Tea Party in Searchlight: Where will they all stay?
Page Last Updated: Tuesday March 23, 2010 6:46pm PDT
This weekend thousands of conservative Americans will descend on the tiny Nevada town of Searchlight for a Tea Party rally. Searchlight is home to only about 800 people. The town has one motel and an RV park. So where will the thousands of visitors stay?
There’s an unusual place just outside of town that is quickly filling up with people from across the country.
Just about 14 miles east of Searchlight, inside the Lake Mead National Park, lies the Cottonwood Cove Resort.
“It’s a hidden gem. The water is beautiful here. We have a lovely lake and a beautiful resort,” says resort manager Greg Carter.
Dan Ball: Typically, in March, do you see the numbers that you’re expecting this weekend?
“No, we don’t. We are actually staffed for winter time and we are having to pull people in on their days off. We, the managers, are gonna be working 24 hours around the clock to make this thing happen.”
Carter says over the past few days, people from across the country who are attending the rally have discovered the resort.
“This weekend, we are booked to the brim,” says Cottonwood employee Jon Foster.
“We are deferring people over to the houseboats because we have no rooms and no RV spaces left.”
Thanks to the volume of people filling up rooms in Searchlight, Laughlin, Nipton, and Boulder City, some rally-goers are renting houseboats.
“We weren’t ready to rent this many houseboats but we are getting them put back together from winter refurb,” says Carter. “We’re cleaning boats and using them as motel rooms.”
Rally attendees will pay $325 a night or more with a two night minimum and taxes. Some folks will shell out over $700 just for a bed close to the Tea Party actions.
Tea Party goers have also rented every vacant RV space and some are even expected to pitch tents at nearby campgrounds. U.S. Park Ranger Laura Anderson says the sleepy little community is ready for the large crowd.
“We are gonna have extra staff on hand as well as extra law enforcement and emergency services.”
Saturday’s Tea Party rally is set to begin at noon.
Just a little response to Bruce's comment about how popular the health tax law is now that it is passed. I just want to remind Comrade Bruce that that poll was of any old dude on the street. What matters is what the voters think. You know, the people that actually go to the ballot box. And sorry for you Comrade Bruce, but it ain't pretty. Everyone knows what happens when government controls anything. Cost goes up, quality goes down. It's a law as natural as my rights. So here's a Rasmussen poll of VOTERS:
ReplyDelete49% Support State Lawsuits Against Health Care Plan, Tuesday, March 23, 2010
49% of U.S. voters favor their state suing the federal government to fight the requirement in the new national health care plan that every American must obtain health insurance.
37% disagree and oppose their state suing to challenge that requirement. 14% are undecided.
72% of Republicans and 58% of voters not affiliated with either major party favor such lawsuits. 65% of Democrats are opposed.
The gap over suing the federal government is even wider between Mainstream Americans and the Political Class. 62% of Mainstream voters think state lawsuits challenging the federal requirement are a good idea. 79% of the Political Class disagree.
Most voters (53%) oppose a provision in the new health care law that requires every American to buy or obtain health insurance. Just 42% favor it. These findings include 42% who are Strongly Opposed and 25% who Strongly in Favor.
51% of voters say individual states should have the right to opt out of the entire health care plan, roughly unchanged from just before the House vote. 34% say states should not have the power to opt out, but 16% more are not sure.
50% also believe states should have the right to opt out of portions of the plan they disagree with. 33% are opposed to even this limited opting-out. 17% aren’t sure.
In a survey just before the House vote, 41% of all voters nationally favored the overall health care plan, while 54% opposed it. These figures have changed very little for months.
Most voters still believe cost, not the lack of universal coverage, is the biggest problem with health care in America today, but most also think passage of the health care plan will drive costs even higher.
A sizable majority of Republicans and most unaffiliated voters think states should have the right to opt out of some or all of the health care plan passed by Congress. Most Democrats oppose opting-out in any fashion.
More than 80% of the Political Class is opposed to allowing states to opt out of any part of the health care plan. Over 60% of mainstream voters favor opting-out.
43% of Americans expect the cost of prescription drugs to go up if the health care plan becomes law. Only 23% think the cost of prescription drugs will go down, 17% expect drug costs to stay about the same.
81% believe the health care plan will cost more than projected. Voters overwhelmingly believe passage of the plan will increase the deficit and is likely to mean higher middle class taxes.
57% of voters say passage of the health care plan will hurt the U.S. economy.
That’s one reason why 50% say they are less likely to vote this November to reelect a member of Congress who votes for the health care plan.
Just 11% of voters rate Congress’ performance as good or excellent in a survey taken right before the House vote. 64% say Congress is doing a poor job.
Joe, I just want to respond to your non-snarky comment you left about wanting single-payer, and how you think this health tax law is for the most part fine and dandy. That comment was way back there, so forgive me for bringing it to this topic, but I didn't want to go back and find it.
ReplyDeleteDid you ever read the article I was asking you to read? The one written by the Democrat business owner? Read the article when you get a chance, then let's talk about what the real problem with health care is.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/09/how-american-health-care-killed-my-father/7617/
My contention is that this bill will destroy the quality and innovation of the American system, raise the cost, and lead us to the nightmare of "single-payer". You should read some time the horrific stories coming from Great Britain.
My example of what works: LASIK surgery. Over the years, no insurance or government has been involved. Quality has gone up up up, cost has gone down down down. My wife had it done, and was able to pay for it in installments. When LASIK first came out, the rich subsidized the development of the technology. As the technology developed, it became much more affordable and safer. All without government involvement, all without (for the most part) insurance being involved. This is the system we should go to. That is a perfect system Joe, in that everyone wins. And yet you and Bruce flaunt this ... I can't even think of a horrific enough name to describe this mess that 34 Democrats wouldn't even vote for.
This health tax law is an abomination Joe. I, like every sensible person, want my health care costs to go DOWN, and quality to go UP. I want everyone to be able to afford health CARE, I want health INSURANCE out of the picture for the most part. This health tax law, Joe, is a power grab and wealth redistribution. It is ugly, it is horrific, and it is exactly the opposite of what this country needs, wants and deserves. It is a shame that Hypocrats found it easier to capitulate to Big Insurance, Big Pharma, etc. etc.
Also Joe, with regards to the way that my wife paid for the LASIK, that was an interest free loan, paid off in installments. I meant to add that and forgot. We have also gotten the same deal (interest-free loan, installment payment plan) with the hospital for some things not covered by our insurance. That's how it used to be done, before people got out of hand using their insurance for everything under the sun.
ReplyDeleteI want free food and free housing now. It's my right. How can health insurance be a right and not food and housing?
ReplyDeleteSounds about right NayJey. What next if the government(Democrats) give rights like they are God or something.
ReplyDeleteJohn, the fact that Lasik was partially developed by a single payer health system, Russian at that and then the fact that most of the growth in the procedure was achieved with countries other than America footing the bill points out the fallacy in your argument.
ReplyDeleteBut i understand that you do indeed want to see more people covered. I would never doubt that, but sometimes in order to do something for everyone it requires a sacrifice of individuals. As for the horror stories of the British i can understand how things can go wrong, but we have our own issues with healthcare here.
think about the people with pre-exsisting conditions who can't get affordable healthcare and go on to amputations and loss of eyesight due to diabetes. What about those horror stories? We still pay for those last ditch efforts and the person still loses limbs and eventually dies anyways. But the hospital has to cover the expense and so the rest of us do too.
think about the infant mortality rate. You want to eliminate abortions thats great, I'll even join you there, but you have to insure that they all get prenatal care or we will continue to have the 46th best infant mortality rate in the world instead of the first.
And have any of you rabid pro-lifers ever thought about how you are forcing a woman to have an expensive medical procedure she doesn't wish to? Just place yourself in those shoes. Its wrong to force us to buy health insurance but its right to force us to have babies? just think of things in a different perspective
Joe, thank you for acceding that I do care about people.
ReplyDeleteNot to get into a big thing on this item, but just so you know that mortality rate is skewed. Places like France count their infant deaths differently than the U.S. does. So bear that in mind.
Anyway, I think it's you that has to think of things in a different perspective. Read that article I referenced. I believe the number is 1.7; either that or 1.17. I'll go with the low number. $1.17 million is what you would spend on health insurance, if you were to hire in to a company and work there and pay into health insurance. And all that money goes ... nowhere, frankly. My point is that health insurance should only be used for emergencies, for large issues. Like auto insurance. It's like I say all the time, it's like going shopping for groceries where there are no prices listed, you use your house insurance to "pay" and only have to pay a $20 deductible at the check-out. This insurance for everything is ludicrous, it introduces moral hazard where people don't care what they spend because their insurance is "picking up the tab". People don't stop to think how much they actually pay for insurance!
I would rather put my $$ pre-tax in a HSA, and get a low-cost high-deductible plan. Have prices for procedures LISTED, so I can shop around and get the best value that I want. I hate to see how much $$ goes to insurance that I never use. Between myself and my employer, $750/month goes to insurance. That's crazy! Let me put that in a HSA, earn interest, shop around!
In the Hypocrat's plan, they just continue the same insurance model that they vilified! I don't care where LASIK was invented. The fact is, lots of techniques are developed in the US (CAT-scan equipment, many cancer techniques and treatments, etc), and our high prices pay the way for less-developed countries to reap the benefits. And the fact is, LASIK was an expensive procedure here in the US, and the cost has gone down and quality up, without government or insurance. And with wealthy people footing the bill initially. Does that not tell you something? I mean, really, that seems like an ideal situation to me, and I'm surprised it doesn't to you as well! Aren't you libs all about making the wealthy pay?!?! LOL
Joe, if we can bring the cost of health care down, more people can afford it. This Hypocrat plan does not do anything like that. This exacerbates the problem. You have to admit, the insurance industry gained 30 million new customers! And PBO blocked the plan to re-import less expensive prescription drugs. I mean, really, if the Republicans came up with a plan like this don't you think Hypocrats would be up in arms about it? I just don't know how Hypocrats can say insurance companies were against this! And frankly, I don't think they want us to save our money. They could have separated the employer/insurance partnership, given incentives for us to have HSA's, etc. But I seriously think they want to keep our money funneling into insurance.
Joe, thank you for acceding that I do care about people.
ReplyDeleteNot to get into a big thing on this item, but just so you know, that mortality rate is skewed. Places like France count their infant deaths differently than the U.S. does. So bear that in mind.
Anyway, I think it's you that has to think of things in a different perspective. Read that article I referenced. I believe the number is 1.7; either that or 1.17. I'll go with the low number. $1.17 million is what you would spend on health insurance, if you were to hire in to a company and work there and pay into health insurance. And all that money goes ... nowhere, frankly. My point is that health insurance should only be used for emergencies, for large issues. Like auto insurance. It's like I say all the time, it's like going shopping for groceries where there are no prices listed, you use your house insurance to "pay" and only have to pay a $20 deductible at the check-out. This insurance for everything is ludicrous, it introduces moral hazard where people don't care what they spend because their insurance is "picking up the tab". People don't stop to think how much they actually pay for insurance!
I would rather put my $$ pre-tax in a HSA, and get a low-cost high-deductible plan. Have prices for procedures LISTED, so I can shop around and get the best value that I want. I hate to see how much $$ goes to insurance that I never use. Between myself and my employer, $750/month goes to insurance. That's crazy! Let me put that in a HSA, earn interest, shop around!
In the Hypocrat's plan, they just continue the same insurance model that they vilified! I don't care where LASIK was invented. The fact is, lots of techniques are developed in the US (CAT-scan equipment, many cancer techniques and treatments, etc), and our high prices pay the way for less-developed countries to reap the benefits. And the fact is, LASIK was an expensive procedure here in the US, and the cost has gone down and quality up, without government or insurance. And with wealthy people footing the bill initially. Does that not tell you something? I mean, really, that seems like an ideal situation to me, and I'm surprised it doesn't to you as well! Aren't you libs all about making the wealthy pay?!?! LOL
Joe, if we can bring the cost of health care down, more people can afford it. This Hypocrat plan does not do anything like that. This exacerbates the problem. You have to admit, the insurance industry gained 30 million new customers! And PBO blocked the plan to re-import less expensive prescription drugs. I mean, really, if the Republicans came up with a plan like this don't you think Hypocrats would be up in arms about it? I just don't know how Hypocrats can say insurance companies were against this! And frankly, I don't think they want us to save our money. They could have separated the employer/insurance partnership, given incentives for us to have HSA's, etc. But I seriously think they want to keep our money funneling into insurance.
We Have Single Payer Health Care NOW and How Has That Worked Out? Citizens DONT Use It and Government CANT Control Its COST and NEITHER Does This Massive Nobama Care! If It Controls COST Will Somebody POINT Out Where.
ReplyDelete2700 Pages That Also Includes Student Loans. What The Hell Does This Have to Do With Health Care? What Else Is In This Bill That Has NOT Come To Light Yet? Not Reading The Bill, Voting on It and Than TWEEKING It Does Sound Like a Government Program And How Have Those Programs Worked.
This Bill Will Be Another "Feel Good" That Does "NO GOOD" and COST Trillions. Even With This Crap How Many MILLIONS are Left Behind?
Joe, a few other points I would like to make:
ReplyDeleteOne topic where Chris was talking about people retiring early with full pensions and drawing full Social Security, and I remember you saying something along the lines of "well I worked hard for that, and I will retire as early as possible to enjoy my retirement" and then you gave some ages and stats and such. It's been a while, so I don't remember where or exactly what you said. And that is fine, I agree with you on that point. You work hard (supposedly, LOL ;o)) for your money and so you can retire and enjoy your fruits.
But what if the government said "Sorry Joe, but you are going to have to work 2 years beyond when you planned to retire, so that we can give abortions to irresponsible women, and health care to others who just don't feel like working as hard as you do". You would be p*ssed I would wager. I don't know, maybe you will tell me different. But I sure would be. And I am. Because I work hard for my wages and benefits. And this government is telling me, just like you are, that I have to work a little harder, for FORCED charity.
Again, this law has NO cost controls, which should have been the very first step of legislation. Control the costs first and then more people can afford health care, and then let's take it from there.
This law is an abomination. It's against everything I believe in, and it should be against everything you believe in as well. It has nothing to do with helping people, and everything to do with controlling people and corporations.
Don't you feel kind of stupid when Obama and the Hypocrats run around vilifying insurance companies in public, but then when their law passes the insurance companies have 30 million new forced customers? LOL, I mean, seriously, all you liberals must have been brainwashed or something to buy into this.
And Joe, nobody is forcing women to get pregnant, except maybe a few rapists. Women need to take responsibility for their actions. Contraception, such as condoms or the pill or dams, are much less expensive than any abortion or giving birth. Where is your outrage?!?! Why don't you demand responsibility? Because it's easier to abort a baby or have the government force me to pay for abortions or insurance, than it is to ask a woman to make her boyfriend put a condom on? Sheesh.