published Wednesday, December 5th, 2012

Just say ‘no,’ Gov. Haslam

Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam claims that he is still undecided on whether to set up a health-insurance “exchange” under Obamacare. His decision will come soon — the federal government has given Haslam until Dec. 14 to decide.

If Haslam needs advice on which way to turn all he needs to do is look out the window of his office in the Tennessee Capitol at noon today. Across the street at Legislative Plaza, hundreds of informed and concerned Tennesseans are expected to gather in opposition to a state exchange.

At the rally, doctors, small business owners, state lawmakers, radio hosts, preachers, community leaders, students, retirees, members of groups such as the Chattanooga Tea Party and Tennessee Tax Revolt, and Tennesseans of every color, creed, background and political party will join in unison to beg Gov. Haslam not to force a federally controlled state exchange on Tennesseans.

There are plenty of good reasons why so many Tennesseans are against the idea of the exchanges, which are essentially online stores where government-mandated health plans are forced on small businesses and the uninsured — driving many health insurance carriers out of business along the way.

For starters, state exchanges aren’t actually state-managed. The Goldwater Institute, a free market think tank based in Phoenix, points out that the federal government will be “in complete control of the exchange — from who can participate to what plans they can offer and prices they can charge.” The only role the state would play is funding the expensive scheme, which is estimated to cost Tennesseans upward of $50 million annually.

Many state leaders understand that the notion that the exchanges localize decision making and empower states is laughable. Tennessee House Majority Leader Gerald McCormick, R-Chattanooga — one of many state lawmakers against a state exchange — recently stated “[we’d prefer] to throw it back to the federal government to have them clean up their own mess.” Ben Cunningham, the founder of the Nashville Tea Party, accurately calls state exchanges “part of the effort to turn state government into a branch office of the federal government.”

State exchanges empower the federal government to levy outrageous fines on small businesses. Under a state-funded exchange, businesses of 50 employees or more will be fined at least $2,000 per employee if they fail to offer comprehensive health insurance, according to the Goldwater Institute. Businesses in states rejecting the exchanges won’t be subject to federal fines.

Further, state exchanges allow millions of dollars in taxpayer-funded handouts to the government’s preferred insurance companies. Sensitive personal medical information will also be shared with the government under an exchange.


The federal government has no power to force a state to create an exchange. Additionally, states can establish an exchange in the future if they miraculously turn out to be valuable to state residents. Since federal start-up funds to allow states to create exchanges will be available until the end of 2014, there is absolutely no reason for Tennessee to rush into an exchange now.

Most conservative governors understand this. To date, 19 Republican governors have rejected the exchanges. Only five have agreed to implement them.

Haslam’s waffling seems to be an indication that the he is leaning heavily towards a state exchange — despite the fact that a state exchange would be bad news for the people of Tennessee.

Why would Haslam join the small number of Republican governors to implement a state exchange? He won’t unless he’s one of a small cadre of governors who lack the conservative principles, the common sense and the intestinal fortitude to stand up to President Barack Obama and the bureaucrats in Washington.

Gov. Haslam has until Dec. 14 to either prove that he is wise, responsible and reasonable, or choose to cast aside any claim of conservatism and shackle Tennesseans with a costly, federally-managed exchange.

The decision is yours, Mr. Governor, but if you’re curious about what most Tennesseans want you to do, just look out your office window. There you’ll see just some of the people who hope you’ll “just say ‘no’” to an exchange.

60
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.

Yep, that's just what this state needs, somebody to pass the buck and hope that it fails anyway.

What a great attitude. Instead of looking out the office window, why not go to some hospitals and ask people in need what they'd like?

Or would actually serving the people of Tennessee be less desirable than hoping for failure?

Besides, the only result is going to be the Federal government doing the job anyway. Which might not be a bad thing, given what some governors would probably do. Surprised you're against state action, oh wait, no I'm not, when Obama relaxed other standards to let states set their policies, you attacked him on that too.

Nothing if not consistent.

December 5, 2012 at 12:21 a.m.
hambone said...

"Chattanooga Tea Party"........... " Tennessee Tax Revolt"

Best reason one can think of to say yes Mr. Gov !

December 5, 2012 at 12:36 a.m.
EaTn said...

We don't need a health exchange...let the uninsured continue to get their health care at the expensive hospital ER's and pass the cost back to us in the form of higher insurance premiums and taxes.

December 5, 2012 at 6:20 a.m.
rolando said...

Obviously, some haven't even researched the issues; but then they approve of full federal control in all aspects of their lives. They object strongly to the idea that states can reject federal controls found in violation of the 10th Amendment, et al.

But, no doubt Haslam will "rule" in favor of the state insurance exchange regardless of the cost. More taxes, you see.

December 5, 2012 at 9:17 a.m.
conservative said...

I will say it again :

conservative said...

I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole. Obamination care will be a moral and financial disaster. Why would a governor share or take the blame for the coming disaster?

Better to let the feds control it and that way Obamination and the Demoncrats get all the blame.

December 3, 2012 at 10:13 a.m.

December 5, 2012 at 10:06 a.m.

EaTN, you mean that there's problems that need to be dealt with right now, and ignoring them won't make things better? Oh my!

rolando, failing to set up the exchange is what gets more federal controls. But no, states can't reject certain obligations, otherwise we'd still have states dogmatically insisting on their sovereign right to deny the vote to large segments of their populace and to have an even worse system of representation.

conservative, and thus you demonstrate your priority...not to help the people of this state, but to find somebody to blame.

Thank you, keep doing that.

December 5, 2012 at 10:28 a.m.
NirvanaFallacy said...

happywithnewbulbs I take it that the people we should ask at the hospitals about Obamacare aren't the doctors and hospital administrators that actually have to implement Obama's misguided and ill timed policy. Because if you talked to any of them, you'd know they are scared to death of Obamacare and its unintended consequences.

December 5, 2012 at 11:42 a.m.
LibDem said...

"...driving many health insurance carriers out of business..". If this means fewer TV commercials, I'm against it. I know it's these ad dollars that keep me healthy.

December 5, 2012 at noon

NirvanaFallacy, really? Like these:

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/07/13/515737/state-hospitals-it-only-makes-sense-to-support-expanding-medicaid-under-obamacare/

Ouch, sorry, but it seems I have references to real people while you just have your unsubstantiated claims.

Huh.

You can argue over the site being biased all you want, but it won't change how you just asserted an opinion without basis, and didn't expect me to challenge it.

That said, I'm sure some would be unhappy. Like how Rick Scott was unhappy when his company was held accountable for defrauding Medicare.

December 5, 2012 at 12:09 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

The Party of NO just keeps on living up to its well deserved name. NO...as in NO solutions, and a resounding NO to whatever Democrat solutions might be on the table. But then...there's always VOUCHERS. A good ol' voucher is the Rebublican answer to everything. Vouchers for schools and vouchers for health insurance, which is nothing more than the government doling out money to the needy, which is basically welfare, which the Repubs say they hate like the plague. But at least it keeps schools and the insurance industry in the hands of the private sector, with no addressing the problem of runaway costs. But just privatize and voucherize...the Republican cure-all.

December 5, 2012 at 12:49 p.m.
NirvanaFallacy said...

Wow, you provide an article from thinkprogress.org (a completely unbiased news source by the way), authored by "Guest Blogger", that provides 4 people's comments about healthcare, and this proves what? Did you even read the article? I mean it does provide such insightful quotes like this gem from Bruce Rueben "[P]eople are better off with health insurance than without it." Well duh, no one disagrees with that obvious observation.

So, I'm still unsure what you are arguing now? Are you saying that no one in the healthcare industry thinks Obamacare is a bad idea simply because of this one article?

Since you "challenged me", here is a letter from an emergency room physician that expresses his feelings toward Obamacare.

http://journals.lww.com/em-news/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=2012&issue=11011&article=00001&type=Fulltext

Try actually talking to doctors and let them give you their opinion.

December 5, 2012 at 2:32 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

NF, in the article you cite, that doctor refers to one "screamer lady" in the ER as being representative of all the people who are without health care, as if they are all selfish "takers" and that the govenment is only concerned with fostering a nanny state of dependent slackers and ingrates. He is not offering any kind of rational solutions as possiblilities, just knee-jerk criticism based on his higly subjective outlook.

Since you seem to be big on doctors' input on Obamacare, here is one for you:

http://landolakes.patch.com/blog_posts/doctors-in-obamacare-is-good-for-the-country.

He gives a reasoned, sensible look at the real problems inherent in our broken system and how Obamacare, while not quite comprehensive enough (he believes that single-payer would be a more sensible solution), at least addresses the problem better than anything so far.

You say, "Try actually talking to doctors and let them give you their opinion." Well, follow your own advice, NF. It's just a matter of which doctors you choose to talk to.

December 5, 2012 at 3:02 p.m.

How much digging did you have to do to find that letter?

Still remains true that you didn't produce it from the start, now did you?

You can complain about my source being unbiased, but your claim was the one that was made without substance.

Now you produce a doctor with a letter. Doesn't change the fact that you just made a bare assertion in the first place, now does it? You could acknowledge that action on your part, but you won't. You just said they oppose it, that I should talk to them, and no recognition that maybe they wouldn't subscribe to your views. And now you try to turn things on me to say that I'm the one who thinks everybody in the healthcare industry supports the act.

Do you not even realize how preposterous your attack is?

Well, no, you're the one who tried to pass that off, with your initial claim. You said "they are" and made no qualifier or exception in your words. On the other hand, my post ends in exactly the opposite, acknowledging that there are people unhappy with it. I just don't have a kind estimation of their reasons.

Sorry, but you're the one guilty of what you accuse me of doing. As usual for the right.

You discredit yourself. Of course I'm sure you're going to pretend upset at me attacking you, while never ever acknowledging your own attacks and criticisms of me. That kind of indignation is common from the right.

I'd talk with you about the content of that letter, but I doubt you're capable of doing that honestly either. To me, that doctor comes across as a cynic and full of resentment, upset at the idea of treating people equally, and somebody who fell for the Republican lie earlier this year about Obama removing the Welfare to Work requirements when he was actually granting the state's the freedom they wanted. How dare he!

And if there's anybody who has developed a callous self-absorption, it'd be him. He probably doesn't even realize that the life of idleness has long been idolized, and no, it's not the idle poor (who have long been demonized), but the idle rich who are celebrated.

So no, my perspective does not concur with his.

December 5, 2012 at 3:11 p.m.

Rickaroo, yep, it matters who you talk to, and some will be right, some will be wrong, some will be distracted by their own selfish priorities, some will just be fools.

But you are correct, that doctor offered no solutions, just the standard right-wing meme of how terrible the country is nowadays.

Too bad everything he said could probably be found in a letter from 100 years ago.

Except it would have been opposing that dastardly Teddy Roosevelt.

December 5, 2012 at 3:14 p.m.
charivara said...

For fact susceptible readers: "Medicare delivers health care more efficiently than private insurers. Medicare’s public accountability and bargaining power give it the ability to drive system change and control skyrocketing health care costs, while profit-driven private insurers have offered no solution." See the reasons for this statement at: http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2011/09/20/medicare-is-more-efficient-than-private-insurance/

December 5, 2012 at 4:36 p.m.
NirvanaFallacy said...

Happy, really? Rambling on about me making a bare assertion and not providing sources. Give me a break. You do realize that we are on the timesfreepress website commenting on a news article and not submitting scholarly articles for review that require cites for everything stated.

No one doubts that the healthcare and insurance industries are screwed up and changes are in order, but that doesn't mean Obamacare is the solution and will solve all of the problems. Nor does it mean we need to go to a one payer system like the misguided doctor from Rick's article suggests. There are better ways, much better ways to fix our healthcare system.

If medicare is run so well, how come a lot of doctor offices won't accept it?

December 5, 2012 at 5:55 p.m.

NirvanaFallacy, that's nice, but exactly why shouldn't I challenge you when I think you're making an assertion that I feel to be false, and lacking in substance, one that I could and did refute? You're the one who cloaked yourself with a support group to advance your agenda, rather than relying on your own opinions. That puts a certain burden on you. But no, you'd still rather try to attack me for being unfair to you. How dare I point out that your blanket claim that I just have to talk to any hospital administrator or doctor and they'd tell me how frightened they are of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is not universally held.

You're really just making yourself look worse the more you protest.

But hey, I don't think that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will solve all of the problems. Not that I think anything will, that's a higher standard than I think any human endeavor will solve. Nor is it my solution, it's not a liberal solution either, it's a right-wing conservative solution.

Still, I don't think it's entirely wrong, but why don't you tell us these better ways. Or are you keeping them secret for some reason?

December 5, 2012 at 6:02 p.m.

Oh good to know, your idea of a solution is to crash the whole system just to prove yourself right.

And yet you wonder why people might decide that's not exactly an attitude to support.

Do keep going on your rants about how Obama is a communist though, they're so entertaining.

PS, about those red states? Is that like the assertion that all the states that elected Republican governors had their unemployment drop...while conveniently failing to mention the same applied to almost every other state in the same time period?

December 5, 2012 at 9:02 p.m.
Easy123 said...

JonRoss,

"I am not suggesting any system be collapsed."

Remember this: "It is time for patriots to abandon the fight in Washington and let Barack Hussien Obama crash the economic system."

"Let them jack up taxes on whoever they damn well please and accelerate spending like they have over the last four years with budgetless spending."

That won't happen. But look how well our economy is turning around! I can only imagine the quagmire America would be in had Obama given in to the GOP. Spending works in some situations. In the same vein as your idea of "job creators" taking all of the economic risk, "you have to spend money to make money". But I guess that only applies to the meritocracy that Republicans and yourself wish to place on a pedestal, right? The economy could never work that way, RIGHT?!

"It is the poor and middle class that Obama needs tax revenue from to build his Communist paradise."

It must turn you Wingnuts on to say "Communist". It doesn't mean what you think it does.

You have proven yourself to be patently ignorant on more than one front with your imprudent rantings.

December 5, 2012 at 9:35 p.m.
rolando said...

As usual bulbs, you confuse apples with oranges.

Voting rights are constitutionally guaranteed. That's why the states lost that argument before the SCOTUS; it had nothing to do with negation and everything to do with the constitution.

Insurance exchanges are a totally different animal -- in a way. This time the SCOTUS found IN FAV0R of the states' ability to refuse to implement those exhanges -- in which case, that same requirement was tosse3d right back in Obama's face and the federal government must pay ALL of the costs to set up the exchanges.

Either way, the federal government retains full control of how the money will be used. I say, if the feds want full control, let it pay the full bill. [pThe taxpayers take it in the knickers either way. But then, the 47% won't foot the bill so they like it.]

December 5, 2012 at 9:54 p.m.
rolando said...

Easy: Please give us your definition of "Communist" as it was during the last two decades of the defunct USSR. No Marxist/Leninist quotes/cites, please. The Obama of today is like those two were during their heyday; all hot air, empty rhetoric, and outright lies. But that period had its "47%ers" too, evidently. That and no privately owned guns -- which they still don't have today.

December 5, 2012 at 10:05 p.m.
Easy123 said...

rolando,

"Please give us your definition of "Communist" as it was during the last two decades of the defunct USSR."

After you.

"No Marxist/Leninist quotes/cites, please."

And the same stipulations apply.

"The Obama of today is like those two were during their heyday; all hot air, empty rhetoric, and outright lies."

So Lenin and Marx were defined by their "hot air", "empty rhetoric" and "outright lies"? Is that your definition of Communism? Can you possibly be serious in making that comparison using those inferences? That's a kindergarden analysis and comparison. If you're going to use those characterizations, I guess the GOP is a lot like the Communist party as well, correct? They're all about hot air, empty rhetoric, and lies.

Would you like to try again?

"But that period had its "47%ers" too, evidently."

Not exactly. But keep clinging to that 47% line.

"That and no privately owned guns -- which they still don't have today."

Who cares? Do you just like to see yourself type? Ramble some more for us.

December 5, 2012 at 10:22 p.m.

JonRoss, to repeat Easy123:

"It is time for patriots to abandon the fight in Washington and let Barack Hussien Obama crash the economic system. "

Your agenda is clear, you want the system to be crashed, so you can blame Obama for everything and walk around as if you were the hero or something.

You seem woefully dishonest.

rolando, you're right, voting rights are protected in the Constitution. That they had to be...is a sad tale on the worst elements of society. Ones who at the time were proclaiming their need for freedom and liberty, to protect the rest of us. Such sanctimony to cloak their abuses. But they were saving us from the leeches, you know. Uh-huh. But eventually they lost that argument. Not soon enough, but that's history now.

Now it's on to health insurance exchanges. The states certainly do have the right to leave the job to the federal government...it's in the law. Not the Supreme Court decision, it's in the actual law itself. Were you not able to read it? It's been a couple of years now.

December 5, 2012 at 10:32 p.m.
NirvanaFallacy said...

So lets say the republicans just let Obama and the democrats get everything they want - like higher taxes, an increase in entitlement spending, more stimulus, and so on and so on. The republicans just back away and let the democrats have their way. The economy then crashes.

You both (happy and easy) are still going to say this crash can't be blamed on Obama or the democrats but instead resulted from the Republicans not doing anything? Or will this crash be blamed on Bush again? It is a no win scenario with you two. No matter what happens, in your eyes Obama gets the glory and Republicans get the blame no matter what.

Is this what yall think?

December 5, 2012 at 11:53 p.m.
Easy123 said...

NirvanaPhallus,

"like higher taxes, an increase in entitlement spending, more stimulus, and so on and so on."

Neither Obama nor Democrats are advocating increased entitlement spending or more stimulus. Try again.

:The republicans just back away and let the democrats have their way."

That isn't how our government works. There is no "walking away".

"The economy then crashes."

That is a Republicans wet dream. You and your ilk are hoping that happens so you can crucify Obama.

"You both (happy and easy) are still going to say this crash can't be blamed on Obama or the democrats but instead resulted from the Republicans not doing anything? Or will this crash be blamed on Bush again? It is a no win scenario with you two. No matter what happens, in your eyes Obama gets the glory and Republicans get the blame no matter what."

This is a strawman argument of outrageous proportions. There is no "crash". You fabricated it. Will you blame Obama when zombies take over the world?

It is a no win for YOU. No matter what happens, you will always paint Obama as the bad guy. The economy is improving but not fast enough, right? The fiscal cliff is approaching because Obama didn't do a good enough job being bipartisan, right? Republicans are in the right, Obama is wrong, correct?

I don't have to ask. I know this is how you think. This is how nearly all modern Republicans/Wingnuts/Tea Baggers think. You throw logic out the window and replace it with your insane, Wingnut philosophy that no serious person could or should ever adhere to.

If you want to make cuts, start with the military-industrial complex. The biggest expense on our budget. But Republicans will never do that, they make too much money off of it. They would rather cut "entitlement" programs. Are you aware that Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are entitlement programs? Why don't Republicans propose to cut those?

Heck, if you think poverty and unemployment are high now, wait until you start cutting Food Stamps, Welfare, and government subsidized housing. Why not cut student loans, GI benefits, disability benefits, and unemployment benefits too?

Wingnut hypocrisy. Wingnut ignorance. Wingnut sophistry. How redundant.

December 6, 2012 at 12:11 a.m.

Actually, what I'm saying is that the attitude revealed by the Republican party in presenting such a plan is a rather despicable one.

The idea that wanting the economy to collapse just to score a chance to blame Obama shouldn't be a guiding cause. What kind of person would want to see a failure of such catastrophic proportions just to prove themselves right?

But actually, the no-win scenario is for Obama, with Republicans. That's been demonstrated by their responses. He implements their health care reform? Republicans freak out over ideas they supported. He implements tax reforms as part of the stimulus? Republicans decry the deficits that result! Obama cuts Medicare waste in an idea also present in Republican plans? Republicans attack him for cutting Medicare.

Sorry, but you keep accusing Democrats of what Republicans are clearly guilty of. Why is that? Do you think by projecting your faults onto others, you'll suddenly disguise them?

December 6, 2012 at 12:32 a.m.
NirvanaFallacy said...

No one wants the economy to collapse. However, the majority of Americans (happy and easy are 2 prime examples of this economic ignorance) clearly fail to understand such basic economic truths like "there is no such thing as a free lunch" or that incentives matter. As a result of this lack of understanding, one way that has been argued to open American's eyes is to let them experience these failures firsthand by letting us continue down the path to Greece. So, the theory is that by the republicans stepping back Obama and the democrats will have no one to blame but themselves. (Probably still blame Bush though. Either that or find something or someone else to shift the blame away from themselves - ex. blaming the 1%.)

You want examples then look to Greece, that is where we are headed if we continue down the current path. You want evidence that there are better and faster ways to recover the economy then look at Reagan's 8 years in office.

Here's a challenge for you two, name 3 things you disagree with that Obama's administration has done during his time in office. If you can't come up with 3, then try just 1 thing that you would call a mistake by his administration.

December 6, 2012 at 9:40 a.m.

No, NirvanaFallacy, the people saying they do want a chance to blame Obama for the collapse of the economy are very much desiring that outcome.

To prove themselves right. When you seek vindication over somebody, you have to accept what comes from it, you can't just pretend that you don't want it to happen when you're saying you want to be able to blame somebody else for it. The desire is clear.

But really, the path to Greece? I know that's been the rallying cry of the Right lately, as they seek to provide an example of failure. But it doesn't hold up to any scrutiny. Greece relied on tourism for its economy, and is smaller than about half of the US states, and with a population about 1/30 of ours. And most of its woes come from being bossed around by external powers who are imposing on it financial stresses that don't help the country.

Sorry, but Greece isn't like the US at all, we're a rather different country.

But actually, the majority of Americans understand that not only do incentives matter(and we actually want them for the people who really need them), so does support and sustenance, and not just to the upper classes because of some myth of trickle-down job creation, but to the people at the bottom. We even understand that the "free lunch" you deride actually pays for itself in terms of return. We also understand that you're trying to do nothing but create division and resentment by pointing to some people as takers who must be stopped. Never mind that you're trying to get us to ignore the real takers by portraying them as the heroes. Yet you would probably declare us as the ones creating class warfare, even as you deride those you don't like.

And Reagan? Reagan put huge amounts into pointless military spending, skyrocketed the debt and only benefited through the incidental collapse of the USSR when he was leaving office.

As for what I disagree with what the Obama administration, well, let's see. Not stood up to Republicans in Congress. Passed the Republican Health Care Reform law instead of a Liberal Plan. Not decriminalized Marijuana even in the states that chose to legalize it.

December 6, 2012 at 10:55 a.m.
Easy123 said...

NirvanaFallacy is fighting that strawman that he (and every other Republican) has built.

December 6, 2012 at 12:47 p.m.
NirvanaFallacy said...

First, happy, I am glad to see that you disagree with Obama on at least some of his past actions. Although, I have no clue what you mean by your criticism of him passing a republican healthcare reform law instead of a liberal plan. Regardless, I am relived that you understand he is not above criticism.

No party (republican or democrat) or president (current or past) is above criticism. Both parties make mistakes and they all have dirty hands when it comes to the current/future state of our economy. So try to see things not from whether the idea came from a republican or a democrat, rather look at the idea itself and see if it makes sense.

Second, I will address your misguided claim that I am trying "to do nothing but create division and resentment by pointing to some people as takers who must be stopped." America basically faces two choices and in my comments I have tried to explain the choice I believe is best for the country as a whole. In other words, what in my opinion will benefit the entire country, including the takers, the makers, the workers, the job creators, everyone.

The two choices are best summed up as the following: 1) Obama's/Democrat's Big Government Solution or 2) Republican's (for the most part) Small Government Solution. Both sides have good arguments and it is up to you to decide what side has the best position. However, you must know that both sides are going to eventually face tough positions.

If you go with the Big Government choice then realize that we are going to eventually be forced to find a way to pay for it. Unfortunately, we can't just keep forcing the rich to pay more. So, what is likely going to happen? Well,if we look at Europe as an example, it tells us we are going to be forced to raise taxes on the poor and middle class. If you are fine with that then great but don't act like he won't happen.

If you go with the Small Government choice, then know it also will face some tough and unpopular choices. The politicians here will have to figure out a way to cut entitlement programs back to levels for which our progressive tax system can pay.

The numbers don't lie and we are going to have to address our spending problem at some point. I'd rather take our medicine sooner rather than later, but that's just me. After these tax increases on the rich don't solve our revenue problem, then what happens? Well, if we don't want to make any real cuts to spending then we will be forced to find another way to get in more revenue. Our choices likely will be: a) raising income taxes on the middle class; b) doubling or tripling payroll taxes; c) introducing a steep national sales tax; or d) raising gas taxes.

December 6, 2012 at 2:18 p.m.

It's only in Republican fantasy land that Democrats believe Obama is beyond question or challenge. They repeat that charge so much that they never realize it's not true, it's just their dogmatic insistence that since we don't agree with their every line of attack, no matter how illegitimate, we must somehow not be able to offer any criticism. We can, we just don't believe most of what they have to say. Honestly, I think that's a symptom of projecting their own faults onto others. Ever noticed how Republicans burst into outrage when Bush is criticized, or when they are, and try to act as if it is somehow wrong to point to their faults?

That's a defensive mechanism to avoid responsibility. Because while you are correct that no party is above criticism, that doesn't mean a given party does engage in an honest introspective of their faults and failings. The reaction of the Republican party as to why they lost...shows that. Rather than take any responsibility, they have decided that the problem was that the other side offered gifts to buy votes.

Sorry, but that's just a willful fantasy meant to justify them doubling-down on the same thing.

But if you aren't familiar with the comparisons between the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and the plans put forward by Republicans such as Mitt Romney or even back in the nineties, well, let me offer you some elucidation:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/30/opinion/sunday/why-obamacare-is-a-conservatives-dream.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/obamas-moderate-health-care-plan#

And yes, you are trying to stir up division and resentment by casting some people as takers and leeches, and you can try to explain your choice all you want, the problem is not a failure on my part to know what you think you're doing, trying to save us, but a failure on your part to realize that your strategy is one of avoiding responsibility and making somebody else out to be the enemy.

Yes, I'm sure you think you're doing the right thing. So do the people who want the economy to collapse so they can prove themselves right.

That doesn't mean they're still not asking for something horribly nasty to happen to everybody else.

BTW, the numbers do lie, people lie with them all of the time. That's why people think that the country is going bankrupt, that taxes are at an all time high, and that the cuts Obama proposed to Medicare (you know, addressing the spending problem you're so concerned about) were treated as a problem, when they were in reality the same thing Paul Ryan was doing. Because it was a legitimate attempt to control waste.

Yet who used it as an attack? Who?

Finally, the federal gas tax hasn't been raised since 1993.

Think about what that means. Think about it.

December 6, 2012 at 5:47 p.m.

Also I just remembered that other thing I don't agree with the Obama administration on.

Not prosecuting the criminals involved in Foreclosure Fraud with sufficient vigor.

I would discuss with you why I think the two choices you think we're choosing between is wrong, but I don't have the time at the moment.

Suffice to say, I do not agree with your dichotomy.

December 6, 2012 at 5:51 p.m.
tipper said...

The more I read JonRoss, the more I am sure that he and those like him will be the forerunners of domestic terrorism that will eclipse Al Qaida.

December 6, 2012 at 6:18 p.m.
NirvanaFallacy said...

Happy, you are blinded with emotion and it clearly hurts your ability to think critically. You constantly rant about how Republicans did this so that means us Democrats get to do it too. Great, you are the problem with society today. Instead of having an honest debate, you resort to pointing fingers.

When analyzing an idea I do not care if a republican or a democrat proposed it. I look at Choice A and at Choice B and try to think through which choice best reaches the goal attempting to be reached.

Calling Obamacare a Republican plan because it resemebles something similar to what was implemented at the state level while Romney was serving as governor shows that you do not understand the difference between federal and state government. These things are very different.

Finally, do you realize how laughable it is for you to point out that the gas tax hasn't been raised since 93? I mean the whole point of my previous comment was to show that the government will have to figure out other ways to raise revenue, besides raising taxes on the rich, in order to address our spending problem. Thus, if we haven't changed it since 93 don't you think that may be one of the very first things that Democrats think could use a little updating.

Please, in the future try and make some attempt to think objectively and stop being blinded by your emotions.

December 6, 2012 at 7:33 p.m.
Easy123 said...

NirvanaFallacy,

"Calling Obamacare a Republican plan because it resemebles something similar to what was implemented at the state level while Romney was serving as governor shows that you do not understand the difference between federal and state government. These things are very different."

No really, it was supported heavily by the Republicans, specifically Bob Dole and Newt Gingrich. Anyone that did any research would know this. The mandate was a Conservative idea that was vehemently backed by the GOP when Clinton was President.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/15/health/policy/health-care-mandate-was-first-backed-by-conservatives.html

And Obamacare is essentially the same as Romneycare. The differences are in the numbers and semantics. By the way, state and federal governments aren't that different. Your pitiable, Republican disposition makes you feel that there is some drastic difference between the two. You're taught to hate big government. That's the Conservative way.

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Obamacare_vs_Romneycare

In the future, try to do some research before you talk. You don't even understand your own talking points and you don't even know the background of the issues you speak of.

December 6, 2012 at 9:32 p.m.
NirvanaFallacy said...

"No really, it was supported heavily by the Republicans, specifically Bob Dole and Newt Gingrich. Anyone that did any research would know this. The mandate was a Conservative idea that was vehemently backed by the GOP when Clinton was President."

Well, dang, you got me Easy. I now understand - Obamacare is a great idea, how stupid of me. Are you serious? Why should I or anyone care who first proposed this ill thought out plan. Whether republican or democrat, a bad idea is still a bad idea.

Surprise, Surprise - Easy - just one more American who does not understand our government. Might want to try reading that thing called the Constitution all the way through, instead of just picking out what parts of it you like. Big difference in Romenycare being implemented only in the state of Massachusetts and Obamacare being forced upon all 50 states.

I just don't understand why people think a big federal government will solve our problems. Under the system set up under the Constitution, each state acts like their own laboratories for ideas. That way if the state's idea is a bad one it only effects that one state. Whereas if the federal gov't implements a bad idea (cough, Obamacare, cough) that bad idea will effect the entire country. Furthermore, if the state implements a good idea then other states will copy that idea and adapt it to fit their needs.

Another benefit to the states having more power is it enables people to sort themselves between states in accordance with their preferences. In other words, people can vote with their feet. Lot easier to move between states compared to moving completely out of the country.

Finally, yes Easy, clearly I am the one that needs to do more research since I don't understand. Please enlighten me where I can go to learn why a big centralized federal government will solve our country's problems.

December 6, 2012 at 11:23 p.m.
Easy123 said...

NirvanaFallacy,

"Why should I or anyone care who first proposed this ill thought out plan. Whether republican or democrat, a bad idea is still a bad idea."

Obviously you care. You just got done denying that it was a Republican idea. Do you not remember that?

"Surprise, Surprise - Easy - just one more American who does not understand our government. Might want to try reading that thing called the Constitution all the way through, instead of just picking out what parts of it you like. Big difference in Romenycare being implemented only in the state of Massachusetts and Obamacare being forced upon all 50 states."

The only real difference is the amount of people it affects. Just because you act like there is some significant difference doesn't mean there actually is. All you have done is make a claim. You have presented nothing that would convince anyone of the supposed radical difference between the two. And it is no surprise that you, a Republican apologist, are trying to argue something that you have very little knowledge of. You spew this empty rhetoric like it's your job. The difference in the two plans is in the numbers and semantics. I've provided the proof. You just don't like Obama/liberals/Democrats/whatever you Wingnuts hate and that is plain to see.

"I just don't understand why people think a big federal government will solve our problems."

The federal government isn't getting any "smaller". It can't at this point in our countries history. Thinking you can all but eliminate the federal government is a pipe dream.

"Under the system set up under the Constitution, each state acts like their own laboratories for ideas."

This isn't the 1700's. And we will never go back to that no matter how much you want to. If you like living in small villages, no police, no public schools, no infrastructure, etc. then, by all means, pick a country in sub-Saharan Africa and live your dream.

"That way if the state's idea is a bad one it only effects that one state."

That's basically how our various governments function now. Are you unaware of this?

"Whereas if the federal gov't implements a bad idea (cough, Obamacare, cough) that bad idea will effect the entire country."

You still haven't made it clear why Obamacare is a bad idea.

"Furthermore, if the state implements a good idea then other states will copy that idea and adapt it to fit their needs."

That's essentially what the state AND federal government do now. Are you unaware of this?

December 6, 2012 at 11:37 p.m.
Easy123 said...

continued...

NirvanaFallacy,

"Another benefit to the states having more power is it enables people to sort themselves between states in accordance with their preferences."

That's how it works now...

"In other words, people can vote with their feet. Lot easier to move between states compared to moving completely out of the country."

The federal government has very little influence on you or I. I'm not sure how you could argue otherwise. You have presented nothing thus far that would lead me to believe that you are in touch with reality. The current state governments have exponentially more influence over our daily lives than the federal government.

"Finally, yes Easy, clearly I am the one that needs to do more research since I don't understand. Please enlighten me where I can go to learn why a big centralized federal government will solve our country's problems."

No one is advocating "big centralized government". That's a strawman you built. We don't have a "big centralized government" now. Democrats are not pushing for a "big centralized government". Just like Republicans aren't pushing for the opposite.

Seriously, are you a robot or something? Nothing you say is congruent with the current state of affairs in the United States of America. I don't know how it's possible for any serious, conscious person to think the way you do.

December 6, 2012 at 11:44 p.m.
NirvanaFallacy said...

I can't even debate you Easy because your knowledge of our system of government is so severely lacking (not to mention your lack of reading comprehension skills). I'd be willing to bet most 6th graders have a better understanding of our government than you do.

It is sad really.

December 7, 2012 at midnight

NirvanaFallacy, actually it seems to me that you're the one misguided by your own emotions and rhetoric, while pretending to be logical and rational.

That's actually a common pretense found in many right-wingers. They like to attack the lefties for being emotional and thinking about feelings.

Yet their own conduct does not measure up to the dispassionate Vulcan-like attitudes they want others to believe they possess.

Because you know what you just got done doing? Pointing a finger at me, saying "you are blinded with emotion and it clearly hurts your ability to think critically. " which just goes to show your hypocrisy.

You can say that you look at ideas and analyze them dispassionately. I haven't seen evidence of that from you. Instead I see you acting like a typical Republican mouthpiece, continually pretending to things that just aren't true.

But no, I call the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (you do know that calling it Obamacare reveals your partisanship, if you were truly nonpartisan, you would make an effort NOT to use that clearly loaded term), for what it is. A plan straight out of the pages of the Heritage Foundation and similar NOT just to the plan implemented by Romney, (whose plan he originally called a model for the nation), but ones proposed by Republicans back in the 90s.

As for pointing out the gas tax, I wanted to point out to you that it's not as big a deal as you seem to think. It probably even raises less money than you believe. It certainly doesn't raise enough to cover highway spending.

We could have discussed that. But no, you just had to say it was laughable, and come up with a reason to attack DEMOCRATS. Specifically them.

Instead of reacting in such an emotional way yourself to attack me, why not be a little more thoughtful about it? Why not say that you didn't know that, or that you did, and what you thought about it?

Oh wait, no, you would prefer to go after me, not even realizing how you just contradicted your own instruction to me.

Try practicing what you preach, instead of being the typical Republican mouthpiece here, attacking others, while proclaiming themselves the very model of reasoned discussion.

December 7, 2012 at 12:05 a.m.
Easy123 said...

NirvanaFallacy,

You can't debate me because you don't have a clue what you are talking about. You live in this Wingnut fantasy world where the federal government controls all of our lives and state governments are all the same and powerless. And Obamacare is a bad idea but it wasn't a Republican idea then you didn't care whose idea it was... blah, blah, blah.

Your KNOWLEDGE is severely lacking, as is your ability to fathom reality. I'd be willing to bet I know 10 other people that live in the same ignorant, Republican bubble that you do.

It was sad the first few times I encountered people like you. I've since come to accept it.

December 7, 2012 at 12:09 a.m.
joneses said...

It would be absolutely irresponsible for any state to set up these obastardcare health exchanges not knowing what the cost to the state will be. Until obastard tells Tennessee the true cost to the state for obastardcare this should be placed on obastard and all his marxist fools.

December 7, 2012 at 7:21 a.m.
Easy123 said...

joneses,

Why are you so angry with Obama? Did Obama have sex with your wife or something?

You must live a very sad life to be as hateful and stupid as you are.

December 7, 2012 at 1:46 p.m.
chatt_man said...

joneses - haven't you learned by now... cost is unimportant when it comes to things that "make liberals feel good."

After all, it's only doubled in cost since we "passed it, so we could read it."

December 7, 2012 at 2:10 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

Obastard. Just a little fixated on that word, hmm, jonesy? I'm thinking you probably go around yelling obastard at empty chairs and wake up in the middle of the night screaming "Obastard, obastard, obastard!" Just take your meds and go back to sleep, dear boy. There really isn't a bogeyman under your bed or in your closet and there is no Marxist or anti-christ in the White House, no matter what Faux News says.

December 7, 2012 at 2:29 p.m.
Easy123 said...

chatt_man,

"After all, it's only doubled in cost since we "passed it, so we could read it.""

After all, you are an idiot.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/293932/no-obamacare-s-costs-didn-t-double-patrick-brennan#

December 7, 2012 at 2:42 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

"...when it comes to things that "make liberals feel good." - chatt_man

You mean like trickle-down and austerity and corporate welfare and pampering the rich with low taxes and loopholes don't work and are no solutions to anything, but they just make conservatives feel good? You mean like that? Yeah, I see what you mean, chatt_man.

December 7, 2012 at 2:55 p.m.
Easy123 said...

JonIdiot,

"obastard's momma was a Communist"

False.

"obastard's daddy was a Communist"

Obama never had any kind of relationship with his father. But it remains to be seen that his father was, in fact, a Communist.

"obastard has confessed with associating primarily with Communists in college"

False. It makes no difference either way.

"obastard surrounds himself with Communist filth like Van Jones and Valerie Jarrett"

Neither of those two people are Communists.

"Don't tell me the sob isn't a Communist."

Obama isn't a Communist. You don't become something through diffusion. Case in point: JonRoss' mother. She was a whore. JonRoss isn't. Case closed.

December 7, 2012 at 3:18 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

Okay, JR, I won't tell you that Obama is not a Communist. I've learned that it's a waste of time to try to tell friggin' lunatics anything at all. Get help.

December 7, 2012 at 3:21 p.m.
Easy123 said...

JonRoss,

No, seriously, everything you just said is false.

You're correct about the method of my debunking not being the reason I'm correct. I'm correct because I know the facts. And they aren't in your favor.

You are a dumb bastard that spouts off at the mouth (or fingers, to be more precise) with the usual, Republican talking points; all of which have been disproved long ago.

Welcome to reality, peckerlips.

December 7, 2012 at 3:30 p.m.
chatt_man said...

Easy, I was going to respond to your post, until I read your response to JonRoss. We get pretty rough in here sometimes, and you gotta have thick skin to take abuse like "peckerlips" and other mean-spirited things you say. But you stooping to write " JonRoss' mother. She was a whore" is way over board

If you had a spec of decency in you (and we'll see) you would apologize to everyone on here for stooping to the low ranks of writing that, and including someone's mother in that kind of language.

So let's see... man or mouse, badass or boy? Remember dumbass, you have a mother too.

December 7, 2012 at 4:18 p.m.
Easy123 said...

chatt_man,

"you gotta have thick skin to take abuse like "peckerlips"

It doesn't mean what you think it means. It's a play on the phrase "harder than Wood Pecker lips". I use it to mean "dense".

"other mean-spirited things you say."

Well just cry about it, whiner. Should I bring up some mean-spirited things you have said in this post alone? I notice you don't reprimand JonRoss for calling the President a bastard. Why is that? LMFAO!

"But you stooping to write " JonRoss' mother. She was a whore" is way over board"

You're opinion has been duly noted and I still don't care what you may think. I just respond in kind to similar insults. You would know that if your head wasn't so firmly fixed inside your anus.

"If you had a spec of decency in you (and we'll see) you would apologize to everyone on here for stooping to the low ranks of writing that, and including someone's mother in that kind of language."

If you had one ounce of integrity, you would forego the sanctimoniousness and keep your mouth shut. Would you like for me to bring up some of the things you've said? I'll oblige.

"So let's see... man or mouse, badass or boy? Remember dumbass, you have a mother too."

So let's see... self-righteous or ignorant, hypocrite or bitch? Remember dumbass, your mom had to have sex with someone for you to be here.

December 7, 2012 at 4:37 p.m.

Chatt_man, you must have skipped Jonross's remark and gone right to the Fox News self-blinding depnial class, to feign that hypocritical outrage.

If you're going to attack people on civility, at least be less obvious about your bias.

Or admit to it, then at least you're not pretending to be upset while ignoring another's offenses because they are on your side.

December 7, 2012 at 5:14 p.m.
chatt_man said...

You're both right, on both accounts. I have posted my own share of mean things here, and I did not read all the way thru the thread, my bad.

But, man or mouse, badass or boy, and peckerlips don't come close to your recent writing I referred to. And Easy, everyone's mom had to have sex for any of us to be here. What the hell does that have to do with anything? That doesn't lessen your need to refrain from including peoples family with your names. Opinion duly noted is enough, you all have a good weekend.

December 7, 2012 at 5:33 p.m.
Easy123 said...

chatt_man,

"And Easy, everyone's mom had to have sex for any of us to be here. What the hell does that have to do with anything?"

About as much as your comment that I "have a mother too.". That was my whole point.

"That doesn't lessen your need to refrain from including peoples family with your names."

I will when others do the same.

December 7, 2012 at 5:47 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.