Friends in odd places: A wide spectrum of groups file support for Christian Legal Society case 
Click to Print
Include Comments
“Hideously embarrassing for the right”
Republican communications consultant Jon Henke is calling on conservatives to boycott any advertisers at the rightist site WorldNetDaily – saying an article on the site is “hideously embarrassing for the right.”
The report alleges that Democrats are putting forward a bill which would create detention centers that “could be used as concentration camps for political dissidents, such as occurred in Nazi Germany.” (WND shows the article was published in February, so I’m not sure why Henke brings up the piece now, when there are plenty of other recent “birther” articles to pick on, but anyway….)
The Boston Herald checked out the bill to which WND was referring:
In truth, Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., has proposed a bill that would order the Homeland Security Department to prepare national emergency centers — to provide temporary housing and medical facilities in national emergencies such as hurricanes. The bill also would allow the centers to be used to train first responders, and for “other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security.”
Henke writes,
The Birthers are the Birchers of our time, and WorldNetDaily is their pamphlet….No respectable organization should support the kind of fringe idiocy that WND peddles. Those who do are not respectable.
Thoughts?
back to top201 Comments to ““Hideously embarrassing for the right””
Popular Mechanics has debunked a few of these concentration camp claims. It is embarrassing for the right, although we should never ever ever let our guard down. This country and our era are not immune.
Report comment to moderator
I dont know who vets and confirms the stories on WND. That site’s owner/editor, Mr Joseph Farrah, strikes me as a credible guy. But I too concede that some of the articles are a tad wingnutty.
Report comment to moderator
Rightwingers should disown WND. And that will happen as soon as the Left disowns/discredits The Progressive, MOTHER JONES and other hard-core leftwing agitprop masquerading as journalism
Report comment to moderator
I’m not sure what to believe on this one –
I don’t think the so called ‘right’ have anything to be ashamed of, – do we ALL KNOW THE WHOLE STORY? – Detention centers have been written about for some time now, it’s not new –
WorldNetDaily advertisers to be boycotted? – if that’s the case, why not boycott some of those on the left —- see how neat that works?
Are we going to have laws which prohibit free speech? – since January we have certainly had a number of instances where people have attacked the press – maybe the attackers should be scrutinized.
Report comment to moderator
I love a good boycott and would love to accommodate Jon Henke, but WND doesn’t seem to have a very good selection of advertisers in the first place. Despite the 2009 Bible Bee suffering a serious loss of bank because of my refusal to support their sponsorship of World Mag, I can’t find anyone advertising on WND that I could possibly boycott. But maybe actual conservatives worried about being embarrassed will have better luck. Is there a link between believing in right-wing conspiracy theories and wanting to shape and tone your mid-section without exercise?
Report comment to moderator
FOX news has been attacked over and over again – are we looking at those who are angry over FOX? – take a look at the ratings, FOX on top in almost every news hour, CNN and MSNBC? – check out the numbers –
The citizens of this country want fair news, that is why FOX has taken the lead – there most likely are those on the right and left who are concerned about it – maybe they weren’t the right to begin with.
Report comment to moderator
If the intent of RICO can be stretched in a way that would make a contortionist green with envy, who’s to say Alcee Hastings proposed bill wouldn’t engender “new and improved” meaning? Look at what the SCOTUS did to The Constitution. They ‘discovered’ rights that no mere mortal could possibly find.
Report comment to moderator
Since when (in the last 30 years) have Republicans worried about being embarrassed by being caught in a lie????
I say y’all keep supportin’ WND – the same way you supported Bush-Cheney, Sarah Palin, and Michael Steele. WND is no more a source of misinformation than most GOP party leaders!
Report comment to moderator
I’m sure this isn’t news to anyone here, but I’ve come to view the entire political Right with deep mistrust and suspicion. Perhaps this is an image problem more than a substance problem, but the craziness doesn’t seem confined to just WND.
When Palin’s “death panels” and Cheney’s “it’s not torture” arguments dominate the Right, when people carry assault rifles to town hall meetings, when people who supported warrantless wiretapping and torture and extraordinary rendition and unlimited detention wave Obama-Hitler signs and decry tyranny, when Glenn Beck becomes the voice of the people, when death threats against the President of the United States increase 400% under the new administration, it becomes clear to me that the political Right has become a haven of stark raving crazy.
I’m not saying all right-wingers are crazy. I know any love and respect many intelligent and rational conservatives. But the movement as a whole is intellectually bankrupt right now. It has no ideas except an blind fear of government controlled by Democrats.
Report comment to moderator
This is nothing we haven’t seen before.
Health care bill provides for Medicare to cover doctor consultations: DEATH PANELS!!
A bill allows the government to protect the infrastructure by disconnected compromised computers from the network: CONTROL OF THE INTERNET!!
Michael Steele, based on absolutely nothing, tried to start a rumor that the Democrats want to deny health care to Republicans.
So yes, this hysterical mischaracterization of Hastings’ bill is as ridiculous as the rest, but WND is hardly the only source. It appears that the lunatic fringe has gone mainstream lately.
Report comment to moderator
Birthers, Tenthers, Creationists – face it folks – the GOP is the party of lies.
Report comment to moderator
“I know any love and respect many intelligent and rational conservatives. But the movement as a whole is intellectually bankrupt right now.”
? That’s some sort of disconnect on your part then. If you love and respect them, I would assume its because they offer rational, and intellectual ideas. Which means it’s not intellectually bankrupt and since you know many of these…it seems it would challenge the whole.
Blame the bill writers for putting “end of life” in the bill, Cheney is his own man, and was it not a democrat holding the “hitler/obama” sign in the first place?
Report comment to moderator
JJF
The left has left what this country stands for, the right to free speech, and the most important they have fallen prey to SOCIALISM – Socialism has wound a cocoon around the left to the point they aren’t able to see anything but equality through someone else’s hard work –
The presidents ratings are falling like a bolder during an earthquake, and all the leftists can do now is wimper.
57% Would Like to Replace Entire Congress This came out yesterday, Sunday, August 30, 2009
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 57% would vote to replace the entire Congress and start all over again. Eighteen percent (18%) are not sure how they would vote.
Rasmussan Reports
SOCIALISM is not what the American people want –
We don’t want the Socialist health bill
We don’t want Obama to control private internet service
We don’t want any of Obama’s spread the wealth plan
Do you people understand it when the tide has turned, people who bought into this nonsense are now WIDE AWAKE!
Report comment to moderator
Oh yeah – and there’s old fashion red-baiting in the form of crying “SOCIALISM”
Just one more lie. The fact that lying like this convinces some people doesn’t make it right, it just indicates how gullible the American public is.
Report comment to moderator
See the link: RED BAITING
for a description of just one of the GOP’s favoritie disinformation tools
Of course, Victoria will warn you not to go to Wikipedia and advise you to go straight to FOX news instead, where you won’t have to worry about those pesky things called “facts.”
Report comment to moderator
I don’t have to warn people not to go to Wikipedia – teaching institutions don’t accept it as being reliable – - but of course if you’re stuck with no other alternative than by all means hop over to Wikipedia for info -
Report comment to moderator
Why wasn’t Rev. Jeremiah Wright “hideously embarrassing” for the entire left? Why wasn’t he even all that embarassing for Barack and Michelle Obama, who revered him for 20 years as a mentor?
Report comment to moderator
If the article is unsound, then the author should be embarrassed. The publication should have the opportunity to take it down, if it’s proven to be unsound. Otherwise, it’s just free speech.
But that’s not enough for those who are constantly looking for any excuse to smear the entire “right.”
Report comment to moderator
JJF wrote; “I’ve come to view the entire political Right with deep mistrust and suspicion.”
That’s an awful lot of decent human beings to feel so deeply disdainful toward, JJF. Where did you get this bigotry twoard sush a huge block of Americans? I guess it’s a lot easier to hate and disrespect a huge group of people than to actually listen to them respectfully.
Report comment to moderator
Wasn’t it hideously embarrassing to the left when they reacted so hysterically and irrationally to the Patriot Act which helped law enforcement protect us from further terrorist attacks without limiting the rights of any decent citizen (which it didn’t of course)?
And where are those hystericalIt critics of Obama for continuing so many of Bush administration policies in the war on terror?
It seemed to me that the trumped up claims that citizen’s rights were being taken away by the Bush administration were “Chicken Little” screams bloody murder. “The sky is falling?” The ske did NOT fall and the American people were protected.
Which huge ideological category of citizens should be hideously embarrassed when Bush critics and others claim that bombs were placed in the World Trade Center buildings before 9/11?
Report comment to moderator
When you disagree with someone, can you just disagree with them? Don’t try to smear an entire ideological option or worldview.
Maybe it’s because many critics of the right cannot rationally argue against the “right” that they try to find anecdotal examples or red herrings to try to use to discredit the whole “right,” without actually arguing with them on the merits.
Report comment to moderator
Left, right, up, down, its all just a merry-go-round. Hold on tight.
Blessings
Roger
Report comment to moderator
Not necessarily. I have some deeply misinformed family members whom I love dearly, and who have many qualities I respect, but their political judgment isn’t one of them.
In general, the problem is one of misinformation. The Right has the view that most sources of information are not to be trusted. Whatever historical factors led to it, they believe what they see on Fox or hear on Rush, because they have admitted these as trustworthy sources. Part of the club. But all other sources of information are believed to hold some secret agenda that causes them to lie and mislead.
So people who are perfectly rational in most areas of their lives can make entirely ignorant comments about death panels deciding who lives and dies, about Obama not really being a citizen, etc. They are up against a massive propaganda machine.
The bill writers are not responsible for partisan hacks intentionally deceiving people. The bill’s provisions for end of life counseling had nothing resembling death panels, and nothing that Republicans hadn’t already supported for Medicaid patients.
Cheney is not “his own man.” He speaks for a large segment of the Right. Maybe the majority. And Chris Wallace certainly fawned all over him in his recent interview. Just as Sarah Palin, ostensibly “her own woman,” speaks for a large segment of the Right. And that is exactly my problem with them.
Many people have held Obama-Hitler signs, hung Democratic representatives in effigy, or called Obama a Nazi. The fact that one of them was a Democratic LaRouche supporter does not let the others off the hook.
Yes. This includes Republican voters who are” disenchanted with their team as much as the Congress itself: 69% of GOP Voters say Republicans in Congress are out of touch with the party base.”
I’d like to know what percentage of that is saner minds tired of the clowns representing them, and what percentage is the GOP being turned on by the monster it created. (e.g., “Where is his birth certificate, sir?”)
Report comment to moderator
Roger,
Is that how you view our country, just a merry-go-round?
Report comment to moderator
Fair enough. My criticism is broad because irrational beliefs and abhorrent rhetoric is widespread. At least, they get a lot of media attention.
Some percentage of people on the Right believe, or pretend to believe, that the government intends to set up “death panels” that decide who lives and who dies. The fact that the government already takes care of the elderly with Medicare and hasn’t done this would be, you’d think, a forceful rebuttal. But the belief is irrational. Those people who believe it I consider under the sway of an entirely irrational fear ginned-up by those who have a political or economic ulterior motive.
Some percentage of people on the Right believe, as Dick Cheney believes, that torture is justified in the defense of America and government secrecy is tantamount. With stunning irony, they tend to be the same people who fear “tyranny” in the form of offering consumers a public health care option. Those people who believe it I consider under the sway of a hopelessly immoral nationalism.
Some small percentage of people on the Right wish that Obama would die. They pray for it in their churches and they insinuate it when a reporter is asking them why they brought an assault rifle to a town hall meeting. And they threaten it. A 400% increase in threats on the President’s life. How do you explain that? Those are your people. Sure, you may disagree with them on this issue, but politically they are your allies.
<blockquoteThat’s an awful lot of decent human beings to feel so deeply disdainful toward, JJF.
As I tried to express above, I do not disdain those people. I disdain the movement they have fallen in with. Believe it or not, I respect you, Joel. You have intelligent and fair things to say. But I have no respect for the political movement you have allied yourself with. I see very little that is intelligent or fair coming out of the Right (as a media and political movement).
For example, I respect your critique that I am unfairly broad in my criticism. It is something I will think about. But I do respect the propaganda machine that scares Americans with death panels, that supports torture, and that obliquely encourages violent rebellion.
Report comment to moderator
*should be “I do not respect the propaganda machine”
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza and JJF are just spinning what Daily Kos and other left wing sites tell them to spout, so don’t be too put off by them. For all we know they probably work in the Obama administration and just come on here to see if they can get the majority of Americans worked up.
Remember the majority of Americans do not support Obamacare, socialism, cap and tax and many other Progressive utopian dreams. Obama may have won a majority of votes last November but I believe a lot of people are beginning to wake up and see him as the person that many people saw him as last November, a socialist who doesn’t love his country and wants to hand power over to a federal government incapable of running anything much less our health care , the environment or any other freedoms we used to have. Obama does not love this country, he wants to hand the minority fringe nuts the keys to the country and then sit back and be their ruler.
I love freedom so no matter how much respect I have for the office of the presidency, it will be very hard for me to respect the person holding that office as long as he insists on stealing more and more freedom and handing that freedom to fringe minority groups and the union.
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza and JJF are just spinning what Daily Kos and other left wing sites tell them to spout, so don’t be too put off by them. For all we know they probably work in the Obama administration and just come on here to see if they can get the majority of Americans worked up.
Who’s spinning???
Report comment to moderator
I don’t have to warn people not to go to Wikipedia – teaching institutions don’t accept it as being reliable –
They certainly consider it to be more reliable than FOX NEWS!
Report comment to moderator
JJF,
I can take your whole recent post, and flip and reverse it.
So the problem is not republican or democrat, the problem is politics. It’s all propaganda with vague truth from either side. To deny that of your own party, is well, blind in the least.
The health bill clearly uses the term “end of life”. End of Life means Death. It’s a negative conotation and you easily set up the Republican politcal propaganda machine to use it…
Good job on giving Palin a platform.
I dont agree with her use of it either, I do suggest you could write better.
If you cant disseminate the propaganda via your non biased nextworks such as CNN, MSNBC, the internet, etc then Democrats have a problem with communication in the least.
The whole purpose of health reform is to actually reform the high costs. No democrat has ever expressed how that is possible under this current health reform bill. Aside from the “misinformations”, the actual bill does not address it. The two biggest expenses are overtesting and administration and all this bill does is complicate more of that.
In other words, as great as a notion as it is, the bill will fail to do anything effectively.
By the way, the cap and trade bill isnt exactly cap and trade…its more top down regulation your administration promised to avoid.
“69% of GOP Voters say Republicans in Congress are out of touch with the party base.””
Yup they are out of touch…take a look at the last 8 years, conservatives dont want excessive spenders, they want fiscally conservative representatives. I wonder how many Obama supporters, actually thought he was gonna spend less than Bush…
Your getting a chance to do things better, and yet Dems are failing just as much. Why? Because you have morons like Pelosi and Biden running the show that equate to the morons of the republican side.
Report comment to moderator
I have claimed that the Right, as a mass political and ideological movement, is intellectually bankrupt and offers nothing except scare tactics.
Exhibit A
I just happened to be reading it, and thought it worth a mention given my earlier comments. Tucker Carlson acts like a clown who has nothing but Canada jokes. He refuses to answer readers’ questions substantively.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria, who do you think you’re kidding. You were quoting Wiki yourself just a few days ago…Try taking your own advice for once.
Report comment to moderator
I, having no dog in the fight, declare
So there you are.
Report comment to moderator
#22 Roger, politics does seem like a merry-go-round—or a pendulum. What is your take on the ‘birther’ movement—people who claim that Obama is not a natural born citizen?
Report comment to moderator
Are you really arguing for greater obfuscation in bills, Thorn, so that political opponents can’t pick out a phrase to misrepresent?
I will point out that when Republicans passed a bill extending Medicare payments for end of life counseling, Democrats didn’t gin up fear about government death panels.
It is a patently dishonest tactic. You admit as much, but act like it’s all part of the game so it’s OK.
How about insisting on honest debate instead?
Report comment to moderator
IAF: Spinoza and JJF are just spinning what Daily Kos and other left wing sites tell them to spout, so don’t be too put off by them. For all we know they probably work in the Obama administration and just come on here to see if they can get the majority of Americans worked up.
When you can’t refute the message, attack the messenger, eh?
Report comment to moderator
I think the most hideously embarrassing thing, perhaps, ever said on the senate by an elected American politician was this:
* “Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens.”
Who offered these wildly unture smears about Ropbert Borkm, a highly qualified nominee and distinguished Yale professor and unquestionablly decent man who sustained no hints of scandal in his life? It was Senator Ted Kennedy, Democrat (June, 1987), scurrilously and falsely attacking a decent Supreme Court nominee, and changing the landscape of American politics for the worse for the next generation.
It changed the landscape for the worse because it actually worked. Such tactics were encouraged by this outcome. That may have been one of the lowest point in the partisan history of American politics. Demonizing conservatives falsely has been a national sport ever since.
Kennedy’s hate-speech should have been roundly condemned at the time but it wasn’t–not even by shocked Republicans. They had no idea such vitriol would get traction and be effective. That’s embarrassing.
__________________
Report comment to moderator
A few posters here used to think that was Joel Mark’s job during the Bush years. I have no idea, but he made it difficult to determine with the occasional ambiguous remark like “I love blogging, and getting paid to do what you love is fantastic” or something like that.
But I don’t know.
In any case, I’m certainly not getting paid to post here. Just look at my posting record. Every now and again I realize that posting on a blog like this is shouting into the void, and it doesn’t change anybody’s mind (mine or other poster’s), and it takes up too much of my time, and it makes me cranky, so I just vanish for a couple weeks.
But I keep coming back. :\
Report comment to moderator
But the movement as a whole is intellectually bankrupt right now. It has no ideas except an blind fear of government controlled by Democrats.
That’s it in a nutshell, so to speak. The right isn’t a platform, it’s The Stand. Pure tactics. Faced with humiliating failures and defeats, Republicans are interpreting their troubles as the end of the world, which everybody knows will be the conflict between absolute good and irredeemable evil. The hidden truth behind the crazy talk of death panels, concentration camps, palace guards, socialism, fascism, Democrat autocracy, etc. is that if you have eyes to see, that’s exactly what’s really going on . . . latently if not yet overtly. Republicans are yelling “fire” because they really do think they smell something.
Report comment to moderator
My criticism of WND is that it is almost a cyber tabloid. They run at frequent interval stories about “finding” Noah’s Ark and other stuff. [Note: I do believe in a worldwide flood and I accept the Genesis account] Just lotsa flaky fringe stuff tends to discredit the website.
Certainly all the bruhaha over OBama’s birth certificate has only reinforced the image of conservatives as the “black helicopter” wingnut caucus.
Report comment to moderator
“It is a patently dishonest tactic. You admit as much, but act like it’s all part of the game so it’s OK.
How about insisting on honest debate instead?”
That’s my whole entire point if you read carefully.
On my suggestion to write bills better, yes you can write better, as to avoid misrepresentation or misinformation. Not completely, but end of life, you must agree is a poor term?
Is it just for old people? I assume you have to be senior citizen to get it or is there no age qualification?
Why cant i get “end of life” couseling now at 29?
“I will point out that when Republicans passed a bill extending Medicare payments for end of life counseling, Democrats didn’t gin up fear about government death panels.”
Did they use “end of life” as the term? Why would Dems drum up fear if they are “supposedly” for it? If it was passed in the last 8 years, it was passed by a bunch of Dems who like to label themselves Republicans…
Now aside from the silly points above, and on to the more honest debating.
Why, do we need a whole reform and an inclusion in this new bill, if this has already been provided for under Medicare????? Youve just weakened the bill even further. If it’s just for hte “public option”, I’ve already debated the point that if the public option is competative at all, it will have 250 million switching to it in a heartbeat. Which renders the private industry a very small market share, which will not lower health care costs…and whether or not it will keep the same quality care remains to be seen.
Report comment to moderator
#38 “A few posters here used to think that was Joel Mark’s job during the Bush years.”
Hmmm….now that would explain a few things. What say you JM? Sounds like a dream/nightmare job if it’s so.
JJF, I also get tired from time to time, but I come back eventually. Mostly to find out if Reader has worn you and Harris out on an economics thread, or to see if Mumsee still has mice. I do lurk on some of the more indepth conversations, even if I don’t comment.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Henke is exactly right.
I don’t visit The Next Right very often, but it’s a pretty good site.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn at 41: On my suggestion to write bills better, yes you can write better, as to avoid misrepresentation or misinformation. Not completely, but end of life, you must agree is a poor term?
Why? That’s what it’s about, getting advice about the medical options that will be available to you when you near the end of your life. What else would you call it?
It would be a perfectly fine term IF the opponents did not deliberately use it dishonestly. Rather than agree that that’s despicable, you try to shift the blame to the author of the bill.
You are trying to blame the maker of the match for the people who used it to set the fire.
Is it just for old people? I assume you have to be senior citizen to get it or is there no age qualification?
Why cant i get “end of life” couseling now at 29?
You can. Absolutely. All the bill does is provide for Medicare to cover it once every five years. If you do it at 29 you’ll need to see if your insurance will cover it or pay it out of pocket, but nothing stops you from doing so.
All of this is old ground. I don’t believe you don’t understand it by now.
Why, do we need a whole reform and an inclusion in this new bill, if this has already been provided for under Medicare????? Youve just weakened the bill even further.
Are you still talking about end-of-life care? The difference is that the Medicare Reform of 2003 provided coverage only for people with a terminal diagnosis. This expands it to include any Medicare recipient, in order to help with longer-range planning.
I’ve already debated the point that if the public option is competative at all, it will have 250 million switching to it in a heartbeat. Which renders the private industry a very small market share, which will not lower health care costs…and whether or not it will keep the same quality care remains to be seen.
Where do you pull 250 million from? That’s four-fifths of the entire population. The largest estimate I’ve seen comes from the Lewin Group, 88 million. The Congressional Budget Office says only 5 million. Nobody says anything close to 250 million.
So again, we see the right arguing with made-up numbers and feigned ignorance of easily available (and well-discussed here) information.
Report comment to moderator
I have never logged on to World Net Daily and I don’t listen to Rush Limbaugh, so no, I’m not embarrassed by any of this. Normal people will see this nonsense for what it is, just as normal people saw through Jeremiah Wright. Oh, that’s right, there weren’t enough normal people for that one.
I’d rather distrust government the way the Founders did than do whatever it says without a first thought, much less a second.
And this statement is absolute, idiotic nonsense: “Republicans are interpreting their troubles as the end of the world, which everybody knows will be the conflict between absolute good and irredeemable evil.”
Report comment to moderator
Let’s not blame everything on WND. EMILY BELZ did her bit for birthers by blaming it all on Obama.
LYNN VINCENT used to start off threads here with links to WND, as if she didn’t already have enough attitude of her own. I imagine she’ll cite WND in Palin’s book (assuming it cites sources).
On the other hand, the melancholy and sadly missed TONY WOODLIEF talked trash about WND.
If conservatives do boycott WND, bye bye VICTORIA. NIGHT TRAIN too.
Report comment to moderator
#43 LOL! You say you keep track of what you write. Look it up for yourself–I’m not doing it for you.
Report comment to moderator
‘create detention centers that “could be used as concentration camps for political dissidents, such as occurred in Nazi Germany.”’
‘The bill also would allow the centers to be used to train first responders, and for “other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security.”’
It seems to me that concentration camps could be considered “appropriate needs” by some.
Report comment to moderator
#46 I have never logged on to World Net Daily and I don’t listen to Rush Limbaugh…
Glad to hear it. My respect for you just went up 10 fold.
I’m not saying no one should look at questionable sites, but that shouldn’t be the primary source of news or information. I knew a minister who used to comb through People and other entertainment mags to get outrageous information that he would then focus on and use as examples of ‘the world’. It was not really a good thing because it was often taken out of context. One shouldn’t be ignorant of the extremes, but neither should one fill the mind with them. And it’s really deceptive to posit the extremes as typical, in my opinion.
Report comment to moderator
Why should I prove something I haven’t done – that’s doesn’t make sense LOL
That’s a false statement, because you have done it. And you did it after making such a big deal out of other people using Wiki.
LOL!
Report comment to moderator
The difference here is the right polices their own.
A few topics ago we discussed RNC chairman Michael Steele using scare tactics. I denounced it outright as did others. The right also denounces the lies here on WND.
The problem is that there are real radicals with extremist radical ideas that are vetted and well documented, but stupid people on the right give the left some red meat to obscure what is really happening.
Here I posted legitimate articles from legitimate sources that showed how Obama was appointing radical and extremist czars over various departments.
I got one response that I was posting misinformation. The rest of the leftists ignored it, I assume because it was just too radical to consider even though the documentation is available.
Why aren’t Republicans like Michael Steel discussing these issues. Obviously, the Republican leadership is vacuously absent.
- Dr. Emanual is a bioethicist who says doctors rely too much on the Hippocratic oath and should put society first. He recommends rationing care for people under 15 years and greater than 40 years of age. He says infants are of less value since there is no investment in them yet.
- Obama appointed an FCC “Chief Diversity Officer” Mark Lloyd. Did anyone hear that? A Chief Diversity Officer!! His plan as outlined in his book “Prologue to a Farce: Communications and Democracy in America” is to tax private radio stations with licensing fees to fund public ones to affect social change. Licensing will be allocated according to “how diverse” the station’s programming is. This is the guy who praised Chavez for taking over and controlling the national media.
- What about Obama’s new Green Czar Anthony (Van) Jones, a self-proclaimed Communist-Maoist and anti-police radical agitator whose claim to fame is promoting race-based green job allocation.
- Obama is about to appoint Cass Sunstein as Regulatory Czar. He is a disciple of Peter Singer an infanticide advocate and raving animal rights nut. He believes animals have the same rights as some humans, such as the mentally challenged.
So then, all of the most radical nuts and loons are coming out of the woodwork and being handed enormous power to radically change America. And to most lefties, rather than acknowledging that maybe some of these wackos go a little to far, fully support anything Obama says or does. Lefties apparently think that cows in court is wonderful and excitingly progressive.
- What about the new Civilian National Security Force. Obama promises “We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”
Anybody care?
Here is a question for the lefties: Can you name a single thing that Obama might say or do that you would consider going just a tad too far?
Report comment to moderator
DJ, I don’t read people either. I get three papers are the office: Star Ledger (NJ news and national) WSJ and NYT. I watch normal news — ABC or NBC. I don’t have cable, so I couldn’t pick Hannity or Beck, or whoever, out of a lineup. That is also true of lefty programs.
I do, however, know that you can spend your way out of debt, and what is true of a person is true on a larger scales as well.
And I am one of those 57% who would like to turn over the entire Congress. I don’t think any of them get it, not one.
Report comment to moderator
DJ – 52
PROVE IT –
You can’t prove it, that’s why you’re trying to make me prove I did something which I didn’t do – how dumb is that?
Don’t accuse me of doing something you can’t prove DJ, you’ve done this in the past in hopes of saying whatever you like without backing it up -
Report comment to moderator
No, they can’t, XION. I’ve been trying to say that for days. They will not face up to what you’ve posted, all of it true.
Report comment to moderator
#55 You can’t prove it, that’s why you’re trying to make me prove I did something which I didn’t do
Another false statement. You’re on a roll tonight. You wouldn’t apologize for your mistake if I did look it up, so I’m certainly not going to do it for you. If your memory is that bad, maybe you should keep better tabs on what you post.
Report comment to moderator
#56 NJL. The biggest problem I have with the left is that they won’t admit even they they believe. And so they will deny, deny and deny until someone slips up and spills the beans.
Then once the truth is out the lefties will admit that what they previously denied is now simply common sense. Well, why didn’t they just admit their own position up front? Nailing them down on what even they believe is 90% of the debate!
Report comment to moderator
You can’t nail them down, Xion, until the DNC tells them what they believe!
EVERY piece of legislation has a downside no matter who puts it into the hoppper. That’s the truth, and that’s what they can’t admit. What’s really wrong with them is they won’t stand up to each other. They are so afraid of not saying the accepted dialog. They want to “belong.”
Report comment to moderator
Ah, concentration camps…. not the first time something like that comes up. It’s a favorite meme of the fringe on left and right. You can find the fears going back to the 50s. During 2002-03 there were lefties seeing the same shadows.
But really, doesn’t anybody have a good cr** detector any more? The only way the totalitarian myth takes root is if you first decide the other side is fundamentally not like you (or to reverse it, that one’s own perspective is the obviously moral right etc etc etc.). The irony is that such demonization ends up pushing us towards a dehumanization, the very seedbed of the totalitarian impulse.
Report comment to moderator
Xion,
Well, if you’re talking about the extreme left as in Marxist or Communist, then of course they won’t tell you what they believe. If they did, that would be the end of their electability and if they were very vocal they would make Democrats unelectable. I have always thought that the extreme left (and right) was a very small percentage of the party, but I’m not so sure any more. Someone on this site said that he was actually a socialist.(I don’t remember who for sure.) Anyway, that did surprize me somewhat. Maybe it shouldn’t.
Report comment to moderator
DJ
I honestly feel sorry for you, even though I’m annoyed at your accusations. You’ve done this before accusing me of something which I haven’t done and then having the nerve to expect me to prove I did what I haven’t done.
You and I don’t agree on much at all, but this is ridiculous -
Report comment to moderator
Well, there were camps here in the USA in the forties, there were really bad camps in Europe, so those fears in the 50s were justified. I remember the Cuban missile crisis — my parents had lived through two world wars and saw a potential third one, and they knew what had happened in Japan. Times were tense until those Russian ships turned around.
You shouldn’t be surprised, DJ. Do you EVER read anything in their posts about the founding of this country? No.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria #43:
Here you go:
http://online.worldmag.com/2009/08/11/whirled-views-8-11/comment-page-1/#comment-453800
http://online.worldmag.com/2009/08/05/the-americas-legacy-of-slavery/comment-page-1/#comment-451751
Report comment to moderator
VICTORIA: Thats how I feel about many things. Mans attempt to bring in a Utopia is laughable in many ways. I love my country, but not to the extent of “My country, right or wrong.” I believe that we, as a country are reaping what we have sown. All great kingdoms fall and only the eternal kingdom of God will survive. As for me, I will do my best to pray for those who would hate me, for did not our Lord warn us that they hated Him before they hated us? I am also well aware thatalso
Blessings
Roger I can be caught up in useless contests of words. Nevertheless, I attempt to avoid them as much as I can. I sense that the longer these exchanges go on, the more anger is expressed on both sides of the argument. I am also aware of my own failures in this regard. I am sorry if you misread me. Sometimes I speak crypticly. And I have to leave it at that.
I do admire the fact that you stand firmly on the Word of God.
Blessings
Roger
Report comment to moderator
Buddyglass – 64
Yes, I psoted this, and as I said it was from Wikipedia – I knew it was accurate because my family knew the Carlson’s – so in essence I would know whether the story was correct or not. I also know Dr. Carolsons younger brother who is a doctor as well.
____________________________________________
http://online.worldmag.com/2009/08/05/the-americas-legacy-of-slavery/comment-page-1/#comment-451751
POST 71 – BY Victoria 08.06.09 AT 11:05 PM
I seldom use wikipedia but this appears to be accurate information. I was very young when this happened. I don’t remember Dr. Carlson at all, however my parents certainly did – the story is famous in Southern California – it was also published in Time and Life magazine.
Here is an excerpt of what happened to Dr. Carlson:
“Under the unstable leadership of Christopher Gbenye, the rebels accused Paul of being an American spy and took him as a hostage to Stanleyville, now Kisangani. Dr. Carlson was held here for over a year and was mentally and physically tortured. On November 24, 1964, during a rescue attempt by American and Belgian troops, Dr. Carlson was shot and killed by rebel gun fire. He was called the Congo Martyr and was on the front page of both Time and Life magazines.
His wife, Lois Carlson, wrote a biography on him called Monganga Paul.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Carlson
Report comment to moderator
1) Wikipedia can be a good resource when it is not something political or contentious. While schools don’t allow its use as a PRIMARY source, you can often use it as one of your secondary or tertiary sources.
2) I still haven’t had anyone adequately explain to me why it is okay to demonize “birthers” when the President can’t even produce a birth certificate or simple answers to simple questions that I would have to give in order to get a job anywhere. I think the Left just decided to demonize them, and portray them as stupid, because it took the heat off the President. What’s the name of that flawed logic tactic? It’s when you start calling the other side names rather than deal with their actual argument.
3) I think that any group of people that look to the Daily KOS and other assorted Left news sites ought to feel pretty hypocritical about accusing the Right of anything until they get that huge log out of their own eye.
Report comment to moderator
DJ: Time out!
Blessings
Roger
Report comment to moderator
Buddyglass
Which post# is on the LINK below that you wish me to see?
http://online.worldmag.com/2009/08/11/whirled-views-8-11/comment-page-1/#comment-453800
Report comment to moderator
Roger – 65
Thank you, very wise words indeed.
God bless you
Report comment to moderator
Roger, I had another post already written, but then I read your message at #68, and decided against it. God bless you brother.
Report comment to moderator
Harris, you nailed it.
And while I’m handing out compliments, good point by Joel in #37. Both sides bring out this kind of extreme attack.
Report comment to moderator
Buddyglass – OH YES, the picture of the sock-puppet – All this for a picture –
http://online.worldmag.com/2009/08/11/whirled-views-8-11/comment-page-1/#comment-453800
POST 119 – BY Victoria 08.11.09 AT 8:14 PM
I seldom use wikipedia, but this one has a photo, LOL – you have to see it!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet)
Report comment to moderator
I’ll note that quoting leftists in their own words (as in #53) generates complete silence. Eventually when they come to grips with the extreme radical writings of those being appointed to power, they will hang their head and go along willingly, saying things like, “Well, it must be good because Obama says so”. And since Republicans are evil, they must set aside reason and join the revolution.
Report comment to moderator
#72
Demonizing the oposition is a problem. But let me also say that you get absolutely hammered by both sides if you’re a moderate. I think both wings feel miffed that you dare to agree with them in some respects, but not enough to offer unwavering support.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry, Xion. You can’t post something at 6:30pm, then come back at 7:50pm and say, “no one has responded to me, because my argument cannot be refuted!”
The Left regularly criticizes Obama, who is a centrist president. They criticize him for not stopping the warrantless wiretapping like he promised, for not stopping extraordinary rendition like he promised, for maintaining other extralegal prisons, and for being apparently ready to drop the public option. Though I don’t consider myself a Leftist, I join in all those criticisms.
Where do you get this notion that the Left will never criticize Obama?
Glenn Greenwald tears into him every single week.
As for your specific comments, we have a problem of credibility. I do not trust your assessment of Obama’s appointments. You have quite thoroughly shown yourself to be a biased judge of these issues.
So I can’t speak for others, but I don’t answer your specific charges simply for the same reason I don’t argue with Mormons. I quite simply don’t credit their claims. As you say, not even the likes of Michael Steele credit these claims, apparently. When unbiased sources start raising these issues (with credible evidence), then I’ll come talk to you about it.
Report comment to moderator
#76 JJF “Sorry, Xion. You can’t post something at 6:30pm, then come back at 7:50pm and say, “no one has responded to me, because my argument cannot be refuted!” “
Actually I posted similar comments days ago. Still waiting.
The Left regularly criticizes Obama, who is a centrist president.
You’ve got to be kidding. Name anyone on the left who has ever criticized Obama. He was THE most liberal Senator. How is that Centrist? He has not only NOT spoken against any of the radical leftist philosophers, he has embraced them to the degree of appointing open and proud Communists and people who write papers praising Chavez, Castro, rationing health care, pushing for reparations and giving animals the right to appear in court!
As for your specific comments, we have a problem of credibility. I do not trust your assessment of Obama’s appointments.
Apparently quoting first hand sources on their OWN words is insufficient for you? Liberals who want to dodge an issue will attack the messenger instead of addressing the point.
Report comment to moderator
Xion,
The left leaning posters here refer to your links to facts about Obama and his associates, advisers, and friends, as “distractions”. You’re just confused about the terminology is all. Plenty of these criminals and radical leaning associates were brought up by many posters, you and I included, prior to the elections. I too was confused, but posters like Steve and JJF set me straight. Turns out those were just harmless coincidences. The fact that several now hold cabinet like, (but not quite because there’s 0% oversite, and still all the power to steer policy) positions, is also just a coincidence. To the left these are “distractions” from the message of Utopia that Obama promises daily, if they’ll just give him the power to enact it. Nothing must distract from the message of Hope/Change that Obama promised. It’s messy sometimes, but it’s for the best, or so they believe. That fact that radicals run wild thru the corridors of power is just a necessary evil. One they overlook because it suits them. The ends justify the means.
Report comment to moderator
#76 AJ, I understand what you are saying. Om Mani Padmi Obama! Cleansing breath! Cleansing breath! I feel better now. Thanks for setting me straight!
Report comment to moderator
I just did. I’ll do so again.
Glenn Greenwald. Bill Moyers. Bill Maher. Rachel Maddow. Keith Olbermann. Matt Taibi. Jeremy Scahill.
I don’t see any quotes in their own words in post #53, except one from Obama. For the rest of them, I just see your paraphrase. And I don’t trust your ability to paraphrase these people fairly.
Like I said, it’s the same reason I tell the Mormons, “No, I haven’t read the Book of Mormon.” I have no reason to. I have no expectation that it will in any way be a productive use of my time, either for my own edification or for arguing with the Mormons, who are beyond argument.
Maybe I’m wrong, but I vaguely remember that those few times I’ve followed one of your links and bothered to read the context and really understand what was being said, it was nothing like what you said was being said. And argument with you on it proved fruitless.
So I just stopped answering the door.
Report comment to moderator
#67: “I still haven’t had anyone adequately explain to me why it is okay to demonize “birthers” when the President can’t even produce a birth certificate or simple answers to simple questions that I would have to give in order to get a job anywhere.”
He did produce one. It was ratified as legitimate by Chiyome Fukino, Hawaii’s state health directory, as well as Alvin Onaka, registrar of vital statistics. Factcheck.org also had some staffers view it and they concluded it was legit. There was also a birth announcement in the Honolul Advisor on Aug. 13, 1961. Obama’s birth certificate lists his birthday as Aug. 4, 1961.
I’ve never had to have my birth certificate personally inspected by anyone in order to obtain employment. Usually a driver’s license and SS# is enough.
Additionally, you have stuff like Orly Taitz putting a purported Kenyan birth certificate online that was in fact a forgery made by a pro-Obama blogger. That’s eminently mock-worthy.
#73: “All this for a picture”
Sure. It wasn’t an important link. But it sure seems like you were maintaining you’ve never linked to Wikipedia when, in fact, you have.
#77: “You’ve got to be kidding. Name anyone on the left who has ever criticized Obama.”
He did, in the very post to which you’re responding. Glenn Greenwald.
Report comment to moderator
#80 JJF “I don’t see any quotes in their own words in post #53, except one from Obama. For the rest of them, I just see your paraphrase.”
OK, here is a little tip. If the text is RED, then it is a link. You can click on it and go to the actual quotes. My text is a paraphrase of what you just read.
Feel free to explain to us how Communists have good ideas. Explain to us how censoring the press, as Obama’s appointees have explained, is a good thing.
My guess is you will continue to deny this for several days. And finally when you are cornered you will profess that Communism is simply common sense. This pattern repeats itself endlessly.
Report comment to moderator
#64
Thanks for looking those up, BuddyGlass,
Report comment to moderator
#81: That is why arguing with birthers is just pointless. Obama produced his birth certificate, the state officials confirmed it was legitimate, and there are two birth announcements in the newspapers, and even though all that is common knowledge, TRS can still say, with a totally straight face that “the President can’t even produce a birth certificate.”
It’s a lost cause.
Report comment to moderator
#81 BuddyGlass, I realized when I posted the challenge to find any liberal who disagrees with Obama that it provides an out to avoid the actual debate. I regret that, since JJF and SteveG and others will never address the actual quotes.
It all comes down to the definition of a liberal, a group who detests all labels. Glenn Greenwald is a liberal, but his claim to fame is criticizing everyone. OK, you got me. Let’s forget that he is a member of the Cato Institute, etc.
Now will any liberal address the actual points? The strategy is always to argue about the argument and divert the conversation away from the actual topic. I shouldn’t have provided an easy out. For that I am sorry. Will anyone address the quotes?
Answer: NOPE!
Report comment to moderator
“Staffers view it” – that will never fly, people want to see the birth certificate – too many contradictions – IF it’s the real deal why not let the American people view it? Others supposedly viewed it, but than it’s locked back up again….. LOL – yep you can call all of us birther’s but it’s not going away.
Why is Obama afraid to let us see the birth certificate – he’s also kept his academic records from public view, why the SECRECY? –
Michelle’s ‘thesis’ was locked up, however she finally allowed it to be made public – it became clear WHY she would rather not have had it made public – I would have been embarrassed to have written such a thesis………… I believe Obama’s records aren’t much better – No one has ever needed a tele-prompter more than Obama, he’s lost without it.
Report comment to moderator
Anyone can call a newspaper and have a birth announcement printed – that proves nothing.
Report comment to moderator
Leading up to the election I pointed out that several Obama staffers were Communists. Never once did any liberal have a problem with that.
The criticisms of Obama from the left are almost always that his move toward Socialism are not occurring fast enough.
That is hardly a criticism. That would be like Heinrich Himmler’s criticism of Hitler that they just weren’t killing Jews fast enough. It is a criticism of sorts, but isn’t really disagreement by any usual use of the word.
Report comment to moderator
#54 “And I am one of those 57% who would like to turn over the entire Congress. I don’t think any of them get it, not one. ”
NJL,
I confess that I have often wanted to turn the entire congress out. But when they do get turned out, they end up being just as miserable a bunch (though in a different way usually)as the previous congress. I don’t agree with any of them much or for long. The parties are too alike at heart. The notable exceptions of course are the issues of abortion and gay marriage. Other than that, they are far too much alike for me to support either for long. Both cater to multinationals and Wall Street—while Main Street be damned with lip service. In my more cynical moments, I think the multinationals really do own and run the country. Fortunately, I am not by nature a cynic.
Report comment to moderator
#88
Wait a minute, Xion. I must have missed something. Who is a communist? And are they on staff at the WH?
Report comment to moderator
Xion: Everytime we address your specific points, you ignore the responses and return to insisting nobody’s responded, so really, why should we bother?
But ok, one more time:
- Dr. Emanual is a bioethicist who says doctors rely too much on the Hippocratic oath and should put society first. He recommends rationing care for people under 15 years and greater than 40 years of age. He says infants are of less value since there is no investment in them yet.
The kind of “rationing” that Betsy McCaughey accused Dr. Emanuel of is no different from the kind of rationing that private insurers do all the time. Now THAT is a point that gets ignored every time it gets made.
Unless there is an infinite pool of money, and neither public nor private health insurance has that, ultimately insurers have to make some decisions of what to cover and what not to.
This is a common propaganda tactic: Describe something that is a normal part of a business, but in breathless, horrified tones that imply your opponent is horrible and evil for doing so.
Now watch this: She says: He writes that one drug “used to treat metastatic colon cancer, extends medial survival for an additional two to five months, at a cost of approximately $50,000 for an average course of therapy.”
So, he’s evil for suggesting that $50,000 is too much to expect an insurer to spend for two added months of life. But if someone in his position suggested that an insurer should pay whatever the cost is for any added days or weeks, the critics would be bashing that person for spending far too much for a minimal benefit.
This is the guy who praised Chavez for taking over and controlling the national media.
Glenn Beck is lying, as usual. Lloyd’s statement, taken out of context, was not to “praise” Chavez; he was pointing out how dangerous it is for one political faction to take control of communications.
Another propaganda tactic: Claim someone means just the opposite of what they really do.
Obama is about to appoint Cass Sunstein as Regulatory Czar. He is a disciple of Peter Singer an infanticide advocate and raving animal rights nut. He believes animals have the same rights as some humans, such as the mentally challenged.</i<
From your Fox News link:
That’s a large part of the reason Sunstein’s positions on animal rights have become worrisome to his critics. Despite his assurances to the contrary, Sunstein has spoken stridently in favor of allowing people the right to bring suit on behalf of animals in animal cruelty cases and to restrict what he calls the more horrific practices associated with industrial breeding and processing of animals for food.
Well ya got me there, Xion. I’m against being cruel to animals to. If you’re for it, I guess you have to to oppose Mr. Sunstein.
Here is a question for the lefties: Can you name a single thing that Obama might say or do that you would consider going just a tad too far?
Sure. If I thought Obama actually was half the menace that the rightwing fringe thinks, I’d be terrified. But I’m not because, so far at least, none of those claims has come close to panning out.
Report comment to moderator
I suspect the reason Obama doesn’t want his birth certificate to be public knowledge is that his parants probably were not legally married. That would change either a lot or very little about him. He has taken the oath of office and after watching history reels of Watergate and having to turn off the tv during the Clinton years, I really am not looking forward to explaining what a true bas*&ard is.
I personally would go ahead and show the original and set an end to all the rumors if it were me, but it isn’t.
Report comment to moderator
Tell you what, Xion. If you want to discuss a particular quote, put it here with sufficient context to do justice to what the person was originally saying. Be as objective as you possibly can in presenting what the person actually said and meant, then fire away.
I’ll respond, and if I find what that person is saying abhorrent, I’ll say so.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG, Buddyglass: Apparently Obama has to produce his certificate so that millions of voters can file by and inspect it.
This whole thing is ridiculous.
Report comment to moderator
President Obama’s Radical Advisers Are Fighting for Revolution
August 31, 2009 By Glenn Beck
The most transparent White House in the history of the world still hasn’t answered the questions we asked last week. You know, tough questions like: “Why does the president have so many Marxists, socialists, radicals and self-proclaimed communists advising him?”
________another excerpt_________
So don’t expect the White House to apologize for hiring self-avowed communist green jobs “czar” Van Jones. If they did, Van might take offense to that — considering he named his son after a militant Marxist guerilla. Besides, why would the White House waste their time on this when liberal bloggers are doing their best to defend Van’s good name and his Wikipedia page is suddenly and mysteriously being updated to call him a “champion of market-based solutions?”
You see, Van Jones can’t possibly be a communist. Take it from former colleague Eva Paterson, who is president of the Equal Justice Society. Paterson admits that yes, for a while there Van was running around spouting 1960s rhetoric and romanticizing revolutionary icons (who hasn’t?) But that was years ago, she said.
Well, I’m not a mathematician, but remember Van Jones’ own description of his conversion to communism?
“In jail I met all these young radical people of color — I mean really radical, communists and anarchists. And it was, like, ‘This is what I need to be a part of. I spent the next 10 years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary’…. I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th… by August, I was a communist.”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,545040,00.html
Report comment to moderator
Matt Y. – 94
NO, it’s outrageous that the guy can’t bring it out in the open, along with his academic records – If I were in that situation I would have brought my birth certificate right up front, in fact made it a full page ad in the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, S.F. Chronicle, etc. ANY PAPER, ANY CITY!
But no, Obama can’t do that, I wonder WHY?
Report comment to moderator
#94 Yes. It is completely ridiculous. And even more ridiculous that otherwise intelligent people have nothing better to do than construct these fantasies for public consumption. It doesn’t help anything or anyone, except maybe a few wingnuts that have found a way to make a buck off of this crazy story. That wouldn’t surprize me a bit.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria – I don’t believe you were born in the US – please show birth certificate
Report comment to moderator
NJL – “EVERY piece of legislation has a downside no matter who puts it into the hoppper.”
Then by GOP logic – all laws should be abolished.
Report comment to moderator
Spin
I don’t hold a public office therefore no reason to produce birth certificate -
Report comment to moderator
Oh yes, a gem not to be missed. Obama is going to ‘green’ the cities, thereby saving the world. Applause by a bunch of black people, and a female overvoice in the end saying ‘And these dumb negros are applauding that…”
A gem not to be missed. NOT.
I’m still trying to figure out who the communist is Xion, but it will have to wait for tomorrow.
Good night all.
Report comment to moderator
Jesus was a communist …
Report comment to moderator
#100 – ok – but you no forfeit the royal right to distribute “bongs”.
Report comment to moderator
#91 I am happy to report that SteveG has crossed over into stage two of liberals rationalization.
Stage 1, as you all recall is to deny, deny, deny until some liberal slips up and says what they actually means.
Stage 2 is reached when a liberal finally admits that we’ve pinned them on what they actually believe. At this stage the tactic is to justify, justify, justify.
SteveG, ignores the call by Obama’s health care adviser to colndemn the Hippocratic Oath and care more for society than for their patients. He also ignores the call to ration health care to those under 15 and over 40. Instead …
What does SteveG conclude? That what Dr. Death is proscribing is no different than what private health insurance companies do all the time. So get over it!
That is a blatant falsehood, of course, since no doctor is encouraged to put society’s needs over their patients, except for abortionists.
And I would have loved for some liberal to tell that to Teddy Kennedy who was cared for right up until his last breath. Under Dr. Emanuel (which means God with Us), Kennedy would have been dead years ago. Do liberals care? Nope!
Glenn Beck is lying, as usual. Lloyd’s statement, taken out of context, was not to “praise” Chavez; he was pointing out how dangerous it is for one political faction to take control of communications.
Um, and just which political faction was in control and what political faction took over by revolution and was praised for it? Oh right. Free market bad. Socialism good. Right, got it.
SteveG, You will go to any length, scale any obstacle to praise everything Obama has ever said and anyone he has ever appointed.
One thing I congratulate you on though. So much time is wasted with liberals who won’t move past stage 1. I am thankful you admit to being fully on board with anything and everything Obama’s compatriots have ever uttered. I appreciate your honesty. Peace brother!
Report comment to moderator
#102 DJ “I’m still trying to figure out who the communist is Xion, but it will have to wait for tomorrow.”
Anthony (aka Van) Jones. as I and others have already said.
Report comment to moderator
Xion: What does SteveG conclude? That what Dr. Death is proscribing is no different than what private health insurance companies do all the time. So get over it!
That is a blatant falsehood, of course, since no doctor is encouraged to put society’s needs over their patients, except for abortionists.
No, but insurance companies are encouraged — and in fact, usually required, by business necessities if nothing else — to put their profit motives over patients. You subtly shift from the insurance companies I talked about to doctors, which I didn’t mention.
Unless you know of a company that has a bottomless bucket of money and will cover anything and everything without exclusion, all of them engage in some degree of decision-making. You can call it “rationing” when you’re talking about the government, but it is simply dishonest to imply there’s anything unusual about it.
And of course, the government plan will need to do less of it than private companies, because there’s no profit motive — which is also something you’ve raised as a criticism elsewhere. You can’t have it both ways.
Um, and just which political faction was in control and what political faction took over by revolution and was praised for it? Oh right. Free market bad. Socialism good. Right, got it.
No, liar. He didn’t “praise” Chavez. He pointed out how much Chavez was able to do by controlling the message, which is exactly why we NEED a “diversity” czar … to keep one side or the other from dominating the public airwaves, which once upon a time were considered a public trust.
I give up. You are utterly blind to everything you don’t want to see, and trying to talk to you is a pointless waste of time.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria: I don’t hold a public office therefore no reason to produce birth certificate –
So you can’t do it?
Report comment to moderator
Can’t do what Steveg? – give you my personal information? – NO I wouldn’t give you my birth certificate, you don’t deserve to have it -
Report comment to moderator
SteveG, JJF: Can you show that Lloyd’s comments actually were taken out of context? Leftists have been known to praise Chavez, as explained here.
(From a book written by Lloyd):
“It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press. This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.
“[T]he purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance.”
Then, from June 10, 2008:
“In Venezuela, with Chavez, is really an incredible revolution – a democratic revolution. To begin to put in place things that are going to have an impact on the people of Venezuela.
“The property owners and the folks who then controlled the media in Venezuela rebelled – worked, frankly, with folks here in the U.S. government – worked to oust him. But he came back with another revolution, and then Chavez began to take very seriously the media in his country.
“And we’ve had complaints about this ever since.”
Link
Report comment to moderator
Oops, the line, “Then, from June 10, 2008:”, should not have been italicized.
Report comment to moderator
So Victoria, do you deserve to have Obama’s birth certificate?
Yes, Obama, as President, must be born in the United States. But there are those, such as Chiyome Fukino, Hawaii’s state health directory, as well as Alvin Onaka, registrar of vital statistics, who are qualified to verify his credentials. They have done so. There are also very good groups out there, such as Factcheck.org (who also criticize Democrats frequently, if you pay attention), who can examine things like this. They have done so. Their findings are trustworthy. The ravings of Birthers like Orly Taitz and others, who come up with forgeries, are NOT trustworthy.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria: Can’t do what Steveg? – give you my personal information? – NO I wouldn’t give you my birth certificate, you don’t deserve to have it –
Hmmm … you could clear all this up if you would just produce the birth certificate.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t know what quote we’re talking about. I’m still waiting for Xion to provide a substantial passage and tell me what he finds dangerous about it.
It is hard to comment on the two snippets you provided without a little more context. This guy claims that global corporations warp free speech to block rules that would promote democratic governance. Is this something so monstrous he shouldn’t have said it? Is it even a false statement? I think, for example, about lobbyists buying influence in Congress because corporate money is considered protected “speech.” I think of dishonest political ads paid for by corporate-funded groups like the American Center for Prosperity (name may be wrong).
Are these not problems for a healthy democracy?
I’d agree that denying groups a right to free speech would be a greater problem, but I see no danger in recognizing the problems.
Perhaps a little more context would prove me wrong, but it seems dishonest (and frankly silly) to take these very short passages and construct this idea that Lloyd is against freedom of speech.
That would be like saying I was against ice cream if I mildly demurred that it might not be a healthy breakfast.
Report comment to moderator
I certainly do deserve to see for myself Obama’s birth certificate – anyone who wants to run for President of the USA must be born here, as president I have never been given the opportunity of looking at his birth certificate ….. as to this date no one has seen the EXACT birth certificate, except those FEW who are deemed worthy of such a look-see – The president of this country works for us, he is obligated to prove who he is, where he was born – we also should have access to his academic records -
Report comment to moderator
#37
women would be forced into back-alley abortions CHECK
segregated public universities CHECK
rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids . . . and haul professors out of their houses in broad daylight for yelling, and then get invited to the White House when the charges are dismissed CHECK
schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution CHECK
writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government . . . reporters too CHECK
and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens . . . as demanded by the Chamber of Commerce and the American Bankers Assn, CHECK
Besides which, Bork’s sorry hack of a career has vindicated the judgment that he had nothing to offer. Don’t forget, many Repubs voted against Bork. Even before his confirmation fiasco, state universities were rejecting Bork’s applications to join their faculties — I know, because an uncle of mine was on a committee that told him no.
Truly, the Redemptorist father at Our Lady of Perpetual Help spoke for millions here and on the further shore when he declared that Teddy Kennedy’s public career exemplified compassion and service, and was a wonderful preparation for Teddy’s eternal life in heaven.
Report comment to moderator
It’s just this sort of game you play, that makes whatever else you try to convince us of, as amounting to zero -
Report comment to moderator
#86: “IF it’s the real deal why not let the American people view it?”
Because it will just fuel the controversy? Besides, which American people? The two American people whose job it is to ratify that the birth certificate is legitimate did so.
#87: “Anyone can call a newspaper and have a birth announcement printed – that proves nothing.”
It proves that if there is indeed a conspiracy to fake Obama being born in Hawaii, that it was set in motion very shortly after he was actually born. Did someone forsee, back then, that he would one day run for president, and would need to be a natural born citizen? One of his parents was a U.S. citizen. Even had he been born in Kenya, the route to U.S. citizenship would have been pretty straightforward, so I’m not seeing a motive on his parents’ part to “fake” him being born in Hawaii.
#88: “The criticisms of Obama from the left are almost always that his move toward Socialism are not occurring fast enough.”
Those are still criticisms. It actually puts you in a tough spot. On the one hand, you argue Obama is an ultra-liberal and not a centrist. On the other you admit that, when it criticizes Obama, “the Left” typically does so for his failure to be liberal “enough”. So is he “ultra-liberal” or “not liberal enough”?
Report comment to moderator
Buddyglass – 118
The Birth Certificate:
ALL American citizens have a right to view it. The fuel has no end, – - the people want to see it – Don’t forget 57% would love to see those in Congress OUT and a whole new group in Congress –
Anyone CAN call a newspaper and have an announcement made about almost anything, that is not news –
I didn’t write post #88 – I’m certain Xion can clarify it for you.
Report comment to moderator
I’ve long viewed WorldNetDaily as the Christian source for wild conspiracy theories and other unsupportable stories. As someone who follows science and apologetics issues fairly closely, I’ve groaned when I’ve seen WND report that:
—Kent Hovind (a.k.a. Dr. Dino) is in jail because of his effective creation ministry. No, Hovind is in jail because he was paying his employees under the table and justifying it because it was all “God’s money,” and you cannot tax God. If your church or non-profit organization operated like that, someone would be in trouble there as well.
—Bob Cornuke has found Noah’s Ark in Iran. No, he found a layer of volcanic rock that he thought sort of looked like petrified wood. Cornuke has no training in archeology, but that doesn’t stop WND from treating him like a world-class archeologist (this “discovery” was reported on World Magazine blog as well—a slip up by an otherwise fine site).
Report comment to moderator
Kevin – 120
And what of the times when WND had it right? – are you going to give them props for those stories?
This thread is named: “Hideously embarrassing for the right” When has there ever been a thread with a name like this one for the left:
Makes one wonder why the left is being honored in a rather odd way. As I’ve heard, I am not the only one who is questioning this strange HEADLINE for a thread on WMB.
Report comment to moderator
Wow. Looks as though this little knock on WND hit uncomfortably close to home for some. Now even gossiping up hints at lefty conspiracy on the part of WMB? (”As I’ve heard, I am not the only one who is questioning…” etc)
Apparently, one doesn’t need to go to WND to find material that embarrasses the right.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG: “No, but insurance companies are encouraged — and in fact, usually required, by business necessities if nothing else — to put their profit motives over patients”
Business transacts for a service on behalf of their employees as part of their compensation packages. Stewardship requires management to seek an advantageous cost-benefit ratio. With all human endeavors, venality can be a motivation as can altruism. There is corruption and faithfulness, fraud and benevolence. Profiting from investment does not necessitate the generalization that patients take second place. Profits do say something about the sustainability of a business model.
SteveG: “Unless you know of a company that has a bottomless bucket of money and will cover anything and everything without exclusion, all of them engage in some degree of decision-making.”
Coverage restrictions are a form of pre-rationing. A policy is contracted to cover specific healthcare expenditures up to specific procedural and lifetime limits. These provide the means of measuring risk and cost. And coverage is not elastic and subject to cut-off if profits slip.
SteveG: “the government plan will need to do less of it than private companies, because there’s no profit motive”
Why? Is government seeking less money, less tax revenue? Are all public needs sated?
Report comment to moderator
Victoria: Anyone CAN call a newspaper and have an announcement made about almost anything, that is not news –
You ignored the important part. The announcements were published WHEN HE WAS BORN.
How do you explain that, if he was not born in Hawaii?
Report comment to moderator
Wagus: SteveG: “the government plan will need to do less of it than private companies, because there’s no profit motive”
Why? Is government seeking less money, less tax revenue? Are all public needs sated?
My statement was limited to the public option part of the health care reform bill. As envisioned, it would be paid for by premiums, just like private insurance, and it would be expected to cover its own costs rather than get fresh appropriations every year, after a start-up period. (The GSA’s assisted acquisition services is another government program that works this way, and it’s been a success.)
But because the public option would only need to break even, not make a profit large enough to satisfy shareholders, the “rationing” it would have to do would be LESS than any private plan. But critics are ginning up hysteria over the idea that it would need to do any such decision-making at all, even though all insurers do it.
Coverage restrictions are a form of pre-rationing. A policy is contracted to cover specific healthcare expenditures up to specific procedural and lifetime limits. These provide the means of measuring risk and cost. And coverage is not elastic and subject to cut-off if profits slip.
And the public option would work the same way. Propaganda nonwithstanding, there is nothing in the reform legislation about ad hoc decisions not based on pre-agreed coverage limits, just like any policy.
Profiting from investment does not necessitate the generalization that patients take second place. Profits do say something about the sustainability of a business model.
Right, and that’s what I’m saying. It’s not a sign of excessive greed or venality, it’s just a necessary calculation for a sustainable business. But the numbers for a non-profit plan are more beneficial to patients than for one that needs to show shareholders an expected profit margin, no?
Report comment to moderator
It is a little game he plays, Victoria, with the “hmmmm” business.
Report comment to moderator
#124: If we assumed the certificate were fake, for the sake of argument, but the birth announcement were “real” in the sense that it was actually published on Aug. 13, 1961 and not fabricated after the fact, then the most likely explanation is that Obama’s parents wanted to fake his U.S. birth for all the “other” citizenship benefits besides the ability to serve as President.
The problem with this is that if he was born abroad to a U.S. citizen (who meets certain requirements) then he would be a citizen himself, as long as his parents registered the birth with the local U.S. consulate in the foreign country.
So there seems to be little reason to fake him being born in the U.S., if we suppose the fakery started around his birth date.
Report comment to moderator
There are some terms that likely need to be explored in discussions of “rationing.” There is an explicit sort of rationing that occurs up-front in the form of coverage policies; not everything under the sun is paid for. What may not be readily apparent (and certainly doesn’t fit common stereotypes of an insurance business driven by profit alone) is that these coverage policies are generally developed on the basis of expert consensus guidelines generated by physicians. This doesn’t have the rhetorical cachet of the image of greedy fatcats scheming how to bilk you in a cloud of cigar smoke in some back room, but life is often boring like that.
On the other hand, one of the worrisome components of public, politically-derived coverage plans is their succeptibility to implicit rationing; coverage plans where political agendas have been smuggled in and take the form of specific coverage priorities. This is an interesting essay on the subject. The last line of the article is over-the-top, but certainly doesn’t stand out among the embarrassing extremes of this thread {:~)
Report comment to moderator
This thread is a good example of what I mean when I say the Right is intellectually bankrupt. It quickly became dominated by discussion of Obama’s citizenship (a thoroughly discredited line of questioning) and assertions (which sound, frankly, paranoid) that Obama is filling his administration with Marxist radicals who hate our freedoms.
Meanwhile, I just feel this bears pointing out again.
Since Obama has become president, death threats against the President of the United States have risen 400%
That right there speaks volumes about the intellectual climate of the opposition party.
Report comment to moderator
“It quickly became dominated by discussion of Obama’s citizenship (a thoroughly discredited line of questioning) ”
Did President Obama produce his original birth certificate? I must have missed it… I applaud him for putting the question to rest, even while wondering why it took so long. The issue was first raised by Hillary’s campaign, by the way.
Report comment to moderator
JJF: I agree that there is too much anger and too little calm reasoned debate.
But, I wonder how you can tell how many of those threats come from conservatives rather than white supremacists, neo-Nazi skinheads and other marginalized groups.
Report comment to moderator
Many more Americans have seen and reported on Obama’s birth certificate than Victoria’s, and she’s clearly REFUSING to let ANYONE see her birth certificate. This is clearly PROOF that Victoria is not an American.
Report comment to moderator
Wow, this has been one of the most juvenile, asinine threads I’ve ever seen on WMB.
Every one of you seriously needs to get a life or a different hobby or something.
Report comment to moderator
BuddyGlass: Yeah, I know. I want Victoria, though, as one of the birthers, to tell us how SHE thinks two birth announcements got published when Obama was born, both of them confirming the Honolulu hospital where the birth took place, if in fact he was not born there.
NJLawyer: It is a “game” I guess, if by that you mean using someone’s own arguments to demonstrate why the arguments are flawed.
Report comment to moderator
Steve-
I hesitate to throw fuel on the fire, but I noticed an odd coincidence today. Check out the wiki page on how to become a citizen by birth:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_nationality_law#Through_birth_abroad_to_one_United_States_citizen
Specifically the line: “For persons born on or after August 4, 1961, a person is a U.S. citizen if all of the following are true:”
August 4, 1961 happens to be Obama’s birthday. Unfortunately the wiki page doesn’t say what the law was prior to August 4, 1961, so it’s hard to say whether the change would have provided any motivation for Obama’s parents to fake him being born on August 4, if he was in fact born on an earlier date.
Report comment to moderator
#38, JJF wrote: “A few posters here used to think that was Joel Mark’s job during the Bush years.”
JJF, that’s not “thinking.” Thinking invloves the use of the mind and any mind that thought that about me was not actually in use at the time.
Report comment to moderator
Plus, JJF, who was it that made the alleged remark that you put in quotes: “I love blogging, and getting paid to do what you love is fantastic” or something like that?
I could not have written that since I’ve never been paid a penny for my thoughts on this or any blog. However, I was very complimented, last year or so, that some leftist on this blog were so unglued by the effectiveness of my blog comments that they actually thought I was paid to make them. That made many a day for me.
Report comment to moderator
Actually, as it turns out, under the law at the time, Obama would not have automatically been a citizen if he were born outside the United States, because his mother had not been a U.S. resident for at least 5 years prior to his birth but after the age of sixteen. So there may actually have been some motivation on their part to “fake” a Hawaii birth if he had been born outside the United States.
What I find damning to the birther case, though, is that all this came out before the election, when there was a Republican president in the White House. If it were possible to demonstrate that Obama was born outside the United States, could not a George Bush white house have compelled (legally or otherwise) the state of Hawaii to produce the original documents in order to expose the conspiracy? Or the Clinton campaign, for that matter? Instead of just tossing about innuendo, if the case against him had merit, could not they have exposed him and taken Obama out of consideration for the presidency? Clearly both parties were highly motivated to do so.
Report comment to moderator
BuddyGlass: Instead of just tossing about innuendo, if the case against him had merit, could not they have exposed him and taken Obama out of consideration for the presidency? Clearly both parties were highly motivated to do so.
Not only that, but why would the Democratic party field a candidate they knew to be lying about his citizenship (and the background check for a major party candidacy has got to be pretty thorough.)
I mean, think about it: If he were lying and it were to be proven, he would be guilty of a felony, everyone who knew and covered it up would be guilty of crimes, and the party would be disgraced for a generation. What could they possibly be hoping for him to accomplish that would make that a worthwhile risk, that another candidate couldn’t do?
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth, you didn’t prove anything. You merely redefined the statements to say what you wanted to say, and then said “Check.”
Kennedy’s wild accusations were not based on Bork’s beliefs at all. As Jeff Jacoby notes:
They were despicable libels. “The Bork of Kennedy’s speech was a wild-eyed fascist and Bork the nominee was not,” writes Kennedy biographer Adam Clymer, a veteran Washington correspondent. Ethan Bronner, who covered the story for The Boston Globe, later described Kennedy as having “shamelessly twisted Bork’s world view” – with malice aforethought.
The same malice would be visited subsequently on other conservative judges nominated by Republican presidents. In 1991, Clarence Thomas was slimed as a traitor to his race for having married a white woman, and as a mouthpiece for white supremacists. “If you gave Clarence Thomas a little flour on his face,” declared Carl Rowan, “you’d think you had David Duke talking.” Judge Charles Pickering, a longtime advocate of racial reconciliation, was defamed by Senator John Kerry in 2002 as a “forceful advocate for a cross-burner” and by Senator Charles Schumer for his “glaring racial insensitivity.”
Report comment to moderator
Matt Y: You mean like taking a phrase about a “wise Latina” and insinuating all kinds of evil by it?
I’m sure conservatives NEVER get anything wrong or overstated about nominees from a president of the other party.
Kennedy’s opinion of Bork was not about Bork’s personal feelings. He was not saying Bork was a racist who WANTED blacks to eat at separate lunch counters. He was saying that the logical consequence of his legal philosophy would have led to those results. I.e., that if the SC had decided civil rights cases using Bork’s natural law ideas, they probably would have had to uphold the discriminatory laws.
Report comment to moderator
Steveg – 124
Anyone can call a newspaper and have anything printed regarding births, weddings -
Report comment to moderator
Well, no one seems to mind any of Obama’s appointees. SteveG even admits that a diversity czar who admires Chavez is just what America needs to control the content of the airwaves. Now we’re getting somewhere. No more denying, ducking and weaving.
Now if we can just hear the liberals here admit that Dr. Ezekiel’s recommendations to ignore the Hippocratic oath and limit care for those under 15 and over 40 is a good idea. On an NPR program, they were saying just that. It is fascinating to watch liberals venturing out of the closet and into the sunlight.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG, you said:
You mean like taking a phrase about a “wise Latina” and insinuating all kinds of evil by it?
I’m sure conservatives NEVER get anything wrong or overstated about nominees from a president of the other party.
Right, I agree with Jacoby on this one. Did you see what he said?
Kennedy’s opinion of Bork was not about Bork’s personal feelings. He was not saying Bork was a racist who WANTED blacks to eat at separate lunch counters. He was saying that the logical consequence of his legal philosophy would have led to those results. I.e., that if the SC had decided civil rights cases using Bork’s natural law ideas, they probably would have had to uphold the discriminatory laws.
Then he should have said it that way, instead of using inflammatory code language that would cause ordinary voters to think of Bork as some sort of racist and fascist. Furthermore, see this link, an examination of Bork’s views by a liberal. It does not sound like he would have upheld segregation.
Report comment to moderator
“Matt Y: You mean like taking a phrase about a ‘wise Latina’ and insinuating all kinds of evil by it?”
So SteveG, was it wrong when Kennedy did it to Bork, or was it wrong when Republicans did it to Sotomayor?
Report comment to moderator
“I’m sure conservatives NEVER get anything wrong or overstated about nominees from a president of the other party.”
Where were you taught this belief that two wrongs make a right?
Report comment to moderator
Does anyone here have a problem with the President of the United States, the servant of the all Americans whether they voted for him or not say the following on his web site today for commemorating the attack of 9/11?
“All 50 States are coordinating in this – as we fight back against our own Right-Wing Domestic Terrorists who are subverting the American Democratic Process, whipped to a frenzy by their Fox Propaganda Network ceaselessly re-seizing power for their treacherous leaders.”
“2 PHONE CALLS ON 9/11 – BE A TRUE PATRIOT – DEFEAT ANTI-DEMOCRATIC FORCES OF HATE WHO CONSPIRE TO REMAIN HEALTHY + WEALTHY WHILE THE PUBLIC LANGUISHES UNDER THE BURDEN OF OUR PRESENT HEALTH CARE SYSTEM”
That’s right. Rather than commemorate 9/11 by remembering those who died at the hands of Muslim extremists, the web site of the President of the United States would rather have you fight domestic terrorists, which is anyone who disagrees with him.
HAS A PRESIDENT EVER VILIFIED HALF THE VOTING PUBLIC IN THIS WAY?
If you follow the link above, you will see it doesn’t work. That’s because the White House took it down about an hour ago. Here is what it said before it was removed.
Does anyone here have a problem with this?
Report comment to moderator
#146 It must be the new math—or the new ethics.
BTW, Serious George in #128 linked to a very good essay on healthcare.
Report comment to moderator
Xion,
I don’t think the president wrote that. It’s from MYBarakObama.com. Anyone can have a site there—I did for awhile myself. One of his more radical supporters probably wrote it and it was taken down. And yes, I absolutely would have a problem with the post–especially if Obama had written it, but there is no indication that he did.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria at #142: Anyone can call a newspaper and have anything printed regarding births, weddings -
Well unless they have time machine, they can’t call a newspaper and have something printed in an issue from the past.
The question’s now been posed to you three times and you’ve made the same non-response every time. I take that to mean you have no good answer.
Report comment to moderator
David L. Where were you taught this belief that two wrongs make a right?
How do you get that out of what I said?
It’s funny how often conservatives respond to criticism by saying it’s no better when the other side does it. Kind of a tacit admission that it’s wrong of them, eh?
Anyway, what I said had to do with the hypocrisy of criticizing one side for what both sides do. Ideally, neither side would.
Report comment to moderator
Then he should have said it that way, instead of using inflammatory code language that would cause ordinary voters to think of Bork as some sort of racist and fascist.
Well again, we’re looking at an excerpt being spoon-fed by anti-Kennedy commentators. It may well be that his entire statement made that clear. (I don’t know if it does or not, but neither do you .. which is the point.)
Report comment to moderator
Good post at #140 MATT Y.
Anyone who tries to justify the scurrilous and vicious political attack that Senator Kennedy made against Robert Bork (a fine and brilliant judge and man), places no value in the truth or in decency.
And actor Gregory Peck was just as unjustified as was Senator Kennedy in the false attacks he launched against Judge Bork. It was a political lynching of an innocent man much like the linching that was featured in Peck’s greatest movie; To Kill a Mocking Bird.” Gregory Peck was a great actor and that was a great movie. The reason that movie was great is the SAME reason that calls for criticism of Gregory Peck’s political hate-speech against Robert Bork in real life.
Mr. Peck (would that he could hear this): innocent people should NOT be lynched politically either!
Report comment to moderator
You simply refuse to understand OR you can’t comprehend – any person could have had the birth announcement printed in the newspaper after Obama was born. His mother could have easily contacted a friend, etc to do it for her, OR maybe her parents called the newspaper after learning of his birth.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG wrote; “Kennedy’s opinion of Bork was not about Bork’s personal feelings.”
Of what relevence is that? Why would anyone ever criticize another person’s feelings anyway? Fellings are just feelings. We often cannot even control them.
No, what Kennedy said about Bork was MUCH worse. Kennedy was just using Bork’s nomination to scurrilously attack and demonize all conservatives. That’s the point. That’s why it was so unjust and so vicious.
* Ted Kennedy said that “Robert Bork’s America” would “force” wonem to have back-alley abortions. WRONG!
* Kennedy said that in “Robert Bork’s America,” blacks wqould have to sit at segregated lunch counters. WRONG!
* Kennedy said that in “Robert Bork’s America” police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids. WRONG!
* Kennedy said that in “Robert Bork’s America,” schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution. DEAD WRONG! Conservatives believe in intellectual freedom and both sides of the debate shoud be heard.
* Kennedy said that in “Robert Bork’s America,” writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government. WRONG.
* Kennedy said that in “Robert Bork’s America,” the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens.” WRONG!
These are vicious lies. Blantant lies not just about Bork, but by implication, about all who may think like him.
Report comment to moderator
Way back at #25, JJF wrote; “Some percentage of people on the Right believe, as Dick Cheney believes, that torture is justified in the defense of America…”
WRONG! He believes in enhanced interrogation, not torture. There is a substantive difference in these terms. And Dick CCheney is correct. The enhanced interrogations we used on Khalid Shiek Mohammed (a 9/11 terrorist planner) and others was effective and helped save innocent lives.
Report comment to moderator
“Well again, we’re looking at an excerpt being spoon-fed by anti-Kennedy commentators. It may well be that his entire statement made that clear. (I don’t know if it does or not, but neither do you .. which is the point.)”
Wrong, Steve. It’s in the public record and can be read in its entirety here:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Robert_Bork’s_America
Report comment to moderator
“It’s funny how often conservatives respond to criticism by saying it’s no better when the other side does it. Kind of a tacit admission that it’s wrong of them, eh?”
Yes, Steve, it is funny. But you’re just as guilty of it as anyone else around here.
Rather than saying Kennedy’s treatment of Bork was wrong, you want to talk conservatives’ treatment of Sotomayor (who was confirmed by a good margin, by the way, unlike Bork).
So it’s only wrong when it’s done to your side. When it’s done to the other side, it’s OK because they did it first, right?
Report comment to moderator
#25, JJF wrote; “Some small percentage of people on the Right wish that Obama would die.”
Stuff it, JJF. This is irresponsible. Terms like “right” and “left” are meant to signify a worldview spectrum with diverse people all over that spectrum. You are using the term “Right” in a partisan way to try to discredit a worldview you differ with on illegitimate grounds. ANY person who wants Obama to die is vicious and evil no matter where they fall on the political spectrum. Don’t blame the spectrum. DON’T BLAME other innocent people on the spectrum. Blame the idiots who think that way.
When Bush was in office, there was even a movie made and shown allegedly glorifying or at least featuring the murder of President George W. Bush. The media hardly flinched. How do you explain that?
#25, JJF wrote; “Those are your people.”
This is just the sort of group-think and irresponsibility I am talking about. For JJF to presume that someone who wants to kill a president is “my people” is beyond the pale. JJF, you have druck the poisonous kool-aid for sl long, your spiritual heart has stopped beating.
Repent!
Report comment to moderator
#116, Scroop Moth wrote; “Don’t forget, many Repubs voted against Bork.”
42 senators voted “Yea” and 58 voted “Nay.” 40 of the “yea” votes were by Republicans. Two Demcorats voted “Yea.”
Of course, Arlen Spector was one of the few “Republcans” who voted against Bork. He’s not even a Repulbican anymore.
Report comment to moderator
154: You simply refuse to understand OR you can’t comprehend – any person could have had the birth announcement printed in the newspaper after Obama was born. His mother could have easily contacted a friend, etc to do it for her, OR maybe her parents called the newspaper after learning of his birth.
Why do the announcements say he was born in the hospital in Honolulu?
You are the one who doesn’t get it. The announcements CONFIRM his U.S. birth.
Either someone traveled back in time to have them printed once it became clear he would need native-born (not naturalized) citizenship, or else there was a conspiracy to have him become president that was set in motion at the time he was born. The first is impossible and the second one makes no sense at all.
Or, he was born in Hawaii just like he’s been saying all along.
It is laughable how you accuse me of not understanding when you cannot grasp this very simple fact.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark: Maybe you should step away from the keyboard and rest for a while. You are sounding increasingly frantic as the thread progresses.
Report comment to moderator
David L. Oh thanks, that’s helpful!
The statement includes this:
Mr. Bork should also be rejected by the Senate because he stands for an extremist view of the Constitution and the role of the Supreme Court that would have placed him outside the mainstream of American constitutional jurisprudence in the 1960s, let alone the 1980s. He opposed the Public Accommodations Civil Rights Act of 1964. He opposed the one-man one-vote decision of the Supreme Court the same year. He has said that the First Amendment applies only to political speech, not literature or works of art or scientific expression.
So, in the paragraph in question, which comes just a short bit later, Kennedy is indeed referring to Bork’s record and stated positions, and it is not some personal attack or a broadside against conservatives in general.
Report comment to moderator
Interesting piece – worth the read -
Report comment to moderator
Ah, but notice this part:
“America is a better and freer nation than Robert Bork thinks. Yet in the current delicate balance of the Supreme Court, his rigid ideology will tip the scales of justice against the kind of country America is and ought to be.”
He’s conjecturing about what Bork *thinks* and claiming his *ideology* is *rigid.*
If this is OK with lefties, I don’t see how the tame treatment that Republicans gave Sotomayor can be criticized by them.
Report comment to moderator
Your nine-month-old article doesn’t address the newspaper announcements that confirm his having been born in a Honolulu hospital Victoria, and neither do you.
Report comment to moderator
Steveg,
You aren’t able to understand the newspaper announcements – no need to go further -
Report comment to moderator
SteveG,
Besides the possibilities you mention in #161, there is another possibility – that there are other benefits to being a U.S. citizen besides being about to become president, that one or both of his parents wanted to make available to him, although he had not been born in Hawaii. I’m not saying that’s what happened – I haven’t paid much attention to this issue – but it certainly is plausible.
Report comment to moderator
You’ll all have to forgive JOEL. He doesn’t know.
Of course Borkists want to force women into back alleys (or onto international flights). The government option isn’t really an option, and carrying an unwanted fetus to term isn’t an option, either, when you’ve been Borked.
Lunch counters are a metaphor, Clyde. The formica and vinyl palaces themselves have long since gone out of business, as whites fled places where they might see Negroes (but not the grease, of course). Borkists have turned the civil rights commission into a protector of white privilege and have waged a war against voting rights.
Borkists vote 4 to 5 to allow executive detention, torture, and search and seizure for not reason at all other than GWB felt like it. Borkists let cops be cops, so they can use illegally obtained evidence, Sherlock. Also, Borkists think noisy liberals deserve to get hauled out of their homes and cops deserve reward and praise for the irritation of hearing noisy liberals.
Sure, schools can teach evolution so long as they don’t teach that it’s true.
I see no difference between censorship and hiding information that belongs to the public, as GWB did habitually. Borkists don’t think you have a right to know what your government thinks is embarrassing.
Borkists explicitly advocate making it much, much harder to sue, and much, much harder to appeal. If you’re one of the millions trying to get in the door, that feels like getting your fingers smashed.
Report comment to moderator
You’re taking offense unnecessarily, Joel Mark.
Like it or not, it is true that some percentage of people on the political Right have publicly wished and prayed for Obama to die (and, it is sometimes added, burn in hell). Despite your desire to put these people at a remove, this cannot be entirely disassociated from their politics because their politics largely inform it (e.g., he is a baby killer, he is a socialist, he is anti-American).
And this is largely my point. The rhetoric that the Right is currently employing flames this hatred. The Right is currently at a loss for ideas of its own, so it is offering irrational fear instead.
Now, by “the Right,” I mean those pundits who manage, through whatever means, to dominate the media narrative of what “the Right” represents. I do not deny that there are thoughtful, intelligent, and reasonable conservatives. But those people are getting drowned out by the Palins and the Becks and the Limbaughs, and the Republican party is in large measure adopting the rhetoric of the Palins and the Becks and the Limbaughs.
My criticism in no way discredits or even attacks philosophies of small government, trickle-down economics, and conservative social values. But those philosophies are not currently being well articulated by the Right. Instead we get death panels and Marxist radicals and where’s his birth certificate?
Here is my point, expressed another way. Watch a few solid hours of Fox News, then ask yourself if the Right is still the movement of William F. Buckley.
Report comment to moderator
You can see the announcement on the far left side near the bottom.
Note: Obama was born August 4, 1961 – the announcement was in the August 13, 1961 addition of the Honolulu Advertiser. That is NINE -9- days LATER.
Anyone could have called the birth into the paper.
Report comment to moderator
Pauline: Besides the possibilities you mention in #161, there is another possibility – that there are other benefits to being a U.S. citizen besides being about to become president, that one or both of his parents wanted to make available to him, although he had not been born in Hawaii. I’m not saying that’s what happened – I haven’t paid much attention to this issue – but it certainly is plausible.
For anything other than being president, he could have been a naturalized citizen and it would have been just as good … no need for his parents to fraudulently claim native birth.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria: Note: Obama was born August 4, 1961 – the announcement was in the August 13, 1961 addition of the Honolulu Advertiser. That is NINE -9- days LATER.
Anyone could have called the birth into the paper.
For what, the fifth time now, yes, anybody could have called it in. That isn’t the point. The question is WHY would anyone call it into the paper? WHY would anyone claim he was born in Hawaii when he wasn’t, only days after he was born?
You aren’t able to understand the newspaper announcements – no need to go further –
Right, it’s me who doesn’t understand. Good Lord.
YOU aren’t able to explain what motive anyone would have for calling in the announcement if it wasn’t accurate. And you are apparently not able to understand that THAT is the key question for you.
But I give up. I think you’ve amply demonstrated the level of intelligence and understanding of birthers.
Report comment to moderator
The motive: simply to report a birth, just to see it in the paper, so other people would know that so and so had a baby.
(And may I say that Father’s obituary contained quite a few errors.)
Report comment to moderator
Oh, and since in the original post, there was mention of boycotting advertisers. Here in NJ, there are people who are boycotting the Whole Foods supermarket to show their displeasure with leftys. It’s quite interesting. It’s an organic store, and there’s unhappiness with anything lefty growing in this state. It’s just funny that people think organic food is political, though I do understand it.
Report comment to moderator
NJL – the other motive might have been to give more credibility as to where he was born – if it was printed in the paper.
Report comment to moderator
OK ladies, look: Somebody put announcements in the papers no later than nine days after he was born. The announcements verify that he was born exactly where he now says he was.
If you are going to disbelieve that he was born there, then you have to explain the announcements. Your conspiracy theory will not hold up to (rational) examination if you can’t.
The announcements were placed. They verify his US birth. You wish to question his US birth, so you need to have a very good explanation of why anyone would need to falsify the birthplace of a nine-day-old baby.
Not only can you not do it, you can’t even figure out why it’s a question.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer: Here in NJ, there are people who are boycotting the Whole Foods supermarket to show their displeasure with leftys. It’s quite interesting. It’s an organic store, and there’s unhappiness with anything lefty growing in this state. It’s just funny that people think organic food is political, though I do understand it.
You have it exactly backwards. The boycott is because the CEO wrote an op-ed opposing health care reform. The boycott is in support of “leftys.”
See for yourself.
Report comment to moderator
Steveg,
Anyone could have called in that announcement after being notified that he was born ANYWHERE – An announcement in the newspaper is not proof of birth -
Report comment to moderator
Victoria:
WHY WOULD THEY??
I cannot make it any clearer than that. WHY would someone place birth announcements falsifying his birthplace when he was nine days old? What MOTIVE would they have?
You are not this stupid. I know you must actually understand. So I can only conclude you’re playing a game, and it’s a waste of my time.
Report comment to moderator
Steveg,
Being born in the USA has advantages – that should answer your question. You shouldn’t have needed me to explain it to you.
Report comment to moderator
I hate to sound naive, but wouldn’t some responsible “check out things beforehand to make sure that the people running for president are eligible” person have figured all of this out long before now?
Report comment to moderator
Victoria, thanks for demonstrating the birther mentality. Nothing Obama does is ever going to convince you. If he were to release his original birth certificate (as if the certified copy isn’t good enough), you’d say it might be forged. If he lined up ten witnesses to give sworn statements verifying his native birth, you’d say they could be lying.
You’re just not going to ever see this rationally. For most people, this article puts the rumors to rest. For a birther, nothing ever will.
HopeSprings: Of course they would have.
Report comment to moderator
“You can. Absolutely. All the bill does is provide for Medicare to cover it once every five years.”
I can only partake in the public option. If this is only covered under medicare, it does not cover me.
“Where do you pull 250 million from? That’s four-fifths of the entire population.”
Where do they pull 88 million from? Out of their butt as well. If the public option is competative AT ALL, which it must be to actually have any effect on lowering health care costs, everyone and their mother and a bag of chips will sign up for it, ESPECIALLY if they are already paying for it.
Report comment to moderator
Quote DJ #75:
“#72
Demonizing the oposition is a problem. But let me also say that you get absolutely hammered by both sides if you’re a moderate. I think both wings feel miffed that you dare to agree with them in some respects, but not enough to offer unwavering support.”
Really?
“Let your moderation be known unto all men. The Lord is at hand.” (Php 4:5)
Report comment to moderator
I can only partake in the public option. If this is only covered under medicare, it does not cover me.
That’s right. But your own insurance might, and if it doesn’t, you can pay for it out of pocket. That section of the bill is an amendment to Medicare coverage (which yes, does take an act of Congress to change).
If the public option is competative AT ALL, which it must be to actually have any effect on lowering health care costs, everyone and their mother and a bag of chips will sign up for it, ESPECIALLY if they are already paying for it.
You continue to fallaciously assume that most people base their decisions on nothing but cost.
“If you sell a Ford Focus for $17,000, everyone and their mother will buy one and nobody will buy the $28,000 Taurus.” Obviously, your assumption is false.
Report comment to moderator
JJF, #170, you did not listen to me at all.
Anyone who wishes that a public servant be killed is a perverted nut. They should be excoriated and/or prosecuted. It is always possible that they are leftists pretending to be conservative or republican in order to discredit their opponent. But whether that is true or not, they themselves should be blamed.
If however, it is an elected official repeatedly talking like that, then perhaps we can consider that person’s party as partially culbable for tolerating such hate.
JJF, were you upset when Bill Mahre (a major popular cultural icon) voiced a desire for Dick Cheney to die? Did you blame all atheists?
Were you upset when Julieanne Malvoe publically expressed the wish for Clarence Thomas to die? Did you blame the left?
Were you upset when leftist Nina Totenberg expressed the wish that a general would not be long for this world? Did you blame NPR?
Were you upset when a movie came out a few years ago featuring the murder of President Bush? Did you blame Democrats?
There are countless reckless statements of hate apparently from the left. Do they upset you too, JJF?
Wishing and praying for Obama to die is an act that the Right blisteringly condemns in FULL! “The Right” is totally intolerant of such nonsense. And we often cannot truly tell where such nuts who expresses such things actually land on the political spectrum.
Lose the hate, JJF!
Report comment to moderator
All you’ve done is define out of “the Right” the people who embarrass you.
It’s the “No True Scotsman” fallacy. It would be like my saying, “Oh, then Bill Maher can’t be a Leftist, because no true Leftist would wish for his political opponent to die.”
You may believe these people are crazy, but they are certainly Right-wingers. And if you’ve got a large contingent of crazy people in your party, you’d think right-wing leaders would be more careful with the “he’s an anti-American out to kill your grandma and dismantle your liberties!” talk.
Here are two conservative pastors praying and preaching for Obama’s death:
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/12651/more-pastors-praying-for-obamas-death
You want to tell me that’s not politically motivated crazy?
Again, the simple fact that death threats against the President have risen 400% since Obama took office speaks volumes.
Report comment to moderator
All you’ve done is define out of “the Right” the people who embarrass you.
It’s the “No True Scotsman” fallacy. It would be like my saying, “Oh, then Bill Maher can’t be a Leftist, because no true Leftist would wish for his political opponent to die.”
You may believe these people are crazy, but they are certainly Right-wingers. And if you’ve got a large contingent of crazy people in your party, you’d think right-wing leaders would be more careful with the “he’s an anti-American out to kill your grandma and dismantle your liberties!” talk.
Here are two conservative pastors praying and preaching for Obama’s death:
[link removed because I'm impatient and want this to post right away]
You want to tell me that’s not politically motivated crazy?
Again, the simple fact that death threats against the President have risen 400% since Obama took office speaks volumes.
Report comment to moderator
“That’s right. But your own insurance might, and if it doesn’t, you can pay for it out of pocket. That section of the bill is an amendment to Medicare coverage”
But the public option is for those who cant get on Medicare right??? as well as everyone else who wants to hop on. So why do these people that are the fringe left out of “end of life” counseling? Whats the point? Why a public option, or why a medicare?
““If you sell a Ford Focus for $17,000, everyone and their mother will buy one and nobody will buy the $28,000 Taurus.” Obviously, your assumption is false.”
Really Steve?? If quality is the same? Were you one of those guys that predicted that the PS3 would dominate the market? Meanwhile the little ole lacking horsepower Wii is crushing the competition in reality…at 50% of the total market share…
Fine, it wont take 80% share of the health insurance market..itll take 50…thats still 125 million or more.
Cost is huge, when the quality is comparable. If you can save 11k on a car and get the SAME quality, and you dont consider that savings, you’re a fool.
The purpose of the exchange si to force competition is it not? Comparable, competative plans. The even bigger problem is, is that the public option your being taxed for. It’s like already putting down 2k on the Focus. There will only be a few million that will ignore the savings, or want the more expensive car especially if the Taurus offers nothing better.
Really the only market that will survie in the private industry will be the Corvettes and Vipers of the market. The higher end, more bells and whistles. But the main market share, goes the public option, it will dominate the competition, rendering it pointless.
Report comment to moderator
JJF: you’d better get the log out of your eye before you dare to accuse the right of anything.
Report comment to moderator
JJF #189:
I think it’s possible to make some delineations among different groups that are commonly grouped together in “The Right”. You could use voting record.
For instance, someone on “the Right” might exclude those who voted for the libertarian or constitution party candidate in the general election, claiming they’re a fringe element and not representative of “the Right” as an overall movement.
Someone on “the Left” might exclude those who voted for Nader or the Green Party candidate.
It would be interesting to compare, though, the relative sizes of the “fringe Right” and “fringe Left”.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn: “That’s right. But your own insurance might, and if it doesn’t, you can pay for it out of pocket. That section of the bill is an amendment to Medicare coverage”
But the public option is for those who cant get on Medicare right??? as well as everyone else who wants to hop on. So why do these people that are the fringe left out of “end of life” counseling? Whats the point? Why a public option, or why a medicare?
You have been misinformed.
Medicare is, as it always has been, a program for those 65 or older.
The public option would be a plan for younger people who choose it, rather than a private plan.
They are not related to each other.
This is not really an especially significant benefit. It’s the cost of an office consultation once every five years. The only reason it’s in a bill at all is that Medicare requires Congress to approve every change to its benefits package, however minor.
Really the only market that will survie in the private industry will be the Corvettes and Vipers of the market. The higher end, more bells and whistles. But the main market share, goes the public option, it will dominate the competition, rendering it pointless.
Well first of all, the plan is not funded with a continual stream of tax revenue, as you assume. The legislation provides for an initial appropriation of $2 billion for starting it — which is to be repaid, by the way, over 10 years — but once it’s established, it is intended to be self-sustaining through premiums, co-pays and deductibles like any plan. So really, people are NOT going to be paying for it in taxes.
Sec. 222(b)(2) of HR 3200:
(2) START-UP FUNDING-
(A) IN GENERAL- In order to provide for the establishment of the public health insurance option there is hereby appropriated to the Secretary, out of any funds in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, $2,000,000,000. In order to provide for initial claims reserves before the collection of premiums, there is hereby appropriated to the Secretary, out of any funds in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, such sums as necessary to cover 90 days worth of claims reserves based on projected enrollment.
(B) AMORTIZATION OF START-UP FUNDING- The Secretary shall provide for the repayment of the startup funding provided under subparagraph (A) to the Treasury in an amortized manner over the 10-year period beginning with Y1.
(C) LIMITATION ON FUNDING- Nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing any additional appropriations to the Account, other than such amounts as are otherwise provided with respect to other Exchange-participating health benefits plans.
As for competition, yes it will be competitive, which will apply market pressure that does not currently exist to other plans to lower their costs and improve their services. That is a good thing.
Report comment to moderator
If the “public option” reimburses at anything close to Medicare rates, it will be self-rationing, since Medicare compensates evaluation and management (E&M) services and procedures below what’s sustainable for most primary care practices, who currently, and out of necessity, have to limit the fraction of Medicare- and even more so Medicaid-covered patients in their practices just to stay afloat. A burgeoning public-option-covered population of patients potentially has the effect of disincentivizing the very focus on primary care and preventative medicine cited as a keystone of cost control. It appears that the writers of the currently proposed plans lack basic understanding of the economics involved. They can call it competitive cost-control, but if patients can’t find doctors willing to take a loss to provide care (an increasingly prevalent occurrence), folks opting for a “public option” may find themselves out of luck when it comes to actually finding a doctor, hardly something consistent with goals of expansion of availability or real coverage.
The currently proposed Democrat-sponsored plans appear susceptible to the dynamics that underlie basic deficiencies of health care coverage as conventionally conceived. I suspect, as do others, that a more far-reaching rearrangement of how health care is delivered and organized will be necessary if we’re really to address the problems beneath the current crisis. It will take at least a generation-spanning level of commitment, resolution, explanation and time. And it will be harder than the simplisms of short-term policies that clumsily pump large sums of money we don’t have, at “someone else’s” expense, into a broken system.
This is something antithetical to the “shove it through by demagoguery and, if need be, guilt” approach we see from our Democratic leadership. And something that comprises the difference between “health care reform in any form and regardless of sense” and an approach informed by an honest assessment of the root systemic problems.
So, if you’re really the guy who values nuance and hopeful change, Mr. President, then deliver. Give us a plan that recognizes, through careful observation and analysis, a plan that takes into account the nuanced ways in which health care needs to be re-conceived and delivered, a plan that honestly and bravely assesses and addresses how to reduce cost and increase accessibility without relying on class warfare canards and the models of demonstrably failed solutions from our past, and you’ll likely find broad bipartisan and public support. Consider the possibility of achieving a lasting and far-reaching effect, something that looks beyond the myopia of immediate nay-sayers and opportunistic ideologues in your own party.
Otherwise, you remain an autocratic and manipulative poser, differentiated from your opposition only by the direction of your propaganda and not by substantial distinction from the think-nots (the WorldMag editoral staff included) that raise dishonest objections to your plan.
Until then,
SG
Report comment to moderator
That’s a very interesting post SG, one I mostly agree with. I will read it over again tomorrow.
Thanks – Victoria
Report comment to moderator
I’ll admit my response is based on limited personal experience rather than solid evidence, but I am suspicious of this statement. Looking at the houses, cars, and vacations of doctors I know personally, I have a hard time believing they are struggling to stay afloat.
I’ve heard that Medicare reimbursements are less than private insurance, but can you support your claim that it is so low that doctors will be unable or unwilling to stay in business?
Considering that many of them currently don’t have insurance or are so underinsured that they avoid the doctor anyway, even in your hypothetical worst-case scenario, they’d be no worse off than they actually are right now.
Besides, you talk about the public option as though it will be put in motion and then left to mere best wishes and prayers. Don’t you think that if we had a public plan, and it became obvious that doctors were going out of business or refusing public plan patients, the plan’s administrators would increase payments? They’re not going to just sit on their hands and watch primary care providers shrivel up.
Report comment to moderator
#194:
I’m thinking the fed could regulate what percentage of public plan patients a doctor must accept. If the payouts from those patients are below market level, meaning he doesn’t make a profit on them, then he would need to subsidize them by way of charging his non-public patients more. Every doctor would be in the same boat, essentially, so the price increases should not put any given doctor at a competitive disadvantage.
Report comment to moderator
“Medicare is, as it always has been, a program for those 65 or older.
The public option would be a plan for younger people who choose it, rather than a private plan.
They are not related to each other.”
Yes, and you can only get covered for “end of life” if your on Medicare…over 64 years of age…
Steve, if its not such a big deal, then it should be included in the public option as well, esp if its not a death panel, but counseling on making a will, appropriating those aspects. 25 year olds need to know that as well as 65 year olds, and they are certainly no more concerned with it than 65 year olds.
Why cant we put 65 and over on the public option as well instead? or vice versa? I dont see the point for two different agencies when the same goal is covering those who need help in getting health insurance coverage. Your only going to increase the administrative nightmares which is one of the two main reasons for such high costs. Simplify not complicate.
“The legislation provides for an initial appropriation of $2 billion for starting it — which is to be repaid, by the way, over 10 years — but once it’s established, it is intended to be self-sustaining through premiums, co-pays and deductibles like any plan. So really, people are NOT going to be paying for it in taxes.”
Really, just 2 billion for 88 million at least? Considering most of these are likely to be riskier people, do you really think that only 2 billion is going to cover their expenses via the “low cost premiums”? Cash for clunkers ring a bell? If these are the poor and uncovered in the first place, how will they be able to afford even the premiums much less a max of 10k out of pocket for a family?
Currently the bill collects taxes for over 250k from employers up to 6% and another 8% if they decline to offer benefits. Anyone making over 350k personally, gets taxed as well. And lately it seems Dems are pushing for more taxing on top of that.
Government intentions are nice and dandy, but in reality even the good intentions of SS are bankrupt, and if the government does not address the actual issues like high cost to begin with, their health plan will be bankrupt as well.
“As for competition, yes it will be competitive, which will apply market pressure that does not currently exist to other plans to lower their costs and improve their services. That is a good thing.”
It will be competative so long as Taurus can afford to make a 28k car and sell it at 17k. It might look great initially when their sales go up, but in reality, they cant sustain it. You cant beat a government commercial plan. The long run will trounce the private industry.
What’s the problem with competition in the market currently? The public option appears to break down the regions of dominance right? Why not find tax incentives or other incentives to promote expansion of insurers into other markets to foster the competition first. If regions are dominated by only one or two companies the government option is going to kill them even faster. It’s like the Wii vs the PS3…basic little console, crushing the big player, simply because of cost. The PS3 cant compete at that price range, it’s overhead is too high.
You can create better competition without a government option. Meanwhile, you can balance your budget, handle SS, Medicare/Medicaid, and even extend Medicare to the few million who are too poor to afford health insurance.
If this passes Steve, mark this down. Five years after a public option is implemented it will be bankrupt, and it will have also killed the competition in the basic plan market. Which means 2018, our quality of care is going to still be no better than it is now, and our cost will still be high or much higher.
Report comment to moderator
“Don’t you think that if we had a public plan, and it became obvious that doctors were going out of business or refusing public plan patients, the plan’s administrators would increase payments? They’re not going to just sit on their hands and watch primary care providers shrivel up.”
You mean like how they didnt ignore Social Security? The original SS provided for those over 65, when the avg life expectancy was around 62…Today its what 69 when the average is 74 or so? Yeah, they keep up really well.
Report comment to moderator
“but can you support your claim that it is so low that doctors will be unable or unwilling to stay in business?”
For the most part, that would be over-reaching, and beyond what I meant to imply. There is, however, a balance of payer mix that especially primary care practices have to keep in mind. It involves careful limitations on the percentage of Medicare-reimbursed patients a practice can sustain, with severe limitations or outright lack of services for those on Medicaid. Every few years, there is a threatened reduction in Medicare payment scales followed by a reassessment on the part of physicians about who would or wouldn’t continue to remain participants in the system. Usually no great drama ensues, and the rates remain relatively unchanged, but there is a general sense of a system on the verge of being unsustainable. The notion that some payment is better than no payment doesn’t really apply, since its not like clinics are leaving empty holes where Medicare-covered patients would be inserted. What I see as potentially worrisome is the idea that forcing down reimbursement rates would cut costs, when the more likely dynamic would be a disincentive for folks to go into primary care, the setting where the operating margin is at its narrowest. And the lesson learned from the past few decades is of government’s notorious deafness to the problems created by under-reimbursement in primary care. Fact is, in many areas it is becoming more difficult to find a provider who will take Medicare and maddeningly hard to find one who’ll take Medicaid. I’m not sure why, given its record, we’d expect the government to suddenly become responsive; they’ve been watching primary care shrivel for years. It’s not dead yet, but it’s not getting healthier.
Report comment to moderator
SERIOUS GEORGE – Let’s not confuse bid and ask with price fixing. A public plan negotiates price.
As an apologist for insurance and the hospital industry, your definition of “unreimbursed costs” is overly indulgent: advertising, marketing, interest expense, bonuses, outlandish capital outlays, stock options, and dividends.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!