What Planet Are You On?
August 19th, 2009 by Jon Taplin
Barney Frank takes on one of the Liberal Fascism drones.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGX-2oTNens&eurl]
This is how “clinical” these people are.
Of the 24% of the population in the ‘birther’ category, one interesting thing to note is that more Americans seem to think Obama was born in Indonesia (10%) than Kenya (7%), which suggests not only that a frighteningly large number of Americans are birthers but that they have a shockingly low level of basic ‘birther’ literacy. As you know, according to orthodox ‘birther’ theory, Obama was born in Kenya.
Even better, 6% fully concede that Obama was born in Hawaii. They just don’t believe Hawaii is part of the United States.
Thomas Sowell lays out the “Nazi “case pretty compellingly.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/18/whose_medical_decisions_97926.html
Again, it isn’t wrong to say that when the government is paying, costs have to be contained / rationing has to be employed. That’s to be expected.
BUT, it is the REASON people who have coverage now, don’t want the government getting more involved. No one wants Barney Frank getting any more important. That whole room wants Barney to be less important.
Government writing checks? Not great, but ok.
Government deciding who gets what paid for? Nazi. Insurance you buy, you buys as much as you want to buy, some people can’t buy much, you wanna help out, but you don’t wanna share your coverage either.
Thomas Sowell lays out the “Nazi “case pretty compellingly.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/18/whose_medical_decisions_97926.html
Again, it isn’t wrong to say that when the government is paying, costs have to be contained / rationing has to be employed. That’s to be expected.
BUT, it is the REASON people who have coverage now, don’t want the government getting more involved. No one wants Barney Frank getting any more important. That whole room wants Barney to be less important.
Government writing checks? Not great, but ok.
Government deciding who gets what paid for? Nazi. Insurance you buy, you buys as much as you want to buy, some people can’t buy much, you wanna help out, but you don’t wanna share your coverage either.
I gotta stand with Barney Frank on this one. What the hell is this line of “Argument”. Wanna yell about corporatism? Awesome. We already have it. It sucks.
Calling the president a Nazi? That’s batshit crazy. Context and connotation matter in language.
I gotta stand with Barney Frank on this one. What the hell is this line of “Argument”. Wanna yell about corporatism? Awesome. We already have it. It sucks.
Calling the president a Nazi? That’s batshit crazy. Context and connotation matter in language.
Ordo ab chao, indeed.
“We use our hands and hearts and if we must, we’ll use our heads.” Chad Mitchell Trio – 1962
Ordo ab chao, indeed.
“We use our hands and hearts and if we must, we’ll use our heads.” Chad Mitchell Trio – 1962
Morgan- Sometimes you just talk like a stupid fool.
Morgan- Sometimes you just talk like a stupid fool.
Dude, READ Sowell. How can you skip over such basic common sense arguments?
Right now, government just writes checks, you and Barney are talking about government making decisions.
That’s a power grab, and Barney yelling at a young woman – he later got his ass kicked in by a 20 yr old kid – doesn’t cover the power grab up.
NAZI gets attention. It clarifies. “government power grab” – If you don’t like it, stop trying to grab power, just keep writing checks, and leave the decisions to the market.
Dude, READ Sowell. How can you skip over such basic common sense arguments?
Right now, government just writes checks, you and Barney are talking about government making decisions.
That’s a power grab, and Barney yelling at a young woman – he later got his ass kicked in by a 20 yr old kid – doesn’t cover the power grab up.
NAZI gets attention. It clarifies. “government power grab” – If you don’t like it, stop trying to grab power, just keep writing checks, and leave the decisions to the market.
Dude, READ Sowell. How can you skip over such basic common sense arguments?
Right now, government just writes checks, you and Barney are talking about government making decisions.
That’s a power grab, and Barney yelling at a young woman – he later got his ass kicked in by a 20 yr old kid – doesn’t cover the power grab up.
NAZI gets attention. It clarifies. “government power grab” – If you don’t like it, stop trying to grab power, just keep writing checks, and leave the decisions to the market.
Just read the piece Morgan linked to. Does not male Nazi case at all.
Just read the piece Morgan linked to. Does not male Nazi case at all.
Just read the piece Morgan linked to. Does not male Nazi case at all.
Morgan,
I read the Sowell piece and agree it doesn’t make the “Nazi” case at all, whatever half-baked scare tactic that is.
And for someone who bandies the word “reason” about as profligately as you do, it’s stunning how rarely applies to any of your tissue thin so called “arguments.”
Anyone who has healthcare now doesn’t have a thing to worry about.
Phrases like “Government power-grab” in a world where insurance companies withhold, deny or rescind coverage of “clients” with little or no reason whatsoever is a lot more like Nazi propaganda, or Fox News Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, or GOP late stage dementia. Insurance companies made the “power grab” years ago, and they’ve got us all by the throats with plenty of help from the highest paid lobbyists in Washington, with no competition and no ethical guiding principle beyond bottom line profit. If you think anything else, you are as Jon says, a stupid fool.
You are truly one of the most confused, misinformed and misguided people in the world. Your head is full of pudding.
Morgan,
I read the Sowell piece and agree it doesn’t make the “Nazi” case at all, whatever half-baked scare tactic that is.
And for someone who bandies the word “reason” about as profligately as you do, it’s stunning how rarely applies to any of your tissue thin so called “arguments.”
Anyone who has healthcare now doesn’t have a thing to worry about.
Phrases like “Government power-grab” in a world where insurance companies withhold, deny or rescind coverage of “clients” with little or no reason whatsoever is a lot more like Nazi propaganda, or Fox News Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, or GOP late stage dementia. Insurance companies made the “power grab” years ago, and they’ve got us all by the throats with plenty of help from the highest paid lobbyists in Washington, with no competition and no ethical guiding principle beyond bottom line profit. If you think anything else, you are as Jon says, a stupid fool.
You are truly one of the most confused, misinformed and misguided people in the world. Your head is full of pudding.
Morgan,
I read the Sowell piece and agree it doesn’t make the “Nazi” case at all, whatever half-baked scare tactic that is.
And for someone who bandies the word “reason” about as profligately as you do, it’s stunning how rarely applies to any of your tissue thin so called “arguments.”
Anyone who has healthcare now doesn’t have a thing to worry about.
Phrases like “Government power-grab” in a world where insurance companies withhold, deny or rescind coverage of “clients” with little or no reason whatsoever is a lot more like Nazi propaganda, or Fox News Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, or GOP late stage dementia. Insurance companies made the “power grab” years ago, and they’ve got us all by the throats with plenty of help from the highest paid lobbyists in Washington, with no competition and no ethical guiding principle beyond bottom line profit. If you think anything else, you are as Jon says, a stupid fool.
You are truly one of the most confused, misinformed and misguided people in the world. Your head is full of pudding.
I’ll stick with the clear logic:
- currently the government just writes checks.
- the plans as discussed let government determine who gets covered and why, where currently the market decides.
this change = death panels = socialist = fascist = nazi
Sowell CLEARLY makes the first two jumps, and I just like tweaking Jon…
Real goose stepping, “kill the jews” nazis? good lord no. not even close. but certainly at the level where some young protesters put a mustache on Obama – as Bush was.
BUT, ultimately Mason, there is a government power grab going on OWN IT – they don’t want to just write checks any more…. and they can suck it.
I’ll stick with the clear logic:
- currently the government just writes checks.
- the plans as discussed let government determine who gets covered and why, where currently the market decides.
this change = death panels = socialist = fascist = nazi
Sowell CLEARLY makes the first two jumps, and I just like tweaking Jon…
Real goose stepping, “kill the jews” nazis? good lord no. not even close. but certainly at the level where some young protesters put a mustache on Obama – as Bush was.
BUT, ultimately Mason, there is a government power grab going on OWN IT – they don’t want to just write checks any more…. and they can suck it.
I’ll stick with the clear logic:
- currently the government just writes checks.
- the plans as discussed let government determine who gets covered and why, where currently the market decides.
this change = death panels = socialist = fascist = nazi
Sowell CLEARLY makes the first two jumps, and I just like tweaking Jon…
Real goose stepping, “kill the jews” nazis? good lord no. not even close. but certainly at the level where some young protesters put a mustache on Obama – as Bush was.
BUT, ultimately Mason, there is a government power grab going on OWN IT – they don’t want to just write checks any more…. and they can suck it.
The problem, Morgan, is that jumping to “Nazi” is a counterproductive and ridiculous misuse of history and language. The areas where is may have some truth are FAR outweighed by the differences.
The real story is, of course, much more complex.
In a world of scarcity, all things, including the provision of life-saving medical care, has limits. Statists/progressives believe that socialism/corporatism in healthcare will more equitably distribute the pain of that scarcity across the population by technocratic dictate.
They see that as less evil than a for-profit insurance company bureaucrat making the exact same choice so that the CEO can make millions. They believe that healthcare is “different” because it is often life-and-death decisions in which the consumer faces an insurmountable information gap between themselves and the providers of the service, their doctors.
Progressives also, as part of a general tendency toward Keynesian-style analysis, seem to rely on hyper-aggregated data that often creates false meaning where there is none. Spending per GDP is probably the most ludicrous of these keynesian statistics, followed immediately by average “life expectancy”. Tom Daschle trotted out hat discredited state just this weekend on meet the press.
All this adds up to “market failure” for progressives. The problems, of course, are of information and incentives. The information problem in central planning is clear. You know, the information problem that has created shortages of basic necessities like grain foods in (all?) if the fully-socialist states. Chavez is visiting this very problem on his people now, despite domestic oil wealth (Planners can’t know all the details in a complex system and thus cannot coordinate it.
The lags in their information and decisions lead to deaths too, which are avoidable with a bottom-up approach of emerge order. In that way, central planners do indeed sit upon a kind of “death panel” when it comes to healthcare. Decentralized order is vital to all complex systems. Just look at the internet.
Classical Liberals believe that the best weapon to fight scarcity is the decentralized market process that rewards efficiency and innovation with profit, thereby leading to more of both and more service per dollar and more people served. We point to existing government restrictions and false scarcities via licensure as the biggest impediment to more affordable heath care.
We point to the need for aligning payment with use and the mechanism of competition for customers to keep the bureaucrats at the insurance companies on their toes. All firms have bureaucracies with potential for malaise, but nowhere is it so great as in monopoly. And the government is the ultimate, unionized monopoly on earth.
The free market case has cracks: people with no money in theory will get no care. In practice, human beings are altruistic and will come to support those in need. In the more pragmatic approach, a minimum subsidy via healthcare vouchers could serve the neediest.
The case for technocratic dictate rests on a strange idea that the people of our society are too wicked to voluntarily help those in need, yet out of this wicked lot will emerge angelic technocrats that will make the “right” choice. We see the information problem as rendering the good intentions irrelevant. Even angels couldn’t make the right choice with the wrong data.
Anyway. I’ve gone too far once again.
I for one welcome the death panels. It’s obvious and logical that if the government is paying for the service, the government bureaucrats and bean counters are ultimately going to have say in what how it gets spent.
Assuming that David Walker and the bi-partisan coalition that is projecting Medicare’s future obligations will fully bankrupt the US government, life-ending rationing is inevitable for Medicare.
When that begins, and it seems inevitable that it will, a genuine opportunity for market reform will become possible. Our saving grace as a nation is that we were founded in the Classical Liberal tradition and so our “conservative” inclination is towards he historically radical free market. Europe’s road will be much harder when their systems collapse.
Until then, incrementalism will keep us marching toward collapse while the political class takes credit for the successes and distributes blame for the cost-overruns on the next guy.
The problem, Morgan, is that jumping to “Nazi” is a counterproductive and ridiculous misuse of history and language. The areas where is may have some truth are FAR outweighed by the differences.
The real story is, of course, much more complex.
In a world of scarcity, all things, including the provision of life-saving medical care, has limits. Statists/progressives believe that socialism/corporatism in healthcare will more equitably distribute the pain of that scarcity across the population by technocratic dictate.
They see that as less evil than a for-profit insurance company bureaucrat making the exact same choice so that the CEO can make millions. They believe that healthcare is “different” because it is often life-and-death decisions in which the consumer faces an insurmountable information gap between themselves and the providers of the service, their doctors.
Progressives also, as part of a general tendency toward Keynesian-style analysis, seem to rely on hyper-aggregated data that often creates false meaning where there is none. Spending per GDP is probably the most ludicrous of these keynesian statistics, followed immediately by average “life expectancy”. Tom Daschle trotted out hat discredited state just this weekend on meet the press.
All this adds up to “market failure” for progressives. The problems, of course, are of information and incentives. The information problem in central planning is clear. You know, the information problem that has created shortages of basic necessities like grain foods in (all?) if the fully-socialist states. Chavez is visiting this very problem on his people now, despite domestic oil wealth (Planners can’t know all the details in a complex system and thus cannot coordinate it.
The lags in their information and decisions lead to deaths too, which are avoidable with a bottom-up approach of emerge order. In that way, central planners do indeed sit upon a kind of “death panel” when it comes to healthcare. Decentralized order is vital to all complex systems. Just look at the internet.
Classical Liberals believe that the best weapon to fight scarcity is the decentralized market process that rewards efficiency and innovation with profit, thereby leading to more of both and more service per dollar and more people served. We point to existing government restrictions and false scarcities via licensure as the biggest impediment to more affordable heath care.
We point to the need for aligning payment with use and the mechanism of competition for customers to keep the bureaucrats at the insurance companies on their toes. All firms have bureaucracies with potential for malaise, but nowhere is it so great as in monopoly. And the government is the ultimate, unionized monopoly on earth.
The free market case has cracks: people with no money in theory will get no care. In practice, human beings are altruistic and will come to support those in need. In the more pragmatic approach, a minimum subsidy via healthcare vouchers could serve the neediest.
The case for technocratic dictate rests on a strange idea that the people of our society are too wicked to voluntarily help those in need, yet out of this wicked lot will emerge angelic technocrats that will make the “right” choice. We see the information problem as rendering the good intentions irrelevant. Even angels couldn’t make the right choice with the wrong data.
Anyway. I’ve gone too far once again.
I for one welcome the death panels. It’s obvious and logical that if the government is paying for the service, the government bureaucrats and bean counters are ultimately going to have say in what how it gets spent.
Assuming that David Walker and the bi-partisan coalition that is projecting Medicare’s future obligations will fully bankrupt the US government, life-ending rationing is inevitable for Medicare.
When that begins, and it seems inevitable that it will, a genuine opportunity for market reform will become possible. Our saving grace as a nation is that we were founded in the Classical Liberal tradition and so our “conservative” inclination is towards he historically radical free market. Europe’s road will be much harder when their systems collapse.
Until then, incrementalism will keep us marching toward collapse while the political class takes credit for the successes and distributes blame for the cost-overruns on the next guy.
The problem, Morgan, is that jumping to “Nazi” is a counterproductive and ridiculous misuse of history and language. The areas where is may have some truth are FAR outweighed by the differences.
The real story is, of course, much more complex.
In a world of scarcity, all things, including the provision of life-saving medical care, has limits. Statists/progressives believe that socialism/corporatism in healthcare will more equitably distribute the pain of that scarcity across the population by technocratic dictate.
They see that as less evil than a for-profit insurance company bureaucrat making the exact same choice so that the CEO can make millions. They believe that healthcare is “different” because it is often life-and-death decisions in which the consumer faces an insurmountable information gap between themselves and the providers of the service, their doctors.
Progressives also, as part of a general tendency toward Keynesian-style analysis, seem to rely on hyper-aggregated data that often creates false meaning where there is none. Spending per GDP is probably the most ludicrous of these keynesian statistics, followed immediately by average “life expectancy”. Tom Daschle trotted out hat discredited state just this weekend on meet the press.
All this adds up to “market failure” for progressives. The problems, of course, are of information and incentives. The information problem in central planning is clear. You know, the information problem that has created shortages of basic necessities like grain foods in (all?) if the fully-socialist states. Chavez is visiting this very problem on his people now, despite domestic oil wealth (Planners can’t know all the details in a complex system and thus cannot coordinate it.
The lags in their information and decisions lead to deaths too, which are avoidable with a bottom-up approach of emerge order. In that way, central planners do indeed sit upon a kind of “death panel” when it comes to healthcare. Decentralized order is vital to all complex systems. Just look at the internet.
Classical Liberals believe that the best weapon to fight scarcity is the decentralized market process that rewards efficiency and innovation with profit, thereby leading to more of both and more service per dollar and more people served. We point to existing government restrictions and false scarcities via licensure as the biggest impediment to more affordable heath care.
We point to the need for aligning payment with use and the mechanism of competition for customers to keep the bureaucrats at the insurance companies on their toes. All firms have bureaucracies with potential for malaise, but nowhere is it so great as in monopoly. And the government is the ultimate, unionized monopoly on earth.
The free market case has cracks: people with no money in theory will get no care. In practice, human beings are altruistic and will come to support those in need. In the more pragmatic approach, a minimum subsidy via healthcare vouchers could serve the neediest.
The case for technocratic dictate rests on a strange idea that the people of our society are too wicked to voluntarily help those in need, yet out of this wicked lot will emerge angelic technocrats that will make the “right” choice. We see the information problem as rendering the good intentions irrelevant. Even angels couldn’t make the right choice with the wrong data.
Anyway. I’ve gone too far once again.
I for one welcome the death panels. It’s obvious and logical that if the government is paying for the service, the government bureaucrats and bean counters are ultimately going to have say in what how it gets spent.
Assuming that David Walker and the bi-partisan coalition that is projecting Medicare’s future obligations will fully bankrupt the US government, life-ending rationing is inevitable for Medicare.
When that begins, and it seems inevitable that it will, a genuine opportunity for market reform will become possible. Our saving grace as a nation is that we were founded in the Classical Liberal tradition and so our “conservative” inclination is towards he historically radical free market. Europe’s road will be much harder when their systems collapse.
Until then, incrementalism will keep us marching toward collapse while the political class takes credit for the successes and distributes blame for the cost-overruns on the next guy.
Morgan, language is what it has evolved to be. You CAN NOT say “Nazi” without inextricably bringing in horrifying mass murder of Jews, Catholics, the disabled… and socialists.
Trying to use terms differently than their real world meaning and connotation is mistaken at best and Orwellian at worst.
Is it a power grab? Of course it is. Is it “Nazi”? Hell no.
Morgan, language is what it has evolved to be. You CAN NOT say “Nazi” without inextricably bringing in horrifying mass murder of Jews, Catholics, the disabled… and socialists.
Trying to use terms differently than their real world meaning and connotation is mistaken at best and Orwellian at worst.
Is it a power grab? Of course it is. Is it “Nazi”? Hell no.
Morgan, language is what it has evolved to be. You CAN NOT say “Nazi” without inextricably bringing in horrifying mass murder of Jews, Catholics, the disabled… and socialists.
Trying to use terms differently than their real world meaning and connotation is mistaken at best and Orwellian at worst.
Is it a power grab? Of course it is. Is it “Nazi”? Hell no.
The newly redesigned Newsweek is horrible—but Jonathan Alter’s piece on the bipartisan problem with the Nazi trope is solid. It is a reminder that the right is hardly uniquely at fault for tossing this ugliness around.
That said, Morgan, you oughtta read it…
The newly redesigned Newsweek is horrible—but Jonathan Alter’s piece on the bipartisan problem with the Nazi trope is solid. It is a reminder that the right is hardly uniquely at fault for tossing this ugliness around.
That said, Morgan, you oughtta read it…
Man this place is filled with masochists. Really smart, funny, well spoken masochists but masochists none the less.
I’ve got this friend who loves dogs and hates football. All week he’s been been arguing with me about the Vick thing. We love each other lots and have fun arguing but he KNOWS I’m never gone stop watching football. He knows it’s a futile.
But I don’t think anyone here’s got any love for Morgan. Nor do they seem to be having any fun (please correct me if I’m wrong here). You’re not gonna change his mind, so why are you trying? It’s not as though his points lead to substantive, productive conversations. To quote Barney: Ma’am, trying to have a conversation with you would be like trying to argue with a dining room table.
Man this place is filled with masochists. Really smart, funny, well spoken masochists but masochists none the less.
I’ve got this friend who loves dogs and hates football. All week he’s been been arguing with me about the Vick thing. We love each other lots and have fun arguing but he KNOWS I’m never gone stop watching football. He knows it’s a futile.
But I don’t think anyone here’s got any love for Morgan. Nor do they seem to be having any fun (please correct me if I’m wrong here). You’re not gonna change his mind, so why are you trying? It’s not as though his points lead to substantive, productive conversations. To quote Barney: Ma’am, trying to have a conversation with you would be like trying to argue with a dining room table.
I think Barney Frank was right, presuming there wasn’t something of the question edited out as the question made no argument to address.
The questioner didn’t present an aspect of the health plan that she didn’t like, and criticise it, and make an argument (even one that illustrates national socialist aspects) – she just characterised it as ‘nazi’.
Which is not an argument.
That Sowell piece opines:
“The current ‘health care’ bill threatens to take life-and-death decisions out of the hands of individuals and their doctors, transferring those decisions to Washington bureaucrats.”
Which doesn’t seem to address the topic – which as I understand it is about trying to provide health care to people who don’t have any (except emergency rooms).
If they don’t currently have health care options, how can the government be taking any away from them?
I think Barney Frank was right, presuming there wasn’t something of the question edited out as the question made no argument to address.
The questioner didn’t present an aspect of the health plan that she didn’t like, and criticise it, and make an argument (even one that illustrates national socialist aspects) – she just characterised it as ‘nazi’.
Which is not an argument.
That Sowell piece opines:
“The current ‘health care’ bill threatens to take life-and-death decisions out of the hands of individuals and their doctors, transferring those decisions to Washington bureaucrats.”
Which doesn’t seem to address the topic – which as I understand it is about trying to provide health care to people who don’t have any (except emergency rooms).
If they don’t currently have health care options, how can the government be taking any away from them?
Fentex, that’s precisely the issue, as it always is with “statists,” promising positive rights…
there are some have-nots and by turning the power, decision making, etc over to the worthless government hacks who can’t gain power the old fashioned way (by earning it), the have-nots hope to gain some freebie to the disadvantage of the haves.
As in today, the 80% who insured, are the most satisfied health care recipients in the world. The 20% go to emergency rooms. So this isn’t about increasing the care, it is about removing the market force of people paying for the care they want, and not the care the government thinks they should have. Said another way, there is a likely a better kind of care/insurance for a really gluttonous, smoker – and he should be free to use his dollars ALL OF HIS DOLLARS to keep himself in the lifestyle to which he has become accustomed.
BUT, you are correct the girl just stood up and said, “you sir, are worse than Hitler.” Which doesn’t help the cause as much as I’d like to see it done… but if you watch the whole video the next kid makes the point a bit better – remember these are but 20 year olds uncozy with a mic.
There’s a fabulous satirical author I’d suggest to all of you, Chris Buckley (will’s son) – he wrote “thank you for smoking” and a bunch other tomes, his 2nd latest is called “Boomsday” – and it is in that spirit that I hang out here… a young blogger frustrated by the greed of the baby boomers (and it is GREED of the worst kind), suggests we cut their estate taxes if they kill themselves… hilarity ensues.
John I promise, I’m a libertarian for all the right reasons, and here I prefer not the soft sell but to cajole, heckle, frustrate – one side is wrong, and one side is right. Policies work or they do not. I personally prefer politics of trial and error, I don’t want to bet the farm on anything, I want small incremental trials… becuase it is VERY hard to show these guys how giant deficits are really their fault, even though repubs spent all the money… which is actually the Barney Frank killer:
“Barney in your hands there imagine all the money you wanted to spend for health care”
“poof! it’s gone – see Iraq, see bailout, see Fannie Mae”
“so if you want health care, you’ll WAIT until theres money in that hand again, and next time maybe you won’t waste it.”
“now if you don’t think you’ll be able to control for all that, might I suggest a balance budget amendment – maybe then people will CHOOSE health care over oil and houses”
Fentex, that’s precisely the issue, as it always is with “statists,” promising positive rights…
there are some have-nots and by turning the power, decision making, etc over to the worthless government hacks who can’t gain power the old fashioned way (by earning it), the have-nots hope to gain some freebie to the disadvantage of the haves.
As in today, the 80% who insured, are the most satisfied health care recipients in the world. The 20% go to emergency rooms. So this isn’t about increasing the care, it is about removing the market force of people paying for the care they want, and not the care the government thinks they should have. Said another way, there is a likely a better kind of care/insurance for a really gluttonous, smoker – and he should be free to use his dollars ALL OF HIS DOLLARS to keep himself in the lifestyle to which he has become accustomed.
BUT, you are correct the girl just stood up and said, “you sir, are worse than Hitler.” Which doesn’t help the cause as much as I’d like to see it done… but if you watch the whole video the next kid makes the point a bit better – remember these are but 20 year olds uncozy with a mic.
There’s a fabulous satirical author I’d suggest to all of you, Chris Buckley (will’s son) – he wrote “thank you for smoking” and a bunch other tomes, his 2nd latest is called “Boomsday” – and it is in that spirit that I hang out here… a young blogger frustrated by the greed of the baby boomers (and it is GREED of the worst kind), suggests we cut their estate taxes if they kill themselves… hilarity ensues.
John I promise, I’m a libertarian for all the right reasons, and here I prefer not the soft sell but to cajole, heckle, frustrate – one side is wrong, and one side is right. Policies work or they do not. I personally prefer politics of trial and error, I don’t want to bet the farm on anything, I want small incremental trials… becuase it is VERY hard to show these guys how giant deficits are really their fault, even though repubs spent all the money… which is actually the Barney Frank killer:
“Barney in your hands there imagine all the money you wanted to spend for health care”
“poof! it’s gone – see Iraq, see bailout, see Fannie Mae”
“so if you want health care, you’ll WAIT until theres money in that hand again, and next time maybe you won’t waste it.”
“now if you don’t think you’ll be able to control for all that, might I suggest a balance budget amendment – maybe then people will CHOOSE health care over oil and houses”
Fentex, that’s precisely the issue, as it always is with “statists,” promising positive rights…
there are some have-nots and by turning the power, decision making, etc over to the worthless government hacks who can’t gain power the old fashioned way (by earning it), the have-nots hope to gain some freebie to the disadvantage of the haves.
As in today, the 80% who insured, are the most satisfied health care recipients in the world. The 20% go to emergency rooms. So this isn’t about increasing the care, it is about removing the market force of people paying for the care they want, and not the care the government thinks they should have. Said another way, there is a likely a better kind of care/insurance for a really gluttonous, smoker – and he should be free to use his dollars ALL OF HIS DOLLARS to keep himself in the lifestyle to which he has become accustomed.
BUT, you are correct the girl just stood up and said, “you sir, are worse than Hitler.” Which doesn’t help the cause as much as I’d like to see it done… but if you watch the whole video the next kid makes the point a bit better – remember these are but 20 year olds uncozy with a mic.
There’s a fabulous satirical author I’d suggest to all of you, Chris Buckley (will’s son) – he wrote “thank you for smoking” and a bunch other tomes, his 2nd latest is called “Boomsday” – and it is in that spirit that I hang out here… a young blogger frustrated by the greed of the baby boomers (and it is GREED of the worst kind), suggests we cut their estate taxes if they kill themselves… hilarity ensues.
John I promise, I’m a libertarian for all the right reasons, and here I prefer not the soft sell but to cajole, heckle, frustrate – one side is wrong, and one side is right. Policies work or they do not. I personally prefer politics of trial and error, I don’t want to bet the farm on anything, I want small incremental trials… becuase it is VERY hard to show these guys how giant deficits are really their fault, even though repubs spent all the money… which is actually the Barney Frank killer:
“Barney in your hands there imagine all the money you wanted to spend for health care”
“poof! it’s gone – see Iraq, see bailout, see Fannie Mae”
“so if you want health care, you’ll WAIT until theres money in that hand again, and next time maybe you won’t waste it.”
“now if you don’t think you’ll be able to control for all that, might I suggest a balance budget amendment – maybe then people will CHOOSE health care over oil and houses”
Don’t be too quick to judge, Angelina, with all your damn perspective and reasonableness. We can be fun. I’m in the studio right now working on an original hip-hop song about macroeconomics. That’s not even a joke.
Don’t be too quick to judge, Angelina, with all your damn perspective and reasonableness. We can be fun. I’m in the studio right now working on an original hip-hop song about macroeconomics. That’s not even a joke.
Don’t be too quick to judge, Angelina, with all your damn perspective and reasonableness. We can be fun. I’m in the studio right now working on an original hip-hop song about macroeconomics. That’s not even a joke.
You wanna know how to rhyme you better learn how to add.
You wanna know how to rhyme you better learn how to add.
I don’t know what you mean, are you tryin’ to get me mad?
(head dips in shame)
I don’t know what you mean, are you tryin’ to get me mad?
(head dips in shame)
I don’t know what you mean, are you tryin’ to get me mad?
(head dips in shame)
I disagree. I think Obama will get a bill that at the minimum makes it illegal for an insurance company to deny coverage for a Pre-exiting condition. That would be a huge step.
I disagree. I think Obama will get a bill that at the minimum makes it illegal for an insurance company to deny coverage for a Pre-exiting condition. That would be a huge step.
I don’t know, Jon, it sounds to me like he’s already given up.
I hope this doesn’t just turn into a basket of goodies for insurance companies.
I don’t know, Jon, it sounds to me like he’s already given up.
I hope this doesn’t just turn into a basket of goodies for insurance companies.
Jon, I think he will get much much more than that… the guy who hit the nail on the head in the predictions market is Charles Krauthammer… he just nailed it:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/30/AR2009073002819_2.html?sid=ST2009081302944
Go read it… predicts exactly where we are, besides his last paragraph was especially fitting here:
“Net result? Another huge transfer of wealth from the young to the old, the now-routine specialty of the baby boomers; an end to the dream of imposing European-style health care on the United States; and a president who before Christmas will wave his pen, proclaim victory and watch as the newest conventional wisdom reaffirms his divinity.”
Jon, I think he will get much much more than that… the guy who hit the nail on the head in the predictions market is Charles Krauthammer… he just nailed it:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/30/AR2009073002819_2.html?sid=ST2009081302944
Go read it… predicts exactly where we are, besides his last paragraph was especially fitting here:
“Net result? Another huge transfer of wealth from the young to the old, the now-routine specialty of the baby boomers; an end to the dream of imposing European-style health care on the United States; and a president who before Christmas will wave his pen, proclaim victory and watch as the newest conventional wisdom reaffirms his divinity.”
Critical reading
http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/08/on_selling_death_panels.php
Critical reading
http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/08/on_selling_death_panels.php
John Papola – That’s a line from Mos Def’s Mathematics. It was intended in solidarity.
John Papola – That’s a line from Mos Def’s Mathematics. It was intended in solidarity.
Didn’t you get my sad mad rhyme?
Didn’t you get my sad mad rhyme?
Didn’t you get my sad mad rhyme?
Whoops. Clearly I missed it. Sorry bout that.
Whoops. Clearly I missed it. Sorry bout that.
>I think Obama will get a bill that at the
> minimum makes it illegal for an insurance
> company to deny coverage for a Pre-exiting
> condition.
I have several injuries incurred from decades of playing football and would never consider it fair that an insurer be compelled to cover costs I may incur from them.
But I live in a country where I don’t have to find insurance. If I want more control over my health care I can buy more than the state supplies, but I’d never expect anyone to be forced to ignore my pre-existing injuries when contracting to provide me health insurance.
That sort of regulatory imposition on an already inefficient market sounds untenable, only likely to force distortions that ultimately compound problems.
>I think Obama will get a bill that at the
> minimum makes it illegal for an insurance
> company to deny coverage for a Pre-exiting
> condition.
I have several injuries incurred from decades of playing football and would never consider it fair that an insurer be compelled to cover costs I may incur from them.
But I live in a country where I don’t have to find insurance. If I want more control over my health care I can buy more than the state supplies, but I’d never expect anyone to be forced to ignore my pre-existing injuries when contracting to provide me health insurance.
That sort of regulatory imposition on an already inefficient market sounds untenable, only likely to force distortions that ultimately compound problems.
Jon,
I am not contentious, nor am I terribly consistent commenting here. But rest assured, I lurk and read daily (nor damn near to it).
That said, I concur that the pre-existing condition point you raise would be a big win, I would hesitate to call it ‘huge’.
Single payer would have been ‘huge’.
The public option would be really, really nice.
However, kindly explain to me your thoughts on how Health Care as a bill *without* the public option, could be considered as anything other than a ‘huge’ win for the health insurance industry.
A ‘mandate’ that all Americans have coverage. *boggle*! How can this, be construed as a win for the citizenry, when effectively, our government would be handing the insurance industry at least 40 million new ‘mandated’ customers?!
I have said it before, and I will say it again, until I pass out from lack of oxygen:
Follow the money. The truth will be discovered in the trail it leaves.
$1.5 million (by my guess a heafy under-counting) a *day* by the insurance industry to lobby against this bill. My Senator, Charles Grassley, whose total campaign contributions (as reported) are made up (north of 40%) from these same Insurance Industry players. Bought and paid for.
A Health Care bill *without* the Public Option, is for all intents and purposes a Health Insurance Industry Bailout.
(And last I checked, the Health Insurance Industry is not in *any* form of imminent danger or collapse.)
- Zhirem
Jon,
I am not contentious, nor am I terribly consistent commenting here. But rest assured, I lurk and read daily (nor damn near to it).
That said, I concur that the pre-existing condition point you raise would be a big win, I would hesitate to call it ‘huge’.
Single payer would have been ‘huge’.
The public option would be really, really nice.
However, kindly explain to me your thoughts on how Health Care as a bill *without* the public option, could be considered as anything other than a ‘huge’ win for the health insurance industry.
A ‘mandate’ that all Americans have coverage. *boggle*! How can this, be construed as a win for the citizenry, when effectively, our government would be handing the insurance industry at least 40 million new ‘mandated’ customers?!
I have said it before, and I will say it again, until I pass out from lack of oxygen:
Follow the money. The truth will be discovered in the trail it leaves.
$1.5 million (by my guess a heafy under-counting) a *day* by the insurance industry to lobby against this bill. My Senator, Charles Grassley, whose total campaign contributions (as reported) are made up (north of 40%) from these same Insurance Industry players. Bought and paid for.
A Health Care bill *without* the Public Option, is for all intents and purposes a Health Insurance Industry Bailout.
(And last I checked, the Health Insurance Industry is not in *any* form of imminent danger or collapse.)
- Zhirem
Jon,
I am not contentious, nor am I terribly consistent commenting here. But rest assured, I lurk and read daily (nor damn near to it).
That said, I concur that the pre-existing condition point you raise would be a big win, I would hesitate to call it ‘huge’.
Single payer would have been ‘huge’.
The public option would be really, really nice.
However, kindly explain to me your thoughts on how Health Care as a bill *without* the public option, could be considered as anything other than a ‘huge’ win for the health insurance industry.
A ‘mandate’ that all Americans have coverage. *boggle*! How can this, be construed as a win for the citizenry, when effectively, our government would be handing the insurance industry at least 40 million new ‘mandated’ customers?!
I have said it before, and I will say it again, until I pass out from lack of oxygen:
Follow the money. The truth will be discovered in the trail it leaves.
$1.5 million (by my guess a heafy under-counting) a *day* by the insurance industry to lobby against this bill. My Senator, Charles Grassley, whose total campaign contributions (as reported) are made up (north of 40%) from these same Insurance Industry players. Bought and paid for.
A Health Care bill *without* the Public Option, is for all intents and purposes a Health Insurance Industry Bailout.
(And last I checked, the Health Insurance Industry is not in *any* form of imminent danger or collapse.)
- Zhirem
One small note here:
If the pre-existing conditions *must* be covered, I would bet vital parts of my reproductive anatomy that there is not the obvious corresponding caveat:
“… without making the premiums such that only Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and George Soros would actually be able to pay them…”
- Zhirem
One small note here:
If the pre-existing conditions *must* be covered, I would bet vital parts of my reproductive anatomy that there is not the obvious corresponding caveat:
“… without making the premiums such that only Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and George Soros would actually be able to pay them…”
- Zhirem
Jon, if new health care, the government just kept writing checks, not deciding who gets them written for what, no one would say, “death panels.”
Why can’t you just create a plan that keeps the government from making decisions? How hard is that to do?
Jon, if new health care, the government just kept writing checks, not deciding who gets them written for what, no one would say, “death panels.”
Why can’t you just create a plan that keeps the government from making decisions? How hard is that to do?
I’ve heard some rotten things said about dining room tables, but that was uncalled for.
I’ve heard some rotten things said about dining room tables, but that was uncalled for.
I’ve heard some rotten things said about dining room tables, but that was uncalled for.
Morgan- No one trusts the Republicans on this:
But if the country is cautious about Obama’s health plans, it doesn’t seem to trust the Republican Party at all on the subject. Just 21 percent approve of the GOP’s handling of health care, versus 62 percent who disapprove.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32464936/ns/politics-white_house/
Morgan- No one trusts the Republicans on this:
But if the country is cautious about Obama’s health plans, it doesn’t seem to trust the Republican Party at all on the subject. Just 21 percent approve of the GOP’s handling of health care, versus 62 percent who disapprove.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32464936/ns/politics-white_house/
I’d probably read the comments and contribute more if it weren’t for the obsessive trolling of Morgan Warstler. Jon, you should get a restraining order.
I’d probably read the comments and contribute more if it weren’t for the obsessive trolling of Morgan Warstler. Jon, you should get a restraining order.
I’d probably read the comments and contribute more if it weren’t for the obsessive trolling of Morgan Warstler. Jon, you should get a restraining order.
I would read the comments much less frequently if it were not for Morgan. A troll’s only purpose is to be provocative and incite a fight. Morgan brings a lot of good info to the discussion. Just because you don’t agree with him is no reason to evict him from the debate.
I would read the comments much less frequently if it were not for Morgan. A troll’s only purpose is to be provocative and incite a fight. Morgan brings a lot of good info to the discussion. Just because you don’t agree with him is no reason to evict him from the debate.
I would read the comments much less frequently if it were not for Morgan. A troll’s only purpose is to be provocative and incite a fight. Morgan brings a lot of good info to the discussion. Just because you don’t agree with him is no reason to evict him from the debate.
I would read the comments much less frequently if it were not for Morgan. A troll’s only purpose is to be provocative and incite a fight. Morgan brings a lot of good info to the discussion. Just because you don’t agree with him is no reason to evict him from the debate.
Or maybe, adverse selection isn’t really much of a problem at all:
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2005/12/adverse_selecti.html
Maybe, it’s not fair for 20 million young people to forego buying insurance so they can better fund their nightlife only to expect free healthcare when the unforeseen happens. Maybe “pre-existing condition” premiums are an appropriate incentive for people to buy insurance while they’re healthy, rather than try and selfishly cheap out on the coverage and then expect the other contributors to the pool to pick up the tab.
The EPIC FAIL of this “reform” debate is the absolute absence of discussion about personal responsibilities and the incentives that shape them.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32306655/ns/health-health_care
It’s pathetic, but then, it’s also political pandering. When a large chunk of your electorate is fat,it’s not politically expedient to say “Lay off the doughnuts, or pay for your stupidity”. That, of course, would take actual courage.
http://www.obesityinamerica.org/
As is always the case, it’s much easier for the DC hacks to offer a free lunch.
http://st4tic.wordpress.com/2008/04/25/corn-subsidies-how-congress-is-shortchanging-our-health-and-sweetening-things-for-the-food-industry/
There isn’t a REAL debate going on right now. It’s just a big show. In the background, the same corporations that pushed through medicare/managed care are hard at work.
lame.
Or maybe, adverse selection isn’t really much of a problem at all:
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2005/12/adverse_selecti.html
Maybe, it’s not fair for 20 million young people to forego buying insurance so they can better fund their nightlife only to expect free healthcare when the unforeseen happens. Maybe “pre-existing condition” premiums are an appropriate incentive for people to buy insurance while they’re healthy, rather than try and selfishly cheap out on the coverage and then expect the other contributors to the pool to pick up the tab.
The EPIC FAIL of this “reform” debate is the absolute absence of discussion about personal responsibilities and the incentives that shape them.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32306655/ns/health-health_care
It’s pathetic, but then, it’s also political pandering. When a large chunk of your electorate is fat,it’s not politically expedient to say “Lay off the doughnuts, or pay for your stupidity”. That, of course, would take actual courage.
http://www.obesityinamerica.org/
As is always the case, it’s much easier for the DC hacks to offer a free lunch.
http://st4tic.wordpress.com/2008/04/25/corn-subsidies-how-congress-is-shortchanging-our-health-and-sweetening-things-for-the-food-industry/
There isn’t a REAL debate going on right now. It’s just a big show. In the background, the same corporations that pushed through medicare/managed care are hard at work.
lame.
Or maybe, adverse selection isn’t really much of a problem at all:
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2005/12/adverse_selecti.html
Maybe, it’s not fair for 20 million young people to forego buying insurance so they can better fund their nightlife only to expect free healthcare when the unforeseen happens. Maybe “pre-existing condition” premiums are an appropriate incentive for people to buy insurance while they’re healthy, rather than try and selfishly cheap out on the coverage and then expect the other contributors to the pool to pick up the tab.
The EPIC FAIL of this “reform” debate is the absolute absence of discussion about personal responsibilities and the incentives that shape them.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32306655/ns/health-health_care
It’s pathetic, but then, it’s also political pandering. When a large chunk of your electorate is fat,it’s not politically expedient to say “Lay off the doughnuts, or pay for your stupidity”. That, of course, would take actual courage.
http://www.obesityinamerica.org/
As is always the case, it’s much easier for the DC hacks to offer a free lunch.
http://st4tic.wordpress.com/2008/04/25/corn-subsidies-how-congress-is-shortchanging-our-health-and-sweetening-things-for-the-food-industry/
There isn’t a REAL debate going on right now. It’s just a big show. In the background, the same corporations that pushed through medicare/managed care are hard at work.
lame.
Or maybe, adverse selection isn’t really much of a problem at all:
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2005/12/adverse_selecti.html
Maybe, it’s not fair for 20 million young people to forego buying insurance so they can better fund their nightlife only to expect free healthcare when the unforeseen happens. Maybe “pre-existing condition” premiums are an appropriate incentive for people to buy insurance while they’re healthy, rather than try and selfishly cheap out on the coverage and then expect the other contributors to the pool to pick up the tab.
The EPIC FAIL of this “reform” debate is the absolute absence of discussion about personal responsibilities and the incentives that shape them.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32306655/ns/health-health_care
It’s pathetic, but then, it’s also political pandering. When a large chunk of your electorate is fat,it’s not politically expedient to say “Lay off the doughnuts, or pay for your stupidity”. That, of course, would take actual courage.
http://www.obesityinamerica.org/
As is always the case, it’s much easier for the DC hacks to offer a free lunch.
http://st4tic.wordpress.com/2008/04/25/corn-subsidies-how-congress-is-shortchanging-our-health-and-sweetening-things-for-the-food-industry/
There isn’t a REAL debate going on right now. It’s just a big show. In the background, the same corporations that pushed through medicare/managed care are hard at work.
lame.
Sometimes?
Sometimes?
Sometimes?
Sometimes?
Actually “Nazi” would imply a corporate power grab. Without a public option, that’s what this bill would be. If you force all Americans to buy a corporate insurance plan and government subsidizes plans for the poor (which would also be corporate insurance plans), that’s just more money in their pockets and more power to leverage against anything with the slightest scent of egalitarianism. I’m not implying that Obama is a fascist, but he is bowing to fascist corporate power. I am completely perplexed by this, but Allan Uthman at the Buffalo Beast makes a compelling argument:
The Democrats seem to be throwing this thing on purpose. The public option is DOA and was probably always meant to be. And it’s not because they’re wussy or incompetent. It’s because they’re corrupt. It’s because all they are is the sock puppet on the left hand of corporate hegemony. Bribery is legal in this country—we call it campaign finance.
No one seems to have a compelling argument against this. It’s especially true of the so-called “Blue Dog Democrats”.
Personally I think the whole Fascism vs. federal socialism argument is pointless. They’re two sides of the same coin. Centralized government power vs. centralized corporate power. I’ve mentioned this before on this blog. No one seems willing to consider a decentralized social democracy, much less Chomsky’s ideal of social anarchy. If you’re not familiar with these ideas PLEASE read up on them before you respond. They sound crazy on their face, but they do have merit.
If we were able to come up with and execute local solutions to health care, we wouldn’t need these corporations and we wouldn’t need the federal political power structure. This is why there’s so much propaganda coming from both of these parties. God forbid we learn how to do things ourselves or even try. If we tried we’d find out there are hundreds of pages of laws that prevent us from growing certain crops in our community gardens, or it’s illegal for us to install solar panels in certain neighborhoods. The law and our economic infrastructure is biased towards centralized authority and power. This bias will can be rapidly unraveled once we begin to understand we can do things for ourselves in our own communities.
Actually “Nazi” would imply a corporate power grab. Without a public option, that’s what this bill would be. If you force all Americans to buy a corporate insurance plan and government subsidizes plans for the poor (which would also be corporate insurance plans), that’s just more money in their pockets and more power to leverage against anything with the slightest scent of egalitarianism. I’m not implying that Obama is a fascist, but he is bowing to fascist corporate power. I am completely perplexed by this, but Allan Uthman at the Buffalo Beast makes a compelling argument:
The Democrats seem to be throwing this thing on purpose. The public option is DOA and was probably always meant to be. And it’s not because they’re wussy or incompetent. It’s because they’re corrupt. It’s because all they are is the sock puppet on the left hand of corporate hegemony. Bribery is legal in this country—we call it campaign finance.
No one seems to have a compelling argument against this. It’s especially true of the so-called “Blue Dog Democrats”.
Personally I think the whole Fascism vs. federal socialism argument is pointless. They’re two sides of the same coin. Centralized government power vs. centralized corporate power. I’ve mentioned this before on this blog. No one seems willing to consider a decentralized social democracy, much less Chomsky’s ideal of social anarchy. If you’re not familiar with these ideas PLEASE read up on them before you respond. They sound crazy on their face, but they do have merit.
If we were able to come up with and execute local solutions to health care, we wouldn’t need these corporations and we wouldn’t need the federal political power structure. This is why there’s so much propaganda coming from both of these parties. God forbid we learn how to do things ourselves or even try. If we tried we’d find out there are hundreds of pages of laws that prevent us from growing certain crops in our community gardens, or it’s illegal for us to install solar panels in certain neighborhoods. The law and our economic infrastructure is biased towards centralized authority and power. This bias will can be rapidly unraveled once we begin to understand we can do things for ourselves in our own communities.
For Dan, because I can’t find the Red Eye thread:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sM2_wguAv1c
For Dan, because I can’t find the Red Eye thread:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sM2_wguAv1c
For Dan, because I can’t find the Red Eye thread:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sM2_wguAv1c
Aug 13th: Voter trust Repubs over Dems in healthcare…
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/trust_on_issues
That’s just crazy. True, but crazy.
Aug 13th: Voter trust Repubs over Dems in healthcare…
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/trust_on_issues
That’s just crazy. True, but crazy.
“basket of goodies for insurance companies.” There’s your “health care reform legislation” in a nutshell. The more time that passes, the more the K Street Crowd and the “stake holders” with the points of their weapons pointed at Joe Sixpack’s heart have to work their magic, the more it will look like The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which has something for everyone except the ordinary person.
“basket of goodies for insurance companies.” There’s your “health care reform legislation” in a nutshell. The more time that passes, the more the K Street Crowd and the “stake holders” with the points of their weapons pointed at Joe Sixpack’s heart have to work their magic, the more it will look like The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which has something for everyone except the ordinary person.
“basket of goodies for insurance companies.” There’s your “health care reform legislation” in a nutshell. The more time that passes, the more the K Street Crowd and the “stake holders” with the points of their weapons pointed at Joe Sixpack’s heart have to work their magic, the more it will look like The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which has something for everyone except the ordinary person.
The Onion said it best:
“People should know that every day we are working without their best interests in mind,” Reid said. “But the goal here is not to push through some watered-down bill that only denies health care to a few Americans here and a few Americans there. The goal is to recognize that all Americans have a God-given right to proper medical attention and then make sure there’s no chance in hell that ever happens.”
The Onion said it best:
“People should know that every day we are working without their best interests in mind,” Reid said. “But the goal here is not to push through some watered-down bill that only denies health care to a few Americans here and a few Americans there. The goal is to recognize that all Americans have a God-given right to proper medical attention and then make sure there’s no chance in hell that ever happens.”
The Onion said it best:
“People should know that every day we are working without their best interests in mind,” Reid said. “But the goal here is not to push through some watered-down bill that only denies health care to a few Americans here and a few Americans there. The goal is to recognize that all Americans have a God-given right to proper medical attention and then make sure there’s no chance in hell that ever happens.”
As somebody who’s spent years dealing with these attractive, young, wild-eyed persons from PIRG or LaRouche or the Planet Beyond, I really want to ask people to lay off the one that was caught on what became national TV. Congressman Frank surely knows that ilk, is aware of it, and is experienced with gentle dismissals, and yet here we seem him pounding a person who probably is more than a bit touched.
I conclude that Mr. Frank is more than a bit touched to have bothered to do so.
As somebody who’s spent years dealing with these attractive, young, wild-eyed persons from PIRG or LaRouche or the Planet Beyond, I really want to ask people to lay off the one that was caught on what became national TV. Congressman Frank surely knows that ilk, is aware of it, and is experienced with gentle dismissals, and yet here we seem him pounding a person who probably is more than a bit touched.
I conclude that Mr. Frank is more than a bit touched to have bothered to do so.
As somebody who’s spent years dealing with these attractive, young, wild-eyed persons from PIRG or LaRouche or the Planet Beyond, I really want to ask people to lay off the one that was caught on what became national TV. Congressman Frank surely knows that ilk, is aware of it, and is experienced with gentle dismissals, and yet here we seem him pounding a person who probably is more than a bit touched.
I conclude that Mr. Frank is more than a bit touched to have bothered to do so.
Also, len: that’s hilarious. Much needed comic relief.
Also, len: that’s hilarious. Much needed comic relief.
Also, len: that’s hilarious. Much needed comic relief.
Maybe Frank reacted that way because these people show up at every public meeting with the express purpose of disrupting, delaying, heckling and rattling.
Maybe his patience has worn thin.
It’s one thing to give polite dismissals to people who show up on your doorstep. It’s another if they constantly step into your workplace and interfere with your ability to do your job.
Maybe Frank reacted that way because these people show up at every public meeting with the express purpose of disrupting, delaying, heckling and rattling.
Maybe his patience has worn thin.
It’s one thing to give polite dismissals to people who show up on your doorstep. It’s another if they constantly step into your workplace and interfere with your ability to do your job.
Yeah, maybe so, Dan. They do get to be awfully tiresome. But when you’re the 600-lb. gorilla, like Mr. Frank, you really ought to pull it back. The best is when you can expose the frivolity and irrationality of such charges.
I don’t think–do you?–that that young woman is indicative of the healthcare questions being put by contrarians in the dwindling number of public hearings. Rather, I suspect that most questions, pro and con, are informed and relevant, so it makes me no happier to see this incoherent questioner singled out than it gladdens me to see Rep. Frank shown as such an intollerant and hyper-defensive legislator.
Yeah, maybe so, Dan. They do get to be awfully tiresome. But when you’re the 600-lb. gorilla, like Mr. Frank, you really ought to pull it back. The best is when you can expose the frivolity and irrationality of such charges.
I don’t think–do you?–that that young woman is indicative of the healthcare questions being put by contrarians in the dwindling number of public hearings. Rather, I suspect that most questions, pro and con, are informed and relevant, so it makes me no happier to see this incoherent questioner singled out than it gladdens me to see Rep. Frank shown as such an intollerant and hyper-defensive legislator.