(Advertisement)

PUBLIC VIEWPOINT: Attack Typical Of Right Wing Attitude

Posted: February 21, 2012 at 3:51 a.m.

Buddy Rogers’ opinion (Jan. 22) railing against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that Congress passed needs to be questioned.

This story is only available from our archives.

Opinion, Pages 5 on 02/21/2012

(Advertisement)



« Previous Story

CASUALTIES OF WAR

To honor the men and women in our armed forces and remind our readers of their sacrifices, the Benton County Daily Record is publishing Department of Defense announcements ... Read »

Next Story »

BETWEEN THE LINES: Arkansas Truck Tax Needs F...

Is any issue worth the extraordinary vote necessary to get it before the Arkansas Legislature in the ongoing fiscal session? Read »

When the Rogers' piece was published last month, the comment board was bare but for this:

To ensure continuation of the fog of controversy about the Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act of 2010, Rogers makes reference to Nancy Pelosi.

This was Speaker Polosi's actual comment, "But, we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy."

That was wishful thinking. People like Buddy Rogers and the Republican state legislators he admires should spend a little more time actually finding out what's in it, and focus less on spreading the fog.

Mr. Rogers refers to the Health Insurance Exchange portion of the PPACA of 2010 (HIX is the accepted acronym, not HIE), but he has confused the federally mandated purpose of the HIX with that of the business sector of independent insurance agents.

A HIX is a state administered program to facilitate administration of subsidies to low income applicants and ensure that participating insurance companies are complying with the consumer protection aspects of the law. The idea is modeled after Massachusetts' successfully administered program. If Arkansas legislators choose not establish a HIX, the job will be done by federal agents, thus Governor Beebe's encouragement to "maintain control" at the state level. Commenting that Arkansas' independent insurance agents would fulfill this role indicates Rogers' has but a meager understanding of the topic he's attempting to write about.

Rogers' reference to "waivers for union and corporate friends of the administration," is not so partisan and malevolent as he imagines; simply a temporary measure to protect companies who provide limited benefit plans for low income workers, to discourage the companies from cancelling the insurance altogether while arranging for full implementation of broader insurance protection.

True, the PPACA is unpopular with those whose adjusted gross income exceeds $250,000, and who thus will be paying an additional 0.9% in Medicare taxes, and it's unpopular with those who have yet to read anything about it, depending instead for their education to be spooned out by Fox TV and partisan hacks like Buddy Rogers. With regard to the "doubtful constitutionality", the most likely outcome of the Supreme Court review scheduled to begin in March 2012 is a 5/4 decision upholding the law and urging the USA into the 21st century.

Posted by: FrankLloydLeft

February 21, 2012 at 11:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Frank: "[A certain comment] indicates Rogers' has but a meager understanding of the topic he's attempting to write about.">>

It seems Buddy Rogers' specialty is attempting to write about subjects of which he has, at best, a meager understanding. If you think he is all wet about health care (and he certainly is), here is a blast from the past where it was necessary to dismantle his perfect and spotless ignorance of climate science:

"Buddy Rogers and Misleading Arguments"

http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/vie...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

February 21, 2012 at 11:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Actually, Obama does not consider the term "Obamacare" to be pejorative, and he sometimes uses it himself. If only the Teabaggers were so nonchalant about "Teabagger".

Posted by: AlphaCat

February 22, 2012 at 12:03 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

.

If PPACA is going to be called "ObamaCare" then we should call Medicare "JohnsonCare" since Lyndon Baines Johnson(D) was the president who fought for Medicare and passed it. Bet Republicans wouldn't like that one bit.
.
By the way, tell your conservative grandmas and grandpas that Ronnie Reagan went around the country speaking against Medicare, saying it would ruin the practice of medicine and turn us toward socialism. In between that and today multimillionaires have been created by entrepreneurs supply and providing to Medicare.
.
Obviously Richard Snively is correct, Buddy Rogers is a shill, a poor one at that.
.
The idea of passing a law requiring people to buy health insurance was first Newt Gringrich's idea, back in the 1990s, perhaps earlier.

.

Posted by: cdawg

February 22, 2012 at 1:08 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

We interrupt this trailer for the April 13 release of the movie starring the preceding for something that they are completely unfamiliar with...FACTS.

To wit, the shill who wrote the letter contends that Medicare has worked well for the past forty years...which is news to the actuaries who have been telling us that it is going broke at a faster rate than Social Security. And ObamaCare only accelerates the pace of the bankruptcy, which is the ultimate goal of those of the socialist ilk, since it quickens the pace for a single-payer plan that would lead to all the benefits we see in Canada and England. Those who can flee the ill effects are in favor of the program while those who have to live under the bureaucratic decisions suffer.

Second, the scribbler attempts to provide us a version of conservatives cheering Ron Paul's alleged statement that people without insurance should just die. Perhaps FFL and his cohorts can manufacture evidence as he usually does, but ignore the truth that (1) real conservatives have no use for Ron Paul and his anti-Semitism, (2) no doctor would advocate allowing patients to die...that is more often heard from the supporters of Obamacare, and (3) denying life-saving care is more characteristic of the health-care propgrams that the R. Snivelys of the world demand.

Posted by: IrishMensa

February 22, 2012 at 10:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Moving on to the folks who stooge for George Soros, we have FLL (Larry) who attempts to claim that Nancy Pelosi didn't attempt to shove ObamaCare down our throats by utilizing the "...from the fog of controversy." Nice try, but adding the phrase takes nothing from the intent of the House to hide the deails of what is clearly (to anyone who actually reads the Constitution) unconstitutional based on the individual mandate, and in violation of the First Amendment that protects freedom of religion.

Then we have FFL (or Moe), who provides cherry-picked links to buttress his case that aren't worth the time debunking because anyone who actually lives in the real world should laugh his posts out of general principle. The remainder of his posts are little more than self-aggrandizing recollections of posts that amount to little more than the usual name-calling that has become the only strategy that the left uses these days.

Posted by: IrishMensa

February 22, 2012 at 11:06 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Finally, we move on to a_cat (or Surly), whose asinine post should merit nothing but ridicule. However, for the benefit of the children who might think the same question, let us respond in a more adult fashion than the heckler.

"ObamaCare" is an accurate description of the health care takeover, and this occupant of the Oval Office has no problem in using the term because (1) any publicity is good publicity, and (2) as a government official and member of the idle rich, he will never have to live under the dictates of the legislation.

On the other hand, the Rachel Maddow description of those who ask that government follow the Constitution is an intentional perjorative that bears no relation to those individuals who happen to support the principles of the Tea Party. As the Houhynhms (spelling ?) in Gulliver's Travels would say, using the term is "saying the thing that is not." Of course, that is not surprising from someone who isn't all that familiar with the truth.

And CD, just so you don't feel left out, just because the individual mandate may have been offered by Gingrich (and Romney) as an economic way to address the "free rider" danger, does not mean that conservatives accept the idea. It is clearly an assault on liberty, which proves the point that the current legislation has less to do with reforming health care and everything to do with seizing control.

Posted by: IrishMensa

February 22, 2012 at 11:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

IrishMensa (with my apologies to the high-IQ society)--

RE "We interrupt this... for something that they are completely unfamiliar with...FACTS."
You present no facts-- only assertions and opinions. Perhaps you should try to shake your disdain for research and citation.

RE "ObamaCare only accelerates the pace of the bankruptcy, which is the ultimate goal of those of the socialist ilk, since it quickens the pace for a single-payer plan that would lead to all the benefits we see in Canada and England."
You should be aware that Britons and Canadians are overall and in many respects more satisfied with their health care than Americans are with ours. See http://www.gallup.com/poll/150788/ame... and http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-1280... and http://www.gallup.com/poll/8056/healt... If health care in Canada and Great Britain are as bad as you seem to think they are, then U.S. health care must be even worse. As for "the pace of bankruptcy", see http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot...

RE "Then we have FFL (or Moe), who provides cherry-picked links to buttress his case that aren't worth the time debunking because anyone who actually lives in the real world should laugh his posts out of general principle."
If you had checked that link, you would have known that it was on a different topic entirely. If you did check it and still don't know that, well....

Of course, if fft's links are in fact "cherry-picked", then you should have no trouble refuting them. If you'd rather just look like an ass without going to the trouble of trying, I guess I can't blame you; you make it look easy.

RE "the usual name-calling that has become the only strategy that the left uses these days."
Which of course would explain your calling various people "shill", "scribbler", "Larry" and "Moe": you're actually a liberal. Except that, despite your "self-aggradizing" screen name, you're not really intelligent enough to be a liberal. You prove that every time you post.

Posted by: AlphaCat

February 23, 2012 at 12:06 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

>>It is clearly an assault on liberty, which proves the point that the current legislation has less to do with reforming health care and everything to do with seizing control.<<
.
Well, duh! Aren't you the brilliant one. How does one "reform" anything without "seizing" some control?
.
Drug and alcohol laws. Gun restrictions. Traffic laws.
All "seize control." SEC requirements "seize control." FDIC rules/regulations "seize control."
.
Do away with those in the name of "liberty?"
.
With liberty comes some responsibility and that must be enforced.
.
Interesting that you named two national leading conservatives who supported the individual mandate yet you're arrogant enough to claim that conservatives don't support it. They once supported it but now they don't? That it? Nothing new about the tiger changing stripes. Happens regularly.
.
What's become very apparent is that if you don't like Newt's or Mitt's positions don't worry. They have others.

Posted by: cdawg

February 23, 2012 at 2:53 a.m. ( | suggest removal )