Why are there no massive protests FOR the plan? People don't protest for frozen vanilla yogurt.

[SoCalDem]

We were led to believe that there would be a sundae.

With three flavors of ice cream..real ice cream..and there would be chocolate sauce, whipped cream, strawberries, and maybe even a sliced banana at the bottom.

We've been promised this sundae for a long time..you might say we have craved it......and it has never come to pass. Not everyone will want the sundae, but millions do. Some have never had a sundae.

We've seen other people eating sundaes, and we want one so badly we can almost taste it. We voted for it last year, and thought we would finally get our sundae.

No one could agree on the three flavors, so a compromise was reached..vanilla ice cream. That promise went away and frozen yogurt was suggested as a compromise.

Frozen yogurt may taste "like" ice cream, but it's not.

There is some doubt about whether there will be any "extras"..certainly the chocolate sauce is out, as is the banana (too expensive). Whipped cream is out of the question. .."There's a war on, dontchaknow"
There will be no cherry on top, so don't even ask.
The new soda jerks did offer some brown sprinkles.. (they ain't chocolate)..and of course we do get to keep the nuts.. LOTS of NUTS.


Just when we had almost come to accept the "less than" sundae, protesters are suddenly saying "Not even frozen yogurt for YOU...we won't hear of it..and if you even try to tell people they have one coming, we'll shout you down."


Why is "our side" not eager to counter-protest with the same "vigor"?

We are not all THAT excited about a shit-sprinkled bowl of vanilla frozen yogurt, especially when even that will probably end up being a small plastic cup of room temperature spoiled milk.



disclaimer for the <0 people without a sense of humor.. I KNOW it's NOT ice cream we're worrying about..and I know that some of you might be lactose or otherwise intolerant, some are nut-sensitive, and that some of you will say ice cream is high in fat & sugar and not a "bit good for you"..buy hey.. work with me here :rofl:

[Xipe Totec]

1. A quote from Machiavelli

"And it ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them. Thus it happens that whenever those who are hostile have the opportunity to attack they do it like partisans, whilst the others defend lukewarmly, in such wise that the prince is endangered along with them."


The Prince
by Nicolo Machiavelli
CHAPTER VI
Concerning New Principalities Which Are Acquired By One's Own Arms And Ability

[John Q. Citizen]

4. Medicare has been around since the 60s. It's not new and we want it too. What I don't

want is corporate welfare for the private insurance companies and for the drug companies.

It's pretty simple and straightforward.

It's not that complicated, so why try to make it so complicated?

[Xipe Totec]

7. You missed the point

If, as you say, Medicare has been around for 60 years, then why are we changing anything?

The answer is that this is a change for those who are not currently on Medicare, but most importantly, it is a change for those who make a profit from people who are not on Medicare.

The ones who feed from the current trough are the partisans. Those who are not currently on Medicare are the lukewarm supporters.

[John Q. Citizen]

13. Corporate Welfare doesn't excite people, it excites corporations. The Dems are

fast on the road to becoming known as the party of corporate welfare.

Funneling 1 trillion dollars a decade into the insurance companies doesn't excite most people I know. It is a change for the insurance industry which is why they have been on board with the administration from day one for this change.

It's why we get big turn outs of passionate people for single payer rallies and small luke warm turnouts for the corporate welfare bill aka HR3200.

Giving a trillion a decade to private insurance isn't something I want to promote, personally.

You can if you want.

[Xipe Totec]

15. You make it sound so simple

I guess we won't have any trouble passing single payer legislation then.

I'm so relieved.

[John Q. Citizen]

21. if all the people advocating giving private insurance subsidies were instead advocating for single

payer we would already have it.

Heck, we already passed it back in the 60s for people 65 and older.

It's not like it's an impossible dream.

What always amazes me is how so-called liberals always fall for whatever the latest market driven fad idea is that comes down the pike. It's like they never learn.

When have Democrats ever stood strong and attempted to pass single payer or attempted to sell single payer to the people? Never. Instead they keep attempting to sell some version of market driven reform that is always bullshit and never works to keep down costs.

bush wanted the public option with social security, remember?

Why would people want that for health care insurance when they didn't want it for retirement insurance?


You know what "easy " is? Dem voters are easy. They are suckers who fall for what ever they are told they are supposed to buy. meanwhile our leaders are pocketing more money from the insurance companies and the drug companies than the Repos are.

Why do you suppose that is? Have you thought about it or do you just push that out of your mind?

[SoCalDem]

22. There's a reason the original plan was called "Medicare" instead of "Eldercare"

The plan was to get it started and then roll everyone into it, but "things got in the way"...EVERY f'ing time..and now we are where we are:grr:

[Xipe Totec]

27. I don't disagree with you.

I merely point to the reason why it is so difficult to implement change.

I am not against change; I am for it.

I support single payer insurance.

I just happen to understand what we're up against, and why.

[John Q. Citizen]

30. We aren't anywhere near up against what the people who passed Medicare were up

against. Because that was new.

[Xipe Totec]

28. I have thought about it

The conclusion I have drawn is that Machiavelli was right.

I understand what he was saying.

Do you?

[John Q. Citizen]

31. Machiavelli can be right and you can be wrong in your application of his

quote to this circumstance.

Why do you believe his quote is applicable to now? You haven't provided any rational or evidence that would support that our circumstance meets his criteria.

What are your assumptions?

[Mojorabbit]

24. I think it is the point

People are familiar with medicare. Their moms or grandmas are on it. It should have been framed as a medicare type plan for anyone who wants to buy in to it. If anyone wants more then they can buy supplemental insurance. Easy, familiar.

I am for health care reform but even I cannot get excited about something that has not yet been defined.

[Xipe Totec]

26. If that were true, we would not be having this argument

Go back, and read the quote.

Carefully.

The point is that those who stand to lose will fight the change like banshees.

Those who stand to gain will, at most, offer lukewarm support.

Look around and see what is happening.

[SoCalDem]

8. because legislators may nibble the hand that feeds them, but they don't want to bite it off

they need the big bucks from Pharma, Hospital, Inc, and Insurance companies.

[Greyhound]

16. Because, in complexity lie many opportunities for graft.

Why do we have such a byzantine tax code?

[drm604]

2. Because "protests" by definition are against something.

We could protest against the watering down of reform, but that would be misconstrued (actually, purposely misrepresented) as protests against health care in general.

[SoCalDem]

3. and the fact that Harry Reid let the inmates loose without even an actual plan

:grr:

They're all out there trying to explain "blue" to blind people:(

[John Q. Citizen]

6. We have big passionate turn outs here in Montana FOR single payer (AKA medicare for all) but small

luke warm ones for bills that propose corporate welfare for insurance companies and drug companies.

So i would suggest that the OP is correct about content being the determining factor.

[SoCalDem]

9. and.. every time people do turn out for single-payer (the only real solution)

dems fall all over themselves, rushing to the nearest microphone to tell everyone that there will NOT be single-payer :grr: and they wonder why people do not take to the streets..:(

[kenny blankenship]

14. Well, call it "demonstrating for" change then.

It's just a quibble about the appropriate word. People could demonstrate FOR health care reform AND against the doubling of health care costs over the last ten years with the prospect of an unsustainable re-doubling over the next ten years. Indeed, they should protest or demonstrate for health care reform and against corporate insurance extortionists in the same event. No one can be FOR their health care costs doubling every ten years for less care and for more people becoming underinsured or completely uninsured. That's madness.

But people must be shown and offered something that will PLAUSIBLY cover all and contain costs for them to feel involved. Making a broken system even more complex, while not challenging its underlying casino house rules is not an agenda that gets people into the streets. Not in this country nor any other.

[SoCalDem]

19. Here's the difference..

Try to take something valuable AWAY..people will get up in your face and take to the streets
Try to get them to rally for "something- to- be- defined- later, for some people... maybe"...

not so much
This is why Eurpoeans are so good about strikes & work stoppages & marches & rallies & protests.

They have something valuable already, and they fight to KEEP it or IMPROVE it.

we have "nothing" as of yet, and not really much of a promise for ANYTHING..

and the major benefits (as currently explained) are for "people we don't know"..and probably most don't care all that much about to start with..:(

someone tries to take something from some kid , somewhere, is not as urgent as taking something from MY child..

Republicans are good at wordsmithing, and currying fear. they have convinced the me-mobbers that ANY health care coverage "change" will irreparablty harm THEIR IMMEDIATE family..NOW..and FOREVER

[kentuck]

5. True. What would we be protesting for??

What are the specifics??

[global1]

10. Take A Look At This Link And Then You Tell Me Why Our Side Is Not Eager To Counter Potest.......

I suggested what I thought was a whimsical and yet constructive way to get our point across and was totally surprised of the reaction I got.

Check out this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6259471&mesg_id=6259471

I think you hit the nail on the head - there are people on 'our side' that have no sense of humor and some that are lactose or otherwise intolerant, some nut-sensitive (I guess my idea was nutty) and some that are concerned about the fat and sugar.

Just like the Blue Dog Dems are fighting - their own in Congress - we the people suffer from the same 'team in-fighting'. And we see that 'team in-fighting' right here on DU. {But it does serve the purpose of some - they get to rack up their total post numbers by taking issue with anything and everything).

I guess 'our side' is just too politically correct to mount any type of counter offensive - because some think doing so is counter-productive and offensive. Some on 'our side' would rather sit back after the fact and just say - I told you so - and complain that 'our side' never gets anything done.

The 'other side' relies on that and uses that against 'our side' - and most effectively - to beat us - even when we have the upper hand (like holding the White House and both houses of Congress).

[kenny blankenship]

11. What we have here is a failure of vision and a failure of leadership.

People aren't protesting from the left on behalf of so-called insurance reform because We The People have been told to fuck off. Our leaders don't want our input because little people like us can't understand the complicated nuanced deals they have to make with their negotiating partners from the corporate side. We can't be allowed to challenge basic assumptions of the most fucked up health care delivery auction regime in the Western world - no matter how extortionate its costs become and no matter how many people it has killed. They send out invitations for us to show support and sign up for this and that but they're only talking about us supporting THEIR agenda. They're not siding with us, they only want to enlist us to help them make a mockery of the word REFORM and force everyone into the feed pens of private insurance corporations. We've been told that Corporatist Supremacy is change we can believe in, and deep down inside we can't fucking believe it and get excited about supporting that no matter how much we wanted to believe that this time it would be different.

Anyone who'd been paying attention for the last thirty years would know that that is not change at all. This is the system flat out refusing to change.

[SoCalDem]

12. I know.. It's like fingernail on a chalkboard every time I hear one of "ours" say

INSURANCE "reform"..

INSURANCE IS THE PROBLEM...NOT THE SOLUTION..

It started out as HEALTHCARE for EVERYONE, then went to heath care "reform", and is now totally "insurance reform":(

Reform is not going to solve a thingewxcept find 40million new "customers" to be denied services when they most need them:cry:

[Greyhound]

17. This is the noose the Democrats have tied and placed around their own necks.

You are exactly right.

The reason the public perceives Democrats as standing for nothing, is because they will not stand for anything.

[SoCalDem]

23. Harry Reid HAS to GO.. Barbara Boxer should have his job..

Mr. Lilyliver Milquetoast, Esq. is allowing the majority to be led around by the nose by people who loathe everything we claim to stand for..

[Greyhound]

25. Boxer would be great, Feingold would be another good alternative. n/t

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

18. Nicely put.

:thumbsup:

[slackmaster]

20. The people who would benefit from the plans are too busy working and taking care of their children

People who would see no benefit or increased costs are more likely to be able to find time to protest.

[Wednesdays]

29. K&R

:kick: