Conservative vs. Conservative
Sarah Palin weighed in on health care reform last week by accusing the Obama administration of wanting to kill her parents and her baby. So, what do other conservatives have to say about Palin’s thoughtful addition to the health care debate?
Newt Gingrich and Howard Dean went at it on health care this morning on This Week. Especially over Sarah Palin’s claim that Obama’s health care plan will create “death panels” that would encourage euthanasia.
“Communal standards historically is a very dangerous concept,” Gingrich told me.
“You are asking us to trust turning power over to the government, when there are clearly people in American who believe in establishing euthanasia, including selective standards.”
I’d say that’s a second vote for death panels (Palin is vote #1). What do other conservatives say?
On “Meet the Press” this morning, David Brooks called Palin’s attack “crazy,” adding that “the crazies are attacking the plan because it will cut off granny. That is simply not true, that simply is not going to happen.”
Similarly, Rep. Jack Kingston (R) of Georgia, who no one has ever considered a moderate, told Bill Maher there’s nothing to Palin’s attack. “It’s a scare tactic,” Kingston said. “No question about it.”
How about Republican Representative Bob Inglis?
As we told you earlier, Rep. Bob Inglis (R-SC) was viciously booed at a town hall Thursday for telling the audience to turn off Glenn Beck.
Now, Inglis is pretty right-wing, and opposes the president’s health care reform plans. But, as he told local blogger Jason Spencer after the town hall, he finds Beck — a pretty strong voice for conservatives these days — a fear-monger.
I don’t listen often to Glenn Beck, but when I have, I’ve come away just so disappointed with the negativity… the ‘We’ve just gone to pot as a country,’ and ‘All is lost’ and ‘There is no hope.’ It’s not consistent with the America that I know. The America I know was founded by people who took tiny boats across a big ocean, and pushed west in tiny wagons, and landed on the moon.
The America that Glenn Beck seems to see is a place where we all should be fearful, thinking that our best days are behind us. It sure does sell soap, but it sure does a disservice to America.
That’s 3-2. Any other conservatives care to weigh in? What about you, former Bush speechwriter David “Axis of Evil” Frum?
The problem is that if we do that… we’ll still have the present healthcare system. Meaning that we’ll have (1) flat-lining wages, (2) exploding Medicaid and Medicare costs and thus immense pressure for future tax increases, (3) small businesses and self-employed individuals priced out of the insurance market, and (4) a lot of uninsured or underinsured people imposing costs on hospitals and local governments.
We’ll have entrenched and perpetuated some of the most irrational features of a hugely costly and under-performing system, at the expense of entrepreneurs and risk-takers, exactly the people the Republican party exists to champion.
Not a good outcome.
Even worse will be the way this fight is won: basically by convincing older Americans already covered by a government health program, Medicare, that Obama’s reform plans will reduce their coverage. In other words, we’ll have sent a powerful message to the entire political system to avoid at all hazards any tinkering with Medicare except to make it more generous for the already covered.
It sounds like mutiny in the ranks! These RINOs obviously must be purged from the party, stat!
Tags: Deathers, Health Care Reform
There is no mutiny in the GOP side but there is clear desperation on the Dem side.
Obama has ceded his #1 issue to the Dem Congress, an enormously inept and unpopular group. They have put together a 1018 page document which has done what the GOP could not do-rile up over 50% of America to oppose it.
While the extremists here select certain personalities they do not like to make a case, Americans are looking at a proposal rejected by the Mayo Clinic and scored by the CBO as adding more costs.
You fail to realize when you pay your high premiums or visit your Doctor and are frustrated it isn’t the GOP who is the bad guy, it is Obama.
What do you expect when a non descript back bench U S Senator who used to be a non descript State Senator offers hope and change devoid of leadership?
This guy has taken a great issue and ruined it.
Mike Protack
Please ban this troll.
Ugh, stupid NJ editorial: “The second thing we need to realize is that partisans on the right and the left are trying to bully the rest of the country into accepting their point of view.”
Yep, more false equivalence.
The News Journal is down to three editorial writers: John Sweeney, Ron Williams and Rhonda Graham.
The NJ has certainly been writing a lot of bipartisan fetishist editorials lately. They also wrote a “slow down what’s the rush” editorial about health care last month. I’ll expect a “read the bill” one any day now.
Liberals calling and writing their representatives to support the public option and single payer is exactly the same as astroturf mobs that menace others and shout down questions.
What REALLY amazes me is that the news reports on these “death panels” never mention that cut-and-run Sarah made the whole thing up!! It’s not in any of the bills. She just plain lied.
And screw-someone-younger Newt created a boo-rah chorus for the lie.
It’s rather easy to “rile up 50% of America to oppose” a bill when you lie about it.
I hear the bill also contains language that would require French be taught to first graders; require nurses to put pediatric patients on leashes (for their own safety); and demands that all members of religious communities pray first before being given any medical care.
Really. It does.
Well, what IS the rush? Obama’s got a good reason to be in a big hurry, but the rest of us don’t.
I’m in a rush.
My 19 year old is working part-time, can’t be covered by us, and can’t get coverage because of a pre-existing condition.
I’m in one hell of a big rush.
One of the bills states:
IN GENERAL.—There is established a private-public advisory committee which shall be a panel of medical and other experts to be known as the Health Benefits Advisory Committee to recommend covered benefits…. (http://docs.house.gov)
MEMBERSHIP.—The Health Benefits Advisory Committee shall be composed of the following 24 members, in addition to the Surgeon General:
(A) 9 members who are not Federal employees or officers and who are appointed by the President. ….
People that Obama appointed have said:
In today’s world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children? –John Holdren, Obama’s Science Czar
To date, there has been no serious attempt in Western countries to use laws to control excessive population growth, although there exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated. For example, under the United States Constitution, effective population-control programs could be enacted under the clauses that empower Congress to appropriate funds to provide for the general welfare and to regulate commerce, or under the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (ib.)
Another argues for a “complete”/totalitarian system:
Saving the most lives is also included in this system because enabling more people to live complete lives is better than enabling fewer. In a public health emergency, instrumental value could also be included to enable more people to live complete lives.
…
When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance [of receiving care], whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated (figure). —Ezekiel Emmanuel, White House health care policy advisor
I’m in one hell of a big rush.
You actually think that Congress will provide healthcare for your child? The simple fact is that many politicians do not care about the health of your child and generally they’re not the best people to look to provide “healthcare.”
“People that Obama appointed have said:”
And that’s the slender reed you’re hanging this on? Things people have said that aren’t in either bill? Yeah, that’s conservative rationality for you.
Tell ya what, sport, if you’re this afraid, why not end it all today and spare us your angst?
“You actually think that Congress will provide healthcare for your child?”
She never said anything of the sort. I’m sorry, but I did not see anyone here post a Help Wanted sign asking for a brainless conservative to join the conversation.
Ya Gotta Love- I’m a 26 year old who has been underinsured for two years (while going to grad school) and is currently UNinsured… So I agree- I’m in one hell of a big rush!
mynym — I dunno about you, but I don’t go to my congressman for healthcare. I go to a doctor.
However, thanks to lack of interest on the part of my congress and senate in the past, my insurance company stands between me and my doctor. And determines what care it will pay for, which determines what care I get.
And, in the case of my son, it determines that he gets nothing that he can’t pay for out of his own pocket. Because he was once very sick.
Silly of him to get better, huh? In his case, the “death panel” is the health insurance industry. If he had just died, we wouldn’t have this problem….
It ain’t Obama who wants to kill my son; its the insurance industry. I expect congress to do something about it.
Oh — wait a minute — you weren’t being serious when you said congress doesn’t provide healthcare. You were being silly!!! My bad.
Thanks, Geezer, for the support.
And, nooneimportant, you are important and you deserve to have health coverage.
And that’s the slender reed you’re hanging this on? Things people have said that aren’t in either bill?
The bill calls for the president to appoint people who will help decide who gets healthcare. The people who the current president has already appointed to similar positions have already stated what they believe, which comports with what totalitarian positions historically. See for example War Against the Weak by Edmund Black as well as the eugenics movement and the scientism typical to progressives historically.
Yeah, that’s conservative rationality for you.
It is perfectly reasonable to note that the bill calls for the president to appoint people to make decisions about benefits and to note what people that the president has already appointed have said about healthcare. What they have said is little different than what progressives in the past argued, a part of which is that youth should be favored by the State because the nation would be better off with less geezers.
mynym — I dunno about you, but I don’t go to my congressman for healthcare. I go to a doctor.
Support for progressive plans will result in you going to someone within the government to get approval for coverage and so on. History shows that people within the government tend to focus on their view of the collective good more than individuals, to the same extent that insurance companies focus on profits. But you may still have power over a business man who is obligated by contract or who desires business while history shows that there is little remedy in the case of the government and the grand visions of utopia and the collective welfare typical to progressives.
And determines what care it will pay for, which determines what care I get.
That’s true. After all, in general no one actually cares about your health half as much as you or your family does.
And, in the case of my son, it determines that he gets nothing that he can’t pay for out of his own pocket.
I don’t fault you for fighting for your son. If history is any measure he and others young enough will get treatment paid for out of other people’s pockets while old, disabled or other “life unworthy of life” is left to die.
In his case, the “death panel” is the health insurance industry. If he had just died, we wouldn’t have this problem….
People who are uninsured are not one step from death and so on.
It ain’t Obama who wants to kill my son; its the insurance industry.
The insurance industry doesn’t want to kill your son, they want to make money. That sort of self-interested can occasionally be harnessed so that people get healthcare from other people who don’t care about their health that much. Insurance companies, doctors and nurses all provide healthcare to people that they generally do not care about. Unfortunately in the case of totalitarians/”complete care” there is nothing there to harness.
I expect congress to do something about it.
That’s fine. Your son may be better off if progressives win but a lack of health insurance is not the equivalent of having one foot in the grave, despite worries in a mother’s mind.
mynym is a known troll and wingnut who is just one more among many who is repeating talking points that aren’t especially well soured in the legislation that they think they are critiquing. In other words, they haven’t read the source docs. Much like the congresspeople who they keep saying don’t read the bills.
sorry, mynynm, but my son WAS ONE STEP away from dying from his illness. He can be ONE STEP away from dying again tomorrow due to the nature of his illness. So take the short train to hell on diagnosing my son’s situation.
Your argument is so full of holes that I can’t take the time to re-teach you all you should have learned.
1. I don’t expect health care providers to “care about” my illness. Just to care “for” it. And to get paid for it. The insurers stand in the way of payment. I’m not looking for a horse to harness, and your example makes no sense.
2. Many people without health insurance have “one foot in the grave” (and, gee, thanks for using that canard). You just apparently don’t know any.
3. Those “disabled” you are so worried about being left to die — sorry, sweetie, but that’s my OTHER son, and he gets coverage for life from Medicaid. Ironically, we don’t have to worry about getting treatment for our totally disabled son; just our “walking wounded” one.
Please name one government-sponsored health plan in the United States (there are at least four) that requires “Support for progressive plans will result in you going to someone within the government to get approval for coverage and so on.”
I don’t expect you to answer. The answer isn’t in the talking points….
mynym is the brown acid. Do not ingest. Run away.
Post of the day, anon!
What a tempest in a teapot!! You don’t think AARP is going to stand for this? Relax…they always come through.
For those of you who don’t know mynym, you are in for an absolute treat! About four years ago he and I started commenting on the blogs in Delaware. Mynym seems to go away from time to time, but reading his blog is always a pleasure. I’m afraid, though, that none of you are anywhere near his intellectual prowess. That is, unless, you all have access to Lexis Nexis so you can pull every bullshit scientific article to reinforce your already warped opinions.
Don’t take mynym too seriously. I never did.
Welcome back, mynym!! Where you been, m’man?!?!?
Padded cell.
Its not so much that the congress wants to kill people through their plan, it is just that they can’t help it.
Yes, end of life decisions should be left to the market.
mynym is a known troll and wingnut who is just one more among many who is repeating talking points that aren’t especially well soured in the legislation that they think they are critiquing.
You don’t know me. I’m not necessarily critiquing legislation. I’m generally critiquing the scientism and totalitarianism typical to progressives. It’s odd that those who tend to believe in evolutionary creation myths that were projected onto nature based on capitalist economics (regardless of what can actually be observed empirically and scientifically in biology) simultaneously try to reject the truth of such myths when it comes to reality. At any rate, what talking points am I repeating?
mynym’a material is all original, of that there is no doubt.
He can be ONE STEP away from dying again tomorrow due to the nature of his illness. So take the short train to hell on diagnosing my son’s situation.
I wasn’t trying to diagnose your son, I’m sure that no one really cares about your son half as much as you do. In fact, it’s not clear if you care about anyone else.
I don’t expect health care providers to “care about” my illness. Just to care “for” it. And to get paid for it.
Exactly. And you probably don’t expect insurance companies to care about your illnesses either, just to pay for them when they’re contracted to. The problem is this, given a good system it is in the interest of health providers who do not care about your health as much as you do to care about it. And a system can be developed in which even insurance companies which do not care about your health care pay for it. But it has never been demonstrated that there is a total or universal state run system which causes politicians and bureaucrats to care about your health. Instead history shows that an important shift takes place and private individuals come to be treated as public property.
As I said, I can see why you would support the current shift towards total care or “totalitarianism” as it was called before that became a stigma word. Your son may even be better off in a totalitarian system but it’s ironic that someone going by the name of “geezer” would support such a shift.
Please name one government-sponsored health plan in the United States (there are at least four) that requires…
I’m not critiquing any plan. Obama has no plan, that’s why he cannot defend it. I’m pointing to parts of plans and what people that Obama has appointed have said in order to critique a mentality typical to progressives and elitists.
mynym is a known troll and wingnut who is just one more among many who is repeating talking points
mynym’a material is all original, of that there is no doubt.
The Herd just contradicted itself on a relatively meaningless point, although it may explain why some are replying to their own paranoia and neurosis. The source of an argument does not matter, what matters is if it is rooted in facts, logic and evidence. I’m waiting for arguments based on facts, logic and evidence. So far the main argument seems to be “There is no bill. There is no plan.” I agree, that’s why I’m criticizing things that progressives have said until a plan begins to emerge from the unfathomable stupidity and ignorance typical to the progressive movement.
But anyway, liberalgeek said: Yes, end of life decisions should be left to the market.
“The market” is generally defined by individuals making their own decisions, the government is bureaucrats, central planners and totalitarians making decisions. I’m not arguing that all individuals will make the right decisions or that “the market” will lead to utopia but history shows what tends to happen when the state begins to make end of life decisions.
Welcome back, mynym!! Where you been, m’man?!?!?
I’ve been getting richer but fortunately not fatter. You don’t seem to be wallowing around in your metaphoric filth as much as you used to.
You ready for the state to make you lose more weight? It seems to me that there will eventually be a totalitarian reaction to the segment of the population that does not care about its own health sufficiently. I.e. if you do not care about it then the state will have to care about it for you. That may be the way things have to be eventually. After all, when Lady Liberty becomes morbidly obese she is no longer at liberty to protest.
You don’t know much about logic if you think that, because a person said something during a medical ethics debate that person will inevitably follow through on that statement if put in a position to do so. Indeed, everything about your web site is based on such truck-sized holes in your “logic.”
Stick to your rural psychology. I’m sure you’re fit to explain to Bubba why his wife isn’t sexually satisfied with him. Not much else, though.