«   |   »

John “the beaner” Boehner Doesn’t Know The Difference Between The Pre-amble To The Constitution And The Declaration of Independence

by Ben Hoffman

John “the House head dumb-f*ck” Boehner spoke at Barbara “Emily Litella” Bachmann’s dumb-f*ck protest at the Capitol this morning. John Boehner spoke to the protesters about how the Health Reform bill was the biggest threat to our freedom in U.S. history.

“This bill is the greatest threat to freedom that I have seen in the 19 years that I have been here in Washington, taking away your freedom to choose your doctor, the freedom to buy health insurance on your own. … It’s going to lead to a government takeover of our health care system with tens of thousands of new bureaucrats right down the street making these decisions for you.”
Source

Okay… as apposed to the tens of thousands of private insurance bureaucrats now making those decisions for you? Personally, I’d rather not have someone making those decisions who makes a profit by denying coverage.

Boehner went on to talk about our founding fathers. He held up his pocket Constitution and pledged to “stand here with our Founding Fathers, who wrote in the pre-amble: ‘We hold these truths to be self evident …”

Source

Wrong. That was from the Declaration of Independence you dumb-f*ck.

Boehner has been in Washington for 19 years and he still doesn’t know the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Well, I guess when you hate the government as much as right-wingers do, the documents our government is based on are irrelevant.

And as always, the tea-bagger protesters showed class and intelligence. Here’s one of their signs. The caption reads “National Socialist Health Care, Dachau, Germany – 1945”

The greatest threat to our freedom is not health insurance reform. The greatest threat is allowing these dumb-f*cks to vote.

Posted on November 5, 2009 at 8:22 PM in Education, Politics, World News   |  RSS feed |   Reply   |   Trackback URL

48 Comments to “John “the beaner” Boehner Doesn’t Know The Difference Between The Pre-amble To The Constitution And The Declaration of Independence”

    
  1. jdb316
    November 5, 2009 at 9:54 PM

    Let the national GOP continue to pander to the extremists like this. It will only help to push the independents toward the Democrats.

    Of course, that assumes the Democrats actually get things done, which so far they haven’t.

    Reply
  2. sleepygirl
    November 6, 2009 at 12:04 AM

    This absolutely disgusts me. Not only is the sign a radically false interpretation of the House and Senate health care bills, but to use a photo like this for political reasons completely marginalizes the millions of people who died in the Holocaust. I’m all for freedom of speech, but I’m appalled that some idiotic teabagger thought that this sign was at all appropriate.

    Reply
  3. Rutherford
    November 6, 2009 at 9:29 AM

    Since you commented on my blog, Ben, you already know how I feel about this.

    One of the shames of the massacre at Fort Hood is how it has taken media attention away from the disgusting display at our Nation’s Capitol yesterday.

    Michele Bachmann should be censured for this activity but seeing how the House Minority Leader was a part of it, I don’t see that happening any time soon.

    Reply
  4. givesgoodemail
    November 6, 2009 at 1:01 PM

    The idea is to keep an open mind, not sink a hole in your skull.
    It’s oddly comforting to watch the Republican Party crumble into tiny warring factions. It’s oddly discomforting to remember that this will leave one political party in charge.

    Reply
  5. Rutherford
    November 6, 2009 at 1:45 PM

    Givesgoodemail, I’m not sure that one political party is what we should be shooting for. We need two INTELLIGENT parties that offer real alternatives. The problem is not that there are Republicans. The problem is that there only seem to be incredibly stupid Republicans at the moment.

    Let’s not forget, Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower were Republicans and they weren’t half bad. But they all had brains and some nobility, traits sorely lacking in the current crop.

    Reply
  6. Jim
    November 6, 2009 at 5:09 PM

    Before you get too upset, pick up a copy of those pocket Constitutions at your local tea party. You’ll notice that it also contains the Declaration of Independence.
    What makes you think that a government bureaucrat won’t have to make the same actuarial decisions that private insurance companies must?

    Reply
    • Ben Hoffman
      November 6, 2009 at 5:34 PM

      Yes, I know the pocket Constitution usually includes the Declaration of Independence, and it’s usually right in front of the Constitution, but that doesn’t make it the pre-amble. You would think a legislator would know the difference.

      [What makes you think that a government bureaucrat won’t have to make the same actuarial decisions that private insurance companies must?]

      Because they won’t be out to make a profit.

      Reply
      • Jim
        November 6, 2009 at 7:48 PM

        Now I see what you’re saying. However, I think you’re drawing some pretty petty conclusions.

        It goes without saying that the government won’t be out to make a profit; it is incapable of doing so. Are you one of those guys that thinks profits are evil, or do you fall into the camp that assumes government bureaucrats are always more altruistic than their private industry counterparts?

      • sleepygirl
        November 6, 2009 at 8:29 PM

        It’s not at all about hating profits. It’s about wanting everyone in America to have access to quality and affordable health care.

      • Ben Hoffman
        November 6, 2009 at 11:19 PM

        [Are you one of those guys that thinks profits are evil]

        Are you one of those guys who thinks that everyone who supports the public option is a bleeding heart liberal who hates capitalism and wishes we lived under a Chairman Mao regime? You really should get out more.

        No, there are some things where people should make a profit — things like the manufacturing of TVs, cars, computers, furniture, appliances… Those kinds of businesses create things of value. You don’t want government making those things.

        What exactly do insurance companies create of value? They simply take your money and give it to health providers, but in doing so, take 20% – 40% of your payment for administration, profit, and huge CEO salaries. They do provide the service of handing over your money to other people but there is very little value added — especially when they do all they can to deny coverage.

        What about those of us who are tired of handing over our money to insurance companies and would rather spend it on more useful things? Why are you against choice? We are the only advanced country in the world that allows for profit health insurance. Even countries that have private insurance companies don’t allow them to operate at a profit.

        I’m all for capitalism but there are some things that should operate for the good of the people — not just to make a buck.

  7. thepoliticalmemo
    November 6, 2009 at 6:56 PM

    “The greatest threat to our freedom is not health insurance reform. The greatest threat is allowing these dumb-f*cks to vote.”

    No, sir. The greatest threat to our freedom is allowing radical liberals like yourself to marginalize any opposition by using wackos and cooks as symbols of a group you disagree with. there are many people with legitimate concerns about these issues that you are (undemocratically) silencing by putting them in the same camp as these weirdos just because you don’t like their opinions. Imagine if conservatives did the same to you liberals, you would all be screaming bloody murder.

    To use the words of Keith Olbermann, who said this when he was marginalizing all opposition to Mr. Obama and like minded liberals, sir, you and your ilk seem to hate democracy.

    -D.R.L.

    Reply
    • Ben Hoffman
      November 6, 2009 at 11:25 PM

      [Imagine if conservatives did the same to you liberals, you would all be screaming bloody murder.]

      Imagine? Who needs to imagine? All I need to do is turn on Fox “news.”

      [To use the words of Keith Olbermann, who said this when he was marginalizing all opposition to Mr. Obama and like minded liberals, sir, you and your ilk seem to hate democracy.]

      No, I love democracy. We elected Barack Obama and our Congress through a democratic process and you right-wingers just can’t deal with having lost power. Face it, the majority wants health insurance reform and we’re going to get it.

      Reply
      • thepoliticalmemo
        November 7, 2009 at 7:40 AM

        Sir, you’re sidestepping the main issue here: instead of engaging your intellectual opponents in honest debate, you and many of your ilk are using the crazies to silence anyone else who oppose you. If you love democracy so much, sir, why don’t you actually begin to talk and debate about the issues than engaging in name calling, ranting about, and demonizing those who feel differently about the issues.

        “No, I love democracy. We elected Barack Obama and our Congress through a democratic process and you right-wingers just can’t deal with having lost power. Face it, the majority wants health insurance reform and we’re going to get it.”

        Funny, reminds me of the conduct of many on the left during the Bush years. Apparently you guys couldn’t stand to lose power then, right?

        “Imagine? Who needs to imagine? All I need to do is turn on Fox “news.””

        Just asking, I wonder if you seriously consider MSNBC as “news”? They’re just as bad as Fox, but I bet you take their word as gospel, right?

        -D.R.L.

      • Ben Hoffman
        November 7, 2009 at 9:16 AM

        [Sir, you’re sidestepping the main issue here: instead of engaging your intellectual opponents in honest debate, you and many of your ilk are using the crazies to silence anyone else who oppose you.]

        So you agree those people are crazy. I’m all for an honest debate about health insurance reform, but it’s rare to get that from opponents of reform. So tell me, what is your argument against reform?

        [Funny, reminds me of the conduct of many on the left during the Bush years. Apparently you guys couldn’t stand to lose power then, right?]

        First of all, the 2000 election was a bit of a farce.

        Then we had the massive tax cuts that were pushed through using reconciliation because Bush and Co. didn’t have the votes to get it passed with normal procedures. Those tax cuts led to doubling the national debt.

        And there was the Iraq war with was achieved through lies, deception, and polarization of the nation, and that the majority now believes was a mistake. That war helped destroy our standing in world affairs, contributed to the doubling of the national debt, resulted in the deaths of over 4,000 American soldiers, thousands of wounded, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis…

        And we had other breaches of our Constitution with the illegal surveillance as well as the torturing of prisoners, cronyism, ineptitude, and the destruction of our economy.

        [Just asking, I wonder if you seriously consider MSNBC as “news”? They’re just as bad as Fox, but I bet you take their word as gospel, right?]

        You right wingers think that everyone is as dishonest as you. Fox “news” pundits lie to their viewers to give them the “facts” the viewers want to hear. It’s not a news channel; it’s an opinion channel. MSNBC is also an opinion channel but they don’t pretend to be anything else. I sometimes watch it to hear people’s opinions and for entertainment, but that’s not where I get my news.

  8. Jim
    November 6, 2009 at 9:49 PM

    @sleepygirl

    [It’s not at all about hating profits. It’s about wanting everyone in America to have access to quality and affordable health care.]

    We have the highest quality health care system in the world and the vast majority of our citizens do have coverage.

    I would like to see some sensible legislative reforms that would make coverage more affordable for all Americans and to negate the pitfalls that leave people uninsured at the most vulnerable part of their lives.

    Flexible Savings Accounts are a sensible way to put consumers in charge of their own money and encourages shopping for the best price/value combination. This places doctors in the position to compete for business, which drives down prices.  Pelosi’s bill caps FSA’s at $2,500 and prevents their use for common health care needs (including otc medications) that are legal today. 

    Using FSA’s for non-emergency medical expenditures, such as regular checkups, removes an insurance company’s role from the transaction and immediately reduces the related overhead costs from a relatively small bill.  I don’t file an auto insurance claim to pay for an oil change, nor do I bill my home insurance when I paint my house.  Health insurance should be saved for catastrophic situations, just like other insurance needs.

    People complain about exclusion for pre-existing conditions, however, I cannot buy a home insurance policy while my house is currently on fire.  It’s unreasonable to expect health insurance companies to behave differently.  The way to address this problem is to make health insurance policies portable.  Just like my home and auto insurance, I shouldn’t lose my health insurance when I change jobs.

    These are just a few of many solutions that would have an enormous impact on the industry. Note that they do not cost $1.2 Trillion that we do not have.

    Reply
    • Ben Hoffman
      November 6, 2009 at 11:28 PM

      [Health insurance should be saved for catastrophic situations, just like other insurance needs.]

      That’s when insurance companies are most likely to deny coverage because it costs them the most.

      Personally, I favor socialized health insurance for catastrophic situations. Nobody should die because they can’t afford insurance or because the insurance company didn’t want to pay.

      Reply
      • sleepygirl
        November 6, 2009 at 11:34 PM

        Check out this amazing story. Too many insurance companies are getting away with this.

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-t-schneiderman/protecting-patients-from_b_348696.html

      • Jim
        November 7, 2009 at 11:25 AM

        [No, there are some things where people should make a profit — things like the manufacturing of TVs, cars, computers, furniture, appliances… Those kinds of businesses create things of value.]

        The health care industry creates things of tremendous value, I don’t see how you can leave it out of your equation. Furthermore, the pursuit of profit is the motivation for producing better products and services. Remove that, and you’re on your way to the mediocre socialized health systems that plague other countries.

        [What exactly do insurance companies create of value?]

        Same thing as auto or home policies. The original idea was to have it there in the case of emergency. However, health insurance companies have become far too involved in day to day medical transactions. Too many people don’t even bother to look into the cost of a service as long as they’re “covered.” That’s a major reason why costs have become inflated. Decreasing their involvement reduces overhead.

        You deride insurance companies for overhead costs; You don’t think the government is going to generate overhead costs in the 100+ new bureaucracies created by Pelosi’s bill?

        [What about those of us who are tired of handing over our money to insurance companies and would rather spend it on more useful things? Why are you against choice?]

        Against choice?!

        Refuse to participate under Pelosi’s plan and you’ll be subject to criminal fines or even prison.

        http://biggovernment.com/2009/11/06/committee-confirms-comply-with-pelosi-care-or-go-to-jail/

        If you want to buy a plasma TV instead of health insurance, you have that choice today. You just have to accept the consequences. That’s how personal responsibility works.

      • Ben Hoffman
        November 7, 2009 at 2:20 PM

        [You deride insurance companies for overhead costs; You don’t think the government is going to generate overhead costs in the 100+ new bureaucracies created by Pelosi’s bill?]

        I don’t know where you get the 100+ new bureacracies from, but Medicare operates at a 3% overhead.

        [Refuse to participate under Pelosi’s plan and you’ll be subject to criminal fines or even prison.]

        Well, it’s pretty irresponsible to go around without health insurance. The only way anyone would go to jail is if they don’t pay the fine, just like if you didn’t pay the fine if you got a ticket for jaywalking, you could go to jail.

        [If you want to buy a plasma TV instead of health insurance, you have that choice today. You just have to accept the consequences. That’s how personal responsibility works.]

        What about parents who would buy a TV instead of health insurance for their children? What happens if one of the children gets seriously ill or hurt? Is that the consequence for them not having personal responsibility? Or when the uninsured have to go to the emergency room to get other treatment, which the public then has to pay for. Some people have to be forced to be responsible so they don’t hurt others.

        People are required to have auto insurance. They should also be required to have health insurance.

      • Jim
        November 7, 2009 at 6:27 PM

        [I don’t know where you get the 100+ new bureacracies from, but Medicare operates at a 3% overhead.]

        Medicare is billions in the red. Don’t tell me that it operates at 3% overhead. As for the agencies, they’re outlined in the bill.

        When you referred to choice in your previous comment, I didn’t realize that the options were to pay a fine or go to jail. That being the case, I am against your version of choice.

        [What about parents who would buy a TV instead of health insurance for their children?]

        Those moron parents just might have to stagger down to the local SCHIP office, where they can get their kids covered until age 25.

        The public and hospitals bear the costs of emergency room care, but that certainly isn’t any different than what you’re proposing. The difference is these costs are offset by the (gasp) hospital profits and charitable tax breaks when these expenses are written off. I don’t think that nationalizing 1/6th of the US economy is a sensible way to address these problems. It’s like amputating your arm to fix a broken finger.

        [People are required to have auto insurance. They should also be required to have health insurance.]

        People are not required to have Auto insurance. They only need it if they wish to drive on public roads. They do have the choice to refuse it, accept the consequences, and ride the bus.

      • Ben Hoffman
        November 7, 2009 at 10:16 PM

        [Medicare is billions in the red. Don’t tell me that it operates at 3% overhead.]

        Those two statements are mutually independent. An entity can operate in the red and still only have a 3% overhead.

        [I don’t think that nationalizing 1/6th of the US economy is a sensible way to address these problems.]

        Health insurance isn’t 1/6th of the U.S. economy. That’s called spin. The entire health care sector is about 1/6th of our economy. That includes all the hospitals, doctors offices, Medicare, Medicaid, schools, and private insurance.

      • Jim
        November 8, 2009 at 9:40 AM

        [Those two statements are mutually independent. An entity can operate in the red and still only have a 3% overhead.]

        You’re telling me about spin? I don’t have to go line by line through their books to understand that Medicare is hemorrhaging freely. Go tell the victims of Bernie Madoff’s scandal that they can take solace in the fact that his firm only took 3% overhead of their investments. That number is as arbitrary as the 20%-40% figure you cited earlier. Medicare is losing money uncontrollably and has been since its inception. Private insurance, on the other hand, makes on average a 6% profit.

        http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091025/D9BI4D6O1.html

        [Health insurance isn’t 1/6th of the U.S. economy.]

        No, but this bill impacts far more than health insurance doesn’t it. It usurps authority to negotiate Medicare reimbursement rates from the states. It sets government bureaucracies in charge of deciding what procedures will be covered, how much can be charged for it, and who will receive it.

        It sets up a public option that will “compete” with private insurances in order offer “choice.” This is a farce because, as you said yourself, the government will not be out to make a profit. We both know from watching Medicare and every other government health bureaucracy, that it won’t come close to breaking even. Yet this convenience won’t be extended to private insurance companies. The private industry will have to compete with an entity that is designed to lose money without consequence, while being forced to provide more and more benefits with no increase in premiums. This isn’t by accident, it’s how the playing field is cleared for a complete government take over. The impacts of these steps are all-encompassing. It will affect hospitals, doctor’s offices, Medicare, Medicaid, schools, and private insurance.

        Now that I think about it, the government isn’t taking direct ownership of these institutions, it is simply dictating how they must act. So, in fact, you’re right, this isn’t nationalization. It’s fascism.

  9. Rutherford
    November 6, 2009 at 11:02 PM

    “We have the highest quality health care system in the world” — Jim

    By what measure? We certainly are not the best country in terms of mortality (life expectancy) and we have seen stat after stat saying we’re not getting our money’s worth.

    But let’s take your statement as fact for a moment. It is the highest quality and therefore should be available to as many citizens as possible. Correct?

    Reply
    • Jim
      November 7, 2009 at 10:22 AM

      By any measure, Rutherford. To which country do affluent foreigners turn when they are desperate for the best treatment? How many of our citizens cross the border for their medical needs?

      Our system is available to every citizen, or do you mean that it should be provided as an entitlement?

      Reply
      • sleepygirl
        November 7, 2009 at 1:01 PM

        There are actually many cases of Americans emigrating to Canada because otherwise they can’t afford or have been denied health insurance.

        And YES, health insurance should be an entitlement. Everyone deserves it. EVERYONE. And how is it available to every citizen? Are you talking about those living in poverty who have no health insurance and are forced to go to the emergency room for every ailment? Do you want to talk about the 60% of bankruptcies that are due to medical debt? Do you want to talk about the choice people have to make to either pay a $2,000 ER bill or buy food, or fix their car so they can get to work?

      • Jim
        November 7, 2009 at 6:54 PM

        If you think that health care is better than Canada, and you can successfully emigrate (you can’t just setup shop, you must apply and be accepted), then once you start paying the much higher taxes, you too can start enjoying long waiting lists and bureaucrat approval before receiving services. If that is your preference, I don’t begrudge your decision. However, I don’t want that system thrust upon me.

        Health care is available to every citizen. Be it Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP or showing up in the emergency room, everyone can receive treatment. I understand that you would rather have someone else pay for it, but I disagree with your philosophy.

      • sleepygirl
        November 7, 2009 at 8:25 PM

        So, you don’t want to address the medical debt crisis in this country? You don’t want to face the millions of people who can’t qualify for Medicaid, but are not offered insurance through their jobs? Having access to treatment is only part of the problem. Being able to pay for it is another problem, one that conservatives have no desire to solve.

        I love how you act like Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP are enough to solve everything. Medicare is only available to seniors, SCHIP is only available to children (and it’s something that Bush and the Republicans wanted to cut), and it’s hard to get on Medicaid and it’s only a temporary solution. If you’re a member of the working poor, you don’t qualify for any of these things, and your job isn’t going to offer you any benefits. So, if you have a chronic illness, what are you supposed to do? Like you said, these people can just go to the ER for treatment (not for preventative treatment, but oh well), but how are they going to be able to afford to pay the bill? Why do you think it is that 2/3 of all bankruptcies are for medical bills? Are you going to tell these people, who deal with the overwhelming stress and terror every day because they have to choose between paying for their ER bills or paying for their heat or water or child care, that you don’t think it’s worth it to give them the kind of basic human dignity that you enjoy?

      • Jim
        November 8, 2009 at 11:37 AM

        You have the formula and cliches down pretty well, but you forgot a crucial component of the template. You have to demonize the people that you want to pay for it. Tell me more about evil insurance companies that routinely deny coverage and rake in huge profits. Tell me how evil and insensitive the top earners in this country are, that they have received their wealth at the expense of the working poor, and that it’s high time they paid their fair share. Tell me how doctors and hospitals have profited unfairly, providing services for payment that should be donated to the recipients as a human right.

        You see, about half the people in this country have a moral problem with taking money out of one person’s pocket in order to pay for other people’s expenses. You can’t simply gin up an emotional crisis, you have to provide a target. You must position the target as evil and culpable in order to justify taking more and more of their money to fund your initiatives.

        However, I don’t know you, so perhaps I’m premature in assuming that you’re working the angle. Maybe your response to every problem in this country is evaluated emotionally rather than critically, and every solution must be measured solely by compassion, without regard to cost.

        If you fall in the latter category, there’s hope for you yet. Oh, I know that there is nothing I can say that will get through the seething anger you have for me; you’ll have to come to the correct conclusions on your own in order to consider them valid.

        In the meantime, consider these facts. Medical services and devices are expensive. They are researched, produced, prescribed and implemented by highly trained professionals. Hospitals, in this country, are state-of-the-art institutions that contain space-age diagnostic tools and employ other highly educated professionals. While many medical costs are inflated due to the problems we have with insurance companies negotiating prices directly with providers, without involving consumers, the actual cost for services rendered can be justifiably high.

        Life is precious; it’s more than worth paying these prices to achieve results unheard of only one generation ago. I don’t accept your premise that health concerns shouldn’t be anticipated and that it’s unfair for people to be expected to pay for services.

        Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP are not designed to “solve everything.” They are designed to help mitigate the costs for seniors, the poor, and 25 year old “children.” None of them are intended to be more than a temporary solution. They were originally envisioned as a safety net, not a hammock. If you make enough money not to qualify for these services, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to consider switching jobs to one that does provide health insurance. You can try to tell me that isn’t possible, but I – and everyone else who has done it – won’t be buying it.

        In the worst case scenario, bankruptcy is hardly the worst thing that can happen. People routinely file bankruptcy when they’ve purchased too big of a boat to sit in the driveway of their too big of a house. The debt is off-loaded and they must deal with credit issues (aka live within their means) for seven years. During which time, they are eligible for all government services.

        The illusion that hospitals beat up patients for payments in full is one that is perpetuated by healthy people. Hospitals negotiate with patients who cannot pay (but whom are willing) to set up reasonable monthly payments. If you cannot afford the payment in addition to other essentials (not including satellite TV), then you are eligible for medicaid.

        Are there opportunities to improve our health system? Absolutely. However, they involve addressing root problems such as insurance portability or malpractice award caps. Spending $1.2 Trillion on an enlarged Medicare model – that has been demonstrated not to work – is not a practical solution. You’ve been sold a bill of goods. You’re willingly trading your freedom of choice for an empty promise that will bankrupt this country.

        Finally, if you believe nothing else I’ve said, believe this. Dignity cannot be given free of charge to a person. Like trust and confidence, it must be earned by the individual.

      • The Arbourist
        November 8, 2009 at 12:53 PM

        Our system is available to every citizen…

        Our system is available to every citizen with the financial means to afford it.

        There ya go, fixed.

      • sleepygirl
        November 8, 2009 at 1:07 PM

        LOL! You think I’m seething with anger toward you? You obviously think too much of yourself. I have encountered dozens of people like you and could care less about your opinion of me.

        Yes, I am emotional about this issue because it is one that has affected me personally. I have lived in poverty, have had to go without insurance, praying that I don’t get sick or injured, and I’ve have had to wander through the welfare system. I’ve seen my younger brother get turned down for insurance because of pre-existing conditions (he’s safe is Massachusetts now, so we don’t have to worry about him so much). So forgive me if I react emotionally to the plight of millions of people who are scared and helpless, just like I have been.

        This is an area in which I am not only personally concerned, but also educated in, which has allowed me to think critically about the issues involved. And for me, the argument that people don’t want to have their tax dollars go to help someone else is just not good enough. I also don’t believe that every American feels that way, just people like you.

        I’m not repeating rhetoric, unlike the teabaggers who just follow Glenn Beck’s talking points without even thinking about them. I’ve been concerned over the lack of health care in this country for years. I’m also not an “Obama worshipper”. In fact, there are several things on which I disagree with him. And I don’t feel the need to demonize anyone. Yes, I believe that health insurance companies are mainly concerned with profit, but that doesn’t make them evil. They’re corporations, that’s what they’re supposed to care about! Otherwise, how would they survive? But I believe that America’s attitude toward health care needs to change. Instead of being a commodity that we purchase, health care needs to be something that everyone has a right to. Health care shouldn’t be a privilege. It needs to be a right.

        I don’t care if you agree with me or not. You’re not going to change my mind, and I doubt if I can change yours. All I hope is that Americans will simply look beyond their own lives and see the people around them and try to understand what others are going through. It’s not about liberal vs. conservative. It’s about right vs. wrong. Of course, that’s the idealist in me.

      • Jim
        November 8, 2009 at 10:22 PM

        I’m glad to hear that you were able to overcome adversity. What was it that compelled you to rise above it? How did you beat the cycle?

  10. thepoliticalmemo
    November 7, 2009 at 10:25 AM

    To Ben:

    “So you agree those people are crazy. I’m all for an honest debate about health insurance reform, but it’s rare to get that from opponents of reform. So tell me, what is your argument against reform?”

    To explain, here’s a news item from CBSnews.com:

    “After all the noise over Democrats’ push for a government insurance plan to compete with private carriers, coverage numbers are finally in:

    “Two percent.

    “That’s the estimated share of Americans younger than 65 who’d sign up for the public option plan under the health care bill that Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., is steering toward House approval.”

    And earlier estimates of similar health care reform bills had that number at around 5%

    You see, Ben, for all that noise liberals have been making about how a “public option” would create competition, I just don’t see how having people face hikes in their taxes just to cover a small percentage of the population is going to give health care insurance companies reason for concern.

    We already have a “public option” for our senior citzens. It’s called Medicare, and look at where that’s getting us: if we continue on our current path, in the future, one worker will end up having to financially support several retirees for their health insurance (we’re facing a similar situation with social security). Add to that mess the endless fraud in Medicare (as was reported on 60 minutes weeks ago), and it seems that this program is going to financially ruin America in the future. And yet, liberals want to create another program that will add a hefty burden on taxpayers to give health insurance to a small percentage of the population? Do liberals fail to realize that the creation of a culture of dependency through programs such as Medicare, Social Security, and the “public option” (if it does pass) will handicap the progress of a nation?

    “And we had other breaches of our Constitution with the illegal surveillance as well as the torturing of prisoners, cronyism, ineptitude, and the destruction of our economy.”

    Yeah, I really love how liberals care so much about the the rights and well being of terrorists hell-bent on destroying our country.

    And also, why don’t you read up some information about the Community Reinvestment Act that was passed under President Jimmy Carter, the act that has, in essence, led to economic collaspe last year.

    Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

    And one more thing: please stop with the constant lie that anyone who opposes you is, by default, a liar. Liberals lie a lot too, you know.

    By the way, I’m a libertarian, as I feel that government shouldn’t be involved in people’s personal lives, with the strong exception of abortion.

    Link to CBS News article: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/01/health/main5483872.shtml

    -D.R.L.

    Reply
    • Ben Hoffman
      November 8, 2009 at 10:34 PM

      [To explain, here’s a news item from CBSnews.com]

      There’s a lot more to the bill than just the public option. There are new regulations to prohibit insurance companies from excluding people due to pre-existing conditions and from canceling polices when people get sick.

      [I just don’t see how having people face hikes in their taxes just to cover a small percentage of the population is going to give health care insurance companies reason for concern.]

      It’s only people making more than $250k a year. We already subsidize people who don’t have insurance and have to be treated in an emergency room.

      [Add to that mess the endless fraud in Medicare (as was reported on 60 minutes weeks ago)]

      Good point. They need to crack down on fraud.

      [Yeah, I really love how liberals care so much about the the rights and well being of terrorists hell-bent on destroying our country.]

      No, the concern is with wiretapping for political purposes, which has occurred.

      [And also, why don’t you read up some information about the Community Reinvestment Act that was passed under President Jimmy Carter, the act that has, in essence, led to economic collaspe last year.]

      Yep, that’s the right-wing talking point. Funny how it took 30 years for it to destroy our economy. No, our economy was destroyed more by the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in the late 90s than anything.

      [By the way, I’m a libertarian, as I feel that government shouldn’t be involved in people’s personal lives, with the strong exception of abortion.]

      In other words, you were an ardent Bush supporter up until 2006, but now you don’t want to admit you’re a Republican.

      Reply
      • thepoliticalmemo
        November 10, 2009 at 6:21 AM

        “In other words, you were an ardent Bush supporter up until 2006, but now you don’t want to admit you’re a Republican.”

        Sir, I was actually a LIBERAL up to 2008, having picked up the beliefs of my parents. But then I woke up and did some soul searching.

        May I advise you to stop going around and twisting people’s word to say that their something that they know they’re not.

        -D.R.L.

      • Ben Hoffman
        November 10, 2009 at 9:09 AM

        [Sir, I was actually a LIBERAL up to 2008, having picked up the beliefs of my parents. But then I woke up and did some soul searching.]

        You went from being a liberal to a radical right-winger in one year? You know, there is such a thing as moderation. 🙂

  12. The Arbourist
    November 8, 2009 at 12:50 PM

    Jim said: You see, about half the people in this country have a moral problem with taking money out of one person’s pocket in order to pay for other people’s expenses.

    Well damn Jim, I’m sorry the morality of the issue is such a problem for you. The issue is that you pay for other peoples ‘problems’ anyways, just that if you wait till they access costly emergency medical services then you pay more.

    Letting people access healthcare when they need it can be though of as a preventative measure. You catch the big problems before they become extreme medical emergencies, requiring much more in the terms of medical resources.

    An analogue would be how to tackle the problem of crime. The number one indicator or criminal activity is poverty. Rather than deal with the problem of poverty it has been the US’s policy deal with the results of the problems of poverty; by building and maintaining a huge prison population. These ‘back-end’ solutions are more costly than providing the programs necessary to reduce inequality and poverty.

    Giving people access to medical care when they need it is not charity, it is a reasonable expectation in industrialized societies. It is another way to help people who are impoverished improve their standard of living, and thus improve society overall.

    “Finally, if you believe nothing else I’ve said, believe this. Dignity cannot be given free of charge to a person.”

    Who does not deserve dignity Jim? Really? Please provide a list of who we should deny human dignity to. Murderers? Rapists? It gets a little more sticky once you get past the clear cut cases, perhaps the Cadillac poor who just have babies for more welfare money? Or …

    Reply
    • sleepygirl
      November 8, 2009 at 1:10 PM

      …or just poor people in general? Poor people are just nuisances anyway, they should just hurry up and die. 😉

      Reply
    • Jim
      November 8, 2009 at 9:39 PM

      [The issue is that you pay for other peoples ‘problems’ anyways, just that if you wait till they access costly emergency medical services then you pay more.]

      So that’s why you need an additional $1.2 Trillion, to save money? Thanks, but I’ve been around long enough to see the results of “investments” in government social programs. I know what’s going to happen to the money beyond the shadow of a doubt.

      Read up about the war on poverty. You complain that the US does “nothing.” Since the 1930’s, billions in taxes have been transferred from working Americans to government programs intended to address your concerns. I’m going to assume that, based on your assessment of the current situation, you don’t think it’s been very successful.

      If you truly want to fight poverty, vote and work to expand the US economy to provide economic opportunities for the less fortunate. Give to them the chance to build a life for themselves, and not be forced depend upon the “compassion” of a government official.

      Giving things away is charity, no matter how you try to redefine it. Ours is the most charitable country on earth or in history. However, as you drain away more and more money in taxes, charitable giving falls – another unintended consequence.

      If you truly understood dignity, you would have realized that it is not a commodity that can be doled out. It is built, like character, by an individual as he continuously works to better himself.

      Reply
      • The Arbourist
        November 8, 2009 at 11:33 PM

        Jim says: So that’s why you need an additional $1.2 Trillion, to save money? Thanks, but I’ve been around long enough to see the results of “investments” in government social programs. I know what’s going to happen to the money beyond the shadow of a doubt.

        Argument from Authority and therefore fallacious. You have no idea what is going to happen but since you ‘been around’ we are to assume you have special insight not available to the rest of us? Universal healthcare is a successful prominent feature of dozens of industrialized countries. If supported properly, it could work in the US as well.

        If you truly want to fight poverty, vote and work to expand the US economy to provide economic opportunities for the less fortunate. Give to them the chance to build a life for themselves, and not be forced depend upon the “compassion” of a government official.

        Redistribution of wealth makes for a more equitable, just society. Wealth redistribution counteracts one of the primary features of capitalism which is the concentration of wealth and power in a very small elite segment of society.

        Ours is the most charitable country on earth or in history.

        That may or may not be true. A more salient feature of US society is the disparity of wealth between the richest and the poorest. The largest disparity in the industrialized world. Disparity in wealth often equals disparity in rights and freedoms. Universal healthcare counteracts this tendency toward inequity, guaranteeing all people have access to medical care.

        If you truly understood dignity, you would have realized that it is not a commodity that can be doled out. It is built, like character, by an individual as he continuously works to better himself.

        I have a fairly good grasp of the concept. What I’m worried about is your idea that if you just work hard things will be great and then by some magic process you get dignity. The concept of respect seems to be more like what you are describing, because most of humanity is entitled to a dignified existence, without having to prove it to anyone.

      • Jim
        November 9, 2009 at 9:19 AM

        [Argument from Authority and therefore fallacious.]

        No, it’s conclusion drawn from inductive logic. How is Medicare doing financially? How is Medicaid doing? How is the V.A. doing? How is Social Security doing? How is (fill in the name of your favorite government social program) doing? How much “special insight” does one need to observe a pattern here?

        Universal health care is an infamous feature of dozens of industrialized countries. Lines are long, the quality is lower than the standards to which we’re accustomed, and (as is always the case when government rations scarce resources) bureaucrats choose who receives care based on their perceived value to society. It is not successful by any means.

        [Redistribution of wealth makes for a more equitable, just society.]

        That is the history of the world, and it has never created a just society. America is the first place on earth where a person’s success depended upon his own efforts. As a result this country has grown and flourished at a rate unprecedented in history. All walks in life in this country enjoy a higher quality of living than anywhere else on earth. Plus, they have something better. The opportunity to overcome poverty and build a better life for themselves. That is a luxury not afforded to citizens of other countries where the government decides outcomes in advance. They languish in a perpetual economic prison, where the economic engines of their societies have been choked by an all consuming public sector that insists on being judged by its intentions and never its results.

        You enjoy vilifying successful people in this country, and imply that they somehow earned their fortunes at the expense of the poor. You could not be more wrong. This is not a zero sum game. Wealth is created – not stolen – and doing so requires investment, which creates economic opportunities for other Americans. This isn’t some hypothesis from your civics 101 text book. This is the model that has driven the rise of this country since the beginning.

        The success of capitalism is a good thing for your government programs too, since over 90% of the income taxes in this country are paid by the top 50% of earners. One third of the income tax total is paid by the top 1% of earners. Yet you insist on siphoning more and more away from the people who start and grow businesses. You don’t understand the dire consequences in store as you inadvertently constrain investment and send us down the path of the European socialists.

        [_Ours is the most charitable country on earth or in history._ That may or may not be true.]

        This most certainly is the most charitable country in history. If you think you can prove that wrong, go for it.

        Finally, you’re getting closer, one cannot have dignity without self-respect. Keep working hard and try to be a better person than you were yesterday. You’ll find that there’s nothing magical about the process.

  13. thepoliticalmemo
    November 10, 2009 at 10:05 AM

    To Ben:

    “You went from being a liberal to a radical right-winger in one year? You know, there is such a thing as moderation.”

    Sir, I am in no way, shape and form a radical. I am simply a citizen that is concerned for the direction the country has taken as of late, and I am willing to engage in reasoned debate about the issues that face us.

    I can see, sir, that you on the other hand have more of an interest in name calling and in defaming and demonizing anyone who disagrees with you. Just because I disagree with your stances doesn’t automatically mean I’m a radical. What nonsense is this?

    You know, from as far as I can tell, you, sir, should be the very last one calling anyone a radical, especially when all you do is, as I mentioned above, sit and call people names, defame people, and demonize them just because they disagree with you.

    Shame on you. People like you who can’t debate resonably without throwing unnecessary bombs don’t deserve a place in the national conversation on the issues.

    Good day.

    -D.R.L.

    Reply
  14. Rutherford
    November 10, 2009 at 4:56 PM

    Well, DRL, I for one am very interested in knowing what woke you up.

    One of the things that fascinates me about the Tea Party crew is that until a black man entered the White House, they saw no reason to march on Washington. They were perfectly happy with the status quo.

    Or, to view it differently, they were sufficiently unhappy with the status quo to boot Republicans out and install Obama. Now they are complaining?

    Can I fairly characterize you as a disappointed liberal? If so, please elaborate on the source of your disappointment.

    Reply
  15. The Arbourist
    November 10, 2009 at 11:31 PM

    Jim and Arbourist converse:
    [Argument from Authority and therefore fallacious.]

    No, it’s conclusion drawn from inductive logic. How is Medicare doing financially? How is Medicaid doing? How is the V.A. doing? How is Social Security doing? How is (fill in the name of your favorite government social program) doing? How much “special insight” does one need to observe a pattern here?

    Of course not. It is your opinion that these particular systems are not working to your standard. However, as Sleepy Girl said in a previous post, referenced with some statistics, universal healthcare is not only more efficient, but contributes to a better life in general.

    Jim continues:Lines are long, the quality is lower than the standards to which we’re accustomed, and (as is always the case when government rations scarce resources) bureaucrats choose who receives care based on their perceived value to society. It is not successful by any means.

    See Jim, this is opinion. Many people with universal healthcare would disagree with you (note the last paragraph of Sleepy Girl’s post).

    It has been my personal experience of the years that when I need to go the doctor, I make an appointment, or if I have 45 mins and a good book to read, I go to a walk in clinic, I get treated and I’m good to go. I’ve had years of getting this excellent level of care, including emergency care when I needed it therefore universal healthcare is good. (you see by my falla..err..inductive reasoning, socialized medicine is a *good* thing)

    So well worn tropes like Long Lines and Bureaucrats making decisions about who gets medical attention;( I bet you wanted to mention the farcical ‘death panels’ as well) as well as the statement “it is not successful by any means” falls more into the category of rhetoric(smells like libertarian / objectivist to me. By the way, please let me know what horribly inefficient government services you would like to do without, see the list here Utilities perhaps? Roads?) which is nice, but not particularly informative.

    Jim: America is the first place on earth where a person’s success depended upon his own efforts.

    However, it better to be born rich and stupid than poor and hardworking. From the article inThe New Republic on Wealthcare:

    “Arthur Brooks, in his book Gross National Happiness, concedes that “the gap between the richest and poorest members of society is far wider than in many other developed countries. But there is also far more opportunity . . . there is in fact an amazing amount of economic mobility in America.” In reality, as a study earlier this year by the Brookings Institution and Pew Charitable Trusts reported, the United States ranks near the bottom of advanced countries in its economic mobility. The study found that family background exerts a stronger influence on a person’s income than even his education level. And its most striking finding revealed that you are more likely to make your way into the highest-earning one-fifth of the population if you were born into the top fifth and did not attain a college degree than if you were born into the bottom fifth and did. In other words, if you regard a college degree as a rough proxy for intelligence or hard work, then you are economically better off to be born rich, dumb, and lazy than poor, smart, and industrious.”

    Now this is one study, however it leads credence to the idea that the ‘American Dream’ is more akin the the ‘American Myth’ and therefore the more features that serve to make the society more egalitarian would therefore be a good thing.

    Wealth is created – not stolen – and doing so requires investment, which creates economic opportunities for other Americans.

    Under capitalism one must consider exploitation: exploitation refers to the subjection of producers (the proletariat) to work for passive owners (bourgeoisie) for less compensation than is equivalent to the actual amount of work done. The proletarian is forced to sell his or her labour power, rather than a set quantity of labour, in order to receive a wage in order to survive, while the capitalist exploits the work performed by the proletarian by accumulating the surplus value of their labour. Therefore, the capitalist makes his/her living by passively owning the means of production and generating a profit, which is really the product of the labor which is entitled to all it produces.

    So yah, maybe not stolen persay, but not justly created either.

    Yet you insist on siphoning more and more away from the people who start and grow businesses.

    Take how you feel about the government. That is how I feel about business. Business is not to be trusted as a rule. The preeminence and worship of the ‘bottom line’ is not a moral/economic system to be envious of.

    You don’t understand the dire consequences in store as you inadvertently constrain investment and send us down the path of the European socialists.

    Where is this nightmare vision of Europe you having going? You do realize that it is not connected with reality? Socialism is not the anti-christ. Europe is doing fairly well and is exceeding US standards of living in many areas.

    Getting past the false dichotomy of Capitalism USA good / Evil European Socialism EVIL EVIL EVIL (evil) will be key to continuing a reasonable debate.

    Reply
    • Jim
      November 11, 2009 at 9:18 AM

      [This post was deleted due to Jim acting like a jackass]

      Reply
      • The Arbourist
        November 11, 2009 at 10:38 AM

        A translation salvaged from the artless casuistry that Jim posted as a response:

        When presented with a version of truth that differs from your perceived ‘wisdom’ debate must end. (With a fine helping of ad hominem and vapidity to boot)
        Since pronouncing the appropriate libertarian rhetoric(which is inherently silly)and the lovable ‘american dream meme’ seems not to be working, lets decry the evils of socialism (again) and reaffirm to yourself how right you are.

        The title of idiot would shift to my shoulders if I continued to waste time attempting to persuade a true believer such as yourself. People like you cannot be reasoned with, only beaten.

        The feeling is mutual, although on the bright side 2016 is a long way away, hurrah for liberal orgies!

        On a less rhetorical note; no one wins if you will not leave the battlements of your position.

        Good day.

    

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: