Dissent, which was so patriotic during the previous Administration, is suddenly not so good

Darleen Click of Protein Wisdom noted:

Obama and DNC smear machine to hoi poloi

‘If you know what’s good for you, you’ll stop with the dissent and let us run your life.’

Via Michelle Malkin comes The DNC smearing every dissenting voice to their attempts to “transform America” as illegitimate.

WASHINGTON (CNN) — The Democratic National Committee released a sharply-worded statement Tuesday accusing Republicans of colluding with “K Street Lobbyists” to incite “angry mobs” of extremists to disrupt health care town halls in congressional districts around the country

[...]The Republicans and their allied groups – desperate after losing two consecutive elections and every major policy fight on Capitol Hill – are inciting angry mobs of a small number of rabid right wing extremists funded by K Street Lobbyists to disrupt thoughtful discussions about the future of health care in America taking place in Congressional Districts across the country.

However, much like we saw at the McCain-Palin rallies last year where crowds were baited with cries of ’socialist,’ ‘communist,’ and where the birthers movement was born – these mobs of extremists are not interested in having a thoughtful discussion about the issues – but like some Republican leaders have said – they are interested in ‘breaking’ the President and destroying his Presidency.

The numerous libels in that short excerpt are breathtaking. There were no cries of “socialist” or “communist” from speakers at Palin rallies. The “birther” movement was born out of the Hillary Clinton supporter camp.

And if these mendoucheous, leftist gasbags want to accuse every dissenting person who showed up at a Tea Party as being paid by “K Street lobbiests” then come prove I received any checks.

The stink of fear is strong with these amoral f***wits.

I’m sure that Art Downs would like to know where his check for attending a Tea Party is! After all, he has a sports car for which he has to pay!

Sharon has been all over the stories about how the Obama Administration is fighting back against those deluded people on the right who have had teh temerity to oppose Administration policies.

Just what would our friends on the left have said had the Bush Administration set up this kind of program?

Call For Informants: If You Oppose Obamacare, Even in ‘Casual Conversation,’ the White House Wants to Know About It


If you see anybody publicly opposing President Obama’s plan to implement a government-centric overhaul of the health care system, the White House wants you to report that person (or persons) ASAP.

From the White House website:

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.

Emphasis added. Of course, as we’ve seen in the health care debate to date, the term “disinformation” is used by the Obama White House as a catchall to describe any opposition to the President’s push for single-payer, government-run health care — meaning the White House wants to be informed of any forwarded emails or blog posts or any “casual conversations” that could be taken as opposition to their health care overhaul plan.

The White House has, as yet, offered no explanation of what it is they plan to do with the tips on policy opposition they hope to receive from citizen informers.

Interestingly, as Jake Tapper pointed out on Twitter this morning, the title of that post on the White House is a quote from John Adams’ 1770 “Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials.”

(h/t Jon Henke)

UPDATE: As Erick, one of RedState’s resident lawyers, points out here, this program may go beyond sinister and actually be a violation of current U.S. law.

Further, flag@whitehouse.gov is not currently subject to Freedom of Information Act requests — something a freedom-loving legislator (Jim DeMint? Tom Coburn? Paul Ryan? Eric Cantor?) should seek to correct at his or her earliest convenience.

I’d like to say that I’m surprised, but I’m really not. Socialists have always had a tough time with dissent, because dissent is invariably tied to the notion of individual freedom, and individual freedom and liberty are diametrically opposed to socialism; the more you impose programs for the good of society as a whole, the more you must trample upon the rights of individuals who disagree, on people who do not want to participate in the programs.

Communist states, naturally, had no problem with the imposition of direct programs to stifle, and punish, dissent. For decades, American and democratic European Communists ignored the Soviet Union’s concentration camp system, the GULag, and there were active defenders of the show trials. The milder socialists, the ones who couldn’t stomach the repressive Communism developed by the USSR, had more problems with suppression of dissent, because they came from systems where individual liberty was held in higher respect than in Russia. (Russia went almost directly from the tsarist autocracy to authoritarian Communism; though there was a short-lived provisional government under Aleksandr Kerenskii in 1917, the Russian people had very little time to get used to the notion of some political freedom.)

Yet, in the end, socialism is, and must be, diametrically opposed to individual liberty. A system which holds that it must provide for the greater good of society — and, in our favorite Kiwi Kommenter’s GINI argument, more evenly distributed economic rewards, regardless of merit or hard work or productivity — cannot help being in opposition to individual liberty, since individual liberty is opposed to the leveling mantra of socialism.

We saw this in the 2008 campaign. When Joe Wurzelbacher (“Joe the Plumber”) had the temerity, had the unmitigated gall, to question Senator Obama’s tax policies. The Democrats immediately started looking into Mr Wurzelbacher’s past, trying to discredit him in any way possible. Of course, the Democrats didn’t control the government then, so they couldn’t just have him arrested report him to the White House. Now they do control the government, and it seems that yes, they can report dissenters to the White House.

I’m waiting, patiently, for our friends on the left to denounce this reporting system, but Alas! I suspect that my patience will be sorely tried anticipating such. Like the American Communists who overlooked so much, who tolerated and excused the behavior of the Soviet Union, because they somehow saw it as leading to a greater good, our friends on the left may be surprised that the Obama Administration would set up this Ministry of Truth and its reporting system, may be somewhat uncomfortable with the idea, an internet version of Cuba’s Committees for the Defense of the Revolution, but at least so far, they have been quiet and compliant.

I’m guessing that they’ll stay that way.

50 Comments

  1. I was a good citizen and turned myself in:

    I think the Soviets asked their neighbors to snoop, snitch and spy on each other, then report. Is this where we’re going???

    What First Amendment. You’re SHREADING IT!

  2. It’s funny we hear Republicans say that they do not want “faceless bureaucrats” making medical decisions but they have no problem with “private sector” “faceless bureaucrats” daily declining medical coverage and financially ruining good hard working people. And who says that the “private sector” is always right, do we forget failures like Long-Term Capital, WorldCom, Global Crossing, Enron, Tyco, AIG and Lehman Brothers. Of course the federal government will destroy heathcare by getting involved, Oh but wait our military men and women and the Senate and Congress get the best heathcare in the world, and oh, that’s right, its run by our federal government. I can understand why some may think that the federal government will fail, if you look at the past eight years as a current history, with failures like the financial meltdown and Katrina but the facts is they can and if we support them they will succeed.

    How does shouting down to stop the conversation of the healthcare debate at town hall meetings, endears them to anyone. Especially when the organizations that are telling them where to go and what to do and say are Republicans political operatives, not real grassroots. How does shouting someone down or chasing them out like a lynch mob advanced the debate, it does not. So I think the American people will see through all of this and know, like the teabagger, the birthers, these lynch mobs types are just the same, people who have to resort to these tactics because they have no leadership to articulate what they real want. It’s easy to pickup a bus load of people who hate, and that’s all I been seeing, they hate and can’t debate. Too bad.

  3. P,
    I grew up using the military health care system and I can tell you that, other than costs, it is not a system I would recommend to anyone. Not only are there very long wait times (I literally waited 12 hours to have a doctor swab my throat, then send me home with Tylenol while they waited for the culture to come back), there are also terrible conditions in many of the hospitals. Don’t liberals remember Walter Reed? And law school Torts casebooks are filled with med-mal cases of military doctors performing incompetently. So, no, that’s not the health care system I want.

    The reason people have been going to the townhalls and shouting down those running them is simple: the people running the townhalls do not want to listen to audience members. They are there to pass out today’s DNC talking points, but they typically know little or nothing that is in any of the proposals, nor are they interested in listening to the concerns of the voters. In case after case, the Congressmen have tried to lecture the audiences and feed them B.S., then got offended that their constituents don’t want to sit passively by while it happens.

    People are rightfully worried about what Obamacare will do to their current health care options. They may be unhappy with aspects of the current system, but they also know that the medical care they receive is excellent, even if overpriced. This is why overhauling the entire system, as opposed to regulating specific parts of it, is not being bought by American voters.

    The big problem, of course, is that Democrats and the president have wanted to ram through their proposals with little or no input by citizens. Obama wanted the legislation before the August recess, yet now claims that he’s always wanted to hear “all sides” and “opposing views.” This is a bald-faced lie. Obama has made it clear in the 6 months of his presidency that his idea of bipartisanship is having certain Republicans who agree with him, not the president absorbing criticism and opposing views well. As the months roll on, fewer and fewer Americans buy the line that Obama wanted to bring transparency and bipartisanship to Washington, which is why his approval ratings are dropping.

    Why should Americans sit by and allow Democrats to tell them what their health care options should be?

  4. Sharon, I will not believe a word you say about military hospitals unless you document it. And btw, the Walter Reed situation was cleaned up thanks to a well researched expose by a WaPo reporter.

    Anecdotally, I had major surgery in a military hospital. I need to tell you I was/am very satisfied with the quality of care I had.

    There are plenty of civilian hospitals that are severely lacking, to the point where it is healthier for people to recuperate at home rather than stay in the hospital. Haven’t you heard that first hand?

    The point is, our medical care system needs reform. For a change we have a President and his party who are trying to do something about it.

    To Dana’s topic: Dissent comes in various flavors. It is common knowledge that fringe elements in the Republican party have attempted to obstruct town hall meetings. That does not need to be documented. In effect, this is an escalation, so the fringes on the other side respond in kind or worse, so before you know it we have violence. Neither side is offering the right flavor of dissent.

    The other obvious point is that the far right fringe are coming forward with tons of lies and distortions about the proposed bill. These are intended to inflame, and inflammatory behavior is what we get on both sides.

    What I object to, Dana, is that your coverage of this situation is very one-sided. Therefore, I include you in the category of those who wish to inflame rather than to understand!

    Here is a list of the prominent myths being propagated by the Repubs and their fringes, together with carefully researched answers:
    http://mediamattersaction.org/factcheck/200907300008

  5. Perry:
    Sharon, I will not believe a word you say about military hospitals unless you document it. And btw, the Walter Reed situation was cleaned up thanks to a well researched expose by a WaPo reporter.

    Let’s see, Sharon has Actual, Real Life experience with Military Health Care, and Perry cites MediaMatters. Hmmm, who would I believe, just who might I believe. – I’ll pick Sharon.

  6. Sharon, I will not believe a word you say about military hospitals unless you document it.

    How, precisely, do I document my personal experiences with military health care? Do I have to release my medical records, something the POTUS is unwilling to do? My claims aren’t nearly as far-fetched nor as important as his. I’ll release my records when I’m POTUS, I promise.

    As for the other things I said about military health care, go pick up a Torts casebook, Perry. It’s not hard to find them. Usually, you can find an old edition at a used bookstore. Then look under “medical malpractice.” You’ll find half a dozen or more cases of incompetence and whatnot by military doctors in any book you come across.

    As for Walter Reed, yes, it’s been cleaned up. But there are continuing problems with V.A. hospitals, which is the type of care we can expect under Obamacare.

    And, just as an aside, I wonder if President Obama will apologize to soldiers given inadequate care or facing lengthy delays in care like President Bush did. I suspect it will simply be one more thing Obama claims was GWB’s fault.

    The point is, our medical care system needs reform.

    No, Perry, our medical system is top notch. The problem is the cost. And one of the primary reasons health care in this country costs so much is because ambulance chasers get juries to award scandalous amounts of money for medical problems. The affect of jackpot justice makes doctors order unnecessary tests and perform unnecessary procedures (such as cesarean sections, which hasn’t changed the number of cerebral palsy cases in this country). But Democrats have their noses so far up the butts of trial lawyers that tort reform isn’t even addressed in “health care reform.”

    It’s ok to tell doctors, hospitals and insurance companies that they’re greedy and evil and control the GOP. But ambulance chasers? Why, they’re the good guys…if you bring ‘em a case they can use to extort money from doctors and insurance companies.

    It is common knowledge that fringe elements in the Republican party have attempted to obstruct town hall meetings.

    Um, no. It’s common knowledge that Democrats invented astroturfing and have used screaming at speakers to shut down speech for years. Now that others have decided to use the same tactics, they’re whining that it’s not fair. Well, of course it isn’t fair when Democrats have nothing worth defending in the fight. That’s why they bus in union goons to beat up or intimidate people who dare question Teh One.

    What I object to, Dana, is that your coverage of this situation is very one-sided.

    So you link to Media Matters as an objective news source? Ha!

  7. Perry:
    Sharon, I will not believe a word you say about military hospitals unless you document it. And btw, the Walter Reed situation was cleaned up thanks to a well researched expose by a WaPo reporter.

    Perry, stop, my sides are hurting too much. Well researched my butt. If it were well researched then the real story of it was a leased building not even on the WRAMC post itself. If it was well researched it would have found out since Wally Reed was on the BRAC chopping block, it’s maintenance budget was severely cut. If it were really researched, the bulk of the problems were in common areas, not the quarters themselves. And the quarters were problems really existed, no one was in the room. If it was really researched, it would have found that Congress did not allocate money to put on a new roof which was at the heart of the problem, since the base was slated to close. So, Perry, when you read WaPo, you won’t find all this. And when you read Mediamatters, it won’t be there either. Anyway, once WaPo blew the story out of proportion, Congress then allocated the money for a new roof. Oh wait, that was a Dem Congress at that point. For sources, I have first hand knowledge, but you’ll have a higher authority in MediaMatters, so I won’t be believed by you.

  8. Sharon, I will not believe a word you say about military hospitals unless you document it. And btw, the Walter Reed situation was cleaned up thanks to a well researched expose by a WaPo reporter.

    Perry, it’s been noted that the VA system seriously cleaned up its act over the last couple of decades, and is one of the best performning systems around now. The wingnuts, however, have problems with the idea of change.

  9. Phoenician in a time of Romans:
    Sharon, I will not believe a word you say about military hospitals unless you document it. And btw, the Walter Reed situation was cleaned up thanks to a well researched expose by a WaPo reporter.

    Perry, it’s been noted that the VA system seriously cleaned up its act over the last couple of decades, and is one of the best performning systems around now. The wingnuts, however, have problems with the idea of change.

    That’s fine, but Sharon wasn’t talking about VA Hospitals, she was talking about her experience with Military Hospitals which is under command of the Hospital Command of DoD, whereas the VA hospitals are under control of the Verterans Administration which is care after discharge from the military. Two complete, and separate systems.

    WRAMC is a Military Hospital under the control of the DoD, not the VA.

  10. Sharon, you continue to make things up with not one iota of documentation. You may have some anecdotal information, fine, that does not constitute a valid conclusion. I have some of my own that refutes yours. So what does that prove? Nothing!

    And Yorkshire, obviously you are unfamiliar with the very well researched WaPo revelations by investigative reporter Dana Millbank, which caused the Bush Administration to take swift action to take care of the problems our wounded Iraq War vets experienced. Here , check out a piece of it for yourself!

  11. Perry, do you not bother clicking through links or reading anything? I gave you personal experience, which you rejected, then told you how to find numerous med-mal cases concerning military doctors’ incompetence, but you are too lazy to look for it yourself. Then I give you the case of a veteran who is having serious problems with the V.A., another government-run system, and you can’t even bother reading it.

    If you can’t be bothered to actually read anything, then go back to Delaware Liberal where they appreciate the uninformed.

  12. Perry wrote:

    Sharon, I will not believe a word you say about military hospitals unless you document it.

    Then you probably won’t believe this one, either.

    In the early 1990s, my sister-in-law went to Langley Air Force Base Hospital in Hampton, Virginia; her then-husband was in the Air Force, and she was a military dependent. She told them that she was having a flare-up of her Krohn’s Disease, a chronic condition which has acute flare-ups. Krohn’s can be hard to diagnose, true enough, but in her case it had already been diagnosed, and LAFB Hospital had a nice, thick medical record on her.

    The doctors refused to believe her! They told her that everything else could be wrong, including pregnancy — even though she had had a tubal, and told tem so — and refused to believe her or treat her for Krohn’s!

    This wasn’t even a matter of saving money, because they had her in the hospital for around a week (working on memory here) looking for the “real” problem, and not finding it. Finally, she left AMA, went to a civilian doctor, who treated her for Krohn’s, and, amazingly enough, she started to get better.

    Mistakes are made in civilian hospitals, too, but this one seems particularly egregious to me.

  13. Perry wrote:

    What I object to, Dana, is that your coverage of this situation is very one-sided. Therefore, I include you in the category of those who wish to inflame rather than to understand!

    Actually, Yorkshire and Sharon have done most of the work, but I’ve noticed that York’s posts have done something radical like reproduced the actual sections of the bill under discussion. I’m not sure how that would be inaccurate, but, yeah, I can see how it could be one-sided.

    My article, on the other hand, concerns the Obama Administration’s intolerance of dissent on the issue. They are like Archie Bunker, telling Edith to stifle herself. The reason is clear: President Obama is willing to entertain some discussion on how to implement health care reform, but he is very much unwilling to consider the basic proposition that our health care system needs to be reformed. Some people see “ObamaCare” as a cure that is far worse than the disease, but their opinions are not to be considered.

    There is, as I said, an internal contradiction between liberty and socialism: the more the government attempts to do things that are supposedly good for us, the more the government must oppress civil liberties, because there will always be those who do not wish to go along, there will always be those who do not consent.

    In the health care debate, if there is some sort of bill passed mandating universal coverage, at least one of three things must happen:

    1- People who are now at liberty to choose not to buy health insurance will be compelled, by the power of government, to buy health insurance; or
    2- People who do not wish to pay higher taxes to support either their or someone else’s health care will be compelled, by the power of government, to pay higher taxes; or
    3- People who do not wish to be part of a government-run health care system will be compelled, by the power of government, to be part of a government run health care system.

    One thing about Americans: a lot of people simply don’t trust the government with much. ObamaCare would have all of our medical records computerized, and easily transferable, for the sake of efficiency as people get treated by different health care professionals. Yet some people find that an invasion of privacy, and fear that such information would not be limited solely to health care providers, but could eventually be accessed by others, such as employers or prospective employers.

    Nor do Americans particularly like being told what they must do. We’re pretty much OK with laws which tell us what we can’t do –we can’t shoot someone, we can’t walk naked down Broadway — but get far more incensed with laws which compel us to do particular things. John Edwards, in a particular moment of candor, told us that had he been elected, we would go to the doctor for regular check-ups. Mr Edwards didn’t make the cut, of course, but how long would it be before a government-financed health care system compelled such, to reduce costs?

    I had a fairly lengthy article on the Intellectual Conservative, noting all the things that would be good for us, that a compassionate government would have an incentive to compel were the government in charge of health care. I noted how the company Weyco — which has since been bought out — imposed on its employees a complete smoking ban, including a smoking ban at home. If you smoked, you had to quit smoking, or quit your job. Smoking is a terribly destructiove habit; how long before a government which had to pay for health care costs was to simply ban smoking, because the costs associated with tobacco use were too high?

    President Obama really is compassionately motivated on this one, I’m sure. He sincerely believes that it would be the best thing to do to get everyone into some form of health care coverage. But in taking that decision, he — and by extension, the government — are taking the in loco parentis position that we must be treated like children, that we must be told what to do, for our own good. I’m sure you can see why a lot of Americans resist that.

  14. The Phoenician wrote:

    Darleen Click of Protein Wisdom

    Uh-huh. I see we’ve passed scraping the bottom of the credibility barrel and actually worn a hole in that sucker.

    Ad hominem attacks are usually used when the attacker has no actual evidence that what was said was wrong. Tell us, Phoe: what incorrect statements or failed documentation was present in Mrs Click’s original?

  15. Dana, your post is a very reasonable description of why people would be uneasy about ‘ObamaCare’.

    What he proposes would indeed be a major change in the way we deliver healthcare, no doubt about that.

    However, what is not acknowledged is that most developed nations have already been through this kind of a transition, and have come out on the other side with a system that satisfies most citizens, produces better health outcomes, and costs less than ours.

    One thing about which we can all agree is that our medical care costs are unsustainable. Another is that we do not have universal coverage, so we have people falling through the cracks. How then can even Conservatives be unconcerned about this?

    To your point that many object about being mandated to do something, of course that is true, but some mandates are necessary for the communal good. Like not being permitted to smoke in public buildings and restaurants, certain elements of healthcare delivery will not function to the benefit of all without mandates attached. Mandating that every citizen be covered by health insurance is one, in my view.

    We can quarrel and debate the appropriateness of certain mandates, but at the end of the day we have to make decisions. This is where we are at this moment.

    So before this bill, or some version of it, becomes law, let us have a robust debate at town halls, in the media, and on the blogs, on the merits, without distortions and lies promoted by either side.

    Like ad hominems being a sign of weakness, lies and distortion are likewise. We must avoid both!

    Let me repost a link here to some of these lies and distortions:
    http://mediamattersaction.org/factcheck/200907300008

  16. Sharon, I have no reason to doubt your anecdotal experiences per se, but when you put up undocumented accusations like this, you put your entire credibility to the test:

    “No, Perry, our medical system is top notch. The problem is the cost. And one of the primary reasons health care in this country costs so much is because ambulance chasers get juries to award scandalous amounts of money for medical problems.”

    To be convincing, Sharon, you have to show the impact of this problem on our total national health care bill. Otherwise, we just have your opinion to go on.

    Nevertheless, I agree with you that cost is a problem, and that we do need tort reform so that medical liability insurance premiums can be reduced. We also need to find a way of reducing exorbitant surgeons fees, and to reduce outrageous profits and executive compensation by private health insurance companies.

    One would hope that a responsible private sector would take care of these cost excesses themselves, but they don’t, so government intervention is required, in my view.

    In general, one important and necessary function of government is to act as a balance against the excesses of private enterprises. The reason we have such a large response by government these days is that the recent excesses on Wall Street have been way out of line, to the detriment of the prosperity of the nation (and the globe). We cannot tolerate these massive excesses in the market place, thus the proper role of government, without which we would be in the throws of a global great depression, in my view!

  17. Perry:

    And Yorkshire, obviously you are unfamiliar with the very well researched WaPo revelations by investigative reporter Dana Millbank, which caused the Bush Administration to take swift action to take care of the problems our wounded Iraq War vets experienced. Here , check out a piece of it for yourself!

    Well, I guess talking to the people who went and investigated the problems counts less than a WaPo article in your mind. If you weren’t there, worked on the solution, or talked to real human beings who went room to room looking for problems, then I guess you will trust some WaPo instead.

  18. Yorkshire, what you describe is exactly what Dana Millbank Dana Priest did. Obviously you have not read the story reporting the investigation. Suffice to say, the Walter Reed Commandant was fired immediately, and remedial action by the government was instituted instantly. Dana Priest did an outstanding piece of investigative reporting on this one. She won a Pulitzer Prize for it. Did you read the reference I provided? Here, let me give you a better one, which gives you all the sordid, shameful details:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/walter-reed/index.html

    To learn more about Dana Priest, check this out:
    http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/articles/dana+priest/

    Sharon, I recommend you check this out too. If you did not already know about this, it will be a real eye-opener for you!

  19. just wanna point out that righties aren’t exactly in a position to complain about an admin that spies on dissenters, etc. how you like the bed you made? real leftists warned you that you wouldn’t want to trade your freedoms away, but for you, as long as it was peacenik gropus being spied on, all was cool. now that there’s a Democrat in the White House you’re suddenly concerned about civil liberties? you’re late the party; the Bush admin shut it down. A pity, in my opinion, but you wouldn’t listen to reason from 2001-2008; you were too busy enjoying the pleasant braying of partisan hollering.

    your newfound interest in Constitutional rights is really touching, anyway!

  20. Please point out where on this poor site you can find one article or comment by a conservative CSPT regular in support of government spying on domestic dissenters. I did support the interception program for foreign calls, because we are battling Muslim extremists, and it should not be illegal for us to intercept a foreign transmission./

    I’d also be interested in seeing any support we gave for a (non-existent) White House snitch site to report anti-war activists. There is a search function in the upper-right hand corner of the page, to help you in this assignment.

  21. My article, on the other hand, concerns the Obama Administration’s intolerance of dissent on the issue.

    This being the observation that the Obama Administration is taking steps to address people deliberately lying about the proposals.

    The reason is clear: President Obama is willing to entertain some discussion on how to implement health care reform, but he is very much unwilling to consider the basic proposition that our health care system needs to be reformed. Some people see “ObamaCare” as a cure that is far worse than the disease, but their opinions are not to be considered.

    Dana, you lost the election. The Republicans had the White House for eight years, and they led America into a pit. Health care reform was one of the election planks; Obama said he would reform it.

    Obama said he’d reform health care and Obama was elected. People see it as a problem, from common Americans to health policy wonks. Obama said he’d reform health care and Obama was elected. You lost. Republicanism credibility on governing is zilch. Obama said he’d reform health care and Obama was elected. You lost because your side fucked up so badly. Obama said he’d reform health care and Obama was elected.

  22. in claiming that hey, the VA Hospitals are great now, and that Walter Reed has been fixed, one concomitantly admits that they weren’t great before the Bush Administration had them fixed. Even there, it took a public exposé of conditions at Walter Reed to get anything done. (Yorkshire was right about planned closures affecting budgets.)

    Now, if they weren’t great before, if the government assumes all of the costs of health care, why should we assume that there won’t be penny-pinching there as well? Why should we assume that everything will be just as high-quality as it is now? Every state-run medical care system pinches pennies, because they have to: budgets are limited.

  23. The Phoenician wrote:

    Dana, you lost the election. The Republicans had the White House for eight years, and they led America into a pit. Health care reform was one of the election planks; Obama said he would reform it.

    So, do you think that, in the United States, when one side loses an election, it forfeits all rights to try and defeat the policies of the winners, or to criticize the winners, or to do whatever can be done to defeat the winners in the next election?

    The longer we can drag this out, the better our chances of defeating this abomination.

  24. So, do you think that, in the United States, when one side loses an election, it forfeits all rights to try and defeat the policies of the winners, or to criticize the winners, or to do whatever can be done to defeat the winners in the next election?

    Nah. You go right ahead and lie, threaten violence, and hold your breath until you turn blue.

  25. The thrust of ObamaCare is to create a huge and costly bureaucratic overburden to the health care system that might be balanced by a reduction in the cost of defensive medicine.

    The goal is to create more virtual patronage in places such as “Monkey County” where overpaid Government drones have a hammerlock on the political process at all levels. Political correctness runs amok and the local government is derided for ‘paralysis by analysis’.

    I lived there for nearly a decade and know a bit about the place, the residents, and the politics.

  26. Perry:
    Yorkshire, what you describe is exactly what Dana Millbank Dana Priest did. Obviously you have not read the story reporting the investigation. Suffice to say, the Walter Reed Commandant was fired immediately, and remedial action by the government was instituted instantly. Dana Priest did an outstanding piece of investigative reporting on this one. She won a Pulitzer Prize for it. Did you read the reference I provided? Here, let me give you a better one, which gives you all the sordid, shameful details:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/walter-reed/index.html

    To learn more about Dana Priest, check this out:
    http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/articles/dana+priest/

    Sharon, I recommend you check this out too. If you did not already know about this, it will be a real eye-opener for you!

    Perry, I read the articles when they came out because it was all over the office. I talked to the people who went there and they said the article was misleading to a point WHEN THEY SAW THE ACTUAL SITE! Now tell me why I need more info, when I have more info than you and talked to the people on site. Do you have first hand knowledge? No, you just have what WaPo says.

  27. Yorkshire, you are in denial. If your anecdotal information were correct, then the Bush Administration would have said so and not responded the way they did. Your knowledge is second hand just like mine. I choose to believe the extensive investigations of a seasoned and highly regarded, Pulitzer Prize winning reporter. You can certainly believe whom you like, but you are not making a very good case for your side, in my view.

  28. Dana: “The longer we can drag this out, the better our chances of defeating this abomination.”

    Dana, at least you could wait until we have the final bill before you pass judgment.

    Don’t you think our health insurance system needs reform?

  29. The thrust of ObamaCare is to create a huge and costly bureaucratic overburden to the health care system

    Possibly correct. The proposal is to use the government system in addition to the huge and costly dysfunctional bureaucratic overburden to the health care system provided by private insurance agencies.

    The better idea, the one that would save money, is to replace them – to use single-payer. That isn’t on the table because of the screaming from wingnuts. Well done – you’ve already made the system that much more expensive. If you keep trying, perhaps you can make it unworkable altogether.

  30. Perry wrote:

    Dana, at least you could wait until we have the final bill before you pass judgment.

    That is a prescription for political defeat, Perry. A defending army doesn’t wait until the invaders have secured the beachhead and made progress inland; the wise general does his best to bring all force to bear when the enemy is still struggling at the water line, on the beach.

    The same is true in politics: you attack your enemy when he is weakest, on the points on which he is weakest. You don’t let him gather his strength and get momentum.

    Don’t you think our health insurance system needs reform?

    Not this reform, no. The cure is far worse than the disease.

  31. The Phoenician wrote:

    The better idea, the one that would save money, is to replace them – to use single-payer. That isn’t on the table because of the screaming from wingnuts. Well done – you’ve already made the system that much more expensive. If you keep trying, perhaps you can make it unworkable altogether.

    If we were to have guaranteed health care coverage, single-payer might be the cheapest alternative. But single-payer has its problems, as evidenced by the long delays in our neighbor to the north, and the general rationing of health care in other single-payer countries.

    I’d note here that none of the major Democratic candidates — Dennis Kucinich is the exception, but he wasn’t a major, or even credible, candidate — proposed single-payer even early in the Democratic primary season. It was seen as a sure political loser, even amongst the Democrats-only primary voters. Kind of hard to blame that on us “wingnuts.”

  32. Perry:
    Yorkshire, you are in denial. If your anecdotal information were correct, then the Bush Administration would have said so and not responded the way they did. Your knowledge is second hand just like mine. I choose to believe the extensive investigations of a seasoned and highly regarded, Pulitzer Prize winning reporter. You can certainly believe whom you like, but you are not making a very good case for your side, in my view.

    Perry, you’re getting desparate. Flat out, I know more than you do, period. I know you put all your trust in the MSM, Media Matters, and BDS cloud your view, but I have first hand info you don’t have.

  33. Again, Yorkshire, you have second hand information. You said yourself your info comes from friends – that’s second hand. My information comes from a well respected investigative reporter – that’s second hand. You are beating a dead horse! Did you read Dana Priest’s articles? It does not seem so! I read every word; at the time it was very disturbing to me. I’m glad the Bush Administration took action to fix it!

  34. Dana: “Linda Douglass, the White House Health Office Communications Director, calls debate and dissent on ObamaCare “disinformation“:”

    I do appreciate your links, Dana, because sometimes it reveals your spin.

    Nowhere in this interview did Linda Douglas use the words “debate and dissent”!

    Why do you make these things up?

    But she is absolutely correct about the disinformation coming from your side, as I myself have seen tons of it from the likes of Drudge and most of the other fringe personalities on your side.

    I see nothing wrong in the Obama Administration asking people to turn in examples of misinformation. As Linda said, it is not the originators that they want, it is the misinformation. So Senator Cronyn, TX-R, does his best to mischaracterize it with more misinformation!

    It is a shameful outrage the way you folks are behaving just now! Why not focus on the factual demerits as you see them in the bill? That’s fair and civil!

  35. Perry:
    Again, Yorkshire, you have second hand information. You said yourself your info comes from friends – that’s second hand. My information comes from a well respected investigative reporter – that’s second hand. You are beating a dead horse! Did you read Dana Priest’s articles? It does not seem so! I read every word; at the time it was very disturbing to me. I’m glad the Bush Administration took action to fix it!

    Perry, it’s not friends, it’s people I work with who had worked on the problem. I had to know what to fix because I, me, no one else was directly involved in the fix. Again, you weren’t. You’re desparate to be correct, but you are not.

  36. Perry wrote:

    I see nothing wrong in the Obama Administration asking people to turn in examples of misinformation. As Linda said, it is not the originators that they want, it is the misinformation. So Senator Cronyn, TX-R, does his best to mischaracterize it with more misinformation!

    Really? If this was a Bush Administration project designed to correct “misinformation” on the Iraq war, just how believing would you be that “it is not the originators that they want, it is the misinformation?”

  37. Do we forget failures like Long-Term Capital, WorldCom, Global Crossing, Enron, Tyco, AIG and Lehman Brothers.

    Tyco was looted by its CEO but remains a viable corporation that asked for no bailouts. It produces quality products and delivers quality services. I suppose people who only read headlines are not into in-depth analysis,

    Bernie Ebbers of went to prison for his game and it happened during the Bush Administration. He gave to candidates of both parties and seemed to be covering his bets.

    Bill Clinton was on his donation list.

    ENRON was a former utility company that shed its traditional assets (power generation and distribution) and went into “making markets”. A lot of newly-minted MBA types bought into the plan but it was a hoax. A lot of ENRON execs went to prison during the Bush years.

    ENRON, AIG, Lehman Brothers et cetera are a bastardized branch of capitalism in that they deal in paper rather than products and services. They might be seen as a latter-day recreation of the ‘cargo cult’.

    Friend of Bill and failed gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe was heavily involved in Global Crossing and got out when the getting was good. He seems to have a knack of escaping with the lion’s share of the loot. In one scam, there was a commercial real estate deal in which he ‘partnered’ with the IBEW. The union pension fund put up about $50 million and Terry risked one lousy C-note. Some money was made and each partner cleared over $2 million on the basis of a 50/50 split.

    Mega-swindler Marc Rich ripped off investors to the tune of nearly a billion dollars and he got a full pardon from Clinton after intervention my Eric Holder.

    Shall we talk about cooking the books at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac or is this stale news?

  38. Art Downs wrote:

    “Do we forget failures like Long-Term Capital, WorldCom, Global Crossing, Enron, Tyco, AIG and Lehman Brothers.

    Tyco was looted by its CEO but remains a viable corporation that asked for no bailouts. It produces quality products and delivers quality services. I suppose people who only read headlines are not into in-depth analysis,

    Bernie Ebbers of went to prison for his game and it happened during the Bush Administration. He gave to candidates of both parties and seemed to be covering his bets.

    Bill Clinton was on his donation list.

    ENRON was a former utility company that shed its traditional assets (power generation and distribution) and went into “making markets”. A lot of newly-minted MBA types bought into the plan but it was a hoax. A lot of ENRON execs went to prison during the Bush years.

    ENRON, AIG, Lehman Brothers et cetera are a bastardized branch of capitalism in that they deal in paper rather than products and services. They might be seen as a latter-day recreation of the ‘cargo cult’.

    Friend of Bill and failed gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe was heavily involved in Global Crossing and got out when the getting was good. He seems to have a knack of escaping with the lion’s share of the loot. In one scam, there was a commercial real estate deal in which he ‘partnered’ with the IBEW. The union pension fund put up about $50 million and Terry risked one lousy C-note. Some money was made and each partner cleared over $2 million on the basis of a 50/50 split.

    Mega-swindler Marc Rich ripped off investors to the tune of nearly a billion dollars and he got a full pardon from Clinton after intervention my Eric Holder.

    Shall we talk about cooking the books at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac or is this stale news?”

    As everyone has probably noted by now, Dana Pico’s commentary on the politically coercive nature of socialism, and by extension welfare statism, has gone unchallenged and ignored by the usual suspects.

    He called a spade a spade, what can they to do but shrug?

    So, if I may, Art, I’d like to take this opportunity to answer you directly on behalf of the collectivist kind; since all you are likely to encounter in response from them is either a deflection, or some other kind of sidestep:

    Ahem,

    “You misunderstand the basic situation Art!

    It’s not what you assume it to be! The root of the problem is not that the financial system was infested by politically connected and privileged Democrat crooks who scoffed at the moral and ethical predicates necessary to the maintenance of a viable freemarket system. No!

    The problem is structural Art. It lies with any system which allows such untrammeled liberty of action in the first place!

    To restate, the problem is a system that allows such freedoms to anyone!

    Surely you must agree Art, that in our pluralistic society it is futile and unreasonable to expect people in general to be self-governing and to adhere to all the same puritanical ethical standards you advance.

    Furthermore, why waste time and valuable social energy punishing people who cannot live by such standards, when, through a system of universally applied managerial and public spirited control, we can prevent their wrongdoing in the first place?

    The cruelties of your ethical mythology are everywhere to see!

    Then too, Art, your old system is also based on an invidious and presumptive principle of discrimination, which divides people along moral capacity lines.

    On one side you have those you consider able to live with the crushing demands of the level of self-control and personal responsibility necessary to function in your libertarian system; on the other side, you pose in your arrogance the rest of us, as a great unwashed; just because we may not see social and interpersonal boundaries with the same intense definition you do.

    Don’t you realize that in withdrawing from us/them, you only spur “them” on to more desperate means of seeking recognition and satisfactions?

    There are things more humanly important than your dour intellectual notions of freedom and virtue Art. Look to the bonobos Art, and how they function! See how little carbon they produce, and how homophobia is nonexistent in their sharing, caring, societies of peace and justice. What more could we humans ask for, for ourselves?

    By your selfish rejection of our alternate sensibilities in favor of your personal autonomy standard, by rejecting the wise social controls necessary for an efficient integration of our alternate sensibilities into your economic relationships and society, (instead or resorting to your after-the-fact punishments for those who can’t keep up) you set yourself up as something better!!!

    That’s not fair. You act as if your life is your own!

    Ensuring that we can all equitably share in the benefits of our economic engine through centralized direction and control is the best we can hope for, Art! The days of cowboy individualism are over!

  39. Wonderful, DNW – not only are you setting up your own strawmen, you’re now waving their arms about and screaming for them. Perhaps if you really try, you can get spanked in an argument with yourself, and save everyone else the effort.

    Carry on – you just get funnier and funnier.

  40. And Phoenician, as remarkable as that is, DNW and Dana conveniently overlook the fact that this ‘socialism’ is doled out to businesses, corporations and farmers in the billions and billions of dollars.

    And let us not forget the bank bailouts, the ultimate uses of which have become almost impossible to oversee and trace, as Wall Street greed has not changed one iota, in my view.

  41. Perry:
    And Phoenician, as remarkable is that, DNW and Dana conveniently overlook the fact that this ’socialism’ is doled out to businesses, corporations and farmers in the billions and billions of dollars.

    And let us not forget the bank bailouts, the ultimate uses of which have become almost impossible to oversee and trace, as Wall Street greed has not changed one iota, in my view.

    And don’t forget about the cash for clunkers that increased by 200%

  42. Dana doesn’t forget about the “socialism” doled out to corporations. You’ve already seen my complaints about “cash for clunkers,” which is just welfare for the middle class and auto makers. I don’t have a problem with payment for services legitimately provided; government does need to buy things. But the notion that General Motors was too big to fail is appalling.

  43. Those claiming other countries have universal health care and they are “healthier” are forgetting to add that their paychecks are smaller too! These countries can’t pay for these programs without taxing EVERY worker excessively to pay for it.
    We DO need reform in health care. We need more oversight on all the fraud and waste/abuse. The scams perpetrated by doctors and organizations that rob the taxpayers blind with their medicaid/medicare fraud…that needs fixed. They would save billions if they would do like they used to do. They used to send you a copy of the bill and you would then VERIFY that these procedures were indeed done by the doctor or service provider, you would verify that YOU indeed were the one to receive these services. But they don’t do this much anymore cause of those working at the office who approves these compensations are receiving kickbacks to keep their mouth shut. Google it if you don’t believe me. But don’t call people a liar just because their experience wasn’t documented for your edification! As though what you say is true and any opposition is a lie! There is a lot of abuse/waste and fraud…just imagine that on an even larger scale..who gets these kickbacks? Probably those attorneys who won’t let us have tort reform or those government employees whom we pay the salary!
    Observations and experience are what people base their opinions, NOT mediamatters or left leaning obamanites.

  44. Those claiming other countries have universal health care and they are “healthier” are forgetting to add that their paychecks are smaller too!

    Want us to trot out the percentage-of-GDP spending on health care again?

Comments are closed.