Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

10 of the Nuttiest Statements Elected Officials Have Made in the Health Care Battle

By Joshua Holland, AlterNet. Posted November 7, 2009.


Wild, over-the-top rhetoric and bizarre conspiracy theories about health reform aren't just coming from the right-wing blogs and talk-radio loudmouths.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

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).

Another member of Congress named King -- Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., -- told MSNBC that health care is "not a major issue among the American people." The Huffington Post points out that King based the claim on a poll that in fact found that Americans ranked the issue as the third most important, after jobs and the deficit.

But Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., one of the craziest members of the House (and that's saying something), took the prize when she held a press conference to proclaim, "there are no Americans who don't have health care." Which would come as a surprise for the 46 million or so who lack coverage today.

"We do have about 7.5 million Americans who want to purchase health insurance who can not afford it," she granted before urging people not to "give the government control of our lives."

3. There's No Problem, and Nobody Cares About Health Care, but … Oh My God!

If you're in the mood for consistency, the Republican caucus is probably not the place to look. Because while Reps. Foxx and Peter King were telling us everything's fine, and besides, nobody much cares about the issue, others were rending their hair over the profound injustice of it all.

Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., insisted that the Democrats' plans will inspire "a minor revolution" if lawmakers don't heed the confused outrage of the tea-partiers.

"The intensity on this issue across the country is like nothing I've seen in a long, long time," he told CNN, adding that if health reforms squeak through, it'll "wreck our health care system and wreck the Democratic Party."

Newt Gingrich (OK, he used to be an elected official) told Fox News that if the Dems used an obscure procedural maneuver to advance the legislation, "I think you'll have an extraordinary explosion both in the Senate and in the country." And Rep. Paul Broun, R-Ga., decided not to quibble and warned that the Dems' rather business-friendly incremental reforms would "destroy America as we know it today."

With so much at stake, you have to credit Bachmann for reacting in the calm, measured tones for which she's become so well-known: "What we have to do today is make a covenant, to slit our wrists, be blood brothers on this thing. This will not pass. We will do whatever it takes to make sure this doesn't pass," she told an enthusiastic audience at a corporate think-tank.

4. ET Get Health Insurance?

Like some grotesque apparition from Orson Wells' War of the Worlds, aliens are descending upon us to defile our women and eat our health-insurance dollars!

Only these are illegal aliens, and according to Iowa Republican King, a repeat offender, the Congressional Budget Office says almost 6 million unauthorized immigrants would be covered, gratis of course, under the Dems' health reform bill.

Mind you he's not saying it -- he's just issuing press releases saying that the CBO is saying it!

But, as it turns out, not so much. The truth is not only are the undocumented barred from receiving benefits by the legislation itself, but also by a variety of other laws already on the books. So did the CBO get it wrong? According to Factcheck.org:

So, where does King get his 5.6 million figure? His press release says that the CBO projected that the uninsured would include 14.1 million illegal immigrants in 2019. The CBO's analysis of the House health care bill estimates that in 2019, 17 million would remain uninsured, "nearly half of whom would be unauthorized immigrants." This is where math comes in: Taking the 14.1 million illegal immigrants in 2019 and subtracting half of 17 million (8.5 million) gets you … 5.6 million illegal immigrants that have suddenly gained coverage, right? Actually, no. About half of illegal immigrants in the U.S. have health care coverage now.

5. Rationing

House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, warned that health care "rationing" is inevitable. Sue Myrick, a cancer survivor and GOP representative from North Carolina, said she wouldn't have gotten the treatment she needed to beat her disease "under the government-run health care system they have in Canada and the United Kingdom," and cautioned people to "make no mistake, [the proposals in Congress] are all gateways to government-run health care."

It's a common refrain. And one Canadians and British find pretty confusing.

But the thing that makes this one so crazy is that rationing health care is the private insurance industry's entire business model. As Ezra Klein wrote in the Washington Post, "We Ration. We Ration. We Ration. We Ration."

This is not an arguable proposition. It is not a difference of opinion or a conversation about semantics. We ration. We ration without discussion, remorse or concern. We ration health care the way we ration other goods: We make it too expensive for everyone to afford.

The rationing meme did lead to hilarity when Investor's Business Daily ran an editorial arguing that physicist Stephen Hawking "wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless." Hawking, still a Brit last time he checked, responded: "I wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS. I have received a large amount of high-quality treatment without which I would not have survived."

Less amusing was Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, advancing the same nonsensical argument about the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, the Democrat from Massachusetts who fought hard for the Dems' plan before his death by cancer. 

6. Health Care Reform Is Just Like Terrorism, but Far Worse!

North Carolina's Foxx is the gift that just never stops giving!

Just this week, after having sworn that the status quo was just peachy, Foxx said that reform, on the other hand, would be just like an ax-murderer crawling into the room of a small, defenseless child in the dark of night, only much scarier.

Creative Loafing, a Charlotte political blog, documented her exact phrasing

Give Foxx credit … she always ups the ante in her nutcase sweepstakes. Now, she's gone onto the House floor to declare that she and everyone in her district are living in fear (which, along with anger, seem to be the only two emotions right-wing extremists like Foxx have left at their disposal) and that health care reform is a more terrible threat to America than "any terrorist right now in any country." Um, thanks for that valuable insight, Congresswoman; maybe next time remember to take your meds before giving a public speech.

In this week's crazy-off, Foxx has to compete with Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., bravely challenging the swine flu virus to choose a side -- either with us or with the terrorists -- but Foxx may have the edge. 

7. Health Care Reform Spawns Tenthers! 

You heard of "birthers" and probably know the health care debate has completed the cycle of life by giving us "deathers" (discussed below). 

But it's also spawned a generation of "tenthers" -- self-anointed right-wing constitutional scholars who insist that the Founding Fathers, no-doubt shilling for the insurance industry, enshrined ironclad prohibitions against the government helping Americans get halfway decent health care in the country's charter. 

And they include elected officials! 

The gist of their "argument" is that the 10th Amendment says that powers that aren't expressly given to the feds remain in the hands of the states. That's true, of course, but the Constitution doesn't grant the feds the power to build interstate highways, either. According to Think Progress

Tenther claims are far from the mainstream. In their world, landmark federal programs such as Medicare, Social Security, the federal highway system and rules regulating airplane safety are unconstitutional. In fact, the South "justified both secession and the Civil War on the theory that the Constitution is nothing more than a pact between sovereigns that each state is free to leave at will." 

Real constitutional scholars, of course, dismiss the claim as nonsense. But that hasn't kept a gaggle of Republican officials from jumping on the bandwagon, including Minnesota's Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty -- a potential candidate for the White House in 2012; Texas Gov. Rick "the Hair" Perry, who toyed with the idea of secession before a crowd of "tea-party" activists earlier in the year; Sens. Jim Demint, R-S.C. and Tom Coburn, R-Okla.; and a handful of  GOP House members. (Pawlenty later backed away from his statement.) 

How thoughtful are the tenthers? The Wall Street Journal offered a report about befuddled Georgia State Sen. Judson Hill proclaiming at a gathering of like-minded lawmakers, "The 10th Amendment protects us from such federal mandates." But when asked whether "the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which grants Congress the right to regulate and enforce matters related to interstate commerce, would interfere with their plan," the Journal informs us "Hill could not say."

When asked if "Medicare, which is government-run health care for seniors, would also then be unconstitutional," Hill was unsure.

"That's a good question," he replied, "I don't know yet. We'll fight that battle when it comes before us."

Medicare was established by an act of Congress in 1965.

8. Astroturf Groups Are Just Like Revolutionary War Heroes … or Something

The whole summer of outrage -- with its "tea parties," its loud displays of "patriotism" and dark whispers of revolution -- was nothing short of bizarre. Perhaps swept up in the fervor, Iowa's Steve King (who is now, I suppose, the champion), took to the floor of the House to warn of a "great diminishment of American freedom" if health care reform were to pass.

"If the Founding Fathers could stand in here tonight," he said, "the tears would be running down their cheeks."

He then compared busloads of protesters sent to Washington by deep-pocketed corporate lobbyists to Paul Revere.

If King were a fictional character rather than an actual voting member of our legislature, he would be endlessly entertaining.

9. When You Can't Oppose Something Rationally, Just Tell People It'll Kill 'Em!

And when telling people that socialism is creeping up just over the horizon fails to stir up their ire, up the ante and promise them that reformers are bent on nothing short of killing off American citizens in order to control health costs. These are the "deathers."

And in America, the media treat their outlandish charges as if they were a credible matter of debate.

Begun by veteran wack-a-loon Betsy McCaughey, a former lieutenant governor of New York, the infamous "death panels" were soon being touted by GOP hitters like Boehner and Grassley, who said, "We should not have a government program that determines if you‘re going to pull the plug on Grandma."

If you're reading this, you probably know the whole thing is nonsense, but some may not realize how benign the provision that started the death-panels nonsense really is. It just directs Medicare to pay doctors to consult with patients who want help drawing up a living will -- a way to control their own health care if they become incapacitated. That's it -- the deaths panels. That's the government taking decisions out of the hands of doctors and patients.

Although it's been widely debunked, some prominent Republicans were still trying to push the "deather" story as recently as last week. And, as is so often the case, it turns out that many were for death panels before they were against them.

10. Health Care Reform Will Kill the Republican Party … No, the Entire Two-Party System!

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., told reporters that the GOP fears the political ramifications of a decent reform bill being passed by the Dems. Saying that around 100,000 people in each congressional district would directly benefit from the House bill, Pelosi said, "Republicans know that passing real health care reform, meaningful health care reform for the American people, which is relevant to their lives [and] solves their problems, is politically powerful, and they must stop it."

It's probably overstating the case, but it's a fairly straightforward analysis. In the hands of Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, however, it became darker, as he warned that passing a bill people actually liked would spell doom for our entire two-party system -- government as we know it. Describing the proposals in Congress as a "step-by-step approach to socialized medicine," Hatch told a conservative Web site:

If they get there, then of course you're going to have a rough time, you're going to have a very rough time, having a two-party system in this country. Because almost everybody's going to say all we ever were, all we ever are, all we ever hope to be depends on the Democratic Party.

So, Looking Forward to the Climate Change Debate Heating Up?

Blather about a government takeover of health care with ashen-faced bureaucrats rationing out treatments has been ubiquitous among conservative elected officials, so much so that it almost seems a natural part of the discussion. 

But given the degree to which Democrats have been forced to water down their legislation to appease conservatives within their party, these memes really represent a mass psychosis in the literal sense, as in "a distorted or nonexistent sense of objective reality."

Which might explain why 1 in 3 Americans trust congressional Republicans to deal with our health care mess and 4 percent of the electorate has a "great deal" of confidence in them on the issue.

But the crazy charges flying around also help explain some of the oddly divided public opinion on health care reform. According to the latest polling, while 55 percent favor a public insurance option, 45 percent favor what they understand to be "Obama's" health care reforms.

Given that the public option is the most controversial and hotly debated aspect of the health care bills in Congress, that would appear to confirm earlier polling, which basically found that most Americans just didn't have a firm handle on the proposals.

We can laugh at the anti-reformers' hyperbole, but it does muddy the waters to at least a degree.

Yet despite it all -- all the talk of death panels and losing our of liberty -- support for the public insurance plan has remained pretty steady over the past months, which has to make you wonder what the political landscape would look like if we were ever to have a serious, fact-grounded debate about health care reform in this country.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: media, democrats, republicans, king, obama, lies, wingnuts, boehner, grassley, inhofe, health-care reform, hatch, foxx

Joshua Holland is an editor and senior writer at AlterNet.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Politics! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Tools: [Post a new comment] [Login] [Signup] View:
Time to Censure Politicians ...
Posted by: mmckinl on Nov 7, 2009 12:53 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Should House or Senate members give testimony to false hoods or outright lies they should be held to account.

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: Speech and Debate Clause Posted by: MausMasher54
» RE: Speech and Debate Clause Posted by: GuitarBill
» 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: 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
Bad Article - Holland fighting rhetoric with rhetoric?
Posted by: Allan Stevo on Nov 7, 2009 1:36 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Having a bully-pulpit doesn't make rhetoric okay; that goes for a congressman and for a reporter alike. This article is just as bad as any of the rhetoric it covers. It neither tries to identify with the viewpoints of the person being quoted nor to disprove the viewpoints with any thoughtful discussion. Unless your audience in unthinking, you can't actually fight rhetoric with rhetoric. The best you can achieve is to get people worked up and spouting their own rhetoric. This magazine can aspire to so much more than this.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» In 2009 Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: In 2009 Posted by: MausMasher54
Fact check
Posted by: RichardU on Nov 7, 2009 1:44 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
2) All people present in America can get health care, even if they cannot afford it, are not citizens, or any other reason. EMTALA ensures everyone in America gets emergency medical treatment if needed. Look it up.

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
» 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
» RE: Living isn't a privilege. Posted by: oregoncharles
» Clueless Posted by: FoonTheElder
Republicans?
Posted by: itsallbs on Nov 7, 2009 3:49 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
According to some, Barry Goldwater was the father of conservatism. I believe he was also a champion of less government and would also be pro business.

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]

» RE:publicans? Posted by: pauldd
Tea Partiers
Posted by: Tom Degan on Nov 7, 2009 3:51 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"This bill is the greatest threat to freedom that I have seen in the nineteen years I have been here in Washington"

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
» You wouldn't recognize a troll... Posted by: photon's feather
» sasquuatch55 IS an anus. Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: You wouldn't recognize a troll... Posted by: photon's feather
» See? Run and hide! Posted by: photon's feather
» Give us an '88', AlterNazi. Posted by: GuitarBill
» Thanks, Yellow! Well said. Posted by: GuitarBill
» 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
Spin it any way you want, but that does not alter the facts.
Posted by: wordmaster on Nov 7, 2009 5:53 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While the author is putting totally unsubstantiated spin on the thoughts of others, there are no facts presented to repudiate any of the quotes so basely depicted.

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]

» You're are an idiot, AlterNazi. Posted by: GuitarBill
» More lies, AlterNazi? Posted by: GuitarBill
Toxic Discourse, Pathological Debate: Talk about Health Insurance in America
Posted by: goodsensecynic on Nov 7, 2009 6:53 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Several issues are conflated in Mr. Holland's article, the several responding posts and the "debate" being carried on in Congress and across the country. They include, in no particular order:

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
» Say, Mr Holland, just curious... Posted by: photon's feather
» Sorry I can't help ... Posted by: Joshua Holland
» No problem Joshua. Posted by: GuitarBill
» Sorry, can't help there either Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Sorry I can't help ... Posted by: photon's feather
» RE: Sorry I can't help ... Posted by: Joshua Holland
» Lying again, piggy? Posted by: GuitarBill
» More lies, Pinocchio? Posted by: GuitarBill
» Netiquette violator Posted by: MaxBridges
» RE: Netiquette violator Posted by: GuitarBill
» Okay Glenn, they're gone. Posted by: GuitarBill
Why Rhetoric is So Wild on Health Care?
Posted by: drricklippin on Nov 7, 2009 7:03 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks Josh-

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: $$$$$ Posted by: oregoncharles
gathaiga
Posted by: gathaiga on Nov 7, 2009 7:15 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can agree with much of what you write Joshua so keep writing as you have been. Forget those who want you to write and post a book on this site to refute and explain the actions and words of the political squirrels in the news. If you wrote a book most of the complainers wouldn't read it anyway. Let them take a little time and do some background work on the various nutcases you have quoted.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Republicans would rather save the GOP than Americans
Posted by: kettleblack on Nov 7, 2009 7:34 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Read #10: Orrin Hatch shows his true colors. Instead of working on health care reform, he opposes the bill because it will doom the Republican Party. Great reason to oppose the bill, Senator.
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]

Let the republicans kill healthcare.
Posted by: Bertvan on Nov 7, 2009 7:56 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In just one year new congressional elections will take place. Let the Republicans kill health care. By next year the health care crisis will be even worse than now. Let the mid term election be a referendum on health care. We will then get a good bill, not just a compomise.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Democrats have control NOW. Posted by: oregoncharles
Orin Hatch is onto something...
Posted by: pauldd on Nov 7, 2009 8:12 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
..."as he warned that passing a bill people actually liked would spell doom for our entire two-party system"

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]

Mandatory Piss Tests for Congress
Posted by: joehill on Nov 7, 2009 8:26 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the industry I retired from, almost any accident that took place was considered part of "impaired judgement" or "bad decision". The result was a piss test for any (hourly/union but not management) employee.

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]

Where's Mr. Spock, now that we need him?
Posted by: monkeywrench on Nov 7, 2009 8:27 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Have we entered the Twilight Zone? Or an alternative universe – a Kafka universe? There seems to be absolutely no self-restraint, no social constraint, no limit at all on bizarre, outlandish statements and child-level, bald-faced lies, coming like machine gun fire, from all corners of the political spectrum, to the point that watching cable (or even network) "news" broadcasts these days is like sitting in a group therapy session inside an insane asylum – with only the inmates running the session.

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]

A Health Service Motivated By Indvidual and Corporate Greed Is Certain To Become Dysfunctional
Posted by: tony_opmoc on Nov 7, 2009 8:50 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If our society really wanted to, we could radically reduce illness and disease from its current appallingly high levels.

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]

Does anyone think
Posted by: Archie1954 on Nov 7, 2009 10:54 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that single payer healthcare is something new in the world, that it hasn't been tried and tested before? No-one is reinventing the wheel here. Every other first world country has it and it works well and is very cost effective. Why don't the proponents get the true goods on the many other countries that already have it and have had it for years and show the results to the people. Why don't they also call the Republicans liars to their faces and then prove it? The parties that are proposing the public healthcare system are unfortunately not very good at publicizing the benefits and countering the lies told by the desperate, venal conservative opposition.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Health care with ruin the Republican and Democratic parties
Posted by: texshelters on Nov 7, 2009 11:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ruining the two party monopoly would be a great service to democracy.

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]

The 10th Amendment is not Nutty
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com on Nov 7, 2009 11:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Shame on you.

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
» 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: 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
» Typical Geek Posted by: moloko velocet
» RE: So defensive... Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
» RE: Oh I don't know...The Constitution? Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
» RE: You need to open your eyes Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
» P.S. Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
Insurance The American way of the LIFE INSUREFIRST THE GIVE BIRTH
Posted by: flymulla on Nov 7, 2009 3:22 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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.
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]

Say what you want but politics and health care just don't mix.
Posted by: JenniferBedingfield on Nov 7, 2009 6:07 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It shouldn't have been so difficult for conservatives, liberals, and even pro-business folks on Capital Hill to have a heart for Single Payer HR 676 and S 703.

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]

American Liberals Might Think It Is Easy - But In England We Do Not Outsource The Cooking...
Posted by: tony_opmoc on Nov 7, 2009 6:33 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not Only Do My Wife and I have to clean up our home so that it looks Immaculate...

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]

Sister_Lauren - In Northern California _ My Invitation To You Was Completely Genuine
Posted by: tony_opmoc on Nov 7, 2009 7:32 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My Wife and I Would Have Picked You Up From Heathrow Airport...

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]

A Couple Of Weeks Ago Extremely Large Numbers Of Soldiers Missing Arms and Legs Paraded Through Our
Posted by: tony_opmoc on Nov 7, 2009 7:49 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Town

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]

We Have Lots Of Friends Who Used To Be In The Elite Of The UK Military
Posted by: tony_opmoc on Nov 7, 2009 8:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We find people who are homeless and Totally Lost Their Wives and Children..

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]

P.S.
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com on Nov 7, 2009 9:03 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You do realize that the simplest things like taking photographs, knitting sweaters, or growing a home vegetable garden can be banned under a loose interpretation of the "general welfare" argument.

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]

Crazy? Maybe
Posted by: willymack on Nov 7, 2009 10:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
CROOKED? Absolutely.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You have to understand
Posted by: rtdrury on Nov 7, 2009 11:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They are the Demoks' Repuks. The Repuk crazies do not stand alone. They stand in mutual support with the Demoks. This was illustrated over the past eight years as Demoks wrote blank checks for unnecessary wars/occupations. So you can whine on and on about the Repuk stupidity and evil, but they are the pride and joy of their Demok partners in crime, and you'll continue to see it over and over until the people start voting their own interests over the interests of elites.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

allen
Posted by: pursah on Nov 8, 2009 12:06 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From Herbert Hoover to Ann Rand to Barry Goldwater, from Reagan,Greenspan to Bush Jr. and the right wing Health Care Attack Machine--the conservatives all have one thing in common. They are idealogues. They don't live on the ground where the people live. They continally keep trying to fit the square peg of ideology into the round hole of reality. And it never worked and it continues to not work.

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]

This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
stew
Posted by: Stew on Nov 8, 2009 6:13 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, Heathcare bill or not, I DO like the idea of M. Bachmann slitting her wrists. That would sure make me feel better.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Americans do like their sitcoms.....
Posted by: weightman on Nov 8, 2009 6:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"There is now a mass of people with real grievances, who want answers but are not receiving them.
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]

This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
POliticians
Posted by: qbeeno on Nov 9, 2009 6:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Amazing how politicians just cant seem to keep their foots out of their mouths.

Jess
http://www.privacy-stuff.be.tc

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Fighting right-wing hysteria W/psychiatric slurs and other bigotry not a class act
Posted by: TimV on Nov 9, 2009 7:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Conservatives are indulging in irrational scare tactics when they talk about horror stories such as death panels and government takeovers of the entire health care system. But Holland and some comment posters here make jackasses out of themselves by throwing psychiatric slurs at these right-wing opponents of health care reform. (Even IF Holland himself doesn't really down victims/survivors of mental illness in general, some comment posters here clearly pin down this use of psychiatric slurs as bigotry against current/former mental patients.)

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]

crazy *** ****
Posted by: jareilly on Nov 10, 2009 1:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
of course the Repubs and their minions are spewing crazy ass shit about the health insurance bill. Why?

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]

hi
Posted by: somavelina on Nov 13, 2009 7:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here is a great place------- Cougarmatching.com ------- It's a premiere cougar dating community for older women seeking younger men and young men seeking cougars. Come in, post a message, a picture of yourself and check out the hot photo galleries. You will find someone you like here...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

hardly anything new for this sick country
Posted by: IRIQUOIS227 on Nov 14, 2009 1:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm HARDLY surprised by this bilge. It only further demonstrates how dangerous the republican cabal has become. Truth,loyalty,concern for the american people are all in the trash for these perverse degenerates. I've said on many occasions, but it has never been more clearly displayed than now, that the republican roach knows no depth beneath which he or she won't DIVE to for money, or just being contradictory. The are mentally sick, and have always been the party of money. History is replete with examples of republican filth. They crave money and all that goes with it in the same manner a heroin addict craves his next fix. These people are the pawns of the CORPORATE-GOVERNMENT, we are now being crushed by. I know of no way to stop them without deadly force.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Weepily Warnings
Posted by: C.Richardi on Nov 15, 2009 11:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Glen Beck weepily warning that the Dem's health care legislation are stealthy reparations for slavery." Yeah,a little Vicks Vaporub dabbed under my eyes,would make me tear up to.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

political campaigns for lunatics and ignorants paid by sociopathic corporations
Posted by: socrates2 on Nov 17, 2009 7:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sometime back, a corporation was characterized as a sociopath. It acted irresponsibly with complete disregard for consequences, sanctions, or social coercions of any kind.
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]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement