Home › Blogs › Jon Henke's blog ›

Fight for the Right: It is not Grassroots VS Elites

Submitted by Jon Henke on Tue, 09/15/2009 - 12:43
in

The LA Times reported on the Right's struggle against the fevered swamp fringe.  My favorite part: "WorldNetDaily's Farah [had] asked" CPAC to hold a panel on "whether Obama was a native-born US citizen", but CPAC rejected their request and said:

"It would fill a room," said event director Lisa De Pasquale. "But so would a two-headed monkey."

I couldn't have put it better. However, I should clarify one aspect of the story which I think does not characterize my intent.

Henke said, "There is a substantial discomfort among the people who want to make intellectual arguments and want to have a substantive role in the debate." He compared the Obama birth theorists to those who said Obama's healthcare overhaul would create "death panels."

" 'Death panels' is not a substantive contribution to the discussion. It's a cartoon," he said.

Actually, I think there's a substantial difference between the birther and "death panel" comments. The former are irresponsible, dishonest conspiracy theories that divert us from important matters; the latter are absurd, hyperbolic characterizations without real reference to anything in the bill (optional counseling on end of life patient choices are not remotely comparable to "death panels"), but at least there's a plausible argument that more government involvement in health care will inevitably lead to the government making cost/benefit decisions about treatment.

Still, we shouldn't defend "death panels" any more than Democrats should defend Ted Kennedy's "Robert Bork's America" smears.  The comment may have been tactically effective in making Democrats cringe (for all the good that did), but it didn't get us any closer to good policies.  Tactics are not replacement for strategy, and a month spent discussing "death panels" only helps discredit Republicans among the people who might be willing to listen to more substantive policy proposals.

Finally, I reject the idea that this is a division between the elite and the grassroots for a couple reasons.

  1. It is a very cynical and patronizing view of the Right's grassroots, which does not deserve this tyranny of low expectations.
  2. It excuses the "elites" (or "insiders" in the LA Times description), who don't necessarily deserve credit for being thoughtful and serious.  As Conor Friedersdorf has pointed out, there are many "movement conservative elites in positions of power who sell out the base and never get called on it." The elites are not just part of the problem; they are, in some senses, responsible for the culture and state of the movement.

 

3
Your rating: None Average: 3 (5 votes)

Comments

1987?

Submitted by someone on Tue, 09/15/2009 - 13:02.

 

Is that the best example you could come up with?

 

Perhaps you could digg up some comment Patrick Swayze made back in 1954 to better make your case.

I didn't quite get that one,

Submitted by classicliberal2 on Tue, 09/15/2009 - 14:03.

I didn't quite get that one, either (particularly given the fact that Bork later wrote a book that pretty much proved Kennedy had been right on that one).

Kennedy insight

Submitted by lgm on Sun, 09/20/2009 - 17:24.

I agree.  I didn't follow the Bork hearings very closely.  But when Slouching Toward Gamorrah came out, it made Kennedy look like a genious.  80% of the country must have been grateful to him for keeping this now obvious nut off the Supreme Court.  Of only Scalia had been Scalia-ed as well.

Yes

Submitted by classicliberal2 on Sun, 09/20/2009 - 18:15.

I agree.  I didn't follow the Bork hearings very closely.  But when Slouching Toward Gamorrah came out, it made Kennedy look like a genious.  80% of the country must have been grateful to him for keeping this now obvious nut off the Supreme Court.

Kennedy pulled no punches in that attack on Bork, but with that book (and Bork's comments in peddling it), Bork succeeded in making Kennedy's attack seem understated. Conservatives had , for years, portrayed Bork as an intellectual--he revealed himself, with his own words, to be an utter crackpot and advanced a pro-censorship, anti-science, pro-"culture war" point of view that, if deviating in any meaningful way from outright fascism, doesn't deviate enough to merit parsing the differences. Bork isn't, as he and his supporters would have it, a victim--he's a picture-perfect example of much of what is wrong with the right today. America successfully dodged a bullet aimed at its heart when he was prevented from infesting the Supreme Cout and sent back to his regular job (as the guy on the Quaker Oats box).

Fevered swamp Fringe ? Intellectual Argument ?

Submitted by 4speed on Tue, 09/15/2009 - 20:20.

I want to see The great and Powerful "O"'s Long form BC. Latest count on "O"'s lawyer expenditures is $900,000 to keep it in Hawaii.
I know I had to show my BC to keep my Fed job.....Equality is "O" showing his.
Its not Intellectual, it a Document of Authenticity. Sorta like being pulled over by a Cop....Drivers License and Registration....No BS, STAND AND DELIVER.

You guys have an interesting

Submitted by Democritus on Tue, 09/15/2009 - 13:38.

You guys have an interesting problem on your hands and I'm curious to see how things shake out.  As a left-leaning independent, I'm definitely rooting for thoughtful conservatives like you to win out.  I suppose politically I should be rooting for the crazies to win because that would keep the Republican base small and the Dems would dominate election for years to come.  But for the good of the country, I hope "the fevered swamp fringe" is overwhelmed by the rational practical wing of the party.

It feels like there really hasn't even been a true debate on such an important issue like healthcare.  As you pointed out, a whole month was wasted on imaginary death panels.  The result was that end of life counseling was taken out of the bill.  Scoring political points became more important than actually helping people and that is not good for anyone.

Finally, I reject the idea that this is a division between the elite and the grassroots

I don't see it that way either.  From my perspective, it looks like you are battleing the religious right and talk radio hosts.  To keep their ratings high and pews full, they need an enemy to battle or an issue to be outraged by.  And then you've got weak minded pandering politicians who cater to the frenzied mob.  It's a vicious circle that I don't know how you will break.

WND is an easy target, but I think you've really got to aim a lot higher.  Like people who reject reason.  Sure the birthers/birchers are easily discredited kooks, but they are just a symptom.  When half of a political party rejects science altogether and actually thinks science is a hoax, you've got bigger problems than a death panels or birth certificate conspiracy theorists.

I agree, in part

Submitted by A Democrat on Thu, 09/17/2009 - 14:58.

Part of my problem with rejecting the distinction is that the fevered swamp fringe appears to be a large portion of the Republican party or the representatives of the fabled "grassroots base". I'm only talking about perception, not necessarily reality. Take this with the grain of salt you would afford an outsider. I'm not a Repub so I may miss some distinction (as the Repub's whose comments I have read have obviously missed distinctions within the Dem party and then blamed the Dems). Nevertheless, it appears that the feverish fringe are presented as the outraged Republican party. And this is not just an invite to crack the liberal media presenting a misleading image. I take Joe Wilson's conduct as an elite of the party pandering to that very fevered fringe. I can't discount the real and, perhaps influential, fringe when I see party officials and MOC's pandering to them.

Again, the lack of righteous debate on healthcare is disturbing. Obama and healthcare are obvious targets. There are a bazillion legitimate reasons to debate. Hello- Democrat and Republican? We have some fundamental policy differences? Just harp on the obvious costs of the proposed healthcare plan - that should carry Repubs all the way into the next election. Money still talks.

Perhaps the problem is that Repubs just aren't effectively controlling their message. I know conservatives have all sorts of distinctions. So why is the party seemingly speaking through a few media outlets that prefer sensationalism? Why don't I see more of John McCain- a Repub I have respect for- speaking for the party? If the end-goal is to defeat health care, etc., I don't understand the complete lack of outreach. The fevered fringe isn't going to appeal to the moderates and the fence sitters. I guess my point is that I don't see party central doing a lot to control this "division" and illustrating the party's actual objections to healthcare, etc. (And I am not talking about the "we don't like the plan so why don't we throw it out" stall tactic.) Why is Sarah Palin, is she even a loyal Republican?, writing about "death panels". Is the audience supposed to assume she has left the reservation? Or is this approved Republican party tactics.

This is where I get confused with the distinction.

The talk of "death panels"

Submitted by classicliberal2 on Tue, 09/15/2009 - 15:02.

The talk of "death panels" isn't bad because it's an ineffective tactic. It's bad because its bullshit. It's even worse than the birther garbage, and you shouldn't be offering ANY sort of rationalization for it. This "logic"

"at least there's a plausible argument that more government involvement in health care will inevitably lead to the government making cost/benefit decisions about treatment"

...is no different from saying marriage is the leading cause of divorce. I know you say it isn't something that should be defended, but when you say things like that, that's what you're doing.

I understand why you're uncomforable with the "grassroots vs. elites" formulation, but I don't see how you can deny such a division exists. The screaming idiots at the health care townhalls this summer genuinely believed there were "death panels" in the health care reform bills. I guarantee you that Charles Grassley--one of the slugs who told people there were--knew there weren't. Joe Wilson knew Obama was telling the truth about illegal immigrants and the health bill when he shouted "you lie!" He knew it then, and he knows it now, as he's raking in a fortune by milking the Bubble People robots who make up such a stubstantial portion of the conservative "base."

I do very much agree with you that those elites are NOT "thoughtful and serious." They have their eye on winning, most of the time, to the exclusion of most other considerations, including, most of the time, any sort of long-term view of things. They have, for decades, fostered an atmosphere that is absolutely poisonous, and almost entirely untethered from reality--the widespread acceptance, on the right, of things like "death panels" and Obama-isnt-an-American are perfect expressions of it. When the truth simply doesn't matter, and all that does matter is political "purity' and bizarre notions of loyalty, monsters are born. The checks that would prevent them--including simple common sense--have all been agressively removed. This may elect Republicans for a few elections, but the long-term effects are what we're seeing now--a conservative movement that is entirely dominated by kooks who think the truth itself is subject to politically partisan considerations.

I wonder if you really realize how daunting a task you really do face, when it comes to trying to clean up your own house?

Protester Typology

Submitted by Gopideas on Tue, 09/15/2009 - 17:56.

I agree that the elite/grassroots division sells the grassroots end shot. The real division is between those that want to win for the sake of winning and win for the sake of changing the country. Both want Dems to lose, but to understand the difference in outcome, compare domestic social spending under Reagan and Bush.

Also, I've been to a number of events and it seems as though much of the outrage is a function of mob mentality. Talking to people individually, people will tell you that Palin shouldn't have quit, the 2000-2006 majority blew a huge chance, etc. In response to some of my friends who associate protesters = racists = right wing crazies = Republicans. I developed a more nuanced typology of the people that I have found at these events --- they have different backgrounds and motivations, that happen to conincide --- this is not a right-led conspiracy.

Normal
0

The libertarians: these are the people who believe and that every government program is too big or completely unnecessary; see Ron Paul.  The social conservatives: these people are the home schoolers, Christian right, etc. They oppose most any change to the current social order, so nationalizing anything (automakers, banking, health care, gay marriage) gets them fired up.

The economically or socially dispossessed: These people have seen the pillars of stability in their lives get buzz-sawed for the last 30 years (ending of the single wage earner, increased divorce rate, reliance on an information-based workforce, out migration of children to urban centers, lack of job security, etc.) and have not adapted to a changed world.

Career protesters: some people are just angry, all the time --- and join the highest profile activity, just as long as it is high profile.

The turks: Just like the Obama campaign was the seminal event for young liberals to engage in politics, the tea party stuff is the thing to do if you’re a young, idealistic conservative.

The lifetime Republicans: Not particularly committed to a policy goal, but rather feel affiliation to Republican causes for social/career reasons.  

One man's plausible argument

Submitted by EscapeVelozity on Tue, 09/15/2009 - 21:25.

One man's plausible argument is another man's reality.   UK NHS allots $50,000 for final year of life treatment.  Wont spend a dime more to keep an old geezer alive.  Of course this is all based on statistical liklihoods of procedures effectiveness etc.

So it seems to me that you are offended that someone effectively communicated a verbose wordy complex idea in a quickly understandable catch phrase.

What you are against is Conservatives effectively messaging.

It used to be that Conservatives sat around thinking up ways to communicate these difficult philosophical positions in which you had to convince someone that they were better off forgoing government handouts because of the threats to liberty.

Now its about killing effective communication so that Leftwingers can drive there policy agenda of all powerful statism, while you mumble on about something or other....that you will only grant is plausable when its a fuckin reality in the UK.

Youve got issues, my friend.

Id rather you just declare yourself my political enemy instead on constantly kneecapping Conservatives, to the delight of the New Leftist Radicals.

 

"Effectively messaging"?!!!

Submitted by classicliberal2 on Tue, 09/15/2009 - 23:31.

Comparisons to the UK, where the government runs the entire health care establishment, are of no more relevance to the matter before us than is Richard Pryor's weather-control scheme in SUPERMAN 3. The "death panels"-in-the-health-care-bill thing was a lie. It wasn't true. It wasn't a misinterpretation of something that was real. There wasn't a grain of truth in it. Not one. No such measure exists. No such measure ever existed. No such measure was ever even proposed, nor is there any reason to believe it would ever be proposed.You can, however, impart this lie to a gaggle of wind-up Bubble People robots who have had their capacity for skepticism surgically removed when it comes to anything that emanates from the far-right bubble in which they've sealed themselves. You can get them riled up and furious, get them to turn up at townhall meetings and scream the talking-points you've fed them like a pack of brainless parrots. You can come here and call that "effective messaging."All you're really doing, though, is lying, and organizing the easily led around those lies. It's no different than if you said there was a provision in the bill that said no one over the age of 75 will be allowed any health care. Armey's astroturfers could get it on Fox News and Beck. They would believe you. They'd turn up, just as they did over "death panels." You could call that "effective messaging." If it needs said, though, those aren't the right words for it.There's a bitter irony in the embrace of the idea of "anything to win" by the same conservatives who have, for so long and at such length, lectured the rest of us on morality. Going that route is part of what has led the conservative movement to its present sorry state, where 58-64% of Republicans tell pollsters they think Obama either isn't even a U.S. citizen, or arent sure. It's why Joe Wilson has become lionized as a hero for, again, lying about the health care proposal, and making a public ass of himself in doing so.You wouldn't know it from the mountain of lies, more lies, bigger lies (and, on the other hand, almost nothing that's true) that's been used to hammer at the health care reform proposals, but there are a multitude of quite genuine grounds on which to oppose it. I don't like it myself. I'm angry at Obama for the direction he's taken on this (and almost every other) issue, and for the way he's gone about it. I can rant about it at length. I have ranted about it at length, since before he was ever even inaugurated. My anger isn't some free-floating entity, though. It doesn't come because he's a politician of some party or creed I regard as an enemy. It isn't because I hold him to be some evil "socialist" or "Hitler." It's based on what he's actually done. I don't like his health care proposals because I can see the massive problems with them, and because I know there was a better way. I wouldn't mind seeing much of what he's proposed on the matter defeated. I don't need to lie to express this. I would, in fact, rather lose the argument entirely than commit the level of fraud that has been perpetuated by the enemies of the health care proposals in order to "win."  I know the difference between right and wrong, and I value my soul a little more than that.

Thank you.

Submitted by undoctored on Wed, 09/16/2009 - 10:55.

 I appreciate your honesty and intellectual integrity and your rejection of the willful distortion of the facts.  There is certainly a debate to be had between those who support Obama's policies and those who do not.  I call on those who post here to eschew ad hominen attacks (the approach the teabaggers and people like Joe Wilson have come to embody) and to accord to their "opponents" the respect they would demand for themselves.  Your stand is a courageous one and I commend you for it.

 

 

undoctored speaks out of both sides of his mouth...

Submitted by JakeMountain1 on Wed, 09/23/2009 - 08:41.

What a frickin hypocrite.  He plays dupe echo chamber troll for ClassicLiberal2's comments immediately preceeding this latest nonsense and then, without a wit's sense, can demand

There is certainly a debate to be had between those who support Obama's policies and those who do not.  I call on those who post here to eschew ad hominen attacks...

and wait for it, the very next words are ad hominen attacks

the approach the teabaggers and people like Joe Wilson have come to embody

Someone from the White House office of "community engagement" needs to work on editing the faithful's bloviations.  They've been in the echo chamber of the DailyKos-Obama WH so long that they forget how stupid they sound.

 

Jon, like what's the point of this whole exercise?

Submitted by Ironman on Tue, 09/15/2009 - 21:28.

I know there are lots of salon style Republicans who are still embarassed by us shot-and-a beer crew out in the hinterland, who are playing the game according to the rules that folks like Teddy K. laid out a generation ago.  Hit hard, apologize for nothing, and keep the other guy on the defensive.

If we are playing the game too rough for your sensibilities Jon, please do the cause a favor.  Be still and pipe up when you have something useful to offer.

You made your point on the Birthers. Move on.

Agreed Ironman. This isn't

Submitted by mike from nc on Tue, 09/15/2009 - 22:47.

Agreed Ironman. This isn't the time for ivory tower intellectualism. Besides, most of the "elites" aren't nearly as intellectual as they think they are. I'd like to buy most of them for what they're worth and sell 'em for what they think they're worth.

Jon, you may not agree that there is a division between the elites and the grassroots, but it appears you do acknowledge them as seperate entities. I don't know what your definition of elite is, but if it the traditional one, I reject your premise. If elite means intellectually competent, deep thinking, passionate Americans, then I reject your conclusion. If, on the other hand it means blue blooded country club snobs who think they are better than the commoners, I agree. And good riddance.

The Americans at the tea parties and the rallies are not far right nut cases, as some on these pages portend. They don't represent the fringe. They are mainstream America. They are neither racist, nor ignorant, nor hate-filled. They are angry. Listening to Rush Limbaugh, watching Glen Beck, supporting Sarah Palin, none of those things relegate them to the trash bin of contemporary culture. We do our cause no favor by helping the left to discount their relevancy. There is one major difference between our fringe and that of the left; we recognize ours and relegate them to the sidelines, their's is running the party.

Since when do we care what the LA Times has to say? They are never going to agree with us, they will never like us. Every day they, along with their liberal counterparts, become more irrelevant. We won't win the fight by modifying liberalism, but by defeating it.

That's an inversion of reality

Submitted by classicliberal2 on Tue, 09/15/2009 - 23:48.

There is one major difference between our fringe and that of the left; we recognize ours and relegate them to the sidelines, their's is running the party.

Exactly the opposite is the case. If we're to take the President as the nation's head Democrat, he's a moderate liberal who has (vainly) bent over backwards to be accomodating to the other side, so committed to the idea of "bipartisanship" as a goal, rather than a means, that he alienates a lot of his own party in order to enlist the aid of the tiny number of Republicans willing to work with him on crafting compromise. The fringe elements are microscopic, and, for the most part, invisible.

On the other side, we have a situation where 58-64% of Republicans tell pollsters they either don't believe Obama is a U.S. citizen, or aren't sure he is. That's fringe kookism, by any definition, but it's the mainstream Republican position. Asked if they believed the health care proposals created “death panels, which have the authority to subjectively determine whether or not a gravely ill or injured person should receive health care based on their level of productivity in society," 57% of Republicans said they either believed it, or weren't sure. The kooks aren't "relegated to the sidelines" of the party at all. They are the party.

ClassicDemocrat is caught in his own inverted reality....

Submitted by JakeMountain1 on Wed, 09/16/2009 - 06:28.

Gotta love this big whomping lie of ClassicDemocrat2 : "he's a moderate liberal who has (vainly) bent over backwards to be accomodating to the other side".

Let's see, in a short few months in the US Senate, he gained the title of the most liberal Democrat in a caucus known for farLeft liberals like CarlMarxLevin, DebbieStupidCow and BabsMa'amBoxer, LyinJoeBiden and TeddieBuryMyHeartInChappiePondKennedy?  Scarlet, my dear, Barrie is anything but moderate.  By the way, is that Tara I smell burning as Barrie's poll numbers drop and the Democrats get worried about the supposed slam-dunk in 2010?

This President, according to our liberal DailyKos troll above, thinks that because he won the election, the GOP Congressional Caucuses can sit in the hallway with their ideas.  Whether it's meaningful budget cuts to respond to Obama's paltry $100m Feb cuts or how to re-win the Wars that Obama is now losing... the President has been assidiously partisan, fast to draw the bellicose pistols and quick to greet any proposal from the other side of the aisle in a "Chicago style campaign thuggery" move that makes ACORN and SEIU look like piddle-counting street merchants.

The funniest thing is that ClassicDemocrat2 actually believes Barrie is a moderate liberal.  I guess compared to CD2's radical and partisan ideas, Barrie is a moderate to him.

In July, pollsters asked voters if they what they thought about Barrie... an overwhelming plurality placed him as Very Liberal... 48%.  LyinJoeBiden got a narrow plurality of Very Liberal at 35%.

If the poll had been conducted at an ACORN rally, at a meeting of union goons or in NancyPelosi's den at home, I guess Barrie and LyinJoe could have been rated moderate.  Just like ClassicDemocrat2 does here.

Maybe the conservatives have a fair share of kooks in their ranks... but the Democrats and farLeft have become the Party of Corruption... and in ClassicDemocrat2 eyes, the Party of Inverted Reality.

Wow, impressive ... you

Submitted by acinphx on Wed, 09/16/2009 - 11:28.

Wow, impressive ... you didn't miss a single one of Rush's talking points.  The bubble is fully intact.

ass in phoenix... care to identify any source in Rush's...

Submitted by MI-GOPer on Wed, 09/16/2009 - 19:58.

extensive media archive where those talking points exist?

Didn't think so.  The heat in phoenix may be a dry heat, but it's clearly fried your brains to a pork rind crispiness.  Time to leave the trailer park behind, ok?

ass in phoenix... those crickets are chirping so loud

Submitted by MI-GOPer on Sun, 09/20/2009 - 17:19.

we didn't hear your answer.  You, did, of course, have the ability to prove your last stupidly baiting comment, eh?

Wow, impressive ... you didn't miss a single one of Rush's talking points.  The bubble is fully intact.

Like many have done here with Classic Liberal, Mead 50, undoctored, Democritus and the other trolls, your mouth is writing checks your brain can't cash, ass-n-phx.

 

 

Reality and the Obama administration

Submitted by classicliberal2 on Wed, 09/16/2009 - 11:31.

Gotta love this big whomping lie of ClassicDemocrat2 : "he's a moderate liberal who has (vainly) bent over backwards to be accomodating to the other side".Let's see, in a short few months in the US Senate, he gained the title of the most liberal Democrat in a caucus known for farLeft liberals like CarlMarxLevin, DebbieStupidCow and BabsMa'amBoxer, LyinJoeBiden and TeddieBuryMyHeartInChappiePondKennedy?

That you chose to portray ordinary, run-of-the-mill liberals as "farLeft liberals" says nothing about them, and everything about your own complete lack of judgment. It is a fact that Obama was far more liberal when in the Senate than he has been as president. Upon winning the Democratic nomination, he immediately began a shift  to the right, where he has remained to this day. That doesn't make him a conservative, of course. It makes him a moderate liberal, which is how he has governed.

This President, according to our liberal DailyKos troll above, thinks that because he won the election, the GOP Congressional Caucuses can sit in the hallway with their ideas.  Whether it's meaningful budget cuts to respond to Obama's paltry $100m Feb cuts or how to re-win the Wars that Obama is now losing... the President has been assidiously partisan, fast to draw the bellicose pistols and quick to greet any proposal from the other side of the aisle in a "Chicago style campaign thuggery" move that makes ACORN and SEIU look like piddle-counting street merchants.

Meanwhile, in the real world, Obama defeated Hillary Clinton in the primary by playing to her left, defeated John McCain in the general, and beat them both because they'd been carrying the water for Bush. He then proceeded to name Hillary Clinton, the McCain campaign's national security adviser, and Bush's Sec. of Defense as his core foreign policy team, as if the election had never happened. It was, unfortunately, a sign of how he would come to staff the entirety of his administration--nearly every key position went to conservatives/Clintonites, and virtually no liberals were appointed to anything that mattered.

It shows in the actions of his administration. On the big policy items, he's adopted "bipartisanship," rather than any sort of strong liberal agenda, and has bent over backwards to be accomodating to the Republicans. On the stupid "stimulus" bill, he larded up the bill with costly, less stimulative tax cuts--nearly half the bill--in a vain effort to garner Republican votes. At a cost of hundreds of billions, he got two of them. On health care, he refused to even consider single-payer, backed by the liberals and around 60% of the public. It would offend the Republicans, so he opted, instead, for yet another plan aimed at preserving a private insurance industry that has failed, is doomed to collapse, and is bleeding the country dry as it dies. He's spent weeks backpedalling on the "public option," one of the only serious parts of the "reform" he's touting.

More disturbing, he's gone in a conservative and even reactionary direction on many matters of great significance. The U.S. Supreme Court has been conservative-to-the-point-of-illness for years, and, given the opportunity to appoint a new justice (one of his most important responsibilities), Obama chose yet another conservative, rather than make any effort at trying to balance the reactionary freak-show presently in place. While making a public show of rolling back some of the louder elements of the fascist "national security" state Bush had imposed, Obama has chosen to maintain far too much of it. He's sent administration lawyers into court to defend the illegal Bush wiretapping program, to try to crush the suits against Bush's "rendition" policy (sending people to foreign nations for the purpose of torturing them), and to withhold documents describing the interrogations of prisoners as recorded in those infamous videotapes Bush had erased. He's embraced the Bush notion of the "state secretes privilege," and argued that litigation against the NSA shouldn't be allowed. He's refused to release the FBI's interview with Dick Cheney in the Plame leak case. He's refused to release photos of detainee torture and abuse by the Bush admnistraiton. He's refused to prosecute--indeed, has resisted even investigating--the criminal behavior of that administration. He's continued the stupid war in Iraq, and is even escalating the U.S. presence in Afghanistan.

This is the administration that actually exists. It bears little resemblance to the liberal one you'd have people believe.

CLD2, you can repeat DailyKos-WhiteHouse talking points...

Submitted by JakeMountain1 on Mon, 09/21/2009 - 06:56.

all day, but the truth is that Americans and most unbiased, balanced, thoughtful people believe that Obama is a "very liberal" president... in fact, in some quarters like the gay community, he's being seen as one of the worst president ever --eclipsing Jimmy Carter's dubious title without the demerit of living through another Carter-like presidency.

http://www.gaypatriot.net/2009/09/20/the-mathematical-formula-for-barack-obama/

Now, YOU might think that Obama is a moderate but that says less about my judgment and far, far more about your partisan rabidness and suspension of any appraisal skills you may have once held.

Let's do a simple checkup in the ol' veternarian's office, shall we?

1) BO appoints more tax cheats to his Administration than Carter.  2) BO racks up more deficits than even the American economy can pay for in 20 yrs.  3) BO starts out of the block with a radical, statist-centered plan to spend more money in his first year in office than most presidents get in discretionary spending in 8 years in office.  4) BO expands federal govt and proposes further expansions of the fed govt in a manner that would make an FDR liberal slobber with envy.  5) BO engages in a deconstruction of America's health care system because, as every liberal knows, "poor people aren't getting the same quality of health care as people with a job" --oh, the injustice!  6) BO begins on day one to attack the military, attack their budgets, attack their efforts in Afghanistan, second guesses on-the-ground commanders with a pattern that makes LBJ look "controlled".  7) BO reverses America's bipartisan natl security defense practices by attacking the CIA, undercutting the War on Terror by claiming, wildly, that it isn't a "war" and it isn't about "terror".  8) BO flip flops on so many issues (repeal DADT, get out of Iraq fast, hire a bipartisan cabinet, create a new political culture in DC that ends yrs of abuse, etc) that he makes JohnKerry jealous and threatens Kerry's claim as the Liberal-Flip-Flopper of all time.  BO turns his back on America's allies in Europe and Asia and SAmerica while embracing our legendary enemies elsewhere.

So, it looks like Obama is, indeed, the "very liberal" duck that a majority of Americans rightly judge him to be.  He walks like a very liberal duck.  He acts like a very liberal duck.  He quacks like a very liberal duck.

The only thing that is even a little bit moderate about him is... well, is... ok, there's not much that is moderate about him.

 

Thos aren't "talking points"

Submitted by classicliberal2 on Mon, 09/21/2009 - 11:56.

So, it looks like Obama is, indeed, the "very liberal" duck that a majority of Americans rightly judge him to be.  He walks like a very liberal duck.  He acts like a very liberal duck.  He quacks like a very liberal duck.

If any of that is true, you've made absolutely no case for it here. The question on the table is the matter of Obama's political orientation. Is he a moderate liberal, as pretty much every available fact suggests, or is he some wild-eyed radical socialist, as certain conservative voices ludicrously propose? In my answer, I dealt with what he's actually done. In yours, you focus mostly on nonsense that is unresponsive to the question. Tax cheats? Flip flopping? Spending? Deficits? After the last president, you roll out spending and deficits with a straight face? I've already dealt with the health care matter--his actions support my characterization, not yours. Your assertion about his attacking military spending is flatly false--he has, in fact, proposed increasing the military budget by $21 billion (from an already-obscene $513 billion under Bush to $534 billion). Obama has not withdrawn from Iraq, and, in typical bureacratic fashion, has referred the matter to a committee that delays, delays, delays any solid recommendation, and he's actually radically expanding the Afghanistan misadventure.

You've made no case whatsoever for Obama being anything other than what I described.

Obama is a statist

Submitted by peter jackson on Tue, 09/22/2009 - 00:15.

Has anyone ever heard the President speak on any issue where government wasn't the solution? To him it's not a question, it's only a question of how much.

That's not moderate or liberal. That's statist.

yours/

peter.

"Statists"

Submitted by classicliberal2 on Tue, 09/22/2009 - 10:30.

Every politician of every stripe in the U.S.--and, for that matter, every politician anywhere or anyone at all who isn't a 19th century-style anarchist--is a "statist." It's a meaningless thing to say. It's like saying they're pro-sunlight. Efforts to convert it into some sort of political designation are, to put it bluntly, idiotic.

So you assert

Submitted by peter jackson on Tue, 09/22/2009 - 22:16.

How many of the politicians that oppose cap and trade propose some other government solution for controlling the weather?

stat⋅ism

the principle or policy of concentrating extensive economic, political, and related controls in the state at the cost of individual liberty. 

Sorry, but you don't get to redefine the term, you'll have to try an actual rebuttal. Can you think of a "problem" for which Obama has suggested a "solution" that doesn't involve the government taking taking control of the context?

yours/

peter.

Not an assertion

Submitted by classicliberal2 on Tue, 09/22/2009 - 23:05.

"Statism" literally means "belief in a state." That's it, and that's all. There is no historical movement that has used the title to which one can point as a source of a different definition. Randroids have tried to define it has you do above, and use it as a curse, but, again, they run into the same problem: on the one hand, there's no historical basis for it, and, on the other, everyone who isn't an old-school anarchist believes in the existence of a state, even the Randroids (who prefer a powerful state, but don't call it that). More recently, Mark Levin has tried to coopt the word, but Levin--a miracle of science in that he's as close to being entirely braindead as anything can be and still walk and talk--runs into the same roadblock, and he wants an even more powerful state than the Randroids. There's no antonym in politics for that fanciful, baseless definition you parrot from the Randroids, except that nearly-deceased breed of anarchist.. Conservatives are no more "anti-statists" than are liberals. They all want a state--they just want it to do different things.

Clinging to this will succeed only in marking your opinion as completely worthless, and of no interest to anyone who isn't an utter flake.

Your argument is with the dictionary

Submitted by peter jackson on Wed, 09/23/2009 - 01:07.

...and not me. I got that definition from Dictionary.com, which sites the Random House dictionary as the source. The more direct definition is the one from American Heritage:

stat·ism    (stā'tĭz'əm)    n.  The practice or doctrine of giving a centralized government control over economic planning and policy.

stat'ist adj. & n.

This is what I mean when I refer to Obama as "statist," "Randroids" notwithstanding.

When defined as broadly as the "belief in a state," you're right, it's a distinction without a difference.

yours/

peter.

Of course you're spouting off talking points, CLD2; you got zip

Submitted by JakeMountain1 on Tue, 09/22/2009 - 11:25.

First, you contend, that Obama is a moderate, centrist kind of guy just going about and doing the People's business in a bipartisan, compromise-to-get-along, let's help the GOP out of their slump, get everybody a'nodding sway.

Then, you continue the absurd contention by arguing that your talking points reiteration isn't that... why, it's... why, it's just the truth. Then you contend anything substantive that smarter folks here offer is just nonsense.

Nope, CLD2... you've got the reach and stretch and incredible line in arguing that Obama is a moderate and not the farLeft liberal that a plurality of Americans rightly see him as... and, for now, we can leave off the biggest whopper of a lie from you --namely that TedKennedy, CarlLevin or DebbieStupidCow are just normal, moderate progressives trying to eeck out a little compassion for the poor in this big evil federal govt of our's.

Yep, you lost the argument when you began contending that Obama is a moderate, bipartisan leader.  You can't argue against facts or the truth, CLD2... nor can Obama change his spots.  Massive deficits, huge spending plans, takeovers of GM and health care and banks, cutting secret deals with BigHospitals, BigPharma, undercutting our natl intelligence institutions, flipflopping on Iraq, flipflopping on CIA investigations, flipflopping on bringing change to DC... and, btw, the Senate and House Dem leadership have agreed with the Obama WH that they'll enact deep cuts in the 2010 DefBud as soon as health care reform is enacted.  Oh yeah, Obama is a moderate by your standards, maybe.  To everyone else, he's a farLeft guy who finds more in common with socialist Hugo Chavez and communist Fidel Castro and the radical tyrants killing off thousands of minorities in Africa than he does with our traditonal allies in Poland, the Czech Republic and elsewhere.

He's a moderate? I guess that's why Obama's drawn out the largest anti-govt, anti-Obama rallies since the 1960s, he's had to call out his Hollywood buds to write some creative propaganda for him while they're on the federal NEA grant dime, and most Americans view him lower and less favorable than any other president in recent history at the early juncture of his only term in office?

Because, after all, he's so moderate.  So bipartisan.  So loved.  Tell that to the House GOP members he told in April while working on some budget cuts to go jump off a cliff.  Tell that to the House GOP members he told to take a hike when Obama's staff were moving cap & trade.  Tell that to the BlueDog Democrats and GOP members who have asked him to moderate his takeover of health care and his War on Medicine and he told them, in a joint Congressional session, to get lost.

Obama is about as bipartisan as Bush 43 was immoral.

And American voters, American patriots and the world see through Obama's lies and distortions... just like we see through your lies about his "political moderation" and "bipartisanship".  Saying it's so doesn't make it so, CLD2.  Even if someone as lordly as you pronounce it from the minaret on Eid al-Fitr.

Defeat Liberalism? How to do your cause a favor.

Submitted by A Democrat on Thu, 09/17/2009 - 15:23.

This is an attitude I take exception with. This country is not about one side winning and "defeating" the other. You pretty much have to suffer the presence of liberals and afford them their right to vote. Which means bi-partisanship is a much more realistic goal rather than "defeat" of your opponents. Find a way to compromise and blend. You aren't going to change all of our minds. Also, we are NOT at war. We are your neighbors.

If you intend to do your "cause" a favor, rather than support the relevancy of Rush, Sarah Palin, and Glenn Beck, perhaps, you would be better served finding a point of mutual agreement or understanding. Or, a mouthpiece who doesn't scare the shit out of liberals with words like "defeat" when referring to our closely held political beliefs. I would rather hear from John McCain or this blogger than those you pointed out. I know those you mentioned hold me and my beliefs in contempt- why would I give them a second of my time or attention? If your true goal is to defeat some particular piece of legislation, there are more effective avenues of debate than Rush, Sarah, and Glenn Beck. They are not interested in talking to me, a Democrat. They talk to their fans, only.

apples v. oranges

Submitted by Xrlq on Tue, 09/15/2009 - 22:53.

Birtherism is pure, unadulterated bullshit, on the level of leftists claiming the Bush Administration either engineered the 9/11 attacks or willfully allowed them tohapepn.

"Death panels" is overheated rhetoric, on the level of leftists decrying "assault" weapons, "tax cuts for the rich," etc.

The two should not be discussed in a single article.

A Democrat, Right back at you

Submitted by EscapeVelozity on Fri, 09/18/2009 - 00:40.

A Democrat,

Right back at you sister.  We are not going to change, so you better start scaling back your plans for this country, way back.

We are your neighbors not some social experiment that you would like to tinker with constantly via state power.

 

 

And you are a little insane.

Submitted by A Democrat on Fri, 09/18/2009 - 17:26.

I guess the great democratic conspiracy will just have to move ahead with the giant social experiment where we use Republicans and patriots as guinea pigs. We give you free bags of beans and whole milk and then watch to see how long it takes for you to become addicted to the government dole. Beware the black helicopters, that is how we get around.

On those death panels.

Submitted by Bohemond on Sat, 09/19/2009 - 11:15.

The charge was deflected into the non-issue of end-of-life counseling. But the mechanism of rationing is real, and in fact its infrastructure has already been created under the stimulus package: the Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness. This is a direct transplant of Britain's notorious National Institute for Comparative Effectiveness (NICE)- their healthcare rationing board. And if there haven't been all *that* many charges of actual euthanasia (but there have been some), NICE is most certainly responsible for denying the elderly such things as hip replacements and cochlear implants, on the grounds they have insufficient "Quality Adjusted Life Years" to be worth the money.

"Death Panels"

Submitted by Dannymk55 on Mon, 09/21/2009 - 10:55.

Why do conservative intellectuals insist on playing a differnt game then liberals.  Civility does not win elections and nor do most intellectual arguments.  "Death Panels" do.  Emotional arguments win elections and bring voters to the polls.  You guys insist on thinking that they do not matter...why?

"give me liberty or give me death"

"all men are created equal"

These are not intellecutal arguments..they are emotional ones (and totally irrational at that)...but they worked.

Sarah palin's invocation of death panels managed to crystalize to the public what you guys need pages to say...that the government will be making life and death decisions....

Sarah Palin's invocation of death panels managed to crystalize

Submitted by MI-GOPer on Tue, 09/22/2009 - 16:09.

 to the public what you guys need pages to say...that the government will be making life and death decisions....

 

Absolutely correct, Dannymk55!  And wait until the opposition skewers ObamaCare on all the tax hikes levied against those middle class and college-aged Americans who don't want health care insurance... and taxes against insurance companies that will be passed on to middle class families... and then there's the likely soda tax, the water bottle tax, the tax penalty for smoking, the tax penalty for being 10-15 lbs overweight, the tax for eating fast food, the tax if you shop somewhere other than a co-op or approved health store.. etc

It's not pipe dreaming; it's coming.  Brought to us all care of the ObamaNannyState and your well intentioned Democrat Congressmen like Waxman and Frank.

ObamaCare: the fastest road to a one term presidency.  Come on HarryGreed, bring on the nuclear option... make it all about the Democrat tax hikes in 2010!

GOP is fighting the public option tooth and nail

Submitted by Ray in TX on Tue, 09/22/2009 - 18:17.

Specifically because they realize that a strong PO will basically guarantee Obama's reelection.

I don't think you realize exactly how bad the current health insurance is, currently, for so many people in this country. I am self-employed and cannot afford the $1200/month they want to charge me to cover me and my family (of 4). And for that amount, there were tons of preconditions so we have had to settle for $350/month catastrophic insurance that will be cancelled the first time we actually have to use it. Yes, it's really that bad!

My dad died of a heart attack 10 years ago. As a result, anything heart-related for me is considered a "pre-existing condition" even though I have never had a single heart problem. They won't even cover the PREVENTIVE cholesterol medication!

When we get a public option, I will give the criminals in the health insurance industry one, big final F-U and then permanently switch to the public option. My father-in-law is currently dying of cancer and his Medicare covers everything. A private insurer would have booted him to the curb long ago.

The profit incentive of the open market basically pushes insurers to NOT cover illnesses.

Ray in Tx... start telling the truth, ok?

Submitted by JakeMountain1 on Wed, 09/23/2009 - 08:31.

I get it that you hate the evil, corrupt, money-grubbing insurance companies and you want American taxpayers to bail you out of your alleged dilemma but let's look at that alleged dilemma for a second because it doesn't pass even the sniff test.

You say you have been denied coverage for basic preventive anti-cholestrol meds because, as hard as this is to believe, your father died of a heart attack 10 yrs ago.  You claim your father's cause of death is the direct link to establish a pre-existing condition for you.

Guess what, Ray in Tx.  You're lucky Rep Joe Wilson isn't in the room because "You Lie".

Under the 1997 HIPPA law, you can't be denied coverage of any sort after you've completed the standard pre-existing exclusionary time... between 4-18 months, depending on the condition.  Did you hear that Ray in Tx --CAN"T BE DENIED COVERAGE.  Oh, I know, the President has said that people are denied coverage all the time... heck, he said it to Congress (which must be the biggest assemblage of liars on the planet)!  What he didn't say was that after the pre-existing condition exclusionary period is completed, coverage CAN NOT BE DENIED.  Ooops.  A little misdirection for partisan favor?

Obama, the community activist, and his wife, now identified as a former "Hospital executive" both know it's against the law.  Insurance companies were viciously litigated on those denials by public advocacy groups in early 1999-2000 and they lost every single state and federal court case.  In early 2000, under a Bush Administration directive, HIPPA rules also provide this important benefit, as the NYTiimes reported:

HIPAA placed limitations on the pre-existing condition exclusion -- and it also helps ensure that those with pre-existing conditions can get health care. So, an insured might have to live with a pre-existing condition exclusionary period, but he/she can't be denied coverage in a group plan because of  health. In fact, not only does the plan have to coverthe insured regardless of health, it also can't charge them more than a co-worker who may be in perfect shape.

Ouch, ouch, double ouch.  I think that makes your suspect claim smell more like a rotting fish and less like an honest claim.  I'm not even going to address the nonsense about your father-in-law.

And even if you now amend the wild-assed claim above to state that your insurance provider somehow knew that your family has a genetic predisposition to heart disease, guess what... genetic predispositions are SPECIFICALLY protected under HIPPA.  The only way an insurer MAY HAVE (and I doubt it, frankly) denied you coverage for a short period of time is if you had a medical history of your OWN that's rife with heart disease care... and even then, the insurer wouldn't deny coverage for preventive drugs... especially since big box pharmacies are selling the drug for $4 to $10 for a 30 day scrip since 2006!

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6326035

Look, I get you don't like insurance companies.  That's just being a good knee-jerk far Left Democrat.  I get that you maybe don't like doctors, don't like hospitals, don't like life because you feel you've been dealt from a loaded, marked deck.  But lying about what is or isn't happening in the health care field or medical insurance coverage sector only adds to other people's anxiety... and does nothing for you except help your partisan team get the ball a tad farther down the left hand side of the field.

And, as we all know from the last round of Obama-sizing the public on ObamaCare, you guys will say anything, do anything to advance your far Left agenda down the pike... including calling reasonable opponents of ObamaCare "racists" because they oppose this mixed-race president's reform proposal.  How frickin' absurd.

umm, I'm not lying

Submitted by Ray in TX on Wed, 09/23/2009 - 08:59.

I have a family of heart disease on my father's side. My father died from a heart attack 10 years ago. I  was placed on statins about 6 years ago because of my family's heart history.

I became self-employed and had to find my own health insurance, and had to relay infomration about family history and current prescriptions. As a result of that, I was told that heart disease was a 'pre-existing' condition that I was being treated for, and therefore it was not covered.

I am not a lawyer and am not conversant with all of the HIPA laws or whatever. I was told specifically by the insurance agent that heart disease was a pre-existing condition and would not be covered.

Why would I lie about that? I WANT health insurance. Maybe my opinion about health insurance companies is not the result of a political ideology, but simply based on how my family has been treated by insurance companies.  My wife? She has seasonal allergies and generally gets one sinus infection each winter. NOT COVERED.

 

 

 

Right... and there's a bridge in Texas for sale too?

Submitted by JakeMountain1 on Fri, 09/25/2009 - 08:23.

Look, your own admission is that you were placed on a set of highly effective drugs, statins, 6 yrs ago.  You implied it was because your Dad had a heart attack and died.  And those drugs, you originally said, weren't covered because you had this "preexisting condition".

Did some doctor look at you passing on the street and say, "Hey, I think you need an agressive drug regime of statins... just for the hell of it?"

No, Ray in Tx, you were diagnosed with advanced heart disease. All on your own.  Family medical history has about 31% of an impact on that diagnosis but even family factor can be reduced down to 17-20% with a healthy life style.  The reason why family history is so important is because many sons learn and follow the unhealthy practices of their father... like eating pork rinds on the sofa, living a stress-filled life and not exercising.

So, you weren't denied coverage because, as you put it, your dad had a heart attack and that qualified your case as a pre-existing condition exclusion.  Guess what, it isn't an absolute like some on the far Left medical scare team are trying to portray... the exclusion is limited for a short time, you still get coverage for other health issues during the exclusionary period.  Finish the exclusionary period, presto/change-o, coverage for those once excluded illnesses begin coverage.

Whether you are a lawyer or not Ray... when you claim that you were denied coverage under a preexisting condition attributable to your father's heart attack, you lose credibility here.  People aren't all idiots, no matter what the Obama Administration thinks.  Voters might be --because they got sold a pile of crap from Obama.

I'd suggest you work harder to support the GOP remedies for our health care system including the cross-state lines issuance of medical insurance.  It'd help you and your wife, at a considerably lower price to all Americans --even those who aren't born yet and will be saddled with paying off the debt of your coverage well into the next generation.

And try gettting your facts straight, too.

wow, you are delusional

Submitted by Ray in TX on Fri, 09/25/2009 - 13:05.

"No, Ray in Tx, you were diagnosed with advanced heart disease. All on your own. "

 

No, I was placed on statins because diet was not controlling my cholesterol. It was at 225 and increasing, so I was placed on statins to bring it under control. My family's history of heart disease heavily factored into that. This was purely a preventive measure to avert heart disease!

I have never had a heart attack or been diagnosed with "advanced heart disease." You are just making wild assertions now because you have nothing else to argue from.

Cartoons, insults, and a "supportive" post

Submitted by Mead50 on Fri, 09/25/2009 - 13:41.

from his "friend" MI-GOPer in 3....2....1....

Sure you were Ray in Tx...

Submitted by JakeMountain1 on Mon, 09/28/2009 - 12:10.

doctors, even GPs, are disinclined to 'scribe powerful statins unless they have diagnosed the problem as advanced heart disease... you either have it or you don't.  If you're taking statins, you got it.  Statins are the most potent of the cholesterol-lowering drugs around and docs 'scribe it because it appears it will reduce the likelihood of heart attack by 60% and stroke by 20%.

Let's recap though, because like your new-found pal Mead 50, you're getting away from the mainpoint of your wild-assed statement earlier and guys here seem to love to spin off into quibbling nonsense that does nothing to advance understanding... you said that you were denied health care because your Dad died of a heart attack some years prior and that constituted a pre-existing condition for which you were denied coverage.

I showed how you were wrong on both points... you've spun off into whether or not you have heart disease --for which you say you needed drugs that the evil insurers wouldn't cover.  Whish seems strange... need drugs, need coverage, ain't got the disease?

Hence, your story was perfect evidence of why we need ObamaCare. Nope, wrong, no way.

We've had lots of "stories" from people about why we need ObamaCare... and very few of them pass the sniff test.  Like the lady in Texas who told Gov Perry, in a crying jag covered by MSNBC and other left media outlets, that her daughter was dying in the spare bedroom because a rountine credit record check "scared" the hospital into denying admission and  treatment... these stories are as bogus as Obama's claim he'd bring "Hope & Change" to politics, heal our country, bridge the partisan divide and restore America's standing in the World so more nations would support the mission in Iraq, Afghanistan and stand with us against terror, Iran and NKorea.

Now, that's defining the word bogus better than a dictionary.

MI-GOPer, when a troll like Mead 50 pre-empts you...

Submitted by JakeMountain1 on Mon, 09/28/2009 - 12:12.

does that mean that the trolls here now support Pres Bush's Doctrine of Pre-emption?

Yeah, didn't think so but it's kind of cute you've now got a groupie in Mead50, dude.

Hmmm., interesting conversation

Submitted by Whitehorse on Wed, 09/23/2009 - 18:55.

I've not been on for a while. The "death panel" statement is wholly correct because there would be groups of bureaucrats who would determine if someone was allowed to have the care to live. In the government's desire to control, they will also work to keep citizens from seeking care outside of the system.

classicliberal2, you could use some more education. Statism is not a hard concept to study; it can be done on-line using tools such as google or any other search engine. (Hint, go beyond the dictionary definition to reality)

 

no

Submitted by classicliberal2 on Wed, 09/23/2009 - 21:00.

The "death panel" statement is wholly correct because there would be groups of bureaucrats who would determine if someone was allowed to have the care to live.

"Wholly correct" except that no such provision either exists or has ever even been proposed for inclusion in any of the health care reform bills. That's why the clown who fabricated that lie was left a discredited stain on the road on national television by Jon Stewart, of all people.

classicliberal2, you could use some more education. Statism is not a hard concept to study; it can be done on-line using tools such as google or any other search engine. (Hint, go beyond the dictionary definition to reality)

More empty talk, just like the other fellow. i'm not a Dictionaryist--I don't commit argument-from-authority fallacies based on them. That's what the other fellow was doing. The facts about the word "statism" are just as I described. It means, literally, belief in a state. The usage pimped above is a substance-free curse manufactured by elements of the right. There's no history to support that fanciful "definition." No movement has ever existed that used it to describe their program in that way. No antonyms for it exist outside of old-school anarchists. If you believe in the existence of a state, you are a "statist." Period.

The birther topic

Submitted by Sam Ferguson on Thu, 09/24/2009 - 01:30.

The birther topic was a total waste of time for everyone. Why rehash it. I agree with you on the death panel concept. You really wonder if you give the government a little control of this health care if they eventually go for the whole ball of wax. A socialistic approach to health care would probably bring in some selection process at some point. God help us. casino en ligne

You are mistaken about "death panels" - that is completely valid

Submitted by JackinMichigan on Sat, 09/26/2009 - 22:15.

 Of course the term is incendiary, but whem you combine a system whose costs will be completely out of control due to incentives 180 degrees opposite of what they should be (forget $1 trillion - this thing will be two or three times that, or more) with government authority to ration care though "comparative cost effectiveness panels" that impose "practice guidelines"  - bureaucrats deciding what treatments will be available and what won't -  that is a recipe for extreme ugliness.

Under these practice guidelinces, treatments that might be available under the current system won’t be. The thing is, a study may find - after the fact - that a particular treatment only works half the time. But there’s often no way to tell before the fact whether it will cure a particular patient.

But there will certainly be some kind of appeal process in cases where a certain treatment means the difference between life and death for a particular man or woman. And what should we call the panel that issues the verdicts on those appeals?