Gawker 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 4:12 AM
Fri Nov 27
11 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip Your Editors:
tips@gawker.com
Tipline: 646-214-8138
Editor-in-Chief:
Gabriel Snyder | Email
West Coast Editor:
Richard Rushfield | Email
Contributing Editors:
Valleywag:
Ryan Tate | Email
Media:
Hamilton Nolan | Email
Politics:
Alex Pareene | Email
Investigations:
John Cook | Email
Entertainment:
Brian Moylan | Email
Nights:
Adrian Chen | Email
Azaria Jagger | Email
Ravi Somaiya | Email
Weekends:
Foster Kamer | Email
Video Editor:
Richard Blakeley | Email
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
09/03/09
Not to be a rabble-rouser, but I wanted to stand up in the auditorium and say something about, "Fuck this. What are you saying?"
09/02/09
Ha ha ha, ha ha ha ha, ha ha. [snort] [chuckle] Ha ha ha, ha ha ha, ha.
Oh. Wait. You were serious.
The only saving grace of this is the grim, uncaring satisfaction I'll have a decade from now when all the Tea Baggers are cast adrift because they can't afford their $5,000 per visit deductible and are dropped by their Delaware-based insurance company. Their only choice will be either to sell a non-essential organ or to book a seat on an ice flow somewhere.
...Assuming there are any ice flows left, obviously.
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
Both parties have moved to the right since Reagan, and certainly since Bush II...what's the point of even pretending "bipartisanship" is advisable or feasible when most of the seats on the other side of the table seem to be occupied by extremists who have nothing constructive to offer? This is as "conservative" a Democratic party the country (or at least, the people who voted for Obama/gave those Dems a majority in Congress) should have to tolerate.
I dread the future. I dread an America where people like Sarah Palin are not only tolerated in policymaking, but are rewarded and given power. I don't care if the Democrats have a majority right now, it seems voters have learned little or nothing from the past eight years.
That said--to be honest, I'm not informed enough about this myself. My parents disapprove of the comparisons to Hitler but they're lucky enough to have a decent insurance plan, and worry what they'll have to give up, even if they recognize and regret the fact that there are millions of people here who are either uninsured, underinsured, or worried about they're employers cutting insurance.
What's worse--the rationing (and costliness) that supposedly goes on in countries like England, or the "rationing" that happens as a byproduct of our expensive system?
09/02/09
They clearly are concerned about "socialism" and should not be forced to participate in it. Let them pay their own damn medical bills like the expect the rest of us to do. Or hell, even better, let them try to buy a policy in the free market.
I'm sick of the bitching!
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
Well, here's a crazy proposal, what if I'm fine with building roads on my dime but I'm not fine with healing the sick? FYI, guys, if the rich opt out of taxes the government doesn't function. 50% of the tax base pays 95% of the taxes, and 5% pay over half.
09/02/09
As long as this country remains as wealthy as it is, the rich will never want for access to high quality healthcare.
Also, what if I'm fine with building roads and healing the sick on my dime, but I'm not fine with funding a costly, eight-year (by 2011) war whose justification was based on false premises (I know, I know, reductio ad Iraqarum). The fact of the matter is that in any tax system, some of a taxpayer's contribution will go to projects to which she may not agree.
09/02/09
Entitlement programs are paid for almost exclusively by the upper echelon of American wage-earners. The rich drive on roads and use oil in their cars, but they've already got great health care.
Iraq wasn't a charity mission, and this is.
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
What is the difference between gov't bureaucrats and insurance bureaucrats seeing medical records?
09/02/09
09/02/09
All the other western democracies have universal healthcare that is either entirely public or has a very open public option. It works well, is more efficient and inexpensive, and is more just. The government is going to have access to information about people anyway through their taxes, criminal records, etc. That's no reason to privatize healthcare or for that matter the police force or the IRS. Right now private insurance companies who have only their profits on mind not your health have your health information and they will be going through it and looking for technicalities and excuses to not cover your illnesses.
09/02/09
In America, on the other hand, people are going bankrupt and they are suffering and dying because they did not have insurance, could not get affordable insurance due to a pre-existing condition, or thought they were taken care of but their insurance is inadequate.
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
Republicans: They'll kill us all if you let them do this!
Democrats: Ok everyone, we've decided not to do it.
Republicans: See how these Democrats are a bunch of pussies who are too scared to accomplish anything?
...
Republican: Ok everyone, we are going to do this.
Democrats: But you can't, it is not right!
Republicans: So?
Republicans: See how these Democrats are a bunch of pussies who are too scared to fight against anything?
09/02/09
*Note: we are not actually winners. But at least we ain't pussies! Yee-haw!
09/02/09
[en.wikipedia.org]
09/02/09
And we just go "you're crazy!" instead of clearly telling the people that believe this nonsense their GOP leaders peddle them that they're being lied to. But it's easier, I suppose.
09/02/09
09/02/09
The GOP are successful at this shit not because they are better at it, but because their position (either "keep shit the same" or "roll shit back to the way it was before") is a much easier argument to make. They don't have to sell anybody on anything.
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
It's far easier--whether you're doing it from the majority, or doing it from the minority position--to argue that things should stay the same, than it is to argue for something new. The reason why the GOP's shit is effective is not because they're good at anything, but because trumpeting a message of the same automatically garners an insane amount of support all on its own.
Yes, the democrats can be, and are I think, attempting to fight this. But the fact that this pushback isn't as effective as we'd like it to be doesn't necessarily reflect on their level of effort, but rather on the fact that it's very difficult to instantly come up with a comprehensive healthcare plan and argue its merits to the public. The information is shaky because the democrats are being forced to build the plan and shill for it at the same time. If they wait until they're finished before they go about trying to inform the public, the GOP will already have convinced everybody that same = the best.
09/02/09
Liberals are too busy calling the other side stupid to realize that we're the ones continuously on the losing end. We've got the numbers to win, but we manage to keep losing. Why is that? It's not just because a small, small subset of 'crazies' screaming at Town Halls. It's because the vast majority of Americans are getting terrible news from the people at the top.
Calling them stupid and dumb and crazy does nothing to get the vast middle to understand. It really doesn't. Why was FDR so successful? Americans weren't more intelligent then...if anything, they had even less exposure to knowledge. The difference is FDR put the New Deal in easier terms---this will HELP you. This is how it will help you. Here are the specifics of it. Talking high and intelligently about the merits of the bill will do nothing to help your side at all.
The 1993 proposal was killed by the same disease---huge amounts of mis- and disinformation coming from the high ranks of Republicans and most in the corporate-owned media. Why is the owner of the Washington Post holding a soiree (the one that got found out and cancelled) about how best to deal with the healthcare issue with top corporate fat cats? While her newspaper reports on the debate. They are invested in giving us bad information.
Calling Americans that don't understand how to disseminate all the misinformation dumbasses will not help to pass anything remotely liberal, never mind healthcare reform.
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
No, that's not a good thing because it means that the crazies have won. It's too bad that the Neo-Con's hype machine has pulled another fast one on this country and on something as important as healthcare.
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
Look, it's the Congress' responsibility to write bills. For an example of what happens when the President does it, look to the last health care debacle that occurred.
And while I agree that Obama isn't as liberal or progressive as I hoped he would be, there was never any reason to believe that he would be. I never was convinced that he would come out for ending all wars, public health care for all, etc., I just hoped he would.
If you believed he was anything but a pragmatist centrist who's interested in compromise but not rocking the boat all the way over, you weren't paying attention.
09/02/09
It's going to be interesting to hear about these "other ways" of "ensuring choice and competition." I swear to God, if the only thing that comes out of all this is that the gov't mandates that I buy health insurance at the same bonkers-ass premium (that I formerly had the choice to just not pay), I'm going to shit on the White House lawn.
09/02/09
09/02/09
I can't rule out the possibility that we're in the midst of what might come to be known as Obama's signature move: introducing an issue, letting the "debate" (aka outrage) simmer, and then doing something while the spectators are winded.
But again, I will be royally pissed if all that happens is they pass a law telling me I have to buy the same old overpriced, fraudulent insurance as before. I highly doubt this will happen, but if it does, I will stay out of the U.S. until it's reversed. Still wouldn't be enough to make me vote for a republican, though.
I do think it's far, far too soon to be writing off Obama, though. It just feels like such a typical liberal maneuver to me. We wonder why democrats are such flakes, but perhaps it's because our loyalties shift like the wind. We have to remember that Obama is handling a gigantic mess, and trying to push new reforms on top of it all. I've argued since he was elected that he deserves a full term before we render summary judgment, and I'll stand by that.
Which isn't to say that we shouldn't complain about how his policies seem to be shaping up. There's room for that. I'm just saying, let's cut the "Obama's legacy will be the novelty of being the first black president" bit.
09/02/09
09/02/09
09/02/09
There are a lot of us who consider ourselves liberals who also realize that politics is the art of the possible and that lasting change, even change in a leftward direction, sometimes has to be slow, incremental and imperfect.
We're also (perhaps) realistic enough to know that nothing will "get all the town hall crazies to chill the fuck out." Their craziness has nothing to do with the health care issue.
03/02/09
03/02/09
03/02/09