focus group moderators and their techniques die hard.

No "fraud" ... merely a request for input on nonpartisan points without labels.

Then add labels are recheck findings. Or see how perceptions change with the added "marketing" of the package.

I suppose it's "fraud" if you consider all blind research and marketing studies to be insideous (since you'll never find one that tells the subject the method or sponsor), but it wasn't intended as such. Merely sincere interest on my part to see reactions to nonpartisan points without labels and political mischaracterizations.

Nothing evil about that.

Originally posted by RANT
Merely sincere interest on my part to see reactions to nonpartisan points without labels and political mischaracterizations.

If this were true there would have been no 'cat' for you to let out of the bag, you were not looking for authentic discussion, you were looking for ways to twist a debate into a pro-Kerry thread, after expliticly stating that this was not to be a Bush vs Kerry thread. You would not have had to change the title of the thread otherwise. This was not a blind focus group, this was a deceptive attempt to redirect a thread after fradulently posting a discussion topic, and by a ATS moderator no less. I expect this sort of thing from an underhanded nobody, I did not expect this from you. Its not evil, just underhanded, your tactics are despicable. You were never arguing honestly, you were trying to argue the Kerry plan while pretending you were seeking a middle ground. An honest topic would have been to start from the Kerry plan and move from there. You were purpously being deceptive and had I known the thread would have been the partsian hackery *you expressly claimed was not its purpose*, I would not have participated. Please keep your deceptions to yourself as your claim of sincerity is another.

This entire thread was a sucker punch. You are an ATS moderator, please be more honest in the future.



[edit on 17-10-2004 by Mainer]

Originally posted by Mainer

Originally posted by RANT
Merely sincere interest on my part to see reactions to nonpartisan points without labels and political mischaracterizations.

If this were true there would have been no 'cat' for you to let out of the bag...

But like I said, I also wanted to see reactions to knowing later it was Kerry/Edwards plan. And believe it or not, I am right now from you.

If you want to yell at me some more you can, but I don't think I was cruel to anyone. FredT and I had a good discussion of plan differences afterwards. Again, not trying to be disrespectful to anyone here. Just discuss a "plan" without labels, get input...then reintroduce labels and get reaction. If the modest "deception" involved in this tact or any other scientific research endeavor is that abhorant to you, I'm afraid I can't even begin to apologize to such an absolutist anyway. For what it's worth, sorry you're pissed. But that's about all I can do for you.

And lastly, the board moderator thing has nothing to do with any of it. I'm not even assigned any politics forums. Just posting here.

Rant, you duped the Bushies into believeing a Kerry plan. Before? "Wow! What a great plan! This is what we need!" They find out the truth? "Die! How dare you trick us! Kerry is evil! Go Bush!" Man, I wish I had been on before they knew the truth. I like FredT, "It great! What? Kerry's plan? It sucks! Bush's plan is better!" To see how Bushies react when caught with their hand in the cookie jar...

Why do we have a health care crisis -- or, more specifically, a health insurance crisis -- in the first place?

Is there something special about health insurance that makes it crisis-prone? I mean, we never hear about the horrible "house insurance crisis" or the "spiraling cost of auto insurance."

It wouldn't be too hard to create such a crisis though. In fact, let's try to map one out.

Just imagine if politicians resolved that, since automobiles are vital for getting people to work, companies ought to provide for the care and maintenance of its employees' vehicles. So political pressure is applied to employers-- maybe through the tax code, or perhaps legislation is passed outright; and, before long, auto insurance is restructured to cover not merely accidents, but routine maintenance and service. For a monthly premium and a $10 or $15 "co-pay," your car insurance would cover the cost of an oil change, tune up, new tires, whatever it needed. Something odd would begin happening though. Mechanics would stop hearing the now pervasive, "How much will it cost?" Why? Because if all you had to do is plop down ten or fifteen bucks and your insurance paid the rest, why would you care what the mechanic charged? Heck, you'd start taking your car in for an oil change every 1000 miles instead of every 3000. Rather than getting your tires rotated, you'd just have new ones put on. And that rear electric window that won't lower, you'd not think twice about having fixed. The influx of customers seeking what would be virtually free service means, however, you'd have to wait days, even weeks, to see a mechanic. Costs would skyrocket. Since comparison shopping would be a thing of the past, auto service centers would have no pressure to lower prices. Moreover, they'd have to buy more equipment and hire more employees to accommodate the heavier workload, driving costs still higher. Insurance companies would have to raise premiums. Some people wouldn't be able afford it. So politicians would trot out new government programs -- Car-aid, Car-care-- to help the "disadvantaged." We'd see another deduction on our pay stubs. The numbers of "disadvantaged" would swell. Resultantly, auto shops would have to hire more clerks to manage all the red tape generated by the government programs and regulations, making costs even higher. Perhaps by then an oil change might run $200 and a brake job $1000. Before long, we'd hear speeches about our alleged "right" to affordable car insurance. Some would even propose putting everyone on the government dole with "universal" car care coverage. Now in the midst of all this, imagine that some "radical" suggests the following: that people would be able to afford car insurance and maintenance costs if only government would reverse everything it'd done to cause the mess in the first place. How would that likely be met? Probably with screams of "You don't care about the poor!" and "Do you expect people to pay for oil changes out of their own pockets? Have you seen how expensive they are?"

See how easy it is to kick off a crisis? Just add a little government control in the "right" area, and the thing practically runs on cruise control. America doesn't have a health care crisis. It has government crisis. Or, put another way, it has a freedom crisis.

www.capmag.com...

[edit on 10/20/2004 by ThunderCloud]

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Rant, you duped the Bushies into believeing a Kerry plan. Before? "Wow! What a great plan! This is what we need!" They find out the truth? "Die! How dare you trick us! Kerry is evil! Go Bush!" Man, I wish I had been on before they knew the truth. I like FredT, "It great! What? Kerry's plan? It sucks! Bush's plan is better!" To see how Bushies react when caught with their hand in the cookie jar...

No James, follow the original post before it was edited. Rant fooled us into thinking that he was going to have an 'honest' debate. However it was a trick to try and twist the debate into a pro-Kerry thread. I for one will vote for neither Bush or Kerry, nor will I consider Rant capable of rendering a true debate free of such low deception.

Originally posted by Mainer
No James, follow the original post before it was edited. Rant fooled us into thinking that he was going to have an 'honest' debate. However it was a trick to try and twist the debate into a pro-Kerry thread. I for one will vote for neither Bush or Kerry, nor will I consider Rant capable of rendering a true debate free of such low deception.

Gee Mainer, that's such a tragic loss that you entered into a thread asking for comments on a nonpartisan compromised solution to the healthcare crisis cited as achieving liberal goals through conservative means with such an "open mind" in the first place only to be "duped."

What was your glorious contribution to "compromise" again? Oh yes, now I remember...#ING SOCIALISM. :shk:

Originally posted by Mainer
Sad to say, but we need socialized healthcare. Completely requiring from, and administered to the citizenry of the United States by the government, because healthcare does not work in a capitalist system.

Whatever. Then your hissy fit. Boo freaking hoo. I was nice. I was tolerant. And now, god knows how many days later, you can officially [blow it out your ear] Mainer. Pucker up your non participatory socialist lips of the perpetual victim (Hail Mary) and [Have a Coke and a Smile].

Whether you want to turn America upside down with socialized medicine or not, the ever loving point is that you or anyone else that thinks Kerry does is wrong. And Bush is a liar for saying so.

It's tax credits and subsidies direct to insurance providers of your choice. PERIOD. Capitalism my friend. That's the whole freaking health care plan. It is not liberal. It is not conservative. It is nonpartisan any which way you look at it, but it sure as hell isn't government run socialism and that's the whole damn point.

And even as The Cheney's parade the only family member apparently "not off limits" from campaigning (a 7 year old grand daughter dressed as the "Grim Reaper") across America calling her "Kerry's Health Care Plan" they still lie.



If you want to write in freaking Jello Biafra as your vote, or whoever the hell socialists write in these days, bully for you. No great loss. Like you had an open mind to begin with or your "fifth party" vote ever mattered. You can similarly carry a grudge against me until the end of time because you feel "duped" for expressing your uncomprising socialist views in a thread about exposing the only plan of compromise that already exists and even comes close to your goals. I don't care.

Please understand this no longer an olive branch. It's an unapologetic "go Cheney yourself" just like Cheney would like you to do. Good luck with that whole socialism thing by the way. Sounds great.

I went for full socialism, Kerry does not, so no, I did not endorse Kerry's plan, it must be all public or none, the partial solution will not work. No matter how much you want to think so, its not all John Kerry or nothing.

I felduped because you competely altered the original post. You changed the topic of this thread from a non biased approached to healthcare discussion to a john kerry is right discussion. You were the one who re-edited the initial post (and topic) not me. I was just calling you on it. If you made the Kerry thing part of the discussion that is one thing, you completely re-edited the thread starter. That totally reframes the discussion.

Look at your post above, and you pretended to be interested in a non-partisan debate. You might be the most partisan person on ATS, so please refrain from trying to paint me as a Bush loving republican. I am nothing of the sort. You are that kind of person, not me.

If you were informed, you would see that I am in fact a Libtrtarian on almost every issue, and participated in the ATS debates as such. But in my non-partisan thinking about healthcare, I have decided on an almost communist approach. This is completely contrary to the Libertarian philosophy. You see, I think about the issues, you react based on party affiliation.


[edit on 31-10-2004 by Mainer]

Originally posted by Mainer
I went for full socialism, Kerry does not, so no, I did not endorse Kerry's plan, it must be all public or none, the partial solution will not work. No matter how much you want to think so, its not all John Kerry or nothing.

That's fine. I really do know that.

I felduped because you competely altered the original post. You changed the topic of this thread from a non biased approached to healthcare discussion to a john kerry is right discussion. You were the one who re-edited the initial post (and topic) not me. I was just calling you on it. If you made the Kerry thing part of the discussion that is one thing, you completely re-edited the thread starter. That totally reframes the discussion.

Like I've been saying, I still understand what you're saying (even though I just kind of got sick of hearing it ) but I only changed the title and added an explanation. I didn't remove any of the first post. It's in tact. And I honestly didn't expect to alter any further discussion as I didn't think we'd have any further discussion. I thought it was dead, discussion and all. Sure seemed that way. To your credit you're one of the few people that even looked until the plan had a name! I think we're still under like 300 views and most of them are probably you and me and Fred. All I changed was posting a heads up as to where I was coming from in the title, and a little intro after I considered the whole experiment long since a "bust."

I'm not saying it wasn't a bad idea. I have plenty of those. Just cut me some slack at this point. The thread has been dead a while. I still find it interesting that nobody can spot the Kerry/Edwards healthcare plan right in front of them given all the disinfo flying around, but I couldn't let "my disinfo" (given the experiment) go uncorrected after a certain point. Thus the title change. Didn't mean to make you feel trapped. Sorry if I did. It's not that big a deal I don't think. Wasn't meant to be any way.

Originally posted by Mainer
Look at your post above, and you pretended to be interested in a non-partisan debate. You might be the most partisan person on ATS, so please refrain from trying to paint me as a Bush loving republican. I am nothing of the sort. You are that kind of person, not me.

If you were informed, you would see that I am in fact a Libtrtarian on almost every issue, and participated in the ATS debates as such. But in my non-partisan thinking about healthcare, I have decided on an almost communist approach. This is completely contrary to the Libertarian philosophy. You see, I think about the issues, you react based on party affiliation.

Oh just forget it. You added this after (while) I replied. If you can't tell I was painting you a Commie Lib Traitor anyway, not a Bush Loving Republican. (joke)

Just forget it. Hate me. Whatever.

Well if I were anti-Kerry I guess I could find a way to blame RANT for things that you are. His goal was not to manipulate. His goal was to show what the Kerry/Edwards plan was without mentioning their names. If he was to mention their names then the Bush supporters would jump in and bat it down without any fair representation.

I think (hope) you knew that already though.

oh and i know this is off topic but I found Rants new avatar quite amusing and decided to have a little fun with it.

Number one: I'd like to see more middle class tax cuts given the impact the rising cost of healthcare has had on us. A full fifth of our decreasing income is going to healthcare now. But many of us keep getting catastrophically sicker and costing America more in time and money as families fall off the radar and lose insurance for even simple check ups and preventative medicine.

I can agree with that for a while, but some serious attention needs to be made in the taxation department in general, not to mention income tax. Sad to say, but income tax is but one portion of the government's take each year, and that kind of money spent in overhead and operation alone causes us to pay outrageous taxes in a society that is supposed to be as tax FREE as possible.

Number two: Though I'd oppose any government run healthcare plan, I wouldn't mind some small direct subsidies for private insurance as encouragement to the most at risk Americans... families with dependents. Of course, we subsidize important resources all the time. From farming to transportation, it's essential to have a healthy infrastructure. Small targeted subsidies are good in conjunction with tax cuts because they only go to private health insurance companies.

I'd have to disagree here. Subsidies are paying out our ear in this country. From Steel, to the Maritime Industry (which people should look into seriously), to farming, we are paying a lot to keep markets alive in our acidic Marketplace. If small business was liberated, and initiative encouraged, then we would be back on the fast track WITHOUT having to try to keep things going.

Number three: All the broad tax cuts to help and targeted subsidies to encourage responsibility in the world still mean nothing if providers aren't held accountable. Some form of a patients bill of right's has been tossed around by both parties forever. Let's pass one..

While that may be a grand idea, it really does nothing for the system to pass it without serious release of the healthcare industry. Our restrictive boundaries need to be within reason, but they need to 1) clean up the system and laws/regulations BIG time, and 2) Tough responsible laws that are curt but effective.

Number four: The practice of defensive medicine is both a good and bad thing. I like the results... Better, safer health care. But not the cost resulting from more paperwork and physician fear of malpractice. I'd compromise on saying a review of defensive measures is warranted including an effort to promote technology to expedite healthcare into the 21st century and some reasonable caps and standardization on litigation. But I'm not willing to outlaw reasonable recourse in whole or part as some proponents of liability reform are eager to do. Again, compromise..

Already answered above.

And number five: Finally do something about pharmaceutical parity on costs for the same American made drugs sold in America and everywhere else. There's no good reason for Americans to front the brunt of research costs and advertising expenditures other countries stricter regulations don't allow. For one thing, I'm not sure why prescription medicines are allowed to be advertised at all. It's a huge chunk of what you ultimately pay when buying direct American, and promotes the overuse and overmedication and overvisitation of your doctor to ask if the purple pill is right for you. This rasies everyone's insurance ultimately on top of drug costs, and should be reviewed. Also the allowance for reimportation of safe American drugs is essential, even if merely a warning shot across the bow of American pharmaceuticals that if they're going to be global multinationals, don't screw us with the bill. I think reimportation is reasonably supported at the bipartisan level, so it shouldn't be a problem.

Again, I think if you fix the system it will logically accomplish this goal. We need to restrict what is pooled over and adjusted. We need to annex and REWRITE law.

If that ever happened, THAT would be the most important election of our lives.

Not this silliness.