Many have claimed that criticizers of Obama’s proposed national healthcare, or criticizers of any part of it, were products of a right-wing conspiracy to dismantle the Obama Administration and all the wonderful things it wants to do for this country. They made incendiary comments in what they considered to be “big words” that they felt no conservative or opposition of the healthcare plans would be able to understand, despite evidence to the contrary.
In one article that I wrote to oppose that people that prove themselves to be healthy AND young (between the ages of .jpg)
18 and 34) should be forced to purchase healthcare, I received a comment with the header, “You have no clue!” and a sob-story about how her elderly father had heart disease and required insurance, and under my story would not get it (which is not true, as I stated that young adults should not be required to purchase health insurance, with nothing that would suggest that I believe that health insurance should not be an option or something that people who are ill, elderly, children, or pregnant women should not purchase). Unfortunately these headline-only readers are often as intelligent as the people they think that they can fool into thinking they are not being insulted by them when they suggest that a conservative does not understand what totalitarianism is and wouldn’t even be able to spell it anyway. (AP Photo/Charles Rex Arbogast)
18 and 34) should be forced to purchase healthcare, I received a comment with the header, “You have no clue!” and a sob-story about how her elderly father had heart disease and required insurance, and under my story would not get it (which is not true, as I stated that young adults should not be required to purchase health insurance, with nothing that would suggest that I believe that health insurance should not be an option or something that people who are ill, elderly, children, or pregnant women should not purchase). Unfortunately these headline-only readers are often as intelligent as the people they think that they can fool into thinking they are not being insulted by them when they suggest that a conservative does not understand what totalitarianism is and wouldn’t even be able to spell it anyway. (AP Photo/Charles Rex Arbogast)Most of the supporters of the proposed plans have no understanding of what they would entail and use their keen sense of emotion and its hypnotic effect to rein support in, rather than cold, hard facts. An e-mail list of supporters of Barack Obama during his election is currently being used as part of a community organization project. Volunteers are asked to tell personal stories of their loss of insurance and health problems that would lead to the formation of supporters in the people that they spoke with. I have to venture to say that due to the fact that only 1.4% of Americans are uninsured, and roughly half of those are satisfied with their position as an uninsured person, that at least a portion of these community organizers are making these stories up as they go along. As one other blogger once joked on his site, “How do you know when a politician is lying? They’re mouth is moving." This theory is now applying to many political activists as well. The supporters are resorting to crying about their [made-up] health problems in order to make a person on the opposition feel sorry for them, and then add a well-placed fear-laced, “and it could happen to you!” for good measure.
Emotion is not the answer to these questions. It’s not even the question. Yes, emotion may get a bad bill passed, but it will not insure that a bad bill will work in the long run. We voted out of office an administration that sold the public a detrimental war based on fear and we do not need another detrimental act based upon more of the same. We need facts. Experts in almost every area, economists, medical professionals, and political pundits, are in an almost consensus that a national healthcare plan, or at least portions of the healthcare reform, could spell doom for the American people, economically, financially, and health-wise.
This was no more obvious anywhere else than at a speech that President Obama held to gain support from the American Medical Association (AMA), an organization that represents medical professionals and students. At key points during Obama’s speech many in the crowd began to boo him. Obama looked stunned at first, leading me to believe that he may not have been aware that educated professionals that deal with patients on a day to day basis would opposed a national health plan or parts of the reform, and then his look changed to an angry and disgusted one. While if I were at the American Medical Association speech, I would not have booed Mr. Obama (it is better to use careful constructive criticism of a plan or any one of its parts, and not the rude act of booing), I think this shows a critical crossroads to allow vigilant politicians, the public, and experts to weigh in on some of their critiques of the proposed plans without fear. I also believe it will open the door more for people to oppose the plan, not as a heartless measure, but one clearly thought out, as the medical professions is one of the more respected vocations in the US today and one in which many people decline to say is occupied by the backwards, corrupt, or uneducated. I hope that this will allow more people to crunch some numbers and use some facts, instead of allowing emotion, much of it hyped and feigned, to control their decision-making, both medical and political.
Comments
This is a misleading article in the fact that it does not mention the multiple cheers he received from the same audience.
The only time booing came from the audience was when Obama stated that he would not pursue capping damages awarded for malpractice lawsuits.
His general message was greeted with much more applause than boos despite what this article might lead one to believe.
Just another example of an author with a political agenda cherrypicking only that information which could support their personal beliefs and causes.
Poor reporting of this speech by both sides.
Yes, there was more applause than there was booing, but many applaud readily, while booing is not common, especially towards a president. Bush was applauded more than booed as well. I have worked in the medical industry, am currently obtaining a PhD in Psychology and know many doctors, and many parts of this plan are not popular among doctors. I was pointing out that this is not known by the general population. Everything I stated was accurate and without bias. I am not against all parts of the plan, but I write opinion articles (they are listed under the commentary category), and I am not in agreement with the insurance mandates portion. I, as an uninsured American, cause no harm to anyone but myself if I get sick, therefore why should I be forced to be covered? My article, while written last night and published today, was similar in that USA Today published the same information that is important for Americans to have. It isn't right to have a one-sided stance on anything.
Good thing you deleted mine and about 10 other comments totally refuting this pathetic attempt to undermine a realistic undertaking for universal health coverage. I think there might be a place for you in Iran...
Merican, everyone is entitled to their opinion. Sadly, however, it is not always the most logical, factual opinion that holds sway; rather, it is the sensationalistic, emotion-laden opinion that typically garners the most attention, as if we should drop all attempts at making the best possible decisions for the majority of citizens of our country to satisfy the few.
Let's see...a high risk of severely downgrading the current level of quality of our health care system in exchange for insurance for a mere 1.4% of the population, half of whom have no problem with being uninsured. Or, in raw numbers, greatly reducing the current quality of care for 98.6% of the population to help 0.7% of the same population. Yep, makes perfect sense to me.
Go do some research, Merican. And by that, I don't mean watching CBS/CNN/ABC/NBC/FOX, but rather investigate what socialized medicine is really like in other countries.
In order to respond to the one and allow it to be seen, I had to delete one or two that did not stay on topic. This article was about pointing out the other side. Sadly, people could not see it this way and attempted to go into attack mode, many about things this article was not about. Those in that category were deleted to allow others comments to be seen.
-Danielle
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!