Health Care Bill Debate
- Thread starter madanthonywayne
- Start date
I think that was his point.geoff said:
It's not grass roots, it's not fury - - and it's got nothing to do with Obama's health care proposal.
It's a calculated tactic in the larger strategy: to prevent the elected federal administration from governing, destroy its effectiveness, and thereby create a power vacuum.
Its just trying to intimidate people from doing whats best for the people of the US. thats what these people are doing.
I just listened to Obama's town hall. It was pretty good. He had the whackos there and not one laid a finger on him. And Obama actively sought out the whackos.
Last edited:
Ganymede
Valued Senior Member
Any bitch who supported the Patriot act shouldn't lecture anyone about the constitution. One question Geoff. Are you a bither yes or no? Do you believe President Obama was born in the United States, and that the birthers are just crazy conspiracy theorists yes or no?
I know you guys love having to make a choice between keeping your job and health insurance, or trying something else knowing that you won't have health insurance anymore. I'm not that excited about the fact that employers are using the threat of illness and death to keep employees. Don't we want to encourage innovation and entrepreneurship?
I'm surprised that Obamophobes haven't picked up on this story:
ONN Video Report: Most Children Opposed to Childrens Health Care
ONN Video Report: Most Children Opposed to Childrens Health Care
More seriously- on listening to the debate today in Maryland, it's more apparent to me than ever, that this debate is getting severely bogged-down by fairly childish right-wing phobias and misconceptions concerning social infrastructure.
Cold War flashbacks and elitist agendas play heavily on contemporary US emotions in crisis, and these polarize issues in a very shallow and obstructive way. If sustainably maintaining the nation's highways were the issue, those special interests (and frightened citizens) stirring up fears and misconceptions about civil infrastructure would not be raising such a ruckus- We identify more readily in the USA with the freedom of the road, than with the freedom to be healthy. If corporations were swallowing up the management of every foot of roadway in the USA, and forcing us to purchase passes for reasonable access, I don't think that the most melodramatic right would have so ready an audience in proclaiming public roads the highway to communist and fiscal hell. The same goes for other public utilities (many of which are being privately profitized without financial benefit to the public) or national defense.
Every modern society (including the USA) integrates socialism into fundamental common infrastructure, because publicly-accountible socialism provides general infrastructure at lower cost and with more equal access. There is no clamor for replacing our public roadways with competitively-operated private roads. There are no rabbles demanding we eschew public plumbing for private competition and private access to urban sewer systems. But some are agitating with great emotion for the lowest capitalist denominator in healthcare for the sake of all -the simultaneously poor and sick be damned- and agitating for the elimination of services for those even more undesirable to them- non-citizens in need. But even the most rabid, xenophobic right-wingers aren't clamoring for the privatization of everything, because on sober reflection it becomes fairly obvious that it just won't work.
It's easier for those caught up in anti-socialist hysteria to ignore the pitfalls of medicine for profit, so long as they maintain a blissful fantasy that they and those they care about will always enjoy the capitalist means to perpetual quality health care, provided and funded by the mystical, benevolent Guiding Hand of capital markets. But here in reality, customary collective infrastructure does merit and require public investment, and a guaranteed baseline of equal distribution in order to satisfy our expectations of fundamental human rights- such as distantly expressed by the now heavily-encrusted notion of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". With the profit motive as King, we know that everybody doesn't ultimately win. With an objective look at wealth distribution in the USA, we can see that rampant privatization has produced an unprecedented concentration of wealth, and a downward vector of economic mobility for most.
Pure capitalism, or complete privatization of all means of providing goods and services is is not a practical solution to every human problem, and especially not the solution to questions of affordable basic infrastructure. Neither is the nationalization of all production and services. But until we overcome the Cold War polarization, emotionalization, and oversimplification of terms and ideologies, we cannot have coherent debate in the USA over how to meet our most basic collective challenges.
If we look objectively at what unfettered privatization has been doing to the costs of healthcare, we can see exactly what would happen if we ceded all public infrastructure (such as roads and bridges) to private corporate entitlement and control: Preventative measures would be sacrificed for short-term profit, common infrastructure would break down even as the tolls would rise, and access would become increasingly unequal- just as we have witnessed happening in our teetering medical sector. We desperately need to get over the Cold War, see through the manipulations of our oligarchs, and stop this shallow and obsolete reactionism from interfering with our most vital national debates.
Cold War flashbacks and elitist agendas play heavily on contemporary US emotions in crisis, and these polarize issues in a very shallow and obstructive way. If sustainably maintaining the nation's highways were the issue, those special interests (and frightened citizens) stirring up fears and misconceptions about civil infrastructure would not be raising such a ruckus- We identify more readily in the USA with the freedom of the road, than with the freedom to be healthy. If corporations were swallowing up the management of every foot of roadway in the USA, and forcing us to purchase passes for reasonable access, I don't think that the most melodramatic right would have so ready an audience in proclaiming public roads the highway to communist and fiscal hell. The same goes for other public utilities (many of which are being privately profitized without financial benefit to the public) or national defense.
Every modern society (including the USA) integrates socialism into fundamental common infrastructure, because publicly-accountible socialism provides general infrastructure at lower cost and with more equal access. There is no clamor for replacing our public roadways with competitively-operated private roads. There are no rabbles demanding we eschew public plumbing for private competition and private access to urban sewer systems. But some are agitating with great emotion for the lowest capitalist denominator in healthcare for the sake of all -the simultaneously poor and sick be damned- and agitating for the elimination of services for those even more undesirable to them- non-citizens in need. But even the most rabid, xenophobic right-wingers aren't clamoring for the privatization of everything, because on sober reflection it becomes fairly obvious that it just won't work.
It's easier for those caught up in anti-socialist hysteria to ignore the pitfalls of medicine for profit, so long as they maintain a blissful fantasy that they and those they care about will always enjoy the capitalist means to perpetual quality health care, provided and funded by the mystical, benevolent Guiding Hand of capital markets. But here in reality, customary collective infrastructure does merit and require public investment, and a guaranteed baseline of equal distribution in order to satisfy our expectations of fundamental human rights- such as distantly expressed by the now heavily-encrusted notion of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". With the profit motive as King, we know that everybody doesn't ultimately win. With an objective look at wealth distribution in the USA, we can see that rampant privatization has produced an unprecedented concentration of wealth, and a downward vector of economic mobility for most.
Pure capitalism, or complete privatization of all means of providing goods and services is is not a practical solution to every human problem, and especially not the solution to questions of affordable basic infrastructure. Neither is the nationalization of all production and services. But until we overcome the Cold War polarization, emotionalization, and oversimplification of terms and ideologies, we cannot have coherent debate in the USA over how to meet our most basic collective challenges.
If we look objectively at what unfettered privatization has been doing to the costs of healthcare, we can see exactly what would happen if we ceded all public infrastructure (such as roads and bridges) to private corporate entitlement and control: Preventative measures would be sacrificed for short-term profit, common infrastructure would break down even as the tolls would rise, and access would become increasingly unequal- just as we have witnessed happening in our teetering medical sector. We desperately need to get over the Cold War, see through the manipulations of our oligarchs, and stop this shallow and obsolete reactionism from interfering with our most vital national debates.
You are very right hyperwaders and this is what scares my so much about the right wing whackos, it is all their way or no way. And it is all myth and hysteria stirred up by the likes of limbaugh, hannity, levin, ingram, beck et al. and their corporate/special interest sponsors.
These mobsters are all repeating the same mantra. "This country is being dismantled! When asked how, they are unable to give specifics..."its everything". And the problem is compounded by a media more focused on hysteria than responsible journalism...reporting the fact. We saw this with the Swift Boaters. All of the focus was on the salacious accusations and not on the facts of the issue.
These mobsters are all repeating the same mantra. "This country is being dismantled! When asked how, they are unable to give specifics..."its everything". And the problem is compounded by a media more focused on hysteria than responsible journalism...reporting the fact. We saw this with the Swift Boaters. All of the focus was on the salacious accusations and not on the facts of the issue.
Last edited:
Thoughts on a disaster
One of the problems people are having with this "grass roots" opposition to health care is that it is so off-target. Think of it this way: Last night, Austan Goolsbee, a member of the Council of Economic Advisers and chief economist of Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board, appeared on The Daily Show, and actually managed to make a good deal of sense. Perhaps this is a small challenge for a triathelete and sometimes stand-up comedian, but when people are getting their distillations from a comedy show? Indeed, Stewart covered the health care debate in the opening segment—highlighting the madness of the right wing and the incoherence of the Democratic Party—including commentary by Larry Wilmore about racism, Obama, and the white people's coming burden.
But given days of news coverage to sift through and analyze, there is little to glean from the cacophony that compares to Goolsbee's appearance on The Daily Show.
Let that be a testament to how ridiculous this debate has gotten.
This morning on the Diane Rehm Show°, a panel discussed the health care issue. Ceci Connolly explained that House Democrats have put together three separate bills; the Senate Health Committee under Sen. Dodd has drafted and passed a bill, but the Finance Committee, which has run a failed campaign to negotiate a more bipartisan bill, has set a new Sept. 15 deadline for coming up with something useful. Susan Denser discussed nature of the protest against health care reform:
The rhetoric of the two sides of the debate are, presently, incoherent to the left, and outrageous to the right. One might hope that, as Congress moves closer to a final bill, some useful talking points will emerge. But even then, what will the conservatives do? Right now their rhetoric is simply intended to raise demons, spectral fears about things that don't even seem to be part of a rational discussion of the issue.
And this fearmongering is what brings us people weeping on video that they want their America back. Really? Well, just what America is that?
Is it an America of privilege, where only the rich are entitled to the benefits of society? Is it that fictitious America in which the hard-working people who accomplish much and rise to particular and notable heights did so without the slightest whiff of government assistance, nepotism, friendly courtesy, or other help from society at large? Is it an America we've never actually seen but in some weeping woman's fantasies?
Sometimes it feels like talking to children. One must be cautious to communicate that the cause of the child's distress is important, but we don't know what to do because they won't tell us what the problem is. You want your America back? Well, who took it away? When? How? What happened? They want to kill your grandmother? Who does? The government? Who said? Where? When? What did who say?
This is how ridiculous it's gotten. At the Doonesbury Town Hall°, they run a regular series called "Say What?" featuring strange quotations from recent political news. For August 12, 2009, we were treated to this abstract moment:
It's not that the discussion should proceed without an ear to people's concerns, but the problem is that the most prominent concerns seem to have nothing to do with reality. This is why the "grass roots fury" is laughable. It's exactly what people expect for astroturf. The seeds are fake, which is why the surface has to be wrapped and stapled over the skeleton of the everyday anti-Obama movement.
There are legitimate concerns to be discussed. Goolsbee gave the Obama outlook on health care reform a frightening aspect when he said the president wasn't after socialized medicine but to keep the insurance companies honest. A Sisyphan labor, to be certain. Most liberals see this as an exercise in futility. And, to our horror, the rhetoric suggests a public option is not vital to Obama's consideration of the issue. For many liberals and independents, that was a deciding factor in their vote.
On the right, there are fair concerns about the cost, and whether it is possible to find all this money within the system in order to not raise taxes. This, of course is inconvenient to conservatives because it invokes a discussion of priorities, and between a defense budget to keep the dead Muslim statistics robust and what to do about corporate America, jobs, and the economy, it's not an argument that will serve their interests well.
So far it appears that a state health plan either was never on the table to begin with, or has been effectively killed by conservative opposition. And yet we keep hearing the same horrendous sewage pumped by the right wing and its all-too-willing patsies.
The most effective opposition to health reform has come from Blue Dog Democrats; the central problem for passing meaningful health reform legislation lies entirely within the Democratic Party.
The answer to the "grass roots fury", of course, is to just tune out the liars and histrionic freaks, but that would be somehow partisan and unfair. Or would it? While conservatives oppose affirmative action for things like being born female or black, they demand it for choices like the one to be a Republican. These people shouldn't be getting any serious coverage at all. But the need for easy headlines and efficient news content makes them an obvious call.
In the end, these astroturf windmills have nothing to offer. It's not that they're conservatives. It's not even that they're being ridiculous. Rather, it's that they are doing everything they can to distract attention from a serious, even vital debate, and contribute absolutely nothing.
This is how ridiculous the debate has become. This is how ridiculous the right-wing lunatic fringe wants it. And this is why those lunatics are viewed as, in and of themselves, utterly ridiculous.
____________________
Notes:
° Diane Rehm Show — The segment in question is not presently listed at the web site; the podcast can be obtained for free from the iTunes Store.
Doonesbury Town Hall — The "Say What?" feature is not, to my knowledge, archived. I did, however, take a snapshot: DTH—Say What?
Works Cited:
The Daily Show. Comedy Central, New York. August 11, 2009. ComedyCentral.com. August 12, 2009. http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-august-11-2009/reform-madness
The Diane Rehm Show. WAMU, Washington. August 12, 2009. WAMU.org. August 12, 2009. http://wamu.org/programs/dr/09/08/12.php
Doonesbury Town Hall. August 12, 2009. http://www.doonesbury.com
See Also:
Will, George F. "The Democratic Economist". The Washington Post. October 4, 2007; page A25. WashingtonPost.com. August 12, 2009. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/03/AR2007100302003.html
Levey, Noam N. "Sorting out claims about healthcare legislation". Los Angeles Times. August 10, 2009. LATimes.com. August 12, 2009. http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-na-healthcare-qa10-2009aug10,0,4908371.story
"How House Bill Runs Over Grandma". Investor's Business Daily. July 31, 2009. Investors.com. August 12, 2009. http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=503058&Ntt=hawking
One of the problems people are having with this "grass roots" opposition to health care is that it is so off-target. Think of it this way: Last night, Austan Goolsbee, a member of the Council of Economic Advisers and chief economist of Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board, appeared on The Daily Show, and actually managed to make a good deal of sense. Perhaps this is a small challenge for a triathelete and sometimes stand-up comedian, but when people are getting their distillations from a comedy show? Indeed, Stewart covered the health care debate in the opening segment—highlighting the madness of the right wing and the incoherence of the Democratic Party—including commentary by Larry Wilmore about racism, Obama, and the white people's coming burden.
But given days of news coverage to sift through and analyze, there is little to glean from the cacophony that compares to Goolsbee's appearance on The Daily Show.
Let that be a testament to how ridiculous this debate has gotten.
This morning on the Diane Rehm Show°, a panel discussed the health care issue. Ceci Connolly explained that House Democrats have put together three separate bills; the Senate Health Committee under Sen. Dodd has drafted and passed a bill, but the Finance Committee, which has run a failed campaign to negotiate a more bipartisan bill, has set a new Sept. 15 deadline for coming up with something useful. Susan Denser discussed nature of the protest against health care reform:
Denser: Well, Diane, as we've seen just in the last couple of weeks, just an enormous eruption—some people say it's grass roots, other people call it "astroturf", that is to say fake grass roots—of people who have concerns; some legitimate, some not, frankly, legitimate—not actually reflected in the legislation—about the direction it's going. There are concerns about rationing; that is to say that something will be enacted in health reform that will withhold care from people. There are particular concerns about rationing at the end of life. We're hearing phrases like, "The Kill Granny Provision", et cetera, et cetera. All kinds of noise—as I say, some probably borne out of ignorance, some possibly partisan motivated—that is suggesting that things that are not in the bill actually are in the bill, and could lead to deleterious results for many individuals.
Rehm: And Noam [Levey], yesterday you wrote a piece in the L.A. Times sorting out some of the claims being made about health care legislation. Let's talk about the one Susan just mentioned. Does this legislation include provisions to encourage senior citizens to commit suicide?
Levey: Quite simply, no. There is a provision in the House version of the bill, that would provide a benefit to senior citizens to sit down with a doctor and talk about options for how they would like to be cared for at the end of life. The way it's structured is a Medicare payment for the physician to actually do this consultation. These might include things like talking about living wills, how to be cared for when you become incapacitated. It's voluntary. There's no suggestion in any of the language that it would encourage a choice one way or the other. But as Susan mentioned, it has become incredibly inflammatory, and has been used, I think quite cynically by some, to suggest that somehow the federal government would be encouraging an end-of-life choice.
Rehm: Now, my husband and I have already done this. We've talked to our lawyer, we've talked to our doctor. I would presume that many people have already done this. Why has this particular area of the health care proposal, met such inflammatory discounting?
Levey: Well, I think there's a political reason for it, actually, more than a medical one. I think you're right, most people have made that decision. I think, like you and your husband have. There are a lot of seniors, though, who probably haven't for one reason or another. And doctors are often running from one appointment to another; perhaps they don't have time to talk to their patients about these sorts of things. There's a broad range of opinions among professionals that this is something that should happen. But remember senior citizens are a pretty important political force in this country.
Connolly: You know, Diane, only about thirty percent of Americans have living wills. It's a surprisingly low number, and I think there are a variety of reasons for that. It's a difficult conversation for people to have; it should probably often start as a family conversation. But again, imagine being the adult "child" saying to an older parent, "Okay, we need to sit down and figure out about, you know, your final weeks and months." It's such a very awkward, difficult subject for people to discuss. You mentioned going to your lawyer, which I think is what most people now do because they see it as a legal action that they take. But, again, the idea behind this provision of paying a physician to do a counseling session is that maybe it's a conversation you'd also like to have with a medical professional, not just a lawyer.
Denser: The statistics show, Diane, that almost ninety percent of Americans, when surveyed, say they would prefer to die at home. But actually eighty percent of Americans on Medicare who die every year die in institutions, either nursing homes or hospitals; many in ICUs, hooked up to tubes, when they actually would prefer not to do that. And as Cici says, part of the issue is that so few people sign not just living wills, but it's the whole raft of advance directives, including durable power of attorneys, which basically assigns somebody else the ability to make decisions on your behalf if you're incapacitated. Which some people think is the most important thing that people should sign. But, in any case, we have this incredible disconnect between what people want, what they do, and the fact that there's really no lever in the system that gets people to do this, even though, for example, we've had on the books since 1991 the Patient's Self-Determination Act, which means when you go into a hospital, the hospital has to tell you that you have the right to sign advance directives. And even despite that, we have this relatively low number of people—comparatively speaking—who are making these active decisions.
Rehm: And Noam [Levey], yesterday you wrote a piece in the L.A. Times sorting out some of the claims being made about health care legislation. Let's talk about the one Susan just mentioned. Does this legislation include provisions to encourage senior citizens to commit suicide?
Levey: Quite simply, no. There is a provision in the House version of the bill, that would provide a benefit to senior citizens to sit down with a doctor and talk about options for how they would like to be cared for at the end of life. The way it's structured is a Medicare payment for the physician to actually do this consultation. These might include things like talking about living wills, how to be cared for when you become incapacitated. It's voluntary. There's no suggestion in any of the language that it would encourage a choice one way or the other. But as Susan mentioned, it has become incredibly inflammatory, and has been used, I think quite cynically by some, to suggest that somehow the federal government would be encouraging an end-of-life choice.
Rehm: Now, my husband and I have already done this. We've talked to our lawyer, we've talked to our doctor. I would presume that many people have already done this. Why has this particular area of the health care proposal, met such inflammatory discounting?
Levey: Well, I think there's a political reason for it, actually, more than a medical one. I think you're right, most people have made that decision. I think, like you and your husband have. There are a lot of seniors, though, who probably haven't for one reason or another. And doctors are often running from one appointment to another; perhaps they don't have time to talk to their patients about these sorts of things. There's a broad range of opinions among professionals that this is something that should happen. But remember senior citizens are a pretty important political force in this country.
Connolly: You know, Diane, only about thirty percent of Americans have living wills. It's a surprisingly low number, and I think there are a variety of reasons for that. It's a difficult conversation for people to have; it should probably often start as a family conversation. But again, imagine being the adult "child" saying to an older parent, "Okay, we need to sit down and figure out about, you know, your final weeks and months." It's such a very awkward, difficult subject for people to discuss. You mentioned going to your lawyer, which I think is what most people now do because they see it as a legal action that they take. But, again, the idea behind this provision of paying a physician to do a counseling session is that maybe it's a conversation you'd also like to have with a medical professional, not just a lawyer.
Denser: The statistics show, Diane, that almost ninety percent of Americans, when surveyed, say they would prefer to die at home. But actually eighty percent of Americans on Medicare who die every year die in institutions, either nursing homes or hospitals; many in ICUs, hooked up to tubes, when they actually would prefer not to do that. And as Cici says, part of the issue is that so few people sign not just living wills, but it's the whole raft of advance directives, including durable power of attorneys, which basically assigns somebody else the ability to make decisions on your behalf if you're incapacitated. Which some people think is the most important thing that people should sign. But, in any case, we have this incredible disconnect between what people want, what they do, and the fact that there's really no lever in the system that gets people to do this, even though, for example, we've had on the books since 1991 the Patient's Self-Determination Act, which means when you go into a hospital, the hospital has to tell you that you have the right to sign advance directives. And even despite that, we have this relatively low number of people—comparatively speaking—who are making these active decisions.
The rhetoric of the two sides of the debate are, presently, incoherent to the left, and outrageous to the right. One might hope that, as Congress moves closer to a final bill, some useful talking points will emerge. But even then, what will the conservatives do? Right now their rhetoric is simply intended to raise demons, spectral fears about things that don't even seem to be part of a rational discussion of the issue.
And this fearmongering is what brings us people weeping on video that they want their America back. Really? Well, just what America is that?
Is it an America of privilege, where only the rich are entitled to the benefits of society? Is it that fictitious America in which the hard-working people who accomplish much and rise to particular and notable heights did so without the slightest whiff of government assistance, nepotism, friendly courtesy, or other help from society at large? Is it an America we've never actually seen but in some weeping woman's fantasies?
Sometimes it feels like talking to children. One must be cautious to communicate that the cause of the child's distress is important, but we don't know what to do because they won't tell us what the problem is. You want your America back? Well, who took it away? When? How? What happened? They want to kill your grandmother? Who does? The government? Who said? Where? When? What did who say?
This is how ridiculous it's gotten. At the Doonesbury Town Hall°, they run a regular series called "Say What?" featuring strange quotations from recent political news. For August 12, 2009, we were treated to this abstract moment:
"People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless."
"I wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS [National Health Service]. I have received a large amount of high-quality treatment without which I would not have survived."
-- from Investor's Business Daily
editorial on "death panels"
editorial on "death panels"
"I wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS [National Health Service]. I have received a large amount of high-quality treatment without which I would not have survived."
-- Stephen J. Hawking, who has
motor neurone disease, was born
in the UK, and has lived there
his entire life
motor neurone disease, was born
in the UK, and has lived there
his entire life
It's not that the discussion should proceed without an ear to people's concerns, but the problem is that the most prominent concerns seem to have nothing to do with reality. This is why the "grass roots fury" is laughable. It's exactly what people expect for astroturf. The seeds are fake, which is why the surface has to be wrapped and stapled over the skeleton of the everyday anti-Obama movement.
There are legitimate concerns to be discussed. Goolsbee gave the Obama outlook on health care reform a frightening aspect when he said the president wasn't after socialized medicine but to keep the insurance companies honest. A Sisyphan labor, to be certain. Most liberals see this as an exercise in futility. And, to our horror, the rhetoric suggests a public option is not vital to Obama's consideration of the issue. For many liberals and independents, that was a deciding factor in their vote.
On the right, there are fair concerns about the cost, and whether it is possible to find all this money within the system in order to not raise taxes. This, of course is inconvenient to conservatives because it invokes a discussion of priorities, and between a defense budget to keep the dead Muslim statistics robust and what to do about corporate America, jobs, and the economy, it's not an argument that will serve their interests well.
So far it appears that a state health plan either was never on the table to begin with, or has been effectively killed by conservative opposition. And yet we keep hearing the same horrendous sewage pumped by the right wing and its all-too-willing patsies.
The most effective opposition to health reform has come from Blue Dog Democrats; the central problem for passing meaningful health reform legislation lies entirely within the Democratic Party.
The answer to the "grass roots fury", of course, is to just tune out the liars and histrionic freaks, but that would be somehow partisan and unfair. Or would it? While conservatives oppose affirmative action for things like being born female or black, they demand it for choices like the one to be a Republican. These people shouldn't be getting any serious coverage at all. But the need for easy headlines and efficient news content makes them an obvious call.
In the end, these astroturf windmills have nothing to offer. It's not that they're conservatives. It's not even that they're being ridiculous. Rather, it's that they are doing everything they can to distract attention from a serious, even vital debate, and contribute absolutely nothing.
This is how ridiculous the debate has become. This is how ridiculous the right-wing lunatic fringe wants it. And this is why those lunatics are viewed as, in and of themselves, utterly ridiculous.
____________________
Notes:
° Diane Rehm Show — The segment in question is not presently listed at the web site; the podcast can be obtained for free from the iTunes Store.
Doonesbury Town Hall — The "Say What?" feature is not, to my knowledge, archived. I did, however, take a snapshot: DTH—Say What?
Works Cited:
The Daily Show. Comedy Central, New York. August 11, 2009. ComedyCentral.com. August 12, 2009. http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-august-11-2009/reform-madness
The Diane Rehm Show. WAMU, Washington. August 12, 2009. WAMU.org. August 12, 2009. http://wamu.org/programs/dr/09/08/12.php
Doonesbury Town Hall. August 12, 2009. http://www.doonesbury.com
See Also:
Will, George F. "The Democratic Economist". The Washington Post. October 4, 2007; page A25. WashingtonPost.com. August 12, 2009. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/03/AR2007100302003.html
Levey, Noam N. "Sorting out claims about healthcare legislation". Los Angeles Times. August 10, 2009. LATimes.com. August 12, 2009. http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-na-healthcare-qa10-2009aug10,0,4908371.story
"How House Bill Runs Over Grandma". Investor's Business Daily. July 31, 2009. Investors.com. August 12, 2009. http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=503058&Ntt=hawking
Note: The article has, since original publication, been corrected. An editor's note informs us that "This version corrects the original editorial which implied that physicist Stephen Hawking, a professor at the University of Cambridge, did not live in the UK." That is a kind treatment of the point; Dr. Hawking's name has disappeared entirely from the article.
Last edited:
I think the best thing the Democrats could do at this point is to by pass the Republicans and focus on producting good results. If the Democrats do that and deliver a good economy, fiscal responsibility, and healthcare reform no one will even care about the Republicans. There won't be enough of them left in congress to worry about.
I think Obama is going to have to pull out the old LBJ playbook.
Despite charges of "astroturf", so many constituents are emailing congress that the servers are overloading:
Aug 13, 2:29 PM (ET)
By ANNE FLAHERTY
WASHINGTON (AP) - Amid a boisterous debate on health care reform, people flooded members of Congress on Thursday with so many e-mails that they overloaded the House's primary Web site.
Technical support issued a warning to congressional staff that the site - - may be slow or unresponsive because of the large volume of e-mail being sent to members.http://www.house.gov
Jeff Ventura, a spokesman for the House's chief administrative officer, which maintains the Web site, said traffic data was not available and could not be released without the lawmakers' consent.
But anecdotally, he said, the spike in e-mail volume was widely believed to be a result of the health care debate.
"It is clearly health care reform," Ventura said. "There's no doubt about it."
Lawmakers are in their home districts this month for the August recess, where a populist backlash has emerged in some quarters against President Barack Obama's plan to reform the nation's health care system.
Democrats are trying desperately to regain control of the debate, with the White House posting a new Web site designed to dispel what it called "the misinformation and baseless smears that are cropping up daily." House Democratic aides have set up a health care war room out of Majority Leader Steny Hoyer's office. It is designed to help lawmakers answer questions about the legislation.
Ventura said the last time he saw such a significant slow-down in the system was in January, shortly before the House passed an $819 billion bill to stimulate the economy.
Ventura said new technology called "load balancing" is in place to try to handle spikes in volume. So far, the House Web site remains available to the public.
In particular, people are heavily using a link on the site called "Write Your Representative," which helps a voter track down their representative by plugging in their zip code. http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090813/D9A25N781.html
By ANNE FLAHERTY
WASHINGTON (AP) - Amid a boisterous debate on health care reform, people flooded members of Congress on Thursday with so many e-mails that they overloaded the House's primary Web site.
Technical support issued a warning to congressional staff that the site - - may be slow or unresponsive because of the large volume of e-mail being sent to members.http://www.house.gov
Jeff Ventura, a spokesman for the House's chief administrative officer, which maintains the Web site, said traffic data was not available and could not be released without the lawmakers' consent.
But anecdotally, he said, the spike in e-mail volume was widely believed to be a result of the health care debate.
"It is clearly health care reform," Ventura said. "There's no doubt about it."
Lawmakers are in their home districts this month for the August recess, where a populist backlash has emerged in some quarters against President Barack Obama's plan to reform the nation's health care system.
Democrats are trying desperately to regain control of the debate, with the White House posting a new Web site designed to dispel what it called "the misinformation and baseless smears that are cropping up daily." House Democratic aides have set up a health care war room out of Majority Leader Steny Hoyer's office. It is designed to help lawmakers answer questions about the legislation.
Ventura said the last time he saw such a significant slow-down in the system was in January, shortly before the House passed an $819 billion bill to stimulate the economy.
Ventura said new technology called "load balancing" is in place to try to handle spikes in volume. So far, the House Web site remains available to the public.
In particular, people are heavily using a link on the site called "Write Your Representative," which helps a voter track down their representative by plugging in their zip code. http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090813/D9A25N781.html
Um volume doesn't mean shit one way or another to the charge of astroturfing.
Possibly. I haven't decided on the issue and it seems like both sides are stacking the deck.
Shocka.
Shhh, bitch. Still now.
Why the fuck should I believe in that shit? And ask your question right: you asked two questions, and you can't answer yes or no in the same way to both.
You know what, insurance companies have computers too. Insurance companies have IT staff capable of spaming congressional web sites. Not to mention, the dittoheads are very motivated. They are fighting for their leadership.
If Obama wins dittohead leadership and the Republican Party are doomed. This is about more than healthcare reform. This is about the continued existence of the Republican Party and the dittohead movement.
you know people keep saying that it would be impossablw to introduce a UK, or canadian or Australian ect system but thats crap. these systems didnt just apear, they were designed snd intrlduced by legislation and the same would be possable for the US, it just takes will