Blogs and Stories
Defending a Bomb-Thrower
Evan Vucci / AP Photo
Republicans whine about partisanship—while stiff-arming Obama and sitting on their hands. Thank heavens for Alan Grayson, who’s bringing moral backbone to the health-care debate.
The basic blueprint for a freshman Democrat newly elected to a marginal House seat is pretty simple. You want to duck tough issues, position yourself as more centrist than the average Dem, use your newfound incumbent status to soak up some corporate cash you were denied as a challenger, bring home the bacon to the home district, and stay out of trouble. Representative Alan Grayson of Florida has, however, taken a very different course, hiring progressive netroots activist Matt Stoller as a staffer, and going out of his way to throw bombs and court controversy. The results have included talk of congressional resolutions to condemn him, and general disdain from the political establishment. Even those, like The New York Times’ David Herszenhorn, who are willing to take seriously the notion that Grayson knows what he’s doing see his strategy through a very limited lens, explaining that “one talked-about TV appearance leads to three more; every quotable outburst is a potential pitch, spread instantly by YouTube and blogs to an eager audience that can cheer by way of campaign donations made with the click of a mouse.”
Grayson is doing something bigger than grabbing attention; he’s re-injecting strident moralism into a progressive politics that’s come to be dominated by bloodless technocrats.
This is true enough, but no political innovator’s strategy should be seen is purely cynical or instrumental. Grayson is doing something bigger than grabbing attention: He’s re-injecting strident moralism into a progressive politics that’s come to be dominated by bloodless technocrats. These moves can sometimes lead in the wrong direction, but in other places—like the health-care debate unfolding today—they provide a vital voice.
Even someone like me—who thinks Grayson’s moralistic populism has led him to some incorrect policy conclusions about the Federal Reserve and so-called bailouts—can appreciate that raising the moral stakes around health care does a great deal to clarify the debate. And at the end of the day, it’s this for which Grayson has attracted the most scorn. His views on banks are shared by many members of Congress, including Republicans, but his claim that “if you get sick, America, the Republicans’ health-care plan is this: Die quickly.” Technically, of course, this is wrong. The Republicans have no plan, realizing that it’s easier to beat something with nothing because it lets you pick and choose lines of attack rhetorically. But Grayson has put his finger on the logic of the conservative approach to the issue.
Consider a recent CNN.com opinion piece on health care by Jeffrey Miron, a Harvard economist and senior fellow at the free-market Cato Institute. He does us the favor of moving beyond shallow criticisms of the health bill in Congress to outlining a bold, conservative, and morally hideous alternative: Nothing—no subsidies for buying health insurance for anyone, and no regulation of insurers. Contemplating the possibility that “if left unregulated, health insurers would deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions,” leaving many unable to buy insurance, Miron offers the disingenuous reply that “insurers would set higher premiums for the unhealthy, but they would cover anyone willing to pay a sufficiently high price.”
This is reminiscent of the old joke that under capitalism the rich and poor are equal, since they both have the right to sleep under a bridge at night to stay out of the rain.
What if you can’t afford the sky-high premiums an insurer would want to charge to cover someone with a bad medical history? Or what if you find yourself uninsured because you lost your job? Or because you’re 11 years old and your parents did something irresponsible? Well, “they would have to rely on private charity.” In other words, as Grayson said, die quickly before your illness bankrupts your friends and family.
John Talks Joe
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
Step Up to the Plate, China
Matthew Yglesias is a Fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. He is the author of Heads in the Sand: How the Republicans Screw Up Foreign Policy and Foreign Policy Screws Up the Democrats.
Next Battle for Health Care
Matthew Yglesias is a Fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. He is the author of Heads in the Sand: How the Republicans Screw Up Foreign Policy and Foreign Policy Screws Up the Democrats.
Battle for American Jews
Matthew Yglesias is a Fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. He is the author of Heads in the Sand: How the Republicans Screw Up Foreign Policy and Foreign Policy Screws Up the Democrats.
He's saying to the Republicans the things I wish Obama would, but can't because he has to make nice for the "independents," who wish we could all get along... Whine, snivel, squeal...
...........like everyone should experience choosing abortion and the nation should subsidize it?
Abortion is not backbone. Far from it. We would be subsidizing cowardice.
Moron, "choosing" war by the liar Bushboy was not something I wanted to subsidize, but I wasn't given a "choice," by the Republican Party and it's warmongering zealots.
Abortion is a woman's choice and is a medical procedure, and it should be part of any healthcare insurance plan. I know that a woman's right to control her own life doesn't mean as much to you as a zygote or a fetus, but it should be her decision - not fools like you.
periscope, not that i agree with the war, but did the democrats roll over and give bush carte blanche to go to war?
From what I have concluded from reading about the PROLIFE AGENDA, it would seem they are less concerned about the sanctitiy of life then controlling what people do in their bedrooms. One only has to look at the defense of the killer of Dr.Tiller, who was shot in his church. They are also against birth control and sex education. They advocate abstinence as a means of controlling teenagers behavior inspite of the evidence it is a dismal failure. Those states that are the strongest advocates of the abstinence vows have the highest teenage pregnancies as well as the highest infant mortality .Abortion is not anybody choice for birth control. Except for Prolifers, many people agree that abortion should be available for women who have been raped or for the life of the mother. With 6 billion of us and counting, we are straining the resources of this planet. I think the statement from the Bible that tells us to be fruitful and mulitiply has been fulfilled long ago. It time to remember, The Bible also says we are the stewards of this planet. So, those who say they won't support Health care, if it means paying for abortions, it time to get your nose out of other people business. Provide sex education and birth control. You can not legislate morality, but you can provide choices to people, to allow them not to get in a situation that gives them no choices. Because the other argument that opponents have against health care reform, is you should not have had children if you can not afford to give them health care.
"candyman"; You said; ..... "periscope, not that i agree with the war, but did the democrats roll over and give bush carte blanche to go to war?"
_______________
It was more like; Some CRAZED PERSON "Yelled FIRE" in a Crowded Theatre!!!
prickly: Abortion is a legal medical procedure, and any government program should pay for it.
Just like 80% of private health insurance does.
stjam8: I agree. Good post.
Abortion kills human life. Women are not designed to kill their children.
Abortion hurts women.
pricklypear: Pregnancy (and its many possible complications) kills many more women than abortion does.
Abortion may hurt, but pregnancy can kill.
prickly pear: Please read my first response again. I am not advocating abortion. I am questioning the prolifers agenda. They have their nose in other people lives. They have gotten the government to fund their abstinence programs inspite of the fact they don't work. They are against birth control and sex education. We need to have a common sense approach to unwanted births. To deny teenagers knowledge of their bodies thru sex education, you have created a system that keeps creating the very problem you are fighting against. The prolifers efforts to stop information about birth control from being taught to young people only insures that your group will continue to have a cause to fight. But the agenda of the prolifers seems to be controlling other people's sex lives rather then find a solution to the problem. As long as the prolifers approach to unwanted births is force their religion and morality on to a strong human drive they will continue to fail. Young people, a combination of a strong human drive and little experience with dealing with these drives and strong feelings, need to be dealt with in a realistic way. If prolifers wanted to stop abortions, they need to educate not moralize. Young people need to know more then "Just say No".
LOVE him and sent money to him!!!
This guy's a tool who is also a publicity whore
prickleypraer...education before you open your mouth makes you look less like a tool........
NEITHER health care bill includes abortion monies for ANYONE, both EXCLUDE it. Tells us all that prickley pear is a paid Repug who cant get a good job...again educate yourself pear and perhaps some right wing nutter will hire you to lick his boots.
For the life of me, I can't figure out why it's so difficult for Democrats to call out all the liars in Congress.
After all, they're easy to spot; just look for the (R) next to their names.
You forgot the bluedogs, who like the republicans have received money from insurance and pharmaceutical companies. For a complete list check The Center for Responsive Politics. Blue dogs with their pockets stuffed with cash from the insurance industry, some who were for the Public Option before they received all that money. Joe Lieberman was for the Public Option in 2006. Since then he received over a million dollars from insurance companies. Call and email your legislators every day. A strong grass roots elected this President with a majority on a mandate of Universal health care. We need to do it again. Tell them to pass H R 1826 the Fair Election Act. This bill will provide public funding of elections. The alternate is to allow oursevles to be goveren by insurance companies.
Um, would that be the same public financing of elections that Senator Obama repudiated and the evil Republican McCain used? Please, do not be so naive to think that insurance companies and pharmaceuticals have not been involved up to their elbows in the most recent (Pelosi) permutation of health care "reform."
lilrhino: Navive? How aboout determined . Read Rolling Stone's Sept.3 "Sick and Wrong". I am concerned that the Democrats and the Presidents efforts to get a bipartsian bill will get us a health care reform that is health care reform in name only. Too many people for too long have been indifferent to what goes on in Washington, allowing big business to have too much influence. The bill is not done yet. We need to tell them repeatly, to be heard over the lobbyists. In the end the lobbyists have only one vote like the rest of us. How many times have you called or emailed your legislators? Don't let your cynicism stop you from trying. We have too much to lose. Please read my other posts concerning what insurance premiums will cost us if we do nothing.
lilrhino: Of course insurance and pharmaceutical companies are involved with health care reform.
They are spending $10 million a week to defeat any kind of reform.
Yeah, Rolling Stone is where i wanna get my information from. A bunch
of burnt out hippies that's taken one too many bong rips. No really, when
i want the real inside story...High Times baby !! Pretty sure they nailed the J.F.K assassination and all those involved.( They said it was a cover-up, but you didn't hear that from me, quite, i think i hear someone comin)
" the liars in Congress. After all, they're easy to spot; just look for the (R) next to their names. "
Sounds naive.
Both (R) and (D) parties have liars and sell outs.
If Grayson had an (R) next to his name and referred to a female lobbyist as a " whore," would MSNBC rant 24/7 about a "misogynist" Republican ?
sophia5: MSNBC did cover (and object to) Grayson's comment, until he apologized.
We Americans have always liked our rabble-rousers.
In fact, there was a war back in 1776 that established the American backbone.
That Alan Grayson has embraced this oldest, toughest, and finest American ethic may make him an anachronism, but his is the only voice in Congress that I trust.
Mr. Grayson is filling the shoes and gap left by those great Senators from the Watergate era, voices we trusted; voices like Sam Ervin and Howard Baker.
Compared to Dodd, Leiberman, Pelosi, Limbaugh, Baucus, Inhofe, and the other bozos taking up space and money, Mr. Grayson is a solitary voice of reason and common sense.
I wish we had more like him!!!
Ok look, I like where the guy is coming from, I'm glad he's standing up to people I guess, but you can't go around calling women whores for no reason. It's disrespectful, plain and simple. I'm glad he apologized for it and I'm willing to give the guy a second chance but I'm a long way from saying he's "embraced the...finest American ethic" or that he is a "solitary voice of reason." I mean, come on - he is an elected official and he called a woman a whore; YOU CAN'T DO THAT.
Your reverence of the guy makes me really worry about your position as any sort of progressive or even liberal.
You are right, of course he should not have called Linda Robertson a whore. That is disrespectful to whores, they do it for free. If he had called her a prostitute that would have been more accurate. And it was unfair to single her out. But who has the time to name all the lobbyists working for big business. Robertson was a lobbyist for Enron, before this job working for the fed. Read about Robertson on the Huffington Post Nov.3 She is now working to stop the Federal Reserve from being audited.
Maybe you should read a little more. Just because he is an elected official doesn't mean he shouldn't call a thief a thief, a liar a liar, or, in this case, a whore a whore. Have you ever looked up the definition of "whore?" Just in case, I thought I would give it too you:
noun
1. prostitute
2. any woman who engages in promiscuous sexual intercourse
prostitute definition:
1. to sell the services of (oneself or another) for purposes of sexual intercourse
2. to sell (oneself, one's artistic or moral integrity,etc.) for low or unworthy purposes
adjective
RARE given over to base purposes; debased; corrupt
noun
1.
a. a woman who engages in promiscuous sexual activity for pay; whore; harlot
b. a man who engages in such activity, esp. homosexual acts, for pay
2. a person, as a writer, artist, etc., who sells his or her services for low or unworthy purposes
from http://www.yourdictionary.com. Retrieved November 3, 2009
Based on this definition, since a whore equals a prostitute, and a prostitute is a person who sells HIS OR HER SERVICES FOR LOW OR UNWORTHY PURPOSES, Grayson was dead on with what he said. All I can say to the lobbyist (whore) is if you don't want to be called a whore, don't be one.
I had not heard anything about this man calling anyone a whore.
But I did have the pleasure of watching him questioning the woman
who is in charge of monitoring the Federal Reserve, and where its funds have gone related to the TARP stuff.
He skewered this woman, who basically said she had no idea whatsoever where the untold billions of dollars went.
During that interview before his House Committee, this woman was not referred to in any manner but with courtesy.
Also, urbancowgirl, please do not worry about my position as any sort of progressive or liberal; I am just a fellow commentator, who is sad to see the looting of America continuing right before our very eyes.
hockeydog - like I said, I like what the guy is going for here - calling out folks when they mess up is great. Sorry you hadn't heard about the whore comment; wouldn't have jumped down your throat otherwise. But maybe a little less reverence and praise then for Grayson is warranted?
And to the rest - I simply can not believe that anyone would downplay the use of the word "whore" in national politics. That is disgusting. When there are millions of words in the English language to portray someone in a negative light, why choose that one? There is no excuse and I'm sickened that either of you tried to downplay it.
I'm assuming you're both men. You wouldn't understand the outrage I guess because there's no real male equivalent to that word (male prostitute just doesn't have the same hurtful tone, does it?). Maybe this makes me some sort of feminazi or whatever but yeah, I'm sickened by any politician, Democrat, or human being in general who thinks that it's ok to call a woman that. Just choose another word!
urbancowgirl: I am surprise that you find the word whore so offensive, with all the the nonsense we have heard since this President stated running for office . It impossible to count how many times the godwin's law has been enacted. Any body who has been watching polictics even casually can not count the times this President has been called hilter, Stalin, Mao. or how many times this President has been called fascist socialist Marxist, or communist.The term feminazi is one that Rush uses often. I don't think this a appropriate term. That term is obvious in it's effort to put women in their place. Which the Repulican National Party,recently told Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House and third in line to the presidency, that "She needs to put in her place". The word whore is old enough to have acquired more then one meaning. And it is evident by your reaction that it still retains it shock value. What word would you perfer that describes someone who makes a lot of money doing something that is morally wrong?
stjam - trust me, the insults against Obama that invoke Hitler, facism, and the like make my skin crawl. But so far as I have heard, a congressman has yet to wave a photo of Obama with the Hitler-stache yet. Call me naive or idealist, but I really do expect more of my represented officials so yes, the use of the word 'whore' by a congressman to describe a woman deeply offends me. Like I said earlier, he apologized, I appreciated that, and was willing to give him a second chance. What offends more, is to have the man so praised or at least flippantly excused for his language, which is what sparked this comment thread.
I also dislike the term feminazi but it seems I can't talk about respecting women anywhere without being called one. I went to an all-girls school for 6 years; we were basically given a feminism "member for life" badge along with a high school diploma - sue me.
As far as a separate word for someone who "makes a lot of money for doing something that is morally wrong" how about: corrupt, crooked, profiteering, deceitful, fraudulent, miscreant, odious, detestable, shoddy, base, despicable, and contemptible.
I would suggest that perhaps politicians carry thesauruses around with them but here are the thesaurus entries for "whore": call girl, escort, harlot, hooker, hustler, lady of the evening, slut, streetwalker, strumpet, tramp, working girl. Pretty sure there's no question about the connotation there.
Well, when dealing with lobbyists it does seem like rather apropos nomenclature.
Urbancowgirl: When you ae called a femi-nazi, Please feel free to challenge their misogynist attitudes. You are right, we have not seen congressman waving photos of the President with a hilter-stache. But we have not seen them denounce it either. I have seen representatives , when asked if they thought the President was born in the U.S., say there are questions. Their silence on the birthers deathers etc.condones it. They hope to benefit from it in the primaries. Many of our legislators when asked about whether they thought people should bring loaded weapons to town hall meetings, said they had every right to do so. Do you remember any saying it was unwise? Considering the amount of corruption in washington, the words you suggested don't have the sting of the word you objected to.
Conservatives apparently are willing to act like it's 1776 where it's the wilderness and everyman stakes his own claim to freedom. Shoot first, quote your bible afterwards.
Of course corporate governance is the underlying foundation.
Whereas the progressives are thinking ahead to the future of the country and its citizens; a healthy citizenry is a stronger country.
Healthcare should be part of a comprehensive plan to bolster the middle class with jobs and small business financing.
Grayson is hitting the GnOPers where it hurts, and the Dems where it should hurt.
Although he has lukewarm support for the current house bill, he has set the tone where other Dems have been compromised and intimidated by the status quo.
His shots across the bow ought to shake congress and call the people to demand straight talk and action.
Think about it; he's speaking for the people who have no say in our corporate run gov't.
We do have a say, but most of us have become apathetic Too many of us thought that once we get this President elected our work is done. We need to call and email our legislators every day until we get what we elected thiis President to do. No President has been able to accomplish health care reform. It has been 50 years, we are the only industrialized nation without affordable health care for all its citizens. The preamble to the Constitiution, We The People.... Not we the insurance companies.
I have voted and watched the majority be rendered helpless by the violence and anger of the right wing nutters. I have news for them though...bring it to my front door? and you might have to deal with me fighting back.
Grayson makes me believe that some politicians really do represent the people who elected them.
We've need a Grayson for a long time, but too many newly elected politicans were to eager to play the game. Publicly playing one game and privately another.
Yes, the fact that most of the GOP are willing to let people die in order to maintain their health insurance cash flows says a lot about just how corrupt our way of government has become.
Healthcare is not a right, it's a privilege. There's no such thing as the right to "receive" anything, only the right not to be tampered with from outside sources.
Like the government.
The only reason politically-minded Dems want to push through this healthcare reform, is because they know that it represents a tipping point in the development from which there's no turning back. Republicans know this too, which is why they're so vehemently opposed to it (there's also the debates over lowering standards and increasing the debt that is setting your country on the road to ruin, but that's another issue).
You guys are lucky. The only reason your country can have a debate about healthcare, and have a measure of reform is because currently it's a barely politicized part of public life. In England, for example, though the NHS is one of the most shambolic and embarrassing institutions in the world, it's untouchable, since any party that proposes reform can be disgraced instantly.
As soon as politicians set the agenda, whichever party is more in favor of expansion of government in healthcare (and therefore the rest of people's lives), will be permanently locked in power (unless the opposition adopts the same tact, as the Conservatives in England have to do, however unwillingly). This is because anyone who proposes small government will be met by some slimeball on the opposition, with his arm around some poor peasant who happens to have state health provided, saying "if you vote for X, PEOPLE. WILL. DIE.". You won't be able to escape it.
If you don't shoot down expansion of government now, you'll lose any imperative to debate on issues, or improve your country, and will be trapped in this permanent quasi-socialist nightmare where there is no opposition.
If that sounds good to you (and if you're a Dem, I guess it may), then bear this in mind - impotent established parties that are forced to agree on everything for fear of proposing reform, as we have all over Europe, creates a vacuum that is filled with by the only group ballsy enough to make a stand - National Socialist neo-Nazi parties. Like the BNP who have won 2 seats in England. Or Heider, who almost took full power in Austria.
If you tire of the debate between touchy-feely progressives, and died-in-the-wool libertarian lovers of the constitution, then relax. You'll soon both be able to team up to hate the new kids on the block.
From your writing style and use of "Americanisms," I'm guessing you're not British, although you imply that you are. Whom should I believe, you or Stephen Hawking? I'm going with Hawking, who said about NHS:
"I wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS. I have received a large amount of high-quality treatment without which I would not have survived."
The following is from The Market Watch Blog, Sept.18: News that this year's premium growth for job-based family coverage came in at a relatively moderate 5% was off set by dire forecasts of what an average policy will cost 10 years from now, assuming that the atypical pattern of slower growth we've see in the last few years continues. Premuims for a full year of family coverage increased 5 % to $13,375 in 2009, with employees on average footing $3,515 of the bill and employers $9,860. According to a report released from the Kaiser Foundation and the Health Research and Educational Trust. Health care costs have been going up a couple % points faster then economic growth since the 60's. The founation also stated " if you asume that premiums increase over the next 10 years at an average of just the last 5, which was an unusual moderation in health care costs, then the average premium in 2019 will be $24,000. That's not the cadillac plan. That would be the average family premuim. A California non-partsain study concluded that insurance premiums would be 40% of the average income by 2016.
You can debate whether health care reform is constitutional till the cows come home. The bottom line is that those who defend the status quo are defending a corrupt sytem that allows insurance companies to prey on us. Your use of the word PEASANT INSTEAD OF HUMAN BEING OR CITIZEN TELLS ALL WE NEED TO KNOW. THE STATUS QUO IS VERY LUCRATIVE FOR THE INSURANCE COMPANIES .You can claim that we don't have a right to health care while, 1 out every 3 dollars goes into the insurance company pockets. That in American we pay more for our health care and get less for it . It accounts for a larger share of our GDP then any other industrialized nation that manages to provide health care for all its citizens. An investigation this summer by the House Energy and Commerce Committe, and earlier ones by state regulators in California, New York and Connecticut found that thousands of vulnerable and seriously ill policy holders have had their coverage by many of the nation's largest insurance companies without any legal basis. The Congressional Commitee found that 3 insurance companies alone made in the last 5 years $300 million dollars using rescission. Rescission is when insurance companies retroatively cancel coverage for policy holders based on alleged misstatements, sometimes after a diagnoses of life threating diseases. The following from the Huffington Post 9/17/09: In Feb. 08, a private arbitration judge in Los Angles ordered Health Net Inc.to pay more then $9 million to a breast cancer patient whose health insurance was revoked shortly after her diagnoses and while she was under going chemotherapy. The plaintiff. Patsy Bates, a 52 years old grand mother and hair salon owner was unable to continue her chemotherapy for several months. During the case, evidence emerged that Health Net had paid bonuses to employees to reward them based on the number of policy holders they recinded. The judge who awarded Bates,said in his decision."It is difficult to imagine a policy more reprehensible then tying bonuses to encourage the rescission of health insurance that keeps the public well and alive."
AlexHamilton You say:
"Healthcare is not a right, it's a privilege. There's no such thing as the right to "receive" anything, only the right not to be tampered with from outside sources."
Read your Declaration of Independence which opens with:
'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.'
Did you see the right to Life was and unalienable right.
"un·al·ien·a·ble ADJECTIVE:
Not to be separated, given away, or taken away; inalienable."
Life is not to be given away or taken away. Health care is life. Statistics (and common sense) show that people with good health insurance, all other factors being equal, LIVE longer than those without it. Health care is LIFE. Whenever you go to get a checkup you are protecting your LIFE. When you buy medicines you protect your LIFE. I could go on and on but I hope you can think through your prejudice against health insurance reform and understand the concept that Health insurance is a Right because Health care is LIFE and therefore a RIGHT.
Again...from the words we all hold so dear..."
'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.'
Notice that the only one of the three that is a "pursuit" is happiness because no matter what you do happiness cannot be guaranteed. It is up to the individual to find happiness but it is a God given right for the pursuit thereof.
However, the Creator is mentioned as giving the rights of LIFE and LIBERTY to all with now strings attached..
You seem to dislike " touchy-feely progressives".
Jesus, Ghandi, Buddha, Mother Theresa and other great humanitarians fit that bill.
You seem to be more in line with Ebeneezer Scrooge who said when asked to help the poor " are there no workhouses?"
Perhaps you will see the ghosts of the non insured who have died from lack of healthcare soon and hopefully have an epiphany.
Best wishes and stay healthy.
Saying that the NHS has saved many lives is like saying that communism curbs unemployment. It's true, but kinda besides the point.
At any rate, I'm not defending the status quo; I'm saying that the only reason healthcare is open to reform (reform which it needs) is because it isn't a political issue yet - i.e. politicians and elected bureaucrats aren't governing healthcare, and thereby tying voters into political affiliations based on necessity.
If 50 million people become dependent on government run healthcare (or any other kind of welfare), they will inevitably vote for the party that is going to "give" them more - i.e. anyone who's in the employment / thrall of a particular party will vote for them.
By definition, people who vote libertarian aren't given anything by their government (except the "super rich" by virtue of low taxes). People who vote left, are. An administration buying votes damages democracy.
That was my point.
p.s. my use of the word "peasant" was an ironic illustration of the emotional manipulation of the "poor" for political gains.
patapar - good point actually, I like it. I'd say that the right to life, is the right to not have your life taken away by human forces (I mean, you could say it's a "right" not be disabled, but nature doesn't observe such rights, so we just have to deal with it) - but either way, of course we can all agree that it's best that everyone has access to healthcare. You won't find anyone who disagrees with that. Just don't let the government be the provider.
alex hamiton said "saying that the NHS saves lives is like saying communsian curbs unemployment, It's true but kind of besides the point". That is the point, saving lives!**** The bill currently being discussed is by no means welfare. Unless you mean corporate welfare. It requires mandatory insurance and penalties and allows insurance companies to continue raising their rates. Your concern that health care reform will give one party an edge when it comes to elections can easily be avoided if the republicans got onboard and help improve this bill to help the average American. Those who continue debating the issue of whether health care is Constitutional are defending the status quo. The Status quo is right now, is we are being govern by the insurance companies. The Center of Responsive Polictics has a list of all the republicans and bluedogs that have received money from insurance and pharmaceutical companies. This bill does not have a strong enough Public Option to force the insurance companies to compete. This is not about welfare for your peasants, but affordable health care for everyone, not just the rich.
"Guts" Grayson is clear as a bell. Miron says, essentially, "Pay lots or die." It is so sickening and reptilianally cold-hearted that one has to surmise that these people are a different species. Us mammals reach down and find fellow feeling, a kind of profound compassion. The Mirons reach down and find a calculator.
The Mirons are saying that if you, peasant, were good enough and worthy enough, you'd have enough money to "pay the sufficiently high price." Surely, we should eat the poor too if they would just hurry up and die. Filet of peasant. Or a juicy peasant chop with mashed potatoes and green beans. How about a nice suckling peasant for Thanksgiving? Put an apple in her tiny mouth and notice how rosy her chubby roasted cheeks! Bon appetit!
7000 Americans will die by Christmas. 19,000 will die by Easter. 360,000 have died since 9-11. All for no other determining factor than lack of health coverage. This is disgusting. We became terrorized and enraged that 3000 people died on 9-11, and we should have been and be.
But where's the horror at the daily grim preventable losses foisted by the Insurance Industry's War on Americans? If their filthy premiums aren't war profiteering, what the Hell is? It is disgusting.
How we allowed profit and Wall Street ratings to get entangled with health care is clearly a monstrous mistake, proved by the fact that 45,000,000 Americans remain uninsured after the grotesque 60-year experiment with health care and the "free market." (That's 2,700,000 useless deaths of Americans and their 2,700,000 ruined and desolate families.) Wake up your heart.
wfleet: As all good Christian conservatives know, if God had wanted these sick people to live, He would have made them rich.
Therefore God wants them to die. Who are we to interfere with God's wishes?
Grayson is the only Democrat to challenge the family values hypocrites. He (as most Democrats) realize that the Sanfords, Vitters, Palins, and Cheneys do not set the standard for morality, ethics, and American values. The Republican conservatives have been responsible for hypocrisy, dysfunctional family relations, destruction of marriages, dishonesty in government, denial of social justice, champions of greed, and destroyers of compassion and charity.
The Democrats, with the exception of Grayson, have done nothing to challenge the claims of virtue bestowed upon the conservatives by the conservatives. The Obama administration has entirely missed opportunity after opportunity to confront the unfounded claims of the conservatives. As a result, the conservatives have made progress in the Virginia gubernatorial race and will continue to make gains until they are confronted, challenged and outed as the representatives of evil that they actually are.
Grayson is the only Democrat to take up the legitimate moral standard that belongs to his party. President Obama's advisers can learn much from Grayson.
I agree, Square.
Grayson knows that bipartisanship is a ludicrous folly where the Republican Party is concerned.
Their idea of "bipartisanship" is: DO AS WE SAY.
And as has been obvious from their monolithic refusal to work to make healthcare affordable for all Americans, the Republican Party remains "bought and paid for" by the greediest, most profiteering and most criminal corporate elements in America.
We don't need private health insurance companies anymore than we need the Republican Party, and we should get rid of both.
Keep it up Grayson and I'll continue to vote for you.
Good work!!
And thanks for running against that 'family values' hypocrite/weasel Ric Keller.
Grayson doesn't give two shits about the rhetoric that he spews. He is a politician pure and simple, and now that he has been elected he has that plush pension and an AMAZING HEALTHCARE plan.
Grayson is only half a truth teller. He tells the truth when it comes to Republicans. But, when it comes to Democrats he is a partisan.
He does not criticize this health bill for what it is. It should be called the Insurance Enrichment Act. It will transfer hundreds of billions in working peoples meager wages to the insurance industry so that we all get to subsidize the $10 million average salary of their CEO's. When asked about the incredibly weak public option in the House Bill, one that will result in premiums from a public plan that are higher than private insurance, he said he'll support it. He says nothing about consumers still being unable to challenge the denial of health care by insurers. A real populist would advocate for people to have the power to seek court review when health care is denied -- as it often is by the profits before patients insurance industry.
Is this telling the truth about Democrats? He should be pointing out from Obama to Pelosi to Baucus the Democrats are on the insurance company dole and they are putting their profits ahead of the people necessities. But, he is silent. Sadly, Grayson is just a partisan Democrat who does not hesitate to play the attack dog against Republicans.
We need a real truth teller who will challenge the corporatists of both parties, especially the party in power.
Kevin Zeese
ProsperityAgenda.US
I was also surprised of his support of this bill. That is why we need to keep calling and emailing our legislators. This is not a done deal yet. We need a bill that forces the insurance companies to compete. A strong Public Option would do that. But the bluedogs are against it. Despite their small numbers they have too much sway. The Center for Responsive Polictics has a list of those who have received money from insurance and pharmaceutical companies. When you call, tell your legislators to vote for H R 1826 Fair Elections Act. The bluedogs claim that they want a bill that is not going to cost the tax payer is bogus. The bill currently being discussed is going to cost the consumer big time.
This guy looks like the Grinch in the Dr, Suess books.
lol If it's a republican, he's spreading falshoods. If it's a democrate he's showing "moral background". What transparent rubbish!
time, long past due, to kick republican teeth. tear that whimpering weirdo, beck, a new one. amazing how spineless so many "liberals" are. i'm sick and tired of the noz party, and i'd like to see joe the logger turn that republican paid phonie joe the plumber into puppy chow.
bravo Pricklypear!! you managed to take an issue that is large in scope and get a significant amount of people on this discussion board to focus in on one small portion of it.... ABORTION. that's that corporate media mind state that is ubiquitous in America. confuse people from the plain view of the desert by getting them to focus in on one grain of sand
a mind is like a parachute.. it doesn't work unless it is open
relax on the morality copout. it's time for pragmatism that will lead us to as low a transaction cost as possible so that people can spend more money on other sectors of the economy other than that of the health industry.
hopefully after solving this crisis we can move on to putting the spurs to Obama to get him to start regulating wallstreet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------
Nationalize all banks.Nationalize the whole health care industry.Nationalize the food industry.Nationalize the transportation industry.
All the industries above are infested with
crooks.This is the main reason the USA is going down the drain,and nobody is doing anything about it;Except that the
crooked republican senators are making it worst.
The international newspapers are saying
that Barack Obama is telling other countries to clean-up their
corruption.
Clean the corruption in the USA first.Before going to
other countries to tell them to correct their corruption practices.
Prosecute Bush/Cheney;Stop the lobbysts from co-
rrupting the USA politicians.Put the lobbysts in jail.
Pass the single payer Public Health Care Bill as soon
as possible and make it available immediately.Otherwise the crooks in the stinky USA Health Care Industry will continue
screwing the USA taxpayers.
Let women choose if they want to abort their babies or
not.It is their business.It is not the crooked republican senators's business.
Some body needs to teach Sarah Palin how to use
condoms.Women should not be having babies after their
peak reproductive years.Otherwise these women will end-up
with down syndrome infants,which costs the USA tax-payers
a great deal.Also,this Sarah Palin needs to give ( 1 million plus ) the proceeds from her book to the USA Treasure.Public Servants should not be allowed to enrich themselves using
their political status.This Sarah Palin is not qualified and she
is not ethical.
------------------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------
Discussing Grayson is such a ridiculous waste of time. I can't believe how many people fall for this transparent act.
His ambition just radiates off of him. Are we all just media robots?
And how is this different from what Sarah Palin does, franjen?
This is very simple, are we the people, who want the reform going to have the plan Grayson has. I am not a subhumanif you are reforming I want choices, and opportunities, like the govt,congress and he gets. he has some nerve calling someone a whore in open, public,like that. He has no class, and is a frustrated,angry man. No class and I support this adm but this anger and vocabulary and lack of class dont convince me that anyone is out for my welfare.
Baring one overstatement or two, I love the buy. 'Bout time we have a lefty with some cajones.
This guy is a lowlife who will go the way of McCarthy. Only he won't get a multi-yer run.
He will very soon overreach, misreading the applause, and will be given the hook when even the Democrats will find themselves embarrassed.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.