Heh. Obama really stepped in it with this white cop.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

or to distill what you said in one word: socialism.

Careful there, you may be accused of not knowing what socialism is.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by RedHeadGal

I wasn't playing any card at all, and I was speaking more literally than rhetorically. What I meant is that it seems Gates's reaction was understandable, and I would expect many in his situation to react with anger and frustration (as I understand the facts in this case). I can particularly imagine such a reaction from the more libertarian, gun(g)-ho 2nd amendment types. All of which I say in a nonjudgmental way anyway.

I wasn't commenting on Obama's remarks (which I realize are the subject of this thread) because I don't really care what he said. This topic is useful if we want to discuss race relations, but the political ramifications for Obama is a detour not relevant to that discussion.

In the which case I repeat my question: you think Gates' behavior toward the officer is excusable because he was tired?

[RedHeadGal]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

or to distill what you said in one word: socialism.

a thoughtful response to my detailed post. . .

of course, you have to understand my perspective, which is that socialism is not a bad word. I like a big government. But if you wish to reduce it to terms you mean to be pejorative without any substantial discussion, by all means. . .

[RedHeadGal]

Originally Posted by Tex

In the which case I repeat my question: you think Gates' behavior toward the officer is excusable because he was tired?

I guess I thought a response to this question was implied in my post earlier today. I'm saying it's certainly a factor (among others) that makes his response UNDERSTANDABLE. None of us will probably really, fully, objectively understand what happened. My larger point, however, is that any version of events could lend itself to an interesting discussion on racial profiling or police protocol or neighborhood watches or any number of topics. But instead we start bickering about what the facts really are until we're tired of it, and then we move on without much insight.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Look, honestly, it isn't socialism, and I assume you are just trolling.

Let's accept first of all that we are discussing "socialism" within the context of a particular industry and not with respect to the entire US government (i.e., even if the US government were to control the means of production for all health care, it could be described as socialistic with respect to health care, but it wouldn't be a socialistic government in the aggregate, assuming it doesn't control all means of production in all industries, or even most industries).

With health care, people are confusing terms when they refer to "socialized medicine." Nobody is talking about or proposing socialized medicine. That is, in essence, what England has as its model. The doctors themselves are employed by the government. The Congress is not planning to adopt, nor will it adopt, that model. As a result, "socialized medicine" is a complete misnomer.

If the government were to adopt a single payor system (which many advocate, but which isn't even under consideration right now), it could be described as "socialized health insurance" because the government would be the only entity offering insurance. That won't be the case, and isn't being contemplated.

Instead, the Congress is proposing a system where private insurance remains (i.e., it isn't, by definition, socialism) and where the government also provides insurance as a competitor to the private insurance companies. In reality, if people would bother to think about it, we already have the government as a competitor in some limited areas of health care insurance, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and nobody would properly describe our current system as "socialism." And before you get ahead of yourselves in saying the proposed plan will inevitably lead to elimination of all private insurance companies and the establishment of a single payor system, well, the CBO disagrees with you (per its report issued yesterday)..

it will become progressively more communisitic.

Now they have a public "option." Then they undercut all the other private insurance folks. Then they force large groups to choose the public option--all govt. employees, including state employees, groups that contract with the govt., etc. Then they FORCE doctors to accept the public option. It will be illegal for doctors to decline to take the public option. And so on and so forth.

Well, I have news for some of you. Some of us doctors won't be taking ANY of your stinking insurance, public or not, because the pay is CRAP. "This is my fee. I will provide you with a receipt. You may seek to be reimbursed by whatever insurance you have, that is your business. No, I will not speak to your insurance company."

You will notice one thing that is missing from any of this discussion: incentive to live healthier. Fatty nation, led by a smoking president and a portly Surgeon General will magically administratively lower the cost of healthcare. It's going to be "magic."

[MikeWaters]

One other thing: although the AMA may have endorsed Obamacare (whatever that is, because it's a moving target), the Texas Medical Association (the state wing of the AMA) has not, along with about 17 other state medical associations.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by RedHeadGal

I guess I thought a response to this question was implied in my post earlier today. I'm saying it's certainly a factor (among others) that makes his response UNDERSTANDABLE. None of us will probably really, fully, objectively understand what happened. My larger point, however, is that any version of events could lend itself to an interesting discussion on racial profiling or police protocol or neighborhood watches or any number of topics. But instead we start bickering about what the facts really are until we're tired of it, and then we move on without much insight.

Of course it's a factor. I'm not sure I'd be thrilled to be accused of burglarizing my own home after a long trip either. But based on the available information, it sounds like Gates crossed the line.

Your larger point would be far more interesting if some racial profiling actually took place. One thing that really annoys me about this incident is that Gates and Obama have both tried to use it as a launching point for just that kind of discussion, when it really had nothing to do with it.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

it will become progressively more communisitic.

Now they have a public "option." Then they undercut all the other private insurance folks. Then they force large groups to choose the public option--all govt. employees, including state employees, groups that contract with the govt., etc. Then they FORCE doctors to accept the public option. It will be illegal for doctors to decline to take the public option. And so on and so forth.

Well, I have news for some of you. Some of us doctors won't be taking ANY of your stinking insurance, public or not, because the pay is CRAP. "This is my fee. I will provide you with a receipt. You may seek to be reimbursed by whatever insurance you have, that is your business. No, I will not speak to your insurance company."

You will notice one thing that is missing from any of this discussion: incentive to live healthier. Fatty nation, led by a smoking president and a portly Surgeon General will magically administratively lower the cost of healthcare. It's going to be "magic."

Incentive to live healthier is a huge part of this discussion. You haven't been listening. Preventive health care, for example, is one of the primary goals of the new plan.

And you pulled out the communist card? Why didn't you just go straight for the "it's the plan the Nazis would have loved" argument? Sheesh.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

One other thing: although the AMA may have endorsed Obamacare (whatever that is, because it's a moving target), the Texas Medical Association (the state wing of the AMA) has not, along with about 17 other state medical associations.

Is Texas still a state? I thought you guys took your ball and went home already.

[Tex]

[Rudy Guiliani] offered, in response to the president's hope that the Gates arrest would be a "teachable moment," this:

"He's actually right. It is teachable. Here's the lesson: Shut up."

LOL.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmi...y_Shut_Up.html