Welcome, Charlie Foxtrot
It’s official! The healthcare debate is now a genuine, certified, pharmaceutical-grade clusterfuck. I’m going to write another post about the deep currents at work in this mess, but in the meantime, here are a few quick hits:
-
Jamison Foser blames the media for the current morass of misinformation:
When you see people yelling, “Keep your government hands off my Medicare,” that’s a pretty good indication that the public could use some solid facts. How many people do you think know that health care reform with a strong public option would cost taxpayers less than a plan without such an option? I would bet that a distressingly large number of members of Congress don’t know that — and that very, very few voters do.
People are understandably confused and unfamiliar with the facts — there are an awful lot of people spending an awful lot of money to confuse them and keep them in the dark. And they don’t have the time or the resources to sort through it all and find out whether reform would mean that a government bureaucrat is really going to show up at their door and tell them it’s time to die in order to save taxpayers money. (No: That would not happen.)
Wouldn’t it be amazing if the news media actually explained all these confusing facts and issues to people, instead of just running videos of fistfights and reporting the President’s approval numbers? Christ, it would be like living in a different country.
-
The lid has been blown on Obama’s secret deal with Big Pharma (doubtless one of many, many secret deals in this whole mess): the White House promised that healthcare reform would specifically exclude any option for Medicare to negotiate lower prices on prescriptions or import cheaper drugs from Canada.
Yes, the media is partially to blame for the healthcare clusterfuck, but not entirely. Not even mostly. Obama himself has run this thing into the ground with rookie mistakes, including keeping secrets from his own damn party.
You know, there’s something to be said for electing political veterans with experience in shepherding complex legislation through Congress. LBJ was that kind of president, and Hillary would have been as well. Obama? Very good at speeches, astroturfing, and making sure everything is printed in Gotham font. Actual government? Not so much.
-
In a meeting on healthcare reform, Rahm Emanuel calls progressive Democrats “fucking stupid” for advocating, uh, healthcare reform.
Okay, you know what I just said about rookie mistakes and thinking you’re still on the campaign trail? Times a billion, dude. Times a billion.
Jane Hamsher gives the lowdown:
On Tuesday, Common Purpose held its weekly meeting where lobbyist Erik Smith and a comm person from the White House tell liberal interest groups what they should be saying that week. Then if anyone gets out of line, they kick their asses. Along with Unity 09 and the 8:45 am call, they exist to form a solid left flank and keep the White House immune from liberal criticism. I like to call them collectively “the veal pen.”
…Rahm unleashed a tirade on them all, telling them that they were going to fuck up the Democrats if we “failed” to pass any old health care bill (which appears now to be the health insurance industry approved co-ops). But I doubt you’ll hear any of them confirming that the White House hasn’t pressured them to stop their attacks on Democrats any time soon, because it came in the form of a flying shit fit at top volume with four-letter verbiage liberally applied.
Here’s a thought, Rahm: fuck you.
-
It looks like Sarah Palin is going to align herself with the Pat Buchanan, Michele Bachmann wing of the GOP. A thousand sighs for anyone who ever hoped she might be nudged a little more to the left.
The TNR piece on Palin is good except for one sentence, which tripped me up like that ottoman Dick Van Dyke used to stumble over at the top of every show: “Palin and Bachmann remind no one of Hillary Clinton in their success in grasping complex policy issues, or in their desire to do so.” Huh? Why would they remind anyone of Hillary? Oh, right: it’s because they’re women and that’s the most important thing about them and it’s impossible for men to write about them as simply politicians. No, they’re women politicians and so must always be compared to other women politicians. It’s like comparing every black politician in the world to Alan Keyes.
(By the way: anyone who thinks Palin’s stance on healthcare is uniquely Palinesque, shall we say, is mistaken. She’s a conservative, and her rhetoric is completely in line with the kind of paranoia conservatives have been dealing in all along.)
~
And in other news: on the hate-crime-that-liberal-dudes-don’t-consider-a-hate-crime front, Bob Herbert gets it. He seems to be the only one.
73 Responses to “Welcome, Charlie Foxtrot”
-
Carolyn says:
Hello Violet,
You might want to check the latest on Palin’s face book page that no one is reporting on today, which includes a pretty extensive list of articles and links for people to browse through this month as they ponder health care reform…
“As Americans spend the next few weeks discussing health care reform, I thought it might be helpful to share some articles (and one panel discussion video) that I’ve found especially insightful.”
Sarah PalinSome very interesting reading, and it might help to illuminate the debate. Of course no one wants you to think she is anything but an idiot, so no one is linking this follow up to her article…it doesn’t fit the narrative.
We may not agree on every point, but she makes more of an effort to help people understand the debate than any other politician I know, so that’s saying something.
That Rahm and his potty mouth! Helps to keep us all in awe of the Office of the President doesn’t it? Such professional people work there!
August 9th, 2009 at 12:18 am EST -
Joan says:
In an alternate universe, Rahm said Dems were effing stupid for running ads against Blue Dogs when who they should be running ads against is Obama and his epic FAIL in listening to the American public instead of his corporate masters.
-
donna darko says:
She gauged not enough former Democrats would vote for her then fauxgressives sexually harrassed her out of office so we will never know if she planned to go rogue or Independent.
-
donna darko says:
Now she is toeing the party line and the party spokesperson.
-
Violet says:
the party spokesperson
But who is the party spokesperson?
-
RalphB says:
If anyone finds the party spokesperson, could you please let me know. They’re doing a heck of a job, Brownie.
That goes for both parties about the job quality.
-
Esther says:
This administration and its inept cronies in Congress are seriously a disaster.
I’m not surprised about the secret deals behind doors with big business. All those promises about ‘transparency’ and putting the interests of this country before the interests of lobbyists and politicians looking to line their pockets were all baloney.
And their contempt for the ordinary American is staggering. I’ve been following the protests at town halls, and no matter what the administration says, these aren’t a mob of angry right-wing extremists; they’re actually a mix of Republican, Democrat and Independents from all walks of life and from a wide range of ages and ethnic backgrounds. Most of them have legitimate questions and demands for their Congresspeople about what form health care reform will take and how it will affect them.
Then Pelosi goes and says that they’ve been carrying swastikas and other symbols of the kind (what the hell???)… and Obama says that we should punch them back twice as hard. I heard those disgraceful, ludicrous statements and immediately thought of one town hall where a bunch of mostly elderly citizens had gathered to question AARP representatives (who wound up walking out of the meeting). Right, those older folks just showed up with their swastikas and white robes and hoods and terrified everyone!
Way to go, Mr. Uniter. Mr. Post-Partisan President. He’s an arrogant fool, and most of our political class is out of touch with its own constituents. Instead of having a real debate on health care, this administration is trying to do as many things as possible behind closed doors and bully anyone who might question it, as if this isn’t a democracy with rule of law. We haven’t had one clear explanation from him or anyone in the administration about what they intend for healthcare reform (and no wonder, as their current plans will just make things worse, so it’s not as if we ought to know all the details in advance!). Instead we get vague TV speeches full of platitudes and simplistic statements about red and blue pills.
-
purplefinn says:
“Huh? Why would they remind anyone of Hillary? Oh, right: it’s because they’re women and that’s the most important thing about them and it’s impossible for men to write about them as simply politicians.”
Thank you Violet!
-
yttik says:
Palin’s statement makes perfect sense in light of Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, Obama’s health-policy adviser saying:
“….Emanuel, however, believes that “communitarianism” should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those “who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia..”
http://www.nypost.com/seven/07.....htm?page=2
So, if seniors and the disabled will not be denied care, Obama needs to tell people that. It needs to be written into the plan. You don’t just label the opposition evil and insist people trust you. That’s how you fuel a rebellion, not how you pass health care. Address people’s concerns.
-
m Andrea says:
You’re awesome, in case it was not obvious.
-
Jeff says:
Why is there an assumption that they’re actually trying to do something productive? One million, one trillion, what does it matter if the goal is the production of a ‘Gordian’ mess that only Obama can fix?
Just because we haven’t seen it since ‘The War To End All Wars, v2.0′, doesn’t mean that it couldn’t happen again. Watch a photo-op and tell me you can’t see Obama’s profile in stone on the side of an obelisk.
Raum is no rookie, and explosions like that means he could care less about coalitions, allies, discussion, ‘empathy’ (haha). It looks more like he’s gearing up to go scorched-earth.
-
sister of ye says:
I second yttik’s concern that Palin’s warning may not be all typical drummed-up Republican fear-mongering, irrespective of her political motives behind it.
Frankly, Obama’s “plan” is still all rhetoric, much of it contradictory. What Congress has drafted is so badly written that no one knows for sure what is in it or how it could be interpreted.
Obama’s campaign fomented a great antagonism toward baby boomers, we who apparently generated ourselves just to suck up all the resources from younger generations. Sexism plays a part there, too – with women generally living longer than men, it isn’t grandpa younger people are mentally relegating to the ice floes.
A little basic math and science reveals that my generation is the result of one more thing “the greatest generation” was great at. We also assented to having our payroll taxes hiked up the wazoo in the 1980s to cover the legacy owed our parents and try to minimize the burden on our progeny.
I’ve seen too much over the last 30 years, especially the last 10, that even a born cynic like myself never thought to see happen in this country. I wish I could dismiss my worries as mere paranoia, but I feel anyone who isn’t at least a bit paranoid at this point hasn’t been paying attention.
As for Palin, her proving herself a Republican isn’t going to keep me up nights, and at this point is far less harmful than Obama and his cronies proving themseves ones at heart.
-
Carolyn says:
I agree sister of ye and yttik, and I think that Palin’s statement was intentionally incendiery to draw attention. Then she suggested a bunch of reading for people to familiarize themselves with discussion on the issue. I think her concerns are very legitimate.
I too noticed the attitude towards people “my age” during the campaign and that is one reason that I could never support Obama; in fact it is one of the first opinion’s I formed of him…he doesn’t like people that are in their fifties and sixties, much less older.
I think it is interesting that EVERYONE picked up and decried the statement calling the plan evil and NOONE but conservatives4palin have bothered to read the next statement which offered some readings that she had found insightful. I guess that would go against the narrative that a. she is stupid and b. that she doesn’t read.
Infuriating. I don’t think she can be silenced though, and people will find the information whether the one wants them to or not.
-
madamab says:
Do people really think that the Democrats want to set up death panels and kill Palin’s baby?
Remember, HR 3200 is only one alternative for health care reform. Others include HR 676 (single-payer). So even if what she said is true about HR 3200 (it’s not), Palin’s rhetoric is false and completely irresponsible.
Whatever plan gets decided upon, unless it’s single payer, will be terrible. I’m sure of that. I do not trust Obama’s intentions one whit, and if he has his druthers, the only ones who will benefit will be the insurance companies.
But I am equally sure that there will be no “death panels” either, mainly because there is no way the Democrats would ever get away with it, and it would not pass the House in any case. (I can’t believe I’m having to rebut this utter and complete bullsh*t.)
I should be surprised that people are defending Palin’s outrageous statement, but I’m not. The right-wingers are primed for violence and she is egging them on, IMHO. Her speech was code to her pro-life base, and believe me, they are lapping it up like Bosco.
Dr. Tiller was just the beginning.
-
Toonces says:
If they were going to set up death panels to kill all the old people, why would they wait? Old people are already on Medicare. I guess people really don’t know that Medicare is a government program??
It’s pretty surreal in the USA these days, no?
-
yttik says:
“Do people really think that the Democrats want to set up death panels and kill Palin’s baby?”
Madamab, unless we get single payer universal health care that includes people like Oprah and Bill Gates, yes we could wind up with a two tiered system that denies care to people not deemed worthy.
People on state run medicaid programs are denied care all the time. They’re poor, they’re not deemed cost effective, and the reimbursement for providers is often so low they can’t access services. Now if you put the wealthy and the healthy into that system, the quality would be improved and maintained.
Palin is not off the wall to suggest that a panel would decide whether or not her child is worthy of care. We’ve already got a long history of our government doing just that. Native Americans for example, have an atrocious history of receiving poor quality, rationed care.
And as I pointed out, it is Obama’s own health policy advisor, Rahm’s brother, who has written about the need to ration care, to decide who is worthy of spending public dollars on. He has specifically stated that the disabled and elderly are not a priority. Perhaps he’s changed his mind, perhaps this bill going thru congress disregards his opinions, but in that case, don’t attack the critics, communicate to the people about what is in this bill and what it will do! Obama and the Dems have failed to lay out a clear plan and they have failed to inform the people. What we have is 1000 pages of gobblygook, full of legalise and people are left guessing and speculating.
-
madamab says:
Toonces – YES. It certainly is.
Every elderly person I know loves Medicare, by the way.
-
madamab says:
yttik -
I agree with this.
Obama and the Dems have failed to lay out a clear plan and they have failed to inform the people. What we have is 1000 pages of gobblygook, full of legalise and people are left guessing and speculating.
But certainly, Palin’s fearmongering is beyond irresponsible.
Every government system rations care to some degree, but there are no death panels. And every private system rations care MUCH MORE SEVERELY.
My doctor just wrote me a prescription for a nasal spray. The pharmacy wouldn’t fill it because my insurance company suddenly decided they wouldn’t allow me to have it. WTF?
Do people really think that Sarah Palin’s desire here is to educate and inform? I am stunned. The Republicans are just saying “no” and hoping to scare people into accepting the status quo.
The Republicans have no plan at all. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Some Democrats, however, are pushing HR 676.
It seems clear to me that instead of defending the indefensible fearmongering and disinformation campaign of the rightwingers, we should be focusing on pushing for HR 676. Even if we lose, at least we made our desires and wishes clear to our Representatives.
This is a site I like for single payer activism.
-
purplefinn says:
madamab, thanks for the link. I think we have to insert “Single Payer” loudly and clearly every time into the push and pull of the argument/discussion on health care. I am thinking of writing my Congresspersons a very short letter.
Dear….
Single Payer.
Sincerely…
-
Violet says:
Okay, you folks who think Palin’s making sense and that the NY Post article is accurate: please read the links in my post. That NY Post article is pure bullshit, cobbling together a variety of statements from different articles to create a false impression.
There are no “death panels.” Pat Buchanan is crazy. Michele Bachmann is even crazier.
-
yttik says:
“The Republicans have no plan at all. Zero. Zilch. Nada.”
Actually I think they just might have a plan. It’s the Mitt Romney/John McCain health care plan that Obama is currently selling as Obamacare. Mandatory insurance, fines if you don’t comply, and taxed benefits. There is no single payer in this bill, no universal health care, nothing remotely looking like a Dem plan.
-
Violet says:
Then she suggested a bunch of reading for people to familiarize themselves with discussion on the issue. I think her concerns are very legitimate.
To familiarize themselves with right-wing arguments against health reform, you mean. No links to Physicians for a National Health Program, no links to the New England Journal of Medicine, no links to any of the many, many non-partisan studies on the issue.
-
quixote says:
yttik- great points, as always. I hadn’t realized that language was coming right out of Rahm’s brother. Makes it easy to say there will be denial of care. And our past and current history makes that completely plausible.
But what BO has done makes sense if you assume his intention was to kill real reform from the start. By letting fear of lethal rationing circulate without contradiction, he can get people to kill health reform for him. His fingerprints won’t appear on the mess at all.
As Violet said, he’s not our friend. He’s the enemy. Big Money pushed him at us because he could be trusted to hand the stuff over to them. Once you start from that assumption, suddenly the fact that he’s intelligent, an excellent speech-reader, and making lots of “mistakes” that are killing health reform . . . suddenly it all makes sense.
-
lalala says:
Palin is a private citizen who will likely get paid millions in the next several years to spread right-wing propaganda for the Republican Party. She’s going to say whatever the Party or conservative outlets like FOX News pay her to say. And like so many talking heads on the left and right, she will say what needs to be said to remain in the spotlight. None of this surprises me and I expected it after it became clear that Palin’s goal is to earn as much money as she can as a public figure.
-
Toonces says:
quixote, I’ve been saying that Obama was picked to kill healthcare for a year and a half. The big threat with Hillary was that she was going to get it done. I really, really, really hoped I was wrong…
-
Carolyn says:
So she should provide all the links to all the information? I asked what other politicians are making any effort to inform anyone’s opinion?
We are being told to sit down and shut up. Period. These folks are going to avoid their town halls since they don’t want to be questioned, the president can go on and on for an hour and still not explain what it is or isn’t, various columnists opine, but no one is reading through the thing.
I have also been watching these grass roots tea parties evolve and have seen republicans shot down who tried to piggy back on to them. The idea that those opposed to this package are hired mobs is ridiculous. They are citizens who are tired of being lied to, by both parties.
Maybe Obama should put out a list of links to the books his advisors have written? Those of us who can read are finding the information out on our own. The bill that is currently being pushed is a disaster. Left or right, this one is not going to do what people had hoped, single payer has been taken off the table, they are relying on this one to get through so that they can watch the private option die a slow death, and then they will have their single payer option. The health care of last resort dictated by those who know so much better than we do what we need, and what we are worth to society.
If we should ignore the writings of his advisors, then at least we might ask ourselves why on earth he picked them? Why would he pick people who have writings on record that are so inflammatory and orwellian? Why?
I’m sure Obama, as leader of the democratic party, will put out his own reading list soon.
-
yttik says:
“That NY Post article is pure bullshit, cobbling together a variety of statements from different articles to create a false impression.”
Don’t read the NY post then. Go read the papers, books, and articles Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel has written. This is who is advising Obama on health care policy. Naturally people are concerned. Now the appropriate response from the Dems would be, “yes, that’s why we’re going to have universal single payer. A program that includes Bill Gates and Oprah will not be tolerating death panels. But that’s not what Obama did, is it? Instead he responded by saying smugly, “Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller”.
People who don’t believe in death panels have never sat on medicaid funded insurance awaiting a liver transplant. Or trying to get AIDS medication. Or sat in a superdome waiting for the government to care enough to get them out after a hurricane. We sure do have death panels in this country.
-
Carolyn says:
You might also want to check out the writings of John Holdren, the prez advisor on science and techology. He has some interesting thoughts on population control as well.
-
Carolyn says:
Why is my earlier comment in moderation?
-
Violet says:
Why is my earlier comment in moderation?
Probably some word in it tripped a filter.
-
Violet says:
Go read the papers, books, and articles Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel has written. This is who is advising Obama on health care policy.
He’s one of many. And in fact he’s written some excellent stuff about the importance of healthcare for everyone.
We sure do have death panels in this country.
Yes, and they’re run by private insurance companies. Denial of care is overwhelmingly a phenomenon of private insurers. After all, denying claims is part of their profit structure. It’s what they exist to do.
I really think people should watch Sicko.
-
Gayle says:
Insurance companies deny coverage everyday; why don’t we start calling them “Death Companies.” Also, where there is no health insurance involved, hospital boards end up making the decision to end care. I remember during the Terri Schivo (sp?) controversy, some progressive blogs brought attention to one such case: a hospital panel decided to pull a very sick baby off life support, despite the mother’s strong protests. Of course, the mother was poor and couldn’t pay out of pocket.
These types of decisions are being made every day. Right now.
I’m not surprised the right has decided to use the term “death panels.” This same group invented “partial birth abortion” and made it stick. They have no shame.
-
Gayle says:
Oh, and I completely agree about Sicko, Violet. It’s his best film, IMO and it’s the one I wish everyone would see.
-
Gayle says:
What about offering the Congressional health care plan as the public option? Someone was pitching that during the primary but I can’t remember who. It sounded like a great idea at the time.
Would that be preferable to medicare for all?
-
donna darko says:
Palin is the Republican party spokesperson.
-
monchichipox says:
Remember way back, before everything seemed broke beyond repair, Hillary was in charge of of trying some Health Care reform? Does anyone know if I can find anything that compared to what she proposed as to what Obama is proposing? I think it would be interesting to see?
-
jeannie says:
I’m Canadian. The arguement about deals and insurance companies seems horrific. I KNOW I will get whatever care I need and want – because the doctors have the final say in what I get. If I am ill, I will get the best care possible. I can be in the hospital for several months or more, get operations and MRIs and other tests. If I need tests or operations immediately, I will get precedence over others who can wait. Of course, there is zero cost to the patient.
The worry in Canada and Europe about illness is about the illness – never about money and insurance companies. We know the care will be good. Rich, poor – it is all the same. There are a few Canadians who don’t like this – but they are rich enough to assume that they are too important to wait for anything.
As far as the drug companies – we get our prescriptions at half the price you do because the government negotiated the cost – and of course the drug companies are making huge money at that. Do you think they are being kind to us? It is sad the Americans have to come to Canada to get drugs manufactured in the US. -
Aspen says:
Ironic that “fiscal conservatives” are the ones squaking about denial of care in medicaid/medicare. Fiscal conservatives are the ones who gut government programs and make it so so hard to do enough of what they are supposed to do. I say let’s get rid of fiscal conservatives, appropriate sufficient resources, and single payer will be fine.
I say HR676 now!!
And by the way, if “death panel” means having the plug pulled on me when I’m brain dead, in a coma on life support, sign me the hell up for that.
-
Aspen says:
There are a few Canadians who don’t like this – but they are rich enough to assume that they are too important to wait for anything.
Right on. There are a subset of US Americans who have overcare from their private insurance carriers, the carriers who are in bed with pharma and medical practice industry. The doctor could tell his patient he needs a third arm sewn on to his forehead, and the insurance co. will pay for it. Gee, it couldn’t be that profit motivation on the part of doctors and the medical and pharma industries factor into their decisions about what kind of care you need. No, that never happens in capitalist patriarchy.
It’s not just undercare that is a problem, it’s also overcare. It causes a massive waste of resources that could be used on people who really need it, rather than lining the pockets of executives and stock holders. -
Carolyn says:
One last comment and then I am done with this topic.
[Electing God]: Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions
The Lancet ^ | 31 January 2009 | Ezekiel J EmanuelMight want to take a look at it. “Death Panel” doesn’t mean someone stands there and decided to put a gun to your head. It refers to the decision making process that allocates resources based on the value of the life to society and limits resources for those on both end of the curve. Don’t believe me, conclude I am a wingnut if you wish, although I was a Hillary democrat until June 2008 at which time I became unaffiliated. I am weary of trying to raise the alarm.
-
attribution says:
[Electing God]: Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions
The Lancet ^ | 31 January 2009 | Ezekiel J Emanuel******
Man, do I ever feel bad for Govind Persad, the first author of that paper. Bad enough to have it cherry-picked, misconstrued, and torn apart by non-scientific, non-philosopher agendaists…but to have your name (and one of your coauthors’ names!) stripped from it besides…
Bummer.
-
attribution says:
Oops, forgot to add “having your paper implicitly retitled by Freerepublic.com” — so many insults and injuries, so little time…
-
Briar says:
Americans might like to note that under NuLabor (sold body and soul neoliberals) rationing is becoming a fact in the NHS. They set up a quango called “NICE” whose mission is to gauge care in terms of economic returns. Someone whose return to the work force would repay treatment would definitely get it. Someone who would be a drain on the common purse – eh… NULabor is also bringing in US insurance firms to run NHS outfits – part of the creeping privatisation they claim is not happening. And if any Brit thinks they can evade this dire fate – well neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives have said otherwise.
-
lambert strether says:
Here’s my question:
When Michelle runs in 2020 — work with me here — will “progressives” happily use all the birther talking points against her? I’m thinking Yes.
-
Violet says:
When Michelle runs in 2020 — work with me here — will “progressives” happily use all the birther talking points against her? I’m thinking Yes.
You lost me. Huh?
-
alwaysfiredup says:
I do not know whether these are right-wing talking points or facts, and I tend not to trust Michael Moore on much except his regret for the tragedy that has befallen his hometown. So let’s see who has the best refutations:
1) Americans have better survival rates for all kinds of cancers than Canada, England, France, Germany, Japan and any other country with universal healthcare.
2) Americans have a lower life expectancy than the above-listed nations because of higher rates of homicide and car accidents (we have far more guns and cars per capita too). If accidental death and homicide statistics were removed, America would have the highest life expectancies in the world.
3) Americans have far higher rates of both babies born to poor teenage mothers (because of piss-poor sex ed IMO) and multiple fetuses (due to wider usage of in-vitro and other fertility treatments) than said nations, which cause us to have a higher infant mortality rate. If infant mortality data were separated by demographics and compared to other nations’ similar demographics, we would compare better.
If these things are true, then extending health coverage to everyone will not actually fix these statistics. If they are false, well, I’d like to know that.
-
Malcolm Kirkpatrick says:
From the House draft:…
Health Benefits Advisory Committee (page 30-33).
“BENEFIT STANDARDS DEFINED.—In this
subtitle, the term ‘‘benefit standards’’ means standards respecting—
(A) the essential benefits package described in section 122, including [wait for it]categories of covered treatments,
items and services within benefit classes, and cost-sharing; and…”
Okay? If this committee determins “standards” of care for everyone and categories of covered treatments, it determines standards of care and categories of covered treatments for geriatric patients. Government bureaucrats WILL determine when to pull the plug.
Will this comment in moderation purgatory also?
PS. I did NOT recommend infanticide as a population control method. RKMK cannot read.
-
RKMK says:
PS. I did NOT recommend infanticide as a population control method. RKMK cannot read.
O RLY?
Morality evolves. The Earth’s population cannot grow without limit. I’d like to see abortion legal to the end of the fifth trimester and compulsory after three kids
- Malcolm
Seattlegal, clearly trying to wrap her head around the idea of a fifth trimester and giving him some benefit of the doubt that he is simply ignorant of biology and pregnancy:
Alright, I object to any pregnancy lasting into the “fifth trimester!” O_o (They are called *tri*mesters because there are *three* of these periods in a pregnancy.)
But, no! That’s what he meant!
b) Five trimesters, not five months. Six months after birth. Let each woman determine for herself (for the first three kids) whether she wants the State to extend the protection it reserves to humans to the life she creates.
- Malcolm
Six months after birth = infant. Ergo, infanticide.
Y’all, I don’t know how you put up with me, I AM SO ILLITERATE.
-
Malcolm Kirkpatrick says:
RKMK,
Yes, really. I wrote “…legal up to the end of the fifth trimester and compulsory after three kids.” The “compulsory” part is population control. That would not be post-partum. The “legal up to the end of the fifth trimester” part addresses birth defects which don’t appear in sonograms or amniocentesis.
-
tinfoil hattie says:
OMIGOD RKMK ARE YOU A MAROON?
-
Violet says:
The “legal up to the end of the fifth trimester” part addresses birth defects which don’t appear in sonograms or amniocentesis.
Your comment was about population control. Not about birth defects.
You wrote: “The Earth’s population cannot grow without limit. I’d like to see abortion legal to the end of the fifth trimester and compulsory after three kids.”
It’s quite clear that you mean that legal infanticide would be part of population control. (Nobody said “compulsory” infanticide.)
-
RKMK says:
OMIGOD RKMK ARE YOU A MAROON?
YES, YES I AM. I BLAME THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM FOR MY SCANDALOUSLY DEPLORABLE EDUCATION!
(Which, BTW, Malcolm? Was funded by OMG TAXES! BOOGEDY BOOGEDY BOO!)
-
Toonces says:
AMERICA IS NOT RUSSIA, RKMK!!!! *tears up*
-
Malcolm Kirkpatrick says:
Look, the initial subject was Sarah Palin. I established that I was NOT “pro choice”, but pro abortion and that a pro-abortion environmentalist/free marketeer could support Sarah Palin. Remember? “Voluntary programs for population control selectively breed non-compliant individuals”? This means “legal to the end of the fifth trimester” CANNOT contribute to a population control program. Unwanted births are not the problem; it’s the wanted births that will do us in. I established two SEPARATE propositions: 1) abortion should be legal to the end of the fifth trimester AND 2) abortion (or, better, sterilization) should be compulsory after three kids.
I also believe that “should” doesn’t mean much and that the world’s human population will continue to grow, displace non-human species and then collapse. Because stupid people would rather scream imporecations than recognize reality.
Sorry. -
RKMK says:
Yeah, the problem with dudes like you, Malcolm, which you clearly demonstrated in that thread? Is that you do not recognize that compulsory abortion is exactly as illiberal (i.e. restriction of personal freedom and bodily rights) as compulsory childbirth, no matter how “practical” your aims.
You cannot see this, because (like most libertarians), you are borderline sociopathic. You cannot see women (or, more symptomatically of libertarians, anyone else) as fully human. You cannot comprehend of social implications of your “brilliant” “forward thinking” policy, because you have trouble understanding the lives of other human beings – internal lives, or external lives. You think you’ve come up with these ragingly practical, original ideas, but you have short-cutted here and dehumanized there, and your ideas are more horrifying than genius.
For example, a far more effective policy for population control would not to put a simple limit on how many children women can have. Guarantee access to effective birth control and family planning clinics, and women will make the choice to use them. Begin to criminalize and punish and lessen the incidence of rape? Less pregnancies. Promote social equality in all parts of the world, where men control their wives and believe they are allowed unbridled access to their vaginas? Less pregnancies. The more financially independent women are, the less children they have: work towards economic equality for women. Supporting social and economic equality, freedom from rape, wide and reliable access to birth control and family planning (that is, feminism) is a far more effective, multi-pronged policy towards putting the breaks on overpopulation than a stupidly simplistic “no more than 3 children, you stoopid whorez” policy.
-
Malcolm Kirkpatrick says:
RKMK,
(tedious and lengthly response deleted)…
Whatever.
Anyway, no, I do not, and never did, advocate infanticide as a method of population control. Malthus offered three possibilities: vice, misery, and moral restraint. Since I don’t see moral restraint as a realistic option, between “misery” (genocide, war, disease, famine) and “vice” (compulsory limits on reproduction) I prefer vice.
Not that my preferences matter. I predict “misery”.
-
Toonces says:
Isn’t “environmentalist Libertarian” an oxymoron?
-
tinfoil hattie says:
Malthus offered three possibilities: vice, misery, and moral restraint. Since I don’t see moral restraint as a realistic option, between “misery” (genocide, war, disease, famine) and “vice” (compulsory limits on reproduction) I prefer vice.
RKMK YOU STOOPID WOMAN THERE ARE ONLY THREE ANSWERS TO OVERPOPULATION AND THOMAS MALTUS WILL TELL US STOOPID BITCHEZZ WHAT THEY ARE ZOMG WHY DO YOU THINK WOMEN SHOULD WEIGH IN ON REPRODUCTIVE MATTERS ANYWAY? JUST KILL YOUR BAYBEES BETWEEN BIRTH & SIX MONTHS IF THEY DON’T LOOK THE SAME AS THEY DID ON THE SONOGRAM
-
Toonces says:
LOL@Malcolm calling anyone tedious.
-
RKMK says:
Oh, WELL, if THOMAS MALTHUS sez so, that is the BE-ALL END-ALL FINAL ANSWER.
(Because 18th century scholars were clearly well-familiar with things like “modern family planning” and “social and economic equality for women”, which would allow them to conceptualize a world where women’s input helped create policies that treat a problem at the root cause instead of just throwing up their hands in defeat and declaring the only POSSIBLE solution is to KILL THE FUCK OUT OF EVERYONE.)
-
Toonces says:
The Great Astraea casts these pearls:
Somehow mandatory vasectomies never come up with the libertarian dudes. I can’t imagine why.
-
Malcolm Kirkpatrick says:
Toonces,
Mandatory vasectomies never come up because men do not bear children. Any wildlife biologist can explain why culling the stag or boar population costs more for less result than culling the hart or sow population. Substitute “sterilization” for “culling” and the argument does not change much.
In human terms, there are two problems with sterilization of individual males (after N kids) as a method of population control:
1) At the time of birth, the identity of the mother is obvious, but not so the identity of the father;
2) At the time of birth, it will be another nine months, at least, before the mother delivers another child, while the newborn could have nearly 1000 half-siblings in the pipeline (I figure Tom Cruise of Matt Damon could manage it, anyway). Sterilize a male on the day his third child is born and he could still have 1000 offspring in the pipeline.In moralistic terms, if you want responsibility, take responsibility and accept the conseqquences. My sister does not get the ticket if I drive my car over the speed limit.
-
RKMK says:
Y’HERE THAT, TOONCES! IT TAKES ONE TO TANGO, HOOR!
***
Malcolm, I don’t think you understand “mandatory vasectomies.” We’ll have Jon Stewart, George Clooney, and other men whose genes are worthwhile to pass on to another generation donate a few bazillion sperm to keep in sperm banks, and then we’ll just give vasectomies – a simple snip-snip outpatient procedure that can be done in your local doctor’s office, as opposed to the major invasive surgery involved in tying fallopian tubes in women – to all males when they hit puberty.
As a Female Arbitor of Evolution, I hereby declare your genes as unfit for reproduction. Get thee to your local doctor’s office immediately.
-
Astraea the Acrimonious says:
“My sister does not get the ticket if I drive my car over the speed limit.”
Wow, I did not know that men had so little to do with making babies that they actually have no connection to it at all!
Is this part making any sense to anyone: “In moralistic terms, if you want responsibility, take responsibility and accept the conseqquences.”
-
RKMK says:
““In moralistic terms, if you want responsibility, take responsibility and accept the conseqquences.”
Sure, let me translate:
“IF YOU WHOREZ WANT TO CLAIM THE RIGHT OF BODILY INTEGRITY YOU NEED TO TAKE FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR DANGEROUSLY HAVING THE GODDAMN AUDACITY TO GET YOURSELVEZ PREGNANT MULTIPLE TIMEZ (WHICH YOU DO TOTALLY ALL BY YOURSELF, ALWAYS COMPLETELY VOLUNTARILY) AND YOU SHOULD ACCEPT THAT YOU NEED TO SUBMIT TO STERILIZATION BY THE STATE AT MY ARBITRARY SAY-SO.”
Or something like that. It’s hard to translate Sociopathic Gibberish.
-
Astraea the Acrimonious says:
Thank you, I misplaced my Sociopathic Gibberish dictionary, but that sounds about right.
-
Malcolm Kirkpatrick says:
What is the problem? You get complete control over when, with whom, and how many times (up to three) you reproduce. Isn’t that what feminists want? Given that, can you not see that it does no good to sterilize males?
-
RKMK says:
Malcolm, if a man and woman have sex on, say, Day 1, and she gets pregnant from it, and continues to have sex with a different dude every day for the next 8-9 months, she will still have only one child.
If the dude has sex every day with a different (unpregnant) woman for the next 8-9 months, he could theoretically father another 270 children. CLEARLY, if we’re resorting to Draconian illiberal measures, it would create FAR more of an impact to cut the supply, so to speak, on the half of the population that more severely threatens overpopulation with its slutty, SLUTTY irresponsible behaviour! If those loose men just can’t keep it in their pants…. -
RKMK says:
(Violet, I realize I’m playing Whack-a-Loon in your yard; let me know if you want me to cut it out.)
-
Violet says:
No, I’m thoroughly enjoying it.
-
Malcolm Kirkpatrick says:
RKMK,
“…have Jon Stewart, George Clooney, and other men whose genes are worthwhile…
Actors wouldn’t be my first choice. There’s a reason sperm banks use Med students.
“…to pass on to another generation donate a few bazillion sperm to keep in sperm banks, and then we’ll just give vasectomies – a simple snip-snip outpatient procedure that can be done in your local doctor’s office, as opposed to the major invasive surgery involved in tying fallopian tubes in women – to all males when they hit puberty.”
Even if you did that, you’s still have to limit the number of children women could have. You implicitly recognize this with “bazillion”.
(RKMK): “…if a man and woman have sex on, say, Day 1, and she gets pregnant from it, and continues to have sex with a different dude every day for the next 8-9 months, she will still have only one child.”
Right.
“If the dude has sex every day with a different (unpregnant) woman for the next 8-9 months, he could theoretically father another 270 children.”
One a day makes it 270. That’s not the maximum.
Anyway, we’re arguing about something that is not going to happen any time soon. You need not worry; the values you express, no interference with reproduction, prevail among libertarians, feminists, and Christians, and, for all I know, probably most Muslims, Hindus, and Animists. Outside of the Biology faculty lounge, the argument against population control quickly reduces to “fascist”, “sociopath”, and “loon”. Just consider the dirt thrown at Dr. Holdren, President Obama’s science advisor, and at Professor Emmanuel. Charming to see you on Michelle Malkin’s side in this argument.
Expect a steep reduction in biodiversity before the Earth’s human population stabilizes. Expect a large collapse from the maximum instantaneous human ppopulation before the Earth’s human population stabilizes.
-
RKMK says:
Actors wouldn’t be my first choice. There’s a reason sperm banks use Med students.
Whatever, most Med students I know are ragingly self-absorbed assholes. *shrug* Jon and George, on the other hand, have looks, charm AND smarts! My ovarian Darwinist urges sez they win!
Have you made your appointment for your vasectomy yet, Malcolm? I have decided that it’s best for society that you (with your rambling, nonsensical thought processes) should not have children. If you do not comply with my personal whims, I will begin to lobby your state representatives immediately. YOUR CIVIL RIGHTS MUST BE CURBED FOR THE GOOD OF HUMANITY.
-
Toonces says:
I love whore said in a Maryland accent. I don’t know why. “Hoah” (Queens?) is pretty good, too. Yeh, I’m sure I’m one of the first to go when the culling starts.
I wish I had an mp3 of LOLbertarians splainin the virtues of non-society to play when I have trouble sleeping. Anti-authoritarian authoritarians are very zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz for me.
