Thursday, August 6, 2009

Outrage For Sale

Once again: none of this is surprising. It's just the spectacle of people cowed into acting against their own interests that has characterized the Republican party for decades. We're no more talking about "socialized medicine" than we are about revoking the Constitution (although we came sorta close during the Bush years.) Sadly, we're not even talking about single-payer, which is also NOT socialized medicine, but which might actually be a start to controlling costs. Want to know the awful face of socialized medicine? Look no further than the VA Hospitals.

(I hadn't known that the part of the current legislation regarding living wills was introduced by Republicans. I do know that having a living will is an extremely useful thing. It puts the patient in control. Funny how that works, huh?)


  1. I don't disagree about the VA, Frank, especially back in the day. The one I worked in was... a challenge. On the other hand, they've been upgraded considerably (or so I'm told) of late; and now that Bush is gone and we have a pres who actually wants to support vets as opposed to one who just cries over them, they're getting even better.

    On the other hand, the VA model is not at all what's being talked about.

    My real clunker is a 1987 Bronco. I'd love to get 4500 trade on it, but I like my Acura too much to get rid of it, I don't use the Bronco so I don't need a replacement, so whattayagonnado?

  2. I'd also like to point out, to those who have left particularly off-point (and deleted) comments, that there IS NO BILL! There are several Senate versions, and a House one, which have yet to be reconciled.

    Unfortunately, the right wing has decided to reject the opportunity afforded by the August recess to have real discussions on a tough issue and, rather, to shout it down based on lies. Nice job, conservatives, you lovers of freedom and democracy.

  3. And, just in case it's not obvious from my previous posts and comments:

    1) I'll delete whatever I want to. It's my blog. People are welcome to not visit.

    2) Many comments in opposition can be seen in these parts. In general they have in common that they either add something substantive to the discussion, or are funny. Both: even better.

    Nothing new here, other than less patience with those that don't fall into the above categories. Easier to hit the delete button than wasting my time responding to nonsense. Would that it were possible to have a delete button in those town halls. Ever notice than when tough questions are asked and the speaker is given a chance to answer them, information happens?

    Useful comments, no matter the point of view, will remain welcome. And if there's a perceived disharmony between the tone in some of my posts, and in my "rules" for tone in comments, well then, I refer the reader to Walt Whitman.

  4. Have you ever seen the Seinfeld episode "Bizarro World"? Rachel Maddow is like the bizarro world version of Sean Hannity. They even have the same haircut.

    Seriously though. I'm assuming you're fully aware that Democrats create "astroturf" too, but just choose to highlight the Republican's variety because it's your blog and the Repub's really piss you off.

    NOTE* Seems the Democrats make that fake grass stuff too:

    For what it's worth, astroturf causes more knee injuries & the brush burns you get from it really burn in the shower after the game. I think the lesson learned is that natural grass is better than artificial turf in many ways, and Hannity & Maddow look like twins from behind.

    Precordial Thump

  5. Really excellent commentary: Rachel Maddow's appearance. Good stuff. You bring glory to yourself and demonstrate a high level of discourse, and show Republicans to be above the fray. Well done.

  6. Ouchie Ouchie, Dr Sid.

    After reading your blogs about how stupid the american public, Republicans, and Sarah Palin are, (along with something about a$$holery)I just figured that's how we communicate around these parts.

    As that popular PSA below says, "I learned it by watching you!"


  7. Well, I don't deny being a little out there at times. On the other hand, I don't think I've criticized based on looks. About Sarah and the rest, there's plenty of facts on which to base my commentary, and I don't think I've ever been unfactual.

    I've always (or so I'd argue) based my characterizations on real things. The assholery, the stupidity is documented. Easily, I might add. Rachel Maddow's looks (and the homophobia your comment implies) have nothing to do with what she said. Unlike Hannity and Beck, for example, she can and does document what she says. The other difference, of course, is intelligence.

  8. Interesting assumption that my comment implied homophobia, as I was not aware of Maddow's sexual orientation until just now.

    But to stay on topic, it looks like both parties are guilty of creating "astroturf" demonstrations (based on links provided 2 posts ago), which is unfortunate because the citizens voices are being over shadowed by the hired guns on both sides of the aisle.

    If we had ethical & competent leaders & media, universal healthcare could possibly be a positive thing. After hearing both sides of the aisle speak (including Obama accusing docs of taking out kids tonsils when they only have allergies), I don't trust anyone in this whole debacle. The cost estimates released by the CBO & the high costs of the Massachusetts plan give me pause.

    Your friendly to all sexual orientations Precordial Thumper

  9. I actually agree with most of your latest comment, PT, and have said as much many times: both sides are pretty pathetic.

    If there's a difference in the astroturfing, I'd argue this: the one you cite on the left make no effort to hide who they are, and they are advocating for the changes needed to help people adversely affected by the status quo. The other side pretends they're grass roots, when they're in fact lobbyists for the people who are profiting from the current dysfunction.

  10. Politics, and the resultant "demonstrations", is all just one big strategic charade of influencing people in attempts to vote away wealth, resources, & power from one group to another.

    The hired guns on the right are trying to protect their very profitable insurance business.

    The hired guns on the left, mostly labor unions and community organizers, are trying to shift the profits over to the government & increase the influence of their organizations.

    You argue that the motives of the left leaning organizations are selfless. Of course, one would then counter-argue that the right leaning organizations are also selfless based on anecdotal comparisons to universal healthcare in other countries. Both arguments have merit.

    One thing is for certain; If health insurance doesn't become more affordable, something will have to change. Aristotle figured that out circa 350B.C.:

    "In democracy, rule is by and for the needy" - Aristotle


  11. Again, there's much on which we agree. But you really lost me with this whopper:

    ...trying to shift the profits over to the government. Huh? Wow.

    And might I add: those "anecdotal" comparisons to universal health care in other countries are a perfect example of the problem. There's NO COMPARISON between what's being proposed, and the sort of universal coverage in other countries. (In my opinion, that's too bad.) Your example is of but another of the many falsehoods being peddled.

    If the lefties are organized (such as it's possible for lefties to be organized), I'm not aware of equivalent falsehoods they're spreading.


Comments back, moderated. Preference given for those who stay on topic.

Popular posts