patrick.net

Singapore makes a system like this work but they have a very different society.

I'm not sure how this is a victory in the US as there is very little enforcement against financial crooks here. Forcing me to pay money to insurance companies seems like an idea that has a high chance of a bad outcome.

I grew up with a national health care system and am well aware of the advantages of having this as an option. This was viewed as too hard to even attempt.

So now we have all the same people running the same systems but with the rules changed somewhat.

"Healthcare reform done deal!" - Yea, sure.

http://dgsinclair.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c003953ef0120a64c3697970b-800wi

Another "Mission accomplished"!

Eliza says

Single payer efficiencies would include, for example, simplified payment processing.

Go talk to folks who work on the front lines of customer service in the insurance industry. They don't often speak highly of their companies and the hell of modern corporate management but whoa nelly, they don't speak highly of Medicare either. Set up your account for auto payment via social security? God help you if you swap insurance companies, the SS folks will be 1-2 months behind and changes and will still take the money out of your checks/accounts and pay the old company (who if smart refuse the check/kick it back to fed gov.) anyway until they hear from Medicare that you've changed companies.

The part I find most interesting is what is not said. Each side is actually saying only some of its arguments. It’s hard to hear what isn’t said, but those factors are what voters really use to choose sides.
On the pro-healthcare side, the unsaid arguments are something like this:
* Take that, Republicans! (OK, that one is pretty explicit in the picture at top.)

* Yes, we are going to provide medical care to poor blacks and Hispanics and whites will end up paying for most of it.

* I’m worried there’s a real chance that medical costs will bankrupt me personally unless we change something.
On the anti-healthcare side, the unsaid arguments are something like this:
* I’m still mad at that gay/Jew/girl in middle school who made fun of my spelling mistakes.

* OMFG, they’re going to make me pay for health care for dark-skinned people.

* My own relative position falls as that of minorities rises. Therefore they are Nazi communists. (I didn’t do so good in history neither.)
Maybe I’m oversimplifying, but maybe not.
The key factor is shame.

GAAAA! Its always about race isn't it? That seems to be the only card played anymore. Oh, they're racists or homophobes. Politically correct nonsense.

AltonS says

GAAAA! Its always about race isn’t it? That seems to be the only card played anymore. Oh, they’re racists or homophobes. Politically correct nonsense.

From Yahoo new story--

Just look at the past weekend: Thousands of Tea Party protesters descended on Washington in an attempt to "kill the bill." It was an impressive turnout for a quickly organized protest—but coverage of the event soon was dominated by reports that some demonstrators had hurled racial and homophobic epithets at Democratic lawmakers as they entered the Capitol.

It's all nonsense, though--right?

ahasuerus99 says

The Tea Party movement is much more classically conservative oriented, the Neo-cons are mostly happy that Obama has continued the Bush Doctrine in Afghanistan and Iraq, and that he has continued most Bush era policies regarding banks and businesses.

Agree, the only problem with the "Tea Party" is that they, like all good Americans, do not know how to brew a good tea. They use prepacked tea bags with all the glue, dirty paper, and artificial colors in them.

michaelsch says

“Healthcare reform done deal!” - Yea, sure.
http://dgsinclair.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c003953ef0120a64c3697970b-800wi
Another “Mission accomplished”!

The only outcome the GOP can achieve by digging in their heels further and fighting this to the bitter end will be like Custer deciding to stand and fight. They'd do best to cut their losses and move on. Probably they won't.

Truly the rhetoric of people like Rush have been their worst enemy. Unless you are a HARDCORE conservative that spends all day being angry and having it reinforced by FoxNews and AM radio, all this "Nazi" imagery just makes 'em look like loons. The hardcore people in fact are not even a majority of Republican voters. But GOP leadership has become so VERY strident and unaccepting of any variation from rigid party line, that anyone who disagrees in the minutest detail is just a "RINO fool". This was one of the things that led to my disaffection and change of party before last election.

WORK HARDER NOT SMARTER.....wait that doesn't sound right....

tatupu70 says

but coverage of the event soon was dominated by reports that some demonstrators had hurled racial and homophobic epithets at Democratic lawmakers as they entered the Capitol.
It’s all nonsense, though–right?

Maybe, is it? Were the majority of protestors doing this, or just a couple? The article you quote states that the coverage of the event was dominated by reports that some demonstrators had done this. Do you translate this to mean that the event was dominated by demonstrators who did that? I wonder what you would have thought of Iraq war protests if coverage of the events were dominated by reports that they were organized by real socialists and some protestors had signs saying "we support our troops who shoot their officers...?" I was in NYC for RNC 2004 in a non-political/non-media role. "Coverage" could have easily been "dominated by reports" that "some" demonstrators had done all sorts of things, including bomb threats... Instead, "Coverage" was "dominated by reports" that protestors were arrested and complaining that their rights were violated....

Paralithodes says

Were the majority of protestors doing this, or just a couple?

Oh, is it OK if it's only a couple? Exactly how many people does it take until it's not OK?

Paralithodes says

I wonder what you would have thought of Iraq war protests if coverage of the events were dominated by reports that they were organized by real socialists and some protestors had signs saying “we support our troops who shoot their officers…?”

Huh?? Is that the best hypothetical you could come up with?

Apparently the fringe that is currently dominating the Republican party is now trying to mount a bunch of legal challenges and amendments to state constitutions to try and fight the legal mandate in the bill. Ironic, especially since the one true example of a system of mandated universal insurance in the U.S. was instituted under and championed by Mitt Romney in MA.

Of course, any healthcare economist will tell you that the only way to keep insurers from discriminating based on preexisting conditions is to mandate coverage (otherwise people will wait until they are sick to buy insurance, and the whole system collapses).

But just as importantly, our emergency rooms are nearing collapse due to the huge numbers of uninsured who use them as doctors of last resort - and under the current law, they can't be turned away if they are in danger of dying. This leads not only to insanely crowded emergency rooms and ambulances being turned away repeatedly from full ERs, but it also leads to the rest of us paying for those who either can't afford insurance, are barred from buying insurance due to preexisting conditions, or who are those irresponsible jerks who don't buy insurance because they think they can get free care "in an emergency".

Now there IS a truly ultra conservative approach to this situation. Simply pass a law that anyone without insurance (or cash upfront) will be denied any and all medical care. Get hit by an uninsured driver? Tough luck. Slice open your artery in a game of hockey? You might want to try super glue. This is true freedom - the freedom to die from denial of care from even the most treatable of conditions. Sounds like an ultra-conservative utopia, doesn't it? Hmm, wonder why none of the tea partiers are proposing this?

tatupu70 says

Oh, is it OK if it’s only a couple? Exactly how many people does it take until it’s not OK?

I'm not sure where I said it was OK for anyone to do this. But clearly the point of your post was to implicate the entire demonstration by association. Otherwise, you would have not responded to AltonS with that article.

tatupu70 says

Huh?? Is that the best hypothetical you could come up with?

Yes. If the "coverage" was hypothetically "dominated by reports" of "some" demonstrators doing these , real non-hypothetical things that actually occured (along with bomb threats, throwing feces and urine, etc. at RNC 2004), then I wonder how you would react to someone attempting to paint the entire demonstration by the actions of those few. Given your responses above, perhaps I should *assume* that your objection to painting everyone due to those few was actually a belief that it was OK if it was only a couple or a few... Or perhaps I should assume that you need a reading comprehension lesson? I think the most reasonable assumption, however, is that you are smart enough to know exactly the method by which you are arguing, even if you were fooled by the wording of that article (many rational people would be).

srla says

Now there IS a truly ultra conservative approach to this situation. Simply pass a law that anyone without insurance (or cash upfront) will be denied any and all medical care. Get hit by an uninsured driver? Tough luck. Slice open your artery in a game of hockey? You might want to try super glue. This is true freedom - the freedom to die from denial of care from even the most treatable of conditions. Sounds like an ultra-conservative utopia, doesn’t it? Hmm, wonder why none of the tea partiers are proposing this?

I suspect it has something do to with the fact they have little interest on nuance, or thinking through the policy implications of their ideology an a rational way.

One of the most overlooked aspects of the opposition to the bill was that fact that Republicans rallied the opposition by saying the bill would CUT MEDICARE TOO MUCH. What does that say about the supposed American opposition to single payer, when even the OPPOSITION for health care reform was defending the status quo on a single payer system?

srla says

Ironic, especially since the one true example of a system of mandated universal insurance in the U.S. was instituted under and championed by Mitt Romney in MA.

What's ironic about it? Did MA's system violate MA's Constitution? Isn't it more ironic that you speak of irony when you don't actually understand the "nuance" (as Mark would say) of the difference between state and federal government powers - both in views and in the Constitution?

srla says

Hmm, wonder why none of the tea partiers are proposing this?

Probably because it is simply irrational hyperbole that does not reflect the conservative positions on the issue.

MarkInSF says

I suspect it has something do to with the fact they have little interest on nuance, or thinking through the policy implications of their ideology an a rational way.
One of the most overlooked aspects of the opposition to the bill was that fact that Republicans rallied the opposition by saying the bill would CUT MEDICARE TOO MUCH. What does that say about the supposed American opposition to single payer, when even the OPPOSITION for health care reform was defending the status quo on a single payer system?

Were they saying that it would cut Medicare too much because a) they support Medicare despite some the contradiction in position, b) because it skews the advertised Federal cost of the health care bill by reducing Federal expenditures for Medicare while states would have to pick up that tab as part of an unfunded/underfunded mandate, or c) some combination of above plus maybe even some other variables? I vote for (c), despite that it might require some nuance.

BTW, doesn't ignoring the many other variables that may play into why conservatives might support one program over another, while simplifying the position and reality on another aspect, show little interest in nuance? Maybe not.. It's not like there isn't some type of pot calling the kettle black trend around here when it comes to describing conservative positions and thinking... Nah, not at all!

ObamaCare was a sham. Dirty politics was the rule - bribery, back room deals, arm twisting, threats, secret deals by the President, etc. Hardly diplomatic. Where is statesmanship? This was not a popular mandate. 219-210 vote is a bare majority. If only 5 votes would have gone the other way this would have been dead. This is a giant step toward statism and slavery.

I predict many of you will be disappointed 5 - 10 yrs down the road. It will likely accelerate the growing deficit. Taxes will increase. Huge expansion of IRS agents. Illegal aliens will get coverage. This is a welfare bill and will increase dependency on the gov't. Private insurance will likely go up with no pre-existing conditions and no annual caps. I predict rationing. I think there will be funding for the murder of unborn babies. And other unintended consequences with the 3,000 page monstrosity that we currently don't see.

OH MY GOD WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!

...still

wcalleallegre says

I think there will be funding for the murder of unborn babies. This is a giant step toward statism and slavery.

Playing on emotions certainly hasn't helped so far. You're wasting your breath. Remember that it doesn't matter if it passed 100% or as a grandstanding opportunity for idiots to spout their hatred of anything with which they disagree - it passed.

rileybryan says

The young are on the hook for the old

And it's a shame that the young never get old, nor do they know and care for anybody old! Who needs old people anyway?

But are we really on the hook to pay the bill for some jackass who smokes rat poison cut meth?

Or skaters. I hate them. I wish they'd stay off my lawn.

The deal is simply the status quo isn't working, and this is the most progressive policy we can get given the various moving parts (even counting the teabagger noise machine).

The way to fix the insurance overhead problem is to more highly regulate the industry, like Canada, Japan, Switzerland, etc etc do. Unfortunately, for 30-40% of this country, government is a "ima reachin' for my gun" word.

Troy says

But are we really on the hook to pay the bill for some jackass who smokes rat poison cut meth?

Or skaters. I hate them. I wish they’d stay off my lawn.

Not to mention we already do pay for their emergency room care if they are uninsured.

Then you've got jackasses that don't eat an optimal diet (extremely few people do) or exercise enough causing diseases like cancer, cardio-vascular disease, diabetes, kidney failure, . And people drive cars, ride motorcycles, ski, live in homes with dangerous stairs, live in areas with lots of particulates that cause serious lung problems, work in hospitals, go fight wars. And the worst jackasses of all: those that decide to get old.

Now if only I could find a way not to pay for their health care, since I know I will never be needing any.

rileybryan says

supporting fact that it was similar to social security.

Not really. SS is more like medicare, which is essentially a transfer payment from adults to elderly to provide for their health care, or public education which provides investment in children at the expense of adults, though of course schools are largely run by government.

This bill is more like mandating everybody have auto insurance, because no matter now good a driver you think you are, shit happens and can often be remedied in a meaningful way, but is very expensive. It not really a transfer to the elderly since we already have medicare.

Unless of course you're willing to just say "You get sick or injured and you don't have insurance? Fuck you. I won't pay a dime. Go be a cripple or die." Which opponents of this bill still won't admit is their official position.

rileybryan says

alright, so I’ve read through the posts, and I’m pretty sure that not one of us fully understands whats going on in the 2500 page bill.

Speak for yourself. Certainly few (if any) of us have read every detail, but I'd venture to say that anyone with two brain cells to rub together has at least a high level understanding of the most significant portions of the bill. The 'nobody has read it, nobody understands it' line is bullshit GOP spew. Seriously, if you don't know what's in the bill by now (what was just passed is essentially the same as what passed in December, modulo some small amendments), then you're just being willfully ignorant.

From what I can find, it turns out this bill is equivalent social security II. The young are on the hook for the old,

Oh, shit, now young people have to pay money to provide some sort of MEDIcal CARE to old people? OH MY GOD THIS IS SO NEW AND HORRIBLE!

and its going to cost a lot more than they say.

And you know this because...?

Its no secret that denying things like pre-existing conditions are BS. But are we really on the hook to pay the bill for some jackass who smokes rat poison cut meth?

I'm pretty sure that those people will die and nobody will pay for their health care.

Health care costs don't come from rat poison smoking jackasses. They mostly come from old people who are dying and throw hundreds of thousands of dollars at trying to stay alive. We're already paying for those old people. Nothing is changing that. What we can change is all of the waste that goes into the system -- from unnecessary testing to missed preventative care that leads to emergency care to the pure waste that is insurance industry "overhead" (one could argue that the entire insurance industry is "overhead", but that's another debate).

I think that if we are on the hook to pay for these morons, we might care a little more about fixing our society to the point that these people might want to do something fun & less damaging… and I’m not talking about alcohol

Maybe we should make it illegal to smoke meth!

The main purpose of this bill is to make sure that catastrophic medical situations don't destroy people's finances. Of course, that's what INSURANCE was supposed to be for originally, but at some point the insurance companies decided that it was more profitable to be a health care middleman than it was to be an insurance provider.

Personally, I wish we went back to insurance being for catastrophic things and for people to pay for the routine out of pocket (and, like food banks and public housing, for poor people to get the routine things for free or very cheap). The only way to accomplish that would be to bar non-catastrophic medical insurance. Unfortunately doing that would never be allowed by the powerful "insurance" interests who would immediately claim that government was trying to take over an important american institution or some other such nonsense.

Paralithodes says

Were they saying that it would cut Medicare too much because a) they support Medicare despite some the contradiction in position, b) because it skews the advertised Federal cost of the health care bill by reducing Federal expenditures for Medicare while states would have to pick up that tab as part of an unfunded/underfunded mandate, or c) some combination of above plus maybe even some other variables? I vote for (c), despite that it might require some nuance.

You forgot choice d) because it was a scare tactic that might work on seniors

Kevin says

What we can change is all of the waste that goes into the system — from unnecessary testing...

Unnecessary testing as determined by whom? If it is determined by the doctor, is there anything in the bill that further protects health professionals (doctors, etc.) from being sued for not conducting certain tests when the outcome of the case was not favorable?

Kevin says

Personally, I wish we went back to insurance being for catastrophic things and for people to pay for the routine out of pocket (and, like food banks and public housing, for poor people to get the routine things for free or very cheap). The only way to accomplish that would be to bar non-catastrophic medical insurance. Unfortunately doing that would never be allowed by the powerful “insurance” interests who would immediately claim that government was trying to take over an important american institution or some other such nonsense.

Another way to do it would be to allow insurance companies to sell various policies across state lines just like they can with life insurance, etc. That way if you are a resident of CA and you like a catastrophic policy sold by a company in DE, complying with the laws in DE for health insurance policies, you could. I'm not sure if the idea of baring non-catastrophic medical insurance puts you to the right of conservatives or to the left of liberals, but your "nonsense" about the "insurance" interests is just that: You miss that by barring an industry from selling a product/service, you would be barring individuals from the choice of purchasing that product/service.

tatupu70 says

You forgot choice d) because it was a scare tactic that might work on seniors

I'll include that in my choice (c), which includes other variables. I take it you argue that the Republicans had zero legitimate concerns or points regarding the impact/relation of the bill to Medicare? I'm just trying to get beyond the nuance thing.... I just don't get the nuance of claiming one side doesn't understand nuance while simultaneously ignoring nuance.

Paralithodes says

tatupu70 says
You forgot choice d) because it was a scare tactic that might work on seniors
I’ll include that in my choice (c), which includes other variables. I take it you argue that the Republicans had zero legitimate concerns or points regarding the impact/relation of the bill to Medicare? I’m just trying to get beyond the nuance thing…. I just don’t get the nuance of claiming one side doesn’t understand nuance while simultaneously ignoring nuance.

I think they probably had some legitimate concerns, but I don't think they worked in a constructive way to help shape the bill and fix those concerns. Instead they did everything possible to kill any health care bill, thereby assuring that what would be left was flawed.

Paralithodes says

Yes. If the “coverage” was hypothetically “dominated by reports” of “some” demonstrators doing these , real non-hypothetical things that actually occured (along with bomb threats, throwing feces and urine, etc. at RNC 2004), then I wonder how you would react to someone attempting to paint the entire demonstration by the actions of those few. Given your responses above, perhaps I should *assume* that your objection to painting everyone due to those few was actually a belief that it was OK if it was only a couple or a few… Or perhaps I should assume that you need a reading comprehension lesson? I think the most reasonable assumption, however, is that you are smart enough to know exactly the method by which you are arguing, even if you were fooled by the wording of that article (many rational people would be).

The wording of the article? Huh? Are you impying that the article made it up? I can post several other sources if you'd like.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34832.html
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34790.html
It happened.

tatupu70 says

The wording of the article? Huh? Are you impying that the article made it up? I can post several other sources if you’d like.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34832.html
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34790.html
It happened.

So, which is your point: that "some" demonstrators did such things and that reflects on the entire demonstration? Or that the the demonstration itself was dominated by such demonstrators? The latter is not supported by any of your articles, so we will go with the former.

The wording of the article, if read carefully, states that the "COVERAGE... was dominated by REPORTS of..." NOT that the "demonstration was dominated by demonstrators doing... " Maybe we're stuck in this nuance thing again....

Therefore, to be consistent, my example was not hypothetical at all. Since the major anti-Iraq war protests were organized by actual socialist groups, all participants reflected a socialist (and anti-Israel/Pro-"Palestine" and anti-capitalist) extremist view. Since one group held a very large banner saying "we support our troops who shoot their officers" at one major protest (it may have been Code Pink but I do not recall), then all participants in that protest is guilty of that sentiment. Since some protestors at RNC 2004 threw feces or urine, or made bomb threats, this reflects upon the entire protest.

BTW, here is an article refuting some of the complaints about the protests...
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/22/tea-party-protesters-dispute-reports-slurs-spitting-dem-lawmakers/

tatupu70 says

I think they probably had some legitimate concerns, but I don’t think they worked in a constructive way to help shape the bill and fix those concerns. Instead they did everything possible to kill any health care bill, thereby assuring that what would be left was flawed.

So, which is the actual propaganda and which is the truth: your statement above, or my response that the Democrats refused to work with the Republicans and consider their views from very early on in the debate/process unless the Republicans would be onboard with a "public option?" Maybe somewhere in between?

Para--

You've completely missed my point re--the tea party protests. Someone earlier posted that bringing up race as a factor was ridiculous. I just was trying to remind him that race definitely appears to be part of the issue with some of these folks. I wasn't making any statement about the protesters or the Republican party in general. Although you are free to make that association if you'd like.

Paralithodes says

So, which is the actual propaganda and which is the truth: your statement above, or my response that the Democrats refused to work with the Republicans and consider their views from very early on in the debate/process unless the Republicans would be onboard with a “public option?” Maybe somewhere in between?

My statement is the truth.

Propaganda - working well on the dope-weakened minds of mush since 1965

Respectfully speaking, the health care reform just engineered by the Office of the President and U.S. Congress was fully bought and paid for by the corporate interests (and their allies) which dominate the price/delivery of health care services in the United States. Become familiar with the fable "Brer Rabbit and the Rabbit Patch" - and you'll know all you need to know about the scam that just went down inside the beltway!

tatupu70 says

My statement is the truth.

tatupu70 says

You’ve completely missed my point re–the tea party protests. Someone earlier posted that bringing up race as a factor was ridiculous. I just was trying to remind him that race definitely appears to be part of the issue with some of these folks. I wasn’t making any statement about the protesters or the Republican party in general. Although you are free to make that association if you’d like.

Perhaps you missed it, but you were responding to someone who was objecting to Patrick's broad-based assertion that racism was a major element for disagreement with the bill, not simply that it was allegedly an issue with only "some of these folks." "Some" of the folks may be racist, just like "some" of the folks who protested the Iraq war wanted troops to murder their officers, wanted Israel to be destroyed, etc. But "coverage... is dominated by reports.." of the former, while it was not of the latter. I understand that this has some really good propaganda value - it allows you the coverage to attempt to invalidate an entire movement based on some small elements, but if you are going to throw your support behind an obviously broad-based assertion, please at least have the honesty to acknowledge that you were in fact doing.

tatupu70 says

My statement is the truth.

Cool, mine too!

Paralithodes says

So, which is your point: that “some” demonstrators did such things and that reflects on the entire demonstration? Or that the the demonstration itself was dominated by such demonstrators? The latter is not supported by any of your articles, so we will go with the former.

... “COVERAGE… was dominated by REPORTS of…” NOT that the “demonstration was dominated by demonstrators doing… ” Maybe we’re stuck in this nuance thing again….

Does it matter? When this kind of stuff happens, particularly when the protesters self describe themselves as an popular 'grassroots movement', it can't help but to reflect on the general group. Exacerbated when politicians they seem to support don't utter a word to condemn such hateful behavior:

"A group of lowlifes at a Tea Party rally in Columbus, Ohio, last week taunted and humiliated a man who was sitting on the ground with a sign that said he had Parkinson’s disease. The disgusting behavior was captured on a widely circulated videotape. One of the Tea Party protesters leaned over the man and sneered: “If you’re looking for a handout, you’re in the wrong end of town.”

Another threw money at the man, first one bill and then another, and said contemptuously, “I’ll pay for this guy. Here you go. Start a pot.”

In Washington on Saturday, opponents of the health care legislation spit on a black congressman and shouted racial slurs at two others, including John Lewis, one of the great heroes of the civil rights movement. Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat who is chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, was taunted because he is gay.

At some point, we have to decide as a country that we just can’t have this: We can’t allow ourselves to remain silent as foaming-at-the-mouth protesters scream the vilest of epithets at members of Congress — epithets that The Times will not allow me to repeat here."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/opinion/23herbert.html?src=me&ref=general

We have sunk so, so low.

Indeed it is unfair to judge the Tea Party by a few racists, when there are so MANY other reasons.....

tatupu70 says

Para–
You’ve completely missed my point re–the tea party protests. Someone earlier posted that bringing up race as a factor was ridiculous. I just was trying to remind him that race definitely appears to be part of the issue with some of these folks. I wasn’t making any statement about the protesters or the Republican party in general. Although you are free to make that association if you’d like.

My point was that the media and many on the left make that association ALL THE DAMN TIME NOW. It is their main talking point, much like the socialist/commie line from Repubs. Sure, its an issue with some folks, tea party/conservative/dem/moonbat fringe of either side. They use that to brand the whole group all the time now. Oh, they're just all a bunch of silly redneck racists. The "right" (and independents/libertarians/anyone who isn't PC) has to watch what they say but "tea bagger" epithets are funny with a sly wink wink, tee hee its a sexual joke (with gay connotations). "Fag" is all hate mongering but "tea-bagger" isn't?

This is the same deal with feminists. I 'm a sexist/misogynist/caveman for daring to disagree with any or all of their beliefs. Or look at all the flack folks on this forum and others like got over the last few years. Oh, you're a bunch of negative nellies, silly bubble bloggers! Go buy a house before you're priced out! You're all jealous that you can't afford to buy a house!

"In Washington on Saturday, opponents of the health care legislation spit on a black congressman and shouted racial slurs at two others, including John Lewis, one of the great heroes of the civil rights movement. Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat who is chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, was taunted because he is gay."

would you care to prove the actions:
1)were done by "opponents of health care" (geeese, the liberal media sure gives handy names to folks)
2)were done by "teabaggers" (geeeese, I guess gay slurs only work one way)
3)were not done by progressiveNAZIliberals acting as insiders trying to cause issue
or
4)even happened at all

All of us non-progressiveNAZIliberals still recall how the mass media followed the Bush AWOL story so well.

Bap33 says

would you care to prove the actions:

1)were done by “opponents of health care” (geeese, the liberal media sure gives handy names to folks)

2)were done by “teabaggers” (geeeese, I guess gay slurs only work one way)

3)were not done by progressiveNAZIliberals acting as insiders trying to cause issue

or

4)even happened at all

All of us non-progressiveNAZIliberals still recall how the mass media followed the Bush AWOL story so well.

Not really, as I think it's pretty obvious that questioning if the WDC Capitol Police are in on a top-secret 'progressiveNAZIliberal' (whatever that is) conspiracy to stage/make up the accounts is pathetic. The below are some statements made by the AP and the Congressman's office.

Why don't YOU do some research and expose the hoax? You'll be a HUGE non-progressiveNAZIliberal hero.

"A staffer for Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) told reporters that Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) had been spat on by a protestor. Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), a hero of the civil rights movement, was called a 'ni--er.' And Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) was called a "faggot," as protestors shouted at him with deliberately lisp-y screams. Frank, approached in the halls after the president's speech, shrugged off the incident.

UPDATE 8:57 PM ET: The Associated Press reports that Capitol Police arrested the man who spit on Cleaver, but the Congressman won't press charges.