Michele Bachmann is first GOP presidential candidate to sign pledge banning gay marriage, porn.

[techboy]

As stubborn as the person who is still defending Bachmann's hypocrisy and still posting on this subject. :-)

Well, yes.

Again, tell me why her health care stance isn't hypocritical? Because your "job perks" argument isn't sound.

Unless and until you can give me a real difference between an IBM employee using his company health plan, and Michelle Bachmann using hers (and that the government runs it doesn't count... in each case, it is employer run), your argument doesn't hold water.

It probably wouldn't hold water even then, since the "don't have to specifically do something to get it" pass you've been giving Nancy Pelosi on the Bush tax cuts would cut against you, but you'd have to get that far first.

That was not your stance from the get-go. You only revealed such sentiments after you gave a long defense of her actions.

So what? You said you'd never heard that from me. You have.

Because the quote you gave flew in the face of Bachmann's deceitful actions.

That's nice. I wasn't applying the quote to Michelle Bachmann. I was applying it to myself.

I care more about the truth than I care about which party your target happens to be.

So, please, don't disabuse the man.

It's going to be hard to correct him. Not only is he way smarter than me, he is, as they say, no longer signing. So no worries there.

I don't think your defenses have been accurate.

I figured.

I made an error, due to an assumption, on her past votes, but that does nothing to undermine my main premise, which others have also agreed is "accurate."

While truth is not a majority vote, I can't help but point out that I'm leading the vote count here, especially among "neutral parties".

The only defense you have is your rubbishy "jobs perks" defense, as if everything else she says is then irrelevant.

Actually, I have several reasons that example sucks. It just happens to be the first.

Even more so, the example you cited, regarding her vote on the agricultural bill, which you said was hypocritical, is the EXACT reason why she is hypocritical on the ACA, using YOUR OWN parameters.

You need to read more closely. The reason she was hypocritical in the case I sited was that she decried federal intervention in agriculture, then asked for new money to be spent on it. This is not a case of using subsidies that were already allocated (and which she voted against). It's a case where she specifically tried to create more of what she decried.

The "working within the system while trying to change it is no hypocrisy" was #2 on the health care thing, if you ever mount a substantial argument against #1, in case you're curious. (number 3 is that your own defense of Nancy Pelosi applies equally here).

She tells others not to accept Medicaid, but then her husband takes Medicaid money.

Leaving aside (again), that it would be illegal of him not to (small point, right?), are you seriously suggesting he turn away people on Medicaid? Seriously?

[Baculus]

You do realize the difference between "his company received" and "he's pulling in", don't you?

Heck, I bet my Doctor's office brings in $100K a week. Doesn't mean my Doctor's making that much.

Nor does it mean that if he takes my Mom's Medicare card, and votes Republican, then he's a hypocrite.

I don't think it does, unless he campaigns against Medicaid and opposes government health care, period. Not all Republicans are "anti-government health care," after all, at least as passionately as some of the leading GOP talking heads. Especially when it comes to doctors, who tend to have more compassion.

Here is the thing: Medicaid is a single-payer system, and ultimately, through Medicaid, they are receiving federal dollars. If a person doesn't have an issue with that reality, then I don't think it is terribly hypocritical. But if they do have an issue with it, and they accept the dollars anyway -- well, there are some inconsistencies there, because they are aiding and abetting what they oppose.

If I campaigned against the DoD, and I accept their funding, that may present a similar sort of problematic situation.

Now, this can cause some slippery slopes, because I am not suggesting that all Republicans refuse Medicaid, Medicare, and food stamps. There are, though, political divides in the support of these systems -- that has to be recognized.

[88Comrade2000]

You think her doing well in SC depends on Iowa results?

NH ?....seriously?

who won Iowa in 08?

Huckabee won in 08. I don't expect her to beat Romney in NH but she could come in a strong second, after all they gave Patrick Buchannon a win in 1996. If she wins Iowa; then she moves from beyond fringe to legit contender and given the climate in SC; so would do well there. Better than Romney would. This race will play out the way 2008 did.

[techboy]

Unless it is as state law, she doesn't have to accept food stamp money.

That's not an answer. Yes or no. Should they, in such a situation, turn away people with food stamps?

And for the record, it's not irrelevant. Even if you oppose food stamps as the best way to help the poor, it would be ridiculous to turn away people who are currently using the system, just as it would be ridiculous to demand that the Bachmanns' clinic turn away poor people with medicaid seeking their help.

Of course, it's a trap, right? If they did, you'd rail about their "hypocrisy" in claiming they care about poor people, then denying them services.

I haven't read all of their arguments, so I don't know their exact views

If you're not reading the thread that closely, then why are you trying to participate?

If you actually had a good argument, then maybe I wouldn't be rejecting it. :-)

You need to read more carefully. I'm the one rejecting your bad arguments, and you are the one that is trying to tell me that this means that I must be defending Michelle Bachmann.

That, my friend, is not a good example nor a logical argument.

Let's try this one more time.

If you claimed that Charles Manson murdered Nicole Brown Simpson, and I said "Uh, no he didn't. He was in prison at the time", I would be rejecting your bad argument, but I wouldn't be "defending" Charles Manson or saying he's not a murderer.

You originally agreed to this premise. Now let's apply what we've learned, shall we?

If you claim that Michelle Bachmann is a hypocrite because she opposes ObamaCare, but participates in Congress' health plan. and I say "Uh, that's ridiculous, she's just participating in her company health plan", I wouldn't be "defending" Michelle Bachmann, nor would I be saying she's not a hypocrite.

Especially if I decided to help you out by doing some research and providing you with a good example of hypocrisy.

[twa]

Huckabee won in 08. I don't expect her to beat Romney in NH but she could come in a strong second, after all they gave Patrick Buchannon a win in 1996. If she wins Iowa; then she moves from beyond fringe to legit contender and given the climate in SC; so would do well there. Better than Romney would. This race will play out the way 2008 did.

Don't think so, totally different mindset this go round....and probably field

[Baculus]

Well, yes.

Unless and until you can give me a real difference between an IBM employee using his company health plan, and Michelle Bachmann using hers (and that the government runs it doesn't count... in each case, it is employer run), your argument doesn't hold water.

This is not a sound argument. That IBM employee isn't a government official who has made the repeal of government health care reform a prime part of a political platform, such is the case with Bachmann. Now, if the IBM employee went to IT conferences, railed against the evils of IBM, and then accepted a position with the company, you would have a situation analagous to Bachmann.

Again, Bachammn does NOT HAVE TO ACCEPT the government managed and subsidized program which she typically denounces. That is a point you seemingly refuse to address, because you act as if she MUST accept FEHB health care.

She doesn't, which disproves this entire argument you've presented.

It probably wouldn't hold water even then, since the "don't have to specifically do something to get it" pass you've been giving Nancy Pelosi on the Bush tax cuts would cut against you, but you'd have to get that far first.

I am sorry, can you rephrase this?

So what? You said you'd never heard that from me. You have.

I said this wasn't your argument from the get-go, which it wasn't, because you immediately, from the beginning, launched into a defense of her actions, with no prefaced remarks. If you would have said, "Hey, I don't support her, but I am arguing this on principle," from the very beginning, then this debate would have a different tone. But you only made your "I am not defending Bachmann" claim after I accused you of supporting her. So, as such, it was cause and effect, an admission from you predicated on what I said.

That's nice. I wasn't applying the quote to Michelle Bachmann. I was applying it to myself.

After you defended Bachmann with less-than-Socratic arguments. Socrates believed in a system of ethics -- I don't believe Bachmann is ethical.

Do you?

I care more about the truth than I care about which party your target happens to be.

Easier said then done, because you sure have dug-in your heels when it comes to this subject.

While truth is not a majority vote, I can't help but point out that I'm leading the vote count here, especially among "neutral parties".

Truth? Are you kidding me? When Bachmann has been repeatedly untruthful?!

Actually, I have several reasons that example sucks. It just happens to be the first.

And you haven't done a good job of disputing it. All you have is the "job perks" argument, which isn't substantial.

You need to read more closely. The reason she was hypocritical in the case I sited was that she decried federal intervention in agriculture, then asked for new money to be spent on it. This is not a case of using subsidies that were already allocated (and which she voted against). It's a case where she specifically tried to create more of what she decried.

That isn't what your quote said. Shifting tides?

The "working within the system while trying to change it is no hypocrisy" was #2 on the health care thing, if you ever mount a substantial argument against #1, in case you're curious. (number 3 is that your own defense of Nancy Pelosi applies equally here).

She isn't "working within the system." She is exploiting it for her own gain. For someone who supposedly doesn't care for Bachmann, you sure make a lot of efforts to make her efforts into some noble cause. I mean, you have quoted Socrates, you mentioned "truth" a few lines ago, and now you're talking about "working within the system to reform it."

Leaving aside (again), that it would be illegal of him not to (small point, right?), are you seriously suggesting he turn away people on Medicaid? Seriously?

This isn't about ME, and quit trying to make it about my own views. That's a lame attempt at turnabout. Because you are simply trying to shield her actions by using my own views on this as some sort of defense.

It's a fallacious argument. And if anything, you prove that she and her husband are opportunists, taking money whatever what they can, no matter their views. These are the folks you've spent a dozen of posts defending, no matter your assertion that you aren't. You sure know how to pick 'em.

BTW, Pelosi again. Are you trying to say she is a hypocrite for opposing the Bush tax cuts while accepting them? Do you realize Republicans also opposed the Bush tax cuts?

[techboy]

This is not a sound argument.

Repeating yourself isn't going to change my mind, any more than my repeating myself has changed yours.

Again, Bachammn does NOT HAVE TO ACCEPT the government managed and subsidized program which she typically denounces.

And Nancy Pelosi doesn't have to accept the Bush tax cuts, but she isn't a hypocrite either (for the record, that's a restatement of what you were asking about).

You're not being consistent in your criticism, which leads me to believe that you're so concerned about how much you find Michelle Bachmann distasteful, that it colors your thinking in this area.

You're correct on Pelosi, wrong here.

She doesn't, which disproves this entire argument you've presented.

There's no reason she should, really. It's her company health care plan.

I can assure you, if Congress actually passed a single payer national healthcare plan, they'd probably exempt themselves from it, anyway.

I said this wasn't your argument from the get-go, which it wasn't

it's a silly and irrelevant nitpick (like the rest of this isn't ), but let's review.

I pointed out that I had never denied that Michelle Bachmann was a hypocrite, and in fact had stated that she probably was.

You replied that you did not recall that.

I did, in fact, make that statement, as I showed. This sidepoint had nothing to do with whether or not I initially said that.

If you would have said, "Hey, I don't support her, but I am arguing this on principle," from the very beginning, then this debate would have a different tone.

If you had chosen to stop making assumptions after I clarified my position, this debate would have a different tone. The funny thing is, I get the sense that you're still making them.

After you defended Bachmann with less-than-Socratic arguments.

I guess I need to be plain. The reason I quoted Socrates is that his quote shows that the truth of a matter is to be valued more highly than the person or subject to which it applies.

It wouldn't matter if you were talking about Charles Manson. Your criticisms aren't true, and that's what's important to me, not Michelle Bachmann.

Truth? Are you kidding me? When Bachmann has been repeatedly untruthful?!

You need to read more carefully. The issue is the truth of your criticisms, not Michelle Bachmann.

And you haven't done a good job of disputing it. All you have is the "job perks" argument, which isn't substantial.

Again, you need to read more carefully. I even numbered them for you (there were 3, if you'll recall).

That isn't what your quote said.

That is what the quote said, and I even expanded upon it. Let's review:

That is full on hypocrisy, not just taking advantage of a program she opposed but which would happen anyway after it went through, but actively encouraging more of the thing she denounced.

You're welcome.

I don't know how I could be more clear. The issue is that rather than using subsidies that were already allocated, and which she tried to stop, which is not hypocrisy, she actually wrote to the Obama administration asking for more, new money.

I think the real problem here is that, as you admitted, you thought she railed against subsidies and then voted for them (which she didn't), and you're having trouble shifting gears.

This isn't about ME, and quit trying to make it about my own views.

It is about you, in the sense that you are criticizing Bachmann because her husband chose not to turn away poor people, in the process probably accepting less money than he might have from a client with private insurance. I'm just trying to get a feel for what you think the clinic should do, so as to avoid this oh so terrible hypocrisy.

BTW, Pelosi again. Are you trying to say she is a hypocrite for opposing the Bush tax cuts while accepting them?

No, I'm trying to say that you're giving her a pass, when the standards you apply to Michelle Bachmann should have you saying that she's a hypocrite too.

You should apply the fair standards you use with Pelosi, rather than the unfair standards you use with Bachmann.

[Hubbs]

does Iowa matter?

Does the Pope help child molesters get away with their crimes?

[elkabong82]

Leaving aside (again), that it would be illegal of him not to (small point, right?), are you seriously suggesting he turn away people on Medicaid? Seriously?

Do you have any proof that it's illegal for a psychologist to cut down the bill for a patient instead of applying for and receiving medicaid aid for patients? Wouldn't someone who opposes medicaid and the like, who is apparently a very devout Christian, simply cut his costs for poorer patients, since $24k isn't a significant chunk out of the millions he's taking home for himself, so they don't have to use their medicaid? This is the solution he and I have both mentioned, not sure why you keep assuming that he'd have to turn them away, he could simply cut costs for medicaid patients so they don't need to use it. Heck, he could even allow them to pay using medicaid, and then make up the difference himself, instead of applying for and receiving $24k in aid; unless you can show that he is legally required to apply for and accept federal and/or state aid, which I don't believe is the case.

[twist]

That's the same study referenced earlier, and while it makes for a good joke, there's not really much "there" there. Again:

Fun for the media, though.

People like pornography whether they are willing to defend it in public or not.

I am willing to bet someone who thinks they need to interfere with peoples private dealings and pornography is less likely to get elected by the small government libertarian folks who used to be a big part of the tea party.

[Stadium-Armory]

If Bachmann is a hypocrite, then so is Obama (and others), who call for higher taxes, but don't donate extra money to the government to bolster revenue. I'm not sure I buy the 'eat your own dog food' argument in this case.

[techboy]

Do you have any proof that it's illegal for a psychologist to cut down the bill for a patient instead of applying for and receiving medicaid aid for patients?

You mean besides the newspaper article I quoted saying it would be illegal to refuse people on Medicaid?

"Cutting down the bill" wouldn't help either. People on Medicaid likely can't pay much at all.

Let's try this. Suppose a Democratic Congressman is a doctor, and complains about the practices of private insurance companies like Blue Cross and Aetna.

Would you think he's a hypocrite if he accepted his patients' insurance in his private practice?

Wouldn't someone who opposes medicaid and the like, who is apparently a very devout Christian, simply cut his costs for poorer patients, since $24k isn't a significant chunk out of the millions he's taking home for himself, so they don't have to use their medicaid?

1. Are you going to acknowledge that "6 figures" is not "millions"?

2. The $24,000 is not from Medicaid. It's federal aid allocated to training his clinic's staff to better treat drug addicts and such.

This is the solution he and I have both mentioned, not sure why you keep assuming that he'd have to turn them away, he could simply cut costs for medicaid patients so they don't need to use it.

I haven't heard Baculus suggest this, but I guess your solution is that Bachmann should work for free, since again, Medicaid patients don't have any money generally... that's why they're on Medicaid.

They are, however, very likely already taking less money to treat those patients, as I have pointed out more than once. It's one of the reasons laws like the one I mentioned earlier exists. Many doctors don't like to take Medicaid, because it doesn't pay out as much.

I think it's also important to examine just what the initial claim here is, especially since you seem somewhat muddled on the facts.

Michelle Bachmann has suggested that people should try to make it on their own, rather than use programs like Medicaid. She made this suggestion with the accompanying story of how she, herself, was once in that position herself, and did not use government services.

You're apparently taking this to mean that is she says this, and some poor people don't agree with her, her husband should impose this belief on them by refusing to take their insurance.

Doesn't that strike you as awfully draconian?

The other suggestion you have, I suppose, is that he make those people pay money they can't afford to, just so he can maintain some mythical ideological purity. This is the kind of extremist, ivory tower reasoning we get from people like the Bachmanns, it's just you're on the other side.

---------- Post added July-16th-2011 at 07:39 PM ----------

I am willing to bet someone who thinks they need to interfere with peoples private dealings and pornography is less likely to get elected by the small government libertarian folks who used to be a big part of the tea party.

I would have been willing to bet that too, except that Bachmann is apparently a Tea Party darling, which just goes to show that it's been hijacked by people like her and Sarah Palin.

[Baculus]

Repeating yourself isn't going to change my mind, any more than my repeating myself has changed yours.

I said I would agree to disagree. You refused to accept that handshake, to just walk away.

And Nancy Pelosi doesn't have to accept the Bush tax cuts, but she isn't a hypocrite either (for the record, that's a restatement of what you were asking about).

You keep trying to shift this argument from Bachmann onto others, me and Pelosi included.

You're not being consistent in your criticism, which leads me to believe that you're so concerned about how much you find Michelle Bachmann distasteful, that it colors your thinking in this area.

Here's the problem: twice you've made this argument, as if (1) my position on the Bush taxes are relevant, and (2) as if my position would affect your argument.

If I said, "Yes, Nancy Pelosi is a hypocrite," would that change your position? Would you suddenly say, "OK, I agree, Bachmann is a hypocrite, too"? Probably not. So what is the point of this line of reasoning? Critizing me for "hypocrisy" does nothing to change my argument, and this isn't the first time you have directly challenged my own views, from my "emotionalism" to my "hypocrisy" -- as if you are a good judge on it -- to deflect away from Bachmann.

It's a waste of time and typing, and lame debate tactics. I ain't buying it.

We're talking about Bachmann here. Not me, and not the former Speaker of the House.

There's no reason she should, really. It's her company health care plan.

Rubbish. Congress is not her "company," and she does not have to accept the plan on principle. In fact, other conservatives have decided to go onto the open market for their insurance, out of such principle. Again -- inconsistent, slippery logic.

I can assure you, if Congress actually passed a single payer national healthcare plan, they'd probably exempt themselves from it, anyway.

Why do you say that? Some members of Congress use the VA, which is single payer. You're fine with inconsistency, so why would you believe that, anyway?

I am sorry, but after this argument, your "assurance" is not dependable.

it's a silly and irrelevant nitpick (like the rest of this isn't ), but let's review.

Oh lord, you said it's "a silly and irrelevant nitpick," which it isn't, because YOU set the tone for the argument, but here, you are about to launch into nitpicking.

Grandiose.

I pointed out that I had never denied that Michelle Bachmann was a hypocrite, and in fact had stated that she probably was.

You said that after I criticized your position.

You replied that you did not recall that.

I didn't say that, See above. That is what I have said several times.

I did, in fact, make that statement, as I showed. This sidepoint had nothing to do with whether or not I initially said that.

This is bizarre -- you distort my original statement as you accuse me of distorting what you said. This is like a merry-go-round from a bad circus.

If you had chosen to stop making assumptions after I clarified my position, this debate would have a different tone. The funny thing is, I get the sense that you're still making them.

Oh, the irony. The irony.

I don't know how I could be more clear. The issue is that rather than using subsidies that were already allocated, and which she tried to stop, which is not hypocrisy, she actually wrote to the Obama administration asking for more, new money.

I don't think you know what hypocrisy even means, still. It means CONTRARY BEHAVIOR, NO MATTER IF SHE DID OR DID NOT REQUEST FUNDS. This is all about her stated positions, views, and philosophies.

I think the real problem here is that, as you admitted, you thought she railed against subsidies and then voted for them (which she didn't), and you're having trouble shifting gears.

That actually doesn't even matter to the argument -- period. That is what you don't understand. There is no "gear shifting" needed here. My argument is the same -- she opposes this programs, but she uses money from them. My original premise wasn't predicated on her voting for, or against, them. It's entirely centered on her platform.

After all these posts, you still don't get that.

It is about you, in the sense that you are criticizing Bachmann because her husband chose not to turn away poor people, in the process probably accepting less money than he might have from a client with private insurance. I'm just trying to get a feel for what you think the clinic should do, so as to avoid this oh so terrible hypocrisy.

Again you're trying to put the argument on me. What I believe should, or should not happen, is irrelevant. Quit using fallacies arguments. Plus, as if what I believe the clinic should do is going to impact your own argument.

No, I'm trying to say that you're giving her a pass, when the standards you apply to Michelle Bachmann should have you saying that she's a hypocrite too.

Again with the Pelosi . . . I guess when you have no valid way to defend Bachmann's position, you gotta go somewhere else. And, again, even if I said, "Yes, she is a hypocrite," you won't budge, so why does it matter so much to you?

You should apply the fair standards you use with Pelosi, rather than the unfair standards you use with Bachmann.

This isn't about Pelosi, for the umpteenth time. "Unfair" standards?

Ho-ho. That is rich.

BTW, I never said everyone in the world was perfect but Bachmann -- we all have hypocrisies. But the louder you with your views, in the case, of Bachmann, the more obvious your hypocrisies become. If you rant and rave against government spending while contributing to it, that makes an even worse hypocrite of you.

---------- Post added July-17th-2011 at 12:31 AM ----------

If Bachmann is a hypocrite, then so is Obama (and others), who call for higher taxes, but don't donate extra money to the government to bolster revenue. I'm not sure I buy the 'eat your own dog food' argument in this case.

Obama admitted that he is in the tax bracket which will be affected by the taxes, and if he pays his fair share of the increased taxes, would why he "donate extra money to the government"? That makes no sense. Now, he would indeed be a hypocrite if he used a loophole to escape those taxes.

[techboy]

I said I would agree to disagree. You refused to accept that handshake, to just walk away.

That's not the way it went down. You seemed happy with my legitimate example of Bachmann's hypocrisy, and stopped.

Somebody else started arguing with me, so I continued. You decided to jump back in

If I said, "Yes, Nancy Pelosi is a hypocrite," would that change your position?

No, because that's not the point.

Asking you about Nancy Pelosi is not an attempt to shift the topic, or say you're a hypocrite. I'm just trying to get you to apply the correct reasoning you use when you say that Nancy Pelosi is not a hypocrite to Michelle Bachmann.

I know that you can reason correctly on this issue, because you do it with Nancy Pelosi. Now I'm hoping you'll apply that skill to someone you find distasteful.

For the record, this is my response to all of your questions about why your view should matter, so I snipped the rest.

Critizing me for "hypocrisy" does nothing to change my argument

I agree. Criticizing a person for hypocrisy usually involves the commission of the informal logical fallacy known as "tu quoque". Of course, that's not my point, as I mentioned above.

This does make me wonder, though. If you believe this, why are you accusing Michelle Bachmann of hypocrisy in the first place? It does nothing to change the validiity of her positions.

Shouldn't you be sticking to the charges of lying and abuse of power and the like, charges I find personally to be far more serious?

Rubbish. Congress is not her "company," and she does not have to accept the plan on principle. In fact, other conservatives have decided to go onto the open market for their insurance, out of such principle.

1. Congress is absolutely her employer.

2. The fact that others have gone to extreme measures does not mean that she should have to.

3. You have already stated with respect to Nancy Pelosi that she is not a hypocrite on the Bush tax cuts because she didn't have to apply for them. They were "easy". Why aren't you applying the same standard here? Receiving healthcare is the same "easy" default position.

Why do you say that?

I say that because Congress is notorious for passing laws and then exempting themselves from them. See, for example Above Their Own Laws, an article from Time.

I am sorry, but after this argument, your "assurance" is not dependable.

How about Time magazine's?

Oh lord, you said it's "a silly and irrelevant nitpick," which it isn't, because YOU set the tone for the argument, but here, you are about to launch into nitpicking.

I was including myself in that statement, of course, but I'd point out that it was, in fact, you that set the topic, and then goaded me into engaging in it.

I didn't say that, See above. That is what I have said several times.

Fine. There was a miscommunication somewhere, and it's irrelevant anyway (who said what when), so forget it.

My argument is the same -- she opposes this programs, but she uses money from them.

Let's be fair here. There are about 50 arguments floating around here, all slightly different.

That being said, if you would apply the fair standards you use for Nancy Pelosi to this case as well, you would see that you don't have a case.

Opposing something, then dealing with reality after it passes, is not hypocrisy. It's realism.

Only in the Ivory Tower world of ideologues (like Michelle Bachmann) is Nancy Pelosi expected to give the Bush tax cuts back, Ron Paul expected not to use earmarks, or Michelle Bachmann not to use money that was allocated against her vote for her district and farm.

[Jumbo]

There are times in a fight where a ref steps in and stops the action because one guy is just getting the holy **** beat out of him, but the pommeled pugilist won't go down even after concussive right crosses have wrung the last drop of blood from the George Chuvalo-channeling loser.

I am about ready to play ref. :pfft:

Additional note, in most cases one allows oneself to be goaded.

Just having a laugh. Carry on.

[techboy]

Additional note, in most cases one allows oneself to be goaded.

:halo:

You said that after I criticized your position.

I just wanted to come back to this real quick, because though it doesn't really matter to the "substance" (such as it is) of this discussion, I really have to know: Do you think I'm an idiot?

Seriously.

The underlying implication of this statement, and all the others like it (and sometimes it's not so implied), is that I support Michelle Bachmann politically.

In this case, I suppose, the idea is that I only "admitted" there were problems with Michelle Bachmann after you wrung them out of me like Perry Mason working over a witness on the stand. "Okay! Okay! I murdered him! But he had it coming!"

Let's review how this thread went, zoony style (except being me, it won't be nearly as brief ):

My first post in this thread had nothing to do with Michelle Bachmann at all, though it's relevant for reasons we'll see in a minute. It was just a comment that DRSmith's idea that people who believe in smaller government shouldn't vote at all was ludicrous.

My second post made fun of Michelle Bachmann, suggesting that this pledge which she signed made Pat Roberston look like a moderate.

My third post also made fun of her signing of the pledge, the pledge itself, and the group that created it.

There was then a brief interlude where DRSmith insisted that small government advocates are hypocrites for voting , closing with the doozy that not voting would actually acheive that goal.

You then jumped in at the tail end of this, and changed the subject to make it specifically about Michelle Bachmann, admitting as you did so that this is what you were doing.

Being that stalwart defender of Michelle Bachmann, what did I do? Did I immediately respond to your criticisms, point by point, and share some of her obvious strengths? No, I told you you were changing the subject, and didn't care to address the points you were making, as they were irrelevant to what I was talking about.

You then more or less insisted, and seeing that your particular criticisms of Michelle Bachmann were flawed (but not, for instance, the ones I myself had leveled first), I went along for the ride.

In my very first response to you, I then wrote this:

I'm not defending her. I don't even like her, particularly. I used to be a libertarian, but lately I think I've been slowly morphing into Bob Casey (more or less a pro-life conservative Democrat).

I'm attacking arguments I find to be disingenuous (specifically DRSmith's silly assertion). That's why my comments are limited to specific, small points, though you have asked me to expand my scope a bit, so I did..

So I don't really understand why you've been complaining that i should have given you a disclaimer. I did.

In any case, getting to the point, I started my specific "defense" of Michelle Bachmann with the statement that I don't like her. In the course of the discussion, I then said I didn't like most of her policies, said she was a hypocrite (just not for the reasons you suggest) and called her dangerous, accused her of bald-faced lying, reiterated that she was lying (and mentioned I don't like it), brought up the lying again, decided to help you out by researching for you an actual case of hypocrisy on her part, used Charles Manson in an analogy to talking about her, called her an extremist idelogue (for at least the second time, and finally, just continued to bump a thread that makes her look like an extremist ideologue, and probably an idiot too (for signing a pledge that will turn off the moderates she needs to actually win).

And, don't forget, all of this only happened after two of my first three posts in this thread made fun of her, the pledge, and the organization that created it.

And so, my question to you again is, do you think I'm an idiot?

If I was actually trying to defend Michelle Bachmann, don't you think I could have done a better job of it?

[Baculus]

If I was actually trying to defend Michelle Bachmann, don't you think I could have done a better job of it?

No, I don't think you're an idiot, and though you say you don't support Bachmann -- I will take your word for it -- consider how your efforts may appear to other people.

I appreciate the time you took to reply to me, and I think agreeing to disagree is probably the best course of action; it was a good exchange.

[elkabong82]

You mean besides the newspaper article I quoted saying it would be illegal to refuse people on Medicaid?

"Cutting down the bill" wouldn't help either. People on Medicaid likely can't pay much at all.

Let's try this. Suppose a Democratic Congressman is a doctor, and complains about the practices of private insurance companies like Blue Cross and Aetna.

Would you think he's a hypocrite if he accepted his patients' insurance in his private practice?

1. Are you going to acknowledge that "6 figures" is not "millions"?

2. The $24,000 is not from Medicaid. It's federal aid allocated to training his clinic's staff to better treat drug addicts and such.

.

I never questioned the legality of turning away someone because they are on medicaid. Again, would it be illegal for him to cover the cost in medicaid instead of having the fed and state gov't give him $24k for it?

I realize now, though, that I did goof with thinking 6 figures means millions (was thinking 6 zeroes for some reason). So I'll rephrase that a guy who pulls in hundreds of thousands of dollars just in personal income probably doesn't need $24k in aid.

Seems to me cutting down the bill to cover the additional $24k in aid yourself is possible and is something a person truly opposed to the institution of medicaid and gov't healthcare would do.

Also, you should really try to avoid arguing with hypotheticals, they don't prove much of anything. In the one you list here, the Democratic congressman would have to be opposed completely to Aetna and Blue Cross, not just have an issue with their practices. Bachmann doesn't just have an issue with the practices of medicaid, she's opposed to its existence. Also, for the record, you don't need to include party affiliation of the congressman, whether or not it is an attempt to reveal partisan bias, as I don't ascribe myself to either party.

and again, the solution was not to turn away people or deny their insurance, and that's been mentioned a couple times to you now, so I don't know why you keep arguing against something nobody is suggesting. Your only answer to the actual proposed solution was "cutting down the bill wouldn't help either. people on medicaid likely can't pay much at all," which ignores that Bachmann received $24k to cover medicaid costs that patients couldn't pay, which he simply could have cut his bill down/cover the cost, because, as I have stated, a guy's practice that nets him a 6 figure income can probably cover $24k.

[techboy]

No, I don't think you're an idiot, and though you say you don't support Bachmann -- I will take your word for it -- consider how your efforts may appear to other people.

That's the point, though... I did, and considering the events summarized in my last post, I don't see how any rational person, thinking clearly about the issue, and actually reading this thread could have come to the conclusion you did.

I don't think you're an idiot, so I had to wonder if you think I'm one.

Again, would it be illegal for him to cover the cost in medicaid instead of having the fed and state gov't give him $24k for it?

While you have realized your mistake regarding the "millions", you're still mistaken here. The $24,000 does not represent payments from Medicaid. It is the amount of a state grant (including federal money) used to train the clinic's staff to better treat drug addiction and similar.

According to this Huffington Post article, the amount of payments from patients on Medicaid totalled $137,000, though I don't know over what time frame.

Seems to me cutting down the bill to cover the additional $24k in aid yourself is possible and is something a person truly opposed to the institution of medicaid and gov't healthcare would do.

Why do you ask me to avoid hypotheticals, then turn around and offer one?

Sure, it might be possible that Marcus Bachmann could simply take the hit and treat Medicaid patients for free. It would even be charitable.

Of course, a point you are repeatedly ignoring is that he's already taking a hit by accepting Medicaid in the first place, since they pay less than a traditional insurance plan would.

This story, for instance talks about a hospital suing the state of West Virginia because the amount Medicaid pays is threatening them with bankruptcy:

"We do not take this step lightly but do it to protect our patients," Massey said. "Medicaid reimbursements have been covering only two-thirds of our costs for providing medical care, so BARH has been suffering a substantial financial loss. These Medicaid rates jeopardize BARH's continued ability to provide medical services to all of its patients."

Why is probably taking a loss on each patient not enough of a sacrifice for you? On what hypothetical planet do you live on where a person has to work for free in order to avoid the charge of hypocrisy, especially when he's already taking a substantial financial hit to help people?

Bill Gates says he cares about the poor, and he's poured billions into charities to that effect, but he still has billions left. Do you think he's a hypocrite because he doesn't give even more?

In the one you list here, the Democratic congressman would have to be opposed completely to Aetna and Blue Cross, not just have an issue with their practices.

You're splitting hairs. The situations are analogous.

Bachmann doesn't just have an issue with the practices of medicaid, she's opposed to its existence.

Are you sure about that? Can you point me to a quote where she has called for the complete abolition of Medicaid, including people currently on the system? Because according to that conservative bastion Think Progress, what she actually said was this:

We’re $14 trillion in debt, but that doesn’t include the unfunded massive liabilities. That’s $107 trillion, and that’s for Social Security and Medicare and all the rest. You add up all those unfunded net liabilities, and all the traps that could go wrong we’re on the hook for, and what it means is what we have to do is a reorganization of all of that, Social Security and all. We have to do it simply because we can’t let the contract remain as they are because the older people are going to lose. So, what you have to do, is keep faith with the people that are already in the system, that don’t have any other options, we have to keep faith with them. But basically what we have to do is wean everybody else off. And wean everybody off because we have to take those unfunded net liabilities off our bank sheet, we can’t do it. So we just have to be straight with people.

It's funny... continuing to accept Medicaid payments while trying to change the system sure sounds consistent with this quote to me. Baculus posted a quote earlier where she apparently told people to try to not use Medicaid, but that sure sounds like "weaning off" to me, too.

because, as I have stated, a guy's practice that nets him a 6 figure income can probably cover $24k.

A final point here is that you seem to be cheerfully ignoring Larry's point that in the context of a clinic, income is not the same as "profit". They can take in $200,000, but if they spend $190,000 of it on upkeep and staff salaries, he wouldn't even have the $24,000 you keep mistakenly referring to.

I'd also point out that $100,000 is "six figures" too, and in that case, $24,000 would represent a quarter of it, so it might not be the easy "NFL player paying a $10,000 fine" you think it is, especially when the number you're looking for is actually $137,000.

And actually, looking at the articles again, I'm also not entirely sure that the "six" figures represents income into the clinic in the first place. It could be referring to the Medicaid payments ($137,000 is six figures too).

Therefore, if you want to press this point, you've got some work to do. Provide some reliable information as to how much profit the Bachmanns get out of the clinic, and then you can compare that to how much they get from Medicaid.

Not that your criticisms would stick, even if they made millions.

[Baculus]

Seems to me cutting down the bill to cover the additional $24k in aid yourself is possible and is something a person truly opposed to the institution of medicaid and gov't healthcare would do.

Right on target.

The Bachmanns are a "do what I say, not do what I do" family. "Don't take government money!" Bachmann declares, while she then turns and takes government money. As a note, excusing these monies as "training money" is an irrelevant argument. After all, she rails against someone on welfare getting $400 a month, and yet she receives thousands from the state and federal government.

For some reason, though, we're expected to overlook this, because apparently principles do not matter (which we already knew when it came to some politicians).

and again, the solution was not to turn away people or deny their insurance, and that's been mentioned a couple times to you now, so I don't know why you keep arguing against something nobody is suggesting. Your only answer to the actual proposed solution was "cutting down the bill wouldn't help either. people on medicaid likely can't pay much at all," which ignores that Bachmann received $24k to cover medicaid costs that patients couldn't pay, which he simply could have cut his bill down/cover the cost, because, as I have stated, a guy's practice that nets him a 6 figure income can probably cover $24k.

Especially when the funds are (1) federal, and (2) supposedly cannot fund religious-based practices.

Some people may not have an issue with this, but I can guarantee many of us do. Nobody likes a two-faced grifter, and that is a good description for Bachmann.

[LadySkinsFan]

1. There are some therapists who don't take any kind of insurance, including Medicaid/Medicare. Patients have to pay upfront the entire hourly fee, no copays. That is because a therapist who might charge $100 per hour will make maybe only $40 per hour if the therapist accepts insurance. That's $30 per hour from the insurance and $10 copay from the patient. I know this for a fact because I know several therapists. Plus the insurance paperwork is onerous, the insurance companies try to deny paying benefits using one excuse or another. Therefore, Bachmann doesn't need Medicaid/Medicare money for payment if he chooses not to accept those programs.

2. Michele Bachmann has broken her oath of office by signing this pledge. Article VI, 3rd paragraph states: "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

The oath Bachmann is basically a religious test. Any candidate signing this pledge is not fit for public office. This includes both Federal and state office holders, both elected and appointed.

This is the Constitution and not an amendment, which some of these "strict constructionists" refuse to recognize, even though a mechanism for amending the Constitution is outlined in the whole of Article V.

Like everything else, they cherry pick the Articles/paragraphs/clauses they like and ignore the rest.

They are not fit to hold public office.

[twa]

The oath Bachmann is basically a religious test. Any candidate signing this pledge is not fit for public office. This includes both Federal and state office holders, both elected and appointed.

.

Your interpretation is a bit off,the religious test cannot be applied by govt....voters and groups of them are free to impose them individually as a condition of their vote.

Just as you are free not to support candidates because of their religious beliefs

[Baculus]

Your interpretation is a bit off,the religious test cannot be applied by govt....voters and groups of them are free to impose them individually as a condition of their vote.

Just as you are free not to support candidates because of their religious beliefs

There are some people, Herman Cain, for example, who believes such a religious test is needed. I have no doubt that Bachmann, and other on the Christian Right, who would support such a litmus test for public office. After all, Bachmann is a Christian theocrat.

[twa]

There are some people, Herman Cain, for example, who believes such a religious test is needed. I have no doubt that Bachmann, and other on the Christian Right, who would support such a litmus test for public office. After all, Bachmann is a Christian theocrat.

Is it a religious test Cain supports?...or a loyalty to the US one?

His biases certainly have muddled the issue

Aren't you guilty of doing basically the same thing he has? (making assumptions based on religion)

[Prosperity]

Who's crazier, Herman Cain or Michele Bachmann?