Terrorists! Nazis! Birthers! Uwaaaaaaaaaagh.

[Deck Knight]

Just wanted to drop a pleasant reminder that US politicians (but especially Democrats of late) are full of shit these days. In addition to being Godwin's Law violating, thug-propping, astroturfing clowns, they are now fond of calling constituents terrorists. While they send out union goons to intimidate and beat up senior citizens and political button salesmen.

Article 1 in Rogues Gallery: Nancy Pelosi

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGRUx2b0ArM

"Astroturfed, and carrying swastikas and symbols like that to townhall meetings."

Right. Which is why the news media has yet to uncover any such symbols anywhere, except for a bunch of people who supported a communist and seven time democratic candidate for President Lyndon LaRouche. Gutowski's Eyeblast clip is also illuminating for just how tank-submerged the State-Run Media is for Obama.

Cause you know, one group of crazy people with a Bushitler, I mean, Nazi-Obama sign must be indicative of the tone of every attendee. That's "good journalism," champs.

Pelosi also wins brownie points for calling protesters "un-American." She's partly accurate, since the key difference between these protesters and Obama/ACORN/SEIU thugs is that these are individual volunteers, not subsidized, paid-for agitators with union label shirts and printed placards. Everyone knows if you aren't getting subsidized and paid, you aren't really genuine.

The next Rogue Award goes to Baron Hill for calling town hall attendees "political terrorists." Two problems with this:

1. The White House has banned the word terrorism, favoring "man-caused disaster." You can't just go around calling people who disagree with your political ideology terrorists. Unless you're DHS secretary Janet Napolitano.

2. Terrorism is inherently political. Terrorists use terror to obtain political ends. If nothing else Baron Hill's qualifier is remarkably stupid.


Next: Birthers are idiotic. Yes, Obama is like all Democrats in that all his school, medical, etc. records are locked up tighter than Hillary Clinton's blouse. Even if Obama was a foreign national with dual citizenship, there is no way in hell anyone would impeach or otherwise call for the resignation of the first black president. That being said, like 9/11 Truthers, Birthers are part of an extremely dubious fringe that long ago abandoned rationality. They should thus be accorded the same attention and seriousness the truthers were, which is approximately zero.

These people weaken actual arguments against Obama and his draconian proto-fascist policies, as enforced by his corrupt cabal of violent reprobates.

Next Rogue: Robert Gibbs, who is apparently Obama's take on Scott McClellan, Bush's notoriously incompetent press secretary. Gibbs continues to express that opposition to Obamacare is not in the mainstream, despite every poll indicating that conclusion by ever increasing margins over time. So badly has Obama mangled discussion on health care, that Republicans actually lead Democrats on the issue 44-41 now (they have never before had a lead on the issue). I understand he is paid to lie on behalf of the Pathological-Liar-in-Chief, but he does so unconvincingly.

Union Goons:

Finally, and this is easily the capstone of everything that is wrong with Obama and the media's campaign against private citizens, is the assault of Kenneth Gladney and others by union goons.

You see, Obama did not like the fact America isn't buying his Hope-and-Change sack of bull anymore. Because he is President only to union thugs and community agitators, he called on them to "punch back twice as hard." The SEIU thugs took that literally.

Note how despite all the whining beforehand, violence only started occurring after Obama "rallied the troops" and started bussing his minions in. Amazing coincidence, that. I guess when you can't argue your point, intimidation is necessary. That's the Chicago Way. You have to stack the deck. Call your enemies racist. Whatever it takes (ex. lie about reimbursements [a subject which you have no knowledge of] to cast surgeons as amputation-happy scoundrels).

Just remember folks: These are the people who want to run America's health care. Just shut up and get out of their way. Or else.

STOP DECK KNIGHT:

Please report me to flag@whitehouse.gov. Join the First Black President's snitching initiative.

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

flag@whitehouse.gov.

Big Brother is watching.

 

[Caelum]

I think the Astroturf label isn't really accurate. A lot of the hyper-angry protestors are being fed misinformation through well-funded organizations which in turn scares them and gets them all excited and run down to town halls to be all angry. Honestly, the majority of the screaming ones don't know jack shit about that bill if you listen to them and just mindlessly cite the constitution and ruining of our republic. There are legitimate objections that can be made about the bill, but the protesters screaming honestly don't know anything about the bill. I think that's what democrats and the media are meaning by "astroturf" in that well funded interests are deliberately giving false information to get people angry. There are some people that ask legitimate questions, but the screaming ones are just mindless idiots.

I don't know about swastikas or whatever. The Swastikas is so far removed from its original meaning it's just used now as a symbolic representation of "I don't like you, you therefore must be a Nazi fascist", so even if there are swastikas it doesn't mean anything really. Again, I don't know though.

Next: Birthers are idiotic. Yes, Obama is like all Democrats in that all his school, medical, etc. records are locked up tighter than Hillary Clinton's blouse. Even if Obama was a foreign national with dual citizenship, there is no way in hell anyone would impeach or otherwise call for the resignation of the first black president.

Really? I would. If it were discovered Obama wasn't eligible to be President, I'd want him gone (I assume Joe Biden would take over ... which would be awful though). However, I'm pretty sure he's a citizen lol.

Next Rogue: Robert Gibbs, who is apparently Obama's take on Scott McClellan, Bush's notoriously incompetent press secretary. Gibbs continues to express that opposition to Obamacare is not in the mainstream, despite every poll indicating that conclusion by ever increasing margins over time. So badly has Obama mangled discussion on health care, that Republicans actually lead Democrats on the issue 44-41 now (they have never before had a lead on the issue). I understand he is paid to lie on behalf of the Pathological-Liar-in-Chief, but he does so unconvincingly.

Yeah, I'm not sure why Robert Gibbs hasn't been fired. He sucks; although, he's not quite as bad as Scott McCellan, but he's just started!

Union Goons:

I think you are overstating the power of unions in our governance system. I also don't think Obama has "rallied" any troops, at least not intentionally.

These people weaken actual arguments against Obama and his draconian proto-fascist policies, as enforced by his corrupt cabal of violent reprobates.

Well, it's obvious Obama is going to take advantage of the fringe lunatics in order to marginalize Republicans more generally. That's just politics.


Heh, I'll report you to Big Brother; if it pleases you. I think after Nixon keeping information on private citizens was made illegal though, so I'm not sure if he'll be able to hunt you down and put you in a prison camp - but I'm not sure!

edit: PS: I think removing the war on terrorism label is retarded, because it makes no difference what it is called as long as we know what it is.

 

[Firestorm]

I'm doing my part.

Caelum, the renaming of the "War on Terror" is purely for propaganda purposes. The name has a very negative connotation. People don't want to have ANYTHING to do with it. You'd be surprised at how many people will agree to the same thing under a different label though. You're under the assumption people still know what it is. People are stupid =)

 

[chenman333]

^^^^ Hahaha.....that was pretty amazing. I'm sure that email is getting a lot of funny ones. I think I'll send one too.

 

[Nate]

ITT: Deck Knight realizes politicians say dumb shit.

WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN

REALLY

WHERE

(death squad)

 

[Deck Knight]

Firestorm has a point. We have not yet developed Rugby here like the rest of the civilized world, which basically is legalized mob beatings. Our uniforms are made of better materials though.

Do Rugby players slash each others' tires after a game?

We could use a few more hooligans too. We haven't quite mastered the French art of Car Arson.

 

[SSBM roy]

Right. Which is why the news media has yet to uncover any such symbols anywhere, except for a bunch of people who supported a communist and seven time democratic candidate for President Lyndon LaRouche. Gutowski's Eyeblast clip is also illuminating for just how tank-submerged the State-Run Media is for Obama.

Nope, there are no swastikas at these events. They aren't here or here or here. They certainly aren't any here either. But wait! Some guy found a Lyndon LaRouche supporter at an event, and since LaRouche is a Democrat, all those people must have only been pretending to wave their Nazi signs as part of a communist conspiracy to discredit the teabaggers, right? There's no way a follower of LaRouche would show up at the event to echo the views of the man himself, is there?

Cause you know, one group of crazy people with a Bushitler, I mean, Nazi-Obama sign must be indicative of the tone of every attendee. That's "good journalism," champs.

On the left, you have violations of Godwin's law from the authors of third tier blogs. On the right, you have violations of Godwin's law from a prominent talk radio host with millions of listeners. That's definitely comparable in scope.

Pelosi also wins brownie points for calling protesters "un-American." She's partly accurate, since the key difference between these protesters and Obama/ACORN/SEIU thugs is that these are individual volunteers, not subsidized, paid-for agitators with union label shirts and printed placards. Everyone knows if you aren't getting subsidized and paid, you aren't really genuine.

Pelosi's op-ed singled out certain behavior on the part of the protesters (who are certainly not recieving "assistance" from corporate lobbying organizations or Fox News) to call un-American, which was... drowning out opposing views! Scary.

2. Terrorism is inherently political. Terrorists use terror to obtain political ends. If nothing else Baron Hill's qualifier is remarkably stupid.

Blocking health care reform is a political end, is it not?

Next: Birthers are idiotic. Yes, Obama is like all Democrats in that all his school, medical, etc. records are locked up tighter than Hillary Clinton's blouse. Even if Obama was a foreign national with dual citizenship, there is no way in hell anyone would impeach or otherwise call for the resignation of the first black president. That being said, like 9/11 Truthers, Birthers are part of an extremely dubious fringe that long ago abandoned rationality. They should thus be accorded the same attention and seriousness the truthers were, which is approximately zero.

These people weaken actual arguments against Obama and his draconian proto-fascist policies, as enforced by his corrupt cabal of violent reprobates.

I'm amazed you managed to twist a conspiracy theory on the part of the right into a way to insult... liberals. Stressing the point I made earlier, people like Rush Limbaugh and Lou Dobbs are continuing to push the debunked birther conspiracy. I'd appreciate if you could find an equivalent liberal pundit pushing 9/11 truther theories. Perhaps one like notorious leftist Alex Jones?

By the way, good job calling the president a fascist immediately after whining about how mean Nancy Pelosi is to point out Nazi comparisons.

Next Rogue: Robert Gibbs[/B], who is apparently Obama's take on Scott McClellan, Bush's notoriously incompetent press secretary. Gibbs continues to express that opposition to Obamacare is not in the mainstream, despite every poll indicating that conclusion by ever increasing margins over time. So badly has Obama mangled discussion on health care, that Republicans actually lead Democrats on the issue 44-41 now (they have never before had a lead on the issue). I understand he is paid to lie on behalf of the Pathological-Liar-in-Chief, but he does so unconvincingly.

Every poll? Are you sure about that?

Just remember folks: These are the people who want to run America's health care. Just shut up and get out of their way.

Obama is saying that people who sat by as the Bush administration ran up deficits are hypocritical to suddenly concern troll about deficit spending. Apparently, that means ACORN stormtroopers are going to invade hospitals and mandate free abortions for illegal immigrants or something.

STOP DECK KNIGHT:

Please report me to flag@whitehouse.gov. Join the First Black President's snitching initiative.

flag@whitehouse.gov.

Big Brother is watching.

I know there's no way to assuage you personally on this, but everyone else can surely see this is a way to counter viral misinformation (AKA lies) about "death panels" and such, and not a secret plan to throw teabaggers into FEMA camps, right?

 

[Deck Knight]

Nope, there are no swastikas at these events. They aren't here or here or here. They certainly aren't any here either. But wait! Some guy found a Lyndon LaRouche supporter at an event, and since LaRouche is a Democrat, all those people must have only been pretending to wave their Nazi signs as part of a communist conspiracy to discredit the teabaggers, right? There's no way a follower of LaRouche would show up at the event to echo the views of the man himself, is there?

None of those people are in Brooks Brothers suits. Stop distorting the media narrative with your filthy lies.

On the left, you have violations of Godwin's law from the authors of third tier blogs.

United States House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)

Damnit you beat me. I can find no one of note.

On the right, you have violations of Godwin's law from a prominent talk radio host with millions of listeners. That's definitely comparable in scope.

Media Matters LOL. I suppose you also believe a study is anything that begins with the words "abstract:" and ends with "in conclusion," as that is Media Matters' Modus Operandi. I listen to Rush Limbaugh. His entire point is comparing the actual health care policy of the National Socialists Worker's Party to the actual policies proposed in the only printable bill available, the House Bill. He has repeatedly said he is not comparing them in a genocidal manner.

But given your proclivity for Media Matters, I can tell facts are not your strong suit. That's OK, hearing it secondhand is good enough for you. Media Matters is your hive mind, the fact it is yet another Soros-funded endeavor is of no consequence to you. Hell, Mary Katharine Ham utterly destroyed a Think Progress smear job, which Media Matters of course picked up with nary a thought, in your own link no less. Amazing how a guy (CT libertarian by description) with 23 friends on facebook and 5 Twitter followers, who has raised slightly north of 5k and dispersed slightly less than 2k, is suddenly a well funded Republican corporate lobbyist when it suits Think Progress/Media Matters.

The block quote Think Progress provides from MacGuffie's memo (dutifully reproduced on other liberal blogs) also implies there are sentiments in the memo that simply aren't there. Each of TP's examples of the "harassment" MacGuffie is inciting is preceded by a headline MacGuffie didn't write, which lends a considerably more sinister tone than MacGuffie used. The bolded headlines below do not appear in the memo, but do appear in Think Progress' block quote of it:

– Artificially Inflate Your Numbers: “Spread out in the hall and try to be in the front half. The objective is to put the Rep on the defensive with your questions and follow-up...

– Be Disruptive Early And Often: “You need to rock-the-boat early in the Rep’s presentation, Watch for an opportunity to yell out and challenge the Rep’s statements early.”

– Try To “Rattle Him,” Not Have An Intelligent Debate: “The goal is to rattle him, get him off his prepared script and agenda. If he says something outrageous, stand up and shout out and sit right back down...

It's almost laughably easy to dispatch you when you use Media Matters as your single source material. At least I link to direct source material, not some funneled through liberal "research" center that revolves around disinformation and lies drummed up in "study" verbiage.

Pelosi's op-ed singled out certain behavior on the part of the protesters (who are certainly not recieving "assistance" from corporate lobbying organizations or Fox News) to call un-American, which was... drowning out opposing views! Scary.

Oh no! Fox News has coverage of noteworthy political events! This is collusion! The views of Pro-Bama are clearly "drowned out." Which is why the violence appears to be happening solely to people who oppose Obama's plan. It's clearly self-defense against the sharp tongues wildly asking questions that require more than a yes or no answer.

Blocking health care reform is a political end, is it not?

You are not seriously arguing blocking some abstract "reform" is a terrorist act, are you? Dumbed down does not even begin to describe the level of stupidity you and Baron Hill have engaged in. Blowing up buildings, creating makeshift roadside bombs, and beheading innocents are as far removed from passionate verbal dissent as possible. To even suggest it even borders on terrorism because these congresscritters have a God complex is disgusting and offensive.

I'm amazed you managed to twist a conspiracy theory on the part of the right into a way to insult... liberals. Stressing the point I made earlier, people like Rush Limbaugh and Lou Dobbs are continuing to push the debunked birther conspiracy. I'd appreciate if you could find an equivalent liberal pundit pushing 9/11 truther theories. Perhaps one like notorious leftist Alex Jones?

So I guess you missed my point that both of these groups are pointless fringers? Nevermind the Truthers overlap with the Paulnuts, who are far more anarchist-leaning libertarian than leftist or rightist. Lyndon Larouche is the Alex Jones of the left. Conveniently already linked for your convenience, although Cynthia McKinney has had more than a few gems. And people say I have a tic in being unable to distinguish left and right.

By the way, good job calling the president a fascist immediately after whining about how mean Nancy Pelosi is to point out Nazi comparisons.

I've not said Obama was a fascist in this topic of yet (in fact I had not even mentioned him specifically in the paragraphs preceeding your unfounded statement), though his policies ring of fascism, and his history as a subsidized, well-funded "community organizer" for ACORN are a well-known part of his personal narrative. Another purely incidental failure of reading comprehension, I suppose.

Follow this logic:

1. Obama's plan is to reform health care by cutting costs.

2. The largest costs on the health care system are from sick people in their last years of life, and the chronically infirmed.

3. Obama intends to pass this reform by creating a massive government system to oversee care.

Conclusion: Obama will necessarily have to cut costs by denying or reducing care for the elderly and disabled. It will be done via government edict, by the state deciding who is worthy of care and who is not worth the "investment."

This is exactly the "health care" they had in Nazi Germany. The disabled and infirmed were deemed to big a cost on the socialist health care system. They were killed off long before Jews became the target du jour. Our brave analysts in the media claim an alnalysis of these policies is "impossible." Maybe for small minds like Chris Tingle and Pat Shrum, but for those of us still capable of reading history, the comparisons are not difficult to draw.

Every poll? Are you sure about that?

I really can't help you if you can't read a trend line over multiple polls. Or go outside Media Matters for your talking points. Or pick out a poll that isn't two months old, a literal eternity in polling.

Obama is saying that people who sat by as the Bush administration ran up deficits are hypocritical to suddenly concern troll about deficit spending. Apparently, that means ACORN stormtroopers are going to invade hospitals and mandate free abortions for illegal immigrants or something.

So I guess the whole uniting people, bringing people together, etc. is the sack of crap I thought it was when he said it on the campaign trail. And as I recall, the last few years of the Bush Administration had a Democrat Congress. For those of us who know our Constitutional Law, all spending matters are decided by Congress.

I know, I know, a stubborn, minor detail. By the way, the TARP thing? I wasn't a fan. I had naively assumed this would be a short-term one-shot solution that no one in the future would be dumb enough to allow happen again. Then we elected an ideologue whose sole endeavor in executive experience was short-lived, ideologically-driven, and disastrous (The Woods Fund).

I know there's no way to assuage you personally on this, but everyone else can surely see this is a way to counter viral misinformation (AKA lies) about "death panels" and such, and not a secret plan to throw teabaggers into FEMA camps, right?

Well you are right about one thing SSBM Roy. It isn't a secret plan whatsoever. It is in the House bill, people are angry about it, and constituents pf Dem Senators and Reps are getting fired up about it justifiably. If ObamaCare is so great, why won't the members of the House or Senate sign on? That is only one of the questions these representatives refuse to answer, to the fury of their "terrorist," "nazi," "birther" constituents.

I for one dislike this particular hater scaremongering about single payer universal health care. Who does this eloquent man think he is? He is the greatest danger of all, as his speeches have been heralded as masterworks.

Nationalized Health Care sucks. Life Expectancy is the only measurement its supporters use because to study the survival rate of actual diseases and infirmities like breast and prostate cancer gives away the lie. R&D is completely out of the question in those systems. Much like the military, America also does all of the medical R&D for the rest of the world, since we do not currently view the elderly and infirmed as costs that need to be reduced for the greater good. Furthermore these nationalized healthcare nations must cook their books to make their infant mortality rates as low as possible.

The fraud Obama is foisting on America is despicable, and thankfully the best his heralds can do is quote Media Matters. They have not read the bill, they are uninformed, and it shows with each appearance as their only recourse is to send in the mob to attack their own constituents.

 

[Trax]

DK: I was half expecting you to finally have realized all politicians are full of shit and don't care about you, your family or in fact anyone.

But no, it's just another anti-Obama rant.

 

[LazarusLong]

Follow this logic:

1. Obama's plan is to reform health care by cutting costs.

2. The largest costs on the health care system are from sick people in their last years of life, and the chronically infirmed.

3. Obama intends to pass this reform by creating a massive government system to oversee care.

Conclusion: Obama will necessarily have to cut costs by denying or reducing care for the elderly and disabled. It will be done via government edict, by the state deciding who is worthy of care and who is not worth the "investment."

Sorry, this is flawed reasoning. One could make a similar 3-step QED by inserting almost anything into number 2 ("The largest costs on the health care system are from providing health care to people" would be even more accurate!).

There are two flawed assumptions with this reasoning:

1. The current health care system (not to mention current government spending on said care) is run so efficiently that the only place left to cut corners is by rationing health care.

2. Health care reform is more important to current politicians than seeing that there is actual health care.

I remain convinced of neither. (1) seems patently false to me, both as an engineer (you can almost always upgrade the efficiency of a system without changing its output) and as someone who has dealt with the current health care system. (2) could have some truth to it - politicians are people, after all, and it's easy to lose sight of your original goals in trying to make a difficult thing happen. But I believe that it is still the exception rather than the rule. But maybe I'm an optimist.

What's funny is that I don't even LIKE the current health care proposal. I've supported a single-payer model for years, and I believe that Obama's public option is a watered down version that will end up costing more than single-payer without actually providing single-payer's coverage. And by spending so much effort and money on this moderate reform, we are significantly delaying the adoption of a true universal health care system.

But the arguing, assumptions, and sloppy rhetoric on both sides of this debate are driving me fucking nuts. Maybe if both sides shut up, and perhaps spend more time reading bills than blogs, we can get some ACTUAL reform in America.

 

[Firestorm]

Loosely related, but did anyone see this and find it absolutely hilarious?
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-13-2009/glenn-beck-s-operation

It's really funny how people change their beliefs to fall in line with the political ideology (or opposition to a political party).
---

The standard tactic of the person who doesn't like the results is to question the researchers.

The KKK could commission a poll on the negative effects of black gangs in inner cities and the study could be completely valid. Studies should be judged by the strength of their methodology not the beliefs of their commissioners.

Come back when you have something that addresses the methodology, not the messenger.

which I guess SSBM roy can come back to you with.

In that topic I actually then addressed the methodology too but you of course ignored it.

 

[Deck Knight]

RE Trax:

I targeted multiple Democrats (and the birthers), based on what they said and what they did. This is called Freedom of Speech. You know, the kind of thing that gets you dragged off to the Human Rights Commission in your nation.

This is blatant hypocrisy. You use right wing think tanks to prove your points all the time on this forum. Here's one example I called you out on: http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1862341&postcount=12

You responded with this:
which I guess SSBM roy can come back to you with.

In that topic I actually then addressed the methodology too but you of course ignored it.

Which is precisely why, Firestorm, I set about making a mockery of Media Matters by showing exactly how it's not really a "research" firm at all. Media Matters is nothing more than a left-wing blog that couches its posts in research-laden terms. That is why they completely C+P'd a post at Think Progress (which no one believes is a research firm, incidentely). Those firms, whoever commissioned them to do their studies, do in fact have a legitimate claim to being research firms. Media Matters demonstrably does not. There is no one in America who has ever been called by Media Matters for the purposes of conducting a poll.

He could at least have tried something like the Southern Poverty Law Center, which is still ridiculously biased but is an actual research firm with actual publications.

In that topic I also mentioned how media bias can be casually confirmed as well. This is why I also littered the OP with links just to give more evidence to this, especially topical was the Matthews/Shrum clip about analysis of Nazi Germany's economic policy being impossible. Really Firestorm, trying to pull the "hypocrite" card is laughable. Media Matters is not even in kind to the links I provided to that topic, it is a complete farce.

While this may just prove Matthews/Shrum are completely dishonest and intellectually bankrupt tools, they remain people in positions of power and influence in the media.

There are two flawed assumptions with this reasoning:

1. The current health care system (not to mention current government spending on said care) is run so efficiently that the only place left to cut corners is by rationing health care.

I disagree with this assumption because our health care system at current is privately run (except for Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, and Reservation services [none of which can be touted a success].) Thus the rationing of care is done only in relation to the numbers of doctors to the number of patients. In other words, the "budget" for health care is limited only to the availability of doctors to perform services. Single-Payer has a single budget: the federal government's.

Furthermore, the savings caused by cutting back on services to the healthy are negligible. By definition the healthy do not need treatments, or the treatments they need are short term and minor. The lion's share of health care costs are chronic illness and end-of-life care. It is not the government's place to tell a private citizen that they cannot spend mucho moola to extend their life 5 years, or make those last 5 years significantly less painful through an expensive treatment program.

2. Health care reform is more important to current politicians than seeing that there is actual health care.

I remain convinced of neither. (1) seems patently false to me, both as an engineer (you can almost always upgrade the efficiency of a system without changing its output) and as someone who has dealt with the current health care system. (2) could have some truth to it - politicians are people, after all, and it's easy to lose sight of your original goals in trying to make a difficult thing happen. But I believe that it is still the exception rather than the rule. But maybe I'm an optimist.

I'm convinced of the latter. The whole reason people are incensed at town halls is because they have read the House bill, and found its provisions nauseating. John Conyers' response to this was to suggest that congresscritters are incompetent to read their own 1,000+ page bills. Neither of the following two thoughts occurred to him:

1. Congresscritters are paid to make law, and thus should know what they are writing, especially as regards significant reforms.

2. Don't make 1,000+ page bills if you don't want to read through them.

What's funny is that I don't even LIKE the current health care proposal. I've supported a single-payer model for years, and I believe that Obama's public option is a watered down version that will end up costing more than single-payer without actually providing single-payer's coverage. And by spending so much effort and money on this moderate reform, we are significantly delaying the adoption of a true universal health care system.

I don't like this bill for the opposite reason: I shudder at a single-payer option. The entire purpose of a single-payer system is couched entirely in terms of cutting costs, not in improving health care. What was the last Canadian health care innovation? Where is all the R&D for new treatments going on? The way the system is set up now, America does the lion's share of medical research, and other nations buy our innovations once the testing ceases and the price goes down.

The problem from mimicking our hand-me-down style neighbors is obvious: Who will do the medical R&D then? What is the purpose of The Jimmy Fund's fight against child cancer if we've centered our entire operation around rationing funds to pay for medical treatment? The pool of money for R&D evaporates.

The last thing the US government invented through massive R&D funding was the atomic bomb. Fortunately the demand for city-leveling weaponry is incredibly finite, whereas the demand for medical treatment is large and ever-expanding, especially with the baby boomers growing older.

If the federal government is planning to spend x billion dollars on medical treatments, where does the R&D come in? Providing healthcare is not the only function of a government, which means no matter how much they take in, there will have expenses elsewhere. Someone else would have to do the research, but what is the point if they can never sell the product because the government will not cover it under their one-size-fits-none bureaucracy? New medicines are always more expensive than pre-existing ones. It is a feature, not a bug.

Now you might argue people could pay out-of-pocket for new treatments. With what money? Single-payer systems have a notorious correlation with massive tax hikes. When you only keep 40% of what you earn, how much can you really afford to spend on payments outside of what the government has already mandated you to pay for their bloat? The answer is that you don't take the risk, because it has purposefully been priced out of your range by a government that has promised you lowest-common-denominator care.

Under force of law, 18-26 cents of every dollar you earn is already going to a health care system that cannot address your need. Another 30 cents is taken from you to provide for the rest of the government's budget. Then you have 7 cents taken out on your every clothing, disposable good, and meal purchase. Then you have to pay your debtors for student loans and your rent or mortgage.

In short, you have no money to spare. Any money you would have spent on health care, that 18-26 cents per dollar, is going to pay for your relatively healthy neighbor's care. And you have nothing to say in the matter, because you cannot opt out of federal requirements without the authorities showing up at your doorstep.

But the arguing, assumptions, and sloppy rhetoric on both sides of this debate are driving me fucking nuts. Maybe if both sides shut up, and perhaps spend more time reading bills than blogs, we can get some ACTUAL reform in America.

The vast majority of Americans like their present health coverage. This suggests to me that "reform" of this system, whatever its flaws, is not to be found in a major overhaul of the system. Most of the health care arguments that worked in the past were about getting health insurance for people who were uninsured. People assumed that this meant their health coverage would not be significantly affected, because the purpose for these programs was to expand the insurance pool, not to change the rules of the system.

People are angry that the rules are changing, but their congresscitters do not know, nor care, what these changes are.

 

[Firestorm]

Uh, I don't think you need to do much work proving Media Matters to not be a think tank. Unless of course we're talking about two different organizations. They're a (very liberal) media watchdog that centres around exposing misinformation that is used to further the republican agenda. Their about page presents them as such. There's no farce going on. Just like the sources you always use (aside from Fox) make any claims to being neutral research firms. They're right wing think tanks that are commissioned to do research that presents a certain result.

 

[Trax]

RE Trax:

I targeted multiple Democrats (and the birthers), based on what they said and what they did. This is called Freedom of Speech. You know, the kind of thing that gets you dragged off to the Human Rights Commission in your nation.

I'm not Canadian, turn yourself around and try again.

 

[Caelum]

Uh, I don't think you need to do much work proving Media Matters to not be a think tank. Unless of course we're talking about two different organizations. They're a (very liberal) media watchdog that centres around exposing misinformation that is used to further the republican agenda. Their about page presents them as such. There's no farce going on. Just like the sources you always use (aside from Fox) make any claims to being neutral research firms. They're right wing think tanks that are commissioned to do research that presents a certain result.

A "think tank" or research firm with a political bias can still be used as a valid source, depending on the organization or firm. What political think thanks or "watch dog" groups usually do is perform non-partisan, valid research and then synthesis the findings of those research to come to conclusions that support their view points. That doesn't invalidate the original research. I don't know about Deck Knight's sources, but Media Matters isn't a think tank that does valid research to use in justification of their beliefs. They use purely partisan, dishonest research; present it as "valid; and then use the partisan research to justify the beliefs they were already setting out to prove.

Just to use a comparison. Let's take a clearly Republican leaning think thank like the Heritage Foundation. More often than not the research behind the reports is valid. While I don't often agree with their conclusions the majority of the time and I think they extrapolate data and make conclusions I don't think can't be made; however, the underlying research is more often than not valid (we have to remember not to confuse the research, the conclusion, the synthesis, and the extrapolation - they are all very different aspects).

I agree with Deck Knight's assessment of Media Matters. While they make no claim they are non-partisan, they do make the claim their research is valid which is demonstrably false and dishonest.

 

[Firestorm]

I guess I just didn't consider them a research company at all. My problem is less with his attack on Media Matters and more with his attack on Media Matters while using sources that aren't valid either. Last time I cared enough to call him out on it, the methodology was shaky at best and the conclusion was worded specifically to prove a point that might have been lessened if they'd done it in a fair way (gave numbers for some results of the poll but did not for others).