There can be no logical discussion when you insist on using an offenseive term to demean the opposition; regardless who the opposition might be.

Franken shows some great skill there, and why you have to act humbly when dealing with idiots and zealots on both sides.

I stopped listening as soon as he sid, "Let's look at other countries".

Gee how fresh.

I knew there he would be repeating the tired rheotric we've already heard over and over again. As if that one more time repeating it will somehow substitute for the total absence of any comments on TORT/lawsuit abuse reform, or out of state insurance purchase reform or anything meaningful on excluding illegal aliens or on any effort to reform medicare and SS to find savings before adopting a new government program.

So conservatives are left with the clever Bernie Sanders who sought to dispell the "myth" that illegal aliens would be covered under the current health care reform legislation.

On the Thom Hartman radio show,

Sanders, "There is nothing in the legislation that provides coverage for illegal aliens."

Hey Bernie, nice try but there's nothing in the legislation that provides coverage for women either.

If they aren't excluded in the bill, they's covered.

Get it Bernie?

Those nasty teabaggers are so freakin dangerous, this had to take a lot of courage. The lady with the teapot on her titty did not appear nearly as threatening as the older woman who was probably packin. If only all teabaggers were exposed to such reason, we could cross over into the new world.

A good example of some questions regular people have. Really progressives, you have little to fear from open discussion.

This is great video because it features a genuine progressive. I wish everyone could have seen Bill Moyers' recent appearance on the Bill Maher show where he laid out how the special interests have captured Washington. He referred to the Corporate Democratic Party that we have now.

  Al Franken brought up the problem of politicians in bed with the pharmaceutical companies here, and that's one of the main things that happened at the beginning of this debate: A ridiculously unfair deal was cut to protect the pharmaceutical companies.

  Bill Moyers feels like this country needs a progressive movement to force Democratic politicians to do what the People who elected them intended. Right now that is not happening.

  The current strategy is to use these special interests  to generate enough campaign contributions to sell any message the party wants to the public. That's the mechanism that's driving this stranglehold on power.

It's not about doing what's right. It's about doing what's wrong for enough money to tell the voters that you did it right.

   It turns out, actions don't speak louder than words. Not anymore. Actions generate the money for the message and that can be whatever you want. It's about being able to afford to lie long and hard enough to negate what you've done.

   That's why the teabaggers are a Godsend for the Corporate Democratic Party. They are an excuse. They are cover, and I suspect we'll be seeing a lot of them as an explanation for why the Democrats in power let us down - again. This isn't a politician's worst nightmare. The teabaggers are a politician's best friend. They are a diversion. They are a scapegoat. The teabaggers represent cover for Democratic politicians who have sold us out. So what to do?

  Rather than focus on excuses, we need to pressure the Democratic side. If these politicians realize there's an energized progressive movement out there that can mean the difference in getting reelected, these politicians will respond, but only then. That's Bill Moyers' point and I agree.

  We've got to get these Corporate Democrats to stop doing the wrong thing for selfish reasons, and start doing the right thing for selfish reasons.

   That would be true progress in this country.

Bill McDonald wrote:

"The current strategy is to use these special interests to generate enough campaign contributions to sell any message the party wants to the public."

Defining a 'special interest' is a slippery proposition, because any two people who combine their efforts to help a candidate can be smeared as a 'special interest'.

But here's my take on campaign contributions:

If you are running for Congress in the 4th district, 100% of your campaign contributions should come from qualified voters in the 4th district.

A candidate should not be able to fly to New York or California or Florida and raise money to buy a seat in Oregon.

Non-citizens and nonqualified persons (such as minors)should not be able to donate to a campaign. If they can't legally vote for you, they can't contribute.

Corporations and unions and other organizations do not have voting privileges, so they should not be able to donate.

Let the INDIVIDUALS within these organizations give as much as they want , of their own money, in their own name (as long as they are legally qualified to vote for the candidate).

What do you think of that?

@joe white

I support that idea 1000%. I think you hit it spot on. No monies from the outside and only from registered voters.

"I stopped listening as soon as he sid,(sic) "Let's look at other countries". "Gee how fresh." Too bad you tuned out the comment. He acknowledged the futility of discussing the usual socialized health care plans in other Countries and referred to Switzerland which he said has universal coverage with highly regulated private insurers. It apparently works well. Unfortunately your knee jerk assumption prevented communication of a potential alternative that you might support. It seems to me this is the failure of politicizing rather than compromising.

Richard stopped listening due to a phenomenon known as 'motivated reasoning.' A situation where a person's mind simply ignores any fact that disputes their predetermined opinion.

It would be great to have a reality based discussion of heath care issues in the United States and maybe, just maybe we could learn a few things from other countries who do it better and cheaper than we do because we simply cannot afford to continue down the path we are on.

Oh gee genop I never heard anyone bring up Switzerland.

No I won't support that "alternative". Because not really progress oriented progressive Democrats refuse to place it in the context of the need to fix other debilitating problems with health care. And none of you want to address them.

Medicare and SS reform must be done first to reign in the cost and establish stable funding. That would serve well as a model for how a public option health care system would be run like. But you're not interested in demonstarting this.

Does Switzerland have out of control law suit abuse?

Progressives here want nothing to do with this problem.

Do illegal aliens by the millions sneak into Switzerland and get free health care? Democrats refurse to exclude illegals from coverage here. Instead they try to pretend they won't becovered.

Progress would also be allowing interstate purchase of insurance to bring about more competiton in private coverage.

These reforms would move the county to more affordable health care and likely enable a public option for the truly needy and uninsured.

But noooooo, we can't have those reforms because the teabaggers are too stupid.

And google this

texas tort refrom success

and see how progress can be achieved.

Well, based on Richard's above comments re: "illegal immigrants" and specifically how much "success" Texas has had...

I think it goes to prove that Richard either 1) did not listen to Senator Franken's explanation, or 2) did not understand it.

This is far more simple than you all want to pretend.

Reform Medicare and SS first. Pass nationwide lawsuit abuse reform. Allow interstate purchase of insurance. Exclude illegals from coverage.

With these acheived a public option for the genuinely needy and uninsured woeld be nearly certain.

Kurt---watch the video. There is a very visible woman wearing a navy blue shirt with a logo on it: Taxed Enough Already? and a picture of a teapot.

Why is it insulting to call a group by the name on that teeshirt?

Richard, about this:

"Pass nationwide lawsuit abuse reform. Allow interstate purchase of insurance."

Which tort reform proposal do you support? Or is the slogan all that is needed because an actual proposal has details?

DeMint and others had proposal for interstate purchase of insurance in 2005 when Republicans were in control. Why didn't it pass then? Maybe because part of federalism is allowing states to have their own insurance comm. who set standards? Or maybe there were Republicans who didn't think it was a good idea?

I don't believe either of those ideas solves the problem for the woman profiled in the Wash. Post today. She was dropped by her insurance company after she became gravely ill because they said she was guilty of fraud for not reporting a pre-existing back problem, which had never been previously diagnosed and she didn't know she had.

I support the tort reform I idea I heard about which adds mandatory abitration to the mix:
It would be unconstitutional (5th Amendment) to keep people out of courts. But the mandatory arbitration report would be admissible as evidence. And if there were a federal standard of best practices for medical care, a doctor who followed those best practices could use that as a defense.

Are you saying doctors never make mistakes? That those injured by real mistakes don't deserve to be able to hire lawyers? Or that there should be more regulation of the pay of trial lawyers than the pay of health insurance CEOs?

Question is--do you really care about reforming the process, or only about punishing trial lawyers?

Pat Ryan wrote:

"Do any of you wish to address the substance of the post, which is how Franken chose to engage his constituents"

Ok, so Al is charming and personable.

So what?

Why is that an argument for forcing the majority of Americans to sit idly while their insuror is run out of business by their government?

LT wrote:

"Why is it insulting to call a group by the name on that teeshirt?"

The word 'teabagger' is not on the shirt, LT.

Would you call a Democrat a j*s because their symbol is a donkey?

Get real.

mp97303 wrote:

"I support that idea 1000%."

Thanks.

Unfortunately, few if any Democratic or Republican officeholders or candidates would support limiting where they can raise cash.

If this is to become law, it will probably have to be put on the ballot by petition, from the grassroots up. It won't come from the top down.

I wonder if it's possible to have a rational policy discussion on this forum? Seems like a number of posters who regard the blogosphere as a kind of guerrilla warfare simply want to play "troll" and spam the place. And too many of us, myself included, are inclined to be knee jerk and simply restate our policy positions in some way that demeans and denigrates the opposition and doesn't respond to the issue posed by the poster. It would be a constructive practice to simply abstain from commenting if it can't be done without shoveling a load of malice and ill will in the process. And we would all do well not to feed the obvious troll, who is simply spamming and not attempting any rational dialogue.

I want to second what Bill R. suggested. It is a rare thing when anyone on Blue Oregon ever concedes a point without an ulterior motive.

To the topic, Franken was masterful and refreshingly candid. I don't think this would have worked with some of the professional shouters and screamers who showed up to some of the town hall meetings across the US, but treating people like they are not stupid can go a long way, even if they disagree.

I believe there is a time for serious discussion and a time for the perfect squelch.

Joe, how would you generically describe the woman in the video with the navy blue shirt with the picture of the teapot and the TEA slogan? A protester? Or something more specific?

LT, I understand and appreciate the miasma. I also find myself in the position of agreeing with those who state if these protestors didn't protest Bush the second's Medicare bill or the first Financial bail out, then they shouldn't be protesting Obama's spending bills either. Unfortunately, the lady's shirt did not have the offensive word on it. We all understand where the tea references come from, however only those against the protestors in the media have decided to use the offensive term as a label.

The next question is, "How do you have a rational policy discussion with trolls, especially when they are proven wrong but refuse to admit it and switch to another subject?"

Kurt, suppose you are a reporter describing the video.

"We all understand where the tea references come from, however only those against the protestors in the media have decided to use the offensive term as a label."

How do you describe the other people who agree with the lady whose teeshirt has a teapot and the big letters TEA?

A mob? "people who agree with the woman in the Taxed Enough Already" teeshirt? Protesters?

Here's what I think is going on in this discussion. My first year in college I had a roommate who knew R rated connotations for what seemed like half the words in the dictionary. I don't believe every resident in the dorm had such a foul-mouthed attitude to ordinary words. So did that mean everyone in that dorm should avoid the words this roommated giggled at when she heard them in the context meant by dictionary definitions? Or take her attitude into account and make sure to find a word which she didn't think had a dirty meaning?

So, Kurt, if you are a journalist, how do you describe the group talking to Franken? Is TEA Party Protester a valid term? Or what?

"Protesters who agreed with the woman with the TEA shirt with the teapot on it"?

Kurt, this is a plain language question.

I had a friend who was 3/4 European ethnic background and 1/4 Cherokee, which made him a registered member of the tribe. What generic should have been used for people like him, someone asked?

"I prefer Native American, some prefer American Indian--you should ask them what they prefer".

So, Kurt, what generic should the woman in the shirt with the teapot, and the folks who have rallies they call tea parties, who use the slogan Taxed Enough Already?, be called?

Or don't they deserve to have a more generic term than protester, even though they are an organized group which holds rallies?

LT, I like your allegory. Actually, yes. the more accurate and less polarizing term would be TEA Party Protester.

Think of it in this manner, should a group of black people protesting racial profiling by the Charleston, SC police dept be described as a group in the most offensive terminology? Of course not. However, that term has been used in the past to deflect and minimize black protest in many areas. I also must state that I am not aware of ANY racial profiling going on in Charleston, SC - I merely made up an example.

The term "teabaggers" by itself is demeaning and offensive. Liberal journalistic use of the term is calculated and insulting.

BO'ers, just an FYI, I hear Hugo Chavez will soon be hosting his own TV Show! Maybe Al Franken can make an appearance in diapers? A little Sat Nite Live tie-in there. I think Hugo would dig it. He gets kinky around fellow socialists.

Franken does a great job of keeping people cool here, but I grew up right up the road from the Minnesota St. Fair. People ARE different out there. Getting in someone's face and screaming is basically taboo among most folks who grew up out there...so Franken also had that going for him.

That said, you can't hold a reasonable discourse with the Teabaggers for one very simple reason: Their primary, overwhelmingly major motivator is greed. They don't want to pay taxes. They don't want to foot the bill for anyone else. They want to make as much personal wealth as possible off the public dime and they've rationalized that as being "patriotic". The only possible way to reach these sorts of people is by speaking their language, and that means pulling out the numbers. You have to show these people that the point of this whole exercise is that if they get behind it, it will save them money somehow...whether it means less taken out of their paychecks than the amount being taxed, or whatever. You can't argue "civic duty" or international competition with these people. Greed is their only language. They'll laugh at a hybrid until gas prices go up to 4 bucks a gallon...THEN they'll trade in their SUVs.

Do the people claiming tort reform is some drastically important thing even understand that some minuscule number of started lawsuits actually get to a court? It's less than five percent. And personally, if a doctor fucks up on me--say like cutting off a wrong leg, which has happened to others--I should be able to sue the hell out of the fool, and he should lose his license. Tort reform, like most other "solutions" from the drunk sailors who call themselves conservatives, is a red herring.

As to teabaggers, sorry if the term is insulting. But, let's face it, people like Chuck Grassley do in fact suck balls.

Kurt, I find you to be intellectually bankrupt, but let's try a couple of questions

There can be no logical discussion when you insist on using an offenseive term to demean the opposition; regardless who the opposition might be.

If someone is "ignorant", do you claim it is demeaning to identify them as such? If someone is "immature", do you claim it is offensive to refer to them that way? If someone is "selfish", do you object to them be labelled as such? There can be no logical discussion with people who seek to deflect arguments with propaganda techniques, rather than try to defend against accurately applied terms and characterizations.

Frankly Kurt you really are just an annoying whiner who has nothing of value to add to the debate. If it takes insulting you to shut you up, then consider yourself insulted, you ignorant, immature, selfish, loser.

And to you Joe White:

Why is that an argument for forcing the majority of Americans to sit idly while their insuror is run out of business by their government?

Actually private insurance companies are injuring and killing people by denying claims and canceling contracts on immaterial bases (not material breaches as required by law). They are in fact psychopathic "artificial" persons who are not being "run out of business" but instead for the safety of society need to be brought under control.

Indeed, what you are objecting to Joe, because you are dishonest, is the majority of Americans acting through their elected officials to create an alternative health insurance option that removes the criminally unfair competitive advantages the predatory private health insurance industry has right now.

Do you advocate the industry's anti-trust exemption be removed? Do you oppose ERISA limitations that prevent states from compelling insurance companies to report fully on their operations in each state? Do you advocate insurance companies and insurance company executives be held criminally liable if their actions cause people to be injured or die due to improper claim denials or policy cancellations?

And finally, since you clearly oppose the democratic process by which a majority would act to create a public option as the polls show we would do, do you support or oppose a mandate that all people be forced to buy private health insurance or pay fines?

Kevin,

I don't think I restricted my idea to registered voters, just to those who are qualified to vote (whether or not they are currently registered), i.e . donations cannot be made by others 'on behalf of' and in the name of minors, and also non-citizens living in (or out of) the district should not be able to donate.

Sorry if that wasn't clear the first time.

I think it's quite revealing that Democrats like Kari use a homosexual reference when they want to show disrespect and derision.

SUATL wrote:

"Actually private insurance companies are injuring and killing people by denying claims and canceling contracts on immaterial bases"

Camille Paglia (not exactly a right winger) wrote:

"Who is naive enough to believe that Obama's plan would be deficit-neutral? Or that major cuts could be achieved without drastic rationing?"

LT, You're obfuscating Try and get MY specific points.

Tort reform, or better, "lawsuit abuse reform" has already been adopted in Texas as I would support.

It does not prohibit people from going to court.

Every time I have heard tort reform brought up in a left wing format the commentary dismisses it as a corporate right wing effort keep people out of court.

Bernie Sanders said "I think people should be allowed to sue".

Your democrat politicians are bought and paid for by trial lawyers.

Texas tort reform has worked very well and the beneifts are many. Lower malpractice rates, lower cost health care etc. The centerpiece is a $200k cap on non economic damages.

Sanders has misrepresented tort reform because he is flat out opposed to any form of reform.

We need to allow interstate purchase of insurance now. Everyone should be able to shop for their health care from all of the 1300 insurance companies.

It's the Bernie Sanders/blues et al who are stuck on slogans as the obstruct every proposal. The countless millions from trial lawyer works.

Texas is more than an actual proposal with details.

What is the value or point in citing a 2005 proposal that failed? So what?

"When Republicans were in control" is just lame.

The competition from interstate purchase of insurance and tort refrom would broaden coverage and health care for all.

You ignore these while demanding the public option that won't be funded.

It doesn't matter if YOU don't think enough of the problem will be helped by these reforms. You're wrong. You're not paying attention and are separating parts as if that's it.

All of the above reforms are needed. Including finding the effiencies in Medicare and refrom Medicare and SS before adding more massive government that is not funded. Nothing about your story of the woman adresses these needed reforms. You are not making a case against them. YOu're muddying the debate.

If you do support tort reform google texas tort refrom.

There's no constitutional (5th Amendment) angle there at all. Where did you get the idea tort reform as proposed and adopted in Texas "keeps people out of courts"?

And here you are asking "Are you saying doctors never make mistakes?" as if anyone would think that or propose a banning of lawsuits as tort reform.

You think that because that's the left wing rhetoric you've been absorbing.

How is it that this discussion leads you to asking such ridiculous things? "That those injured by real mistakes don't deserve to be able to hire lawyers?"

Lawyers, law suits and courts are vital.

That's why Texas still has them all.

Tort reform. Interstate insurance. Reform and stabilize Medicare and SS. Prohibit illegal aliens from being covered.

Search Results Texas Tort Reform

The Doctor Is In Jul 27, 2009 ... a plaintiff's attorney. Researching the subject, it appears that Texas tort reform has succeeded. Texas Tort Reform | The Doctor Is In ... docisinblog.com/index.php/2009/07/27/texas-tort-reform/ - Cached

Doctors Flock to Texas After Tort Reform - Health Blog - WSJ May 19, 2008 ... In the last three years, 7000 doctors have moved to Texas. So many doctors want to practice there that the state has had trouble keeping up ... blogs.wsj.com/.../doctors-flock-to-texas-after-tort-reform/

Tort Reform .. New Zealand and Switzerland have abolished their tort law system ... www.newsbatch.com/tort.htm

Richard, why not say "the bill in Congress should adopt the Texas tort reform syatem (which I may be a great system, but has everyone heard of it?) rather than the generalized "we must have tort reform".

I am all for an intelligent discussion of tort reform---what are the elements of the Texas plan? Might explaining it be a way of convincing people to your way of thinking? Or is anyone stupid who doesn't have your knowledge base?

Good grief LT the elements of the texas reform are right at your finger tips. Google man.

I don't need to explain it.

And it's not my "way of thinking" it's a successful tort reform in place with all the details implemented.

I've only read the WSJ piece and a few pieces on the web. So no, no one is stupid.

However there is lot of politics in the way of needed reform which leaves too many people either unaware or avoiding some very helpful components.

Peace

Kurt, as I understand it, anyone who uses the dictionary definition for tea bag from dictionary.com "tea bag"–noun "a container of thin paper or cloth holding a measured amount of tea leaves for making an individual serving of tea". Origin: 1900–05 <<

instead of a slang meaning is being insulting to a group of folks who did things like mail tea bags to elected officials

http://www.examiner.com/x-5585-Offbeat-News-Examiner~y2009m4d14-Mailed-tea-bags-as-unknown-substance-trigger-Homeland-Security-alarms

and litter the capitol grounds in Salem (use Google window above to see the picture in an April 15 BO post of signs left behind when the rally was over).

Call me naive and secluded, but I had to do a search on this sentence "The term "teabaggers" by itself is demeaning and offensive." to find out what you mean about an offensive remark.

I am a stickler for words having meaning. PC (except for a type of computer) has no real meaning, just something D'Souza dreamed up to rile people up in the Reagan years. I talked to some college students who had seen D'Souza on their college campus and had surrounded him afterwards, demanding a dictionary-type definition of "political correctness". He wouldn't give them one, so they let everyone they came in contact know the guy was full of hot air.

I am sorry if you or anyone else had their tender feelings hurt. But when I hit post on this comment, I will go into the other room where a thin paper container with a string on the end of it has been steeping in hot water. This happens to be Earl Grey, but there are other teas I like as well.

I credit Al Franken for having an intelligent conversation in the video clip. And I wonder if the woman in the navy blue shirt with the teapot on it even knows what you are talking about.

The video is clear evidence of what I have been saying since Al decided to run for office:

"Al Franken is a rotten candidate who will become a great senator"

and dog-gone-it people like him!

Joe White offered a typical non sequitor:

SUATL wrote:

"Actually private insurance companies are injuring and killing people by denying claims and canceling contracts on immaterial bases"

Camille Paglia (not exactly a right winger) wrote:

"Who is naive enough to believe that Obama's plan would be deficit-neutral? Or that major cuts could be achieved without drastic rationing?"

First, in recent years Paglia has become largely a libertarian and mainly a freaking nutjob.

Second, maybe you can take us through in a little more detail what in your twisted mind leads you to believe that juxtaposing Paglia's completely unsubstantiated claims and fear mongering to the well documented facts about the predations of the private insurance industry makes you look like anything but unhinged?

And Richard, we have birthers, teabaggers, and tenthers, and you are one of another crackpot groups out there, the torters. After you are through hyperventilating about your particular lunacy, and pointing to Texas, whose governor recently raved about secession just adds to your lunatic image, I dare you to produce hard numbers that show tort reform will reduce the cost of health care in America enough to even matter. The fact you have nothing to say about the real costs drivers in the health care market in America, and instead focus like a raving maniac on tort reform says pretty much all that we need to know just what a fool you are.

Finally, Pat Ryan, I only want to know one thing: Shrader's office has said he is for a mandate, and last week he BS'ed on KPOJ about how he would be fine with a bill that include co-ops, which are just another form of welfare for private insurance companies, if even that, rather a true public national insurance plan option. Can you confirm that, since it's clear what's most important to you is that we think you and your wife are close enough to him to be a personal friend, or to at least know his political views. (Otherwise, why would you be fundraising for him rather than a challenger?). And do you agree or disagree with his position?

Oh Kurt and the rest of you now spreading the revisionist, play-the-victim BS that the teabaggers weren't responsible for that label, here's a little photo proof for you, and note it was broadcast on Fox.

Kari,

I am sensitive to adding the "ic" to Democratic when I refer to the Democratic Party. I do this because I understand that there is no progress in having a rational discussion when you begin that discussion with a disrespectful, mean-spirited tone. I believe the folks that you have referred to as "Tea Baggers" (which, as you know, is a homage to a sexual act) would find that language hurtful.

Geoff

Geoff, what did the tax protesters mail to elected officials?

Or is that use of the term no longer the primary definition of teabag---even though the group is named Taxed Enough Already?

Stand Up, thanks for the picture!

suatl wrote:

"Paglia has become largely a libertarian"

Yeah right.

She supported Obama, hello?

Your claim that insurance companies are 'killing people' is set up with her acknowledgement that Obamacare will lead to widespread rationing, just as it has in Canada.

zull wrote:

"That said, you can't hold a reasonable discourse with the Teabaggers for one very simple reason: Their primary, overwhelmingly major motivator is greed..........You can't argue "civic duty" or international competition with these people. Greed is their only language"

Other than name calling, do you have anything to say?

'well anybody who doesn't see it my way is just evil and selfish and greedy'

Good grief. Is that the level of discourse the entire Democratic party has sunk to?

I guess I shouldn't be surprised, since the thread was begun by Kari using a homosexual slur.

But I remember the day when you had Democrats who weren't simply name calling.

Where did those guys go?

Stand up,

Where do you get these impressions of yours?

I'm not a "torter" and commented on tort reform along with other needed refroms.

I'm also not a birther or any other of your silly meaningless labels.

Your obfuscation is not standing up to anything at all.

It doesn't take "hyperventilating" to read about and recognize Texas' successful lawsuit reform and what it could do nationwide. The same it has done for Texas doctors and health care.

If you choose to remain ignorant on the issue and cast juvenile dispersions on what you haven't read well have at it. But you're not standing up.

Who's the loon? You'd rather dwell on some meaningless random comment on succession that get informed.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121097874071799863.html

Why Doctors Are Heading for Texas

That's real.

Succession is not.

Yet YOU dare ME to produce hard numbers that show tort reform will reduce the cost of health care?

Why is that? You can't click on a link or google and read for yourself?

The fact is the benefits are already realized and you don't want to know about it.

It appears you don't even like others talking about it.

You could actually address the issues versus trying to tear down discussions.

With "raving maniac" and "fool you are" I see you're not using Al's approach.

Like I said up thread, along with tort reform I'd like to see interstate purchase of insurance and Medicare and SS reform to realize the promised savings BEFORE adopting the full Monty of a new government program which we can't afford.

That's not lunacy.

Neither is proof of citizenship for any new public option health care plan.

LT, it is not normally like you to be deliberately obtuse. owever I can easily play the game with you. In the modern lexicon, the commonly accepted definition for "tea-bagging" is the homosexual act of two men engaged in fellatio.

Now if you have trouble finding where the offense is in liberal media using that terminology to describe those Taxed Enough already, then I do feel sorry for you. Enjoy the Earl Grey

Kurt, I don't think you get my point. Maybe everyone in your social circle speaks "in the modern lexicon" and understands your point.

But do you know for a fact that the woman in the video wearing the shirt with the teapot on it (or the resident of Linn or Jackson or Marion or Crook or Coos County) knows "the modern lexicon"?

That is my point. Go somewhere outside your social circle and see how many people know that your definition "in the modern lexicon" is the definition everyone thinks of. Do you know for a fact that the man in the picture with teabags hanging from his ears knows what that would mean "in the modern lexicon"?

That is a problem in current society in general and blogging in particular, "well, everyone I know thinks this way". There are people who say there are so many voters in Mult. Co. that voters in the rest of the state don't matter. Gee, according to that, anyone who carries Mult. Co. wins. Except that is not always the case.

"Everyone" in Oregon does not drink beer, no matter how the Novick fans tried to make it shameful that anyone would criticize his beer ad. "Everyone" doesn't ride a bike or have access to easy public transit. If "everyone" agrees with the anti-tax message and the shallowness of those like Kim Thatcher, Republicans would control the legislature.

Kurt, I know you believe me to be "not quick or alert in perception, feeling, or intellect; not sensitive or observant; dull." which is the dictionary definition of obtuse.

But where is the "modern lexicon" recorded---in the online Urban Dictionary?

I decided to do a websearch on "teabagger" and the first 3 entries were: 1 & 2 your "modern lexicon " definition of the term you found so offensive.

3rd link on the search was:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/14/tea-bag-terror-protests-c_n_186596.html

So, is the search engine I used insulting people by not following "the modern lexicon"?

When you can tell me who died and made you king of word usage (must all people living in communities smaller than Portland or Eugene check the Urban Dictionary online in order to make sure they never accidently insult someone whose word use conforms to the "modern lexicon" of the Urban Dictionary?) then I will take you seriously.

But I think what you are is someone who doesn't want to discuss the topic of health care with anyone who relies on definitions from American Heritage, Webster, dictionary.com or other basic dictionaries because you believe all good people get their word usage from the Urban Dictionary online and no other source of definitions should be used.

My guess is that the language of many professions (a definition of "lexicon" btw) is closer to standard English used in the more mainstream dictionaries than to your word use. What does the AP Style Manual say on this topic?

Call me whatever you want, but I use standard dictionary definitions of words and don't believe I should be required to consult the online Urban Dictionary just so as not to offend the feelings of peole like you.

Richard, here is a link to an explanation of Texas Tort Reform http://docisinblog.com/index.php/2009/07/27/texas-tort-reform/

What I didn't see in the article is why in a recent study health care in McAllen, Texas was more expensive than in El Paso, Texas.

Could it be there are other factors than tort reform in the cost of medical care, such as whether doctors are on salary or in a fee for service system, and whether patients are treated as a profit center or not?

LT wrote:

"Maybe everyone in your social circle speaks "in the modern lexicon" and understands your point"

LT, obviously you are embarrassed that Democrats began using a crude term and you picked it up and used it without understanding it's meaning.

That's the hazard of having crude persons as your political leaders.

I doubt that you would have used the term on your own if you had understood the meaning from the beginning.

Lt. we can continue this little word game ad infinitum. I stated that you were being deliberately obtuse, as in, you normally are not. I'm happy to discuss health care and my view points of needed reforms. I just will not do it with folks who insist on demeaning the other side by using a snide and offensive term.

Funny thing, when the "n" word or "b" or other offensive terms get used to deman others we all generally agree that someone has crossed the line. Here I seem to be in the minority for calling out against the use of this particular term.

So be it. I can live with that.

Dammit Joe White, when are you going to answer? DO YOU STILL BEAT YOUR WIFE? Inquiring minds want to know. When do we finally get to see your long form police record?

1. I believe the sexual act of Teabagging only requires one of the partners to be male, so it can be a homosexual act or a heterosexual act.

2. Richard, your repeated calls to "just look it up on google" shows laziness on your part, and that you have no idea of what your talking about--otherwise you'd be happy to explain the details.

Imagine how you'd react if someone wrote something along the lines of "The French medical system is the ideal model. If you don't believe me, just google it and find out."

1. If "Tort Reform" is the answer, why is it that the cost of health care isn't appreciably cheaper in Texas?

"Many people consider the things government does for them to be social progress, but they regard the things government does for others as socialism."

--Former Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren

This was a civilized encounter. The Teabaggers, though belonging to a woefully misinformed movement of frightened people, listened. And Franken addressed them clearly and without arrogance. Perhaps he simply hasn’t been in Washington long enough to become inflated.

But he blew it on one matter: the question “How can we afford it?” I just saw an excellent chart prepared by the World Health Organization. I was shocked to see the federal government spends $3,076 for health care for every US Citizen-- that’s $3,076 of taxpayer money presently subidizing US health care. That amount is second only to France, which beats us by only $60, and is more than the British, Canadian or Japanese governments spends per capita. On top of this federal taxpayer money-- which in any other country in the world would alone be enough to subsidize secure and comprehensive health care for everyone-- almost $4,000 MORE is extracted from the pockets of employers and individuals.

We are being out-and-out defrauded and robbed. Private insurance companies have systematically abused the public trust for fifty years. We can’t afford NOT to have a public option. And we can’t afford to maintain the private insurance industry either, not without extremely rigorous regulation and oversight, which neither the Congress nor the President is willing to undertake. The question ought to be not whether to include a public option, but whether private insurance companies should be allowed to continue to play a role in essential health care service.

In any industrial society, where the sources of diseases are often untrackable and the result of many corporate and government decisions, health care should be a human right.

You can find the World Health Organization chart, together with an excellent analysis of some of the options being considered now, at

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/74912.html

Come on, Leo. You know that any reference to male sexuality MUST be gay some way or another. Proper heterosexual men don't even notice their scrotum.

You can't have a rational discussion with them because you think so much alike. Witness.

Teabagger Glenn Beck: I'm being defamed by a domain name!

Anonymous editor on Blue Oregon: b l u e o r e g o n r e c a l l s a m.com is an infringement of the Blue Oregon trademark. Yeah, better put it in the spam filter. Spam is something you don't like the sound of. THAT'S not much like conservative talk radio!

Actually, SFB Beck is closer to the truth. I mean, Blue Oregon isn't a registered trade mark! And it isn't because it's not "trade-markable". So it can't be infringed.

Take home lesson is that, for both of you, its all "high school". Rationalists can go screw themselves. Ditto real progressives. "We've got a rumble goin'. Who ya down with", seems to be the best you can manage.

For the record, Mr. Franken has not been best pleased by BO's development as Democratic Party dittohead organ. Yup, the irritation with conservative SFB radio is that they're on yer turf!

Next election cycle expect progressives to have pointed questions for candidates supported by BO. You're a disgrace.

Posted by: Leo Schuman | Sep 10, 2009 8:57:07 AM

Some examples of political teabagging (bravado covering up a falsehood or weakness):

"You lie!" - Rep. Joe Wilson (no, he doesn't) "Mission Accomplished!" - Pres. G. Bush II (no, it's not) "Read my lips, no new taxes!" - Pres. G. Bush I (but, you did) "I am not a crook!" - Pres. Richard M. Nixon (yes, you are)

"Hope and change"! - BHO (is the only way I can get elected) "Get control of big tobacco" - Nancy Pelosi (ignore I'm an addict) "I can promise you that a Democratic President will either have us out of Iraq or well on our way towards it, by June, if elected" - Howard Dean (anyone that thinks I have any say on that will listen to ANYTHING)

Point well taken!!!

Geoff, You seem very easily offended by being called a teabagger, even though that is exactly the term that they originally used for themselves. They also held up inexplicable signs saying things like "Tea Bag the White House" and "Tea Bag Acorn." I find it strange that you are so sensitive to perceived insults considering the number of times Obama is called a "Socialist" and a "Nazi" at typical "Tea Parties." Maybe the right wing has become so accustomed to calling its opponents Commies, Terrorists, and America Haters that they don't even see these as insults anymore and they are shocked when they get called names back. So, I'm afraid you are just going to have to deal with being called a teabagger and to use the mandatory double entre here...suck it up.

They should abolish negligence medical malpractice for public health care providers and establish the system they have in New Zealand which has a workers compensation type regime for genuine claims, limited lawyer participation, no punitives and most of the compensatory damaged are addressed by having a national health care system.

I don't believe in insurance company reform. I say Republicans should have the right to pay 30% or more for their private coverage. And they should have the write to sue their doctors. When you make your bed with the so called free enterprise system you out to have to sleep in it.

<h2>Just give us a public options and let the insurance company greedy bastards keep up their bad hehavior. Then see where the pieces fall.</h2>