Jaw Dropping Stupid

Really bringing the stupid - the new leader of the idiots - Sarah Palin:

As more Americans delve into the disturbing details of the nationalized health care plan that the current administration is rushing through Congress, our collective jaw is dropping, and we’re saying not just no, but hell no!

. . . The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.

These people have the "collective" brain of a 4 year old. And I bet he was glad to get rid of it.

Speaking for me only

< Friday Night Open Thread: Victim of Love | Extreme Right Wing Ironic Stupid >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Remember (5.00 / 0) (#1)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 08:09:23 AM EST
    They may look like idiots and talk like idiots, but don't let that fool you. They really are idiots.

    Useful Idiots (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by cal1942 on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 08:59:59 AM EST
    guided by smarter people with an agenda.

    Demonize Democrats to regain power and kill any possiblity of diminishing the profits of the private health insurance industry and big Pharma once and for all.


    and it is working (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by TeresaInPa on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 01:12:42 PM EST
    why? Because the health care reform that has been proposed sucks and not even most democrats want it.  In addition it is too long, no one has read any of it including the people who are supposed to be voting on it.  And Obama has been vague and guilty of the bushian "just trust me" meme. AND he is awkward and offensive and has to keep biting his damn tongue.  Now what in hell make him start talking about "end of life counseling"?  That was idiotic. He should be at a university somewhere where his need to impart his big ideas doesn't  really effect real people's lives in such a direct way.
    You have to be pretty damn bad at being president when you have old people rioting at AARP meetings.  And do not be fooled, it is people from the single payer brigade too.  We are equally disgusted.

    Have to agree (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by MO Blue on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 01:28:16 PM EST
    Now what in hell made him start talking about "end of life counseling"?

    Obama opened a can of worms when he discussed whether or not his grandma needed the treatment she received at the end of her life and started talking about "end of life counseling".

    Republicans may be "Jaw Dropping Stupid" but they are very good at capitalizing on careless statements by Democrats. This whole issue of euthanasia would never have materialized if Obama had not cracked opened the door.


    exactly (none / 0) (#76)
    by TeresaInPa on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 02:13:21 PM EST
    thank you.  And it is not as if democrats don't try to do the same thing.  AstroTurf and scare tactics come in both flavors.

    death panel? (5.00 / 0) (#2)
    by Lil on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 08:24:03 AM EST
    !!! The scary thing is not just Sarah Palin. Millions of stupid out there, hanging on her every word. I sound elitist, I know, but I just shake my head at how many really stupid people there are. Even some family and friends that I really, really love, but they are incredibly stupid. But we had stupid running the country before and I'm scared as hell of more stupid in power.

    the death panel already exists (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Rojas on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 01:45:45 PM EST
    but it lies in the corporate and regulatory realm of the current system. Pre-existing condition? Can't take your money, go off and die on your own.

    Take some of the responses here on TL to the revelation that this new system "might" be partially financed by cuts in Medicare for example. Were these people "stupid" or "paranoid" to express their fears?

    We've had two decades of demonization and reactionary politics priming the pump of mistrust.

    This is something we all have a stake in and it should be sold as such.

    I posted this before and it got censored. I'm not really sure why and I suspect it will again, but I thought I might expand a bit. It's probably all for naught, but what the hell, I'm stupid.

    From the horse race aspect of this I agree with BTD. The Dems have a birds nest on the ground in this health care issue, but they seem to be tripping all over themselves trying to get to it.
    Republicans have let the issue fester. Of course they are going to try to justify their inaction. Post-Partisan does not/should not mean bipartisan, it should mean taking it directly to the people. Take the debate to them. Contrast the track record of the government "death panels" such as Medicaid to the corporate "death panels" that won't cover you at any cost.


    ya, I haven't been able to figure (none / 0) (#88)
    by of1000Kings on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 02:42:09 PM EST
    out why people don't care about the current system of euthanasia based upon whether or not an insurance company will cover you...

    I guess because we have this false ideal that anyone who wants to make a lot of money in America can...forgetting that there would be no one to take out our trash...


    I think they do care (none / 0) (#105)
    by Rojas on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 04:02:51 PM EST
    or enough of them at least. And the ones that don't are scared. Employer subsidized will not work in markets open to third world competition.
    I can put four people on a line in China for the cost of subsidizing one assembly workers family plan here in the US. That's the free market we live in and even the craziest winger can't ague with that.

    for a month (none / 0) (#106)
    by Rojas on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 04:03:59 PM EST
    okay (2.00 / 0) (#57)
    by TeresaInPa on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 01:15:39 PM EST
    now that you have made yourself feel good by calling everyone who doesn't trust Obama stupid.  What do you propose we democrats do about this abortion of real health care reform?

    Really? (none / 0) (#121)
    by Lil on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 05:05:16 PM EST
    This is what you got out of my post? pfftt

    I hope more exposure to Sarah Palin (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 08:33:11 AM EST
    will have the same affect on the public as it did during the campaign. Run Away! Runa Away!

    But my nightmare is the media will treat her as sane and too many people will take her as a serious knowledgable person.  

    Unfortunately (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by cal1942 on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 09:04:51 AM EST
    your (and ours) nightmare is the reality of it all.

    In a sane nation this person wouldn't get one second of media attention.


    Well (none / 0) (#78)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 02:13:50 PM EST
    She is clearly smarter, and possibly more sane that the last two term president we had.

    Really I would not underestimate her and her potential appeal to those who pulled the lever for Bush.


    Clearly smarter? (none / 0) (#137)
    by CoralGables on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 09:24:02 PM EST
    Even with my thoughts on George Bush, I don't feel comfortable with that statement. I think she's clearly nuts.

    Heartless, Obscene, Moronic, (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by masslib on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 11:14:17 AM EST

    I am not convinced Ms. Palin is (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 11:44:56 AM EST
    stupid.  Manipulative, yes.  Being manipulated?  Probably.

    Stupid needs defining (5.00 / 0) (#37)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 12:43:28 PM EST
    Lets just agree she is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, possibly average for a Republican politican these days, AND she is manipulative.

    Her intellect is way below Hillary Clinton, below Orin Hatch, possibly below Mary Landrieu  and Chuck Grassley, about even with George W. Bush's public persona (if not his private one) and of course, Dan Quayle.  


    Blindspot (5.00 / 0) (#53)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 01:08:24 PM EST
    Academics have a limited way of defining intelligence. Because Palin in not an intellectual, or academic, does not mean that she is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, so to speak.

    Intelligence has many faces, if it did not we would not have been able to continue as a species.

    I think Palin is very intelligent, I disagree with 95% of her positions, and am turned off by her anti intellectual position, but I would never depict her as not the sharpest knife in the drawer.


    I would agree she is cunning (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 02:00:52 PM EST
    and so is my cat. I still don't think she is very smart. I may have a blind spot, but I stand by my judgment. Palin is not as smart as my 10 year old niece.

    lol (none / 0) (#74)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 02:10:41 PM EST
    Well being a fan of yours, I would say that going by what I have read from you here, your 10 year old niece is likely to be a genius.

    Otherwise, as a rarely as it has happened, I disagree with you regarding Palin and her intelligence. IMO, cunning is a quality that is part of intelligence.

    With all due respect for your cat, I doubt it could run for office or say anything that I would find politically offensive.


    Isn't the better question whether the (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 02:12:36 PM EST
    smart 10-year old, when old enough, has the type of smarts essential to being elected to public office?

    Yes (none / 0) (#79)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 02:16:22 PM EST
    Much better point. Well put.

    I was just happy to hear from Molly Bloom...  hope she keeps it coming..


    One of my favorite commenters. (none / 0) (#80)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 02:17:26 PM EST
    Speakiing of smart.  

    Perhaps now that Leo is out of the hospital (none / 0) (#91)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 03:18:36 PM EST
    and the post op infection is under control. Still have a lot going on, but slowly regaining control.

    I do read almost every day, but haven't had much to add - others have said eloquently that which I would have contributed.


    Leo? (none / 0) (#103)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 03:57:15 PM EST
    As in Leopold Bloom? lol

    Anyway if "Leo" is your partner, I send best wishes for a speedy recovery.


    my spouse of 17 years (none / 0) (#119)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 04:50:20 PM EST
    but yes the names are intentional.

    Thank you Squeaky.


    Good to hear things are more under (none / 0) (#126)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 05:25:40 PM EST
    control for you and yours.

    good point (none / 0) (#69)
    by TeresaInPa on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 01:50:06 PM EST
    here is a woman who came from no particular money or influence and manage to become the first female governor of Alaska.  She seems extremely competent to me even if I do disagree with her.
    The fact that she is not an intellectual, but I don't think she is anti intellectual as much as she is anti dumbass elitist intellectual. But then so am I.  I come from a whole family of intellectuals and I am one too...but I can't funking stand the type of person who thinks they are better because they are more educated or that they have better ideas.  Some people just have more education than they have ability to use it.  Call me an IQ elitist.

    Whether Palin is the smartest person (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Anne on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 09:36:41 PM EST
    in the room, or the sharpest knife in the drawer matters less to me than where she stands on the issues I care about.

    When all is said and done, I don't want the ideology and policies she represents to be in control in the WH or in the Congress.


    Agree re W and Quayle. (none / 0) (#39)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 12:49:15 PM EST
    In which category would you place (none / 0) (#43)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 12:57:00 PM EST
    Joe Biden?

    Biden (5.00 / 0) (#70)
    by TeresaInPa on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 01:52:33 PM EST
    he has diarhea of the mouth.  He just can not contain himself from whatever he thinks at any given moment.  I kind of like that about him, even when I think the things he says are totally wrong.  
    a politician who speaks his mind is a rare species.

    The death panel attack was obvious, the counter (5.00 / 0) (#41)
    by jerry on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 12:52:14 PM EST
    is not to shout and scream at people that would like to discuss it as is being done in this thread today.

    I am for a national, universal, health care plan. (I would like to see it separated from employment for many reasons.)

    But the long time, and natural criticism, and even relevant concern of national healthcare is rationing of some form or another leading to triage leading to someone basically saying, society does not feel you are worth the money to help you live.  

    This is even a more natural criticism when we look at how laws and programs evolve away over time under natural and legal processes and at times under bad law making and legal mistakes.  Example: what would a citizen or lawyer or founder make of Southern Pacific vs. Santa Clara and how that has warped society?

    The response to this natural criticism and the relevant fear in a democracy is not to shout people down and call them stupid, but to address those concerns and explain how the proposed plan will do nothing of the sort.

    That could be addressed in the current plan in many ways, for instance by:

    0) how it might be irrelevant if all a plan did was leave your insurance alone and just made it mandatory everyone have private or public insurance
    a) describing how in a public option, national decisions over treatments and medications will be made, by whom, how often,
    b) describing how individual appeals might work
    c) describing how such decisions may be left up to local boards of doctors and citizens and now always made by a national board in Washington
    d) describing how supplemental dollars, or insurance, or private insurance or private doctors may still exist to treat even if a national public option decision was to not treat a given disease at some specific stage

    Enough, I'll let you guys continue throwing stones at others who question and dissent.

    Not bad (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 01:17:18 PM EST
    Ok, I'll play...

    If having insurance is mandatory and if a person does not have the means to pay, then I assume the tax payer pays. Sounds a lot like Medicaid.

    Describing how that would be done would defuse some, but many won't believe.

    Have you ever appealed anything?

    Local boards vs national boards make no real sense.. what value do they add?

    Who pays for the Secondary (it wouldn't be supplemental) insurance for those who can't? That is the same as we have now. Denial based on ability to pay... which drives millions to the ER..which is costing is like the dickens.

    Watch for that rock! ;-)


    Sidestepping that rock (5.00 / 0) (#63)
    by jerry on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 01:25:25 PM EST
    I'm going to try not to play by saying that I don't know how the notion of triage is being discussed or handled in the current version, and that my suggestions are examples of what might be going on, and are not intended to be statements of what the current plan actually does.

    I agree that triage of this sort is a big deal and they should be talking about it or risk Palin et. al., saying they're going to kill the baby.

    I would like to know what they are doing.  I do know that I would rather appeal a decision made locally by a board that has public meetings once a week and that follows a well stated and easy and logical process than appeal a decision made by random bureaucrats 3000 miles away following complex, convoluted processes really only available to a few lawyers.


    Assuming you get to an ER (none / 0) (#114)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 04:32:01 PM EST
    and assuming you have a Living Will, the will is followed unless you are conscious and demand it be changed.

    If you are unconscious then the next of kin is asked. If none can be found immediately you are kept alive/plugged in until one can be found. If there is a conflict you are kept alive/plugged in until a court order agrees one way or the other.

    I suppose you could devise a scenario in which two people are dying at the same time and obsess over who gets the only serum but I think that is way below the noise level. In reality they can do wondrous things, and will, if we don't tie their hands.


    Republicans are Jaw Dropping Stupid (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by MO Blue on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 12:58:39 PM EST
    O.K. but what does that say about the Democrats who can't seem to counter "stupid" in the court of public opinion? What does it say about Democrats whose standard response to "Jaw Dropping Stupid" is to  routinely change legislation rather than develop a winning strategy to "Jaw Dropping Stupid?"  

    Stupid? (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 01:17:10 PM EST
    Hardly. This is a war or sport.

    Calling Palin's remarks stupid would be tantamount to calling the effort by offensive linemen knocking down their defensive counterparts so that the QB can run through the middle and score an 80 yard touchdown akin to the writings of Joyce.

    The GOP is saying stupid things to appeal to stupid people, that is smart.

    OK, let's hope it is stupid for them because they will lose voters by this play.

    Will someone please tell Sarah that (5.00 / 0) (#134)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 08:48:10 PM EST
    the insurance industry has been trying to kill my son off since he was a few months old. He won't cost them as much if he just dies.  Keep the denials coming free market health care.

    You need to read (2.00 / 0) (#3)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 08:31:03 AM EST
    some of the comments of Ezekiel Emanuel, Obama's health care adviser.

    Holy crap (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Steve M on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 08:56:05 AM EST
    We've got one, folks.  A real live deather.

    I see that description I used (2.00 / 0) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 09:18:23 AM EST
    was pretty well spot on.

    Now, if you want to snark and attack me, go ahead. What I have been trying to do is tell you what people are upset about, and offering some advice on how things can be calmed. But I don't mind the attack. It defines you rather than me.

    But, if you can put your ego in your pocket for a few minutes, read this. It is from Ezekiel Emanuel who is the Presidents health care adviser.

    This civic republican or deliberative democratic conception of the good provides both procedural and substantive insights for developing a just alloca- tion of health care resources. Procedurally, it suggests the need for public forums to deliberate about which health services should be considered basic and should be socially guaranteed. Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity-those that ensure healthy future genera- tions, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations-are to be socially guaranteed as basic.Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia. A less obvious example Is is guaranteeing neuropsychological services to ensure children with learning disabilities can read and learn to reason.

    Now the following link will get you to an article that is filled with opinions. It will also give you a link to the source of the quote which is in PDF so you can see the source.

    Now, go back and read that. It clearly says that people who don't measure up will not be given health care. He even gives examples. You may say that this was all just philosophical mutterings by academics and you may be right.

    But is gasoline on the fires of fear that those passing 50 have. They have a clearer view of "that good night" than I think you do.



    defending emmanuel (5.00 / 0) (#48)
    by Dadler on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 01:04:46 PM EST
    jake tapper does a good job.  i look forward to your reasoned dissection of his opinion.  ahem.

    As I noted (2.00 / 0) (#98)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 03:48:12 PM EST
    I don't buy the premise that we need to limit health care services. Emanuel clearly does so he believes care should be rationed based on his stated reasons and guidelines.

    He, Tapper and you may think such discussions are philosophical with no reality. I think they do reflect his philosophy and as an aged one know darn well they touch reality.


    I appreciate (3.67 / 3) (#12)
    by Steve M on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 09:29:42 AM EST
    that you have tossed away the "gosh, people have concerns" mask, and are admitting that you, too, believe that Obama has a secret goal to euthanize people.

    If you think that by mocking you I am enraging a vast silent majority of similarly paranoid people, that's fine, but your beliefs don't have a lot of credibility at this point.


    oh please Steve (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by TeresaInPa on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 12:42:02 PM EST
    I thought you were smarter than this.  Have you too fallen in the land of parroting all hate for people who think differently than you?
    People really do have concerns.  Would you want Dubya to have been advised by someone who said what this guy said?  No, because you don't trust him.  
    Palin is guilty of hyperbole and scare tactics.  But she is no more guilty of it than the left including a lot of people on this thread.
    The double standard in democratic circles amazes me.
    I have hated republicans for just this sort of behavior and now the left is just the same.
    Amd no Palin is not stupid, she is playing politics to the best of her abilities and it is just killing the left that it is working.  But if the left can have a cult of personality president, surely the right is entitled to it cult of personality too.  It's just how America roles these days.

    I also might be dismissive, but (5.00 / 0) (#101)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 03:53:38 PM EST
    then, I know that many of the vaunted "Progressives" a century ago then became among the major enthusiasts for eugenics in the '20s.

    So as ever, I will apply what I have learned from 2008.


    Well I learn something new every day (none / 0) (#139)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 10:04:51 PM EST
    I googled it.  The guy who I have my new pup from has some writings about how this happening to many of our dog breeds.  We all want to be "responsible breeders" so we work hard to only breed to stock that have all these health certifications and meet all this very strict criteria and what we have now sown three generations down the line is that we have literally chopped off genetic alleles from the lines.  We are all running on fewer alleles which is large scale inbreeding.  If we get a champion dog though who meets all this strict criteria as well we all run to breed to him like lemmings.

    Third cousins you are fine (none / 0) (#146)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Aug 09, 2009 at 04:54:07 PM EST
    unless this "responsible breeder" identity gets any worse....then everyone is going to be very closely related. Breeders do select inbreedings for a variety of reasons. What we are truly talking about though is when everyone who cares about the breed standard is all breeding the same sires.  After we do that for about twenty years we ended up literally chopping alleles out of the lines of the foundation stock.  Since all breeds are essentially the product of inbreedings...shedding alleles does nobody any favors.

    Temple Grandin (none / 0) (#148)
    by squeaky on Sun Aug 09, 2009 at 05:42:28 PM EST
    On the unanticipated, and unintended effects of selective breeding:

    Rapist Roosters


    People think Yorkies (none / 0) (#149)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 05:02:02 PM EST
    are so cute, and they are.....but they also killed vermin for us that carried diseases into our home environments before we had rat traps.  My Aunt did a champion Yorkie breeding and she did one show, and they took breed that day at a Denver show but she said she was such a nervous wreck she'd never show again.  They have a heck of a time around here with the Jack Russells declaring war on copperheads, they go to the death sometimes and it isn't usually the death of the Jack.  Some of Jacks around here seem to have developed immunity to the bites even.  I love Yorkies though.

    So your snark continues (1.00 / 1) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 10:31:36 AM EST
    I just showed you comments made by Obama's adviser. Given that Obama has admitted he doesn't know what's in the bill and given that some Congressmen have admitted they don't it is reasonable that some people will look at Emanuel's comments and be concerned.

    Your inability to understand that puzzles me.

    In the greater picture what I believe, or what you believe, matters not at all.

    And no, 99.9% of the people don't believe Obama believes that. They are concerned though that a bureaucracy founded and empowered by people who write what Emanuel wrote will cause that to happen.

    When the news has stories on an almost daily basis that "trans fat" has been outlawed, no smoking in any public building or within X feet, proposals that private homes can't be sold unless they pass a "green" test, etc., etc., the average citizen becomes suspicious.

    As for credibility I care not what you think and I would be shocked if you cared what I think so please put that straw man back in the closet.


    what is your argument with Emanuel? (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by souvarine on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 12:55:01 PM EST
    Just out of curiosity, how would you propose to allocate limited resources to health care?

    It may be that you believe the market should allocate resources, but in that case your apparent argument against a slippery slope to eugenics is disingenuous. See Pope Benedict's recent encyclical for a thorough refutation.

    Alternatively, if you believe our government has some obligation to provide for the health of its citizens then you must discuss how far that obligation extends. Resources are finite, in a democracy we try to agree on a set of principles to guide that allocation. Emanuel, in the piece you indirectly link to, is grappling with that question.

    How would you address the question?


    He is grappling, but... (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by jerry on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 01:09:52 PM EST
    I am okay with Emanuel raising the topic and having his take on it, but I do think that:

    "Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed."

    That does sound like a triage aimed at down's babies and autistic babies or kids or adults with severe diseases.

    It's also reminiscent of criticisms of Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers in which people had no right to vote until after they had served in the military.

    Triage and how it is conducted is a natural and relevant part of the health care debate.  It is relevant and reasonably alarming that Emanuel seems to have written favorably about the need for people to be participating citizens in order to get treatment.


    I am sure (none / 0) (#72)
    by TeresaInPa on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 02:03:51 PM EST
    we would all have very different ideas about what participating is.  I would be most comfortable if Doctors decide like they used to before health insurance companies took over that role to maximize profit.
    Politicians should in no way decide.  Just like with education, they more they get involved the more they f*ck it up.  With the exception of a few who did a good job, like Johnson, they really need to stay out of it.  That is why any government single payer should be run by a much more independent medicare organization with a board that is independent of political and financial influence.

    I don't buy the premise (none / 0) (#96)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 03:41:21 PM EST
    so I don't buy the bit.

    There is no reason for health care resources in this country to be limited. What they are really saying is we think the price is so high you won't pay so we will limit resources to hold down costs.

    If you you believe in universal health care then the life of an LA gang banger who has multiple bullet holes in him is just as precious as Grandma's as the Pope's.

    My argument with Emanuel is he is for rationing. His measurement would be "societal good." I reject both.


    your postion is more clear (none / 0) (#109)
    by souvarine on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 04:08:48 PM EST
    Sure, if you've got the resources you can buy all the health care you want, now or post-Obama reform. But the government's resources are limited. Or are you arguing that the government has unlimited resources to spend on health care?

    Your example, LA gang banger vs Grandma vs the Pope, just exposes your own rationale for rationing. I would ask your opinion of Medicare, but it is clear to me now, since you object to universal health care, that your position is the free market position. In which case you are being disingenuous in your appeal to concern for grandma, Trig or any suffering person who lacks the resources to purchase care.

    You reject the premise because you reject the idea that our government has any obligation to provide health care.


    You should read few threads (2.00 / 0) (#125)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 05:19:34 PM EST
    I don't object to Universal Single Payer health care. In fact I have been calling for that in this blog for years and years.

    I do object to Obama's planS since they are not universal and they are not single payer... didn't you know that?

    I pointed out that all life is precious and that cannot be judged by someone else when it comes to health care.

    Can we afford it without rationing? I think we can or we can't afford anything because any form of rationing will eventually tear the country apart because it will hit the middle class.

    And since no one has came forth with any costs, my guess is as good as yours.

    And I am on Medicare NOW and have recommended it as a model to be used for SP.


    You distort people you disagree with, as usual (none / 0) (#34)
    by jerry on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 12:32:26 PM EST
    He didn't say anything like that, and your responses to him have been:

    A) He's a DEATHER!
    B) He's a DEATHER!

    Maybe in your courtroom this is considered smart and good arguments, but what I see is that jim has actually tried to open up a civil conversation and you are not adult enough to debate him on civil terms.

    Well done.


    You need to read (5.00 / 0) (#8)
    by cal1942 on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 09:00:57 AM EST
    Idiot America by Charles Pierce.

    why (none / 0) (#38)
    by TeresaInPa on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 12:45:16 PM EST

    He may (none / 0) (#120)
    by cal1942 on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 04:57:20 PM EST
    see himself and how ridiculous his world view really is.

    Read what he wrote (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 10:36:13 AM EST
    My point is that people see that and are fearful of what will happen as the plan is implemented and changed.

    I repeat for your benefit.

    Obama should propose a SP plan, define it exactly as to what it will and will not do, tell us the cost and then have a debate on that.

    All you have now is a mass of vaguely written material that the Democrats are asking people to approve.

    It isn't working.


    Nothing like having your very own troll (none / 0) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 12:22:30 PM EST
    write things that are obvious.

    Of course the SP plan would have opposition.

    But since, as I spec'd, it would be well defined as to what it will and won't do and what it will cost false claims will be much easier to expose.

    And yes, the angry people are disruptive.

    Democracy is like that. Dictatorships, which you seem to favor, has everyone standing at attention waiting to be told.

    BTW - It seems that you don't remember the anti-war demos against the war in Vietnam and again in Iraq..

    Why if the great unwashed yelling at the Congress critters someone will claim they are speaking truth to power.



    I remember demonstrations that (none / 0) (#102)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 03:54:10 PM EST
    stopped ships from being loaded....

    But that has nothing to do with your belief that people aren't supposed to be able to yell at their elected Representatives.


    I thought they should be (none / 0) (#129)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 06:56:55 PM EST
    allowed to act stupidly and condemned their actions as harmful to our troops. Were you around in 03, 04,05, 06???

    And no one is keeping anyone from contacting their Rep although some may lose the competition for "air time." Telephones, emails and personal visit still exist.

    DA, what you object to is the idea that people who disagree with Obama are making a point to their Reps. That is your total concern


    So you now believe (none / 0) (#132)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 08:34:23 PM EST
    that anti-war demonstrators should be arrested??

    Wow. What a change you have made.

    Would I like to see a calm reasoned debate? Hey, works for me but I am not going to try and shut the doors in the face of people as they did in Tampa, or hire people to attack people trying to get in to the meeting...

    I mean before you can have that calm reasoned debate they have to let you in...



    And the guy in St Louis who was attacked while passing out anti-Obama health care info. He wound up in the ER. Was he being unreasonable?


    The Fire Chief (none / 0) (#141)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 09, 2009 at 12:01:51 PM EST



    "People" (none / 0) (#86)
    by jondee on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 02:38:50 PM EST
    meaning the people who stopped thinking analytically  ten years ago when they heard the Rapture was comin' and now rely on Glenn Beck's out-of-context, scarey Democrats segments played over and over again on tape.

    sure (none / 0) (#51)
    by TeresaInPa on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 01:06:06 PM EST
    he'll just page through a thousand pages and get back to you.
    You are guilty of a rather awkward sideways arabesque of a deflection.  

    and you miss the point on purpose again (none / 0) (#73)
    by TeresaInPa on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 02:08:09 PM EST
    talented ballerina you are not.  You aren't supposed to make your preparation to the deflection so obvious.

    I gave you a link (none / 0) (#104)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 03:58:37 PM EST
    and explained that issue is not what may or may not be in the bill but the fear that people have.

    If you are not able to understand that you will just have to continue to be my very own troll.


    Democracy is messy (none / 0) (#128)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 06:49:22 PM EST
    the people have a right to communicate by screaming, email or smoke signals... and who are you to say otherwise?

    The medium, which should be obvious to anyone as talented as you, is the message, which at one time was considered a deep thought. Evidently it has went out of fashion, or is it only true when the demonstration is about things you consider correct.

    And yes, I thought you were sneaking around on me. These things are much better when done up front.



    ah, you love me (none / 0) (#133)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 08:35:34 PM EST
    admit it



    My troll follows me wherever I go (none / 0) (#142)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 09, 2009 at 12:03:05 PM EST
    Here is what 's so scary about this (none / 0) (#13)
    by Saul on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 09:56:51 AM EST
    Thousands of people believe her.

    Buck v Bell is still good law (none / 0) (#20)
    by 1980Ford on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 11:18:43 AM EST
    Please explain the last sentence. (none / 0) (#25)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 11:49:50 AM EST

    BTD, I posted this on my blog, but (none / 0) (#28)
    by masslib on Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 11:57:49 AM EST
    has it been verified?  I mean, it's on her facebook, but it could just be someone screwing around with her facebook page, no?