Snot-nosed Brown University Brats Throw Temper Tantrum

We weren't able to discover by press time whether this was a Brown student or professor.
We weren’t able to discover by press time whether this was a Brown student or professor.
When is the last time you saw a bratty kid throw a temper tantrum?

If you were a professor at an American university, probably right after midterms. But if you were at Brown, it was last Tuesday.

Seems somebody at Brown invited New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly to give a lecture. Kelly is by all accounts a sharp guy, worthy of hearing. He’s seen a lot of history.

Part of his talk might have been devoted to the city’s controversial “stop and frisk” program.

Wouldn’t that be interesting? Lot of questions about it, and some good arguments against it. What does Kelly say to those? Does stop and frisk infringe on freedom? Who is stopped and why? Why are whites stopped at rates much higher in proportion to their actual crime rates while blacks and Hispanics stopped at much lower rates? Does the city have something against whites?

What explains New York City’s rapid and astonishing drop in crime? Is it the fancy statistics program they run? Was it stop and frisk? Something else? What about the lawsuit (now in appeal) the city faces over the policy? Just what does the law that Kelly has sworn to uphold actually say?

Golly, a lot of fascinating intellectual questions. So what happened?

The kiddies stomped their feet, the sucked their thumbs, they screamed “Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!” They put their fingers in their ears and chanted No, No, No. They pooped their pants. Some of them might have demanded candy.

They didn’t need to be lectured by Kelly. They already knew the answers. And if they didn’t know them, they didn’t have to. The snot-nosed, uneducated, ignorant, exasperating little fiends chased Kelly from the room.

What did the professoriate do after witnessing this disgusting spectacle? Take out the paddle? Take the kiddies’ cell phones for the night? Boot the brats from campus?

No. They rushed headlong to the sides of the rotten brutes, petted them and cooed, “My poor babies! I’m so sorry you had to go through that. Oh you poor, poor dears. You almost had to hear an opinion which differed from yours! I promise my darlings—mommy promises!–that you will never ever have to go through this again.”

Several of the profs broke down and cried, traumatized by what they had almost allowed to happen to their precious charges. Those not yet tenured quaked in feared. They’re not going to give us poor teaching evaluations, are they?

What’s the tuition and fees at Brown these days? Some fifty-five thousand bucks? Not enough, not enough.

66 Comments

  1. I was an undergraduate in the 1960s and we used to joke that there was nothing more cowardly than a college president. The professors are evidently a close second. I’m surprised the professors weren’t out leading mobs in the street.

  2. Funny how a few month ago you seemed to complain about TSA in airport.

    I Wonder what would be you reaction if you got patted down by cop while walking on the street. Of course, the chance of a old white dude to be suspected of anything is almost none existant.

  3. Sylvain Allard,

    Say, you’re not a college student, are you? The kind that would refused to hear out the other side even though you disagree with it?

  4. I suppose if Hitler rose from the dead to give a speech at Brown, you would expect them to have the manners to hear him out?

  5. “I suppose if Hitler rose from the dead to give a speech at Brown, you would expect them to have the manners to hear him out?” Yes I would. By listening to him talk you are not condoning what he did. You are just listeing to what he is saying. It is possible to read Mein Kampf without agreeing to a word written in it.

  6. Well, now we know who was dealt the Hitler card. If anyone rose from the dead and became available I for one would want to hear them. As for Brown students’ manners: my expectations have recently lowered.

  7. Sadly, this behavior seems to be the modern norm. Ironically, it has a partial genesis in the Berkeley “Free Speech Movement” of the ’60s. It seems that when modern progressives become “the man,” they behave worse than “the man” ever did.

  8. Briggs,

    I am a college student (part time), I disagree with stand your ground. I also disagree with sensoring anyone while they should have confronted him at the is speech.

    Climate science and freedom of speech are about the 2 subject we both agree on.

  9. I have always thought the best way to evaluate the truth of an idea is to see how its proponents respond to the best critics of the idea. I learn the most about the strength of an argument by evaluating the strength of the counter arguments.

    When the proponents ignore the critics, dismiss the critics or respond to straw men critics, then I become skeptical.

    So what is it that Brown University is teaching that cannot withstand exposure to an opposing viewpoint?

  10. “I suppose if Hitler rose from the dead to give a speech at Brown, you would expect them to have the manners to hear him out?” Yes I would. By listening to him talk you are not condoning what he did. You are just listeing to what he is saying. It is possible to read Mein Kampf without agreeing to a word written in it.

    Hitler has gotten his word in. He had a whole book and thousands of speeches. Perhaps it would be interesting to know what he was thinking in the bunker. But the point is, he’s had his fill of speaking, and surely anyone else has had their fill of Hitler’s dirty mouth.

    There are plenty of places on the internet to go find out what poor old humble Ray Kelly thinks. If it were me, I’d say GTFO too.

    I don’t invite verbal abusers over to keep poisoning my mind. And I have experienced them. They wear on you.

  11. Sorry, but one more thing. Perhaps this is off base, but Kelly was almost assuredly paid in the form of cash money to speak at this thing. That alone is enough to raise rage at the fact that my tuition may have had to pay for his butt to spread propaganda.

  12. So, Andrew, you don’t want to hear him or have the opportunity to question him face to face means you sure as hell don’t want anyone else to do so therefore you have the perfect right to interfere with them doing so?

    “I don’t invite verbal abusers over to keep poisoning my mind.”

    Poisoning your mind? You’re that easily swayed? Oh, wait! You must really mean “poisoning OTHER (obviously, gullible) people’s minds” because they are way too stupid to decide for themselves. You may have a point, they go to Brown don’t they?

    “Verbal abusers”?

    Stating a belief (like you just have) is “verbal abuse”? You must really hate yourself.

  13. DAV – This particular aspect of the argument isn’t about rights, its’ about manners. If it were just me who stood up and made a disruption, it would be rude; clearly I was ruining a party and I wasn’t invited. If it were a large number of people interrupting, then you have a semblance of consensus about the subject.

    I would not want my 50K tuition paying Ray Kelly, and I so strongly wouldn’t want it that I would be willing to protest him at Brown if and only if there were a large enough number of like minded Brown folk who agreed to be with me on this.

    On verbal abuse, look up some of the battered wives support group pages to see what qualifies as a verbal abuser. Once again, this is a grey area outside the realm of rights and inside the realm of manners and ettiquette.

    If Ray Kelly wants to get a word in, he can easily call up Regis Philbin or someone and have a camera on him. I am sure he’ll be running for office soon enough. Why should Brown be providing a political candidate a paid speaking platform? (Rhetorical Question)

    I would have thought William was a free market capitalist kind of guy. The students paid for a product at Brown, and they protested when they didn’t like it. Brown I suppose could kick them out, but then how would they recoup so much $[Math].

  14. ” its’ about manners. If it were just me who stood up and made a disruption, it would be rude”

    But it’s OK to being rude in a group?

    ” semblance of consensus about the subject.”

    So, interfering with

    “On verbal abuse, look up … ”

    Abuse is a word oft abused. What’s your point?

    “Why should Brown be providing a political candidate a paid speaking platform?”

    Because a university should support the expression of ideas?

    “… semblance of consensus about the subject.”

    So, active censorship is what a group should do? You, poor dear! Censorship is only deemed necessary when the “other” side has cogent points and the fear is someone might actually see them. Otherwise, why not supply the significant “others” the opportunity to display the silliness of their position for all to see? Think about it.

  15. Andrews,
    No one could fault you for lacking chutzpah. It’s about manners and etiquette is it now? Single action is just so rude, but joining a raging mob, why even Miss Manners would approve. You might want to stop now before you make a complete fool of yourself. By the way this is not rude as I have thousands, even millions, who agree with me.

    Incidentally, do you know if your tuition pays for the A. Alfred Taubman Center for Public Policy and American Institutions speaker fees? Are you aware that Brown has an immense endowment fund or do you think that student tuition trumps all other interests? Do you protest the invitation of all speakers or just the ones that you think you, sorry the mob, might disagree with? Do you, or again the mob, know what Kelly was going to speak about or what position he was going to present? Oh I forgot you compared him to Hitler and after all what other reason could one possibly need. It’s all about manners after all.

  16. “not in my back yard.”

    But it’s not just your backyard, is it? Seems your argument should be with Brown and not Kelly. I’m glad your not my neighbor.

  17. Scotty –

    I never claimed that one person trumped anyone else. All I am saying is the paying customers had a revolt, and I really can’t say anything in favor of a man that violates just about every civil liberty in the bill of rights, and then has a mob (millions of people to you) that will support him.

    At some point, firstly, enough is enough. (I don’t go to Brown by the way, never did.) You’ve had your word. (Kelly has, he gets a free platform every day due to his job.) You can easily hear more about Ray Kelly by tuning into Hannity or Bill O’Reilly.

    You know who can hardly ever get a word in? People like those students. They don’t get to be on Wolf Blitzer or Rush Limbaugh, or god forbid Al Sharpton. You know who else can’t get a word in? All those black people, or any people (I am white), who get stopped for nothing.

    You’ve gotta draw the line somewhere. You’re right. Where does it stop? This isn’t math or statistics here. It is common sense and feeling, and I say that you’re complete dismissal of students that actually stand up for more than just a run to the liquor store is admirable. And they’re doing it for civil liberties, not free loans from the government too.

  18. speaking of which, I wonder if the professorial class would even have a job at all if they weren’t supported by all those student loans subsidizing their students to pay their bloated salaries. They’d likely be walking idly along the streets of New York looking for work with a five o’clock shadow where Ray Kelly might frisk them.

  19. “You know who can hardly ever get a word in? People like those students. They don’t get to be on Wolf Blitzer or Rush Limbaugh, or god forbid Al Sharpton.”

    Which is what happens when you watch someone on television. But, still, it’s OK for some students to prevent other students from the opportunity to directly question Kelly and maybe even have a chance of getting their word in to him directly? Maybe one of their censored, unvoiced questions would have reformed Kelly. We’ll never know now.

  20. I’m glad Andrew appeared here in the comments, as his contributions demonstrate clearly the intolerance, closed-mindedness and lack of critical thinking skills that so obviously characterize those who shout down unpopular speakers.

    Andrew, what about the students who want to hear Ray Kelly speak? Does the majority get to dictate what they can and cannot hear?

    Are you aware that universities used to be a place that valued diversity of ideas?

  21. @Sylvain “BTW, what about the freedom of speech for cummunist in the USA.”

    Communists have much more freedom of speech at US universities than do conservatives. Outside of universities, their freedom of speech is the same as that of anyone else.

  22. Andy,
    I’m glad that you gave up on the manners and etiquette angle. It was definitely a losing approach. However, I don’t think that the common sense and feeling tactic will fare any better especially since these tend to be at odds. Better stick to the feelings alone, as succinctly summarized in the picture posted by Briggs. John suggested that the majority of students support your position, but I have my doubts. It is much more likely that a vocal and activist minority hijacked the meeting because they feared that in an open debate they would find out that they did not have significant support. They probably were also afraid that if they really took the opportunity to express their opinion in an open forum it would soon become apparent to all that they were unable to express a coherent thought.

  23. @Scotian… I don’t know if the majority agree, but we sure don’t hear about these activists being taken to task by any significant number of other students. The acquiescence of the majority and the administration shows that they certainly don’t care enough about free speech to do something about it.

    Also, at universities like Brown, it is my understanding that the ideological position shown by Andrew is virtually universal. The universities teach pretty much what Andrew is displaying in his conformity.

  24. There is one fair point. I do agree that it might have been unfair (we’ll never know now) to the other students who had other questions to ask. That is, if indeed Ray Kelly would be made available for questions after the lecture. That also is, if Ray Kelly would be expected to give anything other than the usual politispeak that badgers down on the same talking points over and over again. (I’m thinking here, this is a reason I wouldn’t bother trying to have a conversation with Jay Carney. The spin and run around aren’t worth it.)

    Other than the hypothetical loss to other students, I do not feel an ounce of pity of old Ray. He gets his chance all the time, and he violates people’s rights while he’s at it. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander for him.

    As for the offending students themselves, I feel good that they are challenging a worthwhile issue, rather than spending more time drinking booze, smoking pot, cheating on tests, or begging the government for more free birth control or forgiven student loans. All while probably on a government subsidized student loan.

    As for the administrators, they can go pound sand or stop taking money from students like these. Someone mentioned the endowments. I am well aware. I guess you think it would be then ok for students to pay no tuition. They don’t need it right?

    Why don’t you guys just take a minute to get your head out of the sand and recognize these hippies have finally done something right for a change.

  25. Look, I am an Eagles fan. When the Eagles took Michael Vick off the streets, a lot of fans were super pissed. I was a bit ambivalent, but some were angered enough that they made a protest out of it. Eventually that crowd thinned out, and now you just have some people who’ve said they won’t buy any more Eagles gear, or even watch the games.

    But now Mike goes on book tours and does speeches to benefit dogs and animals.

    Ray Kelly hasn’t even gone to prison yet, or at least been dismissed. The simmer down time hasn’t quite run its course.

    So I guess it comes down to you all generally thinking “Ray Kelly may or may not be a bad guy”, and me thinking “he most certainly is a bad guy.”

    If he is indeed a bad guy, then what happened is warranted.

    Ergo, the disagreement here hinges on that one point.

  26. It is a red herring to worry about what the treatment meant to Ray Kelly. He is not the issue.

    The problem here is with the tactics of the students. If they are upset with Ray Kelly, they have plenty of ways to protest other than shouting him down. Their behavior indicates a lack of basic American civility, a closed mindedness to what he had to say, and a lack of willingness to allow others to hear what Ray Kelly had to say.

    As one who was in university (or the military) at the time of Vietnam protests, I find modern student protests to be, frankly, silly and petty. IT appears that they go lookng for a grievance to protest. Unlike the Vietnam era, the students are not directly suffering from what they protest, but are vicariously participating.

    This is an example of the degenerate nature of modern progressivism, combined with the passions of youth – the need to be a victim, and missing that, the need to adopt a victim – all in order to share the good feelings that come from acting on against an oppressor. It’s focus on oppressors and oppressees stems from the old Marxist oppressor/oppressee Manichaein thinking, tied to the psychology of the modern entitled, privileged, spolied student.

    I wonder how well those who shouted down Kelly even understand why Kelly is the latest devil du jour.

  27. “Ergo, the disagreement here hinges on that one point.”

    No, it doesn’t. Ray Kelly’s goodness or badness is irrelevant to the objections to his treatment.

  28. “If he is indeed a bad guy, then what happened is warranted”. Some students wanted to hear what he had to say, and the moronic mob took that chance to listen away from the intereted students. Suppressing speech like that is some ways similar to book burning!

  29. @John Moore – The treatment of Ray Kelly is the issue.* A coffee mug cannot feel emotions like humiliation or denigration or pain. If the students shut down a coffee mug, there would clearly be no controversy. Since the predicate here is not a coffee mug and is a human, we have a situation where harm can be done. I would argue that there is no harm done in harming that which is bad, that it is good actually to do bad to that which is bad.

    *Now if you are saying that Ray Kellly is not the predicate here; perhaps I could be charitable and assume that there was some other receptical of the students’ actions’ harm. Name the other receptical if you can point out a morally interesting one in the scene.

    As to the student protests in general, and this one in particular; the Bloomberg squad’s policies most certainly do affect these students if they walk the streets of NYC. If they ventured to the NYC marathon, they had to endure something like the TSA anal probe just to get near it. That’s enough to make me mad. I should judge you if you like being molested against your rights. This particular protest was righteous. Many or most other student protests or not. It is important to see the ones that do.

  30. @Andrew… You are confusing the proximate cause of the student tantrum with the cause of Briggs’ post and my and others responses to you. Once again, you have failed to understand what is clearly stated above: the problem we have isn’t with the choice of target, but rather the tactics used and the justification for them.

    As for the rightness or not of Kelly’s actions… that isn’t the issue here – it is the antidemocratic behavior of the students that we are discussing.

    I think its childish to treat Kelly as a monster because you disagree with his policies. It is also typical of modern progressivism to demonize opponents, painting them as evil, in order to justify anti-democratic tactics and close-minded conformity to the latest fad of outrage.

    It’s also pretty pathetic to compare being searched at a public event to being drafted and sent to fight in a war – what the people of my generation were demonstrating about [for the record, I volunteered for and went to Vietnam, but I understand what motivated my classmates in the anti-war movement].

    Do you understand that we used to settle these kinds of differences without shouting people down or driving them away from public fora – that the behavior at Brown is just aping a bad practice started by the people of my generation who dodged the draft at are now your professors?

    But since you bring it up…

    Do you have knowledge that Kelly’s policies have any goal other than the protection of people who are in his jurisdiction?

    Can you admit that Kelly perhaps put in place the security restrictions for the marathon because – hey – someone might get it into their mind to harm people? I mean, is it really outrageous to be concerned about attacks on a big city marathon?

  31. John Moore,

    There is no free speech for communist in the USA. After the Palmer raids in the 1919-20 and McCarthyism in the early 1950s, communist are all but free to speak their mind.

    When even the free market exchange created by Obamacare are said to be solialist. Anyone who would try to be a communist in the USA would be either assassinated or put on a but to China or Cuba in a matter of hours.

  32. @Silvain… Communists and Socialists and most everyone else has had free speech here for many, many decades. If you believe otherwise, please back it up with sources.

    As just one example, consider the notorious Angela Davis – an outspoken communist and one time leader of the Communist Party, USA. Way back in 1969, she was fired from UCLA (which I attended shortly thereafter) and then reinstated by a court because she indeed did have freedom of speech. She is now a Distinguished Professor Emeritus.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Davis

    She is hardly the exception – she is just one of the most well known Communists and Soviet sympathizers of my generation. I have known and know Communists – nobody bothers them.

    In the US today, Communists have freedom of speech. It is conservatives and the religious who are facing censorship, mostly not from the government except in state run educational institutions and government offices.

  33. Briggs

    An interesting factoid about the opposition to Zionism and even Israel is that more Jewish people opposes Israel than there are Jews in Israel.

    Palestinian are recognized has the descendant of the ancient Jews, and most Jewish community favor the creation of a Palestinian state.

    By the way, my teacher is a Jew and he wrote this book:

    http://www.amazon.ca/Threat-Within-History-Opposition-Zionism/dp/1842776991/ref=sr_1_sc_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1383539025&sr=8-1-spell&keywords=yakof+rbkin

  34. Reminds me about the furore that resulted from Charles Murray’s book “The Bell Curve”. Important lesson: think twice of the consequences before you speak.

  35. Put on a but to china or cuba?

    Clearly sylvain is bonkers.

    I suppose she thinks McCarthy was not correct. After all if you can decribe the government stopping your healthcare as any element of a free market, you can believe anything.
    The jewish population of the world is about 13.5 million. Of which about 6 million are in israel. She claims that of the remaining 7million the majority 6 million + must be opposed to israel.

    I think we can call BS on that.

  36. John Moore,

    I must say that I have never come across anything related to communism after the McCarthy era, except maybe about fighting it.

    I find the idea that conservative are facing censorship somewhat ridiculous. I never saw anyone preventing Michelle Bachman, Ted Cruz, Paul Ryan or Rand Paul from speaking. Or even worst, Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck and the Fox news gang. They are pretty much free to say any stupidity they want. And they say a lot of it.

  37. Andy

    Of course, McCarthy was wrong, this is why he fell in disgraced. This is why McCarthyism isn’t consider as a period of enlightenment in the US history.

    Allen West even tried to create another red scare recently

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/republican-rep-allen-west-suggests-many-congressional-democrats-are-communists/2012/04/11/gIQApbZiAT_blog.html

    As for the healthcare bit, anyone who receive the dreaded letter is now able to find a better plan at a much cheaper prices.

    All the supposed victim of Obamacare have all been debunked, just like the three couples who went on Hannity.

    Under Obamacare:

    There is no more health care cap
    No more pre-existing condition so everyone can get insurance
    80% of insurance expense have to be spent on care. If not they have to reimburse the consumer
    The rate of increase in healthcare cost is at its lowest in more than 50 years.

    As for Israel, you should read the book maybe you could learn something.

  38. @Sylvain,
    You don’t hear much about communists because there are few of them and they are pretty insignificant. In other words, most people just don’t care, now that the Cold War is over.

    It is conservatives facing censorship. They encounter it at colleges and universities, in the main stream media, and in Hollywood. It is far easier to be a Communist in Hollywood today than to be a Conservative.

    NOBODY is facing much government censorship (except at state universities) – but if you think Rush Limbaugh can show up at a college campus and speak… you’d see censorship there for sure.

    I recommend you read a book by a Hollywood screen writer friend of mine, Roger Simon, who became a Conservative and faced the wrath of the Hollywood establishment: “Turning Right at Hollywood and Vine: The Perils of Coming Out Conservative in Tinseltown”

  39. @Sylvain – a while back, the NSA finally released the results of the Venona decrypts – which validated that all of the individuals accused of being Communist agents in the “Communist Scare” era were, in fact, Communist agents. This includes the Rosenbergs, Alger Hiss, and high Roosevelt administration officials.

  40. “As for the healthcare bit, anyone who receive the dreaded letter is now able to find a better plan at a much cheaper prices.”

    This is simply a lie. Pure and simple. A lie. They are finding inferior plans at higher prices. Inferior as follows: much smaller provider network; much higher deductibles; much higher co-insurance.

    “All the supposed victim of Obamacare have all been debunked, just like the three couples who went on Hannity.”

    Also a lie. I know one “victim” personally.

    “The rate of increase in healthcare cost is at its lowest in more than 50 years.”

    And yet, this is *before* Obamacare. You cannot give Obamacare credit for this lower increase because it hasn’t gone into effect yet.

    I think we have drifted far enough from the original subject to end this thread.

  41. “This is simply a lie. Pure and simple. A lie. They are finding inferior plans at higher prices. Inferior as follows: much smaller provider network; much higher deductibles; much higher co-insurance.”

    Then Hannity should pick much better “victim”

    http://www.salon.com/2013/10/18/inside_the_fox_news_lie_machine_i_fact_checked_sean_hannity_on_obamacare/?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000008

    “Also a lie. I know one “victim” personally”

    I’m pretty sure that the “victim” you know will have a substantial saving once he take the time to shop on the market.

    The problem with Obamacare is that it was a Republican idea to begin with. The fear of republican is that it will succeed. The interesting part is that even with the website problems the ACA is more and more popular.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/obamacare-approval-poll-98728.html

    You should notice that amongst the unfavorable there about 50% of people that find that the law doesn’t go far enough.

  42. Oh dear. No sylvain, McCarthy was almost completely correct, there was a plot to infiltrate the government by communists. I suspect your college education is getting in the way, driven as it is by commie supporters who hate being found out.

    Obamacare is a disaster. All of the supposed victims? Don’t be daft, some 40-60% of people have seen their bills increase and a large number are either paying fines or are paying more. Never mind those who has decreased work hours, driven by Obamacare.

    So you dont debate the figures I gave you about Israel, which clearly suggest you are talking balls?

    I suggest you read The True Believer by Eric Hoffer and Intellectuals and Society by Sowell, recognise yourself and change. Your idiot college professors have lead you astray and you are going to waste your life.

  43. @Sylvain – the link you provided showed convincing evidence for only one of the guests. On the others, the writer claimed to have found a policy on the exchanges for a lower cost – but the writer carefully left out any details about the policy, such as the deductibles or the doctor network.

    On one, the writer claimed that the shrinkage of the provider network had nothing to do with Obamacare, even though there are widespread reports that this shrinkage is happening. I guess we are to believe that it is just a coincidence that this dramatic network shrinkage is happening at the same time as the policy replacement forced by Obamacare, and that Obamacare had nothing to do with it. Not convincing.

  44. John Moore,

    If you get at the bottom of the page he gives the link on his finding.

    http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator/

    You can even check for yourself or you friend. The savings are quite substantial and if you know with which company you doctor is you can then select an insurer he is working with.

    Here is the reality before Obamacare:

    1- Lifetime cap (now gone)
    2- Over 50% of people insured went bankrupt because of deductible. (too early to see if any difference)
    3- pre-existing condition made it impossible to get any insurance (now gone)
    4- high co-pay or deductible (usually lower, except maybe for a very small part of the pop)
    5- insurer dropped patient without notice

    etc.

  45. @Sylvain – my friend doesn’t qualify for any subsidy.

    Many people have complained that they cannot determine which providers are covered by plans on the exchange. Although I don’t need the exchange, I went on it anyway for my state and could not find that information.

    People are finding, in many states (such as California), that there only one or two insurance companies are even in the exchange market. The result is a dramatic reduction in available providers, and in competition between insurers.

    Many low wage people are having their wages reduced by Obamacare, as companies are forced by Obamacare costs to move employees from full-time to <30 hours per week.

    As for the reality before Obamacare:

    #1 is true. However, the only time I ever found one myself where the limit was too low was on a state-run high risk policy, where it was $250,000. Furthermore, "life time" is not really right, since it only applies during the time you are with that particular insurer.

    #2 is not true. The statistics on the number of people going bankrupt "due to health care expenses" have been shown to be bogus. They did not account for any other economic factors that dragged people down, such as job loss or underwater mortgages.

    #3 was true, but could have been solved at far less cost and disruption than Obamacare is causing. High risk pools, just like they have with auto insurance, are they way.

    #4 As far as I can tell, Obamacare doesn't even have co-pays – it has co-insurance. These "co-pays" (coinsurance) are much higher for most people under Obamacare. People had a wide range of choices of deductible and co-pay in the past. Obama greatly limits those choices to IIRC 5 classes of plans.

    Obamacare shills are telling people that they were dupes buying lousy plans, when in reality most people knew exactly what they were buying and made intelligent choices. It is very offensive to people to be told they were idiots for buying what they did. It shows the disdain that Obamacare supporters have for individual – the classic progressive belief that experts know better than you what is best for you.

    And, of course, people are being forced to buy coverage they don't need – pregnancy coverage for older folks and unmarried males, as just one example.

    #5 In every case I know of where someone was suddenly dropped, it was because they *lied* on their application regarding pre-existing conditions.

    I should add that I have more than a passing knowledge of this, having been both a shopper for individual insurance, and having worked for 5 years in the health insurance industry.

  46. John,

    If you friend doesn’t qualify for subsidies it is for either because he makes more than 46K, he lives in a state that refused to expand the Medicaid program.

    To my understanding provider are not forced to participate in the exchange. The exchange is really there for an easy comparison between policies. You can still can any insurer directly if you want to.

    Sibellius explained last week that this information will be added. i.e. the ability to know which insurer covers which doctor. By January, it will be easier to access the site and compare, it already is.

    “Many low wage people are having their wages reduced by Obamacare, as companies are forced by Obamacare costs to move employees from full-time to <30 hours per week."

    This has been debunked. That provision only enter in effect in January. Usually an employee is an investment, meaning that he will bring you more money than you spend on him.

    For example, for Mcdonald to raise their wages from the minimum to 15$/hour meant that it would increase the price of hamburgers by 15 cents.

    Walmart already explained that it was not viable to try this strategy. They will probably pay the 2500$ fine for not providing healthcare to their employee, which is cheaper than providing insurance.

    The main reason that hour are reduced is because the economy is weak and that the power of purchase is too low.

    #1 Before Obamacare, someone who had reached its lifetime cap, would not have been able to find another insurer because of pre-existing condition.

    #2 Of course, you forget the fact that people had to mortgage their house to be able to pay their deductible, which could reach 50K and more.

    #3 Once implemented it is always possible to fix what is wrong with a law, and it is done very often. Republican never provided any alternative to insure the 50 millions people who didn't have insurance. Many things in Obamacare were republican idea.

    #4 you have co-pay that from the example I saw are comparable to what was before, but with much lower deductible.

    #5 The elimination of pre-existing condition eliminate the reason to drop someone. One can argue that Obamacare is not perfect but at least it is a step forward on what existed before. Still not everyone is covered.

  47. Silvain, we have drifted far from the topic.

    My friend makes over $46K. That means that Obama lied to him, repeatedly.

    “this information will be added” – as someone who has 40 years of experience in building big servers systems (including big, high-volume web sit3es) – this is hardly reassuring. I doubt that they can do it in less than a year. Of course, the real question is: Why didn’t they do this before? The answer: government is incompetent as is being clearly demonstrated.

    As to low wage… no, it has not been debunked. The people exist, many, many thousands of them have been converted from full time to part time. Companies can’t wait until Jan 1 to make changes in their employment policies, which should have been obvious. Furthermore, anyone with the slightest understanding of business and economics would understand that penalizing companies for employing people will reduce or change employment. Duh.

    #1 – not true. They would have faced a waiting period. This is guaranteed by the HIPAA act.

    #2 – No, you are simply ignoring the evidence to make your point, as did the people who put out this false talking point in the first place.

    #3 “always possible to fix” – uh huh. As for “Republicans never provided” – that’s fair, although many Republicans have long proposed solutions to the problem.

    #4 You clearly don’t even know the difference between co-pay and co-insurance. Nor can you speak for the people who are speaking up about the *actual* policies offered rather than some Democrat talking point.

    #5 Obamacare is not a step forward. It is a gigantic leap towards federal control of the health care system. It is enormous overkill. It was highly irresponsible – passed in such a hurry that the law is internally self-contradictory (as will come out in some future law suites). It shows the irresponsibility and arrogance of Democrats. They got zero Republican votes – the first time in history that such a major program has been shoved down the throats of the American people without any bipartisanship. And, no, this isn’t because Republicans didn’t try – it’s because Democrats had total, filibuster-proof control and felt, in their arrogance, that they could do whatever they wanted.

    We will be paying for that arrogance for a long time.

    Bye bye.

  48. How can republicans never provide any alternatives, yet also provide most of the ideas for obamacare?
    I suppose this gem comes from the same place as 7million jewish anti-zionists.

    Obama, an idiot voted in by idiots has really made a mess of this. I suppose sylvain thinks Pelosi not reading the act before she voted on it is OK, as you can always alter laws after they are made.
    God the stupid!

  49. John

    What do you do with the 50 millions people who were not able to get any insurance before? I guess that as long as you are not among them they can just die. From E pluribus Unum the USA became everyone for himself.

    your friend may be amongst the very few, less than one percent that may be negatively affected by Obamacare. He will still be able to find health insurance, at lower price.

    You realise that none of the States governed by republican made it any easier to implement the exchange. At the federal level preventing founding, at State level delaying information at every step.

    You cannot claim the government incompetent to do something when everything was done to make sure he could not do something.

    The tea party really is based on retarded idea that belong in the 1700s. They refuse to accept all the lesson learned since then. They are the main reason of the fall of the US empire.

  50. Being without insurance does not mean being unable to get health care. Maybe they should work and pay for it and stop being parasites?

    The Tea Party is based on the less than retarded idea that an idiot government should not spend large amounts of other folks money bribing idiots to vote for it. Given the debt the idiot obama has run up and his disaster of healthcare reform, so disasterous you try and pin it on the republicans, I think the Tea Party have been shown to be correct and rather insightful people.

    I thought you lefty students were all for direct action like the Boston Tea Party, or is that not the ideas which should be left in the 1700s? Good job you left those actions in the 1700s when Ray Kelly came to talk.

  51. Andy,

    As I explained earlier Ray Kelly should have gave his speech, but at the same he should have face his critics. To allow someone to talk doesn’t mean that his saying goes unanswered.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *