COMMENTS: 215
10 of the Nuttiest Statements Elected Officials Have Made in the Health Care Battle
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest News & Politics headlines via email.
Even by the standards of our typically debased public discourse, one has to step back and marvel for a moment at the sheer, unmitigated craziness the debate over health care reform has elicited from the right wing.
It hasn't been the usual conservative boilerplate -- blather about "tort reform" or dubious "analyses" predicting the latest proposal would break the budget and blow up the national debt. We've been treated to some truly extreme, and sometimes bizarre, arguments about American health care and even lied to about what the proposed health reform bills contained.
We're accustomed to that kind of hyperbole from hate-radio and the conservative bloggers, but this summer it hasn't been limited to Rush Limbaugh fulminating about socialism or Glenn Beck weepily warning that the Dems' health care legislation are stealthy reparations for slavery.
What makes the ocean of crazy surrounding this debate truly remarkable is that the overheated, ill-informed spew is also coming from the mouths of actual public officials, people tasked with creating legislation. National office holders -- not loopy local GOP party chairs, but people who supposedly represent the interests of entire congressional districts and earn a public salary -- have offered up months of bizarre tales about our health care system and the effort to reform it that are every bit as outlandish as anything scribbled on an overheated right-wing blog.
The most charitable view is that some of the lawmakers who oppose reform most vehemently just have no clue what they're talking about. Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., whom some have dubbed "the dumbest senator of them all," suggested as much when asked what he didn't like about the reform bill.
"I don't have to read it or know what's in it. I'm going to oppose it anyways," he told Grady County Express Star. According to the report, "information provided by news media have helped [Inhofe] become a staunch non-supporter of the bill." In other words, his opposition is firmly grounded in whatever he's picked up from the fair-and-balanced conservative media.
Whether examples of dumb-as-a-box-of-rocks ignorance or intentional obfuscation, here are some of the craziest things that have been said about health care this summer by real-live elected officials.
It's by no means comprehensive!
1. Policy Terminated!
The thing that makes the rhetoric against health care reform so outlandish is how divorced it is from reality.
The Democrats' health care proposals, as any critic on the left can tell you, are rather compromised, incremental reforms that won't directly impact the vast majority of Americans who have decent health care already. It has a public insurance option, but only 1 in 50 Americans would be covered by it in 2019. According to the Congressional Budget Office, it wouldn't add to the deficit. It's moderate.
Although the legislation is obviously significant, it's tough to portray as a radical and frightening shift in our health care system. So opponents in Congress have taken the novel approach of arguing against a bill that doesn't exist.
Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, warned that the House reform bill "cancels every [health insurance] policy" in America. "[House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi's agenda takes every [policy] away," King told MSNBC.
Not to be outdone, Minnesota Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann -- always a favorite of lazy left-wing bloggers on the hunt for a gem -- told Fox News the House bill would make private insurance illegal.
2. Health Care Crisis? What Health Care Crisis?
One often hears that virtually everyone agrees that the American health care system has deep, deep problems, even as they disagree on exactly where the problems lie and how they should be fixed.
But have you ever wondered who it is that is not counted among "virtually everyone"? Turns out they include some of Washington's most conservative lawmakers who insist that there is no problem and that the whole thing is just another liberal myth (like global warming, poverty or the war in Iraq).
Stay up to date with the latest News & Politics headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mmckinl on Nov 7, 2009 12:53 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They should be brought before a Censure Board and be made to prove their case or be Censured.
Should they give testimony to falsehoods and out right lies about fellow members of Congress or the White House they should be censured then be liable in court for damages.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Speech and Debate Clause
Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Lies are what politicians specialize in
Posted by: kettleblack
» RE: Speech and Debate Clause
Posted by: MausMasher54
» RE: Speech and Debate Clause
Posted by: GuitarBill
» Maybe you should include this as well......
Posted by: Prophit0
» The CAFR's are more conspiracy nut BS. Local governments don't have billions in private investments!
Posted by: yellow
» Well, I found millions in the Colorado state CAFR that were uncommitted funds investments...
Posted by: Prophit0
» RE: Time to Censure Politicians ...
Posted by: Spiritgirl
» RE: Time to Censure Politicians ...
Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: Time to Censure Politicians ...
Posted by: Squarehead
» RE: Time to Censure Politicians ...
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
» RE: Time to Censure Politicians ...
Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: Time to Censure Politicians ...
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
» RE: Time to Censure Politicians ...
Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: Time to Censure Politicians ...
Posted by: Squarehead
» RE: Time to Censure Politicians ...
Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: Time to Censure Politicians ...
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
» RE: Time to Censure Politicians ...
Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: Time to Censure Politicians ...
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
» RE: Time to Censure Politicians ...
Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: Time to Censure Politicians ...
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Allan Stevo on Nov 7, 2009 1:36 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Bad Article - Holland fighting rhetoric with rhetoric?
Posted by: sconnelly
» RE: Bad Article - Holland fighting rhetoric with rhetoric?
Posted by: sconnelly
» In 2009
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: In 2009
Posted by: MausMasher54
» RE: Bad Article - Holland fighting rhetoric with rhetoric?
Posted by: Morell
» RE: Bad Article - Holland fighting rhetoric with rhetoric?
Posted by: Morell
» How about spouting FACTS from CREDIBLE sources?
Posted by: hardwroc
Comments are closed-
Posted by: RichardU on Nov 7, 2009 1:44 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
6) If the comment is viewed in context, it is pretty clear she's talking about the loss of freedom from the proposed legislation. A lot of people are honestly scared freedoms will be lost in the name of health care reform, but not many people ever seemed to be afraid the terrorists would win and we would all lose our freedom. That's the basic concept as far as I can tell, which is much less outlandish than people claim. It's still kind of out there, but no more than normal rhetoric.
7) Like it or not, there is no case law setting a precedent for the federal government to mandate the purchase of a private good. It is also not guaranteed that the tax would be found to be an excise tax, or income tax (only income taxes are covered by the 16th amendment). I'm not sure how the Supreme Court would rule, but I am 100% confident a case would be brought, and SCOTUS would review the case. (this all assumes the language is not rewritten to a more traditional version such as tax credits)
8) Are you suggesting people shouldn't be allowed to protest? I think the Founding Fathers would support every protester, even the crazy ones. To be truly free, those who you think are stupid must also be free.
I think the Democrats should have stood up for socialized medical care from the beginning in this debate. People like medicare, so I feel like our country could have gotten true reform. Instead we're going to hand tons of money to insurance companies, and hope they don't stick it to us. Call me crazy if you must, but I trust insurance companies a lot less than I trust the government.
As for climate change, that topic scares me. I have no idea how our country will be able to implement any meaningful legislation in that area, but I really would prefer to avoid the end of human civilization.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Fact check
Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Fact check
Posted by: yellow
» Bullshit on 7
Posted by: kegbot1
» I actually have a JD
Posted by: brunowe
» RE: A JD and no mind to use it with
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
» Oh, you're one of those Birchites with a muddleheaded,
Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Oh, you're one of those Birchites with a muddleheaded,
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
» RE: It certainly is different.
Posted by: oregoncharles
» Why it isn't different
Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Why it is different
Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: Fact check
Posted by: RichardU
» RE: Fact check
Posted by: MausMasher54
» RE: Fact check
Posted by: Thucy
» RE: Fact check
Posted by: RichardU
» LIKE STATE LAWS requiring CAR INSURANCE?
Posted by: hardwroc
» RE: Living isn't a privilege.
Posted by: oregoncharles
» Clueless
Posted by: FoonTheElder
Comments are closed-
Posted by: itsallbs on Nov 7, 2009 3:49 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If HR 676 had been supported like it should have, how much more pro business can you get. As I understand it, this bill would have replaced all existing healthcare policies with one program administered by the government. Call it single payer if you want, but it would relieve business, especially small business, of many costly premiums, one being workers comp.
"Single payer"is potentially the most business friendly system you can get. Imagine to have to deal with only one payment to one payer. The jobs created just by this one simple act could be enormous.
This is exactly the kind of thing true conservatives should stand behind. These astroturfers and wing nuts that are currently protesting against reform seem to forget that in the preamble to the constitution there is as part of the statement "promote the general welfare,and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity." These are exactly the ideas that single payer would accomplish.
There are many "conservatives" that like to quote from Mr. Goldwaters 1964 acceptance speech that"extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice." What they fail to include in that is the finish to that sentence in which he said that "moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
I think there is justice in single payer and there is too much moderation. I think Mr. Goldwater would find today's "conservatives" unrecognizable and would consider them lunatics.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» True with the exception of the drug company and Insurance co businesses...
Posted by: Prophit0
» "I don't recall that being taken out of the Sherman Anti-Trust act"
Posted by: pauldd
» Well, that is good news, do you think it will survive the senate???
Posted by: Prophit0
» RE:publicans?
Posted by: pauldd
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Tom Degan on Nov 7, 2009 3:51 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
John Boehner
November 5, 2009
Oh, dear! Where was this asshole on September 11, 2001? Or when the Patriot Act was passed for that matter. Where was this fool in 2000 when the Supreme Court put a stop to the vote counting in the state of Florida and installed the Bush Mob in the White House? The greatest threat to freedom in nineteen years? Have another sip, Mr. Faux Tan Man.
Tea Partiers
Tom Degan
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Tea Partiers
Posted by: itsallbs
» He is no less a neocon than Pelosi or Rahm, or he wouldn't be in a leadership....
Posted by: Prophit0
» Speaking of AlterNazis. It's "prophit(0)".
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: Get yer BuLL = Willful ignorance.
Posted by: sasquuatch55
» Speaking of AlterNazis, it's sasquuatch55.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: Make up whatever you want you lying piece of shit!
Posted by: sasquuatch55
» My goodness, that's quite a vocabulary you have, AlterNazi.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE:And you keep on screaming Anti-semitism if I don't agree with someone because you say...
Posted by: sasquuatch55
» Telling the truth makes me an "antagonist"?
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: Prove I'm Anti-Semitic raisin nuts!
Posted by: sasquuatch55
» The proof is your commentary. Sharp as a marble aren't you?
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: You are a LIAR! Again I say prove it!
Posted by: sasquuatch55
» Here are the "invaluable" traits I found and believe me they work....
Posted by: Prophit0
» Con't from previous post (you can use this on Guitar shill, good timing, LOL)
Posted by: Prophit0
» Who is "H. Michael Sweeney"? He's a neo-Nazi.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» So, if I want to know about propoganda and disinformation I should not use Goebbels?
Posted by: Prophit0
» More Orwellian doublethink, AlterNazi?
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: Con't from previous post (you can use this on Guitar shill, good timing, LOL)
Posted by: photon's feather
» Like most trolls, attacking the messanger is a critical tactic for disinfo promotion.... you do that
Posted by: Prophit0
» You wouldn't recognize a troll...
Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: You wouldn't recognize a troll...
Posted by: Prophit0
» You are the most thoroughly deceitful scumbag I've ever encountered.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» I can solve that one for you: LOOK IN A MIRROR.
Posted by: Prophit0
» That's right, piggy, don't address my questions. Run and hide.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: Get yer BuLL is now obsessed with the 'ANUS".
Posted by: sasquuatch55
» sasquuatch55 IS an anus.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: Yes I have one; will have to protect it from you.
Posted by: sasquuatch55
» RE: You wouldn't recognize a troll...
Posted by: photon's feather
» Ignore button now on!!!!! Mirror available.
Posted by: Prophit0
» See? Run and hide!
Posted by: photon's feather
» Give us an '88', AlterNazi.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» Remember, that when "prophit(0)", the AlterNazi, writes "neocon", she really means Jew.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» You're right, GuitarBill. Many alternazis are UK Muslims or US white supremacists. I've seen proof!!
Posted by: yellow
» Thanks, Yellow! Well said.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» Disinfo tactic #11. "Use associates to back you up, thereby preventing discuss on the REAL subject..
Posted by: Prophit0
» How dare anyone agree with GuitarBill! You forgot to call Yellow "troll", AlterNazi.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» So, let me see, I am not allowed to use Goebbels, the expert on disinformation and propoganda and
Posted by: Prophit0
» "...propoganda". Stupid @$$, it's spelled propaganda. Typical illiterate AlterNazi.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» Now, see Josh, why some will be afraid of Guitar Bill having anything to do with your security syst?
Posted by: Prophit0
» Lying again, AlterNazi?
Posted by: GuitarBill
» My goodness
Posted by: Tom Degan
» Good point, Mr. Degan.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: Good point, Mr. Degan.
Posted by: Tom Degan
» Excuse me, Mr. Degan, but I have a right to speak out against neo-Nazis and anti-Semites.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» I agree 100%. Get them off my back. I don't follow them, they follow me.
Posted by: Prophit0
» "...information"? Don't you mean links to neo-Nazi propaganda?
Posted by: GuitarBill
Comments are closed-
Posted by: wordmaster on Nov 7, 2009 5:53 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are, however, two things that tell us government should not be in charge of running the health system.
First, is the proven inability of the government to run anything in an efficient, profitable, or cost effective way.
For instance, out of every dollar the government assigns to welfare, thirteen cents actually reaches a welfare recipient. After all the government waste only 13 cents gets where they want it!!
Cut the welfare budget in half, give it to me, and I will soon be another Gates or Madoff getting 13 cents out of 50 cents to those who are to receive it. Thirteen cents out of a dollar actually doing what it should is typical of government run programs.
When the government took over a whore house in Nevada they bankrupted it. This is not a sparkling recommendation for their ability to run a business. Even the most inept madame or pimp can make money selling sex and booze, but not our government!
Second, the government already uses the money they spend on health care as a reason to pass more and more nanny laws and more social engineering by taxation.
With the government in total charge of our health care, there would be no end of the ways they would want to run our personal lives. Of course using bans, taxes and even incarceration to force us to do whatever "they" say is best for society will be the norm.
As prevalent as such nannyish things are even now, it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that as government involvement increases, so will government involvement in every aspect of our personal lives.
These two things alone are enough to tell any thinking person that we will be worse off with more government involvement in health care. Of course if you think as the author appears to think, that typical government waste and inefficiency is the best way to run the largest industry in the nation, and that more government involvement in every aspect of your personal life is a good thing, then government run health care would be just what you want.
Personally, there is no doubt in my mind that the health care system most certainly does not need to be run any more inefficiently than it already is. There is also no doubt in my mind that government already controls more than enough of my day to day life.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Spin it any way you want, but that does not alter the facts.
Posted by: peterjkraus
» Don't worry, the gov will do what it always does, IT WILL PRIVATIZE IT AND ....
Posted by: Prophit0
» RE: Better Disband that Government-run entity called the Pentagon
Posted by: kettleblack
» You are right, but what is worse is the CIA is a "FOR PROFIT CORPORATION", now how is that ....
Posted by: Prophit0
» What I have found out since posting this is the MSM is forbidden by law to publish the CAFR's.
Posted by: Prophit0
» Liar. You can find CAFR in ANY public library. Do you believe everything Jeff Rense publishes?
Posted by: GuitarBill
» No one was talking about the library, I was talking about the MSM... they are prohibited from
Posted by: Prophit0
» You're are an idiot, AlterNazi.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» Or was it the CIA being a private corporation in Delaware that upset you.
Posted by: Prophit0
» Or maybe its the bank laundering of the CIA for profit corporation drug business..
Posted by: Prophit0
» More lies, AlterNazi?
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE:place the word 'government' with...
Posted by: pauldd
» Dems are "completely taking over healthcare?" REALLY???
Posted by: hardwroc
» Governments Run Health Care Better Than Insurance Cos.
Posted by: FoonTheElder
Comments are closed-
Posted by: goodsensecynic on Nov 7, 2009 6:53 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. Freedom of speech, with some on each side happy to silence the other;
2. Incivility, with both sides screaming at the other with apparent mutual disrespect;
3. Dogmatism, with accusations of ideologically inspired intellectual atrophy aptly used to describe advocates from each warring camp;
4. Willful ignorance, with denunciations of alleged "Marxism" made by people who wouldn't know a Marxist if she were to leap naked on a bar stood wearing nothing but a red sash, carrying a hammer in one hand and a sickle in the other, and singing "The Internationale" off-key;
5. Economic efficiency, with anecdotal evidence alone being used to condemn the alleged mismanagement of the public economy while "free marketers" suck the public teat;
6. The notion that health care is a right of citizenship (and, incidentally, a basic human right), not a commodity for purchase in the open market;
7. The link between corporate ownship of insurance companies, hospitals and Congress and the pitiful state of health care equity in the Excited States of America.
8. The management of the debate by media outlets whose main aim is profit and whose main fare is "disinfotainment".
Neither principles nor performance are seriously discussed on the basis either of moral precepts or empirical assessment. Instead, we get one side hollering so much at the other side that few people bother to notice that most of the folks on either side of the ideological fence actually agree with one another. The right wants corporatist late capitalism, "red in tooth and claw," and the putative left wants late capitalism "with a human face."
A couple of days ago, the lovely Helen Thomas was interviewed on CBC radio (think a robust NPR in Canada). She expressed enormous disappointment with President Obama, mainly on two counts. First, he has adopted and extended the Bush War in "AfPak" and "made it his own. Second, he has been weak on Health Insurance Reform. She stopped a hair's breadth from calling him a coward, and she admitted that he may simply be shrewd - holding out the hope that he will end the dangerous and futile adventure in the Middle East and deliver authentic health insurance reform after all. But she isn't holding her limited breath, and neither am I - especially as long as political discourse in the United States is as pathetic and ultimately pathological as it now seems to be.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Haven't seen much
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» Joshua, with all due respect, why does AlterNet allow neo-Nazis to post to AlterNet?
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: Joshua, with all due respect, why does AlterNet allow neo-Nazis to post to AlterNet?
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Joshua, with all due respect, why does AlterNet allow neo-Nazis to post to AlterNet?
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: Get yer BuLL , good one. Now I've heard it all.
Posted by: sasquuatch55
» Say, Mr Holland, just curious...
Posted by: photon's feather
» Sorry I can't help ...
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» From experience I can tell you that banning by IP address will not help.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: From experience I can tell you that banning by IP address will not help.
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» No problem Joshua.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» How do ethics and morals related to technical CISSP skills, Joshua?
Posted by: MaxBridges
» Sorry, can't help there either
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» "Max", I have two questions for you.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: Sorry I can't help ...
Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: Sorry I can't help ...
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» As long as banning isn't used to censor, since that seems to be the goal of the trolls.
Posted by: Prophit0
» Hey conspiranoid, I think he was talking about you.
Posted by: brunowe
» Guitar Bill, Encino, and others that Bill, THE COMPUTER SECURITY EXPERT TROLL uses....
Posted by: Prophit0
» Lying again, piggy?
Posted by: GuitarBill
» More lies, Pinocchio?
Posted by: GuitarBill
» Netiquette violator
Posted by: MaxBridges
» RE: Netiquette violator
Posted by: GuitarBill
» Yes, I'm almost happy... Keep going.
Posted by: MaxBridges
» Keep going? How about you doing the honorable thing, "truther" scum?
Posted by: GuitarBill
» Okay Glenn, they're gone.
Posted by: GuitarBill
Comments are closed-
Posted by: drricklippin on Nov 7, 2009 7:03 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First- we start our with great fear by many of our first black president who,for good or bad, chooses health care as his signature issue
Add to that the perception by some that the Reublican party seems to be is some state of disarray lacking well defined leadership
Then you add the emotionalism surrounding health (our human flesh)
Throw in the US irrational and immature fear of death.
All of these combine to the over-the-top rhetoric
Dr.Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Why Rhetoric is So Wild on Health Care?
Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: Why Rhetoric is So Wild on Health Care?
Posted by: drricklippin
» RE: Why Rhetoric is So Wild on Health Care?
Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: $$$$$
Posted by: oregoncharles
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gathaiga on Nov 7, 2009 7:15 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kettleblack on Nov 7, 2009 7:34 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They would rather the Dems fail, than keep America and Americans healthy.
Keep shooting yourselves in the feet.
Compromise is not in the Republican dictionary.
Loyalty to the GOP first, America second.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Bertvan on Nov 7, 2009 7:56 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Yeah, nothing less than single payer plan.....
Posted by: Prophit0
» RE: The Democrats have control NOW.
Posted by: oregoncharles
Comments are closed-
Posted by: pauldd on Nov 7, 2009 8:12 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is the crux of MOST Republican opposition. They understand that reform will be popular and effective and will give a political boost to the Democratic party.
On the other hand, there are also some moon-bats in the Republican party as recently summarized by Rachel Maddow. She ran a compilation on that stupid, crazy bitch, Foxx, last night which is priceless.
And I thought that no one could top the special crazy that is Michele Bachmann.
Jesus, how do some people become so divorced from reality?
I argue/discuss/debate politics with several conservative colleagues daily and one trotted out the "talking point" about everyone having access to health care in this country (as did RichardU, above) based on ER's treating everyone (yes, you CAN look it up, as if it means something).
I reminded this individual that he had had bypass surgery followed later by an angioplasty and had also been treated for prostate cancer using implanted radioactive beads. I asked him if he thought having access to an ER but no health insurance would have gotten him those treatments. He just looked down at his shoes. It doesn't require a PhD (or even a GED) to understand the difference between emergency room treatment and actual health care, if one takes, say, 2 seconds to actually think about it instead of regurgitating a sound bite talking point.
For those who think Holland's article in just rhetoric (RichardU), the Congressional Research Service has summarized the latest House bill here. It shows that every Republican talking point is complete BS. If the above link doesn't work for you, go here and you can select the CRS summary link or any other link to information on this bill that you are interested in.
One last thing, would someone who keeps talking about loss of "freedom" please explain to me how providing health care insurance to the uninsured threatens your freedoms? I don't get it. I think you'll find that you don't either.
Thanks for the great compilation Joshua!
Cheers
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: They don't know "how"; they just "know."
Posted by: Amy27605
» RE: Orin Hatch is onto something...
Posted by: desidid
Comments are closed-
Posted by: joehill on Nov 7, 2009 8:26 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We have to start piss testing these crazies from the Right in Congress. My 13 year old grandson even asks me about how these peoples brain operate. He sees the insanity (or lies) behind their outbursts. Maybe they're on drugs?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: monkeywrench on Nov 7, 2009 8:27 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Where have all the rational adults gone? The level of mental, psychological chaos we're witnessing today on the part of talk-show loudmouths and "leaders" who should know better – whom we elected BECAUSE they were supposed to know better – does not bode well for the future of a united America. Just as a sane person forced to stay in an insane asylum will take on the insanity, so too is the possibility that the lunacy now infecting political discourse will infect the society at large – if it hasn't already. Do we really want to risk turning the good ol' U.S.A into the world's largest mental institution?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Where's Mr. Spock, now that we need him?
Posted by: MausMasher54
Comments are closed-
Posted by: tony_opmoc on Nov 7, 2009 8:50 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But where is the incentive to do so? There's no money in it. If nearly everyone was well, we would need far fewer doctors and nurses. If illness rates were reduced to 10% of current levels, then the profits of the pharmaceutical companies would be reduced to 10% of current levels. The individual shareholders would be in uproar, because their dividends would be cut to only 10% of current levels.
Of course it is not just the health service. Products could be built to be extremely reliable such that they would need little if any maintenance and would last for years and years. Its just a case of good engineering. But products now are designed to fail, such that you throw them away after 2-3 years and buy another one. If products were built to last, then the companies would make minimal profits and most would go bust.
It doesn't have to be this way, and even in recent human history it wasn't.
But society is becoming more and more greedy and more and more short sighted.
The obscenity of denying health care to those with a "pre-existing condition" says it all.
It's equivalent to denying food to the starving.
The Greed endemic in Western Culture is killing us all.
What is the incentive for the polluter not to pollute? Cleaning up pollution reduces Profits.
Die Rich, Live in Shit.
We have lost our way.
26.2% of Americans are diagnosed with Mental Illness Every Year.
Is This So Surprising? There's lots of money in providing Drugs to The Mentally Ill
Becoming Mentally Ill is a Rational Response To The Insanity of What we Are Doing To Each Other.
Tony
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: A Health Service Motivated By Indvidual and Corporate Greed Is Certain To Become Dysfunctional
Posted by: Misjah
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Archie1954 on Nov 7, 2009 10:54 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: texshelters on Nov 7, 2009 11:07 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If ONLY that would happen.
One can dream.
Peace,
Tex Shelters
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com on Nov 7, 2009 11:46 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We have a bloated police state in this country precisely because Presidents, Congressmen, and Judges do not respect the Constitution nor the 10th Amendment.
Just because the 10th Amendment has been repeatedly gang raped by our nation's leaders for the past 200 years does not mean it should not be respected and upheld.
Is it really so much to ask to pass a Constitutional Amendment on health care (or medicare, social security, highways, the drug war, etc) requiring 2/3 of Congress, the President, and 3/4 of states?
Why is the 3/4's of states such a deal breaker that we must violate the 10th Amendment?
When it is easy for government to violate the 10th Amendment, it is as easy for government to violate the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc Amendments.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» No, but your take on it is
Posted by: brunowe
» RE: What does the 10th Amendment actually mean to you?
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
» P.S. A Few More Things
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
» With the Lopez line of cases
Posted by: brunowe
» RE: You never answered my question
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
» RE: You never answered my question
Posted by: brunowe
» RE: You never answered my question
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
» RE: P.S. A Few More Things
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: P.S. A Few More Things
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
» "...Getting a law degree isn't difficult."????????
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: "...Getting a law degree isn't difficult."????????
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
» Typical Geek
Posted by: moloko velocet
» RE: So defensive...
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
» Oh I don't know...The Constitution?
Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Oh I don't know...The Constitution?
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
» That's because it's a non-point
Posted by: brunowe
» RE: You need to open your eyes
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
» P.S.
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
Comments are closed-
Posted by: flymulla on Nov 7, 2009 3:22 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The U.S. may have to default on its debt payments after 2019, writes economist Robert Samuelson.
If the deficit spending continues on the current path it will consume 82 percent of gross domestic product within a decade. There will be no wiggle room for tax cuts, and spending cuts may be politically unpalatable, he surmises.
“The Congressional Budget Office reckons the Obama administration's planned budgets would increase the debt-to-GDP ratio from 41 percent in 2008 to 82 percent in 2019. Higher interest rates would aggravate the debt burden,” writes Samuelson in The Washington Post.
Anticipating higher interest rates, the CBO estimates annual interest payments on the federal debt at $799 billion in 2019, up from $170 billion today.
“Even the size of exposed debt is unclear; adding Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's debts — effectively guaranteed by the government — to Treasury debt would raise the total sharply,” writes Samuelson.
However, constraining future debt by spending cuts or tax increases will involve “wrenching and unpopular measures” and may backfire.
“Some advanced country might decide that a partial or complete default, though dire, would be less damaging economically and politically than the alternatives,” writes Samuelson.
“Deprived of international or domestic credit, defaulting countries in the past have suffered deep economic downturns, hyperinflation, or both.”
The odds may be against the U.S trying that, but even the “remote possibility” of that demonstrates the difficulty of the economic situation.
“The arguments over whether we need more stimulus — and debt — obscure the larger reality that past debt increasingly constricts governments' economic maneuvering room,” writes Samuelson.
Debt default is a reality for many in the corporate bond market now.
The Wall Street Journal is reporting that 11 issuers defaulted on bonds last month, and the default rate is now at 11.33 percent.
I am me I am I Can You help me?
I was employed in one of the huge five audit firms. I had left school and this was first time to dig out the filthy cash sales, invoices, bank statements, and stubs, arrange them to make a summary of credits and cash sale purchases and hand this over to my seniors. He would in a whiz prepare a cashbook, TB P&L and Balance Sheet. The audit supervisor would raise few quires that would come to me. Any new employee I thought, “Here my friend. You are going”. Then an Australian Partner came and he raised my pay. I sat with him. I like Australians Accountants as they play very good tennis and have a broader out looks then the thin British or American employers. He assured me that my job was safe and that is why he was raising my pay. “Anytime you feel down come and talk to me. No one else as the others will depress you.
That was my 2 years chewing the nails and toes. After I passed my few subject the by the correspondence course, I felt better. But I would not like to go back and drink planet of coffee and think in the loo, “ What will happen to me if I lose my job” There is nothing to it. Get a little education and you are on your way up
I thank you
Firozali A Mulla
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Insurance The American way of the LIFE INSUREFIRST THE GIVE BIRTH
Posted by: phudler
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield on Nov 7, 2009 6:07 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Liberals who were principled would have supported single payer because they are supposed to believe in health care for all.
Conservatives who were principled would have supported single payer because they are supposed to be tough on wasteful spending and HR676/S703 would be saving taxpayers billions per year.
Even businesses could have taken their nasty experiences with Big Insurance proving to be loads of financial overhead burden on their companies and lobbied for single payer.
All said, politics had no business interfering with health care but the pols happy with their "single payer" just couldn't resist. Even Canada and the UK :(
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: tony_opmoc on Nov 7, 2009 6:33 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We also have to peel the Vegetables and Cook Them Such That The Gravy Is Pure Quality - Done in Beef Fat - Just Like The Joint....
I mean - it takes one hell of a lot of hard - work nearly all done up front...
But we said - you need to talk amongst yourselves for awhile because The Roast Potatoes are Not Quite Done Yet...
After The Meal - Which I Must Admit Was Really Good...
We All Go To See The Fireworks Display...
And See The Fire Where The Wicker Man Was Burny To a Cinder....
We then Go To The Pub, and see the Band - who we haven't seen for ages...
And then we get invited back to another of our Friends Homes...
And He Brings Out The Rarest Of Scotch Whiskies That Cost Him a Fortune
I Say No Don't Do That With It
He Says I Just Have To
I Say No - But I am too Late
He Diluted My Whisky With Water
I Mean This Was a Pure Ancient Malt
But I Forgave Him and Cuddled His Wife And Her Sister
Tony
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» And It Was Just An Ordinary English Pub - But The Live Sound Quality Was Like It Was in A Studio
Posted by: tony_opmoc
Comments are closed-
Posted by: tony_opmoc on Nov 7, 2009 7:32 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And Brought You Home
And You Would Have Met All Our Friends
They Are Nice Really Talented People
Artists and Musicians and People Who Look After Children and Realise - We Are All Like Children In The Playground
All You Had To Say Is Yes Tony
But You Didn't Trust Me
You Have Accused Me Of Being a Disinfo Spy
Our Home Is Freely Available For Anyone In The World To See
Its The One With The Beautiful Trees Down Our Avenue
And The Sunflowers Smiling and Welcoming People - That My Wife Julie Grew From Seed
Check It Out
Our House is a House of Love
Tonight I Was just sat their on the sofa - and was saying to someone who asked the question...
Who are You Looking At - Over There...
I said I am Looking At That Beautiful Blonde Girl Over There...
You See - Her - She is Talking To This Guy..
Who Is She?
I replied...
I kmow I find this completely almost unbelieveable - because I am an fat old fart....
But That Angel Over There....
Well She is Called Julie
And My New Friends aSKED mE wHO iS JULIE?
i SAID sHE IS mY wIFE AND i lOVE hER sO
tONY
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: tony_opmoc on Nov 7, 2009 7:49 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What the Fuck Am I Supposed To Say?
Tony
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: A Couple Of Weeks Ago Extremely Large Numbers Of Soldiers Missing Arms and Legs Paraded Through Our
Posted by: Dankhank
» RE: A Couple Of Weeks Ago Extremely Large Numbers Of Soldiers Missing Arms and Legs Paraded Through Our
Posted by: willymack
Comments are closed-
Posted by: tony_opmoc on Nov 7, 2009 8:24 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And are sleeping on Park Benches or whatever
And My Wife is a Fountain Of Love
And Asks These Soldiers Discarded By The Military - Back To Our Home - and She Feeds Them With a Good Breakfast - And She Gives These Ex-Soldiers Jobs...
You See We Live in A Very Old House...
Sure its an Old house - about 100 years old...
But my Wife Gives These Ex-Soldiers Jobs
She Doesnt Give Them Any Money - well maybe occasionally...
But Basically it is about Rising People's Spirits...
Just Giving The Job To The Ex-Soldier and Not Giving Him Any Money at all
He Just Wants To Be Loved and Cared For
And So We Take Him To Hospital When He Needs His Operation - And We Bring Him Back Home To Our House...
And My Wife Looks After Him and Changes His Bandages...
And He Gets Better
Tony
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com on Nov 7, 2009 9:03 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Taking photos eliminates the need to buy postcards which affects interstate commerce and the general welfare.
Knitting sweaters eliminates the need to buy them affecting interstate commerce and the general welfare.
Growing a vegetable garden eliminates the need to buy vegetables which affects interstate commerce and the general welfare.
There is literally no end to how far "general welfare" arguments can be taken and therefore no restraint on Federal Government power. The only limit is in pissing off the public so much that they revolt. This is in complete contradiction to the idea of a Federal Government with limited enumerated powers that was the basis of this country.
I realize judges have supported "general welfare" arguments but that doesn't make them right. You've been drinking too much of the judicial kool-aid.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: willymack on Nov 7, 2009 10:22 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rtdrury on Nov 7, 2009 11:21 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» There's another way to look at this situation.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: There's another way to look at this situation.
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
» I have a better idea for you Jennifer.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» I vote for real progressives regardless of party.
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
» That's a loaded question, Jennifer. How do you define "Progressive Independent"?
Posted by: GuitarBill
» Try voting with your heart and mind on the issues and not by party affiliation.
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
» Jennifer, I could out think you on a bad day.
Posted by: GuitarBill
» At least Nader donated the money to worthwhile progressive causes.
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
» Bull[expletive deleted], Jennifer!
Posted by: GuitarBill
Comments are closed-
Posted by: pursah on Nov 8, 2009 12:06 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The mother of a crying sick baby with no healthinsurance in the ER does not give a rat's behind about socialism. A war-orphan in Iraq or Afghan does give a rat's behind about democracy. An unemployed factory worker or ghetto kid does not give a rat's behind about democracy or the American dream. These people are desperate and want help.
Spend some time on earth, people!~
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Stew on Nov 8, 2009 6:13 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: weightman on Nov 8, 2009 6:45 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The far-right is providing answers that are completely crazy: that rich liberals are giving their hard-earned money away to illegal immigrants and the shiftless poor.
A common reaction in elite educated circles and much of the left is to ridicule the right-wing protesters, but that is a serious error."
Read more Chomsky.
Is AlterNet part of elite educated circles or just much of the left?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
» WANKER ALERT--Don't click on that link (IDENTITY THEFT!)
Posted by: GuitarBill
Comments are closed-
Posted by: qbeeno on Nov 9, 2009 6:33 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Jess
http://www.privacy-stuff.be.tc
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: TimV on Nov 9, 2009 7:40 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
By the way, "lunatics running the asylum" is not as ridiculous as it sounds at first. This scenario is reasonable if the sane side of the so-called lunatics is directing their decisions about asylum policy. In fact, there is currently a move for peer counselors and other consumer run MH programs in MA and other states
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jareilly on Nov 10, 2009 1:37 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. It's so long and convoluted that nobody really understands all of it. Why should they be any less confused.
2. It will cut back Medicare and increase some taxes on either premiums or higher incomces (two bad things and a good thing, respectively) and it probably won't pay for itself.
3. It will force people into some kind of insurance; public or otherwise. The public system probably would be crappy, bottom end coverage. The insurance industry wins either way.
4. It won't be "universal".
5. It won't control costs of services or drugs, in fact they may increase in response.
6. It was written by lobbyists and hacks.
None of the 6 points above is a logical basis for the wacky repub complaints, however all are logical bases for some complaint, and finally, the most important point for the Repubs:
7. Inhofe as much as said it. Lieberman and Ben Nelson are saying it now. They will oppose any health care bill coming from the Dems, period. It doesn't matter what the bill includes. Throw enough putrid shit at this broad barnside of a bill and some will stick. The point is to kill the bill and mortally wound Obama, take back at least one chamber of Congress in 2010 and the White House in 2012. The substance doesn't matter. It hasn't mattered since 1980. Reality doesn't matter as long as "It's morning in America!".
Their job is to pose and preen and channel wealth to their cronies and sponsors. Our job is to be worker bees, cannon fodder and consumers and then die without a lot of hubbub or expense.
F**k this "health reform" bill. It's a joke. If this is the best these unconsionable shitweasels can do, then, thanks, I'll try my luck with the existing system.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: IRIQUOIS227 on Nov 14, 2009 1:52 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: C.Richardi on Nov 15, 2009 11:38 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: socrates2 on Nov 17, 2009 7:16 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They in turn select our elected officials. Need I say more?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Religious Right and Tea Party Nation Turn to Michele Bachmann in Desperate Attempt to Defeat Health-Care Bill
Where Did David Brooks Get the Bizarre Idea That the Tea Party Crowd Resembles '60s Movements?
Massa Ruins Glenn Beck's Day; Admits to Groping "Tickle Fight" with Staffer




